Maxwell's mechanical analogue


 Science > Physics > Maxwell's mechanical analogue

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1
 

2
 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Bruce Scott TOK"
Date: 22 Sep 2003 07:54:49 AM
Object: Maxwell's mechanical analogue
Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...
http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24136
I didn't know about this part before:
``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.

User: "Vern"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 23 Sep 2003 01:58:47 PM

Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24136

I didn't know about this part before:

``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''

Has anyone actually read the book?
Since the subject of the thread hints of discussion of Maxwell's
mechanical model, I would like to use the thread to start a discussion
of it. In the Rado ether model, there are basically two types of
vortices in the ether; spiral sinks and linear sinks. The spiral
sinks are dipoles and are the basis for elementary particles and in
combination, atoms, molecules, etc. The linear sinks are monopoles and
represent the flows in electrical current. This model is consistent
with Maxwell's equations.
Vern
.
User: "Bruce Scott TOK"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 25 Sep 2003 08:42:54 AM
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
|> They are rather sensitive when it concerns their god
|> possibly having abandoned the ether. If you touch
|> this addictive substance, you'll hear them make a noise.
|> It's a bit like, when Lorentz writes about the superiority
|> of relativity over his own theory, thus abandoning the
|> ether as well, you will hear them make a noise again.
|> It's also a bit like when Lorentz says that Einstein
|> deserved all credit for his theory, they will tell you that
|> where it concerns the question whether Einstein
|> plagiarized Lorentz, the latter's opinion is irrelevant.
|> That's they way they seem to work. Eventually one
|> gets used to it :-)
All of that is very true and it is the reason not to fall for the
legalistic sort of argument you'll get. It is like talking to
creationists. I have neither the time nor the staying power for that.
Crusading will have to be done by someone else.
This reply was potentially interesting however:
Vern wrote:
|> Has anyone actually read the book?
I was hoping for that too... Maybe Paul Stowe will do it for us...
I'll look at it if our library gets it; failing that, next time I visit
my US colleagues... one of whom is always interested in Maxwell:
http://w3.pppl.gov/~hammett/Maxwell/
|> Since the subject of the thread hints of discussion of Maxwell's
|> mechanical model, I would like to use the thread to start a discussion
|> of it. In the Rado ether model, there are basically two types of
|> vortices in the ether; spiral sinks and linear sinks. The spiral
|> sinks are dipoles and are the basis for elementary particles and in
|> combination, atoms, molecules, etc. The linear sinks are monopoles and
|> represent the flows in electrical current. This model is consistent
|> with Maxwell's equations.
I would have to see the math to believe this. No offense to you, but
the reason I say this is that any number of verbal "aether" models have
been splashed all over sci.physics.* and I have to filter that somehow.
Asking for the math is how I do that. The things I want from these
mechanical models are
(1) self consistent interaction between two pieces to get "the dance of
light" in other words, propagation. Maxwell gets this from the
pieces that lead to
(p/pt) E_x = - (p/pz) B_y where p is the "partial" symbol
(p/pt) B_y = - (p/pz) E_x
normalised to unit speed of light. Here, z is the direction of
propagation and the polarisation is for the electric field to be in the
x-direction.
(2) transverse propagation, leading to transverse waves only. Maxwell
gets this from the divergence free nature of the fields in vacuum,
so that the components of the fields in the direction of propagation
must vanish.
(3) charge conservation. Maxwell gets this by adding the displacement
current, which is also what gives him the necessary partial time
derivative in (1) and hence field propagation.
I have to see the model get past this hurdle, with mathematics, before
my threshold of interest is reached.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
User: "Vern"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 25 Sep 2003 02:04:27 PM

|> Since the subject of the thread hints of discussion of Maxwell's
|> mechanical model, I would like to use the thread to start a discussion
|> of it. In the Rado ether model, there are basically two types of
|> vortices in the ether; spiral sinks and linear sinks. The spiral
|> sinks are dipoles and are the basis for elementary particles and in
|> combination, atoms, molecules, etc. The linear sinks are monopoles and
|> represent the flows in electrical current. This model is consistent
|> with Maxwell's equations.

I would have to see the math to believe this. No offense to you, but
the reason I say this is that any number of verbal "aether" models have
been splashed all over sci.physics.* and I have to filter that somehow.
Asking for the math is how I do that. The things I want from these
mechanical models are

(1) self consistent interaction between two pieces to get "the dance of
light" in other words, propagation. Maxwell gets this from the
pieces that lead to

(p/pt) E_x = - (p/pz) B_y where p is the "partial" symbol
(p/pt) B_y = - (p/pz) E_x

normalised to unit speed of light. Here, z is the direction of
propagation and the polarisation is for the electric field to be in the
x-direction.

(2) transverse propagation, leading to transverse waves only. Maxwell
gets this from the divergence free nature of the fields in vacuum,
so that the components of the fields in the direction of propagation
must vanish.

