Theories Equivalent to SR
Tom Roberts
Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Date: November 21, 1999
This is the first of three articles posted to sci.physics.relativity:
[1] Subject: Theories Equivalent to SR
[2] Subject: Why the Ether is Unobservable
[3] Subject: Why the Ether is Not Part of Modern Physics
These articles should be read in order, as a set; they do not stand
alone from each other.
It has long been known that there are theories equivalent to Special
Relativity (SR) but which differ in their premises and/or their
interpretations of the quantities appearing the the equations. I believe
it is not very well known that there are actually two different
equivalence classes of interest, and that the larger of them includes
essentially every viable ether theory (by "viable" I mean those not
already refuted by experiments).
In this article I will describe two equivalence classes of theories:
1) Theories Mathematically Equivalent to SR
2) Theories Experimentally Indistinguishable from SR
The second article in this series uses these results to show why the
ether is unobservable experimentally, and the third article gives
my opinions about why the ether is not part of modern physics, in
spite of this equivalence.
The first equivalence class is well known, and rather uninteresting; I
discuss it primarily for completeness. The experimentally-important
class is the second one -- as far as I know _all_ viable physical
theories describing phenomena in inertial frames belong to this class.
Remarkably, this class is _much_ larger than just SR. Unfortunately it
is impossible to differentiate among the theories of this class
(precisely because of their equivalence, of course). This impossibility
is why my third article presents mostly _opinions_ and few facts.
Test Theories of SR
-------------------
In considering how well a given physical theory is confirmed by
experiments, it has been found useful to generalize the theory by
augmenting it with arbitrary parameters which correspond to relaxations
of various conditions of the theory, and then determining how well those
parameters are measured by experiments. This can be used to explore how
well the different aspects of the theory have been tested by various
experiments. This can be done in many ways, and several different test
theories of SR have been described [11-15]; [15] compares and unifies
them.
For each test theory, SR will predict specific values for each parameter.
Any parameters which are discovered to be experimentally unmeasurable
_in_principle_ will determine a class of theories experimentally
indistinguishable from SR -- theories which differ from SR only in the
values of such parameters belong to the class. Zhang[14] re-parameterized
the other test theories and showed that his parameter q, corresponding to
the anisotropy of the 1-way speed of light, cannot be measured; this
determines the second (larger) equivalence class I describe.
Curiously, in [15] Zhang repeatedly states that the one-way
speed of light is unobservable, but never describes _why_
this is so in detail. And he never discusses the equivalence
of these theories. I do both below.
I'll follow the approach and notation of [15], as best I can in ASCII.
Theories Mathematically Equivalent to SR
----------------------------------------
Definition: Two theories are mathematically equivalent if and only
if every (mathematical) theorem of either one is a theorem of both.
Note: it should be obvious that only the equations of a physical
theory are involved in this; interpretations do not matter, here.
The choice of postulates also does not matter; postulates are
(trivially) theorems. This is important because when comparing
theory and experiment it is only the computations which are
relevant, and they come from the theorems of the theory; words
and interpretations don't matter there, either.
The essence of SR is the use of Lorentz transforms between any pair of
inertial frames, and all of its theorems can be derived from them. All
theories in this class do likewise. But there are many possible sets of
postulates which yield the Lorentz transform [16]. I'll mention only one
set different from Einstein's original pair:
a) restriction to inertial frames.
b) general observations about groups of transformations.
c) the observation that pion beams exist, and their particles
asymptotically approach the speed of light for higher energies.
(a)+(b) restrict the transformations to belong to one of three possible
groups: the Euclid Group, the Galileo Group, and the Poincare' Group.
(c) further restricts them to the Poincare' Group, and requires that the
invariant velocity be the same as the speed of light.
But those approaches all yield the same physical theory as SR -- it's a
purely formal distinction to say they are "different" theories; all of
them share the same equations (theorems) and interpretations as SR.
An entirely different approach is represented by what is known in this
newsgroup as LET, the "Lorentz Ether Theory" (as far as I know it was
never called this in the physics literature, but has grown up around this
newsgroup; it's loosely based upon Lorentz's 1904 paper and his
_Theory_of_Electrons_). One set of postulates for LET is:
A) there is an ether which is at rest in some inertial frame.
B) any inertial frame is related to the ether frame by a Lorentz
transform.
(B) can be replaced by assuming that moving rulers contract by 1/gamma
and moving clocks dilate by 1/gamma. It is assumed that some as-yet
unknown property of the ether causes moving clocks and rulers to behave
this way. Lorentz called the coordinates of a frame moving wrt the
ether "local" coordinates, and they are assumed to be merely
computational conveniences. Nevertheless, clocks and rulers at rest in
a moving frame do measure the corresponding local quantities.
It is clear that LET is mathematically equivalent to SR (B implies that
the Lorentz transforms apply between any pair of inertial frames, and
that is the essence of SR). It should also be clear that this equivalence
implies that the ether frame of LET can never be identified
experimentally (SR has no such preferred frame, and every prediction of
experimental measurements in LET is identical to SR's prediction, so no
aspect of such a preferred frame can ever be measured and be determined
to be a unique aspect of the unique ether frame). Stated differently:
one can pick _any_ inertial frame whatsoever, call it the "ether frame"
and apply LET using that "ether frame" and obtain the same computations
and predictions as in SR (this is a trivial consequence of the fact that
the Lorentz transforms form a group). The _only_ measurably unique
aspect of the "ether frame" in LET is that it carries the label "ether
frame" (yes, that is where the ether "is", but that's unmeasurable).
Theories Experimentally Indistinguishable from SR
-------------------------------------------------
Definition: two theories are experimentally indistinguishable if they
make identical quantitative predictions for any observable quantity.
Equivalently, two theories are experimentally indistinguishable if
the validity of each of them implies the validity of the other.
The theories in this class are selected by the following criteria:
a) in every inertial frame the round-trip speed of light is
isotropically c.
b) there exists an inertial frame in which the one-way speed of light
is isotropically c; I will call this the "ether frame".
(a) is essentially required by experimental observations [2], and (b)
is essentially what it means for a theory to have an ether. (b) is
required basically to ensure that the anisotropy in the 1-way speed of
light can be described by a 3-vector in any inertial frame.
Note: I make no attempt to show that (a)+(b) determine _ALL_
theories indistinguishable from SR (i.e. are exhaustive). I
believe they are, but have not proven so. Zhang[15] also asserts
this but does not support the assertion directly. In any case,
this class is large enough to be interesting. I strongly suspect
that the only potential way to enlarge the class is to relax (b)
-- that would destroy the derivation of the transform equations,
and I suspect that (b) cannot be relaxed consistently.
This equivalence class is much less well known than the first, and
is more interesting and important, so I'll go into detail how and why
these seemingly wildly-different theories are experimentally
indistinguishable. I will show:
I) the only difference among theories in this class is in the way
clocks are synchronized.
II) if the clock synchronization of an arbitrary theory of the class is
valid, then SR's clock synchronization is also valid.
III) if SR's clock synchronization is valid, then the clock
synchronization of an abritrary theory of the class is also valid.
The conclusion is that clock synchronization is _conventional_; there is
no externally-dictated preferred method, and one can select _any_ theory
of this class and use the corresponding synchronization method to obtain
results equivalent to those of any other member theory (but as will
become clear in the discussion of [2] and [3], selecting SR's method
makes for considerably simpler computations).
These points I,II,III will establish an equivalence relation among these
theories; they also establish their experimental indistinguishability
from SR because of the arbitrariness of clock synchronization.
The primary incentive for considering this class is that this is the
class of theories not refuted by experiments. As is well known, SR
agrees with all currently-known reproducible experiments within its
domain of applicability; what is not so well known is that this _also_
applies to _all_ theories in this class. I discuss details of this in
[2].
The theories in this class share SR's restriction to inertial frames, SR's
definition of inertial frames (i.e. of Newtonian mechanics), and also
SR's "hidden" assumptions:
c) space and time are homogeneous.
d) ruler lengths and clock rates have no memory.
Note the omission of one other "hidden" assumption of SR: that
space is isotropic; these theories do not adhere to that.
I will use Cartesian coordinates in every frame, and will align their
axes to be parallel in every frame. (b) says there is an ether frame
which I will notate with coordinates (X,Y,Z,T). These assumptions are
sufficient to determine the transform equations from the ether frame to
any other frame (x',y',z',t') ([15] section 6.3, eq. 6.3.7); here the
velocity of the moving (primed) frame is v along the X axis:
x' = g (X - v T) |
y' = Y |
z' = Z | (1)
t' = g [(1 + (v/c)q') T - (v/c + q') X/c] |
g = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) |
q' is the parameter which determines the anisotropy in the 1-way speed of
light, and is constrained by -1<q'<1. Note that there is an ambiguity in
q': one can select any theory of this class (which essentially specifies
q' as a function of v), and one can select any inertial frame to be its
ether frame; for various different choices one will obtain the same
value of q' for a given moving frame, and that value is all that matters
in the transform. The constant c is the one-way speed of light in the
ether frame. Work through the math and you find that using coordinate
clocks and rulers in the moving frame that the one-way speed of light
along the x' axis is c/(1-q') and c/(1+q'); the round-trip speed of light
in any direction is c.
The Lorentz transform is obtained for q'=0, and the coordinates of SR
in the moving frame will be notated as (x,y,z,t):
x = g (X - v T) |
y = Y |
z = Z | (2)
t = g [T - (v/c) X/c] |
g = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) |
Note please that (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') are coordinates in the
_SAME_ inertial frame, which is moving with velocity v wrt the ether
frame (X,Y,Z,T).
Using (1) and (2) we can determine the relationship between the velocity
of an object in the moving frame, measured by the two moving coordinate
systems (valid only for motion along the x' axis):
u = u' / (1 + q' u'/c) {3}
We can obtain the transform between these two theories by eliminating
(X,Y,Z,T) between equations (1) and (2):
x = x' |
y = y' |
z = z' | (4)
t = t' + q' x'/c |
This transform directly establishes my point I: these two coordinate
systems differ only in the way clocks are synchronized. For a given point
in the frame, q' x'/c is a constant offset between clocks synchronized
according to the two theories.
Now let us assume that (1) is valid and show that one can set up clocks
such that (2) is valid for them. If you want to think of this as assuming
that (1) is the "way the world really works" that's OK, but is really
unjustified (because the equivalence which will be shown below makes it
impossible to determine which theory of the equivalence class is "really
correct" -- they all have an equal claim to validity).
Consider a primed coordinate clock at x'=L,y'=0,z'=0 (which is properly
synchronized according to eq. 1). At time t'=0 let a light ray be sent
from the origin (x'=0,y'=0,z'=0) to this clock; it obviously travels with
velocity c/(1-q') and arrives at t'=L(1-q')/c.
Now let us try to set up a clock at x=x'=L,y=0,z=0 which is synchronized
according to SR. From (4) we simply offset this clock by the amount q'L/c
from the x' clock collocated with it. The clock at the origin is not
affected (x'=0), of course. So at time t'=t=0 the light ray leaves the
origin and arrives at x=x'=L at time t'=L(1-q')/c, which means that
t=L/c (c.f. eqn. 4) -- clearly that clock is synchronized with the clock
at the origin according to Einstein's criteria.
We see that everything is consistent -- the validity of the original
theory with an anisotropic speed of light (q' nonzero) implies that
one can _also_ synchronize clocks according to Einstein's criteria,
and using the latter clocks the Lorentz transform is valid; the one-way
speed of light will be isotropically c when measured using them.
Though I have shown this only for clocks along the x axis, this
holds for all clocks located anywhere in the moving frame; see
[15] for details. Slow clock transport is rather more complicated;
I discuss it in [2].
This proves my point II above. Point III is to show that if SR's clock
synchronization is valid, so is the synchronization of theory (1). I'll
leave that as an exercise for the reader -- it goes just like the
discussion above.
Because q' is arbitrary, the three points I,II,III establish the
equivalence of all theories in this class: if any of them is valid,
then all are valid. Note also that the value of q' is unobservable --
if any theory of this class is valid, then (1) is valid for _any_
permitted value of q' -- just synchronize the clocks accordingly.
If you want to measure the one-way speed of light, you need to
synchronize two clocks to do it, and that requires a choice of how
to do that -- the value you measure depends directly upon the choice
you made, and the value of q' also depends upon the choice you made;
the values you measure for either the one-way speed of light or for q'
depend directly upon your own _arbitrary_ choice.
While all choices of q' are equally valid, they are definitely
not equal when it comes to ease of computation. We'll see in [2]
that this is so, and in [3] I discuss why it is so.
In the second article of this series, Subject: Why the Ether is
Unobservable, I will discuss how this unobservability of q' makes it
impossible to determine the motion of a given inertial frame wrt the
ether frame (which makes the ether unobservable). Among other things I
show that slowly-transported clocks maintain Einstein synchronization for
_every_ theory of this equivalence class.
REFERENCES
----------
[11] Robertson, Rev. Mod. Phys. _21_ (1949), p378.
[12] Edwards, Am. J. Phys. _31_ (1963), p482.
[13] Mansouri and Sexl, Gen. Rel. Grav. _8_ (1977), p497, p515, pXXX.
[14] Zhang, Gen. Rel. Grav. _27_ (1995), p475.
[15] The above four test theories are described, compared, and
unified in Zhang, _Special_Relativity_and_its_Experimental_
_Foundations_.
[16] See, for example:
Schwartz, AJP(?) _?_ (1962), p697 (sorry, this journal did
not print its name or volume on page headers/footers)
Lee and kalotas, AJP, _43_#5 (1975), p434.
Levy-Leblond, AJP, _44_#4 (1976), p271.
Mermin, AJP, _52_#2 (1984), p119.
Dirk Bruere
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:38395BBC...@lucent.com...
> You may be surprised to learn that there is an infinite class of ether
> theories which are all equivalent to SR, in the sense that they are
> experimentally indistinguishable from SR. I have posted three articles
> on this to sci.physics.relativity:
>
> [1] Subject: Theories Equivalent to SR
> [2] Subject: Why the Ether is Unobservable
> [3] Subject: Why the Ether is Not Part of Modern Physics
> These articles should be read in order, as a set; they do not stand
> alone from each other.
Surely this is merely conjuring a different picture from the same math?
Given that the theories are equivalent, and the Ether unobservable, why
bother with Ether at all?
It would only be of interest to an historian of science, or of relevence now
if Ether theories predicted something different that was testable.
Dirk
Paul Stowe
Oh, because they're not. Especially LET vs. SR.
Paul Stowe
Charles Francis
<art...@kbnet.co.uk> writes
>
>Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>news:38395BBC...@lucent.com...
>> You may be surprised to learn that there is an infinite class of ether
>> theories which are all equivalent to SR, in the sense that they are
>> experimentally indistinguishable from SR. I have posted three articles
>> on this to sci.physics.relativity:
>>
>> [1] Subject: Theories Equivalent to SR
>> [2] Subject: Why the Ether is Unobservable
>> [3] Subject: Why the Ether is Not Part of Modern Physics
>> These articles should be read in order, as a set; they do not stand
>> alone from each other.
>
>Surely this is merely conjuring a different picture from the same math?
>Given that the theories are equivalent, and the Ether unobservable, why
>bother with Ether at all?
>
explaining this to them in detail. I don't think it will work. If they
are determined to believe the irrational, they will find a way to do it.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Gerry Quinn
Are you now claiming that the theories Tom (incorrectly) asserts are
equivalent to SR are irrational?
The big problem with SR is that it denies the existence of quantities on
which it depends. Consider the paradoxes associated with rotation, for
example, which Wayne Throop is currently attempting (and failing) to
explain without postulating the existence of unobservable physical
quantities.
It simply isn't rationally acceptable as a theory of nature, no matter
how accurately it mimics the equations of LET. SR is not actually a
theory of nature, while LET is, and therefore the title of this thread
is meaningless. There are no theories equivalent to SR. SR is a means
of correlating observations distorted by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald effects.
It accurately describes certain symmetries of possible theories of
nature, but is not itself such a theory.
- Gerry Quinn
greyw...@my-deja.com
Thank you. At least you made the effort to find the spot where Zhang
"proved" that it was not possible to measure anisotropy in the speed of
light. Had we gone ahead and perused Zhang — looking for the proof you
had earlier claimed was there — we could not have found it. Apparently
it was only "repeatedly" claimed (as your prior posts stated).
This is why one must quote chapter and formula (or page), and not just
an entire book. Unfortunately, you still haven't made a valid reference
to any part of Zhang's book. If you really want to submit to AJP, you
should really clean up the references.
You have also given four "references" for "test theories", but you don't
describe any of them. You also did not give either the titles or
summaries of these "test theory" papers. This is poor form.
I'm happy to provide comments on your work. Please don't expect it all
at once. I've done a brief overview of your three posts, and I believe
that they suffer from the same flaw that was in your last post. That
flaw is that you assume what you attempt to prove. That is, you assumed
Zhang's conclusion is true, and work from there. But if Zhang is
correct, you've nothing left to do. You've assumed that the SR version
of Lorentz "transform" is the touchstone. However, you've put more
volume in, so I'll have to check the details (where that ol' debbil
lives). I'll work through in order.
By the way, could you please comment on our Krisher work? The original
post?
Thanks,
----------
greywolf42
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tom Roberts
> Tom is trying to shut up the etherists on the site, by
> explaining this to them in detail.
That is not really my motivation. And as you say it such an attempt
would be unlikely to work. Actually, I learned something interesting:
IN A LIMITED SENSE, THE ETHER ADVOCATES AROUND HERE ARE "RIGHT"!
And I wanted to discuss precisely how limited that sense is. In
particular, one could equally-well say that they are "wrong" to
precisely the same degree that they are "right".
And I also wanted to show those ether advocates who have incorrect
ideas about the possibility of experimentally observing the ether
how and why their ideas are incorrect. The ether _is_ unobservable
in any viable ether theory, and non-viable ether theories are
uninteresting.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> The big problem with SR is that it denies the existence of quantities on
> which it depends.
Not true. Please describe them.
> Consider the paradoxes associated with rotation,
I know of no "paradoxes associated with rotation". Please describe them.
> It simply isn't rationally acceptable as a theory of nature, no matter
> how accurately it mimics the equations of LET.
Hmmm. Experience indicates otherwise. Of course your phrase "theory of
nature" is rather ambiguous, and I suspect you mean something else by it
than I interpret into it.
> There are no theories equivalent to SR.
You need to define your terms. _I_ did define what I meant. And using
my definitions your statement is flat-out wrong. My definitions are
not unusual.
> SR is a means
> of correlating observations distorted by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald effects.
Not at all. SR is a description of an interesting symmetry observed in
nature.
> It accurately describes certain symmetries of possible theories of
> nature, but is not itself such a theory.
In some sense, SR is a meta-theory. But in other senses it is a physical
theory itself. In particular, SR can be used _by_itself_ to make
predictions about various experiments, and by golly those predictions
accurately agree with actual measurements. So in that sense, SR is
most definitely a physical theory.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Charles Francis
<tjro...@lucent.com> writes
You have quite a good point. Louis just gave a description of the aether
which fits the photon field operator A. I would not really want to add
to the confusion by saying that A is the aether, in any sense of aether
that I would mean, but it is worth remarking that we do have
unobservable quantities in modern physical theory.
I also detect quite a difference in what people mean by the word theory,
both within and without the scientific establishment. To many people it
seems that SR cannot be a theory because it is a set of tautological
results based on certain measurement processes under particular
conditions. By that definition it is only constraint on theory, though I
have always regarded it as theory, and have thought of it as an
unfalsifiable theory, refuting Popper's philosophical position. - I mean
by unfalsifiable that it cannot be false under the specified conditions
for which it holds, not that there are no conditions under which it does
not hold.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Aaron Bergman
>Charles Francis wrote:
>> Tom is trying to shut up the etherists on the site, by
>> explaining this to them in detail.
