studiot

Senior Members
  • Content count

    9823
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

studiot last won the day on October 18

studiot had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1512 Glorious Leader

4 Followers

About studiot

Profile Information

  • Location
    Somerset, England
  • Favorite Area of Science
    applications of physical sciences
  • Occupation
    Semi Retired Technical Consultant
  1. cathode ray in a vacuum

    Indeed, the subject was called electron ballistics in the UK and was vital to the design and production of all valves. +1 Large sections of repected texts of the era were devoted to the subject eg Electron Physics and Technology Thomson (not the JJ) & Callick Principles of Electronics Gavin & Houldin Both from English Universities Press And slightly later from America (1967) Owen and Keaton devote nearly a the wole of volume 2 of a thre volume tome Fundamentals of Electronics Harper Row to it.
  2. Fields and ether

    Was it though? But I did say we need to carefully distinguish between Relativity and Quantum effects. Many mix them up in relation to this subject and its history. Nobel winner Frank Wilczek has, of coursed re-introiduced an ether of his own in QFT.
  3. Fields and ether

    Yes a transmission model, but as I keep pointing out, not a totally successful model for the interaction with matter. Further we should make a distinction between the connection of light to Relativity and The connection of light to Quantum Mechanics.
  4. Fields and ether

    Before you do that second line read this. Fresnel was the first to propose a luminerferous aether, named as such in 1818 nearly half a century before Maxwell showed that electromagnetic fields are capable of supporting waves and longer before Hertz proved it experimentally. But centuries before this some sort of transmission medium was assumed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether I am ignoring all the off topic stuff about modern cosmological theories.
  5. Fields and ether

    It is easy to loose sight of the ingenuity of the natural universe and in this case human ingenuity. We should guard against this and not try to force our limited theories on what we observe. This applies to both sides of the discussion. Firstly let us dispel this failure of logic, both from a theoretical point of view and a phenomenological one. The logical progression of the above runs Waves can be regarded as a sequence of phase linked single oscillators, each one performing its activity in turn. Many working model demonstation machines are constructed like this. For this model to be successful there must be oscillators. What you call the substrate, and most call the medium, comprises this sequence of oscillators. Now for some human igenuity. Why is it necessary for all these oscillators to exist, even when they are not oscillating? Why can they not pop up into place like ducks in a shooting gallery when they are needed. And pop down again when they are no (ie the wave has passed their location) ? Alternatively why can they not be laid like the railway tracks in the Wallace & Grommit movie, directly infront of the travelling train or wave? And pulled up again behind the train. One classical view of EM radiation is that "It carries its own medium along with it", so doesn't need an inplace medium lying around like sound does. Very neat and tidy, don't you think? It is even possible to construct a simple mechanical model to demonstrate this. Suppose you had a conveyor belt carrying ducks of graded height, graded according to a wave pattern. The ducks generally lie flat(horizontal) but flip up just before arriving at a target point and flip down again immediately after passing it. If you watched this point through a rifle sight you would observe a sinuous wave passing, going up and down in height (amplitude). But if you sighted anywhere else along the gallery you would see nothing. So you would have to conclude that there is no permanent medium along the gallery. Now you have also said. No this is not true, even by your own words and constitutes a failure of logic since it should read "all other tests except for the existence of a medium" Otherwise you cannot take the (logical) step/deduction Therefore there must be a medium. This was indeed the situation in the early part of the 19 century, but the situation changed dramatically with the discovery of the photoelectric effect and became no longer true. There was no known mechanism for the threshold to occur with any known wave equation. Or there was no known wave equation that could model the threshold. (Note some thresholds do occur in wave theory for example total internal reflection and all sorts of ideas like this were examined.) So we then had a failure of EM radiation to act in accordance with expectations to explain. The description I posted about the Maxwell mechanical vortex theory of a medium does not have these properties. Further in that source in a part I did not post, Maxwell himself is reported as saying that he derived to to exactly fit his famous four equations, But that he could not accept it as it was too cumbersome and that there must be therefore some other explanation. Post#5 here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117405-currents-and-symmetry/
  6. increase density of a solid

