Action at a Distance = Fiction

[Michael V]

Sparky,

So no single isolated "photon" and no single isolated electron, both examined continuously in detail from start to finish.

The effect on electrons by the signal changes after the initial interaction. Since the signal cannot be examined, has no "mass" and no ponderable physical construction, then the signal ("photon") cannot be examined by any possible method. The only insight that may be considered as in any way "knowable" is the change in behaviour of the electrons.

In my opinion, the energy carrying "photon" is a conceptual relic derived of our prehistoric origins, as is the concept of energy transmission in general.

Michael

[sjw40364]

Quantum Mechanics is a way to explain the universe without having to explain anything at all. Virtual particles, particles in two places at once until you look for them. Some things about it I like, but overall it is just a cop-out, a way to say we have no idea without admitting we have no idea.

Science is full of fudges, even down to the basics we take for granted. Energy, potential energy, none understood but taken for granted.

Are thier even any scientists trying to figure out what causes what we term electricity since Einstien said not to bother to look?

[Goldminer]

Quantum Mechanics is a way to explain the universe without having to explain anything at all. Virtual particles, particles in two places at once until you look for them. Some things about it I like, but overall it is just a cop-out, a way to say we have no idea without admitting we have no idea.

Science is full of fudges, even down to the basics we take for granted. Energy, potential energy, none understood but taken for granted.

Are there even any scientists trying to figure out what causes what we term electricity since Einstein said not to bother to look?

Here is an out take from an editorial in Science and Technology Magazine that makes your point about Einstein and Maxwell:

Maxwell’s Fraud Summarized

. . . Unfortunately, the Ampère Memoire is almost never read today; only a small portion of the 200-page work was ever translated into English, and even French speakers rarely, if ever, trouble to work through it. The reason is that James Clerk Maxwell, in the middle of the 19th century, made a new mathematical formulation of the laws of electricity, which he claimed was algebraically equivalent to that of Ampère and Ampère’s successor in the development of the electrical laws, Wilhelm Weber.

Not only did Maxwell make this formulation, but, one must add in all honesty, British political-military hegemony at the time imposed the new view on many reluctant, sometimes even obstinately so, opponents on all continents.

Maxwell’s formulation, however, eliminated consideration of the angular component of the force between current elements. It also removed the most fundamental of Ampère’s assumptions—the unity of electricity and magnetism—by introducing the concept of a magnetic field. There is no magnetic field in any of the writings of Ampère, nor of his successors in electrodynamics, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, and Bernhard Riemann. Magnetism, for them, is considered an epiphenomenon of electricity; it is the force of electrodynamic attraction or repulsion acting between circuits of electricity, called magnetic molecules (and which came to be known later as electrons).

This forgotten part of the history of the subject is most important to what we are about to show.

The First Unipolar Machines

But to return to the thread of our story, I soon became aware of some closely related developments. In 1840, Wilhelm Weber, who then shared with Gauss the leadership of the worldwide association for the study of the Earth’s magnetic forces known as the Magnetische Verein, published in the journal of that society a paper titled “Unipolar Induction.” In it, he described his study of a phenomenon first discovered by Ampère.

Begin with a cylindrical steel rod, magnetized along its axis. If the lead wires from a battery are brought into contact with the magnet such that the magnet is not constrained in its motion (as by brushes), one brush touching it at the top of its central axis, and the other along the circumference of the cylinder and roughly midway between the two poles, the magnet will rotate around its own axis for as long as the current continues to flow. Ampère created such an electric motor, which Faraday had deemed impossible, in 1822.

Unipolar induction, a term apparently due to Weber, by which he seems to mean induction of an electrical current in one direction only (pure direct current in our modern terms), refers to the converse situation. The magnet is rotated, as by a crank, generating an electric current in the lead wires. Weber had some difficulty accounting for the phenomenon, until he modified what he thought was Ampère’s conception of the magnetic molecule to suppose that two separate magnetic fluids (north and south) were contained within the magnetic molecule, and that the portion of the current flowing through the magnet followed a path midway between them.

