Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Darwin123
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
 |
|
On Jun 15, 2:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Darwin123 wrote:
2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector?
Hmm? It is not actually.
Scientists who have measured the force of a magnet on an |
electric current have consistently found this is the case. If you know
of documented measurements that contradict this frequently confirmed
case, please provide references.
| Quote: |
It is both, one force is from stuff moving out of the way,
(perp vectors)
one force will come from the electron itself.
(velocity vect)
However, the force on the electron will be perpendicular to |
both the velocity and the magnetic field. This has been verified again
and again. In fact, picture tubes use magnetic fields to control
electron paths according to the principles and to the equation that I
just cited. In terms of TV picture tubes and computer monitors, the
experiment has confirmed this formula in excess of a hundred million
times. The monitor that you are looking at uses this principle.
| Quote: |
Are you saying that if I whip an electron at something,
it will not cause a force to show up at where it hits?
No, I am not saying that. I did not write that, and I did not |
mean that.
| Quote: |
Is an electron massless so it can do such?
This is how a magnetic field effects and electrical charge. I |
gave the mathematical formula, which I notice you didn't question. I
also provided a physical description of the facts. You directly and
immediately contradicted my statement.
Being mechanical minded, could you tell me how a magnetic field
does affect an electric charge?
| Quote: |
3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity?
too simple.
Kinetic energy works that way.
and actually a charged particle will do such without any
magnetic field there at all (although that is kinda tough to find).
Without the magnetic field, the electric charge moves in a |
straight line. With the magnetic field, it moves in circles.
Kinetic energy doesn't work that way. Without a field, there is
no force on the particle REGARDLESS of the kinetic energy. The kinetic
energy of a particle does not effect the force on the particle.
| Quote: |
You must think old fashion if you want mechanical realities.
Your mechanical mind needs a tune-up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 15, 3:42 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1bc82a35-c93e-40e9-ab29-bb2d444b6304@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Did you look up Maxwell's model in his treaty? If I remember correctly, he
came to realize that there seem to be just too many models possible.
You mean he came to realize that the aether model was redundant? |
The word redundant was used by Einstein to describe the aether
model. Lorentz like the word. He thought that was an important point
in Einstein's relativity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Igor
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 15, 3:13 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:07:56 -0700, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:03:27 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following.
1) The formula,
F=qV x B,
where F is the force vector on an electrical charge, q is the amount
of electrical charge, V is the velocity of the electrical charge, x is
the cross product and B is the magnetic field.
Note F, V and B are 3D vectors, q is a scalar, and x is a binary
vector operation.
I'll break question 1 down into less mathematical components.
2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector?
3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity?
4) Why is the magnitude of the force vector proportional to the
electrical charge at all?
I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical
properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on
Maxwell's equations, except if you can connect the mechanical
properties of the aether to Maxwell's equations. I am not particularly
interested in space-time, cosmology, Big Bang, steady state or
inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and
intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena.
Please read Maxwell's papers and you'll probably catch a clue...
Hint, why does a gyroscope deflect at an angle perpendicular to the
applied force attempting to deflect the rotational axis? Look at
Maxwell's physical model, what does it consist of?
Oh, and BTW, I tend to catagorize the basics of the aether medium
as follows,
Grad -> Gravitational Phenomena
Div -> Electrical Phenomena
Curl -> Magnetic Phenomena
The Big Three of nature...
|
And a quick look at Maxwell's equations suggests that you're reasoning
is a little strange. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:44 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
Darwin123 wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 15, 2:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:
2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic
field, why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector?
Hmm? It is not actually.
Scientists who have measured the force of a magnet on an
electric current have consistently found this is the case. If you know
of documented measurements that contradict this frequently confirmed
case, please provide references.
|
They must be ignoring kinetic energy velocities that produce force
in the same vector when the electron finally hits something.
Are they allowing it to hit something to find the dang force to begin
with?
Or just measuring it while it flies by?
force usually needs impact or contact.
Where is the contact the electron is making that they are measuring
to find the velocity vector force at all?
:)
| Quote: |
It is both, one force is from stuff moving out of the way,
(perp vectors)
one force will come from the electron itself.
