The beginnings of a new Theory in Physics

[martillo]

I have developed a manuscript as a startpoint for a new Theory in Physics and the beginnings presents a new interpretation for the known Lorentz's factor gamma = 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 which appears in consideration before the development of Relativity Theory.

The initial new consideration is that the factor s = 1/gamma = (1-v²/c²)^1/2 is related to the Electric and Magnetic Fields and not the mass as was considered in the Kaufman, Bucherer, Newman, etc. exepriments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann_experiments).

In Section 2.2 can be found the following:

It is proposed that the Electric and Magnetic Fields and Forces formulas
must be corrected.

We are going to make a modification on the fields’ formulas that will
represent the behavior of the basic particles like the electron and the photons at
high velocities. It is proposed that the Electric and Magnetic Fields and Forces
are directly responsible for that behavior.

When particles travels through Electric and Magnetic Fields, it has been
experimentally determined that a factor s = (1-v²/c²)^1/2 appears, although it is
only visible when large velocities are present in the particles. It is well known,
for example, that when electrons are passed through a strong magnet it describes
a circular trajectory that verifies the equation:

qvB = (m₀/s)(v²/r)
where s = (1-v²/c²)^1/2

c is the light velocity in vacuum emitted with a source at rest:
c ≈ 3x108 m/seg

It is proposed that the factor s is present both in the Magnetic and Electric
Fields and Forces.

In the example above the equation should be rewritten to:

sqvB = m₀v²/r

It is proposed that the factor belongs to the other side of the equation. This
gives the same kinematics results but means a different cause to the behavior.

This is the alternative to the proposition of mass variation in the Relativity
Theory.

Then, if we denote B^c
and F_B^c
the field and force of Classical Physics it is

proposed that the actual Magnetic Field and Magnetic Force are:

B = sB^c
F_B = sF_B^c

Where is defined:
s = (1-v²/c²)^1/2 for v_R ≤ c, s = 0 for v_R ≥ c
v_R is the relative velocity between the source of the field B and the particle
where the force is applied

For the Electric Field E and Force F_E, the new theories propose the same
modification, the factor s, to take into account the behavior when large relative
velocities are present between the source of the field and the particles. If E^c
and F_E^c are the classical Electric Field and Force then the actual ones should be:

E = sE^c
F_E = sF_E^c

Where in this case v_R is the relative velocity between the source of the field E
and the particle where the force is applied

It is interesting to note that the Electric and Magnetic Forces become zero for
velocities greater than c. The new theories does not limit the velocity of every
object to be less than the value c but as the forces becomes zero at this speed it
seems not to be possible to accelerate something to a speed greater than c.

...

NOTE:

The new Electric and Magnetic Fields will verify the classical Maxwell
Equations at small velocities (s ≈ 1). The validity of the equations at high
velocities and the form they can have for the new fields in the general case is a
subject for future study.

...

 

I must comment here that if the factor s appears in both the Electric and Magnetic Fields and it cancels out in experiments where the Electric Force is opposite to the Magnetic Force. Is the case in some velocity selectors apparatus.

I never seen or heard about this possibility being taken into consideration before anywhere. The question now here in the forum would be which would be the problems I must consider against this possibility.

I have already considered that if the factor s = (1-v²/c²)^1/2 is attached to the fields and not the mass the Kinetic Energy of the particles wold be the clasical one K = mv²/2 in discrepancy for instance with Bertozzi's Experiment where very high ("relativistic") energies are measured for the electrons. I have reviewed the experiment and found that it haven't been considered in it that when electrons collides in a target at very high velocities radiation energy is produced in the form for instance of X-rays and the phenomena of annihilation of electrons transforming them in other "subatomic" particles and photons, like in the known electron-positron pair annihilation producing gamma rays, could be present. So in this cases other phenomena could explain the same results for the experiment. It would be a very big unlucky concidence I know, but it is possible...

Edited February 25, 2021 by martillo

[martillo]

Something also already considered is that the momentum will also be the classical one p = mv without the effect of the factor s = (1-v²/c²)^1/2. This would affect for instance the value of the De Broglie wavelength lambda = h/p. An important experiment to be considered then is the Davisson-Germer experiment at very high velocities. This experiment could validate or invalidate the proposition of the factor s present in the E and B Fields but it is demanded that a velocity selector be used in the experiment in spite of deriving the velocity from the classical Electric Potential of the accelerating Electrical Field. If the factor s is present in the Electrical Field the Electrical Potential would not be the classical one anymore and the velocity gained by the electrons in the acceleration stage cannot be obtained with the classical Electrical Potential.

