[Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Hello vortexians, Before I begin, I want to thank all of you. I have been lurking here for years. I have seen the trolls come and go. They amuse for a while, then they get old. But those of you who are of a true vortexian spirit always find new and exciting food for the mind to try out. I don't have the math or science background that you have, and yes, I am jealous. But obviously I do have the interest or I would have gone away a long time ago. I don't post much, guess I'm afraid I'll get shot down - and I know I wouldn't have had the time to follow and respond to my own threads - and that would suck for all of us. But circumstances change and I suddenly find I have much more time than I would like. I've grown a little older and am not so scared to raise my hand in class. So agian, thank you for sharing and thank you for putting up with my incessant lurking :) And if I go astray, please let me know, I have gained a deep respect for all of you. I will not be offended. I have a simple thought experiment I would like your comments on. We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it at relativistic velosities, such that the inside of the torroid would be rotating at near the speed of light. The outside of the field would extand outwards and would have an agular velocity that would be greater, proportional to the increase in circumference. First, is that correct? Clearly nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but as we increase the speed of the rotation, the energy must go somewhere, yes? Would this cause the mass of the field to change? In other words, would it bend space-time inside the field? And could the curvature be negative or positive depending on the direction of rotation relative to the N/S pole? Would time run at a different rate inside the field versus outside the field? If we were to place a radioactive isotope inside the field, could we cause it to decay faster or slower? I'll be anxiously awaiting your insights, C. Michael Crosiar
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
I'm more a lurker here too, but would you mind clarifying the geometry of your question? Anyway at a simplistic level I think the fields would tend to become disconnected, they could be thrown off as radiation as fields disconnect from the near field. But if you are talking about a geometry such as that of the N-machine AKA Homopolar generator then the question would be "how do we know the field is even rotating?" It is also worth noting that special relativity is wrong but that's another subject... On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Michael Crosiar wrote: > Hello vortexians, > > Before I begin, I want to thank all of you. I have been lurking here for > years. I have seen the trolls come and go. They amuse for a while, then they > get old. But those of you who are of a true vortexian spirit always find new > and exciting food for the mind to try out. I don't have the math or science > background that you have, and yes, I am jealous. But obviously I do have the > interest or I would have gone away a long time ago. I don't post much, guess > I'm afraid I'll get shot down - and I know I wouldn't have had the time to > follow and respond to my own threads - and that would suck for all of us. > But circumstances change and I suddenly find I have much more time than I > would like. I've grown a little older and am not so scared to raise my hand > in class. So agian, thank you for sharing and thank you for putting up with > my incessant lurking :) > > And if I go astray, please let me know, I have gained a deep respect for > all of you. I will not be offended. > > I have a simple thought experiment I would like your comments on. > > We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it at relativistic > velosities, such that the inside of the torroid would be rotating at near > the speed of light. The outside of the field would extand outwards and would > have an agular velocity that would be greater, proportional to the increase > in circumference. First, is that correct? Clearly nothing can go faster than > the speed of light, but as we increase the speed of the rotation, the energy > must go somewhere, yes? Would this cause the mass of the field to change? In > other words, would it bend space-time inside the field? And could the > curvature be negative or positive depending on the direction of rotation > relative to the N/S pole? Would time run at a different rate inside the > field versus outside the field? If we were to place a radioactive isotope > inside the field, could we cause it to decay faster or slower? > > I'll be anxiously awaiting your insights, > > C. Michael Crosiar > >
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Hello John, Glad I brought out a fellow lurker! >I'm more a lurker here too, but would you mind clarifying the geometry of your >question? For the purposes of the thought experiment, just think of a free floating toriodal magnetic field - don't worry yet about what is generating it - but we can talk about that too if you want. The angular velocity would be measured by an outside observer. I do realize here the issues with the frame of reference. Rotating objects and fields do present a special problem when considering this... >Anyway at a simplistic level I think the fields would tend to become >disconnected, they could be thrown off as radiation as fields disconnect from >the near field. Yes, I have thought of that. Perhaps others could comment, but I see no reason this should be true. My understanding is as long as the field is not expanding or collapsing it should not radiate EM, but I could be wrong. I believe what we are talking about is a standing, or scalar wave. My thoughts are that a magnetic line of force is torsional in nature, that is to say it is a twisting of space. This is along the line of the Cartan-Evans theory. As such, as the lines of force rotate they would "pull" on space-time or stretch it, either pulling it to the center of the field or pushing it outward. In relativistic terms, it is like trying to accelerate an object to the speed of light. The closer you get to the limit, the more energy it takes to accelerate it further. Why should the "mass" of a magnetic field be any different? Just as the object accelerated to reletivistic speed experiences time dilation, why wouldn't the magnetic field? So as we try and accelerate the field, it would keep taking more and more energy to accelerate the field any further. This would be because the energy being expended is being used to curve space/dilate time. The more the space becomes curved, the harder it becomes to accelerate the field. That is my conclusion at least... >But if you are talking about a geometry such as that of the N-machine AKA >Homopolar generator then the question would be "how do we know the field is >even rotating?" I should have added in my descriptions - relative to an outside observer - but I do understand your point. I have actually thought about this in detail, but I think I would have to develop this further before giving you my full explaination for that one. But, I will try anyway. All of matter is made up of relativistic EM fields already. So any attempt to move a mass will resist - push back. We call that interial mass. So rotating any object will cause some time dilation - although I call it a change in delta-t, a change in the rate that time goes forward. Without getting into to many details, this should always induce an E-field that can create a current even if the conductor is not moving relative to the rotating mass. So in the case of a homeopolar generator I dont think it is necessary for the conductor to be crossing field lines to induce a current - the current is generated by the curvature of space-time itself. If you are familiar with the work of Bruce De Palma, you should also consider his experiments with dropping spinning balls. The results of his experiments are hard to explain withoutgoing beyond special relativity... >It is also worth noting that special relativity is wrong but that's another >subject... Yes, but how is it wrong? That is the important question. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Michael Crosiar wrote: Hello vortexians, Before I begin, I want to thank all of you. I have been lurking here for years. I have seen the trolls come and go. They amuse for a while, then they get old. But those of you who are of a true vortexian spirit always find new and exciting food for the mind to try out. I don't have the math or science background that you have, and yes, I am jealous. But obviously I do have the interest or I would have gone away a long time ago. I don't post much, guess I'm afraid I'll get shot down - and I know I wouldn't have had the time to follow and respond to my own threads - and that would suck for all of us. But circumstances change and I suddenly find I have much more time than I would like. I've grown a little older and am not so scared to raise my hand in class. So agian, thank you for sharing and thank you for putting up with my incessant lurking :) And if I go astray, please let me know, I have gained a deep respect for all of you. I will not be offended. I have a simple thought experiment I would like your comments on. We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it at relativistic velosities, such that the inside of the torroid would be rotating at near the speed of light. The outside of the field would extand outwards and would have an agular velocity that would be greater, proportional to the increase in circumference. First, is that correct? Clearly nothing can go faster than the speed of
