James Maxwell's Physical Model

[StefanR]

Perhaps a bit for a rainy day, but here is a bit of Boscovich about light
All to give a bit of perspective in a historical sense, it's not to say Boscovich is right but as so little is to be found
on the net about him, and he did have an influence on the progress of science, it seems fair to post it here too
Perhaps later some bits by Maxwell and Faraday about light

471. So much on the subject of fire; now I will make a few remarks about light,which is given off by fire, & which, when present in sufficient quantity, excites fire. It is possible that light may be a sort of very tenuous effluvium, or a kind of vapour forced out by the vigorous igneous fermentation. Indeed, in my judgement, there are very strong arguments in favour of this hypothesis, as opposed to all other hypotheses, such as that of waves. On the hypothesis of waves, Huygens once tried to explain all the phenomena of light ; & the most noted of the geometers of our age have tried to revive this theory, which had been buried with Huygens; but, as I think, unsuccessfully (r).
For, they have explained, & even then poorly enough, a very few of the properties of light, leaving the rest untouched ; & indeed I consider that such properties can not be explained in any way by this hypothesis of waves, & my opinion is that some of them are altogether contrary to it. But this is not the right place to impugn this theory ; indeed I have already, more than once, presented my view in other places. It is really marvellous how excellently, on the hypothesis of emanating effluvia, all the different properties of light are derived from my Theory in a straightforward way.
I gave a very full explanation of this in the second part of my dissertation, De Lumine ; & the principal points of this work I will touch upon here.
Meanwhile, I will just mention that the idea of effluent matter seems to be altogether reasonable; more especially from the fact that, in a very great agitation amongst particles, such as there is in the case of fire, there is always bound to be, in accordance with what we have seen in Art. 195, an abundance of particles flying off, just as we have evaporations in ebullition, effervescence & fermentation.
(r) When I wrote this, the Transactions of the Academy of Turin had not been published ; and even now, at the time of this reprint of my work, I have so far been unable to see what that excellent geometer La Grange has published on the subject.

472. The principal properties of light are : its constant emission, & the fact that the intensity is always the same from the same mass, such as from the Sun, or from the flame of the same candle ; its huge velocity, for it traverses a distance equal to twenty thousand times the semi-diameter of the Earth, which is about the distance of the Sun from the Earth, in an eighth of an hour ; the slight differences of velocity that exist in different rays, for it is proved from several indications that there is scarcely any difference for homogeneous light, if there is any at all ; its rectilinear propagation through a transparent medium everywhere equally dense, along with hindrance to progression through opaque media ; & this without any sensible hindrance due to impact with one another of rays having so many different directions, or any that prevents passage into the inner parts of transparent bodies, no matter how dense they may be ; reflection of part of the light at equal angles" at the surface of separation of two media, the part that is reflected being greater with regard to the whole amount of light, according as the obliquity of incidence is greater ; refraction of the other part at the same surface of separation, with the law of a constant ratio between the sines of the angle of incidence & the angle of refraction, the ratio being different for differently coloured rays, upon which depends the different refrangibility of the differently coloured rays ; dispersion, both in reflection & in refraction, of a very small part of the light in directions of every description whatever ; the alternation of propensity in any one ray, in one of which the light falling upon the surface of separation between two media of different nature is the more easily reflected & in the other is the more easily transmitted, which Newton calls ' fits ' of easier reflection & easier transmission, with intervals between these fits, after which the propensities mostly favouring reflection or refraction return, these intervals being equal in the same ray entering the same medium, & different for differently coloured rays, for different densities of the medium, for the different inclinations at which the ray enters the medium ; upon these fits & the different intervals between them for differently coloured rays depend all the phenomena of thin plates, & of natural colours, both variable & permanent, as well as the colours of thick plates, all of which have been discussed with considerable clearness by Fr. C. Benvenuti, a most careful writer of our Society, in his well-known dissertation, De Lumine. Last of all, we have that property, which is called diffraction, in which rays, passing near the edge of a body, are bent inwards, having a different colour & different refrangibility for different angles.

473. What pertains to emission has been already explained in Art. 199 & Art. 461 ; there also it was shown that, if the mass emitting the effluvia remained the same, then the amount emitted is practically the same in any given time.
Further, it may happen that the mass emitting the light is completely broken up, as takes place in sudden flashes of fire ; or it may be that this mass persists for a very long time. This to a very great extent depends on the size of the interval in which the oscillation due to fermentation takes place, & on the nature of the attractive arc at the end of that interval, by Art. 195.
Nay, if the Author of Nature had wished that a mass, agitated by the most vigorous fermentation even, should be quite irreducible by any finite force whatever, he could easily have accomplished this, as shown in Art. 460, by other asymptotic arcs with infinite areas, between the confines of which the fermenting mass would be situated.
By the aid of these arcs the mass could be so bound together, that it would not admit of the slightest dissolution ; & then by placing the material for emitting light further from the particles of the mass than the interval between those asymptotes, & within the distance corresponding to an attractive arc of huge but finite area ; from which we should have particles, one after the other, of light flying off.
Nor is there any difficulty from the usual argument that is raised in objection to this, that the mass of the Sun must be much diminished by such a large emission of light ; if we suppose indefinitely great componibility, & the solution of the problem, given in Art. 395.
For in any exceedingly small space there may be any huge number of points whatever ; & the whole mass of the light, which is diffused throughout & occupies such an immense volume, may, in the Sun or near the Sun, have occupied a space as small as ever one likes to assign ; so that the Sun, after the lapse of any number of thousands of centuries, will not therefore have decreased by even a finger's breadth.
It all depends on the ratio of the density of light to the density of the Sun, & this ratio can be any small ratio whatever. Indeed there are perfectly valid arguments for the immense tenuity of light, some of which I will give below.

474. Any velocity, no matter how great, can be obtained from sufficiently powerful repulsive arcs, if these occur after the last limit of oscillation within the confines of a very great attractive arc, as shown in Art. 104.
For if a particle goes off from here with no velocity, the square of the whole velocity is defined by the excess of all the repulsive areas over all the attractive, as was shown in Art. 178 ; &, as this excess can be of any amount whatever, the velocity can also be of any magnitude whatever.
Again, the difference of velocity for homogeneous particles is quite insensible, because particles of light of the same kind come to the end of their oscillation with velocities that are almost zero ; for those which, according to the Theory set forth in Art. 195, increase their oscillation gradually, arrive at the boundary limiting the mass at last, & then fly off.
Now, if, at the time they fly off, they should reach this boundary with a very great velocity, then it is certain that they would have reached it & flown off in a previous oscillation.
Further, in the same article, we have proved that a slight difference of velocity on entering a space, in which given forces continually accelerate the motion & generate a huge velocity, also induces a difference in the velocity generated that is very small even when compared with the slight difference in the initial velocity.
This we there prove from an argument derived from the nature of the square of a very large quantity compounded with the square of a quantity much less than it ; this gives a quantity differing from the first quantity by something much less than the small quantity of which the square was added. A sensible difference may be obtained, if what fly off are not simple points, but particles somewhat different from one another.
For the curve of forces, with which the mass acts upon such particles, can be somewhat different for those different particles ; & thus, the excess of the sum of the repulsive areas over the sum of the attractive may be somewhat different, & therefore the square of the velocity corresponding to this excess may be somewhat different.
In this way particles of homogeneous light will have velocities that are practically equal ; but particles of heterogeneous light may have velocities that are somewhat different ; as seems to be conclusively shown from observations of phenomena.
One thing remains to be noted in this connection, namely, that the curve of forces, with which the whole mass acts upon a particle placed already beyond the limit of the oscillation, when the points of the mass are changed on account of the oscillation, will be somewhat altered.
But since in a very large irregular agitation of the entire mass all the different positions of the points follow on after one another very quickly, the sum of all the forces will be practically the same, especially in the case of a particle stopping for some time at the beginning of its , flight ; which point it has reached, as we have said, with a velocity that is exceedingly small.
Thus, the velocity of homogeneous particles must on that account be practically the same, when they have reached the arc representing gravitation ; & a difference can only be obtained in heterogeneous particles owing to their structure. It is therefore clear from what source the very great velocity can come, & also the slight differences, if there are any.

