There is no ether. There will never be an explanation of why for any science, just descriptions of what is and how that things happen. To stupid students who insist on the why, it will be an endless further chain of why questions and you will ultimately arrive at why any exists at all!? And there will be no good answer.
You are an excellent example of the attitude of modern physicists, the attitude which responds to this student's excellent question, and justified anger, with condescension. While it is true that "why" questions continue in a chain, and they will eventually terminate with "that's just the nature of the existents involved." Asking that question is exactly what has spurred scientific and technological progress. "What is the underlying nature of heat?" Lead to an understanding of heat as motion and enabled exact calculations which have made efficient engines possible. "Why do chemicals change in the way that they do?" Lead to the atomic theory of matter; which enables us to make custom materials that would not have been possible if we had just done what you would have done, which would be to play with equations about the mass ratios of chemical reactions and not ask why they were the way that they were. I could fill a book with further examples, but hopefully you see the point. "Why" questions and their answers have been the primary driver of scientific progress. If scientists had your attitude throughout history, we would still be stuck describing the motions of the planets with epicycles, starving to death during unexpected weather events and dying of malaria.
you have confused your own confirmation bias with knowledge and the result is a direct attack on science. Science is a method for evaluating evidence and there can always be more evidence. Your assertions are appeals to some kind of proof, but proof is subjective outside of math and therefore an anathema to science.
It's completely unnessary with QM where particles can take quite literally any path. We don't need an extra medium to explain the weird behavior of anything. Its just occams razors really. Like Einstien never debunked aether. He just didn't include it or bring it up. Because it wasnt necessary, and we don't need to add things we don't need.
I had no idea that Maxwell had created a model of the ether. Thanks for bring this to my attention, as well as the fact that his model does not get us to the physical nature we are looking for.
It took me a while, in my many years of thinking about E & M, to wrap my mind around the fact that the magnetic *force* is perpendicular to the magnetic "field" lines. That bothered me for a long time... until I came to the simple realization that the *field* lines are also, themselves in terms of a cross-product.... and that ultimately, in the end, once you mathematically evaluate *both* of those cross-products, the (so-called "magnetic") FORCE upon a charge ends-up being IN LINE with the the charge-in-motion that "gives rise to" the "magnetic field." In other words.... it *still* all comes down to charges either attracting or repelling each other IN-THE-LINE between the two charges. (Just now, I spoke in terms of just two point-charges... but the principle applies when integrating some volume of charge and/or currents). In my view... the so-called "magnetic field" is *purely* a mathematical abstraction. A mathematical convenience to deal with what is really only a relativistic side-effect of (or upon) the plain-old Coulomb "field" / "force" between charges in motion. Because of my perspective... I have had exactly ZERO interest in any talk about "magnetic monopoles." I have no curiosity, no need or desire to entertain any notion of "magnetic monopoles" because, to me "magnetism" *isn't* "a thing." I know that historically, "magnetic" effects were more-apparent and more-studied than plain-old electrical/coloumb effects. And I think it's unfortunate that researchers were seemingly STUCK on the primacy of "magnetism" as-a-thing before they developed a better understanding of the plain-old electrical force. I'm not necessarily saying that Maxwell was led-astray when he went on to develop his equations of E & M. But I think it's unfortunate that those equations reinforce the idea that the Electric and Magnetic "forces" are somehow distinctly separate things (though related). In my view: They AREN'T distinctly separate things. There are just charges.... in motion... exerting forces on each other. And mathematical contrivances for describing it. There is one singular reality... and relativistic effects also need to be accounted for. The 4 equations are, thus far, the most eloquent way to describe all that. (Although.... if you take a look at Geometric (aka "Clifford") Algebra, ALL FOUR of those equations can be collapsed down to ONE extremely compact and simple equation - - - a beautiful thing. ALSO: (And James, I don't know whether you remember you and I already talking about this a while back): I'm at a point where I am not even comfortable saying that "fields" (even the Coulomb field) are any sort of "thing..." ... *physical" "thing." Setting aside deeper questions about matter itself.... the only "things" that are real are bits of matter, and the only "actions" that are real are how they move in response to each other. Our language for identifying and talking about all that (i.e.: mathematics) is all just abstraction. The stuff we call "properties" of a certain location in space... in terms of "fields" is *not* completely objective. If you ask *any* number of observers whether an event occurred at a certain place or time (for example, the collision of two particles), the answer is *definitively* "YES" or "NO" for all observers. They may need to make the universally agreed-upon adjustments to their coordinates and relativistic effects of time dilation and length-contraction to describe where-and-when it happened in relation to each frame of reference, but they MUST all agree about whether the collision occurred or not. [Contradictions don't exist]. AND similarly, if you ask *any* number of observers for a coherent explanation of how some number of charged particles will affect each other (i.e.: how their motions will evolve in time with respect to each other, given their relative charges, masses, and dynamics), they will *ALL* agree on the specific effects (again, once accounting for adjustments to coordinates and relativistic effects). ***BUT*** If you ask everyone to objectively assess the magnitude and direction of both the Electric and Magnetic "fields" at any (properly relativistically-adjusted space-time coordinates), they will NOT agree. Let's say there is a cardboard box that everyone agrees exists, and everyone agrees where it exists at a given point in space-time. Let's say that for some observer at-rest in the same frame of reference as the cardboard box, there is a simple, static net-positive charge sitting around, not in motion, and therefore they can calculate the magnitude and direction of the so-called "Electric Field" in-and-around the region near that box. They would *also* calculate that the so-called "Magnetic Field" is exactly zero, since there are no charges in motion in this frame of reference. But... for some observer in-motion respect to that box, they will see that net-positive charge also in-motion, and they will necessarily (according to Maxwell) calculate that there *IS* a so-called "magnetic" field, with some non-zero magnitude, and some particular direction, AT-THE-VERY-SAME-SpaceTime-Coordinate (near the box) that the original observer said there was *NO* "magnetic" field at all. Further: Additional observers in other frames will calculate *different* magnitudes and directions for the so-called "magnetic" field, also at that very-same space-time coordinate near the box. Ultimately: *ALL* Observers will agree on the the physical effects/outcomes.... but they will *not* agree on ANY OBJECTIVITY of the "magnetic" (or even the Coulomb) field, at all. Sorry this was so long.
@@elfeiin That part rang true to me too because time is the same way, it really doesnt exsit on its own, its an emmergent effect of all this motion, simply change. If motion stopped, what we call time would also stop because we demark time by change due to motion, but if things didnt move there would be no change and therefore no time. This idea also agrees with relativity because speeding up to the speed of light is actually slowing down relative to all this motion. So slowing down everything means slowing the change due to motion and slowing down time, and thats been observed in experiment (as you speed up you slow down time) Therefore time is also an emmergent effect of motion. I have a hunch gravity is the same way. Not a thing itself but an effect from something.
@@tonypalmeri722 Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I had to set aside the time that the comment deserved. When you say that B is itself a result of a cross product, are you talking about the curl of the EM vector potential, A? I agree that the search for monopoles is ill-motivated, since, as you say, it is clear that the magnetic field and the electric field are just different aspects of the same thing. Though Clifford algebra no doubt makes the math way simpler, what I’m looking for is a physical explanation of what the ether is doing at each location. Now, you have expressed doubt in your comment as to whether or not the fields are the result of the ether, and if they are simply action at a distance. I have a solid argument against that perspective that I’ve refined since the last time we spoke. When a charge moves, it causes a change in the fields which propagates out at the speed of light. What does that mean? It means that the potential for a certain kind of action to happen to certain charges at certain locations changes from one position to the next over time. You would then say that the ability for the charge to act at a distance on possible charges at different locations is simply changing in this way which propagates at the speed of light. But here’s my counter argument: to have the potential to act at a certain location *is precisely what we mean* when we say that an entity is at a particular location. There is therefore some potential for action which *really is* at each location. Actions are always actions of some entity, so therefore these fields are an aspect of the ether. It is true that the fields are indeed observer dependent as currently formulated, but this is one more reason for why we should reformulate EM in terms of objective properties of the ether at each location which give rise to the actions on charged particles which we observe.
Yes, the Ether exists, clearly and undeniably. Everything is simple fluid dynamics, because the Ether itself is a kind of fluid. It is normally stationary, unless it's in the presence of matter. All atoms are tiny dipoles acting like Venturis for the Ether. That's electrostatics, gravity. So ALL fields are manifestations of this same Ether. Why is there a magnetic field associated with an electric current? Because that electric current is a flow of Ether within the stationary Ether. It drags the Ether and creates a vortex type turbulence, just like a jet of water inside a pool. That is the explanation for magnetic fields my friends. Glad I could enlighten you all. Have a nice life.
Those spinning balls are a good symbolic representation of Curl. Maxwell predated Poincaré and Lorentz who established the principles of relativistic time dilation and length contraction. Without that foundation, Maxwell could not use his open minded super brain to derive what we call magnetic field from first principles. Magnetic forces are simply the relativistic distortions in electric forces. To say it another way, magnetic forces are simply the component of coulombic forces between charges with relative movement that have been distorted due to special relativity.
Nice talk! Keep the good work! The cells are called vortices in Maxwell's work. As Maxwell said the objective of this model is to help the imagination not to account for the phenomena. You gave the best response: we don't actually know. Relativists are very dogmatic and always state that they know and that aether does not exist, this is just nonsense. This video present Maxwell's original words from On Physical lines of force, part 1: ruclips.net/video/Bf7_8m7sYUo/видео.html
In some sense I can relate to you that there's definetly some curious oddities with how ideas have trickled down like tensor calculus obscuring that the hamiltonian and maxwells equations were derived from quaternions, but don't make the mistake of thinking that the geniuses who formulated our theories weren't / aren't intimately aware of such things even though most in the field aren’t. We don't need to throw out QFT. Quite to the contrary major advances in geometry topology and computing make right now a quite exciting time for physics, theoretical work of the past 50 years is bearing way more fruit than most know, gradually unwinding the mysteries of things like the yang mill equations just doesn't grab popsci headlines. What we need to stop hiding from people is that special relarivity doesn't forbid faster than light particles aka tachyons, and their presence produces instabilities - aka symmetry breaking. Our understanding of nuclear binding and spotaneous symmetry breaking is based upon tachyons, thats the little secret they don't disclose for some reason
@@Inductica I'm really being quite mainstream here actually, the tachyon is a generic prediction of bosonic string theory. It is from observations of the tachyon that the veneziano amplitude was discovered which is the reason why string theory can model nuclear binding. The mathematical evidence for string theory is too strong imo and the past 30 years has seen so many exciting developments. Particularly gravity gauge duality and er=epr are are almost too simple to beleive, but Witten himself is vocal about how naive ideas are important.
@@Inductica Anyway I'm on team Dirac, I think the future of physics is in the realm of pure thought, its profound emerging link to pure mathematics and even number theory, not in experimentation and smashing hadrons. I really believe were getting close to extremely robust computer modeling of quantum systems that will revolutionize our understanding
@@Inductica I'll be clear about my prejudice- I "FEEL" Einstein['s GF] was spinning a thought. Everyone else at the time of release felt the same as shown by the ONE peer review; and even that had an asterisk. I got as high as an A- and as low as a C in Phys & Chem. My feeling is (feel free to take this and $3 to McD and claim a cup of coffee!) as long as we tell engineers space & time are something you can manipulate or somehow utilize with controls on an aircraft, our great-grandchildren will still be stuck on this planet. Interrogo; how are we convinced Relativity is why X & Z happens?
If you ask the questions 'Why is the atom stable?' or 'Why is the electron stable?' you begin to realise that physicists can only describe (stable or unstable) states they cannot explain why they exist in the first place. Engineering and applied physics can progress quite readily with descriptions instead of deeper physical explanations. Theoretical particle physicists especially have forgotten how to create new physics.
These applications can indeed progress with just descriptions instead of deeper explanations, but deeper explanations open up worlds of power which would have been unthinkable before. The phenomena of electromagnetic induction was discovered only because of an understanding of magnetic fields (the underlying cause of magnetic forces.) This made possible the electric generator, which has fundamentally changed mankind's existence for the better. Theoretical particle physicists are probably an example of what not to do. It is my understanding that none of their contributions for the last 50 years have lead to any new technology. That's my current understanding, I could be wrong, and I need to study their work in greater detail, but it would not surprise me because of the methods they are using.
@@jamesrarathoon2235 lmfao what? Theoreticsl physicist care quite a lot about it, the answers lie locked behind the unsolved mysteries of things like our theory of nucelar binding, the yang mills equations. It's a millenium prize problem for a reason... Shockingly quantum physics is extremely complex who would have thought, progress is slow because the problems are difficult (and usually not computable either), not because we lack ideas and creativity. I'm starting to be concerned how comfortable people who don't know anything are declaring to know more than experts.
@@randomchannel-px6ho Physics is very very hard I didn't say it wasn't; especially to get to the simplest essence of things. The dissidents are quietly making more progress than the mainstream professors, do keep up.
@@randomchannel-px6hoI occasionally give talks on RUclips, so you can lol at my next one, maybe as soon as next month. Needless to say I won't be talking about theories with more than three spatial dimensions, but might talk about the possibility that elementary particles are held together by gravity as Einstein first conjectured in one of his crazier papers.
