physical vacuum & ether
Mark Samokhvalov
existence of ether, and those who deny it. Einstein himself didn't lay
stress on the non-existence, but claimed, that ether had no part to play in
any physical processes. It's on these lines, that disdcussion continues in
this group even to-day turning around mainly ether wind phenomena. As if
physics stood still all this time, which it hasn't. The reactions of
anihilation of particle - antiparticle pairs and converse reactions of
production of new particles with extra mass in nuclear reactions, assessment
of energy balance in the Universe, etc., brought about the concept of
physical vacuum, which acts as a pool of energy and stock-pile of spare
parts for the production of all known matter. In this, the physical vacuum
perfectly answers the specification of ancient ether.Thus, it must be said.
that the ETHER EXISTS by the virtue of undeniable properties of the
physical vacuum
Yet, there remains the aspect of physical vacuum's involvment in various
forms of field and energy transport, with the modern establishnent's
relativistic view being, that it's, at least, not detectable. Since ether
has already exhibited its ability to play its part in high energy reactions,
the notion, that it's totally insensitive to lower energy processes seems
highly improbable and counter-intuitive. There's only one unquestionably
valid experiment - the much-discussed recently in this group Sagnac effect,
the classical ether wind explanation of which has been universally accepted
as infallible within its premises. The alternative GR explanation, on the
other hand, is physically flawed, because it's based on principally
unmeasurble parameters.
Thus, ether makes its legitimate re-appearance in physics, albeit its effect
on low-energy physical processes is in need of further study.
Bilge
>of energy balance in the Universe, etc., brought about the concept of
>physical vacuum, which acts as a pool of energy and stock-pile of spare
That's stretching it just a bit, dont you think?
>parts for the production of all known matter. In this, the physical vacuum
>perfectly answers the specification of ancient ether.Thus, it must be said.
Sure, you can refer to that as an ether if you wish. It's unobservable
as anything but the vacuum, so I don't see what you gain by making it
a physical thing.
>the notion, that it's totally insensitive to lower energy processes seems
>highly improbable and counter-intuitive. There's only one unquestionably
Then simply picture a photon as propagating through virtual interactions
with the vacuum.
>valid experiment - the much-discussed recently in this group Sagnac effect,
>the classical ether wind explanation of which has been universally accepted
>as infallible within its premises. The alternative GR explanation, on the
>other hand, is physically flawed, because it's based on principally
>unmeasurble parameters.
Oh? It seems only necessary to use special relativity to deal with
it.
Mark Samokhvalov
Bilge пишет в сообщении ...
>Mark Samokhvalov said some stuff about
>
> >of energy balance in the Universe, etc., brought about the concept of
> >physical vacuum, which acts as a pool of energy and stock-pile of spare
>
> That's stretching it just a bit, dont you think?
No, that's - in a nutshell - the current trend.
>
> >parts for the production of all known matter. In this, the physical
vacuum
> >perfectly answers the specification of ancient ether.Thus, it must be
said.
>
> Sure, you can refer to that as an ether if you wish. It's unobservable
> as anything but the vacuum, so I don't see what you gain by making it
> a physical thing.
What's unobservable - the newly created mass? What could a "physical
thing" do more to be observable?
>
> >the notion, that it's totally insensitive to lower energy processes seems
> >highly improbable and counter-intuitive. There's only one unquestionably
>
> Then simply picture a photon as propagating through virtual interactions
> with the vacuum.
By vacuum You mean nothing? How d'You imagine interactions, albeit virtual
with nothing? If You mean with physical vacuum, that's just ether in its
second capacity as an energy transporting medium,
>
>
> >valid experiment - the much-discussed recently in this group Sagnac
effect,
> >the classical ether wind explanation of which has been universally
accepted
> >as infallible within its premises. The alternative GR explanation, on the
> >other hand, is physically flawed, because it's based on principally
> >unmeasurble parameters.
>
> Oh? It seems only necessary to use special relativity to deal with
> it.
Try - in the rotating frame.
Bilge
>
>What's unobservable - the newly created mass? What could a "physical
>thing" do more to be observable?
For example, creation of an electron-positron pair requires 1.022 MeV
of energy as a lower limit. I don't think that's in dispute. Otherwise,
conservation of energy is violated. Raising the electron from the vacuum
leaves the positron as hole in the dirac theory. But, the dirac eqn.
chooses the sign of charge and hence what it calls matter and antimatter
arbitrarily. It's equivalent to say that the positron is the particle
which leaves an electron as a hole. With a dirac picture of the fermi
sea, you need to consider both a positron and an electron sea.
The seas can't anihilate because the resulting photon pair would
be off-mass shell.
>> Then simply picture a photon as propagating through virtual interactions
>> with the vacuum.
>
>By vacuum You mean nothing? How d'You imagine interactions, albeit virtual
>with nothing? If You mean with physical vacuum, that's just ether in its
>second capacity as an energy transporting medium,
I mean that you cant find an ether that would be different than
the definition of the vacuum. At that point, the difference is
a spelling issue.
>>
>> >valid experiment - the much-discussed recently in this group Sagnac
>effect,
>> >the classical ether wind explanation of which has been universally
>accepted
>> >as infallible within its premises. The alternative GR explanation, on the
>> >other hand, is physically flawed, because it's based on principally
>> >unmeasurble parameters.
>>
>> Oh? It seems only necessary to use special relativity to deal with
>> it.
>
>Try - in the rotating frame.
>
A rotating frame isn't necessary.
Luc Bourhis
(in message <8f42e6$1vmd$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru>):
> The reactions of annihilation of particle - antiparticle pairs and
> converse reactions of production of new particles with extra mass
> in nuclear reactions, assessment of energy balance in the
> Universe, etc., brought about the concept of physical vacuum,
> which acts as a pool of energy and stock-pile of spare parts for
> the production of all known matter.
The concept of vacuum is meaningless if you do not specify which
theory it is the vacuum of. If you consider the vacuum of the set of
Quantum Fields Theories which makes the Standard Model your
statements are too vague for me to comment them.
> In this, the physical vacuum
> perfectly answers the specification of ancient ether.
That is to say ?
> Thus, it must be said. that the ETHER EXISTS by the virtue of
> undeniable properties of the physical vacuum
Using uppercase letters does not strengthen your arguments.
> Since ether has already exhibited its ability to play its part in
> high energy reactions,
Really ? You mean that some Ether theories can predict the
cross-section of
e+ e- ---> 4 jets
for example ?
> There's only one unquestionably valid experiment - the
> much-discussed recently in this group Sagnac effect, the classical
> ether wind explanation of which has been universally accepted as
> infallible within its premises. The alternative GR explanation, on the
> other hand, is physically flawed, because it's based on principally
> unmeasurable parameters.
First you forget an interesting point: the modeling of Sagnac
experiments with neutrons in a non-relativistic framework has nothing
to do with the treatment of light Sagnac (cf a recent message of mine
[4] or the original article [5] for the gory details). I mean that it
is not about classical waves in a medium at all. Yet the same phase
shift is obtained and observed. The only framework I know which is
able to explain this fact is SR/GR because both photons and neutrons
moves isotropically with respect to the source and the mirrors in the
rotating frame.
Then I remind you that if one uses LET, one encounters the same
subtleties as in SR in the treatment of Sagnac's effect since both
theories are completely equivalent. It is only with a Galilean Ether
theory that one is not confronted with them. Unfortunately for you
Galilean Relativity plus time dilatation plus length contraction
equal an Ether theory a la LET, except eventually for a different
choice of clocks synchronization which does not matter as long as we
are concerned with observable quantities. Let's look at these points
in details.
First it is a good idea to use the approach of Mansouri and Sexl and
to write the most general transformations between the spacetime
coordinates (t,x) in the frame E where Ether is at rest and the
spacetime coordinates (t',x') in the inertial frame F in which the
experiment is done
t' = a(v) t + e x'
x' = b(v)(x - v t)
y' = d(v) y
z' = d(v) z
where e is an arbitrary parameter summarizing clocks synchronization
and v is the speed of F wrt E. By changing v->-v one can see that the
a,b and d must be even functions of v. Then one considers their
Taylor expansions when v->0:
a(v) = 1 + alpha v^2 + O(v^4)
b(v) = 1 + beta v^2 + O(v^4)
d(v) = 1 + delta v^2 + O(v^4)
One wishes then to put some quantitative limits to alpha, beta and
delta.
(1) Time dilatation
It is very well proved experimentally by plenty of experiments based
on Doppler shift ([1] for example) or dilatation of the life time of
unstable particles ([2] for example). Precisely [1] requires that
(1 + 2 alpha) v/c < 2.8 10^-9
This means that
alpha = -1/2
is verified experimentally with a precision of a few 0.01 for v of
the order of a few 100 m/s , which is the order of the speed of a
point at the surface of Earth wrt the ECI. If one uses for v the
speed of Earth wrt the CMBR one finds a precision of one part for
10^6, which is the final result of [1]. This shows that a(v) = 1, the
Galilean case, is badly ruled out whereas LET is in a very good
agreement with these data.
(2) Length contraction
It can be tested with Kennedy-Thorndike experiments. The best one [3]
concludes that
2|beta - alpha - 1| v < 50 m/s
Therefore if one wants beta = 0 (no length contraction) and
remembering that alpha = -1/2, one must have
v < 50 m/s
although the speed of the lab, situated at Boulder (latitude 40
degrees) in ECI is 357 m/s in this experiment. If one takes the speed
of Earth wrt the CMBR for v, one ends up with
beta = 1/2 +/- 7 10^-5
according to [1].
Therefore one needs at least an Ether theory in which this medium is
not only dragged by Earth during its rotation about the Sun but also
partially dragged by the rotation of Earth about itself. Very
unrealistic and anyway totally ad hoc. And of course the same
phenomena should occur for every planet of the solar system and one
ends up with a model with enough parameters to fit a mammoth, a model
which has never ever been worked out quantitatively by anybody
anyway. On the contrary LET is very well supported by this
experiment.
So as a conclusion Ether theories which are not equivalent to LET are
ruled out experimentally, or at least highly unrealistic if I want to
be utterly generous. Therefore there is no way to avoid the
subtleties which appear when one works with non-inertial frames.
[1] E. Riis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (1988) 81
[2] Bailey et al., Nucl. Phys. B 150 (1979) 1
[3] D. Hils and J.L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 1697
[4] Author: Luc Bourhis
Subject: Re: bogus FAQ claim
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 19:30:33 +0100
Message-ID: <01HW.B53B74D90...@news.freeserve.net>
[5] J.L. Staudenmann et al., Phys. Rev. A 21 (1980) 1419
--
Luc Bourhis
Ilja Schmelzer
> Really ? You mean that some Ether theories can predict the
> cross-section of
> e+ e- ---> 4 jets
> for example ?
GET + SM can.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <schm...@wias-berlin.de>, http://www.wias-berlin.de/~schmelzer
Luc Bourhis
(in message <i3g66sm...@fermi.wias-berlin.de>):
> Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> writes:
>> Really ? You mean that some Ether theories can predict the
>> cross-section of
>> e+ e- ---> 4 jets
>> for example ?
