View Full Version : Ether
protonman
Mar5-04, 10:06 PM
If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?
Originally posted by protonman
If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?
Einstein wrote in one of his 1918 papers:
“There, empty space in the previous sense has physical qualities, mathematically characterized by the components of the potential of gravitation that determine the metrical behavior of that portion of space as well as its gravitational field. This situation can very well be interpreted by speaking of an ether whose state varies from point to point.”
He wrote in one of his 1920 papers:
”Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity 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 (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”
Why do we need Ether to talk about light being a wave?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Why do we need Ether to talk about light being a wave?
An “ether” is some kind of physical light-speed regulating mechanism in space. It tends to regulate light speed to “c” near the surfaces of astronomical bodies, or to lower than “c” at the surfaces of massive bodies.
When light leaves a star that is moving away from the earth, the light leaves the star at about “c”, relative to the star, but at c – v relative to the earth, but by the time the light gets to the earth it is regulated to “c” at the earth and c + v away from and relative to the star that emitted it. Thus, it’s obvious that the light changes relative speed while in route.
Some of Einstein’s papers expressed his later point of view that the fields of astronomical bodies, specifically the gravity fields, might act as a local ether near the surfaces of the bodies.
protonman
Mar6-04, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by David
Einstein wrote in one of his 1918 papers:
“There, empty space in the previous sense has physical qualities, mathematically characterized by the components of the potential of gravitation that determine the metrical behavior of that portion of space as well as its gravitational field. This situation can very well be interpreted by speaking of an ether whose state varies from point to point.”
He wrote in one of his 1920 papers:
”Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity 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 (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”
Interesting in light of SR.
protonman
Mar6-04, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Why do we need Ether to talk about light being a wave? Do you know what a wave is?
russ_watters
Mar6-04, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by protonman
If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave? Wow.
Light is not like sound (the typical analogy). It does not require a medium upon which to propagate (as Hurkyl insinuated).
Whether or not you believe that statement to be true, again, its all about the evidence: Hundreds, if not thousands of experiments have hypothesized about the ether and attempted to find it - and all have failed. You cannot assume an ether exists, contrary to such a massive body of evidence.
David, quite simply, Einstein's "ether" from those quotes is not the same as the ether protonman is talking about. That is abundantly clear from the second quote. Einstein's ether is simply space-time and the fact that it has measurable properties. It is not an acutal medium in which light propagates like sound in air.
protonman
Mar6-04, 12:29 AM
It is utterly impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propagation.
russ_watters
Mar6-04, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by protonman
It is utterly impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propagation. 1. Why?
2. Prove it.
Originally posted by protonman
Interesting in light of SR.
Einstein changed his “constancy” postulate in his 1911 paper. Not very many people realize that because they just don’t understand the GR theory. After 1911, his light speed was regulated locally by the gravity fields through which it moved, at and near the surfaces of astronomical bodies.
Light could actually be “self propagating”. That is, it could be little wiggling electric and magnetic fields that move through space. Not a “wave” action inside pre-existing electric and magnetic fields, but actually a movement through space of tiny little wigging electric and magnetic fields that are emitted from an atom, and the little fields might move through space.
If this happens, then light does not need a medium in which to propagate. However, it has been proven that light speeds up slightly in deep space, away from strong fields, and it slows down slighly near the surfaces of astronomical bodies. So, the gravity fields near bodies and in deep space tend to have light-speed regulating properties. Thus, gravity could act like a kind of “ether”, something like a “medium” like glass, water, and air, something that slows down the little moving wiggling electric and magnetic fields as they travel through space. In strong gravity they slow down, and in weak gravity they speed up.
But the original “constancy” postulate of the 1905 theory was changed with his 1911 theory.
Einstein’s original 1905 postulate was based on the Lorentz 1895 theory that light always moved at “c” in empty space. But Einstein later realized that light speed slows down in a strong gravity field.
Get yourself a copy of the 1895 Lorentz book, and you will see where Einstein’s 1905 SR theory came from. It was not his original idea. It is actually modified version of the 1895 Lorentz book.
protonman
Mar6-04, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by russ_watters
1. Why?
2. Prove it.
If you don't know then I suggest you study high school physics.
Oh boy,
Physics is well beyond the stage of validating or even discussing about SR. It is not even a controversial matter any more among professional physicists.
This is NOT because of any conspiracy, or a desire to "maintain the status quo" (come on! the very idea is laughable), but because it is now firmly established (via experiment) and well understood.
Nowadays, relativistic corrections are used in myriads of experiments, and of course each one of them is first calibrated and tested with known magnitudes, to make sure that the gadget (or the 100 ton detector) measures things correctly. Any discrepancy would have been detected and studied long ago.
Due to the level of precision that current technology allows for experimental measurements, SR effects are extemely well tested. The current frontier of our knowledge is in a very different place.
protonman
Mar6-04, 01:01 AM
I have read some of the history on SR and had heard the Lorentz was partially responsible from SR. Also, there is some speculation that Poinclare actually came up with a version of relativity using the same postulates as Einstein but before him. Either way, as it is presented it seems that Einstein suddenly came up with this idea all on his own which is unfortunate. Although this is mostly in the popular media and not so much in science texts.
I still think that based on the definition of a wave that you need a media and don't quite understand what you were saying about tiny electric and magnetic fields.
As I see it a wave is not something that exists independent of its medium of propagation. A wave is just a disturbance of that medium where each point moves up and down but there is no transverse displacement of particles.
Funny how no one has come up and tried to refute what you said. I notice that when they can't answer they ignore. When they address and you fight back they attempt to silence.
How about the Schwartz book on GR. Would you recomend it. I am very comfortable with SR although can't seem to find a good presentation of the covariant derivation and formulation of Maxwell's equations.
Originally posted by ahrkron
Oh boy,
Physics is well beyond the stage of validating or even discussing about SR. It is not even a controversial matter any more among professional physicists.
No, Lorentz theory and GR theory are well validated. What you are calling SR theory was invented by Lorentz in 1895. He invented “time dilation”, “length contraction”, mass increase due to motion, accelerative effects on oscillating atoms, a speed limit of “c”, atomic clock slowdowns. Einstein didn’t invent this stuff, he just modified the Lorentz theory in his 1905 paper. Einstein cultists attribute all this stuff to Einstein, but Lorentz actually invented it. I’ve got a copy of his rare 1895 book. Why do you think Einstein used the Lorentz Transformation equations in his SR paper? The Transformation equations were published in Lorentz’s 1895 book.
Ah, the self-proclaimed genius... Follow these simple steps to be your own self-procliamed genius!
(1) Go on a message board and profess to understand the subject better than the professionals who work in the field, because you aren't brainwashed by the orthodoxy (because academia is a giant corporate conspiracy to quell real knowledge and thinking).
(2) Be sure to only "publish" your revolutionary ideas on the web, because submitting them to journals is out of the question (the orthodoxy will not allow your theories to threaten the establishment).
(3) Always be sure to base your argument on a statement made in a paper which is at least 75 years old, but necessarily written by Einstein (or the father of the field in question). In doing so, you will immediately demonstrate the association of your ideas with those of the the paradigm-shifters.
(4) In light of (3), be careful to ignore any of the contradictory literature which was pubished in the years between then and now. It could serve to undermine your theory. Besides, the published results are clearly wrong.
(5) If you didn't mention it before, be sure to point out that you are a physics teacher, shaping the critical thinkers of tomorrow away from the poison of traditional academics. In the same paragraph in which you tout your pedagogical prowess, be sure to top it off with a grand-slam insult of your audience. Make 'em know who's the genius!
[zz)]
protonman
Mar6-04, 01:12 AM
Physics is well beyond the stage of validating or even discussing about SR. It is not even a controversial matter any more among professional physicists.They said the same thing in Newton's time. Then again at the end of the 19th century when they thought they could explain all the forces in terms of gravity and E&M. No one to any reasonable degree has explained why the speed of light is constant to all observers...etc.
Did I say Einstein? No, I didn't. The point is that SR is extremely well tested.
Regarding authors, you have it wrong. Lorentz did indeed publish the transormation that have his name, but the interpretation he had for them was different from Einstein. That's a different discussion altogether.
The one person that almost got to what we call now SR, but didn't quite get there, was Poincare.
Originally posted by David
No, Lorentz theory and GR theory are well validated. What you are calling SR theory was invented by Lorentz in 1895. He invented “time dilation”, “length contraction”, mass increase due to motion, accelerative effects on oscillating atoms, a speed limit of “c”, atomic clock slowdowns. Einstein didn’t invent this stuff, he just modified the Lorentz theory in his 1905 paper. Einstein cultists attribute all this stuff to Einstein, but Lorentz actually invented it. I’ve got a copy of his rare 1895 book. Why do you think Einstein used the Lorentz Transformation equations in his SR paper? The Transformation equations were published in Lorentz’s 1895 book.
Most relativists are well aware of the origins of their field. I agree with you on one point, that Einstein receives too much "popular" credit for work which was not entirely his.
However, being as familiar with relativity as you are, I'm sure you realize the trivial typo you made by noting that mass increases with velocity... right?
Originally posted by protonman
I have read some of the history on SR and had heard the Lorentz was partially responsible from SR.
