A magnetic field is produced by the spin of a particle and movement of spin is not required.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:07 AM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave, I think the simple answer is to recognize that a magnetic field only > exists due to motion, and if SR is correct (it isn't and can't be) then we > should consider that every electric field can be seen as a magnetic field > in a different reference frame. > > No magnetic field exists in all frames of reference, at least not caused > by the same thing, a wire creates a magnetic field from the moving > electrons, if you move with the electrons a different magnetic field pops > up from the protons. > > The motion of the observer doesn't establish a magnetic field, it already > existed in that reference frame. > > John > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
