Obviously nowadays we can say clearly that it was wrong. The experiments show it everyday (for instance) in the particle physics accelerators as in the CERN.

Dear Daniel,

Tesla might  not have been totally wrong. We built the relativistic Physics out of the Lorentz Transformations and it is true that so far we did not have counterexamples. At the same time there are other transformations which work the same in accelerators like the Tangherlini transformations but support absolute simultaneity for example. So Tesla was wrong but I do not think we are completely right.

I have already written an article on the Magic of those theories, 2nd link.

However we have to go away from the 'electromagnetic trap', see 3nd link.

Additionally you can watch the LIGO fiasco at the 1st link.

What else should we say?

We are just waiting 'wise and elder senior Physicists' to decide slowly removing those theories from mainstream Physics.

Otherwise their reputation will be further be damaged...

(Or maybe we should wait until they naturally pass from advanced aging this vain world first, who knows?)

Data Big data analysis of Livingston and Hanford logfiles for LIG...

Data 111 years of Magic are enough: Let us return to Science now

Working Paper Beyond Electromagnetic Theory

Dear Dr. Angel Toshkov,

A very crucial problem. If you should tell me where the Tesla's opinion is from, I should thank you very much.

Very unfortunately, not only Einstein’s theory of relativity is just a faked story or pseudoscience, but also the so-called Standard Model should result in pseudoscience if we cannot rightly treat it. May you see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317014509_Anti-ethics_and_pseudoscience_On_Albert_Einstein%27s_theory_of_relativity

I am spreading this article. If anyone should help to this spreading, I should thank him/her very much.

Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...

  Dear Stefano,

  It would be interesting to say where the special relativity fail and what new model can explain all the applications which are nowadays implemented. Frankly for me Testla only could say that he was ignorant of the new theories. It is curious because he knew quite well electrodynamics and he should know that without relativity it would be one incomplete theory.

Dear Daniel,

Special relativity may fail in the prediction of relativity of simultaneity for the accelerated reference frames. The prediction according to which clocks accelerated at once may manifest a clock retardation in their new RF has never been demonstrated. This experiment has never been done and it is the case to perform it.

  Dear Stefano,  

  If that could be shown then the relativity obviously would be wrong, but in all that I know such a thing doesn't happen. Let me give one application that I have used quite recently, the radius of some electrons is perfectly seen how it contracts and the spin-orbit affects the properties of this metal. This is not a so a rare result in the escattering for measuring their lifetimes, no, this is a simple case which is everyday working and that everyday you can measured it.

  Stefano, it is healthy to doubt of any theory because it is too much saying that it cannot be improved, but in the case of special theory of relativity it is difficult to do it.

     Dear Stefano,

     I have read my last post and I could see that I didn't mentioned the kind of atoms that I was speaking on: silver and gold. Sorry.

Уважаеми  Yin Zhu,

Това мнение на Тесла е от:  Никола Тесла, "Тесла, 79, обещава да предаде сила", Ню Йорк Таймс, 7.11.1935 г., 23: 8; В Никола Тесла, 1981, стр. 128-130.

Четох за първи път това в 

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/tesla-vs-einstein-the-ether-the-birth-of-the-new-physics.

Dear Daniel,

  "Stefano, it is healthy to doubt of any theory because it is too much saying that it cannot be improved, but in the case of special theory of relativity it is difficult to do it."

I agree with you it is very difficult to do, since it is mostly corroborated by a lot of experiments. But we have also to state what are the intrinsc limitation of the theory from the postulates, don't we?

The LT are built like the GT on the premise that they are defined between IRFs.  Now the expectation to make them work in the case of non IRFs has to be checked. So far the LT have been proven right from a IRF to a non IRF results in accelerators.

So basically the validity of the LT have been extended with experiments and that is more than reasonable.

Why should we belive that they work for predictions between two non IRFs?