475. That which relates to the rectilinear propagation through a transparent homogeneous medium, & the free motion, without hindrance, by particles either of the light or of the transparent medium, is quite easily explained in my Theory, whereas in other theories it begets a very great difficulty.
Also as regards hindrance to this motion, so long as the curve of forces has no asymptotic arc perpendicular to the axis besides the first, it has been shown, in Art. 362, that merely with a sufficiently great velocity there can be obtained an apparent compenetration of two substances ; & tenuity & homogeneity of space traversed will assist this to a very great extent.
Now, since, compared with perfectly indivisible & non-extended points of matter, there are an infinitely infinite number of points of space existing in the same plane, there is an infinitely infinite improbability that, for any instant of time chosen, the direction of motion of any one point of matter should be accurately directed towards any other point of matter ; & this improbability, when we consider the sum of all the instants contained in any given time, however long, still comes out simply infinite.
The number of points of light is indeed very large, not to say enormous, but in my Theory it is at least finite. These points at any chosen instant of time have an almost immeasurable number of directions of motion, but this number is finite in my Theory.
It is indeed true that, no matter where an eye is situated upon the well-nigh immeasurable surface of a sphere described about one of the remotest stars as centre, nay, or within that sphere, the star will be seen ; & thus, it is true that some particle of light must affect our eye.
But in my Theory, that does not come about because rays of light come to it accurately in every one of an absolute infinity of directions ; but because the pupil & the nerves of the eye do not form a single point, & the forces due to the points of a particle of light act at some distance away.
Hence, in any chosen time, no matter how long, there need not happen in my Theory any case, in which any point of light is directed exactly towards any other point either of light, or of any substance, so that it is bound to collide with it.
Hence, no point of light stays its motion, or deflects it, through collision or immediate impact.

476. This is indeed a common property of all bodies, that is, of bodies that approach one another.
In my Theory, they have no point directly colliding with any other point, For this reason I also stated, in the above-mentioned article, that, if no mutual forces were present, there is always bound to be an apparent compenetration of all bodies. Yet, from this article alone, it is utterly impossible that there ever can be real compenetration. Hence, forces extending over some distance will hinder the progressive motion.
If these forces are always equal in all directions, there would be no impediment to the motion, & it would necessarily be rectilinear owing to the force of inertia. Hence, nothing but a difference in the forces acting on a moving point can hinder it.
But if no infinite force occurs corresponding to any asymptotic arc after the first, all the forces are finite ; & so also the difference between the forces acting in different directions will be always finite.
Therefore, no matter how great the force may be, there is some finite velocity capable of overcoming it, without suffering any retardation, acceleration, or deviation amounting to any given magnitude, no matter how small. For, the forces require time to produce a new velocity, this being always proportional to the force & the time.
Hence, if there were a sufficiently great velocity, any substance would pass freely through any other substance, without any sensible hindrance, & without any sensible change in the situation of the points belonging to either substance, & without any destruction of the mutual connection between the points, or of cohesion.
There also I gave an illustration of an iron ball making its way freely through a group of magnets with a sufficiently great velocity ; & here also we saw that we owe what idea we have of impenetrability, in the case of forces that are everywhere finite, merely to the moderate nature of our velocities & forces ; for by their help alone we cannot impress a sufficiently great velocity, & freely pass through barrier-walls, or shut doors.

477. Now, this is the case, so long as there are no asymptotic arcs besides the first, to induce absolutely infinite forces ; but if, owing to such asymptotic arcs, the particles become incapable both of dissolution & penetration, as in Art. 362, then indeed by no velocity, however great, could one particle pass through another ; & the matter would be reduced to the same idea, as is held generally about the continuous extension of matter, Thus, in that case it would be necessary to diminish the size of the particles of light ; not indeed infinitely for I consider that that would be altogether impossible, just as also I think that there are no quantities infinitely small in themselves, and so determined without reference to any process of human thought ; nor is there anywhere in Nature any necessity for such quantities. But they must be so diminished that the direct collision of one particle with another in any chosen finite time will still be improbable, to any extent desired ; & this can be secured in every case by finite magnitudes. For suppose a plane area circumscribing each particle of light, & that this plane moves with the particle ; then the number of these planes in any given finite time, however long, will in every case be. finite, so long as the particles are distant from one another by any interval at all, no matter how small ; & thus, in any given finite time the mass, however luminous, can only emit a finite number of these particles. Further, any one of these planes will impinge, at their broadest parts, upon the middle of other particles of light distant from one another by a finite number of fits, in every case in a finite time ; for, this can only take place through a finite interval. The sum of such approaches pertaining to all the planes of the particles, finite in number, will also be finite, no matter how great the number may be. But we may so diminish the greatest diameters of the particles that the area of the plane, extended in all directions round to any given distance, however small, may bear to the greatest section of the particle a ratio greater, to any arbitrary extent, than that which is expressed by the huge but finite number of the approaches. Hence, the number of directions, by which all the planes pertaining to all the particles may pass without colliding with any particle, will be greater than the number of directions in which there may be collision, the ratio being one that is as immense as we please. And this will even be the case,if they should have to move in accordance with the law that one must not pass at a greater distance from the other than that interval which determines the very small space, to which it is supposed that the section of the particle bears a ratio of less inequality, no matter what the magnitude. There will nowhere be any need of the infinite in Nature ; a series of finites, extended indefinitely, will always give us something finite, which is large enough or small enough to satisfy any physical needs.

478. All that has been said with regard to particles referred to one another, the same will hold good for particles in reference to any bodies ; & especially if the bodies are formed, in accordance with my Theory, of particles distant from one another, & not bound together by a continuous connection, or possessing the truly continuous extension of the skin or wall offering a continuous infinite resistance, with which we dealt in Art. 362, 363. But really there is no necessity for such asymptotic arcs in my Theory ; in it also, by means of connections & forces of limits of any value however great, though not actually infinite, everything in Nature can be accomplished. If we are to adhere to the principle of induction, we are bound rather to think that there are no other asymptotic arcs in the curve which Nature follows. For, in the mighty interval between the stars & the smallest particles that are visible under the microscope, no connections of this kind occur, as is indicated by the continuous motion of the particles of light throughout the whole of these regions. Unless, perhaps, that first repulsive branch, & that last arc of the nature that pertains to gravity, are to be taken as a sign that there are also somewhere others like them, at distances which are less than microscopical, or greater than those within the range of the telescope. Besides, if all the forces are finite, and points of matter, in accordance with, my Theory, are perfectly simple & non-extended, it is far more easily understood why there can be this apparent compenetration, without any collision, & without any dissolution of the particles as they pass through one another.

[junglelord]

I think its good to quote Maxwell then take a look at it through the eyes of APM/.

It is true that the rotation by magnetism of the plane of polarization has been observed only in media of considerable density; but the properties of the magnetic field are not so much altered by the substitution of one medium for another, or for a vacuum, as to allow us to suppose that the dense medium does anything more than merely modify the motion of the ether. We have therefore warrantable grounds for inquiring whether there may not be a motion of the ethereal medium going on wherever magnetic effects are observed, and we have some reason to suppose that this motion is one of rotation, having the direction of the magnetic force as its axis.



(9) We may now consider another phenomenon observed in the electromagnetic field. When a body is moved across the lines of a magnetic force it experiences what is called an electromotive force; the two extremities of the body tend to become oppositely electrified, and an electric current tends to flow through the body. When the electromotive force is sufficiently powerful, and is made to act on certain compound bodies, it decomposes them, and causes one of their components to pass towards one extremity of the body, and the other in the opposite direction.



Here we have evidence of a force causing an electric current in spite of resistance; electrifying the extremities of a body in opposite ways, a condition which is sustained only by the action of the electromotive force, and which, as soon as that force is removed, tends, with an equal and opposite force, to produce a counter current through the body and to restore the original electrical state of the body; and finally, if strong enough, tearing to pieces chemical compounds and carrying their components in opposite directions, while their natural tendency is to combine, and to combine with a force which can generate an electromotive force in the reverse direction.



This, then, is a force acting on a body caused by its motion through the electromagnetic field, or by changes occurring in that field itself; and the effect of the force is either to produce a current and heat the body, or to decompose the body, or, when it can do neither, to put the body in a state of electric polarization, -a state of constraint in which opposite extremities are oppositely electrified, and from which the body tends to relieve itself as soon as the disturbing force is removed.



