Physical interpretation in physics.
John Kennaugh
Quite late on Einstein wrote:
" Most [theories] are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture
of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively
simple formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory
of gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes
to movements of molecules i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis
of molecular motion. When we say that we have succeeded in understanding
a group of natural processes we invariably mean that a constructive
theory has been found which covers the processes in question.... The
advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability,
and clearness."
He wrote the above as a preface to the declaration that relativity is a
principle theory - he defined what he meant and his definition is
indistinguishable from a mathematical model based upon empirical
starting points. He had tried to make relativity into a constructive
theory, a theory where physical interpretation is an essential part but
had given up. He was now forced to described relativity as 'putting
forward no specific hypothesis'.
Lorenz had come up with a constructive theory - a theory having a
physical interpretation complimenting the maths. Einstein objected to
the physical interpretation of Lorentz's theory (what he referred to as
the theoretical structure). While his theory shares the same maths as
that of Lorentz's he had failed to come up with an alternative physical
interpretation without the asymmetry he objected to in Lorentz's theory.
Physicists up until, and including Einstein would not have had to ask
the question "What is meant by physical interpretation?" It was
considered as an essential part of science and had played a vital role
in physics. Students today are taught that we cannot hope to understand
nature. All we can do is construct models of it. Physical interpretation
is considered as a poor alternative to a mathematical model rather than
what had been the case in the past that both together constituted a
theory.
Sometimes someone started with an idea, an alternative physical
interpretation, does the maths and find it fits - an example might be
Galilao. Idea! 'suppose the planets go around the sun?' - do the maths
and it checks out. Now one could say that Galilao's maths would work
just as well without assuming that physical interpretation. It could be
argued that if someone had stumbled upon them without an assumption of
the sun centred solar system then that would be just as satisfactory. In
modern physics 'maths' is described as 'physics theory' and all that is
expected of it is accurate prediction not physical explanation. However
having a 'physical interpretation' gives the maths authority. The maths
of Galilao can be believed in as they are not merely an ad hoc
expression which gives empirical accuracy. One could use the same
physical model to construct maths which would predict what a man on Mars
would see in the night sky and fully expect that when we get there that
it will be as predicted. Physical interpretation drives the maths.
Sometimes a physical law - the mathematical relationship - has been
known for a long time like Boyles law and eventually a physical
explanation is found involving moving molecules. Moving molecules is a
physical model. It does not mean we 'understand nature' but it does mean
we have a better understanding of nature than we had previously when we
thought of gas as homogeneous.
A classic example of the importance of physical interpretation occurred
in the case of the black body radiation curve. Wien produced an
expression which fitted very well but it was purely empirical. Lord
Rayleigh produced a law which was based upon accepted theory, accepted
physical interpretation, waves bouncing backwards and forwards in the
box, but was not a good fit at short wavelengths. Rayleigh's law had to
be taken seriously because it was based upon a physical interpretation
i.e. on an understanding of what was happening - the physical processes
involved. It was based upon accepted theory. The fact that it gave the
wrong answer was described as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. It meant
the physical interpretation, the understanding of the physical processes
involved was wrong. Planck took up the challenge. Although Wein's law
was empirical, it was some help to Planck in coming up with what we now
believe is the correct physical interpretation that light is quantized.
Deriving the maths from that physical interpretation gave the right
answer. The reason we have confidence in the maths is because it is
derived from a physical understanding of what is going on which gives it
authority. Wein's law, although a good mathematical model lacked that
authority. Even if Wein's mathematical expression had been identical to
Planck's it would have lacked any authority because the physics - the
physical process was not explained.
Maxwell's electrodynamics was based upon an understanding of what was
going on in the physical sense. The idea of aethers had been an
essential part of physics for a couple of hundred years first introduced
to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a distance forces. The
aether is sneered at these days but it was argued that a magnet could
not pick up a pin if there was genuinely nothing in the space between
them. Think about it and you can see where they were coming from. Later
the luminiferous aether was hypothesised for light waves to propagate
in. Maxwell's theory was accepted not because of its accurate
predictions - they were not testable for some time - but on the elegance
of the physical interpretation. What Maxwell did (with help from
Faraday) was unify 3 branches of physics and show that only one aether
is required to explain action at a distance and light propagation while
at the same time showing a link between light and charge and putting it
on a sound mathematical footing. Charge causes a stress in the aether -
that stress pattern is what is described as a 'field' and that stress
can propagate through the aether at c, as derived from two properties of
the aether its permittivity and permeability. Again the authority of
Maxwell derives from the fact that he was able to describe in physical
terms what is going on and it fitted together so elegantly. So elegantly
that later Einstein continued to assume the absolute authority of
Maxwell when he produced SR and ignored the fact that it had been
compromised by his own work on photoelectric effect.
Planck had assumed that although the production of light was quantized
that somehow that was temporary and that it then 'turned into' Maxwell's
waves in aether. Einstein showed that light remained quantized by
producing a physical interpretation of the photo-electric effect which
works. Light arrives in discreet lumps of energy which depending on the
colour has, or hasn't enough energy to dislodge a photon. It is hard to
see how that bit of our understanding could have been achieved without a
physical interpretation on which to base the thinking.
Lorentz started with a physical interpretation proposed by Fitzgerald
that if the arm of the MMX apparatus got shorter due to travelling
against the aether by just the right amount it explains the null result.
Lorentz postulated that matter is made up of a matrix of positive and
negative charges held together by action at a distance forces
transferred via the aether. When the aether was moving he calculated
that the matter would get shortened in the direction of travel of the
aether by the required amount (note Bohr's model of the atom was much
later). Lorentz derived the Lorentz transforms based on an assumption of
the physical processes involved. Even today I understand that if you
replace Lorentz's matrix of charged particles with electrons in orbit
around nuclei then if you assume the action at a distance force is
transferred by the aether and the aether is in motion the orbits become
elliptical - causing length contraction.
Einstein's heroes were Maxwell and Lorentz - both of whom relied heavily
on physical interpretation. He described Lorentz as making the greatest
contribution to electrical theory since Maxwell. His objection to
Lorentz's theory was that in the physical interpretation - what Einstein
described as 'the theoretical structure' - was a unique FoR stationary
w.r.t the aether which is essential to the physical description but
which in practice is indistinguishable from an infinite number of other
FoR. Einstein could not believe that nature would be so perverse as to
hide something from us which was so essential to theory and assumed that
it must be possible to come to the same conclusion without an assumption
of this unique FoR.
What should have happened is that Einstein should have come up with an
alternative physical explanation which did not require Lorentz's unique
FoR.
If one assumes the authority of Maxwell then the MMX showed that an
observers speed relative to the aether is zero. The question that first
Lorentz and then Einstein were trying to answer was therefore :
"Why does an observer always appear to be stationary w.r.t the aether?"
Discarding Lorentz's explanation the only explanation left to Einstein
was that the nature of the aether is such that this arises naturally
from it. If you study his 1920 lecture he is attempting to argue just
that. His 'aether without the immobility of Lorentz's'. He rejects
Lorentz's aether FoR but time and again returns to the need for some
sort of aether. As that idea was not accepted Einstein's alternative
theory was in effect rejected. He had failed to come up with an
alternative theoretical structure to that of Lorentz to give the maths
authority.
History does not show that Einstein's theory was rejected and that of
Lorentz retained.
What actually happened is bizarre. Einstein didn't consider his second
postulate as in any way controversial. It was his first which he thought
to be a radical departure which is why he justifies it at length. His
second needed no justification, it simply described how the MMX was
generally interpreted. SR in effect gives the observer's FoR the
properties of an aether stationary w.r.t the observer as per the MMX if
interpreted assuming the authority of Maxwell's theory. Somehow
Einstein's followers got it into their heads that Einstein had come up
with a theory which didn't need the aether. The aether concept was
ridiculed despite the fact that it had not been replaced. Remember it
was required to justify the assumption of source independence, to
explain action at a distance, to explain the physical nature of fields
and for light waves to be physical waves in. Alternatives were not put
forward instead the rule book was re-written such that the emphasis was
placed on the maths and eventually the notion of physical interpretation
as an essential part of physics was consigned to history. I do not
believe that that was in the best interests of physics. It has resulted
in intellectual anarchy.
At any particular time a physical interpretation may be wrong and at
some stage have to be replaced with something better. A physical
interpretation is a model of nature and has its limitations. A physical
model based upon the planets going around the sun is a better reflection
of nature than one which has the earth at the centre - it does nothing
to explain what gravity is. The particulate model of light gives better
overall understanding of the nature of light but we don't know the
structure of a photon nor how on-mass they can so convincingly act like
waves. Limited understanding is better than none and better
understanding of physical processes is progress.
Physical interpretation should go along with maths as they mutually
discipline each other. Its no use having a physical understanding if the
maths derived from it give the wrong answer (ref Rayleigh) and it is no
use having the right maths on their own (Ref Wein) as a physical
understanding which allows those maths to be derived from it gives an
insight into nature which the equation itself lacks.
Basically physics abandoned physical interpretation as an essential aim
in physical theory because it wanted to accept a mathematics model which
had no conceivable physical interpretation other than the one they
rejected vehemently. They changed the rules as to what a theory is, as
to what physics is, so that maths could be accepted as a theory. Today
Wein's law could be classed as a theory in that it provides accurate
predictions - all that is required of a modern theory as a modern theory
is not required to have an explanation of the physical processes
involved. At the time it was not considered to have any weight as it did
not explain the physical processes. At the time it prompted Planck to
investigate alternative physical interpretations. To me Planck made one
of the momentous discoveries in physics.
--
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
Sancho's Atomic Trousers
Did he, the verbose bastard.
GSS
<J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>........
> Physicists up until, and including Einstein would not have had to ask
> the question "What is meant by physical interpretation?" It was
> considered as an essential part of science and had played a vital role
> in physics. Students today are taught that we cannot hope to understand
> nature. All we can do is construct models of it. Physical interpretation
> is considered as a poor alternative to a mathematical model rather than
> what had been the case in the past that both together constituted a
> theory.
I appreciate your viewpoint.
> ........
> Maxwell's electrodynamics was based upon an understanding of what was
> going on in the physical sense. The idea of aethers had been an
> essential part of physics for a couple of hundred years first introduced
> to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a distance forces. The
> aether is sneered at these days but it was argued that a magnet could
> not pick up a pin if there was genuinely nothing in the space between
> them. Think about it and you can see where they were coming from. Later
> the luminiferous aether was hypothesised for light waves to propagate
> in. Maxwell's theory was accepted not because of its accurate
> predictions - they were not testable for some time - but on the elegance
> of the physical interpretation. What Maxwell did (with help from
> Faraday) was unify 3 branches of physics and show that only one aether
> is required to explain action at a distance and light propagation while
> at the same time showing a link between light and charge and putting it
> on a sound mathematical footing. Charge causes a stress in the aether -
> that stress pattern is what is described as a 'field' and that stress
> can propagate through the aether at c, as derived from two properties of
> the aether its permittivity and permeability.
Why can't we replace the notion of aether with physical space having
the same properties of permittivity and permeability?
......
>
> Physical interpretation should go along with maths as they mutually
> discipline each other. Its no use having a physical understanding if the
> maths derived from it give the wrong answer (ref Rayleigh) and it is no
> use having the right maths on their own (Ref Wein) as a physical
> understanding which allows those maths to be derived from it gives an
> insight into nature which the equation itself lacks.
>
> Basically physics abandoned physical interpretation as an essential aim
> in physical theory because it wanted to accept a mathematics model which
> had no conceivable physical interpretation other than the one they
> rejected vehemently. They changed the rules as to what a theory is, as
> to what physics is, so that maths could be accepted as a theory.
> --
> 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
In my opinion most of the ills of modern physics can be attributed to
a subtle mix-up between certain abstract mathematical notions (like
spacetime continuum, probability density etc.) and physical notions
(like space continuum, energy density etc.). We need to a
distinguish between abstract and physical entities. If we have
complete information about certain entity and can mentally visualize
it, then that entity must be a physical entity (e.g. Solar System,
Sound Waves etc.). If we have complete information about certain
entity and still cannot mentally visualize it, then that entity must
be an abstract entity (e.g. 4-D spacetime). However, if we know
certain entity to be physical and still cannot visualize it then it
will imply that we do not possess complete information about that
entity (e.g. electron, proton etc.)
GSS
Bill Hobba
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KGawZwBr...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>
> Quite late on Einstein wrote:
>
> " Most [theories] are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture of
> the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively simple
> formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of gases
> seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes to
> movements of molecules i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of
> molecular motion. When we say that we have succeeded in understanding a
> group of natural processes we invariably mean that a constructive theory
> has been found which covers the processes in question.... The advantages
> of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability, and clearness."
>
> He wrote the above as a preface to the declaration that relativity is a
> principle theory - he defined what he meant and his definition is
> indistinguishable from a mathematical model based upon empirical starting
> points. He had tried to make relativity into a constructive theory, a
> theory where physical interpretation is an essential part but had given
> up. He was now forced to described relativity as 'putting forward no
> specific hypothesis'.
If he believed that then he believed incorrectly. The POR is testable and
can be falsified by experiment.
Rest of usual misconceptions snipped.
Bill
Bill Hobba
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bf8667ef-1bcb-4689...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 2:30 pm, John Kennaugh
> <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Why can't we replace the notion of aether with physical space having
> the same properties of permittivity and permeability?
Because that is not the definition of the aether. Physics is not a game of
semantics.
Bill
harry
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bf8667ef-1bcb-4689...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
That's pretty much what aether means, and also Einstein pointed that out.
So, you can call aether either. ;-)
Harald
Jeckyl
news:KGawZwBr...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
Interesting essay . did you write it yourself? But .. what was the point of
it .. or was it just a long-winded wank?
John Kennaugh
>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:KGawZwBr...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>[snip]
>
>Interesting essay . did you write it yourself?
yes
> But .. what was the point of
>it
It was in response to Martin Hogbin who asked what I meant by "physical
interpretation" - then accused me of not replying.
> .. or was it just a long-winded wank?
Boring in comparison I would have thought :o)
--
John Kennaugh
Martin Hogbin
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KGawZwBr...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>
>
> " Most [theories] are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture
> of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively
> simple formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory
> of gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes
> to movements of molecules i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis
> of molecular motion. When we say that we have succeeded in understanding
> a group of natural processes we invariably mean that a constructive
> theory has been found which covers the processes in question.... The
> advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability,
> and clearness."
I would take issue with Einstein about completeness.
> He wrote the above as a preface to the declaration that relativity is a
> principle theory - he defined what he meant and his definition is
> indistinguishable from a mathematical model based upon empirical
> starting points. He had tried to make relativity into a constructive
> theory, a theory where physical interpretation is an essential part but
> had given up. He was now forced to described relativity as 'putting
> forward no specific hypothesis'.
>
> Lorenz had come up with a constructive theory - a theory having a
> physical interpretation complimenting the maths.
You have changed your wording here. You describe LET as
having a 'physical' interpretation without saying what you mean.
If you mean a constuctive interpretation, as defined by Einstein,
then you should say so.
> Einstein objected to
> the physical interpretation of Lorentz's theory (what he referred to as
> the theoretical structure). While his theory shares the same maths as
> that of Lorentz's he had failed to come up with an alternative physical
> interpretation without the asymmetry he objected to in Lorentz's theory.
Again, you have used the word physical without defining what you mean.
> Physicists up until, and including Einstein would not have had to ask
> the question "What is meant by physical interpretation?"
How do you know that?
> It was
> considered as an essential part of science and had played a vital role
> in physics. Students today are taught that we cannot hope to understand
> nature. All we can do is construct models of it. Physical interpretation
> is considered as a poor alternative to a mathematical model rather than
> what had been the case in the past that both together constituted a
> theory.
You mind is stuck in a one-track definition of 'understand'. When you
say 'understand' you mean describe in terms that are familiar to us.
> Sometimes someone started with an idea, an alternative physical
> interpretation, does the maths and find it fits - an example might be
> Galilao. Idea! 'suppose the planets go around the sun?' - do the maths
> and it checks out. Now one could say that Galilao's maths would work
> just as well without assuming that physical interpretation. It could be
> argued that if someone had stumbled upon them without an assumption of
> the sun centred solar system then that would be just as satisfactory. In
> modern physics 'maths' is described as 'physics theory' and all that is
> expected of it is accurate prediction not physical explanation. However
> having a 'physical interpretation' gives the maths authority.
If only you could tell us what you mean by 'physical interpretation'
Your so-called 'physical processes' are simply mental models.
> Maxwell's electrodynamics was based upon an understanding of what was
> going on in the physical sense. The idea of aethers had been an
> essential part of physics for a couple of hundred years first introduced
> to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a distance forces. The
> aether is sneered at these days but it was argued that a magnet could
> not pick up a pin if there was genuinely nothing in the space between
> them. Think about it and you can see where they were coming from.
Yes, a religious belief that everything must be just like we find things in
everyday life.
> Later
> the luminiferous aether was hypothesised for light waves to propagate
> in. Maxwell's theory was accepted not because of its accurate
> predictions - they were not testable for some time - but on the elegance
> of the physical interpretation. What Maxwell did (with help from
> Faraday) was unify 3 branches of physics and show that only one aether
> is required to explain action at a distance and light propagation while
> at the same time showing a link between light and charge and putting it
> on a sound mathematical footing. Charge causes a stress in the aether -
> that stress pattern is what is described as a 'field' and that stress
> can propagate through the aether at c, as derived from two properties of
> the aether its permittivity and permeability. Again the authority of
> Maxwell derives from the fact that he was able to describe in physical
> terms what is going on and it fitted together so elegantly.
More so without the aether.
> So elegantly
> that later Einstein continued to assume the absolute authority of
> Maxwell when he produced SR and ignored the fact that it had been
> compromised by his own work on photoelectric effect.
>
> Planck had assumed that although the production of light was quantized
> that somehow that was temporary and that it then 'turned into' Maxwell's
> waves in aether. Einstein showed that light remained quantized by
> producing a physical interpretation of the photo-electric effect which
> works. Light arrives in discreet lumps of energy which depending on the
> colour has, or hasn't enough energy to dislodge a photon. It is hard to
> see how that bit of our understanding could have been achieved without a
> physical interpretation on which to base the thinking.
We can only speculate on many of the thought processes that lead
physicists to their theories.
> Lorentz started with a physical interpretation proposed by Fitzgerald
> that if the arm of the MMX apparatus got shorter due to travelling
> against the aether by just the right amount it explains the null result.
But what 'physically' causes this?
> Lorentz postulated that matter is made up of a matrix of positive and
> negative charges held together by action at a distance forces
> transferred via the aether. When the aether was moving he calculated
> that the matter would get shortened in the direction of travel of the
> aether by the required amount (note Bohr's model of the atom was much
> later). Lorentz derived the Lorentz transforms based on an assumption of
> the physical processes involved.
Which he simply made up to suit the observations. I have no objection to
that but I am surprised that you do not.
> Even today I understand that if you
> replace Lorentz's matrix of charged particles with electrons in orbit
> around nuclei then if you assume the action at a distance force is
> transferred by the aether and the aether is in motion the orbits become
> elliptical - causing length contraction.
> Einstein's heroes were Maxwell and Lorentz - both of whom relied heavily
> on physical interpretation. He described Lorentz as making the greatest
> contribution to electrical theory since Maxwell. His objection to
> Lorentz's theory was that in the physical interpretation - what Einstein
> described as 'the theoretical structure' - was a unique FoR stationary
> w.r.t the aether which is essential to the physical description but
> which in practice is indistinguishable from an infinite number of other
> FoR. Einstein could not believe that nature would be so perverse as to
> hide something from us which was so essential to theory and assumed that
> it must be possible to come to the same conclusion without an assumption
> of this unique FoR.
And most physicists, including myself, agree with him.
> What should have happened is that Einstein should have come up with an
> alternative physical explanation which did not require Lorentz's unique
> FoR.
Hi did!
> If one assumes the authority of Maxwell then the MMX showed that an
> observers speed relative to the aether is zero. The question that first
> Lorentz and then Einstein were trying to answer was therefore :
>
> "Why does an observer always appear to be stationary w.r.t the aether?"
>
> Discarding Lorentz's explanation the only explanation left to Einstein
> was that the nature of the aether is such that this arises naturally
> from it. If you study his 1920 lecture he is attempting to argue just
> that. His 'aether without the immobility of Lorentz's'. He rejects
> Lorentz's aether FoR but time and again returns to the need for some
> sort of aether. As that idea was not accepted Einstein's alternative
> theory was in effect rejected. He had failed to come up with an
> alternative theoretical structure to that of Lorentz to give the maths
> authority.
>
> History does not show that Einstein's theory was rejected and that of
> Lorentz retained.
> What actually happened is bizarre. Einstein didn't consider his second
> postulate as in any way controversial. It was his first which he thought
> to be a radical departure which is why he justifies it at length. His
> second needed no justification, it simply described how the MMX was
> generally interpreted. SR in effect gives the observer's FoR the
> properties of an aether stationary w.r.t the observer as per the MMX if
> interpreted assuming the authority of Maxwell's theory. Somehow
> Einstein's followers got it into their heads that Einstein had come up
> with a theory which didn't need the aether.
Which it does not.
> The aether concept was
> ridiculed despite the fact that it had not been replaced. Remember it
> was required to justify the assumption of source independence, to
> explain action at a distance, to explain the physical nature of fields
> and for light waves to be physical waves in.
No it is not.
>Alternatives were not put
> forward instead the rule book was re-written such that the emphasis was
> placed on the maths and eventually the notion of physical interpretation
> as an essential part of physics was consigned to history. I do not
> believe that that was in the best interests of physics. It has resulted
> in intellectual anarchy.
>
> At any particular time a physical interpretation may be wrong and at
> some stage have to be replaced with something better. A physical
> interpretation is a model of nature and has its limitations. A physical
> model based upon the planets going around the sun is a better reflection
> of nature than one which has the earth at the centre - it does nothing
> to explain what gravity is. The particulate model of light gives better
> overall understanding of the nature of light but we don't know the
> structure of a photon nor how on-mass they can so convincingly act like
> waves. Limited understanding is better than none and better
> understanding of physical processes is progress.
Are you ever going to tell us what you mean by a 'physical explanation'?
> Physical interpretation should go along with maths as they mutually
> discipline each other. Its no use having a physical understanding if the
> maths derived from it give the wrong answer (ref Rayleigh) and it is no
> use having the right maths on their own (Ref Wein) as a physical
> understanding which allows those maths to be derived from it gives an
> insight into nature which the equation itself lacks.
>
> Basically physics abandoned physical interpretation as an essential aim
> in physical theory because it wanted to accept a mathematics model which
> had no conceivable physical interpretation other than the one they
> rejected vehemently. They changed the rules as to what a theory is, as
> to what physics is, so that maths could be accepted as a theory. Today
> Wein's law could be classed as a theory in that it provides accurate
> predictions - all that is required of a modern theory as a modern theory
> is not required to have an explanation of the physical processes
> involved. At the time it was not considered to have any weight as it did
> not explain the physical processes. At the time it prompted Planck to
> investigate alternative physical interpretations. To me Planck made one
> of the momentous discoveries in physics.
You have completely failed to explain what you mean by 'physical
explanation' you have just restated your view that it is desirable.
--
Martin Hogbin
maxwell
> "GSS" <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yes it is, Bill. Natural Philosophy is that branch of philosophy
applied to nature. Philosophy is about clarifying our use of concepts
i.e. semantics. QED
Mathematics is simply the investigation of the implications of
abstract definitions that need no reference to reality. Physics is
natural philosophy (at least it was until Einstein came along).
Androcles
"maxwell" <sp...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:813c1833-332e-4b7f...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Quite so, and Einstein could not grasp mathematics either.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.
"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.
What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.
You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
-- Sir Isaac Newton
Androcles
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dr2dnV9EOLa...@bt.com...
:
: "John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
You have completely failed to explain how you'd measure the speed
of train, you just babble little one line responses.
Bill Hobba
"maxwell" <sp...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:813c1833-332e-4b7f...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> "GSS" <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bf8667ef-1bcb-4689...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Dec 4, 2:30 pm, John Kennaugh
>> > <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Why can't we replace the notion of aether with physical space having
>> > the same properties of permittivity and permeability?
>>
>> Because that is not the definition of the aether. Physics is not a game
>> of
>> semantics.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Yes it is, Bill.
Wrong.
> Natural Philosophy is that branch of philosophy
> applied to nature. Philosophy is about clarifying our use of concepts
> i.e. semantics. QED
> Mathematics is simply the investigation of the implications of
> abstract definitions that need no reference to reality. Physics is
> natural philosophy (at least it was until Einstein came along)
And what has that got to do with your claim that the definition of the
aether as a material medium that light undulates in is not correct?
Bill .
harry
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:CGJ5j.20861$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Do you claim that an aether must be "material"? That is not correct, as for
example Einstein emphasised.
Harald
harry
> news:KGawZwBr...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>>
[...]
> If only you could tell us what you mean by 'physical interpretation'
Same for you, see below!
[...]
>> Lorentz started with a physical interpretation proposed by Fitzgerald
>> that if the arm of the MMX apparatus got shorter due to travelling
>> against the aether by just the right amount it explains the null result.
>
>
> But what 'physically' causes this?
Fitzgerald assumed that atomic bonds are electromagnetic. All matter has
wave nature.
>> Lorentz postulated that matter is made up of a matrix of positive and
>> negative charges held together by action at a distance forces
>> transferred via the aether. When the aether was moving he calculated
>> that the matter would get shortened in the direction of travel of the
>> aether by the required amount (note Bohr's model of the atom was much
>> later). Lorentz derived the Lorentz transforms based on an assumption of
>> the physical processes involved.
>
> Which he simply made up to suit the observations.
That is almost correct: in fact it was Poincare who derived them, based on
the equations of Lorentz. The observations led Lorentz to attempt to develop
a theory in acordance with the PoR. In 1904 he had not yet understood that
he had managed to do so perfectly (Langevin and Poincare explained that in
1905).
[...]
>> What should have happened is that Einstein should have come up with an
>> alternative physical explanation which did not require Lorentz's unique
>> FoR.
>
> Hi did!
So, the same question to you: What do you call "Einstein's physical
explanation"?
[...]
>> The aether concept was
>> ridiculed despite the fact that it had not been replaced. Remember it
>> was required to justify the assumption of source independence, to
>> explain action at a distance, to explain the physical nature of fields
>> and for light waves to be physical waves in.
>
> No it is not.
Source independence does not follow from the PoR and "waves" belong to ether
models - the concept of a wave without something that waves is meaningless.
Harald
John Kennaugh
>
>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:KGawZwBr...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>>
>> Quite late on Einstein wrote:
>>
>> " Most [theories] are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture
>> of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively
>> simple formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory
>> of gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes
>> to movements of molecules i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis
>> of molecular motion. When we say that we have succeeded in understanding
>> a group of natural processes we invariably mean that a constructive
>> theory has been found which covers the processes in question.... The
>> advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability,
>> and clearness."
>
>I would take issue with Einstein about completeness.
By all means but I think you are too late.
>> He wrote the above as a preface to the declaration that relativity is a
>> principle theory - he defined what he meant and his definition is
>> indistinguishable from a mathematical model based upon empirical
>> starting points. He had tried to make relativity into a constructive
>> theory, a theory where physical interpretation is an essential part but
>> had given up. He was now forced to described relativity as 'putting
>> forward no specific hypothesis'.
>>
>> Lorenz had come up with a constructive theory - a theory having a
>> physical interpretation complimenting the maths.
>
>
>You have changed your wording here. You describe LET as
>having a 'physical' interpretation without saying what you mean.
This whole thread is explaining what I mean. Do you have difficulty with
the English language?
>If you mean a constuctive interpretation, as defined by Einstein,
>then you should say so.
Same thing.
>> Einstein objected to
>> the physical interpretation of Lorentz's theory (what he referred to as
>> the theoretical structure). While his theory shares the same maths as
>> that of Lorentz's he had failed to come up with an alternative physical
>> interpretation without the asymmetry he objected to in Lorentz's theory.
>
>Again, you have used the word physical without defining what you mean.
OK if you are determined to be silly. The following is not necessarily
comprehensive but off the top of my head:
Physical things - Those things which you can touch feel smell or hear
with your senses. Those things which you can detect with scientific
instruments (effectively extensions of your senses), those things whose
existence you can deduce to exist from the effect they have on other
physical things (to explain experiment).
Physical effect - a measurable change to a physical thing.
Physical process - the interaction between physical things resulting in
a physical effect.
Physical properties - properties of physical things - things you can
measure relating to physical things.
Physical interpretation - the constructional explanation of a theory in
terms of physical things, physical properties, physical effects and
physical processes.
Metaphysical - things like uncertainty, probability, prediction,
knowledge, an equation (although the ink and paper may be physical),
mathematics, wishful thinking, a field of influence, hope. None of which
can have a measurable effect on physical things in the natural world.
>
>> Physicists up until, and including Einstein would not have had to ask
>> the question "What is meant by physical interpretation?"
>
>How do you know that?
At that time all physical theory included a physical interpretation. If
it was a mathematical relationship without any physical interpretation
it was called a 'law'. e.g. Charle's law.
>> It was
>> considered as an essential part of science and had played a vital role
>> in physics. Students today are taught that we cannot hope to understand
>> nature. All we can do is construct models of it. Physical interpretation
>> is considered as a poor alternative to a mathematical model rather than
>> what had been the case in the past that both together constituted a
>> theory.
>
>You mind is stuck in a one-track definition of 'understand'. When you
>say 'understand' you mean describe in terms that are familiar to us.
I was expressing the modern viewpoint as stated by Tom Roberts. He uses
the word 'know' rather than 'understand' but it means the same in this
context.
"In the abstract, it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human
beings can aspire to is to make models of the world -- we can never
actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them, which is known as science." Tom Roberts
>> Sometimes someone started with an idea, an alternative physical
>> interpretation, does the maths and find it fits - an example might be
>> Galilao. Idea! 'suppose the planets go around the sun?' - do the maths
>> and it checks out. Now one could say that Galilao's maths would work
>> just as well without assuming that physical interpretation. It could be
>> argued that if someone had stumbled upon them without an assumption of
>> the sun centred solar system then that would be just as satisfactory. In
>> modern physics 'maths' is described as 'physics theory' and all that is
>> expected of it is accurate prediction not physical explanation. However
>> having a 'physical interpretation' gives the maths authority.
>
>If only you could tell us what you mean by 'physical interpretation'
Have done. Try learning English.
Mental models are metaphysical.
Light is physical it causes measurable effects.
Black body radiation (light) is physical it can be detected, it can be
measured.
The physical nature of light as waves had been deduced from the numerous
physical wavelike properties it exhibits. It appeared from this
experiment that the physical nature of light deduced from previous
experiments is inconsistent with this experiment. Planck explained the
black body curve by deducing from it that light has a different physical
nature to what was previously thought. While it is a model in the sense
that it has had to be deduced rather than directly observed (which is
impossible), a better physical model is progress in our understanding.
>
>> Maxwell's electrodynamics was based upon an understanding of what was
>> going on in the physical sense. The idea of aethers had been an
>> essential part of physics for a couple of hundred years first introduced
>> to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a distance forces. The
>> aether is sneered at these days but it was argued that a magnet could
>> not pick up a pin if there was genuinely nothing in the space between
>> them. Think about it and you can see where they were coming from.
>
>Yes, a religious belief that everything must be just like we find things in
>everyday life.
A rather short sighted comment. Maybe you can explain how a magnet picks
up a pin.
>> Later
>> the luminiferous aether was hypothesised for light waves to propagate
>> in. Maxwell's theory was accepted not because of its accurate
>> predictions - they were not testable for some time - but on the elegance
>> of the physical interpretation. What Maxwell did (with help from
>> Faraday) was unify 3 branches of physics and show that only one aether
>> is required to explain action at a distance and light propagation while
>> at the same time showing a link between light and charge and putting it
>> on a sound mathematical footing. Charge causes a stress in the aether -
>> that stress pattern is what is described as a 'field' and that stress
>> can propagate through the aether at c, as derived from two properties of
>> the aether its permittivity and permeability. Again the authority of
>> Maxwell derives from the fact that he was able to describe in physical
>> terms what is going on and it fitted together so elegantly.
>
>More so without the aether.
Without the physical interpretation all you have are equations which are
metaphysical. You really need to understand the difference. The TV
signal reaching my aerial is not carried there by Maxwell's equations
neither does it propagate from the aerial because of Maxwell's
equations. Energy (that is physical as it has measurable physical
effects) leaves the transmitter aerial (also physical) and arrives at my
aerial (also physical) the energy causes current to flow (also physical
- it can cause physical change).....
You might like to ponder the fact while you look at you high definition,
multi-channel, interactive colour TV with high quality sound that
physics has no better idea now as to what it is which travels from the
transmitter to the aerial on your roof than it did 100 years ago. You
might wonder why technology has made such progress and physics hasn't.
>> So elegantly
>> that later Einstein continued to assume the absolute authority of
>> Maxwell when he produced SR and ignored the fact that it had been
>> compromised by his own work on photoelectric effect.
>>
>> Planck had assumed that although the production of light was quantized
>> that somehow that was temporary and that it then 'turned into' Maxwell's
>> waves in aether. Einstein showed that light remained quantized by
>> producing a physical interpretation of the photo-electric effect which
>> works. Light arrives in discreet lumps of energy which depending on the
>> colour has, or hasn't enough energy to dislodge a photon. It is hard to
>> see how that bit of our understanding could have been achieved without a
>> physical interpretation on which to base the thinking.
>
>We can only speculate on many of the thought processes that lead
>physicists to their theories.
Don't be silly. You are simply in denial.
>
>> Lorentz started with a physical interpretation proposed by Fitzgerald
>> that if the arm of the MMX apparatus got shorter due to travelling
>> against the aether by just the right amount it explains the null result.
>
>
>But what 'physically' causes this?
Premature interjection. The explanation followed.
>> Lorentz postulated that matter is made up of a matrix of positive and
>> negative charges held together by action at a distance forces
>> transferred via the aether. When the aether was moving he calculated
>> that the matter would get shortened in the direction of travel of the
>> aether by the required amount (note Bohr's model of the atom was much
>> later). Lorentz derived the Lorentz transforms based on an assumption of
>> the physical processes involved.
>
>Which he simply made up to suit the observations.
And works mathematically. It is called 'deducing the physical processes
involved from the physical effects produced' or simply coming up with a
physical theory which fits the physical facts.