Here is a copy of a page from the 1895 Lorentz book, showing how he introduced the Lorentz transformation equations. In the old German text p = v and V = c.
PAGE FROM LORENTZ’S 1895 BOOK (http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4dc32b3127cceb821b68ead3f0000001610)
Lorentz introduced time dilation on page 49 of that book.
protonman,
So you would say that all experimental verifications of SR are just lucky coincidences? what about Quantum Field Theory and QED? (both of which are based on SR) do their fantastic accuracy also comes from sheer luck?
No way.
protonman
Mar6-04, 01:17 AM
David,
Have you heard of this book "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields". Sounds like a very interesting premise.
It really puzzles me why only objects with no mass can go the speed of light. The equivalence between energy and mass also is interesting. I think with a lot of original thinking and the theory of SR these things can be explained. I actually have a lot of original ideas but this place (it turns out) is not the place to go to share new ideas.
I think that deep down gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing in the same way that the E and B fields are treated as different aspects of the electro-magnetic field tensor.
Assuming that SR is correct, at least under certain conditions, a comprehensive formula can be developed. What would be nice is to develop a formulation of physics without resorting to QM. SR and GR contain less logical inconsistancies than QM.
Originally posted by protonman
Either way, as it is presented it seems that Einstein suddenly came up with this idea all on his own which is unfortunate. Although this is mostly in the popular media and not so much in science texts.
On page 20 of the introduction to Lorentz’s 1920 book, “The Einstein Theory of Relativity”, Brentano’s Publishers, Einstein himself is quoted in a New York Times interview as saying:
“This led the Dutch professor, Lorentz, and myself to develop the theory of special relativity. Briefly, it discards absolute time and space and makes them in every instance relative to moving systems.”
Einstein was only 16 years old when Lorentz’s relativity theory was published in 1895. Lorentz developed the theory, and Einstein copied it and modified it in his 1905 theory.
Originally posted by protonman
They said the same thing in Newton's time. Then again at the end of the 19th century when they thought they could explain all the forces in terms of gravity and E&M. No one to any reasonable degree has explained why the speed of light is constant to all observers...etc.
Self-proclaimed genius addendum:
Always point out shortcomings of theories in the past, in order to villify the orthodoxy (which clearly has not learned the subtle lessons from past events the way that you have) and promote your alternate theory/opinion. Good superficial comparisons include: "They thought the sound barrier could not be broken", or "They said a man could never run a mile under 4 minutes".
protonman
Mar6-04, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by ahrkron
protonman,
So you would say that all experimental verifications of SR are just lucky coincidences? what about Quantum Field Theory and QED? (both of which are based on SR) do their fantastic accuracy also comes from sheer luck?
No way. Why do you ask me a question and then answer it yourself? You some kind of funny guy?
protonman
Mar6-04, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by GRQC
Self-proclaimed genius addendum:
Always point out shortcomings of theories in the past, in order to villify the orthodoxy (which clearly has not learned the subtle lessons from past events the way that you have) and promote your alternate theory/opinion. Good superficial comparisons include: "They thought the sound barrier could not be broken", or "They said a man could never run a mile under 4 minutes". What is my theory or opinion? I bet you haven;t even read all my posts. I barely mentioend my stance on this issue. I have just raised questions. I am not pushing my particular interpretation. I wouldn't waste my time with your type since it would obviously be of no benefit. I discuss with intellegent and more importantly critical thinkers.
Originally posted by protonman
It really puzzles me why only objects with no mass can go the speed of light. The equivalence between energy and mass also is interesting. I think with a lot of original thinking and the theory of SR these things can be explained. I actually have a lot of original ideas but this place (it turns out) is not the place to go to share new ideas.
In the Lorentz theory, all fields put up a “resistance” to the motion of atoms through them. It was he who hypothesized that there is a speed limit of “c” for objects moving through strong fields.
Einstein at first thought this was just a “relative motion” effect, but Lorentz said it was an effect of a “resistance” to the motion being put up by the fields through which the motion takes place.
NASA used this Lorentz theory do generate a current flow in their tether experiment several years go. The long tether cause a “drag” effect while moving through the earth’s gravity field, and when the tether finally snapped, it fell behind the space shuttle, because of that drag effect.
In large-scale universal space, the distant galaxies are not moving through the earth’s gravity fields, and thus their speeds relative to the earth are not limited to “c”. That’s why they are called “superluminal” galaxies, faster than light-speed galaxies, relative to the earth and the earth’s local fields.
protonman
Mar6-04, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by David
In the Lorentz theory, all fields put up a “resistance” to the motion of atoms through them. It was he who hypothesized that there is a speed limit of “c” for objects moving through strong fields.
Einstein at first thought this was just a “relative motion” effect, but Lorentz said it was an effect of a “resistance” to the motion being put up by the fields through which the motion takes place.
NASA used this Lorentz theory do generate a current flow in their tether experiment several years go. The long tether cause a “drag” effect while moving through the earth’s gravity field, and when the tether finally snapped, it fell behind the space shuttle, because of that drag effect.
In large-scale universal space, the distant galaxies are not moving through the earth’s gravity fields, and thus their speeds relative to the earth are not limited to “c”. That’s why they are called “superluminal” galaxies, faster than light-speed galaxies, relative to the earth and the earth’s local fields. What you are saying is very interesting. This information is, to my knowledge, not well know at least in the popular sense. There is a lot wrong with early 20th century phyics. The physicists seem content to move along with their theories which are really just approximations. As long as they match experiment they are good enough. They forget the genious of Newton and Einstein. They people thought of themselves as natural philosophers. Einstein's quote about wanting to know the mind of god and the rest is stamp collecting (this is the basic idea of what he said) is the true spirit of a scientist. As I said before there are no great thinkers anymore.
russ_watters
Mar6-04, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by protonman
If you don't know then I suggest you study high school physics. There is no need for this, protonman. You have admitted gaps in your knowledge in other posts and there is nothing wrong with not knowing everything about everything: I have also admitted where my understanding of SR/GR ends (I haven't delved much into the math). But responding to every probe for and idea like its a personal attack isn't going to help you learn what you are missing. Is that how the kids in your classes respond when you ask them a question? Would you tolerate that?
And maybe more to the point, since when are SR and GR taught in high school physics?
Originally posted by David
NASA used this Lorentz theory do generate a current flow in their tether experiment several years go. The long tether cause a “drag” effect while moving through the earth’s gravity field, and when the tether finally snapped, it fell behind the space shuttle, because of that drag effect.
This drag effect is due to electomagnetic interactions, and not gravity. If you move a wire through a magnetic field, it generates current. Moving charges feel magnetic forces, so there will be a drag on the current-carrying tether.
In large-scale universal space, the distant galaxies are not moving through the earth’s gravity fields, and thus their speeds relative to the earth are not limited to “c”. That’s why they are called “superluminal” galaxies, faster than light-speed galaxies, relative to the earth and the earth’s local fields. [/B]
There are much stronger gravitational fields in the universe than that of the earth. I'm not sure I see the connection you're drawing with superluminal expansion.
protonman
Mar6-04, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by russ_watters
There is no need for this, protonman. You have admitted gaps in your knowledge in other posts and there is nothing wrong with not knowing everything about everything: I have also admitted where my understanding of SR/GR ends (I haven't delved much into the math). But responding to every probe for and idea like its a personal attack isn't going to help you learn what you are missing. Is that how the kids in your classes respond when you ask them a question? Would you tolerate that?If I want your opinion I will give it to you.
And maybe more to the point, since when are SR and GR taught in high school physics? Since I stared teaching.
Originally posted by protonman
If I want your opinion I will give it to you.
You are aware, I hope, that russ is part of the staff here.
- Warren
protonman, and David,
Are there any experiments or observations that you are aware of which are inconsistent with either SR or GR? Same question, expressed slightly differently: what predictions of SR or GR are you aware of which have been shown to be wrong by experiment or observation?
If you have alternative theories/ideas/hypotheses with a similar or overlapping scope to SR or GR, what concrete predictions can you make from these? Specifically, what do you predict that is different from SR or GR? I'm interested, at this stage, in any differences at all, whether they are measurable by current instruments (or technology) or not.
Nereid
protonman
Mar6-04, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Nereid
protonman, and David,
Are there any experiments or observations that you are aware of which are inconsistent with either SR or GR? Same question, expressed slightly differently: what predictions of SR or GR are you aware of which have been shown to be wrong by experiment or observation?
If you have alternative theories/ideas/hypotheses with a similar or overlapping scope to SR or GR, what concrete predictions can you make from these? Specifically, what do you predict that is different from SR or GR? I'm interested, at this stage, in any differences at all, whether they are measurable by current instruments (or technology) or not.
Nereid I don't accept your methods.
Originally posted by protonman
I don't accept your methods.
I take that is a "no".
protonman
Mar6-04, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by ahrkron
I take that is a "no". Do you have any Biblical quotations supporting your views?
pelastration
Mar6-04, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by protonman
I don't accept your methods.
Protonman,
you made some interesting points, David too.
Nereid asked some open questions about predictions.
Keep talking/posting. Don't get upset.
