Sione: magnetic fields prove an absolute reference frame

[Sione]

I want to take a moment to clarify a few very important points' date=' that are clearly stated when you solve Maxwell's equations.

 

Electrons moving in wires are NOT the same as free electrons moving, wires have no net charge, electron beams do.

[/quote']

 

That might be true, and it could even be important.

 

However, from the point of view of Ampere's law, Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law, free electrons and electrons in wire behave quite alike, i can not see them, but experiments and those equations confirm each other, as far as I know.

 

 

Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other.

 

Yes, that would be in agreement with SR and all I want is some experimental study that confirms it, because all I found points the other way.

 

 

Maxwell's electrodynamics was the first relativistic theory, he just didn't realise it at the time, and unluckily he was a very busy man and died quite young before he had a chance to realised just what he had done.

 

Any electromagnetism book will tell you these things, they are VERY well understood. There is no requirement for an absolute frame.

 

Maxwell's equations do not include Lorentz force.

 

I have not heard of anyone modeling electromagnetic interaction with relativistic equations. Why would anyone do that if more simple equations can do much better job. Is there any software that uses SR equations to model free electrons? I do not know of any, while on the other hand I know some that model electrons and magnetic fields interaction with classic equations.

 

 

1.) experiment showing "Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

 

2.) anything about modeling magnetic interaction with SR that actually works and is not superfluous next to classic equations.

[Klaynos]

That might be true, and it could even be important.

 

However, from the point of view of Ampere's law, Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law, free electrons and electrons in wire behave quite alike, i can not see them, but experiments and those equations confirm each other, as far as I know.

 

Not really, wires are charge neutral, beams are not. This results in a significant difference in the results of solving those equations. The experiments do confirm the equations you are right.

 

Yes, that would be in agreement with SR and all I want is some experimental study that confirms it, because all I found points the other way.

 

It would be in agreement with SR, electrodynamics, and quantum electrodynamics.

 

Maxwell's equations do not include Lorentz force.

 

This is just wrong:

 

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=995632&isnumber=21481

 

I have not heard of anyone modeling electromagnetic interaction with relativistic equations.

 

The Maxwell equations and therefore the WHOLE of electrodynamics, as those 4 equations contain all of the information, are a completely relativistic theory, There are some corrections needed in some situations as swansont mentions above, people do work in this area, do a google scholar search.

 

Why would anyone do that if more simple equations can do much better job.

 

They can't the corrections are needed because the simple equations create incorrect results.

 

Is there any software that uses SR equations to model free electrons?

 

Yes. I'm not sure if there's any commercial avaliable though.

 

I do not know of any, while on the other hand I know some that model electrons and magnetic fields interaction with classic equations.

 

Electrodynamics is a relativistic theory. It pre-dates SR and GR, and was the first relativistic theory.

 

1.) experiment showing "Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

 

I don't have time for a decent search to find a good reference on this, but I suspect a physics text might be the best course of action.

 

2.) anything about modeling magnetic interaction with SR that actually works and is not superfluous next to classic equations.

 

Find research groups working in the area they may explain their codes on their websites.

[Sione]

1.) experiment showing "Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

 

I don't have time for a decent search to find a good reference on this' date=' but I suspect a physics text might be the best course of action.

[/quote']

 

It is not about me believing claims of some particular theory. I took every possible course of action regarding all the theories and conclusion I have is confirmed by practical experiments. Your conclusion will, or will not, be confirmed once you too find the time to check experiments and see what reality thinks about it.

 

 

It would be in agreement with SR, electrodynamics, and quantum electrodynamics.

 

No, Electrodynamics or Classical Electromagnetism says clearly otherwise, it simply works even thought they use absolute reference frames, like Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law:

 

F= q(v x B)

B= v x q*k*d/r^2

 

 

Quantum Electrodynamics does not even have equation for this interaction, but if it had it would either agree with Classical equations or Quantum Mechanics, which confirms this via electron pairing due to spin and magnetic dipole moment.

 

 

I have not heard of anyone modeling electromagnetic interaction with relativistic equations.

 

The Maxwell equations and therefore the WHOLE of electrodynamics, as those 4 equations contain all of the information, are a completely relativistic theory...

 

1.) Maxwell equations ARE NOT "relativistic theory", but CLASSICAL Electromagnetism, using absolute reference frame like Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law:

 

F= q(v x B)

B= v x q*k*d/r^2

 

 

Maxwell's equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Special_relativity

-"In electromagnetism, Maxwell's equations are a set of four partial differential equations... Individually, the equations are known as Gauss's law, Gauss's law for magnetism, Faraday's law of induction, and Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction.

 

These four equations, together with the Lorentz force law are the complete set of laws of classical electromagnetism."

 

 

2.) ...therefore, four Maxwell's equations ARE NOT WHOLE of electrodynamics, especially without including spin magnetic dipole moment and induced torque.

 

 

Find research groups working in the area they may explain their codes on their websites.

