## Saturday, November 20, 2010

### 1.5 Corresponding States

1.5 Corresponding States

In 1889 Oliver Heaviside deduced from Maxwell’s equations that the electric and magnetic fields on a spherical surface of radius r surrounding a uniformly moving electric charge e are radial and circumferential respectively.

-Notice that the stationary frame of reference is the absolute lab frame, though not stated explicitly. V is definitely the speed in the Earth’s lab frame.

Heaviside’s formulas imply that the surfaces of constant potential are ellipsoids, shortened in the direction of motion by the factor (1-v^2)^.5.

-For motion in the lab frame. against an static aether. This would be modified to include any aether motion.

From the modern perspective the contraction of characteristic lengths in the direction of motion is an immediate corollary of the fact that .....

- that there’s a relative aether flow.

....already in 1889 it seems that Heaviside’s findings had prompted an interesting speculation as to the deformation of stable material objects in uniform motion..

- against the aether.

...the variations in the electromagnetic field implied by Maxwell’s equations actually result in a proportional contraction of matter - at least if we assume the forces responsible for the stability of matter are affected by motion in the same way as the forces of electromagnetism.

- Both DeBroglie and Sagnac matter-wave experiments show the equivalence of EM photons and matter waves. We postulate that all matter is composed of EM aether in bound states.

Lorentz showed that the description of the equilibrium configuration of a uniformly moving material object in terms of its 'local coordinates' is identical to the description of the same object at absolute rest in terms of the ether rest frame coordinates. He called this the theorem of corresponding states.

- Lorentz missed the final step - the description of the same object at absolute rest in terms of the lab frame coordinates.

...consider a small bound spherical configuration of matter at rest in the ether. We assume the forces responsible for maintaining the spherical structure of this particle are affected by uniform motion through the ether in exactly the same way as are electromagnetic forces, which is to say, they are ...

- .affected/dragged/entrained by aether flow.

These forces may propagate at any speed (at or below the speed of light),

- But the aether’s speed is unlimited, theoretically and experimentally.

...we unavoidably arrive at Fitzgerald's length contraction and Lorentz's local time dilation for objects in motion with respect to the x,y,t coordinates, provided only that all characteristic spatial and temporal intervals associated with physical entities are maintained for forces that are Lorentz covariant.

- And we ignore the possibility of a flexible/dynamic aether and an frame preferred for measuring motion… the lab or ECEF frame. Length contraction occurs in the absolute lab frame, for motion against the aether.

Time dilation is just a local Doppler shift for wave sources in the lab frame. Local clocks based on this effect are not reliable => an absolute universal time keeper is needed - the heavenly motions.

...we have so far omitted consideration of one very important force, namely, the force of inertia.

- This has been pointed out repeatedly - aether is the source of the inertia phenomenon.

...in order to arrive at a fully coherent theorem of corresponding states, we must assume that inertia itself is ....

- ..determined by relative aether flow.

....we must assume the inertial mass (resistance to acceleration) of every particle is ...

-...determined by relative aether flow.

Now, it was known that some portion of a charged object’s resistance to acceleration is due to self-induction, because a moving charge constitutes an electric current, which produces a magnetic field, which resists changes in the current. Not surprisingly, this resistance to acceleration is .....

- caused by relative motion to aether.

..the linearity of Maxwell’s equations implies that they cannot possibly yield stable bound configurations of charge.

- The models of Bergman (CSS) and Kanarev are bound configurations of charge and EM fields.

When a block of matter is moving through the ether of space its cohesive forces across the line of motion are diminished, and consequently in that direction it expands.

- The Heaviside analysis seems correct.. a quantitative support to the contraction of EM fields against direct aether motion and expansion in the transverse direction.

....the very same analysis that implies length contraction for objects moving relative to the ether rest frame coordinates also implies the same contraction for objects moving relative to the new local coordinates.

- No such implication. The variation in EM fields is only due to motion relative to the aether.

...the clock is contracted in the longitudinal direction relative to the ground's coordinates by the same factor that objects on the ground are contracted in terms of the moving coordinates.

- There is no clock contraction due to motion - time is absolute.

...we have isotropic clocks with respect to the local (i.e., inertial) coordinates of any uniformly moving frame,

- Local Doppler clocks are not isotropic; there is a longitudinal and transverse Doppler shift.

The writings of Lorentz and Poincare by 1905 can be assembled into a theory of relativity that is operationally equivalent to the modern theory of special relativity, although lacking the conceptual clarity and coherence of the modern theory.

- Neither physicist claimed that c was a universal constant, as does SR.

...toward the end of the 19th century it appeared electromagnetism was not relativistic, because the property of being relativistic was equated with being invariant under Galilean transformations, and it was known that Maxwell’s equations (unlike Newton’s laws of mechanics) do not possess this invariance.

