Ah! OK.Relevant to your magnetism example? No. I was just providing another example of your point about how an everyday phenomenon experienced in a rather direct manner (namely, a mirage) requires underlying mechanisms not intuitively understood or even recognized at all.
Yes, common-sensical as long as we accept certain things about rays of light which, on closer examination, perhaps turn out not to be so common-sensical after all. I guess we're all familiar and comfortable with the ray diagrams of classical optics. And we're all so used to the idea that it's possible to think of rays of light as little lines that we can, sort of, "see" bouncing between mirrors and refracting through lenses, that, when we first learn about these things at school, we rarely question precisely what it means to draw a diagram of a bunch of objects (which we would generally see by reflected light) which also includes a load of light (which we clearly don't see in that way).Classical optics is pretty common-sensical and is often the sole model provided to explain a mirage. Quantum mechanics and sum-over-histories are well beyond common sense, in this case by specifically allowing (and even requiring) superposition to explain the mirage.
It's true: I think we do see classical optics as pretty common-sensical. But it's perhaps interesting to ponder why we do.
Interesting perception of the OP.I find that it is coherent specifically because you quickly abandon any requirement for magnetism as a classical force, commit your explanation entirely to the metaphors of Special Relativity, then simply note that such a tiny drag created by the Lorenz transformation is felt strongly because of the strength of the electromagnetic force. A good enough layman's understanding maybe, but it carries the internal discontinuity of failing to explain why such a time-drag would manifest as magnetic energy; the discontinuity smoothed over by a quick switch back to a classical model at the end.
I didn't think I was characterizing it as a "drag", as such. I was actually trying (possibly wrongly! It's been a long time since I studied any of this stuff) to express it using classical force concepts all the way through - the charge density increasing due to the length contraction, which results in an extra force - which can be understood simply as an extra electric force. The cause of the length contraction needs Special Relativity, but the idea was that its effect can be understood, in this kind of example, as a classical force.
The details of precisely how the magnetic force arises as a result of the Lorentz transformations is generally much more complex than presented here, but I was hoping that this specific example allows the whole thing to be understood in classical terms. The key take-home point, I think, is that the magnetic force is exactly the same thing as the electric force, but just viewed from a different reference frame. i.e. The Lorentz transformations apply to Maxwell's Equations in the way that Galilean transformations apply to Newton's equations.
I guess the thing that should perhaps have been emphasized more is this close identity between electricity and magnetism - that it's the same thing seen from different viewpoints. i.e. it's not so much that the Lorentz transformation manifests mysteriously as a magnetic force, but simply that this is what a magnetic force is. It is the definition of magnetism.
Yes, and I think it's more than just eliminating the suggestion of a sharp divide at which the applicable laws have to suddenly change, but eliminating self-contradiction, since the classical and the quantum worlds are the same world.Yes, as I recall Feynman was demonstrating how his QM interpretation would be consistent with classical reality. Since Feynman was not a Copenhagenist, I assume he would consider it important to eliminate any suggestion of a sharp divide between the quantum and classical worlds.