Originally posted by protonman
I don't accept your methods. I wasn't aware that I had proposed any methods [:(]
First, I asked a yes/no question as to knowledge you currently possess.
Next was a compound question - do you have alternative theories (etc), a yes/no as to your own ideas. If no, OK; if yes, then how about the predictions?
Since you began this thread with a question about the wave nature of light and "Ether", I am curious as to whether you think GR inadequate in some way, and/or have a good alternative. My two questions are concrete ways of asking.
protonman
Mar6-04, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Nereid
I wasn't aware that I had proposed any methods [:(]
First, I asked a yes/no question as to knowledge you currently possess.
Next was a compound question - do you have alternative theories (etc), a yes/no as to your own ideas. If no, OK; if yes, then how about the predictions?
Since you began this thread with a question about the wave nature of light and "Ether", I am curious as to whether you think GR inadequate in some way, and/or have a good alternative. My two questions are concrete ways of asking. I don't have to propose an alternative. Sounds like all you are saying 'well we don't have any better ideas so I guess we'll use this one.' All I am doing is showing the illogical nature of some things physics has proposed. Since you made the statement you need to defend it, not me.
Originally posted by protonman
I don't have to propose an alternative. Sounds like all you are saying 'well we don't have any better ideas so I guess we'll use this one.' I checked; I didn't make any statements, I asked two questions.Originally posted by protonman
All I am doing is showing the illogical nature of some things physics has proposed. Since you made the statement you need to defend it, not me. I checked; I didn't make any statements, I asked two questions.Originally posted by protonman
It is utterly impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propagation. This is a statement; Russ asked you why it is impossible, and also asked you if you could prove it (two questions; not statements)Originally posted by protonman, in answer to Russ' questions
If you don't know then I suggest you study high school physics. Imagine I am a slow pupil in your high school physics class. "Teacher protonman, I really don't understand why it is impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propogation. Could you please explain it to me? I'd really like to know. I know that you're very busy, so if you could just tell me which physics textbook has a good explanation, and I'll go read it up there."
protonman
Mar6-04, 10:32 PM
First I would tell the student they are an idiot. Then I would ask them what a wave is. By definition it is the the vertical oscilatory motion of a medium. The 'wave' itself is nothing more than the motion of the medium. It is not some independent physical entity. Without a medium it is nonsense to talk about a wave. Then I would remind them they were an idiot.
Integral
Mar6-04, 10:40 PM
To continue the part of the student.
Then I'd have to ask about Maxwell's equations. If a changing Electric field creates a changing Magnetic field where is the medium? What is moving?
Do you have any experimental verification of what is moving?
Then I would ask them what a wave is. By definition it is the the vertical oscilatory motion of a medium.
You should go make fun of all those people who talk about sound waves then!
Originally posted by protonman
First I would tell the student they are an idiot.
Whatever, enough of this nonsense already.
If you were really a teacher, I would be offended that you have the audacity to make this claim, based on this statement. But it's too obvious that you are are nothing of the kind, as I have always suspected you to be. You're no doubt having a great laugh at your efforts to troll this message board. But quite frankly, you've solidified the image I've had of you since your first assertion that you are a teacher and care about the critical thinking skills of your students. You never fooled me.
Originally posted by protonman
First I would tell the student they are an idiot. Then I would ask them what a wave is. By definition it is the the vertical oscilatory motion of a medium. The 'wave' itself is nothing more than the motion of the medium. It is not some independent physical entity. Without a medium it is nonsense to talk about a wave. Then I would remind them they were an idiot. As a student, who knows herself to be a little slow but who is nonetheless tenacious, I was rather hurt by your response. So I went and looked up a couple of physics textbooks for myself. What I found was much more like what Integral and Hurkyl briefly mentioned than your definition.
So I would like, respectfully and humbly, to ask you again - please tell me the name of a physics textbook which provides a definition of a wave like the one you gave, and explains sound and light (or electromagnetic waves in general) in terms of the words in your definition.
Regarding the 'idiot' term: I spoke with my Chemistry teacher about this, and she got quite angry. First, she said that there's no evidence in pedagogical theory (or practice) that gratuitous insults do anything but harm a student's ability to learn. Second, she said that a teacher should *always* encourage her students to ask questions about something they don't understand, work independently, and foster their curiosity. Third, she said that our school has a clear policy about language "Any foul or hostile language used in class will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed." She encouraged me to go back to you and ask my questions again, and said that if you continue to break the school's policies, she will report you to the Head Teacher.
pelastration
Mar7-04, 10:57 AM
Nereid,
have you even seen this quote of Maxwell?
"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."
--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
I found that on a website of Joseph Newman, never found other oringinal references. But it fits in my ideas about multi-layered spacetime where membrane friction creates all other interactions.
protonman
Mar7-04, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Integral
To continue the part of the student.
Then I'd have to ask about Maxwell's equations. If a changing Electric field creates a changing Magnetic field where is the medium? What is moving?
Do you have any experimental verification of what is moving? Prove that a changing E field produces a changing B field.
protonman
Mar7-04, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Nereid
As a student, who knows herself to be a little slow but who is nonetheless tenacious, I was rather hurt by your response. So I went and looked up a couple of physics textbooks for myself. What I found was much more like what Integral and Hurkyl briefly mentioned than your definition.
So I would like, respectfully and humbly, to ask you again - please tell me the name of a physics textbook which provides a definition of a wave like the one you gave, and explains sound and light (or electromagnetic waves in general) in terms of the words in your definition.
Regarding the 'idiot' term: I spoke with my Chemistry teacher about this, and she got quite angry. First, she said that there's no evidence in pedagogical theory (or practice) that gratuitous insults do anything but harm a student's ability to learn. Second, she said that a teacher should *always* encourage her students to ask questions about something they don't understand, work independently, and foster their curiosity. Third, she said that our school has a clear policy about language "Any foul or hostile language used in class will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed." She encouraged me to go back to you and ask my questions again, and said that if you continue to break the school's policies, she will report you to the Head Teacher. If you take what you read on the internet personally that is your problem. I don't see why what I say has any effect on you. My view is just one person and if you don't like it then just ignore it.
P.S. Tell your chem teacher they are an idiot.
Tell your chem teacher they are an idiot.
Prove they're an idiot.
Originally posted by protonman
Do you have any Biblical quotations supporting your views?
Am I doing any statement about what the Bible should say?
Deeviant
Mar7-04, 02:14 PM
I know were all having fun laughing at protonboys trolling, but could we get to the banning the flaming troll part already?
protonman
Mar7-04, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Prove they're an idiot. Because based on unsubstantiated statements on the internet the teacher suggested that I be reported to the school. This is a person who doesn't think. You call me a bad teacher look at this persons advice.
protonman
Mar7-04, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Deeviant
I know were all having fun laughing at protonboys trolling, but could we get to the banning the flaming troll part already? I don't know why everytime I make an agrument that can't be refuted or you just don't understand it is called trolling. If you understood my comments and arguments you would see that it is not trolling. But, because you can't see the logic and connection between what I say and the topic you need to call me a troll.
I know what you are going to say now. How I have shown no logic and there no connection. This, of course, will be merely stated without any actual evidence or a particular case. Only after my repeated requests for a evidence will an attempt be made to prove you point. Then I will easily refute you trite argument and the process will start all over again. This is so predictable. With the exception of David all of you follow the exact same pattern. You are so predictable. Maybe I should publish a theory. The experimental evidence is overwhelming.
protonman
Mar7-04, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by ahrkron
Am I doing any statement about what the Bible should say? Not quite sure what this means. Is this English?
protonman: I have the degrees to back up what I say. I am a physics teacher. Unlike you people, I teach students how to think not what to think.
protonman: By definition it [a wave] is the the vertical oscilatory motion of a medium. The 'wave' itself is nothing more than the motion of the medium. It is not some independent physical entity. Without a medium it is nonsense to talk about a wave.
Nereid: please tell me the name of a physics textbook which provides a definition of a wave like the one you gave, and explains sound and light (or electromagnetic waves in general) in terms of the words in your definition. Please tell me the name of the physics textbook (or textbooks) that you use to teach physics, especially the part about waves.
protonman: I don't know why everytime I make an agrument [sic] that can't be refuted or you just don't understand *SNIPWhat is your argument?protonman: Only after my repeated requests for a evidence will an attempt be made to prove you point. *SNIP What evidence have you requested?protonman: Maybe I should publish a theory. The experimental evidence is overwhelming.
Nereid: protonman, and David,
Are there any experiments or observations that you are aware of which are inconsistent with either SR or GR? Same question, expressed slightly differently: what predictions of SR or GR are you aware of which have been shown to be wrong by experiment or observation?
If you have alternative theories/ideas/hypotheses with a similar or overlapping scope to SR or GR, what concrete predictions can you make from these? Specifically, what do you predict that is different from SR or GR? I'm interested, at this stage, in any differences at all, whether they are measurable by current instruments (or technology) or not.
protonman's reply: I don't accept your methods. I don't know why everytime I ask a question about something I don't understand in what you write you ignore me or call me an idiot. If you were a real physics teacher you would see that you are being inconsistent. But, because you can see the logic and connection between what you say and the topic you must be a troll.