>
> GET + SM can.
I think you know perfectly that I can not be satisfied by this
answer. You _postulate_ that the fields of the Standard Model
describe in fact some internal degrees of freedom of the Ether whose
macroscopic dynamics is driven by the equations of GET. But you do
not have any microscopic model of this medium which could support
this hypothesis. Therefore you _postulate_ also the general
covariance of the Standard Model. From a practical point of view this
means that GET + any QFT is completely indistinguishable from SR +
the same QFT in particle physics. Ether concepts are of no help at
all. In any case the operative concept is Poincaré invariance.
Speaking about what people do in particle physics, note that you will
have a hard time if superstrings theories are confirmed
experimentally because then GET, as GR, can only be the low energy
approximation of one of them and thus can not be a fundamental theory
anymore.
--
Luc Bourhis
Dennis McCarthy
>subtleties as in SR in the treatment of Sagnac's effect since both
>theories are completely equivalent. It is only with a Galilean Ether
>theory that one is not confronted with them. Unfortunately for you
>Galilean Relativity plus time dilatation plus length contraction
>equal an Ether theory a la LET,
Dennis: Wrong. The Bourhis-view of LET (which no one I know follows) is not
equivalent to a Galilean ether theory with clock retardation and length
contraction--and does not have a problem with those "same subtleties." By
"subtleties," of course, you mean such problems where relativists begin arguing
whether speed has any meaning wrt non-inertial frames, and the observed
pathlength of lasers is no longer thought to be the "real" pathlength.
Instead, relativists have to hypothesize the existence of an unobserved
spacetime helix which somehow makes the distance around a rim longer in one
direction than another (according to a rim observer!!) "Don't believe your
eyes, we have this theory you see."
Bourhis: except eventually for a different
Dennis: 10th time: Clock retardation does not rule out Galilean relativity.
B:>(2) Length contraction
>
>It can be tested with Kennedy-Thorndike experiments. The best one [3]
>concludes that
> 2|beta - alpha - 1| v < 50 m/s
>Therefore if one wants beta = 0 (no length contraction) and
>remembering that alpha = -1/2, one must have
> v < 50 m/s
>although the speed of the lab, situated at Boulder (latitude 40
>degrees) in ECI is 357 m/s in this experiment. If one takes the speed
>of Earth wrt the CMBR for v, one ends up with
> beta = 1/2 +/- 7 10^-5
>according to [1].
Dennis: So now Bourhis has retracted his claim that Champeney falsifies an
ether that is relatively stationary (at least in the horizontal direction) wrt
the ECI --and he has retracted his claim that Brillet-Hall falsifies an ether
relatively stationary wrt the ECI--(and he has retracted his claim that neutron
Sagnac falsifies Galilean relativity.) Now it's Kennedy-Thorndike. One
wonders how long it will take him to retract this new claim. Figure about one
month for evasions--a week for redefinitions--and then a quick admission once
trapped where he pretends to figure it out for some other reason.
Bourhis: >Therefore one needs at least an Ether theory in which this medium is
>not only dragged by Earth during its rotation about the Sun but also
>partially dragged by the rotation of Earth about itself. Very
>unrealistic and anyway totally ad hoc.
Dennis: Vortices in media are common--and a natural consequence surrounding
sinks. Thus, the man who believes in mutual time dilation, wave-particle
duality, and an unobserved spacetime helix that makes the distance around a
table longer in one direction than another finds media-vortices "unrealistic."
>So as a conclusion Ether theories which are not equivalent to LET are
>ruled out experimentally,
Dennis: Usually what people mean by"ruled out experimentally" is that the
theory predicts one thing, but something else is observed instead--as with BH
or the Pioneer effect. However, according to you, experimental refutation is
okay if experts still believe in a theory. So apparently, as you have adopted
a new definition of "pathlength" you have also adopted a new definition of
"ruled out experimentally"--and apparently it doesn't have anything to do with
experiments as ether theories with clock retardation are still consistent with
experiments--whereas SR and GR are not.
Dennis McCarthy
Luc Bourhis
(in message <20000510141924...@ng-fv1.aol.com>):
> The Bourhis-view of LET (which no one I know follows) is not
> equivalent to a Galilean ether theory with clock retardation and
> length contraction
First for the zillionth time and I hope the last one, everybody on
this newsgroup uses the expression LET as an acronym for Lorentz
Ether Theory, that is to say the Theory of Electrons this major
physicist presented in his 1904 paper. Convinced Etherists as P.
Stowe, the contributor known as greywolf, Ilja Schmetzler as well
as every vocal relativists on this board, Tom Roberts, Steve
Carlip, Dary McCullough, Jim Carr, .... (and I apologize for those
I have not cited), use LET in this sense. Therefore _you_ are the
only one here who gives a different meaning to this acronym. I will
of course continue to use the most common sense.
Then when I talk about time dilatation and length contraction I
mean of course the ones expressed with the gamma factor. Then I am
sorry but the most straightforward implementation of these concepts
starting from Galilean Relativity leads to a theory equivalent to
LET. Here is a sketch of this proof kindly given recently by Daryl
McCullough, correcting an incorrect presentation of mine.
Step 1: Galilean transform
x' = x + v.t
t' = t
Step 2: Clock synchronization
x' = x + v.t
t' = t + u.x' = (1+u.v)t + u.x
where u is an arbitrary parameter which summarizes how this
synchronization is made. No physical observables should depend on
u.
Step 3: time dilatation and length contraction
x' = gamma(v) [x + v.t]
t' = 1/gamma(v) [(1+u.v)t + u.x]
Step 4: If one uses the model-independent experimental procedure
known as Einstein's synchronization, one must choose
u = v gamma(v)^2
and this leads to the Lorentz transforms
x' = gamma(v)(x + v t)
t' = gamma(v)(t + v x)
And we end up with the theory Lorentz ultimately came with in 1904,
which is mathematically equivalent to relativistic electrodynamics,
even if it is less elegant since he did not give a complete proof
of the covariance of Maxwell's equations.
So now please show us how your path toward a Galilean Ether theory
with time dilatation and length contraction differs from the one I
have sketched above.
> So now Bourhis has retracted his claim that Champeney falsifies
> an ether that is relatively stationary (at least in the
> horizontal direction) wrt the ECI
This experiment is not conclusive only because it is not sensitive
to "(v/c)^2" terms.
> --and he has retracted his claim that Brillet-Hall falsifies an
> ether relatively stationary wrt the ECI
This kind of Michelson-Morley experiment should be conclusive but
some not understood experimental aspects spoil this possibility.
> --(and he has retracted his claim that neutron Sagnac falsifies
> Galilean relativity.)
Again the lack of sensitivity to "(v/c)^2" terms does not allow to
discriminate relativistic and non-relativistic models. But no
Etherist is able to model neutron Sagnac because Quantum Mechanics
is much fiercer an opponent than SR.
> Now it's Kennedy-Thorndike.
Not surprising. This is one of the three experimental pillars of
Special Relativity with Michelson and Morley experiments and
experiences revealing time dilatation. Somebody with a better
knowledge than me of the tests of Special Relativity could have
come with Hils and Hall's experiment ages ago. Unfortunately I am
far from knowing all the most recent experiences in details. But I
learn, slowly.
Let me precise what I have just said above. In the framework I have
sketched in my previous message:
> t' = a(v) t + e x'
> x' = b(v)(x - v t)
> y' = d(v) y
> z' = d(v) z
with
> a(v) = 1 + alpha v^2 + O(v^4)
> b(v) = 1 + beta v^2 + O(v^4)
> d(v) = 1 + delta v^2 + O(v^4)
MMX gives a constraint on beta-delta, KTX on beta-delta or
beta-alpha whereas Doppler shift or measurement of life-time of
moving particle constrain directly alpha. The strength of these
constraints depends on v, the bigger the better.
> One wonders how long it will take him to retract this new claim.
You can read the paper of Hils and Hall.
--
Luc Bourhis
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> Really ? You mean that some Ether theories can predict the
>>> cross-section of
>>> e+ e- ---> 4 jets
>>> for example ?
>>
>
> I think you know perfectly that I can not be satisfied by this
> answer. You _postulate_ that the fields of the Standard Model
> describe in fact some internal degrees of freedom of the Ether whose
> macroscopic dynamics is driven by the equations of GET.
So what? Current QFT is not better, it postulates essentially the
same things. In science there is no patent right which forbids me to
use the results of relativists in ether theory without payment.
> But you do not have any microscopic model of this medium which could
> support this hypothesis.
There is the real toy model 3He-A with SU(2) gauge fields and
fermions. And the point of GET is that it proves covariance without
having to make assumptions about the special models.
> Therefore you _postulate_ also the general covariance of the
> Standard Model.
No. The general covariance is _derived_ from general assumptions about
the ether. The derivation is a general one, independent of the
material model.
> From a practical point of view this means that GET + any QFT is
> completely indistinguishable from SR + the same QFT in particle
> physics. Ether concepts are of no help at all. In any case the
> operative concept is Poincaré invariance.
Ether concepts are, of course, also of no help in the domain of car
construction. So what? The question is a different one: Can some
ether theories predict the cross-section of e+ e- ---> 4 jets? And
the answer is that the ether theory "GET + SM" can.
The advantages of GET are in other fundamental domains. You avoid to
discuss them.
> Speaking about what people do in particle physics, note that you
> will have a hard time if superstrings theories are confirmed
> experimentally because then GET, as GR, can only be the low energy
> approximation of one of them and thus can not be a fundamental
> theory anymore.
If ................ I don't believe this happens. Superstrings are a
nice math game, they are helpful to solve moonshine conjectures and to
win Fields medals. Something very beautiful, like the classification
of regular polyhedra, which Kepler has tried to connect with the
diameters of the planetary orbits.
Dennis McCarthy
>
>On Wed, 10 May 2000 19:19:24 +0100, Dennis McCarthy wrote
>(in message <20000510141924...@ng-fv1.aol.com>):
>
>> The Bourhis-view of LET (which no one I know follows) is not
>> equivalent to a Galilean ether theory with clock retardation and
>> length contraction
>
>Ether Theory, that is to say the Theory of Electrons this major
>physicist presented in his 1904 paper.
Dennis: Sigh. I must hit all caps just on the hopes that you read it: NOBODY
HERE FOLLOWS THAT THEORY NO MATTER WHAT ITS INITIALS!!! BRINGING IT UP IS A
STRAWMAN.
Bourhis: Convinced Etherists as P.
>Stowe,
Dennis: P Stowe follows ASR--which is very close to what I follow.
Bourh: the contributor known as greywolf,
Dennis: Again, ASR.
Bourhis: Ilja Schmetzler as well
Dennis: Ilja follows LPET--based on Poincare's principle.
So who do you know who follows the LET of the 1904 paper, as you define it.
Bourhis: >as every vocal relativists on this board,
> Tom Roberts, Steve
>Carlip, Dary McCullough, Jim Carr, .... (and I apologize for those
>I have not cited), use LET in this sense. Therefore _you_ are the
>only one here who gives a different meaning to this acronym.