> I have no objection to
>that but I am surprised that you do not.
Why? I may believe he came up with the wrong answer but I have no
objection whatever to his approach. You had this massive evidence in
favour of light being waves. Maxwell had combined 3 branches of physics
so now a single aether explained action at a distance and light
propagation. He showed the electromagnetic nature of light. His impact
was massive. Everything fitted except this one experiment - the MMX. It
was perfectly logical to look for a fix.
Einstein is a different matter. By then the particulate nature of light
was known. He himself had got a Nobel prize for explaining the
photoelectric effect and he ignored it. He carried on as if Maxwell's
wave in aether theory was in no way compromised by the fact that light
isn't waves. He tried, and failed to come up with a better theory than
Lorentz's. SR is simply Lorentz's aether theory without the theory and
with the aether disguised.
>
>> Even today I understand that if you
>> replace Lorentz's matrix of charged particles with electrons in orbit
>> around nuclei then if you assume the action at a distance force is
>> transferred by the aether and the aether is in motion the orbits become
>> elliptical - causing length contraction.
>
>> Einstein's heroes were Maxwell and Lorentz - both of whom relied heavily
>> on physical interpretation. He described Lorentz as making the greatest
>> contribution to electrical theory since Maxwell. His objection to
>> Lorentz's theory was that in the physical interpretation - what Einstein
>> described as 'the theoretical structure' - was a unique FoR stationary
>> w.r.t the aether which is essential to the physical description but
>> which in practice is indistinguishable from an infinite number of other
>> FoR. Einstein could not believe that nature would be so perverse as to
>> hide something from us which was so essential to theory and assumed that
>> it must be possible to come to the same conclusion without an assumption
>> of this unique FoR.
>
>And most physicists, including myself, agree with him.
I agree too - The problem is he didn't.
>> What should have happened is that Einstein should have come up with an
>> alternative physical explanation which did not require Lorentz's unique
>> FoR.
>
>Hi did!
Not one which gained acceptance. His physical explanation was that the
nature of the aether is such that every observer is naturally stationary
w.r.t it - which is silly. It doesn't make it any less silly to rename
the 'aether which every observer is stationary w.r.t' - 'the observers
FoR' and treat that as if it were an aether stationary w.r.t the
observer - having the same properties.
Of course by declaring SR to be a 'principle theory' a mathematical
model which makes no attempt at physical interpretation it does not
attempt to address questions related to what is physically responsible
for what it is describing and therefore has nothing whatsoever to say on
the subject of whether there is or there isn't an aether. The accepted
'no aether' doctrine which has been accepted in physics is totally
separate from relativity but most relativists in this NG seem to be
confused about that.
The second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
the aether would observe. From the PoV of physical interpretation he has
incorporated those properties of the aether he needed to do the maths
into the second postulate. If you say otherwise then you have to produce
an alternative physical interpretation leading to the second postulate.
>> The aether concept was
>> ridiculed despite the fact that it had not been replaced. Remember it
>> was required to justify the assumption of source independence, to
>> explain action at a distance, to explain the physical nature of fields
>> and for light waves to be physical waves in.
>
>No it is not.
Explain. I'm not playing the yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is.....,
game. I explain all my statements. Please do the same.
>
>>Alternatives were not put
>> forward instead the rule book was re-written such that the emphasis was
>> placed on the maths and eventually the notion of physical interpretation
>> as an essential part of physics was consigned to history. I do not
>> believe that that was in the best interests of physics. It has resulted
>> in intellectual anarchy.
>>
>> At any particular time a physical interpretation may be wrong and at
>> some stage have to be replaced with something better. A physical
>> interpretation is a model of nature and has its limitations. A physical
>> model based upon the planets going around the sun is a better reflection
>> of nature than one which has the earth at the centre - it does nothing
>> to explain what gravity is. The particulate model of light gives better
>> overall understanding of the nature of light but we don't know the
>> structure of a photon nor how on-mass they can so convincingly act like
>> waves. Limited understanding is better than none and better
>> understanding of physical processes is progress.
>
>Are you ever going to tell us what you mean by a 'physical explanation'?
Have done but it should have been obvious.
>> Physical interpretation should go along with maths as they mutually
>> discipline each other. Its no use having a physical understanding if the
>> maths derived from it give the wrong answer (ref Rayleigh) and it is no
>> use having the right maths on their own (Ref Wein) as a physical
>> understanding which allows those maths to be derived from it gives an
>> insight into nature which the equation itself lacks.
>>
>> Basically physics abandoned physical interpretation as an essential aim
>> in physical theory because it wanted to accept a mathematics model which
>> had no conceivable physical interpretation other than the one they
>> rejected vehemently. They changed the rules as to what a theory is, as
>> to what physics is, so that maths could be accepted as a theory. Today
>> Wein's law could be classed as a theory in that it provides accurate
>> predictions - all that is required of a modern theory as a modern theory
>> is not required to have an explanation of the physical processes
>> involved. At the time it was not considered to have any weight as it did
>> not explain the physical processes. At the time it prompted Planck to
>> investigate alternative physical interpretations. To me Planck made one
>> of the momentous discoveries in physics.
--
John Kennaugh
The problem with maths is that an awesomely impressive equation may be
describing an incredibly silly idea.
Bill Hobba
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1196931...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
I claim it is a real physical medium that defines a preferred reference
frame. It is not semantic 'double speak' like: 'Why can't we replace the
notion of aether with physical space having the same properties of
permittivity and permeability?' which, like Newtons definition of absolute
space, is meaningless.
Bill
>
> Harald
>
bz
news:1196932...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
> Source independence does not follow from the PoR and "waves" belong to
> ether models - the concept of a wave without something that waves is
> meaningless.
If it makes you any happier, call it a 'moving, collocated electric field
and perpendicular magnetic field' instead of a wave. Call it MCEFAPMF for
short. Or call it a wavicle.
Do you object to both of those? If so, call it 'Sam' or 'George'. I don't
care what you call it.
It is still a MCEFAPMF that appears to move at c as measured by equipment
that is in uniform motion regardless of the velocity of that equipment or
of the source.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Jeckyl
> Metaphysical - things like uncertainty, probability, prediction,
> knowledge, an equation (although the ink and paper may be physical),
> mathematics, wishful thinking, a field of influence, hope. None of which
> can have a measurable effect on physical things in the natural world.
Liek the ether .. it cannot be detected. Its in the realms of metaphysics
as you cannot conduct an experiemnt that determines wheterh or not it
exists. Its about as physical as saying little fairy dance on clock to slow
them down and push on objects to make them contract.
Martin Hogbin
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:13lgst3...@corp.supernews.com...
Quite.
--
Martin Hogbin
Martin Hogbin
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
> >
> >"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:KGawZwBr...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> >>
>
> >> principle theory - he defined what he meant and his definition is
> >> indistinguishable from a mathematical model based upon empirical
> >> starting points. He had tried to make relativity into a constructive
> >> theory, a theory where physical interpretation is an essential part but
> >> had given up. He was now forced to described relativity as 'putting
> >> forward no specific hypothesis'.
> >>
> >> Lorenz had come up with a constructive theory - a theory having a
> >> physical interpretation complimenting the maths.
> >
> >
> >You have changed your wording here. You describe LET as
> >having a 'physical' interpretation without saying what you mean.
>
> This whole thread is explaining what I mean. Do you have difficulty with
> the English language?
>
> >then you should say so.
>
> Same thing.
So you say. That assumption is not made by most people. If you
want to say that you prefer, or even demand, constructive
explanations that would at least make more sense.
> >> Einstein objected to
> >> the physical interpretation of Lorentz's theory (what he referred to as
> >> the theoretical structure). While his theory shares the same maths as
> >> that of Lorentz's he had failed to come up with an alternative physical
> >> interpretation without the asymmetry he objected to in Lorentz's theory.
> >
> >Again, you have used the word physical without defining what you mean.
>
> OK if you are determined to be silly. The following is not necessarily
> comprehensive but off the top of my head:
>
> Physical things - Those things which you can touch feel smell or hear
> with your senses. Those things which you can detect with scientific
> instruments (effectively extensions of your senses), those things whose
> existence you can deduce to exist from the effect they have on other
> physical things (to explain experiment).
How does the aether fit in with all that? I clearly fails the 'detectable'
criterion. The last one (which you have obviously added to try to
include the aether) depends entirely on what theory you use to deduce
its existence. If you assume LET the you deduce the aether to exist, which
by your definition makes it a physical thing. If, on the other hand, you
assume relativity then the aether does not exist and is therefore not a
physical thing, but spacetime is.
To say you prefer a theory based on physical things is therefore
meaningless.
>
> Physical interpretation - the constructional explanation of a theory in
> terms of physical things, physical properties, physical effects and
> physical processes.
If you said 'constructional' it would make more sense.
> Metaphysical - things like uncertainty, probability, prediction,
> knowledge, an equation (although the ink and paper may be physical),
> mathematics, wishful thinking, a field of influence, hope. None of which
> can have a measurable effect on physical things in the natural world.
> >> Physicists up until, and including Einstein would not have had to ask
> >> the question "What is meant by physical interpretation?"
> >
> >How do you know that?
>
> At that time all physical theory included a physical interpretation. If
> it was a mathematical relationship without any physical interpretation
> it was called a 'law'. e.g. Charle's law.
So Newton's laws are not physical but kinetic theory is. I have never
heard that distinction made before.
> >> It was
> >> considered as an essential part of science and had played a vital role
> >> in physics. Students today are taught that we cannot hope to understand
> >> nature. All we can do is construct models of it. Physical interpretation
> >> is considered as a poor alternative to a mathematical model rather than
> >> what had been the case in the past that both together constituted a
> >> theory.
> >
> >You mind is stuck in a one-track definition of 'understand'. When you
> >say 'understand' you mean describe in terms that are familiar to us.
>
> I was expressing the modern viewpoint as stated by Tom Roberts. He uses
> the word 'know' rather than 'understand' but it means the same in this
> context.
>
> "In the abstract, it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human
> beings can aspire to is to make models of the world -- we can never
> actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
> models and test them, which is known as science." Tom Roberts
Yes, I agree fully with Tom
What about gravity?
> The physical nature of light as waves had been deduced from the numerous
> physical wavelike properties it exhibits. It appeared from this
> experiment that the physical nature of light deduced from previous
> experiments is inconsistent with this experiment. Planck explained the
> black body curve by deducing from it that light has a different physical
> nature to what was previously thought. While it is a model in the sense
> that it has had to be deduced rather than directly observed (which is
> impossible), a better physical model is progress in our understanding.
>
> >
> >> Maxwell's electrodynamics was based upon an understanding of what was
> >> going on in the physical sense. The idea of aethers had been an
> >> essential part of physics for a couple of hundred years first introduced
> >> to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a distance forces. The
> >> aether is sneered at these days but it was argued that a magnet could
> >> not pick up a pin if there was genuinely nothing in the space between
> >> them. Think about it and you can see where they were coming from.
> >
> >Yes, a religious belief that everything must be just like we find things in
> >everyday life.
>
> A rather short sighted comment. Maybe you can explain how a magnet picks
> up a pin.
Let us talk about electrostatic attraction, as I do below, as it is simpler
in many ways.
> >> Later
> >> the luminiferous aether was hypothesised for light waves to propagate
> >> in. Maxwell's theory was accepted not because of its accurate
> >> predictions - they were not testable for some time - but on the elegance
> >> of the physical interpretation. What Maxwell did (with help from
> >> Faraday) was unify 3 branches of physics and show that only one aether
> >> is required to explain action at a distance and light propagation while
> >> at the same time showing a link between light and charge and putting it
> >> on a sound mathematical footing. Charge causes a stress in the aether -
> >> that stress pattern is what is described as a 'field' and that stress
> >> can propagate through the aether at c, as derived from two properties of
> >> the aether its permittivity and permeability. Again the authority of
> >> Maxwell derives from the fact that he was able to describe in physical
> >> terms what is going on and it fitted together so elegantly.
> >
> >More so without the aether.
>
> Without the physical interpretation all you have are equations which are
> metaphysical. You really need to understand the difference. The TV
> signal reaching my aerial is not carried there by Maxwell's equations
> neither does it propagate from the aerial because of Maxwell's
> equations. Energy (that is physical as it has measurable physical
> effects) leaves the transmitter aerial (also physical) and arrives at my
> aerial (also physical) the energy causes current to flow (also physical
> - it can cause physical change).....
Your distinctions seem arbitrary and personal.
>
> You might like to ponder the fact while you look at you high definition,
> multi-channel, interactive colour TV with high quality sound that
> physics has no better idea now as to what it is which travels from the
> transmitter to the aerial on your roof than it did 100 years ago. You
> might wonder why technology has made such progress and physics hasn't.
The technology of TV and radio is based entirely on Maxwell's equations.
>
> >
> >> Lorentz started with a physical interpretation proposed by Fitzgerald
> >> that if the arm of the MMX apparatus got shorter due to travelling
> >> against the aether by just the right amount it explains the null result.
> >But what 'physically' causes this?
>
> Premature interjection. The explanation followed.
>
> >> Lorentz postulated that matter is made up of a matrix of positive and
> >> negative charges held together by action at a distance forces
> >> transferred via the aether. When the aether was moving he calculated
> >> that the matter would get shortened in the direction of travel of the
> >> aether by the required amount (note Bohr's model of the atom was much
> >> later). Lorentz derived the Lorentz transforms based on an assumption of
> >> the physical processes involved.
> >
> >Which he simply made up to suit the observations.
>
> And works mathematically. It is called 'deducing the physical processes
> involved from the physical effects produced' or simply coming up with a
> physical theory which fits the physical facts.
There is nothing specially physical (or even constructive) about it. Lorentz
simply proposed that things shrink along their direction of motion through
the aether.
>
> > I have no objection to
> >that but I am surprised that you do not.
>
> Why? I may believe he came up with the wrong answer but I have no
> objection whatever to his approach. You had this massive evidence in
> favour of light being waves. Maxwell had combined 3 branches of physics
> so now a single aether explained action at a distance and light
> propagation. He showed the electromagnetic nature of light. His impact
> was massive. Everything fitted except this one experiment - the MMX. It
> was perfectly logical to look for a fix.
>
> Einstein is a different matter. By then the particulate nature of light
> was known. He himself had got a Nobel prize for explaining the
> photoelectric effect and he ignored it. He carried on as if Maxwell's
> wave in aether theory was in no way compromised by the fact that light
> isn't waves. He tried, and failed to come up with a better theory than
> Lorentz's. SR is simply Lorentz's aether theory without the theory and
> with the aether disguised.
Or without the aether.
> >> Even today I understand that if you
> >> replace Lorentz's matrix of charged particles with electrons in orbit
> >> around nuclei then if you assume the action at a distance force is
> >> transferred by the aether and the aether is in motion the orbits become
> >> elliptical - causing length contraction.
No. There is no aether theory that shows this. There are no aether theories
at all
> >> What should have happened is that Einstein should have come up with an
> >> alternative physical explanation which did not require Lorentz's unique
> >> FoR.
> >
> >Hi did!
>
> Not one which gained acceptance. His physical explanation was that the
> nature of the aether is such that every observer is naturally stationary
> w.r.t it - which is silly.
That is not Einstein's description. He says the aether is unnecessary.
>It doesn't make it any less silly to rename
> the 'aether which every observer is stationary w.r.t' - 'the observers
> FoR' and treat that as if it were an aether stationary w.r.t the
> observer - having the same properties.
>
> Of course by declaring SR to be a 'principle theory' a mathematical
> model which makes no attempt at physical interpretation it does not
> attempt to address questions related to what is physically responsible
> for what it is describing and therefore has nothing whatsoever to say on
> the subject of whether there is or there isn't an aether.
Yes, Einstein did not say the aether did not exist, just that it is not
necessary. Since then it has not proved either interesting or useful
and it is now regarded as a pointless metaphysical creation.
>The accepted
> 'no aether' doctrine which has been accepted in physics is totally
> separate from relativity but most relativists in this NG seem to be
> confused about that.
How about we (the physicists) tell us our theory and you tell us
yours.
> >
> >> Somehow
> >> Einstein's followers got it into their heads that Einstein had come up
> >> with a theory which didn't need the aether.
> >
> >Which it does not.
>
> The second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
> the aether would observe. From the PoV of physical interpretation he has
> incorporated those properties of the aether he needed to do the maths
> into the second postulate. If you say otherwise then you have to produce
> an alternative physical interpretation leading to the second postulate.
>
Why? I see no reason that a constructive (far better to use that word)
theory is required.
> >> The aether concept was
> >> ridiculed despite the fact that it had not been replaced. Remember it
> >> was required to justify the assumption of source independence, to
> >> explain action at a distance, to explain the physical nature of fields
> >> and for light waves to be physical waves in.
> >
> >No it is not.
>
> Explain. I'm not playing the yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is.....,
> game. I explain all my statements. Please do the same.
OK. I think this is a good place to start. Let us take the
electrostatic force between two charges. The force itself
is clearly physical, by your definition above. It is fully described
by a simple equation.
Do you feel that further explanation is required?
If so, what form do you think it should (or might) take?
--
Martin Hogbin
harry
Good to see the improvement. :-)
Still, you now introduced "semantic "double-speak" yourself: "preferred" can
mean different things. If you mean "preferred" in the sense that it is
special for nature - but not necessarily for us - then that's fine.
Apart of that, I agree with others that it the concept is *not*
meaningless - physical models (which belong to metaphysics) are useful for
many people so as to obtain intuitive understanding of how nature operates -
see the citation of Maxwell in a parallel thread. Thus, if a physical model
(for example of the atom) is meaningless for you, that's no problem. You can
simply stick to the related equations - the mathematical model.
Regards,
Harald
harry
"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns99FE8126D6193WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in
> news:1196932...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
>
>> Source independence does not follow from the PoR and "waves" belong to
>> ether models - the concept of a wave without something that waves is
>> meaningless.
>
> If it makes you any happier,
I'm not interested in happiness as goal for scientific endeavor. ;-)
> call it a 'moving, collocated electric field
> and perpendicular magnetic field' instead of a wave. Call it MCEFAPMF for
> short. Or call it a wavicle.
I don't care. There is no need for me to change the meaning of words.
However, your advice may be useful for Martin. :-)
> Do you object to both of those? If so, call it 'Sam' or 'George'. I don't
> care what you call it.
I have no objection if others call it "Sam" or George".
> It is still a MCEFAPMF that appears to move at c as measured by equipment
> that is in uniform motion regardless of the velocity of that equipment or
> of the source.
Sure - that's Einstein's second postulate. As he explained (translation
mine):
"That the here made assumption, which we want to call "Principle of the
constancy of light speed", in nature truly is fulfilled, is in no way self
evident. However, this becomes probable - at least for a coordinate system
in a certain state of motion - by the confirmations that Lorentzian theory,
which was based on the assumption of an ether in absolute rest, experienced
by experiment."
http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/E-1907.pdf
Harald
harry
Too bad fro GRT then! For according to GRT, space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of
light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time.
Harald
Tom Roberts
> according to GRT, space without ether is
> unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of
> light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time.
This is simply not true. You place too much weight on Einstein's remarks
during a symposium DEDICATED to the aether (you replay a translation of
his remarks almost verbatim). Note that even in those remarks, what
Einstein calls "aether" is UTTERLY UNLIKE the traditional medium meant
by the word (e.g. one cannot measure one's velocity relative to what he
meant by "aether").
Moreover, in GR there _ARE_ no "standards of space and time". That is,
there is nothing in the theory that provides a unique scale. Only
quantum mechanics gives a unique scale (e.g. atoms have a definite
size); no classical theory does so.
Tom Roberts
bz
news:1197034...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
>
> "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns99FE8126D6193WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in
>> news:1196932...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
>>
>>> Source independence does not follow from the PoR and "waves" belong to
>>> ether models - the concept of a wave without something that waves is
>>> meaningless.
>>
>> If it makes you any happier,
>
> I'm not interested in happiness as goal for scientific endeavor. ;-)
Happiness should always be a goal. :)
[quote from robert heinlein]
"This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's
side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else
to sustain them. Humouring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a
world in which happiness is always in short supply."
[unquote]
>
>> call it a 'moving, collocated electric field
>> and perpendicular magnetic field' instead of a wave. Call it MCEFAPMF
>> for short. Or call it a wavicle.
>
> I don't care. There is no need for me to change the meaning of words.
> However, your advice may be useful for Martin. :-)
I hope my advice is useful to someone. :)
>> Do you object to both of those? If so, call it 'Sam' or 'George'. I
>> don't care what you call it.
>
> I have no objection if others call it "Sam" or George".
>
>> It is still a MCEFAPMF that appears to move at c as measured by
>> equipment that is in uniform motion regardless of the velocity of that
>> equipment or of the source.
>
> Sure - that's Einstein's second postulate. As he explained (translation
> mine):
>
> "That the here made assumption, which we want to call "Principle of the
> constancy of light speed", in nature truly is fulfilled, is in no way
> self evident. However, this becomes probable - at least for a coordinate
> system in a certain state of motion - by the confirmations that
> Lorentzian theory, which was based on the assumption of an ether in
> absolute rest, experienced by experiment."
> http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/E-1907.pdf
Ser Gut.
A pleasure to read something besides the 'standard translation'[which I
think was German-->French-->English].
And, all our data seems to be consistent with SR [as extended by GR].
harry
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ZNc6j.3522$NY....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> harry wrote:
>> according to GRT, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space
>> there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility
>> of existence for standards of space and time.
>
> This is simply not true.
According to you, what Einstein claimed about his own theory was "simply not
true". I think that he had the right to state what his own theory implied,
just as Newton had the right to do so.
> You place too much weight on Einstein's remarks during a symposium
> DEDICATED to the aether (you replay a translation of his remarks almost
> verbatim).
In fact, his speach was dedicated to HIS INAUGURATION. And the "replay" was
not "almost" verbatim: it was a perfect copy-paste of it. :-)
> Note that even in those remarks, what Einstein calls "aether" is UTTERLY
> UNLIKE the traditional medium meant by the word (e.g. one cannot measure
> one's velocity relative to what he meant by "aether").
That was not new at all, and you know that very well - the same applied to
Lorentz's ether. Also, the modern atom is similarly UTTERLY UNLIKE the Greek
atom. People understand words by the way they are used.
> Moreover, in GR there _ARE_ no "standards of space and time". That is,
> there is nothing in the theory that provides a unique scale. Only quantum
> mechanics gives a unique scale (e.g. atoms have a definite size); no
> classical theory does so.
He did not mean any "unique scale" but the existence of such scales
("measuring-rods and clocks").
Cheers,
Harald
John Kennaugh
As Einstein pointed out the word 'aether' has changed its meaning many
times and in 1920 Einstein was trying to redefine it yet again. In what
way would what you are suggesting be different to renaming the aether,
'space'?
>......
>>
>> Physical interpretation should go along with maths as they mutually
>> discipline each other. Its no use having a physical understanding if the
>> maths derived from it give the wrong answer (ref Rayleigh) and it is no
>> use having the right maths on their own (Ref Wein) as a physical
>> understanding which allows those maths to be derived from it gives an
>> insight into nature which the equation itself lacks.
>>
>> Basically physics abandoned physical interpretation as an essential aim
>> in physical theory because it wanted to accept a mathematics model which
>> had no conceivable physical interpretation other than the one they
>> rejected vehemently. They changed the rules as to what a theory is, as
>> to what physics is, so that maths could be accepted as a theory.
>> --
>> 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
>
>In my opinion most of the ills of modern physics can be attributed to
>a subtle mix-up between certain abstract mathematical notions (like
>spacetime continuum, probability density etc.) and physical notions
>(like space continuum, energy density etc.).
As Dr Scott Murray put it - the jumbling of physical and metaphysical
quantities.
"We must be very careful indeed to differentiate between the physical
world and the metaphysical world. In the last activities like
prediction" and its associated "probability" have roles to play, but in
the physical world of inanimate Nature they have none. I would guess
that nine tenths of the confusion which exists in physics today can be
attributed to past and present failures to maintain this very important
distinction. How often does one hear a remark like: "the photocell
current will increase because the probability of photons arriving has
increased"? That just can't be true! An electric current is a physical
thing that cannot be influenced by a "probability", which is
metaphysical. It is equally wrong, and for the same reason, to say that
television signals reach the aerial on my roof "because of Maxwell's
equations". Maxwell's equations and the probability theory may be useful
in describing physical events but they do not control them. From now on
let us try to get this distinction right, for there are penalties if we
fail."
> We need to a
>distinguish between abstract and physical entities. If we have
>complete information about certain entity and can mentally visualize
>it, then that entity must be a physical entity (e.g. Solar System,
>Sound Waves etc.).
I'm not sure we ever have 'complete information'. I am sure an electron
is a physical entity but I doubt we have complete information about it.
> If we have complete information about certain
>entity and still cannot mentally visualize it, then that entity must
>be an abstract entity (e.g. 4-D spacetime).
We have limited ability to visualise. I am sure that 'Time' is not an
abstract entity but I am not sure I can visualise it. I'm not sure that
it is that difficult to differentiate between physical and metaphysical.
A 'field' may be physical = a stress pattern in the aether.
or
A field may be metaphysical - a field of influence.
You cannot say 'there is no aether' and continue to assume a field is
physically real and capable of an existence. If it is a 'field of
influence' it cannot exist without a source of influence.
>However, if we know
>certain entity to be physical and still cannot visualize it then it
>will imply that we do not possess complete information about that
>entity (e.g. electron, proton etc.)
See my post in response to Martin Hogpin.
--
John Kennaugh Schrodingers Cat - when you open the box the only thing which
changes is your knowledge - a metaphysical quantity.
John Kennaugh
In physical terms source independence comes from the idea that the speed
of light is controlled by the aether (Maxwell) and therefore cannot be
affected by the speed of the source. Therefore if an experiment could be
devised to prove source independence it would show the existence of the
aether.
> The last one (which you have obviously added to try to
>include the aether)
A lot of modern physics is deduced. No one has seen photons, their
existence is deduced from the photoelectric effect.
>depends entirely on what theory you use to deduce
>its existence. If you assume LET the you deduce the aether to exist,
Maxwell actually - and long before.
> which
>by your definition makes it a physical thing.
If it exists it is a physical thing yes.
> If, on the other hand, you
>assume relativity then the aether does not exist and is therefore not a
>physical thing, but spacetime is.
Relativity is a principle theory and does not say that the aether does
not exist. It has absolutely nothing to say on the subject. The no
aether doctrine is totally separate from relativity. A principle theory
makes no attempt to deal with physical issues.
"These [principle theories] employ the analytic, not the synthetic,
method. The elements which form their bases and starting-point are not
hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general
characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to
mathematically formulated criteria which these separate processes or the
theoretical representations of them have to satisfy."
He describes his postulates as the principles on which his theory is
based. He describes SR as 'putting forward no specific hypothesis.
If you are saying that space-time is a physical entity rather than a
mathematical construction then that is a departure from relativity as a
principle theory. You are free to argue that if you wish. But if you
claim no aether then space is empty of anything which can take part in a
physical process so a more complex arrangement where space and time
become part of a single entity would mean the only physical part is
time. If you assume that space has in it physical 'stuff' capable of
taking part in a physical process you have reinvented the aether and
your 'space-time' becomes 'aether-time'.
>
>To say you prefer a theory based on physical things is therefore
>meaningless.
>> Physical interpretation - the constructional explanation of a theory in
>> terms of physical things, physical properties, physical effects and
>> physical processes.
>
>If you said 'constructional' it would make more sense.
Physical interpretation is a perfectly good description
"Interpretation looms as the major stumbling block to the joining-up of
mathematics with physics. The attitude prevalent today is that the main
problem in theoretical physics is to hit upon the right mathematical
formalism, and that physical interpretation will follow as a simple
-perhaps even unnecessary - adjunct. In other words, the math is the
hard part and interpretation is practically automatic. But the facts of
the history of science point in precisely the opposite direction. They
suggest that again and again physicists have from diverse viewpoints hit
upon similar-looking mathematics, and have agreed about formulas, but
have differed, sometimes bitterly and permanently, on the physical
interpretation needed to give operational meaning to the formulas.
Quantum measurement theory is a particularly notorious example of how
even perfect agreement about the mathematics leaves wide areas for
disagreement about interpretation. In short, history can be read as
saying that the mathematics is the easy part... the hard part the part
that perennially gives rise to lasting disputes among intelligent people
- being the interpretation." T E. Phipps
>> Metaphysical - things like uncertainty, probability, prediction,
>> knowledge, an equation (although the ink and paper may be physical),
>> mathematics, wishful thinking, a field of influence, hope. None of which
>> can have a measurable effect on physical things in the natural world.
>> >> Physicists up until, and including Einstein would not have had to ask
>> >> the question "What is meant by physical interpretation?"
>> >
>> >How do you know that?
>>
>> At that time all physical theory included a physical interpretation. If
>> it was a mathematical relationship without any physical interpretation
>> it was called a 'law'. e.g. Charle's law.
>
>So Newton's laws are not physical but kinetic theory is. I have never
>heard that distinction made before.
OK I'll give you that one.
>> >> It was
>> >> considered as an essential part of science and had played a vital role
>> >> in physics. Students today are taught that we cannot hope to understand
>> >> nature. All we can do is construct models of it. Physical interpretation
>> >> is considered as a poor alternative to a mathematical model rather than
>> >> what had been the case in the past that both together constituted a
>> >> theory.
>> >
>> >You mind is stuck in a one-track definition of 'understand'. When you
>> >say 'understand' you mean describe in terms that are familiar to us.
>>
>> I was expressing the modern viewpoint as stated by Tom Roberts. He uses
>> the word 'know' rather than 'understand' but it means the same in this
>> context.
>>
>> "In the abstract, it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human
>> beings can aspire to is to make models of the world -- we can never
>> actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
>> models and test them, which is known as science." Tom Roberts
>
>Yes, I agree fully with Tom
Then why did you query what I wrote which said the same thing?
I don't think it comes into black body radiation which is what we are
discussing.
>> The physical nature of light as waves had been deduced from the numerous
>> physical wavelike properties it exhibits. It appeared from this
>> experiment that the physical nature of light deduced from previous
>> experiments is inconsistent with this experiment. Planck explained the
>> black body curve by deducing from it that light has a different physical
>> nature to what was previously thought. While it is a model in the sense
>> that it has had to be deduced rather than directly observed (which is
>> impossible), a better physical model is progress in our understanding.
>>
>> >
>> >> Maxwell's electrodynamics was based upon an understanding of what was
>> >> going on in the physical sense. The idea of aethers had been an
>> >> essential part of physics for a couple of hundred years first introduced
>> >> to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a distance forces. The
>> >> aether is sneered at these days but it was argued that a magnet could
>> >> not pick up a pin if there was genuinely nothing in the space between
>> >> them. Think about it and you can see where they were coming from.
>> >
>> >Yes, a religious belief that everything must be just like we find things in
>> >everyday life.
>>
>> A rather short sighted comment. Maybe you can explain how a magnet picks
>> up a pin.
>
>Let us talk about electrostatic attraction, as I do below, as it is simpler
>in many ways.
If you prefer answer the question as to how a statically charged rod
picks up a ball of pith.
>> >> Later
>> >> the luminiferous aether was hypothesised for light waves to propagate
>> >> in. Maxwell's theory was accepted not because of its accurate
>> >> predictions - they were not testable for some time - but on the elegance
>> >> of the physical interpretation. What Maxwell did (with help from
>> >> Faraday) was unify 3 branches of physics and show that only one aether
>> >> is required to explain action at a distance and light propagation while
>> >> at the same time showing a link between light and charge and putting it
>> >> on a sound mathematical footing. Charge causes a stress in the aether -
>> >> that stress pattern is what is described as a 'field' and that stress
>> >> can propagate through the aether at c, as derived from two properties of
>> >> the aether its permittivity and permeability. Again the authority of
>> >> Maxwell derives from the fact that he was able to describe in physical
>> >> terms what is going on and it fitted together so elegantly.
>> >
>> >More so without the aether.
>>
>> Without the physical interpretation all you have are equations which are
>> metaphysical. You really need to understand the difference. The TV
>> signal reaching my aerial is not carried there by Maxwell's equations
>> neither does it propagate from the aerial because of Maxwell's
>> equations. Energy (that is physical as it has measurable physical
>> effects) leaves the transmitter aerial (also physical) and arrives at my
>> aerial (also physical) the energy causes current to flow (also physical
>> - it can cause physical change).....
>
>Your distinctions seem arbitrary and personal.
a statement you do not attempt to justify.
>> You might like to ponder the fact while you look at you high definition,
>> multi-channel, interactive colour TV with high quality sound that
>> physics has no better idea now as to what it is which travels from the
>> transmitter to the aerial on your roof than it did 100 years ago. You
>> might wonder why technology has made such progress and physics hasn't.
>
>The technology of TV and radio is based entirely on Maxwell's equations.
No. only the aerial.
>> >> Lorentz started with a physical interpretation proposed by Fitzgerald
>> >> that if the arm of the MMX apparatus got shorter due to travelling
>> >> against the aether by just the right amount it explains the null result.
>
>> >But what 'physically' causes this?
>>
>> Premature interjection. The explanation followed.
>>
>> >> Lorentz postulated that matter is made up of a matrix of positive and
>> >> negative charges held together by action at a distance forces
>> >> transferred via the aether. When the aether was moving he calculated
>> >> that the matter would get shortened in the direction of travel of the
>> >> aether by the required amount (note Bohr's model of the atom was much
>> >> later). Lorentz derived the Lorentz transforms based on an assumption of
>> >> the physical processes involved.
>
>> >
>> >Which he simply made up to suit the observations.
>>
>> And works mathematically. It is called 'deducing the physical processes
>> involved from the physical effects produced' or simply coming up with a
>> physical theory which fits the physical facts.
>
>There is nothing specially physical (or even constructive) about it. Lorentz
>simply proposed that things shrink along their direction of motion through
>the aether.
He did not 'simply propose' he showed mathematically how the action at a
distance force between charges - which theory stated were transferred by
the aether - would change if the aether is moving. The length of an
object depends upon the action at a distance forces between charges.
>> > I have no objection to
>> >that but I am surprised that you do not.
>>
>> Why? I may believe he came up with the wrong answer but I have no
>> objection whatever to his approach. You had this massive evidence in
>> favour of light being waves. Maxwell had combined 3 branches of physics
>> so now a single aether explained action at a distance and light
>> propagation. He showed the electromagnetic nature of light. His impact
>> was massive. Everything fitted except this one experiment - the MMX. It
>> was perfectly logical to look for a fix.