According to the theory which I propose to explain, this "electromotive force" is the force called into play during the communication of motion from one part of the medium to another, and it is by means of this force that the motion of one part causes motion in another part. When electromotive force acts on a conducting circuit, it produces a current, which as it meets with resistance, occasions a continual transformation of electrical energy into heat, which is incapable of being restored again to the form of electrical energy by any reversal of the process.



(11) But when electromotive force acts on a dielectric it produces a state of polarization of its parts similar in distribution to the polarity of the parts of a mass of iron under the influence of a magnet, and like the magnetic polarization, capable of being described as a state in which every particle has its opposite poles in opposite conductions7.



In a dielectric under the action of electromotive force, we may conceive that the electricity in each molecule is so displaced that one side is rendered positively and the other negatively electrical, but that the electricity remains entirely connected with the molecule, and does not pass from one molecule to another. The effect of this action on the whole dielectric mass is to produce a general displacement of electricity in a certain direction. This displacement does not amount to a current, because when it has attained to a certain value it remains constant, but it is the commencement of a current, and its variations constitute currents in the positive of the negative direction according as the displacement is increasing or decreasing. In the interior of the dielectric there is no indication of electrification, because the electrification of the surface of any molecule is neutralized by the opposite electrification of the surface of the molecules in contact with it; but at the bounding surface of the dielectric, where the electrification is not neutralized, we find the phenomena which indicate positive or negative electrification.

The above paragraph is a profound assessment of the nature of electricity. There are two distinctly different types of electricity being described by Maxwell. There is the current of flowing electrons where electrons move from one molecule to the next, and there is flip-flopping of electrons which do not leave their molecules. The flip-flopping electrons are the beginning of a current, but not an actual current. If the flip-flop is just one half cycle and held, then the molecules will display the positive-negative polarity of the Aether units as evidenced by the surface molecules exhibiting positive and negative charges on their surfaces.
Dave Thomson.

[junglelord]

The relation between the electromotive force and the amount of electric displacement it produces depends on the nature of the dielectric, the same electromotive force producing generally a greater electric displacement in the solid dielectrics, such as glass or sulphur, than in air.



(12) Here, then, we perceive another effect of electromotive force, namely, electric displacement, which according to our theory is a kind of elastic yielding to the action of the force, similar to that which takes place in structures and machines owing to the want of perfect rigidity of the connexions.



(13) The practical investigation of the inductive capacity of dielectrics is rendered difficult on account of two disturbing phenomena. the first is the conductivity of the dielectric, which, though in many cases exceedingly small, is not altogether insensible. The second is the phenomenon called electric absorption8, in virtue of which, when the dielectric is exposed to electromotive force, the electric displacement gradually increases, and when the electromotive force is removed, the dielectric does not instantly return to its primitive state, but only discharges a portion of its electrification, and when left to itself gradually acquires electrification on its surface, as the interior gradually becomes depolarized. Almost all solid dielectrics exhibit this phenomenon, which gives rise to the residual charge in the Leyden jar, and to several phenomena of electric cables described by Mr. F. Jenkin9.



(14) We have here two other kinds of yielding besides the yielding of the perfect dielectric, which we have compared to a perfectly elastic body. The yielding due to conductivity may be compared to that of a viscous fluid (that is to say, a fluid having great internal friction), or a soft solid on which the smallest force produces a permanent alteration of figure increasing with the time during which the force acts. The yielding due to electric absorption may be compared to that of a cellular elastic body containing a thick fluid in its cavities. Such a body, when subjected to pressure, is compressed by degrees on account of the gradual yielding of the thick fluid; and when the pressure is removed it does not at once recover its figure, because the elasticity of the substance of the body has gradually to overcome the tenacity of the fluid before it can regain complete equilibrium.



Several solid bodies in which no such structure as we have supposed can be found, seem to possess a mechanical property of this kind10; and it seems probably that the same substances, if dielectrics, may possess the analogous electrical property, and if magnetic, may have corresponding properties relating to the acquisition, retention, and loss of magnetic polarity.



(15) It appears therefore that certain phenomena in electricity and magnetism lead to the same conclusion as those of optics, namely, that there is an aetherial medium pervading all bodies, and modified only in degree by their presence; that the parts of this medium are capable of being set in motion by electric currents and magnets; that this motion is communicated from one part of the medium to another by forces arising from the connexions of those parts; that under the action of these forces there is a certain yielding depending on the elasticity of these connexions; and that therefore energy in two different forms may exist in the medium, the one form being the actual energy of motion of its parts, and the other being the potential energy stored up in the connexions, in virtue of their elasticity.

Maxwell has made it plainly clear that his equations depend upon an Aether composed of quantum Aether units, which are joined to one another to produce an Aether fabric. All the properties of materials and the behaviors of materials in space get these properties from the Aether, and the effect that matter has on the Aether. He again emphasized that energy is stored half in the object and half in the medium. The objects can be onta, atoms, or molecules, or any macro structures created with these minor structures.
Dave Thomson

[junglelord]

(16) Thus, then, we are led to the conception of a complicated mechanism capable of a vast variety of motion, but at the same time so connected that the motion of one part depends, according to definite relations, on the motion of other parts, these motions being communicated by forces arising from the relative displacement of connected parts, in virtue of their elasticity. Such a mechanism must be subject to the general laws of Dynamics, and we ought to be able to work out all the consequences of its motion, provided we know the form of the relation between the motions of the parts.


(17) We know that when an electric current is established in a conducting circuit, the neighboring part of the field is characterized by certain magnetic properties, and that if two circuits are in the field, the magnetic properties of the field due to the two currents are combined. Thus each part of the field is in connexion with both currents, and the two currents are put in connexion with each other in virtue of their connexion with magnetization of the field. The first result of this connexion that I propose to examine, is the induction of one current by another, and by the motion of conductors in the field.


The second result, which is deduced from this, is the mechanical action between conductors carrying currents. The phenomenon of the induction of currents has been deduced from their mechanical action by Helmholtz11 and Thomson12. I have followed the reverse order, and deduced the mechanical action from the laws of induction. I have then described experimental methods of determining the quantities L, M, N, on which these phenomena depend.

When Maxwell deduced the mechanical action from the laws of induction, he extended an error prevalent in physics at that time, and continuing through today. The error arose by incorrectly converting units from the cgs system of units to the MKS system of units.


Five units retained their expression in terms of distributed charge (conductance, inductance, capacitance, permeability, and permittivity). However, all other electrical related units were incorrectly notated with single dimension charge. For example, current in the cgs system of units was expressed as charge per time:

Current = gm cm^3/sec^3

When converted to MKS, this should have been notated as:

Current = coul^2/sec

However, current ended up being notated as:

Current = coul / sec

Current is just one of dozens of incorrectly converted units. In Maxwell's work, he worked backward from inductance and discovered a unit, which he interpreted as current squared:

Current squared = coul^2/sec^2

Since Maxwell incorrectly interpreted the charge dimensions, he thought he was looking at current squared. But this unit is a unit of electric stroke. It is equal to charge times resonance (frequency squared). In other words, Maxwell's "current squared" is actually "electric stroke," or "resonating charge."

(18) I then apply the phenomena of induction and attraction of currents to the exploration of the electromagnetic field, and the laying down systems of lines of magnetic force which indicate its magnetic properties. By exploring the same field with a magnet, I show the distribution of its equipotential magnetic surfaces, cutting the lines of force at right angles.

The "lines of force" envisioned by Maxwell are represented in the Aether Physics Model as the tubular double loxodromes in the Aether units. The tubular double loxodromes adjoin each other thus the lines are the continuity of the tubular loxodromes from one Aether unit to the next.
Dave Thomson

[junglelord]

In order to bring these results within the power of symbolical calculation, I then express them in the form of the General Equations of the Electromagnetic Field. These equations express:

(A) The relation between electric displacement, true conduction, and the total current, compounded of both.

(B) The relation between the lines of magnetic force and the inductive coefficients of a circuit, as already deduced from the laws of induction.

(C) The relation between the strength of a current and its magnetic effects, according to the electromagnetic system of measurement.

