Does relativistic electrodynamics need (SRT)?

von Nizar Hamdan  

Does relativistic electrodynamics need (SRT)?
[Part 1]: [datiert: 26.2.05]
Nizar Hamdan, Riad Alarashi
In: The general science journal. 2005
http://www.gsjournal.net/h/papers_download.php?id=582  – 5 S.

Die Forschungsgruppe G.O. Mueller referiert in der Ergänzung des Kapitels 4 ihrer Dokumentation diese Arbeit von Nizar Hamdan:

„Abstract – One shows that all factors that seem to require Maxwell’s field equations to be invariant under Lorentz transformations [(Einstein’s relativity), [1]] can be derived from assumptions [2] different from those of Einstein. In general, we start with the physical law equations [3, 4] and apply relativity principle to them.

With this approach, Einstein’s relativity (SRT) is reformulated in a simple form that has dynamical application [5] without the use of the Lorentz transformations (LT) and their kinematical contradictions.

1. Introduction: Since the appearance of Einstein’s relativity, an important question was raised: Is matter (energy) and its laws the controlling factor or is it the frame containing it? In other words, is SRT a property characterizing matter (energy) or is it imposed on matter (energy) and its dynamics?

Einstein actually adopted the hypothesis that the frame containing matter is the controlling factor, and the space-time continuum was formulated and was expressed by LT. The space-time continuum becomes physical obeying the relativity principle in that time responds to relativistic movement by dilation and space responds by contraction. Although SRT has been presented as the unique solution, many physicists [6,7,8] have tried, and are trying, to eliminate LT and its role from the main body of SRT. This is because they know something must be wrong with SRT if LT expressions and their kinematical effects yield real dynamics variables.

Yet one finds many alternative theories are put forward to replace SRT. SRT has been known since its introducion as a unifying theory. It unified space and time, matter and energy, and it became the basis for other unifying theories. Therefore, alternative theories have to concentrate on the shortcomings of SRT in that this theory modified space-time properties and presented this as the sole solution.

Alternative theories should unify and show that SRT does not. SRT has removed the barrier between matter and energy, but it created a new barrier which can not be transcended according to this theory. This barrier separates what is known as classical physics from the relativistic physical domain. Classical physics can not transcend the barrier but relativistic physics can absorb it through approximation. In this case, LT becomes Galilean. In my papers, we start with the laws of classical physics and apply them to all particle velocities, i.e. we expand the appropriateness of these laws to deal with relativistic phenomena. This can not be achieved unless we adopt the principle of invariance for physical laws as they apply to inertial frames, regardless of the coordinate transformations. In this way, we can formulate SRT starting from a mechanical base [4] instead of restricting it solely to an electromagnetic base [1]. The claim that Newton’s second law is close to relativistic law is not quite accurate. It is more accurate to say, that Newton’s second law has been applied in the absence of the concept of „the change of mass“.

This means that using the concept of „change of mass“ to the problem along with Newton’s second law allows all the relations in relativistic mechanics to be re-derived without using SRT.“

 

Does relativistic electrodynamics need (SRT)?
[Part2]: [datiert: 18.4.05]
Nizar Hamdan and S. Baza
In: The general science journal. 2005 =http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/583  http://gsjournal.net/mdar/hamdan4.pdf – 10 S.

„Abstract – We show all facts that seem to require the invariance of Maxwell’s field equations under Lorentz transformations [(Einstein’s relativity), [1]] can be derived from assumptions different from those used by Einstein. In general, we start with the physical law equations [2,3,4] and apply the relativity principle to them.

With this approach, Einstein’s relativity (SRT) is reformulated in a simple manner that has dynamic applications [5,6] without using the Lorentz transformation (LT) and its kinematical contradictions. (…)

A general requirement in SRT is that any physical theory should be written in 4-d form i.e.“relativistically invariant“ and then reduced to 3-d form. In my papers we start directly from the physical laws (written originally in 3-d form) to get the same results, without using the most important thing in 4-d form i.e. the metric tensor.

Conclusion – Can we now see how great is the misconception? If we take the concepts [ (length contraction, time dilation, a velocity component) for a geometrical point] which are used solely to solve the problem of the coordination of events we may use them to predict the dynamical properties of a particle.

Careful examination of Einstein’s argument in his paper [1] leaves no doubt that LT is indeed a transformation that describes the coordinates of a photon. The error was in assuming that these transformations describe the coordinates of a material particle. The LT are actually transformation of the coordinates of a geometrical point and they do not have the power to make predictions about physical quantities (mass, energy, momentum …). LT by our alternative method is simply a neutral transformation, containing no physical significance [2,3,4,6].“

 

Newton’s second law is a relativistic law without Einstein’s relativity
Nizar Hamdan
In: Galilean electrodynamics. 16. 2005, Nr. 4, S.71-74.

S. 71: „The claim that Newton’s second law is close to the relativistic law is not quite accurate; it is more accurate to say, that Newton’s second law is applied without the concept of ‚mass change‘. Does this mean that applying the concept ‚muss change‘ along with Newton’s second law allows all the relations in relativistic mechanics to be re-derived without using Einstein’s relativity (SRT)? The present paper answers in the affirmative.“

S. 74: „In contrast to SRT, which made the NSL [Newton’s Second Law – Einfügung GOM] a hypothetical kinematics, the present formalism once again makes the NSL a dynamical law. In this work, as in SRT, one can derive the LT [Lorentz Transformations – Einfügung GOM] as a coordinate transformation between two frames S und S‘. With this concept that LT is a coordinate transformation only, it becomes clear that, in mechanics, the kinematic effects of SRT are illusionary perceptions.“

Hinterlassen Sie eine Antwort

Erlaubter XHTML-Code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>