What does all this mean? I found this in a 1911 Encyclopedia.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter shintashi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a passage from a 1911 encyclopedia that presents calculations related to the concept of the aether, its properties, and implications for physics. Participants express confusion over the mathematical content and engage in reflections on the historical context of the aether theory, its critiques, and the evolution of scientific understanding.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the mathematical expressions and concepts related to the aether, indicating a lack of understanding of the material.
  • Another participant suggests that the passage reflects how future generations may view current scientific theories as cryptic and outdated.
  • A participant notes that the article likely critiques the aether theory by highlighting its contradictory properties, such as being both tenuous and stiff.
  • There is a mention of Sir Joseph Larmor as a significant contributor to the article, with a suggestion that his work was respected in its time.
  • Some participants argue that the encyclopedia article was incorrect even for its time, with one questioning its relevance to relativity while acknowledging its skepticism towards the aether concept.
  • Concerns are raised about the current state of education in England, drawing parallels to perceived issues in California's education system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and relevance of the 1911 encyclopedia article, with some agreeing on its historical significance while others contest its accuracy and implications. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall interpretation of the aether theory and its critique.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the historical context of the aether theory and its critiques, indicating that the mathematical and conceptual frameworks discussed may not align with contemporary understanding. There is also a mention of the potential for misinterpretation of scientific knowledge over time.

shintashi
Messages
117
Reaction score
1
I found this in a 1911 Encyclopedia.

The energy in sunlight per cubic cm. just outside the Earth's atmosphere is therefore about 4Xio~5 ergs; applying the law of inverse squares the value near the sun's surface would be 1-8 ergs. Let E be the effective elasticity of the aether; then E = pc2, where p is its density, and c the velocity of light which is 3X10 10 cm./sec. If £=A cosu (t-xlc) is the linear vibration, the stress is E d£/dx; and the total energy, which is twice the kinetic energy Jp(d£/dt)2dx, is fp«2A2 per cm., which is thus equal to 1-8 ergs as above. Now \=2irc/n, so that if A/X=£, we have 5p(2Tc&)2 = i-8, giving p=io~i2/fe~2 and E = lo"1^"2. Lord Kelvin assumed as a superior limit of k, the ratio of amplitude to wave-length, the value lo"2, which is a very safe limit. It follows that the density of the aether must exceed io~18, and its elastic modulus must exceed io3, which is only about io~8 of the modulus of rigidity of glass.

And i have absolutely no clue what 95% of it means. That math looks alien to me... and math hasn't looked this alien since I was in grade school.

Any body good at this stuff ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You just saw a picture of how relativity and quantum mechanics will look a few hundred years from now - meaningless cryptic stuff taken as high knowledge by people who didn't know better.
 
Ah, the famous 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica! You know there were some people who would never use a later edition, which they considered inferior to this monument of Edwardian scholarship.

You want to look at the initials at the end of the article and then check them against the contributors list in the first volume. I am sure that it was written by some famous British scientist of the day.

What the man is doing is casting cold water on the ether theory. He does all these calculations to show that the ether has to be very tenous, but yet very stiff ("Young's Modulus"). These are contradictory attributes.
 
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
...that it was written by some famous British scientist of the day.

most of whom could, moreover, write a good English sentence on occasion

the moral tone can be very refreshing in some of the historical articles too.
the faint shock and raised eyebrow when doings of Roman emperors and Russian Tsars are described


in that edition I gather the article on "Aether" was written by Sir Joseph Larmor, president of the Royal Socieity, occupant of the Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge (St. John's) and when you
get an MRI scan IIRC the map of your insides is a map of the variation of the socalled "Larmor frequency" of the protons in the molecules. don't know what article the exerpt comes from but if from Larmor's then indeed was by an eminent Br. scientist of the day
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by amadeus
You just saw a picture of how relativity and quantum mechanics will look a few hundred years from now - meaningless cryptic stuff taken as high knowledge by people who didn't know better.
Doubt it. That EB article was wrong even for 1911.
 
Originally posted by russ_watters
Doubt it. That EB article was wrong even for 1911.

In what way? It may not have specifically dealt with relativity, but it certainly expresses skepticism about the ether! And all while citing the most distinguished authorities of the previous century, like Lord Kelvin.
 
Originally posted by marcus
most of whom could, moreover, write a good English sentence on occasion
Where have all these people gone,
Marcus?

Do you know the strange story
behind the original edition of
the O.E.D.?
 
From what I hear, the education system in England is as much a shambles as that in California, and from the same causes. Lack of money and left wing ideas about what should and should not be taught, and how. (I am not a right winger myself, proud to call myself a liberal, but facts is facts).
 

Similar threads

Graduate Historical clarification of the Planck formula of blackbody radiation
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Some thoughts about Bell's string paradox alternatives
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K