I had not heard that explanation by Maxwell, but also have not finished his book (started but not finished many years ago). I thought you were going to take us to the relativistic Lorentz transformation which cleanly gives us the source of VxB as simply its relativistic transform of the electric field. I suppose the student will have to wait till learning some relativity first ;-) I noticed you have a number of nay sayers to the invocation of the aether. People forget that when this argument was first debated, people had a fairly definite concept of the aether based substantially on fluid mechanics. What was proved back then is that the aether did not manifest in that expected way. But that does not mean there cannot nor is not a different type of aether with different properties. For example, it is widely accepted from QFT and QED that there is vacuum energy comprised of a sea of virtual particles popping into and out of existence. It’s hard to argue that that sea is “nothing”, so by definition it is an aether. It might not have the properties you thought it should, but that doesn’t detract from it being “an” aether. On a final note, there are a number of RUclips videos recently taking on the Michelson Morley experiment. I have not had a chance to consider their arguments in any technical depth so they very well might be boulder dash. However, I have to say that a couple of them had arguments that were not immediately discountable, so let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater just yet. Science advances by challenging the prior established norms, until rigorously proven to the contrary.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I actually reject special relativity as an explanation on philosophical ground pertaining to what I think a valid explanation is. You have given a good argument in favor of the ether, and against a certain kind of ether which was disproven. You are saying that they challenge the result of MM itself?
Paul Dirac suggested that space is filled with electron-positron pairs; although the pair are undetectable, they still exist. When a wave passes they briefly separate. This seems like an aether explanation to me.
Incredible! In my first year physics, first lecture on special relativity I asked, concerning the Lorentz gamma factor, “if the energy you are putting in can’t accelerate the mass to light speed, where does that energy go? If it goes into increasing mass, how is the mass actually increased?” I think this was a fair question for my first encounter with special relativity. And guess what? I got called out for not paying enough attention! Afterwards everyone in class came up and said ‘great question!’ I decided there and then I would always ask the question even if it was a risk. Love this video for this reason.
Emotions are based on past or present experience. Emotions are not feelings. Feelings arise from the irrational part of the mind. This is where intuition arises from as well. Some esoteric mystic disciplines focus on developing what is called Intuitive Understanding. This is an experiential discipline and difficult to grasp from a rational mind perspective. I was pleased to hear you speak of the Aether but surprised you had not realized the Aether is an intuitive conclusion in modern times due to the constant conditioning we are exposed to through electronic communications.
The Aether/ZPE field is the same thing. It has been demonstrated over and over again to exist with cold temperature physics where at near zero, movement never stops. Further evidence is the idea of an electron. An electron never actually loses its negative charge. And it keeps spinning, essentially forever. Where does the electron get its energy to keep spinning? The Aether/ZPE field. You can actually SEE the Aether intersect with our space/time universe in the Bloch wall of every fixed magnet. The line across the middle of the magnet that separates the north from south pole is the Aether portal. And every magnet acts like an Aether pump or sponge, where by it sucks in energy from that Bloch wall line and emits magnetism. And that’s also why if you place a fixed magnet on a metal refrigerator, it will never fall off (provided you don’t heat the magnet). The amount of energy it takes to keep the mass of the magnet stuck to the refrigerator far exceeds that which was used to make the magnet. So essentially every magnet is an Aether pump, and an over unity energy device. A black hole in space is literally the same thing. The event horizon of a black hole, is the area in space where the sub-space Aether/ZPE field is exposed. There are far more examples…etc.
Think of all of the electrons spinning in the same direction in the magnet. If you did something similar in water it would create whirlpools on both sides going in the same direction. That is why the north and south sides attract. The whirlpools connect to each other, become stronger and pull towards each other to equal out. Whirlpools on north vs north would be going in opposite directions and be pushed away and outward. If you think if the aether in the same way, it aligns with maxwells cells theory on the cell spins. Same with the field around the wire except the whirlpools would be connecting rings caused from friction of the current through the wire.
Electrons are not distinct entities and as such do not have a spin, even its own discoverer didn't consider them particles, that's an academia invention.
"If you did something similar in water it would create whirlpools on both sides going in the same direction." Ionel Dinu did exactly that: ruclips.net/video/HBXVoztxyhs/видео.htmlsi=BGeSITBuHa1y1COx In this video, the cylinders are side by side. Here, when the cylinders spin in the same direction, they repel and when they spin in the opposite direction, they attract. Here is another video where the cylinders are end to end. ruclips.net/video/RNnXVKyk-kA/видео.htmlsi=rnuRVl_fFdVw-RKg Here, when the cylinders spin in the same direction, they attract and in the opposite direction, they repel. Using Ionel's approach, I made this video: ruclips.net/video/T-tEALIeU_0/видео.htmlsi=9xc_R-Yia539ymf_
The fact that protons or electrons can be smashed against each other in particle accelerators is interesting, particularly when Ether cell theory is concerned. It makes one wonder whether the particles themselves are dissociating into their fundamental particles or the hypothetical Ether cells are being manifested into reality. Ideally like charge particles cannot "touch" each other but we do see blasts in high-velocity environments. Considering the quantum theory that magnetism culminates as the collective magnetic moment of these quantum elements, this is an interesting classico-quantum take on the topic. Many thanks for the video, this was indeed thought provoking!
@@Inductica Ahh this is exactly what I missed in my visualisation!! Since this is similar to how gravity works, we can also assume that gravitons exist in ether!
Personally I would derive magnetic fields using special relativity. I wish you luck on the ether thing, though! Maybe it will lead to a deeper understanding I'm missing
Thanks for your supportive words! Special relativity does account for how the same forces emerge from different fields in different frames, but it does not tell us what is physically going on, so that's why I've chosen the path I have.
Great explanation, and it makes me wonder if the ether is doing "anything" or if its just little bits of spinning stuff reacting to greater collections of stuff. Uncharged stuff reacting to charged stuff, non-magnetic stuff reacting to magnetic stuff
Thank you! Actions such as these, perhaps charges acting on the stuff (the ether), changing its nature in the nearby surroundings, then having those surroundings act on other charges in turn, that is the kind of explanation we are looking for.
You have it the wrong way round. We observe the force is perpendicular to the field. We then construct an equation which describes (we hope) what we have observed.
@@rchas1023 in my view, this is a matter of physics, science should not just concern itself with describing appearances, but should also identify underlying causes.
Physics is saturated with this "cuz the maths" insanity. Just yesterday I watched Veritasium's video ... literally titled, "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Explained"! But the entire argument was that delta x inherently decreases as delta p increases because their product has to be >= h-bar/4pi. That was the entire explanation - as if the equation itself is the fundamental principle enforcing the behavior of uncertainty. It was sooo frustrating to watch! And he presented it like, "hey kids! this is why this works! That's all there is to it! Neat huh?"
@@BlackbodyEconomics that’s a good example. Part of my mission is to give physical explanations and not merely mathematical ones like the one you are so frustrated with.
Yep. The entire field has been hijacked by mathematicians. The first example I noticed was the twin paradox: Everybody stops when they've broken the symmetry of the problem; nobody ever asks about the physics behind it.
9:19 What if you setup an e-magnets and get this "vaccum" of ether between these mags and then turn it off. Would you be able to measure some kind of equalization force (under ideal conditions)?
I don't fully follow what you are saying, but there is a phenomena called back EMF. Basically, the current in the electromagnet will persist for a time after you turn the voltage off. This is because there is energy still stored in the ether which is dissipated in moving the charges in the wire after the current is turned off. I should make a video about this effect!
if the magnet is placing a force on the charge by movement this implies that it does not put to force on a charge when it’s stationary This implies that it is generating a potential differential between one point and another in space by movement hence my suggestion within the fields it must interact with mono poles
differential current potential coupling, the charge follows the direction of current or spin when it changes. B is called lines or tubes of force and are not primary.
@@Inductica yeah i know, i explained not too well. differential current potential coupling: in mathematical terms dA/dt, A is the current potential or magnetic vector potential, the current in one element that causes dA/dt induces an electric force in another element with charges, which induces a potential or current if the loop is closed. so I think magnetic induction can be seen as electric current coupling while leaving B out of the equation. The induced current or force follows the opposite direction of the primary current when B (or I that causes magnetic moment) or v changes, hence current coupling, opposite direction is Lenz law. Since B is the curl of A, B is the eye of the vortex A, and A around a conductor with current is like smoke rings, taking the curl of a ring gives B around the conductor. something like that, the theory could be wroog here or there..
The question this vid is based on is valid, but there already is an intuitive answer, that does not require any concept of aether. The magnetic field is entirely a relativistic effect of electric fields. First you got to get a grasp of length contraction as a phenomenon. Then start with the 2 wire setup, both conducting current in the same direction. Take a seat on a charge traveling in one direction. This charge will see particles of the same charge as itself in the other conductor staying relatively at rest, while particles of the other charge polarity moves at a certain speed. The moving charges in the other conductor, does- according to relativity- appear closer to one another than those at rest. This means each charge in one conductor sees more of the other charge than its own in the other conductor, which means the electric force is pulling the two wires together. From there you can work your way up to laws of induction etc, without requiring any right hand rule. (You can alwas deduct the right hand rule from the first example) I came over this as a student in the 90ies, and i have noticed that it has become more popular and shown by other youtubers lately. But this was shown to "comply" with the right hand rule and maxwells equations mathematicly already in the 60ies by W.G.V. Rosser (he also wrote a book about it). I think many consider this more complex than just teaching the right hand rule; after all length contraction isnt easy to grasp, but magnetism is a beautiful way to demonstrate it that it is significant even at low average speeds. It also works intuitively even without doing the math, although that does work.
Einstein was debunked when nobody wanted to peer review him. Ask around, did anybody get a feeling of "this is COMPLETE fucking bullshit" until they got to the chapters on QP & Relativity? Did "just keep plugging in values & it will click" really click? Or do you just get better at "doing the math?"
Funny how confidently we often hear that there just is no aether since the advent of MMX --> special relativity, yet conceptually space itself isn't exactly "no thing" here or for Q-fluctuations & the Higgs field. Yet on the other hand, it does at least seem to be true that regarding actual predictions it hasn't seemed to ever add anything useful. Not having mastered the subject myself I can't say much else except that there does seem to be some confusion afoot, at least regarding our "how mechanisms" anyways.
You raise some good points. Something I'd focus on though is that we scientists should look for underlying physical explanations. Further, since "nothing" can't wave, we know that something is present. This is true whether or not this thesis has added anything useful, or not. Because it is true, it will eventually add something useful.
@@realcygnus The confusion is because the theoretical physics looking into how is extremely esoteric and of immense complextion (literally having to innovate math) with major outstanding problems that don't have clear answerd in sight (look up yang mills existence and mass gap for example). It's a lot of headspinning madness that isn't necessary for most researchers interest. A lot of physcist believe spacetime is emergent from fundamental interactions. A big concept in current theoretical physics is gravity - gauge duality, observations of which has lead to the idea that ER=EPR, or quantum entanglment is equivalent to the wormhole solution of einsteins field equations, the implication being that space emerges from entanglement. I'm going to jump the shark here to metaphysics but I think I have sound reasons to do so - Einstein professed a belief in spinozas metaphysics, and its hard not to see the idea that the universe is of "one substance" in general relativity and the pursuit of a grand unified theory. Our best candidate for a theory beyond the standard model, string theory very much reflects such an idea. Dirac talked about the importance of "beautiful ideas", there' something deeply compelling about the fundamnental simplicity of such reduction, and I think its no surprise it's mathematical robust and even been applicable to problems like those with the yang mills equations while competing proposals are mostly underdeveloped conjectures.
@@randomchannel-px6ho Yup, I'm aware of that ER = EPR idea, who would have ever guessed ? It's all quite interesting. Nor do I any longer frown upon philosophy, especially metaphysics/ontology etc.. Reduction has been quite powerful indeed. & I'm often amazed at just how far we(mere monkeys) have already gone. I'm also glad that people looking into foundations has become more acceptable.
One way to explain that, is that the first-order effects one expects to observe from the ether are cancelled out when one uses co-moving measuring instruments. There is also evidence this occurs for second-order effects, when measuring instruments are co-accelerating, such as in the case of a radiating charge in gravitational free-fall. One should also note there are many entities in physics whose existence is not directly observed, but rather inferred from reasoning, the most notable example being the concept of energy.
@@dialectphilosophy It is worth noting that we *can* detect our acceleration through the ether (or at least our acceleration with respect to something important) which is the subject matter of many of your videos. The fact that some things are not directly observed, only inferred is very important. What is the significance of that when it comes to not being able to detect our motion through the ether?
I appreciate the question Geekazoid. In @dialectphilosophy's first few videos, he builds a compelling case that we can (and often do) measure acceleration through the ether unwittingly.