Dennis: I don't care what initials you give to that theory--AS I'VE WRITTEN
DOZENS OF TIMES! If you want to call it LET, fine. Then I don't follow LET
--nor does anyone else I know. Bringing it up is a strawman.
Bourhis: I will
>of course continue to use the most common sense.
Dennis: NOBODY...FOLLOWS....THAT....THEORY
Bourhis: >Then when I talk about time dilatation and length contraction I
Dennis: In my Galilean ether theory, the rest frame is discoverable by a Sagnac
experiment. This becomes the ultimate preferred frame--nothing is calculated
with respect to the observer. Instead this preferred frame is used. At
present, the preferred frame (for light moving in a horizontal direction wrt
the Earth) in the vicinity of the Earth is the ECI frame.
Sagnac, and the speed of light wrt rim observers, follows from three lines of
algebra.
So Galilean ether theory with clock retardation (and perhaps length
contraction) does not have a problem with those "same subtleties" that SR/GR
has with Sagnac. By
"subtleties," of course, you mean such problems where relativists begin arguing
whether speed has any meaning wrt non-inertial frames, and the observed
pathlength of lasers is no longer thought to be the "real" pathlength.
Instead, relativists have to hypothesize the existence of an unobserved
spacetime helix which somehow makes the distance around a rim longer in one
direction than another (according to a rim observer!!) "Don't believe your
eyes, we have this theory you see."
The Galilean ether theory with clock retardation has no such problems.
D:>> So now Bourhis has retracted his claim that Champeney falsifies
>> an ether that is relatively stationary (at least in the
>> horizontal direction) wrt the ECI
Bourhis: >This experiment is not conclusive only because it is not sensitive
>to "(v/c)^2" terms.
Dennis: So both theories still predict Champeney's results.
D:>> --and he has retracted his claim that Brillet-Hall falsifies an
>> ether relatively stationary wrt the ECI
Bourhis: >This kind of Michelson-Morley experiment should be conclusive but
>some not understood experimental aspects spoil this possibility.
Dennis: LOL. No. The result was at odds with SR--and so you have taken on
faith that there is "some not understood experimental aspects."
And well the free hypothesis of "not understood experimental aspects" makes a
theory unfalsifiable.
>> --(and he has retracted his claim that neutron Sagnac falsifies
>> Galilean relativity.)
Bourhis: >Again the lack of sensitivity to "(v/c)^2" terms does not allow to
>discriminate relativistic and non-relativistic models.
Dennis: And so both theories are consistent.
D:>> Now it's Kennedy-Thorndike.
Bourhis: >Not surprising. This is one of the three experimental pillars of
>Special Relativity with Michelson and Morley experiments and
>experiences revealing time dilatation. Somebody with a better
>knowledge than me of the tests of Special Relativity could have
>come with Hils and Hall's experiment ages ago. Unfortunately I am
>far from knowing all the most recent experiences in details. But I
>learn, slowly.
Dennis: And so now you believe Hils and Hall's (as well as KT) falsify an ether
that has no horizontal velocity wrt the ECI frame? Is that what you are
saying?
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Roberts
> For almost a century now, a wrangle continues between those who assert the
> existence of ether, and those who deny it. Einstein himself didn't lay
> stress on the non-existence, but claimed, that ether had no part to play in
> any physical processes. It's on these lines, that disdcussion continues in
> this group even to-day turning around mainly ether wind phenomena. As if
> physics stood still all this time, which it hasn't.
Right -- modern physics has not stood still, but ether theory
essentially has. Ether has played no significant part in the evolution
of modern physics since ~1920 (or earlier, say 1905 (:-)). In a very
real sense, part of the term "modern" means repudiation of ether
concepts (other aspects of the term relate to QM, QFT, etc.)....
Yes, ether theroy has not really stood still, and some ether
advocates have "guilded the lily" of Lorentz's 1904-1920
presentation (which we call LET around here). But still, no
ether theory which is not equivalent to LET is experimentally
viable today.
> The reactions of
> anihilation of particle - antiparticle pairs and converse reactions of
> production of new particles with extra mass in nuclear reactions, assessment
> of energy balance in the Universe, etc., brought about the concept of
> physical vacuum, which acts as a pool of energy and stock-pile of spare
> parts for the production of all known matter.
The vacuum of a modern QFT in no way consists of "spare parts" -- pair
production _creates_ particles, it does not "pull them out of the vacuum"
in some unspecified manner (i.e. a-dagger is a _creation_ operator, not
a "pull one particle out of the vacuum" operator) -- that is the essence
of the structure of Fock space.
> In this, the physical vacuum
> perfectly answers the specification of ancient ether.
Not at all. The essence of ether is that it somehow "supports"
electromagnetic waves, while the vacuum of QED does no such thing.
> Thus, it must be said.
> that the ETHER EXISTS by the virtue of undeniable properties of the
> physical vacuum
You are merely following my example: define "ether" to be
the number 10, so I have ether fingers. Re-defining a word
in a completely differnt manner is useless, and confusing....
The vacuum of modern QFTs has virtually no relationship to
the ether.
> Yet, there remains the aspect of physical vacuum's involvment in various
> forms of field and energy transport, with the modern establishnent's
> relativistic view being, that it's, at least, not detectable.
The undetectability of the ether is an _EXPERIMENTAL_RESULT_, not any
pejorative "establishment viewpoint".
> [... more of the same]
As I have said so often, ether advocates have _NOTHING_ until someone
performs the following steps:
1) conceive an ether theory which is not indistinguishable from SR,
and which is consistent with _all_ of the existing experiments.
2) conceive an experiment which that theory predicts can detect
the ether.
3) perform the experiment with a definite positive result.
So far, nobody has succeeded in performing even that first step....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jeff
<samokh...@mtu-net.ru> wrote:
>For almost a century now, a wrangle continues between those who
assert the existence of ether, and those who deny it. Einstein
himself didn't lay stress on the non-existence, but claimed, that
ether had no part to play in any physical processes. It's on
these lines, that disdcussion continues in this group even to-day
turning around mainly ether wind phenomena. As if physics stood
still all this time, which it hasn't. The reactions of
anihilation of particle - antiparticle pairs and converse
reactions of production of new particles with extra mass in
nuclear reactions, assessment of energy balance in the Universe,
etc., brought about the concept of physical vacuum, which acts as
a pool of energy and stock-pile of spare parts for the production
of all known matter. In this, the physical vacuum perfectly
answers the specification of ancient ether.Thus, it must be said.
>that the ETHER EXISTS by the virtue of undeniable properties of
the physical vacuum Yet, there remains the aspect of physical
vacuum's involvment in various forms of field and energy
transport, with the modern establishnent's relativistic view
being, that it's, at least, not detectable. Since ether has
already exhibited its ability to play its part in high
energy reactions, the notion, that it's totally insensitive to
lower energy processes seems highly improbable and
counter-intuitive. There's only one unquestionably valid
experiment - the much-discussed recently in this group
Sagnac effect, the classical ether wind explanation of which has
been universally accepted as infallible within its premises. The
alternative GR explanation, on the other hand, is physically
flawed, because it's based on principally unmeasurble parameters.
>Thus, ether makes its legitimate re-appearance in physics,
albeit its effect on low-energy physical processes is in need of
further study.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mark,
I really enjoyed reading your post. You examined, in a very
realistic way, the quandry which abounds in Theoretical Physics
today. One problem I see is that physicists today speak of the
"vacuum" of space and yet we know that some force holds particles
together that are 10^15 times denser than water. Amazing how this
empty nothingness (space) can do that. Concerning this I would
really like your opinion on my website locatyed at:
All comments and opinions appreciated. Thanks.
Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Luc Bourhis
(in message <20000511105832...@ng-fb1.aol.com>):
> Dennis: NOBODY...FOLLOWS....THAT....THEORY
This is certainly why Paul Stowe and greywolf spent so much time
defending Lorentz's theory on this newsgroup. Reading their
contribution I thought naively that they valued this work. They did
not understand that it is equivalent to SR but this is an another
story. Furthermore last year you have also advocated what you
called LPET, P being the initial of Poincaré. Considering the
scientific work of this gentleman I can not see what can be this
theory if not something very close to Lorentz's theory.
> Dennis: In my Galilean ether theory, [bla bla bla bla]
You have not shown to me where your analysis differ from the one I
have sketched above. In case you have missed something let me
precise that the transforms I consider are between a preferred
inertial frame E where light propagates isotropically and any frame
moving in E with a speed v along the x axis. If you are not able to
expressed mathematically your ideas, you have nothing. And please
do not refer to your web site because you do not address the
question relative to time dilatation and length contraction there
(at least it was not so the last time I had a look).
> And so now you believe Hils and Hall's (as well as KT) falsify
> an ether that has no horizontal velocity wrt the ECI frame? Is
> that what you are saying?
Your inability to understand my messages is rather puzzling. I have
written that Hils and Hall's experiment requires length contraction
in order to hide an Ether wind, even if it is as slow as ~ 300 m/s
in the lab frame. Reread my post for the details.
--
Luc Bourhis
GLOBARR
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
Mark Samokhvalov wrote:
> For almost a century . . .
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
. . . ether advocates have _NOTHING_ until someone
performs the following steps:
1) conceive an ether theory which is not indistinguishable
from SR, and which is consistent with _all_ of the existing
experiments.
O'Barr comments:
And what a lie! Just for fun, Roberts, you tell me! Why
not present the reverse of this statement? Why not make SR
required to reformulate itself so that it is not
indistinguishable from LET? Wouldn't that be just as fair,
just as scientific, just as logical, and just as
reasonable????
Let it be said clearly and exactly: SR advocates have
_NOTHING_. They have nothing because LET is what is perfect
and correct and exact and does everything that is needed.
Therefore, you are the loser, and you have nothing until you
justify your crazy and impossible beliefs in things that
cannot really be. You are the one living a lie, and you
cannot hold to this lie much longer!
Tom Roberts wrote:
2) conceive an experiment which that theory predicts can
detect the ether.
O'Barr comments:
But everything detects the ether! Every clock that
appears to slow down, every ruler that appears to shorten,
every photon that maintains a velocity independent of its
source, everything we see has been affected by the ether!
What really cannot be done is for you to prove that there
is 4-D spacetime continuums! If you could do this, then of
course we could reject LET! But since this cannot be done,
then the ether is superior!
Tom Roberts wrote:
3) perform the experiment with a definite positive result.
So far, nobody has succeeded in performing even that first
step....
O'Barr comments:
Yes, no one, even since 1905, has ever performed any
experiment that showed SR was superior to LET! Today, we can
all see that LET is the superior theory, since LET can even
explain SR. Sorry for you poor post!
Gerald L. O'Barr fl...@access1.net
Please Read: http://www.access1.net/flaco
(Some day we will be able to read the FAQ?)
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
Etherman
Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>First it is a good idea to use the approach of Mansouri and Sexl
and
>to write the most general transformations between the spacetime
>coordinates (t,x) in the frame E where Ether is at rest and the
>spacetime coordinates (t',x') in the inertial frame F in which
the
>experiment is done
> t' = a(v) t + e x'
> x' = b(v)(x - v t)
> y' = d(v) y
> z' = d(v) z
>where e is an arbitrary parameter summarizing clocks
synchronization
>and v is the speed of F wrt E.
