A guide for students of physics in the art of spin Part 2

In Part 1 I described how authors trying to sell Relativity to a student have a problem in that the 'logical' steps which end up with current belief are inexorably tied in with belief in the aether and today the "aether" is a forbidden word - a despised concept.

The problem is that not only was the *actual* route to modern belief totally unsatisfactory one cannot construct an artificial alternative which *is*. Essentially you cannot go back to pre-Maxwell/aether physics, start again with interaction between charges (Faraday) and construct a logical route, by-passing the aether assumption, and end up where physics now is. It is a paradox that the only way we could have got to where we are now is by believing in something no longer believed in.

If you take the simple view that if an assumption leads to good theory then the assumption must be true then you conclude that the aether must exist. In fact much of modern physics would be more comfortable with the aether concept. It turned its back on the aether but not on concepts which make no sense without it. Indeed 'space in which independent fields can exist', very much a part of modern physics, is a definition of aether.

However the idea that the aether may exist or that relativity is an aether based theory is heretical. Anyone suggesting it will be ridiculed - hence the need for spin to try and explain the origins of relativity without highlighting the role belief in the aether had. This example illustrates how this might be achieved.

In part 1 I explained the thinking which led to the second postulate. This may be stated as follows:

"If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that an observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether.
As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe the speed of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not." This then is what the second postulate is describing.

Now let's suppose you are a spin doctor writing a modern text book and you want to sanitize it.

"If you assume as Einstein did that *Maxwell's wave in aether theory* is impeccable"

Spin Doc - OK we can't say that because it uses the word 'aether'. Let's replace that with "Maxwell's equations" - a student won't understand them so won't be able to argue so it becomes:

"If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's equations are impeccable"

Next:

"... and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that *an observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero* "

Spin Doc - Again we can't write that. We have to give the impression that the aether is not directly involved after all later in the book we have to describe it as a silly idea. Instead of *an observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero* lets write "showed that Maxwell's equations hold in all FoR" - After all Maxwell's equations describe waves in the aether so if every observer always has zero speed relative to the aether then Maxwell's equations must hold. It ignores the fact that the MMX wasn't testing Maxwell's equations it was trying to measure the speed of the earth w.r.t the aether but never mind. We now have:

"If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's equations are impeccable and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that Maxwell's equations hold in all Inertial Frames of Reference."

Spin Doc - Clumsy; lets re-write it a bit:

"Einstein instinctively understood the importance of Maxwell's equations and realised that the MMX had shown their validity in all frames of reference".

That's much better. It implies that Einstein was a genius and that a student is not expected to follow his thinking. OK what is the next bit:

"i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe the speed of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not."

Spin Doc - Oh dear that word "aether" again. It is harder to simply substitute the phrase "Maxwell's equations" rather than "aether". How about "Einstein realised that Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light is always c" (w.r.t the aether but we won't say that). We have already said that Maxwell's equations are valid in every Inertial Frame of Reference so the speed of light must therefore be c in every Inertial Frame of Reference. Now we have:

"Einstein instinctively understood the importance of Maxwell's equations and realised that the MMX had shown their validity in all frames of reference. Einstein realised that Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light is always c in an Inertial Frame of Reference for which they are valid and the second postulate reflects that".

Spin Doc - Clumsy - we can improve that how about:

"Einstein instinctively understood the validity of Maxwell's equations. He noticed that Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light is always c in a FoR for which they are valid and realised that the MMX had shown them to be valid in all frames of reference. The second postulate
reflects that".
-----------------------------
You will find statements like these in many text books but the assumptions which underpin SR come from the physical theory which Maxwell's equations were *assumed* to describe not the equations themselves.

Maxwell's 'wave' equations are simply an extension of empirical relationships produced by Faraday; experimentally verified only for low velocities of charged matter. Intrinsically they have no validity outside of the conditions in which Faraday derived them. [see note 1]
The equations are in a form which *may* imply waves (although not necessarily). It was the *assumption* that those equations *were* describing waves in the aether on which everything else hinges. It was the assumption that the permittivity and permeability of free space are the properties of the aether which determine at what speed light travels in the aether and prevent the velocity of the source affecting the speed at which light travels. It was that *assumption*, not the equations themselves which led to an attempt to measure the speed of the earth relative to the aether. The second postulate is an interpretation of the MMX null result and the MMX was not testing Maxwell's equations.

