Dear Emmanouil,

In special relativity, the Maxwell equation is invariable in a Lorentz transformation, obeying the theory correctly.

Emmanouil that's great to set right the role of electromagnetism versus magnetism to sort out what the force fundamentally really!!!!!

@ Sergio

quote:

"In special relativity, the Maxwell equation is invariable in a Lorentz transformation, obeying the theory correctly."

Last time I have checked Maxwell was also assuming in his theory along with Lorentz and Faraday the existence of Aether...

The initial Maxwell theory was twisted later on accordingly to match Einstein's SRT.

Original Maxwell's theory was never meant to work without a physical absolute frame of reference thus the Aether luminiferous medium.

In PCC theory, there is the concept of Relative Regularization. It explains the concept of inflationary frames of reference.. this may shed light on logical realism.

Dear Emmanouil,

I may be wrong, but was not it just the other way around?

Maxwell realized that light was a wave and he looking for a medium to transmit that wave.

Einstein with that equation and with the null attempts to measure the ether he realized that the speed of light did not depend on the movement, which was a constant

He was not looking for... Aether was the accepted theory at that time in order EM waves to be possible.

Today modern science has reverted quietly admitting that there is not such thing like empty space.

Dear Emmanouil,

I think that it only obeys this symmetry from the point of view of a local rest frame. Light itself will not be self-invariant.. It obeys invariance with respect to observers.

Dear Sergio,

You wrote: "Maxwell realized that light was a wave and he looking for a medium to transmit that wave."

It did not happen exactly like this. Maxwell was a mathematician first and foremost. He discovered the same invariant velocity by deriving second partial derivative from two equations, one that defined the Magnetic field from experiments carried out by predecessors and one that defined the electric field from experiments also carried out by predecessors.

The only possible velocity that these second partial derivatives allowed was 299792458 m/s, and it still is. You can no doubt find these derivatives from many sources. They are shown as equations (4) in this paper followed by their interpretation:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue4/G0704032039.pdf

After he obtained this invariant velocity, he then concluded that light must propagate as a wave with both fields mutually inducing each other as they oscillated perpendicularly to the direction of motion of the energy.

Concluding that light oscillates transversely to the direction of motion, he used the only transverse wave propagation mode known until recently, which mandates that an underlying medium must exist to longitudinally allow the wave to propagate.

Best Regards, André

If we define four vectors, Jμ=(cρ, jx, jy, jz) and Aμ=(φ/c, Ax, Ay, Az) then Maxwell’s equation becomes ∂λ∂λ Aμ=μ0 Jμ, which is in the decoupled covaraiant form, meaning if we change reference frames, Jμ and Aμ will undergo Lorentz transformation but their relation will remain invariant.

Physical reality can not be bend by mathematical trickery.

The maths you describe have no connection to physical reality.

An at the end of the day light remains still non-relativistic and so is Electromagnetism in its essence.

Because light (i.e. electromagnetic waves) isn't any such frame. That's, simply, wrong. Electric and magnetic fields aren't invariant under Lorentz transformations. Maxwell's equations are covariant under Lorentz transformations: they take exactly the same form, that's why it's not possible to distinguish one inertial frame from any other-the equations are the same in all such frames. It's a trivial exercise to show that, when the coordinates transform under Lorentz transformations, the electric and magnetic fields transform in such a way that Maxwell's equations in the ``new'' frame have exactly the same form as in the ``old'' frame.

All this is taught in classical electrodynamics courses and studied in the lab work.

It's trivial to check that Maxwell's equations aren't covariant under Galilean transformations so it's straightforward to check the difference in the predictions.

The confusion is that matter, usually, defines a particular frame-and that frame is, typically, non-relativistic-not electromagnetism.

Guys are we discussing velocity invariance or invariance in general? There is no invariance when it comes to just space or time variables such as frequency and wavelength! So in a sense Emmanouil is correct. However, the very notion of frequency/wavelength variance is due to Maxwell, but SR puts it in the light of space-time variables. By the way the Lorentz transforms are just Mobius Transforms and they describe Maxwell and SR well. In a given frame of reference if one has an emitter of electromagnetic waves, then the same emitter will be see to have the same wavelength and frequency in all rest frames,, this is Einstein. However, from the rest frame of a photon....well it is always at rest?? since it has no measure of space or time itself. "Since light is the only absolute frame of reference in Special Relativity"... Is it? Should the question be framed as "If the speed of light is is the only absolute invariant in SR? Then, "how is it possible to claim that Electromagnetism is obeying SR theory?" This should be reframed as "how is it possible to frame a theory of invariance with an absolute measure?" Emmanouil may be unto something that frames the difficulty of defining invariance without absolute measures. Covariance comes to the rescue with the Christoffel symbols.

Dear Stam,

"It's trivial to check that Maxwell's equations aren't covariant under Galilean transformations so it's straightforward to check the difference in the predictions."

There is a way that yes, unfortunately I do not have the demonstration in the paper uploaded here (although if in which they are evaluating me) but seeing it you already have an idea ..

Electromagnetism is actually variant and depended by its speed of propagation inside a medium. This alone fact should give us an indication that EM is medium-matter-energy dependent phenomenon and to say that EM can travel without a medium matter (as considered by many this to be free vacuum of space) is strupidious at least.

The problem arose 2 centuries ago and more because the concept of the "aether wind" assumed by Michelson - Morley experiment. There is no such thing, the Aether is the absolute static scalar medium and everything is at the same frame of reference with the aether.

All matter-energy manifestations we know are kinetic disturbances in the aether medium. Essentially everything is made up of from aether.

Since we are all inside the same frame of reference with the static aether we can not detect it relativistic to an external frame. The only way to detect it is by feeling its drag, elasticity or viscosity when disturbed.

EM and gravity are essentially disturbances in the static aether medium we call mass or charge, their inertia or resistance thus the drag of the aether inside the disturbance caused. The speed of propagation of the disturbance or else inductance rate thus the elasticity of the aether inside the disturbance. Finally the capacitance or volume of the disturbance thus the viscosity of the aether inside the disturbance.