>>
>> Einstein is a different matter. By then the particulate nature of light
>> was known. He himself had got a Nobel prize for explaining the
>> photoelectric effect and he ignored it. He carried on as if Maxwell's
>> wave in aether theory was in no way compromised by the fact that light
>> isn't waves. He tried, and failed to come up with a better theory than
>> Lorentz's. SR is simply Lorentz's aether theory without the theory and
>> with the aether disguised.
>
>Or without the aether.
Believe on.
>> >> Even today I understand that if you
>> >> replace Lorentz's matrix of charged particles with electrons in orbit
>> >> around nuclei then if you assume the action at a distance force is
>> >> transferred by the aether and the aether is in motion the orbits become
>> >> elliptical - causing length contraction.
>
>No. There is no aether theory that shows this. There are no aether theories
>at all
There are still aether theorists I assure you. Try doing some research.
I'm not one of them but I respect their PoV.
>> >> What should have happened is that Einstein should have come up with an
>> >> alternative physical explanation which did not require Lorentz's unique
>> >> FoR.
>> >
>> >Hi did!
>>
>> Not one which gained acceptance. His physical explanation was that the
>> nature of the aether is such that every observer is naturally stationary
>> w.r.t it - which is silly.
>
>That is not Einstein's description. He says the aether is unnecessary.
Oh where does he say that? I think - until someone shows me otherwise -
that this is one of the myths taught to students. The following are some
of the things he *actually* said:
"..the ether hypothesis was bound always to play some part in physical
science, even if at first only a latent part. "
" It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility."
"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..... 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."
"...the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the
special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against
ascribing a state of motion to the ether."
"Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the
ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis.... But on
the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of
the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that
empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of
mechanics do not harmonize with this view."
".. the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"
All from his 1920 lecture.
Now perhaps you can supply a quote which substantiates your claim.
>>It doesn't make it any less silly to rename
>> the 'aether which every observer is stationary w.r.t' - 'the observers
>> FoR' and treat that as if it were an aether stationary w.r.t the
>> observer - having the same properties.
>>
>> Of course by declaring SR to be a 'principle theory' a mathematical
>> model which makes no attempt at physical interpretation it does not
>> attempt to address questions related to what is physically responsible
>> for what it is describing and therefore has nothing whatsoever to say on
>> the subject of whether there is or there isn't an aether.
>
>Yes, Einstein did not say the aether did not exist, just that it is not
>necessary. Since then it has not proved either interesting or useful
>and it is now regarded as a pointless metaphysical creation.
You can do the maths without mention of the aether because the maths are
based upon two postulate the second of which incorporates all the
properties of an aether, stationary w.r.t the observer, necessary to do
the maths. SR has no feasible physical interpretation because there is
no physical justification for the second postulate other than Einstein's
"aether without the immobility of Lorentz's". Basically the MMX showed
that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether and Einstein is in
effect saying that Nature must therefore supply an aether which allows
that to be so. When no one bought that, SR became a 'principle theory' a
mathematical model with no physical interpretation to explain what the
maths is describing.
The alternative was to ditch Maxwell's aether theory and assume there is
no aether in which case there is no need to try and explain why every
observer is stationary w.r.t the aether. With no aether the speed of
light cannot be controlled by the aether. If space is empty of anything
which can take part in a physical process by definition there can be no
physical process. The only physical process which can control the speed
of light is that taking place in the source - it is total perversion to
suggest that in the absence of an aether the speed at which light
separates from the source is somehow controlled by an observation which
may take place in the future.
>>The accepted
>> 'no aether' doctrine which has been accepted in physics is totally
>> separate from relativity but most relativists in this NG seem to be
>> confused about that.
>
>How about we (the physicists) tell us our theory and you tell us
>yours.
Ungrammatical.
>> >> Somehow
>> >> Einstein's followers got it into their heads that Einstein had come up
>> >> with a theory which didn't need the aether.
>> >
>> >Which it does not.
>>
>> The second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
>> the aether would observe. From the PoV of physical interpretation he has
>> incorporated those properties of the aether he needed to do the maths
>> into the second postulate. If you say otherwise then you have to produce
>> an alternative physical interpretation leading to the second postulate.
>>
>Why? I see no reason that a constructive (far better to use that word)
>theory is required.
You don't - I do. End of story.
>> >> The aether concept was
>> >> ridiculed despite the fact that it had not been replaced. Remember it
>> >> was required to justify the assumption of source independence, to
>> >> explain action at a distance, to explain the physical nature of fields
>> >> and for light waves to be physical waves in.
>> >
>> >No it is not.
>>
>> Explain. I'm not playing the yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is.....,
>> game. I explain all my statements. Please do the same.
>
>OK. I think this is a good place to start. Let us take the
>electrostatic force between two charges.
Good.
> The force itself
>is clearly physical, by your definition above.
Agreed
> It is fully described
>by a simple equation.
Which is metaphysical. A charge does not move because an equation says
it does anymore than the tide comes in because the tide tables say it
should.
>Do you feel that further explanation is required?
Yes. In the case of the tides clearly a physical interpretation is
possible involving movement of sun and moon. In the case of action at a
distance force on a charge the existence of an aether is one
explanation. OTOH at some point something may be incapable of further
explanation either because it is as fundamental as it is possible to get
or because we have not the insight to see a need to reduce it to
something more fundamental.
>If so, what form do you think it should (or might) take?
One possibility is the traditional one - the aether. I don't
particularly like the aether as a concept so let us assume 'no aether'
and look at the alternatives.
Another alternative is that a charge gives off particles and these
travel and somehow take with them force. I don't go much on that idea it
is really just a digital version of the aether and poses just as many
problems.
If one decides that there is no aether then one should apply that
universally not selectively.
If there is no aether then it cannot be responsible for action at a
distance forces. When the aether was proposed, action at a distance
seemed to fly in the face of all other known phenomena. To move
something you need a connecting rod. Now we no better. We know that the
connecting rod is held together by action at a distance forces.
Ultimately *all* force acts at a distance and one is lead to the
conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept this as
fundamental without need of explanation. An axiom of physics.
If so then a 'field' becomes a metaphysical 'field of influence'. A
mapping of the direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on
a charge *if* a charge were placed at a given point.
In which case a field cannot exist without a source of influence and
cannot store energy nor propagate through space and bang goes
Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics. As they are seriously compromised by
the discovery of the photon I don't see that as a problem.
If a photon has associated with it electromagnetic fields then a photon
must contain charge again because a field of influence cannot exist
without the source of that influence but then Maxwell's equations are
based solely on the relationships relating to charge so there must be a
strong link between light and charge so that is perhaps not surprising.
If you retain the discipline forced on you by physical interpretation
then ditching the aether concept has unavoidable consequences. One can
understand Einstein's reluctance to disown the aether. Einstein saw the
problem along the same lines as I do.
"The next position which it was possible to take up is the following.
The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not
states of a medium, [stress in the aether JK] .. but they are
independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly
like the atoms of ponderable matter. [a field is some sort of 'physical
stuff' JK] 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"
[my comments in parenthesis]
Einstein's heroes were Maxwell and Lorentz. My conclusion that a field
is metaphysical would not appeal to Einstein. To him a field must be
physically real and faced with a choice of having it as some sort of
'physical stuff' concluded that it was simpler to stick with the aether
and have a field as a stress in the aether.
One can understand why the mathematicians who took over physics from the
natural philosophers would want to be free from the discipline imposed
by physical interpretation. Without that discipline you can get rid of
the aether but retain the useful idea that a field is physically real
without having to explain how that can possibly be. Without that
discipline a 'field' can have whatever properties physics wants it to
have. e.g. A Higgs field can convert a massless particle into a massive
one ?
Bill Hobba
By 'preferred' I mean it in principle defines a frame that is different from
other frames eg an aether wind.
Thanks
Bill
Martin Hogbin
*********************************************************
If it is OK with you I suggest that we drop all the arguments above and
start here, unless you feel that any points you have made are particularly
important. I am not trying to avoid any particular issues I am just trying to
avoid the 'you are an idiot because you do not agree with me' mentality
that we see here most of the time.
If you agree I suggest that you delete everything above.
> >Why? I see no reason that a constructive (far better to use that word)
> >theory is required.
>
> You don't - I do. End of story.
Well, I agree with you totally on that one. The crux of our difference is
that you prefer, maybe even demand, a constructive theory whilst I
prefer a principle one.
We could just leave it there, but then maybe I could try to persuade
you a bit.
> > I think this is a good place to start. Let us take the
> >electrostatic force between two charges.
>
> Good.
>
> > The force itself
> >is clearly physical, by your definition above.
>
> Agreed
>
> > It is fully described
> >by a simple equation.
>
> Which is metaphysical. A charge does not move because an equation says
> it does anymore than the tide comes in because the tide tables say it
> should.
Here you are trying to answer questions that physics does not try address.
Why does the charge move? Why is the universe as it is? These are
questions for philosophy and religion.
> >Do you feel that further explanation is required?
>
> Yes. In the case of the tides clearly a physical interpretation is
> possible involving movement of sun and moon. In the case of action at a
> distance force on a charge the existence of an aether is one
> explanation. OTOH at some point something may be incapable of further
> explanation either because it is as fundamental as it is possible to get
> or because we have not the insight to see a need to reduce it to
> something more fundamental.
As you may have guessed I see no need for further explanation.
Here are some of my reasons.
It is hard to see how an explanation could not be much more
complicated than the thing it is trying to explain. That seems
a bad start. I would hope that an explanation would be simpler
than the thing being explained.
The principle 'explanation' is an end to it *. There is no more
'explaining to do. The problem with constructive theories is that
they create many more questions than they answer. What is
the aether made of? How do the particles of electricity or
whatever interact? What are they made of? And so on, ad
infinitum.
* Of course it does not stop there in reality because experiment
has shown us that Coulomb's law breaks down if we move the
charges about or if we look on a very small scale but here we
are considering the hypothetical case in which Coulomb's law
is exact.
> >If so, what form do you think it should (or might) take?
>
> One possibility is the traditional one - the aether. I don't
> particularly like the aether as a concept so let us assume 'no aether'
> and look at the alternatives.
>
> Another alternative is that a charge gives off particles and these
> travel and somehow take with them force. I don't go much on that idea it
> is really just a digital version of the aether and poses just as many
> problems.
>
> If one decides that there is no aether then one should apply that
> universally not selectively.
>
> If there is no aether then it cannot be responsible for action at a
> distance forces. When the aether was proposed, action at a distance
> seemed to fly in the face of all other known phenomena.
Gravity??
> To move
> something you need a connecting rod. Now we no better. We know that the
> connecting rod is held together by action at a distance forces.
> Ultimately *all* force acts at a distance and one is lead to the
> conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept this as
> fundamental without need of explanation.
Yes, you seem to be accepting a principle explanation here..
> An axiom of physics.
More an observation, I would say, but the distinction is not that clear.
> If so then a 'field' becomes a metaphysical 'field of influence'. A
> mapping of the direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on
> a charge *if* a charge were placed at a given point.
That is fine (for the hypothetical case we are discussing).
> In which case a field cannot exist without a source of influence and
> cannot store energy nor propagate through space and bang goes
> Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics. As they are seriously compromised by
> the discovery of the photon I don't see that as a problem.
As I said above, I was hoping to discuss a hypothetical case in which
Coulomb's law is exact, always.
> If a photon has associated with it electromagnetic fields then a photon
> must contain charge again because a field of influence cannot exist
> without the source of that influence but then Maxwell's equations are
> based solely on the relationships relating to charge so there must be a
> strong link between light and charge so that is perhaps not surprising.
>
> If you retain the discipline forced on you by physical interpretation
> then ditching the aether concept has unavoidable consequences. One can
> understand Einstein's reluctance to disown the aether. Einstein saw the
> problem along the same lines as I do.
We are now digressing into what you think someone else thought.
Perhaps we could conclude with the simple case of electrostatics before
we move on. We seem to agree on some things.
--
Martin Hogbin
maxwell
wrote:
> "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:UT6ncoPm...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > Martin Hogbin wrote:
>
> > >news:ZWn0NLNT...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> > >> Martin Hogbin wrote:
>
Coulomb invented his 'Law' so that it would resemble Newton's
gravitational law. His equipment was incapable of the accuracy he
implied.
Martin Hogbin
"maxwell" <sp...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:c3c333ee-fd9f-43e7...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 7, 2:42 pm, "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@hogbin.org>
> wrote:
> > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > has shown us that Coulomb's law breaks down if we move the
> > charges about or if we look on a very small scale but here we
> > are considering the hypothetical case in which Coulomb's law
> > is exact.
>
> gravitational law. His equipment was incapable of the accuracy he
> implied.
No deviations from Coulomb's law have ever been detected in the
static non-quantum case.
Regardless of the above, I was talking about a hypothetical case
in which Coulomb's law is exact, always.
--
Martin Hogbin
Pmb
"maxwell" <sp...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:c3c333ee-fd9f-43e7...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Do you have an proof that Coulomb was doing this? It makes no sense to me.
Coulomb was merely taking measurements from lab experiments and postulated
an expression for the the force law between (ideally) two point charges.
That it happened to look like Newton's law of gravitation is merely a fact
of nature. Do you claim that Coulomb could have "invented" another equation
in which it wouldn' resemble Newton's law of gravity? If so then please give
an example.
Pete
John Kennaugh
>
>If it is OK with you I suggest that we drop all the arguments above and
>start here,
> unless you feel that any points you have made are particularly
>important. I am not trying to avoid any particular issues I am just trying to
>avoid the 'you are an idiot because you do not agree with me' mentality
>that we see here most of the time.
>
>If you agree I suggest that you delete everything above.
Seems sensible
>> >Why? I see no reason that a constructive (far better to use that word)
>> >theory is required.
>>
>> You don't - I do. End of story.
>
>Well, I agree with you totally on that one. The crux of our difference is
>that you prefer, maybe even demand, a constructive theory whilst I
>prefer a principle one.
>
>We could just leave it there, but then maybe I could try to persuade
>you a bit.
>
>> > I think this is a good place to start. Let us take the
>> >electrostatic force between two charges.
>>
>> Good.
>>
>> > The force itself
>> >is clearly physical, by your definition above.
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>> > It is fully described
>> >by a simple equation.
>>
>> Which is metaphysical. A charge does not move because an equation says
>> it does anymore than the tide comes in because the tide tables say it
>> should.
>
>Here you are trying to answer questions that physics does not try address.
>Why does the charge move? Why is the universe as it is? These are
>questions for philosophy and religion.
No the Classical answer up to and including Einstein was that a charge
moves because of stress in the aether. The question is whether it is
irreducible and therefore to be considered as one of the building blocks
on which we build. An element in the "simple formal scheme" on which you
construct theory or whether it needs/is capable of greater
understanding. 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. Maxwell's
electrodynamics was falsified by the MMX so something needed to change.
Either a fix was needed for Maxwell's electrodynamics or a more radical
approach.
>> >Do you feel that further explanation is required?
>>
>> Yes. In the case of the tides clearly a physical interpretation is
>> possible involving movement of sun and moon. In the case of action at a
>> distance force on a charge the existence of an aether is one
>> explanation. OTOH at some point something may be incapable of further
>> explanation either because it is as fundamental as it is possible to get
>> or because we have not the insight to see a need to reduce it to
>> something more fundamental.
>
>As you may have guessed I see no need for further explanation.
>Here are some of my reasons.
>
>It is hard to see how an explanation could not be much more
>complicated than the thing it is trying to explain. That seems
>a bad start. I would hope that an explanation would be simpler
>than the thing being explained.
Historically the explanation helped explain other things as well - like
what light waves are waves in. There may be better ways of looking at it
but I think you need to have respect for the people at the time. It did
all seem to fit together exceedingly well with Maxwell which is why
Einstein extended that approach rather than abandoning it.
The aether concept predates Newton. The genius of Newton was in seeing
that something that was taken for granted actually needed an
explanation. Prior to that the explanation would be that an apple falls
to earth because there is nothing to stop it doing so or perhaps because
nothing falls upwards.
>> To move
>> something you need a connecting rod. Now we no better. We know that the
>> connecting rod is held together by action at a distance forces.
>> Ultimately *all* force acts at a distance and one is lead to the
>> conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept this as
>> fundamental without need of explanation.
>
>Yes, you seem to be accepting a principle explanation here..
>
>> An axiom of physics.
>
>More an observation, I would say, but the distinction is not that clear.
Can we agree on 'Something so fundamental that it is assumed that no
more explicit explanation is possible'.
Our ideas change. At one time a proton was considered to be a
fundamental particle. Physics now believes that it and other particles
contain sub-particles.
The opposite is possible as in this case - something which had an
explanation may make more sense if you consider it to be fundamental. So
long as in making that change one does it in an orderly and self
consistent manner.
>> If so then a 'field' becomes a metaphysical 'field of influence'. A
>> mapping of the direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on
>> a charge *if* a charge were placed at a given point.
>
>That is fine (for the hypothetical case we are discussing).
I'm surprised you say that. Its implications are huge.
>> In which case a field cannot exist without a source of influence and
>> cannot store energy nor propagate through space and bang goes
>> Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics. As they are seriously compromised by
>> the discovery of the photon I don't see that as a problem.
>As I said above, I was hoping to discuss a hypothetical case in which
>Coulomb's law is exact, always.
I don't understand what point you are making. 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.
Action at a distance was assumed to be transferred by stress in the
aether.
A field is a stress pattern in the aether.
That stress can propagate through the aether at c carrying energy with
it - which is what light is.
If you are going to find an alternative explanation to action at a
distance force it has to apply to all. The change from the aether
concept has to be done in an orderly and self consistent manner.
>> If a photon has associated with it electromagnetic fields then a photon
>> must contain charge again because a field of influence cannot exist
>> without the source of that influence but then Maxwell's equations are
>> based solely on the relationships relating to charge so there must be a
>> strong link between light and charge so that is perhaps not surprising.
>>
>> If you retain the discipline forced on you by physical interpretation
>> then ditching the aether concept has unavoidable consequences. One can
>> understand Einstein's reluctance to disown the aether. Einstein saw the
>> problem along the same lines as I do.
>
>We are now digressing into what you think someone else thought.
When I put forward a similar argument to what Einstein wrote (below) I
was called an idiot - by Tom Roberts I think. As Einstein has explained
the dilemma I quote him as people are more reluctant to call him an
idiot.
>> "The next position which it was possible to take up is the following.
>> The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not
>> states of a medium, [stress in the aether JK] .. but they are
>> independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly
>> like the atoms of ponderable matter. [a field is some sort of 'physical
>> stuff' JK] 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"
>> [my comments in parenthesis]
>>
>> Einstein's heroes were Maxwell and Lorentz. My conclusion that a field
>> is metaphysical would not appeal to Einstein. To him a field must be
>> physically real and faced with a choice of having it as some sort of
>> 'physical stuff' concluded that it was simpler to stick with the aether
>> and have a field as a stress in the aether.
He therefore turned his back on the approach we are discussing and stuck
with the aether. You may believe otherwise - most around here do - but
none can quote me anything he said which is inconsistent with the
picture I have built up by studying the history and by carefully reading
every quote of his which anyone has pointed out to me.
>> One can understand why the mathematicians who took over physics from the
>> natural philosophers would want to be free from the discipline imposed
>> by physical interpretation. Without that discipline you can get rid of
>> the aether but retain the useful idea that a field is physically real
>> without having to explain how that can possibly be. Without that
>> discipline a 'field' can have whatever properties physics wants it to
>> have. e.g. A Higgs field can convert a massless particle into a massive
>> one ?
>
>Perhaps we could conclude with the simple case of electrostatics before
>we move on. We seem to agree on some things.
My position is straight forward. I do not like the aether concept but do
not have a fundamental objection to it other than it seems highly
unlikely for many reasons. To a great extent the reason the aether was
hypothesised in the first place was due to a lack of understanding of
the nature of matter. I am only too happy to look for an alternative.
There may be others but the obvious alternative is to assume that action
at a distance is a fundamental of nature. The only thing against it is
that it is counter intuitive but that is because our thinking is
conditioned by the macro world and we cannot see what is actually going
on. The oak desk in front of me seems solid and static and yet I accept
that it is made up of molecules which are not only a hive of activity
but consist mainly of empty space. This too is counter intuitive. I
accept that, so see no reason not to accept the possibility that all
force ultimately acts 'at a distance' and that that is just the way
nature works.
My position is however totally uncompromising in that if you want to go
that route then you have to apply this departure from the classical
approach of Maxwell's aether in an orderly and self consistent manner
and accept where it leads. You cannot mix and match. You cannot keep the
bits of old theory you want to keep because they are useful and you
cannot apply the new idea selectively.
The old was:
Action at a distance was assumed to be transferred by stress in the
aether.
A field is a stress pattern in the aether.
That stress can propagate through the aether at c and take energy with
it which is what light is.
The new becomes:
Action at a distance is fundamental.
A field is metaphysical - a field of influence.
A field of influence can only exist where there is a source of
influence. It is not physical. It cannot store energy. It cannot
propagate away from the source of influence.
So Maxwell's theory is dead. The fields on which it is based are now
metaphysical fields so it has no valid physical interpretation. There is
no theoretical structure which can result in physical energy being
transferred. His equations are now empirical and useful for engineers
but are not based on any sort of physical understanding. Perhaps the
only thing we can retain from Maxwell is that there must be some link
between light and charge. Maxwell's equations are derived from empirical
relationships relating to charge and they give accurate predictions in
most circumstances.
One must seriously question the status of SR. On the strength of the
authority of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics Einstein ditched two axioms
of physics and ended up with the whole of space and time being distorted
in order to retain Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics - and that no-longer
has any authority.
I could go on.
The implications above are bypassed by Modern physics which may be
summed up as "Forget physics just do the maths".
John Kennaugh
>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ZWn0NLNT...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> Metaphysical - things like uncertainty, probability, prediction,
>> knowledge, an equation (although the ink and paper may be physical),
>> mathematics, wishful thinking, a field of influence, hope. None of which
>> can have a measurable effect on physical things in the natural world.
>
>Liek the ether .. it cannot be detected. Its in the realms of metaphysics
>as you cannot conduct an experiemnt that determines wheterh or not it
>exists.
The aether can be detected. SR is based upon the assumption that our
speed w.r.t the aether is always zero so we cannot detect *motion* w.r.t
the aether but the aether was assumed to have another property which
*can* be detected.
In physical terms source independence comes from the idea that the speed
of light is controlled by the aether (Maxwell) and therefore cannot be
affected by the speed of the source. Therefore if an experiment could be
devised to prove source independence it would show the existence of the
aether so it can indeed be detected if a suitable experiment can be
devised.
People around here assure me that experiments have been devised which
show source independence.
In physical terms if the speed of light is not a function of the
physical processes which generate it, it must be the result of some
other physical process. By definition a physical process requires
something physical. If there is no aether then there is nothing physical
in the vicinity of a source so there can be no other physical process -
so the speed of light must be the result of the only remaining physical
process - that taking place in the source = source dependence.
Take your pick. Either light speed is source dependent or there is some
other physical process involved which requires something physical.
Traditionally that 'something physical' is called the aether.
--
John Kennaugh
Martin Hogbin
You seem to be concentrating on the historical aspect of the subject.
What I am trying to find out is your opinion of a hypothetical case
in which Coulomb's law is exact in all circumstances.
In that hypothetical case would you be happy to accept Coulomb's
law as fundamental or would you want some explanation?
> >> >Do you feel that further explanation is required?
> >>
> >> Yes. In the case of the tides clearly a physical interpretation is
> >> possible involving movement of sun and moon. In the case of action at a
> >> distance force on a charge the existence of an aether is one
> >> explanation. OTOH at some point something may be incapable of further
> >> explanation either because it is as fundamental as it is possible to get
> >> or because we have not the insight to see a need to reduce it to
> >> something more fundamental.
> >
> >As you may have guessed I see no need for further explanation.
> >Here are some of my reasons.
> >
> >It is hard to see how an explanation could not be much more
> >complicated than the thing it is trying to explain. That seems
> >a bad start. I would hope that an explanation would be simpler
> >than the thing being explained.
>
> Historically the explanation helped explain other things as well - like
> what light waves are waves in.
Not really. Coulomb's law contains has time dependence, it is
not part of Maxwell's equations. Put simply, it is wrong. But,
if it were right, would you want an explanation.
> There may be better ways of looking at it
> but I think you need to have respect for the people at the time. It did
> all seem to fit together exceedingly well with Maxwell which is why
> Einstein extended that approach rather than abandoning it.
I do not criticise the physicists of the day they obviously had to
come up with new ideas to explain new discoveries. But it is
not the history of the subject that I want to talk about.
> >The principle 'explanation' is an end to it *. There is no more
> >'explaining to do. The problem with constructive theories is that
> >they create many more questions than they answer. What is
> >the aether made of? How do the particles of electricity or
> >whatever interact? What are they made of? And so on, ad
> >infinitum.
What is your response to this point.
> >> When the aether was proposed, action at a distance
> >> seemed to fly in the face of all other known phenomena.
> >
> >Gravity??
>
> The aether concept predates Newton.
Gravity as a known phenomenon predates both.
> The genius of Newton was in seeing
> that something that was taken for granted actually needed an
> explanation. Prior to that the explanation would be that an apple falls
> to earth because there is nothing to stop it doing so or perhaps because
> nothing falls upwards.
But Newton's explanation took the form of a formula. It was a principle
explanation not a constructive one.
> >> To move
> >> something you need a connecting rod. Now we no better. We know that the
> >> connecting rod is held together by action at a distance forces.
> >> Ultimately *all* force acts at a distance and one is lead to the
> >> conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept this as
> >> fundamental without need of explanation.
> >
> >Yes, you seem to be accepting a principle explanation here..
> >
> >> An axiom of physics.
> >
> >More an observation, I would say, but the distinction is not that clear.
>
> Can we agree on 'Something so fundamental that it is assumed that no
> more explicit explanation is possible'.
Let us just call it 'fundamental', to save time.
Would you call Newton's law of gravitation fundamental?
> Our ideas change. At one time a proton was considered to be a
> fundamental particle. Physics now believes that it and other particles
> contain sub-particles.
>
> The opposite is possible as in this case - something which had an
> explanation may make more sense if you consider it to be fundamental. So
> long as in making that change one does it in an orderly and self
> consistent manner.
Yes, I agree with the above. Things have to change to deal with
new experimental evidence. When the limitations of Coulomb's
law were discovered it became less fundamental. But I hope I have
made clear that I want to talk about the hypothetical case where it
has no limitations.
> >> If so then a 'field' becomes a metaphysical 'field of influence'. A
> >> mapping of the direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on
> >> a charge *if* a charge were placed at a given point.
> >
> >That is fine (for the hypothetical case we are discussing).
>
> I'm surprised you say that. Its implications are huge.
Can you explain what you mean. Your statement above is a pretty good
definition of the classical electrostatic field. I see no worrying implications
- unless we move on to later discoveries, which I do not want to yet.
>
> >> In which case a field cannot exist without a source of influence and
> >> cannot store energy nor propagate through space and bang goes
> >> Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics. As they are seriously compromised by
> >> the discovery of the photon I don't see that as a problem.
>
> >As I said above, I was hoping to discuss a hypothetical case in which
> >Coulomb's law is exact, always.
>
> I don't understand what point you are making. 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.
My question is simply, if that were the case (which I know that it is not)
would you demand a constructive explanation.
> Action at a distance was assumed to be transferred by stress in the
> aether.
>
> A field is a stress pattern in the aether.
>
> That stress can propagate through the aether at c carrying energy with
> it - which is what light is.
Not in the hypothetical case I am talking about. When Coulomb first
proposed his law he did not know that a change in electrostatic field
would propagate at c. According to his formula it is instantaneous.
> If you are going to find an alternative explanation to action at a
> distance force it has to apply to all. The change from the aether
> concept has to be done in an orderly and self consistent manner.
> >> If a photon has associated with it electromagnetic fields then a photon
> >> must contain charge again because a field of influence cannot exist
> >> without the source of that influence but then Maxwell's equations are
> >> based solely on the relationships relating to charge so there must be a
> >> strong link between light and charge so that is perhaps not surprising.
> >>
> >> If you retain the discipline forced on you by physical interpretation
> >> then ditching the aether concept has unavoidable consequences. One can
> >> understand Einstein's reluctance to disown the aether. Einstein saw the
> >> problem along the same lines as I do.
> >
> >We are now digressing into what you think someone else thought.
>
> When I put forward a similar argument to what Einstein wrote (below) I
> was called an idiot - by Tom Roberts I think. As Einstein has explained
> the dilemma I quote him as people are more reluctant to call him an
> idiot.
Quoting Einstein is of no use in this discussion because:
He was not aware of the hypothetical question that I am putting to
you.
He was a physicists, not a prophet, and his writings are not infallible
holy scriptures.
No one can ever prove what Einstein was thinking.
For the reasons given above we should leave what Einstein may or
may not have thought out of it for now.
There I completely agree with you.
> My position is however totally uncompromising in that if you want to go
> that route then you have to apply this departure from the classical
> approach of Maxwell's aether in an orderly and self consistent manner
> and accept where it leads. You cannot mix and match. You cannot keep the
> bits of old theory you want to keep because they are useful and you
> cannot apply the new idea selectively.
>
> The old was:
>
> Action at a distance was assumed to be transferred by stress in the
> aether.
>
> A field is a stress pattern in the aether.
>
> That stress can propagate through the aether at c and take energy with
> it which is what light is.
>
> The new becomes:
>
> Action at a distance is fundamental.
>
> A field is metaphysical - a field of influence.
I am with the new so far.
I think you have answered my question, for the idealised electrostatic
case, in which the electric field does not carry energy or momentum,
you would be happy to take Coulomb's law as fundamental. No
aether is required in that instance.
Do you agree?
In the right (hypothetical as it happens) circumstances, are you happy to
accept an obviously 'principle' explanation.
> A field of influence can only exist where there is a source of
> influence. It is not physical. It cannot store energy. It cannot
> propagate away from the source of influence.
Now we move on. When you add the discoveries after Coulomb,
culminating in Maxwell's equations, we find the EM field seems to
carry energy and momentum. I agree this a very significant change
with fundamental implications.
> So Maxwell's theory is dead. The fields on which it is based are now
> metaphysical fields so it has no valid physical interpretation. There is
> no theoretical structure which can result in physical energy being
> transferred. His equations are now empirical and useful for engineers
> but are not based on any sort of physical understanding. Perhaps the
> only thing we can retain from Maxwell is that there must be some link
> between light and charge. Maxwell's equations are derived from empirical
> relationships relating to charge and they give accurate predictions in
> most circumstances.
I agree that things are much more complicated now but to say Maxwell's
theory is dead is a bit strong. What do you mean by Maxwell's theory?
> One must seriously question the status of SR. On the strength of the
> authority of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics Einstein ditched two axioms
> of physics and ended up with the whole of space and time being distorted
> in order to retain Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics - and that no-longer
> has any authority.
>
The ultimate authority in physics is experiment.
>
> The implications above are bypassed by Modern physics which may be
> summed up as "Forget physics just do the maths".
In some ways it is pretty close to that. Whatever the many-worlds
supporters may say, the shut-up-and-calculate interpretation of
QM is the most popular amongst physicists. Does that mean physics is
dead. Well, it has been squashed into a narrow gap between philosophy
and maths but I believe that it still exists.
--
Martin Hogbin
oriel36
<J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> The aether concept predates Newton. The genius of Newton was in seeing
> that something that was taken for granted actually needed an
> explanation. Prior to that the explanation would be that an apple falls
> to earth because there is nothing to stop it doing so or perhaps because
> nothing falls upwards.
The pseudo-genius of Newton was to make the motion of terrestrial
ballistics look like planetary motion and visa versa by finding,
muddling and maneuvering whatever was needed to reach that
conclusion.The fact that it is based on a calendrically driven
clockwork solar system seems hardly makes a difference to your
indoctrination and adoration of the late 17th century numbskull but I
assure you the men who preceded him were fully aware of the analogies
between trrestrial behavior and planetary behavior -
"If anyone were to ask my opinion of the body of the Sun from which
emanates the motive species [which makes the planets rotate], I should
tell him to pursue the analogical argument further, and to examine
more closely the example of the magnet." Kepler
maxwell
<J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Jeckyl wrote:
> >"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
There is another possibilty, as Maxwell readily acknowledged. This is
the Action-at-a-Distance type of theories that were developed by his
German rivals, like Weber. Maxwell acknowledged they got all the right
answers but he did not LIKE this type of interaction, he preferred the
metaphysics of DesCartes and not those of Newton, which viewed space
as purely passive & not contributing to the process; IOW Newton's
'space' is not a medium or aether.
maxwell
> "maxwell" <s...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
Scientists invent equations all the time - why would Coulomb be any
different?
The accuracy of equipment in Coulomb's time would make it very
difficult to test this 'law', never mind providing enough data points
to 'suggest' it. Check out 'On Coulomb's Inverse Square Law' by P.
Heering, Am J Phys, 60 p998 (1992). You might also find Prof Nancy
Cartwright's book "How the Laws of Physics Lie" (1983) to stimulate
your imagination.
oriel36
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good,now you have severed the links between the exotic 1905 concept
and Newton insofar as there is no way to associate Newton's absolute
space with aether like this guy did -
" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert
John here has been trying to cobble a story out of Albert and Maxwell
without refering to Newton but find that the '1905 revolution' turns
into a fictional story with the only saving grace that it actually
exploits something Newton did get wrong.
100 years later it is an exercise in cutting your nose of to spite
your face,the actual point of departure is back at the top right
column of that excellent article from the mid 19th century stating
that there was no medium to work with light illuminating the Earth
while they learned to live with Newton's rejection of a medium for his
ballistics agenda tied to planetary motion -
Of course,indoctrination tends to absolve Newton of any mistake and
men would rather create a fiction of Newton/aether then actually deal
with what that 17th century numbskull created.
John Kennaugh
I think I clarify my position below. You can either give an explanation
(aether) or you can accept that it is fundamental and not capable of
further explanation - I do not dismiss either but I believe the latter
is the more promising approach provided one is willing to accept the
implications.
>> >> >Do you feel that further explanation is required?