The second postulate was not the result of Einstein's genius, nor divine inspiration it was simply a statement reflecting the general view at the time among those brought up on physics dominated by Maxwell. In his 1905 paper Einstein goes to some length to justify his first postulate (because he saw that as potentially controversial) but adds the second without comment of any sort as he was simply expressing the accepted view. If he had thought he was presenting a new idea he would have justified it and would certainly have taken more care with the wording. His first attempt at wording it, is so sloppily that it has more than one meaning; his second attempt later in the paper is the one always quoted.

In truth Einstein, like Lorentz before him, was trying to formulate a theory consistent with the accepted interpretation of the MMX that for some reason every observer appears to find himself stationary w.r.t the aether. If you try to introduce the idea, as many do, that Einstein saw the MMX as showing there to be no aether nothing then makes any sense. If one concludes that the aether does not exist then the question Lorentz and Einstein were addressing becomes meaningless. If there is no aether then of course you cannot measure your speed relative to it. Once you decide there is no aether the natural question then arises "if it is not the aether which controls the speed at which light travels then what does determine the speed of light and what is it constant w.r.t?". The only logical answer from the 'no aether' standpoint is that the speed of light must be controlled by the only physical process involved, that taking place at the source, there being no possible causality which would allow the motion of light to be influenced by an observation which may take place at some future time.

Again it is time to remind readers that the basis of SR is the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable despite the fact that it had been shown that the waves of Maxwell's theory do not physically exist. That Einstein had to redefine mass, time, and space in order to save Maxwell's aether, and that now no one believes in its existence.

If there is no aether a source is surrounded by nothing which can take part in a physical process, nothing which can prevent the source determining the speed at which it projects photons. An apparently essential physical process is denied the physical conditions in which it would be possible - but of course that isn't a problem. Physics, now a branch of mathematics dealing with mathematical modelling, does not concern itself with old fashioned physical processes, or physical interpretation.

Note 1
Herbert Dingle, after a distinguished career in physics broke rank with orthodoxy and was vilified by his contemporaries for doing so [1]. He considered that physics had a false conception of the relationship between mathematics and physics. Earlier physicists took observations as their starting point and used mathematics only as a tool to extract the maximum amount of information from their experiments, and as a means for expressing their new-found knowledge. The first example of the mastery instead of the servitude of mathematics in relation to physics came with Maxwell's assumption of the existence of "displacement current" from examination of the maths.

In Physics today, a theory contains equations based on generation of other equations so there is no way of determining the conditions over which it is valid. Insistence on defining what an equation is physically describing would spoil the fun so the doctrine has been adopted that an equation may be regarded as complete in itself.

An example of how this works - Coulomb made observations and used mathematics as a means of expressing the new-found knowledge - i.e. Coulombs law. Today Physicists say his law is wrong as it 'implies' that the force between charges is instantaneous. Coulomb made no such claim and the equation expresses the result of static observation. Maths is now the master of physics not its servant.

My statement that Intrinsically Maxwell's equations have no validity outside of the conditions in which Faraday derived his relationships - would of course be rejected.

[1] "Science at the Cross Roads" by Professor Herbert Dingle
--
John Kennaugh
"The election of Barack Obama represents a seed change in American politics.
No one dared to believe that Americans would put aside their prejudice and
elect a president with a brain." - Quote from 'The News Quiz'.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... So, yes, Einstein *did* write it and I take back what I said. ... What Einstein actually did next was to assume that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable. ... Perhaps physics had been taken over by mathematicians who were interested in the mathematical possibilities. ... It was a fundamental change which the physics establishment used to get itself out of a hole having accepted a theory without proper scrutiny and not wanting to go back on its acceptance. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > usual conception of an aether. ... > POR is that is applies to all the laws of physics in inertial frames - ... >> substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > usual conception of an aether. ... > POR is that is applies to all the laws of physics in inertial frames - ... >> substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... > I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > to the physical properties of the aether, ... > of Einstein's theories of relativity, ... > substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... > I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > to the physical properties of the aether, ... > of Einstein's theories of relativity, ... > substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)