PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Benches > F6FLT (Moderator: F6FLT) > Electromagnetism and relativity
2024-11-26, 11:41:16
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: Electromagnetism and relativity  (Read 10902 times)
Topic Options img
img  F6FLT
Electromagnetism and relativity « on: 2022-10-21, 12:56:55 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
As already said recently, seeing electromagnetism through relativity allows to understand things much better. For those who still doubt these effects, a team has just demonstrated directly the contraction of the electric field of the electron when it moves at a speed close to c, confirming once again the relevance of relativity:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-022-01767-w.

"We observe the Coulomb field contraction in the propagation direction of the beam under the Lorentz transformation" says Prof. Makoto Nakajima, the project leader.

One could believe that these effects exist only at very high speeds. This is not true. Even at the very slow speed of electrons in a conductor, of the order of mm/s, the effects are enormous because they are cumulated over the hundreds of millions of billions of free electrons that a few grams of conductor contain. The magnetic field is one of them: a pure effect of relativity on the coulombic field.




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #1 on: 2022-10-21, 14:28:06 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
I do have one clarifying question.
In order to preserve Planck's Constant E=HV, does an observed redshift/blueshift represent a real gain/loss of energy when viewed from a given reference frame?

For example, galactic redshift observed on earth represents a slight loss of energy with regards to incoming waves coming from far away.
Alternatively, if a planet were sitting very close to a black hole, they would observe the rest of the universe as blue-shifted due to their own relativistic situation.

Is this a correct interpretation?


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #2 on: 2022-10-21, 15:22:21 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
@Hak

It is not constants, such as h, that Nature seeks to preserve, these constants being the result of observation but are not principles.
It is the conservation of energy that imposes the change of frequency.

When a body falls to earth, it loses potential energy and gains kinetic energy.
But when a photon falls to earth, it cannot gain kinetic energy since it cannot exceed c. The energy it gains increases its frequency ν (the blue shift you are talking about), and as E=h.ν, the energy is exactly conserved.

Note that the conservation of energy comes from the mathematical formalism, so the non-conservation, you will never get it from the equations.
The laws of physics are mathematics, and in the equations of these mathematics, the energy is conserved because it is what we have always observed.
So as long as there is no contrary observation, the known laws of physics will remain as they are, implying this conservation in the equations. If you could use the equations of physics against it, its mathematical coherence would be at fault, and this would have been seen for a long time. So the way to FE is only through anomalous observations, not through manipulation of the physics equations (which does not prevent using them to go beyond, or simply to check that an observation is not anomalous).


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Chet K
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #3 on: 2022-10-21, 17:12:51 »
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
Nice bench
This came Fedex today … not sure if it’s for you ?

http://www.rexresearch.com/moddelzpe/Moddelzpe.html

It’s ok to return it or ?( move or remove this )

Nice bench …. Is that your cat ?
Have a good day
Ps
Here’s the shipping label
https://overunity.com/19273/unlocking-zero-point-energy/msg571322/#new
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #4 on: 2022-10-21, 20:47:37 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Chet K on 2022-10-21, 17:12:51
Nice bench
This came Fedex today … not sure if it’s for you ?
...

No, it's not for me. Thank you for respecting the subject "Electromagnetism and relativity".


I take the opportunity to make this clarification for all visitors and contributors here:

I was forced to choose the bench solution to be able to produce serious information and experiments, and hopefully receive some as well, without being constantly disturbed by posts referring to the usual nonsense of free energy "reference" sites like rexresearch, to UFO stories, conspiracy theories, various off-topic, old FE setups that never worked, and various claims that are out of the slightest plausibility. Here we are looking to the future and the unknown, not to the past and its free energy mythology.

So everyone is welcome on this bench, provided they accept the academic science, use it and possibly go beyond it to produce free or cheap energy, not challenge it with alternative theories without indisputable facts being presented first.
I've had quite a few posts deleted in various threads whenever I challenged free energy claims for lack of evidence or incompatibility with what is known in physics, so I'll unabashedly use the same method here against fanciful contributions to defend my research method, the only one that has ever created progress : "standing on the shoulders of giants".




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #5 on: 2022-10-21, 21:25:02 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-10-21, 15:22:21
@Hak

It is not constants, such as h, that Nature seeks to preserve, these constants being the result of observation but are not principles.
It is the conservation of energy that imposes the change of frequency.

