Minkowski Space Time Briefly Revisited

Take that up with John Jackson. In section 11.10 of his Classical Electrodynamics he says "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fuv rather than E or B separately".

I know this. The gravitational field is described as curved spacetime, but the space where a gravitational field is, is inhomogeneous. However the space where an electromagnetic field is, is curved. See The role of the potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond, look at this just before the end note: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction." Have a google on electromagnetic geometry.

You do it. As ever I expect you will display the way you are lost in math with no absolutely no understanding of the underlying reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In order to build a bridge. In order to land a machine on a distant asteroid.

You are effectively admitting that you are merely doing some sort of post-modern theatre, not physics.

OK, so you have proven that you can't do any physics and that you lie about wanting to do physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's no misrepresentation. Yes there's some confusion there about spacetime and space, but that confusion is endemic. The important point is that gravitomagnetism is all about vortices and twist, it's isn't totally different to electromagnetism, and Maxwell 's On Physical Lines of Force was all about "molecular vortices". Maxwell got it a bit wrong and a bit back to front, but once you know about electrons and spinors and gravitomagnetism, you appreciate what he was on about. And what Minkowski was on about too. All you have to do to get there is ask yourself why you've never seen any depiction of the electromagnetic field. You soon work out that E and B aren't fields at all. They represent the linear and rotational forces that result from Fuv field interactions, and it takes two to tango.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I liked your circular and radials of post 16 combined in to the ortho & and para whirligigs in 19; but both they and Feynman's diagrams can be used to correctly describe fact two like charges repel each other and opposites attract.

What nature really does and why is not in any description. Often there is more than one correct description, but I don't think nature is bothered by that (or even the absence of any). Don't get too wrapped up in trying to determine which is correct, when two or more descriptions permit the calculations to give the results that nature delivers. In the early days of quantum calculations there was at first only the matrix description / calculation procedure then Schrodinger made the alternative equation form with operators and Eigen values of them - easier calculations that now are almost exclusively used, however, spin still uses the matrix formulation - only 2 by 2 matrices to work with, which is not hard.

All of these calculations are now "above my pay grade" - I have not had a salary for 21 years.

 

Farsight, your reference to, space is twisted, in that article was and is a misrepresentation of the intent of the article and the experiment as a whole. As I said that was a lay oriented article. Dig out your proof from the published papers, if you are even able to understand them.

Responding to my post pointing out your error, with unrelated hogwash, is typical!

 

It was no misrepresentation, gravitomagnetism really is all about vortices and twist, and Maxwell 's On Physical Lines of Force isn't hogwash. But you're are getting into full-blown naysayer denial mode here. Go and follow the links I've given you. Do your own research instead of dismissing what I'm telling you because it doesn't fit in with your hazy non-understanding of electromagnetism.

No problem. But IMHO the important point is that virtual particles are virtual. Hydrogen atoms don't twinkle. In a way the electron and the proton "swap field", such that their two electromagnetic fields end up mainly cancelling each other out. But they aren't throwing photons back and forth.

With respect Billy, I will. We do physics to understand the world. I will not accept that quantum physics surpasseth all human understanding.

I think one of the big issue for contemporary physics is that spin is real. The Einstein-de Haas effect proves it. It "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". But a kind of quantum mysticism has arisen, a kind of cargo-cult science. I will not let it pass. Not on my watch.

 

Your original quote was to a GP-B lay article about the experiment and its results. My response was that you misrepresented the intent of that article. If you believe I am wrong, show me the proof by reference to any of the official documentation of the GP-B experiment itself.

I don't think that Maxwell, in his wildest dreams ever imagined anything even close to the GP-B experiment, which is based on predictions of GR. Maxwell died some 20+ years before Einstein published his first paper on SR.

The issue I raised with a quote from your own link, was only about how you intentionally misinterpret a typo as support for your misguided ideas about the world.

 

The proof is in the many and varied articles which refer to gravitomagnetism and twist. Google it. Do your own research instead of going into denial mode every time I tell you some physics.

Heaviside wrote the first paper on gravitomagnetism in 1893. Gravitomagnetism features vortices, Maxwell's On Physical Lines of Force was his theory of molecular vortices. Heaviside was also the guy who rewrote Maxwell's equations so you don't understand the screw nature of electromagnetism. Go and read about gravitomagnetism.

Well it's a non-issue. Go and look up gravitomagnetic vortex.

 

How does anything from anywhere or anyone other than those involved.., in the GP-B experiment demonstrate that you did not intentionally misinterpret a typo in a lay oriented article, discussing that experiment?

So Heaviside's 1893 paper is what you give to support your contention that how you interpert Maxwell justifies intentionally misrepresenting the intent of a, by comparrison.., present day paper, about the GP-B experiment? You do realize that.., again Maxwell died before Heaviside's 1893 paper. Don't you?

And do your own research. Everything pertinent to my initial comment is available through the GP-B website.

 

Oh of course I know Maxwell died before 1893. Now that's enough. Your physics knowledge is scant, and when I tell you something you don't know about, you dismiss it out of hand. You're a naysayer, you're absurd. Why do you even hang around on a forum like this? To play thought-police? To be the custodian of ignorance? To be a troll? Now talk physics and be sincere, or get off the thread.

 

It is not misinterpretation, it is quite clearly a lie. Farsight clearly knows the difference between electromagnetism and gravity and he is clearly using references to one in order to make claims about the other.

 

Oh dear oh dear. I really don't believe I am reading this .Is it possible to be so arrogant and at the same time so ignorant?

I have a proof here, I guess.

 

This thread was started about Minkowski space..., that was a flat Spacetime architecture designed for SR right?

I raised one issue Farsight. Your misrepresentation of the intent, of a typo in a reference you linked to the discussion. You have never responded directly. What you have done is attempt to use a whole variety of other references.., mostly historical by comparrison, to justify the fact that you were, and are now misrepresenting the intent of that article and the GP-B experiment as a whole.

You are being dishonest, in not addressing that issue directly and in the context of the article you linked to the discussion.

Address that reference within the context of that reference or any of the published work on that experiment (the GP-B experiment). And be done with it!

My assertion is that the use of word space in that one instance, beside the use of the word space-time in 13 other instances, in the same article.., was a typo.. And the intent of the article is that space-time is curved or twisted by the presence and motion of a gravitationally significant mass, not that space is twisted.

The GP-B experiment was about testing a prediction about space-time, not space!

Edit to add; It also has little to do with Minkowski Sapcetime.

 

I understand Maxwellian electromagnetism. I understand analogies. I understand Minkowski spacetime. I understand how tensors transform in Minkowski spacetime. I understand that Kraftschraube is a packaging up of force and torque into a single six-dimensional quantity which has its own algebra and transformations.

You have failed to explain how someone is supposed to think that I am wrong on any specific point other than to rely on your soi disant authority backing the insinuation that I am generally wrong-headed. In short, you are being vague, evasive and personal rather than talking math and physics.

Firstly, none of your recent posts has had physics or math content at the level of a Baccalaureate so we have nothing but your soi disant authority backing the insinuation that you are familiar with these professions. Secondly, my major in college just happened to be physics. Thirdly, all physicists have a strong background in mathematics. Newton invented calculus, Maxwell and Einstein dove deep into complex mathematical descriptions to develop new physical theories. So you appear wrong-headed to pooh-pooh mathematical and wrong in your criticism of me.

Not a new theory, but a simplified prediction from Einstein's general theory of relativity. It's called gravitomagnetism in analogy with electromagnetism because a simplified form (linearized) of GR can be recast to look like Maxwell's equations with an extra factor of four floating around. Because Heaviside was guessing and didn't have those factors of four, he doesn't get the credit for correctly describing the behavior of physical phenomena. Rather than explain the analogy and what is right and wrong with it, you give an artist's fanciful illustration without connection to physical truth. The green lines are not field lines and not geodesics, but are a strictly visual analogy of frame dragging and a "gravity well."

Because there are no magnetic monopoles being considered in these usual diagrams, then of course electric field lines have sources and sinks while magnetic field lines are required to be closed loops. That truth in captured in Maxwell's differential equations. Your spirals don't contribute to the discussion because they don't rest on correctly describing the behavior of physical phenomena the way that Maxwell's equations and the usual depictions do.

 

Deleted after reading rpenner's better response.

 

OK, so explain why the electron and positron move towards one another and around one another.

I think you understand the maths, but that you have no understanding whatsoever of the underlying reality. In post #14 you said "No 'twistyness' of the electromagnetic field† is implied by Liénard and Wiechert and therefore not by Minkowski, either". But it's nevertheless there, and you don't understand it. You might think you understand the "six-dimensional mathematical object that describes the electromagnetic field" but you don't understand what the electromagnetic field is. It isn't a geometrical object, it's a state of space. It's twisted. Curved. Curled.

I criticise you because you ignore the bona-fide references I give that back up what I say. My recent posts had no maths content, but they definitely have physics content. And I don't just make this stuff up. I'm not the guy with the theory of molecular vortices, I didn't develop gravitomagnetism from electromagnetism or write NASA articles about vortices and twisted space. It wasn't me who came up with curl and rot, which is short for rotor.

Yes, they depict frame dragging. And to understand the connection between electromagnetism and gravitomagnetism, depict the electromagnetic field. Do it. And while you're at it, explain why there is no depiction out there, even though we've know it's the electromagnetic field rather than the electric field and the magnetic field for over a hundred years.

Maybe you've just demonstrated that you don't understand electromagnetism. There are no magnetic monopoles because "the field of the electron" is the electromagnetic field. Not the electric field. So it's wrong to think in terms of electric charge. So it's wrong to think in terms of magnetic charge, or that magnetic monopoles can even exist. Those electric field lines aren't electric field lines. They're lines of force. They depict the linear force that occurs when two electromagnetic fields associated with two fermions interact when those fermions have no initial relative motion.

 

I'm not being dishonest. The NASA GP-B article says what it says, it talks about vortices, it says twist at least 7 times, and depicts it twice. Here's the other depictions:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

An artist's concept of twisted spacetime around a black hole. Credit: Joe Bergeron of Sky & Telescope magazine.

You're inventing a space / spacetime issue to try to detract from what the NASA article says. Which is that gravitomagnetism is vorticial. And we all know that Heaviside developed gravitomagnetism as an analogy of electromagnetism, and that Maxwell's was a theory of molecular vortices. How about if you try to depict the electromagnetic field?

 

Are you dense or really that dishonest? The point was TWISTING SPACE was mentioned once. Followed in the next sentence by space-time. Only that one sentence ever used the word SPACE in that context, all others correctly used space-time.

And yes it was an article dumbed down for a lay reader.., maybe not far enough... Do your home work and read the actual research documentation. I have...

And again it is dishonest when you continue to point to what looks like an obvious typo as proof.

PAY ATTENTION! The issue is the word space used where all other similar references 13 in total use space-time.

 

In posts #5 and #12, Farsight asserts that there is a screw nature to electromagnetism and attempts to leverage an out-of-context reference by Minkowski in support of this.
In post #14, I challenge this as a farcical misunderstanding of "Kraftschraube der Mechanik" as used by Minkowski. It is a pretty narrow comment directly addressing what Farsight wrote and the reason Farsight gave for what he wrote and why it seems like a poor reason to believe Farsight is correctly interpreting his sources.
In post #16, Farsight does not defend his original assertion by explaining the analogy between the six-dimensional electrodynamic field of a charged particle according to Liénard, Wiechert, and Maxwell and the six-dimensional "force-screw of mechanics" so his repetition of an English translation of an out-of-context sentence from Minkowski is not illuminating. The rest of the post is off-topic (both in the wide topic expressed in the thread title and the instant question of contextomy raised in post #14) except as it exposes Farsight's hatred of competence in the maths required to actually study the theories of Liénard, Wiechert, Maxwell, Minkowski, Einstein, Poincaré and Wigner.

This technique of distraction appears to have sidetracked many people; but a Gish Gallop does not address any specific topic in depth.

In post #34, I start off by pointing out that Farsight has failed to support his claims against my argument in post #14. I briefly address his counterfactual attempt to dismiss both me and mathematics. I use his digression on gravitomagnetism to again teach that analogies are imperfect and one needs to know both endpoints to understand where the analogy is reliable and where it is not. I conclude by pointing out how his figures don't contribute to education in electromagnetism the way diagrams based on Maxwell's equations do.

In post #36, Farsight continues to evade his responsibility to his readers to either support his claim about Minkowski or drop it in favor of my alternate explanation in post #14.
He challenges all interpretations but his own, but doesn't give any logical reason to believe. He seems to think that his "why" question has an answer other than the trivial. For the record, the two answers are "they have opposite charges" in Maxwellian theory (somewhat historical as Maxwell's theory predates quantum physics and the theory of antimatter) or "the photon field is of spin 1" in QFT because of the nature of physical theory as our best summary of the behavior of phenomena, "why" questions dead end at the evolving front of human knowledge. Humans don't have access to any underlying reality except that revealed by observation -- physics is about the phenomena we have.

He misstates the nature of electromagntism (possibly because he has confused magnetic field lines with the direction of magnetic force). He also contradicts himself on the nature of the electromagnetic field, because all tensors are geometric objects. He misstates my refutation of his interpretation of Minkowski as ignoring Minkowski. He misstates gravitomagnetism as being developed from electromagnetism when that is not how the first successful theories of gravitomagnetism arose. He confuses pop-science articles on space-time with actual physics instruction. He invokes the names of differential operators to support his claims that his mathless life experience is physics. He demands a spoon-fed picture of the electromagnetic field when Minkowski is saying that only a relativistic geometric object, like a tensor, is appropriate for a frame-dependent concept. The contradictions between what Farsight sources and what he writes are those of a wrong-headed autodidact. Having fallen into error he continues to dig deeper rather than look up for a helping hand.

So Farsight owes it to his readers and himself to either support his claim about Minkowski's use of analogy or explicitly drop it in favor of my alternate explanation in post #14.

 

Well guess what? There is no spacetime around the Earth. Because spacetime is a mathematical space, and it is static. It models space at all times. So whilst you can draw world-lines in it to represent motion through space over time, there is no motion in spacetime. Now read the NASA article again and try to work out where the mistake is.