>> >>
>> >> Yes. In the case of the tides clearly a physical interpretation is
>> >> possible involving movement of sun and moon. In the case of action at a
>> >> distance force on a charge the existence of an aether is one
>> >> explanation. OTOH at some point something may be incapable of further
>> >> explanation either because it is as fundamental as it is possible to get
>> >> or because we have not the insight to see a need to reduce it to
>> >> something more fundamental.
>> >
>> >As you may have guessed I see no need for further explanation.
>> >Here are some of my reasons.
>> >
>> >It is hard to see how an explanation could not be much more
>> >complicated than the thing it is trying to explain. That seems
>> >a bad start. I would hope that an explanation would be simpler
>> >than the thing being explained.
>>
>> Historically the explanation helped explain other things as well - like
>> what light waves are waves in.
>
>Not really. Coulomb's law contains has time dependence, it is
>not part of Maxwell's equations. Put simply, it is wrong. But,
>if it were right, would you want an explanation.
I'm not sure of your point. Maxwell's equations are based upon
relationships derived by Faraday which in effect all relate to charge.
Coulomb has got to be in there somewhere :o)
>> There may be better ways of looking at it
>> but I think you need to have respect for the people at the time. It did
>> all seem to fit together exceedingly well with Maxwell which is why
>> Einstein extended that approach rather than abandoning it.
>
>I do not criticise the physicists of the day they obviously had to
>come up with new ideas to explain new discoveries. But it is
>not the history of the subject that I want to talk about.
If you believe as I do that Physics is screwed up then you have to go
into history to see the steps which lead to where you are now.
>> >The principle 'explanation' is an end to it *. There is no more
>> >'explaining to do. The problem with constructive theories is that
>> >they create many more questions than they answer. What is
>> >the aether made of? How do the particles of electricity or
>> >whatever interact? What are they made of? And so on, ad
>> >infinitum.
>
>What is your response to this point.
Waldron rejects the aether on the grounds that everything in the
universe appears to be particulate. If the aether is particulate then
its particles must interact through action at a distances forces
implying a secondary aether to transmit these forces. If this secondary
aether is particulate..... you end up with an infinite number of
aethers. As an argument it has its appeal.
My own argument, for what it is worth, is that if there is an aether and
if the universe is expanding at the rate I am told it is expanding an
awful lot of aether must be being created in the process. I don't
believe you can create something physical out of nothing so the aether
cannot be physical and if it isn't physical it is of no use to me.
I will try and respond in general terms. Physics is built on a set of
building blocks - Fundamental/irreducible building blocks. The first
priority is to reduce the number of building blocks to a minimum and
secondly to have building blocks which are as simple as is feasible.
'Simple as is feasible' would suggest that if the explanation is more
complex than what it is explaining it is a step too far *unless* such an
explanation reduces the total number of building blocks (priority 1).
Thus although the explanation of magnetism is more complex than what it
explains it is justified as it reduces the number of building blocks.
According to Tom Roberts, a photon has no internal structure although
how anyone knows is a mystery. Dogma does creep into physics at times.
As far as I am concerned, the biggest challenge to physics is to explain
how photons en-mass can mimic waves so convincingly. If I was attempting
to solve that problem I would not like to face that challenge having to
assume a photon has no internal structure. When physics can explain the
wavelike behaviour of photons en-mass then and only then is it likely to
be in a position to take a stab at what the structure of a photon is.
>> >> When the aether was proposed, action at a distance
>> >> seemed to fly in the face of all other known phenomena.
>> >
>> >Gravity??
>>
>> The aether concept predates Newton.
>
>Gravity as a known phenomenon predates both.
>
>> The genius of Newton was in seeing
>> that something that was taken for granted actually needed an
>> explanation. Prior to that the explanation would be that an apple falls
>> to earth because there is nothing to stop it doing so or perhaps because
>> nothing falls upwards.
>
>But Newton's explanation took the form of a formula. It was a principle
>explanation not a constructive one.
I would have thought the 'principle' is that matter contains something
called mass (or has a property we call mass) and that there is a force
of attraction between masses according to the formula. I am aware that
there is a danger of circular argument.
Q - what is gravity
A - it is the force of attraction between masses
Q - what is mass
A - it is whatever it is which causes gravity.
Mass earns its place as a building block because it 'explains' other
things beside gravity e.g. momentum, inertia and kinetic energy.
>> >> To move
>> >> something you need a connecting rod. Now we no better. We know that the
>> >> connecting rod is held together by action at a distance forces.
>> >> Ultimately *all* force acts at a distance and one is lead to the
>> >> conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept this as
>> >> fundamental without need of explanation.
>> >
>> >Yes, you seem to be accepting a principle explanation here..
>> >
>> >> An axiom of physics.
>> >
>> >More an observation, I would say, but the distinction is not that clear.
>>
>> Can we agree on 'Something so fundamental that it is assumed that no
>> more explicit explanation is possible'.
>
>Let us just call it 'fundamental', to save time.
>
>Would you call Newton's law of gravitation fundamental?
See above.
>> Our ideas change. At one time a proton was considered to be a
>> fundamental particle. Physics now believes that it and other particles
>> contain sub-particles.
>>
>> The opposite is possible as in this case - something which had an
>> explanation may make more sense if you consider it to be fundamental. So
>> long as in making that change one does it in an orderly and self
>> consistent manner.
>
>Yes, I agree with the above. Things have to change to deal with
>new experimental evidence. When the limitations of Coulomb's
>law were discovered it became less fundamental. But I hope I have
>made clear that I want to talk about the hypothetical case where it
>has no limitations.
I would be interested in reading up on what you call the limitations of
Coulomb's law. It has nothing to do with this discussion but I am
interested.
>> >> If so then a 'field' becomes a metaphysical 'field of influence'. A
>> >> mapping of the direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on
>> >> a charge *if* a charge were placed at a given point.
>> >
>> >That is fine (for the hypothetical case we are discussing).
>>
>> I'm surprised you say that. Its implications are huge.
>
>Can you explain what you mean. Your statement above is a pretty good
>definition of the classical electrostatic field. I see no worrying
>implications
>- unless we move on to later discoveries, which I do not want to yet.
>
>>
>> >> In which case a field cannot exist without a source of influence and
>> >> cannot store energy nor propagate through space and bang goes
>> >> Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics. As they are seriously compromised by
>> >> the discovery of the photon I don't see that as a problem.
>>
>> >As I said above, I was hoping to discuss a hypothetical case in which
>> >Coulomb's law is exact, always.
>>
>> I don't understand what point you are making. 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.
>
>My question is simply, if that were the case (which I know that it is not)
>would you demand a constructive explanation.
Again I feel I have answered that. There is a constructive explanation
involving the aether and I respect those who take that view, I
personally think the assumption of it being fundamental is more
promising. If we were to move from the hypothetical case then that
judgement might need to be reviewed. Something may be considered as
fundamental but that is not cast in stone. It is always possible that
something which could not be understood to any greater depth at one
point in history can be at another.
>> Action at a distance was assumed to be transferred by stress in the
>> aether.
>>
>> A field is a stress pattern in the aether.
>>
>> That stress can propagate through the aether at c carrying energy with
>> it - which is what light is.
>
>Not in the hypothetical case I am talking about. When Coulomb first
>proposed his law he did not know that a change in electrostatic field
>would propagate at c. According to his formula it is instantaneous.
Now who is going back into history? I was not assuming your
'hypothetical case' ignored that much of human knowledge. As far as I am
aware Coulombs law was a totally static law. The variation of force with
distance - no motion involved. Your statement
>According to his formula it is instantaneous.
is misleading. I do not believe he made any such claim neither do I
believe you can 'read it' into his equation.
>> If you are going to find an alternative explanation to action at a
>> distance force it has to apply to all. The change from the aether
>> concept has to be done in an orderly and self consistent manner.
>
>
>
>
>> >> If a photon has associated with it electromagnetic fields then a photon
>> >> must contain charge again because a field of influence cannot exist
>> >> without the source of that influence but then Maxwell's equations are
>> >> based solely on the relationships relating to charge so there must be a
>> >> strong link between light and charge so that is perhaps not surprising.
>> >>
>> >> If you retain the discipline forced on you by physical interpretation
>> >> then ditching the aether concept has unavoidable consequences. One can
>> >> understand Einstein's reluctance to disown the aether. Einstein saw the
>> >> problem along the same lines as I do.
>> >
>> >We are now digressing into what you think someone else thought.
>>
>> When I put forward a similar argument to what Einstein wrote (below) I
>> was called an idiot - by Tom Roberts I think. As Einstein has explained
>> the dilemma I quote him as people are more reluctant to call him an
>> idiot.
>
>Quoting Einstein is of no use in this discussion because:
>
>He was not aware of the hypothetical question that I am putting to
>you.
>
>He was a physicists, not a prophet, and his writings are not infallible
>holy scriptures.
>
>No one can ever prove what Einstein was thinking.
OK I will put the argument in my own words as I do know what I am
thinking. Maxwells wave in aether theory was based upon the idea of
continuous fields which were physical stress in the aether. Thus the
action at a distance force between charges is transferred by stress in
the aether.
The point of our discussion is whether the force between charges is
fundamental rather than a property of the aether. In effect whether the
aether is needed to explain the force between charges or whether one can
simply assumes it is fundamental.
If you take that view bang goes the physical basis of Maxwell's aether
theory in that it needs physically real fields which can have a separate
existence in space. If you want to retain physically real fields then
the only alternative to the aether is to assume a field consist of some
sort of Physical 'stuff'. As I and Einstein conclude one might as well
stick with the aether if you want physically real fields.
>
>For the reasons given above we should leave what Einstein may or
>may not have thought out of it for now.
I note that you still haven't pointed me to Einstein's rejection of the
aether.
Well that is progress.
>> My position is however totally uncompromising in that if you want to go
>> that route then you have to apply this departure from the classical
>> approach of Maxwell's aether in an orderly and self consistent manner
>> and accept where it leads. You cannot mix and match. You cannot keep the
>> bits of old theory you want to keep because they are useful and you
>> cannot apply the new idea selectively.
>>
>> The old was:
>>
>> Action at a distance was assumed to be transferred by stress in the
>> aether.
>>
>> A field is a stress pattern in the aether.
>>
>> That stress can propagate through the aether at c and take energy with
>> it which is what light is.
>>
>> The new becomes:
>>
>> Action at a distance is fundamental.
>>
>> A field is metaphysical - a field of influence.
>
>I am with the new so far.
>
>I think you have answered my question, for the idealised electrostatic
>case, in which the electric field does not carry energy or momentum,
>you would be happy to take Coulomb's law as fundamental. No
>aether is required in that instance.
>
>Do you agree?
>
>In the right (hypothetical as it happens) circumstances, are you happy to
>accept an obviously 'principle' explanation.
I thought I had said so in some detail
>> A field of influence can only exist where there is a source of
>> influence. It is not physical. It cannot store energy. It cannot
>> propagate away from the source of influence.
>
>Now we move on. When you add the discoveries after Coulomb,
>culminating in Maxwell's equations, we find the EM field seems to
>carry energy and momentum. I agree this a very significant change
>with fundamental implications.
As I was starting with Maxwell you are perhaps catching me up.
>> So Maxwell's theory is dead. The fields on which it is based are now
>> metaphysical fields so it has no valid physical interpretation. There is
>> no theoretical structure which can result in physical energy being
>> transferred. His equations are now empirical and useful for engineers
>> but are not based on any sort of physical understanding. Perhaps the
>> only thing we can retain from Maxwell is that there must be some link
>> between light and charge. Maxwell's equations are derived from empirical
>> relationships relating to charge and they give accurate predictions in
>> most circumstances.
>
>I agree that things are much more complicated now but to say Maxwell's
>theory is dead is a bit strong.
What is left of it? Maxwell's theory is based upon the assumed existence
of continuous physical fields. We are now assuming the fields aren't
physical neither are they continuous as light is particulate. Maxwell's
theory is that there is an aether and light is a physical stress
propagating through that aether. We are now assuming there is no aether,
the field which was a physical stress is not physical. The theory is
that when the stress propagating through the aether arrives its energy
causes physical effects - it transports energy. Now the light waves have
nothing physical to be waves in they cannot transport energy. Light is a
physical phenomena it is, or carries with it real physical energy in
measurable amounts. Maxwell's theory is no longer a physical theory
describing that physical phenomenon. Maxwell's equations are useful for
engineers because they give the right answer in the sort of circumstance
where engineers use them but they are now solutions to an unknown
problem.
The only physical theory of light, one which can describe how energy can
get from A to B is the particulate model. Without an aether the
challenge is to refine that physical theory such that it can explain the
things Maxwell's theories tried to explain.
> What do you mean by Maxwell's theory?
As outlined above.
>> One must seriously question the status of SR. On the strength of the
>> authority of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics Einstein ditched two axioms
>> of physics and ended up with the whole of space and time being distorted
>> in order to retain Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics - and that no-longer
>> has any authority.
>>
>The ultimate authority in physics is experiment.
This is from the rather dubious school of thought which says that
prediction is the be-all and end-all of physics and understanding is a
mirage. I accept that complete understanding is not possible but I do
believe that better understanding is possible and for that you need the
discipline of physical interpretation. You need to know in some sort of
physical terms what the maths is describing. Maths and physical
interpretation compliment each other. I don't expect you to agree with
me but that is where I stand.
>> The implications above are bypassed by Modern physics which may be
>> summed up as "Forget physics just do the maths".
>
>In some ways it is pretty close to that. Whatever the many-worlds
>supporters may say, the shut-up-and-calculate interpretation of
>QM is the most popular amongst physicists. Does that mean physics is
>dead. Well, it has been squashed into a narrow gap between philosophy
>and maths but I believe that it still exists.
Perhaps you should ask 'where is it going' and 'what is to stop it going
there'. Apparently parallel universes are very fashionable at the
moment. I'm not sure if that is to replace string theories 10 or 26
dimensions or in addition. In the mean time we still have no more idea
now as to what goes from the transmitter to my TV aerial than we did 100
years ago.
Martin Hogbin
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
> >
> >"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:+pfNCJPy...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> >> Martin Hogbin wrote:
I have tidied up a bit. Please feel free to reinstate
anything you consider important that I have deleted.
Contrary to what some crackpots think I never
try to make my case by deletion.
> >In that hypothetical case would you be happy to accept Coulomb's
> >law as fundamental or would you want some explanation?
>
> I think I clarify my position below.
Agreed.
> >Not really. Coulomb's law contains has time dependence, it is
> >not part of Maxwell's equations. Put simply, it is wrong. But,
> >if it were right, would you want an explanation.
That should have read 'no time dependence'
> If you believe as I do that Physics is screwed up then you have to go
> into history to see the steps which lead to where you are now.
Maybe, but I am trying to convince you that physics is not as
screwed up as you think.
> Physics is built on a set of
> building blocks - Fundamental/irreducible building blocks. The first
> priority is to reduce the number of building blocks to a minimum and
> secondly to have building blocks which are as simple as is feasible.
OK but as we have agreed we may have to change what is
considered fundamental from time to time as new evidence
is discovered.
> 'Simple as is feasible' would suggest that if the explanation is more
> complex than what it is explaining it is a step too far *unless* such an
> explanation reduces the total number of building blocks (priority 1).
> Thus although the explanation of magnetism is more complex than what it
> explains it is justified as it reduces the number of building blocks.
Although I might not have expressed it that way I broadly agree.
> According to Tom Roberts, a photon has no internal structure although
> how anyone knows is a mystery. Dogma does creep into physics at times.
> As far as I am concerned, the biggest challenge to physics is to explain
> how photons en-mass can mimic waves so convincingly. If I was attempting
> to solve that problem I would not like to face that challenge having to
> assume a photon has no internal structure. When physics can explain the
> wavelike behaviour of photons en-mass then and only then is it likely to
> be in a position to take a stab at what the structure of a photon is.
I would not call it dogma. Physics is to some degree what we want it to be.
In the light of currently available evidence there is no need for internal
structure in a photon. But I am not an expert on particle physics, Tom is.
> Mass earns its place as a building block because it 'explains' other
> things beside gravity e.g. momentum, inertia and kinetic energy.
Pretty well everyone would agree with that, I would say.
> >
> >Would you call Newton's law of gravitation fundamental?
>
> See above.
------------------------------------------------------------
> >When the limitations of Coulomb's
> >law were discovered it became less fundamental. But I hope I have
> >made clear that I want to talk about the hypothetical case where it
> >has no limitations.
> I would be interested in reading up on what you call the limitations of
> Coulomb's law. It has nothing to do with this discussion but I am
> interested.
Coulomb's law is strictly true only in the static case. According to it, the
force between two charges depends only on their magnitudes and the
distance between them, there is no time term. Thus Coulomb's law
implicitly states that the speed of propagation of a change in electric
field is infinite.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> If so then a 'field' becomes a metaphysical 'field of influence'. A
> >> >> mapping of the direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on
> >> >> a charge *if* a charge were placed at a given point.
> >
> >My question is simply, if that were the case (which I know that it is not)
> >would you demand a constructive explanation.
>
> Again I feel I have answered that. There is a constructive explanation
> involving the aether and I respect those who take that view, I
> personally think the assumption of it being fundamental is more
> promising.
OK. I agree with you on that.
>If we were to move from the hypothetical case then that
> judgement might need to be reviewed. Something may be considered as
> fundamental but that is not cast in stone. It is always possible that
> something which could not be understood to any greater depth at one
> point in history can be at another.
Agreed.
> >Not in the hypothetical case I am talking about. When Coulomb first
> >proposed his law he did not know that a change in electrostatic field
> >would propagate at c. According to his formula it is instantaneous.
>
> Now who is going back into history? I was not assuming your
> 'hypothetical case' ignored that much of human knowledge. As far as I am
> aware Coulombs law was a totally static law. The variation of force with
> distance - no motion involved. Your statement
>
> >According to his formula it is instantaneous.
>
> is misleading. I do not believe he made any such claim neither do I
> believe you can 'read it' into his equation.
I do not know what Coulomb believed but instantaneous transmission
is clearly implicit in his equation - see discussion above.
> OK I will put the argument in my own words as I do know what I am
> thinking. Maxwells wave in aether theory was based upon the idea of
> continuous fields which were physical stress in the aether. Thus the
> action at a distance force between charges is transferred by stress in
> the aether.
> The point of our discussion is whether the force between charges is
> fundamental rather than a property of the aether. In effect whether the
> aether is needed to explain the force between charges or whether one can
> simply assumes it is fundamental.
> If you take that view bang goes the physical basis of Maxwell's aether
> theory in that it needs physically real fields which can have a separate
> existence in space. If you want to retain physically real fields then
> the only alternative to the aether is to assume a field consist of some
> sort of Physical 'stuff'. As I and Einstein conclude one might as well
> stick with the aether if you want physically real fields.
Yes. But let us now take Maxwell's equations as fundamental
(maybe I have now moved on to where you started but I wanted to
find out a few things about your thoughts first).
As you have rightly pointed out, based on Maxwell's equations,
the EM field can carry energy and momentum. I guess most would
consider this to give it some kind of 'reality'. Whether you call it
a field or the aether is just a choice of words. Physicists have
preferred the term 'field'. Does the EM field having some independent
reality trouble you?
> >In the right (hypothetical as it happens) circumstances, are you happy to
> >accept an obviously 'principle' explanation.
>
> I thought I had said so in some detail
I just wanted to be sure that you do not rule out 'principle' descriptions in
physics. But we agree, it seems, that they are generally to be preferred.
So far I am only talking about the classical case. The current quantum
theory of EM is QED. Have you looked at that?
> >> One must seriously question the status of SR. On the strength of the
> >> authority of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics Einstein ditched two axioms
> >> of physics and ended up with the whole of space and time being distorted
> >> in order to retain Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics - and that no-longer
> >> has any authority.
> >>
> >The ultimate authority in physics is experiment.
>
> This is from the rather dubious school of thought which says that
> prediction is the be-all and end-all of physics and understanding is a
> mirage.
But in the case of a 'principle' explanation ther is no more
understanding than the equations. We just say, the world is
like that.
> I accept that complete understanding is not possible but I do
> believe that better understanding is possible and for that you need the
> discipline of physical interpretation. You need to know in some sort of
> physical terms what the maths is describing. Maths and physical
> interpretation compliment each other. I don't expect you to agree with
> me but that is where I stand.
I am not completely against the contructive approach and I see
nothing wrong with intuitive interpretations, they have helped many
physicists in the past, however, modern experimental evidence is
so weird, so unlike anything we see in everyday life, that our powerful
human intuition may become of decreasing value. Then again
someone may yet come up with a really neat intuitive idea.
> >> The implications above are bypassed by Modern physics which may be
> >> summed up as "Forget physics just do the maths".
> >
> >In some ways it is pretty close to that. Whatever the many-worlds
> >supporters may say, the shut-up-and-calculate interpretation of
> >QM is the most popular amongst physicists. Does that mean physics is
> >dead. Well, it has been squashed into a narrow gap between philosophy
> >and maths but I believe that it still exists.
>
> Perhaps you should ask 'where is it going' and 'what is to stop it going
> there'.
I am not sure that I can answer those questions except to say that the aim
is to get to a theory of everything.
Jeckyl
> Jeckyl wrote:
>>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:ZWn0NLNT...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>>> Metaphysical - things like uncertainty, probability, prediction,
>>> knowledge, an equation (although the ink and paper may be physical),
>>> mathematics, wishful thinking, a field of influence, hope. None of which
>>> can have a measurable effect on physical things in the natural world.
>>
>>Liek the ether .. it cannot be detected. Its in the realms of metaphysics
>>as you cannot conduct an experiemnt that determines wheterh or not it
>>exists.
>
> The aether can be detected.
No .. not the ether of LET
> SR is based upon the assumption that our speed w.r.t the aether is always
> zero
LIES .. ther eis no 'ether' in SR, so there is no assumption about our speed
in something that is not aprt of SR
[snip more rot]
harry
[...]
>>>> Do you claim that an aether must be "material"? That is not correct, as
>>>> for example Einstein emphasised.
>>>
>>> I claim it is a real physical medium that defines a preferred reference
>>> frame. It is not semantic 'double speak' like: 'Why can't we replace
>>> the notion of aether with physical space having the same properties of
>>> permittivity and permeability?' which, like Newtons definition of
>>> absolute space, is meaningless.
>>
>> Good to see the improvement. :-)
>> Still, you now introduced "semantic "double-speak" yourself: "preferred"
>> can mean different things. If you mean "preferred" in the sense that it
>> is special for nature - but not necessarily for us - then that's fine.
>
> By 'preferred' I mean it in principle defines a frame that is different
> from other frames eg an aether wind.
OK, that was the second option - special for nature but not for our
observation. As Maxwell pointed out (see below), that may be meaningless for
you but very meaningful for others, depending on how your mind works.
Regards,
Harald
harry
> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in
> news:1197034...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
>
>>
>> "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99FE8126D6193WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>>> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in
>>> news:1196932...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
>>>
>>>> Source independence does not follow from the PoR and "waves" belong to
>>>> ether models - the concept of a wave without something that waves is
>>>> meaningless.
>>>
>>> If it makes you any happier,
>>
>> I'm not interested in happiness as goal for scientific endeavor. ;-)
>
> Happiness should always be a goal. :)
I agree - thus I added "for scientific endeavor". :-)
> [quote from robert heinlein]
> "This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's
> side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else
> to sustain them. Humouring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a
> world in which happiness is always in short supply."
> [unquote]
Funny - but why didn't he laugh?
>>> call it a 'moving, collocated electric field
>>> and perpendicular magnetic field' instead of a wave. Call it MCEFAPMF
>>> for short. Or call it a wavicle.
>>
>> I don't care. There is no need for me to change the meaning of words.
>> However, your advice may be useful for Martin. :-)
>
> I hope my advice is useful to someone. :)
>
>>> Do you object to both of those? If so, call it 'Sam' or 'George'. I
>>> don't care what you call it.
>>
>> I have no objection if others call it "Sam" or George".
>>
>>> It is still a MCEFAPMF that appears to move at c as measured by
>>> equipment that is in uniform motion regardless of the velocity of that
>>> equipment or of the source.
>>
>> Sure - that's Einstein's second postulate. As he explained (translation
>> mine):
>>
>> "That the here made assumption, which we want to call "Principle of the
>> constancy of light speed", in nature truly is fulfilled, is in no way
>> self evident. However, this becomes probable - at least for a coordinate
>> system in a certain state of motion - by the confirmations that
>> Lorentzian theory, which was based on the assumption of an ether in
>> absolute rest, experienced by experiment."
>> http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/E-1907.pdf
>
> Ser Gut.
> A pleasure to read something besides the 'standard translation'[which I
> think was German-->French-->English].
I didn't know that there exists an offical English translation (which I
would have cited had I known)!
Do you have a reference?
> And, all our data seems to be consistent with SR [as extended by GR].
Yes, or at least very nearly so. :-)
Regards,
Harald
harry
"Not contributing to the process"? Surely you're joking! He based the
absolute space concept on the rotating water bucket, in which it appears
that space strongly contributes to the process - it was his medium for the
propagation of inertia, and he used it to explain the preferred status of
Galilean/Newtonian frames of reference.
Harald
harry
> Jeckyl wrote:
[...]
> In physical terms if the speed of light is not a function of the physical
> processes which generate it, it must be the result of some other physical
> process. By definition a physical process requires something physical.
I like that deduction - very good! :-)
Thanks.
Harald
Sue...
<J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>
> Take your pick. Either light speed is source dependent or there is some
> other physical process involved which requires something physical.
> Traditionally that 'something physical' is called the aether.
An electromagnetic medium which can effect Ewald-Oseen extinction
(de Sitter's source independence) is not hard to detect if you know
what hydrogen and helium should look like.
Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
But that comes nowhere close to explaining Newton's
bucket or why your car pushes back for a period
of time when you try to push it.
That requires a theory of inertia.
Here is what one looks like:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
Sue...
> --
> John Kennaugh
harry
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
[...]
>>> >The principle 'explanation' is an end to it *. There is no more
>>> >'explaining to do. The problem with constructive theories is that
>>> >they create many more questions than they answer. What is
>>> >the aether made of? How do the particles of electricity or
>>> >whatever interact? What are they made of? And so on, ad
>>> >infinitum.
>>
>>What is your response to this point.
>
> Waldron rejects the aether on the grounds that everything in the universe
> appears to be particulate. If the aether is particulate then its particles
> must interact through action at a distances forces implying a secondary
> aether to transmit these forces. If this secondary aether is
> particulate..... you end up with an infinite number of aethers. As an
> argument it has its appeal.
However, it's a poor argument. If it were an infallible argument, then we
should reject the existance of atoms if we knew (and we do know) that they
are composed of again smaller particles. Only, at *some* point (and I
suspect that particle physicists already crossed it), that argument should
come into force. The fallacy is to assume that such an argument should come
into force at the state of current knowledge, while that state is arbitrary.
Cheers,
Harald
oriel36
> "maxwell" <s...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The problem is that none of you are astronomers and subsequently have
a depth perception problem.The agenda of Newton as regards absolute/
relative space is simple enough even though it is fundamentally
corrupt,the application of terrestrial ballistics to join a non
geometric equational treatment with physical intepretation in close to
insanity -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton
Of course,that idiosyncratic notion comes from the original
framehopping maneuver which created an inappropriate hypothetical
observer on the Sun to resolve apparent retrogrades -
" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton
In short,your ideas of what Newton was doing is vague and boring via
relativity when the guy is actually interesting in the same way any
destructive person is interesting.Another thing,despite what you think
and believe,you are all Newton's puppets in the end,the guys in the
mid 19th century tried desperately to escape but failed hence your
severly indoctrinated kind.
Retrogrades are resolved from an orbitally moving Earth between Venus
and Mars,it is the highlight of Western astronomical achievements
despite the apparent sauccess of the silly view of Newton and his
absolute/relative space ideas.You can't beat observations Harry -
bz
@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
> I didn't know that there exists an official English translation (which I
> would have cited had I known)!
> Do you have a reference?
I am not sure it is 'an official' or 'the official' translation.
but this one is often cited:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>> And, all our data seems to be consistent with SR [as extended by GR].
>
> Yes, or at least very nearly so. :-)
If you know of any that isn't, please tell me.
:)
It is a beautiful day to be alive, isn't it? [every day!]
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
harry
> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in news:1197276592_5487
> @sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
>
>> I didn't know that there exists an official English translation (which I
>> would have cited had I known)!
>> Do you have a reference?
> I am not sure it is 'an official' or 'the official' translation.
>
> but this one is often cited:
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Yes that's Einstein 1905. Less known is the here-above cited Einstein 1907,
which gives an overview based on Lorentz 1904 and Einstein 1905. :-)
>>> And, all our data seems to be consistent with SR [as extended by GR].
>>
>> Yes, or at least very nearly so. :-)
>
> If you know of any that isn't, please tell me.
>
> :)
I even know of a few that seem to be slightly in conflict with SRT/GRT. One
is by Shnoll et all:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501004
> It is a beautiful day to be alive, isn't it? [every day!]
Yes!
Regards,
Harald
harry
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:_pudnZINAcNI3sHa...@bt.com...
>
> "John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f2E11XGZ...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> Martin Hogbin wrote:
> I am not completely against the contructive approach and I see
> nothing wrong with intuitive interpretations, they have helped many
> physicists in the past, however, modern experimental evidence is
> so weird, so unlike anything we see in everyday life, that our powerful
> human intuition may become of decreasing value. Then again
> someone may yet come up with a really neat intuitive idea.
The problem seems to be with QM, in particular quantum entanglement. And
people are working on that. According to a recent article in New Scientist
or so (I have quickly seen it) it may be solved by admitting that the
"hidden variables" are tensors instead of scalars. Sounds like a neat idea
to me. :-)
Regards,
Harald
harry
>
> Quite late on Einstein wrote:
>
> " Most [theories] are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture of
> the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively simple
> formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of gases
> seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes to
> movements of molecules i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of
> molecular motion. When we say that we have succeeded in understanding a
> group of natural processes we invariably mean that a constructive theory
> has been found which covers the processes in question.... The advantages
> of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability, and clearness."
[...]
I have forwarded your message to sci.physics.foundations, as the topic is
very appropriate for that group.
Regards,
Harald
bz
news:1197295...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
>>>> And, all our data seems to be consistent with SR [as extended by GR].
>>>
>>> Yes, or at least very nearly so. :-)
>>
>> If you know of any that isn't, please tell me.
>>
>> :)
>
> I even know of a few that seem to be slightly in conflict with SRT/GRT.
> One is by Shnoll et all:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501004
>
Thanks. Looks interesting. Will read it.
Jeckyl
news:1197278...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
> "John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:$5IN2sPv...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> Jeckyl wrote:
> [...]
>
>> In physical terms if the speed of light is not a function of the physical
>> processes which generate it, it must be the result of some other physical
>> process. By definition a physical process requires something physical.
>
> I like that deduction - very good! :-)
So what is the physical that makes an object in motion stay in motion? What
is the physical that makes something with no external forces move in a
straight line?
oriel36
> "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote innews:1197295...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
Funny,funny,funny !!!!,really and truly funny -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
"As shown in our previous experiments fine structure of histograms of
alpha-activity measurements serve as a sensitive tool for
investigation of cosmo-physical influences. Particularly, the
histograms structure is changed with the period equal to sidereal
(1436 min) and solar (1440) day. It is similar with the high
probability in different geographic points at the same local
(longitude) time. More recently investigations were carried out with
collimators, cutting out separate flows of total alpha-particles
flying out at radioactive decay of 239Pu. These experiments revealed
sharp dependence the histogram structure on the direction of alpha-
particles flow. In the presented work measurements were made with
collimators rotating in the plane of sky equator. It was shown that
during rotation the shape of histograms changes with periods
determined by number of revolution. These results correspond to the
assumption that the histogram shapes are determined by a picture of
the celestial sphere,"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501004
Global warming is nothing compared to the intellectual level to which
humanity has sunk,this is what you get when you build 'achievements'
on a fictional difference between a sidereal and solar day using the
motions of the Earth and specifically filtering everything through
axial rotation.Poor Flamsteed,so hell bent on finding longitude via
celestial sphere geometry !.
A few years ago this was serious but now it has turned into something
that is just plain hilarious.Pity it is affecting genuine
investigators but there you have it.
maxwell
wrote:
> "maxwell" <s...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
No, I was not joking. Newton's bucket demonstrates the absolute nature
of relative rotation (bucket relative to the local 'fixed stars');
action-at-a-distance interactions (like gravity) are NOT field
theories and do NOT depend on the state of local space but the
relative location and velocity of remote matter. It was not Newton's
view that local space was 'dragging the water around' but remote
matter that determines inertial local behaviour; see 'Relational
Mechanics' by A.K.T. Assis (1999)
bz
news:d913d3db-9a54-44a4...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
I read it.
The criteria for 'similar histogram' vs 'not similar histogram' is not
explained.
Who or how 'similar' vs 'dissimilar' is declared is not explained.
If, as I suspect, this is a 'by eye' judgement, then absent adequate
'double blind' process it appears to me to be mostly a study of the
'observer effect'.
If, on the other hand the judgement is done by computer or true double
blind was used then further study to determine how the direction alpha
particles are being sent could possibly influence changes in a histogram.
harry
It appears to me that there can be no final verdict as yet. The more recent
data processing was done by computer, and *if* they honestly report all the
data then it can hardly be "observer effect" except if, as you seem to
suggest, the way the experimenters handled the samples can influence the
measurements. No doubt the investigations continue.
Regards,
Harald
harry
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13lr6l9...@corp.supernews.com...
Exactly, THAT is the kind of questions that a natural philosopher asks.
The scientific answer is to invent models that may help with building
improved theories and that may be used to offer possible explanations of the
observations ("ether", "virtual photons", "fields", ...). Atoms were similar
metaphysics until one century ago.
Harald
Sue...
I am somewhat familiar with A.K.T. Assis' work
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm
He usually includes a coherent matter function so
both remote masses and the water in the bucket colaborate
on how local space is configured. That is not very different
from Genral Relativity.
If you have a copy of the book
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-21.htm
...you might look for
some inclusion of these concepts:
"Gravitation as a fourth order electromagnetic effect,"
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/gravitation-4th-order-p314-331(1995).pdf
That is the induction mechanism employed by C.P. Kouropoulos†
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
...and implied by Einstein.
<< Already Newton recognized that the
law of inertia is unsatisfactory
in a context so far unmentioned in this
exposition, namely that it gives no
real cause for the special physical
position of the states of motion of the
inertial frames relative to all other
states of motion. It makes the observable
material bodies responsible for the
gravitational behaviour of a material
point, yet indicates no material cause
for the inertial behaviour of the material
point but devises the cause for it
(absolute space or inertial ether). This
is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. For this reason
E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the
inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
against one another and not against "space".
