Preferred frame
Jaak Suurpere
exist, and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
An assumption of a preferred frame would violate Occam's Razor in
introducing unnecessary assumptions to explain the same results. Would
it also lead to logical contradictions?
what, in science fiction, are the implications of the existence of a
preferred frame?
Eric Prebys
Jaak Suurpere wrote:
>
> Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
> exist, and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
It essentially says the latter, but you have to expand "light" to
"all forces presently known".
> An assumption of a preferred frame would violate Occam's Razor in
> introducing unnecessary assumptions to explain the same results. Would
> it also lead to logical contradictions?
Not unless you had no way of detecting it.
> what, in science fiction, are the implications of the existence of a
> preferred frame?
If the rules of special relativity hold, then the concept of a
preferred frame is meaningless. You can pick any frame
and label it the "preferred frame", and it won't affect the outcome
of a single measurement.
On the other hand (in science fiction), a preferred frame is the
simplest way to get around things like FTL signal propagation
without irreconcilable paradoxes. If FTL signal propagation is
unambiguously shown (and it *hasn't* been, despite claims to
the contrary), then trying to turn it into a measurement of
the "preferred frame" will be the next logical set of experiments.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Max Francis
> Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
> exist, and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
The relativity principle, the first principle that goes into creating
special relativity.
> An assumption of a preferred frame would violate Occam's Razor in
> introducing unnecessary assumptions to explain the same results. Would
> it also lead to logical contradictions?
> what, in science fiction, are the implications of the existence of a
> preferred frame?
Preferred frames are sometimes used to get around the limitations of
relativity, such as for allowing faster-than-light travel without
causality violations.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Laws are silent in time of war.
\__/ Cicero
Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
An Esperanto reference for English speakers.
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
> exist,
This is the input assumption of the theory (specifically, the input
assumption is that the laws of dynamics do not depend on reference
frame). If there is a preferred frame, you need to answer the question
"preferred in what way?"
> and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
It is required that light, and nothing travelling at or slower than
light, can interact with anything travelling faster than light, if you
want to avoid causality violation.
> An assumption of a preferred frame would violate Occam's Razor in
> introducing unnecessary assumptions to explain the same results. Would
> it also lead to logical contradictions?
Depends on what the rules of the preferred frame are. There exists a
cosmic microwave background rest frame, for example, it's a "preferred"
frame for some things, but it doesn't violate any parts of relativity or
lead to any contradictions.
> what, in science fiction, are the implications of the existence of a
> preferred frame?
Preferred how? You can't answer that question until you say what kind
of preferred frame you mean. It's like asking the question, "what are
the implications of these two objects being different?" Well, the
implications will depend on *how* they are different.
Normally science fiction runs this logic the other direction; you pick
the implications you want, and then see what this means for the frame.
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Just published: IMPACT PARAMETER (and other quantum realities)
http://www.goldengryphon.com/ip-frame.html
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>what, in science fiction, are the implications of the existence of a
>preferred frame?
Actually, the other way around, a preferred frame is an implication of
many forms of faster-than-light travel.
Ken H. Seto
"Jaak Suurpere" <jaa...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:be9b8c18.01121...@posting.google.com...
The "no preferred frame" assertion by SR is based on the constant light
speed postulate. It turns out that this postulate requires the existence of
absolute time and space --the properties of a preferred frame. Therefore it
is ludicrous for any SRians to claim that SR does not require a preferred
frame to function. The following previous post shows why a preferred frame
is needed:
_______________________________________________________.
SR Is An Aether Theory
Why?
SR is based on the constant light speed postulate. At a more fundamental
level this postulate is, in turn, derived from the concept absolute time and
space as follows:
By definition the speed of light in the rest frame of the
ether is 299,792,458 m / 1 ether clock sec
The new definition for the speed of light is that the speed of light is not
a universal constant as claimed by SR. But rather it is a constant math
ratio as follows:
The light path length of a rod (299,692,458 m long)
in any moving frame / the absolute time content (interval) for a clock
second co-moving with the rod
Definitions:
1. Light path length = the length that light must traverse to cover the
physical length of a 299,692,458 m long rod
2. An absolute time interval = An interval of time that has the same
absolute duration in all frames of reference.
3. A clock second in different initial frames contains a different absolute
time interval.
The equivalent values for light path length and absolute time
content for a clock second in any moving frame can be determined
using the appropriate SR distortion equations as follows:
The light path length of a 299,692,458 m long rod in any
frame moving at v relative to the ether frame is
= gamma*299,692,458 m
The absolute time interval for a clock second in the same moving
frame is = gamma*1 ether clock second
Therefore the speed of light in any moving frame is
=gamma*299,692,458 m / gamma*1 ether clock second
= 299,692,458m/1 ether clock second
This means that the speed of light has the same math ratio---
299,692,458m/1 ether clock second---in all frames of reference. Since this
interpretation of light speed is based on the existence of absolute time and
space therefore SR is fundamentally an aether theory.
This new interpretation for light speed gives rise to a new theory of
motion---called Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT includes SR as a
subset. Its equations are valid in all environments---including gravity. The
postu;lates fore DRT are as follows:
1. The laws of physicsbased on a clock second is the same for all observers
in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the same
mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames of reference.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is different in
different frames of reference.
4. The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute second has a
different mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames.
The speed of light based on a defined absolute secondis maximum in the rest
frame of the aether.
For a full description of DRT please visit my website
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
Ken Seto
Erik Max Francis
> The "no preferred frame" assertion by SR is based on the constant
> light
> speed postulate. It turns out that this postulate requires the
> existence of
> absolute time and space --the properties of a preferred frame.
> Therefore it
> is ludicrous for any SRians to claim that SR does not require a
> preferred
> frame to function.
Warning: This is a well-known antirelativity crank.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Erik Max Francis" <m...@alcyone.com> wrote in message news:3C168187...@alcyone.com...
> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
> > The "no preferred frame" assertion by SR is based on the constant
> > light
> > speed postulate. It turns out that this postulate requires the
> > existence of
> > absolute time and space --the properties of a preferred frame.
> > Therefore it
> > is ludicrous for any SRians to claim that SR does not require a
> > preferred
> > frame to function.
>
> Warning: This is a well-known antirelativity crank.
The one who claims that every part of the world at any
time is vertical to the preferred frame ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Ken H. Seto
>
> > The "no preferred frame" assertion by SR is based on the constant
> > light
> > speed postulate. It turns out that this postulate requires the
> > existence of
> > absolute time and space --the properties of a preferred frame.
> > Therefore it
> > is ludicrous for any SRians to claim that SR does not require a
> > preferred
> > frame to function.
>
> Warning: This is a well-known antirelativity crank.
I love this. This SR Runt can't refute what I said so he resorts to name
calling.
Ken Seto
Paul F. Dietz
> > Warning: This is a well-known antirelativity crank.
>
> I love this. This SR Runt can't refute what I said so he resorts to name
> calling.
No, he resorted to accurate description.
Your posting was manifestly stupid and self-refuting.
Paul
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
> exist,
All of it. It's an axiom of SR.
> and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
Light doesn't interact with what? The preferred frame?
There isn't one in SR.
> An assumption of a preferred frame would violate Occam's Razor in
> introducing unnecessary assumptions to explain the same results.
True, but Occam's Razor is an ideal, not a logical principle.
Anyway, there's no reason to think that any idea that hasn't
been falsified by experiment is invalid in physics.
> Would
> it also lead to logical contradictions?
> what, in science fiction, are the implications of the existence of a
> preferred frame?
This isn't a forum on science fiction.
John Anderson
Matt McIrvin
wrote:
> If FTL signal propagation is
> unambiguously shown (and it *hasn't* been, despite claims to
> the contrary),
It's amazing to me how regularly these claims pop up in news reports--
it seems to happen about once a year. About half the time it's sheer
journalistic distortion, and the other half of the time, the
investigator is actually claiming this (and is confused about
something). Usually the phenomenon is really just some form of
anomalous dispersion.
--
Matt McIrvin
David Evens
Actually, he has never stated what he means by an objects 'state of
absolute motion', but he HAS made it VERY clear that this is in no way
related to how a body is moving.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Matt McIrvin
jaa...@MailAndNews.com (Jaak Suurpere) wrote:
> Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
> exist, and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
> An assumption of a preferred frame would violate Occam's Razor in
> introducing unnecessary assumptions to explain the same results. Would
> it also lead to logical contradictions?
Not really. Think of it this way: special relativity is essentially a
statement of a symmetry of known physics. There are many cases of a
*partial* symmetry holding for some phenomena and not for others. The
classic example is parity, the symmetry of the laws of physics under
the replacement of an interaction with its spatial reflection. This
was thought to be a symmetry of nature until the 1950s, when the weak
force that governs beta decay was found to violate it.
There could be some sector of the world-- some collection of currently
unknown fields-- that exhibits the relativity violation, with only very
weak coupling to the things that we know about. Weaken the coupling
enough and you can make it all consistent with what we know-- of
course, that would also make the preferred frame very hard to detect
or exploit.
Another place where a preferred frame appears is in Bohm's nonlocal
hidden variable theory. In that case the preferred frame seems to be
completely indetectable to measurements, which are consistent with
standard quantum mechanics and relativity, but the "quantum potential"
is actually transmitting information around instantaneously behind the
scenes!
--
Matt McIrvin
pervect
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3C16EA...@attglobal.net...
> This isn't a forum on science fiction.
Take a closer look at the Newgroups line.
S.H.M.J. Houben
>In article <be9b8c18.01121...@posting.google.com>,
> jaa...@MailAndNews.com (Jaak Suurpere) wrote:
>
>> Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
>> exist, and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
>> An assumption of a preferred frame would violate Occam's Razor in
>> introducing unnecessary assumptions to explain the same results. Would
>> it also lead to logical contradictions?
>
>Not really. Think of it this way: special relativity is essentially a
>statement of a symmetry of known physics.
This is a very good remark, and I would like to add something to it.
Before SR, there were a plethora of rather ad hoc "aether theories"
that somewhat "explained" observed phenomena. Such aether theories
(as e.g. defended by Lorentz and Poincare) typically
predicted that rods shortened when moving at high speed relative
to the "aether", etc. Why this happened? Nobody knew. But it
agreed with the experiments in the lab.
Then came Einstein along, who basically gave 2 axioms:
1. There is no preferred frame of reference
2. The speed of light is the same to any observer
And from this he derived a theoretical framework in which
all of physics fits (well, except gravity, you need GR for that).
However, if you want to explain the apparent shortening of rods,
you could just as well use Lorentz' aether theory as SR. They
both give the same numbers. The difference becomes only
apparent when I come up with some effect
(e.g. strong nuclear force) which hasn't been dealt with by either
theory. Then Lorentz' eather theory basically gives a blank: it's
a new force, it could do anything. But not SR! SR has its two axioms,
and it says that this also for this new force, there must be
no preferred frame of reference.
So SR is a much stronger theory, and moreover, it is more than
just a receipt to get numbers: it is a theoretical framework
to test *any* physical theory, even if it deals with effects
we have never even dreamed of yet.
So what happens if tomorrow I discover a "fifth force" which
happens to work different in a special frame of reference.
Then SR, seen as a procedure to get numbers, is not invalidated
in its domain of, say, electromagnetics. But SR as a general
principle underlying the universe *is* violated.
And the modern look at physics is mostly oriented towards
finding interesting "symmetries" in physical theories.
In this context, a "symmetry" means for example that a theory
doesn't change when you switch to another frame of reference,
or run the time backwards, or replace all particles by
anti-particles, or whatever.
I think it is correct to say that modern physics considers
those symmetries more fundamental than the theories in which
they appear.
Hope this clarifies things, and that I haven't misrepresented
anybody's ideas...
Greetings,
Stephan
Jaak Suurpere
> >
> > Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
> > exist,
>
> All of it. It's an axiom of SR.
>
of that axiom?
> > and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
>
> Light doesn't interact with what? The preferred frame?
> There isn't one in SR.
>
Sure. Is the axiom that there is no preferred frame at all or none
that directly affects light?
> > An assumption of a preferred frame would violate Occam's Razor in
> > introducing unnecessary assumptions to explain the same results.
>
> True, but Occam's Razor is an ideal, not a logical principle.
> Anyway, there's no reason to think that any idea that hasn't
> been falsified by experiment is invalid in physics.
>
> > Would
> > it also lead to logical contradictions?
> > what, in science fiction, are the implications of the existence of a
> > preferred frame?
>
> This isn't a forum on science fiction.
>
Crossposted there.
It seemed appropriate to discuss the logic in this forum, too.
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> The "no preferred frame" assertion by SR is based on the constant light
> speed postulate. It turns out that this postulate requires the existence of
> absolute time and space --the properties of a preferred frame.
wrong on both counts, actually. This is not obvious without actually
studying the subject, but special relativity does *not* require absolute
time and space.
I suggest that you learn a little more about special relativity before
you try to explain it.
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> Then came Einstein along, who basically gave 2 axioms:
> 1. There is no preferred frame of reference
> 2. The speed of light is the same to any observer
Aren't these one axiom?
If the speed of light were different for different observers, one frame
must have a minimum or maximum, and that frame would be preferred.
Ken H. Seto
"Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3C1762B7...@sff.net...
> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:
> >
> > The "no preferred frame" assertion by SR is based on the constant light
> > speed postulate. It turns out that this postulate requires the existence
of
> > absolute time and space --the properties of a preferred frame.
>
> wrong on both counts, actually. This is not obvious without actually
> studying the subject, but special relativity does *not* require absolute
> time and space.
Why don't you read what I have written before you charge head accusing me of
not understanding SR? You are a typical SR Runt. SR is based on the constant
light speed postulate and this postulate requires the existence of absolute
time and space and thus fundamentally SR is an aether theory. <shrug>
Ken Seto
Eric Prebys
They essentially fall into two classes:
(1) various incarnations of the EPR paradox, which kooks
continue to point to as proof of FTL "information"
transfer, no matter how many times it's pointed out that
it's not. I know of no scientists who are trying
to pass of EPR phenomena as FTL communication. Also,
the press know enough to leave this topic alone.
(2) Some interesting results involving quantum tunneling.
These are a little more intriguing, and at least
one guy (Gunter Nimtz) has made claims that FTL
signal propagation has been achieved. He did one
dramatic demonstration in which he
"transmitted" Mozart's 40th symphony, which in some
minds closed the case, and as you can imagine the press
went bugshit. Most experts in the
field have refuted his interpretation of the
demonstration. I think in the end what it boiled down
to was a phase shift across a potential barrier that
corresponded to 4.7c; however, experts claim that because
of the low bandwidth of the signal, no "information"
was actually being transmitted at this speed. Among
they naysayers is Raymond Chiao, widely regarded as
the leading expert in this topic.
I found a very nice, and well-cited, discussion of this topic at
http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html
In fact, I'll probably post it as its own thread.