When a body falls to earth, it loses potential energy and gains kinetic energy.
But when a photon falls to earth, it cannot gain kinetic energy since it cannot exceed c. The energy it gains increases its frequency ν (the blue shift you are

talking about), and as E=h.ν, the energy is exactly conserved.

Quote
Note that the conservation of energy comes from the mathematical formalism, so the non-conservation, you will never get it from the equations.
The laws of physics are mathematics, and in the equations of these mathematics, the energy is conserved because it is what we have always observed.
So as long as there is no contrary observation, the known laws of physics will remain as they are, implying this conservation in the equations. If you could use

the equations of physics against it, its mathematical coherence would be at fault, and this would have been seen for a long time. So the way to FE is only through

anomalous observations, not through manipulation of the physics equations (which does not prevent using them to go beyond, or simply to check that an observation

is not anomalous).

Our views are much closer than you think. ;D ;D
The point I am making is that while energy is indeed conserved in the net scope, it can *appear* to be violated, with energy appearing to be being gained/lost depending on the reference frame it's viewed from.  Not because the energy is changing, but because the frame-of-reference is changing.


Let me pose a thought experiment and you can correct me at any point.  Note: this is no 'proof' of anything here, I just want to make sure we're on the same page conceptually.

We have 2 earth-like planets.  One like ours, in 'normal space', and the other very close to a black hole, in 'dense' space.  Lets assume for the thought-experiment that both have technology to beam energy via photons with no divergence at high efficiency over vast distance.


Planet A sends 10 joules of energy towards planet B.  On its way, it experiences relativistic lensing effects due to special relativity presented by the black hole.
Planet B receives the photons, but because their planet is in a different reference frame, they observe a different amount of energy received than what Planet A had sent.

From the POV of Planet A, the photons appear to lose energy, as they redshift by lets say a factor of 10.  From POV of Planet A, only 1 joule is received at the receiving station.

From the POV of Planet B, the photons appear to gain energy, as they blueshift by the same factor.  From POV of Planet B, 100 joules are received.

So the packet of energy does not change in any way, only the reference frame it is viewed from.   Conservation is still maintained despite the *apparent* break in symmetry.

Would you agree with this premise?


Stated differently, since E=HV is sacrosanct, then an observed redshift/blueshift would appear to be violating conservation when viewed from stationary reference frame, even though energy is not really being created/destroyed.

Would you find that to be an accurate statement?


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
img  3D Magnetics
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #6 on: 2022-10-21, 22:31:35 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 342
There is a movie called interstellar where this concept is used creatively and makes this concept  the center of its story.
Not an in depth analysis, but a good  movie about technology and its possible directions.

Opinions will always differ no matter how well schooled . Until we all know all about everything and each other.
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #7 on: 2022-10-22, 12:11:39 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022-10-21, 21:25:02
...
Would you agree with this premise?
...

I agree, unfortunately this is not a discovery, it is perfectly known: energy depends on the reference frame.

And it's not worth looking into astrophysics. There are considerably simpler situations.
If you are standing on the side of a road and a car weighing one ton passes by at v=100 km/h, the kinetic energy 1/2*m*v² that you see passing by is 0.5*1000*100,000/3600 joules. But if you are in the car, this energy relative to you is zero (because v=0).

Knowing this does not solve the problem, it only avoids errors of analysis and calculation that I have often noticed in the field of free energy, especially in mechanical devices with rotation and translation, namely adding energies calculated in different reference frames. This is what you can do by mixing different points of view of the energy because obtained from different reference frames, like planet A and planet B.

It's getting the energy in the frame of reference where you need it that's our concern, and if you do the energy analysis in the same frame of reference where you need it (or in any other but unique frame of reference), you find that the energy is well conserved.
So if you want to use the kinetic energy of the car relative to the ground, while staying in it, how will you do it?



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #8 on: 2022-10-22, 14:14:35 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-10-22, 12:11:39
I agree, unfortunately this is not a discovery, it is perfectly known: energy depends on the reference frame.

Quote
It's getting the energy in the frame of reference where you need it that's our concern, and if you do the energy analysis in the same frame of reference where you need it (or in any other but unique frame of reference), you find that the energy is well conserved.
So if you want to use the kinetic energy of the car relative to the ground, while staying in it, how will you do it?


I'm glad we're in agreement and still on the same page :)

Granted the black hole thought-experiment is a bit extreme, but I think it serves as a good abstraction for the concept.
I'm going to break down to simpler statements, and again feel free to correct me if you disagree with any of them.