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to accept it as accurate) if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but c from their perspective. now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at the same time, which is where my mind rebels. (If i have this incorrect, someone PLEASE correct me, as it hurts my head...) On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Michael Crosiar wrote: > Hello vortexians, > > Before I begin, I want to thank all of you. I have been lurking here for > years. I have seen the trolls come and go. They amuse for a while, then they > get old. But those of you who are of a true vortexian spirit always find new > and exciting food for the mind to try out. I don't have the math or science > background that you have, and yes, I am jealous. But obviously I do have the > interest or I would have gone away a long time ago. I don't post much, guess > I'm afraid I'll get shot down - and I know I wouldn't have had the time to > follow and respond to my own threads - and that would suck for all of us. > But circumstances change and I suddenly find I have much more time than I > would like. I've grown a little older and am not so scared to raise my hand > in class. So agian, thank you for sharing and thank you for putting up with > my incessant lurking :) > > And if I go astray, please let me know, I have gained a deep respect for all > of you. I will not be offended. > > I have a simple thought experiment I would like your comments on. > > We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it at relativistic > velosities, such that the inside of the torroid would be rotating at near > the speed of light. The outside of the field would extand outwards and would > have an agular velocity that would be greater, proportional to the increase > in circumference. First, is that correct? Clearly nothing can go faster than > the speed of light, but as we increase the speed of the rotation, the energy > must go somewhere, yes? Would this cause the mass of the field to change? In > other words, would it bend space-time inside the field? And could the > curvature be negative or positive depending on the direction of rotation > relative to the N/S pole? Would time run at a different rate inside the > field versus outside the field? If we were to place a radioactive isotope > inside the field, could we cause it to decay faster or slower? > > I'll be anxiously awaiting your insights, > > C. Michael Crosiar > >
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
OK here goes. Response below is to Michael's original message and to Leaking's response. The reasponse to Leaking is lengthy; the response to Michael comes 'way down at the end, after it. leaking pen wrote: > Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, A magnetic field is a magnetic field, ça c'est tout. EM radiation is a wave in the field. As such they're different. Sound waves are not air, even though they travel in air. > think of it like > the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY > thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind > against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to > accept it as accurate) > > if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the > light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if > you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're > passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not > at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but > c from their perspective. > > now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at > the same time, which is where my mind rebels. No, on two counts. First, you've left out Fitzgerald contraction; the traveler on the spaceship sees the space station as being squished along the line of travel. The observers on the space station, OTOH, see the traveler's spaceship as being squished along the line of travel. (Symmetric, of course.) So, distance measures in the two frames of reference are wildly confused to start with, and trying to ask when something reaches some *distance* is going to result in confusion. Ask, rather, when it reaches a particular *point*. When we talk about a particular point in space and time, we call it an "event". So, instead of asking about distance, let's drop a space beacon into the picture, and say the light hits the beacon, and let's ask about when and where that happens, rather than asking about how far the light has gone. Second, you've assumed "at the same time" means something, but when you're discussing two different frames of reference moving at relativistic speeds, it does *not*. The problem is not just time dilation, it's clock skew, and failure to ... er ... "grok" clock skew is the single biggest problem people run into in this area. The example as you wrote it is, of course, very fuzzy; it will take a lot more words to make it precise. To make it into something you can test (in a gedanken sense) we need to sharpen up the details. We've already started to do that by adding a beacon; we'll continue with the necessary sharpening now. You seem to have said the headlights are turned on at the moment when the ship passes the station. OK, let's take that as the origin, in both reference frames: The lights go on at time 0, at which time the ship is at location 0, and the station is at location 0, in both frames. You didn't specify a direction, but let's say that, as seen from the space station, the ship is moving along the X axis in the "+" direction, and the headlights, of course, are also shining along the X axis. So, we can reduce the problem to 1 spacial dimension and 1 time dimension. We need to name our coordinates: x = spacial location in the space station frame t = time in the space station frame x' = spacial location in the spaceship frame t' = spacial location in the spaceship frame Note that the space station is located at x=0 in its own frame of reference, and the space ship is located at x'=0 in the ship's own frame of reference, and those coordinates don't change (you're always stationary relative to yourself!). And of course if we set v=0.9, then the spaceship is moving at velocity +v=0.9, as seen from the station, and the station is moving at velocity -v=-0.9, as seen from the ship. In the ship's frame, the leading wave front of the light moves along the X axis at C. At some moment it strikes the beacon we dropped into the picture. Let's assume there is an observer named "O'" in the spaceship's frame -- which means, O' is an observer who is traveling in tandem with the spaceship, who is *stationary* relative to the spaceship, and who has a clock which is synchronized to the spaceship's clock, as can be confirmed by use of telescopes by O' and by the folks on the ship. Assume O' is at (fixed) distance X1' from the ship. Let's also assume that O' happens to be next to the beacon (passing by) when the light arrives. We use the reading on the clock of O' to determine what time the beam hits the beacon in the ship's frame. Call that time T1'. At that moment, the beacon is observed by O' to be distance X1' from the ship. Similarly, there is an observer named "O" in the station's frame; "O" is stationary relative to the space station, is at fixed distance "X1" from the station, and has a clock which is synched to the space station clock. And "O" also just happens to be passing the spac
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Hi Leaking Pen, I have to admit I cheated and looked ahead to Stephens reply. His reply is far better than I could ever give. I will reply anyway as maybe I will get corrected and learn something new... >Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to accept it as accurate) I don't believe that a magnetic field is itself em radiation. By expanding or collapsing the magnetic field we can induce EM radiation. I see the magnetic field as a result of the geometry of space-time itself and that is what I'm trying to explore. >if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but c from their perspective. >now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at the same time, which is where my mind rebels. >(If i have this incorrect, someone PLEASE correct me, as it hurts my head...) The basic problem I see here is not recognizing the differing frames of reference. On the spaceship space and time have been contracted, time is not moving forward at the same rate as for the person on the spacestation. Also you are trying to measure distance, but the yard sticks you are using are not the same length. Further, if you are going to measure how long something takes to happen, an event, you also need a measure of time, which is also different in each frame of reference. So you are not using the same yard stick or the same clock, so it is hard to make comparisons about distance or how long something takes to happen, or at what time an event has happened from each of the different frames of reference. The question I have is, is the lorentz contraction purely a mathmatical construct, or has the movement of the spaceship at .9c actually modified the space-time it occupies in such manner that the measurements have been changed? Can an outside observer on the spacestation determine by any means that space-time of the spaceship has been contracted? For example, if we observed a star that the spacecraft was passing in front of, would we experiance a brief refraction of the light from the star as the spacecraft passed in front of it? C. Michael Crosiar