This interpretation governs the expectation
that accelerated bodies have concordant
accelerating action in the same
sense on other bodies
(acceleration induction).
This interpretation is even more
plausible according to general relativity
which eliminates the distinction between
inertial and gravitational effects.
It amounts to stipulating that, apart
from the arbitrariness governed by the
free choice of coordinates, the
gm v -field shall be completely determined
by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured
in general relativity by the circumstance
that acceleration induction in accordance
with the gravitational field equations really
exists, although of such slight intensity
that direct detection by mechanical experiments
is out of the question. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
Not all Assis' work includes the induction mechanism
but rather explores the Weber force. That is a
dead end for the the same reason Lorentz force is.
If the Assis book includes the neutrally
charged induction component it is very relevant
to some recent experiments.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Sue...
...
bz
news:1197363...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
>
> "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A02A82271ACWQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:d913d3db-9a54-44a4...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On 10 Dec, 17:31, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>>>> "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote
>>>> innews:1197295...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch:
>>>>
>>>> >>>> And, all our data seems to be consistent with SR [as extended by
>>>> >>>> GR].
>>>>
>>>> >>> Yes, or at least very nearly so. :-)
>>>>
>>>> >> If you know of any that isn't, please tell me.
>>>>
>>>> >> :)
>>>>
>>>> > I even know of a few that seem to be slightly in conflict with
>>>> > SRT/GRT. One is by Shnoll et all:
>>>> >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501004
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. Looks interesting. Will read it.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> bz
>>>>
>>>> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know
>>>> is an infinite set.
>>>>
>>>> bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
>>>
>>> Funny,funny,funny !!!!,really and truly funny -
>>>
>>> http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/c
>>> el estial_sphere_anim.gif
While I am confident that they honestly report the data, that does not give
me confidence that they might not unintentionally bias the data.
Without knowing exactly what the histogram data represents, I have little
confidence that it represents any phenomena that should correlate with the
position of the ecliptic.
It may be just a translation problem but their use of the word
'assumption' rather than 'hypothesis' raises a red flag.
In science, one should design an experiment on the basis of a theory. The
experiment is designed to attempt to falsify the theory.
The goals of the experiment are established in advance.
The data collection methods and data analysis methods to be used are
established in advance.
THEN you run the experiment.
Often, when running an experiment, unexpected results are observed.
That calls for a new experiment to determine which 'variable' was not
properly controlled.
The field of 'Design of Experiment' is a science of its own.
Since alpha particles do not travel far in air, the air pressure, the
temperature in the room, the number and location of the experimenters in
the room, all could possibly influence the results.
Expecting a particular result can bias the observers to 'adjust the
equipment' until the expected results are seen.
For that reason, it is often best that the persons actually collecting that
data have no idea what the data is to be used for.
Non verbal clues from the director of the experiment can STILL bias the
observers, however.
That is the reason for 'Double blind' experiments.
In any case, I thank you for an interesting read and look forward to seeing
where they go from here.
harry
> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in
[...]
1. That's only correct *after* a theory has been developed as *based* on
observations. For example, astronomers *first* looked for patterns in their
observations and *next* theories about stars and planets could be developed.
2. And *when* theory has been developed, this can be put to the test in
every imaginable way. For example, the MMX tested standard optics theory of
that time and found a null result while a positive result was predicted.
Similarly, the Schnoll experiments do test the standard radioactivity theory
of this time and find a non-null result while a null result was predicted.
If I remember well, their results are more general than just radioactivity
and thus they appear to challenge more generally SRT/GRT.
> The experiment is designed to attempt to falsify the theory.
> The goals of the experiment are established in advance.
> The data collection methods and data analysis methods to be used are
> established in advance.
> THEN you run the experiment.
Partly right - see above.
> Often, when running an experiment, unexpected results are observed.
> That calls for a new experiment to determine which 'variable' was not
> properly controlled.
Sorry but that's mistaken: new experiments are run to test for certain
hypotheses that may explain the data, and the hypothesis that certain
variables were badly controlled is an important possible hypothesis. For
example, Michelson and Miller did next tests with higher precison in order
to test the hypothesis that their null result was due to insufficient
precision; it would certainly have been a mistake to think that their null
results *had* to be due to a "badly controlled vbariable".
> The field of 'Design of Experiment' is a science of its own.
It's a usual and important part of scientific endeavor. :-)
> Since alpha particles do not travel far in air, the air pressure, the
> temperature in the room, the number and location of the experimenters in
> the room, all could possibly influence the results.
>
> Expecting a particular result can bias the observers to 'adjust the
> equipment' until the expected results are seen.
> For that reason, it is often best that the persons actually collecting
> that
> data have no idea what the data is to be used for.
Yes, I fully agreed on that. Regretfully that request is rarely fulfilled.
Many experimental results are accompanied by data processing in which the
experimenters and/or subsequent commentators attempt to obtain the data that
they were looking for, while rejecting the data that they dislike.
> Non verbal clues from the director of the experiment can STILL bias the
> observers, however.
> That is the reason for 'Double blind' experiments.
Still far from being common practice outside of the medical field!
> In any case, I thank you for an interesting read and look forward to
> seeing
> where they go from here.
You're welcome. :-)
Regards,
Harald
Y.Porat
<J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Quite late on Einstein wrote:
>
> " Most [theories] are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture
> of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively
> simple formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory
> of gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes
> to movements of molecules i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis
> of molecular motion. When we say that we have succeeded in understanding
> a group of natural processes we invariably mean that a constructive
> theory has been found which covers the processes in question.... The
> advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability,
> and clearness."
>
> principle theory - he defined what he meant and his definition is
> indistinguishable from a mathematical model based upon empirical
> starting points. He had tried to make relativity into a constructive
> theory, a theory where physical interpretation is an essential part but
> had given up. He was now forced to described relativity as 'putting
> forward no specific hypothesis'.
>
> Lorenz had come up with a constructive theory - a theory having a
> physical interpretation complimenting the maths. Einstein objected to
> the physical interpretation of Lorentz's theory (what he referred to as
> the theoretical structure). While his theory shares the same maths as
> that of Lorentz's he had failed to come up with an alternative physical
> interpretation without the asymmetry he objected to in Lorentz's theory.
>
> Physicists up until, and including Einstein would not have had to ask
> the question "What is meant by physical interpretation?" It was
> considered as an essential part of science and had played a vital role
> in physics. Students today are taught that we cannot hope to understand
> nature. All we can do is construct models of it. Physical interpretation
> is considered as a poor alternative to a mathematical model rather than
> what had been the case in the past that both together constituted a
> theory.
>
> Sometimes someone started with an idea, an alternative physical
> interpretation, does the maths and find it fits - an example might be
> Galilao. Idea! 'suppose the planets go around the sun?' - do the maths
> and it checks out. Now one could say that Galilao's maths would work
> just as well without assuming that physical interpretation. It could be
> argued that if someone had stumbled upon them without an assumption of
> the sun centred solar system then that would be just as satisfactory. In
> modern physics 'maths' is described as 'physics theory' and all that is
> expected of it is accurate prediction not physical explanation. However
> having a 'physical interpretation' gives the maths authority. The maths
> of Galilao can be believed in as they are not merely an ad hoc
> expression which gives empirical accuracy. One could use the same
> physical model to construct maths which would predict what a man on Mars
> would see in the night sky and fully expect that when we get there that
> it will be as predicted. Physical interpretation drives the maths.
>
> Sometimes a physical law - the mathematical relationship - has been
> known for a long time like Boyles law and eventually a physical
> explanation is found involving moving molecules. Moving molecules is a
> physical model. It does not mean we 'understand nature' but it does mean
> we have a better understanding of nature than we had previously when we
> thought of gas as homogeneous.
>
> A classic example of the importance of physical interpretation occurred
> in the case of the black body radiation curve. Wien produced an
> expression which fitted very well but it was purely empirical. Lord
> Rayleigh produced a law which was based upon accepted theory, accepted
> physical interpretation, waves bouncing backwards and forwards in the
> box, but was not a good fit at short wavelengths. Rayleigh's law had to
> be taken seriously because it was based upon a physical interpretation
> i.e. on an understanding of what was happening - the physical processes
> involved. It was based upon accepted theory. The fact that it gave the
> wrong answer was described as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. It meant
> the physical interpretation, the understanding of the physical processes
> involved was wrong. Planck took up the challenge. Although Wein's law
> was empirical, it was some help to Planck in coming up with what we now
> believe is the correct physical interpretation that light is quantized.
> Deriving the maths from that physical interpretation gave the right
> answer. The reason we have confidence in the maths is because it is
> derived from a physical understanding of what is going on which gives it
> authority. Wein's law, although a good mathematical model lacked that
> authority. Even if Wein's mathematical expression had been identical to
> Planck's it would have lacked any authority because the physics - the
> physical process was not explained.
>
> Maxwell's electrodynamics was based upon an understanding of what was
> going on in the physical sense. The idea of aethers had been an
> essential part of physics for a couple of hundred years first introduced
> to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a distance forces. The
> aether is sneered at these days but it was argued that a magnet could
> not pick up a pin if there was genuinely nothing in the space between
> them. Think about it and you can see where they were coming from. Later
> the luminiferous aether was hypothesised for light waves to propagate
> in. Maxwell's theory was accepted not because of its accurate
> predictions - they were not testable for some time - but on the elegance
> of the physical interpretation. What Maxwell did (with help from
> Faraday) was unify 3 branches of physics and show that only one aether
> is required to explain action at a distance and light propagation while
> at the same time showing a link between light and charge and putting it
> on a sound mathematical footing. Charge causes a stress in the aether -
> that stress pattern is what is described as a 'field' and that stress
> can propagate through the aether at c, as derived from two properties of
> the aether its permittivity and permeability. Again the authority of
> Maxwell derives from the fact that he was able to describe in physical
> terms what is going on and it fitted together so elegantly. So elegantly
> that later Einstein continued to assume the absolute authority of
> Maxwell when he produced SR and ignored the fact that it had been
> compromised by his own work on photoelectric effect.
>
> Planck had assumed that although the production of light was quantized
> that somehow that was temporary and that it then 'turned into' Maxwell's
> waves in aether. Einstein showed that light remained quantized by
> producing a physical interpretation of the photo-electric effect which
> works. Light arrives in discreet lumps of energy which depending on the
> colour has, or hasn't enough energy to dislodge a photon. It is hard to
> see how that bit of our understanding could have been achieved without a
> physical interpretation on which to base the thinking.
>
> Lorentz started with a physical interpretation proposed by Fitzgerald
> that if the arm of the MMX apparatus got shorter due to travelling
> against the aether by just the right amount it explains the null result.
> Lorentz postulated that matter is made up of a matrix of positive and
> negative charges held together by action at a distance forces
> transferred via the aether. When the aether was moving he calculated
> that the matter would get shortened in the direction of travel of the
> aether by the required amount (note Bohr's model of the atom was much
> later). Lorentz derived the Lorentz transforms based on an assumption of
> the physical processes involved. Even today I understand that if you
> replace Lorentz's matrix of charged particles with electrons in orbit
> around nuclei then if you assume the action at a distance force is
> transferred by the aether and the aether is in motion the orbits become
> elliptical - causing length contraction.
>
> Einstein's heroes were Maxwell and Lorentz - both of whom relied heavily
> on physical interpretation. He described Lorentz as making the greatest
> contribution to electrical theory since Maxwell. His objection to
> Lorentz's theory was that in the physical interpretation - what Einstein
> described as 'the theoretical structure' - was a unique FoR stationary
> w.r.t the aether which is essential to the physical description but
> which in practice is indistinguishable from an infinite number of other
> FoR. Einstein could not believe that nature would be so perverse as to
> hide something from us which was so essential to theory and assumed that
> it must be possible to come to the same conclusion without an assumption
> of this unique FoR.
>
> What should have happened is that Einstein should have come up with an
> alternative physical explanation which did not require Lorentz's unique
> FoR.
>
> If one assumes the authority of Maxwell then the MMX showed that an
> observers speed relative to the aether is zero. The question that first
> Lorentz and then Einstein were trying to answer was therefore :
>
> "Why does an observer always appear to be stationary w.r.t the aether?"
>
> Discarding Lorentz's explanation the only explanation left to Einstein
> was that the nature of the aether is such that this arises naturally
> from it. If you study his 1920 lecture he is attempting to argue just
> that. His 'aether without the immobility of Lorentz's'. He rejects
> Lorentz's aether FoR but time and again returns to the need for some
> sort of aether. As that idea was not accepted Einstein's alternative
> theory was in effect rejected. He had failed to come up with an
> alternative theoretical structure to that of Lorentz to give the maths
> authority.
>
> History does not show that Einstein's theory was rejected and that of
> Lorentz retained.
>
> What actually happened is bizarre. Einstein ...
>
> read more >>
----------------------------------
if i undersood you properly
yuou praech for Aether right??
iand you preach for physical understanding
and not only mathematical understanding
(which i agree upon physical understanding)
yet you do not fulfilyour own demnds for physical understanding
of Aether!!
physical understanding is not just as others indicated to you
it is not jsut words
the word Aether means nothing if you dont describe
its physicalproperties:
so waht is your aether physically??
is it a particle
does it have mass ??
waht is its mass
if your Aether is confining particles or waves
from getting lost
thaen waht about the law of conseravtion of momerntum?
if a wave pushes the Aether outwads
the aether should be pushed outwards
so
why should it not be lost running out of our universe ??
(becuse of those outwards pushes ??)
2
what happence to Aether in our expanding universe???
does it get mre andmotre delutede
if not why not ?
dowe ahve evidence that aether is becoming deluted with time?
do we have evidence that is not being deluted ?
and how is that afecting its influence on EM waves ??
in short
you are right that there are genrally more than one
interpretation to exparimentall data
yet you ddint consider that there is still another altervative:
the 'Circlon'
a basic particle **that moves naturally-
in a closed circle ** (unless disturbed on its way )
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
harry
> On Dec 10, 1:00 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:
>> "maxwell" <s...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f31ad3c1-d8f2-480a...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Take your pick. Either light speed is source dependent or there is
>> >> some
>> >> other physical process involved which requires something physical.
>> >> Traditionally that 'something physical' is called the aether.
>> >> --
>> >> John Kennaugh
>>
>> > There is another possibilty, as Maxwell readily acknowledged. This is
>> > the Action-at-a-Distance type of theories that were developed by his
>> > German rivals, like Weber. Maxwell acknowledged they got all the right
>> > answers but he did not LIKE this type of interaction, he preferred the
>> > metaphysics of DesCartes and not those of Newton, which viewed space
>> > as purely passive & not contributing to the process; IOW Newton's
>> > 'space' is not a medium or aether.
>>
>> "Not contributing to the process"? Surely you're joking! He based the
>> absolute space concept on the rotating water bucket, in which it appears
>> that space strongly contributes to the process - it was his medium for
>> the
>> propagation of inertia, and he used it to explain the preferred status of
>> Galilean/Newtonian frames of reference.
>>
>> Harald
>
> No, I was not joking. Newton's bucket demonstrates the absolute nature
> of relative rotation (bucket relative to the local 'fixed stars');
Yes indeed - rotation relative to what? The process is one of physical
rotation, which is the process of angular motion of an object with respect
to a physical reference.
> action-at-a-distance interactions (like gravity) are NOT field
> theories and do NOT depend on the state of local space but the
> relative location and velocity of remote matter.
Nobody suggested action-at-a-distance interactions here. Quite to the
contrary!
> It was not Newton's
> view that local space was 'dragging the water around'
Indeed. As he very clearly explained, the bucket was dragging the water
around.
> but remote
> matter that determines inertial local behaviour; see 'Relational
> Mechanics' by A.K.T. Assis (1999)
Here you confused Newton with Mach (and Weber).
Harald
Androcles
:
: "maxwell" <sp...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
The Coriolis effect clearly demonstrates Newton's
laws apply in a non-rotating frame of reference and
do not apply in a rotating frame of reference:
The ball is not "dragged around" by the carousel,
yet its path is curved.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Jeckyl
Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest
harry
Nice try. :-)
Relative to what do you think that "inertial frames" are not rotating? I can
give you a similar answer: they are not rotating relative to Newtonian
frames!
Harald
Dono
Jeckyl
>
> "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:13lvokn...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>> news:1197465...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>>> Yes indeed - rotation relative to what?
>>
>> Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest
>
> Nice try. :-)
Pretty much perfect
> Relative to what do you think that "inertial frames" are not rotating?
Every other inertial frame
> I can give you a similar answer: they are not rotating relative to
> Newtonian frames!
Rotation is absolute .. independent of the iFoR in which it is measured
Acceleration is absolute .. independent of the iFoR in which it is measured
Velocity is not.
Only iFoR really count, because they are the FoR where the laws of physics
apply uniformly and consistently.
harry
Consistency ain't the issue. Here's another consistent one: God exists
because it's written in the bible and the bible must be true because in it
God says that the bible is inspired by him. ;-)
iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect. The
question was about the physical cause that makes them look special or
"preferred".
The choice seems to be between Newton/Lorentz and Mach, or as Einstein
attempted, a bit of both - he fancied combining apparently incompatible
ideas. According to Einstein's original GRT, acceleration and rotation are
RELATIVE - but that didn't really work.
Regards,
Harald
Jeckyl
>
> "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:13m0ohg...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>> news:1197475...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>>>
>>> "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13lvokn...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>>>> news:1197465...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>>>>> Yes indeed - rotation relative to what?
>>>>
>>>> Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest
>>>
>>> Nice try. :-)
>>
>> Pretty much perfect
>>
>>> Relative to what do you think that "inertial frames" are not rotating?
>>
>> Every other inertial frame
>>
>>> I can give you a similar answer: they are not rotating relative to
>>> Newtonian frames!
>>
>> Rotation is absolute .. independent of the iFoR in which it is measured
>> Acceleration is absolute .. independent of the iFoR in which it is
>> measured
>> Velocity is not.
>>
>> Only iFoR really count, because they are the FoR where the laws of
>> physics apply uniformly and consistently.
>
> Consistency ain't the issue.
If the 'laws' dont appl consistently, they aren't laws.
> Here's another consistent one: God exists because it's written in the
> bible and the bible must be true because in it God says that the bible is
> inspired by him. ;-)
Nonsense
> iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect.
What do you mean 'can be' .. they aren't physical to begin with. There is
no framework out there .. there doesn't need to be any actual object that
htey are associated with. They are a concept.
> The question was about the physical cause that makes them look special or
> "preferred".
There is none .. there doesn't need to be one .. because they aren't
physical.
> The choice seems to be between Newton/Lorentz and Mach, or as Einstein
> attempted, a bit of both - he fancied combining apparently incompatible
> ideas. According to Einstein's original GRT, acceleration and rotation are
> RELATIVE - but that didn't really work.
Probably because they aren't.
John Kennaugh
>> Martin Hogbin wrote:
>> >
>> >"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> Martin Hogbin wrote:
>
>I have tidied up a bit. Please feel free to reinstate
>anything you consider important that I have deleted.
>Contrary to what some crackpots think I never
>try to make my case by deletion.
I have found the discussion so far unexpectedly civilised for this
newsgroup.
>> >In that hypothetical case would you be happy to accept Coulomb's
>> >law as fundamental or would you want some explanation?
>>
>> I think I clarify my position below.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> >Not really. Coulomb's law contains has time dependence, it is
>> >not part of Maxwell's equations. Put simply, it is wrong. But,
>> >if it were right, would you want an explanation.
>
>That should have read 'no time dependence'
>
>> If you believe as I do that Physics is screwed up then you have to go
>> into history to see the steps which lead to where you are now.
>
>Maybe, but I am trying to convince you that physics is not as
>screwed up as you think.
>> Physics is built on a set of
>> building blocks - Fundamental/irreducible building blocks. The first
>> priority is to reduce the number of building blocks to a minimum and
>> secondly to have building blocks which are as simple as is feasible.
>
>OK but as we have agreed we may have to change what is
>considered fundamental from time to time as new evidence
>is discovered.
Agreed
>> 'Simple as is feasible' would suggest that if the explanation is more
>> complex than what it is explaining it is a step too far *unless* such an
>> explanation reduces the total number of building blocks (priority 1).
>> Thus although the explanation of magnetism is more complex than what it
>> explains it is justified as it reduces the number of building blocks.
>
>Although I might not have expressed it that way I broadly agree.
>
>> According to Tom Roberts, a photon has no internal structure although
>> how anyone knows is a mystery. Dogma does creep into physics at times.
>> As far as I am concerned, the biggest challenge to physics is to explain
>> how photons en-mass can mimic waves so convincingly. If I was attempting
>> to solve that problem I would not like to face that challenge having to
>> assume a photon has no internal structure. When physics can explain the
>> wavelike behaviour of photons en-mass then and only then is it likely to
>> be in a position to take a stab at what the structure of a photon is.
>
>I would not call it dogma. Physics is to some degree what we want it to be.
>In the light of currently available evidence there is no need for internal
>structure in a photon. But I am not an expert on particle physics, Tom is.
>
>> Mass earns its place as a building block because it 'explains' other
>> things beside gravity e.g. momentum, inertia and kinetic energy.
>
>Pretty well everyone would agree with that, I would say.
>> >Would you call Newton's law of gravitation fundamental?
>>
>> See above.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> >When the limitations of Coulomb's
>> >law were discovered it became less fundamental. But I hope I have
>> >made clear that I want to talk about the hypothetical case where it
>> >has no limitations.
>
>> I would be interested in reading up on what you call the limitations of
>> Coulomb's law. It has nothing to do with this discussion but I am
>> interested.
>
>Coulomb's law is strictly true only in the static case. According to it, the
>force between two charges depends only on their magnitudes and the
>distance between them, there is no time term. Thus Coulomb's law
>implicitly states that the speed of propagation of a change in electric
>field is infinite.
I do not think the latter logically follows from the former. A law
established under static conditions surely cannot claim to cover
anything other than static conditions. In other words it is silent on
the subject of what would or wouldn't happen in dynamic circumstances.
I doubt that Coulomb made any such claim - he would be a fool to do so.
One of the thing which concerns me about modern physics is the tendency
to claim that an equation implies this, that, or the other. It certainly
isn't allowable to apply this way of looking at things retrospectively
to an equation which predates that way of doing interpretation.
One reason I believe physical interpretation is a necessary part of
physics is that then one has at least some idea what an equation is, and
is not, describing. Without that safeguard, especially when maths is
built on maths built on maths.... it would seem as reliable as reading
tea leaves. An awesomely impressive equation may be describing an
incredibly silly idea.
t = d/v + To
If I make v negative t < To. If To is the time I set out and t is the
time I arrive that implies that I arrive before I set out if I drive the
wrong way :o)
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> >> >> If so then a 'field' becomes a metaphysical 'field of influence'. A
>> >> >> mapping of the direction and amplitude of the force which
>> >> >>*would* act on
>> >> >> a charge *if* a charge were placed at a given point.
>> >
>> >My question is simply, if that were the case (which I know that it is not)
>> >would you demand a constructive explanation.
>>
>> Again I feel I have answered that. There is a constructive explanation
>> involving the aether and I respect those who take that view, I
>> personally think the assumption of it being fundamental is more
>> promising.
>
>OK. I agree with you on that.
>
>>If we were to move from the hypothetical case then that
>> judgement might need to be reviewed. Something may be considered as
>> fundamental but that is not cast in stone. It is always possible that
>> something which could not be understood to any greater depth at one
>> point in history can be at another.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> >Not in the hypothetical case I am talking about. When Coulomb first
>> >proposed his law he did not know that a change in electrostatic field
>> >would propagate at c. According to his formula it is instantaneous.
>>
>> Now who is going back into history? I was not assuming your
>> 'hypothetical case' ignored that much of human knowledge. As far as I am
>> aware Coulombs law was a totally static law. The variation of force with
>> distance - no motion involved. Your statement
>>
>> >According to his formula it is instantaneous.
>>
>> is misleading. I do not believe he made any such claim neither do I
>> believe you can 'read it' into his equation.
>
>I do not know what Coulomb believed but instantaneous transmission
>is clearly implicit in his equation - see discussion above.
We will have to disagree on that. It is Coulomb's equation and nothing
is implied by it which Coulomb did not intend it to imply. An equation
does not have a life of its own. It is a mathematical description of a
physical phenomena in this case a mathematical description of what
happens in a static situation.
The problem you are illustrating is that physics has been largely taken
over by mathematicians. They do not want to bother with (be constrained
by) physical interpretation and insist on assuming that an equation has
a life of its own and that they are entitled to 'read things' into
equations which are not there either by intent nor the result of
experiment. Deny them that and the whole thing collapses like a pack of
cards. It confirms my view that physical interpretation is necessary in
physics to maintain intellectual discipline.
>> OK I will put the argument in my own words as I do know what I am
>> thinking. Maxwells wave in aether theory was based upon the idea of
>> continuous fields which were physical stress in the aether. Thus the
>> action at a distance force between charges is transferred by stress in
>> the aether.
>> The point of our discussion is whether the force between charges is
>> fundamental rather than a property of the aether. In effect whether the
>> aether is needed to explain the force between charges or whether one can
>> simply assumes it is fundamental.
>> If you take that view bang goes the physical basis of Maxwell's aether
>> theory in that it needs physically real fields which can have a separate
>> existence in space. If you want to retain physically real fields then
>> the only alternative to the aether is to assume a field consist of some
>> sort of Physical 'stuff'. As I and Einstein conclude one might as well
>> stick with the aether if you want physically real fields.
>
>Yes. But let us now take Maxwell's equations as fundamental
>(maybe I have now moved on to where you started but I wanted to
>find out a few things about your thoughts first).
>
>As you have rightly pointed out, based on Maxwell's equations,
>the EM field can carry energy and momentum. I guess most would
>consider this to give it some kind of 'reality'. Whether you call it
>a field or the aether is just a choice of words. Physicists have
>preferred the term 'field'. Does the EM field having some independent
>reality trouble you?
It is an example of the mathematician at work. An equation has taken on
a life of its own (rather than being a description of a physical
process)- it 'implies' a physical field so a physical field is assumed.
It is arse about face.
You cannot assume the equation is fundamental and use that to justify
physical fields having declared that the necessary physical conditions
needed for physical fields does not exist. Without an aether Maxwell's
equations are a solution to an unknown problem.
I don't mind if physics wants to disown the aether but if it does it
have to move on and say that the idea of physical, continuous fields,
the basis of Maxwell are dead in the water and that energy and momentum
is carried by photons. Logically if you insist that EM fields are
associated with light, with photons, then photons must contain charge or
there is a fault in the reasoning somewhere.
>> >In the right (hypothetical as it happens) circumstances, are you happy to
>> >accept an obviously 'principle' explanation.
>>
>> I thought I had said so in some detail
>
>I just wanted to be sure that you do not rule out 'principle' descriptions in
>physics. But we agree, it seems, that they are generally to be preferred.
That is not what I said. What I said was that the basic building blocks
of physics (what you call principles - in my view a bad word) have to be
accepted as no further explanation-theory is possible (at the moment at
least). You have to justify something as a building block of physics on
the basis that it cannot be simplified. You cannot apply that to
something on the basis of convenience or to get yourself out of trouble
because you find that something you have built upon doesn't make sense.
If every phenomenon in described by the label 'principle' - you don't
need physics. Everything happens in the natural world because God
decreed that it should or because it is a principle of nature (same
thing). The assumption underpinning science is that there is order in
nature and that there is some point in studying it to discover what that
order is.
What we have done is agreed in principle that there have to be
Irreducible building blocks on which to build physics but we have not
agreed how you decide what is a building block and what in physics needs
to be explained in terms of building blocks. As to principle
descriptions being 'preferred' I would rather describe them as a last
resort.
>> >> So Maxwell's theory is dead. The fields on which it is based are now
>> >> metaphysical fields so it has no valid physical interpretation. There is
>> >> no theoretical structure which can result in physical energy being
>> >> transferred. His equations are now empirical and useful for engineers
>> >> but are not based on any sort of physical understanding. Perhaps the
>> >> only thing we can retain from Maxwell is that there must be some link
>> >> between light and charge. Maxwell's equations are derived from empirical
>> >> relationships relating to charge and they give accurate predictions in
>> >> most circumstances.
>> >
>> >I agree that things are much more complicated now but to say Maxwell's
>> >theory is dead is a bit strong.
>>
>> What is left of it? Maxwell's theory is based upon the assumed existence
>> of continuous physical fields. We are now assuming the fields aren't
>> physical neither are they continuous as light is particulate. Maxwell's
>> theory is that there is an aether and light is a physical stress
>> propagating through that aether. We are now assuming there is no aether,
>> the field which was a physical stress is not physical. The theory is
>> that when the stress propagating through the aether arrives its energy
>> causes physical effects - it transports energy. Now the light waves have
>> nothing physical to be waves in they cannot transport energy. Light is a
>> physical phenomena it is, or carries with it real physical energy in
>> measurable amounts. Maxwell's theory is no longer a physical theory
>> describing that physical phenomenon. Maxwell's equations are useful for
>> engineers because they give the right answer in the sort of circumstance
>> where engineers use them but they are now solutions to an unknown
>> problem.
>>
>> The only physical theory of light, one which can describe how energy can
>> get from A to B is the particulate model. Without an aether the
>> challenge is to refine that physical theory such that it can explain the
>> things Maxwell's theories tried to explain.
>So far I am only talking about the classical case.
> The current quantum
>theory of EM is QED. Have you looked at that?
No I would not claim to have done so. As I understand it QED is quantum
theory 'brought into line' with relativity. Relativity is based
ultimately on the authority of Maxwell's theory and Maxwell's theory is
dead in the water without the aether.
>> >> One must seriously question the status of SR. On the strength of the
>> >> authority of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics Einstein ditched two axioms
>> >> of physics and ended up with the whole of space and time being distorted
>> >> in order to retain Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics - and that no-longer
>> >> has any authority.
>> >>
>> >The ultimate authority in physics is experiment.
>>
>> This is from the rather dubious school of thought which says that
>> prediction is the be-all and end-all of physics and understanding is a
>> mirage.
>
>But in the case of a 'principle' explanation ther is no more
>understanding than the equations. We just say, the world is
>like that.
You have changed the definition we have agreed regarding what we mean by
an irreducible building block. For example mass is an irreducible
building block. What it is we have to take on trust but we accept that
it is physical in nature - on my definition of physical it can be
detected, it is involved in physical change. The gravity equation is
built upon the irreducible building block of mass as is the equation of
a projectile and an orbiting satellite. No equation is fundamental as it
is describing something more sophisticated than the building blocks
itself.
>> I accept that complete understanding is not possible but I do
>> believe that better understanding is possible and for that you need the
>> discipline of physical interpretation. You need to know in some sort of
>> physical terms what the maths is describing. Maths and physical
>> interpretation compliment each other. I don't expect you to agree with
>> me but that is where I stand.
>
>I am not completely against the contructive approach and I see
>nothing wrong with intuitive interpretations, they have helped many
>physicists in the past, however, modern experimental evidence is
>so weird, so unlike anything we see in everyday life, that our powerful
>human intuition may become of decreasing value.
You are perhaps ignoring the possibility that nature isn't weird and
that if it appears to be it is evidence that physics is seriously off
the rails. That is how I would interpret it. Having looked at the
history I am not surprised if it is. Everyone was so enamoured by
Maxwell that the discovery that light is particulate was pretty much
ignored. If you take away the modern spin then Einstein accepted the
interpretation of the MMX assumed Maxwell was tablets of stone i.e. that
every observer is stationary with respect to the aether. His second
postulate is simply a description of what an observer stationary w.r.t
the aether would experience. The 'observer's FoR' has the properties of
an aether stationary w.r.t the observer. It really isn't any more
sophisticated than that.
His 'genius' was in not abandoning his theory when it got silly as
others would have done. Whichever way you look at it, he thought it
better to assume the distortion of space and time rather than accept
that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is flawed - which it is - firstly
by the MMX, secondly by the fact that light is made up of particles
rather than waves and the final nail in the coffin by the assumption by
physics (not by Einstein) that the aether doesn't exist.
The other side of the coin is that the quantum nature of light spawned a
new branch of physics. This then got silly when some exceedingly bizarre
concepts got introduced by the Copenhagen school where physical and
metaphysical concepts sharing equations. Put simply in the Schrodinger's
cat experiment the only thing which changes when you open the box is a
metaphysical parameter - man's knowledge. Opening the box has no effect
on the cat although it may let the smell out :o).
>Then again
>someone may yet come up with a really neat intuitive idea.
If Physics is off the rails do you think it within the capability of one
person to find an alternative and replace a century of wrong physics and
interpretation? I don't. Anyone having a go at it would be immediately
labelled a crackpot, would have extreme difficulty getting his work
published and would have to fund his efforts himself. Unless he is a
masochist he would do better to find a different career.
>> >> The implications above are bypassed by Modern physics which may be
>> >> summed up as "Forget physics just do the maths".
>> >
>> >In some ways it is pretty close to that. Whatever the many-worlds
>> >supporters may say, the shut-up-and-calculate interpretation of
>> >QM is the most popular amongst physicists. Does that mean physics is
>> >dead. Well, it has been squashed into a narrow gap between philosophy
>> >and maths but I believe that it still exists.
>>
>> Perhaps you should ask 'where is it going' and 'what is to stop it going
>> there'.
>
>I am not sure that I can answer those questions except to say that the aim
>is to get to a theory of everything.
Isn't that the idea behind string theory? If eventually string theory
claims to explain everything do you believe that anything at all will
have been achieved i.e. would our understanding of nature be any better
than it is now?
--
John Kennaugh
harry
Indeed. It ain't an issue.
>> Here's another consistent one: God exists because it's written in the
>> bible and the bible must be true because in it God says that the bible is
>> inspired by him. ;-)
>
> Nonsense
Exactly - consistent but that's not the issue. :-)
>> iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect.
>
> What do you mean 'can be' .. they aren't physical to begin with.
The most classical (nearly) inertial frame by Galileo is a ship that sails a
steady course at sea. That's very physical.
> There is no framework out there .. there doesn't need to be any actual
> object that htey are associated with. They are a concept.
Exactly. Concepts of the mind can't physically affect you - except perhaps
if you believe in telekinesis. :-)
>> The question was about the physical cause that makes them look special or
>> "preferred".
