|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > July 2007 > Experimental evidence for v > c in case of Coulomb interaction
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Experimental evidence for v > c in case of Coulomb interaction
|
|
| Wolfgang G. Gasser 2007-07-10, 8:25 pm |
| At least from a superficial point of view, there is a fundamental
difference between Coulomb interaction (Maxwell's first law) and
and electromagnetic radiation.
- In the case of e.m. transversal radiation (photons), conservation
of momentum and energy occurs on the one hand between emitter and
radiation, and on the other hand between radiation and receiver,
but not between emitter and receiver, i.e. there is no retroaction
of the receiver on the emitter.
- Yet the measurement of a Coulomb force is not possible without
a direct retroaction on the source of the Coulomb force.
- The action via radiation from an emitter to a receiver can be
switched on and off. The action can be stopped by deviating or
absorbing the radiation. All this is impossible in the case of
pure electric and magnetic interaction. (The only way to prevent
the action of electric or magnetic fields consists in creating
inverse fields, e.g. using a Faraday cage.)
Considering these fundamental differences, the fact that e.m.
radiation propagates at c cannot be taken for experimental
evidence that changes of the Coulomb field also propagate at c.
Because there doesn't seem to exist (convincing) experiments on
the propagation speed of Coulomb field changes in the literature,
I started almost two years ago my own experiments with a not too
expensive oscilloscope (Tektronix TDS2022, 200 MHz, 2 GHz).
The main problem of measuring the propagation speed of electric
field changes results from the fact, that a substantial amount of
charge must be displaced in the emitter in a very short time (in
order to entail a measurable field change at a given distance). Yet
charges move only at around 2/3 c (20 cm/ns). The more distant
from the emitter a measurement takes place, the longer the charges
must move so that the field changes become measurable. (The field
of an electrostatic dipole decreases with 1/d^3.)
Therefore, even under the hypothesis that electric fields are
instantaneous actions at a distance, it would be quite easy to
design experiments resulting in time delays (of a distant antenna
wrt a near antenna) in the order of t = d/(2/3 c) = 1.5 d/c.
Nevertheless, high-voltage discharges between two conducting
spheres (each 30 cm diameter in my case) leading to substantial
charge transfers seem to be a practicable way in order to get
convincing experiments.
_ _
_ _ / \
/ \ / \ >- \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /
\ _ / \ _ / _|_|_ \
|_____|
spheres with
spark gap antenna oscilloscope antenna
A simple influence machine is enough to generate high voltage
sparks leading to substantial charge displacements in short
periods of time. The spheres, the probes with the Coulomb antennas
and the oscilloscope are all placed in one line (where transversal
radiation from the spark, emitted rather perpendicularly to this
line, is negligible).
When charging the spheres, the Coulomb antennas connected to the
probes take the opposite charge of the nearby of the two spheres.
Because the charging of the spheres and antennas occurs slowly, the
currents and voltages are too weak to show up on the oscilloscope.
The discharge however is in the nano-second range. Thus enough
charge per time goes from the antennas to the oscilloscope so
that measurable single-shot signals can be triggered. The time
difference of the two signals can be compared on the screen of
the oscilloscope.
Precautions:
- The signals of each channel must not be influenced by the
presence of the antenna of the other channel.
- The signals must disappear or at least become weaker and delayed
(because of input capacitance loss) in the absence of the Coulomb
antenna (the probe itself is a weak Coulomb antenna).
- The two signals should be of similar order of magnitude.
I've tried several different setups. I also used a few times a
LeCroy, WaveRunner 6100A, DC-1GHz, which showed me that the results
are essentially the same as with my own oscilloscope.
According to my experiments, time differences between the signals
of the nearby and the distant antenna of t = d/2c can easily be
achieved, e.g. 4 ns in the case of a distance 2.4 m, thus clearly
suggesting faster-than-light propagation of the field changes from
the nearby to the distant antenna (light needs 8 ns for 2.4 m).
Because these are single-shot experiments, the results also suggest
FTL information transfer.
Cheers,
Wolfgang Gasser (2007-07-07)
__________________________________________________________________
ADDENDUM (2007-07-11):
More than three days have passed since I posted the above message
to sci.physics.research, but the moderators probably don't want
to direct their reader's attention to "the shame that such a basic
property of electromagnetism as the speed of propagation of the
Coulomb and magnetic potentials still has not been measured".
It would be great if someone could repeat the experiment. Even
better would be a replacement of the spark gap by a high voltage
thyristor or a set up with a powerful semiconductor nanosecond
pulser.
| |
|
| On Jul 10, 5:27 pm, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> At least from a superficial point of view, there is a fundamental
> difference between Coulomb interaction (Maxwell's first law) and
> and electromagnetic radiation.
>
> - In the case of e.m. transversal radiation (photons), conservation
> of momentum and energy occurs on the one hand between emitter and
> radiation, and on the other hand between radiation and receiver,
> but not between emitter and receiver, i.e. there is no retroaction
> of the receiver on the emitter.
>
> - Yet the measurement of a Coulomb force is not possible without
> a direct retroaction on the source of the Coulomb force.
>
> - The action via radiation from an emitter to a receiver can be
> switched on and off. The action can be stopped by deviating or
> absorbing the radiation. All this is impossible in the case of
> pure electric and magnetic interaction. (The only way to prevent
> the action of electric or magnetic fields consists in creating
> inverse fields, e.g. using a Faraday cage.)
>
> Considering these fundamental differences, the fact that e.m.
> radiation propagates at c cannot be taken for experimental
> evidence that changes of the Coulomb field also propagate at c.
>
> Because there doesn't seem to exist (convincing) experiments on
> the propagation speed of Coulomb field changes in the literature,
> I started almost two years ago my own experiments with a not too
> expensive oscilloscope (Tektronix TDS2022, 200 MHz, 2 GHz).
>
> The main problem of measuring the propagation speed of electric
> field changes results from the fact, that a substantial amount of
> charge must be displaced in the emitter in a very short time (in
> order to entail a measurable field change at a given distance). Yet
> charges move only at around 2/3 c (20 cm/ns). The more distant
> from the emitter a measurement takes place, the longer the charges
> must move so that the field changes become measurable. (The field
> of an electrostatic dipole decreases with 1/d^3.)
>
> Therefore, even under the hypothesis that electric fields are
> instantaneous actions at a distance, it would be quite easy to
> design experiments resulting in time delays (of a distant antenna
> wrt a near antenna) in the order of t = d/(2/3 c) = 1.5 d/c.
>
> Nevertheless, high-voltage discharges between two conducting
> spheres (each 30 cm diameter in my case) leading to substantial
> charge transfers seem to be a practicable way in order to get
> convincing experiments.