-Eric
> --
> Matt McIrvin
S.H.M.J. Houben
<geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
>"S.H.M.J. Houben" wrote:
>>
>> Then came Einstein along, who basically gave 2 axioms:
>> 1. There is no preferred frame of reference
>> 2. The speed of light is the same to any observer
>
>Aren't these one axiom?
No, because it is possible to have a logically consistent theory
in which 1. holds but 2. not. An example is classic Galilean
mechanics. If Galilean mechanics were true, then when
co-moving with a lightbeam the measured speed of the lightbeam
would decrease.
>If the speed of light were different for different observers, one frame
>must have a minimum or maximum, and that frame would be preferred.
In theory, it would be possible that different lightbeams have different
speeds when measured by the same observer. In that case, a frame
would only be "special" with respect to one particular lightbeam.
Stephan
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
> > wrong on both counts, actually. This is not obvious without actually
> > studying the subject, but special relativity does *not* require absolute
> > time and space.
>
> Why don't you read what I have written before you charge head accusing me of
> not understanding SR?
I did.
You started with the postulate of an ether and the constancy of the
speed of light with respect to the ether, then derived the constancy of
the speed of light.
This is an interesting thought exercise, but it is not special
relativity. In particular, it does not show that you *need* this
postulate to derive special relativity. If you prove some proposition X
using some assumption Y, that proof does not demonstrate that assumption
Y is required; it is possible that you could also have proved
proposition X without that assumption.
You might try, for example, the discussion of SR on mathpages:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey A. Landis
> >"S.H.M.J. Houben" wrote:
> >>
> >> Then came Einstein along, who basically gave 2 axioms:
> >> 1. There is no preferred frame of reference
> >> 2. The speed of light is the same to any observer
> >
> >Aren't these one axiom?
"S.H.M.J. Houben" wrote:
>
> No...
> In theory, it would be possible that different lightbeams have different
> speeds when measured by the same observer. In that case, a frame
> would only be "special" with respect to one particular lightbeam.
Ah, true enough.
The second axiom could be weakened, then, to "the speed of light is
constant" (In fact, it could be weakened even more).
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Eric Prebys
Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
> > The "no preferred frame" assertion by SR is based on the constant
> > light
> > speed postulate. It turns out that this postulate requires the
> > existence of
> > absolute time and space --the properties of a preferred frame.
> > Therefore it
> > is ludicrous for any SRians to claim that SR does not require a
> > preferred
> > frame to function.
>
> Warning: This is a well-known antirelativity crank.
>
I prefer to just label him a "well-known crank". To be any more
specific would imply some sort of logical consistency to his
ramblings which is just not there.
-Eric
> --
> Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
> __ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
> / \ Laws are silent in time of war.
> \__/ Cicero
> Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
> An Esperanto reference for English speakers.
An Esperanto reference! You know, I was in a bookstore the other
night, looking through their DVD's and I stumbled on one called
"Incubus" (1965), starring William Shatner(!!) (not to be confused
with three other horror movies also called "Incubus"). Anyway, on the
back
it said it was the only feature length film made entirely in
Esperanto! ... and they say Star Trek was Bill's high point!
Eric Prebys
"S.H.M.J. Houben" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:01:22 -0500, Geoffrey A. Landis
> <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
> >"S.H.M.J. Houben" wrote:
> >>
> >> Then came Einstein along, who basically gave 2 axioms:
> >> 1. There is no preferred frame of reference
> >> 2. The speed of light is the same to any observer
> >
> >Aren't these one axiom?
>
> No, because it is possible to have a logically consistent theory
> in which 1. holds but 2. not. An example is classic Galilean
> mechanics. If Galilean mechanics were true, then when
> co-moving with a lightbeam the measured speed of the lightbeam
> would decrease.
>
There is also a class of Ether theories
in which 2 holds but not 1. In Lorentz Ether theories, c is
set constant in all frames, but other experiments to detect
the the ether frame are not necessarily ruled out.
As has also been pointed out, the simplest way to accommodate
FTL signal propagation would be with some sort of
preferred frame (a sort of "God frame"). In this case also
2 would hold but not 1. If fact, you would have something
conceptually more or less identical to Lorentz Ether Theory.
Of course there is as yet no reason to believe either of
these models.
> >If the speed of light were different for different observers, one frame
> >must have a minimum or maximum, and that frame would be preferred.
>
> In theory, it would be possible that different lightbeams have different
> speeds when measured by the same observer. In that case, a frame
> would only be "special" with respect to one particular lightbeam.
>
> Stephan
--
Ken H. Seto
"Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3C17777B...@sff.net...
> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:
> >
> > "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
> > > wrong on both counts, actually. This is not obvious without actually
> > > studying the subject, but special relativity does *not* require
absolute
> > > time and space.
> >
> > Why don't you read what I have written before you charge head accusing
me of
> > not understanding SR?
>
> I did.
>
> You started with the postulate of an ether and the constancy of the
> speed of light with respect to the ether, then derived the constancy of
> the speed of light.
No that's not what you said. I explained how the speed of light can be a
constant math ratio in all frames of reference even though we know that all
observers are in a state of motion. SR gives no explanation why the speed of
light is constant. On top of that it asserts that the speed of light is a
universal constant. This assertion requires that the length km and a time
interval of a clock second to be absolute quantities in all frames of
reference. If that is the case then there is no need for the Lorentz
transformation between frames.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
"S.H.M.J. Houben" <ste...@pclxjm.win.tue.nl> wrote in message
news:slrna1f120....@pclxjm.win.tue.nl...
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:01:22 -0500, Geoffrey A. Landis
> <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
> >"S.H.M.J. Houben" wrote:
> >>
> >> Then came Einstein along, who basically gave 2 axioms:
> >> 1. There is no preferred frame of reference
> >> 2. The speed of light is the same to any observer
> >
> >Aren't these one axiom?
>
> No, because it is possible to have a logically consistent theory
> in which 1. holds but 2. not. An example is classic Galilean
> mechanics. If Galilean mechanics were true, then when
> co-moving with a lightbeam the measured speed of the lightbeam
> would decrease.
Not if the clock second second in the moving frame contains a larger amount
of absolute time. In that case the speed of light would be the same math
ratio c in any moving frame.
Ken Seto
Charles R Martin
> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:
> >
> > "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
> > > wrong on both counts, actually. This is not obvious without actually
> > > studying the subject, but special relativity does *not* require absolute
> > > time and space.
> >
> > Why don't you read what I have written before you charge head accusing me of
> > not understanding SR?
>
> I did.
>
> You started with the postulate of an ether and the constancy of the
> speed of light with respect to the ether, then derived the constancy of
> the speed of light.
>
> This is an interesting thought exercise,
... not to mention begging the question.
--
Chrysanthemum growers -- you are the slaves of your chrysanthemums! -- Buso
______________________________________________________________________________
Charles R (Charlie) Martin Broomfield, CO 40N 105W
Charles R Martin
> (2) Some interesting results involving quantum tunneling.
> These are a little more intriguing, and at least
> one guy (Gunter Nimtz) has made claims that FTL
> signal propagation has been achieved. He did one
> dramatic demonstration in which he
> "transmitted" Mozart's 40th symphony, which in some
> minds closed the case, and as you can imagine the press
> went bugshit. Most experts in the
> field have refuted his interpretation of the
> demonstration. I think in the end what it boiled down
> to was a phase shift across a potential barrier that
> corresponded to 4.7c; however, experts claim that because
> of the low bandwidth of the signal, no "information"
> was actually being transmitted at this speed. Among
> they naysayers is Raymond Chiao, widely regarded as
> the leading expert in this topic.
I'm not at all sure I understand this argument. It would seem (both
naively and by Shannon's theorem) that even a single low-high
transition is "information". If it leaves A and arrives at B in less
than dist(A,B)/c seconds, that would be FTL transmission of
information.
Erik Max Francis
> An Esperanto reference! You know, I was in a bookstore the other
> night, looking through their DVD's and I stumbled on one called
> "Incubus" (1965), starring William Shatner(!!) (not to be confused
> with three other horror movies also called "Incubus"). Anyway, on the
> back
> it said it was the only feature length film made entirely in
> Esperanto! ... and they say Star Trek was Bill's high point!
Yep. The print was apparently lost for quite some time until someone
found it in a theatre in France playing in a Rocky Horror Picture
Show-like atmosphere.
The film is a testament to truly awful sixties horror movies ... and
it's all in (very poorly pronounced) Esperanto. Best of all, it's only
76 minutes long, so it's short enough that the kitch remains amusing and
doesn't get repulsive.
It's worth seeing if you get a kick out of bad movies. (If you don't,
of course, you'll hate it.)
Stephan Houben
<geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
>Geoffrey A. Landis <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
>> >"S.H.M.J. Houben" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Then came Einstein along, who basically gave 2 axioms:
>> >> 1. There is no preferred frame of reference
>> >> 2. The speed of light is the same to any observer
>> >
>> >Aren't these one axiom?
>
>"S.H.M.J. Houben" wrote:
>>
>> No...
>> In theory, it would be possible that different lightbeams have different
>> speeds when measured by the same observer. In that case, a frame
>> would only be "special" with respect to one particular lightbeam.
>
>
>Ah, true enough.
>
>The second axiom could be weakened, then, to "the speed of light is
>constant" (In fact, it could be weakened even more).
True. In fact, I now realise that the way I formulated the second
axiom is a bit suspicious, since the only reason we can talk about
"the" speed of light is because the speed of any beam of light,
as measured by any observer, is always constant. So in fact we
could reformulate the second axiom as simply stating:
"the speed of light is a well-defined concept"
Stephan
Erik Max Francis
> Certainly, itæ„€ an axiom, but which parts of SR are valid independent
> of that axiom?
If you're writing a proof and goof one of the steps, everything that
follows is suspect. If you develop a theory based on some axioms, then
later discard some of those axioms, you have to start over.
> Sure. Is the axiom that there is no preferred frame at all or none
> that directly affects light?
The first postulate of relativity is that there are no preferred frames;
the laws of physics work the same in every frame.
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> > You started with the postulate of an ether and the constancy of the
> > speed of light with respect to the ether, then derived the constancy of
> > the speed of light.
"Ken H. Seto" retorted:
> No that's not what you said.
Correct: it's not what I said.
It's what *you* said.
Your exact words were:
"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
> SR Is An Aether Theory
> Why?
> SR is based on the constant light speed postulate. At a more fundamental
> level this postulate is, in turn, derived from the concept absolute time and
> space as follows:
>
> By definition the speed of light in the rest frame of the
> ether is 299,792,458 m / 1 ether clock sec
and then concluded:
>Since this interpretation of light speed is based on the existence of
absolute
>time and space therefore SR is fundamentally an aether theory.
To summarize: you started with the assumption that the speed of light is
based on absolute time and space, moved from there to relativity, and
then concluded that relativity is based on absolute time and space: your
conclusion was identical to your assumption.
The rest of your post shows that you do not actually understand special relativity.
> I explained how the speed of light can be a
> constant math ratio in all frames of reference even though we know that all
> observers are in a state of motion. SR gives no explanation why the speed of
> light is constant. On top of that it asserts that the speed of light is a
> universal constant. This assertion requires that the length km and a time
> interval of a clock second to be absolute quantities in all frames of
> reference.
To the contrary. Speed is length divided by time. These do not need to
be absolute quantities, it is the ratio that is invarient.
Learn about invarient intervals, and how they transform.
> If that is the case then there is no need for the Lorentz
> transformation between frames.
This is, again, backward logic.
Your initial statement was that special relativity requires an absolute
frame, not that there is no "need" for a Lorentz transformation.
Stephan Houben
>and...@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<3C16EA...@attglobal.net>...
>> Jaak Suurpere wrote:
>> >
>> > Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
>> > exist,
>>
>> All of it. It's an axiom of SR.
>>
>Certainly, itæ„€ an axiom, but which parts of SR are valid independent
>of that axiom?
None of it. It is *the* fundamental assumption.
>> > and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
>>
>> Light doesn't interact with what? The preferred frame?
>> There isn't one in SR.
>>
>Sure. Is the axiom that there is no preferred frame at all or none
>that directly affects light?
The axiom is that there is no preferred frame at all.
Note that there are also some aether theories that give
the same predictions with respect to shortening rods,
relativistic time effects, etc., but that do introduce
a preferred frame.
Of course, the assumption that there is no preferred frame
could be incorrect, but so far there is no evidence suggesting
this.
Stephan
Eric Prebys
Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> Eric Prebys wrote:
>
> > An Esperanto reference! You know, I was in a bookstore the other
> > night, looking through their DVD's and I stumbled on one called
> > "Incubus" (1965), starring William Shatner(!!) (not to be confused
> > with three other horror movies also called "Incubus"). Anyway, on the
> > back
> > it said it was the only feature length film made entirely in
> > Esperanto! ... and they say Star Trek was Bill's high point!
>
> Yep. The print was apparently lost for quite some time until someone
> found it in a theatre in France playing in a Rocky Horror Picture
> Show-like atmosphere.
>
> The film is a testament to truly awful sixties horror movies ... and
> it's all in (very poorly pronounced) Esperanto. Best of all, it's only
> 76 minutes long, so it's short enough that the kitch remains amusing and
> doesn't get repulsive.
>
> It's worth seeing if you get a kick out of bad movies. (If you don't,
> of course, you'll hate it.)
>
I enjoy bad movies, but it was kind of pricey. I have a funny
feeling the price might drop, though :)
-Eric
> --
> Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
> __ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
> / \ Laws are silent in time of war.
> \__/ Cicero
> Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
> An Esperanto reference for English speakers.
--
Erik Max Francis
> I enjoy bad movies, but it was kind of pricey. I have a funny
> feeling the price might drop, though :)
You could always rent it.
Eric Prebys
Charles R Martin wrote:
>
> Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> writes:
>
> > (2) Some interesting results involving quantum tunneling.
> > These are a little more intriguing, and at least
> > one guy (Gunter Nimtz) has made claims that FTL
> > signal propagation has been achieved. He did one
> > dramatic demonstration in which he
> > "transmitted" Mozart's 40th symphony, which in some
> > minds closed the case, and as you can imagine the press
> > went bugshit. Most experts in the
> > field have refuted his interpretation of the
> > demonstration. I think in the end what it boiled down
> > to was a phase shift across a potential barrier that
> > corresponded to 4.7c; however, experts claim that because
> > of the low bandwidth of the signal, no "information"
> > was actually being transmitted at this speed. Among
> > they naysayers is Raymond Chiao, widely regarded as
> > the leading expert in this topic.
>
> I'm not at all sure I understand this argument. It would seem (both
> naively and by Shannon's theorem) that even a single low-high
> transition is "information". If it leaves A and arrives at B in less
> than dist(A,B)/c seconds, that would be FTL transmission of
> information.
>
That would be true, but what you describe has never been
observed experimentally. The experimental results always
involves a time shift in the middle of an extremely
long wave packet. I'm not an expert in this area, but as I understand
it, the argument against this being information transfer essentially
says that there is already enough information after the barrier to
predict the value some time in the future, given some fundamental
bandwidth limitations inherent in the setup, and therefore there is
no danger of causality violation.