 

It is as if I'm high-school boy with homework and you are helping me sort out my confusion. I've been working for the last five years in this field, as a numerical modeling and analysis software engineer, so I know all about this stuff and if you too want to know about it, then it is you who should be doing some Googling and realize what I told you is not my imagination.

 

 

Don't believe me, of course not!

Just Google and see it for yourself, once you find the time.

[NeonBlack]

A couple of months ago, there was a similar discussion:

Questions on moving charge(s)

[Klaynos]

The v in the Lorentz force is a relativistic velocity, it is the velocity between the charge and where you are measuring the force, or the relative velocity.

 

The fact that magnetic fields exist at all in the Maxwell equations is a result of them being relativistic. The Lorentz transformations can be derived by JUST using what you call classical electromagnetism.

 

Your complete failure to understand or see this is baffling.

 

This has been experimentally proven countless times, the universe doesn't care what your opinion on it is.

[Sione]

The v in the Lorentz force is a relativistic velocity' date=' it is the velocity between the charge and where you are measuring the force, or the relative velocity.

 

The fact that magnetic fields exist at all in the Maxwell equations is a result of them being relativistic. The Lorentz transformations can be derived by JUST using what you call classical electromagnetism.

 

Your complete failure to understand or see this is baffling.

 

This has been experimentally proven countless times, the universe doesn't care what your opinion on it is.

[/quote']

 

Ok, you say my understanding failed and I appreciate your opinion.

 

Unfortunately, every single practical experiment does not really agree with you about this:

-"Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

 

 

There is nothing much to understand here, above statement of yours is either confirmed by experiment or refuted, it is either true or false. To confirm your claim you only need to find one experimental study that proves your statement. On the other hand, I offer you all the rest of WWW that says otherwise.

[swansont]

Ok, you say my understanding failed and I appreciate your opinion.

 

Unfortunately, every single practical experiment does not really agree with you about this:

-"Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

 

 

There is nothing much to understand here, above statement of yours is either confirmed by experiment or refuted, it is either true or false. To confirm your claim you only need to find one experimental study that proves your statement. On the other hand, I offer you all the rest of WWW that says otherwise.

 

No, you offer a link that discusses electrons in a wire, and refuse to acknowledge that those are not the same conditions.

[Sione]

Reality and experimental measurements. That's all what matters now and everyone should check it for themselves, it's one click away.

 

 

No' date=' you offer a link that discusses electrons in a wire, and refuse to acknowledge that those are not the same conditions.

[/quote']

 

That I offered before as illustration.

 

Now, I offer you the whole WWW and every single practical experiment that is documented there, see for yourself, true or false:

 

- "Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

[swansont]

- "Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

 

The electrons are in the same frame of reference. They see no magnetic fields, only electric fields. Any observer in another frame will see magnetic fields, because that's what happens in Maxwell's equations when you change frames under those conditions. However, the net repulsion does not change.

[Sisyphus]

It's already been said in several different ways how it works, how magnetic fields are just electric fields in a different frame of reference. So why not show how the "absolute velocity" claim can't work? How about a simple thought experiment. Sione claims that charges generate magnetic fields when moving with respect to some absolute frame of reference. Ok, so where is this frame of reference? Presumably, the laboratory where the experiment takes place has to be "motionless," right? But the lab is on the Earth. The Earth is rotating, and different parts of its surface have relative velocities of hundreds of miles per hour. So in a reference frame in which the lab in New York has a velocity of zero, the lab in Sydney has a velocity of hundreds of miles an hour. So if what matters is velocity relative to a single, universal frame of reference, then the two labs should always see radically different results when performing the same experiment. And there would be different results when performing the same experiment in the same place at different times of day, or different times of year.

 

Obviously that's not what happens, so the idea that it's not relativistic is proven wrong. Unless, I suppose, you want to make the claim that the Earth is actually motionless in the "true" reference frame, and that the entire rest of the universe whirls around it once per day, presumably generating unspeakably huge magnetic fields along the way, behaving less and less like Earth the farther away from it you go.

 

So, anyway, I'll repeat my "stubborn opinion" one more time. The word "velocity" always means "relative velocity," because there is no other kind.

[D H]

Sione, this thread started with a misunderstanding on your part and then a stubborn insistence on your part that it was not a misunderstanding. To reiterate what has already been said, there is no absolute reference for velocity. Read up on Maxwell's equations.

 

 

Thread moved to pseudoscience and speculation.

[Mr Skeptic]

In fact it was making the Principle of Relativity square with Maxwell's Equations that caused Einstein to reject Newtonian mechanics in favor of relativity.

[Sione]

Since I'm the only one who actually has insight about experiments, it is your theories and opinions that are speculative. Every single theory in modern and classical physics very much disagree with SR about this particular case, including GR, so what is all the fuss about?

 

 

The electrons are in the same frame of reference. They see no magnetic fields' date=' only electric fields. Any observer in another frame will see magnetic fields, because that's what happens in Maxwell's equations when you change frames under those conditions. However, the net repulsion does not change.