> _ _
> _ _ / \
> / \ / \ >- \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /
> \ _ / \ _ / _|_|_ \
> |_____|
> spheres with
> spark gap antenna oscilloscope antenna
>
> A simple influence machine is enough to generate high voltage
> sparks leading to substantial charge displacements in short
> periods of time. The spheres, the probes with the Coulomb antennas
> and the oscilloscope are all placed in one line (where transversal
> radiation from the spark, emitted rather perpendicularly to this
> line, is negligible).
>
> When charging the spheres, the Coulomb antennas connected to the
> probes take the opposite charge of the nearby of the two spheres.
> Because the charging of the spheres and antennas occurs slowly, the
> currents and voltages are too weak to show up on the oscilloscope.
>
> The discharge however is in the nano-second range. Thus enough
> charge per time goes from the antennas to the oscilloscope so
> that measurable single-shot signals can be triggered. The time
> difference of the two signals can be compared on the screen of
> the oscilloscope.
>
> Precautions:
>
> - The signals of each channel must not be influenced by the
> presence of the antenna of the other channel.
> - The signals must disappear or at least become weaker and delayed
> (because of input capacitance loss) in the absence of the Coulomb
> antenna (the probe itself is a weak Coulomb antenna).
> - The two signals should be of similar order of magnitude.
>
> I've tried several different setups. I also used a few times a
> LeCroy, WaveRunner 6100A, DC-1GHz, which showed me that the results
> are essentially the same as with my own oscilloscope.
>
> According to my experiments, time differences between the signals
> of the nearby and the distant antenna of t = d/2c can easily be
> achieved, e.g. 4 ns in the case of a distance 2.4 m, thus clearly
> suggesting faster-than-light propagation of the field changes from
> the nearby to the distant antenna (light needs 8 ns for 2.4 m).
>
> Because these are single-shot experiments, the results also suggest
> FTL information transfer.
>
> Cheers,
> Wolfgang Gasser (2007-07-07)
>
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> ADDENDUM (2007-07-11):
>
> More than three days have passed since I posted the above message
> to sci.physics.research, but the moderators probably don't want
> to direct their reader's attention to "the shame that such a basic
> property of electromagnetism as the speed of propagation of the
> Coulomb and magnetic potentials still has not been measured".
>
> It would be great if someone could repeat the experiment. Even
> better would be a replacement of the spark gap by a high voltage
> thyristor or a set up with a powerful semiconductor nanosecond
> pulser.
You may be in line for the Nobel prize except some other crank from
Canada has scooped you by several years. He even applied for a patent
for his discovery. Just one question, when you set up your
oscilloscope , what do you use as trigger signal?
| |
| Eric Gisse 2007-07-10, 8:25 pm |
| On Jul 10, 5:01 pm, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
> You may be in line for the Nobel prize except some other crank from
> Canada has scooped you by several years. He even applied for a patent
> for his discovery. Just one question, when you set up your
> oscilloscope , what do you use as trigger signal?
If this turns into a phase vs group velocity misunderstanding again, I
won't be surprised.
I didn't even look too close at the setup considering how he couldn't
even understand energy/momentum conservation in classical E&M.
| |
|
| On Jul 10, 6:22 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 5:01 pm, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
> If this turns into a phase vs group velocity misunderstanding again, I
> won't be surprised.
>
No, it isn't. It is something else, I promise you that it is going to
be fun :-)
| |
| Surfer 2007-07-11, 3:25 am |
| On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:27:03 +0200, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z@z.lol.li>
wrote:
>At least from a superficial point of view, there is a fundamental
>difference between Coulomb interaction (Maxwell's first law) and
>and electromagnetic radiation.
>
>- In the case of e.m. transversal radiation (photons), conservation
> of momentum and energy occurs on the one hand between emitter and
> radiation, and on the other hand between radiation and receiver,
> but not between emitter and receiver, i.e. there is no retroaction
> of the receiver on the emitter.
>
>- Yet the measurement of a Coulomb force is not possible without
> a direct retroaction on the source of the Coulomb force.
>
>- The action via radiation from an emitter to a receiver can be
> switched on and off. The action can be stopped by deviating or
> absorbing the radiation. All this is impossible in the case of
> pure electric and magnetic interaction. (The only way to prevent
> the action of electric or magnetic fields consists in creating
> inverse fields, e.g. using a Faraday cage.)
>
>Considering these fundamental differences, the fact that e.m.
>radiation propagates at c cannot be taken for experimental
>evidence that changes of the Coulomb field also propagate at c.
>
>Because there doesn't seem to exist (convincing) experiments on
>the propagation speed of Coulomb field changes in the literature,
>I started almost two years ago my own experiments with a not too
>expensive oscilloscope (Tektronix TDS2022, 200 MHz, 2 GHz).
>
>The main problem of measuring the propagation speed of electric
>field changes results from the fact, that a substantial amount of
>charge must be displaced in the emitter in a very short time (in
>order to entail a measurable field change at a given distance). Yet
>charges move only at around 2/3 c (20 cm/ns). The more distant
>from the emitter a measurement takes place, the longer the charges
>must move so that the field changes become measurable. (The field
>of an electrostatic dipole decreases with 1/d^3.)
>
>Therefore, even under the hypothesis that electric fields are
>instantaneous actions at a distance, it would be quite easy to
>design experiments resulting in time delays (of a distant antenna
>wrt a near antenna) in the order of t = d/(2/3 c) = 1.5 d/c.
>
>Nevertheless, high-voltage discharges between two conducting
>spheres (each 30 cm diameter in my case) leading to substantial
>charge transfers seem to be a practicable way in order to get
>convincing experiments.
> _ _
> _ _ / \
> / \ / \ >- \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /
> \ _ / \ _ / _|_|_ \
> |_____|
> spheres with
> spark gap antenna oscilloscope antenna
>
>A simple influence machine is enough to generate high voltage
>sparks leading to substantial charge displacements in short
>periods of time. The spheres, the probes with the Coulomb antennas
>and the oscilloscope are all placed in one line (where transversal
>radiation from the spark, emitted rather perpendicularly to this
>line, is negligible).
>
>When charging the spheres, the Coulomb antennas connected to the
>probes take the opposite charge of the nearby of the two spheres.
>Because the charging of the spheres and antennas occurs slowly, the
>currents and voltages are too weak to show up on the oscilloscope.
>
>The discharge however is in the nano-second range. Thus enough
>charge per time goes from the antennas to the oscilloscope so
>that measurable single-shot signals can be triggered. The time
>difference of the two signals can be compared on the screen of
>the oscilloscope.
>
>Precautions:
>
>- The signals of each channel must not be influenced by the
> presence of the antenna of the other channel.
>- The signals must disappear or at least become weaker and delayed
> (because of input capacitance loss) in the absence of the Coulomb
> antenna (the probe itself is a weak Coulomb antenna).