>
>That is not really my motivation. And as you say it such an attempt
>would be unlikely to work. Actually, I learned something interesting:
>
> IN A LIMITED SENSE, THE ETHER ADVOCATES AROUND HERE ARE "RIGHT"!
I still don't see how this extends at all beyond classical
electromagnetism. The time dilation of decays, for example, needs
a tremendous of hand waving to appear in a non-relativistic ether
theory.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Tom Roberts
> In article <383AB03C...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > IN A LIMITED SENSE, THE ETHER ADVOCATES AROUND HERE ARE "RIGHT"!
> I still don't see how this extends at all beyond classical
> electromagnetism.
Good point. Of course except for Ilja, no ether advocates around
here consider quantum phenomena at all.
> The time dilation of decays, for example, needs
> a tremendous of hand waving to appear in a non-relativistic ether
> theory.
But the fact that Lorentz performed such hand-waving in 1904 makes
ether advocates accept it without question. As I said in my third
article, it seems strange that the "weak interaction ether" has
precisely the same properties as the "lumeniferous ether", even
though the weak and electromagnetic interactions are so very
different. Ditto for strong interactions and decays.
And one still has to swallow the camel that motion wrt the ether
causes rulers to shrink and clocks to dilate. For _ALL_ of these
differen ethers.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Wayne Throop
: Are you now claiming that the theories Tom (incorrectly) asserts are
: equivalent to SR are irrational?
No, he was pointing out that it is irrational to continue to
insist that the theories Tom (quite correctly) identified as
equivalent to SR, are not equivalent to SR.
: The big problem with SR is that it denies the existence of quantities
: on which it depends. Consider the paradoxes associated with rotation,
There aren't any paradoxes associated with rotation.
SR's treatment of rotation vs translation is exactly the same
as Newton's.
: Wayne Throop is currently attempting (and failing) to explain
This failure has mostly to do with the explainee's peculiar prejudices.
: without postulating the existence of unobservable physical quantities.
Nonsense. If I say I've got a ravioli here, and it's either meat
or cheeze ravioli, and ask you what the physical difference is,
resorting only to visual inspection of the outside of the pasta.
You have to postulate the existance of an unobservable (by the
restrictions given) quantity.
So it is with Gerry Quinn's peculiar notions of rotation. He says, Thou
Shalt Not Use Free Particles. A static analysis of a rotating object
will only give the plane of rotation. He seems to think use of Free
particles means rotation is only relative, after all.
Unfortunately for him, the inability to distinsuish whether, given two
marks, one mark on a rotating object leads or trails the other, still
doesn't make rotation and translation both relative. Because you can
*still* tell the difference between translation and rotation,
statically; you just can't probe the difference between leading and
trailing if you are prohibited from dropping a pebble. Just like you
can't tell the difference between meat and cheeze if you are prohibited
from looking inside the ravioli.
: It simply isn't rationally acceptable as a theory of nature,
Then don't bother me with it. Take it up with Newton.
Or for that matter, explain the experimentally visible distinction
between rotation and translation any way you want. No matter what
odd notions you come up with, they are still physically different.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> The big problem with SR is that it denies the existence of quantities on
>> which it depends.
>
>
>
>
The answer to both are related. Consider (as Einstein did) an object
rotating in empty space. It might be a ball of liquid, or two solid
balls connected by a string. In what physical quantities do the amount
and sense of its rotation inhere? Are there physical things called
rotations that exist independently of the rotating objects? Or is there
an unobservable physical structure in spacetime? Infinitely many such
structures?
A related question arises with relative motion. Every pair of objects
has a relative motion, even if they are light years apart. But the
relative motions are not independent; even though there are (N^2-N)/2
relative motions for N objects, only N-1 are independent. How
come, if spacetime is empty and structureless? Why can't all the
pairs be independent? Again, the shadowy 'inertial reference frame'
comes into view, although not as obviously as with rotation. (I have
noticed that relativists are fairly impervious to this second argument,
even when they - at times bitterly - concede the first.)
Relative translational motion is closely related to rotation: they can
easily be interconverted. But according to SR they are distinct
entities.
LET explains matters clearly and simply by unifying translational and
rotational motion. In LET, the motion of every particle can be taken as
relative to the ether. A rotating system has the property that some
parts of it are always in motion. Cut the string separating the two
balls, and they continue with their current translational motion. Leave
it intact, and they continue to interact, changing their velocity
continuously. No need for two different kinds of motion. And the
number of independent relative motions in a system of particles is
predicted correctly.
>
>> It simply isn't rationally acceptable as a theory of nature, no matter
>> how accurately it mimics the equations of LET.
>
>Hmmm. Experience indicates otherwise. Of course your phrase "theory of
>nature" is rather ambiguous, and I suspect you mean something else by it
>than I interpret into it.
>
>
>> There are no theories equivalent to SR.
>
>You need to define your terms. _I_ did define what I meant. And using
>my definitions your statement is flat-out wrong. My definitions are
>not unusual.
>
>
>> SR is a means
>> of correlating observations distorted by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald effects.
>
>Not at all. SR is a description of an interesting symmetry observed in
>nature.
>
Here's another - telescopic images are round. But even if there were
some reason why we couldn't make square telescopes, it wouldn't be a
good law of nature.
>
>> It accurately describes certain symmetries of possible theories of
>> nature, but is not itself such a theory.
>
>In some sense, SR is a meta-theory. But in other senses it is a physical
>theory itself. In particular, SR can be used _by_itself_ to make
>predictions about various experiments, and by golly those predictions
>accurately agree with actual measurements. So in that sense, SR is
>most definitely a physical theory.
>
I think it is a significant point, all the same. While I'm exaggerating
a bit when I say a meta-theory is not a theory, I do feel that to
believe too strongly in meta-theories is a counsel of despair. We will
in the end, develop a dynamic model of the fundamental objects operating
on and in spacetime, and this will in a sense be a culmination of the
work of Lorentz, not that of Einstein.
I have elsewhere suggested a possible means by which Lorentz's ideas can
be extended naturally to all forces, and to gravity. It is my strong
suspicion, furthermore, that physically realistic solutions to gtr can
be identified by their topological equivalence to a Lorentzian ether.
If that seems plausible to you, you've got to ask yourself why...
- Gerry Quinn
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Arlin Brown
Dirk writes: It would only be of interest to an historian of science,
or of relevence now if Ether theories predicted something different that
was testable,
Arlin Jean: But Advanced Ether Theory (AET) DOES predict something
different that is testable. And so far I haven't seen any SRians falling
all over themselves to test it. SR is a theory whose equations each
contain real and illusory (inaccurate) quantities. In spite of this, SR
equations seem to accurately predict the results of most measurements
because the product and/or quotient of an even number of illusory
quantities result in real quantities. But each energy equation contain
at least one term which has an odd number of illusory quantities. The
extra odd illusory quantity has no other illusory quantity with which to
combine, thus rendering the whole term and the energy (E or KE)
illusory. Thus SR predicts illusory E. But AET predicts that SRians
will NOT obtain exactly what SR's E=mcc predicts for energy because the
equation contains three illusory quantities, an odd number. AET predicts
that the energy value, measured by SR rules, can be as great as E=ggmcc.
---
Jeannie
Arlin Brown
Charles writes: Tom is trying to shut up the etherists on the site, by
explaining this to them in detail. I don't think it will work. If they
are determined to believe the irrational, they will find a way to do it.
Arlin Jean: It would be very difficult to find a theory any more
irrational that SR. Ether theory is the only thing that can physically
explain why SRians obtain the measurement values which they do. SRians
can physically explain just about nothing. Tom keeps forgetting that if
the ether exists, then the waves which make up matter also travel at a
speed of c wrt the ether. He always leaves this out of his posts. The
etheric wave nature of matter is what physically and quantitatively
explains relativistic effects. There is nothing the least bit irrational
in AET. Why would a perfect flawless etheric physical explanation of SR
be irrational when SRians have no rational explanation at all?
---
Best,
Jeannie
Arlin Brown
Tom writes: SR is a description of an interesting symmetry observed in
nature,
Arlin Jean: The SR symmetry is not natural. Since it is FORCED, it is
an illusion. Einstein's irrational OWLS=c definition is mistaken when it
is assumed to be a correct physical depiction of reality, whereas the
apparent symmetry which is observed is based on the misleading OWLS=c
definition. The most beautiful symmetry in the universe is the symmetry
resulting from the ether frame. No matter in what direction an observer
travels at a given speed from her position of absolute rest in the
ether, the physical equations will be identical in her new frame. The SR
equations can never be derived from a physical model without the ether.
SR is strictly a black box theory and physically explains nothing at
all. It will remain a black box theory until exact physical reasons are
given as to why all of its measurement values are what they are.
---
Jeannie
greyw...@my-deja.com
arguments." They are not critical to the rest of your paper.
Your paper seems to begin at "Test Theories of SR".
You focus here on the usefulness of modifying, generalizing,
augumenting, and the use of arbitrary parameters to test a theory. Then
you don't give any references. True, you listed four names. But you
need to at least summarize each one.
I suspect that you got all four out of Zhang's book. Could you please
provide copies of same? (The four papers, not Zhang's book.) Although
a copy of Zhang's summary would probably do. I ask because you also
have not provided any summary — only your unsupported statement that
these four "test theories" are valid.
You repeat a claim made by Zhang that his parameter "q" (corresponding
to the one-way speed of light) cannot be measured. In the next sentence
you contradict this by stating that — although Zhang makes repeated
claims to this effect — he never actually demonstrates this. I'd delete
the first sentence. In fact, I'd delete the whole paragraph. If Zhang
makes an unsupported claim, it gains no weight by either repetition or
reference. It's still unsupported (by Zhang).
This whole section seems irrelevant. You provide no actual discussion
of the reparameterization — not even giving a summary of the equation(s)
that contain Zhang's "q" parameter — which is apparently critical to
your paper.
So, this first section is muddled and unsupported (not necessarily
unsupportable).
Comments on your next section, Next.
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>Aaron Bergman wrote:
>> In article <383AB03C...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> > IN A LIMITED SENSE, THE ETHER ADVOCATES AROUND HERE ARE "RIGHT"!
>> I still don't see how this extends at all beyond classical
>> electromagnetism.
>
>Good point. Of course except for Ilja, no ether advocates around
>here consider quantum phenomena at all.
You are wring again. My aether theory explains the weird results of
all the quantum experiiments. Specifically it explains the Compton
experiment, the double slit experiment and the photoelectric
experiment. Also it provides a frame work for all the forces of
nature. Lokk up my webstie for a description these phenomena.
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
>
>> The time dilation of decays, for example, needs
>> a tremendous of hand waving to appear in a non-relativistic ether
>> theory.
Wrong of course. The aether theory can explain the time dilation of
decays easily. It is due to the different state of absolute motions of
the muon. The higher the state of absolute motion the longer decay
length and thus the longer perceived life time of the muon.
Ken Seto
>
>But the fact that Lorentz performed such hand-waving in 1904 makes
>ether advocates accept it without question. As I said in my third
>article, it seems strange that the "weak interaction ether" has
>precisely the same properties as the "lumeniferous ether", even
>though the weak and electromagnetic interactions are so very
>different. Ditto for strong interactions and decays.
>
>And one still has to swallow the camel that motion wrt the ether
>causes rulers to shrink and clocks to dilate. For _ALL_ of these
>differen ethers.
Not if you got the right aether theory. The right aether theory will
say that the material rod length will remain the same in all frames
but the light path length of a moving rod will be longer. A moving
clock's second will have a higher "absolute duration content" then a
clock second in the rest frame of the aether.
Ken Seto
>
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> In article <383AB218...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> >I know of no "paradoxes associated with rotation". Please describe them.
> The answer to both are related. Consider (as Einstein did) an object
I have no idea what you are talking about or asking.
> A related question arises with relative motion. Every pair of objects
> has a relative motion, even if they are light years apart. But the
> relative motions are not independent; even though there are (N^2-N)/2
> relative motions for N objects, only N-1 are independent. How
> come, if spacetime is empty and structureless?
Three reasons:
1) because the motion of object #1 wrt #2 and of object #3 wrt #2
are both WRT THE SAME OBJECT.
2) Because conservation of momentum and energy give relations among the
variables, reducing the number of independent variables. This is just
elementary physics coupled with elementary math.
3) you have miscounted.
> Why can't all the
> pairs be independent?
Because of the identities of the objects, and because of the
conservation laws.
> LET explains matters clearly and simply by unifying translational and
> rotational motion. In LET, the motion of every particle can be taken as
> relative to the ether. A rotating system has the property that some
> parts of it are always in motion. Cut the string separating the two
> balls, and they continue with their current translational motion. Leave
> it intact, and they continue to interact, changing their velocity
> continuously. No need for two different kinds of motion. And the
> number of independent relative motions in a system of particles is
> predicted correctly.
Precisely the same can be said of SR: just replace "LET" by "SR", and
replace "the ether" by "any given inertial frame". Your entire paragraph
is then correct in SR. Kind of pointless, though.
> Here's another - telescopic images are round. But even if there were
> some reason why we couldn't make square telescopes, it wouldn't be a
> good law of nature.
Perhaps it is related to the fact that stars and planets are mostly
round. Note please that the telescopic image of some asteroids is most
definitely NOT round. This is generally attributed to the asteroids
themselves not being round.
I don't see your point.
> I do feel that to
> believe too strongly in meta-theories is a counsel of despair.
Then you don't understand their great usefulness. Consider the "meta-
theory" that energy is conserved in every theory of mechanics. Now
imagine how many potential theories of mechanics this meta-theory
eliminates in one fell swoop. SR, as a meta-theory, eliminates an
enormous number of potential theories, is by itself is almost enough
to determine the theories of the four fundamental interactions we
know about today.
> [hopes and dreams that the "final theory" will be based on LET, not SR]
There are absolutely no indications of this so far. As I said in [3],
I don't see how they could have been discovered without the symmetry
principles of SR leading the way; LET has no such symmetry principle.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Charles Francis
<ken...@erinet.com> writes
>>And one still has to swallow the camel that motion wrt the ether
>>causes rulers to shrink and clocks to dilate. For _ALL_ of these
>>differen ethers.
>
>Not if you got the right aether theory. The right aether theory will
>say that the material rod length will remain the same in all frames
>but the light path length of a moving rod will be longer. A moving
>clock's second will have a higher "absolute duration content" then a
>clock second in the rest frame of the aether.
>
proper length which is property of the rod and the same in all frames.
The only problem is that it turns out that every inertial frame can be
regarded as the rest frame of the aether, and obeys the same laws.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Gerry Quinn
>: ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
>: Are you now claiming that the theories Tom (incorrectly) asserts are
>: equivalent to SR are irrational?
>
>No, he was pointing out that it is irrational to continue to
>insist that the theories Tom (quite correctly) identified as
>equivalent to SR, are not equivalent to SR.
>
>: The big problem with SR is that it denies the existence of quantities
>: on which it depends. Consider the paradoxes associated with rotation,
>
>There aren't any paradoxes associated with rotation.
>SR's treatment of rotation vs translation is exactly the same
>as Newton's.
>
>: Wayne Throop is currently attempting (and failing) to explain
>
>This failure has mostly to do with the explainee's peculiar prejudices.
>
>: without postulating the existence of unobservable physical quantities.
>
>Nonsense. If I say I've got a ravioli here, and it's either meat
>or cheeze ravioli, and ask you what the physical difference is,
>resorting only to visual inspection of the outside of the pasta.
>You have to postulate the existance of an unobservable (by the
>restrictions given) quantity.
>
What I am asking you to do is describe what this physical difference
consists of in any terms you like, so long as they do not involve
extraneous entities. For example, you cannot say "If I ate them, they
would taste different", but you have plenty of scope to describe
differences in their molecular structure.
The example I was going to give was of a red ball and a green ball.
Switch the light off and they don't look different. Nevertheless, the
persistence of the colour, which will be the same when the light is
switched on again, proves that some physical difference exists even when
the room is dark. Again it might be described in molecular terms, or
perhaps in some cases the surfaces are of a shape which diffracts light
in a certain way.
The colour is temporarily unobservable, but describable. Likewise the
ravioli filling. In a proper theory of nature, the same would apply to
the rotation of a rigid body. I'm asking you to describe the physical
nature of this rotation, not the means of observing it. What's rotation
_made_ of? There is no such problem with ravioli or coloured balls.
>So it is with Gerry Quinn's peculiar notions of rotation. He says, Thou
>Shalt Not Use Free Particles. A static analysis of a rotating object
>will only give the plane of rotation. He seems to think use of Free
>particles means rotation is only relative, after all.
>
When did I suggest anything of the sort?
>Unfortunately for him, the inability to distinsuish whether, given two
>marks, one mark on a rotating object leads or trails the other, still
>doesn't make rotation and translation both relative. Because you can
>*still* tell the difference between translation and rotation,
>statically; you just can't probe the difference between leading and
>trailing if you are prohibited from dropping a pebble. Just like you
>can't tell the difference between meat and cheeze if you are prohibited
>from looking inside the ravioli.
>
I didn't ask you to tell the difference, I asked you to describe what
the difference might be in such a case.
>: It simply isn't rationally acceptable as a theory of nature,
>
>Then don't bother me with it. Take it up with Newton.
>Or for that matter, explain the experimentally visible distinction
>between rotation and translation any way you want. No matter what
>odd notions you come up with, they are still physically different.
>
>Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
It is a problem for Newton too, if his theory is interpreted
relativistically. Fortunately, it doesn't have to be.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> In article <383AB218...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
> wrote:
>> >I know of no "paradoxes associated with rotation". Please describe them.
>> The answer to both are related. Consider (as Einstein did) an object
>> rotating in empty space. [...]
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about or asking.
>
Rotation in SR is absolute. What's it made of?
>
>> A related question arises with relative motion. Every pair of objects
>> has a relative motion, even if they are light years apart. But the
>> relative motions are not independent; even though there are (N^2-N)/2
>> relative motions for N objects, only N-1 are independent. How
>> come, if spacetime is empty and structureless?
>
>Three reasons:
>1) because the motion of object #1 wrt #2 and of object #3 wrt #2
> are both WRT THE SAME OBJECT.
>2) Because conservation of momentum and energy give relations among the
> variables, reducing the number of independent variables. This is just
> elementary physics coupled with elementary math.
>3) you have miscounted.
>
>> Why can't all the
>> pairs be independent?
>
>Because of the identities of the objects, and because of the
>conservation laws.
>
Again, the total absence of a dynamic explanation.
>
>> LET explains matters clearly and simply by unifying translational and
>> rotational motion. In LET, the motion of every particle can be taken as
>> relative to the ether. A rotating system has the property that some
>> parts of it are always in motion. Cut the string separating the two
>> balls, and they continue with their current translational motion. Leave
>> it intact, and they continue to interact, changing their velocity
>> continuously. No need for two different kinds of motion. And the
>> number of independent relative motions in a system of particles is
>> predicted correctly.
>
>Precisely the same can be said of SR: just replace "LET" by "SR", and
>replace "the ether" by "any given inertial frame". Your entire paragraph
>is then correct in SR. Kind of pointless, though.
>
The point is that there must be at least one physically real but
unobservable object corresponding to the class of inertial frames. When
you use inertial frames, SR actually BECOMES an ether theory.
>
>> Here's another - telescopic images are round. But even if there were
>> some reason why we couldn't make square telescopes, it wouldn't be a
>> good law of nature.
>
>Perhaps it is related to the fact that stars and planets are mostly
>round. Note please that the telescopic image of some asteroids is most
>definitely NOT round. This is generally attributed to the asteroids
>themselves not being round.
>
>I don't see your point.
