Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

I posted the following in George Ellis' thread but it has disappeared. (Just now reposted anyway). I am copying it to you now.

Dear George,

I shall clear the theoretical side first, and address the personal allegations/misunderstandings later.

George wrote: "The Lorentz transformation equation ..... is verified every day by the operation of electric motors and generators, ....... I show how the standard relations between electric and magnetic field due to relative motion follow from the standard Lorentz transformation laws, and specifically the equation [x' = gamma(x -ut)]".

Eckard wrote: 'Being an old EE, I cannot confirm that the Lorentz transformation "is verified every day by the operation of electric motors and generators. ... This relation is tested millions of times every day by the way standard electrical equipment operates."

It is no surprise that among those who question the strict validity of SRT, a very high number of them are EE's. This is because, SRT theorists, dogmatically and zealously, for propaganda and pedagogic reasons tend to cross the line of SRT's area of applicability (v tending to c), and try to generalize it to claim that it applies for all conditions as regards "standard electrical equipment" etc. And by such exaggerated claims these theorists only discredit and bring disrepute to SRT. We must remember, the theory has been named "Special Relativity" because it HOLDS STRICTLY TRUE ONLY for the condition v tending to c. And for this reason in French it is called the "Restricted theory of Relativity", i.e. the theory is of restricted validity to the condition v tending to c.

a) In all experiments conducted on earth on fast moving particles, beginning with Kaufman's experiments from which Lorentz elicited the empirical equation by iteration of data, the term u in the equation is earth's orbital velocity. So I would have been surprised if this term did not appear in electric motors as well under analogous conditions.

There is no dispute about George's statement if it is referring to a term involving earth's motion being involved in electric motors and generators. However, "involvement" does not mean it manifests clearly under all conditions. It will manifest clearly in strict conformity to the equation only in case of high electron velocities (theoretically). As the electron velocity drops progressively, the results will conform less and less to the equation. Even at moderate velocities, there will be a 'fuzzy term' involving u, if very accurate observations are made, but it will not strictly confirm the equation. At very low speeds at which ordinary electric motors run, this term will be almost imperceptible. This is what Eckard is confirming by his experience as an EE.

Here is why.

(Please open the attachment to refer to the diagram).

I have already discussed the physics of LT in my previous post. Now let us look at it from a logical view point.

If the LT equation holds strictly for the condition v/c tending to 1, then the equation that will hold for all velocities is

x' = (v/c)(c -u)t.gamma.

= gamma.vt - gamma.(ut.v/c)

If we take the term gamma.(ut.v/c) = ut sin(theta) (see the diagram attached). When v/c tends to 1, this term looms large approximates to ut. And it forms the area of applicability of SRT.

Where v/c tends to zero the term vanishes, then x' = gamma vt. This is the area of applicability of Newtonian mechanics. For all experiments conducted on earth gamma = 1.000000005. However in Newtonian measurements an accuracy of the order of 10-8 is not realized. Therefore, by rule of thumb, in practice the equation for displacement of x = vt has been accepted.

(See Attachment)

There is a vast area in between the two areas of applicability, where mixed results will be obtained.

By recognizing the equation x' = v/c(x -ut).gamma, it breaks down the areas of applicability and automatically unifies Newtonian mechanics and SRT.Attachment #1: 2_LT_in_electric_phenomena.doc

(Same story as before. The post on George Ellis' threadd has disappeared. So I am posting it here for the record)

Dear Eckard and George,

1. There is a connection between MMX and Maxwell as Eckard has pointed out. In 1878, one year before Maxwell died he suggested an experiment to detect that effects of the second order. It is this idea that Michelson took up and used for the experiment of 1882 onwards.

2. George wrote: "The way a moving charge generates a magnetic field follows directly from the standard Lorentz transformation matrix L^a_b applied to the electromagnetic field tensor Fab, see page 349-353 of Flat and Curved Spacetimes for an explicit derivation of this relation. This is a valid derivation of the theory underlying all use of electromagnets in electric motors and relays. My statement is correct".

a) Are you not confusing between

Lorentz transformation x' = gamma(x -ut) and

Lorentz Force FE = (q2v2) (Mu)0 /2(pi)r ?

b) Aren't electric motors and relays governed by Biot-Savart's law and not Lorentz force?

Best regards,

Viraj

Dear Viraj,

I understand that you are upset because George Ellis deleted your post. Let's see his reaction as an indication of lacking factual arguments. You are quite right; Neither those electrical engineers who are dealing for instance with motors bor those who are dealing with electromagnetic waves need Einstein's relativity.

Yes, George Ellis provided a very obvious example for unfounded belief-based propaganda. In case one cannot easily decide whether or not such statements are correct, emphatically exaggerated claims tend to be not trustworthy.

Let me quote Earl Bertrand R:: "The solution of the difficulties which formerly surrounded the ... is probably the greatest achievement of which our age has to boast." Does this sound serious to you?

