Understanding electromagnetism

[Brain Man]

t+30 minutes.

Why am I not surprised.

if u want a challenge on basic physics ability then both parties need to agree terms and conditons first.

[lpetrich]

(To Twiglet:)

When you struggle, read The Psychology of Belief and appreciate that conviction applies to you too.

Farsight, be careful, because someone might ask if your analysis applies to you also.

You should also read On Physical Lines of Force where Maxwell worked out that electromagnetic waves propagate at the speed of light, and note that he's talking about vortices and a screw mechanism.

Maxwell-thumping.

And don't forget that "Maxwell's Equations" are actually the Heaviside recast into vector form. I'm not giving you some new theory here, it really does have pedigree, and it really is backed by scientific evidence.

So what about Maxwell's equations?

In the early 20th cy., they were recast into explicitly 4-dimensional form, with time treated as coequal to space. Shall I quote chapter and verse from Albert Einstein?

I do understand the basics, and they're in accord with Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and others. If you feel I don't, explain those basics, and show where my explanations are wrong.

The equations of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and others treat time as much like space, and with Einstein and after, coequal to space.

[lpetrich]

To address the issue you have to view the massive particles as stress-energy configurations, some of which are stable because they're in the form of knots. Most however are not.

How did you determine that knottedness? Where is your analysis of scattering data?

I mean something what Survey of Scattering Investigations describes.

Atomic nuclei are much smaller than electrons, but like atoms, they have internal structure -- nucleons.
Nucleons have internal structure -- quarks and gluons.
Neither quarks nor gluons have any noticeable internal structure -- like charged leptons, they are Dirac particles.

So what? Is a neutron really some box with a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino all waiting to get out of it?

No. it's a loop configuration. Try it out with paper and scissors. Take a twisted three-loop trefoil where the total loop length is half a wavelength, cut and paste to add a twisted single loop, then cut and paste some more to add an untwisted single loop.

An exercise in irrelevance.

That would not be apparent in high-energy scattering experiments -- neutrons' internal structure is much like protons'.

There is however some additional structure at the root of the residual strong force, otherwise neutrons wouldn't link protons together to form nuclei.

What additional structure might that be? It seems like some unnecessary hypothesis.

[colubridae]

t+30 minutes.

Why am I not surprised.

if u want a challenge on basic physics ability then both parties need to agree terms and conditons first.

Why would you want a ‘rematch’. His failure is spectacular.


In every day terms his inability to perform twiglet's simple task is like:-


A doctor who can’t put his stethoscope in his ears.

A car mechanic who can’t open the bonnet/hood of your car.

An airline pilot who can’t open the plane door.

A PC expert who doesn't know how to turn the PC on.

A neuroscientist who doesn't know where rhe brain is.

Etc.

He was bluffing all along.

Do not play poker with this guy.

[JimC]

I will do Twiglet's task soon, as it is within my range of skills as an upper secondary physics teacher...

I am taking a day off tomorrow, and will endeavour to show the derivation from basic principles.

(not now, it is alcohol time...)

I may not be up with the latest, but Newtonian mechanics is my bread and butter...

[Twiglet]

I will do Twiglet's task soon, as it is within my range of skills as an upper secondary physics teacher...

I am taking a day off tomorrow, and will endeavour to show the derivation from basic principles.

(not now, it is alcohol time...)

I may not be up with the latest, but Newtonian mechanics is my bread and butter...

wtg Jim.

I deliberately set a question which is within the reach of a sixth-form student taking physics a level, as it seemed a fair and simple way to establish whether farsight possesses even rudimentary knowledge. It's not a tricky question or even a trick question.

A slightly tougher one would be to show how E=mc^2 reduces to a Newtonian interpretation in the limit v<<c, which is very elegant the first few times you see it, because it shows very profoundly how Einstein's ideas completely embrace Newtons at low velocity.

The mathematical building blocks of special relativity are actually delightfully simple. You can derive the Lorentz transform from just a couple of diagrams making the assumption that all frames of reference are equally valid, and the speed of light as a limit.

You can also show how the magnetic field generated in a current carrying wire (electromagnets) is a relativistic effect created by the motion of electrons, which explains why the B field assumes the shapes it does and acts perpendicular to the current in a wire. It's stunning because the average group velocity of electrons is really tiny, yet the massive number of them, and the comparative strength of the electric charge is enough to produce such an easily measurable effect.

