John,

It would be difficult to answer your questions without taking a lot of time so 
I think that you should keep one main thought in mind.  All of the effects that 
I am describing are those seen by an observer and not actually evident to the 
pair of electrons.  They view the world from their perspective while everyone 
else sees something different.

This is similar to special relativity where the guys on the spaceship moving at 
nearly light speed are not aware of anything unusual happening to them.  We 
observe that they are living in a slowed down manner.   My take on it is that 
time dilation is our observation only and not real to them.   The forces acting 
upon the electron pair is somewhat similar.   There is no magnetic force 
present to someone that happens to be moving along with them.  But, this is not 
true in the case where they are moving rapidly past an observer as I have been 
describing.  The observer will see a magnetic and electric field that is 
generated by each of them.  Are you willing to state that a moving electron 
does not generate this type of changing fields as seen by a stationary 
observer?  Perhaps that is what you believe which would explain your responses 
to my points.

If instead you realize that a moving electron generates a magnetic field seen 
by a stationary observer as I am pointing out, then it follows that a second 
moving electron must respond to that field.  This is difficult to understand 
but it would be a good exercise for you to consider.

So, before we proceed with this thought experiment please explain why an 
electron in motion, according to an observer, does not generate complex 
electric and magnetic fields that vary in both time and position according to 
his instruments.   Then explain why a second electron in motion within the 
observer's lab does not respond to the fields measured by that observer.  If 
you can adequately explain how this might be possible then I will reconsider my 
position.

Dave

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Berry <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law



On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:

Harry,

I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons moving in 
parallel to each other would not see any relative motion.   The question that 
we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer make a determination 
that a magnetic field would influence the forces appearing between the electrons
 
How can an observer possibly change such though?
Only if it effects the fabric of space so that there is now motion created by 
the observer dragging aether/higgs field/something through the experiment.
 
   For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but instead coulomb 
repulsion.

 
But the electrons are stationary according to SR if they aren't moving relative 
to each other, since all reference frames are equal.
So having an observer that sees things differently can only change what happens 
if SR is largely wrong about things being, well, relative.



If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative to the two 
electrons then what should we measure?  First, the movement of the first 
electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field along with the 
electric field that is normally expected.  This magnetic field will have a 
component that appears in the location of the second electron from our point of 
view.   I assume that we are in agreement about this issue. 
 

Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the magnetic field 
component that is a result of the motion of the first electron.  I can think of 
no reason that we would not be able to calculate the force experienced by the 
second electron due to the field. 


The field does not exist to the other electron because there is no relative 
motion.
Only if space or some field that creates an electromagnetic reference frame 
blows through the experiment can this occur.


A moving observer may be near or far so even if they drag space with them, this 
area of entrained reference frame would not effect the electrons.


Consider that there is radiation moving at near light speed and light speed 
from every direction regularly, each one would be an observer of the electrons 
generating a magnetic field to their perspective (IF SR is correct) and yet 
such forces do not and can not causally arise.
Each one would bring a different axis, strength and direction of magnetic flux 
from the electrons as they see it.  This still can't have any effect on the 
electrons.


 This is how I approached the problem.  One of the expectations for this line 
of reasoning is that there should be an infinite number of values for the force 
encountered by the second electron depending upon the relative movement of the 
observer.

When I plugged in the force generated by this process when the observer is 
moving at the speed of light, I obtained a magnetic force that is exactly equal 
to the coulomb force but opposite in direction.  This seemed to be quite a 
coincidence.  A bit of reflection suggested that this calculation might well be 
an indication that electrons moving at approximately the speed of light 
relative to an observer are indeed frozen in position due to infinite time 
dilation and not repelled apart.
   Using opposite charges also yields the same result.

I suppose that I tend to think of particles moving within an accelerator at 
nearly the speed of light as being similar to the case I am describing.   They 
should experience time dilation due to the movement and should tend to remain 
grouped together instead of springing apart as you might expect from like 
charges.



