Here's a little pure speculation for you. One can ask, what is the relative contribution of each primary electric field to the medium at a given location? One possibility is that the 'weighting factor' is proportional to the electric field strength at a given location. Since the electric field strength falls off as the inverse square of the distance from the source particle, one would expect pretty big variations in the effective state of 'rest' of the medium and the propagation speed of the medium. In other words, stars (and planets) would tend to carry their own state of rest with them. For example, the dominating medium around the earth would more or less move with the earth, and we might expect to see significant variations in the characteristic speed (speed of light) with distance from the earth.
On the other hand, if there was no weighting factor at all, in others words if the contribution of each field element was completely independent of field strength, then one might expect the characteristic speed to be totally constant and the state of rest to be solely determined by the 'average' state of motion of all particles in the universe.
Now, if the weighting factor were dependent on the inverse distance from the source particle (like the electric potential), then one would expect an intermediate result. For example, the characteristic speed would be nearly constant, varying just a tiny bit near massive objects. And friends, this is precisely what we see. Likewise, the local effective state of rest of the medium would almost solely determined by the average state of motion of all particles in the universe.
Ernst Mach dimly perceived that something like this could be the case. In a sense, local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Lee,
Here are some thoughts
Regarding the medium moving along with objects, that could explain the null result of Michaelson-Morley. But then if it be so, then wouldn't time be universal? In this sense, the proposition leaves us without the theoretical means to predict Muon decay times for rapidly moving Muons or how to predict the relative rates of GPS and surface clocks. Lorentz' ether and uninhibited motion relative to a local rest frame is better suited in that regard.
Regarding field, I have read many who propose it as being "the ether". But when one thinks about that proposition, one is immediately aware that one doesn't need an ether, provided, he can describe the field. I am not aware of any evidence that light needs to be in the presence of field to propagate. Granted, light is itself formed of corpuscularized fields but if light only needs its own fields to propagate, then there is no need for a medium.
The school of thought I have been following is that "field" needs a medium. It also follows along this line of reasoning that the medium does not need field. In this sense, light is composed of corpuscularized "fields" and so it needs a medium. Conversely the medium doesn't need the light. The medium can certainly accommodate light, but isn't dependent on light (and other field) to exist in and of itself.
I like to think of the medium devoid of fields as being "homogeneous field". Its like a blank slate with no structure to its momentum. In this sense, its not detectable locally where it appears to be homogeneous. Let field alter its homogeneity and one can detect this non-homogeneity whether the fields which alter its homogeneity be "matter" or "light" or "electric or gravity field"
Regarding the thoughts of Mach and the conceptualization that the rest-frame of the medium is the frame where the average momentum is zero (like for example air in a frame with no wind), here are some more thoughts. This conceptualization is dependent upon a static medium. In that regard, the concept is not capable of describing a medium which expands or contracts for example. So concepts like universal expansion or universal contraction would not be compatible.
I have found that conceptualizing the medium to be dynamic, particularly thermodynamic, to be useful. In that regard, the medium can move relative to an underlying euclidean space concept (which isn't medium). In this sense, the frame to which you referred would be the euclidean frame as opposed to the rest frame of medium (which can only be locally described as it relates to the rest frame of a field). Interesting huh? Sounds very similar to the concept of co-moving medium but it isn't. The field co-moves with the cause of the field (ie Earth's gravity moves with it) but both cause and field move with respect to underlying euclidean object as well as with respect to a local rest frame (the object of medium).
I am convinced that Aether density varies and is denser near gravitating bodies. This density can be related as relative density (as density in one location may relate to another as consequence of the effects of the field under evaluation). In any event, these relationships only follow as they relate to the conceptual model mathematically. It may also be possible to calculate local ether density as it quantifies in local units. Even so, there is no direct way to measure density. One can however obtain other data (for example effects of acceleration on field strength) and use that data to calculate density (provided the concept of the model be consistent with nature).
Wow, I rambled ... I hope you don't mind.
Your friend, Phil
Post a Comment