(velocity vect)
However, the force on the electron will be perpendicular to
both the velocity and the magnetic field. This has been verified again
and again. In fact, picture tubes use magnetic fields to control
electron paths according to the principles and to the equation that I
just cited. In terms of TV picture tubes and computer monitors, the
experiment has confirmed this formula in excess of a hundred million
times. The monitor that you are looking at uses this principle.
Are you saying that if I whip an electron at something,
it will not cause a force to show up at where it hits?
No, I am not saying that. I did not write that, and I did not
mean that.
|
But that is how it is coming out.
You have no "force to measure" since you are not making it hit anything.
:)
| Quote: |
Is an electron massless so it can do such?
This is how a magnetic field effects and electrical charge. I
gave the mathematical formula, which I notice you didn't question. I
also provided a physical description of the facts. You directly and
immediately contradicted my statement.
Being mechanical minded, could you tell me how a magnetic field
does affect an electric charge?
|
Electric charged what?
you can't just have an electric charge.
you need the "object that is carrying the charge.
and...
It depends how the field is placed (orientation)
and how fast the charged object is moving through that field
and of course the spin and orientation ofthe electron also
How does a mass of air effect a golfball?
How does a mass of water effect a golfball?
| Quote: |
3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic
field, why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the
velocity?
too simple.
Kinetic energy works that way.
and actually a charged particle will do such without any
magnetic field there at all (although that is kinda tough to find).
Without the magnetic field, the electric charge moves in a
straight line. With the magnetic field, it moves in circles.
Kinetic energy doesn't work that way. Without a field, there is
no force on the particle REGARDLESS of the kinetic energy. The kinetic
energy of a particle does not effect the force on the particle.
|
Oh man you are so wrong on that one it is not even funny
Lets call a golfball a particle.
(it is more like a cloud than a solid but lets treat it like a solid for
now)
We will drop the golfball from 20 ft into some sand.
Now spin the golfball at 50 rpms and drop it.
no difference in kinetic energy?
WRONG
difference in force noted.
Now lets just keep the galfball hanging from a string,
and push it to the side.
how much force is needed to move it?
Now spin the golfball as fast as you can.
how much force is needed to move it.
So.. The kinetic energy of a particle DOES effect final outcome force.
and also effect potential force and even the force on the particle itself
through a field.
mass in motion is not always linear.
Thank you Mr Newton for explaining it correctly and
my teacher for also doing the same.
Too bad teachers today do not do such.
the above is classical mechanics at the most basics.
just above lever and fulcrum stuff.
:)
| Quote: |
You must think old fashion if you want mechanical realities.
Your mechanical mind needs a tune-up.
|
No, yours needs the basics all over again.
You are ignorant to the second most basic forces created
in mechanics.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:8cidnT8-pumIcMvVnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:
2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic
field, why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity
vector?
Hmm? It is not actually.
Scientists who have measured the force of a magnet on an
electric current have consistently found this is the case. If you
know of documented measurements that contradict this frequently
confirmed case, please provide references.
They must be ignoring kinetic energy velocities that produce force
in the same vector when the electron finally hits something.
Are they allowing it to hit something to find the dang force to begin
with?
Or just measuring it while it flies by?
force usually needs impact or contact.
Where is the contact the electron is making that they are measuring
to find the velocity vector force at all?
|
The form of the force law relating magnetic fields
to charges moving in them can be amply demonstrated
with a cathode ray tube (CRT) and a pair of Helmholtz
coils.
The coils are placed to as to produce a uniform magnetic
field across a section of the CRT neck where the electron
beam passes. The magnetic field deflects the charged
electrons and produces a corresponding deflection of the
spot at which the beam strikes the CRT face. Varying the
magnetic field strength varies the spot position in
proportion. Varying the position of the coils can
show the form of the path that the electrons follow in
detail.
The electron speed can be determined via either transit
timings (with suitable additional electronics incorporated)
or by the kinetic energy depositied at CRT face upon their
impact. The electron speed can be set by manipulating the
accelerating potential of the electron gun apparatus
(before it reaches the magnetic field area), or by setting
an accelerating potential on the CRT face.