See below

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Christian,

"Not sure what you mean by "accelerated at once", but it is standard knowledge used for the design of accelerators for short-living particles/ions that you have to "quickly" accelerate them after creation in order to not loose to many particles at low velocities. I am aware that anti-relativist have all kind of dubious arguments to tell that radioactive decay does not confirm "time dilation", but in the practical case, the predictions of STR seem to hold perfectly well. (I wonder if the Tangherlini transformation that you often promote can account for these cases...) "

The issue I'm illustrating is not related to the effect of acceleration by itself. I strongly belive that particle decay is slowed down in accelerators, that is not the question. And SR is able to give an explanation to it.

What I meant by clock retardation in accelerated frames is what SR predicts (Rindler metric) it occurs between two clocks in accelerated motion. They will manifest a retardation, the tail clock will delay, once the acceleration ceases. This as measured in the new inertial reference frame where they "landed" after acceleration.

The time dilation between accelerated clocks is given by vx/c2 where

• v is the variation of speed (given by the acceleration) from the intial to the final IRF
• x is the distance between the clocks which for low v can be considered  approximately constatan

What I'm illustrating is at the base of the Einstein Equivalence Principle, it is not a detail!!!

The term vx/c2 in this case represents the pure relativity of simultaneity phenomenon.

In such case we have several disputable conclusion and we do not have an experiment to discriminate, IS THIS CLEAR!!!

I invite you to have a look to TT or EST transformations where such term does not exist.

From my today's perspective I see the STR differently to what I saw a few years ago.

I do not see any problem in the assumptions and equations derived by Einstein in 1905. The apparent Twin Paradox does not exist as it can be methodically explained using the STR alone. What is puzzling is the stream of misconceptions due to dubious interpretation of facts. One fundamental error is believing that clock synchronization required to put the theory to test under the stipulation of light speed isotropy makes two the same clock indications simultaneous.

Evidence is gathering the absolute simultaneity and absolute rest are logical and necessary for the physics to function,

   Dear Aparna,

   The electromagnetic waves carry momentum (Poynting vector) and energy as pure transversal waves that they are independent of the media. This is easy to test just making light crossing a vacuum pan.

   On the other hand, light are also particles (photons) that can cross the vacuum space as our spatial rockets do it. Where is the problem?

   Dear Stefano,

   If LT is the acronym of Lorentz transformation, they don't need to be restricted to only inertial systems of coordinates. They in fact the only restriction is keep invariant a commutative second order tensor as a metric.

   Electrodynamics is very close to the special relativity theory and it works everyday in a fantastic form distinguishing clearly when the charged system is accelerated or not: Larmor's radiation. In any case, it is worthy to take into account that no perfect theory exists if it has to explain and predict natural phenomena. But from my humble opinion, the criticism is not in this theory but in the new phenomena without explanation.

Dear Daniel,

"If LT is the acronym of Lorentz transformation, they don't need to be restricted to only inertial systems of coordinates. They in fact the only restriction is keep invariant a commutative second order tensor as a metric. "

Lorentz Tranformations are postulated for IRFs, what is the step that can allow them to work in other cases if not an experimental verification?

For example Galielan transformations describe correctly from an IRF the behaviour of an accelerated system the same to be expected for LT.

Nothing can authorize to extend their validity between non IRF and non IRF, only experiments can...

Christian,

but everything relevant, not veryfied and  beyond the declared validity of a theory has to be explicitly communicated in order to incourage experiments along that line.

To affirm that the prediction of SR between accelerated frames is how in reality things behave is a big mistake. It is only a given for granted !!!

  Dear Stefano,

  This is a very subtle distinction that I don't know if can get to explain here in a post. You are right that usually the Lorentz transformations are just defined between inertial observes. This is possible but if you do that you are loosing the main information of the Lorentz group and its powerful tool for working in Physics.

