🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14pn2cINNhsv@agate.berkeley.edu> emarkp@ocf.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) writes:
>In article <9207240533.AA11483@Ra.MsState.Edu> rsf1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Robert S. Fritzius) writes:
>>Cross-posted from alt.sci.physics.new-theories
>> 
>>In article <1992Jul22.150401.15820@news.endg.convex.com> Steve Warren
>>writes:
>> 
>>>The biggest practical reason that FTL travel is impossible (unless new
>>>discoveries in physics are made - that are not anticipated right now)
>>>is because of the mass increase phenomenum.  This has been repeatedly
>>>verified experimentally, . . .
>> 
>>In 1908 Swiss physicist Walter Ritz proposed an emission theory of general
>>electrodynamics(1) in which the mass of charged bodies do not increase
>>toward, relativistically, but rather that their masses remain constant and
>>the electrodynamic acceleration forces approach zero.
>> 
>
>[explanation deleted to make newsreader happy]
>
>>How do we unambiguously determine whether mass increases relativistically
>>or whether electromagnetic forces decrease relativistically?
>
>  Someone correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just a physics *student*) about
>this.  When particles get zinging around near c in, say, the Bevatron here
>at Berkeley, not only does it require more energy to accelerate them, but
>when they smash into something (i.e. an antiparticle or something like that)
>the energy released is significantly *more* than can be acounted for by the
>particles rest mass (by a factor of several hundred if I remember
>correctly).  I doubt Mr. Ritz accounted for that.  After all, his time was
>long before particle accelerators.

    One could always say that the field merrily trails along with the
    particle and carries the energy.  Said energy is then deposited in 
    target upon interaction.  A bigger problem, though, is explaining other 
    things like the apparently physical time dilation experienced by things 
    like mesons.
    
    As for Ritz accounting for this effect, he knew as much as Einstein
    about it (they attended the same classes at ETH for a while), and
    Einstein apparently got it right.  Ritz just did not like Lorentz's
    theory (and by extension, Einstein's).  He believed that it was
    not the Galilean relativity of mechanics that was the trouble but
    Maxwell's equations.  His big problem was that they admit classes
    of solutions that are unphysical (i.e. advanced potentials etc.).
    In fact, it was Ritz's assertion (Z. Phys 10:224 (1909) for example)
    that the incorrect handling of advanced potentials was the source
    of the problems with the black body problem.

    With all of this Ritz had a very big problem.  He died in 1909 at
    age 31.  This seemed to mostly squelch such talk.

    It is interesting that, Pauli's assertions notwithstanding, it
    was not until the 60's that there was good evidence that Ritz's 
    theory was not really tenable.  The relevant measurements
    involve direct time of flight experiments
    with things like gamma rays with huge extinction distances emitted from
    fast-moving pions (e.g. Alvanger et. al. Arkiv fur Fysik, 31:144 (1966))
    seem to indicate beyond reasonable doubt that light does not travel
    at c with respect to the source.  Most previous experiments (and 
    a number since) were invalidated by extinction effects.

    If interested, a good article to read on Ritz's theory is Fox's
    critique of experiments purporting to show it untenable (Am. J. Phys.
    33:1 (1965)).

                                    dale bass

--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926