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
I think the fault lay in my not realizing that time dillation would have an effect on the observed velocity of light. Very stupid of me not to think, and then, i wouldn't have assumed that the time dillation perfectly slides with that difference in velocity. thanks though! On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Michael Crosiar wrote: > Hi Leaking Pen, > > I have to admit I cheated and looked ahead to Stephens reply. His reply is > far better than I could ever give. I will reply anyway as maybe I will get > corrected and learn something new... > >>Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like > the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY > thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind > against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to > accept it as accurate) > > I don't believe that a magnetic field is itself em radiation. By expanding > or collapsing the magnetic field we can induce EM radiation. I see the > magnetic field as a result of the geometry of space-time itself and that is > what I'm trying to explore. > >>if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the > light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if > you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're > passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not > at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but > c from their perspective. > >>now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at > the same time, which is where my mind rebels. > >>(If i have this incorrect, someone PLEASE correct me, as it hurts my >> head...) > > The basic problem I see here is not recognizing the differing frames of > reference. On the spaceship space and time have been contracted, time is not > moving forward at the same rate as for the person on the spacestation. Also > you are trying to measure distance, but the yard sticks you are using are > not the same length. Further, if you are going to measure how long something > takes to happen, an event, you also need a measure of time, which is also > different in each frame of reference. So you are not using the same yard > stick or the same clock, so it is hard to make comparisons about distance or > how long something takes to happen, or at what time an event has happened > from each of the different frames of reference. > > The question I have is, is the lorentz contraction purely a mathmatical > construct, or has the movement of the spaceship at .9c actually modified the > space-time it occupies in such manner that the measurements have been > changed? Can an outside observer on the spacestation determine by any means > that space-time of the spaceship has been contracted? For example, if we > observed a star that the spacecraft was passing in front of, would we > experiance a brief refraction of the light from the star as the spacecraft > passed in front of it? > > C. Michael Crosiar > >
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
>I think the fault lay in my not realizing that time dillation would >have an effect on the observed velocity of light. Very stupid of me >not to think, and then, i wouldn't have assumed that the time >dillation perfectly slides with that difference in velocity. hmmm I still don't think that is right - all observers will see the velocity of the speed of light as the same - C. It is the only constant here. Time dilation does not affect the observed velocity of light, but it does affect your observed time and distance between frames of reference. Stephen, do I understand this correctly? M. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Michael Crosiar wrote: > Hi Leaking Pen, > > I have to admit I cheated and looked ahead to Stephens reply. His reply is > far better than I could ever give. I will reply anyway as maybe I will get > corrected and learn something new... > >>Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like > the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY > thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind > against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to > accept it as accurate) > > I don't believe that a magnetic field is itself em radiation. By expanding > or collapsing the magnetic field we can induce EM radiation. I see the > magnetic field as a result of the geometry of space-time itself and that is > what I'm trying to explore. > >>if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the > light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if > you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're > passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not > at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but > c from their perspective. > >>now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at > the same time, which is where my mind rebels. > >>(If i have this incorrect, someone PLEASE correct me, as it hurts my >> head...) > > The basic problem I see here is not recognizing the differing frames of > reference. On the spaceship space and time have been contracted, time is not > moving forward at the same rate as for the person on the spacestation. Also > you are trying to measure distance, but the yard sticks you are using are > not the same length. Further, if you are going to measure how long something > takes to happen, an event, you also need a measure of time, which is also > different in each frame of reference. So you are not using the same yard > stick or the same clock, so it is hard to make comparisons about distance or > how long something takes to happen, or at what time an event has happened > from each of the different frames of reference. > > The question I have is, is the lorentz contraction purely a mathmatical > construct, or has the movement of the spaceship at .9c actually modified the > space-time it occupies in such manner that the measurements have been > changed? Can an outside observer on the spacestation determine by any means > that space-time of the spaceship has been contracted? For example, if we > observed a star that the spacecraft was passing in front of, would we > experiance a brief refraction of the light from the star as the spacecraft > passed in front of it? > > C. Michael Crosiar > >
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
>> We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it >Whoops your gedanken just jumped the tracks. You *can't* rotate a field. >You can rotate an object. You can rotate a frame of reference. You can >rotate your head trying to follow an obscure argument. But you can't >rotate a field, nor move it, nor do anything else which requires >"pushing" on it because you can't get a grip on it. Well, I have had to think long and hard how I want to respond. I really didn't want to get tied down as to the engineering of how one would produce such a field. But I do get your point, something must produce the field. If we were to take a bar magnet and rotate it at relativistic speeds, obviously it would fly apart. And yet it still seems that we should be able to imagine such a magnet that does not fly apart for the purposes of a thought experiment. We could talk about a stepper motor type configuration, but I think there would be question as to whether we are actually rotating a magnetic field or producing multiple fields that are phased in such a manner as to rotate another field (no, I'm not sure I said that right). And then there is the ultimate question of what a magnetic field is - and I'm not talking about the mathematical description of it. I have read - can't remember the source, and I'm probably butchering it - that all of physics is geometry. That is to say that once we understand all of the forces, they will be reduced to geometry. I don't know if you agree with this or not, but I do believe this will be found to be true. So there is the question as to whether magnetism is a property of the geometry of space-time itself. Yes, something does seem to be required to modify space-time in such a manner as to produce magnetism, but is that magnetism a property of that which produces it, or a property of the geometry of space-time itself? I say it is the result of the geometry of space-time itself. As such, I argue that the magnetic lines of force are "physical" and can be rotated relative to an outside frame of reference, and the thought experiment is valid. But I suspect you will insist that we must consider that which is producing