(3) charge conservation. Maxwell gets this by adding the displacement
current, which is also what gives him the necessary partial time
derivative in (1) and hence field propagation.

I have to see the model get past this hurdle, with mathematics, before
my threshold of interest is reached.

The math supporting the Rado model is set out in the book
Aethro-Kinematics. I have a study group concerning the model at
yahoogroups.com with the same name and if you join the group we can
discuss the math in detail. There are several papers however that I
believe are relevant and which address the transverse vs. longitudinal
wave in media phenomena. They are by Su and Marmanis and can be found
at the links below.
http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0208082
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9602081
I think it is well established that Maxwell's equations can be modeled
in ideal gas-type media, with the assumption of vortices; which makes
sense because that is the mechanical model that Maxwell used.
Vern
.

User: "luke"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 29 Sep 2003 10:53:59 AM
Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:<200309251342.h8PDgsaK015181@ipp.mpg.de>...


I'll look at it if our library gets it; failing that, next time I visit
my US colleagues... one of whom is always interested in Maxwell:

http://w3.pppl.gov/~hammett/Maxwell/

Thanks for the link.. you work with laboratory plasmas then?


I would have to see the math to believe this. No offense to you, but
the reason I say this is that any number of verbal "aether" models have
been splashed all over sci.physics.* and I have to filter that somehow.
Asking for the math is how I do that. The things I want from these
mechanical models are

(1) self consistent interaction between two pieces to get "the dance of
light" in other words, propagation. Maxwell gets this from the
pieces that lead to

(p/pt) E_x = - (p/pz) B_y where p is the "partial" symbol
(p/pt) B_y = - (p/pz) E_x

normalised to unit speed of light. Here, z is the direction of
propagation and the polarisation is for the electric field to be in the
x-direction.

(2) transverse propagation, leading to transverse waves only. Maxwell
gets this from the divergence free nature of the fields in vacuum,
so that the components of the fields in the direction of propagation
must vanish.

(3) charge conservation. Maxwell gets this by adding the displacement
current, which is also what gives him the necessary partial time
derivative in (1) and hence field propagation.

Excellent! Well spoken.
Well, I think your questions 1) and 2) can be answered "mechanically",
i.e. light can be explained as a "mechanical wave". One way is
outlined in Phys.Lett. A 314 (2003) 472-478 or gr-qc/0304063.
Basically, light is analogous to a sound wave except the density of
the medium remains constant. It is a bulk spin of constituent
"particles" that propagates. Only transverse waves can propagate
because the medium is assumed to be incompressible, E and B are always
perpendicular to the wavevector k.
As for your third question I am not so sure.. so I decay into asking
questions. What is the symmetry related to charge conservation?
(Noether's theorem).. There is lots of talk of proton decay but what
of electron decay? Does anybody have a good mechanical model of an
electron? I've seen a few that look good, but not perfect. It
perhaps has something to do with Stoke's theorem of vortex stability
even in viscous fluid..


I have to see the model get past this hurdle, with mathematics, before
my threshold of interest is reached.

Well, I guess I didn't fulfill your stringent standards, but I hope I
have piqued your interest nonetheless :)
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 28 Sep 2003 03:33:51 PM
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:42:54 +0200 (MEST), Bruce Scott TOK
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
[Snip...]

|> Since the subject of the thread hints of discussion of Maxwell's
|> mechanical model, I would like to use the thread to start a discussion
|> of it. In the Rado ether model, there are basically two types of
|> vortices in the ether; spiral sinks and linear sinks. The spiral
|> sinks are dipoles and are the basis for elementary particles and in
|> combination, atoms, molecules, etc. The linear sinks are monopoles and
|> represent the flows in electrical current. This model is consistent
|> with Maxwell's equations.

I would have to see the math to believe this. No offense to you, but
the reason I say this is that any number of verbal "aether" models have
been splashed all over sci.physics.* and I have to filter that somehow.
Asking for the math is how I do that. The things I want from these
mechanical models are

(1) self consistent interaction between two pieces to get "the dance of
light" in other words, propagation. Maxwell gets this from the
pieces that lead to

(p/pt) E_x = - (p/pz) B_y where p is the "partial" symbol
(p/pt) B_y = - (p/pz) E_x

normalised to unit speed of light. Here, z is the direction of
propagation and the polarisation is for the electric field to be in the
x-direction.

(2) transverse propagation, leading to transverse waves only. Maxwell
gets this from the divergence free nature of the fields in vacuum,
so that the components of the fields in the direction of propagation
must vanish.

And you think this condition unique to Maxwell's EM???

(3) charge conservation. Maxwell gets this by adding the displacement
current, which is also what gives him the necessary partial time
derivative in (1) and hence field propagation.

Again, a specific question Bruce, if charge was NOT 'exactly'
(a very small divergence) conserved what would be the physical,
observable results?

I have to see the model get past this hurdle, with mathematics, before
my threshold of interest is reached.