>- The two signals should be of similar order of magnitude.
>
>I've tried several different setups. I also used a few times a
>LeCroy, WaveRunner 6100A, DC-1GHz, which showed me that the results
>are essentially the same as with my own oscilloscope.
>
>According to my experiments, time differences between the signals
>of the nearby and the distant antenna of t = d/2c can easily be
>achieved, e.g. 4 ns in the case of a distance 2.4 m, thus clearly
>suggesting faster-than-light propagation of the field changes from
>the nearby to the distant antenna (light needs 8 ns for 2.4 m).
>
>Because these are single-shot experiments, the results also suggest
>FTL information transfer.
>
>Cheers,
>Wolfgang Gasser (2007-07-07)
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>
>
>ADDENDUM (2007-07-11):
>
>More than three days have passed since I posted the above message
>to sci.physics.research, but the moderators probably don't want
>to direct their reader's attention to "the shame that such a basic
>property of electromagnetism as the speed of propagation of the
>Coulomb and magnetic potentials still has not been measured".
>
>It would be great if someone could repeat the experiment. Even
>better would be a replacement of the spark gap by a high voltage
>thyristor or a set up with a powerful semiconductor nanosecond
>pulser.
>
This will make you happy !
"Quantum electrodynamics and experiment demonstrate the non-retarded
nature of electrodynamical force fields"
J.H.Field
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1661
Abstract
"In quantum electrodynamics, the quantitatively most successful theory
in the history of science, intercharge forces obeying the inverse
square law are due to the exchange of space-like virtual photons. The
fundamental quantum process underlying applications as diverse as the
gyromagnetic ratio of the electron and electrical machinery is then
Moller scattering ee-ee . Analysis of the quantum amplitude for this
process shows that the corresponding intercharge force acts
instantaneously. This prediction has been verified in a recent
experiment."
The experiment he refers to is here:
"Experimental test on the applicability of the standard retardation
condition to bound magnetic fields"
A. L. Kholmetskii et. al.
Journal of Applied Physics -- 15 January 2007
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...=cvips&gifs=Yes
There is a related preprint here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601084
Cheers,
Surfer
| |
| Eric Gisse 2007-07-11, 3:25 am |
| On Jul 10, 6:00 pm, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 6:22 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No, it isn't. It is something else, I promise you that it is going to
> be fun :-)
....if he bothers to defend himself.
His understanding of electromagnetic theory is laughable at best.
| |
|
| On Jul 10, 9:04 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 6:00 pm, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...if he bothers to defend himself.
>
> His understanding of electromagnetic theory is laughable at best.
He will, you'll see, never underestimate a crank.
| |
| Sue... 2007-07-11, 3:25 am |
| On Jul 10, 9:27 pm, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
> ADDENDUM (2007-07-11):
>
> More than three days have passed since I posted the above message
> to sci.physics.research, but the moderators probably don't want
> to direct their reader's attention to "the shame that such a basic
> property of electromagnetism as the speed of propagation of the
> Coulomb and magnetic potentials still has not been measured".
Or it may simply be that the moderators recognise
misinterpretation of relativistic field equations when
they see it.
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachi...res/node50.html
>
> It would be great if someone could repeat the experiment. Even
> better would be a replacement of the spark gap by a high voltage
> thyristor or a set up with a powerful semiconductor nanosecond
> pulser.
It would be "great" if you learn what you are testing.
<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [or absorber] structure. >>
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
"How an antenna launches its input power
into radiation: the pattern of the Poynting
vector at and near an antenna"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
Sue...
| |
| H. Wabnig 2007-07-11, 3:25 am |
| On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:27:03 +0200, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z@z.lol.li>
wrote:
>.............
> _ _
> _ _ / \
> / \ / \ >- \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /
> \ _ / \ _ / _|_|_ \
> |_____|
> spheres with
> spark gap antenna oscilloscope antenna
>
>.............
This is the old and well known "standing wave" setup,
which makes you erroneously believe that you are smart.
w.
| |
| Wolfgang G. Gasser 2007-07-11, 5:25 pm |
| >> = Wolfgang G. Gasser in news:f7182t$kvd$1@atlas.ip-plus.net
> = H. Wabnig in news:62299311st1aprd73lcvcdg1cirbeivofv@4ax.com
>
> This is the old and well known "standing wave" setup,
This may be the case, but using "standing waves" does not help
very much. A single-shot event such as a spark leading to a
substantial charge transfer is much more appropriate to measure
propagation speed. The oscillations emerging in the spheres
(the direction of the current in the spark can change) also
suggest instantaneity of the Coulomb interaction. But such
an 'apparent instantaneity' has already been found by Heinrich
Hertz before he succeeded to detect transversal radiation. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....96c1b5a43a5ccde
See also:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....d70c727b10d88d6
> = Sue... in news:1184134755.174093.263890@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> "Retarded potential"
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachi...res/node50.html
"Suppose that a charge comes into existence for a period of time,
emits a Coulomb field, and then disappears. Suppose that a
distant charge interacts with this field, but is sufficiently
far from the first charge that by the time the field arrives the
first charge has already disappeared. The force exerted on the
second charge is only ascribable to the electric field: it
cannot be ascribed to the first charge, because this charge no
longer exists by the time the force is exerted. The electric
field clearly transmits energy and momentum between the two
charges."
This reasoning once again ignores the huge fundamental difference
between purely electric or purely magnetic interaction and e.m.
transversal radiation. A sudden disappearance of an emitter has
no influence at all on the radiation already emitted, nor has
the reception of radiation by a receiver any retroaction on the
emitter, becaue emitter and receiver are not linked by Newton's
third law. Also, the emitter of e.m. radiation loses energy, and
without an energy supply, the emitter cannot radiate (steadily).
Yet in the case of a charge, the field is independent of an
energy supply. Neither the charge nor its electr(ostat)ic field
can suddenly disappear*. A measurable effect on a second charge
is impossible without a retroeffect on the first charge, because
both charges are directly linked by Newton's third law.
"Let us now consider a moving charge. Such a charge is continually
emitting spherical waves in the scalar potential, and the
resulting wavefront pattern is sketched in Fig. 38. Clearly, the
wavefronts are more closely spaced in front of the charge than
they are behind it, suggesting that the electric field in front
is larger than the field behind."
Fig. 38 elegantly shows the violation of Gauss' law for electricity
(Maxwell's first equation) stating that the electric flux out of
any closed surface is proportional to the total charge enclosed
within the surface. Imagine spheres of different radiuses with the
charge at the center and integrate the flux out of them. See also:
http://tinyurl.com/2hbskq (Infinite electric flux paradox).
> = Bilge in news:slrnf99411.12rr.dubious@iris.lebesque-al.net
>
> Sure it can.