All the above consisting our fluidic space made up of aether.

Aether or what else it is called today, is the final frontier for discovering our ultimate physical reality. It is the absolute frame of reference in our Universe.

To define a point in space we have to provide all its coordinates (dimensions) for example (1,2,2) but these coordinates only do not work, we need to pass "what is", the scale of Zoom, km, m, cm, mm .. etc

We are doing is "crossing" perpendicularly a new dimension (Zoom) with the existing dimensions (x, y, z).

Light originates in the atom due to a change in its energy levels, which is the same as a change in the curvature of spacetime or space-zoom.

Notice the similarity to stretching a spring from a pinball and letting go.

It can be shown that through that Zoom dimension that impulse propagates as a wave, but that atom, exists at all zoom levels from the atomic level to the level of galaxies etc.

You already have a medium of propagating the wave in the vacuum (no need for ether, no need for the vacuum is not empty) the atom itself.

Besides that from our 3 normal dimensions, that displacement we would see it as a "ball" that becomes bigger, observe the similutud with the wave-particle duality.

In summary, ether does not exist and is not necessary

"You already have a medium of propagating the wave in the vacuum (no need for ether, no need for the vacuum is not empty) the atom itself. "

Atoms are matter. Vacuum of space is supposedly to be empty of matter and therefore atoms. Atoms and matter are condensations of EM energy, so we are back to square 1 thus EM.

Dear Sergio,

You wrote: "To define a point in space we have to provide all its coordinates (dimensions) for example (1,2,2) but these coordinates only do not work, we need to pass "what is", the scale of Zoom, km, m, cm, mm .. etc

We are doing is "crossing" perpendicularly a new dimension (Zoom) with the existing dimensions (x, y, z)."

Absolute agreement. This is exactly what Gauss was the first to formalize as he established the concept of "fields", as put in perspective page 397 of this recently published paper:

https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.102028

A mandatory understanding to correctly put in perspective changes in energy levels as you mention.

Best Regards, André

Dear Emmanouil,

Imagine an atom that emits light in the Milky Way and another that receives it at a distance x in Andromeda.

Light, as a wave, would need a continuous medium of matter along x.

But through the Zoom dimension (Zz) only the matter of that atom is necessary:

The "travel" in its wave form would be:

an atom, a group of atoms, molecules, a gram, a kilogram, a house, a country, a planet, a solar system, a galaxy.

And at that point, on that Zoom scale, the 2 atoms would be together.

The "travel" in its particle form would be:

A "ball" that gets bigger and bigger until are touched it by x, which is what you would see on a fixed Zoom scale and for this, you do not need a continuous medium of matter

Besides, with this way of dealing with light, you get all the equations of relativity without applying the Lorentz transformation, only with Galileo's transformation you get the invariance of c

Dear Andre,

"This is exactly what Gauss was the first to formalize as he established the concept of "fields" "

I did not know it. Even so, I do not work with fields, I even have doubts that they really exist, I prefer to work with geometry

Zoom space?!!... Interesting terminology.

You obviously referring to counterspace thus non Euclidean space and therefore an external frame of reference.

Are you suggesting EM and gravity to be projected forces? and the aether medium or our space to be a projection screen?

However I believe that EM and gravity are the effects in our space caused by this outerdimensional forces which would cause this disturbances in our space aether medium (the hand of God?).

In that sense, yes EM is Galileo relativistic but still not SRT variants which is the topic of this question.

Thanks for your input.

Dear Sergio,

You wrote: " I did not know it. Even so, I do not work with fields, I even have doubts that they really exist, I prefer to work with geometry"

Same with me. Actually, Gauss did not define fields as something that might physically exist, but as an idealized geometric representation of how the Coulomb force decreases from maximum intensity at the location of a mathematically punctual charge to then decrease omnidirectionally as a function of the inverse square of the distance. Just a geometric visualizing tool.

With this representation in mind, it is easy to visualize that if you insert a second charge anywhere in the field, you instantly recuperate the Coulomb equation.

Well, if interested, this is put in perspective in the ref I gave previously.

Best Regards, André

See if this means anything to you all.

The subjective implications of the realisation that light doesn’t fit with relativity while so-called ‘grounding it’ are highly significant. Our relationship as complex bio systems to light lies outside or beyond the theory.

If we study data-sets from which we form the phenomenon of vision we can start to understand that we (our location), as mental observers reliant on light is a different proposition to giving a location in space to our body. The assumed position of the observer so central to relativity doesn’t hold for the formation of our visual awareness of the local environment.

Visual awareness requires a sentient being to infer from two independent data-potentials each of which is logically consistent but entirely separate from one another. They are not relative.

Vision-Space suggests that light can't actually bring us a direct and accurate measurement of what's out there. Conjuring up a measurement frame doesn't do the trick! It actually excludes a set of possibilities that are required to conduct the inference exercise that would lead to a more meaningful evaluation to be conducted.

We actually have to 'infer' locality from two takes on the real (implicit and explicit) emanating from EMR. So the locality of the observer as a mental construct (who we are) with respect to environment is reliant on light and is hence a matter requiring inference. As lump of meat (what we are) locality can be designated but who will be doing the seeing?

Either a machine that records, which is not seeing, or an observer that sees but where the conditions of inference above apply. Locality? 3rdparty observer?

This is ultimately a question of ontology.

Dear John,

You very judiciously formulated the fundamental ontological issue "As lump of meat (what we are) locality can be designated but who will be doing the seeing? Either a machine that records, which is not seeing, or an observer that sees but where the conditions of inference above apply. Locality? 3rdparty observer?"

The thing is that we are not only mere "lumps of meat". We each are a "lump of meat" that keeps alive a 6-layer neural network, which is what is doing "the seeing", "the recording", and "the automatic correlating" of all the signals that its millions upon millions of nerve endings allow it to receive in a continuous flow from our environment.

The observer is our "active awareness" that constantly "observes" the correlated coherences that the neocortex constantly abstracts and records from these signals from our environment, which is a process that starts at birth for each of us.