Paul Stowe
.



User: "greywolf42"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 22 Sep 2003 10:14:53 AM
Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:200309221254.h8MCsnCt026352@ipp.mpg.de...

Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24136

I didn't know about this part before:

``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''

Maybe you didn't know about it because it simply isn't true. The game is
given away by the phrase 'toy mechanical models.' Maxwell certainly never
used the term -- nor abandoned his models. Remember the Maxwellian
distribution?
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
.
User: "Perion"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 22 Sep 2003 12:45:44 PM
"greywolf42" <mingstb@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vmu49de9jiu7e8@corp.supernews.com...
If I was God I would have put Riemann, Maxwell, Gauss, and Einstein together
as contemporaries [and made Riemann live for about 125 years]. But... I'm
not.
Perion
.

User: "Bruce Scott TOK"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 22 Sep 2003 01:46:35 PM
"greywolf42" wrote:
|> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
|> message news:200309221254.h8MCsnCt026352@ipp.mpg.de...
|> > Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...
|> >
|> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24136
|> >
|> > I didn't know about this part before:
|> >
|> > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|> > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|> >
|>
|> Maybe you didn't know about it because it simply isn't true. The game is
|> given away by the phrase 'toy mechanical models.' Maxwell certainly never
|> used the term -- nor abandoned his models. Remember the Maxwellian
|> distribution?
Oh good grief. You crackpot consipratists are really beyond hope on
things like this. You really ought to learn about and try to understand
these things instead of pissing in the wind like that...
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
User: "Dirk Van de moortel"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 23 Sep 2003 09:12:01 AM
"Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:200309221846.h8MIkZm0027894@ipp.mpg.de...

"greywolf42" wrote:

|> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
|> message news:200309221254.h8MCsnCt026352@ipp.mpg.de...
|> > Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...
|> >
|> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24136

Thanks for the pointer, I'll order the book...

|> >
|> > I didn't know about this part before:
|> >
|> > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|> > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|> >
|>
|> Maybe you didn't know about it because it simply isn't true. The game is
|> given away by the phrase 'toy mechanical models.' Maxwell certainly never
|> used the term -- nor abandoned his models. Remember the Maxwellian
|> distribution?

Oh good grief. You crackpot consipratists are really beyond hope on
things like this. You really ought to learn about and try to understand
these things instead of pissing in the wind like that...

They are rather sensitive when it concerns their god
possibly having abandoned the ether. If you touch
this addictive substance, you'll hear them make a noise.
It's a bit like, when Lorentz writes about the superiority
of relativity over his own theory, thus abandoning the
ether as well, you will hear them make a noise again.
It's also a bit like when Lorentz says that Einstein
deserved all credit for his theory, they will tell you that
where it concerns the question whether Einstein
plagiarized Lorentz, the latter's opinion is irrelevant.
That's they way they seem to work. Eventually one
gets used to it :-)
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 23 Sep 2003 09:10:26 AM
"Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:200309221846.h8MIkZm0027894@ipp.mpg.de...

"greywolf42" wrote:

|> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
|> message news:200309221254.h8MCsnCt026352@ipp.mpg.de...
|> > Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...
|> >
|> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24136
|> >
|> > I didn't know about this part before:
|> >
|> > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|> > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|> >
|>
|> Maybe you didn't know about it because it simply isn't true. The game is
|> given away by the phrase 'toy mechanical models.' Maxwell certainly never
|> used the term -- nor abandoned his models. Remember the Maxwellian
|> distribution?

Oh good grief. You crackpot consipratists are really beyond hope on
things like this. You really ought to learn about and try to understand
these things instead of pissing in the wind like that...

They are rather sensitive when it concerns their god
possibly having abandoning the ether. If you touch
this addictive substance, you'll hear them make a noise.
It's a bit like, when Lorentz writes about the superiority
of relativity over his own theory, thus abandoning the
ether as well, you will hear them make a noise again.
It's also a bit like when Lorentz says that Einstein
deserved all credit for his theory, they will tell you that
where it concerns the question whether Einstein
plagiarized Lorentz, the latter's opinion is irrelevant.
That's they way they seem to work. Eventually one
gets used to it :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
User: "luke"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 25 Sep 2003 09:19:23 AM
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f705504$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...

"Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:200309221846.h8MIkZm0027894@ipp.mpg.de...

"greywolf42" wrote:

|> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
|> message news:200309221254.h8MCsnCt026352@ipp.mpg.de...
|> > Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...
|> >
|> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24136
|> >
|> > I didn't know about this part before:
|> >
|> > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|> > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|> >
|>
|> Maybe you didn't know about it because it simply isn't true. The game is
|> given away by the phrase 'toy mechanical models.' Maxwell certainly never
|> used the term -- nor abandoned his models. Remember the Maxwellian
|> distribution?

Oh good grief. You crackpot consipratists are really beyond hope on
things like this. You really ought to learn about and try to understand
these things instead of pissing in the wind like that...