>
> There is none .. there doesn't need to be one .. because they aren't
> physical.
Then let's get back to your explanation, and substitute the appropriate
words according to your own clarification:
Summarizing the conversation:
Maxwell:
"Newton's bucket demonstrates the absolute nature
of relative rotation (bucket relative to the local 'fixed stars')"
Harald:
Yes indeed - rotation relative to what?
Jeckyl:
Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest.
They aren't physical.
>> The choice seems to be between Newton/Lorentz and Mach, or as Einstein
>> attempted, a bit of both - he fancied combining apparently incompatible
>> ideas. According to Einstein's original GRT, acceleration and rotation
>> are RELATIVE - but that didn't really work.
>
> Probably because they aren't.
Thus, for the explanation of the physical cause of inertia and its
manifestations such as the "absolute" speed of rotation, the choice appears
to be between:
- Physical Space (local, Newton)
- Physical effects from The Stars (action-at-a-distance by means of X,
Mach);
or, as you seem to assert here above,
- Unphysical influence by the human mind.
Harald
bz
news:13m0ohg...@corp.supernews.com:
How about this:
Pick three masses located somewhere in empty space.
Tie two together with a flexible string.
Test1) The two are not rotating (wrt the third) if there is no tension in
the string and the string configuration remains the same over time.
Test2) The two are not rotating IF they always maintains the same
orientation wrt the third body.
If the distance between the center of mass of the two and the third body
also remains the same, then they are stationary in relation to each other
IN ALL inertial frames.
Jeckyl
Yes .. consistency is. If the results and predictions are not consistent,
then there is no more physics.
>>> Here's another consistent one: God exists because it's written in the
>>> bible and the bible must be true because in it God says that the bible
>>> is inspired by him. ;-)
>> Nonsense
> Exactly - consistent but that's not the issue. :-)
Consistent is not sufficient .. I didn't say it was .. but it is necessary.
Do you know the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions?
>>> iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect.
>> What do you mean 'can be' .. they aren't physical to begin with.
> The most classical (nearly) inertial frame by Galileo is a ship that sails
> a steady course at sea. That's very physical.
No .. he ship is physical .. the frame of reference is a concept
>> There is no framework out there .. there doesn't need to be any actual
>> object that htey are associated with. They are a concept.
> Exactly. Concepts of the mind can't physically affect you - except perhaps
> if you believe in telekinesis. :-)
Who said they did? That's really the point.. if you are at rest wrt some
frame of reference and I am at rest wrt some different frame of reference,
then there is no physical effect on us from that. The same laws of physics
apply.
The concepts of the mind can model what is physical .. and they do very
nicely.
Why is it you have a problem with intertial frames of reference .. did you
miss the lecture on that?
>>> The question was about the physical cause that makes them look special
>>> or "preferred".
>> There is none .. there doesn't need to be one .. because they aren't
>> physical.
> Then let's get back to your explanation, and substitute the appropriate
> words according to your own clarification:
>
> Summarizing the conversation:
>
> Maxwell:
> "Newton's bucket demonstrates the absolute nature
> of relative rotation (bucket relative to the local 'fixed stars')"
> Harald:
> Yes indeed - rotation relative to what?
> Jeckyl:
> Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest.
> They aren't physical.
But the location of the centre of the rotation is a physical location. And
the motion is relative to that.
If you like, pick another object that is at rest relative to the center of
rotation. Then you can get the roation relatie to the line joining those
points.
>>> The choice seems to be between Newton/Lorentz and Mach, or as Einstein
>>> attempted, a bit of both - he fancied combining apparently incompatible
>>> ideas. According to Einstein's original GRT, acceleration and rotation
>>> are RELATIVE - but that didn't really work.
>> Probably because they aren't.
>
> Thus, for the explanation of the physical cause of inertia and its
> manifestations such as the "absolute" speed of rotation, the choice
> appears to be between:
> - Physical Space (local, Newton)
> - Physical effects from The Stars (action-at-a-distance by means of X,
> Mach);
> or, as you seem to assert here above,
> - Unphysical influence by the human mind.
I did not claim any such thing. I said nothing about the physical cause of
inertia (which is really metaphysics anyway)
harry
I already tried to explain that to you. Nonsense can be perfectly
consistent. That's not the problem.
>>>> iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect.
>>> What do you mean 'can be' .. they aren't physical to begin with.
>> The most classical (nearly) inertial frame by Galileo is a ship that
>> sails a steady course at sea. That's very physical.
>
> No .. he ship is physical .. the frame of reference is a concept
A ship can serve as a frame of reference but what we commonly mean with it
is a construct of the mind - and we agree on that, it's not constructive to
pretend to disagree on what you already made clear to agree with.
>>> There is no framework out there .. there doesn't need to be any actual
>>> object that htey are associated with. They are a concept.
>> Exactly. Concepts of the mind can't physically affect you - except
>> perhaps if you believe in telekinesis. :-)
>
> Who said they did? That's really the point.. if you are at rest wrt some
> frame of reference and I am at rest wrt some different frame of reference,
> then there is no physical effect on us from that. The same laws of
> physics apply.
The point that Newton made was that you can also choose a frame of reference
that is rotating relative to it; and other laws of physics apply.
> The concepts of the mind can model what is physical .. and they do very
> nicely.
Sure.
> Why is it you have a problem with intertial frames of reference .. did you
> miss the lecture on that?
In fact you didn't understand my lecture to you on that - which was a retake
of those of Newton, Mach and Einstein. :-)
>>>> The question was about the physical cause that makes them look special
>>>> or "preferred".
>>> There is none .. there doesn't need to be one .. because they aren't
>>> physical.
>> Then let's get back to your explanation, and substitute the appropriate
>> words according to your own clarification:
>>
>> Summarizing the conversation:
>>
>> Maxwell:
>> "Newton's bucket demonstrates the absolute nature
>> of relative rotation (bucket relative to the local 'fixed stars')"
>> Harald:
>> Yes indeed - rotation relative to what?
>> Jeckyl:
>> Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest.
>> They aren't physical.
>
> But the location of the centre of the rotation is a physical location.
> And the motion is relative to that.
There is no motion relative to a co-rotating frame.
> If you like, pick another object that is at rest relative to the center of
> rotation. Then you can get the roation relatie to the line joining those
> points.
See above - the centre of rotation wasn't the issue that Newton and Mach
discussed.
>>>> The choice seems to be between Newton/Lorentz and Mach, or as Einstein
>>>> attempted, a bit of both - he fancied combining apparently incompatible
>>>> ideas. According to Einstein's original GRT, acceleration and rotation
>>>> are RELATIVE - but that didn't really work.
>>> Probably because they aren't.
>>
>> Thus, for the explanation of the physical cause of inertia and its
>> manifestations such as the "absolute" speed of rotation, the choice
>> appears to be between:
>> - Physical Space (local, Newton)
>> - Physical effects from The Stars (action-at-a-distance by means of X,
>> Mach);
>> or, as you seem to assert here above,
>> - Unphysical influence by the human mind.
>
> I did not claim any such thing. I said nothing about the physical cause
> of inertia (which is really metaphysics anyway)
This IS about metaphysics. Newton and Mach admitted to the need of a
metaphysical postulate on which to base mechanics on; Mach's disagreement
concerned the particular model, not the requirement for one. Einstein didn't
use such a model as postulate; nevertheless he could not escape their
logical arguments about physical interpretation of the laws of physics.
Regards,
Harald
Jeckyl
Again .. you just don't get it .. Laws of physics have to be consistent.
that nonsense can also be consistent does not mena the laws of physis is
nonsense, or that consitency is not required for laws of physcis.
Perhaps logic isn't your forte
>>>>> iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect.
>>>> What do you mean 'can be' .. they aren't physical to begin with.
>>> The most classical (nearly) inertial frame by Galileo is a ship that
>>> sails a steady course at sea. That's very physical.
>> No .. he ship is physical .. the frame of reference is a concept
> A ship can serve as a frame of reference
No .. the ship is just a ship. We can associate the concept of a frame of
reference with it :)
> but what we commonly mean with it is a construct of the mind - and we
> agree on that, it's not constructive to pretend to disagree on what you
> already made clear to agree with.
I'm not .. you're the one insisting that frames of reference are physical.
They aren't .. they can simply be associated with, and described by,
something physical
>>>> There is no framework out there .. there doesn't need to be any actual
>>>> object that htey are associated with. They are a concept.
>>> Exactly. Concepts of the mind can't physically affect you - except
>>> perhaps if you believe in telekinesis. :-)
>> Who said they did? That's really the point.. if you are at rest wrt some
>> frame of reference and I am at rest wrt some different frame of
>> reference, then there is no physical effect on us from that. The same
>> laws of physics apply.
>
> The point that Newton made was that you can also choose a frame of
> reference that is rotating relative to it; and other laws of physics
> apply.
So you get different physics in a non-inertial frame of refernece.. No one
is disagreeing with that.
>> The concepts of the mind can model what is physical .. and they do very
>> nicely.
> Sure.
>
>> Why is it you have a problem with intertial frames of reference .. did
>> you miss the lecture on that?
> In fact you didn't understand my lecture to you on that - which was a
> retake of those of Newton, Mach and Einstein. :-)
You gave a lecture .. where?
>>>>> The question was about the physical cause that makes them look special
>>>>> or "preferred".
>>>> There is none .. there doesn't need to be one .. because they aren't
>>>> physical.
>>> Then let's get back to your explanation, and substitute the appropriate
>>> words according to your own clarification:
>>> Summarizing the conversation:
>>> Maxwell:
>>> "Newton's bucket demonstrates the absolute nature
>>> of relative rotation (bucket relative to the local 'fixed stars')"
>>> Harald:
>>> Yes indeed - rotation relative to what?
>>> Jeckyl:
>>> Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest.
>>> They aren't physical.
>> But the location of the centre of the rotation is a physical location.
>> And the motion is relative to that.
>
> There is no motion relative to a co-rotating frame.
What co-rotating frame?
>> If you like, pick another object that is at rest relative to the center
>> of rotation. Then you can get the roation relatie to the line joining
>> those points.
> See above - the centre of rotation wasn't the issue that Newton and Mach
> discussed.
I wasn't discussing Newton and Mach
>>>>> The choice seems to be between Newton/Lorentz and Mach, or as Einstein
>>>>> attempted, a bit of both - he fancied combining apparently
>>>>> incompatible ideas. According to Einstein's original GRT, acceleration
>>>>> and rotation are RELATIVE - but that didn't really work.
>>>> Probably because they aren't.
>>>
>>> Thus, for the explanation of the physical cause of inertia and its
>>> manifestations such as the "absolute" speed of rotation, the choice
>>> appears to be between:
>>> - Physical Space (local, Newton)
>>> - Physical effects from The Stars (action-at-a-distance by means of X,
>>> Mach);
>>> or, as you seem to assert here above,
>>> - Unphysical influence by the human mind.
>>
>> I did not claim any such thing. I said nothing about the physical cause
>> of inertia (which is really metaphysics anyway)
>
> This IS about metaphysics. Newton and Mach admitted to the need of a
> metaphysical postulate on which to base mechanics on; Mach's disagreement
> concerned the particular model, not the requirement for one. Einstein
> didn't use such a model as postulate; nevertheless he could not escape
> their logical arguments about physical interpretation of the laws of
> physics.
Fine .. nothing wrong with metaphysics, or physics .. as long as one knows
what one is referring to.
It appears all this has drifted so far off topic, I don't know what was
being talked about .. oh that's right .. whether rotation was absolute .. as
we have the concept of an inertial frame of reference (and whatever physical
things it may correspond to), and because rotation is acceleration
(non-inertial), it is absolute wrt the inertial frames of reference in which
our laws of physics are framed. At least in terms of SR. Things are less
clear when we bring GR into play :)
harry
It looks like a speach confusion. ;-)
> Laws of physics have to be consistent. that nonsense can also be
> consistent does not mena the laws of physis is nonsense, or that
> consitency is not required for laws of physcis.
Agreed. And as I repeatedly stressed, that's not the issue for the physical
interpretation of physics.
> Perhaps logic isn't your forte
It looks more like it ain't yours ;-)
>>>>>> iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect.
>>>>> What do you mean 'can be' .. they aren't physical to begin with.
>>>> The most classical (nearly) inertial frame by Galileo is a ship that
>>>> sails a steady course at sea. That's very physical.
>>> No .. he ship is physical .. the frame of reference is a concept
>> A ship can serve as a frame of reference
>
> No .. the ship is just a ship. We can associate the concept of a frame of
> reference with it :)
A frame is commonly a thing - check the dictionary :-)
>> but what we commonly mean with it is a construct of the mind - and we
>> agree on that, it's not constructive to pretend to disagree on what you
>> already made clear to agree with.
>
> I'm not .. you're the one insisting that frames of reference are physical.
> They aren't .. they can simply be associated with, and described by,
> something physical
Instead you misread what I wrote and next argued against your own straw man.
Let it be. :-)
>>>>> There is no framework out there .. there doesn't need to be any actual
>>>>> object that htey are associated with. They are a concept.
>>>> Exactly. Concepts of the mind can't physically affect you - except
>>>> perhaps if you believe in telekinesis. :-)
>>> Who said they did? That's really the point.. if you are at rest wrt
>>> some frame of reference and I am at rest wrt some different frame of
>>> reference, then there is no physical effect on us from that. The same
>>> laws of physics apply.
>>
>> The point that Newton made was that you can also choose a frame of
>> reference that is rotating relative to it; and other laws of physics
>> apply.
>
> So you get different physics in a non-inertial frame of refernece.. No one
> is disagreeing with that.
No one suggested that anyone is disagreeing with that. :-)
>>> The concepts of the mind can model what is physical .. and they do very
>>> nicely.
>> Sure.
>>
>>> Why is it you have a problem with intertial frames of reference .. did
>>> you miss the lecture on that?
>> In fact you didn't understand my lecture to you on that - which was a
>> retake of those of Newton, Mach and Einstein. :-)
>
> You gave a lecture .. where?
Here above. ;-)
>>>>>> The question was about the physical cause that makes them look
>>>>>> special or "preferred".
>>>>> There is none .. there doesn't need to be one .. because they aren't
>>>>> physical.
>>>> Then let's get back to your explanation, and substitute the appropriate
>>>> words according to your own clarification:
>>>> Summarizing the conversation:
>>>> Maxwell:
>>>> "Newton's bucket demonstrates the absolute nature
>>>> of relative rotation (bucket relative to the local 'fixed stars')"
>>>> Harald:
>>>> Yes indeed - rotation relative to what?
>>>> Jeckyl:
>>>> Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest.
>>>> They aren't physical.
>>> But the location of the centre of the rotation is a physical location.
>>> And the motion is relative to that.
>>
>> There is no motion relative to a co-rotating frame.
>
> What co-rotating frame?
The one in which the object is in rest.
>>> If you like, pick another object that is at rest relative to the center
>>> of rotation. Then you can get the roation relatie to the line joining
>>> those points.
>> See above - the centre of rotation wasn't the issue that Newton and Mach
>> discussed.
>
> I wasn't discussing Newton and Mach
Then you are in the wrong thread! You responded to my reaction to:
"Newton, which viewed space as purely passive & not contributing to the
process"
>>>>>> The choice seems to be between Newton/Lorentz and Mach, or as
>>>>>> Einstein attempted, a bit of both - he fancied combining apparently
>>>>>> incompatible ideas. According to Einstein's original GRT,
>>>>>> acceleration and rotation are RELATIVE - but that didn't really work.
>>>>> Probably because they aren't.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, for the explanation of the physical cause of inertia and its
>>>> manifestations such as the "absolute" speed of rotation, the choice
>>>> appears to be between:
>>>> - Physical Space (local, Newton)
>>>> - Physical effects from The Stars (action-at-a-distance by means of X,
>>>> Mach);
>>>> or, as you seem to assert here above,
>>>> - Unphysical influence by the human mind.
>>>
>>> I did not claim any such thing. I said nothing about the physical cause
>>> of inertia (which is really metaphysics anyway)
>>
>> This IS about metaphysics. Newton and Mach admitted to the need of a
>> metaphysical postulate on which to base mechanics on; Mach's disagreement
>> concerned the particular model, not the requirement for one. Einstein
>> didn't use such a model as postulate; nevertheless he could not escape
>> their logical arguments about physical interpretation of the laws of
>> physics.
>
> Fine .. nothing wrong with metaphysics, or physics .. as long as one knows
> what one is referring to.
Right.
> It appears all this has drifted so far off topic, I don't know what was
> being talked about .. oh that's right .. whether rotation was absolute ..
In fact, it was about the claim that "Newton viewed space as purely passive
& not contributing to the process".
And we were agreeing that rotation is absolute.
> as we have the concept of an inertial frame of reference (and whatever
> physical things it may correspond to),
The "whatever" was Newton's argument. :-)
> and because rotation is acceleration (non-inertial), it is absolute wrt
> the inertial frames of reference in which our laws of physics are framed.
> At least in terms of SR. Things are less clear when we bring GR into play
> :)
That depends on one's version of GRT. :-)
I'm out of here. Enjoy your weekend!
Harald
Martin Hogbin
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
> >
> >"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:f2E11XGZ...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> >
> >
> >force between two charges depends only on their magnitudes and the
> >distance between them, there is no time term. Thus Coulomb's law
> >implicitly states that the speed of propagation of a change in electric
> >field is infinite.
>
> I do not think the latter logically follows from the former. A law
> established under static conditions surely cannot claim to cover
> anything other than static conditions. In other words it is silent on
> the subject of what would or wouldn't happen in dynamic circumstances.
> I doubt that Coulomb made any such claim - he would be a fool to do so.
Maybe we are arguing only about semantics here. Coulombs law,
as it is written, implicitly makes the propagation speed of the electric field
infinite. You might say, though, that it is not applicable in the case of
moving charges, and you would be right.
> One of the thing which concerns me about modern physics is the tendency
> to claim that an equation implies this, that, or the other. It certainly
> isn't allowable to apply this way of looking at things retrospectively
> to an equation which predates that way of doing interpretation.
>
That cannot be right. If someone proposes an equation based on
a madcap idea but it turns out that the equation is valid in all
cases that does not make the equation wrong.
Coulomb's law and Maxwell's equations are good examples to
consider in this respect.
Coulomb was unlucky. He proposed a formula that turned out to
exact only in the static case.
Maxwell's equations turn out to be valid in all classical (non-quantum)
cases. This was good luck.
> One reason I believe physical interpretation is a necessary part of
> physics is that then one has at least some idea what an equation is, and
> is not, describing.
You have slipped back into using the undefined term 'physical'.
Do you mean 'constrictive'?
>Without that safeguard, especially when maths is
> built on maths built on maths.... it would seem as reliable as reading
> tea leaves. An awesomely impressive equation may be describing an
> incredibly silly idea.
>
>
> t = d/v + To
>
> If I make v negative t < To. If To is the time I set out and t is the
> time I arrive that implies that I arrive before I set out if I drive the
> wrong way :o)
Yes, people should state the range of validity of any equation.
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >I do not know what Coulomb believed but instantaneous transmission
> >is clearly implicit in his equation .
>
> We will have to disagree on that. It is Coulomb's equation and nothing
> is implied by it which Coulomb did not intend it to imply. An equation
> does not have a life of its own. It is a mathematical description of a
> physical phenomena in this case a mathematical description of what
> happens in a static situation.
The equation itself implies everything that follows by putting values
into it and calculating the answer. We agree that equations should have
clearly stated realms of validity.
> The problem you are illustrating is that physics has been largely taken
> over by mathematicians. They do not want to bother with (be constrained
> by) physical interpretation and insist on assuming that an equation has
> a life of its own and that they are entitled to 'read things' into
> equations which are not there either by intent nor the result of
> experiment. Deny them that and the whole thing collapses like a pack of
> cards. It confirms my view that physical interpretation is necessary in
> physics to maintain intellectual discipline.
I would agree with you if you were to substitute 'experiment' for 'physical
interpretation'.
As you have said, Coulomb came up with his equation based on
essentially static experiments. If we want to know if it valid in a
dynamic case, all the philosophical musing in the world is to no
avail. If we want to know the answer to that question we
have do an experiment. As it turns out Coulomb's law is
not valid in the dynamic case, but it might have been. There
was no way to tell but to do the experiment.
I do not understand your problem. You were happy to take
Coulomb's law as fundamental.
> You cannot assume the equation is fundamental and use that to justify
> physical fields having declared that the necessary physical conditions
> needed for physical fields does not exist. Without an aether Maxwell's
> equations are a solution to an unknown problem.
Not at all. Maxwell's equations tell us about the behaviour of
measurable quantities. Why not take ME as the fundamental equations
of (classical) electromagnetism - no further explanation needed, just
as you were willing to do with our hypothetical Coulomb's law.
*************************************************
A (relevant) digression...
Near the end of my first year at university (studying physics)
a mathematician friend of mine asked about the course I
had been doing. I proudly told him about the electromagnetism
unit I had been studying, which was the usual undergraduate
introduction to EM, starting with Coulomb's law etc and
progressing through vector calculus to Maxwell's equations,
and such.
'Electromagnetism?' he said without a hint of smugness, 'I think
we did that last Tuesday afternoon'. On questioning him
further about that statement I found out that he had started with
Maxwell's equations and, from them, quickly derived most of
the formulae and laws we had spent that year studying.
I spent the rest of the day wondering what I knew about
electromagnetism that he did not.
*************************************************
> I don't mind if physics wants to disown the aether but if it does it
> have to move on and say that the idea of physical, continuous fields,
> the basis of Maxwell are dead in the water and that energy and momentum
> is carried by photons. Logically if you insist that EM fields are
> associated with light, with photons, then photons must contain charge or
> there is a fault in the reasoning somewhere.
I do not follow your reasoning for any of the above.
> >> >In the right (hypothetical as it happens) circumstances, are you happy to
> >> >accept an obviously 'principle' explanation.
> >>
> >> I thought I had said so in some detail
> >
> >I just wanted to be sure that you do not rule out 'principle' descriptions in
> >physics. But we agree, it seems, that they are generally to be preferred.
>
> That is not what I said. What I said was that the basic building blocks
> of physics (what you call principles - in my view a bad word) ...
I was using the term you introduced in your Einstein quote. You (he)
divided explanations into 'constructive and 'principle'.
>..have to be
> accepted as no further explanation-theory is possible (at the moment at
> least). You have to justify something as a building block of physics on
> the basis that it cannot be simplified.
Agreed.
> You cannot apply that to
> something on the basis of convenience or to get yourself out of trouble
> because you find that something you have built upon doesn't make sense.
> If every phenomenon in described by the label 'principle' - you don't
> need physics. Everything happens in the natural world because God
> decreed that it should or because it is a principle of nature (same
> thing).
We have agreed that we want the simplest explanation. In the case of
EM, Maxwell's equations (plus charge conservation) are the simplest
way we have yet discovered of describing all the diverse classical EM
phenomena that we observe. Why not make them fundamental.
>The assumption underpinning science is that there is order in
> nature and that there is some point in studying it to discover what that
> order is.
I disagree with you here. We have no right to assume that there
must be any order to nature - there might be, there might not.
To assert that there _must_ be some kind of order to nature is
to assume powers we do not possess.
> What we have done is agreed in principle that there have to be
> Irreducible building blocks on which to build physics but we have not
> agreed how you decide what is a building block and what in physics needs
> to be explained in terms of building blocks. As to principle
> descriptions being 'preferred' I would rather describe them as a last
> resort.
>
>
.............................................................................
> > The current quantum
> >theory of EM is QED. Have you looked at that?
>
> No I would not claim to have done so. As I understand it QED is quantum
> theory 'brought into line' with relativity. Relativity is based
> ultimately on the authority of Maxwell's theory and Maxwell's theory is
> dead in the water without the aether.
Maxwell's original theory may well be wrong, but his equations describe
reality very well, without the need for an aether.
> >> >> One must seriously question the status of SR. On the strength of the
> >> >> authority of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics Einstein ditched two axioms
> >> >> of physics and ended up with the whole of space and time being distorted
> >> >> in order to retain Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics - and that no-longer
> >> >> has any authority.
> >> >>
> >> >The ultimate authority in physics is experiment.
> >>
> >> This is from the rather dubious school of thought which says that
> >> prediction is the be-all and end-all of physics and understanding is a
> >> mirage.
> >
> >But in the case of a 'principle' explanation there is no more
> >understanding than the equations. We just say, the world is
> >like that.
>
> You have changed the definition we have agreed regarding what we mean by
> an irreducible building block. For example mass is an irreducible
> building block. What it is we have to take on trust but we accept that
> it is physical in nature - on my definition of physical it can be
> detected, it is involved in physical change.
Maxwell's equations describe the relationship between measurable
quantities in just the same way that Newton's laws of motion
and gravity do.
> The gravity equation is
> built upon the irreducible building block of mass as is the equation of
> a projectile and an orbiting satellite. No equation is fundamental as it
> is describing something more sophisticated than the building blocks
> itself.
We have observable (measurable) quantities. Physics is about determining
the relationships between them.
> >
> >I am not completely against the constructive approach and I see
> >nothing wrong with intuitive interpretations, they have helped many
> >physicists in the past, however, modern experimental evidence is
> >so weird, so unlike anything we see in everyday life, that our powerful
> >human intuition may become of decreasing value.
>
> You are perhaps ignoring the possibility that nature isn't weird and
> that if it appears to be it is evidence that physics is seriously off
> the rails.
Well if it is not it is doing a very good job of convincing us
otherwise, but if some genius pops up one day with a simple
explanation for everything I, along with most others, would be
delighted.
But there is no reason to suppose that the way things behave
on scales different from those of everyday life should be similar
to the way everyday things behave.
>That is how I would interpret it. Having looked at the
> history I am not surprised if it is. Everyone was so enamoured by
> Maxwell that the discovery that light is particulate was pretty much
> ignored. If you take away the modern spin then Einstein accepted the
> interpretation of the MMX assumed Maxwell was tablets of stone i.e. that
> every observer is stationary with respect to the aether. His second
> postulate is simply a description of what an observer stationary w.r.t
> the aether would experience. The 'observer's FoR' has the properties of
> an aether stationary w.r.t the observer. It really isn't any more
> sophisticated than that.
>
> His 'genius' was in not abandoning his theory when it got silly as
> others would have done. Whichever way you look at it, he thought it
> better to assume the distortion of space and time rather than accept
> that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is flawed - which it is - firstly
> by the MMX, secondly by the fact that light is made up of particles
> rather than waves and the final nail in the coffin by the assumption by
> physics (not by Einstein) that the aether doesn't exist.
Einstein did not assume that the aether (In anything like the form
you mean) exists.
> The other side of the coin is that the quantum nature of light spawned a
> new branch of physics. This then got silly when some exceedingly bizarre
> concepts got introduced by the Copenhagen school where physical and
> metaphysical concepts sharing equations.
There is no other way to explain the facts. Physics is not weird on purpose.
> Put simply in the Schrodinger's
> cat experiment the only thing which changes when you open the box is a
> metaphysical parameter - man's knowledge. Opening the box has no effect
> on the cat although it may let the smell out :o).
>
> >Then again
> >someone may yet come up with a really neat intuitive idea.
>
> If Physics is off the rails do you think it within the capability of one
> person to find an alternative and replace a century of wrong physics and
> interpretation? I don't. Anyone having a go at it would be immediately
> labelled a crackpot, would have extreme difficulty getting his work
> published and would have to fund his efforts himself. Unless he is a
> masochist he would do better to find a different career.
People are regarded as crackpots if they simply insist physics is wrong
without proposing any alternative.
Any theory that predicts all current observations would be well received
if it were simpler to understand that current theories. But it is no use
raving, you have to come up with the theory. You cannot demand
that other do it.
> >I am not sure that I can answer those questions except to say that the aim
> >is to get to a theory of everything.
>
> Isn't that the idea behind string theory?
It is the aim of physics.
> If eventually string theory
> claims to explain everything do you believe that anything at all will
> have been achieved i.e. would our understanding of nature be any better
> than it is now?
Yes, if the new theory was able to predict more than current theories.
--
Martin Hogbin
Jeckyl
I'm not confused .. but I'm sorry to see that you are.
>> Laws of physics have to be consistent. that nonsense can also be
>> consistent does not mena the laws of physis is nonsense, or that
>> consitency is not required for laws of physcis.
>
> Agreed. And as I repeatedly stressed, that's not the issue for the
> physical interpretation of physics.
>> Perhaps logic isn't your forte
> It looks more like it ain't yours ;-)
Quite to the contrary. Please .. look up the difference between necessary
and sufficient, before you embarrass yourself further.
>>>>>>> iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect.
>>>>>> What do you mean 'can be' .. they aren't physical to begin with.
>>>>> The most classical (nearly) inertial frame by Galileo is a ship that
>>>>> sails a steady course at sea. That's very physical.
>>>> No .. he ship is physical .. the frame of reference is a concept
>>> A ship can serve as a frame of reference
>> No .. the ship is just a ship. We can associate the concept of a frame
>> of reference with it :)
> A frame is commonly a thing - check the dictionary :-)
Not in physics. Maybe you should try studying it to find out?
>>> but what we commonly mean with it is a construct of the mind - and we
>>> agree on that, it's not constructive to pretend to disagree on what you
>>> already made clear to agree with.
>> I'm not .. you're the one insisting that frames of reference are
>> physical. They aren't .. they can simply be associated with, and
>> described by, something physical
>
> Instead you misread what I wrote and next argued against your own straw
> man.
I constructed no strawman .. and did not argue against myself
> Let it be. :-)
Good advice
>>>>>> There is no framework out there .. there doesn't need to be any
>>>>>> actual object that htey are associated with. They are a concept.
>>>>> Exactly. Concepts of the mind can't physically affect you - except
>>>>> perhaps if you believe in telekinesis. :-)
>>>> Who said they did? That's really the point.. if you are at rest wrt
>>>> some frame of reference and I am at rest wrt some different frame of
>>>> reference, then there is no physical effect on us from that. The same
>>>> laws of physics apply.
>>> The point that Newton made was that you can also choose a frame of
>>> reference that is rotating relative to it; and other laws of physics
>>> apply.
>> So you get different physics in a non-inertial frame of refernece.. No
>> one is disagreeing with that.
> No one suggested that anyone is disagreeing with that. :-)
A lot of poeple seem very confused by the idea of inertial frames .. Sue for
one. Sh'e argue against anything, usually out of ignorance.
>>>> The concepts of the mind can model what is physical .. and they do very
>>>> nicely.
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>>> Why is it you have a problem with intertial frames of reference .. did
>>>> you miss the lecture on that?
>>> In fact you didn't understand my lecture to you on that - which was a
>>> retake of those of Newton, Mach and Einstein. :-)
>> You gave a lecture .. where?
> Here above. ;-)
Nope .. don't see any.
>>>>>>> The question was about the physical cause that makes them look
>>>>>>> special or "preferred".
>>>>>> There is none .. there doesn't need to be one .. because they aren't
>>>>>> physical.
>>>>> Then let's get back to your explanation, and substitute the
>>>>> appropriate words according to your own clarification:
>>>>> Summarizing the conversation:
>>>>> Maxwell:
>>>>> "Newton's bucket demonstrates the absolute nature
>>>>> of relative rotation (bucket relative to the local 'fixed stars')"
>>>>> Harald:
>>>>> Yes indeed - rotation relative to what?
>>>>> Jeckyl:
>>>>> Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest.
>>>>> They aren't physical.
>>>> But the location of the centre of the rotation is a physical location.
>>>> And the motion is relative to that.
>>> There is no motion relative to a co-rotating frame.
>> What co-rotating frame?
> The one in which the object is in rest.
I know what it is .. just wondering where that suddenly appeared from .. we
weren't discussing co-rotating frames and suddenly they appeared in your
post from nowhere
>>>> If you like, pick another object that is at rest relative to the center
>>>> of rotation. Then you can get the roation relatie to the line joining
>>>> those points.
>>> See above - the centre of rotation wasn't the issue that Newton and Mach
>>> discussed.
>> I wasn't discussing Newton and Mach
> Then you are in the wrong thread!
> You responded to my reaction to:
> "Newton, which viewed space as purely passive & not contributing to the
> process"
No .. I didn't. I don't know what you think I posted, but it wasn't a
response to that
Yes .. it is. That's what I said as well. Why are you arguing with it?
>> as we have the concept of an inertial frame of reference (and whatever
>> physical things it may correspond to),
>
> The "whatever" was Newton's argument. :-)
>
>> and because rotation is acceleration (non-inertial), it is absolute wrt
>> the inertial frames of reference in which our laws of physics are framed.
>> At least in terms of SR. Things are less clear when we bring GR into
>> play :)
>
> That depends on one's version of GRT. :-)
> I'm out of here. Enjoy your weekend!
You too.
John Kennaugh
You seem somehow to have misunderstood my position - perhaps reading
something into what I wrote which I certainly did not intend to be
there. At one point you state:
>You have slipped back into using the undefined term 'physical'.
>Do you mean 'constrictive'?
I defined - at your insistence - what I meant by physical. Perhaps you
would check back to see what I wrote.
My position is as follows:
Physics is built on what I describes as building blocks. Things which
may be considered fundamental and irreducible because there is no way of
explaining them in simpler terms or in terms of other such building
blocks. Having identified a building block, physics looks to build up a
picture of its place in the physical order of things. What its
properties are. One does that by experiment. Laws - equations - are ways
of condensing the results of experiment. They build up a picture.
I believe I made it clear when you broached the subject of gravity. I
pointed out that the building block in that instance was mass. That
gravity is a property of mass and the gravity equation gives information
as to how one mass effects another to help build up a picture. If that
equation needs refinement in light of further experiment it in no way
changes the status of mass as a fundamental building block, it merely
tells us more about its properties.
On the same grounds another building block is charge. Charge is
physical. It interacts with other charges and other things. That
interaction cannot be explained by anything simpler and is therefore
fundamental. You kept referring to Coulomb's law and I took that as
shorthand meaning the interaction between charges. What never even
entered my head was the possibility that you were talking about the
actual written equation as being fundamental. This to me is an absurd
idea. An equation is metaphysical. It cannot be a building block of
physics.
Suppose there is a thunderstorm. Suppose I shelter under an isolated
tree. The probability of my being killed is increased. It is possible
that you could write an exact equation regarding that probability which
when taken overall predicts exactly how many people sheltering under
trees will be killed. The equation may accurately predict the physical
outcome but if I am killed then what kills me is the lightening not the
equation, not the probability, and not the prediction. If you look back
you will see that all 3 are listed as metaphysical when I defined
'physical'
Nothing in nature happens *because* of an equation. Things happen
because there is a physical cause resulting in a physical effect.
