9 views

Skip to first unread message

Feb 20, 2007, 9:20:14 AM2/20/07

to

Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show

that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the

nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the

farfield of the source.

dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show

that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the

nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the

farfield of the source.

Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einsteinâ€™s

theory of special relativity theory is based, relativity theory is

reanalyzed. The analysis shows that the relativistic gamma factor is

dependent on whether the analysis is performed using nearfield or

farfield propagating EM fields.

In the nearfield, gamma is approximately one indicating that the

coordinate transforms are Galilean in the nearfield. In the farfield the

gamma factor reduces to the standard known relativistic formula

indicating that they are approximately valid in the farfield.

Because time dilation and space contraction depend on whether near-field

or far-field propagating fields are used in their analysis, it is

proposed that Einstein relativistic effects are an illusion created by

the propagating EM fields used in their measurement. Instead space and

time are proposed to not be flexible as indicated by Galilean relativity.

A paper arguing this proposal is available for download at:

http://folk.ntnu.no/williaw/walker.pdf

William D. Walker

Feb 20, 2007, 9:29:16 AM2/20/07

to

William wrote:

> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

> only become independent in the farfield.

> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

> only become independent in the farfield.

You are mistaken.

Feb 20, 2007, 9:38:47 AM2/20/07

to

Your derivations seem generally along these lines:

<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures

the relative strength of electric and magnetic

fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>

http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

You should check the date of:

"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the

speed of the light source, then my

whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity

is false. " - Albert E. Einstein

Einsten does a good bit of "salvage" work in the

1920 paper and the 1923 lecture.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

Sue...

Feb 20, 2007, 9:40:37 AM2/20/07

to

Sam... You are a parrot.

Sue...

Feb 20, 2007, 10:02:27 AM2/20/07

to

"William" <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:erf02u$h05$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...

> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

> only become independent in the farfield.

Vague and false. What is far and what is near?

The speed of the fields are depend-E-nt on the velocity of the

source. <-------------- that '.' is "period".

Feb 20, 2007, 10:12:02 AM2/20/07

to

When you are talking about the nearfield propagation,

are you still talking about the propagation in a free-space vacuum?

Feb 20, 2007, 10:23:01 AM2/20/07

to

- yes, I am talking about the propagation of EM fields in vacuum -

I show in the paper that one gets very unusual results near a source.

Not only do the EM fields start out faster than light, but the speed of

the fields are also dependent on the velocity of the source. Both of

these findings are incompatible with Einstein relativity.

Feb 20, 2007, 10:30:12 AM2/20/07

to

You need to read the paper for specifics. Nearfield refers to distances

a lot less than the farfield wavelength of the propagating field, and

farfield refers to distances a lot farther than the farfield wavelength

of the propagating field. Note that I refer to farfield wavelength

because the wavelength is larger in the nearfield than in the farfield

and only becomes relativly constant as the field propagates into the

farfield.

Feb 20, 2007, 10:49:45 AM2/20/07

to

Thanks for the interesting websites! I will look at them more closely.

> Your derivations seem generally along these lines:

> << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures

> the relative strength of electric and magnetic

> fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>

> http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

> Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Yes. But the main diffence is that I analyze the speed of the

propagating field components specifically when the source or observation

point is moving.

>

> You should check the date of:

> "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the

> speed of the light source, then my

> whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity

> is false. " - Albert E. Einstein

Do you know the date? I have not come across it yet.

>

> Einsten does a good bit of "salvage" work in the

> 1920 paper and the 1923 lecture.

>

> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html

> http://www.bartleby.com/173/

>

> Sue...

>

Of course he had a long time to think about it by then. But he was not

aware of the velocity dependency of the fields near the source or that

the fields were superluminal there. This changes things a lot!

Feb 20, 2007, 11:06:16 AM2/20/07

to

On Feb 20, 10:49 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

> Thanks for the interesting websites! I will look at them more closely.

>

> > Your derivations seem generally along these lines:

> > << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures

> > the relative strength of electric and magnetic

> > fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>

> >http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity...> Thanks for the interesting websites! I will look at them more closely.

>

> > Your derivations seem generally along these lines:

> > << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures

> > the relative strength of electric and magnetic

> > fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>

> > Formerly:http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

>

> Yes. But the main diffence is that I analyze the speed of the

> propagating field components specifically when the source or observation

> point is moving.

>

>

>

> > You should check the date of:

> > "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the

> > speed of the light source, then my

> > whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity

> > is false. " - Albert E. Einstein

>

> Do you know the date? I have not come across it yet.

>

>

>

> > Einsten does a good bit of "salvage" work in the

> > 1920 paper and the 1923 lecture.

>

> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/

>

> > Sue...

>

> Of course he had a long time to think about it by then. But he was not

> aware of the velocity dependency of the fields near the source or that

> the fields were superluminal there. This changes things a lot!

I have to question your use of the term superluminal in the nearfield.

Something pre-existing like the Coulomb force isn't normally

considered to have a speed.

Are you saying some speed other than c should be used at

equation 511?

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

(Note that these are time-dependent equations, not subject to

the so called "twin clock paradox")

Sue...

Feb 20, 2007, 11:12:30 AM2/20/07

to

"William" <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:erf464$jne$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...

> Androcles wrote:

>> "William" <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:erf02u$h05$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...

>>

>>>Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

>>>dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

>>>fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

>>>only become independent in the farfield.

>>

>>

>> Vague and false. What is far and what is near?

>>

>> The speed of the fields are depend-E-nt on the velocity of the

>> source. <-------------- that '.' is "period".

>

>

> You need to read the paper for specifics.

No I don't, your statement is vague and false.

You need to understand the PoR, Doppler, MMX, Sagnac and photons.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm

The speed of the fields are dependent on the velocity of the

source, de pendant hangs from de ceiling.

Feb 20, 2007, 11:22:58 AM2/20/07

to

On Feb 20, 10:49 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

> Thanks for the interesting websites! I will look at them more closely.

>

> > Your derivations seem generally along these lines:

> > << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures

> > the relative strength of electric and magnetic

> > fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>

> >http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity...>

> > Your derivations seem generally along these lines:

> > << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures

> > the relative strength of electric and magnetic

> > fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>

> > Formerly:http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

>

> Yes. But the main diffence is that I analyze the speed of the

> propagating field components specifically when the source or observation

> point is moving.

>

>

>

> > You should check the date of:

> > "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the

> > speed of the light source, then my

> > whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity

> > is false. " - Albert E. Einstein

>

<< Do you know the date? I have not come across it yet. >>

<<With reference to the question of double stars presenting evidence

against his relativity theory, he wrote the Berlin University

Observatory astronomer Erwin Finlay-Freundlich the following: "I am

very curious about the results of your research...," he wrote to

Freundlich in 1913. "If the speed of light is the least bit affected

by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity

and theory of gravity is false." [38 p.207] >>

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_5.html

Sue...

>

>

>

> > Einsten does a good bit of "salvage" work in the

> > 1920 paper and the 1923 lecture.

>

> >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le...

Feb 20, 2007, 12:29:37 PM2/20/07

to

Just one question. Please explain how you think these findings, if

correct, would be incompatible with relativity?

Feb 20, 2007, 1:47:19 PM2/20/07

to

I do not like the experimental setup you used.

From: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf

Even you are suspect of standing wave effects:

>4.1.2 Superluminal illusion due to presence of standing waves

>It is also suggested by some authors that the near-field of an electrical dipole

>consists of an electrical field which grows and collapses synchronized with the

>oscillation of the electric dipole, resulting in a type of standing wave. Since standing

>waves are thought to be the addition of transmitted and reflected waves the resultant

>field may yield phase shifts unrelated to how the fields propagate, .........