In the first place Lorentz symmetry was design specifically to describe the "ether" or "New Ether" as Einstein calls it. So when you say " Lorentz symmetry has been experimentally verified", you are saying the ether has been experimentally verified - so obviously you are confused about something. Keep in mind the contradiction you are representing leads to the discrepancy in vacuum energy out to 120 orders of magnitude, so this purported 20 digit precision is heavily outmatched by the resulting inaccuracy. In the second place, as Einstein said on May 5th, 1920: "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view." He called the result the new either and he also called it Space-time. If it were named more recently it might have been called dark ether or dark time symmetry. The only problem here is the cult that is afraid of the word ether and so use the concept anyway with a different name.
@@ExistenceUniversity that might be true, but you have demonstrated first hand that you dont understand math, so how could you claim to understand physics yourself?
After putting down intuitive explanations, you gave an intuitive explanation. I don't know how to answer this question either, but I'm pretty sure declaring that there is an ether isn't it.
My explanation might feel intuitive to you, but my point is not that I'm against an explanation which feels intuitive, I'm against appeals to intuition. Maxwell's model is valuable, not because it is intuitive (to you or two whoever) it is valuable because it offers an actual physical cause and effect relationship. So I'm not against intuition, I'm indifferent to it. We should not ask, "is this intuitive or not?" We should ask, "Does this give a physical account of the entities and cause and effect relationships involved?"
I think you have it backwards. People are forbidden to say "voldemort" so no one says voldemort. But if you want to study and understand voldemort, you kind have to say voldemort every now and again. The set of differences between any field theory and an ether is empty by the original design of fields. So you can say we are forbidden to speak of the voldemort that underlies the abstraction, but its only helpful if you are afraid of voldemort.
It's clearly understood in relativity. There are plenty of youtube videos showing exactly why the Lorentz force is perpendicular to the magnetic field.
"“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” -- Hamlet to his friend, compliments of Shakespeare. Although of course he did not know it, but this advisement of Hamlet's by Shakespeare to his friend, was crafted almost customly for physicists and all of similar-like strutters, lacking in requisite humility. The implication: when at the mirror every morning recite that line back to what looks back. Then after, more as "Most all I do not know" -- "Most all I do not know" -- "Most all I do not know" and then as more that's good "Of some that is of the very minute I do know." -- "Of some that is of the very minute I do know." -- "Of some that is of the very minute I do know." then you will be properly prepared humility-wise, to deal with that GIGANTIC OCEAN of the Unknown, and ultimately IF you were to live long enough for it, the Unknowable. If lacking any of the above, you are defective prima facie. Knowledge as-in "KNOWLEDGE, certain and true." is THE gold standard for accessing and maintaining healthy contact with Reality. (This humble advisement is intended to NOT apply to Inductica, for I accept that he well-knows of this already.)
We will see what kinds of experiments end up being necessary. Perhaps it won't require government cheese if the physics is well understood, enabling a clever selection of experiment.
This was another excellent video! Never heard the right-hand rule described quite like that 😂 that’s some serious street physics dawg. We appreciate that you point out that the only correct answer here is that magnetic fields are abstractions, and we don’t know much about what the magnetic force actually is or why it is there. Nothing has done more damage to this fact of course than Special Relativity, which misleads students to thinking that the electric force and the magnetic force are one and the same thing. The history on Maxwell was engaging - are you following the channel FractalWoman? She’s a bit all over the place but put out a number of videos elaborating on this model. Also interesting to see that one can recreate “magnetism” mechanically in water tanks with spinning cells. Also a quibble, possibly on semantics: when we use the word “intuition” we most generally mean what, as you term, conforms to a sense of something physical and causal and which can be understood by the natural imagination, as opposed to a vaguer definition of what “feels” right. But of course, an explanation “feels right” precisely because it is physical and causal and can be understood in the mind, so in that sense one certainly seeks the most “intuitive” explanation.
Thank you very much! Haha, yeah, that version of the right hand rule comes from my days at USC: as you may have heard, USC is in the middle of the hood. There was an infamous group of physics majors that started a gang and completely dominated the streets at the time. Their sign was the right hand rule, which they would flash at terrified police and rival gang members with impunity. Eventually, all but one of them went down in a hail of gunfire while trying to finish their homework on Lagrangians. You might be able to guess who is the one who survived. Yes, special relativity has even further obscured these hidden facts, which are a bit hard to get to anyway. My hope is that this video helps people understand the exact nature of the magnetic field and how it relates to whatever it is the ether is actually doing. I have not heard of FractalWoman! I’ll check it out. Good videos of Maxwell’s model are hard to come by! Regarding intuition: In my experience, intuition is different for different people. People who agree with the way physics is taught now find it very intuitive that physics is really just math, I find that counterintuitive. My goal is to take feelings out of the equation completely, whether those feelings are based on a good standard or a bad standard, and simply identify what an explanation *should* aim toward. But tell me what you mean by “natural imagination,” is this a certain kind of intuition, as opposed to other kinds?
@dialectphilosophy Just an advice for the curious mind. You can't understand new things if you look at the teaching videos or books. I advice you to look at the simulations videos, just search for those videos that have the LEAST number of views...
@@Inductica Not at all, those are very nice videos that I hope will gain a lot of viewers, they already have many thousands of views, I am talking about videos that after more than 10 years have less than 500 views...
Math is PURELY DESCRIPTIVE. It doesn’t explain ANYTHING. It can never answer a “why” question. And that’s why this whole notion of “Laws of physics” are absolutely ridiculous. All they are, are best guesses that hold true until they are proven through experimentation to be untrue. And even then most of these so called “laws” only apply under specific special circumstances, which is key otherwise they don’t apply. So the best way to do it is just forget the math and build a mental model in your mind. Then the “why” questions get answered. At least that’s what I did to understand it.
I wonder if what is called ether here is simply a classical model of the photon field. It is an entity that fills space, can be excited, has spin and interacts with charged particles. Can someone describe the differences?
The difference is that a field is just an abstraction which names certain kinds of actions which will occur at each location. We need to understand the nature of the entity causing those actions. That's why we need the concept of an ether apart from the concept of fields.
@@Inductica Okay but as you stated by yourself in the video, the mechanical ether model you presented also does not give a final clue to that problem. So since the ether is only indicated by indirect measures (such as the effects of the magnetic field) it seems very possible that it is also only an abstraction of an underlying physical reality. I believe there are people propagating that quantum fields might by the physical reality (while unmeasurable) so were do you see the difference? I would also be interested to undestand, if you are denying realativity or if you propose a lorentz invariant ether??
Is there some reference on a Maxwell document where he describes this concept of ether cells, the spinning ether particles and the particles changing in dimensions?
meh - look, communication requires shared experience, there is no way around it. Thus, the point of an "intuitive answer" is merely to give a common frame of reference. So the friction vs frictionless example here misses the point. A better approach would be to appeal to the shared experience of the sun always moving without "changing speed". Everyone has that common experience - so you could argue everyone has that intuition. The point of Newtons laws then is to simplify the friction case and non-friction case to be the same case when friction = 0. Math itself is just a language like English and also requires the same shared experience to communicate meaning. For example the constant e has little meaning outside of calculus, so you kinda have to finish calculus before you have the shared experience that gives the understanding of the shared experience of e. However, professors or physicists that try to describe the right hand rule without giving a clear shared experience are simply bad at their job. They were bad students or had bad professors. The shared experience that describes how the right hand rule arises was published in the 1800's by James Clerk Maxwell. It hasn't changed. It has been abstracted away and turned into a cargo cult of people that don't understand math fundamentally and are not really very good at logic/science/physics. But to be fair - they are the best we currently have at large. The problem is they don't want to let go of their cargo cult so they stand in the way of progress.
I agree with your point about communication requiring shared knowledge, or experience. I also agree that the right hand rule is often taught in a cargo-cult fashion. However, the word, "intuitive," refers to feelings, it does not necessarily make reference to prior knowledge as you say.
@@Inductica i didn't mean to imply that intuition makes reference to prior knowledge - in fact that is basically my point. I was trying to say thats the point others are trying to make when they use "intuitive examples" and that they should not do that because of the flaw you highlighted.
Uhhhhh, if the framework of the universe is based on something undetectable by anything in the universe then we could only ever guess at the “physical nature” of the aether, which is, or is a component part, of the undetectable framework of the universe. I have envisioned a 3-D electrical environment within a solid crystal lattice where somehow 3-D objects exist within the crystal lattice, and existing to a resolution down to the atomic scale. Objects pass through and move about within the lattice jumping one atom at a time in quantum moves - so there’s a quantum nature to time. (We actually expect time to have such a quantum property from Zeno’s Law.) I speculate that in the actual universe we probably move in Plank scale movements, the fastest speed - the speed of light - being the time it takes light to travel a Plank’s-length. So the objects in the universe move in discrete jumps no bigger than one Plank’s-length at a time. And the universe refreshes itself (rearranges) once every moment in time equal to the time it takes light to cross one Plank’s-length. And so objects moving slower than the speed of light spend multiple discrete moments of quantum time in the same location in space. The more slowly the objects move in space the more such discrete moments are they located in the same place before jumping one Plank’s-length in a particular direction of travel. The point here that relates to the possibility of detection of the aether (which I imagine to be composed of little Plank’s-length size cells tightly packed) is that we cannot possibly detect the aether because we are the product of the aether. The only thing we can do is conceptualize what the aether is like. We might get an understanding of the true nature of the aether IF we can make some logical guesses about it and be able somehow to confirm our guesses are correct.
@@billygraham5589 I can see your point that detecting the ether would be difficult, since we and our instruments are Mae of ether. However, there is no reason to think that will make it impossible, we will have to do what we have done in the past: make inferences from what we know to discover new facts.
maxwells aether rotation has issues. 1. what 😮 is causing the rotation of the aether particles? 2. the aether particles’ rotation creates friction with all the surrounding aether particles. so it should come to a grinding halt. 😮
the answers easily illuminated if they are transformed into the same questions about the rotation of planets/celestial bodies. OMG - what is causing the rotation of the planets! its a mystery. If you assume the planets rotate the rotation creates friction so they should come to a grinding halt! derp
1. I don't know Maxwell's answer to this question, but an answer which would be reasonable is the following: magnets themselves (which we now know are materials containing unpaired electrons all pointing in the same direction) are nothing more than portions of the ether who's cells are already spinning. This spinning is conveyed to neighboring cells through a mechanism I didn't cover in this video. It is worth noting though that not having an explanation of a deeper cause is not a flaw in a theory. Newton's theory of gravity successfully described the nature of gravitation without identifying what caused it (why, precisely, matter causes attraction.) 2. Good thinking; the mechanism of motion transfer in Maxwell's model is in fact friction; because the cells are rubbing against nearby objects, it causes those objects to roll in turn, which then transfers motion to other nearby cells. In perfect rolling contact, no motion is lost to heat, it is simply transferred to other rotating objects. Another thing to think about: what is heat? It is the motion of small particles. If small particles are just certain kinds of disturbances in the ether, then heat does not apply to the way the parts of the ether interact with one another. Once again though, the ether is probably not literal balls rotating and rubbing against one another, this is just an effective model for some of the phenomena known so far. I seek to find how far it can be taken.
The ether has cells? Maybe "ether" is just the fabric of space. All things interact with the fabric, in specific ways, idealized by wave-based descriptions.
Good --- . Einstein 1920: "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." ----- We just need to refine it. ---- - The current view is "If we can't explain it, it is not real." So if nothing is real, then the physicists are not real either, so should get non-real salaries because they don't need real food or money or houses.
I think this is a very important quote from Einstein. Especially the part where he says that the concept of motion may not apply to it. I have been thinking the same thing.
Einstein is the worst place to begin understanding relativity, and best place to end up once you've learned it. This "aether" Einstein is referring to is the gravitational field, spacetime itself.
@@Inductica We measure the gravitational field to be spacetime itself (measures of WEP, LLI, and LPI). Specifically, since you don't have a relativity textbook: "A general relativistic gravitational field [(M,g)] is an equivalence class of spacetimes where the equivalence is defined by orienting and time-orienting isometries (exercise 1.2.6). Each (m,g,D)\in [(M,g)] is a representative of [(M,g)]. Physically, all representatives of [(M,g)] model the same situation."
When it comes to fundamentals, science explains "How?", not "Why?". The answer to "Why?" for fundamentals - because that's the way Nature seems to be when we observe it.
The important word here is "explain", not "how" or "why". For example, if a scientist visits London, he will note that the little hand on Big Ben goes around twice a day and that the big hand goes around 12 times every time the little hand goes around. Similarly, if he visits the Wizard of Oz, he will note how the Wizard makes loud noises, emits gasses, and does whatever other things he does. This process is called "describing". It's all very good and useful, but it's not all the scientist does. He also wants to "explain" the behaviors, in the sense of finding the mechanism that makes them happen. He looks for gears and springs and levers, a fat little man behind a curtain, whatever will make the behavior less mysterious. Whether you phrase that as "how" things work or "why" they do what they do is unimportant. The important point is that the scientist is interested in constructing a simple model that goes beyond mere phenomenology, so it will make useful predictions for novel situations, such as an electrical blackout in London or making verbal appeals to whatever sentiments or inclinations an old man who hides behind a curtain might have. Unfortunately, most of today's physics community doesn't seem to care what's happening behind the curtain. They're happy to record statistical descriptions of the Wizard's outbursts, and they don't seem to think any further analysis would be helpful. A minority of physicists disagree with this sentiment, because it's a step away from traditional scientific principles, and our host Inductica is one of them.
