3 ms·

An alternative to Maxwell's equations: Weber Electrodynamics

hilbert42 5y ago
A few days ago there was an article on HN tiled Electromagnetism is a property of spacetime itself, study finds. https://sciencex.com/news/2021-07-electromagnetism-property-spacetime.html https://sciencex.com/news/2021-07-electromagnetism-property-.... The HN comments are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27942970#27944642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27942970#27944642 It'd be heresy to question Maxwell's equations without good reason and I'm not going to do that. (By that I mean classical EM—both Maxwell's own eqns and Heaviside's cleanup thereof as well as their SR extensions.) However, it's always worried me that these days we principally view them from the perspective of SR (Special Relativity). Perhaps if we want to push the physics further then eventually we should shift and only view them in the purest sense—i.e. from the perspective of GR/General Relativity. (No doubt, that would pose some significant problems, for starters more people would need to get their heads better attuned to GR.) That then brings us back to this quote from Einstein "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would be no propagation of light". This conflicts directly with his (the commonly understood) view of SR which is that the æther is unnecessary for EM (he says so in the opening statements of his 1905 paper)! I've not thought through what that means in any detailed way in the context of how Weber electrodynamics would fit with GR (or even a modified GR), as GR's field equations tend to fry my brain somewhat, but clearly (as the article says) we need to eventually resolve the matter. No doubt, this would also mean tidying up QED (by having a better underlying understanding of it in addition to its remarkable ability to solve problems). I won't expand on this here just yet as I realize how 'untidy' my post was to that earlier story so I'll add some additional comments there which will expand upon why I'm uneasy with the dichotomy. Incidentally, I've thought for some while that that earlier story (and Einstein's GR comment) is on the right track but it's never had much mainstream traction as this Quora article suggests: https://www.quora.com/Einstein-said-According-to-the-general-theory-of-relativity-space-without-ether-is-unthinkable-for-in-such-space-there-would-be-no-propagation-of-light-so-why-are-modern-physicists-so-against-any-form-of-aether https://www.quora.com/Einstein-said-According-to-the-general... With this in mind I would be interested to hear what others think about whether Weber electrodynamics may provide a better (or additional) understanding than we have now if both it and GR were to be eventually mated in some way.
- al2o3cr 5y ago
  "Einstein said this once in a lecture and then never again" is not a persuasive argument, as most every reply to that Quora post points out. "Weber electrodynamics" is strongly counter-indicated by multiple experiments; there's no "matter that needs to be resolved". as GR's field equations tend to fry my brain somewhat You cannot have a meaningful discussion about these topics without UNDERSTANDING the theory you're criticizing.
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    OK, fine, I accept what you're saying (but I wasn't criticizing anything other than to draw attention to matters that various authorities have opposing opinions about). Leave me out of it, in the grand schema of things what I think is completely irrelevant. Let me say I'm in the middle on this and I'm not pushing a barrow either way (other than to point out that there are alternative views). It's just that whenever this issue comes up expert views polarize one way or other and nothing is resolved—anyway, nothing that's yet made it into the textbooks that would alter them. Moreover, that "Einstein said this once in a lecture and then never again" doesn't help as he never clarified the matter. That he said it after 1905 makes matters worse, as it's his last word on the matter it's left open-ended. The question remains why didn't he clarify it (it's hard to believe that he wasn't hyper-aware of his 1905 statement when he said it). Right, Weber seems counter-indicated or it'd be in fashion/a part of the argument, the point I was making but obviously didn't was that there may be a connection if Einstein's latter statement were true. What want I to hear is your authoritative criticism of the article in the first link. As you have an alternative view, I'd like to hear your reasons for debunking it, so I'd appreciate it if you would provide details. (I reckon I've enough understanding of Λ, the metric tensor, Ricci curvature tensor, Riemannian metric/manifold, etc. to wade my way through your reply—if not then I'm sure others would understand it). My aim was to get a better understanding of this subject myself not to provide an authoritative pronouncement on the matter. After all, it's my understanding that no one yet has definitive answers about these issues otherwise the whole QM/GR/G debate/relationships would have been put to bed by now. Clearly, they've not been and we've still a major problem.
- kordlessagain 5y ago