(D) the value of the electromotive force in a body, as arising from the motion of the body in the field, the alternation of the field itself, and the variation of electric potential from one part of the field to another.

(E) The relation between electric displacement, and the electromotive force which produces it.

(F) The relation between an electric current, and the electromotive force with produces it.

(G) The relation between the amount of free electricity at any point, and the electric displacements in the neighbourhood.

(H) The relation between the increase of diminution of free electricity and the electric currents in the neighbourhood.


There are twenty of these equations in all, involving twenty variable quantities.


(19) I then express in terms of these quantities the intrinsic energy of the Electromagnetic Field as depending partly on its magnetic and partly on its polarization at every point.

It is clear from proposed equation E that Maxwell considered electric displacement to be a key part of his theory. He differentiated it from proposed equation F, which is about the electric current. These two equations are founded in the reality that there are two very distinct manifestations of charges, as quantified in the Aether Physics Model.

Further, Maxwell directly states the Electromagnetic Field (Aether fabric) is composed of polarized magnetic and polarized electric structures. Once again, this corresponds exactly to the structure of the Aether as discovered in the APM.
Dave Thomson

[junglelord]

From this I determine the mechanical force acting, 1st, on a moveable conductor carrying an electric current; 2ndly, on a magnetic pole; 3rdly, on an electrified body.

The last result, namely, the mechanical force acting on an electrified body, gives rise to an independent method of electrical measurement founded on its electrostatic effects. The relation between the units employed in the two methods is shown to depend on what I have called the "electric elasticity" of the medium, and to be a velocity, which has been experimentally determined by MM. Weber and Kohlrausch.

I then show how to calculate the electrostatic capacity of a condenser, and the specific inductive capacity of a dielectric.


The case of a condenser composed of parallel layers of substances of different electric resistances and inductive capacities is next examined, and it is shown that the phenomenon called electric absorption will generally occur, that is, the condenser, when suddenly discharged, will after a short time show signs of a residual charge.


(20) The general equations are next applied to the case of a magnetic disturbance propagated through a non-conducting field, and it is shown that the only disturbances which can be so propagated are those which are transverse to the direction of propagation, and that the velocity of propagation is the velocity v, found from experiments such as those of Weber, which expresses the number of electrostatic units of electricity which are contained in one electromagnetic unit.


This velocity is so nearly that of light, that it seems we have a strong reason to conclude that light itself (including radiant heat, and other radiations if any) is an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the electromagnetic field according to electromagnetic laws.

Maxwell, along with others who had not yet understood the quantum photon, considered light to have a velocity. It is not entirely correct. Photons have velocity, light is the structure of moving photons. It is similar to a river of water. Rivers do not move a velocity, but the water molecules do. This incorrect expression has survived to the present day and should be updated to reflect modern understanding. What we consider to be the speed of light is really the speed of photons.
Dave Thomson

[junglelord]

c = 2.998 X 10^8 m/s

If so, the agreement between the elasticity of the medium as calculated from the rapid alternations of luminous vibrations, and as found by the slow processes of electrical experiments, shows how perfect and regular the elastic properties of the medium must be when not encumbered with any matter denser than air.

In Maxwell's day, the photon was not yet hypothesized. In the APM, the electron is quantified as Planck's constant. That is, what modern science considers to be no more than a convenience constant is really the physics quantification of the electron. The electron is primary angular momentum that is encapsulated in an Aether unit.

The photon is equal to the electron being ejected from an atom at the speed of photons. Using Quantum Measurements Units (as explained in Secrets of the Aether), the photon is quantified as:
h . c = 1 photon
phtn = 1.986 X 10^-25 kg m^3/sec^2

The quantity referred to as light is equal to a stream of quantum photons. So if photons are generated from an atom at the fastest rate possible, we get the APM unit for light:
Photon X Freq = 1 light
Freq = 1.236 X 10^20 Hz (compton wavelenght)

Light = 2.454 X 10^ -5 kg m^3/sec^3

When atoms absorb photons, according to the APM they absorb parts of photon angular momentum until they fill an Aether unit and regenerate an electron (or positron). The process of absorption is quantified as light losing its photon velocity:

Light/c = 8.187 X 10^ -14 joule

Later, Maxwell's equations will be evaluated in terms of the APM and will take advantage of the quantification of the electron (h), photon (phtn) and light (ligt).

Dave Thomson

[seasmith]

~

(15) It appears therefore that certain phenomena in electricity and magnetism lead to the same conclusion as those of optics, namely, that there is an aetherial medium pervading all bodies, and modified only in degree by their presence; that the parts of this medium are capable of being set in motion by electric currents and magnets; that this motion is communicated from one part of the medium to another by forces arising from the connexions of those parts; that under the action of these forces there is a certain yielding depending on the elasticity of these connexions; and that therefore energy in two different forms may exist in the medium, the one form being the actual energy of motion of its parts, and the other being the potential energy stored up in the connexions, in virtue of their elasticity.

Maxwell

This precisely the differentiation that can be made between so-called
'Longitudinal and Transverse' EM propagations.

s

[junglelord]

Structure and function cannot be seperated. Charge is a sphere. The inverse square law is due to the shape and this is what explains the function.

Both Coulomb’s experiment and Coulomb’s equation have suffered various kinds of attack over the years, but my analysis here will be of a different sort than any other you are likely to have seen. I would agree that Coulomb’s experiment has been oversold historically and presently, but that question, though perhaps interesting in its own right as a question of the politics of science, is not the central question. The central question is one of fact: is the equation correct in math and theory. I will show that it is not.

One crucial thing that is always ignored is the fact that Coulomb’s spheres are spheres. The experiment and equation could not work if they were not, but we are never told this. It is always a matter of charge, never of shape. But the reason we get an inverse square law is due to the spherical shape of Coulomb’s objects. Because they are spheres, they must emit a spherical field, and a spherical field must obey the inverse square law.

Current theory ignores this in a most flagrant manner, and they do so because they must ignore that the charge field is an emitted field. The field stops being mysterious once we realize that the density of spherical emission must fall off with the inverse square, but current theory cannot follow this reasoning. Physicists would rather cloak the field in mystery than admit that it acts precisely like a field of emission. If it is an emission field, they have to consider its mechanics. If they consider its mechanics, they have to quit talking about virtual photons or messenger photons and start talking about real photons with real energy. And if they do that, they have to ask how quanta emit quanta without dissolving. It becomes a fundamental question of conservation of energy
http://milesmathis.com/coul.html

[Lloyd]

Maxwell: (18) I then apply the phenomena of induction and attraction of currents to the exploration of the electromagnetic field, and the laying down systems of lines of magnetic force which indicate its magnetic properties. By exploring the same field with a magnet, I show the distribution of its equipotential magnetic surfaces, cutting the lines of force at right angles.

JL quoting DT: The "lines of force" envisioned by Maxwell are represented in the Aether Physics Model as the tubular double loxodromes in the Aether units. The tubular double loxodromes adjoin each other thus the lines are the continuity of the tubular loxodromes from one Aether unit to the next.

* The APM idea of aether units as double loxodromes in forward and reverse time makes very little sense to me.
* Here's a picture of the model aether unit: * Here's the helical tube shape:
[The first image is from http://www.16pi2.com]
* You call them tubular double loxodromes, but the tube is "generated"[?] by something like a "point" moving circularly while also moving along the surface of an imaginary sphere at a right angle to the circular motion, so it's actually a helical motion of a point around a sphere, or rather two spheres. This is kind of how the Earth moves around the Sun while the Sun is moving around the galaxy and possibly around a local star group as well. So there's not really a tube or loxodrome at all; there's just a point moving as if on a helical track on the surface of a tubular loxodrome. Right?
* And the image shows that, when the point is moving upward on its helical tubular path, it's moving in forward time, and, when it's moving downward it's moving in reverse time. And that seems absurd, partly because, assuming reverse time is even possible, when the Earth-like point gets to the top or bottom of the loxodrome path, its direction of motion is in two opposite directions, forward and backward, but before and after reaching those two places its motion is only in one direction, forward if moving upward, or backward if moving downward.
* Also, the motion of the point would be discontinuous in both forward and reverse time. In forward time the point would be moving upward while spiraling around the double sphere from bottom to top and, upon reaching the top, would disappear for a moment, then reappear at the bottom to continue the cycle. In reverse time it would appear at the top, move down to the bottom, disappear and, after a moment, appear again at the top, continuing the cycle.
* To me the whole aether unit model here seems like mathematical and logical abstraction that has nothing to do with reality, except that the math may resemble stats from reality.
* Is the "point" that does all this helical tubular loxodrom motion in forward and reverse time something real, or just a mathematical abstraction? And is the double sphere something real, like a force field, or just more abstraction?
* Is the same point that moves in forward time the same point moving in reverse time? If so, how can both the forward and reverse time aspect of the point be constantly in the same place on the same aether unit? In forward time we experience motion on the Earth around the Sun while going around the galaxy etc. How could our reverse time aspects always be where we are in forward time, since the reverse time would put us on a path going in the opposite direction from what we experience in forward time. And what sense would it make to experience reverse time with aging in reverse etc? You can show a movie backwards, but reality can't behave the same way a reversed movie does.

[moses]

You can show a movie backwards, but reality can't behave the same way a reversed movie does.
Lloyd
Fatalists would have all of time already set, with consciousness just
experiencing from one section of this reality, and moving to the next
section. So reality could act like a roll of film. And consciousness
could possibly choose to go in reverse.
Mo

[junglelord]

Time Reversal and the Time-Reversed EM Wave
You must understand time-reversal and the time-reversed EM wave itself, including the theory of the phase conjugate mirror and of the pumped phase conjugate mirror (PPCM from nonlinear optics). This process is key to understanding Scalar EM. Study the PPCM until the material is coming out of your ears in your sleep. A scalar EM potential is comprised of bidirectional EM wave pairs, where the pairs are harmonics and phase-locked together. In each coupled wave/antiwave pair, a true forward-time EM wave is coupled to a time-reversal of itself -- its phase conjugate replica antiwave. The two waves are spatially in phase, but temporally they are 180 degrees out of phase. That combined energy thus stresses the Gravity Field and the Electric Field via the change to negitive permittivy and permeability along with a negitive index of refraction at the center of the Z Pinch Phase Conjugate Wave.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 34&start=0

So I believe that a coherent self exciting, collective, charged, plasma, as thats what plasma is, will create in said box a Phase Conjugate Wave that will self enhance a Soliton Induced Field effect and will continue to increase in a non linear manner due to the extraction of energy and emergence of virtual particles from the ZP Vacuum aether matrix rotating magnetic field and create a dual vortex structure that is the fundamental structure of the dual opposite scalar. From this center point of this self generating structure would emerge real particles from the ZP fluctuations due to the Casimir Effect.

When considering charge, one must use quaternions and thats where the Soliton Scalar becomes so important. This dual opposite vortex structure. Plasma will exhibit non linear behaviour, soliton behaviour, collective behaviour, dynamic holographic behaviour, phase conjugate behaviour. This means that the input of energy from the background rotating magnetic field of the aether would make the first rule of thermodynamics null and void and collective behaviour from Chaos (Phase Conjugate Wave/Soliton Induced Field Effect) would make the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, null and void and that is the norm in the system process that mediates from these charge plasma states and condense into platonic structures of matter based on PHI. The structure of the Birkeland Current and the Systems Process that govern these structures are clearly derived from Pi, PHI, e. That is about all the math you need along with the Quaternions. The rest is my outline of the steady state inside the box and why I view it as an open system.

PS, no argument my good man, nice to share.,
Cheers
JL.

[StefanR]

After reading this thread a bit, I thought proper to add the two supplements from Boscovich, who was discussed earlier up this thread, but as it is mentioned several times and as it is difficult to find as a whole on the net, let's just say it rounds up that subject a bit, I will try to add the second part asap
And of course to not forget the relation of some sort

Roger Joseph Boscovich
A Theory of Natural Philosophy
SUPPLEMENTS I
Of Space and Time (a)



1. I do not admit perfectly continuous extension of matter ; I consider it to be made up of perfectly indivisible points, which are non-extended, set apart from one another by a certain interval, & connected together by certain forces that are at one time attractive & at another time repulsive, depending on their mutual distances. Here it is to be seen, with this theory, what is my idea of space, & of time, how each of them may be said to be continuous, infinitely divisible, eternal, immense, immovable, necessary, although neither of them, as I have shown in a note, have a real nature of their own that is possessed of these properties.

2. First of all it seems clear to me that not only those who admit absolute space, whichis of its own real nature continuous, eternal & immense, but also those who, following Leibniz& Descartes, consider space itself to be the relative arrangement which exists amongst things that exist, over and above these existent things ; it seems to me, I say, that all mustadmit some mode of existence that is real & not purely imaginary ; through which they are where they are, & this mode exists when they are there, & perishes when they cease to be where they were. For, such a space being admitted in the first theory, if the fact that there Is some thing in that part of space depends on the thing & space alone ; then, as often as the thing existed, & space, we should have the fact that that thing was situated in that part of space. Again, if, in the second theory, the arrangement, which constitutes position, depended only on the things themselves that have that arrangement ; then, as often as these things should exist, they would exist in the same arrangement, & could never change their position. What I have said with regard to space applies equally to time.

3. Therefore it needs must be admitted that there is some real mode of existence, dueto which a thing is where it is, & exists then, when it does exist. Whether this mode iscalled the thing, or the mode of the thing, or something or nothing, it is bound to be beyond our imagination ; & the thing may change this kind of mode, having one mode at one time & another at another time.

4. Hence, for each of the points of matter (to consider these, from which all I saycan be easily transferred to immaterial things), I admit two real kinds of modes of existence,of which some pertain to space & others to time ; & these will be called local & temporal modes respectively. Any point has a real mode of existence, through which it is where it is ; & another, due to which it exists at the time when it does exist. These real modes of existence are to me real time & space ; the possibility of these modes, hazily apprehended by us, is, to my mind, empty space & again empty time, so to speak ; in other words, imaginary space & imaginary time.

5. These several real modes are produced & perish, and are in my opinion quiteindivisible, non-extended, immovable & unvarying in their order. They, as well as therelatlonspositions & times of them, & of the points to which they belong, are real. They afford the foundation of a real relation of distance, which is either a local relation between two points, or a temporal relation between two events. Nor is the fact that those two points of matter have that determinated distance anything essentially different from the fact that they have those determinated modes of existence, which necessarily alter when they change the distance. Those modes which are descriptive of position I call real points of position ; & those that are descriptive of time I call instants ; & they are without
parts, & the former lack any kind of extension, while the latter lack duration ; both are indivisible.

6. Further, a point of matter that is perfectly indivisible & non-extended cannot becontiguous to any other point of matter ; if they have no distance from one another, they coincide completely ; if they do not coincide completely, they have some distance between them. For, since they have no kind of parts, they cannot coincide partly only ; that is, they cannot touch one another on one side, & on the other side be separated. It is but a prejudice acquired from infancy, & born of ideas obtained through the senses, which have not been considered with proper care ; these ideas picture masses to us as always being composed of parts at a distance from one another. It is owing to this prejudice that we seem to ourselves to be able to bring even indivisible and non-extended points so close to other points that they touch them & constitute a sort of lengthy series. We imagine a series of little spheres, in fact ; & we do not put out of mind that extension, & the parts, which we verbally exclude.

7. Again, where two points of matter are at a distance from one another, anotherpoint of matter can always be placed in the same straight line with them, on the far sideof either, at an equal distance ; & another beyond that, & so on without end, as is evident, Also another point can be pkced halfway between the two points, so as to touch neitherof them ; for, if it touched either of them it would touch them both, & thus would coincidewith both ; hence the two points would coincide with one another & could not be separatepoints, which is contrary to the hypothesis. Therefore that interval can be divided into& so on without any end. Hence it follows that, however great the interval between twopoints, we could always obtain another that is greater ; &, however small the interval might be, we could always obtain another that is smaller ; '&, in either case, without any limit or end.