the magnetic lines of force. Ok, I will try. But I am not an engineer, and know there are those much smarter than me that could engineer such a device. So I do this with the hope that the physics involved can be discussed and not my bad engineering skills. But, I will be brave and take a shot at this. First, there is no solid physical object that we could use to produce such a field and have it survive the centrifugal force involved when rotating at anything even close to relativistic speeds. We could use a stepper motor type configuration to create rotation of another existing magnetic field, but anything creating that field would also be subject to the same forces. So, we must look elsewhere. So my solution is to look at a plasma. We can create a rarefied plasma and align and rotate the magnetic domains in that plasma. I would suggest an inert rarefied gas be used that is ionized, perhaps Xenon. The ionized gas would be in a column. To align and rotate the magnetic domains we would use RF signals injected around the outside of the column, with the phases of the signals being shifted in much the same manner as a stepper motor. The RF signals injected would at first be of a low frequency and then be increased in frequency. The RF signals themselves would be produced by Back Wave Oscillators and Traveling Wave Tube Amplifiers, perhaps in a push-pull configuration. I do realize that there may be issues with harmonic oscillations that would need to be addressed. As the field begins to rotate I would expect it to want to collapse inward, so I would have a toroidal shaped shell made of Bismuth, a strong diamagnetic, that would surround the core with the purpose of forcing the magnetic lines of force outward and preventing the collapse of the field. Ok, that is my best shot. I'm sure I left out many details. In the end we are talking about rotating the magnetic domains in a plasma with RF signals to produce a magnetic field that is rotating relative to an outside observer. Will it work? I don't know, but I suspect that even if what I have described does not, someone smarter than me can think of how one would produce such a relativistic magnetic field. So, assuming such a field can be produced, would there be time dilation effects inside the field? Would the field acquire inertial mass because of the relativistic effects? Would there be a change in gravitational mass? If a radioactive isotope were placed inside the field, would an outside observer detect any change in the rate of decay? C. Michael Crosiar >A so-called "traveling" field, like EM radiation, is a field which >disappears at one point and appears at another point. If you look at >the equations, and think about what they're telling you, that turns out >to be the only thing they're saying -- there is nothing
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
A thought experiment... Is it conceivable that a relatively small PM could be encased in a non-magnetic casing of some high-tech sort prior to spinning it up to RPMs in the range of, oh, lets say possibly within the spectrum of low radio. If the high-tech encasing was balanced perfectly so it wouldn't fly apart I was wondering if the enclosed spinning PM might actually be capable of generating enough EM radiation that the effect could be detected as radio interference. Would anyone harbor a best guestamate concerning the maximum RPM speeds that is likely to be achieved - for all practical purposes? I would guess that such an experiment would be extremely impractical to build. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
What makes you believe it would radiate any EM? The field is rotating, it is not expanding or collapsing. I see this as a standing or scalar wave. I would expect an E-field, but no EM radiation. From: OrionWorks To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 10:40:42 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time A thought experiment... Is it conceivable that a relatively small PM could be encased in a non-magnetic casing of some high-tech sort prior to spinning it up to RPMs in the range of, oh, lets say possibly within the spectrum of low radio. If the high-tech encasing was balanced perfectly so it wouldn't fly apart I was wondering if the enclosed spinning PM might actually be capable of generating enough EM radiation that the effect could be detected as radio interference. Would anyone harbor a best guestamate concerning the maximum RPM speeds that is likely to be achieved - for all practical purposes? I would guess that such an experiment would be extremely impractical to build. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
I believe I am using the term "magnetic domain" wrong, but I'm unsure what you would call the alignment of charged particles in a plasma. From: Michael Crosiar To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 9:43:35 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time >> We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it >Whoops your gedanken just jumped the tracks. You *can't* rotate a field. >You can rotate an object. You can rotate a frame of reference. You can >rotate your head trying to follow an obscure argument. But you can't >rotate a field, nor move it, nor do anything else which requires >"pushing" on it because you can't get a grip on it. Well, I have had to think long and hard how I want to respond. I really didn't want to get tied down as to the engineering of how one would produce such a field. But I do get your point, something must produce the field. If we were to take a bar magnet and rotate it at relativistic speeds, obviously it would fly apart. And yet it still seems that we should be able to imagine such a magnet that does not fly apart for the purposes of a thought experiment. We could talk about a stepper motor type configuration, but I think there would be question as to whether we are actually rotating a magnetic field or producing multiple fields that are phased in such a manner as to rotate another field (no, I'm not sure I said that right). And then there is the ultimate question of what a magnetic field is - and I'm not talking about the mathematical description of it. I have read - can't remember the source, and I'm probably butchering it - that all of physics is geometry. That is to say that once we understand all of the forces, they will be reduced to geometry. I don't know if you agree with this or not, but I do believe this will be found to be true. So there is the question as to whether magnetism is a property of the geometry of space-time itself. Yes, something does seem to be required to modify space-time in such a manner as to produce magnetism, but is that magnetism a property of that which produces it, or a property of the geometry of space-time itself? I say it is the result of the geometry of space-time itself. As such, I argue that the magnetic lines of force are "physical" and can be rotated relative to an outside frame of reference, and the thought experiment is valid. But I suspect you will insist that we must consider that which is producing the magnetic lines of force. Ok, I will try. But I am not an engineer, and know there are those much smarter than me that could engineer such a device. So I do this with the hope that the physics involved can be discussed and not my bad engineering skills. But, I will be brave and take a shot at this. First, there is no solid physical object that we could use to produce such a field and have it survive the centrifugal force involved when rotating at anything even close to relativistic speeds. We could use a stepper motor type configuration to create rotation of another existing magnetic field, but anything creating that field would also be subject to the same forces. So, we must look elsewhere. So my solution is to look at a plasma. We can create a rarefied plasma and align and rotate the magnetic domains in that plasma. I would suggest an inert rarefied gas be used that is ionized, perhaps Xenon. The ionized gas would be in a column. To align and rotate the magnetic domains we would use RF signals injected around the outside of the column, with the phases of the signals being shifted in much the same manner as a stepper motor. The RF signals injected would at first be of a low frequency and then be increased in frequency. The RF signals themselves would be produced by Back Wave Oscillators and Traveling Wave Tube Amplifiers, perhaps in a push-pull configuration. I do realize that there may be issues with harmonic oscillations that would need to be addressed. As the field begins to rotate I would expect it to want to collapse inward, so I would have a toroidal shaped shell made of Bismuth, a strong diamagnetic, that would surround the core with the purpose of forcing the magnetic lines of force outward and preventing the collapse of the field. Ok, that is my best shot. I'm sure I left out many details. In the end we are talking about rotating the magnetic domains in a plasma with RF signals to produce a magnetic field that is rotating relative to an outside observer. Will it work? I don't know, but I suspect that even if what I have described does not, someone smarter than me can think of how one would produce such a relativistic magnetic field. So, assuming such a field can be produced, would there be time dilation effects inside the field? Would the field acquire inertial mass because of the relativistic effects? Would there be a change in
