[General] Relativistic space, time and field

Sun Nov 1 17:54:02 PST 2015

Al,

I agree that the EM field is a kind of epiphenomenon. It sounds like that
is what Chip was saying too, and John D came out and said that explicitly.
You say those aren't your arguments, they are those of others',but I have
never really seen anyone argue that the EM field is not "real". Are there
any sources for this? I don't just mean transforming coordinates to make
them disappear etc., but the stronger claim that the field is the symptom
of something deeper. I would be curious to know.

Adam

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:11 PM, <af.kracklauer at web.de> wrote:

> Hi all:
>
> Expressed in the right (fortuotus) units, it is clear that taking c-->inf,
> annihilates the B/H field and yields electrostatics.  Thus, B/H are just a
> means of taking the finite speed of light into account.  Propagation
> requires each inducing the other.  Further, each can be transformed to zero
> with well chosen frames, again implying that neither is a separate,
> ontological entity.  Both are, therefore, hypothetical, aids for
> calculaitons, not real-world "stuff."
>
> These are not my arguments, I just can't refute them.  Don't blame me.
>
> Best,  Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 01. November 2015 um 22:10 Uhr
> *Von:* "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com>
> *An:* davidmathes8 at yahoo.com, "'Nature of Light and Particles - General
> Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Relativistic space, time and field
>
> Hi David
>
>
>
> I think I would agree with John D. that for the purposes of discussing the
> fields generated by waves in space there is just an electromagnetic field.
> The electromagnetic fields, E and B portions, generated by the wave motion
> (distortion traveling through space) are the results of the same thing
> (that particular type of propagating distortion which is supported by
> space).  In this sense they are not separable because they are different
> manifestations of the same cause.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *
> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 01, 2015 9:41 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* 'Nick Bailey' <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; 'Anthony Booth' <
> abooth at ieee.org>; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Relativistic space, time and field
>
>
>
> John D
>
>
>
> The E&M fields can be considered two separate fields that are basically
> closely coupled by Maxwell's equations.
>
>
>
> Put another way...just because you have one EM field (E for example) does
> not necessarily mean you have the other (B for example).
>
>
>
> Speculation is that there are two different B fields. However, this has
> not been peer reviewed.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* 'Nick Bailey' <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; 'Anthony Booth' <
> abooth at ieee.org>; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 1, 2015 2:43 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Relativistic space, time and field
>
>
>
> All:
>
>
>
> I’ve come back after a week away, and caught up with my emails. There’s
> some excellent stuff there, thanks everybody.
>
>
>
> John W:
>
>
>
> Your question left me puzzled. There aren’t two different fields, one
> electric, one magnetic. The electron has an *electromagnetic* field, and
> it is what it is. Imagine you can look at it, and walk around it, studying
> it from every angle. It has this “screw” nature, like Maxwell said, and
> like Minkowski said, not totally unlike the gravitomagnetic field
> <http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/>,
> but in three dimensions, and a whole lot fiercer. Now imagine you back up
> then move past it fast. That electromagnetic field doesn’t change one iota
> just because *you* changed your state of motion. It doesn’t transform at
> all.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <http://general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *John Williamson
> *Sent:* 26 October 2015 08:17
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* 'Joakim Pettersson' <joakimbits at gmail.com>; Nick Bailey <
> nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; 'Anthony Booth' <abooth at ieee.org>; 'Ariane
> Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
> *Subject:* [General] Relativistic space, time and field
>
>
>
> Dear ladies and gentlemen,
>
>
>
> I must apologise in advance if I appear a little cranky this morning. I
> have been up since 2 am (it is now 7.30 am) I have been in work every day
> last week, including Saturday and Sunday – certainly more than double my
> “contracted” hours – actually, getting close to three times them (four
> times is not possible- though my “workload model” suggest I am only a third
> loaded and my managers are trying to give me even more to do).  I am pissed
> off, have not managed to eat properly and feel physically a bit ill.
>
>
>
> The intense work has had the advantage that I have caught up with most,
> though not all, of my University work. I feel as though I have never left
> the damn place, and am already tired – though 12 hours looms ahead. The
> coming week promises – if anything to be even worse … I will try not to
> take it out on you .. but this will not be circumspect …
>
>
>
> I have the feeling that we are, collectively, not really getting into the
> discussion which needs to be had to make proper progress. This is not for
> lack of trying on my part – but I seem to be getting no reaction at all to
> the new bits – and yet lots of requests for clarification on parts of
> physics as it is already is.
>
>
>
> Ladies and gentlemen – I just cannot do this. I cannot provide a tutor
> service for things that are simply well explained in text books. Let me try
> a little experiment to clarify what I mean.
>
>
>
> For example, there has been a lot of discussion about Einstien’s Special
> relativity. There has been lots of talk about rulers and clocks, not with
> the maths so much as in sort of allegorical terms. Everyone seems to think
> they know what they are talking about – but I do not get the impression
> that many of us really “get it” at all. Sorry.
>
>
>
> This is not to be rude to you all. I agree with Al that most of the people
> writing TEXT books with the word “relativity” in the title do not “get”
> relativity much beyond rulers, clocks and synchronising imaginary
> “observers”. This is probably because that is how they “learned” it
> themselves. Wiki is at the same (low) level. If the writers of the usual
> sources are not beyond this – what hope does a graduate of those teachers
> in universities have of getting there? I should say - it is not my goal or
> role to sort all this out – though that is where my effort seems to have
> been going.  See how Christian, for one, has been savaged by the pack for
> merely daring to suggest some theory and maths appalls me.
>
>
>
> The lack of (quite basisc) understanding of many workers in the field
> leads to many smart workers– some called Alice and/or Bob, to be completely
> wasting their time. As Al says, one can explain most of this simply with
> classical field theory and a proper understanding of relativity (which is
> automatically in classical field theory – so there you go).
>
>
>
> Let me give you a specific example, though, from relativity as explained
> in the slightly more advanced big books – and I would like you all to be
> honest with yourself and share it with the group if you were ignorant of
> the simple fact I am about to state before I brought it up. There is no
> shame in this: it is how relativity is taught in my “university” for
> example – so it is probably not your fault.
>
>
>
> It is common knowledge (whether “true” in the sense that Al, Martin and I
> have been talking about it or not), that rulers “shrink” in the direction
> of the Lorentz transformation and clocks “go slow”. I have been astonished
> that there has even been discussion about this within this group – but
> there you go. I do not want to talk about this further here, there has been
> enough said, but instead take the whole discussion a little bit further
>
>
>
> Now I already know several in the group will know what I am about to say
> to be true (Martin and  Stephen). I suspect others may also have got it
> (John D, Adam K, Nick – but be honest guys). I am pretty sure that this
> will be news to most of you – though most delighted if I am wrong!
>
>
>
> Although lengths transform ONLY along the velocity directions, fields
> transform (relativistically) ONLY perpendicular to it. The question is
> simple: did you “know” that?
>
>
>
> To be clear in what I am saying: if the velocity is in the z direction.
> Lengths transform relativistically in z and not in x and y. Fields
> transform relativistically in Ex, Ey, Bx, and By AND  PRECISELY NOT in Bz
> and Ez.
>
>
>
> Once again: did you know that before I told you? Do you agree?
>
>
>
> Regards, John W.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to
> receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151101/679613bd/attachment.htm>