They are rather sensitive when it concerns their god
possibly having abandoning the ether. If you touch
this addictive substance, you'll hear them make a noise.
It's a bit like, when Lorentz writes about the superiority
of relativity over his own theory, thus abandoning the
ether as well, you will hear them make a noise again.
It's also a bit like when Lorentz says that Einstein
deserved all credit for his theory, they will tell you that
where it concerns the question whether Einstein
plagiarized Lorentz, the latter's opinion is irrelevant.
That's they way they seem to work. Eventually one
gets used to it :-)

Hmm.. do we have an analogy for when one mentions that Einstein called
relativity an aether theory in 1920? Quoting:
"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour
of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume
that
empty space has no physical qualities whatever."
(waiting for "a noise").. :)
And who are the referred to crackpot consipratists (sic)? I don't
understand. Is there a conspiracy theory about Maxwell's work?
.
User: "Dirk Van de moortel"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 25 Sep 2003 09:29:47 AM
"luke" <funk420@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e1b04639.0309250619.44126482@posting.google.com...

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f705504$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...

"Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:200309221846.h8MIkZm0027894@ipp.mpg.de...

"greywolf42" wrote:

|> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
|> message news:200309221254.h8MCsnCt026352@ipp.mpg.de...
|> > Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...
|> >
|> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24136
|> >
|> > I didn't know about this part before:
|> >
|> > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|> > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|> >
|>
|> Maybe you didn't know about it because it simply isn't true. The game is
|> given away by the phrase 'toy mechanical models.' Maxwell certainly never
|> used the term -- nor abandoned his models. Remember the Maxwellian
|> distribution?

Oh good grief. You crackpot consipratists are really beyond hope on
things like this. You really ought to learn about and try to understand
these things instead of pissing in the wind like that...


They are rather sensitive when it concerns their god
possibly having abandoning the ether. If you touch
this addictive substance, you'll hear them make a noise.
It's a bit like, when Lorentz writes about the superiority
of relativity over his own theory, thus abandoning the
ether as well, you will hear them make a noise again.
It's also a bit like when Lorentz says that Einstein
deserved all credit for his theory, they will tell you that
where it concerns the question whether Einstein
plagiarized Lorentz, the latter's opinion is irrelevant.
That's they way they seem to work. Eventually one
gets used to it :-)


Hmm.. do we have an analogy for when one mentions that Einstein called
relativity an aether theory in 1920? Quoting:
"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour
of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume
that
empty space has no physical qualities whatever."

(waiting for "a noise").. :)

I didn't hear much noise until now, but I must say
I was waiting for a smokescreen. Or a new magic
formula.


And who are the referred to crackpot consipratists (sic)? I don't
understand. Is there a conspiracy theory about Maxwell's work?

Don't think so. There is a huge conspiracy about there
being no need for an ether :-)
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Bruce Scott TOK"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 25 Sep 2003 01:08:28 PM
"luke" wrote:
|> Hmm.. do we have an analogy for when one mentions that Einstein called
|> relativity an aether theory in 1920? Quoting:
|> "But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
|> favour
|> of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume
|> that
|> empty space has no physical qualities whatever."
In other words, "space has no physical qualities whatever"
|> (waiting for "a noise").. :)
You should have quoted the context :-)
|> And who are the referred to crackpot consipratists (sic)? I don't
|> understand. Is there a conspiracy theory about Maxwell's work?
No, people who claim relativity is a conspiracy against Maxwell. How
interesting that Maxwell himself apparently abandoned the "aether"...
(BTW this intellectual "aether" trap in modern times is an unfortunate
byproduct of the rubber sheet analogy for GR...)
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
User: "Trevor Morris"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 27 Sep 2003 11:28:26 AM
"Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:200309251808.h8PI8Sax016188@ipp.mpg.de...

"luke" wrote:

|> Hmm.. do we have an analogy for when one mentions that Einstein called
|> relativity an aether theory in 1920? Quoting:
|> "But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
|> favour
|> of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume
|> that
|> empty space has no physical qualities whatever."

In other words, "space has no physical qualities whatever"

I think you have that backwards: Einstein was saying that GR implies that
space has definite physical qualities.
Trevor Morris
[...]
.

User: "luke"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 26 Sep 2003 12:58:15 PM
Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:<200309251808.h8PI8Sax016188@ipp.mpg.de>...

"luke" wrote:

|> Hmm.. do we have an analogy for when one mentions that Einstein called
|> relativity an aether theory in 1920? Quoting:
|> "But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
|> favour
|> of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume
|> that
|> empty space has no physical qualities whatever."

In other words, "space has no physical qualities whatever"

So, what about g_mu_nu? E? B? Psi? Are you denying the existence of
physical reality? :)


|> (waiting for "a noise").. :)

You should have quoted the context :-)

Yes, sorry about that. The context was a 1920 speech about "ether and
the theory of relativity" delivered at Leyden University. What about
the context of Maxwell's quotes?


|> And who are the referred to crackpot consipratists (sic)? I don't
|> understand. Is there a conspiracy theory about Maxwell's work?

