Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WALTHER RITZ AND THE FIELD CONCEPT OF LIGHT
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Dec 7, 2011, 8:08:53 AM12/7/11
to
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm
Walther Ritz 1908: "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems
possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we
should renounce use of this representation, that the motion of light
is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative
velocities play a role in the laws of nature; and finally that we
should renounce use of partial differential equations and the notion
of field, in the measure that this notion introduces absolute motion."
Curiously, in 1952 Einstein still believed that modelling light as a
continuous field was advantageous but in 1954 he considered it
"entirely possible" that the field concept had in fact killed
physics:
http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html
Relativity and the Problem of Space, Albert Einstein (1952): "During
the second half of the nineteenth century, in connection with the
researches of Faraday and Maxwell it became more and more clear that
the description of electromagnetic processes in terms of field was
vastly superior to a treatment on the basis of the mechanical concepts
of material points. By the introduction of the field concept in
electrodynamics, Maxwell succeeded in predicting the existence of
electromagnetic waves, the essential identity of which with light
waves could not be doubted because of the equality of their velocity
of propagation. As a result of this, optics was, in principle,
absorbed by electrodynamics. One psychological effect of this immense
success was that the field concept, as opposed to the mechanistic
framework of classical physics, gradually won greater independence.
(...) Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical
equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the
hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to
renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as
a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible
element of physical description..."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Walther Ritz 1908: "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems
possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we
should renounce use of this representation, that the motion of light
is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative
velocities play a role in the laws of nature; and finally that we
should renounce use of partial differential equations and the notion
of field, in the measure that this notion introduces absolute motion."
Curiously, in 1952 Einstein still believed that modelling light as a
continuous field was advantageous but in 1954 he considered it
"entirely possible" that the field concept had in fact killed
physics:
http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html
Relativity and the Problem of Space, Albert Einstein (1952): "During
the second half of the nineteenth century, in connection with the
researches of Faraday and Maxwell it became more and more clear that
the description of electromagnetic processes in terms of field was
vastly superior to a treatment on the basis of the mechanical concepts
of material points. By the introduction of the field concept in
electrodynamics, Maxwell succeeded in predicting the existence of
electromagnetic waves, the essential identity of which with light
waves could not be doubted because of the equality of their velocity
of propagation. As a result of this, optics was, in principle,
absorbed by electrodynamics. One psychological effect of this immense
success was that the field concept, as opposed to the mechanistic
framework of classical physics, gradually won greater independence.
(...) Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical
equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the
hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to
renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as
a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible
element of physical description..."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Dec 7, 2011, 12:47:07 PM12/7/11
to
https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.html
Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its
source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert
Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the
speed of light depends on its source, just like all material
projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none
of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913
most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the
constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the
evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is
independent of its source had been found to be defective."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its
source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert
Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the
speed of light depends on its source, just like all material
projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none
of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913
most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the
constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the
evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is
independent of its source had been found to be defective."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Dec 7, 2011, 5:14:46 PM12/7/11
to
Note that in 1911 Einstein was forced to introduce gravitational time
dilation since he had assumed that light stretches between the emitter
and the receiver (observer) in the form of a CONTINUOUS FIELD:
http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U
in different gravitation potentials must be regarded as going at the
same rate. On the contrary, we must certainly define the time in K in
such a way that the number of wave crests and troughs between S2 and
S1 is independent of the absolute value of time: for the process under
observation is by nature a stationary one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was
predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796,
using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission
theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so
strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity
on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who
calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun,
arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by
general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could
slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern
understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an
electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should
not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed
frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. One way around this
conclusion would be if time itself was altered - if clocks at
different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's
conclusion in 1911."
Yet Banesh Hoffmann (immeasurably cleverer than Einstein) knew that,
insofar as its speed is concerned, light behaves "discontinuously":
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even
though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the
same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from
changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light
consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper
submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle
seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more
damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle
is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we
take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles
obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
of in terms of waves in an ether."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
dilation since he had assumed that light stretches between the emitter
and the receiver (observer) in the form of a CONTINUOUS FIELD:
http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U
in different gravitation potentials must be regarded as going at the
same rate. On the contrary, we must certainly define the time in K in
such a way that the number of wave crests and troughs between S2 and
S1 is independent of the absolute value of time: for the process under
observation is by nature a stationary one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was
predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796,
using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission
theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so
strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity
on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who
calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun,
arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by
general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could
slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern
understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an
electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should
not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed
frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. One way around this
conclusion would be if time itself was altered - if clocks at
different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's
conclusion in 1911."