Unfortunatelly I don't have the resources and may be the expertisse necessary to perform this experiment. I can only wait for someone that could be able an interested in performing it someday...

Edited February 25, 2021 by martillo

[Markus Hanke]

6 hours ago, martillo said:

The initial new consideration is that the factor s = 1/gamma = (1-v²/c²)^1/2 is related to the Electric and Magnetic Fields and not the mass

If you have two inertial frames in spacetime with non-zero relative velocity between them, then these frames will be related via a hyperbolic rotation in spacetime. That’s the meaning of Lorentz transformations - they are rotations (and boosts) in spacetime. The hyperbolic angle of that rotation is 

\[\varphi =arctanh\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)\]

which means that the gamma factor is

\[\gamma=cosh \varphi \]

So the actual meaning of the gamma factor is that it is an expression of the hyperbolic rotation angle by which the Lorentz frames are related. It is thus fundamentally a geometric entity.

[martillo]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

If you have two inertial frames in spacetime with non-zero relative velocity between them, then these frames will be related via a hyperbolic rotation in spacetime. That’s the meaning of Lorentz transformations - they are rotations (and boosts) in spacetime. The hyperbolic angle of that rotation is 

 

φ=arctanh(vc)

 

which means that the gamma factor is

 

γ=coshφ

 

So the actual meaning of the gamma factor is that it is an expression of the hyperbolic rotation angle by which the Lorentz frames are related. It is thus fundamentally a geometric entity.

That is true only after the assumption that Minkowsy's space-time of Relativity Theory (where the Lorentz's factor gamma = 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 plays a fundamental role) is true. I know that with this assumption it is not necessary to attach the gamma factor to the mass, it becomes intrinsic to the space-time metric. As a side effect the momentum p becomes redefined. In classical Physics p = m*v and with Relativity Theory becomes p = gamma*m*v. 

The new theory is an alternative to that assumption considering the classical Euclidian space with time as an independent variable or dimension and the gamma factor just present in the Electric and Magnetic Fields.

The Gravitational Field seems to be well described by the classical one provided a correction to take into account the dynamics of galaxies and in replacement to the hypothesis of the existence of "dark matter", something I think we have talked about in other thread. Other phenomena like Mercury's precession and gravitational lensing can be also explained otherways taken into account other considerations but I think they are out of the topic of this thread now.

The important thing in this thread is to analise the possibility of the gamma factor 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 be actually related to the Electric and Magnetic Fields.

Edited February 25, 2021 by martillo

[Bufofrog]

Couple of questions.

10 hours ago, martillo said:

c is the light velocity in vacuum emitted with a source at rest:
c ≈ 3x108 m/seg

Why do you specify the light source is at rest?  Isn't c independent of the source speed?

11 hours ago, martillo said:

In the example above the equation should be rewritten to:

sqvB = m₀v²/r

It is proposed that the factor belongs to the other side of the equation. This
gives the same kinematics results but means a different cause to the behavior.

I don't see where dividing both side of the equation by gamma does anything or gives any new insight. 

11 hours ago, martillo said:

Where is defined:
s = (1-v²/c²)^1/2 for v_R ≤ c, s = 0 for v_R ≥ c
v_R is the relative velocity between the source of the field B and the particle
where the force is applied

What is the point of defining s = 1/gamma?  Seems like you are adding an unnecessary constant.

What do you mean by VR > c?  A velocity > c?

[martillo]

54 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Why do you specify the light source is at rest?  Isn't c independent of the source speed?

Not in the new theory. It is considered right the classical Emission Theory of light in which absolute frame exist and the light velocity is c + u where u is the velocity of the source. Just to mention the Emission Theory in its vectorial form c + u verifies Michelson Morley experiment.

54 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I don't see where dividing both side of the equation by gamma does anything or gives any new insight.

The equation is the same giving the same result. The factor s belonging to the left side is just a way to say that it is originated by the magnetic Field and not by a variable mass.

54 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

What is the point of defining s = 1/gamma?  Seems like you are adding an unnecessary constant.