>
I meant the images themselves, which are typically round because
telescopes are.
- Gerry Quinn
Ken H. Seto
<cha...@clef.demon.no.junk> wrote:
>In article <383b6001$0$80...@news.voyager.net>, Ken H. Seto
><ken...@erinet.com> writes
>>>And one still has to swallow the camel that motion wrt the ether
>>>causes rulers to shrink and clocks to dilate. For _ALL_ of these
>>>differen ethers.
>>
>>Not if you got the right aether theory. The right aether theory will
>>say that the material rod length will remain the same in all frames
>>but the light path length of a moving rod will be longer. A moving
>>clock's second will have a higher "absolute duration content" then a
>>clock second in the rest frame of the aether.
>>
>In fact only special relativity says these things, because it defines a
>proper length which is property of the rod and the same in all frames.
No SR doesn't say all these things. SR rejects the notion of absolute
time. It says that the clock experiences extrinsic time. With the
viable aether theory, time is intrinsic. A clock second can have
different amount of absolute time content in different frames. In
other words, a clock second will have two meanings: one is tick time
(number of ticks of the Cs atom) and the other is absolute time
contain of a second.
Also you can conclude that SR is an aether theory because it used the
aether concept of relativity of simultaneity to derive its math.
>The only problem is that it turns out that every inertial frame can be
>regarded as the rest frame of the aether, and obeys the same laws.
Not quite. The rest frame of the aether will have the fastest
coordinate time clock rate.Therefore,at the rest frame of the aether
the speed of light is max when it is measured using a coordinate
second.
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> I'm asking you to describe the physical
> nature of this rotation, not the means of observing it. What's rotation
> _made_ of? There is no such problem with ravioli or coloured balls.
Ravioli and colored balls are things, rotation is not a thing, it is
a relationship. Relationships are not "made of" anything, in the
sense you mean. What is the relationship between mother and daughter
"made of"? What is "larger than" made of? What is "honor" made of?
You seek something which inherently cannot exist.
Yes, in some sense inertial frames are a difficulty, and a "weak link"
in SR. No matter, because SR is NOT a fundamental law of nature, it is
only an approximation (the local limit of GR). GR has no reference to
inertial frames, and does not suffer from these difficulties.
It is observed that there exist local sets of coordinates in which
free particles travel in straight lines. It then follows from
elementary mathematics that if one considers coordinates rotating wrt
the original coordinates that various effects occcur: centrifugal and
Coriolis forces, etc. -- all effects due to non-zero components of
the connection projected onto such rotating coordinates (which is not
so elementary (:-)).
The existence of locally-inertial frames is an _OBSERVATION_ of our
universe; the problem with SR is that it assumes they are global
(which they clearly are not). Locally, SR is valid to typically a
much better accuracy than any experiment; globally this is far from
true (e.g. there are no sensible cosmologies based upon SR).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Ether theory is the only thing that can physically
> explain why SRians obtain the measurement values which they do.
Hmmm. How does ether theory "explain" the constancy of the length of a
rod independent of its orientation? In SR the phenomena you insist that
there must be a _physical_ explanation for are isomorphic to this. In
SR they do not have or need a _physical_ explanation, there is a
geometrical explanation which is quite sufficient.
Tom Roberts
> Ether theory is the only thing that can physically
> explain why SRians obtain the measurement values which they do.
Hmmm. How does ether theory "explain" the constancy of the length of a
rod independent of its orientation? What "directioniferous ether"
causes this curious relationship in these "measurement values"? In SR
the phenomena you insist that there must be a _physical_ explanation
for are isomorphic to this. In SR they do not have or need a
_physical_ explanation, there is a geometrical explanation which is
quite sufficient.
Why do you insist on radically different explanations for relationships
among measurements which are so similar that there is an isomorphism
between them?
> Tom keeps forgetting that if
> the ether exists, then the waves which make up matter also travel at a
> speed of c wrt the ether. He always leaves this out of his posts.
I don't "forget" this, I merely recognize that it is not true. That is,
there is no _compulsion_ for an ether theory to have this property.
Your specific ether theory may well include it, but your ether theory
does not exhaust the set of all ether theories. I rarely discuss a
single ether theory; I perfer to deal with the entire class of viable
ether theories, as in the article which started this thread.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
I felt the need to credit the people upon whose work I am building.
Yes, Zhang did not go into detail on the fact that his parameter q'
is unobservable, he merely stated it multiple times. But in [2] I
do so, and in later sections of [1] I prove the equivalence of
theories which differ only in the values of q' -- that is also a
proof that it is unobservable.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Charles Francis
Brown <cance...@webtv.net> writes
>Re: 11-23-99, 7:15am (EST+5) posting of Charles Francis
>
>Charles writes: Tom is trying to shut up the etherists on the site, by
>explaining this to them in detail. I don't think it will work. If they
>are determined to believe the irrational, they will find a way to do it.
>
>Arlin Jean: It would be very difficult to find a theory any more
>irrational that SR. Ether theory is the only thing that can physically
>explain why SRians obtain the measurement values which they do. SRians
>the ether exists, then the waves which make up matter also travel at a
>etheric wave nature of matter is what physically and quantitatively
>explains relativistic effects. There is nothing the least bit irrational
>in AET. Why would a perfect flawless etheric physical explanation of SR
>be irrational when SRians have no rational explanation at all?
>---
universe has the same structure everywhere. This is the reason why ether
is unnecessary according to SR. But SR is not the only part of
scientific theory. SR is part of GR, and it is part of quantum
electrodynamics. These are the most accurate and encompassing theories
ever devised, and they are incompatible with ether. They also express in
the idea that the universe has the same structure everywhere, and it is
only a technical problem to combine them into a single theory with a
realist physical explanation.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Mahatma Gandhi, just select!
iii+VXRRXXXXXXXRRRBBBBMMMBBVYt=;,,tBBMMMBBBBMMR
> %Y;:=+ttIYXRRXXXXXXXRRRRRRBMBBBRVYI+;,,:YMMMBBBBBMMR
> %Y;;;;;=+XVtYVVVVVXXXRRRRXBMBBBRVYIt;,,,:RBBBBBBBBMX
> %I=:;=+;=t==+ttIYYVVVXXXXXRXXXXVIt++=,,,,+BBBBBBBMMV
> %I++ii:.++;;;;+tYVVVVXRRRRRRRRXXYtt+=,,,,,RBBBBBBMBX
> %Y+tII:.I+=+=+IYVXXXXRRRXRRRRBRRVYYIi;,,,,IBBBBBBBBX
> %Y+IYI..Vt++tIi+;:..:;iIIYVIii:,,,;===:::,iBBMMBMMMR
> %YiIt+tiItiII;::+i++,..,=Yi,...:=++;,:;;;:+i=:IBMMMB
> %YiI..;==iIXi=iit:..;=,=IXI;.:=+;,:ti=ii;:::,,:BMMMR
> %Yit,+I+.+VXXYVi+++==+t+VXXt=;,,;==iiYYi=,,:+:YMMMMR
> %Iii;I;.;+iVXYItIttIYVIIXRRViiYIttIYVVYt=+,:+IMMMMWR
> %Yi:.tY;+i:tIVYXRRRRVtiXRRRXI=iYXRRRXVI+==;iXMMMMWWR
> %Ii:,+XIIi++YXXVtIt=:YRXRRRVtVI:=iitIIi+++itMMWWWWWR
> %It:=IBMRRV==i+;,..+ii+IYIti+===;,:====+YIIBMMMWWWWB
> %It:;IBMXYI+;;,,.;YVYVt::..:,=IIII,,::=tYYRMMMWWWWWR
> %II++IMBVBBY;:;,iii;:.......:;,:==t+;;+RBBMMMMWWWWWR
> %It;=IMRYMBtY=;:+,=ti++;;;;;=;=+=;ii:+RBMBMBMMMWWWWR
> %ti+XMWWBMBIBBt::itttiiIIIti=+ttit:,:=RBMBMBBMMMWWWB
> %ti+BMWWWMMMMBRY;=tYI+===;===tItti:,:==IRMMBMMMMWWWR
> %titMWWWWMMMBBBBXt;=iYVYYVVVVVt+:.,;++iiIXRBMMWWWWWX
> %XtIWWWWMMMMBBBBRRt;,.,::::,,,,,,:==+tIVXXVVRBMWWWWX
> %XtVWMMWMMMMMBBBRXI+==+:......,,,;ittIVXRXXXXRBRRWWX
> %XtXBMMMWMMWMBBRBVI+t+.....,.,,:;+iIIIVXRRXXXRBRRRRX
> %XtIYIYVXRRBBBBBRVY=::,:;::::==+tIYVVXVVXXRRBBBBRBB
Tom Roberts
> it is
That depends strongly on what you actually mean by "a realist physical
explanation". In particular the EPR/Bell-type experiments indicate that
a large class of such "realist physical explanations" do not correspond
to the real world. It is quite possible that the entire set of all such
explanations is excluded by those experiments.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Wayne Throop
: Yes, in some sense inertial frames are a difficulty, and a "weak link"
: in SR. No matter, because SR is NOT a fundamental law of nature, it
: is only an approximation (the local limit of GR). GR has no reference
: to inertial frames, and does not suffer from these difficulties.
But it isn't the "inertial" part, but the "global" part that
is a "weak link" in SR wrt GR. Gerry Quinn is denying the "inertial" part;
saying that there's no difference between translation and rotation.
One way of looking at it: he's arguing that the ether is necessary,
else how to explain inertia? Which is simply an unnecessary overloading
of the concept of "ether".
Charles Francis
<tjro...@lucent.com> writes
Not at all. I already have a simple local realist physical explanation
for the experiments, in quantum electrodynamics. Of course, first one
has to reformulate qed as a theory of local particle interactions, but
once you replace Hilbert space with a finite dimensional vector space
that is fairly straightforward.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
The Bell tests only show that Bell had a faulty definition of local.
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> I'm asking you to describe the physical
>> nature of this rotation, not the means of observing it. What's rotation
>> _made_ of? There is no such problem with ravioli or coloured balls.
>
>Ravioli and colored balls are things, rotation is not a thing, it is
>a relationship. Relationships are not "made of" anything, in the
>sense you mean. What is the relationship between mother and daughter
>"made of"? What is "larger than" made of? What is "honor" made of?
>
>You seek something which inherently cannot exist.
>
Then what physical entities are related, and how is this relationship
defined? All the above are emergent phenomena, and any physical
consequence of them can be described in terms of physical causes. If
'honour' makes a Samurai fall on his sword, the cause is nevertheless in
principle traceable to neuronal and muscular impulses, which themselves
have causes. 'Honour' is a high-level description. 'Rotation' is NOT.
>Yes, in some sense inertial frames are a difficulty, and a "weak link"
>in SR. No matter, because SR is NOT a fundamental law of nature, it is
>only an approximation (the local limit of GR). GR has no reference to
>inertial frames, and does not suffer from these difficulties.
>
Rubbish - GR has no explanation either, unless Mach's ideas have been
rehabilitated. Quantum gravity may help in the future.
>It is observed that there exist local sets of coordinates in which
>free particles travel in straight lines. It then follows from
>elementary mathematics that if one considers coordinates rotating wrt
>the original coordinates that various effects occcur: centrifugal and
>Coriolis forces, etc. -- all effects due to non-zero components of
>the connection projected onto such rotating coordinates (which is not
>so elementary (:-)).
>
>The existence of locally-inertial frames is an _OBSERVATION_ of our
>universe; the problem with SR is that it assumes they are global
>(which they clearly are not). Locally, SR is valid to typically a
>much better accuracy than any experiment; globally this is far from
>true (e.g. there are no sensible cosmologies based upon SR).
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Like I said, their existence proves that SR depends on the physical
object or structure with which objects interact to cause inertia. In
ether theory this structure exists and has a name. Ether theory is
consistent and does not depend on extraneous invisible things that are
not part of the theory.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>: Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
>: Yes, in some sense inertial frames are a difficulty, and a "weak link"
>: in SR. No matter, because SR is NOT a fundamental law of nature, it
>: is only an approximation (the local limit of GR). GR has no reference
>: to inertial frames, and does not suffer from these difficulties.
>
>is a "weak link" in SR wrt GR. Gerry Quinn is denying the "inertial" part;
>saying that there's no difference between translation and rotation.
>
For the Nth time: <ROTATION> and <RELATIVE MOTION> are related and
consist of combinations of two or more <MOTIONS WRT. THE ETHER,
sometimes known as ABSOLUTE MOTIONS>
>One way of looking at it: he's arguing that the ether is necessary,
>else how to explain inertia? Which is simply an unnecessary overloading
>of the concept of "ether".
>
>Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Nonsense. Ether theory - like SR - is not just a theory of
electromagnetism but a theory of mechanics. As such, it requires an
explanation of inertia, for which the ether provides a natural home.
Ether theory unifies uniform translational motion, rotation, and
relative motion - the latter two consist of combinations of
translational motions with respect to the ether.
SR fails because to explain rotation it has to introduce the 'class of
inertial reference frames' which in turn imply the existence of an
ether or something extraordinarily like it.
Remember - it's not just matter that maintains its speed with respect to
inertial reference frames. Light does too. That's why it is sometimes
called the lumeniferous ether.
- Gerry Quinn
Tom Roberts
> All the above are emergent phenomena, and any physical
> consequence of them can be described in terms of physical causes.
Not true. There is a real and important distinction between physical
causes and geometrical relationships. You are ignoring the latter, but
they _do_ have direct physical implications. How do you think it is
that a rod longer than a doorway is wide can fit through it in some
orientations but not in others? what "physical mechanism" or
"directioniferous ether" causes this?
Don't claim that it is the atoms of the rod hitting the atoms
of the doorway -- that is part of it, but I am looking for
a level deeper; _why_ do they hit in some orientations and not
in others?
> 'Honour' is a high-level description. 'Rotation' is NOT.
Hmmm. "Honor" is not a grometrical relationship, "rotation" is. And
neither of them is "made of" anything (which was your original question).
> GR has no explanation either,
Sure it does. It is, of course, a geometrical explanation.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> SR fails because to explain rotation it has to introduce the 'class of
> inertial reference frames' which in turn imply the existence of an
> ether or something extraordinarily like it.
Nonsense. Yes, SR introduces a class of inertial frames, but that merely
implies that there is such a class; no "ether" is implied at all.
This is based upon vary basic observations -- we _DO_ observe that we
can construct coordinates in which free particles move on uniform
straight paths. And we observe that we can also construct coordinates
which are rotating wrt the first set. This is an observed property of
the universe (locally).
But those observations do not _require_ there to be some sort of ether.
Yes, they are not inconsistent with it. But then, they are not
inconsistent with SR (locally), either.
> Remember - it's not just matter that maintains its speed with respect to
> inertial reference frames. Light does too.
Sure. But of course impressed forces can make matter not "maintain its
speed"....
> That's why it is sometimes
> called the lumeniferous ether.
Sure. But modern physics shows that there is no need to do so.
You are attempting to elevate your personal predjudices and desires
to the status of laws of nature. The rest of us would rather do physics.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Arlin Brown
Tom writes: How does ether theory "explain" the constancy of the length
of a rod independent of its orientation?
Arlin: This is true only from the perspective of an observer in the
same frame, because she is using a measuring stick which shrinks as a
function of absolute speed and absolute orientation. But when seen from
the point of view of an observer in another frame, the rod's length
changes with absolute orientation, as physically mandated by the nature
of matter, which is made up of nothing more than waves traveling at a
speed of c wrt the ether. This is why c is the SR one-way speed limit
and also the real round-trip speed limit in free space, whether it be
for light or a traveling twin clock or other object. The reason why c is
what it is and no other value is because of the physical properties of
the ether. No other rational reason has ever been offered.
---
Best,
Jeannie
Arlin Brown
Tom writes: Why do you insist on radically different explanations for
relationships among measurements which are so similar that there is an
isomorphism between them?
Arlin Jean: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean
physical explanations which differ from SR's failed attempts at physical
explanations?
Tom writes: Arlin Jean wrote: Tom keeps forgetting that if the ether
exists, then the waves which make up matter also travel at a speed of c
wrt the ether.
Tom: I don't "forget" this, I merely recognize that it is not true.
Arlin Jean: You recognize wrongly. Matter is nothing but waves. Light
is nothing but waves. If light waves travel at c wrt the medium of
propagation, then matter waves can and will do the same. If matter waves
don't use the ether to propagate, then how else would they manage to get
from one place to another? SR can't even explain how light manages to
get from one place to another. It's been proven that it's not done
ballistically, so what other explanations remain? A medium is consistent
with every measurement, every law of physics and every fact which exists
in physics. What other alternative explanations are there? Whatever
one you choose, it must perfectly mimic the ether is every conceivable
way. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it looks like
a duck. if it behaves likes a duck in every way known to man, it would
be very reasonable to assume that it is probably a duck.
Tom: That is, there is no _compulsion_ for an ether theory to have this
property.
Arlin Jean: If matter is nothing more than waves traveling in a
localized pattern, then relativistic effects are not only mandatory, but
the exact degree of those effects can be derived to be absolute gamma.
This is all in my paper, which you say you read. Please re-read the part
where I physically explain relativistic effects and derive absolute
gamma. Look at the light clock example and then extend that principle to
matter waves and you'll see that all physical processes must slow down
by the same factor, absolute gamma. Absolute length contraction is a
direct result of the wave nature of each sub-atomic particle. The easily
understandable details are in my paper, "A New Approach to the Lorentz
Transformations," now available via only three e-mails for the asking.
---
Take care,
Jeannie
Arlin Brown
Charles writes: ...the universe has the same structure everywhere.
Arlin Jean: Agreed.
Charles: This is the reason why ether is unnecessary according to SR.
Arlin Jean: The ether is superfluous (unnecessary, redundant and
extraneous) when it comes to Einstein's 1905 "measurement only" theory.
It is mandatory when it comes to a complete physical explanation of why
one obtains all of the predicted SR measurement values. I have
physically explained all this in my second SR/ether paper. I find the
ether principle to be a real shortcut method in solving all of the
paradoxes and other problems and unanswered questions of SR, in an
understandable physical and mathematical way. If SRians were smart, they
would also use the ether to obtain rapid answers and to find out what SR
measurements are going to be obtained. An example would be to change a
given SR problem to the same problem in AET, and then solve the problem
using AET equations along with a physical understanding of what's
happening, and then transform everything back to SR equations again. It
works like a charm. You may not believe in the ether, but you can sure
use it as a magic tool to solve SR quandaries. It reminds me of the
practice of changing our regular numbers into binary numbers in a
computer, then calculating the answer in binary and then transforming
everything back to the decimal system again (although the tertiary
system, based on only the digits one, zero, and minus one, is
interesting).
Charles: SR is part of GR, and it is part of quantum electrodynamics.
These...theories are incompatible with the ether.
Arlin Jean: Then you better upgrade the theories. GR should have been
based on the ether and on the fact everything is kinetic energy of one
type or another. Einstein told a friend of mine during one or their
regular get-togethers that "Everything is motion." Well, now tell me,
how can you have motion without kinetic energy? My friend, a Navy
Admiral, replied to Einstein. "But doctor, it is not nothing that
moves." Einstein beamed broadly, as though a light bulb just lit up in
his head. BTW, the Admiral was a believer in the ether. When Einstein
read about Hermann Fricke's ether theory where ] a gravitational field
feeds kinetic energy from the field to gravitating bodies.
Einstein wrote back and said, "Your theory
seems to be the ruin even of me."
Charles: ... and it is only a technical problem to combine them into a
single theory with a realist physical explanation.
Arlin Jean: The ether is the answer to this. It is the great unifier.
All physical phenomena are merely different manifestations in the ether,
which is the ultimate Occam's Razor.
---
Best,
Jeannie
Luc Bourhis
> My aether theory explains the weird results of
> all the quantum experiiments.