8. Hence beyond & between two real points of position of any sort there are otherreal points of position possible ; & these recede from them & approach them respectively, without any determinate limit. There will be a real divisibility to an infinite extent of the interval between two points, or, if I may call it so, an endless 'insertibility' of real points. However often such real points of position are interpolated, by real points of matter being interposed, their number will always be finite, the number of intervals intercepted on the first interval, & at the same time constituting that interval, will be finite ; but the number of possible parts of this sort will be endless. The magnitude of each of the former will be definite & finite ; the magnitude of the latter will be diminished without any limit whatever ; & there will be no gap that cannot be diminished by adding fresh points in between ; although it cannot be completely removed either by division or by interposition of points.

9. In this way, so long as we conceive as possibles these points of position, we haveinfinity of space, & continuity, together with infinite divisibility. With existing things there is always a definite limit, a definite number of points, a definite number of intervals ;with possibles, there is none that is finite. The abstract concept of possibles, excludingas it does a limit due to a possible increase of the interval, a decrease or a gap, gives us the infinity of an imaginary line, & continuity ; such a line has not actually any existing parts,but only possible ones. Also, since this possibility is eternal, in that it was true from eternity & of necessity that such points might exist in conjunction with such modes, space of this kind, imaginary, continuous & infinite, was also at the same time eternal & necessary ; but it is not anything that exists, but something that is merely capable of existing, & an indefinite concept of our minds. Moreover, immobility of this space will come from immobility of the several points of position.

10. Everything, that has so far been said with regard to points of position, can quite easily in the same way be applied to instants of time ; & indeed there is a very great analogy of a sort between the two. For, a point from a given point, or an instant from a given instant, has a definite distance, unless they coincide ; & another distance can be foundeither greater or less than the first, without any limit whatever. In any interval of imaginary space or time, there is a first point or instant, & a last ; but there is no second, or last butone. For, if any particular one is supposed to be the second, then, since it does not coincide with the first, it must be at some distance from it ; & in the interval between, other possible points or instants intervene. Again, a point is not a part of a continuous line, or an instant a part of a continuous time ; but a limit & a boundary. A continuous line, or a continuous time is understood to be generated, not by repetition of points or instants, but by a continuous progressive motion, in which some intervals are parts of other intervals ; the points themselves, or the instants, which are continually progressing, are not parts of the intervals.
There is but one difference, namely, that this progressive motion can be accomplished in space, not only in a single direction along a line, but in infinite directions over a plane which is conceived from the continuous motion of the line already conceived in the direction of its breadth ; & further, in infinite directions throughout a solid, which is conceived from the continuous motion of the plane already conceived. Whereas, in time there will be had but one progressive motion, that of duration ; & therefore this will be analogous to a single line. Thus, while for imaginary space there is extension in three dimensions, length, breadth & depth, there is only one for time, namely length or duration only. Nevertheless, in the threefold class of space, & in the onefold class of time, the point & the instant will be respectively the element, from which, by its progression, motion, space & time will be understood to be generated.

11. Now here there is one thing that must be carefully noted. Not only when twopoints of matter exist, & have a distance from one another, do two modes exist which givethe foundation of the relation of this distance ; & there are two different real points of position, the possibility of which, as conceived by us, will yield two points of imaginary space ; & thus, to the infinite number of possible points of matter there will correspond an infinite number of possible modes of existence. But also to any one point of matter there will correspond the infinite possible modes of existing, which are all the possible positions of that point. All of these taken together are sufficient for the possession of the whole of imaginary space ; & any point of matter has its own imaginary space, immovable, infinite & continuous ; nevertheless, all these spaces, belonging to all points coincide with one another, & are considered to be one & the same. For if we take one real point of position belonging to one point of matter, & associate it with all the real points of position belonging to another point of matter, there is one among the latter, which, if it coexist with the former, will induce a relation of no-distance, which we call compenetration.
From this it is clear that, for points which exist, no-distance is not nothing, but a relationinduced by some two modes of existence. Any of the others would induce, with that same former point of position, another relation of some determinate distance & position,
as we say. Further, those points of position, which induce a relation of no-distance, we consider to be the same ; & we consider any of the infinite number of such points belonging to the infinite number of points of matter to be the same ; & mean them when we speak of the ' same position.' Moreover this is evidently bound to be true for any pair of points. If now a third point is situated anywhere, it will have some distance & position with respect to the first. If the first is removed, the second can be so situated that it has the same distance & position with respect to the third as the first had. Hence the mode, in which it exists, will be taken to be the same in this case as the mode in which the first point was existing ; & if these two modes were existing together, they would induce a relation of no-distance between the first point & the second. All that has been said above with regard to points of space applies equally well to instants of time.

12. Now, whether they can coexist is a question that pertains to the relation between points of position & instants of time, whether we consider a single point of matter or several of them. In the first place, several instants of time belonging to the same point of matter cannot coexist ; but they must necessarily come one after .the other ; & similarly, two points of position belonging to the same point of matter cannot be conjoined, but must lie one outside the other ; & this comes from the nature of points of this kind, & is essential to them, to use a common phrase.

13. Next, we have to consider the different kinds of combinations of points of space & instants of time. Any point of matter, if it exists, connects together some point of space & some instant of time ; for it is bound to exist somewhere & sometime. Even if it exists alone, it always has its own mode of existence, both local & temporal ; & by this fact, if any other point of matter exists, having its own modes also, it will acquire a relation of distance, both local & temporal, with respect to the first. This at least will certainly be the case, if the space belonging to all that exist, or can possibly exist, is common ; so that the points of position belonging to the one coincide perfectly with those belonging to the other, each to each. But, what if there are other kinds of things, either different from those about us, or even exactly similar to ours, which have, so to speak, another infinite space, which is distant from this our infinite space by no interval either finite or infinite, but is so foreign to it, situated, so to speak, elsewhere in such a way that it has no communication with this space of ours ; & thus will induce no relation of distance. The same remark can be made with regard to a time situated outside the whole of our eternity. But such an idea requires an intellect of the greatest power to try to grasp it ; & it cannot be admitted by direct consideration, in any way, or at least with difficulty. Hence, omitting altogether such things, or the spaces & times of such things which are no concern of ours, let us consider the things that have to do with us. If therefore, firstly, the same, point of matter connects the same point of space with several instants of time separated
from one another by any interval, there will be return to the same place. If, secondly, it connects the point of space to a continuous series of instants of continuous time, there will be rest, which requires a certain continuous time to be connected with the same point of position ; without this connection there will be continuous motion, points of position succeeding one another corresponding to instants of time, one after the other. Thirdly, if the same point of matter connects the same instant of time with several points of position distant from one another by some interval, then we shall have replication. Fourthly, if it connects the instant with a continuous series of points of position contained within some continuous interval, we shall have something which several of the Peripatetics admitted, calling it virtual extension ; by virtue of which an indivisible particle of matter, quite without parts, could occupy divisible space. There are four other combinations, when several points are considered. That is to say, fifthly, if several points connect the same instant of time with several points of position ; in this is involved coexistence. Sixthly, if they connect the same point of space with several instants of time ; as would be the case when different points of matter were forced successively into the same position. Seventhly, if they connect the same point of space with the same instant of time ; in this is involved compenetration. Eighthly, if they have no instant of time, & no point of space, common to them ; as would be the case, if they did not coexist, nor, any of them, occupied the positions that had been occupied by any of the others at any time.

14. Out of these eight cases, the third corresponds to the first, the fourth to the second, the sixth to the fifth, the eighth to the seventh. The third case, namely replication, is usually considered to be naturally impossible. Many think that the fourth case holds good for the rational soul, which they consider to have its seat in some divisible space ; for instance, the Peripatetics think that it pervades the whole of the body, other philosophers think it is situated in a certain part of the brain, or in some juice of the nerves ; so that, since it is indivisible, the whole of it must be in the whole of the space, & the whole of it in any part of the space. Just in the same way as the same indivisible Divine Nature is as a whole in the whole of space, & as a whole in any part of space, being necessarily present everywhere, & coexisting with & accompanying created things wherever created things are. Others admit this same case for matter, & consider that particles of matter can be extended in a similar manner, as we have said ; although they are simple, & although they are devoid of parts, not only parts that are really separated, but also such as are distinct & only separable.
I do not consider that this supposition can be entertained, for the reason that, whenever we perceive with our senses matter occupying positions distinct from one another, we see that it is also separable, although we may have to use a very great force ; here, parts are separated which were at a distance from one another. Indeed, by no other argument can we exclude replication from Nature, than that we never see any portion of matter, as far as can be perceived by the senses, occupying two positions at the same time. The idea of Virtual extension of matter goes infinitely further beyond the idea of simple replication.