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
>From Michael Corsiar: > What makes you believe it would radiate any EM? I don't. Not sure what to believe. It's why I'm askin... > The field is rotating, it is not expanding or collapsing. > I see this as a standing or scalar wave. I would expect > an E-field, but no EM radiation. I think the reason I have speculated that there might possibly be EM radiaion generated is that if the PM was positioned in such a manner that the opposite poles were swinging 90 degrees in relation to the rotational axis I would assume that there would be a lot of dynamic magnetic changes occuring. Seems to me that if one placed a circular wire close to the rotating PM, would not the circular wire be influenced by the rotating PM causing some level of AC to course through the wire? I think my ignorance stems from the fact that it's not clear to me what the crucial differences are between standing or scaler waves and EM radiation. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Ok, so take a magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of near relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not), rotate it in such a way that it's magnetic poles flip. The field at some distance from the magnet must logically be moving greater than C. So we have 2 possibilities. First is that the field will entrain the aether and drag it (frame dragging) and hence the field will not be moving at a speed greater than C. (though the field may be in effect shielded from expanding beyond a point where the moving aether ceases to be entrained by the field) To what degree that answer would be acceptable to anyone besides me I'm not totally sure since I have not bothered to understand what frame dragging really refers to as IMO special relativity is wrong and science made a wrong turn when it disregarded the aether, and everyone considered to have 'disproven' the aether including Enstein and MM still believed it existed. The other possibility is that, and this one sounds possibly more likely, the fields will be thrown off as radiation. Fields don't need to expand and shrink IMO to be thrown off as radiatiuon, it merely requires a swift enough change that causes the more distant part of a field to decouple from the source that generated it. Of course this has an implication, that the magnetic field would put a drag on it because it can't freely radiate energy right? Would not some pulsars or something else astronomical be in the range of powerful enough to be an astronomical version of this experiment? Or would their magnetic field be more likely to be in an axial orientation? I guess so? or not? So no astronomical versions of this thought experiment? On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:27 AM, OrionWorks wrote: > From Michael Corsiar: > > > What makes you believe it would radiate any EM? > > I don't. Not sure what to believe. It's why I'm askin... > > > The field is rotating, it is not expanding or collapsing. > > I see this as a standing or scalar wave. I would expect > > an E-field, but no EM radiation. > > I think the reason I have speculated that there might possibly be EM > radiaion generated is that if the PM was positioned in such a manner > that the opposite poles were swinging 90 degrees in relation to the > rotational axis I would assume that there would be a lot of dynamic > magnetic changes occuring. Seems to me that if one placed a circular > wire close to the rotating PM, would not the circular wire be > influenced by the rotating PM causing some level of AC to course > through the wire? > > I think my ignorance stems from the fact that it's not clear to me > what the crucial differences are between standing or scaler waves and > EM radiation. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > >
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
>Ok, so take a magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of near relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not), Thank you! >rotate it in such a way that it's magnetic poles flip. Actually, I don't think this is the normal rotation, I am more interested in the axial orientation. I see the problem with the "pole flip" as being the stability caused by the E-Field - I suspect strongly it would radiate. But I could be wrong. >The field at some distance from the magnet must logically be moving greater than C. That is the point I wanted to get too Yes, but nothing can go faster than C, so something must give. >So we have 2 possibilities. >First is that the field will entrain the aether and drag it (frame dragging) and hence the field will not be moving at a speed greater than C. (though the field may be in effect shielded from expanding beyond a point where the moving >aether ceases to be entrained by the field) >To what degree that answer would be acceptable to anyone besides me I'm not totally sure since I have not bothered to understand what frame dragging really refers to as IMO special relativity is wrong and science made a wrong >turn when it disregarded the aether, and everyone considered to have 'disproven' the aether including Enstein and MM still believed it existed. >The other possibility is that, and this one sounds possibly more likely, the fields will be thrown off as radiation. Now this I disagree with, these are not the only possibilities. The other possibility is that delta-t changes - C remains the same because the rate at which time moves forward is changed - the measuring stick and the clock are now in a different frame of reference and must be looked at just like with the spaceship and spacestation example discussed before. Due to the rotation this is no longer an inertial frame of reference. If this is correct, there a certain predictions we can make. First, due to the rotation of the field, it should acquire inertial mass- attempts to move the field (and that which is generating it) should resist being moved. Next, time within the field should run at a different rate, either slower or faster depending on the direction of rotation relative to the n/s pole (Ok, I have not shown this yet...). This could be tested by placing a radioactive isotope inside the field and measuring the radiation compared to a control sample outside the field. Time measurements would also be affected. And, if I am right, any mass contained by the field should gain or loose its gravitational mass (actually, I'm way over-simplifying here). I would also expect a strong E-Field from the outer most part of the field to the axis of rotation, as would be normally expected. I strongly suspect that these relativistic effects will have direction and magnitude. >Fields don't need to expand and shrink IMO to be thrown off as radiatiuon, it merely requires a swift enough change that causes the more distant part of a field to decouple from the source that generated it. I'm not sure about this one. I do suspect that attempting to change the angular velocity to rapidly would cause the field to rotate or "vibrate" at harmonic frequencies in addition to the primary frequency which would likely cause EM radiation. >Of course this has an implication, that the magnetic field would put a drag on it because it can't freely radiate energy right? >Would not some pulsars or something else astronomical be in the range of powerful enough to be an astronomical version of this experiment? Maybe, but I'm also thinking of the EM fields that exist in atoms, shells and electrons... >Or would their magnetic field be more likely to be in an axial orientation? I guess so? or not? I pretty sure, but I will need to think about it. I think the issue has to do with the symmetry of the E-field, or lack there of. >So no astronomical versions of this thought experiment? I would think pulsars and black holes, but don't we already acknowledge relativistic effects for these objects? C. Michael Crosiar On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:27 AM, OrionWorks wrote: >From Michael Corsiar: > What makes you believe it would radiate any EM? I don't. Not sure what to believe. It's why I'm askin... > The field is rotating, it is not expanding or collapsing. > I see this as a standing or scalar wave. I would expect > an E-field, but no EM radiation. I think the reason I have speculated that there might possibly be EM radiaion generated is that if the PM was positioned in such a manner that the opposite poles were swinging 90 degrees in relation to the rotational axis I would assume that there would be a lot of dynamic magnetic changes occuring. Seems to me that if one placed a circular wire close to the rotating PM, would not the circular wire be influenced by the rotating PM causing some level of AC to course through the wire? I think my ignorance stems from the fact that it's not clear to me what the crucial differences a