LOL.
> Specifically it explains the Compton
> experiment,
Please give the cross-section of photon + electron -> photon + electron
in function of the scattering angle of the photon.
> the double slit experiment and the photoelectric experiment.
Enough fun for today, I stop here.
--
Luc Bourhis
Center for Particle Physics / University of Durham
United Kingdom
Charles Francis
Brown <cance...@webtv.net> writes
>Re: 11-24-99,5:13pm (EST+5) posting of Charles Francis
>
>Charles writes: ...the universe has the same structure everywhere.
>
>Arlin Jean: Agreed.
>
>Charles: This is the reason why ether is unnecessary according to SR.
>
>Arlin Jean: The ether is superfluous (unnecessary, redundant and
>extraneous) when it comes to Einstein's 1905 "measurement only" theory.
>It is mandatory when it comes to a complete physical explanation of why
>one obtains all of the predicted SR measurement values. I have
>physically explained all this in my second SR/ether paper. I find the
>ether principle to be a real shortcut method in solving all of the
>paradoxes and other problems and unanswered questions of SR, in an
>understandable physical and mathematical way. If SRians were smart, they
>would also use the ether to obtain rapid answers and to find out what SR
>measurements are going to be obtained. An example would be to change a
>given SR problem to the same problem in AET, and then solve the problem
>using AET equations along with a physical understanding of what's
>happening, and then transform everything back to SR equations again. It
>works like a charm. You may not believe in the ether, but you can sure
>use it as a magic tool to solve SR quandaries. It reminds me of the
>practice of changing our regular numbers into binary numbers in a
>computer, then calculating the answer in binary and then transforming
>everything back to the decimal system again (although the tertiary
>system, based on only the digits one, zero, and minus one, is
>interesting).
You must have been shown a very poor treatment of SR to have such
complaints. Nothing could be simpler or quicker than using the vector
transformation laws of SR, and there are no paradoxes or unanswered
questions in SR.
>
>Charles: SR is part of GR, and it is part of quantum electrodynamics.
>These...theories are incompatible with the ether.
>
>Arlin Jean: Then you better upgrade the theories. GR should have been
>based on the ether and on the fact everything is kinetic energy of one
>type or another. Einstein told a friend of mine during one or their
>regular get-togethers that "Everything is motion." Well, now tell me,
>how can you have motion without kinetic energy? My friend, a Navy
>Admiral, replied to Einstein. "But doctor, it is not nothing that
>moves." Einstein beamed broadly, as though a light bulb just lit up in
>his head. BTW, the Admiral was a believer in the ether. When Einstein
>read about Hermann Fricke's ether theory where ] a gravitational field
>feeds kinetic energy from the field to gravitating bodies.
>Einstein wrote back and said, "Your theory
>seems to be the ruin even of me."
>
>Charles: ... and it is only a technical problem to combine them into a
>single theory with a realist physical explanation.
>
>Arlin Jean: The ether is the answer to this. It is the great unifier.
>All physical phenomena are merely different manifestations in the ether,
>which is the ultimate Occam's Razor.
>---
Even if we formulate things in terms of ether, we know that in all cases
the ether has no effect on measureable results, so does not help with
unification. It makes certain concepts easier, but only for beginners.
It is easier really to dispense with it.
--
Regards
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> All the above are emergent phenomena, and any physical
>> consequence of them can be described in terms of physical causes.
>
>Not true. There is a real and important distinction between physical
>causes and geometrical relationships. You are ignoring the latter, but
>they _do_ have direct physical implications. How do you think it is
>that a rod longer than a doorway is wide can fit through it in some
>orientations but not in others? what "physical mechanism" or
>"directioniferous ether" causes this?
>
> Don't claim that it is the atoms of the rod hitting the atoms
> of the doorway -- that is part of it, but I am looking for
> a level deeper; _why_ do they hit in some orientations and not
> in others?
>
A geometric relationship between physical entities is perfectly
admissible. In this case the relationship is between the atoms in the
rod and the atoms in the doorway, each of which has a particular
position and trajectory through the ether.
Please describe the physical entities whose geometric relationship is
rotation.
>
>> 'Honour' is a high-level description. 'Rotation' is NOT.
>
>Hmmm. "Honor" is not a grometrical relationship, "rotation" is. And
>neither of them is "made of" anything (which was your original question).
>
>> GR has no explanation either,
>
>Sure it does. It is, of course, a geometrical explanation.
>
See above. In any case you are contradicting yourself, as previously
you asserted that GR solved the difficulties of SR in this regard.
It is perhaps conceivable that the metric may be entirely constructed
out of the interactions of the particles we know; reality would then BE
as it is operationally described. I think it is far more plausible that
a pre-existing Lorentzian metric (a.k.a. the ether) exists on which the
operational metric is constructed by mechanisms along the lines of the
one I propose. That is the nub of the issue, really.
- Gerry Quinn
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Gerry Quinn
>> inertial reference frames' which in turn imply the existence of an
>> ether or something extraordinarily like it.
>
>Nonsense. Yes, SR introduces a class of inertial frames, but that merely
>implies that there is such a class; no "ether" is implied at all.
>
>This is based upon vary basic observations -- we _DO_ observe that we
>can construct coordinates in which free particles move on uniform
>straight paths. And we observe that we can also construct coordinates
>which are rotating wrt the first set. This is an observed property of
>the universe (locally).
>
>But those observations do not _require_ there to be some sort of ether.
>Yes, they are not inconsistent with it. But then, they are not
>inconsistent with SR (locally), either.
>
The frames have physical effects. In the case of the rigid rotating
object whose direction we speculate on, its relationship with them can
even store information. Therefore something physical must underpin
them. Mach, for example, suggested that it is the gravitational fields
of distant matter.
To deny their physical existence is absurd. To admit it pins down the
inadequacy of SR.
>
>> Remember - it's not just matter that maintains its speed with respect to
>> inertial reference frames. Light does too.
>
>Sure. But of course impressed forces can make matter not "maintain its
>speed"....
>
This is one of the key points of my proposal. Massive objects consist
essentially of interacting systems of lightlike massless bosons. The
bosons can't slow down (except when we consider gravity) but the
interacting systems can. The difference between them is precisely what
is needed to explain their different natures.
>
>> That's why it is sometimes
>> called the lumeniferous ether.
>
>Sure. But modern physics shows that there is no need to do so.
>
>You are attempting to elevate your personal predjudices and desires
>to the status of laws of nature. The rest of us would rather do physics.
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
You confuse 'operationalist' with 'modern'. If one's approach to
understanding nature is realistic rather than operationalistic, the
physical existence of unobservables such as the ether is demonstrable.
This is nothing to do with my personal prejudices and desires - it is
simply a different and perfectly valid approach to physics. And I'd
guess that more physicists use it when actually doing physics than when
writing papers, in which subservience to the standard metaphysical
approach of the day may be politically wise.
- Gerry Quinn
greyw...@my-deja.com
"Theories Mathematically Equivalent to SR"
> Definition: Two theories are mathematically equivalent if and only
> if every (mathematical) theorem of either one is a theorem of both.
>
> Note: it should be obvious that only the equations of a physical
> theory are involved in this; interpretations do not matter,
here.
> The choice of postulates also does not matter; postulates are
> (trivially) theorems. This is important because when comparing
> theory and experiment it is only the computations which are
> relevant, and they come from the theorems of the theory; words
> and interpretations don't matter there, either.
>
>The essence of SR is the use of Lorentz transforms between any pair of
>inertial frames, and all of its theorems can be derived from them. All
>theories in this class do likewise.
Now this "principle" of yours contains many assumptions. First, I don't
think anyone can argue with your definition of "mathematical
equivalence." Keep in mind, however, that your definition requires each
and every theorem and equation from one theory to be duplicated in the
other. One, single equation different — under any conditions — causes
the theories to be not mathematically equivalent.
Your "Note:" points a departure from your definition. First, postulates
cannot be mathematical theorems. In mathematics, theorems follow from
postulates. Postulates are unprovable assumptions about a system.
Every theorem in a mathematical system can be traced back to one or more
postulates, via other theorems. But postulates can not be traced back
to anything within the mathematics.
Now computations and experiments are not equations — but I'll get to
that shortly.
Let's examine your "essence". You claim that the essence of SR is the
use of Lorentz transforms between any pair of reference frames. First,
if the Lorentz transform is really the essence of SR, then we never
needed Einstein. For Lorentz postulated the Lorentz transform in the
1890's. And he did it without any annoying postulates or principles.
Therefore your claim of the essence is in my opinion, incorrect. In any
event it will need far more support than just your say-so.
Let us presume, for the moment, that Einstein had not derived the
Lorentz transform from the PoR, the constancy of the measured speed of
light for any observer, and his time synchronization method. You have
now "shifted" the postulates of SR from Einstein's three to your one
postulate. Mathematically speaking, what has changed? Although you
have the Lorentz transform, you can get an indeterminate number of
theories that give the Lorentz Transform as one equation. You cannot
uniquely derive the PoR, Einstein's synchronization, or light speed
constancy from the LT.
Now there are two ways of looking at the Lorentz transform. Lorentz and
Einstein both derived their versions for round-trip measurements — like
the MMX. In general, there are any number of ways of getting the
Lorentz transform.
In any round-trip situation with the LT, you have time 0 to t_1 on the
outbound leg and t_1 to t_2 on the return leg. In general, you get the
LT for any value of alpha (t_1/t_2) between 0 and 1 (there is an entire
series of papers on the subject in the literature: including negative
values). Einstein set alpha at exactly one-half (this is the function
of his synchronization).
So, let us presume that this is what you meant by a class of theories
that include the Lorentz transform. But look closely! Even at this
high level, this "group" of theories are not "mathematically identical"!
They do NOT all have the same equations! By your definition, a theory
cannot be mathematically equivalent to SR unless alpha is one half.
I have no idea if this is one of the "parameters" that you and Zhang
rely on, because you haven't given us any information on that
parameterization.
Now, of the seven experiments you mention to determine "viable"
theories, two attempt to address one-way speeds of light: Silvertooth
and Krisher. Silvertooth shows a clear positive result (alpha is not
0.5). And Krisher is both fatally flawed and also not 0.5. I know you
interpret these two experiments in the opposite manner — but I'm trying
to identify what you mean by experimentally viable (since you never
identified what equations you feel are experimentally viable). I am
presuming that it includes the Lorentz transform for round-trip
experiments and either does or does not include alpha = 0.5.
If you include alpha = 0.5 as a requirement, then you have no "group",
whatever — except for SR. For you can't get alpha = 0.5 without
assuming Einstein's three postulates. If you do not include alpha =
0.5, then you need to specify how one can be mathematically equivalent.
But now you claim "all theories in this class" can, likewise, be derived
from the LT. This is not correct. Again, these theories may be
described as INCLUDING the Lorentz transform (for Round-Trip or
One-Way), but the OTHER equations (non-LT) may be quite different.
So let's look, for example at Lorentz' Electrodynamic Theory (LET) -
1904. This is the theory that you claim to be mathematically equivalent
to SR. (Although you admit that you haven't read it). Let's look at
"local times" in both SR and LET.
SR gives t' = t / beta.
LET gives t' = t / beta - beta v x / c^2 (equation 5, 1904).
What's the difference? LET allows for a single isotropic frame (aether
rest frame). SR has no single isotropic frame. They are not
"mathematically equivalent", for here is an equation that differs
between the two.
Can we easily measure the difference? No. Not if the earth (and our
instruments) are moving relatively slowly wrt the aether. For the
second term of LET would drop out.
OK, if you don't like that example (and you "redefine" LET to have alpha
= 0.5 in your post) let's look at this another way.
What do you mean by "all equations" of a theory?
If we look at the "perfect gas law" we see PV = nRT. Useful, universal,
and simple. Except that the perfect gas law is not always valid.
Mathematically, it is complete and self-consistent. Physically, it
depends on several conditions. The most obvious is that you need enough
gas particles to wash out any probabilistic effects. So this doesn't
work if you have only one particle in your test box. Second, the
particles can't be near freezing or liquid transitions. Let's stop
there. When we have too few particles, or too large a box, or particles
too cold, the PHYSICS of the situation requires a change in the
mathematics. There is a LIMIT to the applicability of the mathematical
equations.
In general, one can approach this as the requirement that Green's
identities must hold. If these fail, the equations change and you need
to start using perturbation theory (sound familiar?).
So you really need to identify "all" the equations of SR that you are
discussing. I presume these are the generic LT and alpha = 0.5.
That's enough on this section. More later.
greywolf42
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Arlin Brown
Charles writes: You must have been shown a very poor treatment of SR to
have such complaints.
Arlin Jean: Yes, I was shown a very poor treatment of SR. That's why I
studied it on my own for some three years until I truly physically
understood it. I encountered a lot of crap along the way, such as
incorrect math, dividing by zero, contradictory opinions. During the
latter part of those three years, I started writing about it. I figured
out that the real quantities of AET are mathematically related to their
illusory SR counterparts. Of course not all quantities in SR equations
are illusory. There is at least one real quantity in every SR equation.
SR has its practical usefulness, but as a theory, it is incomplete and
misleading. It is, as Einstein put it, just a theory of measurement. It
does not go into the nature of matter and electromagnetic radiation. It
does not rule out the ether. It simply ignores it.
Charles: Nothing could be simpler or quicker than using the vector
transformation laws of SR,...
Arlin Jean: AET is so simple that I can physically and logically answer
practically all SR questions in my head with three spatial dimensions,
one time dimension and without spacetime.
Charles: ..,.and there are no paradoxes or unanswered questions in SR.
Arlin Jean: According to my dictionary, a paradox is an apparent
contradiction. That is, it looks like a contradiction on the surface,
but it can be explained. You are confusing the word "contradiction" with
the word "paradox." You certainly can't be serious that there are no
unanswered questions in SR. For months I asked the readers here what
equations (including OWLS) would apply when an SR observer (who has
SR-style set clocks) changes frames and does not re-set her separated
clocks. After many months, Paul B. Andersen finally came up with the
right answer. The other prominent SRians each had a different response.
One said it was beyond the scope of SR. Another said the answer could be
anything. Another said the question was not important. SRians denied
that SR's ad hoc "two-clocks-in-the-observer's-frame" rule is ad hoc.
AET has no ad hoc rules, because all measurements can be made the same
way as in pre-SR days. Most SRians don't realize that the entire SR
theory is based on out-of-sync clocks. Most don't know that all of the
absolutes are completely compatible with SR math, including absolute
sync, absolute time, absolute space, absolute simultaneity, absolute
clock rates, absolute rod lengths, absolute masses, etc. SRians can't
physically explain anything in SR. All of their so-called explanations
are metaphysical and philosophical and based on the OWLS=c definition
which is not in accord with physical reality. SRians have no idea why
the round-trip speed of light is equal to c and to no other value. They
have no rational explanation for the fact that a traveling clock
averages a slower rate than a stay-at-home clock. They don't know which
clock REALLY runs faster during a given leg of the trip. There's no
reason why the "traveling" clock even has to turn around and return
home. The "earth" clock could just as well accelerate and catch up with
the would-be round-trip clock. Ether theory says that the first leg of
such a altered trip is really identical no matter which clock turns out
to really be the "traveling" clock. No unanswered SR questions? Then
tell me what an SR observer will measure for OWLS after changing frames
and not re-setting her clocks.
Charles: Even if we formulate things in terms of ether, we know that
in all cases the ether has no effect on measurable results, so does not
help with unification.
Arlin Jean: That's a mighty strange statement. If the ether exists, all
matter, energy, fields etc. are only different types of manifestations
in the ether. As such, the ether has every effect on measurable results.
Relativistic effects can not exist without the ether. Matter can not
exist without the ether. Light can not travel without the ether.
---
Best,
Jeannie
Tom Roberts
> Tom writes: Why do you insist on radically different explanations for
> relationships among measurements which are so similar that there is an
> isomorphism between them?
>
> Arlin Jean: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean
> physical explanations which differ from SR's failed attempts at physical
> explanations?
No. I'm asking about _YOUR_THEORY_: You insist on an ether explanation
for time dilation and length contraction, but claim no such explanation
for the variations in the X projection of a rod as its orientation
varies. But these phenomena are so similar that there is an isomorphism
between them -- why do _YOU_ insist on such different explanations for
these measurements which are so similar?
And, as I have asked so often: what _is_ the cause of those
X-projections of the rod varying with orientation? Why does the
rod have the same length in every orientation? What _CAUSES_
these peculiar relationshhips?
Of course in SR this is not peculiar at all: all are due to
simple geometrical relationships.
> Tom: I don't "forget" this, I merely recognize that it is not true
> [that the ether compels one to accept Arlin Brown's claims].
> Arlin Jean: You recognize wrongly. Matter is nothing but waves.
What God told you this? How is your information absolutely infallible?
You need a _theory_ to discuss this, and your conclusions are only as
valid as is your theory. And in most of the theories of the equivalence
class I discuss, your conclusions are invalid. And yet, every one of
those theories is _precisely_ as valid as are your theory and SR.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
RandaMinor
>From: Charles Francis cha...@clef.demon.no.junk
>>Charles writes: ...the universe has the same structure everywhere.
johnreed wrote>
By the same structure... do you mean to include, the atomic structure of
matter, and its aggregation thereafter?
So that the only form of matter is as an aggregate of atoms, even at the
centers of large masses?
johnreed
Charles Francis
<randa...@aol.com> writes
Democritan one, meaning indivisible. Modern atoms are themselves
aggregates of protons, neutrons, electrons, "virtual" photons, and
"virtual" pions. Protons & neutrons and pions are themselves not without
structure, though they appear to be indivisible, and so atomic in the
true sense. The centers of large masses (suns, neutron stars, etc) are
composed of these indivisible elements, and can be accurately modelled
by cosmologists. Only in black holes does the description break down,
but even then it is the description of space-time which breaks down, not
the description of elementary particles. I am inclined to think that we
probably will find a model of the inside of black holes based on this
same structure.
Charles Francis
Brown <cance...@webtv.net> writes
>Re: 11-26-99. 10:18am (EST+5) posting of Charles Francis
>
>Charles writes: You must have been shown a very poor treatment of SR to
>have such complaints.
>
>Arlin Jean: Yes, I was shown a very poor treatment of SR. That's why I
>studied it on my own for some three years until I truly physically
>understood it. I encountered a lot of crap along the way, such as
>incorrect math, dividing by zero, contradictory opinions. During the
>latter part of those three years, I started writing about it. I figured
>out that the real quantities of AET are mathematically related to their
>illusory SR counterparts. Of course not all quantities in SR equations
>are illusory. There is at least one real quantity in every SR equation.
>SR has its practical usefulness, but as a theory, it is incomplete and
>misleading. It is, as Einstein put it, just a theory of measurement. It
>does not go into the nature of matter and electromagnetic radiation. It
>does not rule out the ether. It simply ignores it.
Special relativity is only a part of modern physical theory. Qed does go
into the nature of matter and electromagnetic radiation. Relativity is
an important part of it. But it still does not require ether.
>
>Charles: Nothing could be simpler or quicker than using the vector
>transformation laws of SR,...
>
>Arlin Jean: AET is so simple that I can physically and logically answer
>practically all SR questions in my head with three spatial dimensions,
>one time dimension and without spacetime.
>
>Charles: ..,.and there are no paradoxes or unanswered questions in SR.
>
>Arlin Jean: According to my dictionary, a paradox is an apparent
>contradiction. That is, it looks like a contradiction on the surface,
>but it can be explained. You are confusing the word "contradiction" with
>the word "paradox." You certainly can't be serious that there are no
>unanswered questions in SR. For months I asked the readers here what
>equations (including OWLS) would apply when an SR observer (who has
>SR-style set clocks) changes frames and does not re-set her separated
>clocks. After many months, Paul B. Andersen finally came up with the
>right answer. The other prominent SRians each had a different response.