* Energy depends on the reference frame.   (100% in agreement)

Adding two more corollaries to this:

* Energy apparently gained/lost via a reference frame shift is equivalent to energy produced/destroyed conventionally.
* A distant observer would not know if the energy actually increased/decreased, or if the reference frame changed.  E=HF.

Then to bring the concept back to the real world:

* A 'reference frame' is measured by determining the relative speed of light/signal traveling through that material (Lorentz contraction).
* That measurement can be quantified both optically and electrically as impedance.
Therefore, 
* 'reference frame' ==> impedance.
* 'index of refraction' ==> impedance.
* 'velocity of light' ==> impedance.
meaning:
* A change in apparent velocity of light is equivalent to a apparent change in energy (E=HV)
(note: 'apparent' change because we've already established absolute conservation is still maintained in the previous post)


When a laser enters a piece of glass (impedance boundary), its frequency and velocity are both shifted down.  When the beam leaves the glass (impedance boundary), the velocity and energy energy are shifted back up.

Viewed from an outside observer, we would conclude that energy is apparently destroyed when it enters the glass, and is apparently re-synthesized when it leaves the glass.  This is because energy depends on the reference frame.



Would you agree with the statements above as also being valid+consistent?


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #9 on: 2022-10-22, 14:40:42 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022-10-22, 14:14:35
...
* Energy depends on the reference frame.   (100% in agreement)

Adding two more corollaries to this:

* Energy apparently gained/lost via a reference frame shift is equivalent to energy produced/destroyed conventionally.
* A distant observer would not know if the energy actually increased/decreased, or if the reference frame changed.  E=HF.
...
Would you agree with the statements above as also being valid+consistent?

I don't. These are not corollaries.

What do you call "reference frame shift"?
The reference frame is the one attached to the observer who observes events, it is not a physical frame where a physical object would evolve. The same object is seen to evolve from all the frames of reference one can choose to observe it, it does not shift from one to the other.
Relativity allows us to know, by observing events from one frame of reference, how they will be seen from any other.

Therefore the second statement does not make sense. A reference frame only changes when one decides to look at what is happening with an observer placed elsewhere.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #10 on: 2022-10-22, 15:41:19 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-10-22, 14:40:42
What do you call "reference frame shift"?

When I mean 'reference frame shift', I mean the act of a signal traveling from one impedance condition to another.

In the case of the first post, a signal traveling between Planet A and B.

Quote
"From the POV of Planet A, the photons appear to lose energy, as they redshift by lets say a factor of 10.  From POV of Planet A, only 1 joule is received at the receiving station."
"From the POV of Planet B, the photons appear to gain energy, as they blueshift by the same factor.  From POV of Planet B, 100 joules are received."

Quote
"* Energy apparently gained/lost via a reference frame shift is equivalent to energy produced/destroyed conventionally."

Stated differently, the 100 joules of energy received by Planet B is equivalent and indistinguishable from 100 joules produced locally on the same planet.

That even though no energy was actually created, the apparent energy gained via length contraction is just as real and usable to the receiving station as if it were created ex-nihilo.

Conversely, when viewed from Planet A, the same amount of energy would appear to be lost/destroyed in the same process.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #11 on: 2022-10-22, 17:21:28 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022-10-22, 15:41:19
When I mean 'reference frame shift', I mean the act of a signal traveling from one impedance condition to another.

In the case of the first post, a signal traveling between Planet A and B.

You should now realize, following my previous post, that this has nothing to do with a shift of reference frame.
The motion you are talking about is a simple motion in space that can be analyzed from a frame of reference on planet A or on planet B, or any other, the moving object having no physical link with a frame of reference.

Quote
Stated differently, the 100 joules of energy received by Planet B is equivalent and indistinguishable from 100 joules produced locally on the same planet.

That even though no energy was actually created, the apparent energy gained via length contraction is just as real and usable to the receiving station as if it were created ex-nihilo.

Conversely, when viewed from Planet A, the same amount of energy would appear to be lost/destroyed in the same process.

No energy has been created by the process. You simply forgot to include the energy related to gravitation.  Conservation of energy is in a closed system. If you consider planets A and B, the conservation of energy is in the system that includes both of them. Otherwise, of course the energy is not conserved. When we receive photons from the sun, the energy is not conserved either on the sun or on the earth, only in the system of both.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #12 on: 2022-10-22, 18:45:32 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-10-22, 17:21:28
You should now realize, following my previous post, that this has nothing to do with a shift of reference frame.

You might use different terms, which is why I'm trying to take things slow, to make sure every component is clearly understood and agreed-upon.