Why not use pulsed signals instead of continuous waves?

Why at all do you use a resonant receiving antenna instead of

a small capacitive coupling AKA "piece_of_wire" of 1 cm length,

or an inductively coupled antenna which does not respond to

electrical fields and so on.

A skilled experimenter team will find some more ideas,

above is just my two cents.

w.

Feb 20, 2007, 2:23:46 PM2/20/07

to

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:

> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving dipole

> source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the fields are

> dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and only become

> independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show that the fields

> propagate faster than the speed of light in the nearfield and reduce to the

> speed of light as they propagate into the farfield of the source.

A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,

but do fields?

> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einsteinâ€™s

> theory of special relativity theory is based,

Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes? Phase

speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be

superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict with

special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.

Your results follow from solution of the Maxwell equations, yes? The

Maxwell equations, strictly speaking, are covariant under both Galilei and

Lorentz transformations. The modern constitutive equations are

Lorentz-invariant (ie epsilon_0 and mu_0 are Lorentz invariant). How can

results from such a system break Lorentz symmetry?

> relativity theory is

> reanalyzed.

[cut]

Further comment awaiting time to read your paper.

--

Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/

E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html

Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

Feb 20, 2007, 3:17:16 PM2/20/07

to

"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.WNT.4.64.07...@serene.st...

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:

> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving dipole

> source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the fields are

> dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and only become

> independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show that the fields

> propagate faster than the speed of light in the nearfield and reduce to the

> speed of light as they propagate into the farfield of the source.

A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,

but do fields?

Idiot!

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif

> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einsteinâ€™s

> theory of special relativity theory is based,

Since when?

Since before Einstein was born, moron.

Feb 20, 2007, 3:38:58 PM2/20/07

to

On Feb 20, 10:23 am, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au>

wrote:

wrote:

[...]

>

> Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes? Phase

> speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be

> superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict with

> special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.

The possibility of group speed being faster than light is a new one to

me.

When you say faster than light, do you mean faster than the vacuum

propagation speed of light or the propagation speed of light in a

medium? The former would be very surprising to me, the latter not so

much.

[...]

Feb 20, 2007, 4:04:06 PM2/20/07

to

My paper shows that in vaccum both the phase speed and the group speed

of the EM fields generated by a dipole source are superluminal in the

nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as the fields propagate into

the farfield. In addition, in the nearfield, the phase speed and group

speed of the propagating fields is dependant on the velocity of the

source or observer.

Feb 20, 2007, 4:12:29 PM2/20/07

to

velocity can be larger than c.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,

me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Feb 20, 2007, 4:27:47 PM2/20/07

to

Thank you for the quotation information.

No, the c term in equation 511 refers to the phase speed of the fields

in the farfield of the source. In the nearfield the phase speed is

nearly infinite. Refer to my previous paper for more detail on how the

phase speed of the fields are determined from Maxwell's equations. This

paper also shows a simple antenna experiment which demonstrates the

nearfield superluminal phase speed.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603240

Feb 20, 2007, 4:55:14 PM2/20/07

to

Relativity theory is based on the assumption that the speed of light is

constant and independent of the source's velocity. If it is proven that

the speed is different in the nearfield then one will get different

space contraction and time dilation effects depending on whether

near-field of far-field propagating fields are used. But according to

relativity these effects should only be dependent on the velocity of the

source or observer. My proposal is that relativistic effects are an

illusion caused by the far-field time delays of the EM fields used to

measure the effects. In the nearfield, EM field time delays are nearly

zero because their speed are nearly infinite, resulting in no near-field

relativistic effects.

Feb 20, 2007, 5:26:56 PM2/20/07

to

That's not apparent to me--I've not studied classical electrodynamics

formally, but have dabbled in the last few years... enough to own a

copy of Jackson. Ch.7.5 B. Anomalous Dispersion and Resonate Absorption

I think you must be referring to 7.11 Arrival of a Signal After

Propagation through a dispersive Medium... Which also includes:

"If the phase velocity or the group velocity is greater than the speed

of light in a vacuum for important frequency components, does the

signal propagate faster than allowed by causality and relativity"?

Later

"The proof that no *signal* can propagate faster than the speed of light

in a vacuum, whatever the detailed properties of the medium, is now

straightforward"...

Thanks for the reference Mati.

Feb 20, 2007, 6:46:37 PM2/20/07

to

The former, surprising though it might be. Group speed is about the

envelope of a bunch of waves. One can even get the envelope to emerge from

a black box before it enters - negative group speeds! What could be more

FTL?

Now, in "conventional" systems - such as free space, hollow conducting

waveguides, etc, we usually have v_p * v_g = c^2, and have "signals" -

basically, the energy, momentum, and information encoded therein,

travelling at v_g. v_p > c follows quite trivially and uselessly.

As Mati already mentioned, the classic case of v_g > c is anomalous

dispersion. To further amplify this point, v_g > c can occur in a wide

variety of systems exhibiting loss or gain. Consider, first, the

implications that refractive index != 1 has for absorption/gain, ie

Kramers-Kronig relations. Where in a spectrum do we find anomalous

dispersion?

Perhaps the most fun case is superluminal v_g in tunnelling. Very, very

similar to the original subject of this thread. Not, strictly speaking, a

lossy system, but it's a system with transmission < 1, so the same maths

applies. The best published stuff is by Herbert Winful, and a google

scholar search by the interested will readily find it (interestingly,

google seems at least resilient wrt "tunnelling" vs "tunneling"). Those

without access to the pay-for-access journals can still get his stuff in

the freely-available Optics Express and NJP.

Yes, some people latch onto v_g > c as an "anti-relativistic" effect, but

that's from a misunderstanding of what "thing" means in "no-thing can go

faster than the speed of light". Grokking v_g > c and speed of transport

of energy and information can be quite instructive. Recommended exercise!

Less connected but fun exercise: Consider the superluminal laser pointer

dot (ie, pointer is rotated fast enough so dot on distant screen moves

superluminally). (a) What is the motion of the dot in an arbitrary

inertial reference frame? (b) What does an observer see (and I mean

observer as in somebody who is somewhere looking, not the common and

abhorrent "observer = reference frame")?

Feb 20, 2007, 7:16:20 PM2/20/07

to

than mine, coming from a newer edition of Jackson. The 1st edition,

which I've, is not getting that far and just briefly mentions the

issue in section 7.4, relegating the gory details to the problems

section (which Jackson is prone to do). The essence is there, though.

Feb 21, 2007, 12:22:11 AM2/21/07

to

It isn't clear from Einstein's 1923 Lecture that he has full

appreciation for the nearfield EM reactance and he keeps

one foot on a Newtonian ether while *suggesting*

Mach's principle makes better sense. I think he might

support you conclusion at that point of his career.

A modern derivation where a *thing* is a charge with

mass/energy equivalence and light is not a *thing*

isn't so kind to your conclusions. IOW you haven't

shown what we should use instead of "c" for time

dependent Maxwell's equations.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics

(classic field theory)_

a) Maxwell equations (no movement),

b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)

http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended

Does Einstein get in trouble for keeping one foot on

Newton's ether? IMHO he does. Tune in near years end. :o)

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

Sue...

Feb 21, 2007, 12:25:46 AM2/21/07

to

On Feb 20, 6:46 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

[...]

[...]

Scallops ! :-)

http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/navaids/tacan/tacan1.htm

Sue...