1. The Lorentz group and thus the transformations on this group (what properly had to be called Lorentz transformations) are the isometries of the Minkowski's metric. Thus you have 3 boosts (what you call properly as Lorentz transformations and which have associated a hyperbolic geometry), 3 rotations (which are forgotten in most of the text books)

2. Lorentz played with Maxwell equations and classical mechanis trying to see if Galileo transformations could be common and he failed. In fact he obteined what is nowadays known as Lorentz transformations (restriction only to the boosts).

3. Poincare very soon could understand that these transformations where in fact only one small part of the isometries given by the Lie group SO(3,1).

4. The above group was even not enough to take into account the full symmetries of electrodynamics under space-time transformations. For instance, if you use only the boost and rotations you cannot obtain the generators of the energy and linear momentum (as Noether's currents) associated to the space-time translations. Thus he needed to enlarge the Lorentz transformations to the Poincare's transformations obtaining the maximum of Killing vectors ( 10) obtained from the space-time isometries.

5. But Dirac needed to find even more representations of Lorentz group for including on these isometries the Pauli's matrices of the quantum spin and to find the Dirac spinors.

6. The Lorentz transformations have also important symmetries which are used in quantum fields a the time inversion oparator T, space inversion P and the charge conjugation C. For instance, It is known that the weak interaction don't follow the parity P having chiral currents. One relativistic invariant associated with these discrete spacetime symmetries is the PCT= invariant.

7. The accelerations can be transformed using the Lorentz boosts only and the same as the force, choosing inertial observers (as you said).

8. Finally, The Einstein's equations in General Relativity must be covariant under the diffeomorphism invariance and usually restrict to the Killing vectors, which also doen't contain the full symmetries of the spacetime with a Riemann metric. This is the case when you include the gravitational field equations as well as the equations of motion for matter. This is a much larger symmetry than the one in Special Relativity because the diffeomorphism group is infinite dimensional whereas the Poincare group is just ten dimensional.

  In summary, the transformaiton of Lorentz restricted to inertial observers is only a historial mistake (even the Lorentz transformations are not well named with this name). This is what I tried to told you when I have made you my remark to your observation about the possibility of using more than inertial observers. This has been, in fact, done !

   Dear Thierry,

   I have no arguments to tell you. Jefimenko has worked quite well in the radiation relativistic background of classical electrodynamics and has failed to solve the electromagnetic media for explaining properties a diamagnetism or dielectricity. I don't know what is the relation with our discussion.

   Geometrodynamics is not right and it was also very well studied the possibility of having a Minkowski's metric instead of the Riemann one for gravitation. Obviously you are free to follow the analogies between electrodynamics and gravitation given that Coulomb and Newton formulae are quite similar but not in their strength or in the sign of their sources. There are neutral electromagnetic bodies while no neutral "geodynamic" interaction. In any case I wish you good luck!

This is the most brilliant description and the indictment of official physics (since Albert Einstein) of the present and the last century that I have ever known. Tesla’s brilliance lies in the fact that a so-called “Mad Scientist” could foresee things so clearly and made this judgement so early on! I wish I had known about this quote from Tesla; this would have made my own indictment of modern official physics much more powerful in another forum of RG: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312118218_Free_Fall_in_Gravitational_Theory?feedback/

Tesla was absolutely right that the theories of relativity do not qualify as physics, but is metaphysics based on mathematical idealism, and have nothing to do with the material/physical world or objective reality. Tesla’s superb sense of judgements demonstrate the difference between the quality of science and knowledge gained through real practice of science dealing with the real problems of the real world and the idle thinking of an abstract, ideal and dream world sitting in the desk of a Patent Office or Ivory Tower!  

This whole episode has been and continues to be a nightmare, so aptly described in the movie “The Wizard of Oz”. This drama that continues till today is a colossal waste of intellectual and material resources of humanity. This charade starting from Arthur Eddington’s “proof” of GR is being funded, maitained and promoted by regressive and decadent monopoly finance capitalism for its own interest; as a substitute for discredited theology.  Thanks for posting it, Prof. Toshkov.

Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

I just published a presentation,done in the last months, of the experiment  to test a prediction of SR.

Working Paper THE TIME OF THE EINSTEIN'S TRAIN, a test of the relativity o...

Dear Christian,

"I doubt that STR predicts a time difference between the two clocks for a co-moving observer, as long as both clocks are accelerated together. Or did I miss your point? "

I know it is astonishing and counterintuitive but SR predicts a time difference as measured by the comoving observer in the final inertial reference frame. Look at the references "The case of the identically accelerated twins". In addition it is a consequence of the Rindler metric.

I agree with you, in principle there should not be any difference whatsoever in the atomic clocks gauges in their new reference frame after accelration.

THat is why an experiment has to be performed in order to have evidence if this absurd prediction is present or not.

Dear Christian,

Thanks for the reference. I got the point and admit that I got new insights to the consequences of STR. Intriguing.

you are very welcome. I think since Einstein, in this case, they tried to stretch a bit the domain where the theory can give plausible results....I've been behind this since june 2015, I could not belive that the EEP was based on this, which I'm sure is a wrong prediction. After that I received several confirmation by serveral scientists that a consequence of SR was the retardation of comoving accelerated clocks. SInce I did not find a single experiment in literature to prove such a heavy affirmation which is at the foundation of GR and SR, I had to propose a feasible experiment to clarify. 

I would like to know your opinion about the experiment I'm proposing.

Best regards

Dear THierry,

thanks a lot to you too. Please anything unclear you find in that script, just point it out. Or any suggestion. The Tangerlini Transformations do not have such absurd consequences and they have to be carefully considered in the case of accelerated comoving observers.

 Dear Stefano

The experiment is always good, no matter what results.

I have some remarks as not everything is clear. Two remotely synchronised clocks using Einstein Procedure already have these clocks shifted in phase with respect to absolutely synchronised clocks by an unknown offset. The same acceleration applied to the pair would have to start simultaneously not based on the same time indication. When one objects starts moving, the other is still at rest so you have to factor in these clocks will never get to equal speed.

The accelerated clocks do not care about inertial frame as they do what they do

We however set them to motion in an inertial frame, watch them and possibly stop in another.

Non simultaneously started objects in absolute space as they are will have velocity say

V1=a*t

V2=a*(t-t0)

What this means two velocity will be at constant offset and clock indications will accumulate at different rate. Depending how you stop the two clocks which change the distance and how you compare the clocks at the distance the result will differ. because again in Einstein synchronised frames there is no simultaneity for the same clocks indications. 

I know it sounds like 19th century kinematics, but since last weekend I know for sure the absolute reference rest frame is a necessity and absolute simultaneity is a plausible relation which currently is hard either to prove or demonstrate.

Andrew,

thanks for the feedback. If you can write it in the post dedicated to the feedbacks of my paper it is better. We cannot discuss things here which are out of the scope of the question of this thread.

Dear Andrew,

"When one objects starts moving, the other is still at rest so you have to factor in these clocks will never get to equal speed."

why? It is like that only if I push or pull the train, and in any case this is an incredibly tiny contribuition which has very little influence on the overall assessment. In the worst case the two clocks will receive a slightly shifted law of motion which eventually will emerge in the results of the experiment as a disturbance. SInce the experiment is performed in the two directions, that term can be spotted and cancelled out numerically. I agree that it can be a point to consider in building the estimated error.

"We however set them to motion in an inertial frame, watch them and possibly stop in another."

put them in sync in a IRF and then check their gauges in another IRF.

"I know it sounds like 19th century kinematics, but since last weekend I know for sure the absolute reference rest frame is a necessity and absolute simultaneity is a plausible relation which currently is hard either to prove or demonstrate. "

this experiment will help to clarify. The consequence of non detection of the term vx/c2 accelerated motion would imply  that the simultaneity is not relative, time dilation does not take its roots on the relativity of simultaneity but on energy/momentum variations.

We have to understand finally if Einstein kept part of the progress in Physics for 100 yars under check mate or not..

   Dear Stefano,

   Always the experiments are good to be done, although I think that the special relativity is well tested. In any case, the solution to the experiment that you propose is not so simple because there is also another acceleration on the clocks, i.e.g sin (theta), being theta the angle with respect to the rotation exes of the Earth and also, as the Earth rotates the Coriolis acceleration. The rest of the other sources of the accelaration as the interaction with the Moon make be negligable. But what would be absolutly critical is to consider that the external observer is sourronded by this fields (thus no inertial).

I agree with you that the fail of this experiment would be very critical for the our understanding of relativity if the things are seriously considered.

   Dear Thierry,

   The equations of Jefimenko are only related with retarded and advanced time solutions in  the Lienard-Wiechert potentials for obtaining the electromagnetic radiation (Larmor or its relativistic generalization). You have a very simple explanation in

    David J Griffiths

    Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3th edition.

   and for an easy look you have

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko%27s_equations

Dear Daniel,

"Always the experiments are good to be done, although I think that the special relativity is well tested. "

tested yes but first it is not the ultimate theory, second it is given for granted that such delay can occur, third any results from the experiment will not affect SR in the domain it has been considered so far.  Worst case it will state  that non-inertial to non-inertial cannot be modeled with SR and that the reason for clock retardation is not the relativity of simultaneity, but "absolute simultaneity" which is in agreement with QUantum Physics. It will open several possibilities which we should discuss in a thread apart, maybe. 

"In any case, the solution to the experiment that you propose is not so simple because there is also another acceleration on the clocks, i.e.g sin (theta), being theta the angle with respect to the rotation exes of the Earth and also, as the Earth rotates the Coriolis acceleration. "

I agree with you that such accurate clocks will be affected by very tiny effects, but what is important is:

a) we have two clocks not very distant from eachother which change their position during the experiment, so they are going to be affected roughly in the same way by whatever surround them.

b) we have back and forth paths to make the experiment so if the head clock is affected more we will see what occurs in the reverse path.

c) we can repeat the experiment a lot of times and cancel out sistematic errors and other influences.

    Dear Thierry,

    I was teaching the Jefimenko model as one alternative to use directly the Lienard-Wichert potentials for the radiation fields,i.e. whose components depends of 1/r instead of 1/r2, and therefore they have a Poynting vector independent of the distance. These are Lorentz covariant and they don't present really nothing new in electrodynamics. They where used for calculating M and D in certain materials because the Poynting vector in these materials has still a non clear answer (dielectricity, diamagnetism and paramagnetism) and also nothing new was found. I attach you another paper which show you other point of view than the mine.  

    Dear Stefano,

   Worst case it will state  that non-inertial to non-inertial cannot be modeled with SR and that the reason for clock retardation is not the relativity of simultaneity,

   Perhaps I don't understand you and I have written a long post on this point (perhaps too much). The acceleration can be considered from an inertial frame without any problem in SRT, that was made a long time ago and tested experimentally.

    Dear Stefano,

    Nasa purpose experiments every year and I think this kind of experiment could interest they if you can distinguish clearly what the accelerations that you consider. Your present formula is not enough (I'am afraid) because only depends of the velocity and distance of the clocks in a medium with so many forces acting on them.

   Dear Stefano,

   let me analyse only the part a:

a) we have two clocks not very distant from eachother which change their position during the experiment, so they are going to be affected roughly in the same way by whatever surround them.

   It is reasonable your assumption that the summatory of the accelerations is the same for each clock. But what is necessary to prove is that is less important for the time measured than the acceleration that you have chosen.

Dear Daniel,

it would be preferable to discuss in this thread I made on purpose.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_the_time_for_the_Einsteins_train

it is a form of respect to Angel who initiated this thread.

