Re: Magnetism is a false or fictatious force.

Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
On Oct 6, 6:33 am, John Kennaugh
<J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
>Igor wrote:
>> What about transformations that make E vanish but not B?

>In general, it is not possible to find a frame in which E vanishes, if
>E is nonzero in some inertial frame. In general the same is true about
>B [#]. The difference is: for a single point charge moving inertially,
>one can find an inertial frame in which B=0 everywhere; there is no
>corresponding frame for E.

> [#] just consider two charges moving differently; one cannot
> make both of them be at rest.

Perhaps we should start with charge. Is charge 'real' by your somewhat
arbitrary definition of 'real'. I rather assume so and I assume also
that you would describe the force of attraction between two like charged
particles (or objects) as also 'real'. At this point there is a problem
in that in classic electrodynamics as per Maxwell that force was the
result of stress in the aether, (stress in the aether = electrostatic
field) caused by charge.

Accepting that the aether is not something you would consider 'real'
then clearly an 'electrostatic field' cannot be a 'real' stress in that
unreal 'aether'.

Is it a case of pragmatism whereby having got rid of the aether on which
it depended, physics decided to keep those properties of the aether it
found useful namely the physical concept of 'field' or has the
understanding of what an 'electrostatic field' *is* changed.

Our ancestors saw the action-at-a-distance attraction of magnets and
charged objects as something strange defying the known laws of nature
and therefore requiring explanation - hence the origin of the aether. We
now know that the laws of nature show these phenomena to be in no way
strange or unusual. We know that all force ultimately acts at-a-distance
and the very fabric of our physical world is stitched together by
action-at-a-distance forces. It could be argued therefore that contrary
to our instincts action at a distance force requires no explanation and
has to be assumed to be axiomatic. If one takes this view however then
an 'electrostatic field' ceases to be 'real' in the physical sense but
rather metaphysical in that it is a 'field of influence' of natural
action at a distance forces and cannot exist without the presence of a
charge.

Another alternative is that a field is real physical 'stuff' of some
sort but it is hard to see how that fundamentally differs from the
concept of the aether. i.e. the aether is the sum total of the real
physical stuff which we call fields. Remembering that Einstein believed
that the only thing wrong with the classic view of the aether was
ascribing to it a unique FoR.
As Scott Murray put it you do not solve anything by renaming the aether
"fields" or as Silagadze says "According to our modern perspective, the
quantum vacuum is seething with activity of creating and destroying
virtual quanta of various fields if probed locally. Therefore,
it is much more like to aether than to empty space".

Yet another possibility is that the force is transferred by streams of
magic messenger particles - a digital version of the aether and equally
undetectable but something a politically correct modern physicists is
allowed to believe in while belief in the aether, or the use of the
'aether' word is taboo.

Personally I think physics went off the rails 100 years ago and took a
further leap into absurdity with the Copenhagen school. I see the
increasing complexity of modern physics as showing that to be the case.
My money is on space being empty, the seething quantum vacuum a myth and
the idea of the aether being rightly ditched but properly ditched rather
than paying lip service to getting rid of it. It was invented to explain
action at a distance and it is time we considered that to be axiomatic
in which case a 'field' is metaphysical and cannot exist without a
charge. Hence a photon must be made up of equal numbers (probably 1) of
massless positive and negative charges rotating about the axis of
forward motion. The faster it spins the higher the frequency and greater
the energy.

--
John Kennaugh
SR requires that the speed at which light separates from its source is
determined by an observation which may occur in the future - that is silly.

I like some of your thinking here. Yet if you do attribute a bipolar
charge to the photon then do these also have magnetic moments? The
inseperability of the two seem to be upheld. Then further there may be
some polarization issues. Are you conceiving of wavelength as a period
of orbit? But then if the radius of these poles is small why isn't
their wavelength miniscule? Instead we observe appreciable wavelengths
of pristine quality.

I would assume that the wavelength is the forward distance travelled for one revolution. Polarization may be the angle between the axis of rotation and the direction of travel. I merely put forward the suggestion. Although I consider Maxwell's theory to some degree compromised by the discovery of the particulate nature of light the success of Maxwell's equations must mean something. Maxwell's equations are essentially describing the properties of charge based upon Faraday's relationships which showed charge and magnetism to be different aspects of the same phenomena. So surely the success of those equations in modelling light implies that charge has something to do with light. As Photons also have 'something to do with light' Photons must be related to charge in some way. They are certainly related to the fields associated with moving charge and I don't see how you can have disembodied fields with either nothing to create them nor nothing they can be 'states' in e.g. states of stress in the aether.


-Tim


--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Magnetism is a false or fictatious force.
    ... Perhaps we should start with charge. ... result of stress in the aether, (stress in the aether = electrostatic ... physics decided to keep those properties of the aether it ... understanding of what an 'electrostatic field' *is* changed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... studied in physics and chemistry. ... >>>I have completely quantified the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating ... The orthogonality of charge and mass works in the same way. ... >> maybe gravity would result. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... has uses in physics. ... >>I have completely quantified the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating ... The orthogonality of charge and mass works in the same way. ... Not only does it unify the forces, quantifies matter, quantifies ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Magnetism is a false or fictatious force.
    ... Perhaps we should start with charge. ... result of stress in the aether, (stress in the aether = electrostatic ... physics decided to keep those properties of the aether it ... understanding of what an 'electrostatic field' *is* changed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
    ... A charge does not move because an equation says ... The starting point is that not only was it considered as being capable of further understanding but the aether, which was the key part to that understanding, was found to be a useful concept in other respects and is the basis of Maxwell's electrodynamics. ... distance force on a charge the existence of an aether is one ... If you are suggesting that you can assume that the action at a distance force between charges can be considered as fundamental and that can be assumed in isolation without it affecting anything else in physics then I cannot agree. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading