Re: Where physics went wrong
- From: "Simple Simon" <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:21:40 -0800
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0cGdnfavT7t9SBLanZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0l2PR3DDnyjHFw76@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
What is observed is the motion of one charge due to the interaction with
it of other charges which may or may not be in motion w.r.t the first
charge. As fields are simply a way of describing these interactions it
should be possible to replace Maxwell/Lorentz EM theory with one based
solely on the interaction between charges and the purely *relative*
velocity between them.
The problem with this approach is that clasically you get momentum going
missing when you accelerate charges. Have you studied QED yet? I suggest
Feynman's book.:
QED - The strange theory of light and matter
by Richard P Feynman
Penguin science paperback
ISBN 0-14-012505-1
I look forward to watching the lectures upon which the book is based:
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8
Looks like about 6 hours (or 2.5 metric hours).
<snip rest>
--
Martin Hogbin
.
- References:
- Where physics went wrong
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Where physics went wrong
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Where physics went wrong
- Prev by Date: Re: simple question
- Next by Date: Re: GOD AND STOOGES OF PHYSICS
- Previous by thread: Re: Where physics went wrong
- Next by thread: Re: Where physics went wrong
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading