Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
Philosophically I am uncomfortable with the notion of "constants"
Lets take μ and ϵ in a "moving media" scenario. If one digs deeper into how the waves look like from particle to particle the development of the wave equation becomes a little more complex. We need to examine the interaction of light with the first moving particle and then relate that to light interaction with the second particle. The second particle has a different relative speed. So how do we derive the equations for this case in point? Well, not only do we need equations for media, but also for moving media where μ and ϵ are tensors and therefore not constant.
|
ϵ and μ are nothing more than conversion constants.
They arise from the inverse square law force between electric charges, and the force between parallel wires carrying a current respectively.
Since force is expressed in Newtons, charge in Coulombs and distance in metres, the inverse square law has a unit mismatch between the left and right hand side of the equation, ϵ is introduced into the right hand side of the equation so that both sides are expressed in terms of force.
The same principles apply to μ.
While ϵ and μ are termed "physical" constants both in fact are measurement system constants.
They cannot be measured in an experiment nor do they describe the physical properties of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum.
It is therefore totally meaningless to claim ϵ and μ change due to the interaction of electromagnetic waves with particles.
The interaction of light in a highly rarefied vacuum is based on the science of scattering.
Since light has a wave/particle duality, scattering is understood by treating light as a particle, in this case a photon.
When a photon is scattered by a particle it can either lose or gain energy.
The photon continues to travel at c but the wavelength or frequency of the photon changes.
Quote:
But as I said I dont believe in constants - they are illusions of logic, and numerical conveniences. Science is a very effective and efficient religion. Perhaps the most impressive religious tool developed by humans so far.
In 190 BC, Eratosthenes has certainly developed a long lasting tool for the priests of the Scientific religion to use in their temples and laboratories.
|
Anyone who states science is a religion doesn't understand science.
Isn't it strange for a religion to constantly undergo revaluation through experiment and observation.
Steven