Just because the factor itself and the equations in the new theory get more simple. s is not a quotient, s =  (1-v²/c²)^1/2 

54 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

What do you mean by VR > c?  A velocity > c?

In the new Theory particles can reach velocities greater than c accelerated by Electric or Magnetic Fields if the source of these fields have some velocity in a similar way than the Emission Theory of light. Actually the photons are emitted from atoms by their Electric and Magnetic Fields and the factor s is the reason why they acquire their velocity c : the fields becomes zero at this  velocity and cannot accelerate them more. But if they have some absolute velocity particles could reach velocities greater than c (something yet to be verified experimentally, I know, something not so easy to accomplish).

Edited February 25, 2021 by martillo

[Bufofrog]

51 minutes ago, martillo said:

Not in the new theory. It is considered right the classical Emission Theory of light in which absolute frame exist and the light velocity is c + u where u is the velocity of the source. Just to mention the Emission Theory in its vectorial form c + u verifies Michelson Morley experiment.

This sort of kills your whole concept since experimental results will falsify your idea.  

[martillo]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

This sort of kills your whole concept since experimental results will falsify your idea.  

Which ones?

[Bufofrog]

Since the speed of light is invariant and your hypothesis includes the idea that the speed of light is not invariant, your hypothesis is falsified.

[martillo]

5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Since the speed of light is invariant and your hypothesis includes the idea that the speed of light is not invariant, your hypothesis is falsified.

Speed of light is invariant within Relativity Theory only and as a postulate. For me is just another theory to compete with and in the first reply in this thread a feasible experiment to decide between it or this new theory has been described: a modified Davisson-Germer experiment with a velocity selector directly determining the velocity of the electrons. As I said, unfortunatelly I don't have the resources nor the expertisse to perform it. I'm just waiting for someone to do it now...

[Bufofrog]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

Speed of light is invariant within Relativity Theory only and as a postulate.

It has been shown to be invariant by experimentation.  So your hypothesis has been falsified.

[martillo]

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

It has been shown to be invariant by experimentation.  So your hypothesis has been falsified.

Please tell me where. I can't wait to analyze such experimentation...

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, martillo said:

Speed of light is invariant within Relativity Theory only and as a postulate. For me is just another theory to compete with and in the first reply in this thread a feasible experiment to decide between it or this new theory has been described: a modified Davisson-Germer experiment with a velocity selector directly determining the velocity of the electrons. As I said, unfortunatelly I don't have the resources nor the expertisse to perform it. I'm just waiting for someone to do it now...

Electrodynamics had an invariant speed of EM radiation first. What does the EM wave equation look like in your theory?

[Bufofrog]

12 minutes ago, martillo said:

Please tell me where. I can't wait to analyze such experimentation...

Google it and knock yourself out.

[martillo]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Electrodynamics had an invariant speed of EM radiation first. What does the EM wave equation look like in your theory?

In the new theory electromagnetic WAVES do not exist, what exist are electromagnetic PARTICLES well known as photons. Particles that when travelling in arrangements of trains of particles can have the wave-like behavior of diffraction. The wave-particle duality is solved in favor to the particles model.

But this goes beyond the scope of the thread I think...

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by martillo

[Bufofrog]

4 minutes ago, martillo said:

In the new theory electromagnetic WAVES do not exist, what exist are electromagnetic PARTICLES well known as photons. Particles that when travelling in arrangements of trains of particles can have the wave-like behavior of diffraction. The wave-particle duality is solved in favor to the particles model.

 

I hate to be redundant, but experimentation shows that hypothesis is falsified.

Google single photon interference.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Bufofrog

[martillo]

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

I hate to be redundant, but experimentation shows that hypothesis is falsified.

Just show where then... Ican't wait for it...

[Bufofrog]

Really, you can't google it yourself?  I'll look it up later, I don't like using my phone to look up stuff.

[martillo]

2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Really, you can't google it yourself?  I'll look it up later, I don't like using my phone to look up stuff.

Google what? That the experiment of measuring the velocity of the same beam of light in two frames of reference with considerable different velocities was made and the same value was obtained? Or that the hypothesis that photons in arrangements in trains of photons exhibiting diffraction patterns has been shown to not exist? Sorry, I don't think any of them has been done. But, as you insist, I will wait for your stuff...