The observer (each of us separately) then draws conclusions that are recorded by the neocortex and become part of the then augmented data set which the neocortex further automatically correlates and is then at the disposal of the observer to further cogitate about. It is from this natural process that conceptual thinking emerges in each of us:

https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.102028

Best Regards, André

It's a question of which of the two you wish to discard. You should start by studying displacement current in Part III of Maxwell's 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force" http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf . There you will see E = mc2 at equation (132). The derivation is crucial for electromagnetic radiation and you will realize that the speed of light is fixed in an elastic medium. Einstein didn't grasp that aspect of Maxwell's theory correctly. The alternative is to ignore Maxwell and believe Einstein.

Very interesting, Frederick David Tombe.

Before Eq. 132, another point that is interesting in Maxwell's 1861 paper, in end of page 21: "1/2 c unit of positive electricity moves towards positive x and 1/2 c unit of negative electricity moves towards negative x" (I have replaced E with c). I have seen somewhere a derivation of E=mc^2 with a similar approach, where two pulses of opposites signs are sent in two directions (please see the last equation here http://www.annales.org/archives/x/poincaBizouard.pdf, it is intersting to see that gamma factor can be removed).

Andres - awarenesses is not at the end of a neurone! A signal is sent between a receiver and a sender operating a common code. Cells don't signal and neither do planets etc.

I don't buy you plan for the 'observer'! The camera doesn't observer it records etc.

We need to START with the phenomenon and work out towards the environment not double guess the phenomenon based on the records made by our instrumentation.

I actually think if you allow this to take root that your excellent work would ultimately make more sense!

Dear John,

Thank you for your appreciation of my work.

Everyone is obviously free to "buy my plan for the observer" or not, as you say.

But I found it more logical to first study and understand what we observe the phenomenon with, before trying to understand the phenomenon.

All aspects of our "thinking machinery" have been extensively studied by numerous researchers, and research is still ongoing.

I only assembled into a coherent whole the various pieces of the puzzle that have been defined by them to date.

Better in my view to first understand how the only tool we have at our disposal to think with processes information, to determine the best way to use it to study the information.

Best Regards, André

"Since light is the only absolute frame of reference in Special Relativity,"

What kind of a joke is this? There is no frame of coordinates in which the light is at rest. The light velocity is a relativistic invariant, c = (ε0 μ0)-½, it has the same value in any frame. Putting in inverse order, no object is at rest with repect to the light, not even another beam of light. So, how the light could be a frame of reference?

Thus, because the assumption on which is based the question is nonsensical, the continuation of the question is irrelevant.

Dear Sofia,

I think that he meant that the "velocity" of light is an absolute reference, which is exactly what you state by writing "The light velocity is a relativistic invariant, c = (ε0 μ0)-½, it has the same value in any frame."

Best Regards, André

Sofia,

However you see it, light is the only absolute in SR.

Last time I've checked, light IS EM.

So how fundamentally EM can be absolute and relative at the same time?

Andre, I understand your position but what your approach turns up actually has to abut what's determined from the other direction. It just doesn't. This is actually the most important interface of all? It's also central to the question raised by Emmaneouil. There is nothing to be gained by working away from the issues raised with the arguments that create the impasse. Facing up to the issues will add value to the big questions arising from running the approach methodology. Notice that I am not saying that the issues are not well defined or posed. It's just that to get beyond them we have to stop and think about the approach methodology to see if we can be more astute.

Dear John,

You wrote: "I understand your position but what your approach turns up actually has to abut what's determined from the other direction. It just doesn't."

I don't really understand what you mean by this. Can you clarify?

What other direction are you alluding to?

To my knowledge, the only information we each perceive from our environment is abstracted from the coherences that our neocortex abstracts from the signals picked up by the millions upon millions of our nerve endings, including what you are reading right now.

From what I observe, there is only one direction for information to get to each of us individually, and it is from outside-in, from our nerve endings to the entry layer of each of our neocortex, that correlates the data, stores it, and puts it at the disposal of each of our conscious minds individually.

We then each do with it whatever each of us thinks best. We draw good or bad conclusions. We each build our individual model of what we think the outside reality is from these conclusions, good and bad or a mix thereof, that we each draw. We each build our own personal subjective model. We share it with others or not.

I see nothing else on the horizon.

Best Regards, André

Emmanuel

You are all mixed up.

First of all light is not a frame. The frame is an inertial frame.

The absolute speed of light is completly consistent with SR

It is the same in different inertial frames; you go from one frame to another using a Lorenz transformation (all this in vacuum)

Please, you have to do some reading first.

SR is inspired on the principle that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference

the same as Newtons equations are true in all Galilean frames of reference.

For example the wave equations for light are invariant under Lorenz transformations.

Till you understand some of what I am saying, you are not even close.

Again light, or the velocity of light are not frames, like an apple is not an orange.

The speed of light is a frame invariant, the same in any inertial frame.

Best regards, Juan

If that is true you are saying, then for what inertial frame of reference the light is not moving in?

If you answer is none. Then I made my point.

Mohammed

The speed of light in vacuum has been measured time and again, and has always turned out to be c.

Even if the source moves with constant speed, you still measure the same speed, though the light frequency may change.

As in red shift or blue shift. (Doppler effect). Michelson interferometry also indicates this.

Regards, Juan

The title is against known facts. There is NO absolute frame of reference in Special Relativity. This is elementary.

This whole discussion is pointless unless it is realized that the speed of light is simply the speed of a wave in an elastic medium, and that c2 = 1/εµ is just Newton's equation for the speed of a wave in an elastic medium. It's a variation on E = mc2 and it appeared at equation (132) in Maxwell's 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force", where the numerical value of c was obtained from the 1856 Weber-Kohlrausch experiment. See Article Radiation Pressure and E = mc²

Please read how the Lorentz Transformation is derived, in a setting where the speed of light c is measured the same regardless of the direction and relative velocities of reference frames. The derivation is in fact very simple math and straightforward.

I think your confusion comes from the fact that c is observed to be a constant of the universe, which is a challenge for everyone :) Why it is a constant, and its true meaning is yet another subject, just like the constant pi.