Actually this isn't the most general transform. We could
allow the coefficients to be functions of position.
But if we assume homogenity we'd have to drop this position
dependence. We could also be more general by allowing e
to be velocity dependent. We could also write:
x'=b(v)x-c(v)vt, and be more general. Experiments
would presumably constrain c(v) to be 1. We could also
add terms that are nonlinear in x and t, but that would really
complicate things.
>By changing v->-v one can see that the
>a,b and d must be even functions of v. Then one considers their
>Taylor expansions when v->0:
> a(v) = 1 + alpha v^2 + O(v^4)
> b(v) = 1 + beta v^2 + O(v^4)
> d(v) = 1 + delta v^2 + O(v^4)
>One wishes then to put some quantitative limits to alpha, beta
>and delta.
Do you know if the experiments are sensitive enough to
measure the v^4 terms? The above analysis seems to indicate that
any theory which has the above approximations would be
equally valid (of course Maxwell's Equations would be different).
>Therefore one needs at least an Ether theory in which this
medium is
>not only dragged by Earth during its rotation about the Sun but
also
>partially dragged by the rotation of Earth about itself. Very
>unrealistic and anyway totally ad hoc. And of course the same
>phenomena should occur for every planet of the solar system and
one
>ends up with a model with enough parameters to fit a mammoth, a
model
>which has never ever been worked out quantitatively by anybody
>anyway.
Actually gravity itself is "dragged" by the Earth around
the sun and "partially dragged" by its rotation. Petr
Beckmann had a theory based on this idea. IIRC, it was
pretty much indistiguishable from SR on all terran experiments,
but I think there might be astronomical and cosmological
tests that could distinguish them.
Etherman
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
> Yes, ether theroy has not really stood still, and some ether
> advocates have "guilded the lily" of Lorentz's 1904-1920
> presentation (which we call LET around here). But still, no
> ether theory which is not equivalent to LET is experimentally
> viable today.
This is a lie.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>
>> [... more of the same]
>
>As I have said so often, ether advocates have _NOTHING_ until someone
>performs the following steps:
> 1) conceive an ether theory which is not indistinguishable from SR,
> and which is consistent with _all_ of the existing experiments.
I did. It is called the Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT includes
SR as a subset and it give the same predictions as GR but without the
following problematic predictions of GR: singularity, black holes worm
holes, young age of the universe compared to its oldest stars, and the
GR prediction of an expansion rate of the current universe disgree
with the Hubble observation.
> 2) conceive an experiment which that theory predicts can detect
> the ether.
I did. It's called the modified Compton Experiment.
> 3) perform the experiment with a definite positive result.
>So far, nobody has succeeded in performing even that first step....
You got me here. I don't have the resources to do the experiment.
Ken Seto
Luc Bourhis
(in message <1ce96dbb...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>):
>> First it is a good idea to use the approach of Mansouri and
>> Sexl and to write the most general transformations between the
>> spacetime coordinates (t,x) in the frame E where Ether is at
>> rest and the spacetime coordinates (t',x') in the inertial
>> frame F in which the experiment is done
>> t' = a(v) t + e x'
>> x' = b(v)(x - v t)
>> y' = d(v) y
>> z' = d(v) z
>> where e is an arbitrary parameter summarizing clocks
>> synchronization and v is the speed of F wrt E.
>
> Actually this isn't the most general transform. We could allow
> the coefficients to be functions of position.
Yes.
> But if we assume homogeneity we'd have to drop this position
> dependence.
This is always implicitly postulated and there is no experimental
indication that we should not do so.
> We could also be more general by allowing e to be velocity
> dependent.
Since e is completely spurious as far as we are concerned with
physical observables this does not really matter.
> We could also write: x'=b(v)x-c(v)vt, and be more general.
But then v is not the speed of F with respect to E because x'=0 is
not equivalent to x = vt anymore.
> Experiments would presumably constrain c(v) to be 1.
You mean c = b according to your last formula. But no, this is just
a consequence of the definition of v.
> We could also add terms that are nonlinear in x and t, but that
> would really complicate things.
Yet another consequence of the homogeneity of spacetime. If T is
one of the transforms we search, T(x)-T(y) must depend only on the
4-vector x-y. Hence the linearity if T is smooth enough.
>> By changing v->-v one can see that the
>> a,b and d must be even functions of v. Then one considers their
>> Taylor expansions when v->0:
>> a(v) = 1 + alpha v^2 + O(v^4)
>> b(v) = 1 + beta v^2 + O(v^4)
>> d(v) = 1 + delta v^2 + O(v^4)
>> One wishes then to put some quantitative limits to alpha, beta
>> and delta.
>
> Do you know if the experiments are sensitive enough to
> measure the v^4 terms?
Few of them are. There is an interesting article of C.M. Will which
studies these questions [1]. According to him,
- an experiment like Riis et al.'s one [2] could give a limit for
the coefficient alpha_2 of v^4 in the expansion of a if they were
using faster atomic beams. This has not been done as far as I know.
- the best Mossbauer rotor experiment [3] gives a limit
|alpha_2| < 3 10^-2
As far as I know the best Michelson-Morley's and
Kennedy-Thorndike's experiments are sensitive only to the v^2
terms.
Note that a different approach is possible. One can postulate that
the transforms of spacetime coordinates are Lorentz's ones. After a
clever choice of units the speed which appears in them is 1. Then
one breaks by hand the Lorentz invariance of the law of
electrodynamics : the pure EM part of the Lagrangian in some
preferred frame R is E^2 - c^2 B^2 instead of the usual E^2 - B^2.
Then electromagnetic waves propagate isotropically in R with this
speed c, which is a priori different from 1. But in any other
frames these waves propagates anisotropically. Therefore the usual
experiments based on EM waves can be used to constrain c.
Furthermore the energy and momentum of bound charged-particle
systems are also modified and they depend on their speed in this
preferred frame and on c. This can be used to make more precise
tests than those based only on the propagation of EM waves. One can
look at the modification of atomic spectra induced by the motion of
atoms in the preferred frame for example. This is the principle of
the well-known experiments a la Hughes and Drever. One can then use
experimental results to constrain the value of c. In practice 1/c^2
-1 is found to be less than 3 10^-22 by the best experiments. You
can find most of the gory details as well as explanations and
references about the Hughes-Drever experiments in [4].
Note that the same kind of game can be played also for the weak and
strong interactions by adding terms in the Lagrangian of the
Standard Model which break Lorentz invariance. This could be
promising to create new tests of Lorentz invariance because
particle physicists have produced for decades tons of precise
results with which to compare such test theories. See for example
[5]. The problem is that non covariant theories are very hard to
work with and to derive results is actually more painful.
> The above analysis seems to indicate that
> any theory which has the above approximations would be
> equally valid (of course Maxwell's Equations would be different).
Yes but if one wants these transforms to form a group, in the
mathematical sense, which is a very natural requirement for a
theory of relativity, the only solutions are Lorentz transforms.
Basically the simplest kinematical framework compatible with the
experimental limits is given by a Minkovskian spacetime. I think
you can imagine how painful it would be to work without a group
structure.
> Actually gravity itself is "dragged" by the Earth around
> the sun and "partially dragged" by its rotation.
What do you mean ?
> Petr Beckmann had a theory based on this idea. IIRC, it was
> pretty much indistinguishable from SR on all terran experiments,
> but I think there might be astronomical and cosmological tests
> that could distinguish them.
I am not aware of this work.
[1] C.M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 403
[2] E. Riis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (1988) 81
[3] G.R. Isaak, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970) 255
Note that a pedagogical description of the principle of this
experiment can be found in section 11.2 p.508 of "Classical
Electrodynamics" by J.D. Jackson.
[4] M.P. Haugan and C.M. Will, Physics Today (May 1987) 69
[5] High-Energy Tests of Lorentz Invariance, S. Coleman, S. L.
Glashow, Phys.Rev.D59 (1999) 1168, hep-ph/9812418
--
Luc Bourhis
Bilge
>
>I did. It is called the Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT includes
For someone that cant seem to find a week old article, I'd say
your skills at theorizing are closer to Definite Ruse Theory.
>I did. It's called the modified Compton Experiment.
You do know there is better equipment available?
>You got me here. I don't have the resources to do the experiment.
Darn! I'll bet that just really tears it, huh? I know
you'd do it of you could, though.
Dennis McCarthy
Bourhis: >You have not shown to me where your analysis differ from the one I
>have sketched above.
Dennis: We will once again drop all other points until I have effectively
communicated what would seem to be a simple point: As I've repeated more than
a dozen times, in the ether theory I favor, the transform is Galilean--and the
preferred clock is an ECI one.
It would seem you must really know my view, because you keep trying to bring up
experiments that allegedly falsify this view--and then you have to retract them
one by one.
I think you understand what a Galilean transform is, right?
If so, then you understand what my analysis is and how it differs from yours.
The Sagnac effect follows in 3 lines of algebra--as I've shown many times.
All intuitive notions of pathlength and speed still apply.
This really isn't difficult, and I'm sure we are on the same page now.
--Dennis
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>On Thu, 11 May 2000 15:58:32 +0100, Dennis McCarthy wrote
>(in message <20000511105832...@ng-fb1.aol.com>):
>
>> Dennis: NOBODY...FOLLOWS....THAT....THEORY
Bourhis: >This is certainly why Paul Stowe and greywolf spent so much time
>defending Lorentz's theory on this newsgroup. Reading their
>contribution I thought naively that they valued this work. They did
>not understand that it is equivalent to SR but this is an another
>story.
Dennis: Oh dear God. Stowe's and Greywolf's interpretation of that paper is
not the same as yours. Right or wrong, they **do not follow your
interpretation of that paper.** They do not follow a theory that is equivalent
to SR. ***NO ETHERIST WHOM I KNOW FOLLOWS A THEORY THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO SR
FOR ALL POSSIBLE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.**
If you are right about the interpretation of that paper, then that's not the
theory that Stowe and Greywolf advocate. That's why they were arguing with
you.
So now since it has been made painstakingly clear **by everyone** that there
is no etherist who follows your LET ether interpretation, please do not bring
it up again as it is an obvious strawman.
So back to the original argument which you can't avoid.
1) SR's explanation of the speed of light wrt rim observers in Sagnac-type
situations doesn't pass the laugh test. It involves arguments where
relativists claim that speed can't really be defined wrt non-inertial frames
and that pathlength in non-inertial frames is really ambiguous despite what
your eyes tell you.
2) As this makes you feel uncomfortable, you have latched onto one particular
ether-view that is equivalent to SR and which no-one follows. You then argue
that this ether explanation is just as incoherent (or filled with "subtleties"
as you call them) as the SR view. This is a strawman as no one follows that
view.
3) The correct ether explanation of Sagnac is the one that I have
painstakingly put forth dozens of times. It is simply a few lines of algebra
and is obviously much simpler than the SR view.