I am fascinated by the subject and I do wonder if there is a field effect that is generated by the potential difference between the suns and the black holes in the universe which enables us to derive electrical potential
Ether explanations work fine inside matter, where ether cells are electrons, but fails in vacumm. When you transform to a comoving charge system, in which charges aren't moving, then the magnetic force still exists as an Electric field. By making aLorentz transformation on the magnetic field, you will obtain a Perpendicular Electric field, that's why the magnetic force is perpendicular to the velocity, the reason is RELATIVITY.
The ether exists in a vacuum. The ether exists under matter loke a substrate/framework. The ether seems to affect the matter/energy above it in a measurable way relative to or perceived space. Is our perceived space also contorting? Or is is it the ether? I think it makes more sense that our perceived space (apparently consistent) is actually contorted by feilds such as gravity and magnetism. It is the something we cannot see or measure.. Everywhere we are.. there seems to be ether.. Is there ether everywhere? Maybe.
@oversquare6625 Yes, it is, is how physicist calls solid state. In the presence of matter EM fields produced by this matter, interact with the photon field. Thus, charge polarization produces Lorentz force, as explained in the video. But in the absence of matter, this explanation does not apply. But changing to a comoving system does.
Delightful !! You just explained 'the dodge' allowing for more magnetical force to be accessed for use, than is necessary to obtain it. This explains virtuosically, the 'why and how' of the supposed/proposed phenomenon-impossible . . . "In closed systems, energy is conserved." Close enough, Emmy? I KNEW there was a reason I was lead to subscribe here but, having no the details as-to it. That little mystery is now ended. J.M. editor/publisher of -- "The Perpetual Motion Revue." -- that last not as misspelled for IT having been A PARADE of it. (To the end of especial aggravation to . . . . . we've inserted in-between our title's four words, Isaac Newton's hand-drawn symbol, intended to stand-for perpetual motion, in which in his young years he thought a possibility. He was correct. Irritating as the Devil, isn't it? Well, you'll live.)
You must bond field theory with string theory to understand why. Use these two different perceptions to create a 3rd differential perception. Higher dimensional thinking.
Good God, more aether claptrap from Inductica. He should really get more than a high school education in physics. Let us take a B field created by an electric current for an example (the case for a bar magnet requires a complete work up from the QED description because it involves spin and someone is dying for a quick explanation that approaches the first year level here). Here, the magnetic field is what we experience an experimental charge to react to when near the electromagnetic field of a huge number of nearby electrons. The electrons act as if they are moving close to the speed of light in typical circuits (actually, they diffuse at several cm/sec). This makes them relativistic, so there is no avoiding special relativity. In relativity, the E and B fields experienced in one person's frame become a different mixture of E and B, for the same spacetime point in another frame. [Yes, there is a relation E' = lambda E and B'= lambda B, reflecting the deeper tensor relation Fuv' = lambda_u lambda_v Fuv] The moving electrons do not "see" their own effect ( in a classical description), i.e., create no B field in their rest frame [though there is a classical self energy for the purist reader]. But in the frame of a test charge in the room and NOT in the wire, part of the electric charge carried by the current is transformed into the local B field. This, in turn, appears as a physical object (field) because the relativistic transformation of force by the E current's field has a component that points sideways to any motion that the test charge undertake. Inductica leaves out any mention that the test charge has to be in motion in some third frame - YOURs in this example, to interpret this as the work of some "curly" field like B. So physicists through time have taken B as real, because most efficiently that is what we experience. [In the fully QFT description of the matter, both the electrostatic field and B field are aspects of the exchange of "longitudinal photons", but an impatient kid doesn't want to sit still to hear about this - and probably not Inductica either]. regards DKB
Yes, but that is not a physical explanation. It simply refers to fields (the abstraction). This does not explain the physical cause of the actions these fields track. A theory which tracks results without explaining the underlying cause is fine of course, but we want to understand that underlying cause!! Further, SR is a subjectivist theory, it claims that different observers see different realities (different fields) we need a theory which achieves the same truth-modeling power as special relativity without the subjectivism.
@@Inductica you are absolutely incorrect. einstein's special relativity is a good wave theory. it explains time dilation. and length contraction and therefore the magnetic effect. here is my paper that i did not finish yet. docs.google.com/document/d/1J_BHJr5O3twSWNJslSwfbezhSDwh08CfeWLf1gWfksM/edit?usp=sharing
Good video. I know you're taking a lot of shit, but I thought this carried some nice explanation. A few pieces of advice: firstly, your argument is somewhat an argument from intuition. Nothing wrong with that, but something to keep in mind. Also: Einstein showed that magnetic fields arise from electric fields. They are one in the same, in some sense (time dilation, length contraction): ruclips.net/video/WwzB1JvsyYc/видео.htmlsi=UIOKq7vOtKtW7vIq. Something to keep in mind. I would also have appreciated some math. Finally: the Lorentzian/Poincare ether was **never** disproven, so far as I'm aware. And, stuff like Bohmian mechanics in the world of quantum strongly imply a Lorentzian ether. Something that might help your argument out!
Thank you for giving criticism with respect. Some of my other commenters can learn from you. I don’t think my argument is from intuition. It might feel intuitive to you, but it is a rock solid fact, not just an intuition, that actions and properties (like that described by the magnetic field) can only be actions and properties of some entity. Re: relativity: I reject relativity, so I don’t regard it as an explanation. Obviously, it gets the right results; but a length can’t be two different values for two different people, so it does not describe what is actually happening here. What do you think math would have added to my point? I’m not opposed to math, many of my other videos have it. Yes! It hasn’t been! You can see more on that in my ether video. Bohemian mechanics has a shot of being right, we need to think of a way to confirm or disconfirm it.
Pretty useless, actually. Replace the magnet with an electromagnet, apply special relativity, forget that magnetism exists and do it all with Coulombs Law.
@@Inductica I noticed. Magnetic fields excert forces, but magnetic fields constant over time do not do any physical work. The electron has the exact same kinetic energy after it was deflected by the magnetic field that it had before. dE=0, no work done, just like circular motion does exhibit permament forces acting on an object but not doing any physical work. That would be the physical point of view. Although, maybe you have a different definition of "work" and therefore I am misinterpreting your point. Then again, that wouldn't be physics.
I want to see the iron filing experiment done but with a wire instead of a magnet. Wire flat under the paper Andi wire going thru the paper. Even a loop and note how the field interact with the iron. With both DC and AC
7:25 The spin direction seems chosen; I don't see a reason explained why it would be one over the other direction 11:10 now the chosen direction has the impact that the force in a specific direction. As the initial spin direction was choosen random the direction of the force is also random (or I would say the spin direction is chosen to match the observation).
I am missing how this is an answer to the comment. I would say if change the cells rotations directions because of the magnet, the force direction changes 180°.
Why questions are metaphysical questions which provide the paridgms of science. And since they are at a higher degree of abstraction science cannot prove or disprove them. Go check on Popper, Reale. Aquinas and Maritain abot this. Materialist scientists just reject the idea of eather
@@Inductica there is only 1 force- Dielectric Magnetism is the radiation of this generative force Dielectric field is explained by counter travelling infinitesimal charges 2 charges (currents) Hence magnet has 4 poles Each counter rotating (quantum spin) North and South monopole with a centrifugal and centripetal force
I'm glad you agree. I do think that what we call quantum properties are somehow caused by the ether. Why do you think this would lead to quantum gravity?
@@Inductica I'm already pulling energy from the vacuum and it takes 2 real poles to accomplish it. A magnet is not a magnet and the first thing to give it away is when you smash a magnet each broken piece still retains it's so called magnetism.
@@Inductica I'm also currently taking Quantum Physics class and almost done. I aspire to win the Noble Prize for explaining what truly is happening with magnets and particles.
@@Inductica Many god arguments are of the form, it cannot be anything else, so it must be god. You do the same: there must be something passing the magnetic field, so the ether is true -sorry didn't check you exact words. I am not arguing here the ether is not true, but your argument why the ether is true is not really valid.
@Inductica I am saying a reasoning 'it cannot be bit this, is not correct'. Basically you are saying if there is something tranfer of force or a field, there is an ether. There could be other reasons to explain the field (maybe it is like SR, a change in space/time...).
@@Inductica There is no such thing as the "moving charge" as a rest frame can be chosen for either charge. The measured length of an object is the projection onto the spatial coordinates of the observer. So if you have "charges" (I'm not sure why a non-zero electric charge is meaningful to you in this context) is in relative motion with some other charge in the rest frame of some object, the measured length of the object wrt the moving observer will be less.
@@KaiVieira-jj7di right, so the wire’s length is actually for different observers. The “accepted science,” as you put it, implies subjectivism: that reality is different for some than for others.
@@Inductica Wow, you really have no understanding at all. I'd really like to hear your explanation of your belief that different coordinate representations constitute different realities.
Inductica you wasted my time. I was hoping to find a video that explained the very same question I had, but no you started spouting nonsense halfway through the video. You are wrong and you should feel bad. There is going to be someone genuinely interested in how the world works, and you are going to fill their heads with BS. And you will have robbed them of the opportunity to learn. 😢
What's so ridiculous about trying to think about problems in a different way. With an open mind Also.... I want to see the iron filing experiment done but with a wire instead of a magnet. Wire flat under the paper Andi wire going thru the paper. Even a loop and note how the field interact with the iron.
There is no ether. There will never be an explanation of why for any science, just descriptions of what is and how that things happen. To stupid students who insist on the why, it will be an endless further chain of why questions and you will ultimately arrive at why any exists at all!? And there will be no good answer.
You are an excellent example of the attitude of modern physicists, the attitude which responds to this student's excellent question, and justified anger, with condescension. While it is true that "why" questions continue in a chain, and they will eventually terminate with "that's just the nature of the existents involved." Asking that question is exactly what has spurred scientific and technological progress.
"What is the underlying nature of heat?" Lead to an understanding of heat as motion and enabled exact calculations which have made efficient engines possible.
"Why do chemicals change in the way that they do?" Lead to the atomic theory of matter; which enables us to make custom materials that would not have been possible if we had just done what you would have done, which would be to play with equations about the mass ratios of chemical reactions and not ask why they were the way that they were.
I could fill a book with further examples, but hopefully you see the point. "Why" questions and their answers have been the primary driver of scientific progress. If scientists had your attitude throughout history, we would still be stuck describing the motions of the planets with epicycles, starving to death during unexpected weather events and dying of malaria.
There is an ether, but it's based on another ether. And there's a third ether below that. It's ethers all the way down!
you have confused your own confirmation bias with knowledge and the result is a direct attack on science. Science is a method for evaluating evidence and there can always be more evidence. Your assertions are appeals to some kind of proof, but proof is subjective outside of math and therefore an anathema to science.
It's completely unnessary with QM where particles can take quite literally any path. We don't need an extra medium to explain the weird behavior of anything.
Its just occams razors really. Like Einstien never debunked aether. He just didn't include it or bring it up. Because it wasnt necessary, and we don't need to add things we don't need.
@@Raging.Geekazoid it could be, but the inverse argument is that its invisible dimensions all the way up.
I had no idea that Maxwell had created a model of the ether. Thanks for bring this to my attention, as well as the fact that his model does not get us to the physical nature we are looking for.
It is really good progress toward that nature at the very least. It will be the object of a lot of my further study.
It took me a while, in my many years of thinking about E & M, to wrap my mind around the fact that the magnetic *force* is perpendicular to the magnetic "field" lines.
That bothered me for a long time... until I came to the simple realization that the *field* lines are also, themselves in terms of a cross-product.... and that ultimately, in the end, once you mathematically evaluate *both* of those cross-products, the (so-called "magnetic") FORCE upon a charge ends-up being IN LINE with the the charge-in-motion that "gives rise to" the "magnetic field."
In other words.... it *still* all comes down to charges either attracting or repelling each other IN-THE-LINE between the two charges. (Just now, I spoke in terms of just two point-charges... but the principle applies when integrating some volume of charge and/or currents).
In my view... the so-called "magnetic field" is *purely* a mathematical abstraction. A mathematical convenience to deal with what is really only a relativistic side-effect of (or upon) the plain-old Coulomb "field" / "force" between charges in motion.
Because of my perspective... I have had exactly ZERO interest in any talk about "magnetic monopoles." I have no curiosity, no need or desire to entertain any notion of "magnetic monopoles" because, to me "magnetism" *isn't* "a thing." I know that historically, "magnetic" effects were more-apparent and more-studied than plain-old electrical/coloumb effects. And I think it's unfortunate that researchers were seemingly STUCK on the primacy of "magnetism" as-a-thing before they developed a better understanding of the plain-old electrical force.
I'm not necessarily saying that Maxwell was led-astray when he went on to develop his equations of E & M. But I think it's unfortunate that those equations reinforce the idea that the Electric and Magnetic "forces" are somehow distinctly separate things (though related).
In my view: They AREN'T distinctly separate things.