>One said it was beyond the scope of SR. Another said the answer could be
>anything. Another said the question was not important.
I have just answered this in another thread.
> SRians denied
>that SR's ad hoc "two-clocks-in-the-observer's-frame" rule is ad hoc.
>AET has no ad hoc rules, because all measurements can be made the same
>way as in pre-SR days. Most SRians don't realize that the entire SR
>theory is based on out-of-sync clocks.
An essential part of SR is the fact of out of sync clocks. One cannot
say much for people who don't understand it. SR has no two-clocks in the
observer's frame rule. Reference frames are constructed from a single
clock.
>Most don't know that all of the
>absolutes are completely compatible with SR math, including absolute
>sync, absolute time, absolute space, absolute simultaneity, absolute
>clock rates, absolute rod lengths, absolute masses, etc.
The trouble is you can make the same definitions in any frame, so you
cannot substantiate the claim that they are absolute.
> SRians can't
>physically explain anything in SR. All of their so-called explanations
>are metaphysical and philosophical and based on the OWLS=c definition
>which is not in accord with physical reality. SRians have no idea why
>the round-trip speed of light is equal to c and to no other value. They
>have no rational explanation for the fact that a traveling clock
>averages a slower rate than a stay-at-home clock. They don't know which
>clock REALLY runs faster during a given leg of the trip. There's no
>reason why the "traveling" clock even has to turn around and return
>home. The "earth" clock could just as well accelerate and catch up with
>the would-be round-trip clock. Ether theory says that the first leg of
>such a altered trip is really identical no matter which clock turns out
>to really be the "traveling" clock. No unanswered SR questions? Then
>tell me what an SR observer will measure for OWLS after changing frames
>and not re-setting her clocks.
see other thread
>
>Charles: Even if we formulate things in terms of ether, we know that
>in all cases the ether has no effect on measurable results, so does not
>help with unification.
>
>Arlin Jean: That's a mighty strange statement. If the ether exists, all
>matter, energy, fields etc. are only different types of manifestations
>in the ether. As such, the ether has every effect on measurable results.
>Relativistic effects can not exist without the ether. Matter can not
>exist without the ether. Light can not travel without the ether.
>---
You cannot substantiate any of that. A desire to believe in ether
does not prove it exists.
Arlin Brown
Charles writes: Relativity...still does not require ether.
Arlin Jean: You are correct when it comes to measurements. One would be
incorrect if trying to extend the statement to the physical explanation
for obtaining SR measurement values.
Charles: Arlin Jean wrote: Most SRians don't realize that the entire
SR theory is based on out-of-sync clocks.
Charles: An essential part of SR is the fact of out of sync clocks. One
cannot say much for people who don't understand it.
Arlin Jean: You have an insight into SR which is rare in this NG.
Charles: Arlin Jean wrote: SRians denied that SR's
"two-clocks-in-the-observer's-frame" rule is ad hoc.
Charles: SR has no two-clocks in the observer's frame rule.
Arlin Jean: Well, sure, no one is forced to measure the rate of moving
clocks in another frame by using two separated clocks. There is no
such rule in AET or in pre-SR physics. But if this SR de facto ad hoc
rule is neglected, SR measurement values become even more ambiguous than
they are now. I'm all in favor of discarding the two-clock rule. It
would only emphasize that using one clock in the observer's frame to
measure the rate of a succession of two or more clocks passing by in
another frame will result in the appearance that the clocks in the other
frame are running faster than the observer's clocks. Then we may no
longer make the blanket statement that moving clocks appear to run
slowly. Changes will have to be made in the outdated physics books. Of
course this means that moving rods can appear to be longer and moving
masses to be lighter and/or momentum to be less. (AET finds that
relativistic mass is easier and clearer to deal with.)
Charles: Reference frames are constructed from a single clock.
Arlin Jean: That's fine, but what do you do after it is constructed?
Did you ever try to measure the rate of one clock passing by in another
frame with one clock in your own frame? (:-)
--
Best,
Jeannie
Arlin Brown
Oops, I left something out. -AJB
Charles writes: Arlin Jean wrote: Most don't know that all of the
absolutes are completely compatible with SR math, including absolute
sync, absolute time, absolute space, absolute simultaneity, absolute
clock rates, absolute rod lengths, absolute masses, etc.
Charles: The trouble is you can make the same definitions in any frame,
so you cannot substantiate the claim that they are absolute.
Arlin Jean: I think you missed my point. IF indeed the absolutes DO
exist (presumably by the ether route), the corresponding absolute math
would not contradict or negate SR math and SR measurement values. All of
the absolutes could mathematically co-exist with SR math, but not with
SR's speculative metaphysical philosophy. My Advanced Ether Theory (AET)
shows exactly how the absolutes are not only totally compatible with SR,
but also how the absolutes physically explain SR.
---
Best.
Jeannie
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> "Theories Mathematically Equivalent to SR"
> and every theorem and equation from one theory to be duplicated in the
> other.
Of course. That what it says.
> Your "Note:" points a departure from your definition.
No, it does not. It points out the difference between a purely
mathematical theory (consisting only of postulates and theorems), and
a physical theory (which adds physical interpretations).
> First, postulates
> cannot be mathematical theorems.
Sure they are! From the postulate "A" one can _trivially_ deduce the
theorem "A" ("A" is a symbol standing for any statement).
> Postulates are unprovable assumptions about a system.
Sure. By the same reasoning, theorems are unprovable also. In fact, theorems
are _clearly_ only as "valid" or "true" as are the postulates from which
they were derived, _AND_ALSO_ only as valid as are the rules of inference
used in their derivation.
You attempt to make a distinction here indicates that you have not fully
thought out what it is to be a mathematical theory, and how postulates
and theorems relate to each other, and how they are similar and how they
differ.
> Every theorem in a mathematical system can be traced back to one or more
> postulates, via other theorems. But postulates can not be traced back
> to anything within the mathematics.
Sure. But for each and every postulate there is a theorem identical to
the postulate, whose proof is trivial. And, of course, for a given set of
theorems there can be many different sets of postulates from which they can
all be derived; and in such cases, each postulate of a given set is a
theorem in some other set. You attempt to make a distinction without a
difference.
The only reason I said that and use it is to avoid the linguistic
circumloqutions required to include the set of postulates in the
set of theorems.
> Now computations and experiments are not equations — but I'll get to
> that shortly.
Computations most certainly are equations, but experiments are not.
But the COMPARISON of theory to experiment depends only upon the
theorems of the theory underlying the computations of the quantities
measured in the experiment. If a given computation is not based upon
a theorem of the theory, then that computation is not part of the theory.
> Let's examine your "essence". You claim that the essence of SR is the
> use of Lorentz transforms between any pair of reference frames. First,
> if the Lorentz transform is really the essence of SR, then we never
> needed Einstein. For Lorentz postulated the Lorentz transform in the
> 1890's. And he did it without any annoying postulates or principles.
Because Lorentz came first, they are called the Lorentz transforms.
Einstein derived the theory known as SR from very different postulates,
and the central equations of SR are the Lorentz transforms.
But Lorentz just made what amounts to a very complicated guess; Einstein
made a much simpler guess and derived the same equations. These are simply
two different sets of postulates for the same set of theorems (which comprise
the theory). Of course this is a physical theory, and Lorentz and Einstein
also differ in their interpretations of the items in the equations.
> In any
> event it will need far more support than just your say-so.
It is easily established by considering every valid equation of SR. That's
a lot of work (many equtions), so it is easier to note that the Lorentz
transforms form a group. Once you understand the implications of that,
the mathematical equivalence of SR and LET follows immediately.
> [use different postulates for SR]
> Mathematically speaking, what has changed?
Nothing. That's my point -- the set of theorems for the theory is unchanged
if you select a different set of postulates (a complete set, of course).
> You cannot
> uniquely derive the PoR, Einstein's synchronization, or light speed
> constancy from the LT.
Yes, you can. These are, in fact, elementary consequences of the Lorentz
transforms (given the definition of inertial frames plus the additional
"hidden" assumptions of SR [which, by the way, are also hidden assumptions
of LET]).
Yes, such derivations are not "unique", but that is not required.
> [theories using an "alpha"]
> So, let us presume that this is what you meant by a class of theories
> that include the Lorentz transform. But look closely! Even at this
> high level, this "group" of theories are not "mathematically identical"!
> They do NOT all have the same equations! By your definition, a theory
> cannot be mathematically equivalent to SR unless alpha is one half.
But I did not include all those other theories in the class of theories
mathematically equivalent to SR. I suspect they are members of the larger
equivalence class, but not the smaller one -- you just demonstrated
that they are not mathematically equivalent to SR. Duh!
This is also not a group, merely a set or a class. "Group" is a technical
word with a significantly different meaning.
> I have no idea if this is one of the "parameters" that you and Zhang
> rely on, because you haven't given us any information on that
> parameterization.
Look in [1], equation 1. That is the article which started this thread. How
is it you haven't read that article but are commenting on it? Your alpha is
most definitely not present in equation 1 of [1]. I suspect (but have not
investigated) that there is a direct relationship between your alpha and
Zhang's/my parameter q'.
> I'm trying
> to identify what you mean by experimentally viable (since you never
> identified what equations you feel are experimentally viable).
It is not equations which are viable, it is _THEORIES_, as I said many
times (including the subject of this thread). And the criteria I used for
that are spelled out explicitly in both [1] and [2] (more detail in the
latter).
> I am
> presuming that it includes the Lorentz transform for round-trip
> experiments and either does or does not include alpha = 0.5.
Your alpha not equal to 0.5 is not the Lorentz transform.
> If you include alpha = 0.5 as a requirement, then you have no "group",
> whatever — except for SR.
And LET. As I said -- they are the only members of the class of theories
which are mathematically equivalent to SR. Duh! There are many more
theories in the class of theories experimentally indistinguishable
from SR.
> For you can't get alpha = 0.5 without
> assuming Einstein's three postulates. If you do not include alpha =
> 0.5, then you need to specify how one can be mathematically equivalent.
Again, you interchange the TWO equivalence classes I described. Or something.
In any case, it is clear that you alpha plays no role whatsoever in my
original article.
> But now you claim "all theories in this class" can, likewise, be derived
> from the LT. This is not correct.
You did not read my article, and you have _GUESSED_WRONG_ about what
theories belong to the class of theories mathematically equivalent to SR.
It is YOUR GUESS which is not correct.
> Again, these theories may be
> described as INCLUDING the Lorentz transform (for Round-Trip or
> One-Way), but the OTHER equations (non-LT) may be quite different.
Your first statement (1 paragraph ago) only applies to the theories
mathematically equivalent to SR; for those theories, your claim that
"OTHER equations (non-LT) may be quite different" is false.
> So let's look, for example at Lorentz' Electrodynamic Theory (LET) -
> 1904. This is the theory that you claim to be mathematically equivalent
> to SR. Let's look at
> "local times" in both SR and LET.
> SR gives t' = t / beta.
> LET gives t' = t / beta - beta v x / c^2 (equation 5, 1904).
Both of your equations are incorrect.
SR gives:
t' = gamma (t - xv/c^2) [gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
LET gives:
t' = t"/beta - beta v x" / c^2 [beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
t" = t [note I must introduce new
x" = x - v t variables x" and t"]
If you bothered to combine the Galilean boost x,t -> x",t" with the "change
of variables" you quoted (really x",t" -> x',t'), you would find that LET
gives the same equation as does SR, FOR THE SAME PHYSICAL SITUATION. Your
error in quoting led you astray -- the equations you compare do not correspond
to the same physical situation in the two theories. The ones I quoted do.
Note that I had to introduce variables x",t" because Lorentz did
not -- he re-used x,t. A superficial reading of his paper is error-
prone.
> (Although you admit that you haven't read it).
How petty. I have read Lorentz's 1904 paper. Apparently you haven't, or read
it only superficially, given your errors in quoting it above.
> What's the difference? LET allows for a single isotropic frame (aether
> rest frame). SR has no single isotropic frame.
Right, In SR that is true in EVERY frame. This, of course, includes whatever
frame you designated as "the ether frame" in LET.
> They are not
> "mathematically equivalent", for here is an equation that differs
> between the two.
You made an error.
> Can we easily measure the difference? No. Not if the earth (and our
> instruments) are moving relatively slowly wrt the aether. For the
> second term of LET would drop out.
It does not "drop out", at best you could claim it is negligible. But
if you had compared equations for LET and SR which correspond to the
same physical situation, you would find that the LET equations and the
SR equations are _exactly_ identical, no approximation is needed.
> OK, if you don't like that example (and you "redefine" LET to have alpha
> = 0.5 in your post) let's look at this another way.
_I_ never "redefined" LET to have alphs=0.5, in essence _LORENTZ_DID_. That
is a direct consequence of the Lorentz transformation -- transformed local
variables will have alpha=0.5 automatically when using the Lorentz transform.
> What do you mean by "all equations" of a theory?
Just what it says -- _ALL_ equations (theorems) which can be derived from
the postulates of the theory.
> [irrelevent digression about the perfect gas law omitted]
> So you really need to identify "all" the equations of SR that you are
> discussing. I presume these are the generic LT and alpha = 0.5.
"all" equations of SR are _ALL_EQUATIONS_OF_SR_. Ditto for LET. Neither
theory has a parameter named alpha, you got that from somewhere else.
I suspect (but have not investigated) that theories with your alpha not
equal to 0.5 are members of the larger equivalence class I discussed.
> That's enough on this section. More later.
Just as for your analysis of Krishner, you have found several pinpricks.
Mostly related to usage of the English language. You have not mentioned
any serious problems with my articles. Most of your remarks tell more
about you and the limits of your understanding of math and physics than
about my original articles.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Stowe
(apparently) new service/editor screws up the format making it very
hard to read your post
Paul Stowe
Arlin Brown
Tom writes: You insist on an ether explanation for time dilation and
length contraction but claim no such explanation for the variations in
the X projection of a rod as its orientation varies.
Arlin Jean: I'll try to decipher what you're trying to say. Are you
trying to find out how the ether explains why a rod changes its
orientation? Or are you talking solely about the contraction of a rod as
it changes its absolute orientation? If the latter, I would say that
absolute rod contraction is the only real relativistic contraction that
exists. As the rod rotates so that its X component becomes less and
less, its shrinkage in the X direction affects its length less and less
until the rod's length is completely in the Y-Z plane and thus the rod
is at its maximum absolute length. However, its thickness along the
X-axis will be reduced.
The cause of rod shortening is the dual role that the X-component of the
etheric matter waves play. If a sub-atomic particle is composed of waves
traveling in closed loops, the Y and Z components will be unaffected by
the motion of the particle as a whole along the X-axis. I.e., the time
it takes for the wave to complete a complete loop in the Y-Z plane
remains unaffected by the X-component of the wave. But the time it takes
the X-component to complete a closed loop is a totally different story,
because the matter waves traveling on the same absolute axis as the
direction of the particle as a whole have less time to complete a closed
loop. This is because the waves on the X-axis now have two roles to
perform. Such a wave must not only continue to constitute the X
dimension of the particle, but now such waves must move the particle
along the X-axis. This leaves less time for the waves to constitute the
X dimension of the particle, and the particle will shorten by the
absolute factor, gamma, when the calculation is carried out. This
contraction is mandatory. Otherwise, the wave would have to be in two
different places at the same time. The details and derivation of
absolute gamma are in my second SR/ether paper and is available by
e-mail for the asking.
Tom: Why does the rod have the same length in every orientation?
Arlin Jean: It doesn't. It contracts along the direction of absolute
motion. If you're in the same frame as the rod. it will appear to have
the same length regardless of orientation because your measuring stick
will also contract to the same degree as the rod you're measuring.
Tom: Arlin Jean wrote: Matter is nothing but waves.
Tom: What God told you this? How is your information absolutely
infallible?
Arlin Jean: It is contained in my only AET postulate: "Light and the
waves which are matter travel at a speed of c wrt a preferred frame."
From this, both the AET real-quantity equations and the SR
mixed-quantity equations are derived, including the AET form and the SR
form of the Lorentz Transformations.
---
Best,
Jeannie
Tom Roberts
> For the Nth time: <ROTATION> and <RELATIVE MOTION> are related and
> consist of combinations of two or more <MOTIONS WRT. THE ETHER,
> sometimes known as ABSOLUTE MOTIONS>
That's one way to think of it, assuming your ether theory is true.
But the mere existence of SR proves that this is not the only way.
> Ether theory - like SR - is not just a theory of
> electromagnetism but a theory of mechanics. As such, it requires an
> explanation of inertia, for which the ether provides a natural home.
Obviously you have a different concept of what is "natural" than that
of virtually all modern physicists.
> Ether theory unifies uniform translational motion, rotation, and
> relative motion
Not really. Certainly not any more so than does SR. Rotatin is
_different_ from relative inetial motion. Just as the motion of a
rocket with its engines on is _different_ from its motion when
its engines are off and it is in freefall. And this difference
is clear and obvious to anyone abord the rocket -- just as rotation
is clear and obvious to anyone in the centrifuge. have you _never_
ridden on a merry-go-round?
> SR fails because to explain rotation it has to introduce the 'class of
> inertial reference frames'
And so does Newtonian mechanics. And if you thought about it, you would
find that even ether theory needs to introduce the class of inertial
frames. that's because that class is _OBSERVED_ to be a special class
of frames in the universe we inhabit. Physics is an experimental science.
> which in turn imply the existence of an
> ether or something extraordinarily like it.
Not really. The existence of SR disproves your assertion. Along with the
fat that SR accurately agrees with experiments within its domain of
applicability, of course.
> Remember - it's not just matter that maintains its speed with respect to
> inertial reference frames. Light does too. That's why it is sometimes
> called the lumeniferous ether.
Sure, but light does not do so wrt rotating frames. Dp you think that is
just happenstance?
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> To deny their physical existence is absurd. To admit it pins down the
> inadequacy of SR.
Or the inadequacy of your analysis.
To most of us, imagining reference frames as having "physical existence"
is absurd.
> You confuse 'operationalist' with 'modern'. If one's approach to
> understanding nature is realistic rather than operationalistic, the
> physical existence of unobservables such as the ether is demonstrable.
except that such "realistic" theories are inconsistent with various
experiments. Specifically EPR and Bell-type experiments. The world is
more complicated than you imagine. By a considerable margin.
> This is nothing to do with my personal prejudices and desires - it is
> simply a different and perfectly valid approach to physics.
No, your approach has been refuted experimentally for many years, and by
many experiments.
> And I'd
> guess that more physicists use it when actually doing physics than when
> writing papers, in which subservience to the standard metaphysical
> approach of the day may be politically wise.
Your guesses merely exhibit you ignorance not only of modern physics,
but also of how modern physics is done.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Tom writes: How does ether theory "explain" the constancy of the length
> of a rod independent of its orientation?
> Arlin: This is true only from the perspective of an observer in the
You explained _that_ it happens, and under what conditions it happens
(in your theory), but you made no attempt to explain _WHY_ it happens.
I want to know _WHY_ this happens, and why length contraction and time
dilation happen, and how and why they differ and how and why they are
the same.
In SR this is easy: they are all similar geommetrical consequences of the
way projections of invariant quantities onto coordinate axes behave under
rotations or boosts.
Why is it so difficult (nay impossible) to explain in ether theory?
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
Hmmm. It is Netscape 4.6, which is what I use at lucent.com. When
I look at my own post, it looks just like it did in Netscape's
composition window. I see that at lucent.com I have it set up to
wrap at 72 columns, and at avenew.com it was set at 80 (changed to
72 now). That's the only difference I found which ought to affect
this.