Feb 21, 2007, 3:51:09 AM2/21/07

to

Sue... wrote:

>

> It isn't clear from Einstein's 1923 Lecture that he has full

> appreciation for the nearfield EM reactance and he keeps

> one foot on a Newtonian ether while *suggesting*

> Mach's principle makes better sense. I think he might

> support you conclusion at that point of his career.

>

> A modern derivation where a *thing* is a charge with

> mass/energy equivalence and light is not a *thing*

> isn't so kind to your conclusions. IOW you haven't

> shown what we should use instead of "c" for time

> dependent Maxwell's equations.

I am not suggesting that Maxwell's equations be changed at all. C in

Maxwell's equations is simply a constant that turns out to be the

farfield phase speed of propagating EM fields.

Feb 21, 2007, 5:17:30 AM2/21/07

to

Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>

>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

>> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

>> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield

>> and only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results

>> show that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the

>> nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the

>> farfield of the source.

>

>

> A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,

> but do fields?

>

> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>

>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

>> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

>> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield

>> and only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results

>> show that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the

>> nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the

>> farfield of the source.

>

>

> A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,

> but do fields?

>

Fields are force vectors generated by sources. When the sources move

they generated force vector patterns that propagate. For instance if

charge is oscillated and the resultant field is calculated to be:

Eo*Sin(kr-wt) then the sinusoidal force vector pattern moves at the

speed of light: i.e. kr-wt = constant when dr/dt = w/k = c

>> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which

>> Einsteinâ€™s theory of special relativity theory is based,

>

>

> Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes? Phase

> speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be

> superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict

> with special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.

>

In the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, propagating EM fields are

used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a

moving frame. This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating

EM field from one frame to the other. This can be done using

monochromatic sources where the field propagation is described by it's

phase speed, or by using non-monochromatic (but narrow banded) sources

where the field group propagates at the group speed.

> Your results follow from solution of the Maxwell equations, yes? The

> Maxwell equations, strictly speaking, are covariant under both Galilei

> and Lorentz transformations. The modern constitutive equations are

> Lorentz-invariant (ie epsilon_0 and mu_0 are Lorentz invariant). How can

> results from such a system break Lorentz symmetry?

>

>> relativity theory is reanalyzed.

>

> [cut]

>

> Further comment awaiting time to read your paper.

>

Perhaps reading the paper will help answer this question.

Feb 21, 2007, 10:05:28 AM2/21/07

to

On Feb 21, 4:17 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>

> >> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

> >> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

> >> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield

> >> and only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results

> >> show that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the

> >> nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the

> >> farfield of the source.

>

> > A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,

> > but do fields?

>

> Fields are force vectors generated by sources. When the sources move

> they generated force vector patterns that propagate. For instance if

> charge is oscillated and the resultant field is calculated to be:

> Eo*Sin(kr-wt) then the sinusoidal force vector pattern moves at the

> speed of light: i.e. kr-wt = constant when dr/dt = w/k = c

> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>

> >> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

> >> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

> >> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield

> >> and only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results

> >> show that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the

> >> nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the

> >> farfield of the source.

>

> > A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,

> > but do fields?

>

> Fields are force vectors generated by sources. When the sources move

> they generated force vector patterns that propagate. For instance if

> charge is oscillated and the resultant field is calculated to be:

> Eo*Sin(kr-wt) then the sinusoidal force vector pattern moves at the

> speed of light: i.e. kr-wt = constant when dr/dt = w/k = c

You are missing Timo's point. The *disturbance* in the field

propagates, but does the field itself propagate. At the risk of

implying more physical connection than is really there, consider

sound. Sound is defined as a disturbance of local positions of a

material medium such as air. The fact that sound clearly propagates

from your mouth to my ear does not mean that the *air* propagates from

your mouth to my ear.

Likewise, if you have a rope tied to a tree, and you snap the free end

of the rope with your wrist, there is a signal that is transmitted

from your hand to the tree (and reflected back again) though the rope

clearly does not travel from your hand to the tree.

The transmission of energy in an electromagnetic wave is caused by the

passing of *magnitude* of field from one location to another with

time. This does not mean that the field itself moves, only that the

disturbance in the field and the energy that is contained in that

disturbance moves.

My apologies if this sounds elementary. I'm trying to put it in the

simplest terms possible.

PD

Feb 21, 2007, 11:35:13 AM2/21/07

to

Superluminal interactions in near-field optics

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1365-2818.2001.00875.x

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1365-2818.2001.00875.x

In this paper we have demonstrated numerically how the general theory

describing the missing localizability of photons can result in

superluminal interactions in near-field optics. It was shown how

the pulse emitted from a point-dipole changes it shape as it

propagates through the near field, and it was demonstrated that

this change in shape is caused by the missing localization

of the photons. Detecting the pulse more than a pulse length away

from the source dipole, it should be possible to divide the pulse

into two parts, a purely non-propagating part and a main pulse.

A simple approach to the detection problem demonstrates how,

from a measurement, one could be tempted to claim that both the

purely non-propagating part of the pulse and the peak of the

main pulse are propagating with superluminal speed. This effect,

also caused by the missing photon localization and the finite

detection sensitivity, in no way is in conflict with the fact

that the only fundamental speed is c0, to be found in the

trailing edge of the pulse. In the last section we have pointed

out some of the difficulties faced in the standard analysis

where only propagation effects are assumed to appear in

the tunnelling barrier.

Feb 21, 2007, 11:46:16 AM2/21/07

to

On Feb 20, 10:02 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>

wrote:

> "William" <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in messagenews:erf02u$h05$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...

> > Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

> > dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

> > fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

> > only become independent in the farfield.

>

> source. <-------------- that '.' is "period".

wrote:

> "William" <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in messagenews:erf02u$h05$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...

> > Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

> > dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

> > fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

> > only become independent in the farfield.

>

> Vague and false. What is far and what is near?

>

> The speed of the fields are depend-E-nt on the velocity of the>

> source. <-------------- that '.' is "period".

Please cite just one experiment that supports this. I know you can't

because it throws Maxwell's equations right out the window.

Feb 21, 2007, 12:33:37 PM2/21/07

to

Feb 21, 2007, 4:50:03 PM2/21/07

to

"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1172076375.6...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 20, 10:02 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>

> wrote:

>> "William" <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in messagenews:erf02u$h05$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...

>> > Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

>> > dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

>> > fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

>> > only become independent in the farfield.

>>

>> Vague and false. What is far and what is near?

>>

>> The speed of the fields are depend-E-nt on the velocity of the

>> source. <-------------- that '.' is "period".

>

> Please cite just one experiment that supports this.

MMX

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm

Sagnac

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm

> I know you can't

> because it throws Maxwell's equations right out the window.

I've forgotten more than you will ever know and Maxwell was

an aetherialist ... err.. fuckhead.

Feb 21, 2007, 5:49:26 PM2/21/07

to

In sci.physics William <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

[...]

> I show in the paper that one gets very unusual results near a source.

> Not only do the EM fields start out faster than light, but the speed of

> the fields are also dependent on the velocity of the source.

[...]

> I show in the paper that one gets very unusual results near a source.

> the fields are also dependent on the velocity of the source.

No, you don't. You are solving Maxwell's equations in a vacuum, and it

is an exact, unambiguoius, and mathematically rigorous property of any

exact solution that it always propagates at the speed of light.

More precisely, if you measure the field at a position that is a distance

d from the source at time t, the results are totally independent of any

characteristic of the source at any time after t-d/c.

What you *do* show is that if you ignore the exact properties of the

solution and look at a certain approximation, you can create the illusion

of faster-than-light propagation.

Steve Carlip

Feb 21, 2007, 8:54:57 PM2/21/07

to

Eric, check this out:

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html

It gives a very good explanation as to how phase and/or group velocity

can exceed c.