There are just charges.... in motion... exerting forces on each other. And mathematical contrivances for describing it. There is one singular reality... and relativistic effects also need to be accounted for. The 4 equations are, thus far, the most eloquent way to describe all that. (Although.... if you take a look at Geometric (aka "Clifford") Algebra, ALL FOUR of those equations can be collapsed down to ONE extremely compact and simple equation - - - a beautiful thing.
ALSO: (And James, I don't know whether you remember you and I already talking about this a while back): I'm at a point where I am not even comfortable saying that "fields" (even the Coulomb field) are any sort of "thing..." ... *physical" "thing."
Setting aside deeper questions about matter itself.... the only "things" that are real are bits of matter, and the only "actions" that are real are how they move in response to each other. Our language for identifying and talking about all that (i.e.: mathematics) is all just abstraction. The stuff we call "properties" of a certain location in space... in terms of "fields" is *not* completely objective.
If you ask *any* number of observers whether an event occurred at a certain place or time (for example, the collision of two particles), the answer is *definitively* "YES" or "NO" for all observers. They may need to make the universally agreed-upon adjustments to their coordinates and relativistic effects of time dilation and length-contraction to describe where-and-when it happened in relation to each frame of reference, but they MUST all agree about whether the collision occurred or not. [Contradictions don't exist].
AND similarly, if you ask *any* number of observers for a coherent explanation of how some number of charged particles will affect each other (i.e.: how their motions will evolve in time with respect to each other, given their relative charges, masses, and dynamics), they will *ALL* agree on the specific effects (again, once accounting for adjustments to coordinates and relativistic effects).
***BUT*** If you ask everyone to objectively assess the magnitude and direction of both the Electric and Magnetic "fields" at any (properly relativistically-adjusted space-time coordinates), they will NOT agree. Let's say there is a cardboard box that everyone agrees exists, and everyone agrees where it exists at a given point in space-time. Let's say that for some observer at-rest in the same frame of reference as the cardboard box, there is a simple, static net-positive charge sitting around, not in motion, and therefore they can calculate the magnitude and direction of the so-called "Electric Field" in-and-around the region near that box. They would *also* calculate that the so-called "Magnetic Field" is exactly zero, since there are no charges in motion in this frame of reference.
But... for some observer in-motion respect to that box, they will see that net-positive charge also in-motion, and they will necessarily (according to Maxwell) calculate that there *IS* a so-called "magnetic" field, with some non-zero magnitude, and some particular direction, AT-THE-VERY-SAME-SpaceTime-Coordinate (near the box) that the original observer said there was *NO* "magnetic" field at all. Further: Additional observers in other frames will calculate *different* magnitudes and directions for the so-called "magnetic" field, also at that very-same space-time coordinate near the box.
Ultimately: *ALL* Observers will agree on the the physical effects/outcomes.... but they will *not* agree on ANY OBJECTIVITY of the "magnetic" (or even the Coulomb) field, at all.
Sorry this was so long.
I like what you said about electric force being an emergent effect of relativity.
@@elfeiin That part rang true to me too because time is the same way, it really doesnt exsit on its own, its an emmergent effect of all this motion, simply change. If motion stopped, what we call time would also stop because we demark time by change due to motion, but if things didnt move there would be no change and therefore no time. This idea also agrees with relativity because speeding up to the speed of light is actually slowing down relative to all this motion. So slowing down everything means slowing the change due to motion and slowing down time, and thats been observed in experiment (as you speed up you slow down time) Therefore time is also an emmergent effect of motion. I have a hunch gravity is the same way. Not a thing itself but an effect from something.
@@tonypalmeri722 Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I had to set aside the time that the comment deserved.
When you say that B is itself a result of a cross product, are you talking about the curl of the EM vector potential, A?
I agree that the search for monopoles is ill-motivated, since, as you say, it is clear that the magnetic field and the electric field are just different aspects of the same thing.
Though Clifford algebra no doubt makes the math way simpler, what I’m looking for is a physical explanation of what the ether is doing at each location.
Now, you have expressed doubt in your comment as to whether or not the fields are the result of the ether, and if they are simply action at a distance. I have a solid argument against that perspective that I’ve refined since the last time we spoke. When a charge moves, it causes a change in the fields which propagates out at the speed of light. What does that mean? It means that the potential for a certain kind of action to happen to certain charges at certain locations changes from one position to the next over time.
You would then say that the ability for the charge to act at a distance on possible charges at different locations is simply changing in this way which propagates at the speed of light. But here’s my counter argument: to have the potential to act at a certain location *is precisely what we mean* when we say that an entity is at a particular location. There is therefore some potential for action which *really is* at each location. Actions are always actions of some entity, so therefore these fields are an aspect of the ether.
It is true that the fields are indeed observer dependent as currently formulated, but this is one more reason for why we should reformulate EM in terms of objective properties of the ether at each location which give rise to the actions on charged particles which we observe.
You need more than one equation; Lorentz force law, constitutive relations, free electromagnetic field, and the field that couple to matter.
@@Inductica The potential doesn't act on anything. Electrically charged particles couple to the electromagnetic field, i.e. forces act on particles.
Yes, the Ether exists, clearly and undeniably. Everything is simple fluid dynamics, because the Ether itself is a kind of fluid. It is normally stationary, unless it's in the presence of matter. All atoms are tiny dipoles acting like Venturis for the Ether. That's electrostatics, gravity. So ALL fields are manifestations of this same Ether. Why is there a magnetic field associated with an electric current? Because that electric current is a flow of Ether within the stationary Ether. It drags the Ether and creates a vortex type turbulence, just like a jet of water inside a pool. That is the explanation for magnetic fields my friends. Glad I could enlighten you all. Have a nice life.
Those spinning balls are a good symbolic representation of Curl. Maxwell predated Poincaré and Lorentz who established the principles of relativistic time dilation and length contraction. Without that foundation, Maxwell could not use his open minded super brain to derive what we call magnetic field from first principles. Magnetic forces are simply the relativistic distortions in electric forces. To say it another way, magnetic forces are simply the component of coulombic forces between charges with relative movement that have been distorted due to special relativity.
Sort of the same point I made in my comment :)
Nice talk! Keep the good work!
The cells are called vortices in Maxwell's work. As Maxwell said the objective of this model is to help the imagination not to account for the phenomena. You gave the best response: we don't actually know. Relativists are very dogmatic and always state that they know and that aether does not exist, this is just nonsense.
This video present Maxwell's original words from On Physical lines of force, part 1:
ruclips.net/video/Bf7_8m7sYUo/видео.html
@@profhalimboutayeb Thank you! And thank you for the video recommendation!
In some sense I can relate to you that there's definetly some curious oddities with how ideas have trickled down like tensor calculus obscuring that the hamiltonian and maxwells equations were derived from quaternions, but don't make the mistake of thinking that the geniuses who formulated our theories weren't / aren't intimately aware of such things even though most in the field aren’t.
We don't need to throw out QFT. Quite to the contrary major advances in geometry topology and computing make right now a quite exciting time for physics, theoretical work of the past 50 years is bearing way more fruit than most know, gradually unwinding the mysteries of things like the yang mill equations just doesn't grab popsci headlines.
What we need to stop hiding from people is that special relarivity doesn't forbid faster than light particles aka tachyons, and their presence produces instabilities - aka symmetry breaking. Our understanding of nuclear binding and spotaneous symmetry breaking is based upon tachyons, thats the little secret they don't disclose for some reason
Why do you think that is important to future progress?
@@Inductica I'm really being quite mainstream here actually, the tachyon is a generic prediction of bosonic string theory. It is from observations of the tachyon that the veneziano amplitude was discovered which is the reason why string theory can model nuclear binding.
The mathematical evidence for string theory is too strong imo and the past 30 years has seen so many exciting developments. Particularly gravity gauge duality and er=epr are are almost too simple to beleive, but Witten himself is vocal about how naive ideas are important.
@@Inductica Anyway I'm on team Dirac, I think the future of physics is in the realm of pure thought, its profound emerging link to pure mathematics and even number theory, not in experimentation and smashing hadrons.
I really believe were getting close to extremely robust computer modeling of quantum systems that will revolutionize our understanding
Most, if not all, of physics offers a _description of how_ nature behaves, _not an explanation of why_ nature behaves the way it does.
@@mk71b both are needed. The later is the kind of knowledge that moves us forward.
@@Inductica I'll be clear about my prejudice- I "FEEL" Einstein['s GF] was spinning a thought. Everyone else at the time of release felt the same as shown by the ONE peer review; and even that had an asterisk.
I got as high as an A- and as low as a C in Phys & Chem.
My feeling is (feel free to take this and $3 to McD and claim a cup of coffee!) as long as we tell engineers space & time are something you can manipulate or somehow utilize with controls on an aircraft, our great-grandchildren will still be stuck on this planet.
Interrogo; how are we convinced Relativity is why X & Z happens?
thank you that was brilliant ..👍
Thank you!
If you ask the questions 'Why is the atom stable?' or 'Why is the electron stable?' you begin to realise that physicists can only describe (stable or unstable) states they cannot explain why they exist in the first place. Engineering and applied physics can progress quite readily with descriptions instead of deeper physical explanations. Theoretical particle physicists especially have forgotten how to create new physics.
These applications can indeed progress with just descriptions instead of deeper explanations, but deeper explanations open up worlds of power which would have been unthinkable before. The phenomena of electromagnetic induction was discovered only because of an understanding of magnetic fields (the underlying cause of magnetic forces.) This made possible the electric generator, which has fundamentally changed mankind's existence for the better.
Theoretical particle physicists are probably an example of what not to do. It is my understanding that none of their contributions for the last 50 years have lead to any new technology. That's my current understanding, I could be wrong, and I need to study their work in greater detail, but it would not surprise me because of the methods they are using.
@@jamesrarathoon2235 lmfao what?
Theoreticsl physicist care quite a lot about it, the answers lie locked behind the unsolved mysteries of things like our theory of nucelar binding, the yang mills equations. It's a millenium prize problem for a reason...
Shockingly quantum physics is extremely complex who would have thought, progress is slow because the problems are difficult (and usually not computable either), not because we lack ideas and creativity.
I'm starting to be concerned how comfortable people who don't know anything are declaring to know more than experts.
@@randomchannel-px6ho Physics is very very hard I didn't say it wasn't; especially to get to the simplest essence of things. The dissidents are quietly making more progress than the mainstream professors, do keep up.
@@jamesrarathoon2235 please do share these groundbreaking dissidents results...
Having a blog is not doing research lol
@@randomchannel-px6hoI occasionally give talks on RUclips, so you can lol at my next one, maybe as soon as next month. Needless to say I won't be talking about theories with more than three spatial dimensions, but might talk about the possibility that elementary particles are held together by gravity as Einstein first conjectured in one of his crazier papers.
I had not heard that explanation by Maxwell, but also have not finished his book (started but not finished many years ago). I thought you were going to take us to the relativistic Lorentz transformation which cleanly gives us the source of VxB as simply its relativistic transform of the electric field. I suppose the student will have to wait till learning some relativity first ;-)
I noticed you have a number of nay sayers to the invocation of the aether. People forget that when this argument was first debated, people had a fairly definite concept of the aether based substantially on fluid mechanics. What was proved back then is that the aether did not manifest in that expected way. But that does not mean there cannot nor is not a different type of aether with different properties. For example, it is widely accepted from QFT and QED that there is vacuum energy comprised of a sea of virtual particles popping into and out of existence. It’s hard to argue that that sea is “nothing”, so by definition it is an aether. It might not have the properties you thought it should, but that doesn’t detract from it being “an” aether.
On a final note, there are a number of RUclips videos recently taking on the Michelson Morley experiment. I have not had a chance to consider their arguments in any technical depth so they very well might be boulder dash. However, I have to say that a couple of them had arguments that were not immediately discountable, so let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater just yet. Science advances by challenging the prior established norms, until rigorously proven to the contrary.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
I actually reject special relativity as an explanation on philosophical ground pertaining to what I think a valid explanation is.
You have given a good argument in favor of the ether, and against a certain kind of ether which was disproven.
You are saying that they challenge the result of MM itself?
Paul Dirac suggested that space is filled with electron-positron pairs; although the pair are undetectable, they still exist. When a wave passes they briefly separate. This seems like an aether explanation to me.
Yes indeed.
0:46 "You don't understand how this works," -- NDT
Incredible! In my first year physics, first lecture on special relativity I asked, concerning the Lorentz gamma factor, “if the energy you are putting in can’t accelerate the mass to light speed, where does that energy go? If it goes into increasing mass, how is the mass actually increased?” I think this was a fair question for my first encounter with special relativity. And guess what? I got called out for not paying enough attention! Afterwards everyone in class came up and said ‘great question!’ I decided there and then I would always ask the question even if it was a risk. Love this video for this reason.
@@alwayscurious413 a common story!
The person you asked never studied relativity. The energy goes into the kinetic energy of the object, KE=(γ-1)m.
Emotions are based on past or present experience. Emotions are not feelings. Feelings arise from the irrational part of the mind. This is where intuition arises from as well. Some esoteric mystic disciplines focus on developing what is called Intuitive Understanding. This is an experiential discipline and difficult to grasp from a rational mind perspective.