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, martillo said:

In the new theory electromagnetic WAVES do not exist, what exist are electromagnetic PARTICLES well known as photons. Particles that when travelling in arrangements of trains of particles can have the wave-like behavior of diffraction. The wave-particle duality is solved in favor to the particles model.

But this goes beyond the scope of the thread I think...

 

There’s plenty of evidence that EM waves exist. And any physics theory has to fit with other models. None of it exists in a silo.

[martillo]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

There’s plenty of evidence that EM waves exist.

Well, for instance, Hertz experiment is analyzed in the manuscript and it is shown that actually photons are detected. Also a complete description of how communication between antennas happens with photons is given.

Also, the theoretical hypothesis of existence of EM waves from the EM wave equation is questioned since the theoretical solutional to them are infinite planes with the same field parallel to the plane in the entire plane for both, the electric and the magnetic one. Then it is taken into consideration which source for that fields could generate such kind of fields and that no one can be found. There's no source possible for that kind of fields. That's why EM waves are considered to actually not exist.

Edited February 25, 2021 by martillo

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, martillo said:

Well, for instance, Hertz experiment is analyzed in the manuscript and it is shown that actually photons are detected. Also a complete description of how communication between antennas happens with photons is given.

I think Hertz did more than one experiment, so “Hertz experiment” doesn’t narrow things down all that much.

You have to look at experiments that aren’t explained by photons. i.e. you can’t cherry-pick. Explain diffraction, interference, Faraday rotation, etc. with photons. Reflection, refraction. All of the wave behavior.

 

Quote

Also, the theoretical hypothesis of existence of EM waves from the EM wave equation is questioned since the theoretical solutional to them are infinite planes with the same field parallel to the plane in the entire plane for both, the electric and the magnetic one. Then it is taken into consideration which source for that fields could generate such kind of fields and that no one can be found. There's no source possible for that kind of fields. That's why EM waves are considered to actually not exist.

Wait, idealized systems can’t be used in physics? Who came up with that rule? (it was you, wasn’t it)

[martillo]

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

You have to look at experiments that aren’t explained by photons. i.e. you can’t cherry-pick. Explain diffraction, interference, Faraday rotation, etc. with photons. Reflection, refraction. All of the wave behavior.

I MUST "cherry-pick"! My work has not the aim to describe the complete new theory. A so huge task is imposible for just one. Is not my aim to even give a complete demonstration of the theory, I can't do that, you should know that. That would be a task for an entire group or even community of physicists. My work is just a start-point for a new theory where some important key subjects are covered and solved for the new theory. The manuscript is just a collection of the main problems I have found to be more important to be solved for a new theory to begin to be developed. Just a start-point. That is enough for me. I can't do more myself. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by martillo

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Google what? That the experiment of measuring the velocity of the same beam of light in two frames of reference with considerable different velocities was made and the same value was obtained? 

Yes.  Here it is for you.  See the section on the consistency of the speed of light and read the links for more information.

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Or that the hypothesis that photons in arrangements in trains of photons exhibiting diffraction patterns has been shown to not exist?

Single photons make a diffraction pattern, not a train of photons.

[martillo]

40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Yes.  Here it is for you.  See the section on the consistency of the speed of light and read the links for more information.

Single photons make a diffraction pattern, not a train of photons.

I will look at the links but I must mention now that the aim of this thread is not to talk about everything in the new theory but, as I said, to analise the problems I could face with the assumption that the factor s = 1/gamma = (1-v²/c²)^1/2 actually be present in the E and B Fields and not in the mass or in the space-time metric as in Relativity Theory. And, as I also said, this is a completely original new proposition I never seen or heard anywhere before and which I think deserves attention.

...

Well... I already looked in the links you provided and I don't find anything really conclusive:

The slits' experiment is the same as otherones already done except it can switch from a single slit to a double slit experiment in the same apparatus. It does not demonstrate that actually single photons and not for instance some short trains of photons are passing through the slits.

And in the "not dependency on source velocity..." section I could only find the experiments like the De Sitter and Alvager which I already analyzed and found also not conclusive. 

I will not discuss those experiments here. It is not in the scope of this thread to discuss that. If you find those experiments really conclusive enough to not consider this new theory I'm presenting it would be your opinion and your decision. Nothing to say about.

Edited February 25, 2021 by martillo