Re: Photons
- From: John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:50:27 +0100
PD wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:52 am, John Kennaugh
<J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That is sloppy thinking. In classical electrodynamics circa Maxwell a
'field' was a physical stress in the aether. Action-at-a-distance force
between charges was transferred via this stress and the stress could
propagate through the aether at c in the form of light. Despite the fact
that relativity owes its existence to Einstein's belief in some sort of
aether, the concept of the aether has become highly unfashionable
resulting in the almost universal acceptance of the 'no aether
doctrine'. The fallout of this is that while physicists still talk in
terms of 'fields' the word no longer has a meaning.
It is true that the term "field" means something different than it
originally did. That does not mean that it is now without meaning.
I would be obliged if you would explain what meaning it now has.
PD
--
John Kennaugh
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Photons
- From: PD
- Re: Photons
- References:
- Photons
- From: joilly17
- Re: Photons
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Photons
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Photons
- From: PD
- Photons
- Prev by Date: Re: About frames moving at constant velocity with respect to inertial ones
- Next by Date: Re: Photons
- Previous by thread: Re: Photons
- Next by thread: Re: Photons
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|