Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / December 2003



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Experiment to test my theory

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
David Rutherford - 26 Dec 2003 18:24 GMT
I think I may have come up with an experiment that could verify my
theory and invalidate classical EM (or vice versa). According to a
computer simulation I wrote to test the experiment, there should be a
measurable difference between the predictions of classical EM and my theory.

The experiment involves directing two electron beams toward each other
at an angle. Here is a crude diagram of the experiment.

electron gun A
[]
  .               .
    .           .
      .       .               y
        .   .                 |
          .                   |
          .                   |_____ x
        .   .
      .       .
    .           .
  .               .
[]
electron gun B

In the simulation, I considered two isolated electrons, instead of two
electron beams, first using my non-relativistic force equations from

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf

and then using the Lorentz force law, to calculate the forces on the
particles. It appears that, from the computer simulation, the shapes of
the trajectories of the particles are measurably different, for the two
cases, with the apex of my curve being measurably further along the
x-axis than the classical apex. I don't know if a valid correlation can
be made between two electrons and two electron beams, but I don't really
know how to do the calculation for two beams.

If someone has a way to compute the trajectories of the two electron
beams from the Lorentz force law (or from my force law), I would
appreciate some help in getting a more accurate theoretical prediction
for the shape of the trajectories and the x-position of the apex
according to the Lorentz force law and according to my force law. These
predictions can then be compared with experimental results.

Since I don't have the equipment or the experimental skills,
unfortunately, I'm unable to carry out the experiment myself. But, at
least, the numbers would be there if someone wants to do the experiment.

I would appreciate any help, thanks.

Signature

Dave Rutherford
"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf

Applications:
"4/3 Problem Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf
"Action-reaction Paradox Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf
"Energy Density Correction"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf
"Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf

Uncle Al - 26 Dec 2003 20:00 GMT
> I think I may have come up with an experiment that could verify my
> theory and invalidate classical EM (or vice versa). According to a
> computer simulation I wrote to test the experiment, there should be a
> measurable difference between the predictions of classical EM and my theory.
[snip]

  1) J.D. Jackson, "Classical Electrodynamics," 3rd Edition
The defining book covering the physics and classical mathematics
necessary to understand electromagnetic fields - in free space, in
media, at surfaces, and at interfaces.

  2)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete0.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete1.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete2.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete4.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete5.jpg
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf

> I would appreciate any help, thanks.

  3) You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete7.jpg

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Robert J. Kolker - 27 Dec 2003 21:31 GMT
>    3) You see yourself this way,
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
>  The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete7.jpg

Al, do you have too much free time? But they are funny.

Bob Kolker
The Ghost In The Machine - 29 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
In sci.physics, Robert J. Kolker
<bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote
on Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:31:16 GMT
<ESmHb.496414$275.1397415@attbi_s53>:

>>    3) You see yourself this way,
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg

That looks *painful*.

(chuckles)

>>  The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete7.jpg

Heh.

> Al, do you have too much free time? But they are funny.

Indeed.

[.sigsnip]

Signature

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.