No, people who claim relativity is a conspiracy against Maxwell. How
interesting that Maxwell himself apparently abandoned the "aether"...

Hmm, not a very convincing claim as relativity emerged from Maxwell's
equations.. From what I have read of Maxwell I don't think he
abandoned the ether entirely.. but perhaps he realized a direct
measurement of it was not necessary and improbable if not impossible.


(BTW this intellectual "aether" trap in modern times is an unfortunate
byproduct of the rubber sheet analogy for GR...)

I would say the "aether" trap is quite different.. namely that the use
of the word puts one in league with crackpots, e.g. who claim
relativity as a conspiracy as you mentioned above. IMHO a basic idea
of ether, as described by Einstein above, is alive and well today, but
described with different terms such as "vacuum wavefunction",
"metric", or "electromagnetic field tensor".
.
User: "Ken Muldrew"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 26 Sep 2003 02:03:11 PM
(luke) wrote:

equations.. From what I have read of Maxwell I don't think he
abandoned the ether entirely.. but perhaps he realized a direct
measurement of it was not necessary and improbable if not impossible.

What's the difference between something that is unmeasureable (and the
measurement would be irrelevant even if it was measureable) and
nothing at all? Is aether supposed to be just a metaphysical comfort?
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
.
User: "luke"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 27 Sep 2003 10:07:54 AM
(Ken Muldrew) wrote in message news:<3f748ce5.87239171@news.ucalgary.ca>...

funk420@yahoo.com (luke) wrote:

equations.. From what I have read of Maxwell I don't think he
abandoned the ether entirely.. but perhaps he realized a direct
measurement of it was not necessary and improbable if not impossible.


What's the difference between something that is unmeasureable (and the
measurement would be irrelevant even if it was measureable) and
nothing at all? Is aether supposed to be just a metaphysical comfort?

Good question! In a way, yes. It does just provide metaphysical
comfort. I am more comfortable thinking of a kinetic space-time as a
framework for physical reality than I am thinking of a (larger) set of
empirical equations.
On the other hand what is today's metaphysical comfort could be
tomorrow's engineering tools. They likely said the same things about
Boltzmann's kinetic gases, which provide metaphysical comfort to those
wishing to understand temperature and pressure.
I don't think a measurement of the ether (whatever that may mean)
would be irrelevant. A good etherist would say: "what else is there
to measure?".
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 27 Sep 2003 10:49:13 AM
On 27 Sep 2003 08:07:54 -0700,
(luke) wrote:

kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca (Ken Muldrew) wrote in message news:<3f748ce5.87239171@news.ucalgary.ca>...

(luke) wrote:

equations.. From what I have read of Maxwell I don't think he
abandoned the ether entirely.. but perhaps he realized a direct
measurement of it was not necessary and improbable if not impossible.


What's the difference between something that is unmeasureable (and the
measurement would be irrelevant even if it was measureable) and
nothing at all? Is aether supposed to be just a metaphysical comfort?


Good question! In a way, yes. It does just provide metaphysical
comfort. I am more comfortable thinking of a kinetic space-time as a
framework for physical reality than I am thinking of a (larger) set of
empirical equations.

It's more than that... The aether model (concept) allows one to
work at a level expressly denied by non-aetherist. Aetherist say
whhat the hell is causing (making up, the nature of) those 'fields'
that non-aetherist just shrug & say, are fundamental. Further,
the aetherist, by definition, takes a simpler, more unified approach
to physics than non-aetherist. Furthermore, given we can clearly
'measure & observe' the behavior of fields, action at a distance,
etc... they think the claim aether is unobservable is simply ascine
philosophical rhetoric on the part of those wishing to have a reason
for denial.

On the other hand what is today's metaphysical comfort could be
tomorrow's engineering tools.

Why certainly...

They likely said the same things about Boltzmann's kinetic gases, which
provide metaphysical comfort to those wishing to understand temperature
and pressure.

I don't think a measurement of the ether (whatever that may mean)
would be irrelevant.

If it were, the aether would have never been proposed or pursued
over the centuries. If woe could not 'measure' behavior that is
consistent with its nature there would be nothing to debate.

A good etherist would say: "what else is there to measure?".

PRECISELY!!!!
Paul Stowe
.

User: "Ken Muldrew"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 27 Sep 2003 09:10:39 PM
On 27 Sep 2003 08:07:54 -0700,
(luke) wrote:

kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca (Ken Muldrew) wrote in message news:<3f748ce5.87239171@news.ucalgary.ca>...

What's the difference between something that is unmeasureable (and the
measurement would be irrelevant even if it was measureable) and
nothing at all? Is aether supposed to be just a metaphysical comfort?