15. If the second case of rest, & the first case of return to the same position could be obtained naturally, then indeed there would be a certain defect in the analogy between space & time. But it seems to me that I can prove that neither ever happens in Nature ; & so they cannot be obtained naturally ; this is my argument. If a point of matter at any instant of time is at a certain point of space, & we do not know where it is at some other instant, let us inquire how much more probable it is that it should be somewhere else than at the same point as before. The former will be more probable than the latter in the proportion of the number of all the other points of space to that single point. There are an infinite number of these points in any straight line, the number of lines in any plane is infinite, & the number of planes in the whole of space is infinite. Hence, the number of other points of space is an infinity of the third order ; & thus the probability is infinitely greater with an infinity of the third order, when we are concerned with any other particular instant of time. Now let us deal indefinitely with all the instants of infinite time ; then the first probability will decrease in proportion as the number of instants increases, at any of which it might at least be possible that the point was in the same place as before. Moreover, there are an infinite number of instants, the infinity being of the same order as that of the number of possible points in an infinite line. Hence, still considering indefinitely all the instants of infinite time, it is infinitely more improbable that the point should be in the same position as before, than that it should be somewhere else. Now consider, not a single point of position occupied at a single particular instant, but any point of position occupied at any indefinite instant ; then still the probability of return to any one of these points of position will increase as the number of them increases ; & this number, in a time that is also infinite, is an infinity of the same order as the number of lines in any plane. Hence the improbability of this case, in which any particular point of matter returns at some indefinite instant of time to some indefinite point of position, in which it was assumed to be at some other indefinite instant of time, remains an infinity of the first order. Moreover, this, for all points of matter, which are finite in number, will decrease in the finite ratio of this number to infinity (which would not be the case with the usual theory, in which the number of points of matter is taken to be an infinity of the third order). Hence we are still left with an infinite improbability of the return of any indefinitely chosen point of matter to any point of position, occupied at any previous instant of time indefinitely, of a return, I say, taking place at any indefinite instant of subsequent time ; hence, such a return must be excluded, without any fear as to error, since it must be considered that an infinite improbability merges into a sort of relative impossibility. This Theory indeed cannot be applied to the ordinary view. Hence, in this way it is clear, in my Theory of points
of matter, there must be excluded from Nature both rest, which also we excluded above, & even return to the same point of position in which that point of matter once was situated. Therefore it comes about that all those first four cases will be excluded from Nature, & in them the analogy of time & space will be preserved accurately.

16. Finally, if we seek to find whether any point of matter is bound to occupy at some instant a point of position which was occupied by some other point of matter at some other instant, still the improbability will be infinitely infinite. For the number of existing points of matter is finite ; & thus, if instead of the return of any point to points of position occupied by itself we consider the return to points that have been occupied by another, the number of cases increases in the ratio of unity to a number of points that is in every case finite, that is to say, in a finite ratio only. Hence, the improbability of the arrival of any point of matter indefinitely taken at a point of space that has been occupied at some time by any other point is still infinite ; & this arrival must therefore be taken to be impossible. In this way, indeed, the sixth case, which depended on this return, is excluded ; & much more so the seventh case, which involves the simultaneous arrival of a pair of points of matter at any the same point of position, that is to say, compenetration. The eighth case also is excluded for matter ; for all things created together as a whole will continually last as
a whole, & so will always have a common instant of time. (b) Only the fifth case, in which several points of matter connect the same instant of time with different points of position remains ; & this is not only possible, but also necessary for all points of matter, seeing that they coexist. For it cannot be the case that the seventh & the eighth are excluded, unless straightway, on that very account, the fifth is included, as will be easily seen on consideration. Therefore in this point the analogy fails, namely, in that several points of matter can connect different points of space with the same instant of time, which is the fifth case ; whereas it is impossible for the same point of space to be connected with several instants of time, which is the third case. This defect is necessarily induced by the exclusion of the seventh & eighth cases ; for if either of the latter is included, the fifth might be excluded ; just as if it were possible for points of matter, which had been created together, & do not perish, not to coexist ; for then the same instant of time would in no way be connected with different points of position.

17. At least six of the seven cases seem to be possible through Divine Omnipotence, that is to say, omitting the virtual extension of matter, about which there may be possibly some doubt ; for in this case there must exist at the same time an absolutely infinite number of those real points of position ; & this is impossible, if an existing thing that is infinite in number is contradictory in the modes. Moreover, since all points of position can exist one after another, arranged along any line, for instance, in continuous motion, & so can also all instants of continuous time, one after another in the duration of any thing, there will be reason for doubt as to whether all those points of position can also exist at the same time. This is a matter upon which I dare not make a definite statement. All I say is that this theory of mine with regard to the nature of space & continuity completely avoids all the chief difficulties that are obstacles in other theories ; & that it is very suitable for the explanation of everything in connection with this matter. I will also add the remark that, if the arrival of any point of matter at a point of position, at which any point of matter has arrived at any instant, is excluded, & along with it compenetration is thus excluded, then real impenetrability of matter must necessarily follow, which will be of great service to us in our tenth book (c). That is, unless repulsive forces prevent such a thing, any perfectly free mass will permeate through any other mass, without there being any danger of a collision of one point with another. Here there would be an apparent compenetration similar to the penetration of light through crystals, oils through wood, & marble, withoutany real compenetration of the points. In denser masses, & those endowed with a smaller velocity, the repulsive forces for the most part prevent further motion without any impact ; & this also excludes sensible as well as apparent compenetration. In very tenuous masses moving with very great velocities, as rays of light propagated through homogeneous substances, or through other rays, the very slight inequality of the actions, derived from the unequal distances of the circumjacent points, will be prevented by the high velocity ; & perfectly free progress will take place in all directions without any danger of collisions. This removes altogether the greatest & only real difficulty in the idea of the propagation of light by means of a substance that is emitted & travels forward. But I have now said quite enough upon this matter.

(a) This & the following section are to be found in the Philosophise Recentior, by Benedict Stay, Vol. I, 6, 7.
(b) This case also would never happen, if the duration were not something continuously permanent ; in -place of
it, we should have to admit a kind of, so to speak, skipping existence ; that is to say, as if any point of matter (and
the same thing applies to all created entities) existed only in indivisible instants remote from one another, and in all
intermediate instants possible did not exist at all. Coexistence, in this case, would be infinitely improbable, the argument
being nearly the same, as in the case of the arrival of one point of matter at a point of space in which some other
point had once been. In this case too, there would be no real continuum even in motion ; different velocities could be
explained much more easily ; it would be much more evident in what way the very short life of an insect can be
equivalent to the longest of lives, by means of the same number of existences coming in between the first & last instants.
Indeed the exclusion of any coexistence would carry away with it all immediate physical influence altogether, 13 determinations ; indeed, a continually fresh creation, 13 other inadmissible things of that sort, would be obtained.
(c) The reference is to Stay's Philosophy," in which that most refined {3 learned author expounds my Philosophy.
On what I have said above, I have plucked the fruit of the theorem, in which, in Art. 360 of this work, I dealt with
impenetrability, 13 the apparent compenetration that would result, if there were no mutual forces.

[StefanR]

And here the continuation of the previuos post with the remaining section of the Supplements of the Theory of Natural Philosophy by Boscovich which deal with Space and Time

Supplements II
Of Space of Time, as we know them


18. We have spoken, in the preceding Supplement, of Space & Time, as they are in themselves ; it remains for us to say a few words on matters that pertain to them, in so far as they come within our knowledge. We can in no direct way obtain a knowledge through the senses of those real modes of existence, nor can we discern one of them from another. We do indeed perceive, by a difference of ideas excited in the mind by means of the senses, a determinate relation of distance & position, such as arises from any two local modes of existence ; but the same idea may be produced by innumerable pairs of modes or real points of position ; these induce the relations of equal distances & like positions, both amongst themselves & with regard to our organs, & to the rest of the circumjacent bodies. For, two points of matter, which anywhere have a given distance & position induced by some two modes of existence, may somewhere else on account. of two other modes of existence have a relation of equal distance & like position, for instance if the distances exist parallel to one another. If those points, we, & all the circumjacent bodies change their real positions, & yet do so in such a manner that all the distances remain equal & parallel to what they were at the start, we shall get exactly the same ideas. Nay, we shall get the same ideas, if, while the magnitudes of the distances remain the same, all their directions are turned through any the same angle, & thus make the same angles with one another as before. Even if all these distances were diminished, while the angles remained constant, & the ratio of the distances to one another also remained constant, but the forces did not change owing to that change of distance ; then if the scale of forces is correctly altered, that is to say, that curved line, whose ordinates express the forces ; then there would be no change in our ideas.