After Weber, many more studies were made of the unipolar induction. In the 1870s, E. Edlund in Sweden showed that the magnet could be kept stationary, and, instead, a steel cylinder which surrounds it, but which need not be in physical contact with it, could be rotated, producing the same effects. The American physicist E.H. Hall mentions the researches of Edlund as having contributed in some important way to his 1879 discovery of the transverse current phenomenon, now known as the Hall Effect.2

In another form of the unipolar induction, a rotatable steel disk is situated between two steel plates bearing opposite magnetic poles. Brushes with lead wires running from them are brought into contact with the disk at a point near its center, and at a point, or points, along the circumference. Upon rotation of the disk, a significant current is generated in the wires. Description of this form of the apparatus, called a unipolar or homopolar generator, can be found in older textbooks on electrical principles.

In one book, I learned that such machines were being produced commercially by the General Electric and Westinghouse Companies in the 1920s. Such devices can produce very high, pure direct currents, without the need for rectifiers or commutators, but have the disadvantage of producing only low voltages.

Forbidden Words

Readers familiar with the ways of physicists may know, however, that raising the topic of unipolar generators and motors among them is most likely to produce grimaces, embarrassed smiles, or other looks of dismay. The reason for this only became clear to me a short time ago. Up to that time, I had naively thought that there was some doubt as to the actual existence of the effect, so negative is the reaction to the mere mention of the words.

Now I understand, what many already knew, that it is part of the codified religion of the self-anointed priesthood known as academically accredited 20th-century physicists, that such a topic is not to be discussed. The reason is, that Einstein said so.

I began to suspect so just recently, when, a friend, after seeing a demonstration of the backward-rolling steel pipe, opened up a 1950s textbook on electrodynamics to the section on “homopolar generators.” In it, the author described a generator of the rotating disk type just described above. The author went on to say that if the disk is kept stationary and, instead, the magnetic plates surrounding it are rotated, no current is generated!

Students often have difficulty grasping why this should be so, the author tells us. But, he explains to them that they must understand that when the magnets are rotated, the magnetic field lines do not rotate with them!3 Further, the textbook author suggests, one must consider the inertial framework of the observer and the apparatus. Finally, he tells us, that when students still don’t yield, he clears things up by presenting them with another case. He then describes a more complicated experiment involving the relative motion of magnet, steel bar, and ammeter, in which eight different outcomes are possible. And there the chapter ends. Surely, then, everything is clear.

Enter Einstein

I am in some ways naive, but one does not live a large portion of one’s life in New York City without developing a certain instinct for knowing when he is being swindled. A look into yet another but older textbook (under what perverse impulsion I know not), brought me nearer to the truth. For here, on page 8, just upon entering the topic of electrostatics, we are told that, before going any further, we must become familiar with the concept of inertial frames. (That was 1930, when everybody was not so familiar with this idea.) For situations arise in which an observer in one inertial frame will measure an electric field and no magnetic field, while another might measure both an electric and a magnetic field, for example. If we do not take into account inertial frames, we are warned, many problems in electrodynamics, especially those involving rotating magnets will create difficulties for us.

Just at that point I began to suspect the exact nature of the swindle. Was it possible, that—despite all the talk of moving trains, clocks, and shrinking rods—the anomaly being addressed in Special Relativity was actually the much more mundane case before me—the asymmetry between motion of the magnet and motion of the disk? Then I remembered the title of Einstein’s famous paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Suddenly, its first paragraph made sense:

“It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. . . .”

Was Einstein talking about anything other than the anomaly of the sort manifested in the unipolar generator? If there were any doubt, one needed only to turn to “II. Electrodynamical Part, Section 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring in a Magnetic Field During Motion.” There, in the last paragraph we read:

“Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the ‘seat’ of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point.”

And so, a true physical anomaly has been caused to disappear by the introduction of an arbitrary postulate—and an absurd one, at that. Thus are Maxwell’s equations “saved.” Could a magician do better?