Particle accelerators need a lot of energy to keep electrons moving at near 
light speed, this seems a bit odd that in a vacuum they would need a great deal 
of energy to keep moving at a constant speed, I have heard of this being used 
as an argument for them moving through a background aether frame.


Maybe this does happen, but if it doesn't equal an observer moving past charges 
since there are always near light speed observers that would be stopping all 
electric forces if this were so.


Consider that your argument (and such a force) only makes sense if there is a 
difference between 2 electrons sitting still relative to the earth with near 
superluminal observers passing by...
And 2 electrons moving with one another (but stationary relative to each other) 
through an accelerator.


According to SR these 2 examples are equal as the earths reference frame is not 
special.


Now time Dilation in a more complex issue if you want to argue that they 
experience too little time to move apart, but really except for gravitational 
time dilation, I consider a no preferred reference frame time dilation based on 
relative motion to be absurd and impossible once Doppler effects are calculated 
for or eliminated by communicating time rate at right angles to the direction 
of relative motion.


John
 

Perhaps this line of reasoning is interesting to  further pursue.

Dave

 

 

 


-----Original Message-----
From: H Veeder <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>


Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law


Dave, 


John is saying is that the Biot Savart law for a point charge only makes sense 
if the velocity refers to the relative motion between the point charge and 
another charge. Since there is no relative motion between the charges in your 
example there should be no magnetic force.

However, I have been looking at a few presentations of the law and they all 
make it appear as if the velocity can be taken relative to an independent 
reference frame. If these presentations are logically correct than it should be 
possible for an observer to increase or decrease the magnetic force between 
point charges by simply choosing to move relative the charges at speeds much 
less than c. Since this does not happen, these presentations of the Biot Savart 
are misleading.


Therefore, it also seems to me that the Biot Savart law cannot provide a 
logically consistent explanation of the phenomena of relativistic electron bean 
confinement described by Jones.


Harry 



 
 







On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:

You are describing the case of zero electron motion when you use the 
observation frame that is synchronized to the electron motion.  That is just 
one of an infinite series of view points.  In that frame only the coulomb 
effect is seen.

Time dilation is determined by what an observer believes is happening to 
objects that he measures and in this case it is the moving pair of electrons.  
In that observers world both are moving at a velocity through his 
instrumentation so he measures the field of one of them first at the location 
of the second one.  The effect of that field then can be calculated as it 
modifies the movement of the other electron.

This is similar to us looking at two electrons that are in motion within an 
accelerator.

Dave

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Berry <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law


David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then the second 
one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for it.


Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames various 
magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field is decided by the 
relative motion of the observer.


Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible direction 
towards every charged object, that we can propose that every charged object has 
multiple magnetic fields with every possible magnitude, direction and axis in 
different reference frames that are being regularly observed in those frames.


Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the motion in 
question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame of reference...










On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:

We observe two moving electrons in my calculation.  The first one generates a 
magnetic field that the second one is exposed to.  The electrons do not see 
this effect in their world view.  This is equivalent to what we might see if we 
look at two parallel beams of charged particles.   Speed them up to nearly the 
speed of light and my calculation is that they do not attract or repel each 
other.

Dave

 

 

 


-----Original Message-----
From: H Veeder <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>

Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 11:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law


What is the source of the magnetism?


Harry




On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed.  I mean that the two particles are 
moving in parallel at the same velocity.

Dave

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: H Veeder <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law







On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:

Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged particles that 
are moving together at a constant velocity relative to my frame of reference.  
I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the velocity of the two charges 
approached the speed of light, a perfect balance between the electric force and 
the magnetic force was achieved.  This implied that there would be precisely 
zero electromagnetic force between the two and hence no acceleration either 
together or apart at the speed of light.  This matches the special theory of 
relativity since at light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the 
objects being viewed.

Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be seen as 
accelerating towards or away from each other.

Dave

 








Dave, what do you mean by "moving together"? Moving on parallel paths at 
constant velocity or moving off in different directions  at constant velocity?







Harry




















Reply via email to