[/quote']

 

I think I already mentioned, here and in some other thread, Maxwell's equations do not include Lorentz force. We are only talking about magnetic fields of moving charges, Biot-Savart law and Lorentz force. The same force responsible for attraction of free electrons and lalalaaa...

 

 

What practical experiment confirms that speculation of yours? You only need to refer me to one practical study and actual experimental measurements based on which you form your conclusion.

 

 

- How many experiments do I need to show you before you accept it as reality, is three enough?

 

 

 

Sisyphus, D H, Mr Skeptic

 

You only need to refer me to just one practical study and actual experimental measurements based on which you form your conclusion. How many experiments do I need to show you before you accept it as reality, is three enough?

 

 

I mean it is not like I have some desire for you to believe me or to continue having an empty argument about it. I only tried to tell you this and teach you some cool stuff, but if you don't wanna know, that's fine, as far as I'm concerned you can delete this whole thread.

[Bignose]

Every single theory in modern and classical physics very much disagree with SR about this particular case, including GR, so what is all the fuss about?

 

Not that your other claims don't need citations, but this one is quite a whopper. Any chance at all you can provide a peer-reviewed journal article from a physics or math journal to back this up?

 

The amount of evidence supporting GR is pretty overwhelming, that's why it is the current theory. It's not like GR just won "Physics Idol" one year and hence became the theory du jour. It is backed up by a lot of evidence.

 

 

Please see:

Clifford M. Will,

“The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment”,

http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3

 

which is an incredible review of the many experimental results that support general relativity. Saying that "every experimental result disagrees" means you need to provide evidence how every single experiment in the cited article above actually disagrees with GR.

 

If you cannot do this, then you must drop your claim. (or, I guess you could just be a troll, though I sincerely hope not)

[Sione]

which is an incredible review of the many experimental results that support general relativity. Saying that "every experimental result disagrees" means you need to provide evidence how every single experiment in the cited article above actually disagrees with GR.

 

LOL. Sorry if I was not clear. I meant to say that GR and the rest of physics is in disagreement with SR about the Lorentz force' date=' reference frames or both. Anyway, as for peer reviewed and actual science, here is a little bit of reality about Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law:

 

[b']Z-pinch[/b] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch)

- "The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. The Z-pinch uses this effect: the entire plasma can be thought of as many current-carrying wires, all carrying current in the same direction, and they are all pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts."

 

 

DO YOU SEE THE ATTRACTION? Have you ever seen a lightning? That's just a warm up, ready for some more reality? - Various Z-pinch machines can be found in various institutions such as Sandia National Laboratories (USA), Ruhr University (Germany), Imperial College (United Kingdom), Ecole Polytechnique (France), and the Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel).

 

 

 

p.s.

Don't let me even start on GR, you don't wanna know.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Sione

[swansont]

Z-pinch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch)

- "The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. The Z-pinch uses this effect: the entire plasma can be thought of as many current-carrying wires, all carrying current in the same direction, and they are all pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts."

 

Oh, for Chrissake. Your quote says WIRES! CURRENT-FRIKKIN' CARRYING CONDUCTORS! They are ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL, as are the plasmas in a Z-pinch. They are NOT CHARGED BEAMS.

 

Nobody has denied that neutral conductors attract magnetically when the current is parallel. Which is well within the laws of physics to explain. But you keep offering this up as proof for a DIFFERENT PROBLEM.

 

 

There's nothing more to discuss here. Thread closed, as per staff discussion.

[Sione]

Oh' date=' for Chrissake. Your quote says WIRES! CURRENT-FRIKKIN' CARRYING CONDUCTORS! They are ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL, as are the plasmas in a Z-pinch. They are NOT CHARGED BEAMS.

[/quote']

 

Pay attention. Free electron with velocity *is* electric current, electric plasma or discharge, just as is the one next to it and they attract with Lorentz force even when their relative velocity is close to none, wire, air or vacuum, does not matter.

 

CHARGED BEAMS ATTRACT EVEN MORE, do you want to know about it? Good that you closed the thread, who, in the whole wide world, would like to know about the fact that two single electrons attract just the same and even more so in vacuum, nice one. What do you imagine electrostatic potential, discharge and electric current is made of?

 

1.) Free electron laser, the same thing happens with electron beams in vacuum

 

2.) Electron plasma, is made only of free electrons and does the same thing

 

3.) Tesla coil in vacuum, discharge and free electrons do the same thing

 

4.) Electron beam welding, done in vacuum to prevent dispersion of the electron beam

 

MOD note: Moved after being posted in another thread. Note that posting elsewhere to avoid a closed thread is not permissible

Edited February 9, 2009 by swansont
add mod note

[Klaynos]

I'd just like to make one final point incase anyone who's actually interested in physics reads this.

 

Maxwell's equations can be used to derive the Lorentz force, I provided a link above, this means that Maxwell's equations do indeed include teh Lorentz force.