@ Frederick David Tombe

Couldn't agree with you more about luminoferous medium. However this thread is to challenge SRT regarding light and thus EM to be relative according to SRT.. Since light is not relative to anything and everywhere and can't be compared to an external inertia frame meaning light is moving the same in every frame of reference and therefore an absolute frame of reference itself. Of course it is in the aether medium but that would destroy totally SRT therefore they made a concept and not an object their absolute inertia frame with which anything else is compared.

With other words they say that they have an absolute invariable ruler to measure everything but then they claim this ruler to be also variable at the same time by claiming that Electromagnetism is relative according to SRT.

They confuse the cause of EM with the effect. Although generation the cause of EM thus magnetic induction involving movement is of course SR, magnetism and the resulted EM effect energy generated thus light in any spectrum is immune to SRT and absolute.

Thus EM energy is not obeying and bond to SRT.

It is a free bird.

Dear Thierry,

The "simple math" adjective I used was attributed to the "derivation of the Lorentz Transformation", and not the "measurement of constant c". Nevertheless, math and physics are invariably connected to each other. Lorentz Transformation is derived mathematically based on a physics theory, whose validity assessment is open to argument, as in the case of any theory. What I meant by "... c is observed to be a constant of the universe, which is a challenge for everyone" is that c is referred to as "the speed of light constant universally" based on Einstein's terminology, but the true meaning of c as a feature of the observable universe, leading to the constant speed of light, is yet to be explained.

Dear Emmanouil,

SRT is not a theory that is able to describe the universe all by itself, in other words it is not the Universal Theory of Everything. It is not fundamentally conflicting with EM theory in its current form, though. The question here is that "light" is not fully described conceptually yet, considering its particle and wave dual nature.

Regards,

Pınar

Emmanuel

Yes, you can assume that light is moving in a frame of reference, but you can also change this frame of reference.

regards, Juan

Dear Pinar,

You wrote: "SRT is not a theory that is able to describe the universe all by itself, in other words it is not the Universal Theory of Everything. It is not fundamentally conflicting with EM theory in its current form, though."

Yes it is fundamentally conflicting with EM theory, since its length contraction grounding premise is in contradiction with the first Maxwell equation, because it does not account for the energy increase mandated by the shortening distances between the electronic escorts and the nuclei of atoms of which all masses in existence are made.

Explained starting page 2 of this paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

Best Regards, André

Some of you guys should not be asking questions, if your mind is already made up about something.

You just pass for negators without cause.

Dear Pinar,

You wrote: "… but the true meaning of c as a feature of the observable universe, leading to the constant speed of light, is yet to be explained."

Exact.

You also wrote: " The question here is that "light" is not fully described conceptually yet, considering its particle and wave dual nature."

True.

But this is only due to the fact that the community has been trying to resolve the issue by means of the Lorenz interpretation that both E and B fields of free moving electromagnetic energy peak at maximum synchronously at the same time to sustain wave propagation, which is an interpretation that Maxwell disagreed with; while Maxwell's was that both fields have to mutually induce each other while being 180 degrees out of phase to even exist and propagate, in permanent transverse oscillation with respect to the direction of motion of the energy in vacuum.

The Maxwell interpretation allows however a solution which is impossible with the Lorenz interpretation. When correlated with de Broglie's conclusions about the possible inner structure of localized EM photons, Maxwell's interpretation allows defining a new mechanics of propagation that doesn't require any longitudinal component to the transverse E and B interaction of the transversely oscillating energy of localized quanta, and that consequently requires no sustaining medium to propagate, which causes them to self-guide in default straight line when not interfered with and to self-propel at a default equilibrium velocity, that can only be that of light.

Described in this paper:

https://doi.org/10.4172/2090-0902.1000153

Best Regard, André

There is no concept of absolute frame in special relativity.All frames are relative.The velocity of light in free space is same for all observers and is independent of the frame of reference. In fact the very famous Michelson- Morley experiment which was designed to search for the absolute frame 'ether' ruled out any such frame. So, this idea of taking light as absolute frame is meaningless.

Not sure if the absolute object frame of reference (i.e. Aether) is never experimentally found, this deep bared report says otherwise and explains why Michelson - Morley experiment failed:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/1-oder/Experient/Galaev/GalaevOptika.pdf

(worth reading)

Also refer to the Michelson -Gale experiment later on which actually claims that they detected the aether rotation:

https://tinyurl.com/yy2hnco2

:

Dear Mohamed,

You wrote: "In physics, the notion of velocity/speed does not by itself tell us anything. It only becomes really meaningful if we specify relative to what this velocity/speed is calculated/measured."

Well, when analyzed from the Maxwell and de Broglie interpretations, velocity/speed does tell us something.

It is relative to the ratio between the momentum energy quantum of a localized particle to its electromagnetically oscillating energy quantum.

A ratio of K/EM where K=EM corresponds to the speed of light. All ratios where K is between zero and EM provide the complete scale of relativistic velocities.

This is explained in this paper:

https://doi.org/10.4172/2090-0902.1000153

Detailed equations and confirming calculations are available in this paper:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197

Best Regards, André

Dear Andre and Thierry,

Thank you for your explanations and perspectives. The overall truth is, all existing theories are partially representing and formulating an observed reality, and none of the existing theories are fully correct, from Quantum to Classical Mechanics and Relativity, and even EM without a Magnetic Monopole. There is a lot of free space for discovery. In fact, I sometimes even suspect Einstein saw E=mc^2 in his dream but was never able to interpret its full meaning himself..

Best regards,

Pınar

In general

Hassan and others,

If an inertail frame travels with constant speed with respect to another inertial frame, it is itself an inertial frame.

So the speed of light is c in any of these inertial frames, and has in this sense become independent of the relative velocity,

as long as this relative velocity is kept constant. That is why c is called an absolute constant.

That is why you do not use the usual rule for adding vector velocities in relativity; this addition will always give you a speed

less than c, a feature which marks a complete difference from Newton and Galileo. But these effects are only noticieable at very large speeds.

Another way of saying the same is that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the source, for constant velocity movement.