There, dear reader, is the fraud—or a big part of it—which today’s well-paid fraternity of professional physicists are committed to defend.4 Heed and respect these hoaxsters if you wish. You will pay, like Faust, with your soul. Science, like all creative practice, is a precious tradition of thought, which begins with a profound and religious love for one’s fellow man, and most of all, for those among one’s predecessors who have ventured into that fearful territory “from whose bourn no traveller returns”: the realm of independent, creative thought. Nothing will so quickly turn a gifted thinker into a hopeless sack of lost potential, as moral compromise.

There is the challenge for science, as we enter the new millennium.

—Laurence Hecht

IMHO, it is Einstein's reification of "inertial frames" that is part of the slight of hand. Skewing coordinate systems and diagonal going "photons" do not happen. His explanation of "relativity of simultaneity" is ambiguous. The order of events that successively happen in one place in space never change, no matter the speed of any observer, anywhere. If one considers two strobe lights separated by a given distance, that emit a light pulse simultaneously (easily done by sending a signal from a location half way between); an observer at either strobe location will see the other strobe emit its pulse after the local emission. This observed disagreement in the order of events happens with no motion of observers or emitters.

Most people fail to understand that we experience "relativity of simultaneity" all the time in everything we see: Distant events arrive at our eyes simultaneously with the local events, even though the distant events are older, past events delayed by the latency of light at a foot per nanosecond. Once you understand these basic principles, Einstein's theory becomes merely a sophomoric fantasy.

Here is a quote from a University syllabus about "relativity of simultaneity":

"Events are any physical occurrence that happens at a specific location at a specific time.
This a definition.

Two events which appear to be simultaneous in one reference frame are in general not simultaneous in a second frame moving with respect to the first."

The professor who wrote the above quote makes this conclusion:
"Time is Relative: Time interval measurements depend on the frame in which they are measured."

Hopefully you can see the silliness and ambiguity of the above quote, when you understand that the discrepancy in order of events is caused by location of the observers, not their motion. Motion merely changes location. The "time interval" does not depend upon the "frame in which they are measured," It depends upon the distance between observer and event.

[saul]

Quantum Mechanics is a way to explain the universe without having to explain anything at all. Virtual particles, particles in two places at once until you look for them. Some things about it I like, but overall it is just a cop-out, a way to say we have no idea without admitting we have no idea.

Virtual particle theory is hardly indicative of the success of quantum mechanics. I would start with the photoelectric effect, predicting atomic emission lines, blackbody radation (the "ultraviolet catastrophe") and the utility of the Schrodinger equation. The description of available electron energies in a semiconductor is also a relevant success.

There may be much to quibble with how it is taught, interpreted, and reported on, but it will be more productive to point out your objections directly rather than to suggest that quantum mechanics and all that entails is flawed.

Are there even any scientists trying to figure out what causes what we term electricity since Einstein said not to bother to look?

Yes to the first, and I'm pretty sure that is not a proper paraphrase of Einstein's view.

Here is an out take from an editorial in Science and Technology Magazine that makes your point about Einstein and Maxwell:

Maxwell’s Fraud Summarized
[...]

Enter Einstein

“Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the ‘seat’ of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point.”

And so, a true physical anomaly has been caused to disappear by the introduction of an arbitrary postulate—and an absurd one, at that. Thus are Maxwell’s equations “saved.” Could a magician do better?


—Laurence Hecht

Thanks for the interesting article. However I'm not sure what the physical anomaly you refer to is. I don't think Einstein is saying there is no need to look further, but rather that the forces, charges, fields, are part of the same package. None is more "fundamental" than another at this level.

Most people fail to understand that we experience "relativity of simultaneity" all the time in everything we see: Distant events arrive at our eyes simultaneously with the local events, even though the distant events are older, past events delayed by the latency of light at a foot per nanosecond. Once you understand these basic principles, Einstein's theory becomes merely a sophomoric fantasy.

