Did Maxwell truly follow Faraday's views in his theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TrickyDicky
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Faraday Maxwell
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between James Clerk Maxwell's theories and Michael Faraday's original views, particularly regarding the extent to which Maxwell adhered to or diverged from Faraday's theoretical framework. Participants explore historical interpretations, the implications of these theories, and the relevance of historical context in scientific discourse.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that while Maxwell is often credited with faithfully developing Faraday's ideas, he significantly altered Faraday's theoretical framework, particularly by introducing concepts like the ether, which Faraday explicitly rejected.
  • Others question the relevance of historical context in scientific discussions, suggesting that the focus should be on the scientific ideas themselves rather than their historical development.
  • A participant points out that Faraday viewed matter and fields as the same, whereas Maxwell distinguished between them, suggesting that Einstein's theories may align more closely with Faraday's perspective.
  • There is a request for specific references to the works of Agassi and Williams, which were mentioned as sources on Faraday's contributions.
  • One participant humorously notes the confusion caused by a search for Agassi and Williams, leading to tennis-related results instead of scientific literature.
  • A claim is made that Maxwell had the potential to develop the theory of relativity before Einstein, had he lived longer, prompting a clarification of their respective timelines.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the fidelity of Maxwell's theories to Faraday's original ideas, with some asserting significant divergence and others emphasizing the importance of scientific ideas over historical accuracy. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these historical interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the discussion may be misplaced in the current subforum, suggesting a lack of dedicated space for physics history within the forum structure.

TrickyDicky
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
28
Although it is usually stated and taught that Maxwell developed pretty faithfully Faraday's views and experimental work into a mathematically solid theory, it is probably not widely known this is actually only partially correct, as Maxwell in fact changed much of Faraday's original theoretical framework in favor of his own(for example the ether idea that Faraday rejected explicitly), which is understandable since he was not obliged to follow them, regardless his true admiration for the figure of Faraday. But nevertheless this theoretical breach was almost concealed or not sufficiently addressed at least by him and posterior theorists and historians of science.
For info on Faraday see for instance the well known works of Agassi and Williams.

I wonder what a mathematical treatment trully faithful to Faraday's original views would look like, but I don't think modern field theorists are much interested on his theoric work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you not mixing up interpretation and theory?
The scaffoldings that Maxwell needed have been removed long ago.
Could you be more specific?
And why would history matter from a scientific point of view?
 
maajdl said:
Are you not mixing up interpretation and theory?
I don't think I'm interpreting, the writings of Faraday and the references I gave are easily accessible.
The scaffoldings that Maxwell needed have been removed long ago.
Sure, by Einstein's relativity.
Could you be more specific?
Yes, for instance matter and fields were the same thing in Faraday's view but distinct in Maxwell's. Einstein apparently tended more to Faraday's view in this respect.
And why would history matter from a scientific point of view?
Not history, scientific ideas regardless of the time they were formulated should matter from a scientific point of view, more so when they have not been fully acknowledged and developed.
 
But to me, the well-known works of Agassi and Williams are totally unknown!
On Google, it returned me tennis information!
Could you give me the exact references?
 
maajdl said:
But to me, the well-known works of Agassi and Williams are totally unknown!
On Google, it returned me tennis information!
Could you give me the exact references?
Ha Ha, sorry about that!
"Faraday as a Natural Philosopher"(University of Chicago Press) by Joseph Agassi
"Michael Faraday: A Biography"(Basic Books) by L. Pearce Williams
"Experimental Researches in Electricity" by Michael Faraday


In any case I didn't intend the thread as a history discussion, but a physics one. I didn't even know this subforum existed and looking at the other threads mine feels really misplaced here. I guess one could fit it in a more specific "Physics history" subforum, but oddly enough for a Physics forums there isn't any.
 
Maxwell was a smart man he could have found the theory of relativity before Einstein but he unfortunately died very soon
 
Maxwell died in November 1879 at 48.
Einstein was then 8 months old.
In 1905, Einstein was 26.
 
48 is a young age you see...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 174 ·
6
Replies
174
Views
21K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
5K