The same experiment can be performed with beams of charged
particles other than electrons, such as protons and whole
atoms (ions).
In this fashion it is found that electric charges moving
through a magnetic field feel a force that is proportional
to the charge, the velocity, and the magnetic field strength,
and that the impressed force is always at right angles to
the velocity vector of the charge (charged particle).
The mathematical model is thus given by:
F = qVxB
with F the force vector
V the velocity vector
B the magnetic (vector) field
q the electric charge in Coulombs
x is the vector cross product operator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
In this fashion it is found that electric charges moving
through a magnetic field feel a force that is proportional
to the charge, the velocity, and the magnetic field strength,
and that the impressed force is always at right angles to
the velocity vector of the charge (charged particle).
|
No shit it is at right angles only ..
that is the "pushing force"
like a wind pushing a boat at a right angles
put the dang magnet in front and you will "detect the velocity vector
in the front until it pushes it self away.
sheesh
man
even air is that mechanical.
C,mon!
The magnet pushes it in the field that is in motion
doing the pushing
the field is moving it.
so of course it will move the way the field is designed
to move it.
| Quote: |
The mathematical model is thus given by:
F = qVxB
with F the force vector
V the velocity vector
B the magnetic (vector) field
q the electric charge in Coulombs
x is the vector cross product operator
|
Yes,
and actually that all shows why you don't getthe force
showing in front of the motion,
because you are not pushing it from the front
of the motion ever...
:)
things don't just move without something pushign them
the only force wou will find in such is where it
is "pushed" from.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:2u2dnZBPY9GfscrVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
In this fashion it is found that electric charges moving
through a magnetic field feel a force that is proportional
to the charge, the velocity, and the magnetic field strength,
and that the impressed force is always at right angles to
the velocity vector of the charge (charged particle).
No shit it is at right angles only ..
that is the "pushing force"
like a wind pushing a boat at a right angles
put the dang magnet in front and you will "detect the velocity vector
in the front until it pushes it self away.
sheesh
man
even air is that mechanical.
C,mon!
The magnet pushes it in the field that is in motion
doing the pushing
the field is moving it.
so of course it will move the way the field is designed
to move it.
The mathematical model is thus given by:
F = qVxB
with F the force vector
V the velocity vector
B the magnetic (vector) field
q the electric charge in Coulombs
x is the vector cross product operator
Yes,
and actually that all shows why you don't getthe force
showing in front of the motion,
because you are not pushing it from the front
of the motion ever...
:)
things don't just move without something pushign them
the only force wou will find in such is where it
is "pushed" from.
|
You haven't quite got it. Given enough room in a constant
magnetic field the particles will loop into a circular path.
In a good vacuum (so that they don't run into stray molecules)
they will continue to circulate and not slow down or speed up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
Darwin123 <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I refer to the idea
that the aether is a substance acting according to Principia that
carries light.
|
Hmmm, actually, the "classical ether" was supposed to be a kind of
solid, an absolute reference frame. That ether is dead.
A modern ether or quantum vacuum or spacetime or whatever you want to
call it would still be what is excited in EM phenomenon.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Igor
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:08 am Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 16, 6:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:
2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic
field, why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector?
Hmm? It is not actually.
Scientists who have measured the force of a magnet on an
electric current have consistently found this is the case. If you know
of documented measurements that contradict this frequently confirmed
case, please provide references.
They must be ignoring kinetic energy velocities that produce force
in the same vector when the electron finally hits something.
Are they allowing it to hit something to find the dang force to begin
with?
Or just measuring it while it flies by?
force usually needs impact or contact.
Where is the contact the electron is making that they are measuring
to find the velocity vector force at all?
:)
It is both, one force is from stuff moving out of the way,
(perp vectors)
one force will come from the electron itself.
(velocity vect)
However, the force on the electron will be perpendicular to
both the velocity and the magnetic field. This has been verified again
and again. In fact, picture tubes use magnetic fields to control
electron paths according to the principles and to the equation that I
just cited. In terms of TV picture tubes and computer monitors, the
experiment has confirmed this formula in excess of a hundred million
times. The monitor that you are looking at uses this principle.
Are you saying that if I whip an electron at something,
it will not cause a force to show up at where it hits?