- There is no need for Maxwell’s equations to be invariant under Galilean transformations. They need only be expressed in the absolute lab frame, the usual presentation.

...it still appeared that mechanics (presumed to be Galilean covariant) and electrodynamics were not mutually relativistic, which meant it ought to be possible to discern second-order effects of absolute motion by exploiting the difference between the Galilean covariant of mechanics and Lorentz covariance of electromagnetism.

- The consistency of the absolute lab and dynamic aether medium for both mechanics and EM - Newton and Maxwell - was demonstrated by the Sagnac and mass experiments.

Hence the only possible conclusion is that either the known laws of electromagnetism or the known laws of mechanics must be subtly wrong. Either the correct laws of electromagnetism must really be Galilean covariant, or else the correct laws of inertial mechanics must really be Lorentz covariant.

- Both physics branches are unified in the ALFA model of an absolute lab frame and flexible aether.

...as Poincare observed, it is not possible (and doesn’t even make sense) for the intrinsic mass of elementary particles to be electromagnetic in origin.

- There is nothing to forbid elementary particles as bound states of aether.

...there is no reason to suppose that anything analogous to self-induction of the unknown molecular forces is ultimately responsible for inertia...

- as long as we ignore Sagnac X and similar aether experiments.

...Lorentz overlooked that fact that the Lorentz covariance of mechanical inertia cannot be deduced from the equations of electromagnetism. He simply postulated it, no less than Einstein did.

- We postulate aether as the source of inertia.

....Lorentz and Poincare both continued to espouse the merits of the absolute interpretation of relativity

- Their error was taking the aether to be fixed as the absolute frame for measuring motion.

There are today scientists and philosophers who argue in favor of what they see as Lorentz’s constructive approach, especially as a way of explaining the appearance of relativity, rather than merely accepting relativity in the same way we accept (for example) the principle of energy conservation.

- Energy conservation is verified by experiments; relativity is internally inconsistent, so its use can explain any experiment as both true and false.

..is there any merit in the idea that the absolutist approach effectively explains the appearance of relativity?

-Yes, the ALFA model.

http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/

...we are presented with many relativities in nature, such as the relativity of spatial orientation.

- Also present are the personal interpretations of applied relativity, which allows such ‘relativities’ to be modified post-hoc to agree with specific tests. One must choose a flavor of relativity to explain an experimental result, since some flavors will explain the opposite.

In 1889 Oliver Heaviside deduced from Maxwell’s equations that the electric and magnetic fields on a spherical surface of radius r surrounding a uniformly moving electric charge e are radial and circumferential respectively.

-Notice that the stationary frame of reference is the absolute lab frame, though not stated explicitly. V is definitely the speed in the Earth’s lab frame.

Heaviside’s formulas imply that the surfaces of constant potential are ellipsoids, shortened in the direction of motion by the factor (1-v^2)^.5.

-For motion in the lab frame. against an static aether. This would be modified to include any aether motion.

From the modern perspective the contraction of characteristic lengths in the direction of motion is an immediate corollary of the fact that .....

- that there’s a relative aether flow.

....already in 1889 it seems that Heaviside’s findings had prompted an interesting speculation as to the deformation of stable material objects in uniform motion..

- against the aether.

...the variations in the electromagnetic field implied by Maxwell’s equations actually result in a proportional contraction of matter - at least if we assume the forces responsible for the stability of matter are affected by motion in the same way as the forces of electromagnetism.

- Both DeBroglie and Sagnac matter-wave experiments show the equivalence of EM photons and matter waves. We postulate that all matter is composed of EM aether in bound states.

Lorentz showed that the description of the equilibrium configuration of a uniformly moving material object in terms of its 'local coordinates' is identical to the description of the same object at absolute rest in terms of the ether rest frame coordinates. He called this the theorem of corresponding states.

- Lorentz missed the final step - the description of the same object at absolute rest in terms of the lab frame coordinates.

...consider a small bound spherical configuration of matter at rest in the ether. We assume the forces responsible for maintaining the spherical structure of this particle are affected by uniform motion through the ether in exactly the same way as are electromagnetic forces, which is to say, they are ...

- .affected/dragged/entrained by aether flow.

These forces may propagate at any speed (at or below the speed of light),

- But the aether’s speed is unlimited, theoretically and experimentally.

...we unavoidably arrive at Fitzgerald's length contraction and Lorentz's local time dilation for objects in motion with respect to the x,y,t coordinates, provided only that all characteristic spatial and temporal intervals associated with physical entities are maintained for forces that are Lorentz covariant.

- And we ignore the possibility of a flexible/dynamic aether and an frame preferred for measuring motion… the lab or ECEF frame. Length contraction occurs in the absolute lab frame, for motion against the aether.