Yet Banesh Hoffmann (immeasurably cleverer than Einstein) knew that,
insofar as its speed is concerned, light behaves "discontinuously":
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even
though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the
same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from
changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light
consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper
submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle
seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more
damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle
is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we
take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles
obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
of in terms of waves in an ether."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Dec 18, 2011, 11:11:52 AM12/18/11
to
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/
Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies,
2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37
The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt
"It is generally thought that light propagation cannot be treated in
the framework of Newtonian dynamics. However, at the end of the 18th
century and in the context of Newton's Principia, several papers,
published and unpublished, offered a new and important corpus that
represents a detailed application of Newton's dynamics to light. In
it, light was treated in precisely the same way as material particles.
This most interesting application - foreshadowed by Newton himself in
the Principia - constitutes a relativistic optics of moving bodies, of
course based on what we nowadays refer to as Galilean relativity, and
offers a most instructive Newtonian analogy to Einsteinian special and
general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 2005a; 2005b). These several papers,
effects, experiments, and interpretations constitute the Newtonian
theory of light propagation. I will argue in this paper, however, that
this Newtonian theory of light propagation has deep parallels with
some elements of 19th century physics (aberration, the Doppler effect)
as well as with an important part of 20th century relativity (the
optics of moving bodies, the Michelson experiment, the deflection of
light in a gravitational field, black holes, the gravitational Doppler
effect). (...) A relativistic optics of moving bodies: a corpuscle of
light is subject to Galilean kinematics, and thus to its principle of
relativity as well as to the corresponding theorem of the addition of
velocities. (...) Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a
Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian
gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by
relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-
granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow
thinking in Newtonian terms."
http://www.waltherritz.ch/programme
Olivier Darrigol, directeur de recherche au CNRS: "Ritz est l'auteur
d'une tentative célèbre de concilier l'électrodynamique et le principe
de relativité dans une théorie qui FAIT DEPENDRE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE. Il fut aussi impliqué dans un débat
avec Einstein sur la signification des potentiels en électrodynamique.
On tentera d'expliquer les tenants et les aboutissants des ces
interventions de Ritz en les situant dans le contexte de
l'électrodynamique de l'époque et dans son itinéraire biographique."
Jean Eisenstaedt? Olivier Darrigol? Le temps est venu de dire la
vérité aux scientifiques français? Pas encore? Qu'ils chantent "Divine
Einstein" et "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" pour le moment?
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies,
2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37
The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt
"It is generally thought that light propagation cannot be treated in
the framework of Newtonian dynamics. However, at the end of the 18th
century and in the context of Newton's Principia, several papers,
published and unpublished, offered a new and important corpus that
represents a detailed application of Newton's dynamics to light. In
it, light was treated in precisely the same way as material particles.
This most interesting application - foreshadowed by Newton himself in
the Principia - constitutes a relativistic optics of moving bodies, of
course based on what we nowadays refer to as Galilean relativity, and
offers a most instructive Newtonian analogy to Einsteinian special and
general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 2005a; 2005b). These several papers,
effects, experiments, and interpretations constitute the Newtonian
theory of light propagation. I will argue in this paper, however, that
this Newtonian theory of light propagation has deep parallels with
some elements of 19th century physics (aberration, the Doppler effect)
as well as with an important part of 20th century relativity (the
optics of moving bodies, the Michelson experiment, the deflection of
light in a gravitational field, black holes, the gravitational Doppler
effect). (...) A relativistic optics of moving bodies: a corpuscle of
light is subject to Galilean kinematics, and thus to its principle of
relativity as well as to the corresponding theorem of the addition of
velocities. (...) Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a
Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian
gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by
relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-
granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow
thinking in Newtonian terms."
http://www.waltherritz.ch/programme
Olivier Darrigol, directeur de recherche au CNRS: "Ritz est l'auteur
d'une tentative célèbre de concilier l'électrodynamique et le principe
de relativité dans une théorie qui FAIT DEPENDRE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE. Il fut aussi impliqué dans un débat
avec Einstein sur la signification des potentiels en électrodynamique.
On tentera d'expliquer les tenants et les aboutissants des ces
interventions de Ritz en les situant dans le contexte de
l'électrodynamique de l'époque et dans son itinéraire biographique."
Jean Eisenstaedt? Olivier Darrigol? Le temps est venu de dire la
vérité aux scientifiques français? Pas encore? Qu'ils chantent "Divine
Einstein" et "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" pour le moment?
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
0 new messages