Quote
No energy has been created by the process.

That's why I'm very careful to use the term 'apparently' created.
As stated in first post, we are both in agreement the same energy apparently gained in one region is equally lost somewhere else.  Conservation is still maintained.  E=HF.

IE: Planet B might conclude that energy was being created, as on-paper 10 joules was sent and 100 joules were received, when in reality they are just sitting in a different reference frame.



---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #13 on: 2022-10-25, 07:44:05 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022-10-22, 18:45:32
...
IE: Planet B might conclude that energy was being created, as on-paper 10 joules was sent and 100 joules were received, when in reality they are just sitting in a different reference frame.

This is why the proof of OU can only be provided by a looped process.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #14 on: 2022-10-26, 20:53:02 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Quote
This is why the proof of OU can only be provided by a looped process.

Indeed.  A symmetric system will always give a symmetric result.


I will reword the axioms:

* Energy depends on the reference frame.
* 'Reference frame' is a term can be measured and modeled mathematically.
* That measurement can be quantified both optically and electrically as 'impedance'.

Therefore,
* 'reference frame' ==> impedance.
* 'index of refraction' ==> impedance.
* 'velocity of light' ==> impedance.

In other words, all of these values are deconstructions of the same Lorentz length contraction and can all be computed using the same ratio.


To incorporate the above example:
Planet A sends photons from a region of space with an absolute free-space impedance of 376 ohms.
Due to its proximity to a black hole, Planet B receives the same photons within a region of space with a free-space impedance of 3760 ohms. (10-to-1 ratio from our POV).


The key takeaway is that 'reference frame' can be mathematically defined as the characteristic impedance of that region of space.

Are we in agreement on the principle? :)


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #15 on: 2022-10-27, 08:34:02 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
@Hak

I don't think you have a correct view of the notion of referential. I will try to express it differently.

In relativity, everything is defined with respect to an observer. If you see an electric field E, a magnetic field B, an object with speed V or a signal with frequency F..., it is only relative to you. Someone else, somewhere else, moving relative to you, will see something else.
E, B, V, F... represent nothing in the absolute, only in relation to you.

So the reference frame is only a x,y,z,t reference frame in the space-time at whose origin you are when you measure E, B, V or F.

Example. You see a charge q at speed V crossing a magnetic field B. From where you are, therefore from the reference frame attached to you, you will see a force exerted on the charge, the Lorentz force F = q * VxB.
But what does the charge see when it is the observer? The charge has another point of view. In relation to itself, its speed is obviously zero in its own frame of reference, so it cannot see the Lorentz force which is zero because v=0. Instead it will see an electric field E because of its displacement in relation to the source of the magnetic field, and it is this electric field that will deflect it by the electric force F = q * E.
That is to say that the Lorentz force seen from your reference frame, is the electric force seen by the charge, and to pass from one to the other we take E = VxB.

Relativity allows this kind of change of point of view: to pass from what is seen in a reference frame to what is seen in another, for all cases of observations. Thus B can be transformed into E and vice versa because it is the same physical reality, seen from different points of view.
Special relativity requires that the frame of reference be inertial, i.e. without acceleration or gravity, or these negligible.


edit: post already produced and now moved after the post to which it replies.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #16 on: 2022-10-28, 02:11:13 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
@F6

I agree with your synopsis on Lorentz Force, however my focus is not on the individual charge activity but more about quantifying the resulting EM effects as signals pass across boundaries.
I think the transmission line model using impedance as our factor gives us a more useful view, especially when modeling photons.   I understand relativistic length-contraction and optical refraction are not exactly congruent (for a few reasons).

The theme I am building towards conceptually/mathematically is parametric variation.


Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-10-27, 08:34:02
So the reference frame is only a x,y,z,t reference frame in the space-time at whose origin you are when you measure E, B, V or F.

