- #1

- 12

- 0

**Postulate: EVERY field has a "magnetic" equivalent.**

**Here is a topic which I thought might be important enough to merit its own thread. I apologize for fishing it up off another discussion thread.**

Here is a thought experiment.

Two electrons, fired off near to each other in parallel at near-relativistic speed, seem to the observer (at the electron cannon) to repel each other slower than should be expected from their mutual repulsion in the electrical field.

__Two separate lines of thought thoroughly explain this phenomenon. One can choose either for satisfaction__.

1) General relativity (Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation) allows for the electrons' mutual repulsive affects to appear less robust, due to apparent time dilatation v[itex]/[/itex]c[itex]^{2}[/itex]. The point is that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation can thoroughly explain the observation.

2) On the other hand, Heaviside's simplification of Maxwell's equations can also thoroughly explain the phenomenon, as the moving electrons each can be indepentently thought of as a current, which each generates its own magnetic field; and that magnetic field acts upon the other electron so as to show a contrary "attractive" force that lessens the electrical repulsive forces.

2) On the other hand, Heaviside's simplification of Maxwell's equations can also thoroughly explain the phenomenon, as the moving electrons each can be indepentently thought of as a current, which each generates its own magnetic field; and that magnetic field acts upon the other electron so as to show a contrary "attractive" force that lessens the electrical repulsive forces.

Of course, an observer moving along with the electrons sees no velocity, and only sees the simple electromagnetic repulsion.

Since each explanation is true and sound, the thought experiment simply shows the interchangeability of "electrical" and "magnetic" effects in relativistic physics. They are well known to appear different only in certain circumstances due to the frame of reference. However, the usual frame of reference in which we do experimental physics in the laboratories of Earth, favor an apparent difference. Neither explanation is the true one, and the other somehow lesser.

The electron experiment makes one think that magnetism is properly classed as an "illusion;" that is a fair opinion, although really they are apparently separable only in our familiar frames and times of reference.

However, it becomes quickly obvious that for

__ANY__particle that moves in any sort of differentiable field capable of producing a noncontact force, F=∇U, will show similarly apparent modulations of the force between the two particles, simply due to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation. This decrease in action is also thoroughly explained by general relativity. ALL fields capable of producing force, whether known or unknown, recognized or unrecognized, will produce the relativistic effect.

It is only an accident of history that Maxwell's equations antedated Lorentz and Einstein, that we came up with the pure theory of magnetism, which can be considered not a fundamental thing in its own right, but rather a manifestation of electricity in motion. Had we offered general relativity somehow before understanding electricity and magnetism, the development of the concepts might have been different.

The strong force will have a "strong-magnetism" and gravity will have "gravito-magnetism," simply because the time-dilatation and mass effects of general relativity can be expressed in the field curl terms of Maxwell's equations.

Now that we have made things all tidy, there is a small mystery to this speculation as regards the gravitational field. Two electrons dashing off into the distance not only APPEAR to be separating more slowly, they also APPEAR to have more mass due to the relativistic energy-momentum equation.

What of null massive charges - say, two neutrinos - fired off in parallel? Would they have an increased force of attraction proportionate to their increased masses?

*(I use all the physics & mathematics still left 30 years after graduating from MIT with a BS in chemistry, so please be kind.)*