sci.physics.electromag

On Sep 7, 3:41 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, rge11x wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 6:38 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> >> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, rge11x wrote:
>
> > Thank you for the very thoughtful and detailed answer.
>
> >> If the ether were an ideal classical continuous medium, it would support
> >> vibrations at all frequencies. In thermal equilibrium, there would an
> >> infinite amount of energy in the high frequencies. The ether would have an
> >> infinite heat capacity, and would be at essentially absolute zero. Matter
> >> in contact with the ether - basically all matter - would very rapidly cool
> >> down. This is, basically, the ultraviolet catastrophe in black-body
> >> radiation.
>
> > Why do we have to assume that the "ether" is in thermal equilibrium
> > with anything? Since everything were to move "in it", if it existed,
> > how could it be in any state but in nonequilibrium? Seems to me that
> > we postulate nonphysical properties to a hypothetical thing and then
> > decide that it cannot exist because these properties are nonphysical.
>
> If electromagnetic effects are due to ether, then matter interacts with
> ether, especially electrically charged matter. One is faced with either
> extending thermodynamics to include ether, or to exclude ether from
> thermodynamics. Given that hot bodies glow, the latter seems unlikely.
>
> This also means that thermodynamics is the death of classical
> electrodynamics (or of classical matter, but one way or another, classical
> physics is defunct), but that's quantum mechanics for you.
>
> Assume there is an ether. Then it must have properties. We can assume that
> the properties are "obvious", ., based on common sense or common
> experience, or we can assume the properties are bizarre. Much more
> comfortable to assume the former. Alas, it doesn't seem to work.
> Therefore, why assume an ether?
>
> Yes, one could construct an ether with whatever special properties are
> required to match experiment (expect perhaps a local ether matching
> quantum mechanics, but one might manage a non-local ether). It's not that
> one needs "nonphysical" properties, but that one needs properties even
> stranger than conventional theory. Surely, there are an infinitude of
> theories that can explain things, but multiplication of theories that
> cannot be experimentally tested is not science.
>
> All one needs to do to retain an ether is to construct a theory of ether
> that deliver electromagnetism and quantum mechanics and relativity. Assume
> A, B, C in order to get X, Y, Z. Why not just assume the experimentally
> accessible X, Y, Z to start with? Perhaps this is merely the opinion
> resulting from working in applied physics, but I think that Ockham's razor
> is a useful tool (not infallible, not universal, but certainly useful).

To the extent I understand your argument I completely agree with it.
What I do not understand is why from the beginning one must assume
that the ether, if existed, it be in thermal equilibrium with itself
and with matter. One might say that only equilibrium thermodynamics,
better yet thermostatics, is understood fully and not the
nonequilibrium kind, and because of the former one's obvious utility
and mathematical simplicity one should try that first and see if it
worked. It does not: as you pointed it out that if it were in thermal
equilibrium then it would contradict experience. Very well but now
assume that it is not in equilibrium and why should be so? It is in
constant flux, radiation all over is being exchanged with matter
particles. Does one still get nonsensical and nonphysical infinities
if the presumed "substrate" is fundamentally in a state of
nonequilibrium? In other words is the assumption of "ether in
equilibrium" needed for the ultraviolet catastrophe argument, and if
not the argument is to fail? Exactly because of Occam's razor one
should consider this possibility, after all the "state of equilibrium"
is about as special assumption as one can possible make about the
nature of something that might completely surround us.