It would happen whether we had an equation which predicts it or not.
NO equation can be considered as fundamental firstly because it is
metaphysical and secondly because it is describing an underlying
physical process. If we are unable to understand that physical process
in terms of fundamental, irreducible physical building blocks then there
is an area of physics we do not understand. Something which needs
further work. Some unfinished business. You do not solve that problem by
deciding that the metaphysical equation is fundamental.
>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:eDRloiHz...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> Martin Hogbin wrote:
>> >
>> >"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:f2E11XGZ...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> >
>> >
>> >Coulomb's law is strictly true only in the static case. According
>> >to it, the
>> >force between two charges depends only on their magnitudes and the
>> >distance between them, there is no time term. Thus Coulomb's law
>> >implicitly states that the speed of propagation of a change in electric
>> >field is infinite.
>>
>> I do not think the latter logically follows from the former. A law
>> established under static conditions surely cannot claim to cover
>> anything other than static conditions. In other words it is silent on
>> the subject of what would or wouldn't happen in dynamic circumstances.
>> I doubt that Coulomb made any such claim - he would be a fool to do so.
>
>Maybe we are arguing only about semantics here. Coulombs law,
>as it is written, implicitly makes the propagation speed of the electric field
>infinite.
It is not semantics. It is fundamental. Which bit of the equation says
the speed of propagation is infinite? Which bit of the equation says
anything at all about the speed of propagation? Charge is fundamental.
Coulomb's law tells us one thing and one thing only. What the static
properties of charge are.
> You might say, though, that it is not applicable in the case of
>moving charges, and you would be right.
>> One of the thing which concerns me about modern physics is the tendency
>> to claim that an equation implies this, that, or the other. It certainly
>> isn't allowable to apply this way of looking at things retrospectively
>> to an equation which predates that way of doing interpretation.
>>
>
>That cannot be right. If someone proposes an equation based on
>a madcap idea but it turns out that the equation is valid in all
>cases that does not make the equation wrong.
>
>Coulomb's law and Maxwell's equations are good examples to
>consider in this respect.
>
>Coulomb was unlucky. He proposed a formula that turned out to
>exact only in the static case.
>
>Maxwell's equations turn out to be valid in all classical (non-quantum)
>cases. This was good luck.
>> One reason I believe physical interpretation is a necessary part of
>> physics is that then one has at least some idea what an equation is, and
>> is not, describing.
>
>You have slipped back into using the undefined term 'physical'.
>Do you mean 'constrictive'?
I have defined physical - at your insistence. Charge, is a basic
irreducible building block of physics. Having identified that building
block, physics looks to build up a picture of its place in the physical
world. Coulomb's law is a part of that picture - how it reacts with
other charge in the static case. It does not imply that there is nothing
else to learn about the building block of charge.
>>Without that safeguard, especially when maths is
>> built on maths built on maths.... it would seem as reliable as reading
>> tea leaves. An awesomely impressive equation may be describing an
>> incredibly silly idea.
>>
>>
>> t = d/v + To
>>
>> If I make v negative t < To. If To is the time I set out and t is the
>> time I arrive that implies that I arrive before I set out if I drive the
>> wrong way :o)
>
>Yes, people should state the range of validity of any equation.
All that is required is that you understand what they are describing in
terms of physical processes.
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>> >I do not know what Coulomb believed but instantaneous transmission
>> >is clearly implicit in his equation .
>>
>> We will have to disagree on that. It is Coulomb's equation and nothing
>> is implied by it which Coulomb did not intend it to imply. An equation
>> does not have a life of its own. It is a mathematical description of a
>> physical phenomena in this case a mathematical description of what
>> happens in a static situation.
>
>The equation itself implies everything that follows by putting values
>into it and calculating the answer. We agree that equations should have
>clearly stated realms of validity.
This equation based on experiment tells you about what was learned from
the experiment about the fundamental building block of physics called
charge. It does not claim to tell you all there is to know about charge.
Only that which was discovered by that experiment. If you want to know
more you do more experiment and find out more about charge. I see no
place in that view of physics which would allow you to state that "The
equation itself implies....".
>> The problem you are illustrating is that physics has been largely taken
>> over by mathematicians. They do not want to bother with (be constrained
>> by) physical interpretation and insist on assuming that an equation has
>> a life of its own and that they are entitled to 'read things' into
>> equations which are not there either by intent nor the result of
>> experiment. Deny them that and the whole thing collapses like a pack of
>> cards. It confirms my view that physical interpretation is necessary in
>> physics to maintain intellectual discipline.
>
>I would agree with you if you were to substitute 'experiment' for 'physical
>interpretation'.
>
>As you have said, Coulomb came up with his equation based on
>essentially static experiments. If we want to know if it valid in a
>dynamic case, all the philosophical musing in the world is to no
>avail. If we want to know the answer to that question we
>have do an experiment. As it turns out Coulomb's law is
>not valid in the dynamic case, but it might have been. There
>was no way to tell but to do the experiment.
I have already covered this in my above statement.
No we have misunderstood each other.
>> You cannot assume the equation is fundamental and use that to justify
>> physical fields having declared that the necessary physical conditions
>> needed for physical fields does not exist. Without an aether Maxwell's
>> equations are a solution to an unknown problem.
>
>Not at all. Maxwell's equations tell us about the behaviour of
>measurable quantities.
but they are not the cause of them. Equations are metaphysical. No one
ever got sunburnt from a differential equation. Real physical energy in
measurable amounts, capable of causing physical change is transferred
from source to destination. Maxwell's equations do not cause that to
happen. It would happen even if Maxwell had never written his equations
so Maxwell's equations cannot be fundamentally necessary.
Go back to Coulomb. Charge is a fundamental/irreducible Coulombs law
describes one of the resultant interactions.
What is the equivalent in Maxwell? What are the fundamental physical
irreducible which Maxwell's equations are describing? When they left
Maxwell they were aether and charge. You do not solve the problem by
renaming the aether 'space' 'fields' or an 'observers FoR'. If you think
the aether is a bad idea then you need to come up with a better one not
bypass the problem.
> Why not take ME as the fundamental equations
>of (classical) electromagnetism - no further explanation needed, just
>as you were willing to do with our hypothetical Coulomb's law.
I did not, we misunderstood each other
And I defined my fundamental irreducible as corresponding with
the elements 'of a relatively simple formal scheme' mentioned:
"[of constructive theories] They attempt to build up a picture of the
more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively simple
formal scheme from which they start out". AE
>>..have to be
>> accepted as no further explanation-theory is possible (at the moment at
>> least). You have to justify something as a building block of physics on
>> the basis that it cannot be simplified.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> You cannot apply that to
>> something on the basis of convenience or to get yourself out of trouble
>> because you find that something you have built upon doesn't make sense.
>> If every phenomenon in described by the label 'principle' - you don't
>> need physics. Everything happens in the natural world because God
>> decreed that it should or because it is a principle of nature (same
>> thing).
>
>We have agreed that we want the simplest explanation. In the case of
>EM, Maxwell's equations (plus charge conservation) are the simplest
>way we have yet discovered of describing all the diverse classical EM
>phenomena that we observe. Why not make them fundamental.
Because equations are metaphysical. We cannot explain the physical
processes they are describing and yet we know there are physical
processes. By taking that approach Physics is trying to bypassing the
problem.
>>The assumption underpinning science is that there is order in
>> nature and that there is some point in studying it to discover what that
>> order is.
>
>I disagree with you here. We have no right to assume that there
>must be any order to nature - there might be, there might not.
I agree but if there is no order to discover we will ultimately find
that physics has been a waste of time.
>To assert that there _must_ be some kind of order to nature is
>to assume powers we do not possess.
I made no such assertion. You put in the word 'must'. It is a working
assumption no more but it is the justification for the continuation of
expensive experiments.
>> What we have done is agreed in principle that there have to be
>> Irreducible building blocks on which to build physics but we have not
>> agreed how you decide what is a building block and what in physics needs
>> to be explained in terms of building blocks. As to principle
>> descriptions being 'preferred' I would rather describe them as a last
>> resort.
>>
>>
>.............................................................................
>> > The current quantum
>> >theory of EM is QED. Have you looked at that?
>>
>> No I would not claim to have done so. As I understand it QED is quantum
>> theory 'brought into line' with relativity. Relativity is based
>> ultimately on the authority of Maxwell's theory and Maxwell's theory is
>> dead in the water without the aether.
>
>Maxwell's original theory may well be wrong, but his equations describe
>reality very well, without the need for an aether.
One could argue the opposite. They describe reality so well which is
evidence that the theory is correct. You don't have a theory. All you
have are a set of engineering equations. When you have a better one you
can describe Maxwell's as wrong. What physics has done is redefine what
a theory is to get around the problem. I don't buy it.
>> >> >> One must seriously question the status of SR. On the strength of the
>> >> >> authority of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics Einstein ditched
>> >> >>two axioms
>> >> >> of physics and ended up with the whole of space and time being
>> >> >>distorted
>> >> >> in order to retain Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics - and that no-longer
>> >> >> has any authority.
>> >> >>
>> >> >The ultimate authority in physics is experiment.
>> >>
>> >> This is from the rather dubious school of thought which says that
>> >> prediction is the be-all and end-all of physics and understanding is a
>> >> mirage.
>> >
>> >But in the case of a 'principle' explanation there is no more
>> >understanding than the equations. We just say, the world is
>> >like that.
>>
>> You have changed the definition we have agreed regarding what we mean by
>> an irreducible building block. For example mass is an irreducible
>> building block. What it is we have to take on trust but we accept that
>> it is physical in nature - on my definition of physical it can be
>> detected, it is involved in physical change.
>
>Maxwell's equations describe the relationship between measurable
>quantities in just the same way that Newton's laws of motion
>and gravity do.
Again - and I did certainly make that clear in previous posts - I
consider Mass as being the fundamental building block and Newton's laws
as building up a picture of the place of mass in the order of things.
Newton's equations are metaphysical and subject to change in light of
further experiment. Mass remains fundamental until such time as we are
able to explain it in simpler terms - which may be never.
>> The gravity equation is
>> built upon the irreducible building block of mass as is the equation of
>> a projectile and an orbiting satellite. No equation is fundamental as it
>> is describing something more sophisticated than the building blocks
>> itself.
>
>We have observable (measurable) quantities. Physics is about determining
>the relationships between them.
It was about reaching a better understanding of nature before the
mathematical take over. If this planet had permanent unpenetrateable
cloud cover we might still be able to produce a mathematical model to
predict the tides. If prediction is all that matter that would be enough
but understanding why the tides go in and out is a perfectly reasonable
physics question and discovering that there is a moon going around the
planet provides us with the much sneered at physical explanation which
modern physics denies is meaningful.
You still haven't justified your belief. Although his 1920 lecture is
deliberately vague two things are clear:
1/ that he rejects the idea that there is a unique aether frame.
2/ That he does not reject the idea of the aether itself.
You may feel that to be an untenable position, but he obviously did not.
Einstein wrote
" Moreover this theory [Ritz's emission theory] requires that everywhere
and in each fixed direction light waves of a different velocity of
propagation should be possible. It may well be impossible to set up an
electromagnetic theory that is in any way reasonable and accomplishes
such a feat. This is the principle reason why, even before the special
theory of relativity, I rejected this way out...."; Albert Einstein in a
draft letter to A. P. Rippenbein in 1952.
Einstein had got a Nobel prize for discovering the particulate nature of
light. If light is particulate there is no logical reason why it
shouldn't travel through the same empty space at different speeds. As I
say Einstein totally ignored the particulate nature of light and
continued to think of light as a wave in a medium and a wave can only
travel at one speed in a medium.
>> The other side of the coin is that the quantum nature of light spawned a
>> new branch of physics. This then got silly when some exceedingly bizarre
>> concepts got introduced by the Copenhagen school where physical and
>> metaphysical concepts sharing equations.
>
>There is no other way to explain the facts. Physics is not weird on purpose.
Well you could assume that an electron knows exactly where it is and how
fast it is going and that it goes precisely from A to B and that
Heisenburg's uncertainly relates only to our knowledge or lack of it
about where A was, how fast it was going and therefore where it is
likely to end up. If on the other hand you assume, without any
justification, that it is nature which is uncertain then there is much
more scope for fantasy to build up the mystique of quantum theory. If
nature is uncertain then you can propose that it won't notice if virtual
photons pop in and out of existence provided they do it quickly enough
and while nature has its back turned the laws of physics can be
suspended and these photons can act instantaneously over any distance.
>> Put simply in the Schrodinger's
>> cat experiment the only thing which changes when you open the box is a
>> metaphysical parameter - man's knowledge. Opening the box has no effect
>> on the cat although it may let the smell out :o).
>>
You didn't comment on that. Why not?
Perhaps you are not as convinced by some of the excesses of the
Copenhagen school as you like to make out.
>> >Then again
>> >someone may yet come up with a really neat intuitive idea.
>>
>> If Physics is off the rails do you think it within the capability of one
>> person to find an alternative and replace a century of wrong physics and
>> interpretation? I don't. Anyone having a go at it would be immediately
>> labelled a crackpot, would have extreme difficulty getting his work
>> published and would have to fund his efforts himself. Unless he is a
>> masochist he would do better to find a different career.
>
>People are regarded as crackpots if they simply insist physics is wrong
>without proposing any alternative.
>
>Any theory that predicts all current observations would be well received
>if it were simpler to understand that current theories. But it is no use
>raving, you have to come up with the theory. You cannot demand
>that other do it.
If physics is wrong, if there is indeed a theory that predicts all
current observations which you claim you would welcome if it were
simpler to understand that current theories - it would remain
undiscovered because it is totally beyond any one man no matter how
brilliant and no group with the necessary ability is looking.
*I* should come up with such a theory? Don't be silly. I see myself as
the young lad who points out the obvious - that the king is naked (ref
'the kings new clothes'). Again I say that the second postulate of
relativity simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether
would experience the MMX having shown that the observer's speed relative
to the aether is zero. This makes sense only if you ignore the fact that
Maxwell's aether theory is compromised by the particulate nature of
light, the null result of the MMX and the fact that physics has now
disowned the aether rather than accept Einstein's view that if an
observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether then Nature must provide
a suitable aether which makes that possible.
You still have not come up with any evidence to back up your belief that
Einstein rejected the aether. I have quoted chapter and verse showing
that he did not.
>> >I am not sure that I can answer those questions except to say that the aim
>> >is to get to a theory of everything.
>>
>> Isn't that the idea behind string theory?
>
>It is the aim of physics.
>
>> If eventually string theory
>> claims to explain everything do you believe that anything at all will
>> have been achieved i.e. would our understanding of nature be any better
>> than it is now?
>
>Yes, if the new theory was able to predict more than current theories.
Again you put the emphasis on prediction. I asked about 'understanding'.
If it makes accurate predictions would that indicate that strings exist?
If so why, if Maxwell's theory gives accurate predictions, doesn't that
indicate that the aether exists?
--
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
oriel36
wrote:
> If physics is wrong, if there is indeed a theory that predicts all
> current observations which you claim you would welcome if it were
> simpler to understand that current theories - it would remain
> undiscovered because it is totally beyond any one man no matter how
> brilliant and no group with the necessary ability is looking.
>
> *I* should come up with such a theory? Don't be silly. I see myself as
> the young lad who points out the obvious - that the king is naked (ref
> 'the kings new clothes'). Again I say that the second postulate of
> relativity simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether
> would experience the MMX having shown that the observer's speed relative
> to the aether is zero. This makes sense only if you ignore the fact that
> Maxwell's aether theory is compromised by the particulate nature of
> light, the null result of the MMX and the fact that physics has now
> disowned the aether rather than accept Einstein's view that if an
> observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether then Nature must provide
> a suitable aether which makes that possible.
>
> You still have not come up with any evidence to back up your belief that
> Einstein rejected the aether. I have quoted chapter and verse showing
> that he did not.
> 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
I looked at the intelligence behind what you wrote and I am bewildered
that you still have not grasped the dual error( apart from the later
fiction to make way for relativity) that has dogged men since Newton.
The great astronomical insight of Copernicus is made from orbital
comparisons of a moving Earth and the other planets,the orbital
refinement by Kepler is made by orbital comparisons between Mars and
Earth,the insight on light by Roemer is based on orbital comparisons
between Earth and Jupiter using Io as the gauge.
Newton's framework was based on flawed reasoning by Flamsteed and
specifically the introduction of zodiacal reasoning into heliocentric
reasoning -
"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their
mean
distances from the sun. " Newton
I sometimes think that participants here are terrified of moving away
from the fiction that Newton's absolute/relative definitions and
distinctions are anything other than physical expresssions.How many
men desperately wanted to introduce a medium for light but found
themselves at odds with Newton's rejection of it,not to labor the
point but a man who is just as equally intelligent as you wrote the
following desperate words in 1843 (Top right column) -
The error which Newton built on is spectacular for how obvious it is
once a person spots that the observation does not fit the
astronomical framework profile,specifically the calendrically driven
clockwork solar system.I am still capable of being shocked that so
many intelligent men would be be prepared to ignore what is in front
of them,not for the sake of competing ideologies but to willingly
enter a conceptual labyrinth from which there is no escape except to
go back to and through Newton.There should be no problem discussing a
medium for light,none !.
harry
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13m7dc4...@corp.supernews.com...
It was your mistake to think that I was.
>>> Laws of physics have to be consistent. that nonsense can also be
>>> consistent does not mena the laws of physis is nonsense, or that
>>> consitency is not required for laws of physcis.
>>
>> Agreed. And as I repeatedly stressed, that's not the issue for the
>> physical interpretation of physics.
>>> Perhaps logic isn't your forte
>> It looks more like it ain't yours ;-)
>
> Quite to the contrary. Please .. look up the difference between necessary
> and sufficient, before you embarrass yourself further.
For your information, dictionary.com:
- necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite
- sufficient: adequate for the purpose; enough
And perhaps you don't know the relevant meaning of the word "issue":
- issue: a point in question or a matter that is in dispute
Those correspond to the meanings that I used.
>>>>>>>> iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical effect.
>>>>>>> What do you mean 'can be' .. they aren't physical to begin with.
>>>>>> The most classical (nearly) inertial frame by Galileo is a ship that
>>>>>> sails a steady course at sea. That's very physical.
>>>>> No .. he ship is physical .. the frame of reference is a concept
>>>> A ship can serve as a frame of reference
>>> No .. the ship is just a ship. We can associate the concept of a frame
>>> of reference with it :)
>> A frame is commonly a thing - check the dictionary :-)
>
> Not in physics. Maybe you should try studying it to find out?
Funny. :-)) I oppose the abuse of jargon ; "coordinate system" is the
accurate term in physics.
Less people would be confused when the example of good articles and
textbooks is followed: the concept of *coordinate systems* is
straightforward. Next calling it "frames" because it's shorter isn't too bad
as long as people understand that it's not necessarily to be taken
literally.
>>>>> The concepts of the mind can model what is physical .. and they do
>>>>> very nicely.
>>>> Sure.
>>>>
>>>>> Why is it you have a problem with intertial frames of reference .. did
>>>>> you miss the lecture on that?
>>>> In fact you didn't understand my lecture to you on that - which was a
>>>> retake of those of Newton, Mach and Einstein. :-)
>>> You gave a lecture .. where?
>> Here above. ;-)
>
> Nope .. don't see any.
:))
As a matter of fact, once I did give a short lecture about it to a mixed
group consisting of students, engineers and physicists. It was then that I
discovered that most people never studied the topic, and just "don't get it"
in a short presentation (except for one colleague who understands such
things in 5 minutes; but then, he's a genius). One hour may be necessary for
most people.
>>>>>>>> The question was about the physical cause that makes them look
>>>>>>>> special or "preferred".
>>>>>>> There is none .. there doesn't need to be one .. because they aren't
>>>>>>> physical.
>>>>>> Then let's get back to your explanation, and substitute the
>>>>>> appropriate words according to your own clarification:
>>>>>> Summarizing the conversation:
>>>>>> Maxwell:
>>>>>> "Newton's bucket demonstrates the absolute nature
>>>>>> of relative rotation (bucket relative to the local 'fixed stars')"
>>>>>> Harald:
>>>>>> Yes indeed - rotation relative to what?
>>>>>> Jeckyl:
>>>>>> Any inertial frame in which the centre of rotation is at rest.
>>>>>> They aren't physical.
>>>>> But the location of the centre of the rotation is a physical location.
>>>>> And the motion is relative to that.
>>>> There is no motion relative to a co-rotating frame.
>>> What co-rotating frame?
>> The one in which the object is in rest.
>
> I know what it is .. just wondering where that suddenly appeared from ..
> we weren't discussing co-rotating frames and suddenly they appeared in
> your post from nowhere
I don't remember if Newton used the word "co-rotating" or simply "rotating".
"The centre of rotation" is a single point in space; an imaginary point
cannot "do" anything and neither does it define the frame one uses. Newton's
discussion was about the physical cause of the non-equality for physics of
using the bucket as reference frame and using "the fixed stars" as reference
frame. The bucket had no detectable influence on inertia, and neither had
the earth. He did not find it plausible that the preferred status of the
frame of the stars as compared to that of the bucket was due to the
influence of the stars either.
>>>>> If you like, pick another object that is at rest relative to the
>>>>> center of rotation. Then you can get the roation relatie to the line
>>>>> joining those points.
>>>> See above - the centre of rotation wasn't the issue that Newton and
>>>> Mach discussed.
>>> I wasn't discussing Newton and Mach
>> Then you are in the wrong thread!
>
>> You responded to my reaction to:
>> "Newton, which viewed space as purely passive & not contributing to the
>> process"
>
> No .. I didn't. I don't know what you think I posted, but it wasn't a
> response to that
According to a message that appears to be your post, your response was to my
comment.
???! Neither of us is arguing with that!
>>> as we have the concept of an inertial frame of reference (and whatever
>>> physical things it may correspond to),
>>
>> The "whatever" was Newton's argument. :-)
>>
>>> and because rotation is acceleration (non-inertial), it is absolute wrt
>>> the inertial frames of reference in which our laws of physics are
>>> framed. At least in terms of SR. Things are less clear when we bring GR
>>> into play :)
>>
>> That depends on one's version of GRT. :-)
>> I'm out of here. Enjoy your weekend!
>
> You too.
Hope you enjoyed it.
Harald
Jeckyl
>>>>>>>>> Here's another consistent one: God exists because it's written in
>>>>>>>>> the bible and the bible must be true because in it God says that
>>>>>>>>> the bible is inspired by him. ;-)
>>>>>>>> Nonsense
>>>>>>> Exactly - consistent but that's not the issue. :-)
>>>>>> Consistent is not sufficient .. I didn't say it was .. but it is
>>>>>> necessary. Do you know the difference between necessary and
>>>>>> sufficient conditions?
>>>>> I already tried to explain that to you. Nonsense can be perfectly
>>>>> consistent. That's not the problem.
>>>> Again .. you just don't get it ..
>>> It looks like a speach confusion. ;-)
>> I'm not confused .. but I'm sorry to see that you are.
> It was your mistake to think that I was.
So I take it you STILL do not know the difference for something to be
necessary versus sufficient.
Sad
> For your information, dictionary.com:
> - necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite
> - sufficient: adequate for the purpose; enough
> And perhaps you don't know the relevant meaning of the word "issue":
> - issue: a point in question or a matter that is in dispute
> Those correspond to the meanings that I used.
No.. they don't.
You implied the me saying the laws needed to be consistent (necessary) meant
that being consistent was all that is required (sufficient) for a law to be
valid .. that was your mistake .. you then went on to try to discreit the
logic you misundertood by giving an example of the bible to show that
something being consistent did not make it a law (not the bible is
self-consistent anyway). I was not making a claim of sufficiency (that the
ONLY thing required was consistency), but or necessity (that the laws of
physics need to be consistent .. if they aren't then they aren't laws).
Why am I bothering though.. you just don't seem to get it. Perhaps you need
a web site link to explain logic to you?
>>>>>>>>> iFoR can be virtual in which case they can have no physical
>>>>>>>>> effect.
>>>>>>>> What do you mean 'can be' .. they aren't physical to begin with.
>>>>>>> The most classical (nearly) inertial frame by Galileo is a ship that
>>>>>>> sails a steady course at sea. That's very physical.
>>>>>> No .. he ship is physical .. the frame of reference is a concept
>>>>> A ship can serve as a frame of reference
>>>> No .. the ship is just a ship. We can associate the concept of a frame
>>>> of reference with it :)
>>> A frame is commonly a thing - check the dictionary :-)
>> Not in physics. Maybe you should try studying it to find out?
> Funny. :-)) I oppose the abuse of jargon ; "coordinate system" is the
> accurate term in physics.
Whatever floats your boat. Inertial frame of reference is an accurate term
in physcis .. whether you happen to like it or not. We could both lament
the use of the word 'inertia' in it .. but that's just a wank, as it really
makes no difference to the use and meaning of the term
>>>>>>>> There is no framework out there .. there doesn't need to be any
>>>>>>>> actual object that htey are associated with. They are a concept.
>>>>>>> Exactly. Concepts of the mind can't physically affect you - except
>>>>>>> perhaps if you believe in telekinesis. :-)
>>>>>> Who said they did? That's really the point.. if you are at rest wrt
>>>>>> some frame of reference and I am at rest wrt some different frame of
>>>>>> reference, then there is no physical effect on us from that. The
>>>>>> same laws of physics apply.
>>>>> The point that Newton made was that you can also choose a frame of
>>>>> reference that is rotating relative to it; and other laws of physics
>>>>> apply.
>>>> So you get different physics in a non-inertial frame of refernece.. No
>>>> one is disagreeing with that.
>>> No one suggested that anyone is disagreeing with that. :-)
>> A lot of poeple seem very confused by the idea of inertial frames .. Sue
>> for one. Sh'e argue against anything, usually out of ignorance.
> Less people would be confused when the example of good articles and
> textbooks is followed: the concept of *coordinate systems* is
> straightforward. Next calling it "frames" because it's shorter isn't too
> bad as long as people understand that it's not necessarily to be taken
> literally.
Your personal dislike for a well established and well defined term is
neither here nor there.
>> No .. I didn't. I don't know what you think I posted, but it wasn't a
>> response to that
> According to a message that appears to be your post, your response was to
> my comment.
No .. and frankly I can't be bothered to retrace the thread to find out
exactly what it was you had said that I responded to. I'll leave that to
someone who cares.
Thank god for that.
>>> That depends on one's version of GRT. :-)
>>> I'm out of here. Enjoy your weekend!
>> You too.
> Hope you enjoyed it.
I always do.
Martin Hogbin
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
>
> My position is as follows:
>
> Physics is built on what I describes as building blocks. Things which
> may be considered fundamental and irreducible because there is no way of
> explaining them in simpler terms or in terms of other such building
> blocks.
OK, but do you agree that what we take as fundamental is
a matter of choice.
>Having identified a building block,
I might say 'selected'. How can we ever know what is 'really'
fundamental.
... physics looks to build up a
> picture of its place in the physical order of things. What its
> properties are. One does that by experiment. Laws - equations - are ways
> of condensing the results of experiment. They build up a picture.
Yes, I agree with you so far.
> I believe I made it clear when you broached the subject of gravity. I
> pointed out that the building block in that instance was mass. That
> gravity is a property of mass and the gravity equation gives information
> as to how one mass effects another to help build up a picture. If that
> equation needs refinement in light of further experiment it in no way
> changes the status of mass as a fundamental building block, it merely
> tells us more about its properties.
That depends on what we find out. We might, for example, take the
atom to be a fundamental building block of all matter but then find
that atoms are made of other bits.
We might take a universal time as fundamental but then find out
that this leads to inconsistencies.
You misunderstand what physicists are trying to do. Despite
various light hearted comments by eminent physicists about
'God playing dice' and 'the mind of God', physicists are not
attempting to explain why things happen, they are attempting to
describe quantatively what happens - preferably in a way that
is philosophically pleasing and mathematically tractable.
> On the same grounds another building block is charge. Charge is
> physical. It interacts with other charges and other things. That
> interaction cannot be explained by anything simpler and is therefore
> fundamental. You kept referring to Coulomb's law and I took that as
> shorthand meaning the interaction between charges. What never even
> entered my head was the possibility that you were talking about the
> actual written equation as being fundamental.
I am happy to take charge as a fundamental thing. We then find
out that the results of all (static) measurements of the
force between charges can be summed up in a simple equation.
My point was this. Do you insist on a constructive explanation of
why the force found to be as described by the equation or are you
happy to accept that this is just how things turn out to be? In my
words, 'the equation is a fundamental description of the forces
between charges'. Do you agree?
>This to me is an absurd
> idea. An equation is metaphysical. It cannot be a building block of
> physics.
We can use any building blocks that we like.
> Suppose there is a thunderstorm. Suppose I shelter under an isolated
> tree. The probability of my being killed is increased. It is possible
> that you could write an exact equation regarding that probability which
> when taken overall predicts exactly how many people sheltering under
> trees will be killed. The equation may accurately predict the physical
> outcome but if I am killed then what kills me is the lightening not the
> equation, not the probability, and not the prediction. If you look back
> you will see that all 3 are listed as metaphysical when I defined
> 'physical'
>
> Nothing in nature happens *because* of an equation. Things happen
> because there is a physical cause resulting in a physical effect.
> It would happen whether we had an equation which predicts it or not.
I am not sure that your statement has any real meaning. We describe
what we observe in the form of an equation.
>
> NO equation can be considered as fundamental firstly because it is
> metaphysical and secondly because it is describing an underlying
> physical process. If we are unable to understand that physical process
> in terms of fundamental, irreducible physical building blocks then there
> is an area of physics we do not understand. Something which needs
> further work. Some unfinished business. You do not solve that problem by
> deciding that the metaphysical equation is fundamental.
I am still not sure what you mean here.
> >Coulombs law,
> >as it is written, implicitly makes the propagation speed of the electric field
> >infinite.
>
> It is not semantics. It is fundamental. Which bit of the equation says
> the speed of propagation is infinite? Which bit of the equation says
> anything at all about the speed of propagation?
Are you really telling me that you cannot see how the equation
makes the speed of propagation of a change in electric field
infinite?
> >The equation itself implies everything that follows by putting values
> >into it and calculating the answer. We agree that equations should have
> >clearly stated realms of validity.
>
> This equation based on experiment tells you about what was learned from
> the experiment about the fundamental building block of physics called
> charge. It does not claim to tell you all there is to know about charge.
> Only that which was discovered by that experiment. If you want to know
> more you do more experiment and find out more about charge. I see no
> place in that view of physics which would allow you to state that "The
> equation itself implies....".
>
> >
> >I do not understand your problem. You were happy to take
> >Coulomb's law as fundamental.
>
> No we have misunderstood each other.
Obviously. We cover the same point elsewhere.
> >> You cannot assume the equation is fundamental and use that to justify
> >> physical fields having declared that the necessary physical conditions
> >> needed for physical fields does not exist. Without an aether Maxwell's
> >> equations are a solution to an unknown problem.
> >
> >Not at all. Maxwell's equations tell us about the behaviour of
> >measurable quantities.
>
> but they are not the cause of them. Equations are metaphysical. No one
> ever got sunburnt from a differential equation. Real physical energy in
> measurable amounts, capable of causing physical change is transferred
> from source to destination. Maxwell's equations do not cause that to
> happen. It would happen even if Maxwell had never written his equations
> so Maxwell's equations cannot be fundamentally necessary.
Of course. I have never claimed that an equation caused something;
equations in physics describe things.
The only 'real' things in physics are the observations. In your example
above, the only 'real' thing is the sunburn (leaving aside philosophical
musings about whether that is real or not). Energy is a human-invented
concept, it is part of a model that we have in our minds to explain things,
just the same way that charge or mass are.
This, I think, is where you disagree with mainstream physics.
> Go back to Coulomb. Charge is a fundamental/irreducible Coulombs law
> describes one of the resultant interactions.
In our current model of the world, charge is a fundamental concept.
> What is the equivalent in Maxwell? What are the fundamental physical
> irreducible which Maxwell's equations are describing?
EM fields. These are clearly, 'those things whose existence you can
deduce to exist from the effect they have on other physical things
(to explain experiment)' and are therefore by your definition
'physical'.
>When they left
> Maxwell they were aether and charge. You do not solve the problem by
> renaming the aether 'space' 'fields' or an 'observers FoR'. If you think
> the aether is a bad idea then you need to come up with a better one not
> bypass the problem.
There is no problem to bypass. Maxwell's equations describe the
behaviour of EM fields. The concept of an EM field together with
that of charge can be used to predict the outcome of real
experiments. That is all physics claims to do.
> >I was using the term you introduced in your Einstein quote. You (he)
> >divided explanations into 'constructive and 'principle'.
>
> And I defined my fundamental irreducible as corresponding with
> the elements 'of a relatively simple formal scheme' mentioned:
>
> "[of constructive theories] They attempt to build up a picture of the
> more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively simple
> formal scheme from which they start out". AE
Note the use of the word 'scheme'. These fundamental concepts are
fundamental to human thinking only. We have no right to insist that
our concepts should be fundamental in any other sense.
> >We have agreed that we want the simplest explanation. In the case of
> >EM, Maxwell's equations (plus charge conservation) are the simplest
> >way we have yet discovered of describing all the diverse classical EM
> >phenomena that we observe. Why not make them fundamental.
>
> Because equations are metaphysical. We cannot explain the physical
> processes they are describing and yet we know there are physical
> processes. By taking that approach Physics is trying to bypassing the
> problem.
What problem?
> >>The assumption underpinning science is that there is order in
> >> nature and that there is some point in studying it to discover what that
> >> order is.
> >
> >I disagree with you here. We have no right to assume that there
> >must be any order to nature - there might be, there might not.
>
> I agree but if there is no order to discover we will ultimately find
> that physics has been a waste of time.
No. What we have done so far is very useful (and it has been
interesting).
> >To assert that there _must_ be some kind of order to nature is
> >to assume powers we do not possess.
>
> I made no such assertion. You put in the word 'must'. It is a working
> assumption no more but it is the justification for the continuation of
> expensive experiments.
No, experiments try to find a form of order that suits us. We
cannot impose our 'order' on nature.
> >Maxwell's original theory may well be wrong, but his equations describe
> >reality very well, without the need for an aether.
