Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #581265

Re: Annotated version of SRT

Show all headers | View raw

Am 28.03.2022 um 11:50 schrieb JanPB:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 27.03.2022 um 21:28 schrieb JanPB:
>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:35:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 27.03.2022 um 11:11 schrieb JanPB:
>>>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:48:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Hi NG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have made a number of changes and are now happy to present my latest
>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now it should be actually final, but I'm not really certain. Possibly
>>>>>> some errors are still in my comments, but actually I can't even find
>>>>>> typos anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The file can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a google doc of the file type pdf.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is the author of "Editor's notes" in this version? The footnote on p. 16 is
>>>>> incorrect: the text should in fact read l' there (not phi').
>>>> The 'editor's notes' in Einstein's text stem most likely from the
>>>> publisher. Sorry, but unfortunately I have no idea, who that actually
>>>> was (definetely not me!).
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>>> Also, on p. 13 that editor should have mentioned a typo in the English translation
>>>>> in the second formula of the set of equations in the middle of the page (the
>>>>> variables ksi and zeta are reversed).
>>>> Well, there remained some errors, which I have not found.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry..
>>>
>>> This is a typo by the English translator, not Einstein.
>> I have to admit, that missing an error is actually a fault, which I
>> tried to avoid.
>>
>> But I have not dealt with these equations, because I disliked Einstein's
>> subtraction of magnetic field strength from electric field strength, anyhow.
>
> It's nothing peculiar to Einstein, it's the Gaussian system of units.

I have actually problems with subtracting electric field strength from 
magnetic field strength.

This is like subtracting 1 V from 1 A.

To me this doesn't make any sense at all.

Einstein gave absolutely no hints, what he actually tried to figure out 
and I'm personally lost with that situation, which I'm unable to interpret.

So, possibly you are able to tell me, what ' ...(N - v/c* Y)..' is meant 
to be?

N ist the magnetic field strength in the z-direction and Y the electric 
field strength in the y-direction.

So: what is that????????

I would say, he meant, that the vectors look like 'pinched together', if 
the field moves at velocities near the spead of light.

This is most likely actually true, but Einstein gave no hint whatever, 
what he tried to figure out.


>> I also found it totally illogic to aplly the geometric relations from
>> the kinematic part to the 'length' of the field strength vector.
>
> These are Lorentz's formulas from his 1904 paper (or earlier,
> I forget). It's not any more or less illogical than Maxwell's
> equations. Einstein uses the same "geometric relations" as
> Lorentz in 1904 to derive those formulas.


But you cannot apply geometric relations to field strength vectors, 
because the 'length' of the vectors is arbitrary.

If the field strength is actually changing with velocity, this would be 
a physical problem, not a geometrical one.

If fields behave in a geometric fashion and change upon velocity, this 
would indicate a physical relation between fields and geometry itself.

I actually think, this is the case, but Einstein didn't say anything alike.

Besides of this, Einstein wrote, the field strength would not change 
upon movement, what is IMHO wrong.

>> In my view the relation between electric field and magnetic field
>> requires a rotation and complex numbers, which I wanted to modell with
>> multiplicative connections of quaternions.
>
> One can do that but it's not required and in the context of the paper
> (and Lorentz's 1904 paper) it would only obfuscate things by
> gratuitous over-generalisation.
>
>> But these equations contain addition of things, which have different units.
>
> No, in the Gaussian system of units electric and magnetic fields
> have the same dimensions.

Unfortunately yes.

But still you should not subtract apples from oranges.

I have actually trouble to find any reasonable meaning for the 
difference of a magnetic field strength vector and an electric one.

What could that possibly be?



>> So, I gave that set of equations a 'thumbs down' and went further.
>
> And it never gave you a pause that such a trivial "mistake" as the
> "wrong" units would have gone unnoticed by the Annalen der
> Physik editors in 1905, let alone the generations of physicists
> for the past 117 years? You really go about living your life with
> that mode of making assumptions about facts and people?
> What?


I would guess, that most people 'consume' such articles similar to how 
they read 'Haarper's Bazar'.

To carefully analyse an article word for word takes time and effort, 
which most readers are not willing to invest.