I disagree. The delay of light travel time is included in our determination of "when" an even occurred. The relativity theory is less of a theory and more of a protocol that gives us a clear and direct definition of how to measure distance and time intervals, namely, with electromagnetic fields. One need only to look up "meter" in the dictionary to see the fundamental premise of special relativity. The rest of special relativity follows as a consequence of following this protocol.

Here is a quote from a University syllabus about "relativity of simultaneity":

"Events are any physical occurrence that happens at a specific location at a specific time.
This a definition.

Two events which appear to be simultaneous in one reference frame are in general not simultaneous in a second frame moving with respect to the first."

The professor who wrote the above quote makes this conclusion:
"Time is Relative: Time interval measurements depend on the frame in which they are measured."

Hopefully you can see the silliness and ambiguity of the above quote, when you understand that the discrepancy in order of events is caused by location of the observers, not their motion. Motion merely changes location. The "time interval" does not depend upon the "frame in which they are measured," It depends upon the distance between observer and event.

The time interval indeed does depend on relative motion. We don't order events by when light from the event reaches us, but by when we believe the event occurred. And this ordering of events will not necessarily be agreed on by observers in relative motion. Take a look at the Hafele-Keating experiment.

[Lloyd]

How do these recent posts relate to the topic of this thread: Action at a Distance?

[Goldminer]

How do these recent posts relate to the topic of this thread: Action at a Distance?

Well , Lloyd, as I was posting my last post, I was asking myself the same question! I rationalized it by thinking that I regard light as waves in the aether medium. Thus, since the aether itself cannot be detected, we have "Action at a Distance!" Now I know this is highly disputed by others on this thread, but then, my idea is out there with the rest. I should have gone back and edited the post with this thought, but the "editing window" does not stay open very long.

I did double post my comment over on the Silly Einstein thread, just to branch this thread. Anyone is welcome to criticize the post over there. In fact, I will copy Saul's post over to that thread and comment on it there.

How about that?

[Goldminer]

Quantum Mechanics is a way to explain the universe without having to explain anything at all. Virtual particles, particles in two places at once until you look for them. Some things about it I like, but overall it is just a cop-out, a way to say we have no idea without admitting we have no idea.

Virtual particle theory is hardly indicative of the success of quantum mechanics. I would start with the photoelectric effect, predicting atomic emission lines, blackbody radation (the "ultraviolet catastrophe") and the utility of the Schrodinger equation. The description of available electron energies in a semiconductor is also a relevant success.

There may be much to quibble with how it is taught, interpreted, and reported on, but it will be more productive to point out your objections directly rather than to suggest that quantum mechanics and all that entails is flawed.

Are there even any scientists trying to figure out what causes what we term electricity since Einstein said not to bother to look?

Yes to the first, and I'm pretty sure that is not a proper paraphrase of Einstein's view.

Here is an out take from an editorial in Science and Technology Magazine that makes your point about Einstein and Maxwell:

Maxwell’s Fraud Summarized
[...]

Enter Einstein

“Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the ‘seat’ of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point.”

And so, a true physical anomaly has been caused to disappear by the introduction of an arbitrary postulate—and an absurd one, at that. Thus are Maxwell’s equations “saved.” Could a magician do better?


—Laurence Hecht

Thanks for the interesting article. However I'm not sure what the physical anomaly you refer to is. I don't think Einstein is saying there is no need to look further, but rather that the forces, charges, fields, are part of the same package. None is more "fundamental" than another at this level.

Most people fail to understand that we experience "relativity of simultaneity" all the time in everything we see: Distant events arrive at our eyes simultaneously with the local events, even though the distant events are older, past events delayed by the latency of light at a foot per nanosecond. Once you understand these basic principles, Einstein's theory becomes merely a sophomoric fantasy.

I disagree. The delay of light travel time is included in our determination of "when" an even occurred. The relativity theory is less of a theory and more of a protocol that gives us a clear and direct definition of how to measure distance and time intervals, namely, with electromagnetic fields. One need only to look up "meter" in the dictionary to see the fundamental premise of special relativity. The rest of special relativity follows as a consequence of following this protocol.