F = q(E + V*B)
  F   =    force
  q   =    electric charge
  E   =    external electric field
  V   =    velocity
  B   =    magnetic field

I like that you brought up Lorentz Force, as I see an interesting note when we look at it from the POV of SR.
A relativistic effect can also be quantified as 'length contraction', and we can substitute the relative length contraction for velocity https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/length-contraction

If we then plug that into Lorentz force, we find that length contraction (velocity) occurs in the V*B portion of the equation, but NOT on the electric charge.  Suggests that relativistic length contraction as it relates to Electromagnetism may be more a magnetic property than an electric one.  IE: 1 Coulomb = 1 Coulomb regardless of what region of space-time it exists in.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #17 on: 2022-10-28, 10:28:09 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
A charge has no effect. Only its field produces effects, and its field is subject to length contraction. This is what causes the field of a charge seen in motion to expand transversely and contract longitudinally. It is this effect which is seen as the magnetic field in classical electromagnetism, when it is just the distorted Coulomb field.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #18 on: 2022-10-28, 13:41:13 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-10-28, 10:28:09
A charge has no effect. Only its field produces effects, and its field is subject to length contraction. This is what causes the field of a charge seen in motion to expand transversely and contract longitudinally. It is this effect which is seen as the magnetic field in classical electromagnetism, when it is just the distorted Coulomb field.

I'm cool with that. :)

Is impedance a good way to quantify the relativistic field effects as it relates to electromagnetic circuits?  Or is there perhaps something better?
Since the field affects both C and L, using impedance seems a natural choice to solve it.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #19 on: 2022-10-29, 10:46:36 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
I think that the most relevant physical values to use are firstly those that are invariant to a change of reference frame, and secondly those that can be measured directly.

For example, concerning relativistic invariance, the electric charge, a space-time interval, the product ε0.µ0 (since it is equal to 1/c²) are the same whatever the reference frame.

For example, concerning measurability, one can measure a voltage or a current. But to measure an impedance, you have to measure a current or a voltage first, since an impedance is defined by their ratio.
So I think impedance is less fundamental than potentials, fields or currents.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #20 on: 2022-10-29, 19:32:51 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-10-29, 10:46:36
For example, concerning measurability, one can measure a voltage or a current. But to measure an impedance, you have to measure a current or a voltage first, since an impedance is defined by their ratio.
So I think impedance is less fundamental than potentials, fields or currents.

I see the two as directly commensurate:

Impedance + velocity relations:
Z0 =       sqrt(μ0/ϵ0)                      (impedance of free space)
C  = 1 / sqrt(μ0ϵ0)                 (speed of light in free space)

    μ0 = 4𝝅 x 10-7 Henries/meter      (vacuum permeability)
    ϵ0 = 8.85 x 10-12 Farads/meter     (vacuum permittivity)

Note both relations employ μ0ϵ0, which are both quantified in per-meter  (value over distance)


Relativistic relations:
T = T0 / sqrt(1 – V2 / C2)        (Time Dilation)
L = L0 * sqrt(1 – V2 / C2)       (Length Contraction)

       T = Time ,   T0 = Observed Time
       L = Length ,    L0 = Observed Length
       V = velocity (meters/second)
       C = velocity of light (meters/second)


Permeability is measured as Henries per meter
Permittivity is measured as Farads per meter
So IMO applying relativistic length contraction makes an intuitive solution for electromagnetism.  When we solve for measured velocity of light (redshift/blueshift), we automatically solve for characteristic impedance as well (first two formulas). :)

Gotta appreciate Lorentz for finding relations that work all the way from subatomic to intergalactic. ;D

« Last Edit: 2022-10-29, 23:07:24 by Hakasays »


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
img  Smudge
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #21 on: 2022-10-29, 20:06:54 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022-10-29, 19:32:51
I see the two as directly commensurate:

Impedance + velocity relations:
Z0 =       sqrt(μ0ϵ0)                      (impedance of free space)
Wrong!  It is sqrt(μ0/ϵ0)

Smudge
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #22 on: 2022-10-29, 23:08:07 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Quote from: Smudge on 2022-10-29, 20:06:54
Wrong!  It is sqrt(μ0/ϵ0)

Smudge

Whoops, good eye.  Fixed ;)


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
img  Grumpy
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #23 on: 2022-10-30, 02:16:10 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
I fail to see how something mediated by photons can ever exceed their maximum velocity...
   
img  Hakasays
Re: Electromagnetism and relativity « Reply #24 on: 2022-10-30, 14:36:53 »

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Quote from: Grumpy on 2022-10-30, 02:16:10
I fail to see how something mediated by photons can ever exceed their maximum velocity...

If velocity is distance/time and length/time dilation exists in certain parts of the universe, then photons would *appear* to exceed their maximum velocity when viewed from the right reference frame (eg: near a black hole).
As we see an object decelerate and appear to nearly stop as it approaches a singularity, from the object's POV the entire universe would appear to blue-shift and accelerate superluminally as the equal inverse of our observation.

But I completely agree, as long as the impedance of a region of space remains equal and constant, their observed 'C' will also remain static and constant.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 11:41:16