No, I am not saying that. I did not write that, and I did not
mean that.
But that is how it is coming out.
You have no "force to measure" since you are not making it hit anything.
:)
Is an electron massless so it can do such?
This is how a magnetic field effects and electrical charge. I
gave the mathematical formula, which I notice you didn't question. I
also provided a physical description of the facts. You directly and
immediately contradicted my statement.
Being mechanical minded, could you tell me how a magnetic field
does affect an electric charge?
Electric charged what?
you can't just have an electric charge.
you need the "object that is carrying the charge.
and...
It depends how the field is placed (orientation)
and how fast the charged object is moving through that field
and of course the spin and orientation ofthe electron also
How does a mass of air effect a golfball?
How does a mass of water effect a golfball?
3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic
field, why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the
velocity?
too simple.
Kinetic energy works that way.
and actually a charged particle will do such without any
magnetic field there at all (although that is kinda tough to find).
Without the magnetic field, the electric charge moves in a
straight line. With the magnetic field, it moves in circles.
Kinetic energy doesn't work that way. Without a field, there is
no force on the particle REGARDLESS of the kinetic energy. The kinetic
energy of a particle does not effect the force on the particle.
Oh man you are so wrong on that one it is not even funny
Lets call a golfball a particle.
(it is more like a cloud than a solid but lets treat it like a solid for
now)
We will drop the golfball from 20 ft into some sand.
Now spin the golfball at 50 rpms and drop it.
no difference in kinetic energy?
WRONG
difference in force noted.
Now lets just keep the galfball hanging from a string,
and push it to the side.
how much force is needed to move it?
Now spin the golfball as fast as you can.
how much force is needed to move it.
So.. The kinetic energy of a particle DOES effect final outcome force.
and also effect potential force and even the force on the particle itself
through a field.
mass in motion is not always linear.
Thank you Mr Newton for explaining it correctly and
my teacher for also doing the same.
Too bad teachers today do not do such.
the above is classical mechanics at the most basics.
just above lever and fulcrum stuff.
:)
You must think old fashion if you want mechanical realities.
Your mechanical mind needs a tune-up.
No, yours needs the basics all over again.
You are ignorant to the second most basic forces created
in mechanics.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
|
Do you even KNOW the definition of force? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Darwin123
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
On Jun 19, 11:57 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba31eaa2-2897-4af4-9e9a-6456e9839d55@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 15, 1:20 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Jun 15, 1:03 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following.
1) The formula,
F=qV x B,
where F is the force vector on an electrical charge, q is the amount
of electrical charge, V is the velocity of the electrical charge, x is
the cross product and B is the magnetic field.
Note F, V and B are 3D vectors, q is a scalar, and x is a binary
vector operation.
I'll break question 1 down into less mathematical components.
2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector?
3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity?
4) Why is the magnitude of the force vector proportional to the
electrical charge at all?
I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical
properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on
Maxwell's equations, except if you can connect the mechanical
properties of the aether to Maxwell's equations. I am not particularly
interested in space-time, cosmology, Big Bang, steady state or
inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and
intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena.
Why does gravity pull things down? Why do atomic nucleii stay
together?
You're up against a fundamental fact about physics -- and science
generally. One way to put it is, science can't answer all why-
questions. Those that it cannot answer it calls "laws of nature."
My question wasn't about explaining Maxwell's equations. My
question had the qualifier, "In terms of the aether theory." My
challenge was specifically aimed at supporters of the classical aether
theory, not just a call for any theory.
Which one?? The one that already was rejected by Newton is really "out". The
one of Lorentz was modified by Einstein but the result (how it really works
for GRT and QM) is not so clear.
I specifically asked if how
the aether could explain the magnetic field.
Einstein claimed that the aether theory wasn't a complete model of
electromagnetic forces because it was "redundant."
Where? Incomplete and redundant don't appear to convey the same idea....
A lot of people on this forum are claiming that the old time aether
classical aether isn't dead. There are some loudmouths who claim that
Einstein somehow "conned" people into rejecting the classical aether.
My point is that the classical aether was dead even before Einstein
buried it.
