Re: Park City Paradox ?

[Robert Cohen <Robert.Cohen@PO-BOX.ESU.EDU>]

> On Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:49 AM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Robert Cohen wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > We agree that no separation is observed when the two
> electrons move side by
> > side at v=c?
>
> Essentially, yes.  (I would say that we agree that *if* electrons
> could move at the speed of light, no separation would be observed.
> The fact remains that electrons cannot move at the speed of
> light.)

Good.

> > Saying that this is because "time stops" or "the magnetic
> > field counters the electric field" or "the information can't
> > catch up" -- aren't these the same?
>
> Well, no. I don't see that these are the same at all.  They *are*
> different ways of reaching the same conclusion.  But I think the
> "information can't catch up" view is problematic for at least a
> couple of reasons:
>
> 1) It doesn't allow for a quantitative analysis except in the
> one case (v = c) that doesn't occur.

I admit my treatment wasn't quantitative.  And very hand-waving.
It was not meant to give a quantitative result.  Still, I don't
know that it *can't* be quantitative - see my response to #2.

> 2) It seems to imply that the electron *does* get the information
> in some frames, *doesn't* in others, and, I suppose, gets some,
> but not all of it in others.  IMO, this is a distasteful
> conceptual framework.

It only implies that there is a delay.  When you shake your electron
back and forth, my electron senses the oscillating electric field
but with some time delay.  I assume there is no debate about that.

Are you saying that you *don't* view it my way or that one *can't*
view it my way?  If it is just that you *don't* view it my way
then could it be that my way provides the same results if applied
in a more rigorous manner?

I'm not sure my way is correct, either.  That is why I asked about
it.  Is the traditional way (time and space contraction) and my way
(the "speed limit" on the transfer of field information) mutually
exclusive?

P.S. I'm going to get into trouble for this, but how's this for an
analysis for v<c?  Can we say that if the magnetic force is
     k(q)(q)/r^2 when v=c
then perhaps the magnetic force is
     k(qv/c)(qv/c)/r^2 when v<c
in which case the magnetic force is
     (k/c^2) (qv)(qv)/r^2.
At least it gives the correct constant. I admit it isn't rigorous.

____________________________________________
Robert Cohen; rcohen@po-box.esu.edu; http://www.esu.edu/~bbq
Physics, East Stroudsburg Univ, E. Stroudsburg, PA 18301