Re: One Ring to Bind Them All

Tony Hollick (
Fri, 21 Nov 97 07:55 GMT0

Hello, all!

My friend jrt@cix wrote to me, after reading my comments to Carl
Feynman, sayiong that he thought my dismissal of overly mathematical
treatments of physics was a bit cavalier, and might make it more
difficult for people to understand what I aim to get across.

It is my contention that Classical Physics was misled by Huygens'
'wave theory of light' diversion, and Maxwell's beautiful
electromagnetism (as distinct from the particle theory of light; and
the Continental and faradayan electromagnetic programmes of Weber,
Helmholtz etc.). Alfred O'Rahilly's "Electromagnetics: A Discussion
of Fundamentals' is excellent on this issue -- the book is described
by Popper in his 'Postscript' as excelling in the literature
critical of 'relativistic' theories.

We now know that a particle theory of light can do all the 'wave'
stuff anyway; amd that we can get Maxwell's handy equations as a
first approximation from relational forces propagated at 'c'
relative to their source. So we're back on track now (anyway, at
least some of us are... >:-} ).

It may assist understanding to think about Relational mechanics thusly:

[A] Take Classical Mechanics: (Start with T.W.B. Kibble's fine text):
[B] Add relational electric and magnetic and gravitational forces:
[C] Add a velocity of force propagation ('c'), which delays far-action:
[D] Add a full ballistic ('particle' or 'photon') theory of EM radiation.

The _basic_ maths is straightforward, although some of the force
interactions are fiendishly complex to calculate. That's why we use
(say) statistically-based approximation methods like Quantum
Mechanics. "The computer is your fiend!"

There _is_ a long-standing rivalry between the 'world-picture'
approach to physics and cosmology (i.e. my preference, and
Popper's); and the instrumentalist 'reified' mathematical approach.

However, my basic thesis is identical to Heisenberg's statement:

"Classical Mechanics is everywhere exatly 'right' wherever its
concepts can be applied." -- Werner Heisenberg.

I propose that this means _everywhere_. Classical Mechanics is the
most self-consistent, the conceptually clearest, the strongest, the
most coherent, the most extendable and the most adaptable Scientific
Research Programme the world has ever seen. And one theory does it
all. Why use anything else, is all. "Simplify! Simplify!"

As a matter of fact, I think it's actually _true_. I've never read a
convincing refutation of Classical Mechanics. Someone would have to
disprove one or more of the axioms; or break the deductive chains. I
don't think that's actually possible. Does anyonwe here think that
geometry is _empirically decideable_? I.e. Euclid vs. Minkowski or
Euclid vs. Riemann ? Do tell!!! >:-}

Classical Mechanics is certainly exactly accurate to the present
limits of measurement, AFAICS. It shows every prospect of extension
without limit - it scales cleanly from cosmic down to the microworld.

What more can anyone possibly ask for?

----------- * * * * * -----------


On 'Frame Dragging.' Insofar as gravitational force is propagated
radially as an intrinsic property of mass, and with a finite velocity
of propagation, we would expect something like 'frame dragging' to
occur. Different ways of interpreting the same data, is all.

------------------- * * * * * ---------------


Electrons held in orbit by a balance of radial electric force against
inertial mass are in a condition analogous to 'free fall' or 'curved
space.' They're not accelerating in a way which causes emission of
photons. The radial distance between the positive and negative
charges is _constant_, except for the periodic frequency fluctuation
as they wiggle round in closed sinewave paths at self-equilibrating
integer frequencies (See Beckmann [1987] for a complete explanation).

If they absorb or emit a photon, they increase or decrease in mass,
and the orbit adjusts. If they change theior angular velocity, they
take up different orbits. The model works perfectly. Bohr's basic
[1913] model works by ad hoc postulates, whereby I offer physical
mechanisms and hence physical explanations. That makes RM a superior
theory! More content! What's the problem supposed to be?

All this 'electrons spiralling into the nucleus' stuff -- that is a
hangover from aether-drag theory. There's no point in quoting
Maxwell at us -- Maxwell's theory has a (non-existent) aether to
transmit forces, whereas RM has relational -- Faradayan -- aetherless
forces. See Berkson's 'Fields of Force' on this crucial point (he
was a postgrad student of Popper's at LSE, BTW).

/ /\ \

Tony Hollick, LightSmith (LA-Agora Conference) (Agora Home Page, Rainbow Bridge Foundation) (NorthWest Coalition Against Malicious Harrassment)