For whatever reason, the effect has never been demonstrated with
small enough wave packets (or transients) to make the result
unambiguous. The Mozart Symphony, for all its appeal, was
really just theatrics.
One way or another, this is very cool physics.
-Eric
> --
> Chrysanthemum growers -- you are the slaves of your chrysanthemums! -- Buso
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Charles R (Charlie) Martin Broomfield, CO 40N 105W
--
Matt McIrvin
wrote:
[about claims of faster-than-light signal transmission]
> They essentially fall into two classes:
> (1) various incarnations of the EPR paradox, which kooks
> continue to point to as proof of FTL "information"
> transfer, no matter how many times it's pointed out that
> it's not. I know of no scientists who are trying
> to pass of EPR phenomena as FTL communication. Also,
> the press know enough to leave this topic alone.
>
> (2) Some interesting results involving quantum tunneling.
> These are a little more intriguing, and at least
> one guy (Gunter Nimtz) has made claims that FTL
> signal propagation has been achieved. He did one
> dramatic demonstration in which he
> "transmitted" Mozart's 40th symphony, which in some
> minds closed the case, and as you can imagine the press
> went bugshit. Most experts in the
> field have refuted his interpretation of the
> demonstration. [...]
Basically, anyone who claims to have transmitted information faster
than light using mechanisms described by standard quantum theory is
going to have to deal somehow with the fact that standard quantum
theory (more precisely, quantum field theory) is pretty explicitly
rigged to make this impossible.
Some theorists have objected to proofs of this impossibility on these
very grounds-- they say that the proofs are circular, since part of the
reason that the theory has the particular foundations that it does
(e.g. commutation of local observables across spacelike intervals) is
to *make* it impossible. But the fact remains that that is what the
theory does say, the theory is pretty well supported by the data, and
any claim to the contrary is pretty extraordinary.
It's sort of like claiming you have an energy-generating perpetual
motion machine that works by Newtonian principles. Maybe you've got
such a device that works by physics hitherto unknown to humanity, but
if you claim you've got one that works by Newtonian mechanics, you're
just mistaken, because it's been *proven* that Newtonian mechanics
doesn't allow that.
But apart from the Nimtz affair, most of the hysterical press reports I
see on this topic tend to be in a third category: somebody sets up a
situation in which there is some sort of extreme anomalous dispersion
of electromagnetic waves (like a Bose-Einstein condensate), and some
wave has a phase velocity faster than light, or in some cases even a
group velocity faster than light (but not a signal transmission
velocity faster than light), or something even more bizarre. Usually
these groups don't even *claim* to have superluminal signal
transmission, but the press garble it to the extent of claiming that
some pillar of relativity has fallen.
--
Matt McIrvin
Matt McIrvin
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Eric Prebys wrote:
>
> > An Esperanto reference! You know, I was in a bookstore the other
> > night, looking through their DVD's and I stumbled on one called
> > "Incubus" (1965), starring William Shatner(!!)
[...]
> The film is a testament to truly awful sixties horror movies ... and
> it's all in (very poorly pronounced) Esperanto. Best of all, it's only
> 76 minutes long, so it's short enough that the kitch remains amusing and
> doesn't get repulsive.
I've seen a *lot* worse... but it's not good.
I think the filmmaker saw "The Seventh Seal", decided he wanted to do a
Bergmanesque horror movie in an angstful quasi-European setting, and
filmed it in Esperanto because to him it sounded kind of like Swedish.
--
Matt McIrvin
Gerry Quinn
>
>For whatever reason, the effect has never been demonstrated with
>small enough wave packets (or transients) to make the result
>unambiguous. The Mozart Symphony, for all its appeal, was
>really just theatrics.
Or long enough distances. The Mozart was transmitted about 10cm. If it
were 10m it would be really hard to explain.
- Gerry Quinn
pervect
"Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote in message
news:m3d71k8...@localhost.localdomain...
> Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> writes:
>
> > (2) Some interesting results involving quantum tunneling.
> > These are a little more intriguing, and at least
> > one guy (Gunter Nimtz) has made claims that FTL
> > signal propagation has been achieved. He did one
> > dramatic demonstration in which he
> > "transmitted" Mozart's 40th symphony, which in some
> > minds closed the case, and as you can imagine the press
> > went bugshit. Most experts in the
> > field have refuted his interpretation of the
> > demonstration. I think in the end what it boiled down
> > to was a phase shift across a potential barrier that
> > corresponded to 4.7c; however, experts claim that because
> > of the low bandwidth of the signal, no "information"
> > was actually being transmitted at this speed. Among
> > they naysayers is Raymond Chiao, widely regarded as
> > the leading expert in this topic.
>
> I'm not at all sure I understand this argument. It would seem (both
> naively and by Shannon's theorem) that even a single low-high
> transition is "information". If it leaves A and arrives at B in less
> than dist(A,B)/c seconds, that would be FTL transmission of
> information.
Suppose someone claimed that they could predict the future. This is a
little too vague - let us say instead that they claimed that they could
obtain information about the future. That ties it in with the claim of
"information" transfer much better.
Now suppose they illustrated their skills by predicting the next value of
the following sequence
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
and they correctly predicted the next value as 12.
Would you be convinced? I wouldn't be. In some sense, of course, they did
predict the future, but not in a way that I would describe as getting
information from or about the future.
The situation with the Mozart "transmission" is analogous. If you plotted a
graph of the Mozart signal in its electrical form, and looked at it on a
nanosecond time scale, you would see that it was essentially a straight
line. So predicting it over the next nanosecond is not very conclusive
evidence of being able to predict the future.
Now consider that the experiment did not predict Mozart even a nanosecond in
the future - to get a whole nanosecond, they'd need to take a foot off the
path length, which would require infinite speed transmission over a foot.
pervect
"Stephan Houben" <step...@pcnl2.win.tue.nl> wrote in message
news:slrna1fb6t....@pcnl2.win.tue.nl...
> On 12 Dec 2001 01:20:58 -0800, Jaak Suurpere <jaa...@MailAndNews.com>
wrote:
> >and...@attglobal.net wrote in message
news:<3C16EA...@attglobal.net>...
> >> Jaak Suurpere wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
> >> > exist,
> >>
> >> All of it. It's an axiom of SR.
> >>
> >of that axiom?
>
> None of it. It is *the* fundamental assumption.
That's probably a good way to explain it.
However, it might be useful to ask "what sort of inconsistencies with the
result of observed experiments might one expect from a theory that was not
relativistic".
Unfortunately, the general answer, of course, is that it depends on exactly
what this theory is.
But we do know that whatever this theory is, it must predict the same
results that relativity does for a lot of common phenomenon that have been
measured already (if it is to be a correct theory, at least). Examples
would include the Michelson-Moreley experiment and its various variants,
Global Positioning satellite time delays (which are currently calculated
with General Relativity), stellar abberation, the behavior of particles in
particle accelerators, the fact that muons reach the earth's surface in
spite of their short lifetime, etc etc etc. Basically, it would be hard to
come up with such a theory (but not totally impossible). The easiest route
(for science fiction purposes - note the crosspost here!) would be to invent
a new class of phenomenon which are unencumbered with contradictory
observations, and have the non-relativistic parts of the theory apply only
to this new class of phenomenon. This new class of phenomenon would be used
for the FTL drive, or the FTL communications system, or whatever else the
plot needs.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Take a closer look at the Newgroups line.
Then it shouldn't have been cross posted to
sci.physics.relativity if it was really aimed
at sci fi group.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> and...@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<3C16EA...@attglobal.net>...
> > Jaak Suurpere wrote:
> > >
> > > Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
> > > exist,
> >
> > All of it. It's an axiom of SR.
> >
> of that axiom?
>
If you remove that axiom, you basically get Lorentz ether theory.
SR is still valid because it still agrees with experiment.
Removing the axiom doesn't change that.
> > > and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
> >
> > Light doesn't interact with what? The preferred frame?
> > There isn't one in SR.
> >
> Sure. Is the axiom that there is no preferred frame at all or none
> that directly affects light?
>
Axioms don't affect what we observe. They have to produce theories
that are consistent with what we observe.
> > > An assumption of a preferred frame would violate Occam's Razor in
> > > introducing unnecessary assumptions to explain the same results.
> >
> > True, but Occam's Razor is an ideal, not a logical principle.
> > Anyway, there's no reason to think that any idea that hasn't
> > been falsified by experiment is invalid in physics.
> >
> > > Would
> > > it also lead to logical contradictions?
> > > what, in science fiction, are the implications of the existence of a
> > > preferred frame?
> >
> > This isn't a forum on science fiction.
> >
> Crossposted there.
> It seemed appropriate to discuss the logic in this forum, too.
Don't cross post so liberally. You're going to get people
who don't have a thing in common responding to each others'
postings just because replies to your posting appear in both
groups.
Newsgroups are communities dedicated to particular topics.
If you mix them up, a lot of people waste time responding
to others who never really wanted a response from those persons.
John Anderson
Leo Sgouros
"pervect" <perv...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3c18168d$0$32123$e2e...@nntp.cts.com...
>
> "Stephan Houben" <step...@pcnl2.win.tue.nl> wrote in message
> news:slrna1fb6t....@pcnl2.win.tue.nl...
> > On 12 Dec 2001 01:20:58 -0800, Jaak Suurpere <jaa...@MailAndNews.com>
> wrote:
> > >and...@attglobal.net wrote in message
> news:<3C16EA...@attglobal.net>...
> > >> Jaak Suurpere wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred
frame
> > >> > exist,
> > >>
> > >> All of it. It's an axiom of SR.
> > >>
"FTL" communications system only implies causality violation over faily
close distances.
From: Dramar Ankalle (mika...@ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Properties of a FTL signal transmission, compared with standard
radio
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
View: Complete Thread (39 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-03-19 21:08:07 PST
<snip>
> > If I have a crystal radio set with a medium at the send that sends an
> > anomolous wave, will an identicle radio far away with a medium similar
for
> > the recieve, recieve the boosted wavelet, *regardless* of the medium in
> > between?Comprende?
> > [like tube to tube action at a distance, sorta]
> >
> >
> Depends on what your anomalous wave is, I guess. Also, if you are actually
> 'transmitting' something, then no, FTL transmission implies causality
> violation in this case.... paradox city.
>
> Greysky
>
>
From: Dramar Ankalle (mika...@ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Why are quantum events truly random?
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.particle
View: Complete Thread (155 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-04-18 06:14:34 PST
Please add Quantum Relativity of Frequency-
IOW, there is some section of spectrum that is connected in such a way that
certain wavelengths will propagate anomolously, like outside lab frames.
Meaning that recent Cesium chamber experiment found a common carrier
connecting points *outside* the frame of the actual beginning and starting
point of the signal-you send a certain wavelength through some test chamber,
there is some piece of the universe that the singal is *almost* at in terms
of wavelength, and you match your ``custom ether" to that spectrum of
increased probability.
IOW all free space is almost a photon or the probability of a wave train
under certain conditions
Does this make sense?
Its late, erm, early.
_L_
<snip>
David Evens
wrote:
>"Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
>news:3C17777B...@sff.net...
>> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>> > "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
>> > > wrong on both counts, actually. This is not obvious without actually
>> > > studying the subject, but special relativity does *not* require
>absolute
>> > > time and space.
>> >
>> > Why don't you read what I have written before you charge head accusing
>me of
>> > not understanding SR?
>>
>> I did.
>>
>> You started with the postulate of an ether and the constancy of the
>> speed of light with respect to the ether, then derived the constancy of
>> the speed of light.
>
>No that's not what you said. I explained how the speed of light can be a
>constant math ratio in all frames of reference even though we know that all
>observers are in a state of motion. SR gives no explanation why the speed of
>light is constant. On top of that it asserts that the speed of light is a
>universal constant.
You do like demonstrating that you are intentionally ignorant of what
a postulate is, don't you?
>This assertion requires that the length km and a time
>interval of a clock second to be absolute quantities in all frames of
>reference. If that is the case then there is no need for the Lorentz
>transformation between frames.
You forgot to support your random assumptions.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Stephan Houben
>
>"Stephan Houben" <step...@pcnl2.win.tue.nl> wrote in message
>news:slrna1fb6t....@pcnl2.win.tue.nl...
>> On 12 Dec 2001 01:20:58 -0800, Jaak Suurpere <jaa...@MailAndNews.com>
>wrote:
>> >and...@attglobal.net wrote in message
>news:<3C16EA...@attglobal.net>...
>> >> Jaak Suurpere wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
>> >> > exist,
>> >>
>> >> All of it. It's an axiom of SR.
>> >>
>> >of that axiom?
>>
>> None of it. It is *the* fundamental assumption.
>
>That's probably a good way to explain it.
No, that's just the way it is.
Consider this analogy:
Some scientist A does experiments with falling brass and lead balls
from a tower. He concludes "brass and lead balls fall with the same velocity."
Then scientist B does experiments wich also include iron balls.
He concludes "brass, lead and iron balls fall with the same velocity."
Then along comes scientist C who looks at the experiments and says:
"Let's suppose that *all* objects fall with the same velocity."
Now C makes a statement that is much more ambitious than the results of
A and B. A and B claim to have found some accidental connection. C claims
to have found a universal principle.
That's what SR also claims to be: a universal principle. Before SR, there
were ether theories that gave exactly the same numbers as SR. But what
set SR apart, and what was the great theoretical breakthrough of Einstein,
was the recognition of the underlying principle of "no preferred frame".
Note that to scientists, such a universal principle is a feature,
not a bug. <wink> It's only annoying for lazy SF writers, who have
to come up with some interesting setting in a universe with only
STL travel, rather than mindlessly activating the warp drive.
<double wink>
There is a branch of philosophy of science which holds that the only
value of a theory is in its ability to predict reality.
This is sometimes called "predictionism".
To a predictionist, SR and Lorentz' ether theory are equivalent,
since they predict the same outcome for any experiment. However,
as it has sometimes been put, Lorentz ether theory is "theoretically
sterile". It doesn't lend itself to extensions to other fields. On the
other hand, if you start with SR and you try hard to incorporate gravity
into it, you can "bootstrap" yourself to general relativity.
>However, it might be useful to ask "what sort of inconsistencies with the
>result of observed experiments might one expect from a theory that was not
>relativistic".
>
>Unfortunately, the general answer, of course, is that it depends on exactly
>what this theory is.
If it was Lorentz' ether theory, then the answer would be "none at all".
>But we do know that whatever this theory is, it must predict the same
>results that relativity does for a lot of common phenomenon that have been
>measured already (if it is to be a correct theory, at least). Examples
>would include the Michelson-Moreley experiment and its various variants,
>Global Positioning satellite time delays (which are currently calculated
>with General Relativity), stellar abberation, the behavior of particles in
>particle accelerators, the fact that muons reach the earth's surface in
>spite of their short lifetime, etc etc etc. Basically, it would be hard to
>come up with such a theory (but not totally impossible).
No, it would not be that hard, since those ether theories are historically
older than SR.
However, if you also want to include the GR effects,
then it gets rather difficult.