Feb 22, 2007, 4:13:32 AM2/22/07

to

It does not explain how the phase velocity can exceed c!

Feb 22, 2007, 5:41:57 AM2/22/07

to

Regardless of whether the phase speed is apparent or real, the fact is

that the time delays of the propagating fields are nearly zero in the

nearfield close to the source, and increase to approximately light speed

time delays in the farfield. I have even demonstrated this

experimentally in my Sept. of 2000 paper.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0009023

In the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, propagating EM fields are

used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a

moving frame. This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating

EM field from one frame to the other. Since the time delays very near

the source are nearly instantaneous then it can be shown that the

Lorentz transforms reduce to the Galilean transforms there. This can be

seen qualitatively by substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz

transforms. In the farfield the time delays of the fields increase to

light-speed time delays and the Lorentz transform applies there.

Relativity theory is based on the assumption that the time delays of a

propagating EM field is a light-speed time delay and that this delay is

independent of the source's velocity. In my most recent paper:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166

I have shown that the time delays close to the source are nearly zero

and that in the farfield the time delay increases to approximately a

light speed time delay. In addition, the time delay is also dependent on

the velocity of the source, particularly in the nearfield. If the time

delay of the fields is not a light speed time delay in the nearfield

then one will get different space contraction and time dilation effects

depending on whether near-field of far-field propagating fields are

used. But according to relativity these effects should only be dependent

on the velocity of the source or observer. My conclusion is that

relativistic effects are an illusion caused by the far-field time delays

of the EM fields used to measure the effects.

I also still disagree with you, regarding the reality of superluminal

phase speed of the fields in the nearfield of a dipole source. Using the

Lorentz gauge, it can be shown that the potentials propagate at the

speed of light. Using other gauges (for instance the Coulomb gauge) the

potentials can even be instantaneous. The potentials are simply

mathematical tools which enable a simple calculation of the fields. The

potentials are not what are directly measurable, the fields are.

Additional calculation is required to determine the fields from the

potentials. To calculate the B field, for instance, the curl of the

vector potential must be computed which adds additional spacial phase

shifts to the light speed vector potential. This is clearly seen in the

derivation of the dipole solution from Maxwell's equations in my last paper:

Feb 22, 2007, 12:52:15 PM2/22/07

to

On Feb 21, 4:50 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>

wrote:

> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in messagenews:1172076375.6...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

wrote:

> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in messagenews:1172076375.6...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

Fortunately most of the stuff you've forgotten is all in error, as is

most of the stuff you currently claim to know. There's nowhere in

those presentations where the claim of light speed being dependent on

speed of the source is even evident. One could just as easily toss in

the currently accepted value for c and nothing would change. So

you've demonstrated absolutely nothing of any worth to anybody. If

the speed of EM radiation were dependent on the speed of the source,

those cited experiments would have to have dramatically different

results.

Feb 22, 2007, 1:06:58 PM2/22/07

to

Sue... wrote:

> On Feb 20, 9:29 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

>> William wrote:

>>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

>>> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

>>> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

>>> only become independent in the farfield.

>> You are mistaken.

>

> Sam... You are a parrot.

>

> Sue...

>

>

> On Feb 20, 9:29 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

>> William wrote:

>>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

>>> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

>>> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and

>>> only become independent in the farfield.

>

> Sam... You are a parrot.

>

> Sue...

>

>

That's a compliment, Dennis!

Feb 22, 2007, 1:57:25 PM2/22/07

to

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, William wrote:

> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>>

>>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving dipole

>>> source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the fields are

>>> dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and only become

>>> independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show that the fields

>>> propagate faster than the speed of light in the nearfield and reduce to

>>> the speed of light as they propagate into the farfield of the source.

>>

>> A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves propogate,

>> but do fields?

>

> Fields are force vectors generated by sources. When the sources move they

> generated force vector patterns that propagate. For instance if charge is

> oscillated and the resultant field is calculated to be: Eo*Sin(kr-wt) then

> the sinusoidal force vector pattern moves at the speed of light: i.e. kr-wt =

> constant when dr/dt = w/k = c

Not the point. _Read_ the question! In any case, I'd dispute that calling

fields "force vectors generated by sources" is either correct or useful.

However, it's just a point of terminology and not relevant to the content

or correctness of your paper.

>>> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einsteinâ€™s

>>> theory of special relativity theory is based,

>>

>> Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes? Phase

>> speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be

>> superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict with

>> special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.

>

> In the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, propagating EM fields are used

> to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a moving frame.

No, or at least not in most derivations of the Lorentz transforms. Note

well the existence of derivations of the Lorentz transforms that make no

identification of the invariant parameter c with anything electromagnetic

or optical until the Lorentz transforms are already in hand.

> This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating EM field from one

> frame to the other. This can be done using monochromatic sources where the

> field propagation is described by it's phase speed, or by using

> non-monochromatic (but narrow banded) sources where the field group

> propagates at the group speed.

Time delay from one frame to the other? The conventional electromagnetic

"derivation" of the Lorentz transforms usually proceeds by choosing a

clock synchronisation in each of two frames so the the speed of signals at

c in one frame have the same speed c in the other frame. Since the

relevant postulate is that c is invariant, it only makes sense to do so

with signals that travel at speed c.

Historically, SR arose from electromagnetic theory, but it isn't dependent

on electromagnetism in the way you suggest above.

>> Your results follow from solution of the Maxwell equations, yes? The

>> Maxwell equations, strictly speaking, are covariant under both Galilei and

>> Lorentz transformations. The modern constitutive equations are

>> Lorentz-invariant (ie epsilon_0 and mu_0 are Lorentz invariant). How can

>> results from such a system break Lorentz symmetry?

This is the key question! How can you get results breaking Lorentz

symmetry when you start with a Lorentz-symmetric system? In other words,

where does the non-Lorentz behaviour arise?

See text immediately after eqn (4). Since when is this the case? Leaving

aside the matter of relativity of simultaneity, your claim appears to be a

straightforward denial of Lorentz contraction. Sure, given R=r-vt in one

frame, you have R'=r'-vt' in the other, but, under Lorentz, you don't have

R=R', r=r', t=t' - assuming these is Galileian. So, basically (22) which

depends on this Galileian assumption might be correct to first-order in

v/c, but will be wrong in 2nd or higher order. You also assume that k=k',

w=w'. Note also that Galileian assumption are not necessarily correct to

first order in a Lorentzian universe. Consider composition of velocities

when 1 of the velocities (c_phase in your case) is close to the speed of

light and the other velocity small such that v<<c - the Galileian result

is wrong even in 1st order in v/c.

In (25) [note sign error!], the far-field term works, because you throw

away all the stuff in (21) and (22) that contains the results of the

Galileian assumptions, leaving only the result of the Lorentzian

assumption that c in the retarded current J(t-R/c) is invariant. For the

near-field term, since the input is only correct to 1st order in v/c at

best, obtaining the correct to zero order in v/c looks reasonable enough.

Given that Maxwell + invariant c is Lorentz-symmetric, any non-Lorentzian

result must result from non-Lorentzian assumptions or errors in the maths.

Apart from the sign error, I don't see errors in the maths. I'd be

interested to see what it all looks like if you don't make the

Galileian assumptions. Post if you do so!

Feb 22, 2007, 4:45:50 PM2/22/07

to

On Feb 22, 10:13 pm, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:> It does not explain how the phase velocity can exceed c!- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

with simple deduction, one can see how phase would accelerate speeds

C^2. The new photon experimental station they built over in England

showed that as a photon is accelerated (excited) it's light increases,

-the frequency wave shortens... therefore, closer to source light

suggests greater excitement. greater speeds of variable c2.

is that a number 5 too? if a 5, therefore you can't argue with it.