Here is a quote from a University syllabus about "relativity of simultaneity":

"Events are any physical occurrence that happens at a specific location at a specific time.
This a definition.

Two events which appear to be simultaneous in one reference frame are in general not simultaneous in a second frame moving with respect to the first."

The professor who wrote the above quote makes this conclusion:
"Time is Relative: Time interval measurements depend on the frame in which they are measured."

Hopefully you can see the silliness and ambiguity of the above quote, when you understand that the discrepancy in order of events is caused by location of the observers, not their motion. Motion merely changes location. The "time interval" does not depend upon the "frame in which they are measured," It depends upon the distance between observer and event.

The time interval indeed does depend on relative motion. We don't order events by when light from the event reaches us, but by when we believe the event occurred. And this ordering of events will not necessarily be agreed on by observers in relative motion. Take a look at the Hafele-Keating experiment.

Lloyd is right, about staying on point in this thread. So, my comments on your post here are now on the Silly Einstein Thread

I am interested in your further comments, please follow the link.

[Lloyd]

Photons

GM said: regard light as waves in the aether medium. Thus, since the aether itself cannot be detected, we have "Action at a Distance!"

* I figured the discussion was probably somewhat related to this topic, but I'd like it to be clear how it's related.
* If light is photons and the photons are the aether, then the connection is a bit clearer. My thought was that attraction isn't real, but is merely an illusion, and what's real is repulsion. Action at a distance is attraction. But repulsion can cause the appearance of attraction. Emission of photons should produce a low pressure at the point of emission, which would tend to be filled in by higher pressure from the surroundings where aether/photons are repelled inward until the pressure equalizes.
Stacked Spins and Atoms
* I posted my recent idea on this at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 538#p71503. I said there that a spinning photon in a sea of non-spinning photons should produce a lower pressure at the spinning photon, because motion produces lower pressure, as is the case where 2 pingpong balls are suspended an inch or so apart. Blowing air between the balls causes them to move together as long as the air is moving. That means the lower pressure of a spinning photon should "draw" other photons to stick to it. In the other thread I show how the photon clumps may form disks and spheres and stacked spins, like Mathis' model. The disks could become electrons and protons and maybe the spheres could become neutrons, although the masses don't work out well offhand.

[Goldminer]

Photons

GM said: regard light as waves in the aether medium. Thus, since the aether itself cannot be detected, we have "Action at a Distance!"

* I figured the discussion was probably somewhat related to this topic, but I'd like it to be clear how it's related.
* If light is photons and the photons are the aether, then the connection is a bit clearer. My thought was that attraction isn't real, but is merely an illusion, and what's real is repulsion. Action at a distance is attraction. But repulsion can cause the appearance of attraction. Emission of photons should produce a low pressure at the point of emission, which would tend to be filled in by higher pressure from the surroundings where aether/photons are repelled inward until the pressure equalizes.
Stacked Spins and Atoms
* I posted my recent idea on this at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 538#p71503. I said there that a spinning photon in a sea of non-spinning photons should produce a lower pressure at the spinning photon, because motion produces lower pressure, as is the case where 2 pingpong balls are suspended an inch or so apart. Blowing air between the balls causes them to move together as long as the air is moving. That means the lower pressure of a spinning photon should "draw" other photons to stick to it. In the other thread I show how the photon clumps may form disks and spheres and stacked spins, like Mathis' model. The disks could become electrons and protons and maybe the spheres could become neutrons, although the masses don't work out well offhand.

Lloyd, I just explained how the makeup of the aether cannot consist of "photons," so . . . IMHO, your idea doesn't fly! But then who the hell am I to say? I'll put your theory right up there with Einstein's. How's that for you? (Where have "photon clumps" been found?) As far as I can determine, "they" only proceed away from emission in a rectilinear fashion.