>The easiest route
>(for science fiction purposes - note the crosspost here!) would be to invent
>a new class of phenomenon which are unencumbered with contradictory
>observations, and have the non-relativistic parts of the theory apply only
>to this new class of phenomenon.
OK, but this still violates SR as a general principle.
Stephan
Jaak Suurpere
> Jaak Suurpere wrote:
> >
> > and...@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<3C16EA...@attglobal.net>...
> > > Jaak Suurpere wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
> > > > exist,
> > >
> > > All of it. It's an axiom of SR.
> > >
> > of that axiom?
> >
>
> If you remove that axiom, you basically get Lorentz ether theory.
> SR is still valid because it still agrees with experiment.
> Removing the axiom doesn't change that.
>
> > > > and where is it sufficient that light doesn't interact with it?
> > >
> > > Light doesn't interact with what? The preferred frame?
> > > There isn't one in SR.
> > >
> > Sure. Is the axiom that there is no preferred frame at all or none
> > that directly affects light?
> >
>
> Axioms don't affect what we observe. They have to produce theories
> that are consistent with what we observe.
>
and Lorentz ether theory.
The reason why Special Relativity is believed is that it´s less
complicated than Lorentz ether theory and by Occam´s Razor
preferrable.
How would the physics be affected if Special Relativity were by
experiment proven false, but not the Lorentz ether theory?
> > > > An assumption of a preferred frame would violate Occam's Razor in
> > > > introducing unnecessary assumptions to explain the same results.
> > >
> > > True, but Occam's Razor is an ideal, not a logical principle.
> > > Anyway, there's no reason to think that any idea that hasn't
> > > been falsified by experiment is invalid in physics.
> > >
> > > > Would
> > > > it also lead to logical contradictions?
> > > > what, in science fiction, are the implications of the existence of a
> > > > preferred frame?
> > >
> > > This isn't a forum on science fiction.
> > >
> > Crossposted there.
> > It seemed appropriate to discuss the logic in this forum, too.
>
> Don't cross post so liberally. You're going to get people
> who don't have a thing in common responding to each others'
> postings just because replies to your posting appear in both
> groups.
>
> Newsgroups are communities dedicated to particular topics.
> If you mix them up, a lot of people waste time responding
> to others who never really wanted a response from those persons.
>
There still is the topic of the particular thread, and content of the
posts therein.
I assumed that the members of both groups who do discuss this thread
have enough in common.
Ken H. Seto
"Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3C18E2A2...@sff.net...
>
>
> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:
> >
> > "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> > > To summarize: you started with the assumption that the speed of light
is
> > > based on absolute time and space, moved from there to relativity, and
> > > then concluded that relativity is based on absolute time and space:
your
> > > conclusion was identical to your assumption.
> >
constant
> > light speed in all frames. I showed that you can have both
> > constant light speed and a preferred frame.
>
> [please note the word "can" here.]
>
> >So why do you think that the SR assertion is more roight than what I
said?
>
> I didn't state that. Please pay attention to what you yourself are
> saying. To wit, immediately following, you state:
>
>
> > ...
> > Yes SR requires a preferred frame to explain why the speed of light is a
> > constant math ratio in all frames. The defintion for speed shows that
the
> > speed of light cannot be a universal constant as claimed by SR.
>
> It is THIS STATEMENT which is incorrect.
>
> You stated above that you can have constant light speed and also a
> preferred frame; this is correct. That, however, does not support your
> original assertion, which is that SR requires a preferred frame, this
> assertion is incorrect.
Wrong. Without a preferred frame you can't get constant light speed in all
frames and in all directions. Therefore my original assertion is correct.
>
> The fact that you CAN have a preferred frame and a constant speed of
> light does not mean that you MUST have a preferred frame to have a
> constant speed of light.
Without the preferred frame there is no way for you to explain how the speed
of light remains constant in all frame. You can make it a postulate that's
all. But it is better if you can explain how your postulate is derived
fundamentally.
Ken Seto
Ilja Schmelzer
> Before SR, there were a plethora of rather ad hoc "aether theories"
> that somewhat "explained" observed phenomena. Such aether theories
> (as e.g. defended by Lorentz and Poincare) typically
> predicted that rods shortened when moving at high speed relative
> to the "aether", etc. Why this happened? Nobody knew.
Not really. What we know today (and is closely related to Lorentz'
theory of the electron) is that _if_ rulers are hold together by
electromagnetic forces _then_ this follows from Maxwell's equation.
Thus, differently from SR LET suggests to search for an
electromagnetic explanation of rulers.
> But it agreed with the experiments in the lab.
> Then came Einstein along, who basically gave 2 axioms:
> 1. There is no preferred frame of reference
> 2. The speed of light is the same to any observer
> And from this he derived a theoretical framework in which
> all of physics fits (well, except gravity, you need GR for that).
> However, if you want to explain the apparent shortening of rods,
> you could just as well use Lorentz' aether theory as SR. They
> both give the same numbers. The difference becomes only
> apparent when I come up with some effect
> (e.g. strong nuclear force) which hasn't been dealt with by either
> theory. Then Lorentz' eather theory basically gives a blank: it's
> a new force, it could do anything. But not SR! SR has its two axioms,
> and it says that this also for this new force, there must be
> no preferred frame of reference.
Yep. SR claims that they should have the same speed even if they are
completely different forces which have nothing to do with each other.
Instead, LET suggests that a common speed of EM and, for example, weak
interaction needs explanation in some unified theory, with EM and weak
force as different properties of the same ether. SR does not suggest
such unification.
Fortunately, scientists search for unification independent of SR, the
preference for unified theories is a general preference of scientists.
(As well as a preference for symmetry.)
> So SR is a much stronger theory, and moreover, it is more than
> just a receipt to get numbers: it is a theoretical framework
> to test *any* physical theory, even if it deals with effects
> we have never even dreamed of yet.
And, as such, has failed with gravity.
Note: SR in no way suggests that light may be curved by gravity.
Instead, an ether suggests exactly this: the ether acts, therefore
there should be a reaction too, the ether may be very stiff but not
exactly incompressible. And an inhomogeneous ether leads to curved
light paths.
The genius Einstein was clever enough not to follow the prescriptions
of his special theory. He followed some other guiding principles. For
some of them we know today that they are wrong (1. general covariance
is not GR-specific, 2. a gravitational field with curvature is not
equivalent to acceleration, even locally). But who cares if the
resulting theory is beautiful and makes correct predictions?
> I think it is correct to say that modern physics considers
> those symmetries more fundamental than the theories in which
> they appear.
Yep. And I think their role is overemphasized in modern physics.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Ilja Schmelzer
> Of course, the assumption that there is no preferred frame
> could be incorrect, but so far there is no evidence suggesting
> this.
Oh, that depends on your metaphysical assumptions.
Based on Einstein's own metaphysical assumptions (classical realism)
the observed violation of Bell's inequality is an indirect but
decisive experimental proof of the existence of a preferred frame.
Ilja Schmelzer
> They essentially fall into two classes:
> (1) various incarnations of the EPR paradox, which kooks
> continue to point to as proof of FTL "information"
> transfer, no matter how many times it's pointed out that
> it's not. I know of no scientists who are trying
> to pass of EPR phenomena as FTL communication. Also,
> the press know enough to leave this topic alone.
Feel free to name me a kook, but I try, based on the following facts:
1.) Making only very weak assumptions, especially only classical
realism as used by Bell in his proof of the theorem, or Einstein in
the famous EPR paper, the violation of Bell's inequality is a decisive
proof of a violation of Einstein causality.
2.) There is no independent evidence against these assumptions. This
can be easily proven by presenting theories which agree with
observation and fulfil these assumptions. Especially in the domain of
quantum theory, we have Bohmian mechanics.
3.) There is independent evidence against Einstein causality: its
incompatibility with quantum principles in the domain of quantum
gravity.
4.) Classical realism is a much more general concept than Einstein
causality. In case of conflict, the first choice is to question the
more special concept, therefore, Einstein causality.
5.) Many popular arguments against the explanation of the experiment
by information transfer can be shown to be invalid. For some of the
most popular of them this can be done with the "telephone argument":
Assume we have a really working FTL telephone. It is often easy to
see that the argument may be applied to the telephone too.
Examples: "we can prove that a correlation appears only by later
comparison of the results." Bell's loophole of a completely
predetermined world where no correlation can prove any causal
influence because even the decisions of the experimenter may be
predetermined. Explicit rejection of causality (Price).
6.) The explanation using FTL information transfer has two
possibilities. We can explain the correlations with information
transfer A->B as well as B->A. Above explanations contradict Einstein
causality, thus, their "or" combination contradicts Einstein causality
too.
But from "(A->B)or(B->A)" immediately follows that it cannot be used
for information transfer - to transfer information A->B contradicts
the explanation B->A. Thus, the most impressive "argument" against
the explanation "(A->B)or(B->A)" is a necessary consequence of this
explanation! A really funny situation.
7.) What remains as an argument is a positivistic prejudice against
indirect observation: something which allows only the explanation
"(A->B)or(B->A)" is not enough to falsify Einstein causality.
But most of physics is based on such indirect observations.
> (2) Some interesting results involving quantum tunneling.
> These are a little more intriguing,
No, much less. As a proponent of an ether theory I have looked if
there is something in it. There is nothing.
Eric Prebys
True. I've noticed, that the big problem
is second generation articles. Often there's a decent article written,
and then subsequent articles will put a more sensational headline
and leave out some things - like explicit explanations why causality
is not violated!
This is a general problem with scientific reporting, in that original
articles are almost always run by the people interviewed for approval,
whereas subsequent "versions" almost never are.
-Eric
> --
> Matt McIrvin
Eric Prebys
Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> Eric Prebys wrote:
>
> > I enjoy bad movies, but it was kind of pricey. I have a funny
> > feeling the price might drop, though :)
>
> You could always rent it.
I will, as soon as I see it at the rental stores. So far I've
only seen it for sale - at like $25.00! That interested I'm
not.
>
> --
> Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
> __ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
> / \ Laws are silent in time of war.
> \__/ Cicero
> Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
> An Esperanto reference for English speakers.
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
> > You stated above that you can have constant light speed and also a
> > preferred frame; this is correct. That, however, does not support your
> > original assertion, which is that SR requires a preferred frame, this
> > assertion is incorrect.
>
> Wrong. Without a preferred frame you can't get constant light speed in all
> frames and in all directions. Therefore my original assertion is correct.
This incorrect assertion brings us back in a circle to what I said originally:
You don't understand special relativity. Since you do not understand it
yourself, you should not attempt to explain it to others.
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Just published: IMPACT PARAMETER (and other quantum realities)
http://www.goldengryphon.com/ip-frame.html
Ken H. Seto
"Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3C17AB54...@sff.net...
SR started by saying that there is no preferred frame because of constant
light speed in all frames. I showed that you can have both constant light
speed and a preferred frame. So why do you think that the SR assertion is
more roight than what I said?
>
> The rest of your post shows that you do not actually understand special
relativity.
> > I explained how the speed of light can be a
> > constant math ratio in all frames of reference even though we know that
all
> > observers are in a state of motion. SR gives no explanation why the
speed of
> > light is constant. On top of that it asserts that the speed of light is
a
> > universal constant. This assertion requires that the length km and a
time
> > interval of a clock second to be absolute quantities in all frames of
> > reference.
>
> To the contrary. Speed is length divided by time. These do not need to
> be absolute quantities, it is the ratio that is invarient.
Bingo. Indeed the speed of light is a constant math ratio instead of a
universal constant as claimed by SR.
>
>
> Learn about invarient intervals, and how they transform.
>
> > If that is the case then there is no need for the Lorentz
> > transformation between frames.
>
> This is, again, backward logic.
>
> Your initial statement was that special relativity requires an absolute
> frame, not that there is no "need" for a Lorentz transformation.
Yes SR requires a preferred frame to explain why the speed of light is a
constant math ratio in all frames. The defintion for speed shows that the
speed of light cannot be a universal constant as claimed by SR.
Ken Seto
Geoffrey A. Landis
"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
> "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
> > To summarize: you started with the assumption that the speed of light is
> > based on absolute time and space, moved from there to relativity, and
> > then concluded that relativity is based on absolute time and space: your
> > conclusion was identical to your assumption.
>
> SR started by saying that there is no preferred frame because of constant
> light speed in all frames. I showed that you can have both
> constant light speed and a preferred frame.
[please note the word "can" here.]
>So why do you think that the SR assertion is more roight than what I said?
I didn't state that. Please pay attention to what you yourself are
saying. To wit, immediately following, you state:
> ...
> Yes SR requires a preferred frame to explain why the speed of light is a
> constant math ratio in all frames. The defintion for speed shows that the
> speed of light cannot be a universal constant as claimed by SR.
It is THIS STATEMENT which is incorrect.
You stated above that you can have constant light speed and also a
preferred frame; this is correct. That, however, does not support your
original assertion, which is that SR requires a preferred frame, this
assertion is incorrect.
The fact that you CAN have a preferred frame and a constant speed of
light does not mean that you MUST have a preferred frame to have a
constant speed of light.
--
pervect
I would describe Lorentz ether theory as being basically equivalent to
relativity, since it makes the same predictions as you point out. One winds
up deriving that the ether is indetectable as a result in this class of
theory, rather than a postulate. (At least if it's done correctly.)
Because of this, I don't think that Lorentz ether theory hold a lot of
promise for the SF writer who wants FTL travel or communications and also
causality. It is basically equivalent to relativity.
It is possible to have FTL travel and to keep relativity intact with
wormholes, but this approach has causality issues, and it also has other
restrictions (you can't fly around willy-nilly).
Charles R Martin
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:47:36 -0800, pervect <perv...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Stephan Houben" <step...@pcnl2.win.tue.nl> wrote in message
> >news:slrna1fb6t....@pcnl2.win.tue.nl...
> >> On 12 Dec 2001 01:20:58 -0800, Jaak Suurpere <jaa...@MailAndNews.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >and...@attglobal.net wrote in message
> >news:<3C16EA...@attglobal.net>...
> >> >> Jaak Suurpere wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Which parts of the special relativity require that no preferred frame
> >> >> > exist,
> >> >>
> >> >> All of it. It's an axiom of SR.
> >> >>
> >> >Certainly, itæ„€ an axiom, but which parts of SR are valid independent
> >> >of that axiom?
> >>
> >> None of it. It is *the* fundamental assumption.
> >
> >That's probably a good way to explain it.
>
> No, that's just the way it is.
Guys, I don't know if you've noticed, but we now have people asserting
definitely and authoritatively that:
(a) lack of a preferred frame is essential to SR;
(b) using a preferred frame makes SR equivalent to Lorentz aether
theory, which is not inconsistent with experiment; and
(c) that the preferred frame notion can be discarded non multiplicando
since SR works without it.
Logically, this certainly means that we've decided that a preferred
frame is not essential to SR, but we knew that.
(Then, just to stir the pot a bit, I'll note that a Machian model of
inertia implies the existence of a preferred frame, so there's at
least one direction in which experimental falsification of the "no
preferred frame" notion may have taken place.)