When do you think he buried it? As far I know it was Lorentz who really
buried the classical dragged ether concept.
I am sorry that I left out the word "classical." I have been
brought to understand there are quantum mechanical and relativistic
models out there that include a "substance" that distantly resembles
to the classical aether. These would not be the classical aether, yet
some can argue that such a model may be useful.
Sure. It was useful for people such as Lorentz, Langevin, Ives and Dirac. I
also find such models quite helpful.
And what do you think of the new MIT model of which I gave you the link?
I refer to the idea
that the aether is a substance acting according to Principia that
carries light. In the sense that Newton meant "substance," the aether
would not very different from the air that carries sound. This type of
model will probably never again be used to model light.
Where in the Principia did Newton suggest such a model? Note that >he already rejected dragged ether models.
Newton did not suggest an aether model for light. Never ever. I did |
not mean that. I meant that the aether that supposedly carries light
may not be describable in terms of Principia.
Newton analyzed sound in "Principia." He lays down what may be the
first description of the nature of sound. Newton derives a formula for
the speed of sound in air that is accurate up to a point. There is a
slight error due to his assumption that the air is compressed
isothermally. The real speed of sound for audible frequencies is
better derived using an adiabatic approximation. In any case, the
polarization of sound waves as described in Principia is longitudinal.
That has stood as a pretty good prediction.
The behavior of light, especially concerning polarization, is not
analogous to the behavior of sound as described in Principia.
Although no one pointed out this particular problem, I have come
to the conclusion that the main problem between Maxwell's equation and
Newton concerns Newton's Third Law. Newtons Third Law presupposes that
for every action on a body, there is an immediate reaction on another
body. For Maxwell's equations, this isn't true. If there is an action
on an electrically charged body, there is a delayed reaction on
another electrically charged body. The only way around this is what
Lorentz and Einstein did. The field has to in some sense become a
"body" itself. Defining air as a "body" that carries sound worked in a
simple way for Newton. Defining the aether as a "body" that carries
light doesn't work simply for Maxwell.
Someone recently sent me a series of articles in which Maxwell
tries to work the behavior of light and static fields into the
framework of an aether. I haven't completed the series of articles,
but I am pleasantly surprised at the effort. However, I am far enough
along to say that the model does not look simple at all. It involves a
rather counterintuitive "insulator" to protect fluid eddies from
dissipation due to friction.
| Quote: |
Thanks,
Harald
As far as Einstein calling the aether redundant, look at this: |
http://ethertheory.chat.ru/epart2.htm
In 1905 A. Einstein writes that introduction of "light-bearing ether"
will appear thus redundant (Zur Elektrodynamik der bevegter Körper.
Ann. Phys., 1905, 17, pp.891-921)
As I look back on Lorentz's book, I realize that he used the word
reciprocity quite a bit. I may have confused the word "redundant" by
"reciprocity." I apologize. However, look at
"The Theory of Electrons" by H. A. Lorentz. He talks about his
failures and praises Einstein for discovering "a remarkable
reciprocity." I may be misinterpreting it. However, I think in the
context of the book that "reciprocity" and "redundancy" are two words
for the same thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
harry
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
<hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2c68217f-23fd-4012-aeba-efa969d51ee6@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Sorry about that! Anyway, my point was that Lorentz used it much (so that it
even became known as the Lorentz force).
| Quote: |
I suspect that it predates even
Maxwell, so perhaps someone else will research it's earliest origins
and who actually deserves the credit for this rather useful
observation.
"Lorentz introduced this force in 1892.[5] However, the discovery of
the Lorentz force was before Lorentz's time. In particular, it can be
seen at equation (77) in Maxwell's 1861 paper On Physical Lines of
Force. Later, Maxwell listed it as equation "D" of his 1864 paper, A
Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, as one of the eight
original Maxwell's equations.
Not my words, neither are they from a physics text, but from this
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
I like to give credit where credit is due, beside the the symbology of
a vector math equation to usenet ASCII symbology tends to be a total
waste of time. It's easier simply to point readers to the first
equation listed under "History" in the cited link, which physicists
will recognize as being essentially the same equation taught in 1st
year physics as the Lorentz Force. (In actuality, Lorentz is best
known for his classic method of establishing the value of an Ohm.)