The problem with SRT I find, is that it is the physics of the apparent and that's perfectly fine.

The problem starts however when it claims that the apparent is physical reality.

SRT is not even apparent. It misses the whole point of the 1856 Weber-Kohlrausch experiment. Article The 1856 Weber-Kohlrausch Experiment (The Speed of Light)

Aden,

It does conflict. It gives a totally different physical interpretation from that of the Lorentz contraction interpretation. The Weber interpretation of c2 = 1/εµ considers a counterbalance between electrostatic attraction and magnetic repulsion as a means of illustrating that the speed of light is like a kind of escape velocity for electric current. But relativity instead actually makes the two forces equivalent and argues that it's just a matter of which frame of reference we are making our observations from. Relativity makes no attempt to physically explain the meaning of c2 = 1/εµ. It simply uses it in conjunction with conservation of charge in an attempt to prove Lorentz contraction. And in doing so, they have to use a binomial approximation to get the desired result, and they also run into the equivalent of the clock paradox as regards whether it's the electron cloud that contracts or the positive background lattice in the wire that contracts.

There are errors in SR such as assuming time is like all of the space dimensions, when look backward and forward in the space dimension. Also saying that the axial Doppler shifts cancel each other in the Michelson experiment (they may in the aether wind analysis not the Doppler shift era) when all the mirrors are in Earth's reference plane and after the first reflection (shiift) so is the light.

See the attached PDF file for more details.

How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work and more none sense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0&t

Experiment that proves the origin of magnetic fields produced by electrons current (non SR)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlpyXhSb78s

Watch first 13 minutes of the above video:

There is an actual experiment, the Climont experiment,  that proves that Magnetic fields do not result from the movement of electrons (non SR) , but from their intrinsic magnetic field with all implications these results to Maxwell equations and SR. Therefore magnetic filed produced by electric currents must be a net effect of all intrinsic magnetic moments of electrons inside the current.

Moreover this video says, that the intrinsic magnetic field of the electrons does not have a dipole structure, but a rotational structure!! Well I that last point I disagree with the semantics used. QFM theory shows that it is a physical spinning magnetic dipole, definitely a rotational field as he describes but nevertheless remains a dipole. With other words the quantum magnetic dipole flux as show by the ferrocell is whirling in vortices.

Aden, The two physical interpretations are quite different. I don't know how you can't see it. The Weber interpretation doesn't involve the absurd connotations that come with Einstein's theories. Weber's interpretation is a purely classical interpretation in which the meaning of c2 = 1/µε is related to what he terms a "reducing velocity". In Einstein's special relativity, c2 = 1/µε has no physical meaning. It is then used to make a false equivalence between magnetic force and electrostatic force based on an application of the Lorentz contraction without explaining why the contraction is applied to the electron cloud as opposed to the positive lattice in the wire. It's a re-run of the clock paradox, but this time for length contraction.

If the Einstein version is correct, then what does c2 = 1/µε mean, especially as both µ and ε are now officially "defined quantities"? And even before ε became defined in 1983, what were they both supposed to mean within the context of relativity?

I go for the initial natural philosophers and intuition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAjWUrwvxs4

René Descartes

Maybe Descartes was right all that time from the beginning.

I was reading Descartes here and came just now on this paragraph with astonishment:

https://archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich/page/8 (see figure)

400 years later This is the quantum magnetic field image of a dipole magnet shown by a the quantum magneto optic sensor ferrolens shows exactly the above description, look here:

https://www.ferrocell.us/images/QFM%20EM%20field%20overlay2%20.jpg

Colored vortices are the quantum dipole magnetic field shown by the ferrolens and thinner brown lines are the macroscale magnetic field geometry shown by iron filings. Both experiments are computer overlaid and superimposed to demonstrate the link mechanism observed between quantum and macroscale magnetism.

he he seems to me that Descartes was the first Quantum physicist!! :)

Maybe he got it correct right form the beginning?

Emmanouil, The idea that the field lines that surround a bar magnetic represent an irrotational sink and an irrotational source needs to be considered with caution. It won't explain the observed magnetic forces. To account for the repulsion between two like poles, there needs to be pressure acting at right angles to the field lines. You'd be better to read the preamble in Part I of Maxwell's 1861 paper where he explains how this can be done when magnetic field lines are composed of an alignment of tiny vortices.

It will perhaps be apparent from our QFM/EM model jointly with TEI that:

. aether is light energy & matter condensed energy.

Magnetic energy may be key primoridial energy, call it aether :=> dark matter manifesting onto 4 fundamental forces that we know of: electromagnetism, gravity, the strong force, & the weak force. We have sketches to model how monopoles transform onto electron-gravitron & other fundamental particles. The fields are a function complex because of geometry topology of gradient & the vortex rotational micro configurations that macro phenomena higher dimensional observations we are able to see. Missing element with theory of everything will very well the magnetic luminoferous aether!!!!!

Above discussions that brought out about speed of the intrinsic magnetic fields (Hodge) many times speed of light may explain why gravitational speeds are almost 4 orders of speed of light per my certain calculations a few years ago. QFM/EM model involving gravitron as composed of magnetic monopole complex configurations may shed light why it is so. Although overall phenomena is quite complicated due to multi-level interactions of transient magnetic monopoles with stable/dipoles may account for high energy density that is predicted out of GUTs.

We will have to put all these together with eventual goal of developing algorithm that are experimentally tested & proved as years proceed; but this QFM/EM model gives perhaps the key to grand unified theory of everything consolidating & reconciling quantum physics with relativistic physics, as well as classical physics to thermodynamic overall compatibility. Though monumental task it is something that gives promise to understand nature & mechanics of genesis & operations of the existing energy matter universe.

More to proceed along deeper thinking with integrated approach through century.

Emmanouil,

Your threads are magnetic!

The problem with relativity is the 'frame'. It forms the approach methodology and hence what is found while dictating what it is possible to conceive of.

We need a new approach methodology?

Dear Frederick David Tombe,

Allow me to have a different opinion on that, which we can backup with simulations, observation with quantum optics experiments we did and QFM theoretical model.