But I'll admit that I remain confused: Stephen asserts that the
non-existence of a preferred frame is essential, while the other two
arguments assert that SR is _independent_ of the assumption of a
preferred frame.
Can this be cleared up, either experimentally or theoretically?
Charles R Martin
> > I think it is correct to say that modern physics considers
> > those symmetries more fundamental than the theories in which
> > they appear.
>
> Yep. And I think their role is overemphasized in modern physics.
>
> Ilja
Now _this_ is an interesting point. There's a long-standing problem
in philosophy which can be summarized as "why does mathematics work?",
ie, how does it happen that simple pretty mathematics (along with
essentially mathematical concepts like symmetry) describes the
Universe so well? Consider, eg, differential equations: differential
equations with a closed form actually occur among all differential
equations with probability zero ... but they make a helluva model for
real life.
Ilja here is questioning whether the "aesthetic" value of these
symmetries is really enough to make them preferable, which seems to me
a case of the same question.
Erik Max Francis
> (a) lack of a preferred frame is essential to SR;
This is undeniably true; it's the relativity principle, the first
postulate of special relativity.
> (b) using a preferred frame makes SR equivalent to Lorentz aether
> theory, which is not inconsistent with experiment; and
Possibly true; take special relativity, remove the first postulate, and
try to keep it otherwise the same and you end up with something like
Lorentz aether theory. But what you end up with is not special
relativity.
> (c) that the preferred frame notion can be discarded non multiplicando
> since SR works without it.
The only person I saw suggesting that lack of preferred frames was
inessential for special relativity was corrected. It's possibly you
misinterpreted something of a reverse argument, namely: We don't see
any special frames, so the first postulate seems reasonable. Without
more details I can't tell.
> (Then, just to stir the pot a bit, I'll note that a Machian model of
> inertia implies the existence of a preferred frame, so there's at
> least one direction in which experimental falsification of the "no
> preferred frame" notion may have taken place.)
However, relativity is not Machian. Einstein's work on general
relativity was inspired by Mach's work, but what Einstein ended up with
was not a strictly Machian theory.
Stephan Houben
>Guys, I don't know if you've noticed, but we now have people asserting
>definitely and authoritatively that:
Sorry for the "authoritatively" part. Well, then again,
this is Usenet. ;-)
>(a) lack of a preferred frame is essential to SR;
>
>(b) using a preferred frame makes SR equivalent to Lorentz aether
> theory, which is not inconsistent with experiment; and
Wait a minute. That was the point of my whole rambling about
philosophy of science. If theory A and B give the same
predictions for all experiments, are they the same?
Depends on how you look at it. One could have said that
Lorentz has actually invented SR, were it not for the
fact that Lorents has fought SR for the rest of his life...
Besides, Lorents claims that that the "relativity" effects
only happen for electromagnetic phenomena. SR claims that
they apply to all phenomena. So they are not completely
equivalent. (But a modern defender of aether theory could
extent Lorentz' theory to deal with other forces.)
>(c) that the preferred frame notion can be discarded non multiplicando
> since SR works without it.
SR starts from assuming there isn't any.
>Logically, this certainly means that we've decided that a preferred
>frame is not essential to SR, but we knew that.
Moreover, it is an essential assumption that there isn't any.
>(Then, just to stir the pot a bit, I'll note that a Machian model of
>inertia implies the existence of a preferred frame, so there's at
>least one direction in which experimental falsification of the "no
>preferred frame" notion may have taken place.)
Fortunately, neither SR nor GR is a Machian theory.
>But I'll admit that I remain confused: Stephen asserts that the
>non-existence of a preferred frame is essential, while the other two
>arguments assert that SR is _independent_ of the assumption of a
>preferred frame.
No, the other two arguments only assert that it is possible
to construct a physical theory A that
1. corresponds in all experimental evidence to SR, and
2. has a preferred frame.
Now is such a theory A "equal" to SR? I would say no, but this
is a point that arguably could be debated. Note that Lorentz
essentially had such a theory A, and *he* didn't think it was
equivalent to SR.
>Can this be cleared up, either experimentally or theoretically?
I really hope this helps.
Would it be more convincing if I dig up some actual quotes
from Einstein e.a. on these issues?
Stephan
Jonathan L Cunningham
(snip)
>observers are in a state of motion. SR gives no explanation why the speed of
>light is constant. On top of that it asserts that the speed of light is a
>universal constant.
(snip)
I was trying to ignore this thread, but failed.
The quoted statement intrigues me. Why should there be any explanation
of why the speed of light is constant?
ISTM that SR is much simpler than the alternatives. I don't require an
explanation for why something *doesn't* change - I *would* require a
good explanation for how and why c changed in different frames if it
did. You'd need to postulate some new entity (like an aether, or
a preferred reference frame) to explain it. If you don't postulate
some additional entities, then c *can't* change - it wouldn't
know how to, or how much!
So why should there be a preferred frame? It's simpler without one.
Of course, it originally took a genius to realise that :-).
The *fundamental* assumption is that there are laws of physics. That's
all.
The next assumption - that they are the same in all inertial frames -
is hardly an assumption at all. Why shouldn't they be the same in all
frames? Isn't that what you'd expect?
And as c can be calculated from the laws of physics, and those laws
are the same in all frames, you should get the same answer in all
frames. Nothing to explain. If 2+2=4 today, I don't have to explain
why 2+2 will still be 4 tomorrow and was 4 yesterday.
The genius was in recognising this, and throwing out *unnecessary*
assumptions (like the existence of absolute space and time).
Of course, at bottom, theory has to fit observations. But an absolute
space and time is not *needed* to explain the observations. So why
complicate the theory unnecessarily?
--
Jonathan L Cunningham
Ken H. Seto
"Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3C191DE5...@sff.net...
> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:
> >
> > "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
> > > You stated above that you can have constant light speed and also a
> > > preferred frame; this is correct. That, however, does not support
your
> > > original assertion, which is that SR requires a preferred frame, this
> > > assertion is incorrect.
> >
> > Wrong. Without a preferred frame you can't get constant light speed in
all
> > frames and in all directions. Therefore my original assertion is
correct.
>
> This incorrect assertion brings us back in a circle to what I said
originally:
>
> You don't understand special relativity. Since you do not understand it
> yourself, you should not attempt to explain it to others.
ROTFL. You are a typical SR Runt. Are you saying that I don't understand the
SR postulates that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames and
that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames?? These
postulates are true only because the existence of absolute time and space.
The postulates for a complete theory of motion are as follows:
1. The laws of physicsbased on a clock second is the same for all observers
in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the same
mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames of reference.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is different in
different frames of reference.
4. The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute second has a
different mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames.
The speed of light based on a defined absolute secondis maximum in the rest
frame of the aether.
These postulates gives rise to a new theory of motion called Doppler
Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT includes SR as a subset. Its equations are
valid in all environments ---icluding gravity. BTW DRT was published in the
current issue of the peer-reviewed journal "Galilean Electrodynamics".
Ken Seto
George William Herbert
>> yourself, you should not attempt to explain it to others.
>
>ROTFL. You are a typical SR Runt. Are you saying that I don't understand the
>SR postulates that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames and
>that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames??
Yes.
>These
>postulates are true only because the existence of absolute time and space.
No.
As Geoff and others have said, what you are alleging
Special Relativity says, and how it works, bears no
resemblance to what it actually is. You are creating
and then destroying, in your own mind, a false target
to try and disprove SR. As the classic line goes,
that's not only not right, it's not even wrong.
I am sorry that you think you understand SR, but you don't.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Charles R Martin
> On 13 Dec 2001 10:53:31 -0700, Charles R Martin <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
> >Guys, I don't know if you've noticed, but we now have people asserting
> >definitely and authoritatively that:
>
> Sorry for the "authoritatively" part. Well, then again,
> this is Usenet. ;-)
No, no, don't apologize -- it's just the conflict in these apparently
authoritative opinions that confuses me.
>
> >(a) lack of a preferred frame is essential to SR;
> >
> >(b) using a preferred frame makes SR equivalent to Lorentz aether
> > theory, which is not inconsistent with experiment; and
>
> Wait a minute. That was the point of my whole rambling about
> philosophy of science. If theory A and B give the same
> predictions for all experiments, are they the same?
"The same", no. Indistinguishable, yes.
>
> Depends on how you look at it. One could have said that
> Lorentz has actually invented SR, were it not for the
> fact that Lorents has fought SR for the rest of his life...
>
> Besides, Lorents claims that that the "relativity" effects
> only happen for electromagnetic phenomena. SR claims that
> they apply to all phenomena. So they are not completely
> equivalent. (But a modern defender of aether theory could
> extent Lorentz' theory to deal with other forces.)
>
> >(c) that the preferred frame notion can be discarded non
> > multiplicando since SR works without it.
>
> SR starts from assuming there isn't any.
But if SR' (ie, SR with preferred frames) still makes the same
predictions, what does that matter?
>
> >Logically, this certainly means that we've decided that a preferred
> >frame is not essential to SR, but we knew that.
>
> Moreover, it is an essential assumption that there isn't any.
Say what? That's pretty much the opposite of what some of the other
apparently authoritative posts have said.
>
> >(Then, just to stir the pot a bit, I'll note that a Machian model of
> >inertia implies the existence of a preferred frame, so there's at
> >least one direction in which experimental falsification of the "no
> >preferred frame" notion may have taken place.)
>
> Fortunately, neither SR nor GR is a Machian theory.
All the worse for SR/GR if Woodward's experiments work out. But,
again, if we have a Machian model of inertia, does that _break_
anthing observable about SR/GR?
>
> >But I'll admit that I remain confused: Stephen asserts that the
> >non-existence of a preferred frame is essential, while the other two
> >arguments assert that SR is _independent_ of the assumption of a
> >preferred frame.
>
> No, the other two arguments only assert that it is possible
> to construct a physical theory A that
> 1. corresponds in all experimental evidence to SR, and
> 2. has a preferred frame.
> Now is such a theory A "equal" to SR? I would say no, but this
> is a point that arguably could be debated. Note that Lorentz
> essentially had such a theory A, and *he* didn't think it was
> equivalent to SR.
Hmm. I think we're running into "the same" versus "observably
equivalent".
>
> >Can this be cleared up, either experimentally or theoretically?
>
> I really hope this helps.
> Would it be more convincing if I dig up some actual quotes
> from Einstein e.a. on these issues?
Well, not really. I *know* Einstein felt he'd disposed of the need
for a preferred frame, I'm not questioning that. But we seem to keep
coming around to the conclusion (based on this argument up to now)
that assuming a Lorentzian aether and a preferred frame doesn't lead
to _different_ predictions from SR. *Having* a preferred frame seems
to simplify other things, like Bell's Paradox, though.
Clearly the standard assumption is the Einsteinian one of no preferred
frame, but the argument so far seems to suggest that we don't have any
way to distinguish between SR w/o preferred frame and SR w/ preferred
frame, because they both make the same predictions.
Charles R Martin
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:46:10 -0500, "Ken H. Seto" <ken...@erinet.com>
> said:
>
> (snip)
> >observers are in a state of motion. SR gives no explanation why the speed of
> >light is constant. On top of that it asserts that the speed of light is a
> >universal constant.
> (snip)
>
> I was trying to ignore this thread, but failed.
>
> The quoted statement intrigues me. Why should there be any explanation
> of why the speed of light is constant?
Don't Maxwell's Equations in fact lead to _deriving_ that c is a
constant?
>
> ISTM that SR is much simpler than the alternatives. I don't require an
> explanation for why something *doesn't* change - I *would* require a
> good explanation for how and why c changed in different frames if it
> did. You'd need to postulate some new entity (like an aether, or
> a preferred reference frame) to explain it. If you don't postulate
> some additional entities, then c *can't* change - it wouldn't
> know how to, or how much!
>
> So why should there be a preferred frame? It's simpler without one.
That's my case (c) -- a preferred frame can be discarded on the basis
that the simpler theory is to be preferred ("don't multiply your
assumptions without reason" or Occam's Razor.) But that's just a
heuristic; scientifically, if all the predictions are are same for
both models, all you can say is that they're not distinguishable.
>
> Of course, it originally took a genius to realise that :-).
>
> The *fundamental* assumption is that there are laws of physics. That's
> all.
>
> The next assumption - that they are the same in all inertial frames -
> is hardly an assumption at all. Why shouldn't they be the same in all
> frames? Isn't that what you'd expect?
>
> And as c can be calculated from the laws of physics, and those laws
> are the same in all frames, you should get the same answer in all
> frames. Nothing to explain. If 2+2=4 today, I don't have to explain
> why 2+2 will still be 4 tomorrow and was 4 yesterday.
>
> The genius was in recognising this, and throwing out *unnecessary*
> assumptions (like the existence of absolute space and time).
>
> Of course, at bottom, theory has to fit observations. But an absolute
> space and time is not *needed* to explain the observations. So why
> complicate the theory unnecessarily?
Well, first off it's worth asking because maybe you _can_ establish a
falsification and distinguish between the theories. But secondly, a
preferred frame seems to dispose of some other paradoxical issues in
standard relativity.
Charles R Martin
> Charles R Martin wrote:
>
> > (a) lack of a preferred frame is essential to SR;
>
> This is undeniably true; it's the relativity principle, the first
> postulate of special relativity.
Sadly, I walked us into the problem of "the same" versus "equivalent"
here ...
>
> > (b) using a preferred frame makes SR equivalent to Lorentz aether
> > theory, which is not inconsistent with experiment; and
>
> Possibly true; take special relativity, remove the first postulate, and
> try to keep it otherwise the same and you end up with something like
> Lorentz aether theory. But what you end up with is not special
> relativity.
... which leads right into this trap. My point is really "Is SR
distinguishable from SR+preferred frames?" Up to now, there've been
several assertions that they aren't, ie, they make the same
predictions, and we therefore discard preferred frames by Occam's
Razor.
>
> > (c) that the preferred frame notion can be discarded non multiplicando
> > since SR works without it.
>
> The only person I saw suggesting that lack of preferred frames was
> inessential for special relativity was corrected. It's possibly you
> misinterpreted something of a reverse argument, namely: We don't see
> any special frames, so the first postulate seems reasonable. Without
> more details I can't tell.
Right. So what I'm trying to figure out is how one _could_ tell.
>
> > (Then, just to stir the pot a bit, I'll note that a Machian model of
> > inertia implies the existence of a preferred frame, so there's at
> > least one direction in which experimental falsification of the "no
> > preferred frame" notion may have taken place.)
>
> However, relativity is not Machian. Einstein's work on general
> relativity was inspired by Mach's work, but what Einstein ended up with
> was not a strictly Machian theory.
Okay, but my understanding is that it's not _anti_ Machian either; if
what I'm getting from this is correct, that SR with PF is not
experimentally distinguishable from standard SR, then it doesn't
appear that relativity _excludes_ a Machian model.
