Re: Where physics went wrong
- From: John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:19:56 +0000
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 17, 1:11 am, John Kennaugh
<J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Maxwell's equations are field equations. A field was assumed to be a
stress in the aether. If there is no aether then clearly a field cannot
be a stress in the aether - but then in no experiment has a field been
observed.
Since when is field theory in any way related to the supposed ether?
The aether was first postulated to explain action at a distance force long before it was proposed as a medium in which light waves may propagate. At the time (before Newton) it was assumed that some sort of 'connecting rod' was required to transfer a force so they envisaged that everywhere was filled with aether, a charge caused a stress in the aether and the mutual interaction between two stress patterns caused the action at a distance force. What Maxwell/Faraday achieved was the unification of three hitherto separate branches of physics with a single aether which served to explain action at a distance forces by means of stress in the aether and the ability of that stress to propagate in the aether at c = light. A field is the description of the stress pattern in the aether.
Einstein considered the point as to whether one might consider the fields of Maxwell's theory as themselves real rather than the idea that the aether was real:
"The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium #, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter,
brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy.
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it." AE 1920 lecture
# states of a medium = stress in the aether.
He came down on the side of 'states in the aether' rather than fields being made of physical matter 'exactly like atoms'.
As I say - at the time the aether was first postulated it was assumed that some sort of 'connecting rod' was required to transfer a force. Today we know that a connecting rod is mainly composed of empty space and it held together by action-at-a-distance forces. Far from the 'action at a distance' force between charges being unusual and requiring an explanation ALL force acts 'at a distance' and may be considered as fundamental, incapable of further explanation. A 'field' then becomes a metaphysical 'field of influence' a plot of the direction and magnitude of the action-at-a-distance force which *would* act on a charge *if* a charge were placed at a specific point. It cannot exist without the source of influence.
Einstein took the view that a field was real (rather than metaphysical) and gave the alternatives that it can either be a real state in a real medium of that it consists of real physical matter. Modern physics treats a field as if it were physically real but doesn't care what it consists of in physical terms.
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Where physics went wrong
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: Where physics went wrong
- References:
- Where physics went wrong
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Where physics went wrong
- From: Eric Gisse
- Where physics went wrong
- Prev by Date: Re: Where physics went wrong
- Next by Date: Re: Where physics went wrong
- Previous by thread: Re: Where physics went wrong
- Next by thread: Re: Where physics went wrong
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