Dear Christian,

" I would think that the test is worth the (likely not too high) costs and be curious to see the results. I read about the new high precision clocks lately and expected that they might be useful for high-precision tests of STR. You make the first practical proposal (that I know of) to use these new devices for further tests of STR. Due to the fundamental importance of the LTs, any reasonably affordable test should be done! "

thanks a lot for your encouragement. I would like to go deeper in the discussion here

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_the_time_for_the_Einsteins_train

   Dear Thierry,

   Your professor (even if he is member of MENSA) is wrong and he knows very few electromagnetism if he employed the Poynting vector as a wrong tool. Clearly the Poynting vector is part of the tensor energy and even in such tensor plays two different physical roles, but the radiation flux cannot be calculated without using it because it is the linear momentum density associated to the fields.

   I agree with your considerations about Jefimenko, who I didn't studied seriously and only took into account his model for teaching to my students many years ago and also some implications in the multipolar approximations in matter. My impression was quite similar to the people of the paper that I have attached you. Nothing is relevant in his formalism and only tried to avoid the Lienard-Wiechert potentials which always is difficult to justify the need of the retarded solution. I'm not enter in the discussion of the powers of relativistic gamma that you mentioned.

Dear all,

I carefully follow the discussion because it is of great interest to me the clash of opinions of specialists from different fields.

I teach measurement in electrical engineering and electronics, and from the point of view of the measurement technique, Lorentz's transformations and all others that you mention in the discussion represent coefficients that account for the error in conducting a particular measurement .

For example, the Lorenz transformations allow us to measure the correct length, time, and so on. Parameters when conducting a measurement from one stationary system to another that moves at a certain speed. That is, we get information about what the actual values of these parameters are, if we measure them, assuming we are in the moving system. Ie. If we measure them, when this moving system stops at us and we do the same measurements when it is stationary.

When we do the measurements, we usually do this by indirect methods, recalculating the actual values based on some transformation functions. Additionally, making a defined measurement, we pre-select the appropriate methodology for conducting a particular type of measurement. So far there is nothing special about Lorenz's transformations. A specific setting and object of measurement is selected. The measurement methodology is selected and the correction coefficients are derived. What is special here is that these transform coefficients or error factors give an infinitely large error value at v> = c, due to the fact that the clocks in both systems work with light. This is a precisely defined set-up, with previously introduced constraints and specifications for conducting the experiment.

If the conditions change, for example, the direction of the light in the clocks coincides with the direction of movement along the x-axis or is perpendicular to the x-axis and is on the direction of the observation - things will be different. Or, if the clock does not work with light signals but is mechanical or gyroscopic, the results and correction formulas will be different.

Given that almost all movements of elementary particles in the micro-world are carried out at speeds close to those of light, much of the information about the micro-world arrives at us by electromagnetic waves, that photons (and as we already know and other elementary Particles) are of a wave character, in many cases where we make certain measurements, Einstein will be right (or almost right).

Using the fact that the velocity of propagation of electromagnetic energy in the vacuum is the highest we know, Einstein attempts to generalize the consequences of Lorenz's calculations first in the STR and then in the GTR.

But the attempt to impose these theories as universal, in my opinion, is not the most appropriate for modern science.

In this case, speaking of light watches, I have in mind one of the very common examples of explaining the Lorenz transformations proposed by Feynman - Feynman's Clock.

   Dear Thierry,

   Magnetism in solids is not related with the motion of the electrons in the atoms at all. Permanent magnetism is due to a ferromagnetic phase which is a collective phenomenon where the spins coupling plays a fundamental role and no the motion of the electrons in the orbits. Let me to tell you that in all the Periodic Table there are only three atoms which are ferromagnetic: iron Fe, covalt Co and nickel Ni (the d-electrons following Hund rules are responsable). Also some Rare Earth atoms have it (f-electrons). This tells you that the electrons motion obviously is not the responsable of the ferromagnetic order and less the antiferromagnetic and so on.

