As John Plaice has been chronicling at “Fiat Lux,” there were actually two productive research programs that bear on this topic. Whittaker focused on the Maxwellian approach. Andre Assis’ recent translations of Weber’s works has brought to light the forgotten Continental physics.
There were two explanations of light speed. Weber and his colleagues experimentally derived the speed of light based the relative motion between charged particles. Weber found that the force of electrical charges decreased with relative speed until it goes to zero at Weber’s Constant, which is related to light speed.
Maxwell knew about Weber’s work, but he rejected Weber’s explanation and sought to base light speed on qualities of the so-called ether. In the final chapter of Maxwell’s treatise, he criticized Weber’s theory. Assis has shown that Weber was able to satisfactorily answer Maxwell, but that has been forgotten.
So who was right? A crucial experiment demonstrated it was Weber, not Maxwell. Weber’s theory predicts a null result in Michelson-Morley because the apparatus is at rest with itself. Maxwell predicted a fringe shift because the apparatus was moving through space.
This is where it gets deep. Rather than accepting the MM results and building from there, physicists began monkeying with time and space to preserve the ether. Fitzgerald first proposed “length contraction” and Lorentz derived mathematical conversions to preserve Maxwell’s equations for moving charges.
In 1905, Einstein stepped in with special relativity. What Einstein did was devious. He first admitted that all experimental results (including light speed) followed the relativity principle (Weber). Next, he claimed he could reconcile Weber and Maxwell without Maxwell’s ether. But he slipped Maxwell in through the side door with two words in his definition of “constancy of light speed”—“through space.”
Later, Einstein resurrected the ether through the concept of “curved space” in general relativity. However, even Einstein could not preserve Maxwell’s concept of constancy of light speed throughout space.
Weber’s theory is not inconsistent with the Lorentz contractions underlying special relativity. Instead of relative motion of electrical charges (i.e., matter, which is composed of protons and electrons), Einstein referred to abstract “reference frames.” But even the tiniest instrument must be composed of atoms, so a reference frame is simply matter. Einstein merely restates Weber.
To my knowledge, all experimental results to date continue to support Weber and not Maxwell. So here is my question: Why are we still discussing Maxwell’s useless “permittivity and permeability of free space,” which even Heaviside recognized were “not so helpful terms?”
As John Plaice has been chronicling at “Fiat Lux,” there were actually two productive research programs that bear on this topic. Whittaker focused on the Maxwellian approach. Andre Assis’ recent translations of Weber’s works has brought to light the forgotten Continental physics.
There were two explanations of light speed. Weber and his colleagues experimentally derived the speed of light based the relative motion between charged particles. Weber found that the force of electrical charges decreased with relative speed until it goes to zero at Weber’s Constant, which is related to light speed.
Maxwell knew about Weber’s work, but he rejected Weber’s explanation and sought to base light speed on qualities of the so-called ether. In the final chapter of Maxwell’s treatise, he criticized Weber’s theory. Assis has shown that Weber was able to satisfactorily answer Maxwell, but that has been forgotten.
So who was right? A crucial experiment demonstrated it was Weber, not Maxwell. Weber’s theory predicts a null result in Michelson-Morley because the apparatus is at rest with itself. Maxwell predicted a fringe shift because the apparatus was moving through space.
This is where it gets deep. Rather than accepting the MM results and building from there, physicists began monkeying with time and space to preserve the ether. Fitzgerald first proposed “length contraction” and Lorentz derived mathematical conversions to preserve Maxwell’s equations for moving charges.
In 1905, Einstein stepped in with special relativity. What Einstein did was devious. He first admitted that all experimental results (including light speed) followed the relativity principle (Weber). Next, he claimed he could reconcile Weber and Maxwell without Maxwell’s ether. But he slipped Maxwell in through the side door with two words in his definition of “constancy of light speed”—“through space.”
Later, Einstein resurrected the ether through the concept of “curved space” in general relativity. However, even Einstein could not preserve Maxwell’s concept of constancy of light speed throughout space.
Weber’s theory is not inconsistent with the Lorentz contractions underlying special relativity. Instead of relative motion of electrical charges (i.e., matter, which is composed of protons and electrons), Einstein referred to abstract “reference frames.” But even the tiniest instrument must be composed of atoms, so a reference frame is simply matter. Einstein merely restates Weber.
To my knowledge, all experimental results to date continue to support Weber and not Maxwell. So here is my question: Why are we still discussing Maxwell’s useless “permittivity and permeability of free space,” which even Heaviside recognized were “not so helpful terms?”
Parmenides didn't know about banks creating "money" out of nothing, bý lending "money" they don't have!
Lol a bill that will soon come due, then we all the wisdom of his words.
How about "Fundamental Space" as more substantial than "Free."
"Free space" is already in common use, and I don't think it's so far off the mark as to hassle with trying to coin a new term for the aether.
Actually, seems that aether is getting a well-deserved come back. :)
Somewhat disappointed the answer isn't boxer shorts.
That would violate Ohm’s law!