Feb 22, 2007, 6:00:52 PM2/22/07

to

"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1172166735.2...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Mumbling word soup and whining without any mathematical backup

demonstrates your psychosis, fuckhead.

BTW, the speed of the Earth's magnetic and gravitational fields

are dependent on the velocity of Earth, you stoooopid, ignorant,

whining dumbfuck, since they move along with it as we orbit the

sun.

MMX and Sagnac support the speed of the fields are dependent

on the velocity of the source, ignorant, whining shit-for-brains.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm

Feb 22, 2007, 7:12:40 PM2/22/07

to

Thanks for the paper. I will take a look at it.

Feb 23, 2007, 8:46:58 AM2/23/07

to

Eric Gisse wrote:

> The possibility of group speed being faster than light is a new one to

> me.

> The possibility of group speed being faster than light is a new one to

> me.

Go to http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html for a

simple graphic demonstration why group velocity > c cannot transmit any

information.

Tom Roberts

Feb 27, 2007, 6:11:25 AM2/27/07

to

Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>

>> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

>>

>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>>>

>>>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

>>>> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

>>>> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield

>>>> and only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results

>>>> show that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the

>>>> nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into

>>>> the farfield of the source.

>>>

>>>

>>> A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves

>>> propogate, but do fields?

>>

>>

>> Fields are force vectors generated by sources. When the sources move

>> they generated force vector patterns that propagate. For instance if

>> charge is oscillated and the resultant field is calculated to be:

>> Eo*Sin(kr-wt) then the sinusoidal force vector pattern moves at the

>> speed of light: i.e. kr-wt = constant when dr/dt = w/k = c

>

>

> Not the point. _Read_ the question! In any case, I'd dispute that

> calling fields "force vectors generated by sources" is either correct or

> useful. However, it's just a point of terminology and not relevant to

> the content or correctness of your paper.

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>

>> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

>>

>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>>>

>>>> Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving

>>>> dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the

>>>> fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield

>>>> and only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results

>>>> show that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the

>>>> nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into

>>>> the farfield of the source.

>>>

>>>

>>> A point of terminology: do _fields_ propogate? Sure, EM waves

>>> propogate, but do fields?

>>

>>

>> Fields are force vectors generated by sources. When the sources move

>> they generated force vector patterns that propagate. For instance if

>> charge is oscillated and the resultant field is calculated to be:

>> Eo*Sin(kr-wt) then the sinusoidal force vector pattern moves at the

>> speed of light: i.e. kr-wt = constant when dr/dt = w/k = c

>

>

> Not the point. _Read_ the question! In any case, I'd dispute that

> calling fields "force vectors generated by sources" is either correct or

> useful. However, it's just a point of terminology and not relevant to

> the content or correctness of your paper.

This is just a point of terminology that many researchers use. There are

clearly much more important things to discuss here.

>

>>>> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which

>>>> Einsteinâ€™s theory of special relativity theory is based,

>>>

>>>

>>> Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes?

>>> Phase speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be

>>> superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict

>>> with special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.

>>

>>

>> In the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, propagating EM fields are

>> used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a

>> moving frame.

>

>

> No, or at least not in most derivations of the Lorentz transforms. Note

> well the existence of derivations of the Lorentz transforms that make no

> identification of the invariant parameter c with anything

> electromagnetic or optical until the Lorentz transforms are already in

> hand.

>

I disagree, most derivations analyze the propagation of light between a

stationary and moving frame.

For example the photon clock is often used to derive time dilation

effect. Here the the speed of light is being used to measure the time

delay of light propagating perpendicular to the line of motion in the

two frames.

The time delay for light to propagate across a moving train as observed

from the moving and stationary reference frames, is also often used to

derive the Lorentz contraction.

The Lorentz transforms can then derived from these two effects

>> This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating EM field

>> from one frame to the other. This can be done using monochromatic

>> sources where the field propagation is described by it's phase speed,

>> or by using non-monochromatic (but narrow banded) sources where the

>> field group propagates at the group speed.

>

>

> Time delay from one frame to the other? The conventional electromagnetic

> "derivation" of the Lorentz transforms usually proceeds by choosing a

> clock synchronisation in each of two frames so the the speed of signals

> at c in one frame have the same speed c in the other frame. Since the

> relevant postulate is that c is invariant, it only makes sense to do so

> with signals that travel at speed c.

>

> Historically, SR arose from electromagnetic theory, but it isn't

> dependent on electromagnetism in the way you suggest above.

>

>>> Your results follow from solution of the Maxwell equations, yes? The

>>> Maxwell equations, strictly speaking, are covariant under both

>>> Galilei and Lorentz transformations. The modern constitutive

>>> equations are Lorentz-invariant (ie epsilon_0 and mu_0 are Lorentz

>>> invariant). How can results from such a system break Lorentz symmetry?

>

>

> This is the key question! How can you get results breaking Lorentz

> symmetry when you start with a Lorentz-symmetric system? In other words,

> where does the non-Lorentz behaviour arise?

>

Maxwell equations can be combined resulting in two second order partial

differential equations for the E and B fields (d'Alembertian of the

field equal a source, ref Eq. 9, 12 in my last paper). It is typically

shown that these equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations

and not invariant under Galilean transformation. But in my paper I have

shown that this occurs only in the farfield. In the nearfield, I have

shown that the fields propagate with nearly infinite speed consequently

making the Laplacian term (Del squared of field) zero in the PDE's. The

resulting equation in the nearfield is then invariant under Galilean

transformations.

> See text immediately after eqn (4). Since when is this the case? Leaving

> aside the matter of relativity of simultaneity, your claim appears to be

> a straightforward denial of Lorentz contraction.

I am simply trying to determine what transformations come out of Maxwell

equations. The result I get is that in the nearfield the transformations

are Galilean and in the farfield they are Lorentz. So if near-field EM

propagation is used to measure time and space then the observed effects

will follow Galilean transformations (i.e. no Lorentz contraction, no

time dilation), and if far-field EM propagation is used to measure time

and space then the observed effects will follow Lorentz transformations

(i.e. get Lorentz contraction and time dilation effects).

Maxwell equations may be relativistically wrong of course, but infinite

near-field phase speed between dipole antennas has been observed

experimentally (ref my last paper). The consequences can be

qualitatively seen by simply inserting infinity for c in the Lorentz

transforms resulting in Galilean transforms in the nearfield. In the

farfield the same experiment also shows that the fields propagate at the

known speed of light. My analysis shows that this leads to the known

Lorentz transforms in the farfield.

> Sure, given R=r-vt in

> one frame, you have R'=r'-vt' in the other, but, under Lorentz, you

> don't have R=R', r=r', t=t' - assuming these is Galileian. So, basically

> (22) which depends on this Galileian assumption might be correct to

> first-order in v/c, but will be wrong in 2nd or higher order. You also

> assume that k=k', w=w'. Note also that Galileian assumption are not

> necessarily correct to first order in a Lorentzian universe. Consider

> composition of velocities when 1 of the velocities (c_phase in your

> case) is close to the speed of light and the other velocity small such

> that v<<c - the Galileian result is wrong even in 1st order in v/c.

>

> In (25) [note sign error!],

Thank you, I had not seen this typo

> the far-field term works, because you throw

> away all the stuff in (21) and (22) that contains the results of the

> Galileian assumptions, leaving only the result of the Lorentzian

> assumption that c in the retarded current J(t-R/c) is invariant. For the

> near-field term, since the input is only correct to 1st order in v/c at

> best, obtaining the correct to zero order in v/c looks reasonable enough.