I know what you are going to say now. How I have shown no logic and there no connection. This, of course, will be merely stated without any actual evidence or a particular case. Only after my repeated requests for a evidence will an attempt be made to prove your point. Then I will easily refute your trite argument and the process will start all over again. This is so predictable. You follow the exact same pattern. You are so predictable. Maybe I should publish a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll). The experimental evidence is overwhelming.
protonman
Mar7-04, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Nereid
Please tell me the name of the physics textbook (or textbooks) that you use to teach physics, especially the part about waves. If you don't like the definition refute it on its own merits. Not on what book it came from.
Deeviant
Mar7-04, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by protonman
I don't know why everytime I make an agrument that can't be refuted or you just don't understand it is called trolling. If you understood my comments and arguments you would see that it is not trolling. But, because you can't see the logic and connection between what I say and the topic you need to call me a troll.
I know what you are going to say now. How I have shown no logic and there no connection. This, of course, will be merely stated without any actual evidence or a particular case. Only after my repeated requests for a evidence will an attempt be made to prove you point. Then I will easily refute you trite argument and the process will start all over again. This is so predictable. With the exception of David all of you follow the exact same pattern. You are so predictable. Maybe I should publish a theory. The experimental evidence is overwhelming.
If it was just me saying your a troll, then you might have a case. If two people say your a troll, you'd be losing ground. If nearly everybody on the board agrees your a troll, then it is more than likely true.
And I would really like to know which publication you intend to publish your story on. It would be interesting to measure how quickly they reject your "theory" and cite it as "meaningless babble".
If being different and thinking "outside the box" means being disrespectful, brash, and wrong, then I would rather be one of the nameless majority.
protonman
Mar7-04, 07:23 PM
Taking candy from a baby man....
Originally posted by Deeviant
If it was just me saying your a troll, then you might have a case. If two people say your a troll, you'd be losing ground. If nearly everybody on the board agrees your a troll, then it is more than likely true. Most people believed the earth was flat at one time. Does this mean it was most likely true?
And I would really like to know which publication you intend to publish your story on. It would be interesting to measure how quickly they reject your "theory" and cite it as "meaningless babble".
Same one all you people publish in "The Journal of Blatantly Obvious"
If being different and thinking "outside the box" means being disrespectful, brash, and wrong, then I would rather be one of the nameless majority. Again show me where I am wrong. P.S. please provide evidence.
Deeviant
Mar7-04, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by protonman
Taking candy from a baby man....
Most people believed the earth was flat at one time. Does this mean it was most likely true?
Same one all you people publish in "The Journal of Blatantly Obvious"
Again show me where I am wrong. P.S. please provide evidence.
Unfortunely for you, this is not the old world. Many of the people on this board, and I'm sure all of the mentors have a very solid grip on the Scientific Method. Having agreement between a large and varied body of scientists(doesn't get much more diverse then a internet forum like this) is how science puts forth actual results nowadays. Upon looking at the history of your posts, it is obvious why you referenced old world mentality: You sir, are stil living in the old world, at least when it comes to your science.
I do agree with you about something however:
I would publish the fact that you are full of crap and produce nothing except for meaningless babble in "The Journal of Blatantly Obvious."
I would provide evidence of your wrongness, but for the life of me I can't figure out what the hell you are actually trying to say and in fact I would bet you don't even know what the hell you are trying to say. It seems that you never actually say anything, you just provide a never ending stream insulting commentary( A definitive mark of a forum troll).
What exactely makes you think insulting people has anything to do with science? Perhaps, you find a better fit in politics?
Internet Trolls (http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT) "What Can be Done about Trolls?
When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.
However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored."
protonman
Mar7-04, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Nereid
Internet Trolls (http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT) "What Can be Done about Trolls?
When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.
However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored." I agree. Let's ignore the troll. What user is he?
Is this thread even about anything anymore, or shall we lock it and be done with it?
Originally posted by ahrkron
Oh boy,
Physics is well beyond the stage of validating or even discussing about SR. It is not even a controversial matter any more among professional physicists.
This is NOT because of any conspiracy, or a desire to "maintain the status quo" (come on! the very idea is laughable), but because it is now firmly established (via experiment) and well understood.
Nowadays, relativistic corrections are used in myriads of experiments, and of course each one of them is first calibrated and tested with known magnitudes, to make sure that the gadget (or the 100 ton detector) measures things correctly. Any discrepancy would have been detected and studied long ago.
Due to the level of precision that current technology allows for experimental measurements, SR effects are extemely well tested. The current frontier of our knowledge is in a very different place.
Please list these experiments. Or just one at a time if you please.
I'd like to hear how SR time dilation has been tested in particular. But really, Einstein himself said that SR was not applicable if spacetime was not flat so if all experiments are done in a gravitational field, how can anyone claim SR has been tested? This seems a bit disingenuous at least.
The only tests that can be performed where spacetime is not flat are GR effects. Since Einstein himself said space-time is a kind of aether, all tests that are claimed to confirm GR then have confirmed the ether.
Originally posted by Eyesaw
Please list these experiments. Or just one at a time if you please.
I'd like to hear how SR time dilation has been tested in particular. But really, Einstein himself said that SR was not applicable if spacetime was not flat so if all experiments are done in a gravitational field, how can anyone claim SR has been tested? This seems a bit disingenuous at least. Here's a list of experimental tests of SR (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html), and a similar one for GR (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/). Someone else may have a more comprehensive or up-to-date list.
But really, Einstein himself said that SR was not applicable if spacetime was not flat so if all experiments are done in a gravitational field, how can anyone claim SR has been tested? This seems a bit disingenuous at least.
The same way one can say classical mechanics has been tested. Experiments have been performed, and they agreed with results of SR. [:)]
One of the basic principles of GR is that, to put it loosely, it looks like SR on small scales. (such as a laboratory) So, if GR is an accurate description of reality, then SR should be an accurate description of reality on the small scale.
(Just like classical mechanics is an accurate description of the macroscopic world at low velocities)
Since Einstein himself said space-time is a kind of aether, all tests that are claimed to confirm GR then have confirmed the ether.
I would like to point out that the "aether" of GR is not a "classical" aether. (Just like the particles of QM are not classical particles)
Originally posted by Nereid
Here's a list of experimental tests of SR (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html), and a similar one for GR (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/). Someone else may have a more comprehensive or up-to-date list.
Yes, I have looked at that webpage before. But before we go
over these experiments, I'd still like an answer to how any test
can be claimed to have confirmed SR as I keep hearing,
especially from this fanatic russ_waters guy.
If a theory is based on non gravity, how can it ever be applicable
to the real world? This is especially puzzling when space-time
itself in GR is endowed with these gravitational effects so that no travel is possible by any matter through it without being affected in a gravitational manner. Using GR tests to confirm SR is very weak inductive reasoning if not a logical fallacy entirely. How do we know that in the absence of gravity, matter will move at all? How do we know that matter doesn't generate its own gravitational fields so
that one can never have a flat spacetime if matter exists? What evidence do we have that in the absence of space-time, light can move at all or even exist?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The same way one can say classical mechanics has been tested. Experiments have been performed, and they agreed with results of SR. [:)]
One of the basic principles of GR is that, to put it loosely, it looks like SR on small scales. (such as a laboratory) So, if GR is an accurate description of reality, then SR should be an accurate description of reality on the small scale.
(Just like classical mechanics is an accurate description of the macroscopic world at low velocities)
I would like to point out that the "aether" of GR is not a "classical" aether. (Just like the particles of QM are not classical particles)
I think you have provided a very good example of how inductive reasoning can lead to conclusions which conflict with reality.
It's the very reason that classical mechanics had to be replaced
by quantum mechanics: assumptions we made about nature on the macroscopic scale did not accurately describe the quantum world,
even though inductively it should. In the same way, the assumptions about matter and motion through spacetime in GR may be very different from how nature behaves in the limit of GR.
Just as it is ridiculous to claim that tests on classical mechanics
are confirmations of Quantum mechanics, SR cannot be said to have been confirmed by tests of GR. But it's actually even worse since at least in Qm, we are still describing reality and not an imaginary universe as in SR.
Originally posted by Eyesaw
If a theory is based on non gravity, how can it ever be applicable to the real world?
Because there are many situations in which the gravitational field is so close to a flat metric (i.e., what you call "non gravity") that the effect of the curvature is extremely small compared to the SR effects.
Pretty much all experimental science works this way: you care for the main effects first, neglecting other things that produce small deviations, and verify that your theory accounts for what you can measure.
You never can take into account all minute distorsions due to all imaginable effects, but that is ok because they usually introduce deviations that are smaller than your experimental precision. Think of any theory with which you are comfortable. Say, thermodynamics. Does it take into account electromagnetic fields? QCD effects? Cosmic rays? radiation pressure? background radioactivity? no, but even when all of these effects are always present, the theory is still valid since it has been proven that the only important quantities are Volume, Pressure and Tempreature (how? by varying these quantities and observing if their correlation with experiment is consistent throughout many experiments, regardless of the values of all the other quantities).
russ_watters
Mar8-04, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Eyesaw
Yes, I have looked at that webpage before. But before we go
over these experiments, I'd still like an answer to how any test
can be claimed to have confirmed SR as I keep hearing,
especially from this fanatic russ_waters guy.