[Farsight]

OK, no problem. I'll start by explaining energy, then I'll explain mass. Then the rest.

Good, you can start by producing the general classical solution for projectile motion under gravity, without friction, of an object fired at a speed v, angle x to the horizontal, from a level surface. Assume g=10m/s^2. Having obtained the general solution, specify the angle which provides the greatest range, and justify your answer.

No, I've started by explaining energy. Here it is: Energy Explained. Now read it. Giving trivial equations for a ballistic trajectory is irrelevant to explaining why why c is a limit in special relativity.

That problem would constitute around 10% of an A level physics exam, and could be answered within around 8 minutes by someone even vaguely competent. So farsight, as I know you are online, and I'm looking at the timestamp of this post, I await your solution. I have no confidence that you understand time, mass or gravity in classical terms. Let's see if you do. If you can, you will be able to answer this mathematically now, with maths a competent 16 year old has at their disposal. Tick tock farsight.

Tick tock yourself, Twiglet. Go read what I said about energy. I'll explain mass next. Once we've done the groundwork, I can then show you why c is a limit in special relativity. It's astonishingly simple.

[Farsight]

An exercise in irrelevance.

Quite.

[Farsight]

The mathematical building blocks of special relativity are actually delightfully simple. You can derive the Lorentz transform from just a couple of diagrams making the assumption that all frames of reference are equally valid, and the speed of light as a limit.

And you can understand why the speed of light is a limit. That's delightfully simple too.

You can also show how the magnetic field generated in a current carrying wire (electromagnets) is a relativistic effect created by the motion of electrons, which explains why the B field assumes the shapes it does and acts perpendicular to the current in a wire. It's stunning because the average group velocity of electrons is really tiny, yet the massive number of them, and the comparative strength of the electric charge is enough to produce such an easily measurable effect.

Have you not read this thread? There's only one field there. The electromagnetic field. Relative motion changes test-particle motion from radial to rotatory, but it does not create a B field which assumes a shape. The electromagnetic field has the "shape", or more properly a disposition. Read the OP and try to understand it in a calm rational fashion.

[ChildInAZoo]

The electromagnetic field. Relative motion changes test-particle motion from radial to rotatory, but it does not create a B field which assumes a shape. The electromagnetic field has the "shape", or more properly a disposition. Read the OP and try to understand it in a calm rational fashion.

If this is true, then show us a specific example with the numbers. Right now your pictures look laughably fasle (indeed, one can find people replying with derision on other message boards). Let's see your theory in action.

[PsychoSerenity]

No, I've started by explaining energy. Here it is: Energy Explained. Now read it.

Hey look! Here's another version that you did in 2006!

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/vi ... 44&start=0

Giving trivial equations for a ballistic trajectory is irrelevant to explaining why why c is a limit in special relativity.

However, it is very relevant to convincing us that you do have a basic understanding of physics, and giving us a reason to keep reading what you write. Since most of the people here have doubts as to whether you know what you're talking about, it wouldn't hurt to humour Twiglet, and answer his little test questions. It shouldn't take long, and then people might start taking your work a little more seriously.

[Farsight]

No, it's a waste of time, it doesn't get us anywhere, and it detracts from the fact that Twiglet is prevaricating and putting up a smokescreen to dodge the issue.

Here you go Twiglet, I've risen to the challenge, here's Mass Explained. From this you should be able to work out why c is a limit in special relativity all by yourself.

[Bella Fortuna]

Yet there is no understanding this...

[PsychoSerenity]

No, it's a waste of time, it doesn't get us anywhere, and it detracts from the fact that Twiglet is prevaricating and putting up a smokescreen to dodge the issue.

Here you go Twiglet, I've risen to the challenge, here's Mass Explained. From this you should be able to work out why c is a limit in special relativity all by yourself.

Waste of time? Do you really think 10 minutes, or even half an hour, is a waste of time, when you've been posting this stuff all over the internet, for at least FOUR YEARS. Showing someone that you do actually understand physics might be the only way you will ever get anywhere. Why are you even posting it, if you're not interested in getting people to take it seriously?

Oh look, here's Mass Explained from 2007.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/show ... hp?t=28231

[Tigger]

Yet there is no understanding this...

Braille too. Must be for something.
An electromagnetwat?