Do you also take the fact that electromagnetic radiation can be
used to transfer information over huge distances for evidence that
the same can be done with purely electric fields?
Cheers, Wolfgang
* Nevertheless, it is possible to transfer an arbitrary amount of
charge over an arbitrary long distance in an arbitrarily short
period of time:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+ - + - ... ... + -
A series of pairs of plates are set up in a line. The plates of
each pair are connected by a thyristor 'o'. The opposite plates of
each pair are inversely charged. When all thyristors are switched
on at the same time, the electrons move from the negative plates
to the postive ones. The fact that a thyristor is a semi-conductor
device prevents the electrons from oscillating between the plates.
| |
| srp@microtec.net 2007-07-13, 1:25 pm |
| On 10 juil, 20:27, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> At least from a superficial point of view, there is a fundamental
> difference between Coulomb interaction (Maxwell's first law) and
> and electromagnetic radiation.
>
> - In the case of e.m. transversal radiation (photons), conservation
> of momentum and energy occurs on the one hand between emitter and
> radiation, and on the other hand between radiation and receiver,
> but not between emitter and receiver, i.e. there is no retroaction
> of the receiver on the emitter.
Exact.
> - Yet the measurement of a Coulomb force is not possible without
> a direct retroaction on the source of the Coulomb force.
This force is deemed to be acting between charges.
If you have a photon emitted by some electron moving inwards to
a location closer to its nucleus, it moves at c. If it is absorbed by
some particle or atom not very close to the emitting atom, then
the force between emitter and receiver will be infinitesimal at
best. What's more, the force that may be at play between
emitter atom and receiver atom plays no role with regards
to the moving photon.
Once free, the photon is on its own, and will hit whatever
is its path, irrespective of the force that may be at play
between emitter atom and receiver atom.
What is your view on these comments ?
> - The action via radiation from an emitter to a receiver can be
> switched on and off. The action can be stopped by deviating or
> absorbing the radiation. All this is impossible in the case of
> pure electric and magnetic interaction. (The only way to prevent
> the action of electric or magnetic fields consists in creating
> inverse fields, e.g. using a Faraday cage.)
>
> Considering these fundamental differences, the fact that e.m.
> radiation propagates at c cannot be taken for experimental
> evidence that changes of the Coulomb field also propagate at c.
>
> Because there doesn't seem to exist (convincing) experiments on
> the propagation speed of Coulomb field changes in the literature,
> I started almost two years ago my own experiments with a not too
> expensive oscilloscope (Tektronix TDS2022, 200 MHz, 2 GHz).
>
> The main problem of measuring the propagation speed of electric
> field changes results from the fact, that a substantial amount of
> charge must be displaced in the emitter in a very short time (in
> order to entail a measurable field change at a given distance). Yet
> charges move only at around 2/3 c (20 cm/ns). The more distant
> from the emitter a measurement takes place, the longer the charges
> must move so that the field changes become measurable. (The field
> of an electrostatic dipole decreases with 1/d^3.)
>
> Therefore, even under the hypothesis that electric fields are
> instantaneous actions at a distance, it would be quite easy to
> design experiments resulting in time delays (of a distant antenna
> wrt a near antenna) in the order of t = d/(2/3 c) = 1.5 d/c.
>
> Nevertheless, high-voltage discharges between two conducting
> spheres (each 30 cm diameter in my case) leading to substantial
> charge transfers seem to be a practicable way in order to get
> convincing experiments.
> _ _
> _ _ / \
> / \ / \ >- \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /
> \ _ / \ _ / _|_|_ \
> |_____|
> spheres with
> spark gap antenna oscilloscope antenna
>
> A simple influence machine is enough to generate high voltage
> sparks leading to substantial charge displacements in short
> periods of time. The spheres, the probes with the Coulomb antennas
> and the oscilloscope are all placed in one line (where transversal
> radiation from the spark, emitted rather perpendicularly to this
> line, is negligible).
>
> When charging the spheres, the Coulomb antennas connected to the
> probes take the opposite charge of the nearby of the two spheres.
> Because the charging of the spheres and antennas occurs slowly, the
> currents and voltages are too weak to show up on the oscilloscope.
>
> The discharge however is in the nano-second range. Thus enough
> charge per time goes from the antennas to the oscilloscope so
> that measurable single-shot signals can be triggered. The time
> difference of the two signals can be compared on the screen of
> the oscilloscope.
>
> Precautions:
>
> - The signals of each channel must not be influenced by the
> presence of the antenna of the other channel.
> - The signals must disappear or at least become weaker and delayed
> (because of input capacitance loss) in the absence of the Coulomb
> antenna (the probe itself is a weak Coulomb antenna).
> - The two signals should be of similar order of magnitude.
>
> I've tried several different setups. I also used a few times a
> LeCroy, WaveRunner 6100A, DC-1GHz, which showed me that the results
> are essentially the same as with my own oscilloscope.
>
> According to my experiments, time differences between the signals
> of the nearby and the distant antenna of t = d/2c can easily be
> achieved, e.g. 4 ns in the case of a distance 2.4 m, thus clearly
> suggesting faster-than-light propagation of the field changes from
> the nearby to the distant antenna (light needs 8 ns for 2.4 m).
>
> Because these are single-shot experiments, the results also suggest
> FTL information transfer.
>
> Cheers,
> Wolfgang Gasser (2007-07-07)
>
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> ADDENDUM (2007-07-11):
>
> More than three days have passed since I posted the above message
> to sci.physics.research, but the moderators probably don't want
> to direct their reader's attention to "the shame that such a basic
> property of electromagnetism as the speed of propagation of the
> Coulomb and magnetic potentials still has not been measured".
>
> It would be great if someone could repeat the experiment. Even
> better would be a replacement of the spark gap by a high voltage
> thyristor or a set up with a powerful semiconductor nanosecond
> pulser.
| |
| Wolfgang G. Gasser 2007-07-14, 5:25 pm |
| >> = Wolfgang G. Gasser in news:f7182t$kvd$1@atlas.ip-plus.net
> = srp in news:1184342300.907654.163210@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
>
> Exact.
>
>
> This force is deemed to be acting between charges.
>
> If you have a photon emitted by some electron moving inwards to
> a location closer to its nucleus, it moves at c.
Agreed. Relativistic mass (resp. total energy) and momentum are
conserved, when the photon emerges: The atom suffers a recoil
impulse in the opposite direction and the atom also loses the
energy corresponding to the emerging photon.
See also:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....8b57c2f826fd3e1
> If it is
> absorbed by some particle or atom not very close to the
> emitting atom, then the force between emitter and receiver
> will be infinitesimal at best.
I would say: there may be very small electric or magnetic
interactions between the emitting and the receiving atom
independent of the photon.