If a theory is based on non gravity, how can it ever be applicable
to the real world? This is especially puzzling when space-time
itself in GR is endowed with these gravitational effects so that no travel is possible by any matter through it without being affected in a gravitational manner. Using GR tests to confirm SR is very weak inductive reasoning if not a logical fallacy entirely. How do we know that in the absence of gravity, matter will move at all? How do we know that matter doesn't generate its own gravitational fields so
that one can never have a flat spacetime if matter exists? What evidence do we have that in the absence of space-time, light can move at all or even exist? I'm a little confused. Are you asking how any test can be valid if there is more than one effect at work? There are always multiple effects being observed in experiments - the trick is knowing what is doing what.
Some of the predictions of SR are extremely simple and testing them is a relative piece of cake. GPS clocks and time dilation (my favorite) for example. Both the SR and GR effects are specific and with the equations known you can test for both at the same time.
Deeviant
Mar8-04, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by Eyesaw
Yes, I have looked at that webpage before. But before we go
over these experiments, I'd still like an answer to how any test
can be claimed to have confirmed SR as I keep hearing,
especially from this fanatic russ_waters guy.
If a theory is based on non gravity, how can it ever be applicable
to the real world? This is especially puzzling when space-time
itself in GR is endowed with these gravitational effects so that no travel is possible by any matter through it without being affected in a gravitational manner. Using GR tests to confirm SR is very weak inductive reasoning if not a logical fallacy entirely. How do we know that in the absence of gravity, matter will move at all? How do we know that matter doesn't generate its own gravitational fields so
that one can never have a flat spacetime if matter exists? What evidence do we have that in the absence of space-time, light can move at all or even exist?
SR did have some shortcommings which is exactely why Einstien developed the General Theory of Relativity. GR does not blow up when objects are subjected to gravity(and neither does SR with GR). The principle of equivalence allows for gravity to be incorporated into Realativity quite nicely and also imples the local validity of SR. Oh yeah, there was just yet another successful experimental test of SR by Achim Peters of the University of Konstanz in Germany. I'll even give you a link http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/2
If your going to attack SR, then your really going attack GR as well, which, of course you couldn't do because it is such a wildly successful and widely proven theory. Even if GR & SR is not the final answer so to speak, they do have incredible explanatory power of the universe around us that we use everyday in science with a decree of precision that would be simply impossible for a theory that is just flat out wrong.
If you want more experimental confirmation, I would suggest you talk to any scientists that works with a particle accelerator, or any those that worked on the GPS sattelite network which needed timing so accurate had to be corrected for time dialation described by SR else they would be off by tens of meters.
The truth of the matter is that relativity works(both GR and SR). If you have something that works better, I'm all ears. If you want to continue asking "what ifs" until your face turns blue, be my guest, but you won't get very far in science by challenging realativity unless you have an alternate, more successful theory.
Originally posted by ahrkron
Because there are many situations in which the gravitational field is so close to a flat metric (i.e., what you call "non gravity") that the effect of the curvature is extremely small compared to the SR effects.
Pretty much all experimental science works this way: you care for the main effects first, neglecting other things that produce small deviations, and verify that your theory accounts for what you can measure.
You never can take into account all minute distorsions due to all imaginable effects, but that is ok because they usually introduce deviations that are smaller than your experimental precision. Think of any theory with which you are comfortable. Say, thermodynamics. Does it take into account electromagnetic fields? QCD effects? Cosmic rays? radiation pressure? background radioactivity? no, but even when all of these effects are always present, the theory is still valid since it has been proven that the only important quantities are Volume, Pressure and Tempreature (how? by varying these quantities and observing if their correlation with experiment is consistent throughout many experiments, regardless of the values of all the other quantities).
I think Maxwell's equations point out that the speed of light
in vacuum is related to the permitivitty and permeability of the vacuum, and Einstein used his equations to arrive at the constancy of speed of light postulate in SR, no? I would think that permitivitty and permeability are descriptions only
valid for a medium, which for the vacuum was termed the luminiferous ether at the time, so if that is how one obtains the speed of
light as constant, how does Einstein get a constant c without
a medium?
And if in GR, one of the properties of space-time (which is for all purposes a light-speed determining medium except by name), curvature, is dependent on the presence of matter, how can we be sure that space-time can have any properties at all without matter? In SR's imaginary universe without matter then, light may not move at all or it could move at an infinite velocity- who knows? Surely it would depend on the permittivity and permeability of space in that case, anyhow, and if those were 0, can the speed of light still be c?
Basically, I don't think it's appropriate to consider a flat space-time to have any permitivitty and permeability properties since SR denies the existence of a light-carrying medium in its postulate of the constancy of c. The historical relevance of SR was supposed to be its elimination of the necessity for a luminiferous ether, so I'd like to see the correct version of SR right now- one in which the constancy of speed of light was derived without the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. Anyone who thinks GR is reduced to SR in flat-spacetime has the obligation to
produce Einstein's secret derivation of the constancy of c without Maxwell's equations.
Since I don't believe such a derivation exists, the speed of light in a vacuum then depends on the permitivvity and permeability of the vacuum and can not be a constant if the permittivitty and permeability of the vacuum are variable properties.
Peterdevis
Mar8-04, 02:32 AM
the speed of light then depends on the permitivvity and permeability of space and is not really a constant if those properties of space were not constant.
I think you' re right here. Permitivvity and permeability are dependend of the "medium" light is traveling. The permitivity of glass is quite different of that of vacuüm. So the speed of light is variable.
Nevertheless, this is no problem for GR. Because the fundation of GR is the (einstein)Equivalence principle:"In small enough regions of spacetime, ALL laws of physics reduce to those of special relativity, it is IMPOSSIBLE to detect the existence of a gravitational field"
This mean that , no matter in wich coördinate system we are, the result of measering permitivvity and permeability of a "medium" must be the same and the speed of light is constant for that medium.
so what is your problem?
Originally posted by Peterdevis
I think you' re right here. Permitivvity and permeability are dependend of the "medium" light is traveling. The permitivity of glass is quite different of that of vacuüm. So the speed of light is variable.
Nevertheless, this is no problem for GR. Because the fundation of GR is the (einstein)Equivalence principle:"In small enough regions of spacetime, ALL laws of physics reduce to those of special relativity, it is IMPOSSIBLE to detect the existence of a gravitational field"
This mean that , no matter in wich coördinate system we are, the result of measering permitivvity and permeability of a "medium" must be the same and the speed of light is constant for that medium.
so what is your problem?
My problem is that the c in Maxwell's equation depended on a
medium, which for the vacuum was called the luminiferous ether
in the 19th century. Since SR eliminated the ether, it becomes inconsistent to use Maxwell's equation to derive the speed of light, which Einstein did in SR.
Peterdevis
Mar8-04, 04:06 AM
My problem is that the c in Maxwell's equation depended on a
medium, which for the vacuum was called the luminiferous ether
in the 19th
It is not because maxwell believed in an ether, that there must be an ether too derive Maxwell's equations.
An theory is independent of the scientist, what maxwell, einstein, newton... thinks of a theory is not important. But the ability of prediction is what a theory makes usefull.
So where we need an ether to derive Maxwell's equations?
protonman
Mar8-04, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by Eyesaw
The whole notion of an ether was incorporated into Maxwell's
equations for EM waves. Hence the equations for propogation
are wave equations and their propogation speed only dependent
on the permitivitty and permeability of the medium. Without a medium, there can be no waves so you won't have Maxwell's equations- you'd have Einstein's Undiscoverable Equations. Eyesaw is making a very good point and the responses to his question have not really addressed the issue. I think the answer is that the medium that light travel through is space. For example, if light bends in the presense of a gravitational field it must be moving through something that has the ability to bend.
russ_watters
Mar8-04, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Peterdevis
I think you' re right here. Permitivvity and permeability are dependend of the "medium" light is traveling. The permitivity of glass is quite different of that of vacuüm. So the speed of light is variable. Light transmission through glass happens via absorption, delay, re-emission of the photons, making it appear to travel more slowly when you observe it macroscopically. Light always travels at C.
As said before, the fact that space-time has physical properties does not make it a classical "ether." what maxwell, einstein, newton... thinks of a theory is not important. Except insofar as they wrote their theories of course! I think the answer is that the medium that light travel through is space. For example, if light bends in the presense of a gravitational field it must be moving through something that has the ability to bend. That is quite true, protonman, but it does not make space a classical ether.
Originally posted by Peterdevis
It is not because maxwell believed in an ether, that there must be an ether too derive Maxwell's equations.
An theory is independent of the scientist, what maxwell, einstein, newton... thinks of a theory is not important. But the ability of prediction is what a theory makes usefull.
So where we need an ether to derive Maxwell's equations?
Well, Maxwell's equations for EM radiation are wave equations,
so they need a medium since waves don't exist as far everyday
observations go, independent of a medium. To derive Maxwell's
equations without an ether then would require one to show
that the vacuum is completely empty, else one can always assume
a medium that is just too small to be observed.
Since this can never be done, it's more economical to assume light, if it is a wave, requires like every observable wave phenomenon,
a medium for propogation. So you need an ether to derive Maxwell's equations.