Good question! In a way, yes. It does just provide metaphysical
comfort. I am more comfortable thinking of a kinetic space-time as a
framework for physical reality than I am thinking of a (larger) set of
empirical equations.

That's fine, but distinct from physics. Most physicists, for example,
find no extra comfort in this metaphsysical concept. To each his own,
and so long as nobody gets too enthusiastic over their particular
brand of evangelism, there should be no quarrel.

On the other hand what is today's metaphysical comfort could be
tomorrow's engineering tools.

Pedagogical tool, maybe. Physical tool? I can't see how. To address
what problem?

They likely said the same things about
Boltzmann's kinetic gases, which provide metaphysical comfort to those
wishing to understand temperature and pressure.

Long before Boltzman the existence of atoms was considered by some to
be metaphysical baggage, even though it made chemistry much, much
simpler to explain. Einstein's 1905 paper showing that Brownian motion
was due to atomic collisions put atoms firmly into physical theory.
One of his other papers from the same year did the opposite for
aether.

I don't think a measurement of the ether (whatever that may mean)
would be irrelevant. A good etherist would say: "what else is there
to measure?".

Lots of things. How fast a top-fuel dragster can cover a 1/4 mile, how
far a trebuchet can toss a piano, how much weight an igloo can
support, etc. A good physicist would say, "it is the theory that tells
you what you can measure".
.



User: "Bruce Scott TOK"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 27 Sep 2003 10:58:06 AM
Luke wrote:
|> So, what about g_mu_nu? E? B? Psi? Are you denying the existence of
|> physical reality? :)
With such a false premise, you might as well ask me if I "deny God" ...
It is important not to confuse the elementary concepts and mix them
together, like fields and the space between events.
|> Yes, sorry about that. The context was a 1920 speech about "ether and
|> the theory of relativity" delivered at Leyden University. What about
|> the context of Maxwell's quotes?
I don't know... which is why I asked. I do trust science however. I am
merely intrigued. That a scholar who wrote a book about Maxwell might
say that is a lot more interesting than the claims that appear, either
way, on Usenet. I don't have access to the book yet, as I already
explained. In the meantime I am interested to hear clarification. So
far I haven't heard anything like that, just the usual noise :-)
|> Hmm, not a very convincing claim as relativity emerged from Maxwell's
|> equations.. From what I have read of Maxwell I don't think he
|> abandoned the ether entirely.. but perhaps he realized a direct
|> measurement of it was not necessary and improbable if not impossible.
False. Relativity emerged from the _consequences_ of Maxwell equations,
which took many years to become clear. Specifically, the realisation
that since you couldn't go to "a photon's rest frame" the form of the
equations would have to change according to the motion of the
observer...
...or else absolute time would have to be abandoned.
|> >
|> > (BTW this intellectual "aether" trap in modern times is an unfortunate
|> > byproduct of the rubber sheet analogy for GR...)
|>
|> I would say the "aether" trap is quite different.. namely that the use
|> of the word puts one in league with crackpots, e.g. who claim
|> relativity as a conspiracy as you mentioned above. IMHO a basic idea
|> of ether, as described by Einstein above, is alive and well today, but
|> described with different terms such as "vacuum wavefunction",
|> "metric", or "electromagnetic field tensor".
That is the misconception I am talking about...
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 27 Sep 2003 11:15:56 AM
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:58:06 +0200 (MEST), Bruce Scott TOK
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

Luke wrote:

|> So, what about g_mu_nu? E? B? Psi? Are you denying the existence of
|> physical reality? :)

With such a false premise, you might as well ask me if I "deny God" ...

It is important not to confuse the elementary concepts and mix them
together, like fields and the space between events.

|> Yes, sorry about that. The context was a 1920 speech about "ether and
|> the theory of relativity" delivered at Leyden University. What about
|> the context of Maxwell's quotes?

I don't know... which is why I asked. I do trust science however. I am
merely intrigued. That a scholar who wrote a book about Maxwell might
say that is a lot more interesting than the claims that appear, either
way, on Usenet. I don't have access to the book yet, as I already
explained. In the meantime I am interested to hear clarification.

Perhaps Bruce it is because the book is NOT out yet. Go to
Amazon.com. I'll get it when it is available & read it. I read
all sides on an issue, and, if Mahon can show where Maxwell said

"... he discarded the "toy mechanical models" he had
concocted to understand electrical and magnetic
phenomena..."

and it's NOT Mahon's interpretation, I WILL come back with a post
acknowledging the words of Maxwell. I'm a betting man Bruce,
are you? I'll bet you twenty dollar that Maxwell NEVER said
those words!

far I haven't heard anything like that, just the usual noise :-)

What, in particular ARE you looking for?

|> Hmm, not a very convincing claim as relativity emerged from Maxwell's
|> equations.. From what I have read of Maxwell I don't think he
|> abandoned the ether entirely.. but perhaps he realized a direct
|> measurement of it was not necessary and improbable if not impossible.