> What's more, the force that
> may be at play between emitter atom and receiver atom plays
> no role with regards to the moving photon.
Agreed.
> Once free, the photon is on its own, and will hit whatever
> is its path, irrespective of the force that may be at play
> between emitter atom and receiver atom.
Agreed.
My view on 'virtual photons':
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....2a1aa7e869481ed
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....2280b0ba0da2c02
Jens Dierks in news:4695eed4$0$22647$9b622d9e@news.freenet.de :
>
> Das ist doch Unsinn, ob man ein "pures" elektrisches Feld hat,
> ist beobachterabhängig.
Whether within special relativity the concept 'pure electric field
with respect to all observers' is nonsense or not is not relevant.
My question is an answer to Bilge who claims that the fact that
electromagnetic transversal radiation propagates at c can be taken
for experimental evidence that changes in the Coulomb field also
propagate at c.
Let us imagine two conducting tubes with a spark gap in between:
____________ ____________
/ \ / \
\____________/ \____________/
If the voltage difference between the tubes exceeds a threshold
then a spark appears. At least if the conductivity of the spark
is high enough, charge starts oscillating between the tubes. But
whereas transversal radiation is maximum at a right angle to the
tubes (above-below in the the picture), the change in electric
field is maximum in the prolongation of the tubes (left-right).
So any attempt to deny a fundamental difference between transversal
radiation and the Coulomb field is doomed to failure.
And we must not forget that the asymmetries mentioned by Einstein
in his well-known first relativity paper
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics -- as usually
understood at the present time -- when applied to moving bodies,
leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the
phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic
action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon
here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and
the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction
between the two cases in which either the one or the other of
these bodies is in motion." (June, 1905)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
do only arise if one takes seriously Maxwell's completely unfounded
claim to have demonstrated that all e.m. effects (even currents
in conductors!) propagate at c. If mutual induction is a direct
interaction-at-a-distance of magnet and conductor, depending on
their relative motion, then no difference in the "reciprocal
electrodynamic action" depending on whether "the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion" must be explained away.
Cheers, Wolfgang
| |
| srp@microtec.net 2007-07-14, 5:25 pm |
| On 14 juil, 14:42, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Agreed. Relativistic mass (resp. total energy) and momentum are
> conserved, when the photon emerges: The atom suffers a recoil
> impulse in the opposite direction and the atom also loses the
> energy corresponding to the emerging photon.
>
> See also:http://groups.google.com/group/sci....ity/msg/08b57c=
2f826...
>
>
> I would say: there may be very small electric or magnetic
> interactions between the emitting and the receiving atom
> independent of the photon.
Absolutely. The well known Coulomb interaction that acts
as a function of the inverse square of the distance between
each pair of charges involved. Each charge in one atom
interacting with each charge in the other atom.
The magnetic interaction on its part is much shorter ranged
by nature at the fundamental level since, obeying far field
rules by structure (point like particles being involved) act
as a function of the inverse cube of the distance.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> My view on 'virtual photons':http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.p=
article/msg/82a1aa7e869481edhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.rela=
tivity/msg/22280b0ba0d...
>
I also discussed some with Frank Wappler years ago.
I also agree that virtual photons are only a useful mathematical
concept. Feynman introduced them first and foremost as a
metaphor of the underlying coulomb interaction.
His interest in this was that virtual photons, being quantized by
definition, allow easy use of "snapshot" Feynman diagrams, whereas
the dynamic coulomb force is much more difficult to lay on paper.
Here is a quote from an expose to a paper that I presented
in 2000 at the St Petersburg Congress
"If, as Feynman suggests, the Coulomb interaction is mediated
solely by an exchange of virtual photons between the particles
involved, the following questions jump to my mind:
a) How can mutual interaction be initiated if virtual photons are
the sole mediators of the interaction, since a photon must first
be emitted by one particle before it can be absorbed by the other?
b) What causes one of the particles involved to emit the first
virtual
photon of the exchange, and how is the direction of its emission
determined?
I see an obvious causality problem here, because a mediation of the
exchange by virtual photons as proposed by Feynman bundles together
two fundamentally very different aspects of the relation between
particles:
1) the Coulombian interaction itself, or "Coulomb force", or
"electrostatic force", whose nature and origin are still a mystery,
that
acts permanently as a function of the inverse square of the distance
between charged particles, and which is the cause of the acceleration
of the particles towards, or away, from each other (or should we
rather
more precisely say, which is the cause of the induction of an energy
of
motion in the particles, vectorially directed towards the other
particle in
case of attraction and in opposite direction in case of repulsion,
that
naturally manifests its presence by a change in velocity of the
particles
when no external electromagnetic constraint partially or completely
prevents such a change in velocity);
2) and the unquantized quantity of energy of motion itself that is
progressively induced between the particles as a function of the
distance
between them, whether or not a change in velocity occurs, that acts
as
carrying energy for the particle, and whose quantized form
constitutes
the very substance of all existing particles.
There is also the problem that virtual photons are by definition
discrete
quantities which seem to imply that the potential is induced in
discrete
increments between the particles, which is in direct contradiction
with
the fact that the quantity of energy of motion is progressively
induced
at any distance as a function of the infinitely progressive inverse
square
law of the distance.
Scattering and collision events not actually being physically
instantaneous,
I also think that there are good reasons to question Feynman's
opinion
when he declares, and I quote:
"In many problems, for example, the close collisions of particles, we
are
not interested in the precise temporal sequence of events. It is of
no
interest to be able to say how the situation would look at each
instant
of time during a collision and how it progresses from instant to
instant."
Ref: Space-Time Approach to Quantum Electrodynamics,
Phys. Rev. 76, 769 p.771
Needless to say that I deeply disagree with Feynman, because this
research philosophy has induced the respectful following generations
of physicists to refrain from exploring the only remaining unexplored
frontier in fundamental physics for the past 50 years:
"
that about sums up my view of virtual photons.
> Jens Dierks innews:4695eed4$0$22647$9b622d9e@news.freenet.de:
>
>
>
> Whether within special relativity the concept 'pure electric field
> with respect to all observers' is nonsense or not is not relevant.
>
> My question is an answer to Bilge who claims that the fact that
> electromagnetic transversal radiation propagates at c can be taken
> for experimental evidence that changes in the Coulomb field also
> propagate at c.
I don't think so. From my analysis, the so-called Coulomb field
is only a mathematical spherical Gaussian representation about
a charged particle of the potential intensity of the Coulomb force
over all of space that can materialize (be real) ONLY IF another
charge does exist somewhere in that space.
The first Maxwell equation then resolves to the very simple
Coulomb equation.
This means that the real force can exist (be present) only on
straight lines joining pairs of charges.
