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 / Relativity / July 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Relativistic electromagnetic equations, gamma not required

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
srp - 29 Jul 2005 21:58 GMT
Local field definitions for individual photons, involving only one variable,
the energy absolute wavelength

Basic equations of electromagnetic mechanics of particles

Lambda = (c h)/(Energy in joules)

E = (pi e)/(eps_0  alpha^3 lambda^2)

B = (pi mu_0 e c)/( alpha^3 lambda^2)

Where

e = unit charge
c= speed of light
h=Planck's contant
lamba = wavelength of photon considered
alpha = fine structure constant

c=E/B

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Local field definitions for moving massive particles

Example test particle being the electron, the massive particle's wavelength
used will be Lambda_C (Compton's wavelength)

E = [(pi e) (lambda_C^2+lambda^2) sqrt(4 lambda lambda_C + lambda_C^2)]
       /[(eps_0 alpha^3) (lambda_C^2 lambda^2) (2 lambda + lambda_C)]

B = [(pi mu_0 e c) (lambda_C^2 + lambda^2)]/(alpha^3 lambda^2 lambda_C^2)

Calculation of relativistic velocity of test particle

v=E/B

Exact same velocity curve as the traditional SR equation.

All equations fully compliant with Maxwell and Lorentz.

Simplified relativistic velocity equation using only the absolute
wavelengths of massive particle and carrying energy

v=[c sqrt(4 lambda lambda_C + lambda_C^2)]/(2 lambda + lambda_C)

Same velocity curve as the traditional SR equation

A little mathematical challenge for physicists

To retro-derive them to known classical formulas
and explain why they work

André Michaud
sue jahn - 28 Jul 2005 22:22 GMT
> Local field definitions for individual photons, involving only one variable,
> the energy absolute wavelength
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> André Michaud

Hmmm.... ?

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MagneticSusceptibility.html

Sue...
srp - 29 Jul 2005 23:22 GMT
>> Local field definitions for individual photons, involving only one
>> variable,
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif

No sweat. Alpha can be equated to quite a number of ratios.

> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Quite a few urban legends regarding alpha. I even know a few more.

> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MagneticSusceptibility.html

Here, I don't see the point in context

But can you explain why the above equations work and what they
mean ?

André Michaud
sue jahn - 28 Jul 2005 23:56 GMT
> >> Local field definitions for individual photons, involving only one
> >> variable,
[quoted text clipped - 62 lines]
>
> Quite a few urban legends regarding alpha. I even know a few more.

> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MagneticSusceptibility.html
>
> Here, I don't see the point in context
You have specified a local or ?near? field but a  derivation based
on classical formula will be subject to quite a few vagaries in the
way magnetic components are handled in the field equations.

I offered that URL just because it is a good hypertext starting point
to explore how the various expressions of dielectric fit together (or don't fit
together ) for someone more industrious than myself who wants to
wrestle with Maxwell's equations. ;o)

> But can you explain why the above equations work and what they
> mean ?

It for you to write words to go with your music.
This might get you in the ball park. :o)
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MomentumFour-Vector.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PoyntingVector.html

Sue...

> André Michaud
srp - 30 Jul 2005 02:59 GMT
>> >> Local field definitions for individual photons, involving only one
>> >> variable,
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
> on classical formula will be subject to quite a few vagaries in the
> way magnetic components are handled in the field equations.

Not if charge is quantized, which it is in reality. This forces a lower
limit
to field equations that is seldom taken account of. In other words, in
reality, charge can never tend to zero. If charge is present, the lower
limit can only be unit charge by nature.

> I offered that URL just because it is a good hypertext starting point
> to explore how the various expressions of dielectric fit together (or
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> It for you to write words to go with your music.

They are written.

But I found that no one not really interested listens anyway.

The few who are will find their own way.

> This might get you in the ball park. :o)
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MomentumFour-Vector.html
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PoyntingVector.html

I happen to be the pitcher in this inning, and I just threw the ball.

Just curious to see if any batter can even see it coming.

André Michaud
sue jahn - 29 Jul 2005 07:37 GMT
> >> >> Local field definitions for individual photons, involving only one
> >> >> variable,
[quoted text clipped - 77 lines]
> reality, charge can never tend to zero. If charge is present, the lower
> limit can only be unit charge by nature.

Are you saying we don't need to consider spin?

Sue...

> > I offered that URL just because it is a good hypertext starting point
> > to explore how the various expressions of dielectric fit together (or
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> André Michaud
srp - 30 Jul 2005 12:55 GMT
>> >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
>> >> news:
[quoted text clipped - 84 lines]
>
> Are you saying we don't need to consider spin?

Not required for velocity calculation.

André Michaud
sue jahn - 30 Jul 2005 13:42 GMT
> >> >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
> >> >> news:
[quoted text clipped - 86 lines]
>
> Not required for velocity calculation.
I would think you would only get a statististical result.
That itself wouldn't prevent ~compliance~ with a modern
or E/H averaged Maxwell field tho.

If time permits I'll try to apply a bit more rigor to your
equations.  That is an interesting approach.

It is not surprising that gamma would not
be required as you are using the entities which would
establish gamma.

I'll have to pass on the classical challenge tho' because
I know where a few of Maxwell's skeletons are buried.

Sue...

> André Michaud
srp - 30 Jul 2005 14:07 GMT
>> >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
>> >> news:
[quoted text clipped - 98 lines]
> That itself wouldn't prevent ~compliance~ with a modern
> or E/H averaged Maxwell field tho.

I can assure that these equations owe nothing to statistics.

> If time permits I'll try to apply a bit more rigor to your
> equations.  That is an interesting approach.

I am impressed.

So few are up to even consider stepping out of the comfortable
groove that orthodoxy forces them into. Even plain logics can't
spark any curiosity in the overwhelming majority.

I'll give you an extra hint for your research then.

These are the electromagnetic counterpart of Newton's
first law. They are the engine under the first law's hood.

> It is not surprising that gamma would not be required
> as you are using the entities which would establish gamma.

In a manner of speaking yes. There is only one fundamental
reality.

> I'll have to pass on the classical challenge tho' because
> I know where a few of Maxwell's skeletons are buried.

The ball is yours.

André Michaud
RP - 30 Jul 2005 05:39 GMT
> Local field definitions for individual photons, involving only one variable,
> the energy absolute wavelength
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> André Michaud

It's called circularity. As Lorentz stated "He has only stated as
premises what we have derived" :)

Richard Perry
srp - 30 Jul 2005 12:59 GMT
>> Local field definitions for individual photons, involving only one
>> variable,
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>
> It's called circularity.

Really.

> As Lorentz stated "He has only stated as premises what we have derived" :)
>
> Richard Perry

Then maybe you can show us to what circle they belong?

My personal view is that no one will be able to unravel them.

André Michaud
 
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.