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Michael Crosiar wrote: > > >>> We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it > >>Whoops your gedanken just jumped the tracks. You *can't* rotate a field. > >>You can rotate an object. You can rotate a frame of reference. You can >>rotate your head trying to follow an obscure argument. But you can't >>rotate a field, nor move it, nor do anything else which requires >>"pushing" on it because you can't get a grip on it. > > > Well, I have had to think long and hard how I want to respond. I really > didn't want to get tied down as to the engineering of how one would > produce such a field. But I do get your point, something must produce > the field. If we were to take a bar magnet and rotate it at relativistic > speeds, obviously it would fly apart. No problem there! I wasn't concerned with practical issues, just the issue of what, exactly, was supposed to be rotating. So, a bar magnet it is. If we do it the easy way, so that you've got something like this: | | Spin Axis | --- | | | NorthSouth| | | --- | | | then the answer's pretty obvious. Start with it stationary. With it stationary, you've got a field which, if the magnet's been there a long time, extends through all space. Now, start the magnet spinning. As I said, you can't spin a field! So, though one's mental model might be of the whole field spinning as a rigid body, that's not what happens. What happens is the information regarding the rotation propagates away from the magnet at C. If I've pictured this right (which I may not have!), the result, in short order, is going to be field lines twisted up in something like spirals, with the spiral pattern expanding away from the magnet at C. A stationary observer will see the peaks and troughs passing by at C, and will interpret it as an EM wave. In short, it radiates. If you spin it about the long axis, it's a lot harder to understand what happens, for me, at least, because the distant field is rotationally symmetric about the long axis. In that case I don't think you get radiation, but I think you do get an E field which wasn't there while the magnet was stationary. (But I could be all wet on this, I'm no E&M expert...) > And yet it still seems that we > should be able to imagine such a magnet that does not fly apart for the > purposes of a thought experiment. We could talk about a stepper motor > type configuration, but I think there would be question as to whether we > are actually rotating a magnetic field or producing multiple fields that > are phased in such a manner as to rotate another field (no, I'm not sure > I said that right). And then there is the ultimate question of what a > magnetic field is - and I'm not talking about the mathematical > description of it. > > I have read - can't remember the source, and I'm probably butchering it > - that all of physics is geometry. That is to say that once we > understand all of the forces, they will be reduced to geometry. I don't > know if you agree with this or not, but I do believe this will be found > to be true. So there is the question as to whether magnetism is a > property of the geometry of space-time itself. Yes, something does seem > to be required to modify space-time in such a manner as to produce > magnetism, but is that magnetism a property of that which produces it, > or a property of the geometry of space-time itself? I say it is the > result of the geometry of space-time itself. As such, I argue that the > magnetic lines of force are "physical" and can be rotated relative to an > outside frame of reference, and the thought experiment is valid. > > But I suspect you will insist that we must consider that which is > producing the magnetic lines of force. Ok, I will try. But I am not an > engineer, and know there are those much smarter than me that could > engineer such a device. So I do this with the hope that the physics > involved can be discussed and not my bad engineering skills. But, I will > be brave and take a shot at this. > > First, there is no solid physical object that we could use to produce > such a field and have it survive the centrifugal force involved when > rotating at anything even close to relativistic speeds. We could use a > stepper motor type configuration to create rotation of another existing > magnetic field, but anything creating that field would also be subject > to the same forces. So, we must look elsewhere. So my solution is to > look at a plasma. We can create a rarefied plasma and align and rotate > the magnetic domains in that plasma. I would suggest an inert rarefied > gas be used that is ionized, perhaps Xenon. The ionized gas would be in > a column. > > > To align and rotate the magnetic domains we
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Ok, well if it's axial field orientation then I would say you have walked right into the N-Machine paradox. Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when you rotate a magnet on an axial orientation? It is very difficult to prove since the only effect from an axially rotating magnet is a generally very weak electric field gradient. For instance if you rotate a conductive magnet and tap the voltage difference between the shaft and the periphery you get a voltage but is that a voltage induced in the magnet due to the field not rotating or is it a voltage induced in the external circuit? Now let's try something that could be more easily measured if more preposterous when it comes to actual practical implementation. (but that is why they are called thought experiments) Lets have a magnet that accelerates very fast in one direction, stops and reverses direction, wash rinse and repeat. Now we have a bit of a dilemma since the magnetic field IF it rotates with the magnet should now be inducing a time varying electric field of alternate polarity, furthermore this voltage change/reversal will radiate out from the magnet seemingly at the speed of light, however this creates many issues,. The most obvious of which is that the direction of rotation of the flux inside the magnet will differ to the direction of rotation of flux outside the magnet at a distance! (unless the speed of light is breached) Radiation however is hard to imagine with an axially oriented magnetic field. At some distance the field IF it is rotating (which we can verify with the above experiment) will be moving at a speed greater than C or seemingly should. To make this semi practical (provided you have proven the field rotates) you would want a very very long, say mile long neodymium magnet encased in some seriously hardy material, get it up to speed and thanks to the distance between the poles the field should radiate out from the magnet a good distance. (alternately a magnetic steel with a stationary electromagnet around it) I can't be bothered to do the math but I'd bet that within extreme but achievable rpm's and by measuring the field as far away as possible you could exceed light speed with todays technology. So then either C will be exceeded, the frame of space will drag and or the field will become shielded or no longer supported by space. The same essential experiment could be achieved by rotating an electrostatically charged object. But again it is quite possible that the first does not rotate with the source of the field. Hooper's Motional E-field work comes the closest to answering that riddle. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Michael Crosiar wrote: > >Ok, so take a magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of near > relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not), > > Thank you! > > >rotate it in such a way that it's magnetic poles flip. > > Actually, I don't think this is the normal rotation, I am more interested > in the axial orientation. I see the problem with the "pole flip" as being > the stability caused by the E-Field - I suspect strongly it would radiate. > But I could be wrong. > > >The field at some distance from the magnet must logically be moving > greater than C. > > That is the point I wanted to get too Yes, but nothing can go faster > than C, so something must give. > > >So we have 2 possibilities. > >First is that the field will entrain the aether and drag it (frame > dragging) and hence the field will not be moving at a speed greater than C. > (though the field may be in effect shielded from expanding beyond a point > where the moving >aether ceases to be entrained by the field) > > >To what degree that answer would be acceptable to anyone besides me I'm > not totally sure since I have not bothered to understand what frame dragging > really refers to as IMO special relativity is wrong and science made a wrong > >turn when it disregarded the aether, and everyone considered to have > 'disproven' the aether including Enstein and MM still believed it existed. > > >The other possibility is that, and this one sounds possibly more likely, > the fields will be thrown off as radiation. > > Now this I disagree with, these are not the only possibilities. The other > possibility is that delta-t changes - C remains the same because the rate at > which time moves forward is changed - the measuring stick and the clock are > now in a different frame of reference and must be looked at just like with > the spaceship and spacestation example discussed before. Due to the rotation > this is no longer an inertial frame of reference. If this is correct, there > a certain predictions we can make. First, due to the rotation of the field, > it should acquire inertial mass- attempts to move the field (and that which > is generating it) should resist being moved. Next, time within the field > should run at a different rate, either slower or faster depending on the > direction of rotation re