>
> Let us imagine two conducting tubes with a spark gap in between:
> ____________ ____________
> / \ / \
> \____________/ \____________/
>
> If the voltage difference between the tubes exceeds a threshold
> then a spark appears. At least if the conductivity of the spark
> is high enough, charge starts oscillating between the tubes. But
> whereas transversal radiation is maximum at a right angle to the
> tubes (above-below in the the picture), the change in electric
> field is maximum in the prolongation of the tubes (left-right).
Well, in such a context, sparks appear only because there is
air or some other gas that the electrons crossing the gap
interact wich results in photon emission. If the arc occured
in pure vacuum, the electrons would cross the gap without
any sparking being visible.
> So any attempt to deny a fundamental difference between transversal
> radiation and the Coulomb field is doomed to failure.
There definitely is a difference.
> And we must not forget that the asymmetries mentioned by Einstein
> in his well-known first relativity paper
>
> "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics -- as usually
> understood at the present time -- when applied to moving bodies,
> leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the
> phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic
> action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon
> here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and
> the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction
> between the two cases in which either the one or the other of
> these bodies is in motion." (June, 1905)
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> do only arise if one takes seriously Maxwell's completely unfounded
> claim to have demonstrated that all e.m. effects (even currents
> in conductors!) propagate at c. If mutual induction is a direct
> interaction-at-a-distance of magnet and conductor, depending on
> their relative motion, then no difference in the "reciprocal
> electrodynamic action" depending on whether "the one or the other
> of these bodies is in motion" must be explained away.
What a strange turn of event that you would mention this quote
from Einstein's paper!!!
This very day, in a different thread, I gave my view on this
very point.
I requote my comment here`:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
He [Einstein] later showed that there is no asymmetry with
respect to Maxwell's electrodynamics. See the Einstein-de Haas
effect, and also the Barnett effect, which are practicallynever
referenced.
It relates the triple orthogonal electro-magnetic-motion
relation of electromagnetic energy.
I wrote this little piece to refocus attention on these effects
http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud3.pdf
The issue hinges on the fact that the loose electrons in
the conductor are held captive by the bar magnet due
to forced reverse alignment of the spins of these electrons,
so when the coil is moved, the electrons tend to remain
stationary with respect to the bar magnet, which causes
them to circulate in the coil if the coil is moved.
the reverse process has the very same cause, if you move
the bar magnet inside the coil, then the electrons will
circulate for the same reason, in this case, they simply
follow the magnet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cheers, Wolfgang
Have a nice day.
Andr=E9 Michaud
| |
| srp@microtec.net 2007-07-14, 5:25 pm |
| On 14 juil, 16:30, s...@microtec.net wrote:
> On 14 juil, 14:42, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[snip]
> Well, in such a context, sparks appear only because there is
> air or some other gas that the electrons crossing the gap
> interact wich results in photon emission. If the arc occured
> in pure vacuum, the electrons would cross the gap without
> any sparking being visible...
I should have added :
..=2E.except at the point of re-entry of the electron stream into
the material on the other side of the gap, where photons
will be emitted anyway.
but the stream itself between in the gap would be invisible.
Andr=E9 Michaud
| |
| eugene_stefanovich@usa.net 2007-07-14, 9:25 pm |
| On Jul 14, 1:30 pm, s...@microtec.net wrote:
> Scattering and collision events not actually being physically
> instantaneous,
> I also think that there are good reasons to question Feynman's
> opinion
> when he declares, and I quote:
>
> "In many problems, for example, the close collisions of particles, we
> are
> not interested in the precise temporal sequence of events. It is of
> no
> interest to be able to say how the situation would look at each
> instant
> of time during a collision and how it progresses from instant to
> instant."
> Ref: Space-Time Approach to Quantum Electrodynamics,
> Phys. Rev. 76, 769 p.771
>
> Needless to say that I deeply disagree with Feynman, because this
> research philosophy has induced the respectful following generations
> of physicists to refrain from exploring the only remaining unexplored
> frontier in fundamental physics for the past 50 years:
I totally agree with you on this point. QED doesn't pay attention to
the time evolution of states and observables. It is concerned only
with S-matrix calculations. I have developed a "dressed particle"
formalism, which is an alternative to QED.
E. V. Stefanovich "Relativistic quantum dynamics" http://www.arxiv.org/physics/0504062
In contrast to QED, it has a well-defined Hamiltonian, which allows
one to study the time evolution, bound states, and scattering without
encountering ultraviolet divergences. In this formalism, charged
particles interact with each other not by exchanging "virtual photons"
but by direct "action at a distance".
| |
| srp@microtec.net 2007-07-14, 9:25 pm |
| On 14 juil, 21:31, eugene_stefanov...@usa.net wrote:
> On Jul 14, 1:30 pm, s...@microtec.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I totally agree with you on this point. QED doesn't pay attention to
> the time evolution of states and observables. It is concerned only
> with S-matrix calculations. I have developed a "dressed particle"
> formalism, which is an alternative to QED.
>
> E. V. Stefanovich "Relativistic quantum dynamics"http://www.arxiv.org/phy=
sics/0504062
Very interesting. I will have a look.
> In contrast to QED, it has a well-defined Hamiltonian, which allows
> one to study the time evolution, bound states, and scattering without
> encountering ultraviolet divergences. In this formalism, charged
> particles interact with each other not by exchanging "virtual photons"
> but by direct "action at a distance".
Well, I must say that this sounds totally clean to me. It always
made me smile to observe that instanteneous action at a distance
was readily admitted by orthodoxy when so-called entanglement
was concerned but rejected out of hand when Coulomb interaction
was concerned.
I went even a little further than instantaneous action at a distance
in my model in the case of the force in action between charges
by refocussing the concept as "permanent presence" of the
interacting force.
My own model stems entirely from Maxwell, Based on a new
space geometry that mandatorily comes into being when treating
Maxwell's spherically expanding EM wave at its localized
point-like source instead of at the wavefront by means of plane
wave treatment.
The outcome is a 3-spaces geometry each of which is 3-dimentional
and each of which is orthogonal to the other 2.
The end result is a seamless series of clearly defined interaction
sequences that provides an uninterrupted path of causality from the
unquantized quantities of energy of motion which are induced between
particles through Coulomb interaction, to the quantization of that
energy
in the form of photons when the relative quantization threshold is
locally
reached, to the creation of electrons and positrons from the
destabilization
of photons of sufficient energy, and finally to the creation of
protons and
neutrons from the interaction of electrons and positrons when a mix of
3 including both types are forced into sufficiently small volumes of
space.
