In the late 19th and early 20th century the physics community began to enshrine mathematical ingenuity as the best way to resolve the tensions between theory and experiment and grew increasingly dismissive of philosophical questioning and speculation.
The theory of Special Relativity is typically presented as "saving" Maxwell's equations from logical inconsistency. It did this by introducing some extraordinary new physics instead of uncovering some metaphysical conceits within the theory. I am not talking about the Galilean transformation. I am talking about the more elementary question: what does it mean to be in motion? Why should we insist on treating every type of motion as being a quality that is defined by convention with respect to a frame of reference? Einstein believed it was necessary and in order to save the laws of physics he formulated the theory of special relativity. However, it seems to me the _phenomena_ of electromagnetism rather than Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism is telling us something different. Some types of motion should be treated as a relational quality that occurs between frames of references rather than being quality that is determined within a given frame of reference. Consider the Lorentz force on a charged particle q moving with velocity v: Force = qE + q(v x B) E and B are the electric and magnetic fields. Since relativists think v is determined by the frame of reference the value of v will be zero in the frame of reference of the charged particle. This leads to the paradox that the laws of nature are not the same in all frames of reference. From a relativist understanding of velocity there are only two ways to resolve this paradox: either there must be an absolute frame of rest known as the aether or one must adopt the extraordinary postulates of the special theory of relativity. However, this choice represents a reliance on a particular conception of velocity to tell one how to interpret the equations of motion. If one adopts a relational understanding of motion rather than relative understanding, the velocity is not prone to disappear with a change of frame. It is worth noting that Weber's theory of electromagnetism , which was the leading contender to Maxwell's theory at the time, made explicit use of relational motion. Although Weber developed his theory in order to avoid postulating the existence of magnetic fields, I don't see why his concept of relation velocity can't be applied to situations involving Faraday's magnetic fields. Harry On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:18 PM MSF <foster...@protonmail.com> wrote: > Faraday's message to Maxwell parallels Aristotle's complaint about the > Egyptians. Aristotle implied words to the effect that the ancient Egyptians > thought that the physical world should obey mathematics instead of math > describing reality. There's a lot of that going on today. The so-called > standard model is, in my opinion, a mathematical castle in the air. > On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 5:14 AM, H L V <hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Faraday wrote this 10 years before Maxwell published his first work on > electromgnetism in 1856 which was titled "On Faraday's lines of Force" > Maxwell's equations were first published in 1862. It seems Maxwell > interpreted Faraday's writings in a manner that was consistent with an > aether. > > I would say Faraday was frustrated by Maxwell's mathematical treatment of > his work. Since he could not comprehend it he could not judge it. > Here is a passage from a letter Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking all > mathematically adept theoreticians to express themselves in terms an > experimentalist can understand: > > "There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician > engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his > own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully, > clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formula? If so, would it not be > a great boon to such as we to express them so—translating them out of their > hieroglyphics that we also might work upon them by experiment. I think it > must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a > perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no > full understanding of the steps of your process, gave me the results > neither above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can > think and work from them. > If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians, > writing on these subjects, were to give us their results in this popular > useful working state as well as in that which is their own and proper to > them?" > > Harry > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:17 PM MSF <foster...@protonmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hmmm... A year after Maxwell's equations. Maxwell can't have been too >> happy about that, as his equations described the behavior of the aether. >> And he repeatedly claimed that he had merely expressed Faraday in >> conventional mathematical form. >> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 8:04 PM, MSF <foster...@protonmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> This gives you an idea what a deep thinker Faraday was. Do you know if he >> posited this idea before Maxwell published his equations? I thought I had >> read everything Faraday wrote. Somehow I missed this one. >> >> MIchael >> On Monday, April 15th, 2024 at 12:08 PM, H L V <hveeder...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> This is a quote from a letter written by Michael Faraday to Richard >> Philips on April 15, 1846 (bold letters were added by me) >> >> *"The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, >> radiation as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are >> known to connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors >> to dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, >> I believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful >> phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the >> surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for >> the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of >> action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant >> of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which >> may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform >> medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or >> water."* >> >> The idea of an aether which exists independently of matter and fills the >> vacuum is what the Michelson-Morely experiment was designed to detect. >> However, if I am reading Faraday correctly he is saying that the >> transmission of light depends on the source and the receiver being linked >> together by "lines of force". Unlike the hypothesized aether, Faraday's >> lines of force have _no_ existence independent of charged particles. While >> the MM apparatus is being built the lines of force would be constantly >> morphing but once the apparatus was complete they would quickly settle down >> into static lines. When the experiment begins the lines of force between >> the mirrors can be likened to straight fibre optic cables between the >> mirrors. At this stage since the lines of force would be moving in tandem >> with the entire apparatus Faraday's qualitative theory predicts the >> observed null result of the Michelson-Morely experiment. >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> >> >
