Definitely not sure this area has had sufficient scrutiny. Here is quich overwiew of the the scrutiny that it has been given so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics Cheers: Axil On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:02 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > Frank, sadly your paper goes over my head. > If you are willing to explain your statement: Relativistic properties are > due to the phase angle of the magnetic field. > > Just to quickly reiterate my point of view... (before I rant more about it > anyway) > Protons and electrons posses a radial electric field (although I > am uncertain we really appreciate what topology field a single electron > possesses). > > This electric field does not bend as we think of electric and magnetic > fields doing, rather superimposed electric fields sum to zero from vector > addition in a charge neutral object. > > As electrons move through a wire, it undergoes length contraction, > actually Lorentz contraction was initially an (A)Ether theory and I am > personally entierly clear about the objective reality of the aether. > The electrons electric field (that fills perhaps the entire universe?) > undergoes length contraction propagating at the speed of light. > > Understanding how this creates the forces expected from parallel current > carrying conductors is not very challenging and is conventionally accepted > and explained. > https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/tdray/phys310/electromag.pdf > Meanwhile the electric induction from a time varying current is in my > understanding due to bending of electric field lines due to acceleration > similar to the effect from moving a hose side to side as water comes out, > the induction created by such agrees with the expected induction along a > wire. > > The point is that no magnetic field is ever needed to derive the expected > force, I am not aware of any particle that directly responds to a magnetic > field, electrons feel a very real electric force at 90 degrees to a > magnetic field, and magnetic fields are only ever created by electric > fields, in short it is always electric and the magnetic is just a very > useful tool to conceptualize a complex relativistic electric field. > > When you consider such a squashed field it would create a type of electric > field, this is termed a motional E field, although that can also be > established from looking at the magnetic loops around a wire as moving with > the electron drift. > Actually this is then getting close to the Homopolar generator, in which a > current moves through a loop, and movement in a circle parallel to the > current generates (or alters) the strength of the motional E-field. > > What is this generator telling us? It is telling us that if we move so as > to increase the velocity of the electrons, even though the protons create > an opposing E field that is enhanced the electrons velocity being somewhat > greater faces a greater degree of amplification. > To give examples, if the electrons were drifting at 1 meter a second, and > you begin moving in the opposite direction to 1 meter a second then you > have doubled the velocity of the moving electrons, if this were to create > more than double the EMF from these electrons then there would be a net > gain as the unpaired protonic field (if you get my drift :) would be at > 1/meter a second. > > If I am to state with reasonable confidence that the electric field > intensity of a magnetic field is effected by both the drift velocity and > any velocity along the wire then a Homopolar Generator (without > ferromagnetic components) should have a greater voltage output everything > being equal if the electrons in the electromagnet have a high drift > velocity! > > The better question is if this can be expected to translate to more force > with electromagnets (or simply 2 current carrying wires), but this is more > complex as we must consider forces on the electrons and protons of each > wire under multiple different frames (or, is it absolute motion relative to > the aether). > > Also is time varying induction effected? Well if that is a result of the > bending of electric field lines (which is I believe accepted in theory > about antennas) then faster moving electrons would lead to a such more > directional and steeper gradient. > > Is there any reason to think that electromagnetism which is created by > relativistic effects is so largely unaffected by the velocity by which it > is formed? > > I can't do the equations myself, but electrodynamics being explained by SR > and such transformations being accepted makes me wonder what this model > says about velocity. > Does it predict a difference between a high speed flow of 1 coulomb of > electrons a second past a point, or a low speed flow of 1 Coulomb of > electrons past a point per second for in for instance the case of a > homopolar generator? > > And if not how can such a generator be understood to work at all given > this model? > > Definitely not sure this area has had sufficient scrutiny. > > John > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Here is the invite in case any of you want to write a paper. Jones it >> time for you to get published. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gar <[email protected]> >> To: gar <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 12:21 pm >> Subject: Reminder - SPSISW 2013 - Call for Abstracts >> >> All, >> >> Reminder that the initial call for abstracts is to end on 1 November. >> We thank those that have already submitted theirs. >> >> However, many more are needed for us to move forward after 1 November. >> >> Please pass around. >> >> With Regards, >> >> SPSISW 2013 Organizing Committee >> >> >> Tracks at: http://www.ias-spes.org/SPSISW2013/PDFs/SPSIS_Tracks.pdf >> >> Subject Areas at: >> http://www.ias-spes.org/SPSISW2013/PDFs/SPSIS_Subject_Areas.pdf >> >> >> >> >> >> >
