>Ok, well if it's axial field orientation then I would say you have walked >right into the N-Machine paradox.
>Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when you rotate a magnet on >an axial orientation? For me I see no paradox. And yes, I have thought of the N-Machine a lot in this regard. >It is very difficult to prove since the only effect from an axially rotating >magnet is a generally very weak electric field gradient. >For instance if you rotate a conductive magnet and tap the voltage difference >between the shaft and the periphery you get a voltage but is that a voltage >induced in the magnet due to the field not rotating or is it a voltage induced >in the external circuit? Neither. It is created by the time dilation effects directly. That is one of the points I'm trying to get to. Even at non-relativistic speeds, you will get a weak E-field. That is because the mass that makes up the magnet already has fields in it that are relativistic - atoms. In fact it does not even need to be a magnet, just a conductor is fine. All rotating objects should produce a measurable E-field and time dilation effects. Are you familiar with De Palmas spinning ball experiments? >Now let's try something that could be more easily measured if more >preposterous when it comes to actual practical implementation. (but that is >why they are called thought experiments) >Lets have a magnet that accelerates very fast in one direction, stops and >reverses direction, wash rinse and repeat. I'm not sure I'm following you here. Is the magnet rotating? I assume from below that it is. >Now we have a bit of a dilemma since the magnetic field IF it rotates with the >magnet should now be inducing a time varying electric field of alternate >polarity, furthermore this voltage change/reversal will radiate out from the >magnet seemingly at the speed of light, however this creates many issues,. >The most obvious of which is that the direction of rotation of the flux inside >the magnet will differ to the direction of rotation of flux outside the magnet >at a distance! (unless the speed of light is breached) >Radiation however is hard to imagine with an axially oriented magnetic field. >At some distance the field IF it is rotating (which we can verify with the >above experiment) will be moving at a speed greater than C or seemingly should. Again, this is why I feel time dilation effects must be occurring. It sounds like you are arguing against C being a constant. The only way I see to keep C a constant is to modify delta-t in the direction of motion. Any EM generated inside the field will be frequency shifted as it leaves the field. So as we move the rotating magnet back and forth, we would see a shifting of the EM frequency being emitted as observed from the outside. At least that is my thinking... >To make this semi practical (provided you have proven the field rotates) you >would want a very very long, say mile long neodymium magnet encased in some >seriously hardy material, get it up to speed and thanks to the distance >between the poles the field should radiate out from the magnet a good >distance. (alternately a magnetic steel with a stationary electromagnet around >it) >I can't be bothered to do the math but I'd bet that within extreme but >achievable rpm's and by measuring the field as far away as possible you could >exceed light speed with todays technology. Yes, one way to measure these effects is to build BIG. >So then either C will be exceeded, the frame of space will drag and or the >field will become shielded or no longer supported by space. Or the delta-t within the field will be altered. >The same essential experiment could be achieved by rotating an >electrostatically charged object. >But again it is quite possible that the first does not rotate with the source >of the field. >Hooper's Motional E-field work comes the closest to answering that riddle. I'll have to google that one. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Michael Crosiar <[email protected]> wrote: >Ok, so take a >magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of near >relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not), > >Thank >you! > > >>rotate it in such a way that it's magnetic poles >flip. > >Actually, I don't think this is the normal rotation, I >am more interested in the axial orientation. I see the problem with >the "pole flip" as being the stability caused by the >E-Field - I suspect strongly it would radiate. But I could be >wrong. > > >>The field at some distance from the magnet must >logically be moving greater than C. > >That is the point I wanted >to get too!!!! Yes, but nothing can go faster than C, so something >must give. > > >>So we have 2 possibilities. >>First is >that the field will entrain the aether and drag it (frame dragging) >and hence the field will not be moving at a speed greater than C. >(though the field may be in effect shielded from expanding beyond a >point where the moving >aether ceases to be entrained by the >field) > >>To what degree that answer would be acceptable to >anyone besides me I'm not totally sure since I have not bothered to >understand what frame dragging really refers to as IMO special >relativity is wrong and science made a wrong >turn when it >disregarded the aether, and everyone considered to have 'disproven' >the aether including Enstein and MM still believed it existed. > >>The >other possibility is that, and this one sounds possibly more likely, >the fields will be thrown off as radiation. > >Now this I >disagree with, these are not the only possibilities. The other >possibility is that delta-t changes - C remains the same because the >rate at which time moves forward is changed - the measuring stick and >the clock are now in a different frame of reference and must be >looked at just like with the spaceship and spacestation example >discussed before. Due to the rotation this is no longer an inertial >frame of reference. If this is correct, there a certain predictions >we can make. First, due to the rotation of the field, it should >acquire inertial mass- attempts to move the field (and that which is >generating it) should resist being moved. Next, time within the field >should run at a different rate, either slower or faster depending on >the direction of rotation relative to the n/s pole (Ok, I have not >shown this yet...). This could be tested by placing a radioactive >isotope inside the field and measuring the radiation compared to a >control sample outside the field. Time measurements would also be >affected. And, if I am right, any mass contained by the field should >gain or loose its gravitational mass (actually, I'm way over-simplifying >here). I would also expect a strong E-Field from the outer most part >of the field to the axis of rotation, as would be normally expected. >I strongly suspect that these relativistic effects will have >direction and magnitude. > > >>Fields don't need to expand and >shrink IMO to be thrown off as radiatiuon, it merely requires a swift >enough change that causes the more distant part of a field to >decouple from the source that generated it. > >I'm not sure about >this one. I do suspect that attempting to change the angular velocity >to rapidly would cause the field to rotate or "vibrate" at >harmonic frequencies in addition to the primary frequency which would >likely cause EM radiation. > > >>Of course this has an >implication, that the magnetic field would put a drag on it because >it can't freely radiate energy right? > >>Would not some >pulsars or something else astronomical be in the range of powerful >enough to be an astronomical version of this experiment? > >Maybe, >but I'm also thinking of the EM fields that exist in atoms, shells >and electrons... > > >>Or would their magnetic field be more >likely to be in an axial orientation? I guess so? or not? > >I >pretty sure, but I will need to think about it. I think the issue has >to do with the symmetry of the E-field, or lack there of. > > >>So >no astronomical versions of this thought experiment? >I would think >pulsars and black holes, but don't we already acknowledge >relativistic effects for these objects? > >C. Michael Crosiar > >
