(short for Pressure Of The Universe)

From: John <John@vidainstitute.org>
Date: Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Subject: Unscientific nonsense (What a mess!)

Recently, I proposed to a number of physicists that there is
incompatibility between the magnetic component of the Lorentz force
law, F=qvB, and Einsteinian Relativity (ER). I illustrated this with
the scenario of two point charges traveling at the same velocity, alone
in the universe. I asked - What would be used for the velocity in order
to calculate the magnetic force between the charges? A simple scenario
and a simple question; one for which there should be a simple answer. I
did not explicitly solicit a response, but many physicists at respected
institutions were kind enough to send one (50+ to date).

Several of the responses merely suggested that if I study elementary
physics texts, the answer to my question will be obvious. The shocking
thing is, that there are widely diverse opinions among physicists at
respected institutions, regarding what that obvious answer is. Some
example comments -

"Any college book on E&M would explain this in gory details. .."

"...the answer to your question is covered in the J.D. Jackson's
Classical electrodynamic (ISBN-13: 978-0471309321) this is covered in
the first year of graduate Electrodynamics...See the E&M tensor section
after the chapter in special relativity. This is really not an
interesting question anymore since it has been solved for nearly 100
years."

"...the net force is gamma^3 times the repulsive electric
force that the observer would see if the two charges were stationary.
However, this augmentation of the net force by gamma^3 is
exactly what is required by relativity for self-consistency.  -
Actually, what I sent you is slightly incorrect. The net force is
e^2/(4 pi epsilon_0 r^2) /gamma"

"...m d^2 x^{\mu} / d\tau^2 = q F^\mu_\nu dx^\nu / d\tau
which reduces to the lorentz force equation when you convert all of the
taus to ts...This is the correct procedure..."

"Is it all moving along together in a vacuum?  Then no.  No relative
speed, no Lorentz force."

"...The electric and the
magnetic forces between them change, but the net electromagnetic force
stays the same,.."

"You have forgotten that same-sign charges also experience an electric
repulsion..."

"Observers in different reference frames see different electric and
magnetic fields; a pure magnetic field to one observer will be a
mixture of both fields to the other..."

"...the ‘electric’ force in the rest frame manifests itself as
a ‘magnetic’ force in the moving frame (furthermore, the electric force
in the moving frame will be less than the electric force in the rest
frame, which can be understood in terms of clocks advancing at
different rates in the two frames)."

"...there is no magnetic force in the rest frame of the
co-moving particles.

"The velocity in special relativity is measured relative to
the observer"

"The relevant velocity in the equation for the magnetic force is the
relative velocity between the two particles..."

"You cannot just separate one defined aspect (such as
what we call the Lorentz force) and think of that alone..."

"...after you first learn the right amount of advanced math.
Not only the magnetic field changes when you go to another frame, the
electric field changes too. So the electric force between the two
charges also changes. In adition, the masses of the two particles also
changes. So the final effect on the motion of the two charges is a
complicated calculation, and cannot be lightly analyzed as you did.
Furthermore, the meaning of length and time-duration also changes."

"...Einstein's special relativity. It is now firmly established to be
correct and there are no simple arguments like what you gave that could
prove it to be incorrect."

"A lot of higher physics violates my sense of logic.  Quantum mechanics
is a doozy, for example.  But, I trust mathematics more than my
human-scale logic, and the math just plain works. "

"The formula you are using is non-relativistic. If you would like to
invoke special relativity, you need to use Maxwell equations, which
contain both magnetic and electric fields, as one transforms into the
other under Lorentz boost...."

"This was solved once and for all in The 1920's. You don't need
quantum field theory  to understand it; it is understandable
classically."

"Force itself is also a relative quantity in relativity, so there is no
incompatibility."

"So, the upshot of this is that the force you get _does not_ depend on
the relativistic frame of reference you choose! Because _any_ velocity
gets you the same force,
_any_ frame will get you the same force too!"

"...your idea is flawed (in your case by the work of Ernst Mach)"

"This is actually related to  "Mach's principle".  For example, suppose
you removed all of the matter from the universe except the earth and
moon.  Would the moon still "orbit" the earth?  How can we measure
their relative motion without an external frame of reference?"
---------------

The majority of the comments include circular arguments, using ER
concepts to defend ER, sort of like "A is true because of B, but B is
true because of A" (I believe this is also the case with much of the
experimental evidence cited in favor of relativity).

The comments vary widely, differ in fundamental respects, and some are
contradictory, but there are a couple of themes many of them share:

One is the idea that electric force must be considered in conjunction
with magnetic force, or that magnetic force cannot be considered
independently from electric force. A popular idea is "...The electric
and the magnetic forces between them change, but the net
electromagnetic force stays the same,.." (no dependence of force on
velocity?).  This implies that the force of the the magnetic curl
depends on the state of motion of the observer. This is an example of
"What happens depends on who's watching" as discussed below. This idea
also suffers from the simple demonstration illustrated in Figure 5.2 on
page 203 of Griffiths' Intro to Electrodynamics. Two parallel wires are
attracted to each other, when  current in the same direction flows
through both. There is never any electric force, but there is magnetic
force. The idea that magnetic force cannot be considered separately
from electric force, runs counter to the basic principle of engineering
mechanics, that forces can be analyzed separately.

