Live data from Hacker News

Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]

damtp.cam.ac.uk

41–50 of 250 posts

Re: Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]

#41
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone seems to think they would have figured out Einstein’s theory but they didn’t until Einstein did.

Huh? Where did I say I would have figured it out? Albert Einstein was smart, and he definitely was smarter than me. But his achievements weren't beyond all the other smart people. Especially individually and with more time. See also how Newton and Leibniz came up with calculus at the same time. Or how public key cryptography was invented independently multiple times.

I don't think you're the "they" here. I think "they" means "one of Einstein's contemporaries".

Re: Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]

#42
post #5

> The moral of this story is that modesty is not always a virtue. Maxwell and Mendel were both excessively modest. Mendel's modesty setback the progress of biology by fifty years. Maxwell's modesty setback the progress of physics by twenty years. It is better for the progress of science if people who make great discoveries are not too modest to blow their own trumpets. If Maxwell had had an ego like Galileo or Newton…

Newton was the first to act on the revolutionary idea that "physics should be formulated using math". Nowadays a theory of gravity that doesn't use math is basically not a theory. Maybe we can forgive him at least some of the extravagance.

Re: Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]

#43
My proudest moment in high school was getting a 5/5 on the calculus based AP Physics C exams at 15 with no calculus and only rudimentary algebra knowledge at the time. That experience permanently colored my thinking, and made me much more open to practicing thorough visual imagination as a way to solve problems. I found that practice useful all the way through my EE degree's vector fields courses a decade later.

I think that's the modern fundamental difficulty in Maxwell's reworked equations - the 4 we all know and love, not the 20 or so he originally published. To even begin to get a true intuition for them, you have to get really really good at visualizing idealized objects with flows running through surfaces, and (if you're lucky) symmetries that cancel each other out. You can't be afraid of imagining the infinitely small and the continuous to really get the most out of it, even if you "know" on some deeper level that the continuity of spacetime is a convenient approximation.

14 years later I am still grappling with the beauty of saying "yeah yeah, this area of interest is technically discrete, but let's pretend it's continuous and see what kinds of stuff falls out." If you have examples of things like this in other areas like mathematical finance, I'd love to hear about them.

Re: Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]

#44
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People forget that Maxwell's Theory contradicts the prevailing belief of the time that waves ALWAYS require a medium for propagation--the so called "aether". That's a really large conceptual jump and physicists did not make that jump lightly or easily. Maxwell's paper was 1865. The Michelson–Morley experiment was 1887. Michelson himself couldn't make the shift. Quoting Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel…

Maxwell saying that his theory "attributes electric action to tensions and pressures in an all-pervading medium... the medium being identical with that in which light is supposed to be propagated" suggests that Maxwell himself did not view his theory to be contradicting the existence of an aether (or was being coy about it). Which is especially interesting because Maxwell based his theory on Faraday's, and Faraday di…

I mean, language is hard, and it evolves. What they called mediums, we now call (quantized) fields. QED would say the photon field _exists_ at all points in space and that it is kinda fair to say that it is a "medium" for electromagnetic forces and waves to propagate (with the additional point that special relativity is required to understand how to correctly transform it into a different reference frame, rather than imagining it as a strictly Newtonian medium).

Re: Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]

#45
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason why we made the jump from Newton to Einstein through Maxwell's theory is Einstein's intuition of the physics behind electrodynamics I'm not sure that's true. What kind of model of causality are you using here? Other people were also on the cusp of doing (most of) what Einstein did. Ultimately, without Einstein most likely progress would have been delayed by a few years, and the laurels would be spre…

Everyone seems to think they would have figured out Einstein’s theory but they didn’t until Einstein did.

"Don't be snarky."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]

#46
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maxwell's Equations have already been superseded by Quantum Electrodynamics, in the same way that Newtonian gravity has been superseded by General Relativity. Both Newtonian gravity and Maxwell's Equations are still very good approximations in their regimes of validity.

[dead]

> but hopefully you've enlightened some small child reading this thread

There's really no need for this kind of language here.

Re: Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]

#47

One thing I would like to understand is why in our universe we can have two things that combine to nothing. But we can't have 3 things that combine to nothing. Can someone smarter give an explanation.

What are you thinking about here? If it is "matter/antimatter" "particles/antiparticles" then this is not true. There are still conserved quantities in annihilation of particles and antiparticles which makes other particles and/or energy come out of these annihilations.

Re: Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]

#48
post #3

Maxwell's theory is not hard to understand--once you have the proper tools. The problem is that because of trying to cram a degree into 4 years, you wind up having a class on electromagnetics without any understanding of vector fields . Electrical engineering is particularly bad about this. You never get exposed to the Hamiltonian formulations of classical mechanics, and you never get exposed to vector analysis. Cons…

Vector fields are just as incorrect, and ought to be relegated to history books as a mere stepping stone on the way to understanding.

Geometric algebra can reduce Maxwell’s equations into a single, hilariously terse equation:

    ∇F = J
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_descriptions_of_t...

Re: Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]

#50
post #4

i wonder if further progress in physics will require abandoning the maxwellian paradigm in the same way that maxwell had to abandon the newtonian paradigm? presumably for something even further removed from everyday experience. dyson must have thought about that possibility, but evidently at least at the time of this paper he rejected it. i'd like to read his reasoning unrelatedly, i feel like i kind of understand ma…

Maxwell's Equations have already been superseded by Quantum Electrodynamics, in the same way that Newtonian gravity has been superseded by General Relativity. Both Newtonian gravity and Maxwell's Equations are still very good approximations in their regimes of validity.

we are commenting on an article which describes in depth how quantum mechanics, including qed, falls squarely within the paradigm maxwell pioneered. that's why my comment specifically talks about the 'maxwellian paradigm' and not 'maxwell's equations', which is, by the way, not a brand name

i thought it was too obvious to be worth saying that classical physics is still an excellent approximation to reality, but hopefully you've enlightened someone reading this thread

Post reply on HN