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
OrionWorks wrote: > A thought experiment... > > Is it conceivable that a relatively small PM could be encased in a > non-magnetic casing of some high-tech sort prior to spinning it up to > RPMs in the range of, oh, lets say possibly within the spectrum of low > radio. This would be EXTREMELY impractical! The prime minister would object and the security people would be all over you in a minute if you actually tried it. > > If the high-tech encasing was balanced perfectly so it wouldn't fly > apart I was wondering if the enclosed spinning PM might actually be > capable of generating enough EM radiation that the effect could be > detected as radio interference. > > Would anyone harbor a best guestamate concerning the maximum RPM > speeds that is likely to be achieved - for all practical purposes? > > I would guess that such an experiment would be extremely impractical to build. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
BTW I might add one thing. Even if a magnetic field can exceed the speed of light in this sense it is not really clear how that compares to any other form of movement. For instance a magnetic field can be made to appear to rotate by turning on electromagnets in order as with the rotating stator fields in synchronous motors, plausibly such could be made to appear to rotate faster than C but it would not be real motion. Here too IF it even rotates it is not clear if it can be considered the same as motion of a particle or wave. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:31 PM, John Berry wrote: > Ok, well if it's axial field orientation then I would say you have walked > right into the N-Machine paradox. > > Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when you rotate a magnet > on an axial orientation? > > It is very difficult to prove since the only effect from an axially > rotating magnet is a generally very weak electric field gradient. > > For instance if you rotate a conductive magnet and tap the voltage > difference between the shaft and the periphery you get a voltage but is that > a voltage induced in the magnet due to the field not rotating or is it a > voltage induced in the external circuit? > > Now let's try something that could be more easily measured if more > preposterous when it comes to actual practical implementation. (but that is > why they are called thought experiments) > > Lets have a magnet that accelerates very fast in one direction, stops and > reverses direction, wash rinse and repeat. > > Now we have a bit of a dilemma since the magnetic field IF it rotates with > the magnet should now be inducing a time varying electric field of alternate > polarity, furthermore this voltage change/reversal will radiate out from the > magnet seemingly at the speed of light, however this creates many issues,. > > The most obvious of which is that the direction of rotation of the flux > inside the magnet will differ to the direction of rotation of flux outside > the magnet at a distance! (unless the speed of light is breached) > > Radiation however is hard to imagine with an axially oriented magnetic > field. > > At some distance the field IF it is rotating (which we can verify with the > above experiment) will be moving at a speed greater than C or seemingly > should. > > To make this semi practical (provided you have proven the field rotates) > you would want a very very long, say mile long neodymium magnet encased in > some seriously hardy material, get it up to speed and thanks to the distance > between the poles the field should radiate out from the magnet a good > distance. (alternately a magnetic steel with a stationary electromagnet > around it) > > I can't be bothered to do the math but I'd bet that within extreme but > achievable rpm's and by measuring the field as far away as possible you > could exceed light speed with todays technology. > > So then either C will be exceeded, the frame of space will drag and or the > field will become shielded or no longer supported by space. > > The same essential experiment could be achieved by rotating an > electrostatically charged object. > > But again it is quite possible that the first does not rotate with the > source of the field. > > Hooper's Motional E-field work comes the closest to answering that riddle. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Michael Crosiar wrote: > >> >Ok, so take a magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of >> near relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not), >> >> Thank you! >> >> >rotate it in such a way that it's magnetic poles flip. >> >> Actually, I don't think this is the normal rotation, I am more interested >> in the axial orientation. I see the problem with the "pole flip" as being >> the stability caused by the E-Field - I suspect strongly it would radiate. >> But I could be wrong. >> >> >The field at some distance from the magnet must logically be moving >> greater than C. >> >> That is the point I wanted to get too Yes, but nothing can go faster >> than C, so something must give. >> >> >So we have 2 possibilities. >> >First is that the field will entrain the aether and drag it (frame >> dragging) and hence the field will not be moving at a speed greater than C. >> (though the field may be in effect shielded from expanding beyond a point >> where the moving >aether ceases to be entrained by the field) >> >> >To what degree that answer would be acceptable to anyone besides me I'm >> not totally sure since I have not bothered to understand what frame dragging >> really refers to as IMO special relativity is wrong and science made a wrong >> >turn when it disregarded the aether, and everyone considered to have >> 'disproven' the aether including Enstein and MM still believed it existed. >> >> >The other possibility is that, and this one sounds possibly more likely, >> the fields will be thrown off as radiation. >> >> Now this I disagree with, these are not the only possibilitie
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
>> Well, I have had to think long and hard how I want to respond. I really >> didn't want to get tied down as to the engineering of how one would >> produce such a field. But I do get your point, something must produce >> the field. If we were to take a bar magnet and rotate it at relativistic >> speeds, obviously it would fly apart. >No problem there! I wasn't concerned with practical issues, just the >issue of what, exactly, was supposed to be rotating. Ok, I think I miss understood what you were looking for. But all the same, that problem is solved. >So, a bar magnet it is. >If we do it the easy way, so that you've got something like this: | | Spin Axis | --- | | | NorthSouth| | | --- | | | >then the answer's pretty obvious. >Start with it stationary. With it stationary, you've got a field which, >if the magnet's been there a long time, extends through all space. >Now, start the magnet spinning. As I said, you can't spin a field! So, >though one's mental model might be of the whole field spinning as a >rigid body, that's not what happens. What happens is the information >regarding the rotation propagates away from the magnet at C. I'm still not convinced that you can't spin a field! You said before that we can't grab a field, but we can in a way since fields do interact with each other... >If I've pictured this right (which I may not have!), the result, in >short order, is going to be field lines twisted up in something like >spirals, with the spiral pattern expanding away from the magnet at C. A >stationary observer will see the peaks and troughs passing by at C, and >will interpret it as an EM wave. >In short, it radiates. Yep, that is my conclusion as well. My argument is a little different, but I think it amounts to the same. There is no symmetry of the E-field as it rotates. I'm not sure this is the ONLY condition for EM radiation, but so far I can't think of any exceptions. >If you spin it about the long axis, it's a lot harder to understand what >happens, for me, at least, because the distant field is rotationally >symmetric about the long axis. In that case I don't think you get >radiation, but I think you do get an E field which wasn't there while >the magnet was stationary. >(But I could be all wet on this, I'm no E&M expert...) That is my conclusion as well, E-field, no radiation. And your the best expert I have! So, back to the original questions, does the magnetic field acquire inertial mass? Are there time dilation effects? Are there changes in gravitational mass? My conclusion is yes to all of the above. But I really would like your opinion. Then I would like to develop this further. Where I'm going is to look at delta-t as a field with direction and magnitude and relate it to both the E and G fields as a result of relativistic effects. And here is were I wish I had the math skills... C. Michael Crosiar
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