An alternative would be to consider light as particles, in which case you would have to explain why their velocity is not source dependent like other ballistic particles.
Einstein did neither so his postulate of a constant c in SR then has neither physical nor mathematical basis since he disposed of the ether.
Eyesaw wrote: *SNIP
Since this can never be done, it's more economical to assume light, if it is a wave, requires like every observable wave phenomenon, a medium for propogation. So you need an ether to derive Maxwell's equations.
An alternative would be to consider light as particles, in which case you would have to explain why their velocity is not source dependent like other ballistic particles.So, here's some of what's been observed about light:
- double-slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) -> "wave-particle duality", well accounted for by quantum mechanics
- photoelectric effect -> light as photons
- gravitational bending and Shapiro time delay -> predicted and well accounted for by GR.
In summary, all observations match predictions of the theories.
If your view of 'waves' requires they need a medium for propogation, then either 'light is not a wave', or 'your view of the nature of waves is incomplete' (or both).
If your view of 'ballistic particles' requires that their velocity is source dependent, then either 'light is not a ballistic particle', or 'your view of the nature of ballistic particles is incomplete' (or both).
Tom Mattson
Mar8-04, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Eyesaw
Well, Maxwell's equations for EM radiation are wave equations,
so they need a medium since waves don't exist as far everyday
observations go, independent of a medium.
Why not? What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?
To derive Maxwell's
equations without an ether then would require one to show
that the vacuum is completely empty, else one can always assume
a medium that is just too small to be observed.
"Too small"?
The light that we see from the sun travels 93 million miles to Earth! In what sense is this supposed medium "too small"?
Since this can never be done, it's more economical to assume light, if it is a wave, requires like every observable wave phenomenon,
a medium for propogation. So you need an ether to derive Maxwell's equations.
Why is it more economical to add an assumption?
An alternative would be to consider light as particles, in which case you would have to explain why their velocity is not source dependent like other ballistic particles.
We do consider light as particles, when the intensity of the radiation is sufficiently weak. But why do we have to explain why the velocity of those particles is not source dependent? That is like demanding an explanation of why the charge of an electron has the value that it does.
Einstein did neither so his postulate of a constant c in SR then has neither physical nor mathematical basis since he disposed of the ether.
No, SR has both. Its mathematical basis follows from the (very well tested) Maxwell equations. Its physical basis follows from all the experiments that have been done to corroborate it.
Mentor note:
This past page or two has been getting back on track to a decent discussion. If the nonsense of the first 5 pages starts again, then this topic is over.
Originally posted by pelastration
Nereid,
have you even seen this quote of Maxwell?
"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."
--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
I found that on a website of Joseph Newman, never found other oringinal references. But it fits in my ideas about multi-layered spacetime where membrane friction creates all other interactions. AFAIK, Maxwell died before the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were published (and he died even before M&M began their experiment?) So we cannot know how he would have felt, or what he would have thought, had he lived another few or 20 years. Certainly, Maxwell died before quantum weirdness was discovered.
As others have said here, we're on a journey, learning new things all the time ... finding new things doesn't diminish the great contributions of past giants, but neither would they wish us to stay stuck with only what they found.
A question which was posed earlier, and I think needs re-iterating, is why do we need an ether? There is this prevailing notion from some posters that the universe must behave as Newtonian physics predicts, and that "fanciful" theories such as quantum mechanics and relativity theory must be incorrect because they contradict classical Newtonian intuition -- despite the fact that Newtonian physics is a limiting case in both theories.
Perhaps those calling for proof of why they should believe modern theories should in turn tell us why Newtonian physics is expected to be the ultimate theory.
russ_watters
Mar8-04, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by GRQC
Perhaps those calling for proof of why they should believe modern theories should in turn tell us why Newtonian physics is expected to be the ultimate theory. Its pretty simple: Newtonian physics 'makes sense.' A wave without a medium in which to propagate? Absurd!
That the coolest thing about QM: pretty much everything in the entire theory contradicts classical interpretations of how the world 'should work.' Its bizarre. Rediculous. Illogical. But with so much clear and incontrovertible evidence that the bizarre is for real, we have no choice but to change our view of how the world 'should work,' not look for a reason why QM could be wrong.
protonman
Mar8-04, 01:30 PM
That is quite true, protonman, but it does not make space a classical ether. [/B] Why not? It seems logical to consider space as the medium of propagation of light. Yes, not in the classical sense of an ether that can serve as an absolute reference frame but none the less a medium of propagation.
In addition, it may simply be the case that the medium of propagation has not been searched for properly. In any experiment there are assumptions. If the wrong ones are made the outcome will be incorrect or at least inconclusive.
protonman
Mar8-04, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Eyesaw
Well, Maxwell's equations for EM radiation are wave equations,
so they need a medium since waves don't exist as far everyday
observations go, independent of a medium. To derive Maxwell's
equations without an ether then would require one to show
that the vacuum is completely empty, else one can always assume
a medium that is just too small to be observed.
Since this can never be done, it's more economical to assume light, if it is a wave, requires like every observable wave phenomenon,
a medium for propogation. So you need an ether to derive Maxwell's equations.
An alternative would be to consider light as particles, in which case you would have to explain why their velocity is not source dependent like other ballistic particles.
Einstein did neither so his postulate of a constant c in SR then has neither physical nor mathematical basis since he disposed of the ether. This is excellent work. What you are doing is here is a breath of fresh air. Another related question to raise is that if SR is incorrect how do you explain all the phenomena that have been explained using SR? For example, Pion decay experiements.
protonman
Mar8-04, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Nereid
So, here's some of what's been observed about light:
- double-slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) -> "wave-particle duality", well accounted for by quantum mechanics
- photoelectric effect -> light as photons
- gravitational bending and Shapiro time delay -> predicted and well accounted for by GR.
In summary, all observations match predictions of the theories.
If your view of 'waves' requires they need a medium for propogation, then either 'light is not a wave', or 'your view of the nature of waves is incomplete' (or both).
If your view of 'ballistic particles' requires that their velocity is source dependent, then either 'light is not a ballistic particle', or 'your view of the nature of ballistic particles is incomplete' (or both). So basically when new evidence doesn't fit your previous definitions and rules just change the them.
Tom Mattson
Mar8-04, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by protonman
So basically when new evidence doesn't fit your previous definitions and rules just change the them.
Exactly. It's the best anyone can do.
protonman
Mar8-04, 01:37 PM
Why not? What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?What is a wave?
Tom Mattson
Mar8-04, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by protonman
What is a wave?
A wave is any traveling, periodic disturbance in a physical field.
My turn: What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?
protonman
Mar8-04, 01:41 PM
We do consider light as particles, when the intensity of the radiation is sufficiently weak. But why do we have to explain why the velocity of those particles is not source dependent? That is like demanding an explanation of why the charge of an electron has the value that it does.If you people were ever called to debate your views with those who know logic you would be laughed out of town.
Think about your attempt parallel reason. The reason you would have to explain why light is source independent is because everything else we know that is a particle is source dependent. You comparison to explaining the charge of an electron is completely off the mark.
This is what I have been saying all along. There are no more great thinkers. Just regurgitations.
Tom Mattson
Mar8-04, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by protonboy
If you people were ever called to debate your views with those who know logic you would be laughed out of town.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind posting some actual logic then.[:)]
Think about your attempt parallel reason.
I did. Both questions get to the heart of the matter, which is that the universe is not known a priori. We don't have the answer to either question for that reason. It's a pity that you still don't understand that simple point, as I have elucidated it to you several times now.
The reason you would have to explain why light is source independent is because everything else we know that is a particle is source dependent. You comparison to explaining the charge of an electron is completely off the mark.
Everything else we know of that is a particle satisfies the exact same velocity addition law that light does. We cannot explain why that particular velocity addition law holds, any more than we can explain why the electron has the charge that it does.
This is what I have been saying all along. There are no more great thinkers. Just regurgitations.
Look in the mirror, protonboy.
Tom Mattson
Mar8-04, 01:47 PM
Oh yes, one more thing:
What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?
Ummmm. Yeah....
If I am sidetracking something, let me know. What evidence is there for "ether"? Can somebody answer that for me?
protonman
Mar8-04, 01:50 PM
That will be enough of that.
--Tom
Can someone give me a POLITE answer?
protonman
Mar8-04, 01:54 PM
I did. Both questions get to the heart of the matter, which is that the universe is not known a priori. We don't have the answer to either question for that reason. It's a pity that you still don't understand that simple point, as I have elucidated it to you several times now.What do you mean by the universe anyway?
protonman
Mar8-04, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by protonman
That will be enough of that.
--Tom Okey Dokey Tom!
Tom Mattson
Mar8-04, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by protonman
What do you mean by the universe anyway?
By "the universe" I mean "the totality of material existence".
OK, that's 2 of yours I answered. It's only fair that I get one now.
What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?
protonman
Mar8-04, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Tom
By "the universe" I mean "the totality of material existence".
OK, that's 2 of yours I answered. It's only fair that I get one now.
What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations? I know something a priori about material existence.
What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?
Ooh, call on me, Teach!!!