False. Relativity emerged from the _consequences_ of Maxwell equations,
which took many years to become clear. Specifically, the realisation
that since you couldn't go to "a photon's rest frame" the form of the
equations would have to change according to the motion of the
observer...

ROTFLMAO... "As a consequence of Maxwell's Equations..."

...or else absolute time would have to be abandoned.

|> >
|> > (BTW this intellectual "aether" trap in modern times is an unfortunate
|> > byproduct of the rubber sheet analogy for GR...)
|>
|> I would say the "aether" trap is quite different.. namely that the use
|> of the word puts one in league with crackpots, e.g. who claim
|> relativity as a conspiracy as you mentioned above. IMHO a basic idea
|> of ether, as described by Einstein above, is alive and well today, but
|> described with different terms such as "vacuum wavefunction",
|> "metric", or "electromagnetic field tensor".

That is the misconception I am talking about...

And this is an example of the overt bigotry I'm am always talking
about...
Paul Stowe
.






User: "greywolf42"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 23 Sep 2003 02:54:58 PM
Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:200309221846.h8MIkZm0027894@ipp.mpg.de...

"greywolf42" wrote:

|> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
|> message news:200309221254.h8MCsnCt026352@ipp.mpg.de...
|> > Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...
|> >
|> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24136
|> >
|> > I didn't know about this part before:
|> >
|> > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was

when

|> > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|> >
|>
|> Maybe you didn't know about it because it simply isn't true. The game

is

|> given away by the phrase 'toy mechanical models.' Maxwell certainly

never

|> used the term -- nor abandoned his models. Remember the Maxwellian
|> distribution?

Oh good grief. You crackpot consipratists are really beyond hope on
things like this. You really ought to learn about and try to understand
these things instead of pissing in the wind like that...

Conspiratists?
Hey, one bozo (writing a book reviewed in New Scientist) with a lazy streak
or an attitude or an agenda does not require a conspiracy.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 23 Sep 2003 02:36:54 PM
Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:<200309221846.h8MIkZm0027894@ipp.mpg.de>...

|> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
|> message news:200309221254.h8MCsnCt026352@ipp.mpg.de...
|> > Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...
|> > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|> > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
Oh good grief.
Bruce

Hi Bruce, I note the grief is not bad.
Something interesting you suggest in my mind, is a
mechanical toy that might demo the Maxwell equation
relations. In High School I was taught to place a toy
paddlewheel in a fluid, and if it rotated, then evidence
of CURL results. This is evident near the edge of a
flowing canal.
Is it conceivable that a mechanical toy could demo
Max's Eq.s?
Ken S. Tucker
.
User: "Bruce Scott TOK"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 24 Sep 2003 03:35:46 PM
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
|> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:<200309221846.h8MIkZm0027894@ipp.mpg.de>...
|>
|> >|> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
|> >|> message news:200309221254.h8MCsnCt026352@ipp.mpg.de...
|> >|> > Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...
|>
|> >|> > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|> >|> > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> >|> > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> >|> > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|>
|> >Oh good grief.
|> >Bruce
|>
|> Hi Bruce, I note the grief is not bad.
|> Something interesting you suggest in my mind, is a
|> mechanical toy that might demo the Maxwell equation
|> relations. In High School I was taught to place a toy
|> paddlewheel in a fluid, and if it rotated, then evidence
|> of CURL results. This is evident near the edge of a
|> flowing canal.
|> Is it conceivable that a mechanical toy could demo
|> Max's Eq.s?
It might be a model for a curl, but to serve as a demo for the Maxwell
equations it has to demonstrate propagation. Also, the role of
divergence free fields (hence transverse waves, etc).
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.


User: ""

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 22 Sep 2003 06:15:52 PM
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:46:35 +0200 (MEST), Bruce Scott TOK
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

"greywolf42" wrote:

|> Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
|> message news:200309221254.h8MCsnCt026352@ipp.mpg.de...
|>> Here is a nice review in New Scientist of a biography of Maxwell...
|>>
|>> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns24136
|>>
|>> I didn't know about this part before:
|>>
|>> ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|>> he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|>> understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|>> nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|>>
|>
|> Maybe you didn't know about it because it simply isn't true. The game is
|> given away by the phrase 'toy mechanical models.' Maxwell certainly never
|> used the term -- nor abandoned his models. Remember the Maxwellian
|> distribution?

Oh good grief. You crackpot consipratists are really beyond hope on
things like this. You really ought to learn about and try to understand
these things instead of pissing in the wind like that...

Fine, I'll have to look into this book but, I've never seen anything
that suggested in Maxwell's writings this. Perhaps you'll be so kind
as to post a reference & quote...
Paul Stowe
.



