Re: Magnetic pressure (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:29:11 +0000
From: stork3264@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Magnetic pressure (fwd)


> Hi Jared,
> 
> Comments intersperced,
> 
> > We can describe the magnetic energy of the inductor as:  Eb = 1/2  L Isqrd
> 
> True
> 
> 
> > Conservation principles demand that the energy contained by the magnetic
> > fields must be equal to the energy of the currents Ei within the inductor.
> > Thus the total energy equals: Eb + Ei     Then:  Etotal = L Isqrd
> 
> No so.  Etotal = 1/2  L Isqrd as above.  Fields and particles are one and
> the same thing.
> You cannot double count them.
> 
> Einstein said it is a delusion to think of the electrons and
> the fields as two physically different , independent entities.  Since
> neither can exist
> without the other, there is only one reality to be described, which happens
> to have
> two different aspects; and the theory ought to recognize this from the start
> instead
> of doing things twice.
> 
> Dirac also said fields and particles are not two different things.  They are
> two ways
> of describing the same thing -- two different points of view.
> 
> 
> > We are describing waves of energy traveling at C down the entire length of
> > wire in an inductor. Their must be a mass associated with this energy: E/
> > Csqrd = M
> Incorrect.
> 
> When describing waves of energy there is no need ( in fact, it's incorrect)
> to invoke
> masses at relativistic velocities to describe the wave nature of matter.  In
> 1923 DeBoglie
> applied Einstein's 1905 postulate (W = hw) to the energy, W, of an electron
> wave, and
> identified momentum,p, of an electron.  Energy and frequency,w, are the same
> quantity.
> Electrical momentum,p, is not related to Newtonian mass at relativistic
> velocities.
> 
> I have noticed you often try to cobble together different physical
> equations in an attempt to produce other equations that the physical world
> is supposed to adhere to.  Unfortunately this rarely works.  It's best to
> test your theories with experiment and if successful then apply the
> algebra to your data.
> 
> I do find your ideas about quantitization of magnetic fields in coils to
> be quite interesting. Actually there is good experimental evidence of
> macroscopic quantum behavior in certain coils.  I suspect it may be
> related your findings.  Contact me off line and I will give you a citation
> about quantum foundations of electromagnetism.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> RWW
> …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
> 
> Hi: RWW
> 
> 
> 
> No double accounting involved.  All flowing currents will produce magnetic
> fields  equal in energy (a fundamental fact that few people seem to
> understand). If it were not so, the consequence would be energy  that tends
> towards infinity. (see Lenz law!)

Jared,

Sorry you feel both Einstein and Dirac are in error due to their insistance that particles and fields are one and the same and are just different ways to view the same phenomenon.  But, by your own insistence we must maintain conservation of energy in a closed system.  You cannot double the energy of a system by simply adding together two different observations of the same energy input.

A simple experiment will highlight your error.  Charge a capacitor to a known amount of Joules.  Close a switch and discharge this known amount of energy through a solenoid.  Monitor the current and magnetic field of the solenoid doing the calculations for energy of both in real time.  Then after the field collapses current is generated by Lenz's law.  Continue monitoring and energy calculations.  All calculations will forbid doubling of the known energy introduced into this closed system.   Lenz's law is a book keeping system that opposes current versus magnetic field.  It enforces concervation of energy in a closed system and makes sure the total amount of input energy is never exceeded and remains Etotal = 1/2  L I^2.

If you figure out how to double the input energy in a closed system please give me a call first.

> You must consider that the force against the wire is a  Newtonian
> force.  Newtonian
> forces do arise from relativistic mass. In fact as we speak pressure is
> being exerted against your very person by energy waves that have been
> traveling through the cosmos for longer than I can remember.

Again electrical momentum,p, and energy is frequency dependent and mass doesn't enter into the equation.

What is the Newtonian force vector direction of your above "Newtonian force" and how is it derived?  Classical Newtonian mechanics does not address forces from relativistic masses.  BTW, what do you calculate the mass and momentum of a single electron traveling at the velocity of light to be?  Don't forget our old friend Lorentz.  Do these relativistic electrons cause your above pressure energy waves?

Many forces in Nature do not rely on mass and classical Newtonian mechanics.  Examples are Coulombic forces and EM waves.  That little photon traveling at the speed of light that just gave up a little flash of light as it struck and was absorbed by an orbirtal electron in an atom in the retina of you eye is massless.

So we are not compelled and there isn't a "must be a mass" explanation for waves of energy traveling at the speed of light in your example.  In fact, your sentences are internally inconsistent in describing "waves of energy traveling at C down the entire length of wire in an inductor. Their must be a mass associated with this energy."  If you insist on using mass as an explanation then waves must be exempted.

Sincerely,

RWW