Time dilation is just a local Doppler shift for wave sources in the lab frame. Local clocks based on this effect are not reliable => an absolute universal time keeper is needed - the heavenly motions.

...we have so far omitted consideration of one very important force, namely, the force of inertia.

- This has been pointed out repeatedly - aether is the source of the inertia phenomenon.

...in order to arrive at a fully coherent theorem of corresponding states, we must assume that inertia itself is ....

- ..determined by relative aether flow.

....we must assume the inertial mass (resistance to acceleration) of every particle is ...

-...determined by relative aether flow.

Now, it was known that some portion of a charged object’s resistance to acceleration is due to self-induction, because a moving charge constitutes an electric current, which produces a magnetic field, which resists changes in the current. Not surprisingly, this resistance to acceleration is .....

- caused by relative motion to aether.

..the linearity of Maxwell’s equations implies that they cannot possibly yield stable bound configurations of charge.

- The models of Bergman (CSS) and Kanarev are bound configurations of charge and EM fields.

When a block of matter is moving through the ether of space its cohesive forces across the line of motion are diminished, and consequently in that direction it expands.

- The Heaviside analysis seems correct.. a quantitative support to the contraction of EM fields against direct aether motion and expansion in the transverse direction.

....the very same analysis that implies length contraction for objects moving relative to the ether rest frame coordinates also implies the same contraction for objects moving relative to the new local coordinates.

- No such implication. The variation in EM fields is only due to motion relative to the aether.

...the clock is contracted in the longitudinal direction relative to the ground's coordinates by the same factor that objects on the ground are contracted in terms of the moving coordinates.

- There is no clock contraction due to motion - time is absolute.

...we have isotropic clocks with respect to the local (i.e., inertial) coordinates of any uniformly moving frame,

- Local Doppler clocks are not isotropic; there is a longitudinal and transverse Doppler shift.

The writings of Lorentz and Poincare by 1905 can be assembled into a theory of relativity that is operationally equivalent to the modern theory of special relativity, although lacking the conceptual clarity and coherence of the modern theory.

- Neither physicist claimed that c was a universal constant, as does SR.

...toward the end of the 19th century it appeared electromagnetism was not relativistic, because the property of being relativistic was equated with being invariant under Galilean transformations, and it was known that Maxwell’s equations (unlike Newton’s laws of mechanics) do not possess this invariance.

- There is no need for Maxwell’s equations to be invariant under Galilean transformations. They need only be expressed in the absolute lab frame, the usual presentation.

...it still appeared that mechanics (presumed to be Galilean covariant) and electrodynamics were not mutually relativistic, which meant it ought to be possible to discern second-order effects of absolute motion by exploiting the difference between the Galilean covariant of mechanics and Lorentz covariance of electromagnetism.

- The consistency of the absolute lab and dynamic aether medium for both mechanics and EM - Newton and Maxwell - was demonstrated by the Sagnac and mass experiments.

Hence the only possible conclusion is that either the known laws of electromagnetism or the known laws of mechanics must be subtly wrong. Either the correct laws of electromagnetism must really be Galilean covariant, or else the correct laws of inertial mechanics must really be Lorentz covariant.

- Both physics branches are unified in the ALFA model of an absolute lab frame and flexible aether.

...as Poincare observed, it is not possible (and doesn’t even make sense) for the intrinsic mass of elementary particles to be electromagnetic in origin.

- There is nothing to forbid elementary particles as bound states of aether.

...there is no reason to suppose that anything analogous to self-induction of the unknown molecular forces is ultimately responsible for inertia...

- as long as we ignore Sagnac X and similar aether experiments.

...Lorentz overlooked that fact that the Lorentz covariance of mechanical inertia cannot be deduced from the equations of electromagnetism. He simply postulated it, no less than Einstein did.

- We postulate aether as the source of inertia.

....Lorentz and Poincare both continued to espouse the merits of the absolute interpretation of relativity

- Their error was taking the aether to be fixed as the absolute frame for measuring motion.

There are today scientists and philosophers who argue in favor of what they see as Lorentz’s constructive approach, especially as a way of explaining the appearance of relativity, rather than merely accepting relativity in the same way we accept (for example) the principle of energy conservation.

- Energy conservation is verified by experiments; relativity is internally inconsistent, so its use can explain any experiment as both true and false.

..is there any merit in the idea that the absolutist approach effectively explains the appearance of relativity?

-Yes, the ALFA model.

http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/

...we are presented with many relativities in nature, such as the relativity of spatial orientation.

- Also present are the personal interpretations of applied relativity, which allows such ‘relativities’ to be modified post-hoc to agree with specific tests. One must choose a flavor of relativity to explain an experimental result, since some flavors will explain the opposite.

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## 0 comments:

## Post a Comment