Erik Max Francis
> ... which leads right into this trap. My point is really "Is SR
> distinguishable from SR+preferred frames?" Up to now, there've been
> several assertions that they aren't, ie, they make the same
> predictions, and we therefore discard preferred frames by Occam's
> Razor.
The make the same predictions in what has been observed so far, yes;
they'd have to, otherwise one would be a dead theory.
The relativity principle means that there can't be any frame where the
laws of physics work differently. Care must be made when you say
"special relativity plus a preferred frame," because it really depends
on what you mean by the addition of that preferred frame (or, more
accurately, the removal of the prohibition).
In a preferred frame the laws of physics work differently, so you can
set up an experiment where you can detect the preferred frame (whether
you're in it, what your motion is with respect to it, what have you).
By definition if you have a preferred frame, then it can be detected,
otherwse it wouldn't be preferred.
Many aether theories go along the lines of, "There _is_ an absolute
frame, but you can never detect it." Often an aether is invoked just to
ease the minds of those who aren't comfortable with special relativity
("Yes, yes, I know, it's all relative, but what is my speed _really_
..."). In these cases it's pretty clear that what they're really
talking about is special relativity, they're just using an absolute
frame as a soothing element, something along the lines of one of the
interpretations of quantum mechanics (they aren't a part of the theory,
they're just to help people get their heads' around it).
Some aether theories have preferred frames that are postulated to exist
but which haven't been detected yet, but (presumably) there will be some
theoretical way at some point. These are distinguishable from special
relativity.
The short of it is: If the preferred frame really is preferred, then
it's distinguishable from special relativity. If it's just a
bookmarking term that doesn't _really_ constitute a preferred frame
(i.e., no observer could ever possibly detect it), then it's really
special relativity, not counting the excess baggage that Occam's razor
would strip away.
> Right. So what I'm trying to figure out is how one _could_ tell.
A preferred frame is one in which the laws of physics operate
differently. However they operate differently, that's how you'd tell.
If the hypothesis is a "preferred" frame which could not possibly be
detected under any circumstances whatsoever, then it's not really
preferred.
> Okay, but my understanding is that it's not _anti_ Machian either; if
> what I'm getting from this is correct, that SR with PF is not
> experimentally distinguishable from standard SR, then it doesn't
> appear that relativity _excludes_ a Machian model.
General relativity admits solutions that are inherently non-Machian,
such as a Kerr black hole. I believe this was pointed out to you the
last time this came up, as well.
Erik Max Francis
> Don't Maxwell's Equations in fact lead to _deriving_ that c is a
> constant?
In a way. If you use Maxwell's equations to calculate the speed of
propagation of electromagnetic waves, you come up with the answer c --
completely without having to specify what frame you were talking about.
That's, at least, a tantalizing hint about the constancy postulate.
> Well, first off it's worth asking because maybe you _can_ establish a
> falsification and distinguish between the theories. But secondly, a
> preferred frame seems to dispose of some other paradoxical issues in
> standard relativity.
What paradoxical issues?
pervect
"Ilja Schmelzer" <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
news:i3gheqv...@ilja-schmelzer.net...
> Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> writes:
> > They essentially fall into two classes:
> > (1) various incarnations of the EPR paradox, which kooks
> > continue to point to as proof of FTL "information"
> > transfer, no matter how many times it's pointed out that
> > it's not. I know of no scientists who are trying
> > to pass of EPR phenomena as FTL communication. Also,
> > the press know enough to leave this topic alone.
>
> Feel free to name me a kook, but I try, based on the following facts:
>
> 1.) Making only very weak assumptions, especially only classical
> realism as used by Bell in his proof of the theorem, or Einstein in
> the famous EPR paper, the violation of Bell's inequality is a decisive
> proof of a violation of Einstein causality.
But your position is (at least I think it is) different from that of others,
who claim a definite signal transmission and a definite direction that the
"signal" is transmitted in.
Correlations that cannot be explained by local realistic theories have been
observed - but it is not possible to say that these correlations are due to
some sort of signal propagating from event A to event B, or event B to event
A. In general, it's rather hard to decide which way a hypothetical signal
"should" propagate. This is a clue, in my opinion, that the non-local
explanations are weak. Your mileage obviously varies here.
pervect
"Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote in message
news:m3u1uv5...@localhost.localdomain...
> Guys, I don't know if you've noticed, but we now have people asserting
> definitely and authoritatively that:
>
> (a) lack of a preferred frame is essential to SR;
>
> (b) using a preferred frame makes SR equivalent to Lorentz aether
> theory, which is not inconsistent with experiment; and
>
> (c) that the preferred frame notion can be discarded non multiplicando
> since SR works without it.
>
> Logically, this certainly means that we've decided that a preferred
> frame is not essential to SR, but we knew that.
A lot of it is semantics.
What qualities does a frame have to have before it can be said to be
"preferred"? If it's just a case of personal like or dislike, there is
obviously no difficulty in having a "preferred" frame.
To make statement a) requires a stronger definition of what it means for a
frame to be "preferred".
> (Then, just to stir the pot a bit, I'll note that a Machian model of
> inertia implies the existence of a preferred frame, so there's at
> least one direction in which experimental falsification of the "no
> preferred frame" notion may have taken place.)
You lost me here. It's not intuitively obvious that a Machian model of
inertia necessarily implies the existence of a preferred frame, though it
would seem easier to form a Machian theory that did have a preferred frame
than one that did not.
And what does this have to do with experimental falsification?
>
> But I'll admit that I remain confused: Stephen asserts that the
> non-existence of a preferred frame is essential, while the other two
> arguments assert that SR is _independent_ of the assumption of a
> preferred frame.
>
> Can this be cleared up, either experimentally or theoretically?
It's a question of semantics.
pervect
A lot depends on how one defines "Machian".
There is a sense in which GR is anti-Machian. This relates to the question
of whether it is possible to construct a cosmology in which the whole
universe rotates. Under GR this is possible. Under some interpretations of
"Machian" this is not possible.
Jaak Suurpere
I am not sure if it is possible to keep causality as well as FTL
travel in any way, including wormholes.
Leaving out the case of faster-than-light but slower-than-instant
communications - I have suspicions that the predictions would have to
be the same than in case of perfectly instant communications, but be
more complicated to derive.
Instant communication between any two points moving relative to one
another would blow the principle of the relativity of
simultaneousness. There would be "objective" simultaneousness defined
by instant communications and distinc from relative simultaneousness
which is different between different inertial frames.
And therefore, there would be a preferred "ether" frame where events
found to be simultaneous by instant communications would also seem
simultaneous to light-restricted observer. All other frames would be
nonpreferred.
If SR were proven false, and absence of any FTL communications
whatsoever is totally essential prediction of its fundamental axioms,
the only theory that is reasonably able to make the same predictions
in slower-than-light domain but leaves room for FTL would be Lorentz
ether theory.
There is one more problem - what if FTL communication existed between
points however distant but perfectly, and this means perfectly, at
rest in respect to each other? E. g. wormholes that are perfectly
stiff.
But I am not sure how Lorentz ether would behave in general
relativity. And what, on the other hand, would those hypothetical
stiff wormholes, or any other stiff FTL communications, do.
Ilja Schmelzer
> > > I think it is correct to say that modern physics considers
> > > those symmetries more fundamental than the theories in which
> > > they appear.
> > Yep. And I think their role is overemphasized in modern physics.
> Now _this_ is an interesting point. There's a long-standing problem
> in philosophy which can be summarized as "why does mathematics work?",
> ie, how does it happen that simple pretty mathematics (along with
> essentially mathematical concepts like symmetry) describes the
> Universe so well? Consider, eg, differential equations: differential
> equations with a closed form actually occur among all differential
> equations with probability zero ... but they make a helluva model for
> real life.
One very partial answer can be given by renormalization theory. Very
different equations lead to similar large scale approximations. The
point is that such a large scale approximation should have some
special property - renormalizability.
This example shows that some mathematical properties of the equations
may be explained by our own position in the universe (quite complex
and in this sense necessarily large creatures).
> Ilja here is questioning whether the "aesthetic" value of these
> symmetries is really enough to make them preferable, which seems to
> me a case of the same question.
I don't question the principle "it is reasonable to prefer aesthetic
theories" - I prefer them too. I also don't question that symmetries
are important.
But everything important may be overemphasized.
Ilja Schmelzer
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
>>> They essentially fall into two classes:
>>> (1) various incarnations of the EPR paradox, which kooks
>>> continue to point to as proof of FTL "information"
>>> transfer, no matter how many times it's pointed out that
>>> it's not. I know of no scientists who are trying
>>> to pass of EPR phenomena as FTL communication. Also,
>>> the press know enough to leave this topic alone.
>> Feel free to name me a kook, but I try, based on the following facts:
>> 1.) Making only very weak assumptions, especially only classical
>> realism as used by Bell in his proof of the theorem, or Einstein in
>> the famous EPR paper, the violation of Bell's inequality is a decisive
>> proof of a violation of Einstein causality.
>
> But your position is (at least I think it is) different from that of others,
> who claim a definite signal transmission and a definite direction that the
> "signal" is transmitted in.
Indeed, but I don't remember somebody who has proposed this in this
context.
> Correlations that cannot be explained by local realistic theories have been
> observed - but it is not possible to say that these correlations are due to
> some sort of signal propagating from event A to event B, or event B to event
> A.
No, it is, if we assume realism.
Bell's theorem: realism + observed violation of Bell's inequality => A->B or B->A.
> In general, it's rather hard to decide which way a hypothetical
> signal "should" propagate. This is a clue, in my opinion, that the
> non-local explanations are weak.
That's about my last two arguments:
----------
6.) The explanation using FTL information transfer has two
possibilities. We can explain the correlations with information
transfer A->B as well as B->A. Above explanations contradict Einstein
causality, thus, their "or" combination contradicts Einstein causality
too.
But from "(A->B)or(B->A)" immediately follows that it cannot be used
for information transfer - to transfer information A->B contradicts
the explanation B->A. Thus, the most impressive "argument" against
the explanation "(A->B)or(B->A)" is a necessary consequence of this
explanation! A really funny situation.
7.) What remains as an argument is a positivistic prejudice against
indirect observation: something which allows only the explanation
"(A->B)or(B->A)" is not enough to falsify Einstein causality.
But most of physics is based on such indirect observations.
----------
Any counterarguments?
Ilja Schmelzer
> There is a branch of philosophy of science which holds that the only
> value of a theory is in its ability to predict reality.
> This is sometimes called "predictionism".
> To a predictionist, SR and Lorentz' ether theory are equivalent,
> since they predict the same outcome for any experiment. However,
> as it has sometimes been put, Lorentz ether theory is "theoretically
> sterile".
"Somebody has pointed out" does not mean "correct". I disagree.
Lorentz ether theory has lost, but this does not mean it is
"theoretically sterile". We don't know what would have happened if
other leading scientists would have supported Lorentz instead of
Einstein, or if Einstein instead of Poincare would have died 1912.
But we can argue what is the natural development of a given theory.
First, according to LET rulers are influenced by the ether in a
similar way as EM fields. This suggests the hypothesis that the
forces which hold rulers together and the EM field should be unified.
We know today that the forces which hold rulers together are simply EM
forces. Sterile?
A main argument against the Lorentz ether was its incompressibility.
He influences light, but is not influenced by matter, contrary to the
famous action=reaction principle. This problem could be solved by a
compressible ether. An inhomogeneous ether leads to curved light.
Sterile?
People like to point out weak force. SR predicts that it has the same
speed, LET not. So, indeed, LET in this case has a problem to solve -
EM and weak force should be understood as a unified field. We already
know that they are unified. Sterile?
>> But we do know that whatever this theory is, it must predict the same
>> results that relativity does for a lot of common phenomenon that have been
>> measured already (if it is to be a correct theory, at least). Examples
>> would include the Michelson-Moreley experiment and its various variants,
>> Global Positioning satellite time delays (which are currently calculated
>> with General Relativity), stellar abberation, the behavior of particles in
>> particle accelerators, the fact that muons reach the earth's surface in
>> spite of their short lifetime, etc etc etc. Basically, it would be hard to
>> come up with such a theory (but not totally impossible).
>
> However, if you also want to include the GR effects,
> then it gets rather difficult.
Nonetheless, it has been done. See get.ilja-schmelzer.net
Ilja Schmelzer
> it's distinguishable from special relativity. If it's just a
> bookmarking term that doesn't _really_ constitute a preferred frame
> (i.e., no observer could ever possibly detect it),
Here you confuse "really" and "and observer can detect it".
The observer is only part of reality. The theory has to _postulate_
what is real and how reality changes. After this, what is "really" is
already well-defined and fixed.
_Then_ we have to consider the question what is observable. In the
ideal TOE, we would have to describe a model of a human being in this
theory, and then we can _derive_ what this internal model is able to
observe. Thus, what is observable is derived by the theory. Now, it
is in no way obvious or even plausible that such an internal observer
is able to distinguish all different states.
> then it's really special relativity, not counting the excess baggage
> that Occam's razor would strip away.
Sorry, but in the typical situation the internal observer appears
unable to distinguish all different states. This does not mean that
there is any excess baggage.
From a programmers point of view, a Lorentz ether is much simpler. We
need only a 3D space which changes in time as the computer model of
reality. SR needs a 4D spacetime to modelize reality. A whole
dimension of excess baggage.
"Simplicity" is not always a well-defined concept.
Gerry Quinn
>The genius was in recognising this, and throwing out *unnecessary*
>assumptions (like the existence of absolute space and time).
>
>Of course, at bottom, theory has to fit observations. But an absolute
>space and time is not *needed* to explain the observations. So why
>complicate the theory unnecessarily?
The problem is that something extra *is* needed to explain the
observations. Inertial reference frames in SR have physical
consequences (c.f. Einstein's own gedanken concerning an isolated
rotating sphere of fluid), and therefore must correspond to something
physical. In aether theories, the physical entity they correspond to is
made explicit.
Compared to an aether theory, SR is only simpler because it is less
complete. In other words, it isn't really simpler at all.
- Gerry Quinn
Stephan Houben
>step...@pcnl2.win.tue.nl (Stephan Houben) writes:
>No, no, don't apologize -- it's just the conflict in these apparently
>authoritative opinions that confuses me.
Well, I believe that my ranting is at least internally
consistent. ;-) I hope that you don't require it to be consistent
with all the other posts in this thread.
>> >(a) lack of a preferred frame is essential to SR;
>> >
>> >(b) using a preferred frame makes SR equivalent to Lorentz aether
>> > theory, which is not inconsistent with experiment; and
>>
>> Wait a minute. That was the point of my whole rambling about
>> philosophy of science. If theory A and B give the same
>> predictions for all experiments, are they the same?
>
>"The same", no. Indistinguishable, yes.
OK. Also note that for every theory A, I can generate an infinite
sequence of "indistinguishable" theories A_n in which each A_n
consists of: "All experiments will get the result as predicted by A.
Moreover, there exist n invisible tooth faeries which cannot be
observed by any means."