Andr=E9 Michaud
| |
| Wolfgang G. Gasser 2007-07-17, 5:25 pm |
| Wolfgang G. Gasser in news:f7182t$kvd$1@atlas.ip-plus.net :
> According to my experiments, time differences between the signals
> of the nearby and the distant antenna of t = d/2c can easily be
> achieved, e.g. 4 ns in the case of a distance 2.4 m, thus clearly
> suggesting faster-than-light propagation of the field changes from
> the nearby to the distant antenna (light needs 8 ns for 2.4 m).
I must admit that a result of on average of 4 ns instead of 8 ns
(corresponding to a propagation speed of c) is rather difficult
with a set-up sketched in my previous posting. Nevertheless, I
can achieve it with a set-up like this
_
/ \
_ _ _ _ / / _ _ _ _
/ \ / / / \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /
\ _ _ _ _ / \ _ / >- _|_|_ \
|_____|
spark gap antenna oscilloscope antenna
where on both sides of the spark gap two spheres are linked by
aluminium foil in order to get something like a tube:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/ \ / \ / \
\ _ / \ _ / + _ _ _ _ --> \ _ _ _ _ /
The purpose of this setup is to prevent the currents from flowing
too soon in a direction opposite to the desired one and thus
contributing to a field change of opposite sign. This happens when
the first electrons after having passed the spark gap reach the
end of the sphere (resp. tube) opposite to the spark gap and from
then on start moving backwards.
In my last experiment I used such tubes (with aluminium foil
connections of 1 meter).
Setup of the experiment: http://tinyurl.com/yqa4hw/01.jpg
Influence machine and spark gap: http://tinyurl.com/yqa4hw/02.jpg
The distance from the spark gap to the unprotected end of one
probe is 2.75 m nearer than to the other end. (The distance
between the ends of the two antennas is even 3 m.)
According to the retardation hypothesis, the signal of the
distant antenna should be delayed by at least 2.75 m / c = 9 ns
with respect to the other signal. A typical screen shot of the
oscilloscope looks like this: http://tinyurl.com/yqa4hw/11.jpg
The bigger amplitude of the distant antenna after a few
oscillations results from its bigger capacity (there is more
charge participating in the oscillation). The length of the
nearby (funnel shaped) antenna is only around 4 cm, whereas
the other length is around 16 cm.
The oscillation period of short of 30 ns results from the time
a charge needs to perform a full oscillation on the emitter
system (i.e. from the spark gap to one end, then through the
spark to other end, and back to the spark gap).
If we change time per division from 25 ns to 10 ns and volts per
division to 10 V we get: http://tinyurl.com/yqa4hw/12.jpg
The interesting part however is the begin of the signal,
because it represents the arrival of the information that a
spark has occured: http://tinyurl.com/yqa4hw/13.jpg
I'd like know how such an outcome can be considered consistent
with the retardation hypothesis.
Cheers, Wolfgang
| |
| Tom Roberts 2007-07-17, 8:25 pm |
| srp@microtec.net wrote:[color=darkred]
> On 14 juil, 16:30, s...@microtec.net wrote:
In real life, the sparks in a vacuum RF cavity are visible (though it
requires a bit of cleverness to be able to observe them). The sparks
vaporize some of the material from the walls. Indeed one can sometimes
find a powdery residue at the bottom of the cavity (depends on how much
conditioning was needed to "burn off" the surface imperfections that
caused the breakdowns that lead to sparks).
Tom Roberts
| |
| Tom Roberts 2007-07-17, 9:25 pm |
| srp@microtec.net wrote:
> "If, as Feynman suggests, the Coulomb interaction is mediated
> solely by an exchange of virtual photons between the particles
> involved, the following questions jump to my mind:
>
> a) How can mutual interaction be initiated if virtual photons are
> the sole mediators of the interaction, since a photon must first
> be emitted by one particle before it can be absorbed by the other?
In QED this is not true. The time order of emission and absorption of
virtual photons is not definite -- indeed "emission" and "absorption"
are not definite, and your "one particle" and "the other" are not definite.
> b) What causes one of the particles involved to emit the first
> virtual
> photon of the exchange, and how is the direction of its emission
> determined?
In QED this is indeterminate. "cause" does not apply.
> I see an obvious causality problem here, [...]
It's only a problem if one insists on NAIVE causality. QED has
causality, but it is not nearly as simplistic as you think.
> [...]
Before you attempt to criticize a theory, you owe it to yourself and
your readers to actually UNDERSTAND the theory.
Tom Roberts
| |
| Tom Roberts 2007-07-17, 9:25 pm |
| Wolfgang G. Gasser wrote:
> At least from a superficial point of view, there is a fundamental
> difference between Coulomb interaction (Maxwell's first law) and
> and electromagnetic radiation.
Hmmm. All are described accurately by Maxwell's equations, so the
problem is likely to be in your superficiality. We'll see below that
this is indeed the case.
> - In the case of e.m. transversal radiation (photons), conservation
> of momentum and energy occurs on the one hand between emitter and
> radiation, and on the other hand between radiation and receiver,
> but not between emitter and receiver, i.e. there is no retroaction
> of the receiver on the emitter.
Yes. The "retroaction" is from the field onto the emitter. The EM field
carries both energy and momentum whenever the Poynting vector is
nonzero, and it is always nonzero for any emitted radiation. The emitter
puts energy and momentum into the field (Newton's third law is satisfied
at the emitter), and the field puts energy and momentum into the
receiver (where again Newton's third law is satisfied).
Don't attempt to discuss photons; stick to classical
electrodynamics. The quantum subtleties are far too
complex (yes, that's a pun)....
> - Yet the measurement of a Coulomb force is not possible without
> a direct retroaction on the source of the Coulomb force.
Compute the Poynting vector -- for a static E field it is zero, but as
soon as you introduce a detector into the field it will become nonzero
during your measurement. That is, you cannot detect the field without
modifying it (shades of quantum mechanics! -- but this is true in
CLASSICAL electrodynamics as well). In short, it requires energy to move
the needle on your meter (or whatever you used to measure the field),
and that energy can only come from the field itself via a non-zero
Poynting vector.
> - The action via radiation from an emitter to a receiver can be
> switched on and off. The action can be stopped by deviating or
> absorbing the radiation. All this is impossible in the case of
> pure electric and magnetic interaction. (The only way to prevent
> the action of electric or magnetic fields consists in creating
> inverse fields, e.g. using a Faraday cage.)
Again, compute the Poynting vectors for your various situations. For
instance, when you "switch off" the "action" (poor word choice as it has
VERY different connotations in physics) of radiation on a receiver via
an absorber, you need to compute or measure the momentum absorbed by the
absorber.
Note that the absorber will be "creating inverse fields" (that's how
absorbers work), so the distinction you make above is without a
difference. Indeed, the energy and momentum absorbed by the absorber are
equal to the total energy and momentum of its "created inverse fields"
-- this is a simple consequence of energy and momentum conservation plus
the fact that Maxwell's equations are linear.