I was pleased to hear you speak of the Aether but surprised you had not realized the Aether is an intuitive conclusion in modern times due to the constant conditioning we are exposed to through electronic communications.
😂 the right hand rule “gang sign”. “Like shooting someone while flicking them off at the same time.” You’re mad crazy funny, dude.
@@CausalDiscoveries it comes from my USC days in the hood.
The Aether/ZPE field is the same thing. It has been demonstrated over and over again to exist with cold temperature physics where at near zero, movement never stops. Further evidence is the idea of an electron. An electron never actually loses its negative charge. And it keeps spinning, essentially forever. Where does the electron get its energy to keep spinning? The Aether/ZPE field. You can actually SEE the Aether intersect with our space/time universe in the Bloch wall of every fixed magnet. The line across the middle of the magnet that separates the north from south pole is the Aether portal. And every magnet acts like an Aether pump or sponge, where by it sucks in energy from that Bloch wall line and emits magnetism. And that’s also why if you place a fixed magnet on a metal refrigerator, it will never fall off (provided you don’t heat the magnet). The amount of energy it takes to keep the mass of the magnet stuck to the refrigerator far exceeds that which was used to make the magnet. So essentially every magnet is an Aether pump, and an over unity energy device. A black hole in space is literally the same thing. The event horizon of a black hole, is the area in space where the sub-space Aether/ZPE field is exposed. There are far more examples…etc.
So how do scalar / longitudinal / EM waves fit into all this?
Maxwell evidently included it but it was simplified out for uni students, why?
Think of all of the electrons spinning in the same direction in the magnet. If you did something similar in water it would create whirlpools on both sides going in the same direction. That is why the north and south sides attract. The whirlpools connect to each other, become stronger and pull towards each other to equal out. Whirlpools on north vs north would be going in opposite directions and be pushed away and outward. If you think if the aether in the same way, it aligns with maxwells cells theory on the cell spins.
Same with the field around the wire except the whirlpools would be connecting rings caused from friction of the current through the wire.
Electrons are not distinct entities and as such do not have a spin, even its own discoverer didn't consider them particles, that's an academia invention.
"If you did something similar in water it would create whirlpools on both sides going in the same direction." Ionel Dinu did exactly that: ruclips.net/video/HBXVoztxyhs/видео.htmlsi=BGeSITBuHa1y1COx In this video, the cylinders are side by side. Here, when the cylinders spin in the same direction, they repel and when they spin in the opposite direction, they attract. Here is another video where the cylinders are end to end. ruclips.net/video/RNnXVKyk-kA/видео.htmlsi=rnuRVl_fFdVw-RKg Here, when the cylinders spin in the same direction, they attract and in the opposite direction, they repel. Using Ionel's approach, I made this video: ruclips.net/video/T-tEALIeU_0/видео.htmlsi=9xc_R-Yia539ymf_
The fact that protons or electrons can be smashed against each other in particle accelerators is interesting, particularly when Ether cell theory is concerned. It makes one wonder whether the particles themselves are dissociating into their fundamental particles or the hypothetical Ether cells are being manifested into reality. Ideally like charge particles cannot "touch" each other but we do see blasts in high-velocity environments. Considering the quantum theory that magnetism culminates as the collective magnetic moment of these quantum elements, this is an interesting classico-quantum take on the topic. Many thanks for the video, this was indeed thought provoking!
Thank you very much! One hypothesis to consider is that these particles are actually waves in the ether.
@@Inductica Ahh this is exactly what I missed in my visualisation!! Since this is similar to how gravity works, we can also assume that gravitons exist in ether!
Personally I would derive magnetic fields using special relativity. I wish you luck on the ether thing, though! Maybe it will lead to a deeper understanding I'm missing
special relativity isn't exactly internally consistent though.
Thanks for your supportive words! Special relativity does account for how the same forces emerge from different fields in different frames, but it does not tell us what is physically going on, so that's why I've chosen the path I have.
@@Inductica Relativity is explicitly clear with what's going on.
@@oversquare6625 Of course relativity is consistent.
@@KaiVieira-jj7di you are not understanding the word "consistent"
Great explanation, and it makes me wonder if the ether is doing "anything" or if its just little bits of spinning stuff reacting to greater collections of stuff. Uncharged stuff reacting to charged stuff, non-magnetic stuff reacting to magnetic stuff
Thank you! Actions such as these, perhaps charges acting on the stuff (the ether), changing its nature in the nearby surroundings, then having those surroundings act on other charges in turn, that is the kind of explanation we are looking for.
You have it the wrong way round. We observe the force is perpendicular to the field. We then construct an equation which describes (we hope) what we have observed.
That’s how we developed the formalism, yes, but what physical facts underlie that?
@@Inductica What physical facts underlie the observation? I'm afraid you've lost me here. Is this Philosophy?
@@rchas1023 in my view, this is a matter of physics, science should not just concern itself with describing appearances, but should also identify underlying causes.
Physics is saturated with this "cuz the maths" insanity. Just yesterday I watched Veritasium's video ... literally titled, "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Explained"!
But the entire argument was that delta x inherently decreases as delta p increases because their product has to be >= h-bar/4pi. That was the entire explanation - as if the equation itself is the fundamental principle enforcing the behavior of uncertainty. It was sooo frustrating to watch! And he presented it like, "hey kids! this is why this works! That's all there is to it! Neat huh?"
@@BlackbodyEconomics that’s a good example. Part of my mission is to give physical explanations and not merely mathematical ones like the one you are so frustrated with.
Yep. The entire field has been hijacked by mathematicians. The first example I noticed was the twin paradox: Everybody stops when they've broken the symmetry of the problem; nobody ever asks about the physics behind it.
Well then, @@Inductica, I wholeheartedly agree with, and support your mission :)
@@Raging.Geekazoid The RUclips Channel "Dialect" has a great video about the twins paradox I learned a lot from.
@@Inductica I posted about that earlier today. Dialect didn't mention the role of the ship's exhaust gasses in turning around.
9:19 What if you setup an e-magnets and get this "vaccum" of ether between these mags and then turn it off. Would you be able to measure some kind of equalization force (under ideal conditions)?
I don't fully follow what you are saying, but there is a phenomena called back EMF. Basically, the current in the electromagnet will persist for a time after you turn the voltage off. This is because there is energy still stored in the ether which is dissipated in moving the charges in the wire after the current is turned off. I should make a video about this effect!
When the Electric Field is Perpendicular to the Magnetic Field, the movement OF THE OBJECT is perpendicular to both of them !
When you say that a magnet only exerts force when it moves are you implying that within the fields are infinite number of mono poles?
No. How am I implying that?
if the magnet is placing a force on the charge by movement this implies that it does not put to force on a charge when it’s stationary
This implies that it is generating a potential differential between one point and another in space by movement hence my suggestion within the fields it must interact with mono poles
differential current potential coupling, the charge follows the direction of current or spin when it changes. B is called lines or tubes of force and are not primary.
I don’t follow.
@@Inductica yeah i know, i explained not too well.
differential current potential coupling: in mathematical terms dA/dt, A is the current potential or magnetic vector potential, the current in one element that causes dA/dt induces an electric force in another element with charges, which induces a potential or current if the loop is closed. so I think magnetic induction can be seen as electric current coupling while leaving B out of the equation. The induced current or force follows the opposite direction of the primary current when B (or I that causes magnetic moment) or v changes, hence current coupling, opposite direction is Lenz law.
Since B is the curl of A, B is the eye of the vortex A, and A around a conductor with current is like smoke rings, taking the curl of a ring gives B around the conductor.
something like that, the theory could be wroog here or there..
The question this vid is based on is valid, but there already is an intuitive answer, that does not require any concept of aether.
The magnetic field is entirely a relativistic effect of electric fields.
First you got to get a grasp of length contraction as a phenomenon. Then start with the 2 wire setup, both conducting current in the same direction. Take a seat on a charge traveling in one direction. This charge will see particles of the same charge as itself in the other conductor staying relatively at rest, while particles of the other charge polarity moves at a certain speed. The moving charges in the other conductor, does- according to relativity- appear closer to one another than those at rest. This means each charge in one conductor sees more of the other charge than its own in the other conductor, which means the electric force is pulling the two wires together. From there you can work your way up to laws of induction etc, without requiring any right hand rule. (You can alwas deduct the right hand rule from the first example)
I came over this as a student in the 90ies, and i have noticed that it has become more popular and shown by other youtubers lately. But this was shown to "comply" with the right hand rule and maxwells equations mathematicly already in the 60ies by W.G.V. Rosser (he also wrote a book about it).
I think many consider this more complex than just teaching the right hand rule; after all length contraction isnt easy to grasp, but magnetism is a beautiful way to demonstrate it that it is significant even at low average speeds. It also works intuitively even without doing the math, although that does work.
Einstein was debunked when nobody wanted to peer review him.
Ask around, did anybody get a feeling of "this is COMPLETE fucking bullshit" until they got to the chapters on QP & Relativity?
Did "just keep plugging in values & it will click" really click? Or do you just get better at "doing the math?"
You might want to learn a little about relativity first before saying anything.
Funny how confidently we often hear that there just is no aether since the advent of MMX --> special relativity, yet conceptually space itself isn't exactly "no thing" here or for Q-fluctuations & the Higgs field. Yet on the other hand, it does at least seem to be true that regarding actual predictions it hasn't seemed to ever add anything useful. Not having mastered the subject myself I can't say much else except that there does seem to be some confusion afoot, at least regarding our "how mechanisms" anyways.
You raise some good points. Something I'd focus on though is that we scientists should look for underlying physical explanations. Further, since "nothing" can't wave, we know that something is present. This is true whether or not this thesis has added anything useful, or not. Because it is true, it will eventually add something useful.
@@realcygnus The confusion is because the theoretical physics looking into how is extremely esoteric and of immense complextion (literally having to innovate math) with major outstanding problems that don't have clear answerd in sight (look up yang mills existence and mass gap for example). It's a lot of headspinning madness that isn't necessary for most researchers interest.
A lot of physcist believe spacetime is emergent from fundamental interactions. A big concept in current theoretical physics is gravity - gauge duality, observations of which has lead to the idea that ER=EPR, or quantum entanglment is equivalent to the wormhole solution of einsteins field equations, the implication being that space emerges from entanglement.
I'm going to jump the shark here to metaphysics but I think I have sound reasons to do so - Einstein professed a belief in spinozas metaphysics, and its hard not to see the idea that the universe is of "one substance" in general relativity and the pursuit of a grand unified theory.
Our best candidate for a theory beyond the standard model, string theory very much reflects such an idea. Dirac talked about the importance of "beautiful ideas", there' something deeply compelling about the fundamnental simplicity of such reduction, and I think its no surprise it's mathematical robust and even been applicable to problems like those with the yang mills equations while competing proposals are mostly underdeveloped conjectures.
@@randomchannel-px6ho Yup, I'm aware of that ER = EPR idea, who would have ever guessed ? It's all quite interesting. Nor do I any longer frown upon philosophy, especially metaphysics/ontology etc.. Reduction has been quite powerful indeed. & I'm often amazed at just how far we(mere monkeys) have already gone. I'm also glad that people looking into foundations has become more acceptable.
And yet Lorentz symmetry has been experimentally verified out to about 20 digits. If the ether exists, why is its state of motion so elusive?
One way to explain that, is that the first-order effects one expects to observe from the ether are cancelled out when one uses co-moving measuring instruments. There is also evidence this occurs for second-order effects, when measuring instruments are co-accelerating, such as in the case of a radiating charge in gravitational free-fall.
One should also note there are many entities in physics whose existence is not directly observed, but rather inferred from reasoning, the most notable example being the concept of energy.
@@dialectphilosophy It is worth noting that we *can* detect our acceleration through the ether (or at least our acceleration with respect to something important) which is the subject matter of many of your videos.
The fact that some things are not directly observed, only inferred is very important. What is the significance of that when it comes to not being able to detect our motion through the ether?
I appreciate the question Geekazoid. In @dialectphilosophy's first few videos, he builds a compelling case that we can (and often do) measure acceleration through the ether unwittingly.
In the first place Lorentz symmetry was design specifically to describe the "ether" or "New Ether" as Einstein calls it. So when you say " Lorentz symmetry has been experimentally verified", you are saying the ether has been experimentally verified - so obviously you are confused about something. Keep in mind the contradiction you are representing leads to the discrepancy in vacuum energy out to 120 orders of magnitude, so this purported 20 digit precision is heavily outmatched by the resulting inaccuracy.
In the second place, as Einstein said on May 5th, 1920: "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view." He called the result the new either and he also called it Space-time. If it were named more recently it might have been called dark ether or dark time symmetry. The only problem here is the cult that is afraid of the word ether and so use the concept anyway with a different name.
@@ExistenceUniversity that might be true, but you have demonstrated first hand that you dont understand math, so how could you claim to understand physics yourself?
After putting down intuitive explanations, you gave an intuitive explanation. I don't know how to answer this question either, but I'm pretty sure declaring that there is an ether isn't it.