D:
>>> Then when I talk about time dilatation and length contraction I
>>> mean of course the ones expressed with the gamma factor. Then I am
>>> sorry but the most straightforward implementation of these concepts
>>> starting from Galilean Relativity leads to a theory equivalent to
>>> LET. Here is a sketch of this proof kindly given recently by Daryl
>>> McCullough, correcting an incorrect presentation of mine.
>>>
Bourhis: In case you have missed something let me
>precise that the transforms I consider are between a preferred
>inertial frame E where light propagates isotropically and any frame
>moving in E with a speed v along the x axis. If you are not able to
>expressed mathematically your ideas, you have nothing.
Dennis: Sigh. Now, please read very, very carefully.
x' = x + v.t
t' = t
The most accurate time is that kept by an ECI atomic clock.
Do you really not understand this?
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
> the ether.
Malcolm Browne (NYT): " But in the current issue of Physics Today, Dr. Frank
Wilczek of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., writes that the
ether has undeservedly been given a bad name, when in fact, it should be
regarded as the direct ancestor of quantum fields.
"It was a logical succession," Dr. Wilczek said in an interview. "Modern
quantum field theory is a direct descendant of the ether."
Roberts:
>The undetectability of the ether is an _EXPERIMENTAL_RESULT_, not any
>pejorative "establishment viewpoint".
Dennis: What Roberts means by "undetectable" is always hard to determine. All
of the effects of an underlying medium (currents, drag, waves, Sagnac, Doppler,
etc.) are routinely observed. Perhaps, he means we can't "see" the ether--and
so with that definition we still haven't detected the atmosphere.
Dennis McCarthy
Daryl McCullough
>
>Roberts: >The vacuum of modern QFTs has virtually no relationship to
>> the ether.
>
>Malcolm Browne (NYT): " But in the current issue of Physics Today, Dr. Frank
>Wilczek of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., writes that the
>ether has undeservedly been given a bad name, when in fact, it should be
>regarded as the direct ancestor of quantum fields.
>
> "It was a logical succession," Dr. Wilczek said in an interview. "Modern
>quantum field theory is a direct descendant of the ether."
Except that there is no absolute motion in QFT, there is no absolute
length contraction, there is no absolute time dilation. In other
words, the vaccuum of QFT has *nothing* to do with the ether
advocated by those in this newsgroup.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Jim Carr
Bourhis wrote (in part)
in article <01HW.B540F2970...@news.freeserve.net>:
} have sketched above.
In article <20000512131233...@ng-fb1.aol.com>
djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) writes:
>
>We will once again drop all other points until I have effectively
>communicated what would seem to be a simple point:
Could be a long wait. I've been trying for years to get you to
provide a _clear_ and unambiguous statement of the DJMenCK Ether
Theory (DET) rather than what you provide below.
>As I've repeated more than
>a dozen times, in the ether theory I favor, the transform is Galilean--and
>the preferred clock is an ECI one.
That is not a very complete statement. You don't say why you prefer
that clock, why you use the indefinite article "an" to refer to what
should be a _unique_ coordinate system in any real ether theory, or
what you say about all other clocks. For example, you have also
written that those other clocks run at a different rate when in motion
relative to (what we must assume is) this ether rest frame, the ECI.
That would mean the t' is an expression for this changed clock rate,
just as I have assumed in the past. Is that correct?
This statement also conflicts with your legal threats when I stated
that you did use a preffered coordinate system to define a length
of time, a choice that would make the "length" of different trips
the same if the start and end at the same point in the ECI.
Finally, this statement omits any description of what force makes
a clock at rest in the ether "keep time".
> I think you understand what a Galilean transform is, right?
That is not the part of your description that is incomplete.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Jim Carr
>
>The Bourhis-view of LET (which no one I know follows) is not
>equivalent to a Galilean ether theory with clock retardation and length
>contraction--and does not have a problem with those "same subtleties."
Is this your way of saying that the DJMenCK Ether Theory (DET) is
based on Galilean Relativity plus clock retardation (due to some
as-yet-unspecified force) and length contraction (ditto), or are
you just trying to get people to assume this is what you mean so
that you can call them liars when they do?
<... snip discussion of non-inertial coordinate systems ...>
We must see *your* idea "effectively communicated" first.
>10th time: Clock retardation does not rule out Galilean relativity.
Irrelevant to the real issue: does the DET have "clock retardation"
and what force is responsible for it.
Tom Roberts
> Why
> not present the reverse of this statement? Why not make SR
> required to reformulate itself so that it is not
> indistinguishable from LET?
The question being discussed was about asserting the existence of
the ether, not about asserting the "truthfulness" of any of these
theories. The equivalence of these theories implies that there is
no possible experiment which can distinguish among them. As one
member of the equivalence class has no ether (SR), the existence
of the ether cannot be asserted.
> But everything detects the ether!
Not in the sense I used "detect". In which inertial frame is your
ether at rest? What experiment proves your answer?
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >The vacuum of modern QFTs has virtually no relationship to
> > the ether.
> quantum field theory is a direct descendant of the ether."
Yes, there may be a distant relationship if one looks hard enough.
why bother? Though I repeat: the vacuum of modern QFTs bears
precious little resemblance to the ether, and does not "support"
elecromagnetic waves in any sense of the term.
> >The undetectability of the ether is an _EXPERIMENTAL_RESULT_, not any
> >pejorative "establishment viewpoint".
> Dennis: What Roberts means by "undetectable" is always hard to determine.
I mean that no experiment has ever determined the local inertial
rest frame of the ether. No experiment has ever determined any of
its properties like we can easily do for other mediums (e.g.
density, viscosity/elasticity, ...).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
island
Tom Roberts <TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> wrote in message
news:391CB5DF...@chicago.avenew.com...
> Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >The vacuum of modern QFTs has virtually no relationship to
> > > the ether.
> > "It was a logical succession," Dr. Wilczek said in an interview.
"Modern
> > quantum field theory is a direct descendant of the ether."
>
> Yes, there may be a distant relationship if one looks hard enough.
> why bother? Though I repeat: the vacuum of modern QFTs bears
> precious little resemblance to the ether, and does not "support"
> elecromagnetic waves in any sense of the term.
>
> > >The undetectability of the ether is an _EXPERIMENTAL_RESULT_, not any
> > >pejorative "establishment viewpoint".
Geez(!)... what a total joke that statement is. I'm not even an ether
freak, either, and yet, even I have to cringe when I read something that
stupid! That is SO like telling the world that we, humans, are GOD!!!, and,
well, OBVIOULSY the ether can't exist, since we can't detect anything with
our almighty and powerful 21st century technology!
Okay, so now I'm laffin!
Sounds pretty much like the results depict the "establishment viewpoint" if
you ask me, since neither side of the Aether/Anti-Aether existremest bunch
of quacks can prove squat, either way!!
Okay, so now I'm goin to bed... You guys ALL make me tired!
Etherman
Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 1:14:36 +0100, Etherman wrote
>(in message <1ce96dbb...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>):
>But then v is not the speed of F with respect to E because x'=0
is
>not equivalent to x = vt anymore.
True, I hadn't thought of that.
>> Experiments would presumably constrain c(v) to be 1.
>You mean c = b according to your last formula. But no, this is
just
>a consequence of the definition of v.
>
>> We could also add terms that are nonlinear in x and t, but
that
>> would really complicate things.
>Yet another consequence of the homogeneity of spacetime. If T is
>one of the transforms we search, T(x)-T(y) must depend only on
the
>4-vector x-y. Hence the linearity if T is smooth enough.
We could still try such a model, but it would have to
be a very weak nonlinearity to agree with experimental
limits of inhomogenity.
>> The above analysis seems to indicate that
>> any theory which has the above approximations would be
>> equally valid (of course Maxwell's Equations would be
different).
>Yes but if one wants these transforms to form a group, in the
>mathematical sense, which is a very natural requirement for a
>theory of relativity, the only solutions are Lorentz transforms.
>Basically the simplest kinematical framework compatible with the
>experimental limits is given by a Minkovskian spacetime. I think
>you can imagine how painful it would be to work without a group
>structure.
I always hear that they form a group but I don't quite
understand something. A group requires a binary operation.
When we speak of transforms, what is the binary operation?
>> Actually gravity itself is "dragged" by the Earth around
>> the sun and "partially dragged" by its rotation.
>What do you mean ?
Well, the gravitational field is centered on the Earth.
So it certainly follows the Earth around. And the partial
dragging with the rotation would be akin to the Lens-Thirring
effect.
>> Petr Beckmann had a theory based on this idea. IIRC, it was
>> pretty much indistinguishable from SR on all terran
experiments,
>> but I think there might be astronomical and cosmological tests
>> that could distinguish them.
>I am not aware of this work.
AFAIK, it only appears in his book "Einstein Plus Two"
which isn't always easy to find.
Etherman
ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
>On Thu, 11 May 2000 10:33:30 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjro...@lucent.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> [... more of the same]
>>
>>As I have said so often, ether advocates have _NOTHING_ until
someone
>>performs the following steps:
>> 1) conceive an ether theory which is not indistinguishable
from SR,
>> and which is consistent with _all_ of the existing
experiments.
>
includes
without the
>following problematic predictions of GR: singularity, black
holes worm
>holes, young age of the universe compared to its oldest stars,
and the
>GR prediction of an expansion rate of the current universe
disgree
>with the Hubble observation.
You've consistently failed to be able to back up these claims.
You haven't even tried to show agreement between your theory
and the four classical tests of GR.
GLOBARR
Tom Roberts <TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> wrote:
Ref: <391AD2CA...@lucent.com>
<20000511183255...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
> Why not present the reverse of this statement?
> Why not make SR required to reformulate itself
> so that it is not indistinguishable from LET?
Tom Roberts wrote:
The question being discussed was about asserting the
existence of the ether, not about asserting the
"truthfulness" of any of these theories. The equivalence of
these theories implies that there is no possible experiment
which can distinguish among them. As one member of the
equivalence class has no ether (SR), the existence of the
ether cannot be asserted.
O'Barr comments:
Oh my poor, poor Tom. Yes, there were lots of questions,
and I see that you only re-posted two of them, and these two
you are not answering. You are just trying to change the
subject!
You SR experts make me sick. You have been caught in a
lie. Your FAQ maintains that SR is scientifically supported.
And yet even you, right here in this post, show that you now
recognize that this cannot be done. And yet where is your
honesty? Where is your scientific honor and desire for doing
what is intellectually correct? Where is your adult wisdom
and responsible behavior? All you want to do is apply this
against me, but not against yourself and not against the FAQ!
You are one sick person!!!!!!!! You, and your SR experts,
were the ones who did wrong!!! And now you will not admit
it.
O'Barr wrote: . . .
> But everything detects the ether!
Tom Roberts wrote:
Not in the sense I used "detect". In which inertial frame is
your ether at rest? What experiment proves your answer?
O'Barr comments:
And I am sure that you are the only one that has the
correct definition of `detect.'
And why are we playing these word games? We play them
because you have no physics to back yourself up with. And
you would die first rather than give in. You know as well as
I do that we do not yet know where the ether frame is. So
why did you ask the question? It was not for your benefit.
It was not for my benefit. It was not for anyone's benefit.