George Ellis pointed me to vol. 2 of the famous Feynman lectures. He is right, Feynman was teaching electro-magnetics from his relativist point of view. When I read the text decades ago, I did not yet doubt that Einstein's relativity is correct and I admired Feynman's elegant while speculative rather than oriented on the needs of engineering style. So far I have only vol. 2 at hand. Feynman refers there to his intro in relativity in vol. 1.

More later, best regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

You believe that "the speed of a wave (no matter whether sound or light) is independent of the speed of its source, and there is no contraction of the real length..."

I tried to call your attention to the fact that the two statements are incompatible. Length contraction (initially introduced by FitzGerald and Lorentz) can easily be derived from the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. I referred you to David Morin's text (pp. 12-16) because his derivation is good and easy to understand.

Pentcho Valev

Dear Eckard,

Thanks. I am not really upset, but it shows what kind of a set up FQXi is.

I think, the elimination of my posts happen automatically at FQXi on Ellis' instructions. Anyway, even if it is othrwise, when someone 'reports a post as inappropriate' it is flagged for the administrator to check whether it really has inappropriate subject matter. If the administrator does not use his proper judgement or acts in a biased manner, then FQXi is running this competition for the benefit of a pre-selected few with a definite set of ideas.

Best regards,

Viraj

I meant light, Eckard, not sound. "Sound" just happened to be in the phrase I quoted from you - I would have deleted it if I had known your reaction.

What's my problem? Well... lots of problems... let's discuss them some other time.

Pentcho Valev

Dear Constantinos,

re. your response to Eckard, Number 4. is really interesting. Where is that empty space (that the observer can perceive filled with objects)? Is it external to the observer or an internal fabrication (from received sensory data input), produced together with the "information"/ "knowledge" that this exists externally? Which then begs the question if that which is seen is not the external reality, what is there instead? and how does the unobserved space and objects relate to the observed?

It seems to me that though the observer is also a part of the foundational external reality, the fabrication he makes from received data is both a part of it and separate. As the electrical and chemical activity of the brain is a part of the foundational reality but the perceived output is not. (for analogy :The paper and ink of a book are a part of the external reality but the fantasy realm fabricated from the words (or symbols) is not.) I mentioned Roger Penrose's (Twistor space) description of the light cone and Joy Christian's recent work in my essay as I think they might helpfully describe, or lead to helpful mathematical description of, the data transmission through the pre-space-time environment from source to detection, which is the link between the two facets of reality.

So if you mean space-time when you refer to "this physical space which defines existence in our Universe", then maybe the observer really is not contained within it (but contains it ). It is a very strange set structure. I don't know what you will make of that. I think it is interesting and thought perhaps you might too.

I regret not having yet responded with worthwhile, helpful feedback on your essay. If it was easy I'd have done it long ago.I still have good intentions.

Dear Eckard,

you wrote: "the past is the domain of reality". That is an opinion based upon a particular understanding of what reality is. You are I think referring to those things that have been measured or observed. Do things only become a reality upon observation?

I agree that -The- (unwritten) future is open to possibility. However knowing that perception comes after actualised events aren't those things now existing ahead of the output realisation or manifestation of them also in a more foundational way in a domain of reality, (ie. one that is ahead of the experienced present, not the past).

Amanda Gefter has written about each observer having their own observed universe.Something to which I have also alluded. In that context an object can be be observed as a reality more than once, as each observer will manifest the object from the data he/she /it has uniquely received.

While I probably don't fully understand the sign problem you are talking about, it does seem to me that whether there is a rotation to right or left does make a difference as it will alter the data that is received and so the output manifestation produced from it. Which could make an obvious difference for a non uniform source object. I am not saying this to be annoying or disrespectful but just to give another perspective- that may or may not be relevant to your argument.

By the way I would greatly appreciate your consideration of my essay as I respect your knowledge and very sensible consideration of matters.

Kind regards Georgina.

Hello Georgina,

We should be considerate of our host and move our discussion elsewhere away from his living room. He may wish to retire to his bedroom for the evening! Look for my response under my essay.

Dear Eckard you write,

"If observer 1 is in motion relative to observer 2 then I wonder how they both can be at rest relative to empty physical space"

They will both be at rest relative to the 'empty physical space' they occupy.

Dear Escard,

Thanks for the reference. I think that result of Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment by Feist prove again that observer can not with the help of internal two-way measurements of signal speed to find its velocity in space. If you take in account in the Feist experiment Lorentz contraction then the formula for signal speed gives dilation of time.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Eckard

I take your essay as querying taking the use of mathematical models of reality too far: and I agree with you on this. I also agree on your take on time, and on your comment "It is mistake to keep differential equations for primary. They are merely abstractions from the originally integrating relationships" Correct: and those integrating relationships involve boundary conditions or initial conditions whereby global relations constrain local physics - in concordance with my own essay.

I disagree on special relativity, as you know. I believe it's very well established. Any experiments of quality that disagree with it must of course be take seriously: they must be repeated by independent experimenters to check their validity. But you'll find it hard finding experimentalists willing to invest time, money and effort into that project: given all the other experiments that support SR, it is so unlikely it will prove anything interesting.

George

George