19. Hence it follows that, if the whole Universe within our sight were moved by a parallel motion in any direction, & at the same time rotated through any angle, we could never be aware of the motion or the rotation. Similarly, if the whole region containing the room in which we are, the plains & the hills, were simultaneously turned round by some approximately common motion of the Earth, .we should not be aware of such a motion ; for practically the same ideas would be excited in the mind. Moreover, it might be the case that the whole Universe within our sight should daily contract or expand, while the scale of forces contracted or expanded in the same ratio ; if such a thing did happen, there would be no change of ideas in our mind, & so we should have no feeling that such a change was taking place.

20. When either objects external to us, or our organs change their modes of existence in such a way that that first equality or similitude does not remain constant, then indeed the ideas are altered, & there is a feeling of change ; but the ideas are the same exactly, whether the external objects suffer the change, or our organs, or both of them unequally, In every case our ideas refer to the difference between the new state & the old, & not to the absolute change, which does not come within the scope of our senses. Thus, whether the stars move round the Earth, or the Earth & ourselves 'move in the opposite direction round them, the ideas are the same, & there is the same sensation. We can never perceive absolute changes ; we can only perceive the difference from the former configuration that has arisen. Further, when there is nothing at hand to warn us as to the change of our organs, then indeed we shall count ourselves to have been unmoved, owing to a general prejudice for counting as nothing those things that are nothing in our mind ; for we cannot know of this change, & we attribute the whole of the change to objects situated outside
of ourselves. In such manner any one would be mistaken in thinking, when on board ship, that he himself was motionless, while the shore, the hills & even the sea were in motion.

21. Again, it is to be observed first of all that from this principle of the unchangeability of those things, of which we cannot perceive the change through our senses, there comes forth the method that we use for comparing the magnitudes of intervals with one another ; here, that, which is taken as a measure, is assumed to be unchangeable. Also we make use of the axiom, things that are equal to the same thing are equal to one another ; & from this is deduced another one pertaining to the same thing, namely, things that are equal multiples, or submulti-ples, of each, are also equal to one another; & also this, things that coincide are equal. We take a wooden or iron ten-foot rod ; & if we find that this is congruent with one given interval when applied to it either once or a hundred times, & also congruent to another interval when applied to it either once or a hundred times, then we say that these intervals are equal. Further, we consider the wooden or iron ten-foot rod to be the same standard of comparison after translation. Now, if it consisted of perfectly continuous & solid matter, we might hold it to be exactly the same standard of comparison ; but in
my theory of points at a distance from one another, all the points of the ten-foot rod, while they are being transferred, really change the distance continually. For the distance is constituted by those real modes of existence, & these are continually changing. But if they are changed in such a manner that the modes which follow establish real relations of equal distances, the standard of comparison will not be identically the same ; & yet it will still be an equal one, & the equality of the measured intervals will be correctly determined. We can no more transfer the length of the ten-foot rod, constituted in its first position by the first real modes, to the place of the length constituted in its second position by the second real modes, than we are able to do so for intervals themselves, which we compare by measurement. But, because we perceive none of this change during the translation, such as may demonstrate to us a relation of length, therefore we take that length to be the same. But really in this translation it will always suffer some slight change. It might happen that it underwent even some very great change, common to it & our senses, so that we should not perceive the change ; & that, when restored to its former position, it would return to a state equal & similar to that which it had at first. However, there always is some slight change, owing to the fact that the forces which connect the points of matter, will be changed to some slight extent, if its position is altered with respect to all the rest of the Universe. Indeed, the same is the case in the ordinary theory. For no body is quite without little spaces interspersed within it, altogether incapable of being compressed or dilated ; & this dilatation & compression undoubtedly occurs in every case of translation, at least to a slight extent. We, however, consider the measure to be the same so long as we do not perceive any alteration, as I have already remarked.

22. The consequence of all this is that we are quite unable to obtain a direct knowledge of absolute distances ; & we cannot compare them with one another by a common standard. We have to estimate magnitudes by the ideas through which we recognize them ; & to take as common standards those measures which ordinary people think suffer no change, .but philosophers should recognize that there is a change ; but, since they know of no case in which the equality is destroyed by a perceptible change, they consider that the change is made equally.

23. Further, although the distance is really changed when, as in the case of the translation of the ten-foot rod, the position of the points of matter is altered, those real modes which constitute the distance being altered ; nevertheless it the change takes place in such a way that the second distance is exactly equal to the first, we shall call it the same, & say that it is altered in no way, so that the equal distances between the same ends will be said to be the same distance & the magnitude will be said to be the same : & this is defined by means of these equal distances, just as also two parallel directions will be also included under the name of the same direction. In what follows we shall say that the distance is not changed, or the direction, unless the magnitude of the distance, or the parallelism, is altered.

24. What has been said with regard to the measurement of space, without difficulty can be applied to time ; in this also we have no definite & constant measurement. We obtain all that is possible from motion ; but we cannot get a motion that is perfectly uniform. We have remarked on many things that belong to this subject, & bear upon the nature & succession of these ideas, in our notes. I will but add here, that, in the measurement of time, not even ordinary people think that the same standard measure of time can be translated from one time to another time. They see that it is another, consider that it is an equal, on account of some assumed uniform motion. Just as with the measurement of time, so in my theory with the measurement of space it is impossible to transfer a fixed length from its place to some other, just as it is impossible to transfer a fixed interval ot time, so that it can be used for the purpose of comparing two of them by means of a third. In both cases, a second length, or a second duration is substituted, which is supposed to be equal to the first ; that is to say, fresh real positions of the points of the same ten-foot rod which constitute a new distance, such as a new circuit made by the same rod, or a fresh temporal distance between two beginnings & two ends. In my Theory, there is in each case exactly the same analogy between space & time. Ordinary people think that it is
only for measurement of space that the standard of measurement is the same ; almost all other philosophers except myself hold that it can at least be considered to be the same from the idea that the measure is perfectly solid & continuous, but that in time there is only equality. But I, for my part, only admit in either case the equality, & never the identity.

[StefanR]

As Kempf explains, the underlying mathematical structure of information theory in this framework is sampling theory - that is, samples taken at a generic discrete set of points can be used to reconstruct the shape of the information (or spacetime) everywhere down to a specific cutoff point. In the case of spacetime, that cutoff would be the natural ultraviolet lower bound, if it exists. This lower bound can also be thought of as a minimum length uncertainty principle, beyond which structural properties cannot be precisely known.

In his study, Kempf develops a sampling theory that can be generalized to apply to spacetime. He shows that a finite density of sample points obtained throughout spacetime’s structure can provide scientists with the shape of spacetime from large length scales all the way down to the natural ultraviolet cutoff. Further, he shows that this expression establishes an equivalence between discrete and continuous representations of spacetimes. As such, the new framework for the sampling and reconstruction of spacetime could be used in various approaches to quantum gravity by giving discrete structures a continuous representation.

“It is exceedingly hard to obtain experimental data that could guide the search for the theory that unifies quantum theory and general relativity,” Kempf said. “The proposal that spacetime is simultaneously continuous and discrete in the same way that information is may be able to serve as a theoretical guiding principle. It points towards a theory in which all natural processes are seen as possessing what is in effect a universal finite bandwidth.”

http://www.physorg.com/news180203376.html

Now if he loses that notion of Spacetime as something that is one, it might get a bit interesting with Boscovich in the posts above in mind. If only he knew he shouldn't pay attention to "spacetime" but to "matter". So close and still so far away, but it is not too late, perhaps.