It was to delay and to confuse and to make as much of a mess
as you possibly can because you are not willing to talk about
real issues. It really is getting sad around here! And
your end has come! You are no longer even a man! What a
loss. Why did you not speak up sooner??????
Luc Bourhis
(in message <0253e6c2...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com>):
>> Yet another consequence of the homogeneity of spacetime. If T is
>> one of the transforms we search, T(x)-T(y) must depend only on
>> the 4-vector x-y. Hence the linearity if T is smooth enough.
>
> We could still try such a model, but it would have to
> be a very weak nonlinearity to agree with experimental
> limits of inhomogeneity.
Well, the kind of transforms I discuss here hold between inertial
frames. For non-inertial observers spacetime is not homogeneous at
all. So these linear transforms are in fact valid for small
spacetime intervals only. They can therefore be considered as the
linearization of some more general relations. Beyond that one needs
a more general geometrical framework, like General Relativity.
> I always hear that they form a group but I don't quite
> understand something. A group requires a binary operation.
> When we speak of transforms, what is the binary operation?
The composition of two transforms. If T(v) is the pure Lorentz
transform, called also a Lorentz boost (by the way I use always
units such that c=1),
t'=gamma(v)(t+v.x)
x'=gamma(v)(x+v.t)
y'=y
z'=z
then applying successively T(v1) and then T(v2) is equivalent to
applying T(w) where
w = (v1+v2)/(1+v1.v2)
With mathematical notations
T(w) = T(v2) o T(v1)
More generally the composition of two Lorentz boosts along
different directions is the product of a Lorentz boost and a
rotation. Therefore the set of transforms made of Lorentz boosts
and rotations is a group, called the Lorentz group.
--
Luc Bourhis
Luc Bourhis
(in message <20000512132153...@ng-fb1.aol.com>):
> Dennis: Sigh. Now, please read very, very carefully.
> x' = x + v.t
> t' = t
You do not answer my question. You do not talk about the same
physical observables as me. If dt is a duration measured by a clock
fixed in the ECI frame, the time measured by _any_ clock known to
mankind which moves with respect to it is
dt'=1/gamma dt
One has to correct the reading of this moving clock in order to
obtain dt' = dt. So I consider the _actual_ reading of
_uncorrected_ clocks because it is what matters in fundamental
physics. It is very artificial and not natural at all to correct
many kinds of clocks, the life time of unstable states or Doppler
shifted waves for example. For example when I study the decay of a
pion in a particle detector, I can not ignore that its life time
depends on its speed with respect to my measurement devices. I must
use the above formula to predict the distance it travels before
decaying. Even from a practical point of view, one has to know what
needs to be compensated if one wants to build a system like GPS.
The questions must of course be asked about length measurements. By
the way if there is some length contraction, how do you propose to
correct for that effect in a global way everywhere ? Anyway one
_must_ know the relations between actual measurements of spacetime
coordinates of the same event in different frame. So what are these
relations in your theory ? If you can not answer this question you
have nothing because you are not even able to build a system that
can correct for the Ether effect in order to "recover a Galilean
spacetime".
> The most accurate time is that kept by an ECI atomic clock.
What does accurate mean ? Three clocks, one fixed in the ECI, one
in Washington and one at the center of the Sun would accumulate a
time lag between each others. Which one is more accurate ? Why ?
--
Luc Bourhis
Gerry Quinn
>I mean that no experiment has ever determined the local inertial
>rest frame of the ether. No experiment has ever determined any of
>its properties like we can easily do for other mediums (e.g.
>density, viscosity/elasticity, ...).
And curvature?
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>GLOBARR wrote:
>> Why
>> not present the reverse of this statement? Why not make SR
>> required to reformulate itself so that it is not
>> indistinguishable from LET?
>
>the ether, not about asserting the "truthfulness" of any of these
>theories. The equivalence of these theories implies that there is
>no possible experiment which can distinguish among them. As one
>member of the equivalence class has no ether (SR), the existence
>of the ether cannot be asserted.
>
SR is not equivalent to all theories in this class, unless the discovery
of a particle with non-zero intrinsic mass (i.e. mass not related
to interactions) would violate SR.
Since theories other than SR require a mechanism underlying the
principle of relativity, they make stronger predictions than SR. SR
makes all necessary predictions relating to the time and distance
measurements of moving observers with clocks, but it does not predict
everything about the universe.
My own pet theory is not really an ether theory (I don't even propose a
mysteriously 'curved' but otherwise not physically existing or
detectable 'spacetime manifold' to explain gravity!), but ether theories
might also make predictions about the nature of matter. All you have
established is that viable ether theories, at least on the basis of what
we currently know, cannot detect the ether frame. There may well be
predictions apart from that, and the existence of the ether can
scientifically be asserted on the basis of any scientifically
falsifiable - but unfalsifed - prediction.
- Gerry Quinn
>
>> But everything detects the ether!
>
>Not in the sense I used "detect". In which inertial frame is your
>ether at rest? What experiment proves your answer?
>
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Stowe
writes:
>In article <391CB4DF...@chicago.avenew.com>, Tom Roberts
<TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> wrote:
>>GLOBARR wrote:
>>> Why
>>> not present the reverse of this statement? Why not make SR
>>> required to reformulate itself so that it is not
>>> indistinguishable from LET?
>>
>>The question being discussed was about asserting the existence of
>>the ether, not about asserting the "truthfulness" of any of these
>>theories. The equivalence of these theories implies that there is
>>no possible experiment which can distinguish among them. As one
>>member of the equivalence class has no ether (SR), the existence
>>of the ether cannot be asserted.
>>
>
>SR is not equivalent to all theories in this class, unless the
>discovery of a particle with non-zero intrinsic mass (i.e. mass
>not related to interactions) would violate SR.
You're right, all ether theories of "Tom's Class" ARE NOT equivalent to
SR, they only need have SR to be a sub-set of themselves when viewed in
a certain manner. Being broader and more 'physically' fundamental,
ether theory DOES NOT require nature to 'physically' follow the PoR.
Only if one chooses to be naive, and refuses to look beyond their own
superficial self-centered point of view, does the PoR seem valid.
>Since theories other than SR require a mechanism underlying the
>principle of relativity, they make stronger predictions than SR. SR
>makes all necessary predictions relating to the time and distance
>measurements of moving observers with clocks, but it does not predict
>everything about the universe.
>
>My own pet theory is not really an ether theory (I don't even
>propose a mysteriously 'curved' but otherwise not physically
>existing or detectable 'spacetime manifold' to explain gravity!),
Oh how 90's, politically correct... a 'closet' etherist.
>but ether theories might also make predictions about the nature
>of matter. All you have established is that viable ether theories,
>at least on the basis of what we currently know, cannot detect the
>ether frame. There may well be predictions apart from that, and
>the existence of the ether can scientifically be asserted on the
>basis of any scientifically falsifiable - but unfalsifed - prediction.
Pssss, you can't tell Tom this, he's already bought the party line.
Don't confuse him with logic arguments, his mind is made up.
Paul Stowe
Luc Bourhis
(in message <391CB5DF...@chicago.avenew.com>):
> Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> The vacuum of modern QFTs has virtually no relationship to the
>>> ether.
>> "It was a logical succession," Dr. Wilczek said in an
>> interview. "Modern quantum field theory is a direct descendant
>> of the ether."
>
> Yes, there may be a distant relationship if one looks hard enough.
> why bother?
Don't give up too soon, Tom ! As far as I know even the word
"distant" is far too strong. Let's have a look at History, in fact
a very oversimplified summary (the reader is supposed to have a
basic knowledge of Quantum Field Theory).
The birth of Quantum Field Theory can be traced back to the papers
Born, Heisenberg and Jordan published in 1926 about the
quantization of a free radiation field. Working in one dimension
and ignoring the polarization of EM waves they introduced the
well-known annihilation and creation operators acting on photons
states and satisfying the usual bosonic commutation rules,
generalizing what Heisenberg had already achieved for the harmonic
oscillator with his matrix theory a few years before. Then in 1928
Dirac introduced his equation, which he discovered while searching
a relativistic equation for a wave function which was of first
order in time derivative. The well-known deficiencies of Dirac's
work, mainly the awkward "holes" theory, were seen quickly and soon
after the quantization of the EM field quantum physicists tried to
apply the same ideas to Dirac's field. In 1928 Jordan and Wigner
realized that it can be quantized by using creation and
annihilation operators which satisfy fermionic anticommutation
rules. Then Heisenberg and Pauli generalised all these early works
in a series of papers published in 1929 in which they give a
general method for quantizing any field. Fock, Furry and Openheimer
proved then in 1933-1934 that Dirac's hole theory could be
satisfactory formulated as a quantum field theory by using the
formalism of creation and annihilation operators. The next step was
to remove the infinities which appears in such kind of theory but
we are going further and further from any kind of classical ideas
and therefore I can stop here.
Interestingly Schroedinger -- who did never really renounce to the
idea that wave functions could be some kind of "physical" waves --
did not have any part in the birth of quantum field theory and it
is on the contrary Heisenberg -- whose positivism is very well
known -- who was one of the major leading force in this delivery.
A more complete coverage of this history can be found in [1] (in a
battle of citations I am sure to win badly if I quote Weinberg :-).
[1] The Quantum Theory of Fields, S. Weinberg, Vol I, Section 1.2
--
Luc Bourhis
Ken H. Seto
<TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> wrote:
>The question being discussed was about asserting the existence of
>the ether, not about asserting the "truthfulness" of any of these
>theories. The equivalence of these theories implies that there is
>no possible experiment which can distinguish among them. As one
>member of the equivalence class has no ether (SR), the existence
>of the ether cannot be asserted.
Since SR math is derived from the aether concept of relativity of
simultaneity that means that SR is also an aether theory. So for you
to assert that SR means no ether is bogus and without merit. It's much
like saying that your mother is not your mother.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
Don't be absurd. You can't even understand a simple thing like the
Doppler Factor and you expect me to waste all my time on you?
Ken Seto
GLOBARR
<ger...@indigo.ie> (Gerry Quinn) wrote:
In <391CB4DF...@chicago.avenew.com>,
Tom Roberts <TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (GLOBARR) wrote:
>> Why not present the reverse of this statement?
>> Why not make SR required to reformulate itself
>> so that it is not indistinguishable from LET?
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> The question being discussed was about asserting the
> existence of the ether, not about asserting the
> "truthfulness" of any of these theories. The equivalence of
> these theories implies that there is no possible experiment
> which can distinguish among them. As one member of the
> equivalence class has no ether (SR), the existence
> of the ether cannot be asserted.
>
Gerry Quinn wrote:
SR is not equivalent to all theories in this class, unless
the discovery of a particle with non-zero intrinsic mass (i.e.
mass not related to interactions) would violate SR.
Since theories other than SR require a mechanism underlying
the principle of relativity, they make stronger predictions
than SR. SR makes all necessary predictions relating to the
time and distance measurements of moving observers with clocks,
but it does not predict everything about the universe.