>

> Given that Maxwell + invariant c is Lorentz-symmetric, any

> non-Lorentzian result must result from non-Lorentzian assumptions or

> errors in the maths. Apart from the sign error, I don't see errors in

> the maths. I'd be interested to see what it all looks like if you don't

> make the Galileian assumptions. Post if you do so!

>

The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not

compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz

transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity

theory is compatible with Maxwell equations. Only experiments can tell

if this modified relativity theory is correct. A simple check to see if

the phase speed of the fields are velocity dependent in the

nearfield would be a good start.

Feb 27, 2007, 6:46:22 AM2/27/07

to

On Feb 27, 6:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

> The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not

> compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz

> transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

> EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

Was your equipment matched to 377 ohms ?

<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures

the relative strength of electric and magnetic

fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>

http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

> The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity

> theory is compatible with Maxwell equations.

What is the problem with the time dependent modifications to

Maxwell's equations to accomodate the speed of light?

"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of

Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Time-independent Maxwell equations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications

Time-dependent Maxwell's equations

Relativity and electromagnetism

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics

(classic field theory)_

a) Maxwell equations (no movement),

b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)

http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended

> Only experiments can tell

> if this modified relativity theory is correct. A simple check to see if

> the phase speed of the fields are velocity dependent in the

> nearfield would be a good start.

Consider... any matter you introduce to measure at farfield

changes the space to a nearfield. The only way I know of

to avoid the problem is mathmatically relating everything to

377 ohms. IOW Accurately simulate your coupling structure.

You may be able to do this for a special E plane only situation.

<< I then describe a model antenna consisting of two perfectly

conducting hemispheres of radius a separated by a small

equatorial gap across which occurs the driving oscillatory

electric field. The fields and surface current are determined

by solution of the boundary value problem. In contrast to the

first approach (not a boundary value problem), the tangential

electric field vanishes on the metallic surface. There is no

radial Poynting vector normal to the surface. >>

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053

Sue...

Feb 27, 2007, 7:22:39 PM2/27/07

to

On Feb 27, 3:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

(snip)

> The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not

> compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz

> transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

> EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

So let me get this straight; in your experimental setup you have a

signal path split into two lines, one of which has a gap crossed by

the overlapped near fields of two antennas, and the signals' arrival

times are compared at the scope. Is it your contention that the signal

crosses said gap faster than it does the equivalent length of the

unbroken line?

If that is the case, consider extending your experiment so that the

broken line contains many gaps yielding signal propagation much faster

than is possible with an equivalent length of unbroken cable. By using

a lot of gaps you could even overcome the velocity factor of the cable

and thus exceed free-space c.*

If you don't think that'll work, why not?

Yes, that was a tad sarcastic, but really, claiming that the EM

properties of the volume around one antenna when another is within a

wavelength of it is equivalent those of the volume around an isolated

antenna, is somewhat ridiculous. If they were the same, directional

multielement (e.g. Yagi-Uda) arrays would exhibit the same lobes as a

simple dipole. They obviously do not. The near field is _not_ "free

space".

The fields of antennae close to each other interact. Consider that

the receiving antenna's near field, by symmetry, must propagate

disturbances from its fringes inward to the antenna _much slower_ than

c (using your terminology).

FTM the field propagating away from an antenna reacts (Did you

notice another poster mentioning "reactance"? Where did you think the

word came from?) back on the field it emits; I notice that at no point

in your paper do you consider anything other than a steady radiative

state in the sense that you don't consider how the near field comes to

be in the first place. IOW start with an unenergized antenna, feed it

some RF, and model the process of reaching the steady radiative state.

You'll soon see where the apparent FTL near field effects come from.

> The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity

> theory is compatible with Maxwell equations. Only experiments can tell

> if this modified relativity theory is correct. A simple check to see if

> the phase speed of the fields are velocity dependent in the

> nearfield would be a good start.

Sigh. You plan to model/measure that in the near field as well?

* If that looks familiar to some people, there was a regular poster

here who claimed he'd invented exactly what I described and was going

to destroy Relativity, get rich, and so on. I wonder whatever happened

to him?

Mark L. Fergerson

PS I'm not even going to task you to justify your claim that the

longitudinal component of the near field "slows to c" at the fringe;

it simply vanishes. If you think otherwise, please tell us how to

build an antenna that is selective for that component.

Feb 28, 2007, 2:16:16 AM2/28/07

to

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, William wrote:

> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>>> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einsteinâ€™s

>>>>> theory of special relativity theory is based,

>>>>

>>>> Since when? You're talking about the phase speed of the wave, yes? Phase

>>>> speed can be and is routinely superluminal. Group speed can be

>>>> superluminal, though less routinely. What matters as far as conflict with

>>>> special relativity goes is speed of energy and signal.

>>>

>>> In the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, propagating EM fields are

>>> used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a moving

>>> frame.

>>

>> No, or at least not in most derivations of the Lorentz transforms. Note

>> well the existence of derivations of the Lorentz transforms that make no

>> identification of the invariant parameter c with anything electromagnetic

>> or optical until the Lorentz transforms are already in hand.

>

> I disagree, most derivations analyze the propagation of light between a

> stationary and moving frame.

What do you disagree with? That non-electromagnetic derivations exist? Or

that most derivations don't use propagating EM fields to "measure the

location of points from a stationary frame to a moving frame"?

The non-EM derivations certainly exist. The usual "light-signal"

derivation that EM _waves_ (not fields) to send signals that are used to

synchronise clocks in each frame. The frames agreeing on the value of c

gives the coordinate transformation between the frames. Note well that EM

waves in free space - and far-field EM waves at that - because the signal

travels at c.

>>>> Your results follow from solution of the Maxwell equations, yes? The

>>>> Maxwell equations, strictly speaking, are covariant under both Galilei

>>>> and Lorentz transformations. The modern constitutive equations are

>>>> Lorentz-invariant (ie epsilon_0 and mu_0 are Lorentz invariant). How can

>>>> results from such a system break Lorentz symmetry?

>>

>> This is the key question! How can you get results breaking Lorentz symmetry

>> when you start with a Lorentz-symmetric system? In other words, where does

>> the non-Lorentz behaviour arise?

>

> Maxwell equations can be combined resulting in two second order partial

> differential equations for the E and B fields (d'Alembertian of the field

> equal a source, ref Eq. 9, 12 in my last paper). It is typically shown that

> these equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations and not invariant

> under Galilean transformation.

Yes, and this invariance is because c = 1/sqrt(epsilon_0 mu_0) is the same

in all inertial frames under Lorentz transformations. Under Galilei

transformations, you'd only have the wave equation in the "absolute"

reference frame. c being a constant is all that you need for Lorentz

invariance in this case.

> But in my paper I have shown that this occurs

> only in the farfield.

How? The Lorentz invariance results from c = 1/sqrt(epsilon_0 mu_0) being

invariant. c is invariant because epsilon_0 and mu_0 are invariant. Since

these are still invariant in the near field, the wave equation is still

invariant in the near field.

> In the nearfield, I have shown that the fields

> propagate with nearly infinite speed consequently making the Laplacian term

> (Del squared of field) zero in the PDE's. The resulting equation in the

> nearfield is then invariant under Galilean transformations.

... to first, or at least zero, order in v/c, given the Galileian

approximations you used.

As a speed approaches infinity, what is the difference between the

Galileian and Lorentzian results for composition of velocities?

> I am simply trying to determine what transformations come out of Maxwell

> equations. The result I get is that in the nearfield the transformations are

> Galilean and in the farfield they are Lorentz. So if near-field EM

> propagation is used to measure time and space then the observed effects will

> follow Galilean transformations (i.e. no Lorentz contraction, no time

> dilation), and if far-field EM propagation is used to measure time and space

> then the observed effects will follow Lorentz transformations (i.e. get

> Lorentz contraction and time dilation effects).