    Indeed a good one, as is polymorphism in Sulphur. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00204149/document
  7. Currents and symmetry

    So we have a ring of conductive material eg a hoop of wire? This ring is charged to a value of -2q, where q is much larger than the charge on one electron. So it is not electrically neutral then disconnected from the source of charge but insulated from the rest of the universe? The ring is then rotated with some (steady ?) velocity v ? Why should this scenario result in a magnetic field? Are you trying to experiment with homopolar motors and generators AKA a Faraday Disk?
  8. increase density of a solid

    Ok so you don't care enough about your question to return and check for answers. But it's been so much fun for others seeing what ideas they can come up with. So thanks for the question. +1 My contribution is to say metal? Well perhap not metal, but metal ore. Dry it out. All earth materials increase in density as they dry. They end result what is known as dry density, which is then the maximum density for that solid.
  9. Currents and symmetry

    Which was why I asked about size earlier on. Quiet please indicate the size of the systems you are contemplating, along with the eventual direction/destination of your enquiry. Have I mentioned Rowland's ring theory in relation to magentism before?
  10. Fields and ether

    Phlogiston was never a 'good' theory. The evidence against it had already been obtained and confirmed by others for nearly 100 years before the word phlogiston was invented. The'theory' required the additiona proposition (theory with no experimental backup) of negative weight to support it. https://eic.rsc.org/feature/the-logic-of-phlogiston/2000126.article
  11. Fields and ether

    But the 19 century scientists didn't just accept or reject an aether. They calculated consequences according to their best Science and then proposed tests, which they carried out to the best of their ability. A real shining example of progress via the scientific method. Furthermore they knew the limits of their abiltiy. They knew that the experiments of Fizeau were against calculations carried out by neglecting higher order terms in series and so were first order. They were only able to measure the effects of higher order terms at the very end of the century. It was these later experiments that confirmed the lack of aether and lead to a search for other explanations. By the way, siecle is the French word for century.
  12. Duality & Non-locality Unified

    Surely one of the original matters which ushered in QM contradicts this, since this is not a measurement issue. I am referring to the 'photoelectric effect'.
  13. square root formulas

    Indeed so, finally a response to what I said in my first reply. You have put in a lot of good effort in creating this paper and I have tried to engage in constructive discussion but I find it very disappointing that you seem like a marathon runner who, have covered the first 26 miles has decided to sit on a milestone and admire the scenery rather than complete the course in not supporting your work. So I will leave you and your thread there.
  14. Currents and symmetry

    You need to put a diameter/radius to these rings. Atom sized? 1mm? Then you can discuss what makes the charge(s) circulate as you describe. One positive and one negative? Positron and electron or what? Antimatter/matter? Very close together? There are lots of hypothetical situations where simple theory quickly runs into difficulty. Especially vague ill specified ones. As regards the circulation (and your other thread) read this about Maxwell's original ether.
  15. Fields and ether

    There is a book devoted to this A history of theories of the Aether and electricity E T Whittaker There were two volumes of thos Vol 1 from Descartes to the end of the 19th century Vol 2 (written later) Modern theories (to about 1930). You could also look at the firat 30 pages of The Theory of Relativity Professor C Moller Oxford University Press. This develops the theory of light as known in Maxwellian times, as classical wave theory and sets the requirements for ethers of various natures, developing them from Hugens onwards to determine the difference between phase and ray velocities, showing their importance and invariances. He then goes on to analyse in detail early (fizeau and foucalt) experiments ans demonstrate what these were capable of and equally importantly what they were not. After then analysing Hoek and Fizeau's experiments He turns to discuss Lorenz / Fitzgerald and Finally to Michelson whose experiments were the first capable of detecting an ether. The mathis in this early part of the book is not difficult. However the whole of Chapter 1 is rather too long to post as an extract.