[See, Harnwell, "Principles of Electricity and Electromagnetism",
McGraw Hill. 1949.]
Where Maxwell obtained this little gem is to me interesting. Perhaps
he was inspired by the observations of Faraday, who history tells us
was a far better experimentalist than a gifted mathematician. Maxwell
was a gifted mathematician, as well as a physicist of no trivial note.
So to me, that explanation would make sense. Still, history becomes a
bit cloudy in the days around 1890. So, I have to ask the question,
whose earlier work predated that of Faraday, Maxwell, and Lorentz,
since all three appear to share a common nexus???
|
Hmm... it is said that it was really Faraday who lied the basis of it all.
But I wasn't there. ;-)
| Quote: |
Silly I know, but it's a question that fascinates me. Sort of a
physics version of the "Cold Case Files."
|
Good one!
Cheers,
Harald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
harry
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
<hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e071284c-8df3-47ca-9c75-86fee1150028@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 15, 3:42 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch
wrote:
"Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1bc82a35-c93e-40e9-ab29-bb2d444b6304@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following.
1) The formula,
F=qV x B,
where F is the force vector on an electrical charge, q is the amount
of electrical charge, V is the velocity of the electrical charge, x is
the cross product and B is the magnetic field.
Note F, V and B are 3D vectors, q is a scalar, and x is a binary
vector operation.
I'll break question 1 down into less mathematical components.
2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector?
3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity?
4) Why is the magnitude of the force vector proportional to the
electrical charge at all?
I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical
properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on
Maxwell's equations, except if you can connect the mechanical
properties of the aether to Maxwell's equations. I am not particularly
interested in space-time, cosmology, Big Bang, steady state or
inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and
intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena.
Did you look up Maxwell's model in his treaty? If I remember correctly,
he
came to realize that there seem to be just too many models possible.
A more modern attempt is MIT's string-net
theory http://dao.mit.edu/8.08/chintr-bsn.pdf
which sure looks interesting.
Harald- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes Harry, years ago while a graduate student, I did. Maxwell was not
the only scientist to question if the paradigm was absolute, and only
novices accept that it is.
|
I'm not sure which paradigm you mean...
| Quote: |
Beware of MIT. It a dangerous place because it teached people how to
think analytically -- Not simply quote rote knowledge!!!!
|
Good! Reminds me that Feynman was there - perhaps it's in part his "fault".
:-)
Harald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
harry
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
"Darwin123" <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:409f001f-2903-46b7-8766-d15328f9d8ea@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 15, 3:42 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch
wrote:
"Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1bc82a35-c93e-40e9-ab29-bb2d444b6304@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Did you look up Maxwell's model in his treaty? If I remember correctly,
he
came to realize that there seem to be just too many models possible.
You mean he came to realize that the aether model was redundant?
|
No. Would you mean that the Bohr model of the atom is "redundant"? It's the
wrong word, and even Einstein came to disagree with such an idea.
| Quote: |
The word redundant was used by Einstein to describe the aether
model.
|
Perhaps you mean that a detailed ether model was redundant for deriving the
Lorentz transformations? Indeed, even Lorentz adopted Einstein's approach.
| Quote: |
Lorentz like the word. He thought that was an important point
in Einstein's relativity.
|
Hmm... I never heard that - please give the reference.
Harald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
harry
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
"Darwin123" <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba31eaa2-2897-4af4-9e9a-6456e9839d55@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 15, 1:20 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Jun 15, 1:03 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following.
1) The formula,
F=qV x B,
where F is the force vector on an electrical charge, q is the amount
of electrical charge, V is the velocity of the electrical charge, x is
the cross product and B is the magnetic field.
Note F, V and B are 3D vectors, q is a scalar, and x is a binary
vector operation.
I'll break question 1 down into less mathematical components.
2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector?
3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic field,
why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity?
4) Why is the magnitude of the force vector proportional to the
electrical charge at all?
I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical
properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on
Maxwell's equations, except if you can connect the mechanical
properties of the aether to Maxwell's equations. I am not particularly
interested in space-time, cosmology, Big Bang, steady state or
inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and
intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena.