Rulers are used to measure space. Clocks are used to measure time.

Far-field EM propagation (or some other signal that travels at c) can be

used to _synchronise_ the clocks.

If you want to use near-field phase speeds to synchronise clocks, so be

it, but don't claim that the result has any bearing on SR. You end up with

a clock synchronisation that depends on the position of the antenna; IMHO

a clear sign that it isn't a useful convention.

> The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not compatible

> with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz transforms. Since I

> have experimentally observed superluminal near-field EM propagating fields, I

> therefore suspect relativity must be in error. The purpose of my paper was to

> see what modification to relativity theory is compatible with Maxwell

> equations. Only experiments can tell if this modified relativity theory is

> correct. A simple check to see if the phase speed of the fields are

> velocity dependent in the nearfield would be a good start.

Given that the only invariant speed in SR is c, and that the near-field

phase speed is not c, of course this phase speed is velocity dependent. It

couldn't be compatible with SR if it was not.

Feb 28, 2007, 2:30:44 AM2/28/07

to

On Wed, 27 Feb 2007, nu...@bid.ness wrote:

> On Feb 27, 3:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

>

>> Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

>> EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

[cut]

> The near field is _not_ "free

> space".

Well, I'd call it free space. After all, you have epsilon = epsilon_0, mu

= mu_0, and that's pretty much all you need for - as far as

electromagnetics is concerned - free space.

So, near-field phase speed is a free-space superluminal phenomenon.

Likewise, superluminal tunnelling. Yes, both depend on nearby material

media, but the cure stuff happens in free space. I do see your point, but

I see "free space" as a statement about permittivity and permeability (and

sometimes charge and current densities).

The basics aren't that difficult. The magnetic field of a short electric

dipole antenna is proportional to the spherical Hankel function h_1(kr),

which is exp(ikr)/kr ( 1 + i/(kr)). In the far field, this gives a

spherical wave, exp(ikr)/kr. The transition from near to far gives funny

stuff due to the 1/4 wave phase difference between the 1 and i/(kr) terms,

which is where the superluminal phase speeds come from.

Feb 28, 2007, 3:02:59 AM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 2:30 am, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Feb 2007, n...@bid.ness wrote:

> > On Feb 27, 3:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

>

> >> Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

> >> EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

> [cut]

> > The near field is _not_ "free

> > space".

>

> Well, I'd call it free space. After all, you have epsilon = epsilon_0, mu

> = mu_0, and that's pretty much all you need for - as far as

> electromagnetics is concerned - free space.

> On Wed, 27 Feb 2007, n...@bid.ness wrote:

> > On Feb 27, 3:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

>

> >> Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

> >> EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

> [cut]

> > The near field is _not_ "free

> > space".

>

> Well, I'd call it free space. After all, you have epsilon = epsilon_0, mu

> = mu_0, and that's pretty much all you need for - as far as

> electromagnetics is concerned - free space.

Free-space has a wave impedance of ~377 ohms.

The reactance of the coupling structure (antenna)

modifies that in the near-field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance

http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html

Consider a dipole is just a quarter-wave inpedance

inverting section that matches ~70 to ~377 ohms.

>

> So, near-field phase speed is a free-space superluminal phenomenon.

> Likewise, superluminal tunnelling. Yes, both depend on nearby material

> media, but the cure stuff happens in free space. I do see your point, but

> I see "free space" as a statement about permittivity and permeability (and

> sometimes charge and current densities).

Tunnelling is a good term if you use the integral form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications

one charge moves two charges, which moves one charge.

That magnetic path can *appear* superlumial but the two charges

in the midddle only move 1/2 as far. So there is no free lunch.

>

> The basics aren't that difficult. The magnetic field of a short electric

> dipole antenna is proportional to the spherical Hankel function h_1(kr),

> which is exp(ikr)/kr ( 1 + i/(kr)). In the far field, this gives a

> spherical wave, exp(ikr)/kr. The transition from near to far gives funny

> stuff due to the 1/4 wave phase difference between the 1 and i/(kr) terms,

> which is where the superluminal phase speeds come from.

I am not removing my shoes to decipher that but it looks like

something Heaviside would give blessing to.

Jackson give a flavor for just how funny it gets.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053

Sue...

Feb 28, 2007, 5:57:28 AM2/28/07

to

Sue... wrote:

> On Feb 27, 6:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

>

>

>>The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not

>>compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz

>>transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

>>EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

>

>

> Was your equipment matched to 377 ohms ?

> On Feb 27, 6:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

>

>

>>The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not

>>compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz

>>transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

>>EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

>

>

> Was your equipment matched to 377 ohms ?

I used a standard commercial dipole antenna in the experiment which was

compatible with the 437MHz transmitter signal. Since the antenna is

optimized to receive far-field EM fields, it should be matched to 377 ohms.

>

> << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures

> the relative strength of electric and magnetic

> fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>

> http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

>

>

>

>>The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity

>>theory is compatible with Maxwell equations.

>

>

> What is the problem with the time dependent modifications to

> Maxwell's equations to accomodate the speed of light?

I am not sure what you are asking. In my papers I simply assume

Maxwell's equations are correct and analyze the phase speed of EM fields

in both the nearfield and farfield. The analysis shows that in the

farfield the phase speed is the speed of light (c), but in the nearfield

the phase speed is nearly infinite. Since relativity theory is based on

the speed of light, I have taken another look a special relativity

theory to see if it is compatible with infinite near-field phase speed.

My analysis shows that Galilean relativity is more applicable in the

nearfield and Einstein theory is more applicable in the farfield. This

can easily be seen by substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz

transforms (in the nearfield), yielding the Galilean transforms. So my

conclusion is that if near-field EM fields are used to measure time and

space effects in moving frames from stationary frames, then Galilean

relativity should be used. If far-field EM fields are used to measure

time and space effects in moving frames from stationary frames, then

Einstein relativity should be used.

Feb 28, 2007, 6:01:49 AM2/28/07

to

"William" <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:es3n6p$tco$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...

> Sue... wrote:

>> On Feb 27, 6:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

>>

>>

>>>The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not

>>>compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz

>>>transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

>>>EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

>>

>>

>> Was your equipment matched to 377 ohms ?

>

> I used a standard commercial dipole antenna in the experiment which was compatible with the 437MHz transmitter signal. Since the

> antenna is optimized to receive far-field EM fields, it should be matched to 377 ohms.

>

>>

>> << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures

>> the relative strength of electric and magnetic

>> fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>

>> http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

>>

>>

>>

>>>The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity

>>>theory is compatible with Maxwell equations.

>>

>>

>> What is the problem with the time dependent modifications to

>> Maxwell's equations to accomodate the speed of light?

>

>

> I am not sure what you are asking.

You are talking to a retired engineer with the name

Dennis McCarthy. He is a troll.

Dirk Vdm

Feb 28, 2007, 7:02:36 AM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 5:57 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

> Sue... wrote:

> > On Feb 27, 6:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

>

> >>The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not

> >>compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz

> >>transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

> >>EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

>

> > Was your equipment matched to 377 ohms ?

>

> I used a standard commercial dipole antenna in the experiment which was

> compatible with the 437MHz transmitter signal. Since the antenna is

> optimized to receive far-field EM fields, it should be matched to 377 ohms.