A few days ago there was an article on HN tiled Electromagnetism is a property of spacetime itself, study finds. https://sciencex.com/news/2021-07-electromagnetism-property-spacetime.html https://sciencex.com/news/2021-07-electromagnetism-property-.... The HN comments are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27942970#27944642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27942970#27944642 It'd be heresy to question Maxwell's equations without good reason and I'm not going to do that. (By that I mean classical EM—both Maxwell's own eqns and Heaviside's cleanup thereof as well as their SR extensions.) However, it's always worried me that these days we principally view them from the perspective of SR (Special Relativity). Perhaps if we want to push the physics further then eventually we should shift and only view them in the purest sense—i.e. from the perspective of GR/General Relativity. (No doubt, that would pose some significant problems, for starters more people would need to get their heads better attuned to GR.) That then brings us back to this quote from Einstein "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would be no propagation of light". This conflicts directly with his (the commonly understood) view of SR which is that the æther is unnecessary for EM (he says so in the opening statements of his 1905 paper)! I've not thought through what that means in any detailed way in the context of how Weber electrodynamics would fit with GR (or even a modified GR), as GR's field equations tend to fry my brain somewhat, but clearly (as the article says) we need to eventually resolve the matter. No doubt, this would also mean tidying up QED (by having a better underlying understanding of it in addition to its remarkable ability to solve problems). I won't expand on this here just yet as I realize how 'untidy' my post was to that earlier story so I'll add some additional comments there which will expand upon why I'm uneasy with the dichotomy. Incidentally, I've thought for some while that that earlier story (and Einstein's GR comment) is on the right track but it's never had much mainstream traction as this Quora article suggests: https://www.quora.com/Einstein-said-According-to-the-general-theory-of-relativity-space-without-ether-is-unthinkable-for-in-such-space-there-would-be-no-propagation-of-light-so-why-are-modern-physicists-so-against-any-form-of-aether https://www.quora.com/Einstein-said-According-to-the-general... With this in mind I would be interested to hear what others think about whether Weber electrodynamics may provide a better (or additional) understanding than we have now if both it and GR were to be eventually mated in some way.

al2o3cr 5y ago
"Einstein said this once in a lecture and then never again" is not a persuasive argument, as most every reply to that Quora post points out. "Weber electrodynamics" is strongly counter-indicated by multiple experiments; there's no "matter that needs to be resolved". as GR's field equations tend to fry my brain somewhat You cannot have a meaningful discussion about these topics without UNDERSTANDING the theory you're criticizing.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  OK, fine, I accept what you're saying (but I wasn't criticizing anything other than to draw attention to matters that various authorities have opposing opinions about). Leave me out of it, in the grand schema of things what I think is completely irrelevant. Let me say I'm in the middle on this and I'm not pushing a barrow either way (other than to point out that there are alternative views). It's just that whenever this issue comes up expert views polarize one way or other and nothing is resolved—anyway, nothing that's yet made it into the textbooks that would alter them. Moreover, that "Einstein said this once in a lecture and then never again" doesn't help as he never clarified the matter. That he said it after 1905 makes matters worse, as it's his last word on the matter it's left open-ended. The question remains why didn't he clarify it (it's hard to believe that he wasn't hyper-aware of his 1905 statement when he said it). Right, Weber seems counter-indicated or it'd be in fashion/a part of the argument, the point I was making but obviously didn't was that there may be a connection if Einstein's latter statement were true. What want I to hear is your authoritative criticism of the article in the first link. As you have an alternative view, I'd like to hear your reasons for debunking it, so I'd appreciate it if you would provide details. (I reckon I've enough understanding of Λ, the metric tensor, Ricci curvature tensor, Riemannian metric/manifold, etc. to wade my way through your reply—if not then I'm sure others would understand it). My aim was to get a better understanding of this subject myself not to provide an authoritative pronouncement on the matter. After all, it's my understanding that no one yet has definitive answers about these issues otherwise the whole QM/GR/G debate/relationships would have been put to bed by now. Clearly, they've not been and we've still a major problem.
kordlessagain 5y ago