I have the "wrap incoming plain text messages to window width"
checked (in Edit/Preferences/Mail&Newsgroups/Messages), and that
may affect what I am seeing.
My Lucent news server has become disconnected (temporarily, probably
only until someone comes in on Monday), so I though I'd try avenew's.
I can see that many of my messages posted from Lucent are not
present here, but most are. I don't know if those missing messages
will appear when the Lucent server comes back.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Arlin Jean: no one is forced to measure the rate of moving
> clocks in another frame by using two separated clocks.
So please describe how to directly measure the rate of a moving clock
without using two separated clocks in your frame.
The fact is, the physical situation demands two clocks to directly
measure the rate of a moving clock.
> There is no
> such rule in AET or in pre-SR physics.
The question never came up in Newtonian mechanics, because the
existence of an absolute time was ASSUMED. There _is_ such a
"rule" in AET if you ever want to compare to real measurements
(my meaning of "real", not yours).
> I'm all in favor of discarding the two-clock rule.
Are you also "in favor of" discarding the physical situation? It's
not up to you (or anybody), the physical situation just _IS_. And
mere humans and their theories must conform to the physical
situation. Of course we can often influence what physical situation
we take measurements in, but that is not the same.
> Charles: Reference frames are constructed from a single clock.
Say rather that reference frames can be constructed from a single
clock. But then you need some method to measure the time coordinate
of events which occur at locations other than where the clock is
located, and you need a _THEORY_ for how to do that. This makes
your frame less useful than the normal method, because the
observations themselves are THEORY DEPENDENT. In the usual
formulation of reference frames in modern physics, the
observations themselves are independent of any theory. That
_is_ why we do it that way.
> Did you ever try to measure the rate of one clock passing by in another
> frame with one clock in your own frame? (:-)
It is clear that neither of you have even thought seriously about
how to do so, much less having ever actually done so.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Charles Francis
<TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> writes
>> Charles: Reference frames are constructed from a single clock.
>
>Say rather that reference frames can be constructed from a single
>clock. But then you need some method to measure the time coordinate
>of events which occur at locations other than where the clock is
>located, and you need a _THEORY_ for how to do that. This makes
>your frame less useful than the normal method, because the
>observations themselves are THEORY DEPENDENT. In the usual
>formulation of reference frames in modern physics, the
>observations themselves are independent of any theory. That
>_is_ why we do it that way.
>
>
>how to do so, much less having ever actually done so.
I really don't know what you're on about here Tom. If you have two
clocks you need a THEORY of how to ensure synchronisation, and that is
logically the same thing as basing the definition on one clock. I have
never seen a treatment of SR that requires two clocks for the definition
of reference frames. As far as I am concerned using two way light to
define time co-ordinates, as well as space co-ordinates, is the normal
method of defining reference frames. It is also the simplest and most
elegant way of obtaining both co-ordinates from one measurement.
You appear to be confusing theory dependency with frame dependency.
Observational results are theory dependent, in that they depend on the
manner in which we define quantities and do measurements. As you have
shown, one theory can be equivalent to another, even if it gives
different results by defining different quantities, provided we can
transform from one set of definitions to the other and derive the
equations of the other.
One of the strengths of SR is that we choose a method of defining frames
which is the same for all states of motion, and then we have that
observations are the same for all frames. That is what we actually do in
SR. Only when we move into GR do we start using a formulation of
geometry which guarantees that the theory is the same however we define
reference frames.
The weekness of the GR approach is that it makes every definition of a
reference frame equivalent, and therefore loses sight of the physical
process of measurement which is used to define reference frames. In GR
it is often said that there is no preferred co-ordinate system. That is
a mistake, commonly cited by relativists, and which seems to confuse
the quantisation of gravity. In differential geometry there is no
preferred co-ordinate system, but when we use differential geometry to
describe the results of physical measurement, there is a preferred
reference frame, picked out by the way in which we do the measurement.
Charles Francis
Brown <cance...@webtv.net> writes
>Re: 11-27-99, 5:59pm (EST+5) posting of Charles Francis
>
>Oops, I left something out. -AJB
>
>absolutes are completely compatible with SR math, including absolute
>sync, absolute time, absolute space, absolute simultaneity, absolute
>clock rates, absolute rod lengths, absolute masses, etc.
>
>so you cannot substantiate the claim that they are absolute.
>
>exist (presumably by the ether route), the corresponding absolute math
>would not contradict or negate SR math and SR measurement values. All of
>the absolutes could mathematically co-exist with SR math, but not with
>SR's speculative metaphysical philosophy. My Advanced Ether Theory (AET)
>shows exactly how the absolutes are not only totally compatible with SR,
>but also how the absolutes physically explain SR.
>---
make the claim that you have given a physical explanation you will have
to show how to physically explain QM, QED, weak interactions and GR as
well. And to make a scientific claim you will have to show that there is
no other physical explanation.
You are a long way short of that. On the other hand it is possible to
explain all of these things physically, using a theory of particle
interactions in the absence of any background, not unlike Democritus
theory of atoms in the void. And it is possible to show that the
essential features of the physical explanation are uniquely determined
by observational evidence.
If you like the void can be described as ether, but its essential
feature is that it has no properties which affect the behaviour of
matter, in particular it has no observable no space-time co-ordinate
system.
Charles Francis
Brown <cance...@webtv.net> writes
>Re: 11-27-99, 5:59pm (EST+5) posting of Charles Francis
>
>Charles writes: Relativity...still does not require ether.
>
>Arlin Jean: You are correct when it comes to measurements. One would be
>incorrect if trying to extend the statement to the physical explanation
>for obtaining SR measurement values.
>
>SR theory is based on out-of-sync clocks.
>
>cannot say much for people who don't understand it.
>
>
>"two-clocks-in-the-observer's-frame" rule is ad hoc.
>
>
>Arlin Jean: Well, sure, no one is forced to measure the rate of moving
>clocks in another frame by using two separated clocks. There is no
>such rule in AET or in pre-SR physics. But if this SR de facto ad hoc
>rule is neglected, SR measurement values become even more ambiguous than
>they are now. I'm all in favor of discarding the two-clock rule. It
>would only emphasize that using one clock in the observer's frame to
>measure the rate of a succession of two or more clocks passing by in
>another frame will result in the appearance that the clocks in the other
>frame are running faster than the observer's clocks. Then we may no
>longer make the blanket statement that moving clocks appear to run
>slowly. Changes will have to be made in the outdated physics books. Of
>course this means that moving rods can appear to be longer and moving
>masses to be lighter and/or momentum to be less.
I have never come across this two clock rule in the treatment of
relativity. It's not mentioned in D'Invergno, who is quite recent and
basis his treatment on Bondi, as do I. There is no ambiguity in this
treatment, and if anything introducing a second clock could only
confuse.
I make no apology for other text books on the subject. The recommended
course book I bought at the time was Rindler, who seems to be well
regarded in the academic community. Rindler's idea of relativity is
complete garbage. It is a scandal that the academic community sells this
junk in lieu of teaching science.
>Charles: Reference frames are constructed from a single clock.
>
>Arlin Jean: That's fine, but what do you do after it is constructed?
>Did you ever try to measure the rate of one clock passing by in another
>frame with one clock in your own frame? (:-)
>--
Of course, that is the first thing one does in relativity.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9909048
Conceptual Foundations of Special and General Relativity
--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
MLuttgens
<TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> wrote :
>Date : Sat, 27 Nov 1999 20:07:25 -0600
>
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> For the Nth time: <ROTATION> and <RELATIVE MOTION> are related and
>> consist of combinations of two or more <MOTIONS WRT. THE ETHER,
>> sometimes known as ABSOLUTE MOTIONS>
>
>That's one way to think of it, assuming your ether theory is true.
>But the mere existence of SR proves that this is not the only way.
>
>
>> Ether theory - like SR - is not just a theory of
>> electromagnetism but a theory of mechanics. As such, it requires an
>> explanation of inertia, for which the ether provides a natural home.
>
>Obviously you have a different concept of what is "natural" than that
>of virtually all modern physicists.
>
>
>> Ether theory unifies uniform translational motion, rotation, and
>> relative motion
>
>Not really. Certainly not any more so than does SR. Rotatin is
>_different_ from relative inetial motion. Just as the motion of a
>rocket with its engines on is _different_ from its motion when
>its engines are off and it is in freefall. And this difference
>is clear and obvious to anyone abord the rocket -- just as rotation
>is clear and obvious to anyone in the centrifuge. have you _never_
>ridden on a merry-go-round?
>
Do you think that an object in free fall, or in uniform motion on
the Earth's surface has an uniform translational motion?
In the universe, no such theoretical movement exists, but
rotations and relative motion are related.
One will perhaps ask, how can we detect free fall? Very easily.
For instance, in the free falling elevator, just measure the
gravitational potentials at the ceiling and ground levels. The
difference will reveal that you are moving. And on the Earth's
surface, weigh yourself, and compare your measure with your
weight at rest.
>
>> SR fails because to explain rotation it has to introduce the 'class of
>> inertial reference frames'
>
>And so does Newtonian mechanics. And if you thought about it, you would
>find that even ether theory needs to introduce the class of inertial
>frames. that's because that class is _OBSERVED_ to be a special class
>of frames in the universe we inhabit. Physics is an experimental science.
That class is never observed. The part of physics that study those
frames is not experimental, but academic.
Marcel Luttgens
Charles Francis
<TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> writes
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>> You confuse 'operationalist' with 'modern'. If one's approach to
>> understanding nature is realistic rather than operationalistic, the
>> physical existence of unobservables such as the ether is demonstrable.
>
>except that such "realistic" theories are inconsistent with various
>experiments. Specifically EPR and Bell-type experiments. The world is
>more complicated than you imagine. By a considerable margin.
Or more simple. Mostly modern theories like SR and QM tell us that we
cannot do things which we had imagined that we could, because the
structure is not there to support it. When we understand what we can
actually do, then we can identify the underlying structures of matter.
Arlin Brown
Tom writes: Arlin Jean wrote: Tom writes: How does ether theory
"explain" the constancy of the length of a rod independent of its
orientation?
Arlin Jean: This is true only from the perspective of an observer in
the same frame.
Tom: You explained _that_ it happens, and under what conditions it
happens (in your theory), but you made no attempt to explain _WHY_ it
happens.
Arlin Jean: Yes, I did. Re-read my post. The more detailed explanation
of why relativistic effects occur and the degree of the effects is in my
SR/ether paper which you have read. You might want to re-read it.
Tom: I want to know _WHY_ this happens, and why length contraction and
time dilation happen, and how and why they differ and how and why they
are the same.
Arlin Jean: I already explained why length contraction occurs. So let
me explain time dilation. Actually I prefer the term "clock slowing" or
"the slowing of physical processes", because time has no existence of
any kind as an entity or thing. It is simply a way of observing
sequential changes of physical reality. It helps us to describe events
and to compare changes in events. For convenience, it generally deals
with regular equal periodic changes which we call "time", and the things
which change this way are called "clocks". This is all physical. There
is no need for esoterics or metaphysics. The only reason why SRians drag
metaphysics into this is because otherwise they would not even have an
excuse for a so-called "explanation" of relativistic effects, let alone
a valid physical explanation.
All clock slowing is absolute. The diagram of how this occurs is shown
in elementary SR text books with the "light clock" example. It shows
light rays bouncing off of mirrors for a "stationary" observer and also
for a "moving" observer. Since the principle is the same, we go a step
beyond and consider the "stationary" observer to be at rest wrt the
ether and the "moving" observer to be moving wrt the ether. The degree
(gamma) of the slowing as a function of speed is easily derived. My AET
differs from LET and other ether theories because my one postulate says
that not only does light travel at a speed of c wrt the ether, but the
waves which are matter also travel at c wrt the ether. From an Occam's
Razor viewpoint, what could be simpler? If my postulate is too
complicated, I might change it to say: "All physical phenomena are
waves (disturbances) traveling at a speed of c wrt the ether, the only
physical substance in the universe." Now, since matter is only waves
traveling at c wrt the ether, we can apply the light clock principle and
easily see that all material physical processes must also slow down by
the same factor, gamma, as a function of absolute speed. You can look at
the light clock example as light waves traveling in a closed loop - and
you can also look at matter waves doing the same thing. ALL PHYSICAL
PROCESSES MUST SLOW DOWN BY THE DERIVED RELATIVISTIC SCALING FACTOR,
GAMMA. You must remember that SR is no more than a system of making
measurements based on a limited black box view of the physical universe.
Tom: In SR this is easy; they are all similar geommetrical consequences
of the way projections of invariant quantities onto coordinate axes
behave under rotations or boosts.
Arlin Jean: As Einstein put it, his 1905 theory is ONLY a theory of
measurement. In other words, it is nothing more than a black box theory.
It never addresses why, how, causes, reasons, explanations, physical
understanding, physical logic, common sense, etc. Since SR equations per
se do no explain anything, the math is transformed into geometry which
helps to disguise the fact that it represents the same non-explanatory
math. It is impossible for spacetime to represent physical reality,
because spacetime depends for its very existence on OWLS=c, a definition
which does not represent physical reality. OWLS=c suggests that
everyone's clocks are in true physical sync, THEY ARE NOT. In SR,
everyone's clocks are OUT OF SYNC.
Tom: Why is it so difficult (nay impossible) to explain in ether
theory?
Arlin Jean: It's not difficult to explain. It's just difficult for you
to understand because you've been brainwashed by SR misconceptions.
---
Take care,
Jeannie
Arlin Brown
Tom writes: Arlin Jean wrote: ...no one is forced to measure the rate
of moving clocks in another frame by using two separated clocks.
Tom: So please describe how to directly measure the rate of a moving
clock without using two separated clocks in your frame.
Arlin Jean: You obtain the ratio of the clock rate in the other frame
to the clock rate in your own frame by comparing the reading of two
separated clocks as the pass by adjacently to your single clock, and
then take the reciprocal of the ratio. One necessary, but not
sufficient, indication that clocks in both frames are in absolute sync
is that you and the other observer both obtain the same unambiguous
ratio of clock rates regardless of whether you (or she) use one clock to
the other observer's two clocks, or use two clocks to the other
observer's one clock. We call this "agreement" and agreement is
essential to AET.
Tom: The fact is, the physical situation demands two clocks to directly
measure the rate of a moving clock.
Arlin Jean: I know, Tom. I've been trying to inform SRians on this NG
for the last two years of this unwritten ad hoc SR rule, because the SR
math equation for clock slowing is totally ambiguous re how to make the
measurements. For all I know, you might have been one of the SRians whom
I informed. Pre-SR measurements never required this ad hoc rule (which
exists solely to make the measurement values fit SR theory), because
when you correctly deal with physical reality, it makes no difference
how you make your measurements, because all observers agree about
everything, including who has the faster clocks. But SR observers, with
out-of-sync clocks in every frame, can't agree.
Tom: Arlin Jean: There is no such rule in AET or in pre-SR physics.
Tom: There _is_ such a "rule" in AET if you ever want to compare to
real measurements (my meaning of "real", not yours).
Arlin Jean: Gee, Tom, you seem to know more about my theory than I do.
Would you like to be co-author? (:-) Whose name should come first -
yours or mine? Yep, now AET has a rule I never knew it had. We'll give
the paper a new title: "Real vs. 'real' ". Hmmmm......Let's see now.
How soon can we pick up our Nobel Prizes? All seriousness aside (:-),
AET does not need to use the two-clock rule for making AET absolute sync
measurements. But AET can talk about the implications of the two-clock
ad hoc rule which SR needs to use in order to fit the theory, and how it
compares with AET measurements. I think you're stretching things to say
there is such a "rule in AET. That's a very misleading statement, if not
factually incorrect.
Tom: Arlin Jean: I'm all in favor of discarding the two clock rule.
Tom: Are you also "in favor of" discarding the physical situation?
Arlin Jean: Naw...I better keep my little paws off of that (:-). (See
above for a better answer.)
Tom: It's not up to you (or anybody), the physical situation just _IS_.
Arlin Jean: Yes, SIR !
Tom: And mere humans and their theories must conform to the physical
situation.
Arlin Jean: Yes, SIR ! But you might also want to try to UNDERSTAND
the physical situation since most SRians don't have a clue.
Tom: Arlin Jean: Did you ever try to measure the rate of one clock
passing by in another frame with one clock in your own frame? (:-)
Tom: It is clear that neither of you have even thought seriously about
how to do so, much less having ever actually done so.
Arlin Jean: I was talking about the adjacent comparison of clock
readings in different frames in order to determine clock-rate ratios.
Sure, you can monitor a moving clock which emits signals and calculate
the clock rate, and use radar to measure its speed, or whatever.
---
Best.
Jeannie
Arlin Brown
Charles writes: Reference frames are constructed from a single clock.
Arlin Jean wrote: That's fine, but what do you do after it is
constructed? Did you ever try to measure the rate of one clock passing
by in another frame with one clock in your own frame? (:-)
Charles: Of course, that is the first thing one does in relativity.
Arlin Jean: Oops! I should have said: "Did you ever try to measure the
rate of one clock passing by in another frame using ONLY one clock in
your own frame?" Sure, you can do it if you add in radar and count the
light pulses from the moving frame, but I was thinking about the
"simpler" gedanken. Of course you can compare the readings on adjacent
clocks once, if there is only one clock in each frame, but how useful is
that information?
---
Best,
Jeannie
Tom Roberts
> Do you think that an object in free fall, or in uniform motion on
> the Earth's surface has an uniform translational motion?
I think this depends crucially upon what coordinates one uses to measure
the "uniform translational motion", but that one can _always_ choose
coordinates such that both your examples are in uniform translational
motion wrt those coordinates, locally and to any precision desired
(but the precision determines the size of the local region).
> In the universe, no such theoretical movement exists, but
> rotations and relative motion are related.
You need to define what you mean by "in the universe" -- that phrase
seems inconsistent with the rest of your statement. See my previous
paragraph for two counterexamples to a simple reading of your claim.
> [about the class of inertial frames]
> That class is never observed. The part of physics that study those
> frames is not experimental, but academic.
Obviously you have never set foot into even a high-school-level physics
lab. One can _observe_ inertial frames quite easily. In fact, the less
accurate your equipment the easier it is to observe them! Note that
such observations are inherently limited by one's measurement accuracy,
and for sufficiently-high accuracy one might need to limit the size of
the space-time region observed to be able to call it inertial. But
that's OK -- physics is an experimental science.
It is _YOUR_OBJECTIONS_ which are purely academic, not the science
and theories of physics.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Tom: Arlin Jean wrote: Matter is nothing but waves.
> Tom: What God told you this? How is your information absolutely
> infallible?
Oh, I see: you _ASSUMED_ it and then reference it as if it were a God-
given truth. As I have said many times, the rest of us prefer to do
physics.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Paul Stowe wrote:
> > Since I could not send this e-mail, I'll post it here. Your
> > (apparently) new service/editor screws up the format making it very
> > hard to read your post
I've now seen my Avenew posts from Lucent, and they look fine to me.
As my Lucent news-server is back, I probably won't use Avenew any more.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Ilja Schmelzer
> : Are you now claiming that the theories Tom (incorrectly) asserts are
> : equivalent to SR are irrational?
>
> No, he was pointing out that it is irrational to continue to
> insist that the theories Tom (quite correctly) identified as
> equivalent to SR, are not equivalent to SR.
LET and SR are not equivalent.
The following theorem holds in SR, but not in LET:
"If the EPR-criterion of reality and causality are laws of nature,
then Bell's inequality holds between space-like separated
measurements."
> Nonsense. If I say I've got a ravioli here, and it's either meat
> or cheeze ravioli, and ask you what the physical difference is,
> resorting only to visual inspection of the outside of the pasta.
> You have to postulate the existance of an unobservable (by the
> restrictions given) quantity.