> Sue... wrote:

> > On Feb 27, 6:11 am, William <william.wal...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

>

> >>The real problem is that superluminal near-field EM fields are not

> >>compatible with special relativity which is based on the Lorentz

> >>transforms. Since I have experimentally observed superluminal near-field

> >>EM propagating fields, I therefore suspect relativity must be in error.

>

> > Was your equipment matched to 377 ohms ?

>

> I used a standard commercial dipole antenna in the experiment which was

> compatible with the 437MHz transmitter signal. Since the antenna is

> optimized to receive far-field EM fields, it should be matched to 377 ohms.

A pair of such antenna wouldn't be 377 ohms if they are in each

others near fields, would they?

>

>

>

> > << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures

> > the relative strength of electric and magnetic

> > fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>

> >http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity...

>

> >>The purpose of my paper was to see what modification to relativity

> >>theory is compatible with Maxwell equations.

>

> > What is the problem with the time dependent modifications to

> > Maxwell's equations to accomodate the speed of light?

>

> I am not sure what you are asking. In my papers I simply assume

> Maxwell's equations are correct and analyze the phase speed of EM fields

> in both the nearfield and farfield.

Maxwell's time independent equations must not be correct or

we wouldn't bother with time dependent version?

> The analysis shows that in the

> farfield the phase speed is the speed of light (c), but in the nearfield

> the phase speed is nearly infinite.

It doesn't show me that unless you have the paths

impedance matched.

Put a directional coupler in the feed line and watch the

the reflected power when you move the sampling antenna

into the near-field.

> Since relativity theory is based on

> the speed of light, I have taken another look a special relativity

> theory to see if it is compatible with infinite near-field phase speed.

> My analysis shows that Galilean relativity is more applicable in the

> nearfield and Einstein theory is more applicable in the farfield. This

> can easily be seen by substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz

> transforms (in the nearfield), yielding the Galilean transforms. So my

> conclusion is that if near-field EM fields are used to measure time and

> space effects in moving frames from stationary frames, then Galilean

> relativity should be used. If far-field EM fields are used to measure

> time and space effects in moving frames from stationary frames, then

> Einstein relativity should be used.

I think you'll find time-dependent Maxwell equations are a more

direct solution to the problem... and you don't have to re-invent

them.

Time-independent Maxwell equations

Time-dependent Maxwell's equations

Relativity and electromagnetism

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics

(classic field theory)_

a) Maxwell equations (no movement),

b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)

http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended

Near and Far fields

http://www.edn.com/article/CA150828.html

http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html

The Wikipedia page "Near and Far fields" is desperately in

need of some tuning if you are interested in a learning project.

Sue...

BTW... I assume if you want Dennis McCarthy's opinion on

your work, you will go through NASA or USNO. AFAIK he

has not been active on this n.g. for several years, despite

rumours to the contrary.

Feb 28, 2007, 6:16:36 PM2/28/07

to

In sci.physics William <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

> carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:

>> In sci.physics William <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

>> [...]

>>>I show in the paper that one gets very unusual results near a source.

>>>Not only do the EM fields start out faster than light, but the speed of

>>>the fields are also dependent on the velocity of the source.

>> No, you don't. You are solving Maxwell's equations in a vacuum, and it

>> is an exact, unambiguoius, and mathematically rigorous property of any

>> exact solution that it always propagates at the speed of light.

>>

>> More precisely, if you measure the field at a position that is a distance

>> d from the source at time t, the results are totally independent of any

>> characteristic of the source at any time after t-d/c.

>> What you *do* show is that if you ignore the exact properties of the

>> solution and look at a certain approximation, you can create the illusion

>> of faster-than-light propagation.

Yes, of course. So you don't look at the potentials, you look at the> carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:

>> In sci.physics William <william...@vm.ntnu.no> wrote:

>> [...]

>>>I show in the paper that one gets very unusual results near a source.

>>>Not only do the EM fields start out faster than light, but the speed of

>>>the fields are also dependent on the velocity of the source.

>> No, you don't. You are solving Maxwell's equations in a vacuum, and it

>> is an exact, unambiguoius, and mathematically rigorous property of any

>> exact solution that it always propagates at the speed of light.

>>

>> More precisely, if you measure the field at a position that is a distance

>> d from the source at time t, the results are totally independent of any

>> characteristic of the source at any time after t-d/c.

>> What you *do* show is that if you ignore the exact properties of the

>> solution and look at a certain approximation, you can create the illusion

>> of faster-than-light propagation.

fields, which also satisfy a wave equation. (You know this -- I sent

you the derivation.)

> Additional calculation is required to determine the fields from the

> potentials. To calculate the B field, for instance, the curl of the

> vector potential must be computed which adds additional spacial phase

> shifts to the light speed vector potential. This is clearly seen in the

> derivation of the dipole solution from Maxwell's equations in my last paper:

> http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0603240

Sigh. Just look at your equations (27) and (28), and at the definition of

the Greens function with which you are doing the convolution. It follows

*directly* from these equations that, as I said,

If you measure the field at a position that is a distance d from

the source at time t, the results are totally independent of any

characteristic of the source at any time after t-d/c.

If you agree with that, then a claim that the field is somehow traveling

faster than light is just perverse. If you don't agree with it, then you

don't understand your own paper.

Steve Carlip

Feb 28, 2007, 7:13:24 PM2/28/07

to

c is simply a constant that corresponds to the far-field EM phase speed.

It is true that in the farfield c is invariant, yielding the Lorentz

transforms. But in the nearfield infinity is invariant, yielding the

Galelian transforms. This also agrees with the argument I made below.

>

>> In the nearfield, I have shown that the fields propagate with nearly

>> infinite speed consequently making the Laplacian term (Del squared of

>> field) zero in the PDE's. The resulting equation in the nearfield is

>> then invariant under Galilean transformations.

>

>

> ... to first, or at least zero, order in v/c, given the Galileian

> approximations you used.

In a stationary frame (where v = 0) the phase speed is infinite in the

nearfield. Simply set v=0 in my phase speed calculation.

>

> As a speed approaches infinity, what is the difference between the

> Galileian and Lorentzian results for composition of velocities?

>

>> I am simply trying to determine what transformations come out of

>> Maxwell equations. The result I get is that in the nearfield the

>> transformations are Galilean and in the farfield they are Lorentz. So

>> if near-field EM propagation is used to measure time and space then

>> the observed effects will follow Galilean transformations (i.e. no

>> Lorentz contraction, no time dilation), and if far-field EM

>> propagation is used to measure time and space then the observed

>> effects will follow Lorentz transformations (i.e. get Lorentz

>> contraction and time dilation effects).

>

>

> Rulers are used to measure space. Clocks are used to measure time.

> Far-field EM propagation (or some other signal that travels at c) can be

> used to _synchronise_ the clocks.

>

> If you want to use near-field phase speeds to synchronise clocks, so be

> it, but don't claim that the result has any bearing on SR. You end up

> with a clock synchronisation that depends on the position of the

> antenna; IMHO a clear sign that it isn't a useful convention.

>

I disagree, synchronization can clearly be done using EM fields in the

nearfield where the invariant speed is infinity. In the nearfield the

Lorentz transforms turn into the Galilean transforms. This can be seen

by simply inserting infinity for c in the Lorentz transforms.

I agree it seems unusual that the transformations are dependent on

nearfield or farfield. But just because it does not match your

expectations does it mean it is wrong. In my opinion the results mean

that if near-field EM propagation is used to measure time and space then

the observed effects will follow Galilean transformations (i.e. no

Lorentz contraction, no time dilation), and if far-field EM propagation

is used to measure time and space then the observed effects will follow

Lorentz transformations (i.e. get Lorentz contraction and time dilation

effects).

Feb 28, 2007, 7:16:18 PM2/28/07