Tom Mattson
Mar8-04, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by protonboy
I know something a priori about material existence.
LMAO, you keep talking about what you know, and yet you never actually put any of this knowledge on display so the rest of us can review it. What's the matter, are you scared?
Tell me, what do you know a priori about material existence?
edit: You can start by filling me in on what substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations!
Originally posted by protonman
I know something a priori about material existence.
Do you know everything about material existence, a priori? If so, I'm really impressed. Are you saying you've never been wrong about an assumption or belief before?
Peterdevis
Mar8-04, 02:24 PM
This becomes again a meaningless discussion.
I suggest that protonman answer this question:
What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?
And the others wait with replying until he has answered
protonman
Mar8-04, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Tom
Tell me, what do you know a priori about material existence?
[b][/i] Thanks for falling right into my trap. There are reasons why I don't give everything right away and you have not figured it out.
All material phenomena are produced.
Tom Mattson
Mar8-04, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by protonman
Thanks for falling right into my trap. There are reasons why I don't give everything right away and you have not figured it out.
Oh, I figured it out all right. The reason you don't say what you think or why is that you are nothing but hot air and you have nothing of substance to say.
Prove me wrong!
All material phenomena are produced.
Produced by _________?
russ_watters
Mar8-04, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Can someone give me a POLITE answer? [re:evidence for ether] Certainly: none (rhetorical?).
And yeah, been there, done that: Ask a question and then listen to the chirping crickets.
pelastration
Mar8-04, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Tom
quote protonman: All material phenomena are produced.
Produced by _________?
Since you asked Tom: All material phenomena are produced by the Prior-geometry gravitational membrane (field). It restructures in double-layered membrane quantum packages. These couple again to multi-layered "events" or more complex quantum packages. All this happens on-the-brane.
All starts with kinetic energy. Thermodynamics create EM by friction on the internal layers inside the quantum packages.
In this approach you don't need an ether (since it's all on the brane) but is resembles to an ether.
JAMES CLERK MAXWELL quote "In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."end quote.
And: A wave is any traveling, periodic disturbance in the gravitational membrane.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Certainly: none (rhetorical?).
And yeah, been there, done that: Ask a question and then listen to the chirping crickets. Not a rhetorical question at all, more of a demand to "put up or shut up"...you know the drill.
Originally posted by Eyesaw
Well, Maxwell's equations for EM radiation are wave equations,
so they need a medium since waves don't exist as far everyday
observations go, independent of a medium.
Why not? What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?
Everyone at the time believed in an ether so I think it’s a good assumption to say that the whole Electromagnetic model was based on an ether as substrate. I don’t think anyone before Einstein would have been crazy enough to think a wave can exist absence of a medium since waves are not the actual particle motion but the silhouette of their collective motion. A common illustration of wave motion is the people in a stadium who start standing up and down one by one- if you only have one person in the stadium, you can’t have wave motion.
To derive Maxwell's
equations without an ether then would require one to show
that the vacuum is completely empty, else one can always assume
a medium that is just too small to be observed.
"Too small"?
The light that we see from the sun travels 93 million miles to Earth! In what sense is this supposed medium "too small"?
I think you misunderstood the sentence. I’m saying there’s no way to reject the idea that some medium exists in which light is just the disturbance in the medium, like any normal wave, since one can always argue that the stuff consisting of the medium are too small to be detectable by current technology. For example, Dr. Tom Van Flandern proposes such a medium in the Meta Model which they called the Elysium. The medium you are speaking of here is total empty space of which there would exist no properties, which is entirely opposite to the ether medium Maxwell and all those who developed the Maxwell equations envisioned. So if you are going to derive Maxwell’s equations based on the ability of light as a wave that travels without a medium, you have to show that this is possible in the first place. But as mentioned before, you can’t rule out the possibility of a medium consisting of particles too tiny to be detected which could explain the wave motion so you this introduction of a radically new concept- that of a wave existing without a medium- becomes unnecessary.
Since this can never be done, it's more economical to assume light, if it is a wave, requires like every observable wave phenomenon,
a medium for propogation. So you need an ether to derive Maxwell's equations.
Why is it more economical to add an assumption?
You are not adding an assumption when considering an ether necessary for wave motion. Are you adding an assumption by saying that ocean waves need an ocean to exist? If so, you should take that up with Mother Nature. While you’re at it, you should file the complaint also that gravity is unnecessary since we already have attractive motion in Electromagnetism. If a wave model already exists that can explain EM radiation, the introduction of a new model for waves just to accommodate light becomes uneconomical, especially since it contradicts the mountains of evidence for normal wave behaviour in sound and other waves.
An alternative would be to consider light as particles, in which case you would have to explain why their velocity is not source dependent like other ballistic particles.
Tom:
We do consider light as particles, when the intensity of the radiation is sufficiently weak. But why do we have to explain why the velocity of those particles is not source dependent? That is like demanding an explanation of why the charge of an electron has the value that it does.
Well, because in every particle we know of when momentum is transferred, they gain velocity. Since SR rejected the ether and yet assumes source independency of light, both of which are “assumptions” which totally contradicted all evidence of wave and particle behavior prior to Einstein, the one proposing such radical ideas should provide some clear evidence such contradictions are necessary to explain the behavior of light. Or develop a mathematical model to demonstrate this special behavior. All Einstein seemed to have done in SR is point out that Maxwell’s equations predict a constant speed c for EM waves propagating in a uniformly dense ether. But since he got rid of the ether, he loses
his right to use Maxwell's equations for his theories.
Eyesaw wrote: *SNIP
But as mentioned before, you can’t rule out the possibility of a medium consisting of particles too tiny to be detected which could explain the wave motion so you this introduction of a radically new concept- that of a wave existing without a medium- becomes unnecessary. But you could be proactive here, and suggest one or two (or 25 or 341) experiments which might detect such particles; or you could predict the likely range of properties of such particles ...
Further, you have available to you a truly vast amount of data - both in raw form and processed - FREE! - from across the EM spectrum (~1 TeV gammas to LVF radio), from the whole sky, with levels of intensity that Maxwell and Einstein would surely have not believed possible, and on, and on - that you can analyse for constraints on your proposed range of properties.
Etc, etc, etc.
How much of this have you done so far?
protonman
Mar8-04, 06:34 PM
Produced by _________?Its cause.
Originally posted by protonman
Its cause. Which is what?
Originally posted by protonman
Its cause.
Protonman is again trying to yank everyone's chain. I suggest that we ignore him, since he apparently has nothing positive to contribute to the discussion.
"Because" isn't a logical argument.
protonman
Mar8-04, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Which is what? Its cause is that which produces it. You are so far from understanding my points you don't even know the questions to ask.
It is not the question of what is the cause. There are countless phenomena in the physical world with equally countless causes. What I am establishing is a pervasive relationship between anything that is material and being produced.
The question you should be asking is why are all material phenomena produced? Do I have to start telling you the questions to ask.
Originally posted by GRQC
Protonman is again trying to yank everyone's chain. I suggest that we ignore him, since he apparently has nothing positive to contribute to the discussion.
"Because" isn't a logical argument. Me, I'm waiting to see what steps protonman and Eyesaw have taken to make use of the cornucopia of data that their taxes have paid for (unless they're not residents or citizens of the US, any of the EU countries, probably Canada, and maybe many other countries too) to find 'valid perceptions' to support their supposed* deep insights into the nature of light, waves, particles (and the universe?).
*as none of us - other than protonman and Eyesaw - have been told what these insights are, we have only their word that they have such insights.
Originally posted by protonman
This is excellent work. What you are doing is here is a breath of fresh air. Another related question to raise is that if SR is incorrect how do you explain all the phenomena that have been explained using SR? For example, Pion decay experiements.
Thanks. Do you mean the muons from the upper atmosphere detected to apparently have longer lifetimes than those on EArth? If they were traveling faster than c that would explain it, no? There are lots of possibilities. Do you have a link to the experiments? Those I've read aren't very detailed.
Originally posted by Nereid
Me, I'm waiting to see what steps protonman and Eyesaw have taken to make use of the cornucopia of data that their taxes have paid for (unless they're not residents or citizens of the US, any of the EU countries, probably Canada, and maybe many other countries too) to find 'valid perceptions' to support their supposed* deep insights into the nature of light, waves, particles (and the universe?).
*as none of us - other than protonman and Eyesaw - have been told what these insights are, we have only their word that they have such insights.
All the experiments of light that GR uses curvature of space
to explain are explainable by varying the density of the ether. And the speed of light in a medium is backed up by Maxwell's equations,
but one just have to deal with a variably dense medium when involving space. What of GR? It explains everything by curving space- if you believe empty space can curve, your insight is much deeper than mine.
Eyesaw wrote: All the experiments of light that GR uses curvature of space to explain are explainable by varying the density of the ether.*SNIP Details please.
protonman
Mar8-04, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Eyesaw
Thanks. Do you mean the muons from the upper atmosphere detected to apparently have longer lifetimes than those on EArth? If they were traveling faster than c that would explain it, no? There are lots of possibilities. Do you have a link to the experiments? Those I've read aren't very detailed. I was refering to the experiment in a lab where the half life of pions is known. A given amount of pions is accelerated near c towards a detector. According to the time in teh lab frame the number of pions remaining should be less than are actually detected. The explanation is that in the pion's frame time goes slower.