Thanks for the nice rejection of one of the most popular arguments
against the ether - that it requires to "postulate the existance of an
unobservable". ;-)
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <schm...@wias-berlin.de>, http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer
Ilja Schmelzer
>> IN A LIMITED SENSE, THE ETHER ADVOCATES AROUND HERE ARE "RIGHT"!
> I still don't see how this extends at all beyond classical
> electromagnetism. The time dilation of decays, for example, needs a
> tremendous of hand waving to appear in a non-relativistic ether
> theory.
You still ignore
http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer/GET/derivation.html
sh...@my-deja.com
> LET and SR are not equivalent.
>
> The following theorem holds in SR, but not in LET:
>
> "If the EPR-criterion of reality and causality are laws of nature,
> then Bell's inequality holds between space-like separated
> measurements."
Nevertheless, LET has no mathematical model to deal with FTL
signals. The postulates of SR and LET differ, but the theories
are mathematically equivalent. Adding another unobserable effect
of the ether (FTL causality) doesn't endow it with any predictive
mechanism.
---Tim Shuba---
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> For the Nth time: <ROTATION> and <RELATIVE MOTION> are related and
>> consist of combinations of two or more <MOTIONS WRT. THE ETHER,
>> sometimes known as ABSOLUTE MOTIONS>
>
>That's one way to think of it, assuming your ether theory is true.
>But the mere existence of SR proves that this is not the only way.
>
As does the existence of creationism, solipsism, or ufology. There are
many wrong ways to consider something. SR fails to include a physical
mechanism underlying the class of inertial reference frames, so it is
not a correct description of the universe as it is. End of story.
>
>> Ether theory - like SR - is not just a theory of
>> electromagnetism but a theory of mechanics. As such, it requires an
>> explanation of inertia, for which the ether provides a natural home.
>
>Obviously you have a different concept of what is "natural" than that
>of virtually all modern physicists.
>
Perhaps so. But I do at least apply logical arguments.
>
>> Ether theory unifies uniform translational motion, rotation, and
>> relative motion
>
>Not really. Certainly not any more so than does SR. Rotatin is
>_different_ from relative inetial motion. Just as the motion of a
>rocket with its engines on is _different_ from its motion when
>its engines are off and it is in freefall. And this difference
>is clear and obvious to anyone abord the rocket -- just as rotation
>is clear and obvious to anyone in the centrifuge. have you _never_
>ridden on a merry-go-round?
>
In ether theory, rotation is a composite formed from at least two
'absolute' motions, just as is relative motion. In SR it is something
special and magical, with no physical components. You resorted to the
usual idiotic assertion that it is "geometry", but you failed to say
what objects are related by this geometry.
>
>> SR fails because to explain rotation it has to introduce the 'class of
>> inertial reference frames'
>
>And so does Newtonian mechanics. And if you thought about it, you would
>find that even ether theory needs to introduce the class of inertial
>frames. that's because that class is _OBSERVED_ to be a special class
>of frames in the universe we inhabit. Physics is an experimental science.
>
Yes, but in ether theory the class has a physical correlate. In SR they
are a magical ad hoc assumption.
>
>> which in turn imply the existence of an
>> ether or something extraordinarily like it.
>
>Not really. The existence of SR disproves your assertion. Along with the
>fat that SR accurately agrees with experiments within its domain of
>applicability, of course.
>
So what physical structure or structures is responsible for the observed
class of inertial reference frames? Or do you think that you can ignore
their existence just to defend your barmy metaphysics?
>
>> Remember - it's not just matter that maintains its speed with respect to
>> inertial reference frames. Light does too. That's why it is sometimes
>> called the lumeniferous ether.
>
>Sure, but light does not do so wrt rotating frames. Dp you think that is
>just happenstance?
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Of course not! The ether does not rotate, and a rotating observer will
obviously measure a different speed.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> inadequacy of SR.
>
>Or the inadequacy of your analysis.
>
>To most of us, imagining reference frames as having "physical existence"
>is absurd.
>
That is a pathetic attempt to pick on a single sentence, when I have
made a point of clearly distinguishing, in almost all cases, the
class of inertial reference frames from the ether that underpins their
existence.
What you are trying to claim is that no physical structure corresponds
to the observable frames. That is a stupid claim, but a necessary
consequence of saying that SR correctly describes nature, rather than
saying that it correctly describes distorted measurements of nature.
>
>> You confuse 'operationalist' with 'modern'. If one's approach to
>> understanding nature is realistic rather than operationalistic, the
>> physical existence of unobservables such as the ether is demonstrable.
>
>except that such "realistic" theories are inconsistent with various
>experiments. Specifically EPR and Bell-type experiments. The world is
>more complicated than you imagine. By a considerable margin.
>
What on earth are you going on about now? When I say realism, I do not
mean EPR realism, which is incompatible with any reasonable explanation
of quantum non-locality. I contrasted it with operationalism, remember?
>
>> This is nothing to do with my personal prejudices and desires - it is
>> simply a different and perfectly valid approach to physics.
>
>No, your approach has been refuted experimentally for many years, and by
>many experiments.
>
Utter tripe. You have failed to defend your arguments, so you invent an
assertion I never made and attack that. Why don't you describe instead
how "rotation is a form of geometry". Both you and Wayne came out with
that hoary old chestnut, and neither of you was able to answer my
question of what objects are related by this mythical "geometry".
>
>> And I'd
>> guess that more physicists use it when actually doing physics than when
>> writing papers, in which subservience to the standard metaphysical
>> approach of the day may be politically wise.
>
>Your guesses merely exhibit you ignorance not only of modern physics,
>but also of how modern physics is done.
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
I recall John Barrow suggesting in one book that most physicists are
realists during the working day. It sounds reasonable to me. It may be
different for you, since you are hoping to get some (very sloppy)
metaphysics published in a physics journal.
On the other hand, you can demonstrate in your paper how rotation is -
as you claim - explained by "geometry" in SR without postulating the
existence of an ether, you will have made quite a breakthrough. It
doesn't look like you are getting anywhere, though...
- Gerry Quinn
MLuttgens
wrote :
>Date : Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:18:30 -0600
>
>MLuttgens wrote:
>> Do you think that an object in free fall, or in uniform motion on
>> the Earth's surface has an uniform translational motion?
>
>I think this depends crucially upon what coordinates one uses to measure
>the "uniform translational motion", but that one can _always_ choose
>coordinates such that both your examples are in uniform translational
>motion wrt those coordinates, locally and to any precision desired
>(but the precision determines the size of the local region).
>
I am wondering which coordinates you could chose to transform
uniform motion on the Earth surface to a uniform translational motion.
>
>> In the universe, no such theoretical movement exists, but
>> rotations and relative motion are related.
>
>You need to define what you mean by "in the universe" --
I mean physically.
> that phrase
>seems inconsistent with the rest of your statement. See my previous
>paragraph for two counterexamples to a simple reading of your claim.
>
>
>> [about the class of inertial frames]
>> That class is never observed. The part of physics that study those
>> frames is not experimental, but academic.
>
>Obviously you have never set foot into even a high-school-level physics
>lab. One can _observe_ inertial frames quite easily. In fact, the less
>accurate your equipment the easier it is to observe them!
If your experimental error is bigger than what you are trying to
observe, your measurements are meaningless. With such
experiments, you could (wrongly) claim to observe anything. You
must be joking.
>Note that
>such observations are inherently limited by one's measurement accuracy,
>and for sufficiently-high accuracy one might need to limit the size of
>the space-time region observed to be able to call it inertial. But
>that's OK -- physics is an experimental science.
>
Yes, one could limit its size to zero, and then call it inertial.
>It is _YOUR_OBJECTIONS_ which are purely academic, not the science
>and theories of physics.
>
>
>Tom Roberts
Marcel Luttgens
Charles Francis
Brown <cance...@webtv.net> writes
I really don't think that is simpler. I think the bottom line is that
you have to add in radar and count the light pulses, otherwise you still
have to synchronise the two clocks, which still needs radar. You would
actually need clocks everywhere, because it is not enough just to
measure one moving observer. If Einstein had two clock's in his original
version, that's fair enough. The original version of a theory is
entitled to be primitive, or partly ill-concieved. But we shouldn't pay
attention to that now.
Using only one clock, and radar and red shift gives a simple intro to sr
from the k-calculus, and allows natural extensions in the description of
particle behaviour as well as general relativity. It also gives a simple
definition of inertia, (from red shift) which is almost impossible to
give in any classical manner, and which leads to natural unifications
with qm. It would be crazy to do it any other way. In fact I am not sure
that this two clocks idea isn't even worse than my lecturer simply
writing up the vector transformation law and saying that is the whole of
special relativity.
Aaron Bergman
>aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) writes:
>>> IN A LIMITED SENSE, THE ETHER ADVOCATES AROUND HERE ARE "RIGHT"!
>
>> I still don't see how this extends at all beyond classical
>> electromagnetism. The time dilation of decays, for example, needs a
>> tremendous of hand waving to appear in a non-relativistic ether
>> theory.
>
>You still ignore
>http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer/GET/derivation.html
Not at all. You don't have a reason for why the various forces are all
Lorentz invariant in your theory. You don't even have a real quantum
theory, IMO. At best, it's an effective theory.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Ilja Schmelzer
>>>> IN A LIMITED SENSE, THE ETHER ADVOCATES AROUND HERE ARE "RIGHT"!
>>> I still don't see how this extends at all beyond classical
>>> electromagnetism. The time dilation of decays, for example, needs a
>>> tremendous of hand waving to appear in a non-relativistic ether
>>> theory.
>> You still ignore
>> http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer/GET/derivation.html
> Not at all. You don't have a reason for why the various forces are all
> Lorentz invariant in your theory.
I have. They are Lorentz invariant because they are not external
forces, but are fields (continuous functions) which describe
properties of the ether.
Or what do you think is an explanation? IMHO an explanation is a
derivation of a property based on quite different properties of the
more fundamental theory. If the basic axioms of a theory do not
contain the property, but in certain circumstances (say, a limit) the
property may be derived, the property is explained by this derivation.
> You don't even have a real quantum theory, IMO. At best, it's an
> effective theory.
Oh, that's an interesting new animal - an unreal quantum theory ;-).
That you don't like effective field theory is your personal problem.
BTW, I have never claimed to be able to _explain_ quantum theory. The
only claim about quantum theory is that it is easy to quantize
condensed matter theory as an effective field theory, at least in
comparison with the conceptual problems related with quantum general
relativity. The question of explanation of Lorentz invariance is a
quite different one.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> LET and SR are not equivalent.
>> The following theorem holds in SR, but not in LET:
>> "If the EPR-criterion of reality and causality are laws of nature,
>> then Bell's inequality holds between space-like separated
>> measurements."
> Nevertheless, LET has no mathematical model to deal with FTL
> signals. The postulates of SR and LET differ, but the theories
> are mathematically equivalent.
No. Theories are mathematically equivalent if all theorem which may be
proven in one theory may be proven in the other theory too. I have
presented a counter-example. Point.
To reject this counter-example, you have to prove the theorem for LET
or to find an error in the known proof of the theorem for SR.
> Adding another unobserable effect of the ether (FTL causality)
> doesn't endow it with any predictive mechanism.
Bell's inequality is a prediction which may be (and has been) tested.
Wayne Throop
: LET and SR are not equivalent.
: The following theorem holds in SR, but not in LET:
:
: "If the EPR-criterion of reality and causality are laws of nature,
: then Bell's inequality holds between space-like separated
: measurements."
No, LET and SR are still equivalent. If, however, we insist on an
unmodified traditional definition of "locality", and insist on a all
physical laws being local, then SR-plus-these-extra-assumptions is not
consistent. But adding unobservable assumptions to theories doesn't
actually make the theories make distint predictions.
And of course, local physical laws can be retrieved in SR by a suitable
"many worlds" or similar handwave. After all, you can only TELL whether
Bell's inequality held or not after there has been time for lightspeed
interactions to reach all the witnesses and coach them.
:: Nonsense. If I say I've got a ravioli here, and it's either meat or
:: cheeze ravioli, and ask you what the physical difference is,
:: resorting only to visual inspection of the outside of the pasta. You
:: have to postulate the existance of an unobservable (by the
:: restrictions given) quantity.
: Thanks for the nice rejection of one of the most popular arguments
: against the ether - that it requires to "postulate the existance of an
: unobservable". ;-)
But consider the limit as "the restrictions given" goes to the empty set...
that's what makes the ether lose most of its persuasive power.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Arlin Brown
Tom writes: Arlin Brown wrote: Tom: Arlin Jean wrote: Matter is
nothing but waves.
Tom: What God told you this? How is your information absolutely
infallible?
Arlin Jean: It is contained in my only AET postulate: [...]
Tom: Oh, I see; you _ASSUMED_ it and then reference it as if it were a
God-given truth. As I have said many times, the rest of us prefer to do
physics.
Arlin Jean: If you prefer to do physics, then why don't you do it?
Haven't you ever heard of the wave nature of matter? DeBroglie proposed
this in 1923 and the waves were experimetally discovered in 1926. Since
the waves exist and the medium also exists for light waves to travel in,
is it incomprehensible to you that the matter waves just might also
travel in the ether also? I don't think your dragging God into this will
help your hopeless cause. SRians have made a religion out of the SR god
with Einstein as its prophet.
Now let's see how my "God-given truth" that you make fun of has fared. I
assume as my only postulate that light and the waves which are matter
(and everything in the physical universe) is a disturbance traveling at
a speed of c wrt the ether. From this "God-given" postulate that you
make fun of, I derived not only the equations of the Special Theory of
Relativity (with its real and illusory quantities), but I also derived
the real-quantity-only equations of the Advanced Ether Theory which
represent physical reality. None of the equations that I know of in
these theories has ever been disproved. Now, with this in mind, are you
trying to say that I am not doing physics? What's wrong, Tom? Are you
finally losing your cool as your SR world collapses around you?
---
Best.
Jeannie
Tom Roberts
> I suspect (but have not investigated) that theories with your alpha not
> equal to 0.5 are members of the larger equivalence class I discussed.
As I understand it, your alpha is determined by the following clock
synchronization:
To synchronize clock B with clock A, Send a light signal from
A to B to A, noting the times on each clock when the signal
arrives. Label the three time readings on the clocks T0, T1, T2.
Then B is in synch with A for a given alpha (0 < alpha < 1) iff:
T1 = T0 + alpha (T2 - T0)
Assuming that is what you meant, then a theory with such an alpha is
indeed a member of the larger equivalence class I discussed in [1] iff
the other aspects of the theory are the same, and:
alpha = 0.5 (1 + q' cos(theta))
Note that if your alpha does not have this dependence on orientation
(theta), then clocks synchronized with alpha != 0.5 will not yield
clocks with transitive synchronization, everywhere in the frame
(assuming that the one-way speed of light depends only upon direction,
and not on position in the frame). In other words, using an alpha !=
0.5 without that dependence on orientation will introduce a preferred
point in space -- the point from which you happened to begin
synchronizing clocks (only from that point will light rays in all
directions be consistent with your clock synchronization).
Note that using alpha = 0.5 means that q' = 0, and there is no
dependence on orientation. This case is, of course, Einstein
synchronization.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Tom: So please describe how to directly measure the rate of a moving
> clock without using two separated clocks in your frame.
> Arlin Jean: You obtain the ratio of the clock rate in the other frame
> to the clock rate in your own frame by comparing the reading of two
> separated clocks as the pass by adjacently to your single clock, and
> then take the reciprocal of the ratio.
You changed the physical situation. Your description does not apply to
the question I posed.
> Tom: The fact is, the physical situation demands two clocks to directly
> measure the rate of a moving clock.
> Arlin Jean: I know, Tom. I've been trying to inform SRians on this NG
> for the last two years of this unwritten ad hoc SR rule,
Are you unable to read what I wrote? It is not SR which has this
"unwritten ad hoc rule", it is the _PHYSICAL_SITUTION_. The physical
situation, of course, is completely independent of any theory.
Of course if you consider the physical situation fungible (as you did
above), it's no surprise that you get easily confused....
> Pre-SR measurements never required this ad hoc rule
As I said before: the question NEVER came up in Newtonian/Galilean
physics, because of the _ASSUMPTION_ of an absolute time.
> Arlin Jean: Gee, Tom, you seem to know more about my theory than I do.
Yes. You seem to have self-inconsistent opinions about it.
> AET does not need to use the two-clock rule for making AET absolute sync
> measurements.
I _never_ said or claimed that. I merely said what I said above. Again,
you seem to be unable to read what I write.
> Arlin Jean: I was talking about the adjacent comparison of clock
> readings in different frames in order to determine clock-rate ratios.
But how do you propose to _DO_ that? Remember that the two clocks
involved are _MOVING_ relative to each other, and you can directly
compare their readings at most ONCE -- that is insufficient to make
a comparison of their rates. Again, you seem completely unaware of
the physical situation being discussed.
> Sure, you can monitor a moving clock which emits signals and calculate
> the clock rate, and use radar to measure its speed, or whatever.
None of those are _direct_ measurements, and you need a _THEORY_ to
relate what you actually measure to what you want to measure, and
your _THEORY_ is what is being determined -- you end up with a circular
argument.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Gerry Quinn
>: Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@fermi.wias-berlin.de>
>
>:: Nonsense. If I say I've got a ravioli here, and it's either meat or
>:: cheeze ravioli, and ask you what the physical difference is,
>:: resorting only to visual inspection of the outside of the pasta. You
>:: have to postulate the existance of an unobservable (by the
>:: restrictions given) quantity.
>
>: Thanks for the nice rejection of one of the most popular arguments
>: against the ether - that it requires to "postulate the existance of an
>: unobservable". ;-)
>
>But consider the limit as "the restrictions given" goes to the empty set...
>that's what makes the ether lose most of its persuasive power.
>
>Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
The ravioli argument against the ether is trivially destroyed by the
observation that a physical description of the difference between cheese
and meat in a closed ravioli shell can be given, without postulating
that the ravioli must be opened before the statement is meaningful.
A cheese ravioli contains cheese; a meat one contains meat. No lab or
kitchen equipment are needed to make this statement. A cheese ravioli
floating in space, light years away from a fork, is still a cheese
ravioli.
The sense of rotation of a rigid rotating object, however, cannot be
described in this fashion without postulating an ether. Rather than
admit defeat, however, Wayne asserted "rotation is geometry" and escaped
the thread. He did not, however, answer my question of what objects
were related by this geometry - as neither did Tom Roberts.
- Gerry Quinn
Aaron Bergman
>aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) writes:
>>>>> IN A LIMITED SENSE, THE ETHER ADVOCATES AROUND HERE ARE "RIGHT"!
>
>>>> I still don't see how this extends at all beyond classical
>>>> electromagnetism. The time dilation of decays, for example, needs a
>>>> tremendous of hand waving to appear in a non-relativistic ether
>>>> theory.
>
>>> You still ignore
>>> http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer/GET/derivation.html
>
>> Not at all. You don't have a reason for why the various forces are all
>> Lorentz invariant in your theory.
>
>I have. They are Lorentz invariant because they are not external
>forces, but are fields (continuous functions) which describe
>properties of the ether.
This doesn't explain why you cannot add non-covariant terms to
your Lagrangian. Also, what prevents them from appearing when you
renormalize a la Wilson.
[...]
>> You don't even have a real quantum theory, IMO. At best, it's an
>> effective theory.
>
>Oh, that's an interesting new animal - an unreal quantum theory ;-).
>
>That you don't like effective field theory is your personal problem.
We've been through this before, and I don't think there's
anything more that can be said.
Charles Francis
Brown <cance...@webtv.net> writes
>Arlin Jean: If you prefer to do physics, then why don't you do it?
>Haven't you ever heard of the wave nature of matter? DeBroglie proposed
>this in 1923 and the waves were experimetally discovered in 1926.