>
> One could argue the opposite. They describe reality so well which is
> evidence that the theory is correct. You don't have a theory. All you
> have are a set of engineering equations. When you have a better one you
> can describe Maxwell's as wrong. What physics has done is redefine what
> a theory is to get around the problem. I don't buy it.
You are looking for something that is not physics.
> >Maxwell's equations describe the relationship between measurable
> >quantities in just the same way that Newton's laws of motion
> >and gravity do.
>
> Again - and I did certainly make that clear in previous posts - I
> consider Mass as being the fundamental building block....
Fine, but I note that you say 'I consider'. As it happens, so do most
physicists but that does not make mass any more fundamental in
any non-human way.
> ...and Newton's laws
> as building up a picture of the place of mass in the order of things.
> Newton's equations are metaphysical and subject to change in light of
> further experiment.
No, Newton's laws are physics, according to physicists.
>
> >We have observable (measurable) quantities. Physics is about determining
> >the relationships between them.
>
> It was about reaching a better understanding of nature before the
> mathematical take over. If this planet had permanent unpenetrateable
> cloud cover we might still be able to produce a mathematical model to
> predict the tides. If prediction is all that matter that would be enough
> but understanding why the tides go in and out is a perfectly reasonable
> physics question and discovering that there is a moon going around the
> planet provides us with the much sneered at physical explanation which
> modern physics denies is meaningful.
In physics we have mathematics and conceptual models.
> >>That is how I would interpret it. Having looked at the
> >> history I am not surprised if it is. Everyone was so enamoured by
> >> Maxwell that the discovery that light is particulate was pretty much
> >> ignored. If you take away the modern spin then Einstein accepted the
> >> interpretation of the MMX assumed Maxwell was tablets of stone i.e. that
> >> every observer is stationary with respect to the aether. His second
> >> postulate is simply a description of what an observer stationary w.r.t
> >> the aether would experience. The 'observer's FoR' has the properties of
> >> an aether stationary w.r.t the observer. It really isn't any more
> >> sophisticated than that.
> >>
> >> His 'genius' was in not abandoning his theory when it got silly as
> >> others would have done. Whichever way you look at it, he thought it
> >> better to assume the distortion of space and time rather than accept
> >> that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is flawed - which it is - firstly
> >> by the MMX, secondly by the fact that light is made up of particles
> >> rather than waves and the final nail in the coffin by the assumption by
> >> physics (not by Einstein) that the aether doesn't exist.
> >
> >Einstein did not assume that the aether (In anything like the form
> >you mean) exists.
>
> You still haven't justified your belief. Although his 1920 lecture is
> deliberately vague two things are clear:
>
> 1/ that he rejects the idea that there is a unique aether frame.
> 2/ That he does not reject the idea of the aether itself.
Only in a form which was nothing like Maxwell's aether
>
> You may feel that to be an untenable position, but he obviously did not.
>
> Einstein wrote
> " Moreover this theory [Ritz's emission theory] requires that everywhere
> and in each fixed direction light waves of a different velocity of
> propagation should be possible. It may well be impossible to set up an
> electromagnetic theory that is in any way reasonable and accomplishes
> such a feat. This is the principle reason why, even before the special
> theory of relativity, I rejected this way out...."; Albert Einstein in a
> draft letter to A. P. Rippenbein in 1952.
>
> Einstein had got a Nobel prize for discovering the particulate nature of
> light. If light is particulate there is no logical reason why it
> shouldn't travel through the same empty space at different speeds. As I
> say Einstein totally ignored the particulate nature of light and
> continued to think of light as a wave in a medium and a wave can only
> travel at one speed in a medium.
I do not want to argue about what Einstein thought.
> > Physics is not weird on purpose.
>
> Well you could assume that an electron knows exactly where it is and how
> fast it is going and that it goes precisely from A to B and that
> Heisenburg's uncertainly relates only to our knowledge or lack of it
> about where A was, how fast it was going and therefore where it is
> likely to end up. If on the other hand you assume, without any
> justification, that it is nature which is uncertain then there is much
> more scope for fantasy to build up the mystique of quantum theory. If
> nature is uncertain then you can propose that it won't notice if virtual
> photons pop in and out of existence provided they do it quickly enough
> and while nature has its back turned the laws of physics can be
> suspended and these photons can act instantaneously over any distance.
The only way you can prove your point is to come up with a complete
theory that explains all observations in a way that suits you.
> >> Put simply in the Schrodinger's
> >> cat experiment the only thing which changes when you open the box is a
> >> metaphysical parameter - man's knowledge. Opening the box has no effect
> >> on the cat although it may let the smell out :o).
> >>
>
> You didn't comment on that. Why not?
> Perhaps you are not as convinced by some of the excesses of the
> Copenhagen school as you like to make out.
Nothing of the sort. I just did not want to start yet anther branch
of this discussion, at least until we have agreed on what physics is.
>
> *I* should come up with such a theory? Don't be silly. I see myself as
> the young lad who points out the obvious - that the king is naked (ref
> 'the kings new clothes').
Whatever it is, it is only obvious to you. Does that not worry you?
>Again I say that the second postulate of
> relativity simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether
> would experience the MMX having shown that the observer's speed relative
> to the aether is zero. This makes sense only if you ignore the fact that
> Maxwell's aether theory is compromised by the particulate nature of
> light, the null result of the MMX and the fact that physics has now
> disowned the aether rather than accept Einstein's view that if an
> observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether then Nature must provide
> a suitable aether which makes that possible.
Whatever Maxwell may have believed, modern physics has no
need for an aether.
> You still have not come up with any evidence to back up your belief that
> Einstein rejected the aether. I have quoted chapter and verse showing
> that he did not.
I does not matter whether he did or not. Modern physics has.
> >Yes, if the new theory was able to predict more than current theories.
>
> Again you put the emphasis on prediction. I asked about 'understanding'.
> If it makes accurate predictions would that indicate that strings exist?
Do electrons exist? What about photons, phonons, entropy,
virtual photons?
> If so why, if Maxwell's theory gives accurate predictions, doesn't that
> indicate that the aether exists?
No, Maxwell may have believed in the aether but his equations do not
require it.
--
Martin Hogbin
harry
>> For your information, dictionary.com:
>> - necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite
>> - sufficient: adequate for the purpose; enough
>> And perhaps you don't know the relevant meaning of the word "issue":
>> - issue: a point in question or a matter that is in dispute
>> Those correspond to the meanings that I used.
>
> No.. they don't.
>
> You implied the me saying the laws needed to be consistent (necessary)
> meant that being consistent was all that is required (sufficient) for a
> law to be valid
No, to the contrary! I said that consistency was NOT THE ISSUE.
BYE
Sue...
wrote:
>
> > When they left
> > Maxwell they were aether and charge. You do not solve the problem by
> > renaming the aether 'space' 'fields' or an 'observers FoR'. If you think
> > the aether is a bad idea then you need to come up with a better one not
> > bypass the problem.
>
> There is no problem to bypass. Maxwell's equations describe the
> behaviour of EM fields. The concept of an EM field together with
> that of charge can be used to predict the outcome of real
> experiments. That is all physics claims to do.
*Physics* must make more ambitious claims unless the physics
community is strivng to become a branch of Chemistry.
<< Einstein published his theory of
gravitation, or general theory of relativity,
in 1916. And so a new paradigm, or set of
beliefs, was established. It was not until
1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
attractive dipolar electric bonding force
(known as Van der Waals' dispersion force
or the 'London force') that causes gas
molecules to condense and form liquids
and solids. Like gravity, the London force
is always attractive and operates between
electrically neutral molecules
>><<
What a different story might have been told
if London's insight had come a few decades
earlier? Physics could, by now, have advanced
by a century instead of being bogged in a
mire of metaphysics. >>
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp
Sue...
Breaking Lorentz symmetry
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19076
A plausible theory of inertia
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
>
> --
> Martin Hogbin
Martin Hogbin
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:441c843c-a072-46df...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 17, 6:06 pm, "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@hogbin.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > > When they left
> > > Maxwell they were aether and charge. You do not solve the problem by
> > > renaming the aether 'space' 'fields' or an 'observers FoR'. If you think
> > > the aether is a bad idea then you need to come up with a better one not
> > > bypass the problem.
> >
> > There is no problem to bypass. Maxwell's equations describe the
> > behaviour of EM fields. The concept of an EM field together with
> > that of charge can be used to predict the outcome of real
> > experiments. That is all physics claims to do.
>
> *Physics* must make more ambitious claims unless the physics
> community is strivng to become a branch of Chemistry.
How will we know when we have succeeded?
--
Martin Hogbin
Sue...
wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
When a 300 year old theory of inertia feels
like a pair of shoes two sizes too small
and you have a more comfortable pair to
slip into, the absence of pain will be
immediately apparent. :o)
Sue...
>
> --
> Martin Hogbin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jeckyl
But it is .. as the law NEED to be consistent to be laws of physics. If
they are inconsistent, they are no longer laws.of physics.
John Kennaugh
>
>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:wG7+JUUe...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> Martin Hogbin wrote:
>>
>> My position is as follows:
>>
>> Physics is built on what I describes as building blocks. Things which
>> may be considered fundamental and irreducible because there is no way of
>> explaining them in simpler terms or in terms of other such building
>> blocks.
>
>OK, but do you agree that what we take as fundamental is
>a matter of choice.
But it is not a free choice. How well they are chosen may be judged by
how well they fit together and how well they fit together is also a
judge of how close we have got to understanding nature. The idea that we
are not trying to understand nature and are simply coming up with ideas
which are useful for our own amusement is a barren philosophy.
Other sciences try to understand what is going on and how it works. That
surely was the basis of natural philosophy. Physics has narrowed what
it's terms of reference are - wrongly in my view.
>> On the same grounds another building block is charge. Charge is
>> physical. It interacts with other charges and other things. That
>> interaction cannot be explained by anything simpler and is therefore
>> fundamental. You kept referring to Coulomb's law and I took that as
>> shorthand meaning the interaction between charges. What never even
>> entered my head was the possibility that you were talking about the
>> actual written equation as being fundamental.
>
>I am happy to take charge as a fundamental thing. We then find
>out that the results of all (static) measurements of the
>force between charges can be summed up in a simple equation.
>
>My point was this. Do you insist on a constructive explanation of
>why the force found to be as described by the equation or are you
>happy to accept that this is just how things turn out to be? In my
>words, 'the equation is a fundamental description of the forces
>between charges'. Do you agree?
No. It might be, it might not be. What is a Fundamental Irreducible
Building Block [FIBB] is charge (until we know better) charge. The
equation represents what we know about charge. In light of further
experiment we may know more about the properties of charge and the
equation may need reform or other equations needed to give a fuller
picture - non of which would necessarily change the status of charge as
a FIBB. There can be nothing fundamental about an equation. It might be
a complete description it might not - how can we possibly know?
>>This to me is an absurd
>> idea. An equation is metaphysical. It cannot be a building block of
>> physics.
>We can use any building blocks that we like.
The concept of magic perhaps. A building block is unsound unless there
is a physical basis.
What you are saying is that physics is whatever you want to call
physics. You can arbitrarily choose what is necessary and what isn't. I
think Murray had it right:
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."
>> Suppose there is a thunderstorm. Suppose I shelter under an isolated
>> tree. The probability of my being killed is increased. It is possible
>> that you could write an exact equation regarding that probability which
>> when taken overall predicts exactly how many people sheltering under
>> trees will be killed. The equation may accurately predict the physical
>> outcome but if I am killed then what kills me is the lightening not the
>> equation, not the probability, and not the prediction. If you look back
>> you will see that all 3 are listed as metaphysical when I defined
>> 'physical'
>>
>> Nothing in nature happens *because* of an equation. Things happen
>> because there is a physical cause resulting in a physical effect.
>> It would happen whether we had an equation which predicts it or not.
>
>I am not sure that your statement has any real meaning. We describe
>what we observe in the form of an equation.
Can you not see the difference between a mathematical model and
understanding a physical process sufficiently to describe it with an
equation?
>> NO equation can be considered as fundamental firstly because it is
>> metaphysical and secondly because it is describing an underlying
>> physical process. If we are unable to understand that physical process
>> in terms of fundamental, irreducible physical building blocks then there
>> is an area of physics we do not understand. Something which needs
>> further work. Some unfinished business. You do not solve that problem by
>> deciding that the metaphysical equation is fundamental.
>
>I am still not sure what you mean here.
>
>> >Coulombs law,
>> >as it is written, implicitly makes the propagation speed of the
>> >electric field
>> >infinite.
>>
>> It is not semantics. It is fundamental. Which bit of the equation says
>> the speed of propagation is infinite? Which bit of the equation says
>> anything at all about the speed of propagation?
>
>Are you really telling me that you cannot see how the equation
>makes the speed of propagation of a change in electric field
>infinite?
Yes I really am telling you just that. Answer the question?
Energy is what I describe as a FIBB (Fundamental irreducible building
block)
>
>This, I think, is where you disagree with mainstream physics.
That doesn't bother me. I disagree with mainstream religion too, and I
frequently disagree with the actions of the government of my country -
and of other countries. Do you have a problem with that?
>> Go back to Coulomb. Charge is a fundamental/irreducible Coulombs law
>> describes one of the resultant interactions.
>
>In our current model of the world, charge is a fundamental concept.
>
>> What is the equivalent in Maxwell? What are the fundamental physical
>> irreducible which Maxwell's equations are describing?
>
>EM fields. These are clearly, 'those things whose existence you can
>deduce to exist from the effect they have on other physical things
>(to explain experiment)' and are therefore by your definition
>'physical'.
OK we have agreed that charge is a FIBB and that the action at a
distance force between charges is a fundamental (cannot be explained)
property of a charge. An electrostatic field (for example) is simply a
metaphysical 'field of influence' which a charge has on the surrounding
space. i.e. it maps the amplitude and direction of the force which
*would* be exerted on a charge *if* a charge were put at a particular
point. I cannot see the need for a separate definition of 'field' other
than what I describe.
>>When they left
>> Maxwell they were aether and charge. You do not solve the problem by
>> renaming the aether 'space' 'fields' or an 'observers FoR'. If you think
>> the aether is a bad idea then you need to come up with a better one not
>> bypass the problem.
>
>There is no problem to bypass. Maxwell's equations describe the
>behaviour of EM fields. The concept of an EM field together with
>that of charge can be used to predict the outcome of real
>experiments. That is all physics claims to do.
>
>> >I was using the term you introduced in your Einstein quote. You (he)
>> >divided explanations into 'constructive and 'principle'.
>>
>> And I defined my fundamental irreducible as corresponding with
>> the elements 'of a relatively simple formal scheme' mentioned:
>>
>> "[of constructive theories] They attempt to build up a picture of the
>> more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively simple
>> formal scheme from which they start out". AE
>
>Note the use of the word 'scheme'. These fundamental concepts are
>fundamental to human thinking only. We have no right to insist that
>our concepts should be fundamental in any other sense.
Hope rather than insist. Hope that as our knowledge increases what we
consider to be fundamental gets nearer to what in nature is the limit to
our understanding.
>
>> >We have agreed that we want the simplest explanation. In the case of
>> >EM, Maxwell's equations (plus charge conservation) are the simplest
>> >way we have yet discovered of describing all the diverse classical EM
>> >phenomena that we observe. Why not make them fundamental.
>>
>> Because equations are metaphysical. We cannot explain the physical
>> processes they are describing and yet we know there are physical
>> processes. By taking that approach Physics is trying to bypassing the
>> problem.
>
>What problem?
OK define what you mean by an EM field and why you consider it to be a
FIBB. Where does it exist, what effects does it have, how does it vary?
Bearing in mind that an equation is metaphysical describing physical
interactions and it is those physical interactions which need to be
explained in terms of FIBBs.
>> >>The assumption underpinning science is that there is order in
>> >> nature and that there is some point in studying it to discover what that
>> >> order is.
>> >
>> >I disagree with you here. We have no right to assume that there
>> >must be any order to nature - there might be, there might not.
>>
>> I agree but if there is no order to discover we will ultimately find
>> that physics has been a waste of time.
>
>No. What we have done so far is very useful (and it has been
>interesting).
>
>> >To assert that there _must_ be some kind of order to nature is
>> >to assume powers we do not possess.
>>
>> I made no such assertion. You put in the word 'must'. It is a working
>> assumption no more but it is the justification for the continuation of
>> expensive experiments.
>
>No, experiments try to find a form of order that suits us. We
>cannot impose our 'order' on nature.
Can't agree. What we are trying to find is the order which we believe to
exist in nature - our 'order' may be wide of the mark. It is not a case
of us imposing our order on nature but nature popping up and slapping us
on the face every now and again to point out we haven't got it right
*yet*.
>> >Maxwell's original theory may well be wrong, but his equations describe
>> >reality very well, without the need for an aether.
>>
>> One could argue the opposite. They describe reality so well which is
>> evidence that the theory is correct. You don't have a theory. All you
>> have are a set of engineering equations. When you have a better one you
>> can describe Maxwell's as wrong. What physics has done is redefine what
>> a theory is to get around the problem. I don't buy it.
>
>You are looking for something that is not physics.
>
>> >Maxwell's equations describe the relationship between measurable
>> >quantities in just the same way that Newton's laws of motion
>> >and gravity do.
>>
>> Again - and I did certainly make that clear in previous posts - I
>> consider Mass as being the fundamental building block....
>
>Fine, but I note that you say 'I consider'. As it happens, so do most
>physicists but that does not make mass any more fundamental in
>any non-human way.
OK let us assume that nature is beyond our total understanding. Let us
assume that we can understand it up to a point and let us assume that
the ideal we can strive for is to reach the point in any particular area
which is the limit to our understanding and mark it with a FIBB.
That seems a perfectly good aim.
>> ...and Newton's laws
>> as building up a picture of the place of mass in the order of things.
>
>> Newton's equations are metaphysical and subject to change in light of
>> further experiment.
>
>No, Newton's laws are physics, according to physicists.
I don't understand that statement.
>> >We have observable (measurable) quantities. Physics is about determining
>> >the relationships between them.
>>
>> It was about reaching a better understanding of nature before the
>> mathematical take over. If this planet had permanent unpenetrateable
>> cloud cover we might still be able to produce a mathematical model to
>> predict the tides. If prediction is all that matter that would be enough
>> but understanding why the tides go in and out is a perfectly reasonable
>> physics question and discovering that there is a moon going around the
>> planet provides us with the much sneered at physical explanation which
>> modern physics denies is meaningful.
>
>In physics we have mathematics and conceptual models.
What I would describe as mathematics and physical interpretation. The
difference is that the former without the latter is by my philosophy
incomplete.
>
>> >>That is how I would interpret it. Having looked at the
>> >> history I am not surprised if it is. Everyone was so enamoured by
>> >> Maxwell that the discovery that light is particulate was pretty much
>> >> ignored. If you take away the modern spin then Einstein accepted the
>> >> interpretation of the MMX assumed Maxwell was tablets of stone i.e. that
>> >> every observer is stationary with respect to the aether. His second
>> >> postulate is simply a description of what an observer stationary w.r.t
>> >> the aether would experience. The 'observer's FoR' has the properties of
>> >> an aether stationary w.r.t the observer. It really isn't any more
>> >> sophisticated than that.
>> >>
>> >> His 'genius' was in not abandoning his theory when it got silly as
>> >> others would have done. Whichever way you look at it, he thought it
>> >> better to assume the distortion of space and time rather than accept
>> >> that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is flawed - which it is - firstly
>> >> by the MMX, secondly by the fact that light is made up of particles
>> >> rather than waves and the final nail in the coffin by the assumption by
>> >> physics (not by Einstein) that the aether doesn't exist.
>> >
>> >Einstein did not assume that the aether (In anything like the form
>> >you mean) exists.
>>
>> You still haven't justified your belief. Although his 1920 lecture is
>> deliberately vague two things are clear:
>>
>> 1/ that he rejects the idea that there is a unique aether frame.
>> 2/ That he does not reject the idea of the aether itself.
>
>Only in a form which was nothing like Maxwell's aether
Well it couldn't be 'like Maxwell's aether' could it? If the aether was
'like Maxwell's aether' the MMX wouldn't have given a null result, SR
wouldn't have been needed and Einstein wouldn't be trying to come up
with a modified aether concept to rescue Maxwell/Lorentz
electrodynamics.
>> You may feel that to be an untenable position, but he obviously did not.
>>
>> Einstein wrote
>> " Moreover this theory [Ritz's emission theory] requires that everywhere
>> and in each fixed direction light waves of a different velocity of
>> propagation should be possible. It may well be impossible to set up an
>> electromagnetic theory that is in any way reasonable and accomplishes
>> such a feat. This is the principle reason why, even before the special
>> theory of relativity, I rejected this way out...."; Albert Einstein in a
>> draft letter to A. P. Rippenbein in 1952.
>>
>> Einstein had got a Nobel prize for discovering the particulate nature of
>> light. If light is particulate there is no logical reason why it
>> shouldn't travel through the same empty space at different speeds. As I
>> say Einstein totally ignored the particulate nature of light and
>> continued to think of light as a wave in a medium and a wave can only
>> travel at one speed in a medium.
>
>I do not want to argue about what Einstein thought.
Well argue about what he wrote then.
>> > Physics is not weird on purpose.
>>
>> Well you could assume that an electron knows exactly where it is and how
>> fast it is going and that it goes precisely from A to B and that
>> Heisenburg's uncertainly relates only to our knowledge or lack of it
>> about where A was, how fast it was going and therefore where it is
>> likely to end up. If on the other hand you assume, without any
>> justification, that it is nature which is uncertain then there is much
>> more scope for fantasy to build up the mystique of quantum theory. If
>> nature is uncertain then you can propose that it won't notice if virtual
>> photons pop in and out of existence provided they do it quickly enough
>> and while nature has its back turned the laws of physics can be
>> suspended and these photons can act instantaneously over any distance.
>
>The only way you can prove your point is to come up with a complete
>theory that explains all observations in a way that suits you.
>
>> >> Put simply in the Schrodinger's
>> >> cat experiment the only thing which changes when you open the box is a
>> >> metaphysical parameter - man's knowledge. Opening the box has no effect
>> >> on the cat although it may let the smell out :o).
>> >>
>>
>> You didn't comment on that. Why not?
>> Perhaps you are not as convinced by some of the excesses of the
>> Copenhagen school as you like to make out.
>
>Nothing of the sort. I just did not want to start yet anther branch
>of this discussion, at least until we have agreed on what physics is.
We are never likely to are we. All we can hope for is to exercise each
others thought processes. My own ideas have benefited from this
discussion as in clarifying them to you they have clarified them in my
own mind.
>> *I* should come up with such a theory? Don't be silly. I see myself as
>> the young lad who points out the obvious - that the king is naked (ref
>> 'the kings new clothes').
>
>Whatever it is, it is only obvious to you. Does that not worry you?
Not in the least. There are far more priests in the world than
physicists - most highly educated - all of whom believe in God. That
does not mean I should accept that wisdom - I consider that it is
something I should use what brains I have to think about and make a
decision about. Why do all priests believe in God? because you wouldn't
get to become a priest if you didn't. Physics is the same. You are
unlikely to get a career in physics if you don't accept current physics
doctrine.
Basically Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Lorentz and Einstein all tried to
explain what was going on in physical terms. Einstein's attempt failed
but he tried. Having accepted relativity as a corner stone of physics
then disowned the aether physics was based on something which is
physically absurd. The speed at which light separates from a source is
dependent on an observation which may take place in the future. It is
physically absurd which is why physics changed its doctrine as to what
is to be expected of a theory and all the other stuff you have been
quoting about it being nothing to do with nature simply an imagining of
man.
>
>>Again I say that the second postulate of
>> relativity simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether
>> would experience the MMX having shown that the observer's speed relative
>> to the aether is zero. This makes sense only if you ignore the fact that
>> Maxwell's aether theory is compromised by the particulate nature of
>> light, the null result of the MMX and the fact that physics has now
>> disowned the aether rather than accept Einstein's view that if an
>> observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether then Nature must provide
>> a suitable aether which makes that possible.
>
>Whatever Maxwell may have believed, modern physics has no
>need for an aether.
I agree. But I don't see it the way you do. While light was seen as a
wave then it was assumed that no physical entity left the source and
travelled intact to its destination. By analogy with mechanical waves it
was essential that there be a medium whereby the waves can transfer
energy in the form of waves of stress in a medium.
While that was believed the aether would be fully justified as a FIBB of
physics. The ditching of the aether has absolutely nothing to do with
relativity and everything to do with photons. You don't need an aether
because light is made up of particles not stress waves. Some things
physical do indeed leave the source and arrive intact at the destination
so the original justification for the aether is false.
You do not retain a FIBB unnecessarily as a matter of principle but the
properties of the aether were not exclusively those of propagating waves
they also 'explained' action at a distance. That problem can be overcome
by simply accepting the force between charges as a fundamental property
of the FIBB we call charge. There is now no physical 'field' - no stress
in the aether - simply the field of influence of a charge.
As I see it that means that EM theory is no longer a valid branch of
physics as it no longer has any physical foundation. SR comes from EM
theory so that too is no-longer valid physics although both may provide
useful mathematical models which may prove useful until such time as
physics is able to make those same predictions with a real physics
theory based upon the physical nature of light i.e. photons.
If EM theory/relativity is simply considered as a mathematical model
there is no problem unless in some branch of physics the concept of
fields is still being used as if they were physically real rather than
metaphysical. As Einstein pointed out, if fields are physically real
they either have to be made up of physical 'stuff' which has to fit in
with the other types of physical stuff such as atoms or you still need
the aether for a field to be a stress in.
>> You still have not come up with any evidence to back up your belief that
>> Einstein rejected the aether. I have quoted chapter and verse showing
>> that he did not.
>
>I does not matter whether he did or not. Modern physics has.
Quite rightly but it has not faced up to the consequences of doing so.
Einstein didn't because he didn't like the consequences.
>> >Yes, if the new theory was able to predict more than current theories.
>>
>> Again you put the emphasis on prediction. I asked about 'understanding'.
>> If it makes accurate predictions would that indicate that strings exist?
>
>Do electrons exist? What about photons, phonons, entropy,
>virtual photons?
>
>> If so why, if Maxwell's theory gives accurate predictions, doesn't that
>> indicate that the aether exists?
>
>No, Maxwell may have believed in the aether but his equations do not
>require it.
No equation needs anything physical. An equation can exist which
describes absolutely nothing. An algorithm which computes tide tables
does not require the existence of the moon. A physics theory which
explains why the tide goes in and out does. Light isn't waves so
Maxwell's wave equations are not modelling light, they are modelling a
property of light and go no way to understanding how that property comes
about. To do that you would have to understand the physical nature of
photons and how they manage to mimic waves so convincingly.
Provided no one is still using fields as if they were physical, a left
over from when physics thought there was an aether and thought they were
- there isn't a problem.
--
John Kennaugh
FIBB (Fundamental irreducible building block)
oriel36
<J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Basically Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Lorentz and Einstein all tried to
> explain what was going on in physical terms. Einstein's attempt failed
> but he tried. Having accepted relativity as a corner stone of physics
> then disowned the aether physics was based on something which is
> physically absurd. The speed at which light separates from a source is
> dependent on an observation which may take place in the future. It is
> physically absurd which is why physics changed its doctrine as to what
> is to be expected of a theory and all the other stuff you have been
> quoting about it being nothing to do with nature simply an imagining of
> man.
>
> John Kennaugh
> FIBB (Fundamental irreducible building block)
Two passages from Kepler that you will not like -
* "To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets [vias
planetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is especially
the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to
discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler
The inferior tribunal astronomers got their revenge by inventing a non
geometric equational language and softsoaped the observational
astronomers into thinking magnification represents astronomy and both
shut out the rare 'contemplative astronomer'.
In short,there are no astronomers who can affirm or reject your
mathematical speculations based on physical considerations.This is why
everyone here is all ideas and hypothesis while everyone else is sick
of -
"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of
that diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . "
Kepler
Nobody will talk to me,they would much prefer to create hypothetical
situations,physical and historical , that keep men trapped in the
labyrinth Newton/Flamsteed created than actually restore the physical
intepretations of pure and honest to goodness geometric language.
There is a fine line between individual enlightenment and mass
indoctrination,I would much prefer an intelligent man such as yourself
on the right side of that line and to take some others with you.
Jeckyl
[snip stuff that I basically agree with on both sides]
> Basically Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Lorentz and Einstein all tried to
> explain what was going on in physical terms. Einstein's attempt failed but
> he tried. Having accepted relativity as a corner stone of physics then
> disowned the aether physics was based on something which is physically
> absurd. The speed at which light separates from a source is dependent on
> an observation which may take place in the future.
You keep saying that but it is not that case at all and not something that
SR assumes or implies.
You've had this explained to you repeatedly, and still come out with that
same incorrect statements.
> It is physically absurd
and noone other than you (misguidely) claims it is that case.. ceratinly SR
does not imply or assert that
> which is why physics changed its doctrine as to what is to be expected of
> a theory and all the other stuff you have been quoting about it being
> nothing to do with nature simply an imagining of man.
Utter nonsense
[snip]
John Kennaugh
What do you mean by succeed? I would say the aim is to make progress in
our understanding of nature. As I say we can predict the tides with
mathematics model but understanding that they have something to do with
the sun and moon is to me more important than getting the maths right. A
sailor might see it the other way around.
Sorry but must break off for Christmas - things to do.
Thanks for an interesting a civilised discussion.
Happy Christmas!
--
John Kennaugh
The secret of a Happy Christmas is low expectations.
Blessed is he who expecteth nowt - for he won't be dissappointed :o)
John Kennaugh
Happy Christmas!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:lDnrIXHj...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>
>[snip stuff that I basically agree with on both sides]
>
>> Basically Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Lorentz and Einstein all tried to
>> explain what was going on in physical terms. Einstein's attempt failed but
>> he tried. Having accepted relativity as a corner stone of physics then
>> disowned the aether physics was based on something which is physically
>> absurd. The speed at which light separates from a source is dependent on
>> an observation which may take place in the future.
>
>You keep saying that but it is not that case at all and not something that
>SR assumes or implies.
Of course it does. If I am travelling away from a source at v1 light
separates from the source at c+v1 in order to be c w.r.t me. It is this
difference in speed which results in Doppler effect. If I speed up to v2
then the speed at which light separates from the source is c+v2 and the
Doppler shift in now changed except that that change in the speed at
which light separates from the source has to anticipate in advance the
fact that I am going to change speed. Maybe you can explain otherwise
why the frequency changes when I change speed bearing in mind that the
speed of the light reaching me doesn't? If the speed hasn't changed and
the frequency has, then the wavelength has changed because the speed at
which light separates from the source has changed.
>
>You've had this explained to you repeatedly, and still come out with that
>same incorrect statements.
>
>> It is physically absurd
>
>and noone other than you (misguidely) claims it is that case.. ceratinly SR
>does not imply or assert that
>
>> which is why physics changed its doctrine as to what is to be expected of
>> a theory and all the other stuff you have been quoting about it being
>> nothing to do with nature simply an imagining of man.
>
>Utter nonsense
>
>[snip]
>
>
--
John Kennaugh
Jeckyl
> Jeckyl wrote:
>>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:lDnrIXHj...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>>
>>[snip stuff that I basically agree with on both sides]
>>
>>> Basically Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Lorentz and Einstein all tried to
>>> explain what was going on in physical terms. Einstein's attempt failed
>>> but
>>> he tried. Having accepted relativity as a corner stone of physics then
>>> disowned the aether physics was based on something which is physically
>>> absurd. The speed at which light separates from a source is dependent on
>>> an observation which may take place in the future.
>>
>>You keep saying that but it is not that case at all and not something that
>>SR assumes or implies.
>
> Of course it does.
No .. it does not. Your inablity to understnad the basic of SR speaks
volumes. You should take the time to understand it before you comment
further.
SR says very clearly that the velocity light leaving the source is ALWAYS c
as far as the source is concerned. If I am sitting there next to the source
.. the light never leaves the source at any speed other than c. No observer
changes this. No observer CAN change this.
To assert that SR implies it does is plain wrong.
> I am travelling away from a source at v1 light separates from the source
> at c+v1
In your frame of reference the light travels with a speed of c (toward you)
.. the light source moves away at v1 .. and so, as light travels at a
constant velocity of c relative to me, then that means the light source is
moving away from the light at a speed of c+v1. But the light is still
moving at c in my frame of reference .. never anything but c.
In the source frame of reference, the light travels with a speed of c (away
from the source) .. you are moving away with a velocity -v1 away from the
source .. and so, as light travels at a constant velocity of c relative to
the source, then that means the source sees you moving toward the light at a
speed of c-v1. But the light is still moving at c in the source frame of
reference .. never anything but c.
In both inertial frames of reference, the speed of light is c .. it is never
anything other than c.
> in order to be c w.r.t me.
All it has to do to be c relative t ome is to be light .. the speed of light
is c in every inertial frame of reference .. it is never anything other than
c.
> It is this difference in speed which results in Doppler effect.
There is no difference in speed for the light in either frame of reference
.. only between for the source and observer.
> If I speed up to v2 then the speed at which light separates from the
> source is c+v2
[snip a repeat of the same comments with v2 replacing v1]
> and the Doppler shift in now changed except that that change in the speed
> at which light separates from the source has to anticipate in advance
> the fact that I am going to change speed.
It does nothing in advance .. the source change speed realtive to the
observer at exactly the same time the observer changes speed relative to the
source. There is no 'in advance'
> Maybe you can explain otherwise
I have .. many times.
> why the frequency changes when I change speed bearing in mind that the
> speed of the light reaching me doesn't?
Read up on relativistic Doppler shift befoer you cricitics it .. you
obviously have never done so.
> If the speed hasn't changed
It doesn't
> and the frequency has,
Yes
> then the wavelength has changed
Yes .. as we see experimentally
> because the speed at which light separates from the source has changed.
No .. the light is still emitted from the source at c, and still arrives at
my eyes at c. All that is changing is the relative speed of the source and
observer.
Your use of 'speed at which light separates' is confusing/misleading
(perhaps deliberately so). If you are talking about the speed of light
emiited from the source .. it is always 'c' relative to the source .. it
never changes.
If you are talking about the speed difference in speed between how fast the
source moves in my frame of reference vs the fixed speed of light c .. then
if the source changes speed (or I do relative to the source), it will
obviously also change that difference in speed (in my frame of reference).
It does nothing to the speed of light in the source's frame of reference, or
in mine.