User: "eugen negut"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 22 Sep 2003 01:20:20 PM
THIS IS NOT AN ERROR
Maxwell don't live enough to find the mechanical deduction for his
erquation.
You can find this mechanical explanation of electrodynamics (and more) at
www.freephysics.org

``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''

.
User: "greywolf42"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 23 Sep 2003 02:57:02 PM
eugen negut <negutz@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:L3Hbb.37079$dp6.806851@weber.videotron.net...
{Top post rectified}

``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''

THIS IS NOT AN ERROR
Maxwell don't live enough to find the mechanical deduction for his
erquation.
You can find this mechanical explanation of electrodynamics (and more) at
www.freephysics.org

You are merely ignorant. See Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force," 1861.
This is the paper wherein Maxwell first derived "Maxwell's equations" and
where light was first identified as transvers E and M waves (plus much
more). In same, Maxwell used a classical, purely mechanical aether fluid.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
.
User: "Bruce Scott TOK"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 24 Sep 2003 03:34:17 PM
"greywolf42" wrote:
|> eugen negut <negutz@videotron.ca> wrote in message
|> news:L3Hbb.37079$dp6.806851@weber.videotron.net...
|>
|> {Top post rectified}
|>
|> > > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|> > > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> > > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> > > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|>
|> > THIS IS NOT AN ERROR
|> > Maxwell don't live enough to find the mechanical deduction for his
|> > erquation.
|> > You can find this mechanical explanation of electrodynamics (and more) at
|> > www.freephysics.org
|>
|> You are merely ignorant. See Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force," 1861.
|> This is the paper wherein Maxwell first derived "Maxwell's equations" and
|> where light was first identified as transvers E and M waves (plus much
|> more). In same, Maxwell used a classical, purely mechanical aether fluid.
You are merely conveniently ignoring everything Maxwell wrote after 1861.
As Dirk noted, this is sadly typical...
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 24 Sep 2003 06:33:53 PM
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:34:17 +0200 (MEST), Bruce Scott TOK
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

"greywolf42" wrote:

|> eugen negut <negutz@videotron.ca> wrote in message
|> news:L3Hbb.37079$dp6.806851@weber.videotron.net...
|>
|> {Top post rectified}
|>
|> > > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|> > > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> > > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> > > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|>
|> > THIS IS NOT AN ERROR
|> > Maxwell don't live enough to find the mechanical deduction for his
|> > erquation.
|> > You can find this mechanical explanation of electrodynamics (and more) at
|> > www.freephysics.org
|>
|> You are merely ignorant. See Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force," 1861.
|> This is the paper wherein Maxwell first derived "Maxwell's equations" and
|> where light was first identified as transvers E and M waves (plus much
|> more). In same, Maxwell used a classical, purely mechanical aether fluid.

You are merely conveniently ignoring everything Maxwell wrote after 1861.
As Dirk noted, this is sadly typical...

Really? How 'bout refs & quotes... We can have dueling quote 'cause
I assure you, in his two volume Treatises where he clearly states he
still agrees with the atomic vortex hypothesis...
Paul Stowe
.
User: "Bruce Scott TOK"

Title: Re: Maxwell's mechanical analogue 25 Sep 2003 08:06:56 AM
Paul Stowe wrote:
|> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:34:17 +0200 (MEST), Bruce Scott TOK
|> <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
|>
|> >"greywolf42" wrote:
|> >
|> >|> eugen negut <negutz@videotron.ca> wrote in message
|> >|> news:L3Hbb.37079$dp6.806851@weber.videotron.net...
|> >|>
|> >|> {Top post rectified}
|> >|>
|> >|> > > ``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
|> >|> > > he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
|> >|> > > understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
|> >|> > > nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
|> >|>
|> >|> > THIS IS NOT AN ERROR
|> >|> > Maxwell don't live enough to find the mechanical deduction for his
|> >|> > erquation.
|> >|> > You can find this mechanical explanation of electrodynamics (and more) at
|> >|> > www.freephysics.org
|> >|>
|> >|> You are merely ignorant. See Maxwell's "On Physical Lines of Force," 1861.
|> >|> This is the paper wherein Maxwell first derived "Maxwell's equations" and
|> >|> where light was first identified as transvers E and M waves (plus much
|> >|> more). In same, Maxwell used a classical, purely mechanical aether fluid.
|> >
|> > You are merely conveniently ignoring everything Maxwell wrote after 1861.
|> > As Dirk noted, this is sadly typical...
|>
|> Really? How 'bout refs & quotes... We can have dueling quote 'cause
|> I assure you, in his two volume Treatises where he clearly states he
|> still agrees with the atomic vortex hypothesis...
Let me give it to you again:
``The key moment in Maxwell's scientific life, says Mahon, was when
he discarded the toy mechanical models he had concocted to
understand electrical and magnetic phenomena and accepted that
nature's fundamental entities had no everyday analogue.''
Reference is in my original post.
I have no interest in legalistic debates with you people. If you are
interested, however, you are welcome to provide a clear refutation of
the above statement. I said before I hadn't realised this... maybe you
didn't either.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.






  Page 1 of 2

1
 

2
 


Related Articles
 

NEWER
pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER