Register to reply 
Is the asymmetry mentioned in 1905 SR paper fully removed? 
Share this thread: 
#37
Jan2813, 08:52 AM

P: 80

Whether Einstein actually succeeds is however disputable. Let's come back to the nature of the "asymmetry": the explanation given for the observed current appears to be nonsymmetrical (an electric force on the one hand, an electromotive force on the other hand), whereas the problem to be resolved is defined in a fully symmetrical way (two symmetrical descriptions of the relative motion between the magnet and the conductor). So the "asymmetry" referred to by Einstein points to a logical anomaly, insofar a nonsymmetrical conclusion (different causes for the current) cannot be inferred from fully symmetrical hypotheses. There are two ways to resolve this anomaly: either reformulate the conclusion so that it becomes symmetrical, or reformulate the hypotheses so that they contain an asymmetry which triggers the asymmetry in the conclusion. I can't see that any of these alternatives has been met. 


#38
Jan2813, 04:29 PM

P: 221




#39
Jan2813, 05:01 PM

Mentor
P: 17,338

Mathematical fact 1: Maxwell's equations are not invariant under Galilean transforms. This is an asymmetry. Mathematical fact 2: Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Lorentz transform. The asymmetry is resolved. 


#40
Jan2813, 06:02 PM

P: 221

If the mathematical asymmetry were eliminated by making Maxwell's equations invariant under the Lorentz transform, there would be no point in Einstein instructing us to transform the field to the rest frame of the charge to determine the force on the charge, nor would there be any reason to assert that the electromagnetic force in other frames is an "auxiliary concept", rather than an asymmetry. 


#41
Jan2913, 06:33 AM

Mentor
P: 17,338




#42
Jan2913, 08:46 AM

P: 406

I'm actually reading through this at the moment, so I'll throw my hat in here for a second. Here's the summary of the paper's position after the derivation of the transformation rule between EM fields in the stationary and moving reference frames
After this the paper adds Einstein later states that "... [the] electric and magnetic forces do not exist independently of the state of motion of the system of coordinates." So you can't talk about the force on charge (in your frame) as being composed of bits of this or that. You must transform into the frame of the charge and measure fields and forces there(then presumably transform the force/acceleration back to your frame). He also says that this resolves the paradoxes/problems with Homopolar/Faraday generators. It's a very great pity that he didn't spell this out explicitly though. 


#43
Jan2913, 09:15 AM

Mentor
P: 17,338




#44
Jan2913, 03:05 PM

P: 80

Let's come back to the issue at stake. The electric theory assumes that the conductor is in absolute rest and its "v" parameter stands for the absolute velocity of the magnet. Conversely, the magnetic theory assumes that the magnet is in absolute rest and its "v" parameter stands for the absolute velocity of the charges alongside the x axis. Both expressions of the force cannot be physically reconciled by connecting their mathematical expression through a Lorentz transformation which assumes that neither the conductor nor the magnet is in absolute rest and that "v" stands for their relative velocity. The assignment of different "names" to the different definitions for the "v" parameter would make it obvious. Here we are dealing with different physical definitions for "v" which cannot be all valid at the same time. 


#45
Jan2913, 03:18 PM

Mentor
P: 17,338

Honestly, I don't know where you are getting this garbage, but it does make some of your other statements make more sense. Garbage in, garbage out. 


#46
Jan2913, 04:47 PM

P: 221

I'll sign out here. I did learn something, so I thank all who participated.



#47
Jan3113, 03:26 AM

P: 80

The same for me. We had enough signs of misbehaviour under stress.



#48
Jan3113, 06:43 AM

Mentor
P: 17,338

Anyway, if you ever wish to continue the conversation you are certainly welcome back. But I will continue to point out where your arguments fail. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Why does Einstein's 1905 SR paper contain Zero citations?  Special & General Relativity  10  
Einstein's June 30 1905 paper  help please with the maths  Special & General Relativity  23  
1905 paper Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its EnergyContent?  Special & General Relativity  6  
A New Translation & Reformatting of the 1905 SR Paper  General Physics  2 