Do have a look at the qm overview I am posting today and in the next few
days in sci.physics. In it I will be explaining that waves are just a
mathematical device by which we can treat the evolution of the
information we have about particles. Waves are information, not matter.
They have never been observed, and according to any treatment of qm they
cannot be observed. It is not right to say they have been experimentally
discovered.
Charles Francis
<schm...@fermi.wias-berlin.de> writes
>sh...@my-deja.com writes:
>>> LET and SR are not equivalent.
>>> The following theorem holds in SR, but not in LET:
>>> "If the EPR-criterion of reality and causality are laws of nature,
>>> then Bell's inequality holds between space-like separated
>>> measurements."
>
>> Nevertheless, LET has no mathematical model to deal with FTL
>> signals. The postulates of SR and LET differ, but the theories
>> are mathematically equivalent.
>
>No. Theories are mathematically equivalent if all theorem which may be
>proven in one theory may be proven in the other theory too. I have
>presented a counter-example. Point.
>
>To reject this counter-example, you have to prove the theorem for LET
>or to find an error in the known proof of the theorem for SR.
>
It is done. The EPR criterion are wrongly phrased, so Bell's theorem is
null. I hope you will see the series I am posting on quantum mechanics
in sci.physics.
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> Nevertheless, LET has no mathematical model to deal with FTL
>>> signals. The postulates of SR and LET differ, but the theories
>>> are mathematically equivalent.
>> No. Theories are mathematically equivalent if all theorem which may be
>> proven in one theory may be proven in the other theory too. I have
>> presented a counter-example. Point.
>> To reject this counter-example, you have to prove the theorem for LET
>> or to find an error in the known proof of the theorem for SR.
> It is done. The EPR criterion are wrongly phrased, so Bell's theorem is
> null.
I have rephrased it. That's not the point. If there is some subtle
loophole in the proof, it's easy to close: add an explicit statement
which closes this loophole into the theorem in question:
Theorem: If (EPR-criterion + causality + other loophole-closing
assumptions) then Bell's inequality.
Thesis: this theorem holds in SR, but not in LET.
> I hope you will see the series I am posting on quantum mechanics
> in sci.physics.
crosspost them to s.p.r. If it is about EPR and Bell, it is on-topic.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> I have. They are Lorentz invariant because they are not external
>> forces, but are fields (continuous functions) which describe
>> properties of the ether.
> This doesn't explain why you cannot add non-covariant terms to
> your Lagrangian. Also, what prevents them from appearing when you
> renormalize a la Wilson.
The technique used.
I start with a non-covariant Lagrangian, and then make him formally
covariant by handling the preferred coordinates as if they are scalar
fields. A purely formal manipulation. After this, I have a
Lagrangian which depends on fields $T(x), X^i(x)$ in a covariant way.
That's simple. You have something non-covariant like g^00, I make it
covariant as g^ab T_,a T_,b.
This formalism should be used for all Lagrangians which appear in the
theory.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> LET and SR are not equivalent.
>>
>> The following theorem holds in SR, but not in LET:
>>
>> "If the EPR-criterion of reality and causality are laws of nature,
>> then Bell's inequality holds between space-like separated
>> measurements."
>
Sorry, my definition of equivalence is different. It requires that
every theorem of one theory is also a theorem of the other theory.
> If, however, we insist on an unmodified traditional definition of
> "locality", and insist on a all physical laws being local, then
> SR-plus-these-extra-assumptions is not consistent. But adding
> unobservable assumptions to theories doesn't actually make the
> theories make distint predictions.
It does. Note that without adding other assumptions SR is an empty
theory: "all laws of nature are Lorentz-invariant" is only meaningful
in combination with at least one law of nature.
Therefore, every prediction of SR has a similar logical type: "If xyz
is a law of nature, then prediction".
If you argue that xyz itself may be falsifiable, let's subdivide it
into some more fundamental parts x, y, z. Usually, only various
combinations of fundamental principles are falsifiable by experiment.
If x, y, and z itself are no longer falsifiable separately, therefore
"unobservable", and the prediction has the structure
"If x, and y, an z are laws of nature, then prediction"
thus, every prediction has essentially the structure which you do not
accept for a prediction.
> And of course, local physical laws can be retrieved in SR by a suitable
> "many worlds" or similar handwave. After all, you can only TELL whether
> Bell's inequality held or not after there has been time for lightspeed
> interactions to reach all the witnesses and coach them.
I don't care about handwaving explanations. I have presented a simple
logical fact, the non-equivalence of LET and SR.
>>> Nonsense. If I say I've got a ravioli here, and it's either meat or
>>> cheeze ravioli, and ask you what the physical difference is,
>>> resorting only to visual inspection of the outside of the pasta. You
>>> have to postulate the existance of an unobservable (by the
>>> restrictions given) quantity.
>> Thanks for the nice rejection of one of the most popular arguments
>> against the ether - that it requires to "postulate the existance of an
>> unobservable". ;-)
> But consider the limit as "the restrictions given" goes to the empty set...
> that's what makes the ether lose most of its persuasive power.
"Length > critical length", "energy < critical energy" is IMHO not the
empty set.
Charles Francis
<schm...@fermi.wias-berlin.de> writes
>Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.no.junk> writes:
>>>> Nevertheless, LET has no mathematical model to deal with FTL
>>>> signals. The postulates of SR and LET differ, but the theories
>>>> are mathematically equivalent.
>
>>> No. Theories are mathematically equivalent if all theorem which may be
>>> proven in one theory may be proven in the other theory too. I have
>>> presented a counter-example. Point.
>
>>> To reject this counter-example, you have to prove the theorem for LET
>>> or to find an error in the known proof of the theorem for SR.
>
>> It is done. The EPR criterion are wrongly phrased, so Bell's theorem is
>> null.
>
>I have rephrased it. That's not the point. If there is some subtle
>loophole in the proof, it's easy to close: add an explicit statement
>which closes this loophole into the theorem in question:
>
>Theorem: If (EPR-criterion + causality + other loophole-closing
>assumptions) then Bell's inequality.
>
I don't think that works. This has to do with the extent of theory. In
the original version of relativity, there was no Minkowsky space-time,
because it hadn't yet been invented. Now there is Minkowsky space-time.
We tend to regard it as being a fundamental property of nature. But
strictly we do not know that. All we actually know about is a set plus
mathematical relationships.
Normal formulations of quantum mechanics assume a background of
ontological space-time. Bell's definitions of locality, reality, and the
proof of the inequality assume ontological space-time. And therein lies
the loophole. When quantum mechanics is correctly formulated it does not
include ontological space-time (Minkowsky or otherwise). Similarly
relativity should not include Minkowsky space-time, except as a set plus
relationships.
So if you reformulate these theories correctly, Bell's theorem does not
apply. Does the reformulation mean you should not call it special
relativity, or that you should not call it quantum mechanics. Personally
I don't think so. The relationships found in SR apply, and to me that
makes it SR. The role of Minkowsky space-time was always metaphysical,
and the suggestion that it was real was never scientifically
justifiable.
I will do as you say and post the QM stuff to sci.physics.relativity.
Tom Roberts
Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@fermi.wias-berlin.de> wrote:
> LET and SR are not equivalent.
> The following theorem holds in SR, but not in LET:
> "If the EPR-criterion of reality and causality are laws of nature,
> then Bell's inequality holds between space-like separated
> measurements."
That "theorem" cannot be derived from the postulates of LET, and you
have not shown any inequivalence between SR and LET. In particular,
LET contains no postulate or theorem involving "all laws of nature"
(SR of course does).
And also, I do not consider it a valid procedure to attempt
to sneak additional _PHYSICAL_ postulates in via an "if". So
I do not consider that a well-formed theorem. To me the only
valid approach is to add them as new postulates, and then it
is clear you are not really discussing LET.
What you _could_ claim is that LET can be consistently extended to
include a theorem like that, while SR cannot be consistently extended
to include it. But I am not certain of the validity of that claim....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> my definition of equivalence is different. It requires that
> every theorem of one theory is also a theorem of the other theory.
That is _ONE_ of my definitions (my definition of "mathematically
equivalent"). But we differ on what SR and LET are; and we differ on
what theorems are (see below).
> Note that without adding other assumptions SR is an empty
> theory: "all laws of nature are Lorentz-invariant" is only meaningful
> in combination with at least one law of nature.
> Therefore, every prediction of SR has a similar logical type: "If xyz
> is a law of nature, then prediction".
That is not the SR I have been discussing. The SR I discuss is a theory
of measurement, and makes definite predictions about measurements
independent of the physical theory underlying the tools of measurement
(i.e. it specifies properties of ideal rulers and clocks, but does not
specify how they are implemented). As I have said before, I do not
consider it valid to use if-s of the form "if xyz is a law of nature"
because that is attempting to sneak a _physical_ postulate/assumption
into a _theorem_, and theorems are purely mathematical aspects of a
physical theory.
To me, the proper approach to this is to consider another theory
consisting of SR plus the postulate xyz, and then derive "prediction"
as a theorem of this new theory. But this new theory is clearly not SR.
The point is to keep the mathematical structure of the theory separate
from its physical assumptions and interpretations. So the postulates
of the theory are a "bridge" between its mathematics and its physical
interpretations. And if one is to compare the mathematical structure of
different theories (as we are doing here), it is essential to keep _ALL_
physical assumptions and interpretations _OUT_ of the mathematical
structure (i.e. the set of theorems).
Yes, there is a difficulty here -- the set of postulates are also
theorems of another theory which differs from the first only by having
a different (complete) set of postulates from the first. I suspect that
an if of the form "if xyz is a law of nature" is in essence including
a physical interpretation and erroneously calling it a "theorem". I need
to think about this some more....
> thus, every prediction has essentially the structure which you do not
> accept for a prediction.
I do not accept that structure as a _theorem_.
Remember that my claim of mathematical equivalence is based _purely_ on
the mathematical structure of the theories under consideration.
Necessarily so. Your "theorems" here do not conform to that, and include
additional _physical_ assumptions. In essence you are trying to claim
that SR and LET are THE ONLY PHYSICAL THEORIES THERE ARE (because all
others can be included in them as if clauses of your type). That's silly.
> I have presented a simple
> logical fact, the non-equivalence of LET and SR.
But you use different meanings for "equivalence" and "theorem" and "LET"
and "SR" than either I or Wayne have been discussing. Granted there are
some rather murky areas left....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> [examples of objects having definite properties]
> The sense of rotation of a rigid rotating object, however, cannot be
> described in this fashion without postulating an ether.
Of course not -- "rotation" is not a property of an object, but is a
relationship between the object and something else. In GR one must apply
boundary conditions in order to solve the field equations; the boundary
conditions essentially define a state of no rotation, and rotation is
referenced to that; note that this state of no rotation is in general
defined only locally, and is different for every point in the manifold.
This "state of no rotation" is often called the class of locally-inertial
frames.
No "ether" in there.... But there is definitely an important and
essential global aspect to this.
> He did not, however, answer my question of what objects
> were related by this geometry - as neither did Tom Roberts.
Hmmm. Your question appears to have no answer, and to be meaningless.
Geometry is independent of objects (but related to them, of course).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > [examples of objects having definite properties]
> > The sense of rotation of a rigid rotating object, however, cannot be
> > described in this fashion without postulating an ether.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What I really intended to say is: Of course one cannot describe it that
way --
I did not mean that one does indeed need to postulate an ether (as is
clear from the rest of my article).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Aaron Bergman
In this language, the question is why you don't have terms
coupling the scalar fields to the matter fields in the theory.
greyw...@my-deja.com
intervened.
Now your paper(s) begin to jump around. They would benefit from a
restructuring to a more logical flow. From a writing standpoint, you
should not reference "forward" in your paper. Also, your references are
badly numbered. It took me awhile to figure out that reference "[2]" in
your first paper was noted as "[12]". Use the same system in the body
of the paper as your citation list (i.e. [1-2]).
Your next section is:
>Theories Experimentally Indistinguishable from SR
>------------------------------------------------
>
> Definition: two theories are experimentally indistinguishable if they
> make identical quantitative predictions for any observable quantity.
> Equivalently, two theories are experimentally indistinguishable if
> the validity of each of them implies the validity of the other.
>
>The theories in this class are selected by the following criteria:
>
> a) in every inertial frame the round-trip speed of light is
> isotropically c.
> b) there exists an inertial frame in which the one-way speed of light
> is isotropically c; I will call this the "ether frame".
The first sentence of your definition is insufficient and the second
sentence is irrelevant. The first sentence is sufficient only if you
substitute "all observable quantities" for "any observable quantity." I
could, for example, provide two theories with equal pressure but
different density of a gas. The theories would share AN observable
quantity (pressure) but they would be experimentally distinguishable.
The second sentence begs a theoretical question, not an experimental
one. "Implies the validity" cannot be determined from experiment.
Your criteria a) is acceptable. Although I might quibble over your use
of "isotropic round trips" and add the word "measured" to speed of
light.
Your criteria b) is also acceptable, but phrased sloppily. It is not
clear whether you mean there exists AT LEAST ONE frame. Or that there
exists ONE AND ONLY ONE frame. The two versions are not mathematically
identical. For the moment, I'll assume you mean the latter, since you
refer to a singular "aether frame."
Now in this section, you spend an excessive amount of your space
describing what you will show. Unfortunately, your documentation
consists primarily of:
the paragraph:
>The primary incentive for considering this class is that this is the
>class of theories not refuted by experiments. As is well known, SR
>agrees with all currently-known reproducible experiments within its
>domain of applicability; what is not so well known is that this _also_
>applies to _all_ theories in this class. I discuss details of this in
>[2].
The problem with this statement is that it is merely an argument by
assertion. It is irrelevant whether a scientific point is "well known"
or not. The statement assumes your desired answer! You MUST list the
experiments that you are going to use to claim "non-refutation". You
also MUST list a description of SR's "domain of applicability" if you
use the term.
You then make another set of gross and incorrect assumptions about
"these aether theories":
>The theories in this class share SR's restriction to inertial frames,
SR's >definition of inertial frames (i.e. of Newtonian mechanics), and
also SR's >"hidden" assumptions:
>
> c) space and time are homogeneous.
> d) ruler lengths and clock rates have no memory.
>
> Note the omission of one other "hidden" assumption of SR: that
> space is isotropic; these theories do not adhere to that.
First, you have given no basis for these claims. Interial frames does
not require Newtonian mechanics (i.e. theories with "aether drag" will
NOT strictly follow Newtonian mechanics even when they are inertial —
but they do meet your conditions a) and b).
What you have done here is to arbitrarily impose further restrictions
beyond the "experimental" ones you are discussing. Your "logic" breaks
first here, with this additional set of unwarranted assumptions.
The key failure of your paper, however, lies in the setup of your
"parameterized" equations:
>(b) says there is an ether frame which I will notate with coordinates
>(X,Y,Z,T). These assumptions are sufficient to determine the transform
> equations from the ether frame to any other frame (x',y',z',t')
The statement — as it stands — is valid. Note that you have arbitrarily
assumed that one of your reference frames is at rest with respect to the
aether. Under these conditions, your equations are correct.
BUT!!! You cannot arbitrarily determine the aether frame. In any
(physical) aether theory the aether has a real existence. For any two
arbitrary reference frames, the general solution will require that you
need to know the motion of reference frame A wrt the aether and
reference frame B wrt the aether.
What you have done is show that so long as one of the "SR" frames is
assumed at rest in the aether, you get the same answer. You incorrectly
generalized this solution by claiming that since you can do it starting
from the aether frame to any single other frame, that this is equivalent
to SR.
Because SR requires this equivalence for ANY TWO REFERENCE FRAMES. Not
just any one frame and a physical aether frame. You do NOT get the same
mathematics from SR and the physical theories if you choose two frames
arbitrarily moving through the aether.
The sloppiness of your definition has now bitten you. You did not make
the mathematical distinction between "one and only one" and "any one".
Since the logic of your post has now completely broken down, I will
cease the detailed evaluation of your posts. This effort was more
extensive than your last attempt — but more disorganized.
I'd suggest dropping the third paper entirely. You've already stated in
this newsgroup that you don't consider yourself a historian. So all the
third post does is state why "you" (not "Modern Physics") don't believe
in an aether.
This would allow you to clean up your first two papers. I'd suggest
starting with your second paper, first. Because the focus of your
"first" paper is "experimentally viable" aether theories. You should
lay the groundwork first.
The reason for this appears to be because you "needed" the "result" of
the first paper to "prove" that Silvertooth's results were impossible —
and therefore were "really" in line with SR. But you needed Silvertooth
to "show" SR in order to support your first paper. This is circular
reasoning. And invalid.
--
greywolf42
greyw...@my-deja.com
Pretty close. There is a distinction in that "alpha" does not require
time synchronization of any sort. However, SR "time synchronization"
does drive alpha = 0. So, for SR, there is no difference.
greyw...@my-deja.com
>
> > Your "Note:" points a departure from your definition. =
>
> No, it does not. It points out the difference between a purely
> mathematical theory (consisting only of postulates and theorems), and
> a physical theory (which adds physical interpretations).
>
Backwards, Tom. First come physical interpretations. Then come
mathematical postulates that follow from the physical interpretations.
Then come theorems.
{snip}
>
> The only reason I said that
[theorems instead of postulates]
> and use it is to avoid the linguistic
> circumloqutions required to include the set of postulates in the
> set of theorems.
>
This is sloppy work. And it can bite you if you don't see on what
things are based. And it did, later in your post.
{snip}
>
> > In any
> > event it will need far more support than just your say-so.
>
> It is easily established by considering every valid equation of SR.
That's
> a lot of work (many equtions), so it is easier to note that the
Lorentz
> transforms form a group. Once you understand the implications of that,
> the mathematical equivalence of SR and LET follows immediately.
>
The problem is that you MUST list all the equations that you consider
valid. Claiming "group-hood" merely buries the differences out of view.
> > [use different postulates for SR]
> > Mathematically speaking, what has changed? =
>
> Nothing. That's my point -- the set of theorems for the theory is
unchang=
> ed
> if you select a different set of postulates (a complete set, of
course).
>
> > You cannot
> > uniquely derive the PoR, Einstein's synchronization, or light speed
> > constancy from the LT.
>
> Yes, you can. These are, in fact, elementary consequences of the
Lorentz
> transforms (given the definition of inertial frames plus the
additional
> "hidden" assumptions of SR [which, by the way, are also hidden
assumption=
> s
> of LET]).
You let the cat out of the bag. LET does not include your "hidden
assumptions". You just "forced" all of your group to be identical to
SR beyond your definition.
>
> Yes, such derivations are not "unique", but that is not required.
Yes, Tom, unique solutions are required because you claim that q=0 or
alpha= 0 are required for your "Lorentz Transforms".
>
{snip}
>
> Just as for your analysis of Krishner, you have found several
pinpricks. =
One prick is all it takes in a claimed "disproof." Thanks for the
confirmation.
{snip}
C.J. Luke
>That is not the SR I have been discussing. The SR I discuss is a theory
>of measurement, and makes definite predictions about measurements
>independent of the physical theory underlying the tools of measurement
>(i.e. it specifies properties of ideal rulers and clocks, but does not
>specify how they are implemented). As I have said before, I do not
>consider it valid to use if-s of the form "if xyz is a law of nature"
>because that is attempting to sneak a _physical_ postulate/assumption
>into a _theorem_, and theorems are purely mathematical aspects of a
>physical theory.
Tom I commend you. You are the first SR'ist in this news group to
call SR what it really is. Actually SR is not even what I would call
a "Theory" but a logical conclusion of how measurments should work
based on the fundamental assumptions of SR ie...POR and a 'constant
light speed'. The first is an assertion and the second is no longer
testable.
"The lack of reason is overcome by the passion of belief"
< c...@totcon.com >