The only procedure that makes us prefer the original A to all the
A(n) is because of Occam's principle. Unfortunately, you always
find a couple of people who will insist that including 1 tooth
faerie (or preferred frame, or whatever) is somehow "simpler".
That's because there is some subjectivity involved in applying
"Occam".
>> Depends on how you look at it. One could have said that
>> Lorentz has actually invented SR, were it not for the
>> fact that Lorents has fought SR for the rest of his life...
>>
>> Besides, Lorents claims that that the "relativity" effects
>> only happen for electromagnetic phenomena. SR claims that
>> they apply to all phenomena. So they are not completely
>> equivalent. (But a modern defender of aether theory could
>> extent Lorentz' theory to deal with other forces.)
>>
>> >(c) that the preferred frame notion can be discarded non
>> > multiplicando since SR works without it.
>>
>> SR starts from assuming there isn't any.
>
>But if SR' (ie, SR with preferred frames) still makes the same
>predictions, what does that matter?
Well, you just polluted your theory with some metaphysical junk.
Why not include my invisible tooth faeries, then?
>> >Logically, this certainly means that we've decided that a preferred
>> >frame is not essential to SR, but we knew that.
>>
>> Moreover, it is an essential assumption that there isn't any.
>
>Say what? That's pretty much the opposite of what some of the other
>apparently authoritative posts have said.
Just ignore them. ;-)
But again, I hope that you only require me to be consistent with my
own posts.
>> >(Then, just to stir the pot a bit, I'll note that a Machian model of
>> >inertia implies the existence of a preferred frame, so there's at
>> >least one direction in which experimental falsification of the "no
>> >preferred frame" notion may have taken place.)
>>
>> Fortunately, neither SR nor GR is a Machian theory.
>
>All the worse for SR/GR if Woodward's experiments work out. But,
>again, if we have a Machian model of inertia, does that _break_
>anthing observable about SR/GR?
Yes! At least in principle, it is possible to distinguish a
universe in which GR holds from a universe in which a Machian
principle holds.
To see this, collapse all matter and energy into one big black hole
(OK, this could be a problem, but we're talking thought experiment
now.)
Now, in a GR universe, we get a different geometry of spacetime
depending on the rotation speed of the black hole. In particular,
if the BH rotates, then there is an "ergozone", if it doesn't
rotate, there isn't. But in a Machian universe, there cannot be
any difference. Rotation? "Rotation with respect to *what*?" would
Mach have asked.
>> >But I'll admit that I remain confused: Stephen asserts that the
>> >non-existence of a preferred frame is essential, while the other two
>> >arguments assert that SR is _independent_ of the assumption of a
>> >preferred frame.
>>
>> No, the other two arguments only assert that it is possible
>> to construct a physical theory A that
>> 1. corresponds in all experimental evidence to SR, and
>> 2. has a preferred frame.
>> Now is such a theory A "equal" to SR? I would say no, but this
>> is a point that arguably could be debated. Note that Lorentz
>> essentially had such a theory A, and *he* didn't think it was
>> equivalent to SR.
>
>Hmm. I think we're running into "the same" versus "observably
>equivalent".
Yes. But also note that Lorentz' aether theory is not completely
observably equivalent to SR, although it could be "fixed"
so that it became complete observably equivalent.
>> >Can this be cleared up, either experimentally or theoretically?
>>
>> I really hope this helps.
>> Would it be more convincing if I dig up some actual quotes
>> from Einstein e.a. on these issues?
>
>Well, not really. I *know* Einstein felt he'd disposed of the need
>for a preferred frame, I'm not questioning that. But we seem to keep
>coming around to the conclusion (based on this argument up to now)
>that assuming a Lorentzian aether and a preferred frame doesn't lead
>to _different_ predictions from SR.
Well, SR predicts that all relativistic effects also occur
when we're working with a different force than EM, for
example the strong nuclear force. That appears to be correct.
OTOH, Lorentz' didn't deal with the strong nuclear force at all.
>*Having* a preferred frame seems
>to simplify other things, like Bell's Paradox, though.
Don't think so. I can always set things up so that the magical
FTL influence appears to move backwards in time.
>Clearly the standard assumption is the Einsteinian one of no preferred
>frame, but the argument so far seems to suggest that we don't have any
>way to distinguish between SR w/o preferred frame and SR w/ preferred
>frame, because they both make the same predictions.
Sure. But a scientific theory is more than the sum of its
predictions.
Stephan
Ken H. Seto
"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
news:9vbqff$k8o$1...@gw.retro.com...
You are a SR Runt. You are wasting my time. BTW the definition of a SR Runt
is as follows:
An idiot who think that SR is a religion. A moron who doesn't know the
limitations of SR. An imbecile who can't think for himself and all he can do
is to regurgitate what's in the SR text books. A low-life who will attack
anybody who has a different view than SR. A brown nose individual who
follows the SR experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmat puppy chow. A clueless fanatic who will ignore any legit proposed
experiments that might refute the claims of SR.
Ken Seto
Geoffrey A. Landis
"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
> "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
> > You don't understand special relativity. Since you do not understand it
> > yourself, you should not attempt to explain it to others.
>
> ROTFL. You are a typical SR Runt. Are you saying that I don't understand the
> SR postulates that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames and
> that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames??
Yes.
> These postulates are true only because the existence of absolute time and space.
No.
> The postulates for a complete theory of motion are as follows:
I am not talking about "a" theory of motion. I am talking about a
specific theory of motion, special relativity. The theory you discuss
below is not special relativity.
> 1. The laws of physicsbased on a clock second is the same for all observers
> in all inertial reference frames.
> 2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the same
> mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames of reference.
> 3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is different in
> different frames of reference.
> 4. The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute second has a
> different mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames.
> The speed of light based on a defined absolute secondis maximum in the rest
> frame of the aether.
>
> These postulates gives rise to a new theory of motion called Doppler
> Relativity Theory (DRT).
This may be a new theory of motion, but it is not special relativity.
You may or may not understand *this* theory, but you don't understand
SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
Telling me about a theory called "DRT" does not tell me that you
understand special relativity.
Ken H. Seto
"Erik Max Francis" <m...@alcyone.com> wrote in message
news:3C198AB3...@alcyone.com...
> Charles R Martin wrote:
>
> > ... which leads right into this trap. My point is really "Is SR
> > distinguishable from SR+preferred frames?" Up to now, there've been
> > several assertions that they aren't, ie, they make the same
> > predictions, and we therefore discard preferred frames by Occam's
> > Razor.
There is no need to discard the preferred frame. Without the preferred frame
SR is incomplete. With the preferred frame SR is complete---see below for
explanation.
>
> The make the same predictions in what has been observed so far, yes;
> they'd have to, otherwise one would be a dead theory.
>
> The relativity principle means that there can't be any frame where the
> laws of physics work differently. Care must be made when you say
> "special relativity plus a preferred frame," because it really depends
> on what you mean by the addition of that preferred frame (or, more
> accurately, the removal of the prohibition).
>
> In a preferred frame the laws of physics work differently, so you can
> set up an experiment where you can detect the preferred frame (whether
> you're in it, what your motion is with respect to it, what have you).
> By definition if you have a preferred frame, then it can be detected,
> otherwse it wouldn't be preferred.
This is true only if you reject the notion of absolute time. The rejection
of absolute time is what make SR an incomplete theory--SR is incomplete
because it can't handle gravity. If you incorporate the notion of absolute
time then the complete postulates for motion is as follow:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same for all observers
in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the same
mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames of reference.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is different in
different frames of reference.
4. The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute second has a
different mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames.
The speed of light based on a defined absolute secondis maximum in the rest
frame of the aether.
This new set of postulates gives rise to a new theory of motion called
Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT includes SR as a subset. Its equations
are valid in all environments---icluding gravity.
A full descritpion of DRT is in my website
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
BTW there is a proposed experiment that is capable of detecting the
preferred frame. This experiment is described in the thread "A Proposed
Experiment to Detect Absolute Motion"
Ken Seto
Ilja Schmelzer
> OK. Also note that for every theory A, I can generate an infinite
> sequence of "indistinguishable" theories A_n in which each A_n
> consists of: "All experiments will get the result as predicted by A.
> Moreover, there exist n invisible tooth faeries which cannot be
> observed by any means."
>
> The only procedure that makes us prefer the original A to all the
> A(n) is because of Occam's principle. Unfortunately, you always
> find a couple of people who will insist that including 1 tooth
> faerie (or preferred frame, or whatever) is somehow "simpler".
This does not fit observation. I have seen a large number of people
claiming that Lorentz ether theory is somehow simpler, but never seen
even a single person who has seriously proposed to introduce 1 tooth
faerie and argued that this is simpler.
>> But if SR' (ie, SR with preferred frames) still makes the same
>> predictions, what does that matter?
>
> Well, you just polluted your theory with some metaphysical junk.
SR is polluted with metaphysical junk named "spacetime".
In LET we need only a three-dimensional space which changes. The
whole spacetime manifold is metaphysical junk.
> Why not include my invisible tooth faeries, then?
Because they don't help to solve problems, like the "problem of time"
in quantum gravity or to find a realistic explanation of the violation
of Bell's inequality.
> Yes. But also note that Lorentz' aether theory is not completely
> observably equivalent to SR, although it could be "fixed"
> so that it became complete observably equivalent.
What do you mean here? (no need to answer if you mean the following:)
> Well, SR predicts that all relativistic effects also occur
> when we're working with a different force than EM, for
> example the strong nuclear force. That appears to be correct.
SR predicts no curved light rays. That appears to be incorrect.
That's why it has been replaced by another theory.
> OTOH, Lorentz' didn't deal with the strong nuclear force at all.
No wonder at that time.
>> *Having* a preferred frame seems
>> to simplify other things, like Bell's Paradox, though.
> Don't think so. I can always set things up so that the magical
> FTL influence appears to move backwards in time.
No. Bohmian mechanics is deterministic, and causal in the classical
sense in one frame - the preferred frame. You cannot violate
classical causality in Bohmian mechanics.
You can set some things up so that something _appears_ to move
backwards in time for somebody who moves and does not recognize it -
but who cares, we know that moving clocks in LET are distorted.
Ken H. Seto
> On 13 Dec 2001 20:16:26 -0700, Charles R Martin <crma...@indra.com>
wrote:
> >step...@pcnl2.win.tue.nl (Stephan Houben) writes:
>
> >No, no, don't apologize -- it's just the conflict in these apparently
> >authoritative opinions that confuses me.
>
> Well, I believe that my ranting is at least internally
> consistent. ;-) I hope that you don't require it to be consistent
> with all the other posts in this thread.
>
> >> >(a) lack of a preferred frame is essential to SR;
> >> >
> >> >(b) using a preferred frame makes SR equivalent to Lorentz aether
> >> > theory, which is not inconsistent with experiment; and
> >>
> >> Wait a minute. That was the point of my whole rambling about
> >> philosophy of science. If theory A and B give the same
> >> predictions for all experiments, are they the same?
> >
> >"The same", no. Indistinguishable, yes.
>
> OK. Also note that for every theory A, I can generate an infinite
> sequence of "indistinguishable" theories A_n in which each A_n
> consists of: "All experiments will get the result as predicted by A.
> Moreover, there exist n invisible tooth faeries which cannot be
> observed by any means."
>
> The only procedure that makes us prefer the original A to all the
> A(n) is because of Occam's principle. Unfortunately, you always
> find a couple of people who will insist that including 1 tooth
> faerie (or preferred frame, or whatever) is somehow "simpler".
Including the preferred frame (thus absolute time and motion) will make SR
complete. SR+preferred frame will be able to handle gravity. The postulates
for SR +preferred frame are as follows:
1. The laws of physicsbased on a clock second is the same for all observers
in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the same
mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames of reference.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is different in
different frames of reference.
4. The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute second has a
different mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames.
The speed of light based on a defined absolute secondis maximum in the rest
frame of the aether.
These postulates gives rise to a new theory of motion called Doppler
Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT includes SR as a subset and its equations are
vaild in all envitronments ---including gravity.
For a full description of DRT please visit my website:
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
"Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3C1A0C2E...@sff.net...
You are a SR Runt and you are wasting my time.
Ken Seto
Geoffrey A. Landis
It's perfectly fine that you have your own personal theory of relativity.
Just don't tell us "special relativity says X" and then justify it by
saying "my theory of relativity says X".
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
Charles R Martin
> Charles R Martin wrote:
>
> > ... which leads right into this trap. My point is really "Is SR
> > distinguishable from SR+preferred frames?" Up to now, there've been
> > several assertions that they aren't, ie, they make the same
> > predictions, and we therefore discard preferred frames by Occam's
> > Razor.
>
> The make the same predictions in what has been observed so far, yes;
> they'd have to, otherwise one would be a dead theory.
[many lines cut]
Okay, so we're narrowing down on it a bit -- let's assume we are
talking about a "preferred frame" scheme that is potentially
detectable. What experiments would detect it?
>
> > Right. So what I'm trying to figure out is how one _could_ tell.
>
> A preferred frame is one in which the laws of physics operate
> differently. However they operate differently, that's how you'd tell.
> If the hypothesis is a "preferred" frame which could not possibly be
> detected under any circumstances whatsoever, then it's not really
> preferred.
>
> > Okay, but my understanding is that it's not _anti_ Machian either; if
> > what I'm getting from this is correct, that SR with PF is not
> > experimentally distinguishable from standard SR, then it doesn't
> > appear that relativity _excludes_ a Machian model.
>
> General relativity admits solutions that are inherently non-Machian,
> such as a Kerr black hole. I believe this was pointed out to you the
> last time this came up, as well.
May have -- I can't remember _everything_. So what about a Kerr black
hole is inherently non-Machian? And how can that be verified
experimentally?
Charles R Martin
> Charles R Martin wrote:
>
> > Don't Maxwell's Equations in fact lead to _deriving_ that c is a
> > constant?
>
> In a way. If you use Maxwell's equations to calculate the speed of
> propagation of electromagnetic waves, you come up with the answer c --
> completely without having to specify what frame you were talking about.
> That's, at least, a tantalizing hint about the constancy postulate.
>
> > Well, first off it's worth asking because maybe you _can_ establish a
> > falsification and distinguish between the theories. But secondly, a
> > preferred frame seems to dispose of some other paradoxical issues in
> > standard relativity.
>
> What paradoxical issues?
Nonlocality.
Charles R Martin
> No, it is, if we assume realism.
What are we calling "realism" here?
Charles R Martin
> "Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote in message
> news:m3u1uv5...@localhost.localdomain...
>
> > Guys, I don't know if you've noticed, but we now have people asserting
> > definitely and authoritatively that:
> >
> > (a) lack of a preferred frame is essential to SR;
> >
> > (b) using a preferred frame makes SR equivalent to Lorentz aether
> > theory, which is not inconsistent with experiment; and
> >
> > (c) that the preferred frame notion can be discarded non multiplicando
> > since SR works without it.
> >
> > Logically, this certainly means that we've decided that a preferred
> > frame is not essential to SR, but we knew that.