O'Barr comments:
I agree with you, Quinn. In terms of math, LET and SR are
exactly equivalent! And they cannot therefore be different in
terms of present scientific evidence. But in terms of logic,
and in terms of simplicity (of the underlying physics, that is,
not the math), in terms of realistic possibilities, in terms of
explanations, in terms of all else that is involved in things
of science, to include physical causes, then the ether wins
hands down!!!! It is clear what is going on, and any person
who continues to take the SR approach is going to be laugh
right off of this net. It is a stupid and an impossible thing
to believe in SR philosophy! It is physically impossible, it
is even Voodoo at its very worse. It is sick!!!!!!!
Gerry Quinn wrote:
My own pet theory is not really an ether theory (I don't even
propose a mysteriously 'curved' but otherwise not physically
existing or detectable 'spacetime manifold' to explain
gravity!), but ether theories might also make predictions about
the nature of matter. All you have established is that viable
ether theories, at least on the basis of what we currently
know, cannot detect the ether frame. There may well be
predictions apart from that, and the existence of the ether can
scientifically be asserted on the basis of any scientifically
falsifiable - but unfalsifed - prediction.
O'Barr comments:
Thank you for your post.
This is so great to hear a person that is sufficiently
balanced that he can think straight. The SR experts are so
unbalanced that they are crazy. Here they are, unable and
unwilling to accept the ether concept just because it is not
yet `seen.' Yet they themselves find no problem in accepting
the things in SR, such as 4-D spacetime continuums, which not
only are not seen, but are physically impossible. They are so
deluded that they cannot even be reasoned with. They are so
deluded that they will not even accept logic. It is one big
mess that seems impossible with educated people, yet they will
not think! How did this happen??????? Only a religion could
have this kind of an effect!!!!!!
As things now stand, they are liars. They are still
maintaining that their philosophy is scientific when all it is,
is just a personal choice. They do not correctly reflect the
valid meaning to the data that we presently have. This is
prejudicial, and incorrect, and childish. They are presenting
themselves under false colors! They are presenting something
as being scientific when it is not anything scientific at all.
Thanks again for your post!
GLOBARR
In <391d8f5f$0$25...@news.voyager.net>
ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
>Tom Roberts <TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> wrote:
>
>>The question being discussed was about asserting the
>> existence of the ether, not about asserting the "truthfulness"
>> of any of these theories. The equivalence of these theories
>> implies that there is no possible experiment which can
>> distinguish among them. As one member of the equivalence
>> class has no ether (SR), the existence of the ether
>>cannot be asserted.
>
Ken Seto wrote:
>Since SR math is derived from the aether concept of relativity
> of simultaneity that means that SR is also an aether theory.
>So for you to assert that SR means no ether is bogus and
> without merit. It's much like saying that your mother is not
>your mother.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
Ken, you are O.K. How come I cannot think of such
things to say?????????
In reality, SR and LET are the same theory! One has
the correct math, the other has the correct physics that
goes with the correct math!
It is so nice to be with you good guys on this net!
island
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:qjdT4.21059$sB3....@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <391CB5DF...@chicago.avenew.com>, Tom Roberts
<TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> wrote:
>
> >I mean that no experiment has ever determined the local inertial
> >rest frame of the ether. No experiment has ever determined any of
> >its properties like we can easily do for other mediums (e.g.
> >density, viscosity/elasticity, ...).
>
> And curvature?
>
> - Gerry Quinn
Good point Gerry!
Curvature sure is getting to be a popular argument around here ;-)
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>Bourhis wrote (in part)
>in article <01HW.B540F2970...@news.freeserve.net>:
>}
>} >>
>} >> Step 1: Galilean transform
>} >> t' = t
>} >>
>} >> x' = x + v.t
> that clock,
Dennis: It's obvious if one even glances at my webpage.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 18:21:53 +0100, Dennis McCarthy wrote
>(in message <20000512132153...@ng-fb1.aol.com>):
>
>> Dennis: Sigh. Now, please read very, very carefully.
>> t' = t
>
>fixed in the ECI frame, the time measured by _any_ clock known to
>mankind which moves with respect to it is
> dt'=1/gamma dt
Dennis: False. Hourglasses actually change at different rates due to motion.
Pendulum clocks change at other rates due to motion. Etc.
Bourhis; >One has to correct the reading of this moving clock in order to
>obtain dt' = dt. So I consider the _actual_ reading of
>_uncorrected_ clocks because it is what matters in fundamental
>physics.
Dennis: What you "consider" seems at odds with the fact that GPS engineers
don't use uncorrected clocks; experimental scientists don't use uncorrected
clocks; and most physicists over the last few centuries would consider it silly
to do so..
t in Galilean theories stands for time. And all reference frames agree on
just one standard (as they do for Universal Coordinate Time with GPS.) As
always, the standard chosen is the most convenient and equable motion.
That this confuses or upsets you is not a problem with this very well-known,
very old, analysis that has always been used and is still used today.
Bourhis: >It is very artificial and not natural at all to correct
>many kinds of clocks,
Dennis: Well, then you disagree with the entire operating system of GPS--and
the way experimental science has worked for centuries. Trusting whatever your
clock says no matter what the physical environment is a tad silly wouldn't you
say?
Bourhis: the life time of unstable states or Doppler
>shifted waves for example. For example when I study the decay of a
>pion in a particle detector, I can not ignore that its life time
>depends on its speed with respect to my measurement devices. I must
>use the above formula to predict the distance it travels before
>decaying.
Dennis: The fact that a particle decays less quickly when in motion doesn't
affect the time standard in Galilean analyses (or the time used in GPS.)
Bourhis:
Even from a practical point of view, one has to know what
>needs to be compensated if one wants to build a system like GPS.
Dennis: And we do know.
Bourhis:
>The questions must of course be asked about length measurements. By
>the way if there is some length contraction, how do you propose to
>correct for that effect in a global way everywhere ?
Dennis: At this point I find length contraction a superfluous (though not
necessarily improbable) hypothesis.
Bourhis: Anyway one
>_must_ know the relations between actual measurements of spacetime
>coordinates of the same event in different frame. So what are these
>relations in your theory ?
Dennis: If you don't understand how EM processes slow when in motion wrt the
ether by now, then my explaining it for the 58th time probably won't help.
D:>> The most accurate time is that kept by an ECI atomic clock.
Bourhis: >What does accurate mean ?
Dennis: This sort of reminds me of the time that you couldn't really understand
how to measure the length of a rim--and I had to explain it in detail. By
accurate I mean most continually equable motion that we can use at present.
Choice of standard is also based on convenience. The ECI clock is "the agreed
upon standard."
Bourhis: Three clocks, one fixed in the ECI, one
>in Washington and one at the center of the Sun would accumulate a
>time lag between each others. Which one is more accurate ? Why ?
Dennis: The clocks all display equable motions--and so are all "accurate."
But in Galilean relativity you have to choose a convenient agreed-upon
standard. The choice is based on convenience. Defining a second as a
particular quantity of oscillations in an atomic clock on the sun is not that
convenient to people on the Earth. This is all pretty straight-forward, and
has been known for centuries. Surely, we're on the same page now.
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Roberts
> >SR is not equivalent to all theories in this class, unless the
> >discovery of a particle with non-zero intrinsic mass (i.e. mass
> >not related to interactions) would violate SR.
> SR, they only need have SR to be a sub-set of themselves when viewed in
> a certain manner.
Forgive me for taking a shortcut in writing, in view of the literally
hundreds of times I have mentioned this equivalence class in this
newsgroup. The equivalence extends only to being _EXPERIMENTALLY_
_INDISTINGUISHABLE_, and does not include either the mathematical
equations of the theory or the interpretations of the items in those
equations (LET and SR share the same equations but not the
interpretations).
> Being broader and more 'physically' fundamental,
> ether theory DOES NOT require nature to 'physically' follow the PoR.
I do not understand how a theory can "require" nature to do anything,
in any way -- the direction of necessity is the other way 'round, and
any viable theory must agree with our observations of what nature
actually does (i.e experiments).
The actual experiments which have been performed indicate that nature
does indeed operate in such a manner that our measurements follow the
PoR. Now one could conclude from that that the PoR is indeed a (local)
symmetry of nature (as does SR), or one could also assume that it
is not a symmetry of nature but that various other phenomena "just
happen" to conspire to make it appear so (as do all viable ether
theories). <shrug>
Also I do not see how ether theory is "more 'physically' fundamental"
than SR. SR basically asserts a symmetry of the world, the local
isometry group, which is about as fundamental as it gets.
> Only if one chooses to be naive, and refuses to look beyond their own
> superficial self-centered point of view, does the PoR seem valid.
Please quote one believable and reproducible experiment within SR's
domain of applicability which refutes the PoR.
Yes, physics has moved on since SR, and the PoR is inown to be merely
approximately valid in a local region, and the goodness of the
approximation is related to the size of the region of spacetime in
which one is applying it. But you seem to be implying something
else....
> >Since theories other than SR require a mechanism underlying the
> >principle of relativity, they make stronger predictions than SR.
Actually not -- they make _THE_SAME_ predictions as SR, at least
as far as experimental measurements go. All the rest is merely
interpretation and has no foundation in "reality", it is mere
opinion....
> >SR
> >makes all necessary predictions relating to the time and distance
> >measurements of moving observers with clocks, but it does not predict
> >everything about the universe.
Certainly not. And neither do the ether theroies.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dennis McCarthy
>In article <20000510141924...@ng-fv1.aol.com>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) writes:
>>
>>The Bourhis-view of LET (which no one I know follows) is not
>>equivalent to a Galilean ether theory with clock retardation and length
>>contraction--and does not have a problem with those "same subtleties."
>
> as-yet-unspecified force)
Dennis: "Unspecified"? The slowing of oscillating media processes when the
system is in motion wrt the background medium has been known for decades--and
the derivation has been put forth on these boards dozens of times.
Carr: and length contraction (ditto),
Dennis: At this point length contraction is a superfluous (though not
improbable) hypothesis IMO.
Carr: or are
> you just trying to get people to assume this is what you mean so
> that you can call them liars when they do?
Dennis: I reserve the word "liar" for you. And I used it when you continued to
repeat the known falsehood that I had argued that all paths between two points
are the same distance.
-
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Roberts
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:qjdT4.21059$sB3....@news.indigo.ie...
> > In article <391CB5DF...@chicago.avenew.com>, Tom Roberts
> <TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> wrote:
> > > properties like we can easily do for other mediums (e.g.
> > >density, viscosity/elasticity, ...).
> > And curvature?
> Curvature sure is getting to be a popular argument around here ;-)
And I don't understand this at all. It seems completely unrelated to me.
Air is a good example of "other mediums" (it is obviously the medium
for sound). I observe no "curvature" of the air in this room (whatever
that might mean). Water is also a good example of "other mediums", and
over a global scale in the ocean I can see "curvature" _OF_THE_SURFACE_
but not of the water itself (but in some sense it is the water's
surface which is the medium for water waves). Water waves operate quite
normally in regions far too small for this curvature to be observed....
If you mean curvature of spacetime as a representation of gravity in GR,
it is dead easy to measure experimentally.... But I know of no waves
for which that is a "medium"....
Tom Robertts tjro...@lucent.com
Dennis McCarthy
>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>>
>>Roberts: >The vacuum of modern QFTs has virtually no relationship to
>>> the ether.
