Not only Tesla was a bit different from most of us, so was science in Tesla’s days. In this post we’ll have a look at some of the main differences between science as Tesla knew it and how we know it.
In case you have missed the first part of this series, you can find it here
Matter can not act where it is not.
At first this seems like a perfectly logical and sensible axiom. In order to exert a force on an object there must be physical contact of some sort. It can be direct contact, like when I am pushing my car, or indirect contact like when I use a rope to pull my car.
In the latter case the rope conveys my pulling force onto the car.
So this axiom rules out all kinds of magical influence.
But we are confronted with a number of situations where we can not easily identify how a force is being conveyed, and we don’t even have to search far. There are magnetic forces, electro static forces and there is gravity. The first two forces seem closely related and these were of prime interest to Tesla.
Properties need a carrier
I admit that these are my words but they describe a crucial difference between science back then and now. Suppose I am looking at a red car, and now the car leaves. Does its property -red- remain?
I expect this question will not incite much discussion and we will all agree that if the car leaves, so do all of its properties. These properties are connected to the car and can not exist on their own. You can not split a red car into a red nothing and a colourless car.
You’ll probably think that this goes without saying and wonder why I even spend so much time on such an utterly trivial point. Well, there is a reason...
The ether
Today uttering this word will get you expelled from the scientific community. We all know that Einstein said that there can be no such thing so any self respecting scientist avoids this term at all costs.
But hang on a sec. Let’s pretend to be stupid and look up what Einstein actually said on this subject:
To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. (1)
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. (1)
So there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. I think that leaves little room for discussion now, does it?
The last two sentences of this quote are the trouble makers to modern science, but they were nothing new back then. Ether was supposed to be a homogeneous incompressible medium filling up all space, the idea of motion must be very different for such a medium.
The vacuum
Modern science assigns properties to “the vacuum”. Though syntactically that may be correct; as we have established that properties require a carrier, the vacuum could be this carrier, semantically it doesn’t make sense at all, for “the vacuum” refers to the absence of any possible carrier.
It is like using the money from an empty bank account; there is no money so you can not use it.
Mathematics for experiments
Today's Scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (2)
Today’s scientists talk about fields as if they have a physical reality. They seem to forget that a field is a mathematical description of the distribution of certain properties over space. For example an electric field assigns an electric potential gradient to every point in space. It is a vector field, meaning that every point gets assigned a quantity and a direction. But it completely ignores and by-passes the fact that these properties require carriers and there must be some mechanism that creates this situation. In other words, if I isolate point A and B within an electric field then what is the difference between these two point that causes them to have different electrical properties?
We’ll get into this in my next post.
Tubes of force
In Tesla’s days electric and magnetic forces were conveyed through “tubes of force”. Tesla saw these as physically existing:
About fifteen, years ago, Prof. Rowland demonstrated a most interesting and important fact; namely, that a static charge carried around produces the effects of an electric current. Leaving out of consideration the precise nature of the mechanism, which produces the attraction and repulsion of currents, and conceiving the electro-statically charged molecules in motion, this experimental fact gives us a fair idea of magnetism. We can conceive lines or tubes of force which physically exist, being formed of rows of directed moving molecules; we can see that these lines must be closed, that they must tend to shorten and expand, etc. It likewise explains in a reasonable way, the most puzzling phenomenon of all, permanent magnetism, and, in general, has all the beauties of the Ampere theory without possessing the vital defect of the same, namely, the assumption of molecular currents. (3)
I have tried to find more about this theory of tubes of force, but I could not find anything substantial…
It would be interesting as Tesla proposed to use this in his wingless flying machine. Not to screen against gravity, as in anti-gravity schemes, but to create a force to counteract the gravitational force.
Notice that Tesla describes these tubes as moving molecules, which according to our modern views would rule out electrical and magnetic effects in the vacuum. But we must realize that in his days atoms, molecules and electrons were not as well defined as they are today, and Tesla uses these terms very loosely. I will get to electrons in a later post but with atoms and molecules Tesla refers to the smallest parts that make up the medium that fills up a space. And though a vacuum does not contain air (gasses) it may contain some other medium.
The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly, One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. (2)
(to be continued)
Quotes from
- May 5th, 1920: Einstein’s lecture at Leiden University “Ether and the Theory of Relativity.”
- July 1934: “Radio Power will Revolutionize the WORLD”, by Nikola Tesla
- May 20th, 1891: “Experiments with Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency and Their Application to Methods of Artificial Illumination”, lecture by Nikola Tesla