Originally posted by protonman
Its cause is that which produces it. You are so far from understanding my points you don't even know the questions to ask.
It is not the question of what is the cause. There are countless phenomena in the physical world with equally countless causes. What I am establishing is a pervasive relationship between anything that is material and being produced.
The question you should be asking is why are all material phenomena produced? Do I have to start telling you the questions to ask. Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
protonman
Mar8-04, 09:45 PM
I realized today that Physics is not all it is made out to be. Sure it makes a contribution in the ability to predict some events in the physical world. But, it receives a status in society that is disproportionate to its actual validity. Science is a very limited endeavor that only addresses the physical world. This is such a minute portion of our existence and yet these people claim to have a theory of everything.
True understanding comes from the humanities. Areas such as philosophy and fields that attempt to understand human relations and behavior are the true truth seekers. The evidence for this is simple. As the general trend among humanity moved from inner development to outer development so came the desire to develop better methods of killing other humans. The popularity of the materialistic view is a direct consequence of the degenerative state of humanity of which war and gross economic inequality are symptoms.
It is well known that there is a direct relationship between war and technological advancement. What is the foundation of technology? Science. It may be argued that the Greeks and other ancient cultures pursued similar questions as todays modern scientists. But the ancients were also aware of the role of reasoning in their quest. In addition, these individuals were also social philosophers and discussed ethics and morality. I am not making the case that all scientists are in the business of war but if we look deep where does the money come from for science? Where do the universities get their funding. Why was MIT at one point 90% DOD funded? Lurking behind the scenes is always the specture of the materialistic view. The view that places more importance on outer development than inner development.
protonman
Mar8-04, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Sounds like circular reasoning to me. Which is a nice way of you saying you don't understand it. I don't care if you don't agree with it. If you can't produce an argument to refute it you can't criticize.
What I am saying is that we are establishing a general principle that is applied to particular objects. The logic would follow A vase is produced because it is a material object.
So we have two criteria that are satisfied. First that the vase is a material object. And that whatever is a material object is pervaded by being produced. Based on the fact that the vase is a material object and the relation between material objects and being produced, we can infer with certainty that the vase is produced.
I hope this helps.
I realized today that Physics is not all it is made out to be.
Gasp! The media doesn't portray things accurately? Wow, what an insight, you really are enlightened!
First that the vase is a material object.
How do we know that?
Originally posted by Nereid
But you could be proactive here, and suggest one or two (or 25 or 341) experiments which might detect such particles; or you could predict the likely range of properties of such particles ...
Further, you have available to you a truly vast amount of data - both in raw form and processed - FREE! - from across the EM spectrum (~1 TeV gammas to LVF radio), from the whole sky, with levels of intensity that Maxwell and Einstein would surely have not believed possible, and on, and on - that you can analyse for constraints on your proposed range of properties.
Etc, etc, etc.
How much of this have you done so far?
I just thought of this yesterday. But frankly, I have
a lot of catching up to do in matter of the mathematical
part of physics. I think it's indisputable though that
Maxwell's equations describe wave motion through the ether
since Quantum mechanical model of particle-waves didn't
even exist yet. Off the top of my head, I would think
any experiment that demonstrates the permitivitty and
permeability of the vacuum to be variable would confirm
the ether. Since light is observed to be refracted by
the gravitational field, wouldn't this serve as a confirmation
of a variably dense ether? It may be fashionable to call it
the curvature of space-time now but functionally, it acts
like a medium of some unnamed stuff.
Since light is observed to be refracted by
the gravitational field, wouldn't this serve as a confirmation
of a variably dense ether?
The trick is, if you went over to the place where the light was refracted and measured the permeability and permittivity of free space, they would be exactly the same as they are back on earth.
Eyesaw wrote: Off the top of my head, I would think any experiment that demonstrates the permitivitty and permeability of the vacuum to be variable would confirm the ether.Please let us have details of any such experiments. Eyesaw wrote: Since light is observed to be refracted by the gravitational field, wouldn't this serve as a confirmation of a variably dense ether?Maybe.
However, as GR is a good theory, at least in the sense that it consistently accounts for the Shapiro time delay, gravitational deflection of light, and the gravitational redshift - all of which have been observed, and match the predictions of GR to the limits of the observations - there's no need for an extra assumption ('a variably dense ether').
Further, if you choose to invoke such a variable density ether, you find it has the curious property of corresponding exactly to the gravitational field (to the limits of the observations)!
Finally, since the gravitational redshift has been observed in the lab here on Earth - over a vertical distance of a few tens of metres, IIRC - you should be able to do some experiments to find your variable density ether in your own lab.
Oh, I almost forgot; gravitational deflection of light is also predicted by classical (Newtonian) physics, but the observed deflection matches GR's prediction, not classical physics' (they differ by a factor of 2, which is easily observable).
Tom Mattson
Mar9-04, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Eyesaw
Everyone at the time believed in an ether so I think it’s a good assumption to say that the whole Electromagnetic model was based on an ether as substrate.
That's not what I asked you. I asked you what substrate is logically derivable from Maxwell's equations, not what the original formulators of the theory believed about it.
I don’t think anyone before Einstein would have been crazy enough to think a wave can exist absence of a medium since waves are not the actual particle motion but the silhouette of their collective motion. A common illustration of wave motion is the people in a stadium who start standing up and down one by one- if you only have one person in the stadium, you can’t have wave motion.
Again, this presupposes that matter (or some substance) must be involved in wave motion. Why can't EM waves simply be displacements in the E and B fields, as Maxwell's equations themselves say they are?
I think you misunderstood the sentence. I’m saying there’s no way to reject the idea that some medium exists in which light is just the disturbance in the medium, like any normal wave, since one can always argue that the stuff consisting of the medium are too small to be detectable by current technology.
OK
For example, Dr. Tom Van Flandern proposes such a medium in the Meta Model which they called the Elysium. The medium you are speaking of here is total empty space of which there would exist no properties, which is entirely opposite to the ether medium Maxwell and all those who developed the Maxwell equations envisioned. So if you are going to derive Maxwell’s equations based on the ability of light as a wave that travels without a medium, you have to show that this is possible in the first place. But as mentioned before, you can’t rule out the possibility of a medium consisting of particles too tiny to be detected which could explain the wave motion so you this introduction of a radically new concept- that of a wave existing without a medium- becomes unnecessary.
I don't "rule out" the ether. I even acknowledge that SR doesn't rule it out. My position (which is the position of SR) is not that "the ether does not exist", but rather that "the ether is a superfluous concept that is not logically derivable from Maxwell's equations".
You are not adding an assumption when considering an ether necessary for wave motion.
Actually, you are, since the Maxwell theory does not require an ether. The postulates of SR are not a new model of EM wave propagation, they are simply comments on the old theory, namely that the speed of light is source-independent (which has been experimentally verified) and that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers (ditto for that one).
Are you adding an assumption by saying that ocean waves need an ocean to exist?
Of course not. But you are adding an assumption when you say that EM waves require anything more than an EM field to exist.
If so, you should take that up with Mother Nature. While you’re at it, you should file the complaint also that gravity is unnecessary since we already have attractive motion in Electromagnetism.
Gravity is observed. The same cannot be said of the ether.
If a wave model already exists that can explain EM radiation, the introduction of a new model for waves just to accommodate light becomes uneconomical, especially since it contradicts the mountains of evidence for normal wave behaviour in sound and other waves.
I am not proposing a new wave model. My contention is that the Maxwellian wave model does not include an ether.
Well, because in every particle we know of when momentum is transferred, they gain velocity. Since SR rejected the ether and yet assumes source independency of light, both of which are “assumptions” which totally contradicted all evidence of wave and particle behavior prior to Einstein, the one proposing such radical ideas should provide some clear evidence such contradictions are necessary to explain the behavior of light. Or develop a mathematical model to demonstrate this special behavior. All Einstein seemed to have done in SR is point out that Maxwell’s equations predict a constant speed c for EM waves propagating in a uniformly dense ether. But since he got rid of the ether, he loses his right to use Maxwell's equations for his theories.
Since Einstein, the source independence of the speed of light has been observed. Einstein also gave persuasive theoretical arguments on why this should be so. Also, as I said before, SR does not reject the ether. It simply does not need it, which is why the ether is "uneconomical".
protonman
Mar9-04, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
How do we know that? Are you a total idiot? Because it is made of atoms.
Originally posted by protonman
Are you a total idiot? Because it is made of atoms. Watch the name-calling.
protonman
Mar9-04, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Zero
Watch the name-calling. Eat me.
russ_watters
Mar9-04, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Eyesaw
You are not adding an assumption when considering an ether necessary for wave motion. Are you adding an assumption by saying that ocean waves need an ocean to exist? [to elaborate on Tom's answer] The difference is simple: you don't have to assume the ocean is there because you can see it. As of yet, no evidence whatsoever has been found to show the existence of an ether. All that can be said is that the evidence we have, though not requiring an ether to be explained, doesn't completely rule it out either.
This flaming & trolling has gone far enough. Maybe I can salvage the good parts.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.