   Many years ago, thinking that the atomic orbitals could provide a magnetic order as Ampere currents, Bohr took a lady van Leeuwen, for showing that this is impossible. The theorem is known as Bohr-van Leeuwen theorem.

    Obviously the spin of one fundamental particle doesn't depends of its size although its magnetic moment do it of its mass.

Dear Colleagues, I understand the Bohr model as it is still taught in secondary schools as: i) an historical step on the understanding of atomic structure, ii) a metaphor.  Unfortunately, this creates the tendency for students to 'believe' that the atom is really like the Bohr model instead of a metaphorical model - useful for another purpose. Magnetism is presented in many countries as an observation only with no explanatory framework, making science a thing to learn rather than a thing to do. Thank you for all the responses since it has got me thinking. We also see the need to differentiate a 'theory' from a 'model' from what 'physically' happens: all three describe 'reality' but in different ways for different purposes, and atomic structure is one of the best examples of the disparity between theory, model and physically. Other concepts show greater convergence which cause, even scientists, to confuse the three.

   Dear Thierry,

   No. This theorem was exactly thought for seen that the atomic like currents (thought as classical Ampere currents) cannot give an external magnetic order. For instance, ferromagnetic order in one crystal needs to have a Weiss field ( with a huge value) to create a quantum phase. This is not at all related with the orbits of the electrons surrounding an atomic nucleus and classical electromagnetism cannot says anything because the main interaction is between spins or spin-orbits. But the best prove, without knowing anything about magnetism, is that you have most of the periodic table without magnetic order.

    Dear Thierry,

    Look at the formal part where the Hamiltonian of electrons moving in their orbitals crating the currents is studied

    https://everipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%25E2%2580%2593van_Leeuwen_theorem/

    This is a basic theorem of Statistical Mechanics based in the idea that quantum Hamiltonian depends of the potential and therefore its partition function associated, while magnetic moment depends of the field.

   Dear Aparna,

   Nowadays Hall effect has very different versions. Classical Hall effect which is just a magnetic field orthogonal to one usual current. This gives a two tensor conductivity whose transversal components are function of the magnetic field. The Hall potential can be applied to distinguish in a semiconductor of it is hole or electron electric transport.

   Integer Quantum Hall effect and Fractional Quantum Hall effect which provide us with a macroscopic quantized conductivity (in integers or in fractions).

   Classical and Quantum Hall effects works on the electric conserved charges.

   But quite recently it was discovered the Spin Quantum Hall effect which makes a quite similar effect for the spins going to be translated to the edges of the material. In this case the spins are not conserved.

   In any case, Hall effect is not related with the previous subject of the magnetic order in a given material (quantum magnetic phases).or perhaps I didn't understand your purpose.

   Dear Aparna,

   You have, for instance, electric condensars where the field between the plates is purely electric or coils where the field is only magnetic. It is true that Maxwell equations gives an electromagnetic field propagation in general, but this doesn't avoids to have electric and magnetic fields alones.

Dear all,

In my humble opinion, with no claim of expertise on the subject, I believe if there is one authority who could boldly critique the theory of relativity, it had to be Tesla... The guy was "The Genius"..., contrary to what we are made to believe. Tesla did science, as opposed to those who talked and wrote science (theorists). Therefore, to dismiss his critique out-rightly isn't a very wise thing to do.. On this ground, I am more inclined towards Tesla's position on Einstein's theory, with reservations though..

Cheers

Dear Thierry,

"However, there is an essential difference between the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and that resulting, according to Einstein, of the Lorentz transformation. The first, indeed, was supposed to be a real contraction caused by the absolute movement of the body in the ether, while the second is an apparent contraction relative to the second observer: it derives only from the way in which the various Observers make their measurements of distances and durations and the transformation of Lorentz which mathematically expresses the relationship between the measures thus carried out by the two observers. The apparent contraction of the lengths complements the apparent slowdown of the clocks."

yes, I would add that to all that..."measures thus carried out by the two observers...who make use of EM waves