My explanation might feel intuitive to you, but my point is not that I'm against an explanation which feels intuitive, I'm against appeals to intuition. Maxwell's model is valuable, not because it is intuitive (to you or two whoever) it is valuable because it offers an actual physical cause and effect relationship.
So I'm not against intuition, I'm indifferent to it. We should not ask, "is this intuitive or not?" We should ask, "Does this give a physical account of the entities and cause and effect relationships involved?"
I think you have it backwards. People are forbidden to say "voldemort" so no one says voldemort. But if you want to study and understand voldemort, you kind have to say voldemort every now and again. The set of differences between any field theory and an ether is empty by the original design of fields. So you can say we are forbidden to speak of the voldemort that underlies the abstraction, but its only helpful if you are afraid of voldemort.
It's clearly understood in relativity. There are plenty of youtube videos showing exactly why the Lorentz force is perpendicular to the magnetic field.
@@KaiVieira-jj7di you are not understanding the word "exactly"
@@oversquare6625 Then explain your unique definition of "exactly" so the rest of us can explain why it's wrong.
"“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” -- Hamlet to his friend, compliments of Shakespeare.
Although of course he did not know it, but this advisement of Hamlet's by Shakespeare to his friend, was crafted almost customly for physicists and all of similar-like strutters, lacking in requisite humility.
The implication: when at the mirror every morning recite that line back to what looks back. Then after, more as "Most all I do not know" -- "Most all I do not know" -- "Most all I do not know" and then as more that's good "Of some that is of the very minute I do know." -- "Of some that is of the very minute I do know." -- "Of some that is of the very minute I do know." then you will be properly prepared humility-wise, to deal with that GIGANTIC OCEAN of the Unknown, and ultimately IF you were to live long enough for it, the Unknowable.
If lacking any of the above, you are defective prima facie.
Knowledge as-in "KNOWLEDGE, certain and true." is THE gold standard for accessing and maintaining healthy contact with Reality.
(This humble advisement is intended to NOT apply to Inductica, for I accept that he well-knows of this already.)
Is it possible Michelson and Morley incorrectly interpreted their results because the experiment was conducted in the atmosphere not in the ether?
Being familiar with the specifics, of the experiment, I can't think of why that would make a difference.
Now all you need to secure is a 50 million dollar "government" grant to run experiments :)
We will see what kinds of experiments end up being necessary. Perhaps it won't require government cheese if the physics is well understood, enabling a clever selection of experiment.
This was another excellent video! Never heard the right-hand rule described quite like that 😂 that’s some serious street physics dawg.
We appreciate that you point out that the only correct answer here is that magnetic fields are abstractions, and we don’t know much about what the magnetic force actually is or why it is there. Nothing has done more damage to this fact of course than Special Relativity, which misleads students to thinking that the electric force and the magnetic force are one and the same thing.
The history on Maxwell was engaging - are you following the channel FractalWoman? She’s a bit all over the place but put out a number of videos elaborating on this model. Also interesting to see that one can recreate “magnetism” mechanically in water tanks with spinning cells.
Also a quibble, possibly on semantics: when we use the word “intuition” we most generally mean what, as you term, conforms to a sense of something physical and causal and which can be understood by the natural imagination, as opposed to a vaguer definition of what “feels” right. But of course, an explanation “feels right” precisely because it is physical and causal and can be understood in the mind, so in that sense one certainly seeks the most “intuitive” explanation.
"Natural Imagination" means emotions. How you are feeling about any particular subject. His use of intuition is spot on.
Thank you very much!
Haha, yeah, that version of the right hand rule comes from my days at USC: as you may have heard, USC is in the middle of the hood. There was an infamous group of physics majors that started a gang and completely dominated the streets at the time. Their sign was the right hand rule, which they would flash at terrified police and rival gang members with impunity. Eventually, all but one of them went down in a hail of gunfire while trying to finish their homework on Lagrangians. You might be able to guess who is the one who survived.
Yes, special relativity has even further obscured these hidden facts, which are a bit hard to get to anyway. My hope is that this video helps people understand the exact nature of the magnetic field and how it relates to whatever it is the ether is actually doing.
I have not heard of FractalWoman! I’ll check it out. Good videos of Maxwell’s model are hard to come by!
Regarding intuition:
In my experience, intuition is different for different people. People who agree with the way physics is taught now find it very intuitive that physics is really just math, I find that counterintuitive. My goal is to take feelings out of the equation completely, whether those feelings are based on a good standard or a bad standard, and simply identify what an explanation *should* aim toward.
But tell me what you mean by “natural imagination,” is this a certain kind of intuition, as opposed to other kinds?
@dialectphilosophy Just an advice for the curious mind. You can't understand new things if you look at the teaching videos or books. I advice you to look at the simulations videos, just search for those videos that have the LEAST number of views...
@@marcoantoniazzi1890 Hahah, like the videos Dialect himself makes? He should watch his own videos?
@@Inductica Not at all, those are very nice videos that I hope will gain a lot of viewers, they already have many thousands of views, I am talking about videos that after more than 10 years have less than 500 views...
Math is PURELY DESCRIPTIVE. It doesn’t explain ANYTHING. It can never answer a “why” question. And that’s why this whole notion of “Laws of physics” are absolutely ridiculous. All they are, are best guesses that hold true until they are proven through experimentation to be untrue. And even then most of these so called “laws” only apply under specific special circumstances, which is key otherwise they don’t apply. So the best way to do it is just forget the math and build a mental model in your mind. Then the “why” questions get answered. At least that’s what I did to understand it.
Isn't "why" just a deeper level of "how"? Will we ever reach the bottom to the first level of how?
Yes it is. I don't know if we will ever reach the bottom, but each time we go deeper we gain more control over nature.
I wonder if what is called ether here is simply a classical model of the photon field. It is an entity that fills space, can be excited, has spin and interacts with charged particles.
Can someone describe the differences?
The difference is that a field is just an abstraction which names certain kinds of actions which will occur at each location. We need to understand the nature of the entity causing those actions. That's why we need the concept of an ether apart from the concept of fields.
@@Inductica Okay but as you stated by yourself in the video, the mechanical ether model you presented also does not give a final clue to that problem. So since the ether is only indicated by indirect measures (such as the effects of the magnetic field) it seems very possible that it is also only an abstraction of an underlying physical reality.
I believe there are people propagating that quantum fields might by the physical reality (while unmeasurable) so were do you see the difference?
I would also be interested to undestand, if you are denying realativity or if you propose a lorentz invariant ether??
I thought Einsteins theories of relativity explained this
You can see my answer to this in other comments here.
Yes, and explained more simply by relativity.
Is there some reference on a Maxwell document where he describes this concept of ether cells, the spinning ether particles and the particles changing in dimensions?
Yes. It is his paper, “On Physical Lines of Force.”
meh - look, communication requires shared experience, there is no way around it. Thus, the point of an "intuitive answer" is merely to give a common frame of reference. So the friction vs frictionless example here misses the point. A better approach would be to appeal to the shared experience of the sun always moving without "changing speed". Everyone has that common experience - so you could argue everyone has that intuition. The point of Newtons laws then is to simplify the friction case and non-friction case to be the same case when friction = 0.
Math itself is just a language like English and also requires the same shared experience to communicate meaning. For example the constant e has little meaning outside of calculus, so you kinda have to finish calculus before you have the shared experience that gives the understanding of the shared experience of e.
However, professors or physicists that try to describe the right hand rule without giving a clear shared experience are simply bad at their job. They were bad students or had bad professors. The shared experience that describes how the right hand rule arises was published in the 1800's by James Clerk Maxwell. It hasn't changed. It has been abstracted away and turned into a cargo cult of people that don't understand math fundamentally and are not really very good at logic/science/physics. But to be fair - they are the best we currently have at large. The problem is they don't want to let go of their cargo cult so they stand in the way of progress.
I agree with your point about communication requiring shared knowledge, or experience. I also agree that the right hand rule is often taught in a cargo-cult fashion. However, the word, "intuitive," refers to feelings, it does not necessarily make reference to prior knowledge as you say.
@@Inductica i didn't mean to imply that intuition makes reference to prior knowledge - in fact that is basically my point. I was trying to say thats the point others are trying to make when they use "intuitive examples" and that they should not do that because of the flaw you highlighted.
Uhhhhh, if the framework of the universe is based on something undetectable by anything in the universe then we could only ever guess at the “physical nature” of the aether, which is, or is a component part, of the undetectable framework of the universe.
I have envisioned a 3-D electrical environment within a solid crystal lattice where somehow 3-D objects exist within the crystal lattice, and existing to a resolution down to the atomic scale. Objects pass through and move about within the lattice jumping one atom at a time in quantum moves - so there’s a quantum nature to time. (We actually expect time to have such a quantum property from Zeno’s Law.) I speculate that in the actual universe we probably move in Plank scale movements, the fastest speed - the speed of light - being the time it takes light to travel a Plank’s-length. So the objects in the universe move in discrete jumps no bigger than one Plank’s-length at a time. And the universe refreshes itself (rearranges) once every moment in time equal to the time it takes light to cross one Plank’s-length. And so objects moving slower than the speed of light spend multiple discrete moments of quantum time in the same location in space. The more slowly the objects move in space the more such discrete moments are they located in the same place before jumping one Plank’s-length in a particular direction of travel.
The point here that relates to the possibility of detection of the aether (which I imagine to be composed of little Plank’s-length size cells tightly packed) is that we cannot possibly detect the aether because we are the product of the aether. The only thing we can do is conceptualize what the aether is like. We might get an understanding of the true nature of the aether IF we can make some logical guesses about it and be able somehow to confirm our guesses are correct.
@@billygraham5589 I can see your point that detecting the ether would be difficult, since we and our instruments are Mae of ether. However, there is no reason to think that will make it impossible, we will have to do what we have done in the past: make inferences from what we know to discover new facts.
This is a good video and the explanation is solid. Try Modelling this in 3D. Much clearer (but harder to do)
Yes indeed. Perhaps in future videos!
maxwells aether rotation has issues. 1. what 😮 is causing the rotation of the aether particles? 2. the aether particles’ rotation creates friction with all the surrounding aether particles. so it should come to a grinding halt. 😮
the answers easily illuminated if they are transformed into the same questions about the rotation of planets/celestial bodies. OMG - what is causing the rotation of the planets! its a mystery. If you assume the planets rotate the rotation creates friction so they should come to a grinding halt! derp
1. I don't know Maxwell's answer to this question, but an answer which would be reasonable is the following: magnets themselves (which we now know are materials containing unpaired electrons all pointing in the same direction) are nothing more than portions of the ether who's cells are already spinning. This spinning is conveyed to neighboring cells through a mechanism I didn't cover in this video. It is worth noting though that not having an explanation of a deeper cause is not a flaw in a theory. Newton's theory of gravity successfully described the nature of gravitation without identifying what caused it (why, precisely, matter causes attraction.)
2. Good thinking; the mechanism of motion transfer in Maxwell's model is in fact friction; because the cells are rubbing against nearby objects, it causes those objects to roll in turn, which then transfers motion to other nearby cells. In perfect rolling contact, no motion is lost to heat, it is simply transferred to other rotating objects. Another thing to think about: what is heat? It is the motion of small particles. If small particles are just certain kinds of disturbances in the ether, then heat does not apply to the way the parts of the ether interact with one another.
Once again though, the ether is probably not literal balls rotating and rubbing against one another, this is just an effective model for some of the phenomena known so far. I seek to find how far it can be taken.
to be fair, there is a single issue, but this is not the issue.
@@oversquare6625 What?
@@oversquare6625 the rotation of the planets does not change as a function of time. also, the planets are not in contact with one another.
--At --11:23-- I think the force is backwards--
Nvm the balls are rotating perpendicular
They are being spun by the magnet and slowed by the wire.
Yeah! I misunderstood that "faster spinning = less pressure" when really the orientation of the spinning is what matters.
The ether has cells? Maybe "ether" is just the fabric of space. All things interact with the fabric, in specific ways, idealized by wave-based descriptions.
Good --- . Einstein 1920: "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." ----- We just need to refine it. ---- - The current view is "If we can't explain it, it is not real." So if nothing is real, then the physicists are not real either, so should get non-real salaries because they don't need real food or money or houses.
I think this is a very important quote from Einstein. Especially the part where he says that the concept of motion may not apply to it. I have been thinking the same thing.
Einstein is the worst place to begin understanding relativity, and best place to end up once you've learned it.
This "aether" Einstein is referring to is the gravitational field, spacetime itself.
@@KaiVieira-jj7di what, in your view, is a gravitational field?
@@Inductica We measure the gravitational field to be spacetime itself (measures of WEP, LLI, and LPI).
Specifically, since you don't have a relativity textbook: "A general relativistic gravitational field [(M,g)] is an equivalence class of spacetimes where the equivalence is defined by orienting and time-orienting isometries (exercise 1.2.6). Each (m,g,D)\in [(M,g)] is a representative of [(M,g)]. Physically, all representatives of [(M,g)] model the same situation."
When it comes to fundamentals, science explains "How?", not "Why?". The answer to "Why?" for fundamentals - because that's the way Nature seems to be when we observe it.
@@dcorgard I’m glad the many scientists of history who answered why questions disagreed with you.