A second is the idea that the velocity used to calculate the magnetic
force must be measured relative to an "observer". A couple of
commenters astutely pointed out that force itself is relative to the
"observer" in ER. This is the silly notion that forms the basis of
Einsteinian relativity - "What happens depends on who's watching". It
is curious that such an anti-intuitive idea could be accepted without
greater fuss, but then, it may not be so difficult when one has already
accepted that time (a human invention) has an actual physical reality.
The idea that force is relative to the observer, appears to offer the
only algebraic hope of reconciling the Lorentz force law with a
relative velocity, but it is simply absurd -

Imagine in the scenario described at the beginning of this letter, of
two moving charges alone in the universe, that the two charges are
connected by a spring. When the spring is compressed by a certain
amount, it will trigger a switch. The switch will set off a b**b which
will blow us to smithereens. We must hope that the velocity of the
"observer" is close enough to that of the two charges, so that the
relative velocity is low enough that there is insufficient magnetic
force to compress the spring and set off the b**b. If an observer that
is going too slow/fast is watching, we are in trouble! If this isn't
confusing enough, what about if there are multiple observers? One of
them would surely be going at a velocity that would set off the b**b.
Force is not a matter of relative perception, it makes real changes.
Alternatively, the switch in this scenario could be activated by the
force of the magnetic curl, rather than the linear force.

Some may still not see a problem with the magnitude of the force being
relative to the observer, so for purposes of discussion, let's allow
that it can be. Consider another relation between force and velocity -

F=ma

The problem here is that if the magnitude of the force is relative to
an "observer" and can vary depending on the observer, then the
magnitude of the acceleration must also be variable depending on the
observer measuring it, but it isn't.  All observers who are not
themselves accelerating, will observe exactly the same acceleration. In
other words, any observer capable of measuring the velocity of
something else, will measure exactly the same numerical change in
magnitude and direction of that velocity when the thing accelerates.

Simply put, it is not possible that force is relative to the observer,
but Einsteinian Relativity cannot be correct unless force is relative
to the observer. (of course one could still claim that Newton's law is
also incorrect, or that the mass of the thing observed depends on the
observer, or create an extra dimension or two, but then anything can be
escaped from, given sufficient leeway).

If you concede there are logical problems with ER, but still wish to
defend it, you are left with such arguments as "ER makes mathematical
sense so it doesn't need to be logical or understandable in human
terms. This idea that nature must obey mathematics (another human
invention) has been around since at least the era of Pythagorus, and
seems to be as popular as ever. This belief attributes god-like powers
to humans. (If the math truly shows ER to be correct, then the
assumptions or premises on which it is based should be re-examined.)

Then there is the argument that ER - "just works" - Maybe not as well
as thought. I believe that the magnitude of magnetic force is being
erroneously calculated due to an observed or relative velocity being
used in the calculation, rather than the true velocity. ER compares the
velocity of things with each other. If the scope is made large enough
to include the things whose velocity is being compared, it still
neglects velocity that all the things in the scope share. This, perhaps
the most important and undefeatable argument against ER, has large
practical implications - The linear attraction resulting from this
overlooked velocity may be confused with gravity, but the curl of the
magnetic force cannot be. This has led to a serious distortion in our
view of the cosmos for example. Phenomena such as orbital motion, spin
(small-scale orbital motion), and coplanarity are being explained by
very nebulous and complex theories such as "big bang", when the real
explanation is the magnetic curl. We know how much this mistake is
costing us.

The final defense of ER is one that served religions well for centuries
- "What other explanation is there?"  Now there is another explanation.
I call it the POTU theory (short for Pressure Of The Universe). It
explains gravity as Lorentz magnetic force between charges in matter,
caused by unidirectional motion of the known universe against an
infinite (or bounded?) cubic lattice comprised of alternating
elementary charges.

This universal background lattice provides a reference or measuring
stick for an "absolute" velocity, which is the sum of an observed or
relative velocity, and a background velocity shared by all our
surroundings. Careful repetition of the "Morgan Flywheel Experiment",
may provide data to allow calculation of the background velocity. Some
other highlights of the theory include: matter is comprised entirely of
electric charge; phenomena such as inertia are due to the
electromagnetic interaction of matter with "space" (the lattice), and
the speculation that supernovae create matter by blowing charges loose
from the lattice, and black holes destroy matter by compressing it back
into the lattice. For those interested, I would be pleased to send you
a free copy of the POTU theory.

Regardless of one's opinion of the foregoing ideas and discussion, one
must acknowledge that there is a problem. If the problem is not with
the science itself; it is with the lack of a clear and consistent
understanding of the science by professionals entrusted with teaching
it, as demonstrated by the comments I have received.

I hope that those with the power and responsibility to "right the ship"
will see opportunity in this, rather than foolishly seeking to continue
mistaken approaches. At some point, the matter will be more serious
than merely wasted effort and resources.

Yours truly,
John Best