We have also massive advertising of this article and super-hero status 
of the author, what would most certainly hinder people to actually 
critise it.

...
>>> One cannot prove an arrogant individual that he is wrong. If I could,
>>> it would take a long time because it is also a fact of life that it's much
>>> more difficult to debunk a claim like "X is wrong" than to make such
>>> claim. The latter takes just a few words, the former requires a lecture
>>> that further presumes a solid background to understand the argument
>>> in the first place.
>> Well, I don't think, that Einstein was that arrogant.
>>
>> But the person is irellevant, anyhow, because I was discussing a text,
>> not a person.
>
> You are not discussing it. What you wrote is at best poetry.


Well, I'm actually discussing it now (with you, of course).

...

>>> * "wave train" is the standard physics usage in English. The correct
>>> English translation of Einstein's paper (which you should have used
>>> in the first place) employs the same term:
>>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/174
>> Sure 'wave-train' is in common use in English. But in German 'Wellenzug'
>> (literal translation of 'wave-train) is not used in connection with waves.
>
> It is: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellenpaket

I have thought about this particular phrase for a long time.

To me the word 'Wellenzug' (in the German version) didn't make sense.

The German language allows, different than English, to create new words 
according to certain general rules.

One such rule is to make nouns from verbs, like here: 'Zug' (train) from 
'ziehen' ('to pull').

To make it possible, that newly created words are understood by 
everyone, there exist general rules for how such new words are created 
and how they have to be interpreted.

Such nouns created from verbs must have a relation to the verb, from 
which they were derived.

So: 'Zug' MUST have a connection to something pulling something!!!

As this is a general rule, it overrides even dictionaries.

Same thig with composed words:

German alllows to piece words together like 'Lego' bricks.

Such composits are interpreted as string of related things.

Therefore 'Wellenzug' is interpreted as 'Wellen' + 'Zug'. (waves + train)

Since 'train' is not derived from a verb, it might be translated to 'Zug'.

But the part 'Zug' in German is prohibitted by this general rule for 
substantivated verbs, because the waves in pyhsics are not pulled, hence 
'ziehen' is inappropriate for physical waves. This would disallow to 
connect physical waves with 'Zug'.

The English phrase 'wave train' is a 'linguistic picture', which has no 
counterpart in German. It is related to the sound a long train makes, it 
it rattles over a gap in the track. It means the passing by of the waves 
like train-cars on a track. This phenomenon it not associated with any 
German word, hence needs to be described with a few additional words.

Therefore the German phrase is a literal translation of the English 
phrase 'wave train', but 'Wellenzug' is not allowed in German.

This would indicate, that the German version is actually a translation 
from English and not the other way round.


>> I have criticised the phrase, because I have regarded it as a funny
>> translation error.
>
> No, it's correct and perfectly appropriate in both English and German.

Here I claim to have a little more practise than you have.

...


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 08:48 +0200
  Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 02:11 -0700
    Re: Annotated version of SRT Evodio Bayon <eba@nctps.mx> - 2022-03-27 09:54 +0000
    Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 19:35 +0200
      Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 12:28 -0700
        Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-28 08:47 +0200
          Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 02:50 -0700
            Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-29 08:19 +0200
              Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-29 08:52 +0200
              Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 02:06 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-30 09:13 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-30 16:46 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 11:37 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-31 08:16 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 11:08 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-31 08:04 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 00:14 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 00:26 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-01 07:05 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 00:25 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-02 08:18 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-01 07:37 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 00:39 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-02 08:38 +0200
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 18:17 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 14:57 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 19:07 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 15:22 -0400
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 19:33 +0000
                Re: Annotated version of SRT JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 12:30 -0700
                Re: Annotated version of SRT Richie Cruze <rcru@bstntap.jp> - 2022-04-02 19:53 +0000
          Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-29 10:26 +0300
      Re: Annotated version of SRT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-03-29 10:01 +0300
        Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-03-30 07:16 +0200
  Re: Annotated version of SRT Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-27 06:41 -0700
  Re: Annotated version of SRT "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 08:31 -0700
  Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-27 11:43 -0400
    Re: Annotated version of SRT Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-27 19:28 +0200
      Re: Annotated version of SRT Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-29 13:52 -0400

csiph-web