>
> A lot of it is semantics.
>
> What qualities does a frame have to have before it can be said to be
> "preferred"? If it's just a case of personal like or dislike, there is
> obviously no difficulty in having a "preferred" frame.
Yeah, my bad -- I set up just that issue by writing fuzzily. But
hell, I've got a bad cold/flu, I'm both talking and thinking fuzzily, so
it makes sense I'd write fuzzily. In any case, we've gone a ways down
this down-thread, so I'll leave it here.
>
> To make statement a) requires a stronger definition of what it means for a
> frame to be "preferred".
I _think_ (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that
"preferred frame" in this context means a frame against which some
kind of "absolute velocity" could be measured. This is, as I recall,
why Lorentz had to come up with the Lorentz contraction to preserve
the aether.
>
> > (Then, just to stir the pot a bit, I'll note that a Machian model of
> > inertia implies the existence of a preferred frame, so there's at
> > least one direction in which experimental falsification of the "no
> > preferred frame" notion may have taken place.)
>
> You lost me here. It's not intuitively obvious that a Machian model of
> inertia necessarily implies the existence of a preferred frame, though it
> would seem easier to form a Machian theory that did have a preferred frame
> than one that did not.
At least the version of a Machian world that I'm thinking about is the
one in which inertia is the expression of the vector sum of the whole
universe's gravitational influence on a body. This leads to an
"inertial" frame which is absolute. I think.
>
> And what does this have to do with experimental falsification?
If Woodward's whoozy works, it strengthens the Machian notion of inertia.
>
> >
> > But I'll admit that I remain confused: Stephen asserts that the
> > non-existence of a preferred frame is essential, while the other two
> > arguments assert that SR is _independent_ of the assumption of a
> > preferred frame.
> >
> > Can this be cleared up, either experimentally or theoretically?
>
> It's a question of semantics.
>
In some sense it's necessarily a question of semantics, but then in
some sense _everything_ is a question of semantics. But in this case
I can state precisely what I'm trying to ask:
- SR was invented when Einstein disposed of the notion of a preferred
frame and found a consistent and experimentally verifiable model
that has (so far) survived falsification. This is standard SR.
- At least some of the respondents have suggested that SR can be
reformulated with a preferred frame, and that the predictions of
this SR' correspond exactly to experiment as well, ie, SR' has (so
far) survived falsification as well
If it can be shown that SR is observationally equivalent (that is, no
experiment can exist which distinguishes SR from SR') then SR is
independent of the assumption of a preferred frame (or lack thereof.)
One of the preferred frame interpretations (Lorentz's, according to
Max) is specifically formulated so that the preferred frame is in all
ways experimentally undetectable. If this is true, then the two
models are indistinguishable, and we can discard the Lorentzian
preferred frame without loss.
So, is there a preferred-frame model which _is_ potentially
distinguishable from standard SR, ie, makes different predictions, but
for which no falsification has occurred so far?
Charles R Martin
Okay, now this is a place where (it seems to me) the GR model has a
potential paradox: if GR allows the whole universe to rotate, I've got
to ask "relative to what?" What does it mean for the Whole Lot of
Everything to rotate?
Charles R Martin
> > Ilja here is questioning whether the "aesthetic" value of these
> > symmetries is really enough to make them preferable, which seems to
> > me a case of the same question.
>
> I don't question the principle "it is reasonable to prefer aesthetic
> theories" - I prefer them too. I also don't question that symmetries
> are important.
I agree with you on both points. ("But why?", he asked plaintively.
Does it work out that simple and symmetrical is preferable for some
deep reason, or is it just that we find the simplicity attractive in
itself?)
>
> But everything important may be overemphasized.
Yes -- and it sems to me that to great a dependence on simplicity etc
may sometimes lead us astray.
Charles R Martin
> On 13 Dec 2001 20:16:26 -0700, Charles R Martin <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
> >step...@pcnl2.win.tue.nl (Stephan Houben) writes:
>
> >No, no, don't apologize -- it's just the conflict in these apparently
> >authoritative opinions that confuses me.
>
> Well, I believe that my ranting is at least internally
> consistent. ;-) I hope that you don't require it to be consistent
> with all the other posts in this thread.
Nah, it's just I'm trying to sort out and understand the
inconsistencies, on the off chance I might learn something.
>
> >> >(a) lack of a preferred frame is essential to SR;
> >> >
> >> >(b) using a preferred frame makes SR equivalent to Lorentz aether
> >> > theory, which is not inconsistent with experiment; and
> >>
> >> Wait a minute. That was the point of my whole rambling about
> >> philosophy of science. If theory A and B give the same
> >> predictions for all experiments, are they the same?
> >
> >"The same", no. Indistinguishable, yes.
>
> OK. Also note that for every theory A, I can generate an infinite
> sequence of "indistinguishable" theories A_n in which each A_n
> consists of: "All experiments will get the result as predicted by A.
> Moreover, there exist n invisible tooth faeries which cannot be
> observed by any means."
>
> The only procedure that makes us prefer the original A to all the
> A(n) is because of Occam's principle. Unfortunately, you always
> find a couple of people who will insist that including 1 tooth
> faerie (or preferred frame, or whatever) is somehow "simpler".
>
> That's because there is some subjectivity involved in applying
> "Occam".
Absolutely, and I set up this issue by writing fuzzily. I restated my
question, hopefully more clearly, a couple of posts ago: is there an
SR' with a preferred frame _which is potentially distinguishable from
standard SR_ which is none the less consistent with current
experimental results?
>
> >> Depends on how you look at it. One could have said that
> >> Lorentz has actually invented SR, were it not for the
> >> fact that Lorents has fought SR for the rest of his life...
> >>
> >> Besides, Lorents claims that that the "relativity" effects
> >> only happen for electromagnetic phenomena. SR claims that
> >> they apply to all phenomena. So they are not completely
> >> equivalent. (But a modern defender of aether theory could
> >> extent Lorentz' theory to deal with other forces.)
> >>
> >> >(c) that the preferred frame notion can be discarded non
> >> > multiplicando since SR works without it.
> >>
> >> SR starts from assuming there isn't any.
> >
> >But if SR' (ie, SR with preferred frames) still makes the same
> >predictions, what does that matter?
>
> Well, you just polluted your theory with some metaphysical junk.
> Why not include my invisible tooth faeries, then?
From the standpoint of logic, if they are _everywhere_
indistinguishable then SR is independent of the assumption of a
preferred frame, which would mean my (a) holds.
>
> >> >Logically, this certainly means that we've decided that a preferred
> >> >frame is not essential to SR, but we knew that.
> >>
> >> Moreover, it is an essential assumption that there isn't any.
> >
> >Say what? That's pretty much the opposite of what some of the other
> >apparently authoritative posts have said.
>
> Just ignore them. ;-)
> But again, I hope that you only require me to be consistent with my
> own posts.
>
> >> >(Then, just to stir the pot a bit, I'll note that a Machian model of
> >> >inertia implies the existence of a preferred frame, so there's at
> >> >least one direction in which experimental falsification of the "no
> >> >preferred frame" notion may have taken place.)
> >>
> >> Fortunately, neither SR nor GR is a Machian theory.
> >
> >All the worse for SR/GR if Woodward's experiments work out. But,
> >again, if we have a Machian model of inertia, does that _break_
> >anthing observable about SR/GR?
>
> Yes! At least in principle, it is possible to distinguish a
> universe in which GR holds from a universe in which a Machian
> principle holds.
>
> To see this, collapse all matter and energy into one big black hole
> (OK, this could be a problem, but we're talking thought experiment
> now.)
Filing the environmental impact statement is gonna be a bitch.
>
> Now, in a GR universe, we get a different geometry of spacetime
> depending on the rotation speed of the black hole. In particular,
> if the BH rotates, then there is an "ergozone", if it doesn't
> rotate, there isn't. But in a Machian universe, there cannot be
> any difference. Rotation? "Rotation with respect to *what*?" would
> Mach have asked.
Yeah -- in fact, I just asked it myself, not but a post or two ago.
>
> >> >But I'll admit that I remain confused: Stephen asserts that the
> >> >non-existence of a preferred frame is essential, while the other two
> >> >arguments assert that SR is _independent_ of the assumption of a
> >> >preferred frame.
> >>
> >> No, the other two arguments only assert that it is possible
> >> to construct a physical theory A that
> >> 1. corresponds in all experimental evidence to SR, and
> >> 2. has a preferred frame.
> >> Now is such a theory A "equal" to SR? I would say no, but this
> >> is a point that arguably could be debated. Note that Lorentz
> >> essentially had such a theory A, and *he* didn't think it was
> >> equivalent to SR.
> >
> >Hmm. I think we're running into "the same" versus "observably
> >equivalent".
>
> Yes. But also note that Lorentz' aether theory is not completely
> observably equivalent to SR, although it could be "fixed"
> so that it became complete observably equivalent.
Would this "fixing" make it completely equivalent to SR, ie, makes no
different prediction anywhere?
>
> >> >Can this be cleared up, either experimentally or theoretically?
> >>
> >> I really hope this helps.
> >> Would it be more convincing if I dig up some actual quotes
> >> from Einstein e.a. on these issues?
> >
> >Well, not really. I *know* Einstein felt he'd disposed of the need
> >for a preferred frame, I'm not questioning that. But we seem to keep
> >coming around to the conclusion (based on this argument up to now)
> >that assuming a Lorentzian aether and a preferred frame doesn't lead
> >to _different_ predictions from SR.
>
> Well, SR predicts that all relativistic effects also occur
> when we're working with a different force than EM, for
> example the strong nuclear force. That appears to be correct.
> OTOH, Lorentz' didn't deal with the strong nuclear force at all.
>
> >*Having* a preferred frame seems
> >to simplify other things, like Bell's Paradox, though.
>
> Don't think so. I can always set things up so that the magical
> FTL influence appears to move backwards in time.
Hmmm. I know this ran through some time ago ... didn't we determine
that a preferred frame eliminated nonlocality problems? I don't
remember the details....
>
> >Clearly the standard assumption is the Einsteinian one of no preferred
> >frame, but the argument so far seems to suggest that we don't have any
> >way to distinguish between SR w/o preferred frame and SR w/ preferred
> >frame, because they both make the same predictions.
>
> Sure. But a scientific theory is more than the sum of its
> predictions.
Nonsense.
Ken H. Seto
"Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3C1A2055...@sff.net...
SR requires the existence of absolute time to maintain constant light speed
in all inertial frames. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand.
Ken Seto
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> "pervect" <perv...@netscape.net> writes:
> > A lot depends on how one defines "Machian".
> >
> > There is a sense in which GR is anti-Machian. This relates to the question
> > of whether it is possible to construct a cosmology in which the whole
> > universe rotates. Under GR this is possible. Under some interpretations of
> > "Machian" this is not possible.
>
> Okay, now this is a place where (it seems to me) the GR model has a
> potential paradox: if GR allows the whole universe to rotate, I've got
> to ask "relative to what?" What does it mean for the Whole Lot of
> Everything to rotate?
Until Goedel, the presumption was that it *doesn't* have any meaning to
say that the whole universe does or doesn't rotate, since there is
nothing for it to rotate with respect to.
This belief, however, relies on a hidden Machian assumption, since it is
possible in classical mechanics to tell if something is rotating
regardless of whether you can look outside and see what it is rotating
with respect to; for example, by observing coriolis forces.
It turns out that Goedel found a solution to the GR field equations that
can, if you like, be interpreted as the entire universe rotating, and
the rotation can be experimentally deterimined by effects that are the
GR equivalent of coriolis forces. In GR, like in classical physics, you
don't need to look outside to determine that an object is rotating.
Alternately, however, you can take the same Goedel solution and simply
say, here is a universe with this geometry as a given. You are not
*forced* to interpret that geometry as rotation, you can if you prefer
just say that it's the geometry, and leave it at that.
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Just published: IMPACT PARAMETER (and other quantum realities)
http://www.goldengryphon.com/ip-frame.html
Ken H. Seto
> "pervect" <perv...@netscape.net> writes:
> If it can be shown that SR is observationally equivalent (that is, no
> experiment can exist which distinguishes SR from SR') then SR is
> independent of the assumption of a preferred frame (or lack thereof.)
>
> One of the preferred frame interpretations (Lorentz's, according to
> Max) is specifically formulated so that the preferred frame is in all
> ways experimentally undetectable. If this is true, then the two
> models are indistinguishable, and we can discard the Lorentzian
> preferred frame without loss.
>
> So, is there a preferred-frame model which _is_ potentially
> distinguishable from standard SR, ie, makes different predictions, but
> for which no falsification has occurred so far?
Yes it's call Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). The postulates of DRT are as
follows:
1. The laws of physics based on a clock second is the same for all observers
in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light in free space based on a clock second has the same
mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames of reference.
3. The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is different in
different frames of reference.
4. The speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute second has a
different mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames.
The speed of light based on a defined absolute secondis maximum in the rest
frame of the aether.
DRT includes SR as a subset. Its equations are valid in all
environments---icluding gravity. A full descritpion of DRT is in my website
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
Ken Seto
Charles R Martin
> Charles R Martin wrote:
> >
> > "pervect" <perv...@netscape.net> writes:
> > > A lot depends on how one defines "Machian".
> > >
> > > There is a sense in which GR is anti-Machian. This relates to the question
> > > of whether it is possible to construct a cosmology in which the whole
> > > universe rotates. Under GR this is possible. Under some interpretations of
> > > "Machian" this is not possible.
> >
> > Okay, now this is a place where (it seems to me) the GR model has a
> > potential paradox: if GR allows the whole universe to rotate, I've got
> > to ask "relative to what?" What does it mean for the Whole Lot of
> > Everything to rotate?
>
> Until Goedel, the presumption was that it *doesn't* have any meaning to
> say that the whole universe does or doesn't rotate, since there is
> nothing for it to rotate with respect to.
Ol' Kurt. You can't trust him. Always making things complicated.
Erik Max Francis
> Here you confuse "really" and "and observer can detect it".
>
> The observer is only part of reality. The theory has to _postulate_
> what is real and how reality changes. After this, what is "really" is
> already well-defined and fixed.
If you have two theories, A and B, where B only differs from A by the
introduction of an additional entity, then they are only distinguishable
theories if there is some experiment, even in principle (if not in
practice in the forseeable future), that could detect the additional
element of B. If there is no possible way for any experiment, ever, to
even infer the presence of the additional entity, then Occam's razor
applies; it is additional luggage and should be stripped away, and so
theory B is really theory A with extra "metaphysical baggage," as was
pointed out in this thread.
If I assert there is an absolute frame but that no observation could
ever detect it, directly or indirectly, then what I've introduced is a
metaphysical crutch because I don't feel comfortable with the relativity
principle. What I'm really talking about is special relativity with
some extra ribbons wrapping it together, although the ribbons have no
effect on the theory itself. This is common for a lot of (usually
crank) aether theories.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Laws are silent in time of war.
\__/ Cicero
Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
An Esperanto reference for English speakers.