Re: rotating magnetic field

On Apr 16, 6:58 am, pmb <pm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

v is the velocity of the charge WITH RESPECT TO the field.

That is incorrect. The v is the velocity of the particle with respect
to the observer's frame of reference.

Lets say I have an electron and it's moving in some magnetic field at
rest (lab frame). We observe a sideways thrust on it due to the qVxB.
OK? Now I sit on the particle and move with it. Obviously since as
you say the field has not motion and has not relation to the V
producing the force, it must be that v is now zero as the particle is
not moving with respect to me. Hence no sideways force exists. This
is insane because it says that the path the electron takes in space
depends upon my motion. Hence if I decide to move it means that all
the electrons in the universe must change how they act! Note that
this doesn't just say they change how they APPEAR to me, but how they
actually ACT! You know that's silly.

If
"velocity of the field" has no meaning then that implies that there is
some absolute reference frame to which all charge movement is
referred.

The velocity of a particle is always with respect to the oberver's
frame of reference and he first postlate of special relativity states
that there are no absolute frames of reference.

Which was my point. Above I just proved that v can't be velocity
relative to the observer. So what is it relative to? I suggest that
"whatever" is creating the forces in space (which we represent
mathematically by the concept of a "field") is the actual entity to
which relative motion is measured.

I think MM killed that idea. As I said before. You can move
the coil or the magnet and still get an emf.

I don't think so. I know that if you placed a charged particle in the
field then there will be a force on it. If you placed a conductor in
the field and oriented it in a certain way then a difference in
potential will be established. However if you placed a loop of wire in
the field then the emf will be zero since calculating the EMF going
around the loop you will get zero.

I think so. Basic experiment: Coil of wire and bar magnet. Thrust the
magnet into the coil - you get voltage. Sit the magnet on a stand and
shove the coil over the end - you get voltage. Of course it all
depends on orientation because a wire refers the forces on charged
particles into the direction of the wire.

It is the relative motion
between the charge and the field (which more or less moves with a
magnet) that is the "v" producing the "force" which is interpreted as
an "E" which moves a charge which becomes a current. How can it be
anything else?\

What do youy mea by an "E"? If you mean that there is an elecrtric
field present then I agree.

But what KIND of E field is it?

As for the "electromagnetic" story now so popular among relativists
that somehow there is only one force that transforms magnetic fields
into Electric fields, I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

What do you mean you "don't buy it"? Are you saying that Einstein's
special theory of relativity is wrong?

No, I'm not saying I'm smarter than Einstein! But what I don't "buy"
is the idea that all E fields (electric fields) are the "same". Do you
believe that? If so then explain how various E fields (electrostatic,
induction, and motional) all have such remarkably different
properties? Basically what people are doing is simply labeling ANY
force that acts on a charged particle that is not a magnetic field as
"E". This makes no sense. You have to label things by their
properties. Words actually have meanings. If two things have different
properties then you have to give them different labels. So if a
magnetic field can be replaced by an electric field (as the story
goes) by creating relative motion, then just what KIND of E field is
it? And how do we justify that it is that type and not some other
type? Or maybe it's it's OWN "type"? See what I mean?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... ever devised to sum up by integration their total complement of energy, ... the magnetic field of an electron at rest. ... electric and magnetic fields for the particle. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... ever devised to sum up by integration their total complement of energy, ... the magnetic field of an electron at rest. ... electric and magnetic fields for the particle. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... ever devised to sum up by integration their total complement of energy, ... the magnetic field of an electron at rest. ... electric and magnetic fields for the particle. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... ever devised to sum up by integration their total complement of energy, ... the magnetic field of an electron at rest. ... electric and magnetic fields for the particle. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Magnetic field of a stationary particle
    ... > I have read several explanations of why a magnetic field must exist as ... why does the particle need to be moving in the lab frame? ... Let me guess you are thinking of a wire at rest in frame S (the lab ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)