: : Одно дело, когда внутри теории, ее средствами, порождаются некоторые теоретические объекты присущие этой теории. Другое дело, когда мы имеем нечто эмпирически данное и поименованное в качестве физического явления. Магнит, магнитная сила (силовое поле, обусловленное магнитом) обнаруживаются вне и до теории относительности. В рамках ТО это эмпирическое явление получает определенную теоретическую интерпретацию.
:
: Конечно. И в рамках теории Максвелла тоже.
:
: : Во-вторых, магнитное поле, действительно, порождается токами (эмпирика), а релятивизм тут сильно притянут за уши.
:
: Вот, а теперь Вы сами делаете ровно тот же финт ушами. То, что 'магнитныое поле порождается токами' - это следствие теории Максвелла, которая всего лишь 'теоретическая интерпретация'. 'Эмпирика' же состоит в том, что магнитное поле порождается как токами так и постоянными магнитами, и далеко не факт, что в последних имеются токи. Если определять магнтное поле как 'силовое поле, обусловленное магнитом', то связь его с токами из этого никак не следует.
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
1. SCHEMATIC OF THE AMPÉRE APPARATUS (1822)
2. WILHELM WEBER'S UNIPOLAR
INDUCTION MACHINE OF 1839
"NOTES
1. This was the subject of an early challenge by Michael Faraday to Ampère's hypothesis of the magnetic molecule. Faraday reasoned that if Ampère's conception were correct, the two cylinders should show the same magnetic effect; but his experiments showed that they behaved differently. Ampère showed that Faraday did not understand the conception: the large circular windings of the solenoid are only macroscopic analogues of the very small circular currents hypothesized to reside within the atomic structure of the magnet. Thus, the geometry of the currents in the two cylinders is entirely different, and Faraday's experimental conception is fundamentally flawed.
2. It might, or might not, be relevant to the case at hand that, shortly after his discovery of the transverse current, which was accomplished in a thin layer of gold deposited on a glass plate, Hall discovered that iron produces a transverse current in the opposite direction.
3. Professor O'Rahilly, author of Electromagnetics (1938) calls this argument, which had already been employed in his day, 'hypostasizing one's own metaphor.' Today, we might use blunter language.
4. Let us allow each man the benefit of the doubt. Some among this fraternity have been so credulous, in their pursuit of fame or money, as to be truly ignorant of the fraud they are paid to uphold. Today, even educated physicists usually lack the historical background to understand how troubling was the challenge posed to Maxwell's system by such asymmetries. Maxwell's nasty fraud-the usurpation of half a century's hard work, steered by the greatest mathematical physicist of modern times, Carl Friedrich Gauss-was in trouble. And people were alive who knew, and still resented, the arbitrary and entirely political manner in which the Ampère-Gauss-Weber electrodynamics was unseated.
Maxwell, who did no more than create a mathematical system which successfully misrepresented all the hard work of Ampère, Gauss, Weber, Riemann and others, had made a big blunder, or several. The Ampère-Gauss-Weber electrodynamics was relativistic, in a non-silly sense; it was atomistic; Gauss knew that the propagation of electrodynamic force was not instantaneous (Weber, Kohlrausch, and Riemann had measured it in 1854, years before Maxwell ever proposed the electromagnetic theory), and was seeking since no later than 1835, a 'constructible representation' for it, as Gauss put it in an 1845 letter.
So Einstein 'saved the appearances' of Maxwell's flawed electrodynamics. He should be called the modern Ptolemy. Maxwell is the true 'Newton' of modern times. Just as one of scientific history's most over-inflated impostors, Isaac Newton, reformulated Kepler's work into an inferior formal system, so Maxwell did the same for the work of Ampère, Gauss, Weber, and Riemann.
Perhaps the defenders of Maxwell's system prefer to remain in ignorance for the simple reason that the patent untenability of their position becomes only more clear, the more they know of its true history. For example, let one of the anointed priests of this profession respond today, to the devastating blow to their entire straw edifice which Ampère had struck in an 1822 letter to Faraday. Explaining that a perpetual motion was impossible, Ampère showed that the force between current elements which could be turned into a continuous rotational motion, had to come from the work done within the battery. However, such was not the case if one presumed-as did Biot, Laplace, and later Maxwell-that the force between magnet and magnet could be made equivalent to that between current element and current element. For in that case, continuous rotational motion would be possible between two magnets, a conclusion which violates the principle of energy conservation:
'. . . dans les autres théories, on devrait pouvoir imiter, avec des assemblages d'aimants disposé convenablement, tous les phenomènes que présentent les fils conducteurs; on pourrait donc, en faisant agir un de ces assemblages sur an autre, produire dans celui-ci le mouvement continu toujours dans le méme sens; ce que dément l'expérience' (cited in Blondel, op cit., p. 117).
"
отредактировано 31.08.2005 16:23
отредактировано 31.08.2005 16:28 |
» Альтернативный форум