The important word here is "explain", not "how" or "why". For example, if a scientist visits London, he will note that the little hand on Big
Ben goes around twice a day and that the big hand goes around 12 times every time the little hand goes around. Similarly, if he visits the Wizard of Oz, he will note how the Wizard makes loud noises, emits gasses, and does whatever other things he does.
This process is called "describing". It's all very good and useful, but it's not all the scientist does. He also wants to "explain" the behaviors, in the sense of finding the mechanism that makes them happen. He looks for gears and springs and levers, a fat little man behind a curtain, whatever will make the behavior less mysterious. Whether you phrase that as "how" things work or "why" they do what they do is unimportant. The important point is that the scientist is interested in constructing a simple model that goes beyond mere phenomenology, so it will make useful predictions for novel situations, such as an electrical blackout in London or making verbal appeals to whatever sentiments or inclinations an old man who hides behind a curtain might have.
Unfortunately, most of today's physics community doesn't seem to care what's happening behind the curtain. They're happy to record statistical descriptions of the Wizard's outbursts, and they don't seem to think any further analysis would be helpful. A minority of physicists disagree with this sentiment, because it's a step away from traditional scientific principles, and our host Inductica is one of them.
I am fascinated by the subject and I do wonder if there is a field effect that is generated by the potential difference between the suns and the black holes in the universe which enables us to derive electrical potential
Ether explanations work fine inside matter, where ether cells are electrons, but fails in vacumm. When you transform to a comoving charge system, in which charges aren't moving, then the magnetic force still exists as an Electric field. By making aLorentz transformation on the magnetic field, you will obtain a Perpendicular Electric field, that's why the magnetic force is perpendicular to the velocity, the reason is RELATIVITY.
"inside matter" is not a thing
The ether exists in a vacuum.
The ether exists under matter loke a substrate/framework.
The ether seems to affect the matter/energy above it in a measurable way relative to or perceived space.
Is our perceived space also contorting? Or is is it the ether?
I think it makes more sense that our perceived space (apparently consistent) is actually contorted by feilds such as gravity and magnetism.
It is the something we cannot see or measure..
Everywhere we are.. there seems to be ether..
Is there ether everywhere? Maybe.
@oversquare6625 Yes, it is, is how physicist calls solid state. In the presence of matter EM fields produced by this matter, interact with the photon field. Thus, charge polarization produces Lorentz force, as explained in the video. But in the absence of matter, this explanation does not apply. But changing to a comoving system does.
@@rafaeltorrealba36 "solid state" is an approximation not an actual physical thing.
Have you read "Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look" ? If not I can't recommend it enough.
Multiple people have suggested it! Thank you!
Delightful !!
You just explained 'the dodge' allowing for more magnetical force to be accessed for use, than is necessary to obtain it.
This explains virtuosically, the 'why and how' of the supposed/proposed phenomenon-impossible . . .
"In closed systems, energy is conserved." Close enough, Emmy?
I KNEW there was a reason I was lead to subscribe here but, having no the details as-to it. That little mystery is now ended.
J.M. editor/publisher of -- "The Perpetual Motion Revue." -- that last not as misspelled for IT having been A PARADE of it.
(To the end of especial aggravation to . . . . . we've inserted in-between our title's four words, Isaac Newton's hand-drawn symbol, intended to stand-for perpetual motion, in which in his young years he thought a possibility. He was correct. Irritating as the Devil, isn't it? Well, you'll live.)
You must bond field theory with string theory to understand why. Use these two different perceptions to create a 3rd differential perception. Higher dimensional thinking.
Good God, more aether claptrap from Inductica. He should really get more than a high school education in physics.
Let us take a B field created by an electric current for an example (the case for a bar magnet requires a complete work up from the QED description because it involves spin and someone is dying for a quick explanation that approaches the first year level here). Here, the magnetic field is what we experience an experimental charge to react to when near the electromagnetic field of a huge number of nearby electrons. The electrons act as if they are moving close to the speed of light in typical circuits (actually, they diffuse at several cm/sec). This makes them relativistic, so there is no avoiding special relativity. In relativity, the E and B fields experienced in one person's frame become a different mixture of E and B, for the same spacetime point in another frame.
[Yes, there is a relation E' = lambda E and B'= lambda B, reflecting the deeper tensor relation Fuv' = lambda_u lambda_v Fuv]
The moving electrons do not "see" their own effect ( in a classical description), i.e., create no B field in their rest frame [though there is a classical self energy for the purist reader]. But in the frame of a test charge in the room and NOT in the wire, part of the electric charge carried by the current is transformed into the local B field. This, in turn, appears as a physical object (field) because the relativistic transformation of force by the E current's field has a component that points sideways to any motion that the test charge undertake. Inductica leaves out any mention that the test charge has to be in motion in some third frame - YOURs in this example, to interpret this as the work of some "curly" field like B.
So physicists through time have taken B as real, because most efficiently that is what we experience. [In the fully QFT description of the matter, both the electrostatic field and B field are aspects of the exchange of "longitudinal photons", but an impatient kid doesn't want to sit still to hear about this - and probably not Inductica either]. regards DKB
underrated channel! I liked this video
We won't be underrated for long!
wait. didn’t einstein’s special relativity explain the magnetic 🧲 force as the electric ⚡️ force with relativistic effects?
Yes, but that is not a physical explanation. It simply refers to fields (the abstraction). This does not explain the physical cause of the actions these fields track. A theory which tracks results without explaining the underlying cause is fine of course, but we want to understand that underlying cause!! Further, SR is a subjectivist theory, it claims that different observers see different realities (different fields) we need a theory which achieves the same truth-modeling power as special relativity without the subjectivism.
@@Inductica you are absolutely incorrect. einstein's special relativity is a good wave theory. it explains time dilation. and length contraction and therefore the magnetic effect. here is my paper that i did not finish yet. docs.google.com/document/d/1J_BHJr5O3twSWNJslSwfbezhSDwh08CfeWLf1gWfksM/edit?usp=sharing
@@Inductica let’s talk. i’m writing ✍️ papers on this very topic.
@@Inductica Relativity is NOT subjective. You might want to learn a little bit about a subject before disparaging it.
@@Inductica Are you saying the electromagnetic field doesn't exist?
Good video. I know you're taking a lot of shit, but I thought this carried some nice explanation.
A few pieces of advice: firstly, your argument is somewhat an argument from intuition. Nothing wrong with that, but something to keep in mind.
Also: Einstein showed that magnetic fields arise from electric fields. They are one in the same, in some sense (time dilation, length contraction): ruclips.net/video/WwzB1JvsyYc/видео.htmlsi=UIOKq7vOtKtW7vIq. Something to keep in mind.
I would also have appreciated some math.
Finally: the Lorentzian/Poincare ether was **never** disproven, so far as I'm aware. And, stuff like Bohmian mechanics in the world of quantum strongly imply a Lorentzian ether. Something that might help your argument out!
Thank you for giving criticism with respect. Some of my other commenters can learn from you.
I don’t think my argument is from intuition. It might feel intuitive to you, but it is a rock solid fact, not just an intuition, that actions and properties (like that described by the magnetic field) can only be actions and properties of some entity.
Re: relativity: I reject relativity, so I don’t regard it as an explanation. Obviously, it gets the right results; but a length can’t be two different values for two different people, so it does not describe what is actually happening here.
What do you think math would have added to my point? I’m not opposed to math, many of my other videos have it.
Yes! It hasn’t been! You can see more on that in my ether video. Bohemian mechanics has a shot of being right, we need to think of a way to confirm or disconfirm it.
Pretty useless, actually. Replace the magnet with an electromagnet, apply special relativity, forget that magnetism exists and do it all with Coulombs Law.
But why does that procedure work?
@@Inductica well, does it, actually? Deflecting an electron has F perpendicular to ds and therefore does not produce any work since dE=0.
@@wernerviehhauser94 I don't follow.
@@Inductica I noticed.
Magnetic fields excert forces, but magnetic fields constant over time do not do any physical work. The electron has the exact same kinetic energy after it was deflected by the magnetic field that it had before. dE=0, no work done, just like circular motion does exhibit permament forces acting on an object but not doing any physical work.
That would be the physical point of view. Although, maybe you have a different definition of "work" and therefore I am misinterpreting your point. Then again, that wouldn't be physics.
@@wernerviehhauser94 Haha, you are being smart with me.
I want to see the iron filing experiment done but with a wire instead of a magnet. Wire flat under the paper Andi wire going thru the paper. Even a loop and note how the field interact with the iron.
With both DC and AC
Cool idea, what insight do you think that would give?
7:25 The spin direction seems chosen; I don't see a reason explained why it would be one over the other direction 11:10 now the chosen direction has the impact that the force in a specific direction. As the initial spin direction was choosen random the direction of the force is also random (or I would say the spin direction is chosen to match the observation).
this model works regardless of what an S does to the cells and what an N does to the cells. It only matters that they be opposite.
I am missing how this is an answer to the comment.
I would say if change the cells rotations directions because of the magnet, the force direction changes 180°.
Why questions are metaphysical questions which provide the paridgms of science. And since they are at a higher degree of abstraction science cannot prove or disprove them. Go check on Popper, Reale. Aquinas and Maritain abot this. Materialist scientists just reject the idea of eather
I disagree with the philosophical position you raise here. You can see my arguments against them in my other videos.
Ok. Thanks your negatve answer, It is more than I usually get... But If you try to consider ether as a material like medium you Go in a circle.
Bye the way I think your vídeos are Very good
Because of spin
Tell me more.
@@Inductica there is only 1 force-
Dielectric
Magnetism is the radiation of this generative force
Dielectric field is explained by counter travelling infinitesimal charges 2 charges (currents)
Hence magnet has 4 poles
Each counter rotating (quantum spin) North and South monopole with a centrifugal and centripetal force
This is a 4 'di'mensional gyroscopic universe
overall - good video.
I guess I didn't realize that there was a shortage of crackpots on RUclips.
Thanks? For trying to correct this problem?
You're welcome?
Isn’t this a quantum ether? Thus quantum gravity should be a thing. One thing is clear ether is a more useful concept than the absence of ether.
I'm glad you agree. I do think that what we call quantum properties are somehow caused by the ether. Why do you think this would lead to quantum gravity?
Good video! I know the physical reason behind a magnetic field by the way. There are no North or South poles.
@@xPaulie there are, but they simply consist of the intrinsic magnetic moments of particles within a magnet. Is that your point?
@@Inductica No I literally mean there are no poles at all. There is something else going on there.
Interesting, what makes you think that?
@@Inductica I'm already pulling energy from the vacuum and it takes 2 real poles to accomplish it. A magnet is not a magnet and the first thing to give it away is when you smash a magnet each broken piece still retains it's so called magnetism.
@@Inductica I'm also currently taking Quantum Physics class and almost done. I aspire to win the Noble Prize for explaining what truly is happening with magnets and particles.
Very good. physics students parrots become mad when matheMAGIC is ruled out of their virtual reality lol
"ether because something must be doing something': sounds like a god existing argument...
Can you elaborate in more detail?
@@Inductica Many god arguments are of the form, it cannot be anything else, so it must be god. You do the same: there must be something passing the magnetic field, so the ether is true -sorry didn't check you exact words. I am not arguing here the ether is not true, but your argument why the ether is true is not really valid.
@@walter-- So you are saying that nothing is committing the actions of the magnetic field?
@Inductica I am saying a reasoning 'it cannot be bit this, is not correct'. Basically you are saying if there is something tranfer of force or a field, there is an ether. There could be other reasons to explain the field (maybe it is like SR, a change in space/time...).
so you have no idea, but want the you tube clicks.
Downvoted. The video is pile of ignorance bearing no relation to accepted science.
Magnetism is explained by relativity.
So you think the length of an object is one length for one charge and a different length for a moving charge?
@@Inductica There is no such thing as the "moving charge" as a rest frame can be chosen for either charge.
The measured length of an object is the projection onto the spatial coordinates of the observer.
So if you have "charges" (I'm not sure why a non-zero electric charge is meaningful to you in this context) is in relative motion with some other charge in the rest frame of some object, the measured length of the object wrt the moving observer will be less.
@@KaiVieira-jj7di right, so the wire’s length is actually for different observers. The “accepted science,” as you put it, implies subjectivism: that reality is different for some than for others.
@@Inductica Wow, you really have no understanding at all. I'd really like to hear your explanation of your belief that different coordinate representations constitute different realities.
Nisha ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Inductica you wasted my time. I was hoping to find a video that explained the very same question I had, but no you started spouting nonsense halfway through the video.
You are wrong and you should feel bad. There is going to be someone genuinely interested in how the world works, and you are going to fill their heads with BS. And you will have robbed them of the opportunity to learn. 😢
There is ether? I’m sorry, I won’t be watching any more videos from your channel.
I lose nothing by losing a potential viewer who is so close minded.
Ridiculous video
Thanks!
What's so ridiculous about trying to think about problems in a different way. With an open mind
Also.... I want to see the iron filing experiment done but with a wire instead of a magnet. Wire flat under the paper Andi wire going thru the paper. Even a loop and note how the field interact with the iron.