The classical field you are referring to is the macroscopic magnetic field geometry caused by the quantum field of magnetism due to QDE (Quantum Decoherence) effect. Both fields are present at the same time and place. Each polar vortex acts simultaneously as a source and drain to the other polar vortex field bringing and holding the two poles together without merging them.

The two counter rotating relative to an observer irrotational flow quantum polar vortices as observed are joint together with an axial flow between. This process is natural and covered by hydrodynamics experiments and theory and well known as whirl dipoles or else modon and vortex ring:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8 (Video)

The main difference from a water modon and the quantum magnetic dipole field observed geometry is that the latter is axial connected (see figure and imagine the two pole vortices joint axially).

This picture of quantum magnetism is different from the classical macroscopic view of magnetism obtained by macroscopic magnetic sensors like iron filings for example, and is made visible when nanosized quantum magnetic sensors are used like the ferrolens or SQUID quantum sensor scanning microscopy. With the quantum vortex field being the causality field and the axial classical macroscopic field the subsequent field due quantum decoherence.

I suggest you have a closer look of our QFM model preprint here and in the latest research on quantum magnetic vortices on matter in general:

Preprint Quantum Field of Magnetism Theory (QFM) And Experimental Evi...

A related publication of our team is shortly up relative to this matter.

Kind regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute od Crete

References

[1] SQUID magnetic scanning microscopy images https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1708/1708.07302.pdf

Emmanouil, It's important that we are sure we are talking about exactly the same situation. Are we talking about the field line pattern around a bar magnet? If so, there is no vorticity. Curl B = 0. We also need to remember that two south poles repel as do two north poles. It cannot therefore be the case that one is a sink and one is a source.

Are we talking about the same case scenario?

If so, I can assure you that the solution is found in the preamble to Maxwell's 1861 paper. He constructs the magnetic field lines using tiny vortices.

Have you ever seen this quote from a paper written by Tesla in 1907? It reads,

“Long ago he (mankind) recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, of a tenuity beyond conception and filling all space - the Akasha or luminiferous ether - which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance”.

Frederick,

Yes the photo shown by the ferrolens in my previous post is a 2D magnetic projection on the ferrolens surface (although the ferrolens has also some holographic depth) of the actual 3D Euclidean magnetic dipole field induced. The actual 3D expanded field is the sphere shown in the same post, with full curl B=0. The 3D projection of the QFM of the quantum magnetic field observed in every dipole magnet is a torus or more precisely speaking a toroidal sphere. Thus, sphere with two small holes there were the two magnetic pole centers are located as shown in my previous post.

Understand that under the ferrolens there is a Nd cube magnet placed at N-S side direction and this is not a fancy computer generated image but an actual quantum magnetic optical device and real-time observation.

Also N-S polarity on the poles of the quantum field of the dipole magnet is not decided by their mutual source-drain relation forming the bond between the two poles, but due to their relative counter rotational spin.

Emmanouil

p.s.1. wait for our new publication for a complete explanation of the observed phenomenon and proof that macroscopic magnetism is a Quantum Decoherence (QDE) phenomenon.

p.s.2. In the mean time may I suggest If you are interested in, and want to learn the background and previous research of our team to read our related to the ferrolens previous two 2018 Journal publications linked to my profile page.

Article Real Time Visualization of Dynamic Magnetic Fields with a Na...

Article The Quantum Field Of A Magnet Shown By A Nanomagnetic Ferrolens

Federik

The correct statement is div(B)=0, the B field has no source or sink.

The curl generally is different from zero.

regards, JW

Juan, In general curl B = µJ. That's Ampère's Circuital Law. The context under discussion was that of the magnetic field lines surrounding a bar magnet where curl B = 0. There is no large scale vorticity in a magnetic field outside of the source electric current.

Ok, we are both right I guess.

Mohsen, Can you give me an example of where Maxwell's electromagnetism is not true.

Mohsen, Can you please elaborate on this business about electrons attracting each other when the observer is travelling at near to the speed of light. I haven't heard about this before.

Juan, That of course is only what it says in the text books. It's my own opinion that curl B, as applied in what the textbooks believe to be free space, is in fact equal to µA, where A, known as the magnetic vector potential, corresponds to a fine-grained circulating electric current associated with tiny aethereal vortices that fill all of space. In the dynamic state when B is varying in time, A becomes Maxwell's displacement current and constitutes EM radiation as it passes from vortex to vortex. See Article Displacement Current and the Electrotonic State

Federik

The correct is B=curl(A), that is why div(B)= 0 automatically.

Save in the quantum, the classical potentials have no special meaning that I know of.

In fact they are not uniquely defined, by gauge freedom.

For example A is indeterminate by the gradient of a scalar.

The electric and magnetic fields are the real stuff classically.

regards, JW

Juan, Yes I already know that curl A = B. It was Maxwell's second equation in his original listing of eight in his 1864 paper, from which it follows that div B = 0 because the divergence of a curl is always zero.

But I was saying I also believe that, in what textbooks believe to be free space, curl B should really be equal to µA and not equal to zero. The textbooks don't give any physical meaning to A yet it should be pretty clear that it is a momentum field in a primary aethereal fluid. Maxwell called it the electromagnetic momentum and he equated it with Faraday's electrotonic state. In other words curl B = µA is Ampère's Circuital Law applied to displacement current in what the textbooks consider to be free space. But space is not empty. See,

Article Displacement Current and the Electrotonic State

My point is that the vorticity in the steady state magnetic field is fine-grained and not on the large scale.

I originally used the textbook version for free space, as in curl B = 0, in order to make this point, because the textbook version doesn't believe in a sea of tiny aethereal vortices. But the textbooks have failed to link the magnetic vector potential A to Maxwell's displacement current because they deny the existence of the medium within which Maxwell's equations were originally derived. The vector A in modern textbooks has now been reduced to a mathematical quantity paired with a totally meaningless arbitrary constant of integration which is associated with the meaningless word 'gauge'.