[webolife]

I don't believe in attraction. I believe in centropic action. It is all a push from the scale of the universe to the scale of atoms. The "apparent" attraction mentioned by Lloyd is perhaps due to the insipient paradigm of emission. We have been trained to think that light is flying "stuff" hitting us from the direction of the source, rather than seeing it as the action of a centropic pressure field felt from "behind" our retina in the direction of the source/centroid as a sink. Confronting this new paradigm at first makes us want to regard light as a "tug" but this sseming attraction is only an affront to the old paradigm. Neither light, nor gravitation, nor electrical voltage are attractions; but neither are they emissions! All are centropic pushes/repulsions from the universal field.
IMHO

[Sparky]

webo-, your position totally confuses me...

[webolife]

Sparky,
Here are my "sense-makers" -- see if you can understand these whether or not you agree with them...
-- Is the universe finite?
-- Is there a single universal field?
-- If so, every body is a member of it and acted upon by it.
-- As there would be nothing "outside" the universe for it to act upon, the universal field must be centropic.
-- The action of the universal field must be felt as a pressure [a push or a pull on a surface]. A radiometer illustrates this in a very simple way.
-- If it is universal then there is no distinction in its action on one locus and its action on another, by which I mean that an action in one part of the universe is felt by other resonant parts of the universe.
-- Intensity of reaction is a function of distance squared because of the increasing surface ratio.
-- With respect to any one local center/centroid/source, all pressure vectors are directed toward it [centropic].

Thus if the sun's light is a result of a centropic action, my viewing it is a function of that centropic action.
This is where the paradigm of emission breaks down -- and where my AAAD paradigm fits, as an example:
At the solar surface, an electron [yes quite a few of them] falls toward a lower energy state [under relentless centropic pressure] -- as it does so, other objects in the local field are also being pushed in that direction. The radial nature of this field is such that the closer the observer is to the centroid, the greater the vector density experienced by the observer. If the retina is oriented toward the centroid, and the eye is open, then the retinal cells react to this push and light is experienced. Looking away from the centroid the vectors are operating in the opposite direction, and "dark" is perceived, unless reflected vectors are available for detection.

The centropic nature of light, in this paradigm, unifies it with gravitation, as well as with voltage [the "ground-seeking" nature of electricity] -- all are observed as actions at a distance, and the alleged c-rate for light action is unnecessary and untenable.

[Sparky]

Thank you for further clarification..

Yes, I think that I understand that. No, I don't agree.

Is the universe finite?

We have no way of knowing, at this time. Does this theory hinge upon a finite universe?

At the solar surface, an electron [yes quite a few of them] falls toward a lower energy state [under relentless centropic pressure] -- as it does so, other objects in the local field are also being pushed in that direction.

What happens when they move up in energy state? If CP (centropic pressure) is relentlessly forcing lower energy states, it seems that that would be violating several laws.

At the edge of your universe, what generates the CP? What defines the edge of a universe?

[Goldminer]

Thank you for further clarification..

Yes, I think that I understand that. No, I don't agree.

Is the universe finite?

We have no way of knowing, at this time. Does this theory hinge upon a finite universe?

At the solar surface, an electron [yes quite a few of them] falls toward a lower energy state [under relentless centropic pressure] -- as it does so, other objects in the local field are also being pushed in that direction.

What happens when they move up in energy state? If CP (centropic pressure) is relentlessly forcing lower energy states, it seems that that would be violating several laws.

At the edge of your universe, what generates the CP? What defines the edge of a universe?

Good points, Sparky. Imagining "theories" is not "doing theoretical physics," it is doing science fiction.

Webo has come up with some brilliant comments and ideas, and is a valuable asset here on the Tbolt forum, but his "Webocentric" light theory isn't one of them. I have trouble communicating with him because he won't comment on what I see as big problems for the theory. He just glosses over the comments. Consequently, and unfortunately, I therefore have to gloss his theory.

[Lloyd]

GM: I have trouble communicating with him because he won't comment on what I see as big problems for the theory. He just glosses over the comments. Consequently, and unfortunately, I therefore have to gloss his theory.

Why not tell us what you see as big problems for his theory? There's a lot I don't understand about his idea either.