> Considering these fundamental differences,
They are not "fundamental" differences, they are merely differences in
physical situations, primarily in values of the Poynting vector, which
has been known for over a century.
Different physical situations yield different results. <shrug>
> the fact that e.m.
> radiation propagates at c cannot be taken for experimental
> evidence that changes of the Coulomb field also propagate at c.
No. But in Maxwell's equations the Green's function is either retarded
or advanced with a speed of c, no more or less. The advanced solutions
are physically unobserved, but the retarded solutions are the basis for
all electrical phenomena you observe in the modern world (and they are
legion). So this has EXTENSIVE experimental support.
> _ _
> _ _ / \
> / \ / \ >- \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /
> \ _ / \ _ / _|_|_ \
> |_____|
> spheres with
> spark gap antenna oscilloscope antenna
You need to learn about grounding.
> [...] Because these are single-shot experiments, the results also suggest
> FTL information transfer.
Hmmm. Your poor understanding of electrodynamics, and your lack of
understanding of grounding, suggest your results are not likely to mean
very much. And see below -- this has been done before.
> More than three days have passed since I posted the above message
> to sci.physics.research, but the moderators probably don't want
> to direct their reader's attention to "the shame that such a basic
> property of electromagnetism as the speed of propagation of the
> Coulomb and magnetic potentials still has not been measured".
That is nonsense. The moderators had a posting glitch. Try again. They
may, however, point out the above errors and deem it unacceptable.
And why do you think this is "coulomb and magnetic potentials"? -- you
built a rudimentary radio transmitter and receiver, but don't think you
are measuring radio transmission????
> It would be great if someone could repeat the experiment.
Already done, and the results are well known -- the effect travels with
speed c. Hertz did this in the 1880s or 1890s; thousands of ham radio
operators did it until about the 1920s when spark transmitters were
outlawed.
Be careful repeating this, because it is illegal to broadcast like this.
At a minimum your neighbors may get annoyed at your interfering with
their TV and radio reception.
Tom Roberts
| |
| Salmon Egg 2007-07-18, 3:25 am |
| On 7/17/07 1:02 PM, in article f7j77s$6k$1@atlas.ip-plus.net, "Wolfgang G.
Gasser" <z@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Wolfgang G. Gasser in news:f7182t$kvd$1@atlas.ip-plus.net :
>
>
> I must admit that a result of on average of 4 ns instead of 8 ns
> (corresponding to a propagation speed of c) is rather difficult
> with a set-up sketched in my previous posting. Nevertheless, I
> can achieve it with a set-up like this
I would be more convinced if you measure over a length of 100m or more. Make
the difference in propagation time large enough so that random error is not
casting doubt on your measurement.
Bill
-- The PC conservative does not believe in evolution but likes to see
natural selection proceed. The PC liberal believes in evolution but will do
almost anything to prevent natural selection from working.
| |
| Wolfgang G. Gasser 2007-07-18, 5:25 pm |
| >> = Wolfgang G. Gasser in news:f7182t$kvd$1@atlas.ip-plus.net
> = Tom Roberts in news:IHeni.2283$Dx2.1999@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net
Tom, we had some very intersting discussions in the past, but
this reply of you has not much (relevant) content, and partially
it is not even clear. That you even criticize my use of 'action'
in a context of 'instantaneous interaction' and 'action-at-a-
distance' only shows how difficult it is for you to oppose my
arguments in a rational way.
And your pointing to the work of Heinrich Hertz shows that you
haven't read my second posting news:f73ihl$pa5$1@atlas.ip-plus.net
of this thread. Otherwise you should know that Heinreich Hertz
actually found evidence that the "electrostatic force" is
"propagated with infinite velocity". He found this not only in
the well-known experiment where he succeeded in generating
and detecting transversal radiation, but even before he succeeded
in doing that.
Whether you consider the undeniable differences between Coulomb
interaction and transversal radiation as 'fundamental' or not
is as (ir)relvant as whether you consider the difference between
e.g. men and women as 'fundamental'. Nevertheless, if a charge
oscillates on the x-axis around the the center of a coordinate
system, transversal radiation is maximum in y-z-plane whereas
Coulomb field changes are maximum on the x-axis.
[color=darkred]
> ... That is, you cannot detect the field without modifying it
> (shades of quantum mechanics! -- but this is true in CLASSICAL
> electrodynamics as well).
My point however is: You cannot detect the Coulomb field without
modifying the SOURCE of the field. Conservation of energy and
momentum is easily explainable in the case of the absorption of
photons by a receiver, because photons have energy and momentum
and all happens locally where the absorption occurs.
In the case of Coulomb interactions however, we have a non-local
exchange of energy and momentum between the source of a field
and a detector of the field. In my experiment, positive and
negatives charges of the emitter system and of the antennas
are directly linked by electr(ostat)ic attraction/repulsion.
>
> You need to learn about grounding.
In the beginning, I made several errors with grounding. Once I
had even claimed to have detected instantaneous actions-at-a-
distance, before I had to learn that the synchronism of my
signals where not caused by the (too weak) Coulomb field changes,
but by the grounding current produced by the signal generator,
and distributed by the circuit of the domestic power supply
system up to the oscilloscope.
In my current experiments emitter and receiver are separated.
The signals do not only depend on the size of the antennas but
also on the distance from the emitter. So if your intention is
not only to discredit my results by spreading rumours, you
should specify what you mean.
> = salmonegg in news:C2C2EA82.8A7BE%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net
[color=darkred]
> I would be more convinced if you measure over a length of 100 m
> or more.
There is a huge potential in improving the experiment, but simply
increasing its dimensions doesn't help a lot, because the bigger
the distances are, the longer currents must flow (at 2/3 c) after
spark formation, before electric field changes become measurable.
> Make the difference in propagation time large enough so
> that random error is not casting doubt on your measurement.
Random errors are only a minor problem. The unpredictability
of sparks is a more serious problem. The problem with my
experiment mentioned here (and sketched above in my reply to
Tom) however is that a distance of 2.4 m between the receiving
antennas is rather too big for the emitter-system, where already
2.3 ns after spark formation, charge starts flowing backward to
the spark gap.
Another interesting experiment would be the measurement of the
propagation speed of mutual inductance using as an emitter a
solenoid (without core) of e.g. 1000 circular turns with each
a circumference of 20 cm, where each turn contains an electronic
circuit interrupter (e.g. a thyristor). If all 1000 turns are
interrupted within one nanosecond or shorter, then the original
magnetic field should disappear fast enough to induce mearurable
currents at big enough distances.
In any case, all less crucial physical experients should be
stopped until this open question is experimentally decided.
Cheers, Wolfgang
|
|
|
|
|