Why does gravity pull things down? Why do atomic nucleii stay
together?
You're up against a fundamental fact about physics -- and science
generally. One way to put it is, science can't answer all why-
questions. Those that it cannot answer it calls "laws of nature."
My question wasn't about explaining Maxwell's equations. My
question had the qualifier, "In terms of the aether theory." My
challenge was specifically aimed at supporters of the classical aether
theory, not just a call for any theory.
|
Which one?? The one that already was rejected by Newton is really "out". The
one of Lorentz was modified by Einstein but the result (how it really works
for GRT and QM) is not so clear.
| Quote: |
I specifically asked if how
the aether could explain the magnetic field.
Einstein claimed that the aether theory wasn't a complete model of
electromagnetic forces because it was "redundant."
|
Where? Incomplete and redundant don't appear to convey the same idea....
| Quote: |
A lot of people on this forum are claiming that the old time aether
classical aether isn't dead. There are some loudmouths who claim that
Einstein somehow "conned" people into rejecting the classical aether.
My point is that the classical aether was dead even before Einstein
buried it.
|
When do you think he buried it? As far I know it was Lorentz who really
buried the classical dragged ether concept.
| Quote: |
I am sorry that I left out the word "classical." I have been
brought to understand there are quantum mechanical and relativistic
models out there that include a "substance" that distantly resembles
to the classical aether. These would not be the classical aether, yet
some can argue that such a model may be useful.
|
Sure. It was useful for people such as Lorentz, Langevin, Ives and Dirac. I
also find such models quite helpful.
And what do you think of the new MIT model of which I gave you the link?
| Quote: |
I refer to the idea
that the aether is a substance acting according to Principia that
carries light. In the sense that Newton meant "substance," the aether
would not very different from the air that carries sound. This type of
model will probably never again be used to model light.
|
Where in the Principia did Newton suggest such a model? Note that he already
rejected dragged ether models.
Thanks,
Harald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge. |
|
|
"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1213891073_113@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
|
| "Darwin123" <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:ba31eaa2-2897-4af4-9e9a-6456e9839d55@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| > On Jun 15, 1:20 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
| >> On Jun 15, 1:03 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> > In terms of the aether theory, please explain the following.
| >> > 1) The formula,
| >> > F=qV x B,
| >> > where F is the force vector on an electrical charge, q is the amount
| >> > of electrical charge, V is the velocity of the electrical charge, x
is
| >> > the cross product and B is the magnetic field.
| >> > Note F, V and B are 3D vectors, q is a scalar, and x is a binary
| >> > vector operation.
| >>
| >> > I'll break question 1 down into less mathematical components.
| >>
| >> > 2) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic
field,
| >> > why is the force vector perpendicular to the velocity vector?
| >> > 3) When an electrical charged particle moves through a magnetic
field,
| >> > why is the magnitude of the force proportional to the velocity?
| >> > 4) Why is the magnitude of the force vector proportional to the
| >> > electrical charge at all?
| >>
| >> > I would appreciate any explanation based on the mechanical
| >> > properties of aether. I don't want an explanation directly based on
| >> > Maxwell's equations, except if you can connect the mechanical
| >> > properties of the aether to Maxwell's equations. I am not
particularly
| >> > interested in space-time, cosmology, Big Bang, steady state or
| >> > inflationary cosmology. I am interested only in this obvious and
| >> > intuitive aether model of electromagnetic phenomena.
| >>
| >> Why does gravity pull things down? Why do atomic nucleii stay
| >> together?
| >>
| >> You're up against a fundamental fact about physics -- and science
| >> generally. One way to put it is, science can't answer all why-
| >> questions. Those that it cannot answer it calls "laws of nature."
| >>
| > My question wasn't about explaining Maxwell's equations. My
| > question had the qualifier, "In terms of the aether theory." My
| > challenge was specifically aimed at supporters of the classical aether
| > theory, not just a call for any theory.
|
| Which one?? The one that already was rejected by Newton is really "out".
The
| one of Lorentz was modified by Einstein but the result (how it really
works
| for GRT and QM) is not so clear.
===================================================
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