Thierry and Frederick,

Ι confirm, Oleg Jefimenko's books are one of the most interesting readings there is in the literature about Electrogravitomagnetism.

Frederick,

I agree with your excellent B=μA attributes analysis, with the only subtitution that these can be true for vector r area approaching to zero

Remember Maxwell equations cover the macroworld and at the time there was no quantum considered and even aether itself was considered as a macroscopic physical reality. One has also to consider Quantum Decoherence QDE being applied.

I think that my latest real time quantum magnetic field observations here point to the direction you lay out about dipole vortices on the aether medium thus magnetism. You may find these interesting and the preliminary conclusions I state here:

Ring Magnet Vs Solenoid Quantum Magnetic Field shown with the Ferrolens

https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-quantum-field-of-a-magnet/update/5ca69a2dcfe4a7df4ae5baa8

Emmanouil

Emmanouil, Yes, in the modern textbook analysis where space is believed to be empty, then curl B = 0 except in a region of current density. But if we believe that space is densely packed with tiny fine-grained circulatory currents A, which Maxwell referred to as electromagnetic momentum, then curl B = µA as per Ampère's Circuital Law. The vector A is both the modern magnetic vector potential and Maxwell's displacement current, but Maxwell himself never seems to have made the connection. Maxwell identified A with Faraday's electrotonic state and he invented displacement current elsewhere in the same paper, but he never linked the two. From this interpretation we can now derive the EM wave equation. See here,

Article Displacement Current and the Electrotonic State

Frederick,

Article Displacement Current and the Electrotonic State

Excellent theoretical analysis of fundamental physics.

Bravo!!

Maxwell paper Part I (a must read)

https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fvacuum-physics.com%2FMaxwell%2Fmaxwell_oplf.pdf

I had no idea that Maxwell used so many times the word vortex and vortices on his EM foundation work. The only geometrical motion pattern that could explain particle formation and ultimately matter due energy condensation and focusing in the Universe.