>Ok, well if it's axial field orientation then I would say you have walked >right into the N-Machine paradox. >Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when you rotate a magnet on >an axial orientation? For me I see no paradox. And yes, I have thought of the N-Machine a lot in this regard. >It is very difficult to prove since the only effect from an axially rotating >magnet is a generally very weak electric field gradient. >For instance if you rotate a conductive magnet and tap the voltage difference >between the shaft and the periphery you get a voltage but is that a voltage >induced in the magnet due to the field not rotating or is it a voltage induced >in the external circuit? Neither. It is created by the time dilation effects directly. That is one of the points I'm trying to get to. Even at non-relativistic speeds, you will get a weak E-field. That is because the mass that makes up the magnet already has fields in it that are relativistic - atoms. In fact it does not even need to be a magnet, just a conductor is fine. All rotating objects should produce a measurable E-field and time dilation effects. Are you familiar with De Palmas spinning ball experiments? >Now let's try something that could be more easily measured if more >preposterous when it comes to actual practical implementation. (but that is >why they are called thought experiments) >Lets have a magnet that accelerates very fast in one direction, stops and >reverses direction, wash rinse and repeat. I'm not sure I'm following you here. Is the magnet rotating? I assume from below that it is. >Now we have a bit of a dilemma since the magnetic field IF it rotates with the >magnet should now be inducing a time varying electric field of alternate >polarity, furthermore this voltage change/reversal will radiate out from the >magnet seemingly at the speed of light, however this creates many issues,. >The most obvious of which is that the direction of rotation of the flux inside >the magnet will differ to the direction of rotation of flux outside the magnet >at a distance! (unless the speed of light is breached) >Radiation however is hard to imagine with an axially oriented magnetic field. >At some distance the field IF it is rotating (which we can verify with the >above experiment) will be moving at a speed greater than C or seemingly should. Again, this is why I feel time dilation effects must be occurring. It sounds like you are arguing against C being a constant. The only way I see to keep C a constant is to modify delta-t in the direction of motion. Any EM generated inside the field will be frequency shifted as it leaves the field. So as we move the rotating magnet back and forth, we would see a shifting of the EM frequency being emitted as observed from the outside. At least that is my thinking... >To make this semi practical (provided you have proven the field rotates) you >would want a very very long, say mile long neodymium magnet encased in some >seriously hardy material, get it up to speed and thanks to the distance >between the poles the field should radiate out from the magnet a good >distance. (alternately a magnetic steel with a stationary electromagnet around >it) >I can't be bothered to do the math but I'd bet that within extreme but >achievable rpm's and by measuring the field as far away as possible you could >exceed light speed with todays technology. Yes, one way to measure these effects is to build BIG. >So then either C will be exceeded, the frame of space will drag and or the >field will become shielded or no longer supported by space. Or the delta-t within the field will be altered. >The same essential experiment could be achieved by rotating an >electrostatically charged object. >But again it is quite possible that the first does not rotate with the source >of the field. >Hooper's Motional E-field work comes the closest to answering that riddle. I'll have to google that one. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Michael Crosiar wrote: >Ok, so take a >magnet (it's a thought experiment so the realities of near >relativistic speeds of a spinning object interest me not), > >Thank >you! > > >>rotate it in such a way that it's magnetic poles >flip. > >Actually, I don't think this is the normal rotation, I >am more interested in the axial orientation. I see the problem with >the "pole flip" as being the stability caused by the >E-Field - I suspect strongly it would radiate. But I could be >wrong. > > >>The field at some distance from the magnet must >logically be moving greater than C. > >That is the point I wanted >to get too Yes, but nothing can go faster than C, so something >must give. > > >>So we have 2 possibilities. >>First is >that the field will entrain the aether and drag it (frame dragging) >and hence the field will not be moving at a speed greater than C. >(though the field may be in effect shielded from expanding beyond a >point where the movi
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
> From: Michael Crosiar > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 2:49 AM > >Ok, well > if it's axial field orientation then I would say you > have walked right into the N-Machine paradox. > > >Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when > you rotate a magnet on an axial orientation? Only during changes in time of the angular momentum. > > > For me I see no paradox. And yes, I have thought of the > N-Machine a lot in this regard. > > >It is very difficult to prove since the only effect > from an axially rotating magnet is a generally very weak > electric field gradient. The effect is much greater if the rotating part is instead the unmagnetised material contained as the reluctance pathways in the design of the disc shaped pole face rotor ELECTROMAGNETIC of the alternator design. In that case a CONSTANT angular momentum pivots the spins of the random ferromagnetic domains to produce moving magnetism external to its own movement. HDN
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Michael Crosiar wrote: > I'm still not convinced that you can't spin a field! You said before that > we can't grab a field, but we can in a way since fields do interact with > each other... > Actually fields don't interact (bend compress etc...) with each other! They add and subtract in superposition vectorally.
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Hey, good to see you around, last I recall you had some tesla binary electromagnet thingy which I didn't understand. (my description of which may be so poor as to confuse you) On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Harvey Norris wrote: > > > > From: Michael Crosiar > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 2:49 AM > > >Ok, well > > if it's axial field orientation then I would say you > > have walked right into the N-Machine paradox. > > > > >Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when > > you rotate a magnet on an axial orientation? > Only during changes in time of the angular momentum. > > > > > > For me I see no paradox. And yes, I have thought of the > > N-Machine a lot in this regard. > > > > >It is very difficult to prove since the only effect > > from an axially rotating magnet is a generally very weak > > electric field gradient. > The effect is much greater if the rotating part is instead the unmagnetised > material contained as the reluctance pathways in the design of the disc > shaped pole face rotor ELECTROMAGNETIC of the alternator design. In that > case a CONSTANT angular momentum pivots the spins of the random > ferromagnetic domains to produce moving magnetism external to its own > movement. > HDN > >
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
huh, I see you already made some posts on it... On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM, John Berry wrote: > Hey, good to see you around, last I recall you had some tesla binary > electromagnet thingy which I didn't understand. (my description of which may > be so poor as to confuse you) > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Harvey Norris wrote: > >> >> >> > From: Michael Crosiar >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time >> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> > Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 2:49 AM >> > >Ok, well >> > if it's axial field orientation then I would say you >> > have walked right into the N-Machine paradox. >> > >> > >Which is, does the magnetic field actually rotate when >> > you rotate a magnet on an axial orientation? >> Only during changes in time of the angular momentum. >> > >> > >> > For me I see no paradox. And yes, I have thought of the >> > N-Machine a lot in this regard. >> > >> > >It is very difficult to prove since the only effect >> > from an axially rotating magnet is a generally very weak >> > electric field gradient. >> The effect is much greater if the rotating part is instead the >> unmagnetised material contained as the reluctance pathways in the design of >> the disc shaped pole face rotor ELECTROMAGNETIC of the alternator design. In >> that case a CONSTANT angular momentum pivots the spins of the random >> ferromagnetic domains to produce moving magnetism external to its own >> movement. >> HDN >> >> >