also see

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 2:55pm EDT MAGNETIC WAVE PROPULSION In 1978 Harold Grad of the NYU Courant Institute of Mathematics published a paper which I believe could provide the means for relativistic space nonpercussive propulsion. Apparently a seminar with Lyndon LaRouche sparked Grad's work along these lines. Here are some detailed background and links for this question of magnetic reconnection that derived from Lyndon LaRouche's seminar in 1976 with Harold Grad of the NYU Courant Institute of Mathematics. To state an application simply: Grad showed that Helmholtz's theorem of conservation of vorticity was wrong. This was generally considered as as fundamental property of all fluids, including magnetic plasmas. For example, the Earth's magnetic field consists of closed loops, like circles or ovals. During a geomagnetic storm, the simple circles are transformed into figure 8's where the X at the center of the 8 is called the geomagnetic X point. When the 8 breaks and reforms simple circles, or closed loops in general, a large flux of charged particles is released which generate the auroara borealis, the northern lights. According to Helmholtz theorem, these transformations from O to 8 and back to O can only take place due to some dissipative process like electrical resistivity. But Grad shows this is incorrect and reconnection can take place with zero resistivity. What then is causing this reconnection to take place. According to Grad it is the general bounding magnetic field. For example, Grad allows the bounding field to be compressed and this generates the local reconnection. For example in the case of the geomagnetic X point, this would be due to changes in the galactic magnetic field, like a local compression or pinching. Now let's reverse the process and say if we can locally generate the appropriate magnetic reconnection could we then change the galactic magnetic field? Practically this could be down on a large scale in space with very large superconducting magnets. And now one type process that we could generate in the galactic magnetic field would be to generate Alfven waves, for example. Then it might be possible like in the case of the Einstein refrigerator pump, to have these Alfven waves in the galactic magnetic fields propel a vehicle around the galaxy. Like the plasma surfatron developed by my friends at UCLA (John Dawson, etc.), the vehicle would surf these Alfven waves. This would be quite different than the existing percussive types of propulsion seen in rockets. The energy would be locally applied in the solar system and transferred at the speed of light to and through the galactic magnetic field. Friends of mine at the University of Maryland have carried out general relativistic calculations for the velocities required at various distances from the center of the Galaxy, for example, so that the resulting centrifugal acceleration would be one g, 10 meters per second squared. This would mean that the vehicle would be traveling near the speed of light, so that for example, it might take 1000 years for the vehicle to make one orbit around the center of the galaxy in terms of local time aboard the vehicle, but millions of years would pass on the solar systems being passed during the orbit. This would provide relativistically, the required time scale for terra forming. While all of this is highly speculative, it does provide some insight into the possibilities of the type of work which Bennie Soldano helped me with—I did discuss all of this in some detail with him. My friend Bruno Coppi will soon begin his Ignitor tokamak experiments in Moscow with Velikhov. Bruno is also an expert on reconnection and is quite aware of these type of possibilities. In particular with the generation of the first “steady-state” thermonuclear plasma, he expects to see all types of new MHD phenomena, especially in the realm of magnetic reconnection. I begin with the Grad paper and its abstract which is fairly clear on this and a recent abstract noting the fundamental nature of Grad's paper. I then have a link to the Grad-Shafranov equation, which is the fundamental equation for magnetic plasma, just to show you how important Grad's contributions were in magnetic fusion. (The original work was classified here and in the Soviet Union. I also knew Shafranov.) As it turns out just at the time we had our seminar with Grad in 1976, Uwe had translated the Helmholtz original paper on vorticity, which we later published with some of Grad's work in the IJFE to rub it in. Grad's original work was in the field of thermodynamics! And we had just published an FEF newsletter just at the time of the seminar with Grad. He loved these articles and we had quite a discussion over them, so I give you the links to it. I then give some general info links on geomagnetic storms and Einstein's refrigerator and discussion of previous work on magnetohydrodynamic propulsion etc. Reconnection of magnetic lines in an ideal fluid (1978) http://archive.org/details/reconnectionofma00grad Abstract The rate of reconnection of magnetic lines at an X-point, also growth of a "tearing" configuration have always been related to the presence of resistivity or other dissipative mechanisms. These phenomena, exhibiting nonconservation of magnetic line topology, are shown to occur in an ideal, nondissipative fluid, thereby violating beliefs, theorems, and calculations of over a century (including the mathematically equivalent questions involving vortex lines in an ideal fluid) Breakdown of Alfv´en’s Theorem in Ideal MHD Hussein Aluie1 Gregory Eyink1 10 December 2006 1Applied Mathematics & Statistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Abstract submitted to EE250 Conservation of magnetic flux in a perfectly conducting fluid is one of the most fundamental conservation laws of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). This result is also called Alfv´en’s Theorem, after Hannes Alfv´en, who was the first to state it in a foundational paper on MHD in 1942. Intuitively, this theorem implies that magnetic-field lines are ‘frozen’ into the fluid, so that the magnetic-field lines and the plasma move together. It is an analogue of the Kelvin-Helmholtz Theorem in ideal hydrodynamics, where there is conservation of circulation and lines of vorticity are ‘frozen’ to the inviscid fluid. One important consequence of this theorem is that the topology of magneticfield lines is preserved, and, in particular, that crossing field lines cannot reconnect. This presents a puzzle in many situations where ideal MHD is supposed to hold to a very good (leading-order) approximation—such as in many astrophysical systems at very high magnetic Reynolds numbers—and yet magnetic-field lines are observed to reconnect all the time. Alfv´en’s Theorem rests, however, on certain implicit assumptions about the smoothness of the velocity and magnetic fields, which can be violated in high Reynolds number turbulent plasmas. We show in [2] that violation of magnetic flux conservation is possible due to non-linear effects, if the MHD solutions are sufficiently singular. In the spirit of renormalizationgroup methodology, we analyze an effective equation for MHD modes at length-scales > `, with smaller scales eliminated. We prove that flux conservation can be violated at an instant of time for an arbitrary `, including 1 ` ! 0, provided that at least one of three necessary conditions is satisfied. These conditions are (i) non-rectifiability of advected loops, (ii) unbounded velocity or magnetic fields, and/or (iii) singular current and vortex sheets that both exist and intersect in a set of large enough dimension. Mathematically, our theorem is analogous to Onsager’s result on the energy dissipation anomaly in hydrodynamic turbulence and mirrors the breakdown of the Kelvin-Helmholtz theorem proved in [3]. We have recently extended this analysis to take into account the time dimension, establishing necessary conditions for the breakdown of flux conservation over a finite interval of time. Our conclusions are illustrated by an exact solution of ‘adiabatic MHD’ found by Harold Grad [4] which exhibits ideal magnetic reconnection. We also present results of a numerical simulation of the full MHD equations at a high magnetic Reynolds number, which confirm our theoretical picture. References [1] H. Alfv´en, “On the existence of electromagnetic-hydrodynamic waves,” Arkiv f. Mat., Astron. o. Fys. 29B 1–7 (1942) [2] G. L. Eyink, H. Aluie “The breakdown of Alfv´en’s theorem in ideal plasma flows: Necessary conditions and physical conjectures ,” Physica D, 223 82–92 (2006). physics/0607073 [3] G. L. Eyink, “Turbulent cascade of circulations,” Comptes Rendus Physique, 7 449–455 (2006). physics/0605014 [4] H. Grad, “Reconnection of Magnetic Lines in an Ideal Fluid,” Interim Report New York Univ., New York. Magneto-fluid Dynamics Division. 2 Grad–Shafranov equationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grad%E2%80%93Shafranov_equation IJFE Winter 1978 Vol 1 3-4 On Integrals of the Hydrodynamic Equations that Correspond to Vortex Motions by Hermann von Helmholtz http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/fusionarchive_ijfe.html Plasma and Order in the Universe Sept 1976 FEF Newsletter http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/fusionarchive_fusionnl.html MANAGING EDITOR: DR. MORRIS LEVITT Fusion Energy Foundation INITIATING EDITORIAL BOARD DR. WINSTON BOSTICK Professor of Physics Stevens Institute of Technology DR. ROBERT MOON Professor at-Large University of Chicago DR. LLOYD MOTZ Professor of Astronomy Columbia University SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD: DR. HAROLD GRAD, Director Magneto-Fluid Dynamics Division Courant Institute of New York University DR. C. N. WATSON-MUNRO, Head Wills Plasma Physics Department School of Physics University of Sydney, Australia DR. DANIEL WELLS Professor of Physics University of Miami, Florida DR. AARON D. KRUMBEIN Israel Atomic Energy Commission SOPiEQ Nuclear Research Center, Israel DR. HEINRICH HORA, Head Department of Theoretical Physics University of New South Wales, Australia Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences http://en.wikipedia.org/…/Courant_Institute_of_Mathematical… #1 Applied Mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm Interactions with planetary processes The solar wind also carries with it the magnetic field of the Sun. This field will have either a North or South orientation. If the solar wind has energetic bursts, contracting and expanding the magnetosphere, or if the solar wind takes a southward polarization, geomagnetic storms can be expected. The southward field causes magnetic reconnection of the dayside magnetopause, rapidly injecting magnetic and particle energy into the Earth's magnetosphere Alfvén wavehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave Einstein Refrigerator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator The Hunt for Red October http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_for_Red_October_(film)Magnetohydrodynamic Drive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsor…

📷ARCHIVE.ORGReconnection of magnetic lines in an ideal fluid : Grad, Harold : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Mohsen, I'm not sure that I understand what you are trying to say. The article in the link below lists all eight of Maxwell's original equations from 1864. Can you please tell me which of these equations your example applies to, and can you please explain why. I don't get this business about attractions turning into repulsion according to the speed of the observer. I do however know that attractions turn into repulsions when the mutual transverse speed between two particles exceeds a certain threshold.

Article Maxwell's Original Equations

You may refer to my article: " MODIFIED MAXWELL EQUATIONS WITH MONOPOLE POINT MAGNETIC SYSTEMSArticleFull-text available

• Oct 2018 📷Rajan Iyer "
• These equations that includes symmetry of magnetics with the monopole aspects will probably add to original Maxwell equations to completeness level.