>>
>>Malcolm Browne (NYT): " But in the current issue of Physics Today, Dr.
>Frank
>>Wilczek of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., writes that
>the
>>ether has undeservedly been given a bad name, when in fact, it should be
>>regarded as the direct ancestor of quantum fields.
>>
>>quantum field theory is a direct descendant of the ether."
>
Dennis: There is no absolute motion in ether theory.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> > the ether.
Malcolm Browne:>> "It was a logical succession," Dr. Wilczek said in an
interview. "Modern
>> quantum field theory is a direct descendant of the ether."
>
Roberts: >Yes, there may be a distant relationship if one looks hard enough.
>why bother?
Dennis: That seems to belie your statement "QFTs has virtually no relationship
to the ether."
Roberts: Though I repeat: the vacuum of modern QFTs bears
>precious little resemblance to the ether, and does not "support"
>elecromagnetic waves in any sense of the term.
Dennis: Nice statement. According to ether views, quantum fields comprise the
ether and the vacuum does "support" EM waves in every sense of the term.
Roberts:>> >The undetectability of the ether is an _EXPERIMENTAL_RESULT_, not
any
>> >pejorative "establishment viewpoint".
>> Dennis: What Roberts means by "undetectable" is always hard to determine.
Roberts:
>I mean that no experiment has ever determined the local inertial
>rest frame of the ether.
Dennis: 1) That's an odd definition of "undetectable."
2) The local rest frame of the ether is not "inertial."
3) MM and BH both found the rest frame within a few 1000 MPH.
Roberts: No experiment has ever determined any of
>its properties like we can easily do for other mediums (e.g.
>density, viscosity/elasticity, ...).
Dennis: So you thought the atmosphere remained undetected until we determined
its density and viscosity?
Dennis McCarthy
island
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:391DD51C...@lucent.com...
> island wrote:
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > news:qjdT4.21059$sB3....@news.indigo.ie...
> > > In article <391CB5DF...@chicago.avenew.com>, Tom Roberts
> > <TomRo...@chicago.avenew.com> wrote:
> > > > properties like we can easily do for other mediums (e.g.
> > > >density, viscosity/elasticity, ...).
> > Good point Gerry!
> > Curvature sure is getting to be a popular argument around here ;-)
>
> And I don't understand this at all. It seems completely unrelated to me.
>
> Air is a good example of "other mediums" (it is obviously the medium
> for sound). I observe no "curvature" of the air in this room (whatever
> that might mean). Water is also a good example of "other mediums", and
> over a global scale in the ocean I can see "curvature" _OF_THE_SURFACE_
> but not of the water itself (but in some sense it is the water's
> surface which is the medium for water waves). Water waves operate quite
> normally in regions far too small for this curvature to be observed....
>
> If you mean curvature of spacetime as a representation of gravity in GR,
> it is dead easy to measure experimentally.... But I know of no waves
> for which that is a "medium"....
>
>
> Tom Robertts tjro...@lucent.com
I think that it's still an arguable point, since the affect/effect is the
same. G, representative of the delaying/distorting effect of gravity, and,
or, any other relevant course affecting, (resistance), forms of
interference. The affect of gravity is the same as for any other medium.
If it isn't an absolute vacuum, then it isn't a vacuum, period, only
relatively
speaking.
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >I mean that no experiment has ever determined the local inertial
> >rest frame of the ether.
> Dennis: 1) That's an odd definition of "undetectable."
It was not intended to be a definition, merely an explanation of
what I was talking about. That's what the words "I mean" were
intended to convey. You are supposed to read what I write before
commenting.
> 2) The local rest frame of the ether is not "inertial."
Hmmm.
> 3) MM and BH both found the rest frame within a few 1000 MPH.
Not if the ether behaves as in LET, or any other theory of the
equivalence class I discuss. And if a theory does not predict
such behavior then it is already experimentally refuted -- by
MM and BH (Michelson and Morley, Brillet and Hall).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dennis McCarthy
>The question being discussed was about asserting the existence of
>the ether, not about asserting the "truthfulness" of any of these
>theories. The equivalence of these theories implies that there is
>no possible experiment which can distinguish among them. As one
>member of the equivalence class has no ether (SR), the existence
>of the ether cannot be asserted.
>
Dennis: There are also available theories that explain all sound and pressure
effects without an atmosphere, thus according to Roberts the existence of the
atmosphere cannot be asserted. These are similar to the arguments of Mach
against the existence of molecules.
Dennis McCarthy
Ken H. Seto
>>
>>
>>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>>> "It was a logical succession," Dr. Wilczek said in an interview. "Modern
>>>quantum field theory is a direct descendant of the ether."
>>
>McCullough: >Except that there is no absolute motion in QFT,
In QFT, absolute motion is interpreted as the uncertainty of position.
>
>Dennis: There is no absolute motion in ether theory.
That's a strange thing to say. Of course there is absolute motion in
all ether theories.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
>You're right, all ether theories of "Tom's Class" ARE NOT equivalent to
>SR, they only need have SR to be a sub-set of themselves when viewed in
>a certain manner. Being broader and more 'physically' fundamental,
>ether theory DOES NOT require nature to 'physically' follow the PoR.
>Only if one chooses to be naive, and refuses to look beyond their own
>superficial self-centered point of view, does the PoR seem valid.
PoR is valid if the observations and experiments are based on a clock
second. PoR is not valid if the observations and experiments are based
on a defined absolute second.
Ken Seto
Paul Stowe
writes:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> In <7zdT4.21060$sB3....@news.indigo.ie> ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry
Quinn)
>> writes:
>> >SR is not equivalent to all theories in this class, unless the
>> >discovery of a particle with non-zero intrinsic mass (i.e. mass
>> >not related to interactions) would violate SR.
>> to SR, they only need have SR to be a sub-set of themselves when
>> viewed in a certain manner.
>
>hundreds of times I have mentioned this equivalence class in this
>newsgroup. The equivalence extends only to being _EXPERIMENTALLY_
>_INDISTINGUISHABLE_, and does not include either the mathematical
>equations of the theory or the interpretations of the items in those
>equations (LET and SR share the same equations but not the
>interpretations).
Nor, the very physical consequences of motion. Like the fact that in
LET the object 'actual' physical length is a function of NOT it's
relative motion wrt another object, but its ACTUAL motion wrt to the
base ether frame. The 'relative' change between differently moving
FORs is defined by inverse gamma, but their is NO actual mirror
symmetry. However, follow SR's calibration procedures and you can
pretend there is. But this can lead to logical paradoxes, twins,
tethered spaceships ...etc.
>> Being broader and more 'physically' fundamental, ether theory
>> DOES NOT require nature to 'physically' follow the PoR.
>
>I do not understand how a theory can "require" nature to do anything,
>in any way -- the direction of necessity is the other way 'round, and
>any viable theory must agree with our observations of what nature
>actually does (i.e experiments).
Contrary to popular myth, perception is not always reality.
>The actual experiments which have been performed indicate that nature
>does indeed operate in such a manner that our measurements follow the
>PoR. Now one could conclude from that that the PoR is indeed a (local)
>symmetry of nature (as does SR), or one could also assume that it
>is not a symmetry of nature but that various other phenomena "just
>happen" to conspire to make it appear so (as do all viable ether
>theories). <shrug>
You yourself have conceded that one NEEDS to follow a specified
'calibration' procedure to obtain this POV. Others are just as
possible, and internally self consistent. Since this is fundamentally
concerned with attempting to understand the underpinning that leads to
the observed behavior, it is not likely that you will ever understand,
or even attempt to do so.
>Also I do not see how ether theory is "more 'physically' fundamental"
>than SR. SR basically asserts a symmetry of the world, the local
>isometry group, which is about as fundamental as it gets.
I know, and the very fact that you don't 'get it' (as to the ability to
discern the difference between physical and abstract) and probably
never will, is the vast gulf that separates mentalities like yours from
mine.
>> Only if one chooses to be naive, and refuses to look beyond their
>> own superficial self-centered point of view, does the PoR seem
>> valid.
>
> Please quote one believable and reproducible experiment within SR's
> domain of applicability which refutes the PoR.
Sagnac (if you actually beleive that SR can handle it)
> Yes, physics has moved on since SR, and the PoR is known to be merely
> approximately valid in a local region, and the goodness of the
> approximation is related to the size of the region of spacetime in
> which one is applying it. But you seem to be implying something
> else....
I'm saying that the PoR is an illusion, a.k.a mirror symmetry never
exists, length contraction is like time's arrow, unidirectional
increasing with speed wrt to the frame in which the ether medium is
isotropic where the moving object is. This is a very fundamental
distinct between SR and any ether theory.
But we've been down this road many times before...
Paul Stowe
Joe Fischer
: Tom wrote:
: >Forgive me for taking a shortcut in writing, in view of the literally
: >newsgroup. The equivalence extends only to being _EXPERIMENTALLY_
: >_INDISTINGUISHABLE_, and does not include either the mathematical
: >equations of the theory or the interpretations of the items in those
: >equations (LET and SR share the same equations but not the
: >interpretations).
:
: Nor, the very physical consequences of motion. Like the fact that in
: LET the object 'actual' physical length is a function of NOT it's
: relative motion wrt another object, but its ACTUAL motion wrt to the
: base ether frame.
And how did you measure that?
: >Also I do not see how ether theory is "more 'physically' fundamental"
: >than SR. SR basically asserts a symmetry of the world, the local
: >isometry group, which is about as fundamental as it gets.
:
: I know, and the very fact that you don't 'get it' (as to the ability to
: discern the difference between physical and abstract) and probably
: never will, is the vast gulf that separates mentalities like yours from
: mine.
: Paul Stowe
WOW! Can I have you permission to quote this?
Only those with mentalities that can detect the ether and
measure it's flow will ever be able to do basic physics.
Now why did I spend all that money buying all
of the Writings of Albert Einstein, I could have just
captured all messages by Paul Stowe, Ken Seto and
Charlie McCarthy.
Joe Fischer
Gerry Quinn
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> In <7zdT4.21060$sB3....@news.indigo.ie> ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
>> writes:
>> >SR is not equivalent to all theories in this class, unless the
>> >discovery of a particle with non-zero intrinsic mass (i.e. mass
>> >not related to interactions) would violate SR.
>> You're right, all ether theories of "Tom's Class" ARE NOT equivalent to
>> SR, they only need have SR to be a sub-set of themselves when viewed in
>> a certain manner.
>
>hundreds of times I have mentioned this equivalence class in this
>newsgroup. The equivalence extends only to being _EXPERIMENTALLY_
>_INDISTINGUISHABLE_, and does not include either the mathematical
>equations of the theory or the interpretations of the items in those
>equations (LET and SR share the same equations but not the
>interpretations).
>
As I have pointed out, the experimental indistinguishability extends
only to (broadly speaking) time and distance measurements, and does not
apply to other predictions related to (for instance) the structure of
matter. It seems to me that, for example, SR has no obvious
difficulties with a massive particle whose mass is intrinsic and not due
to external or internal interactions. Yet there is no obvious way in
which such a particle will display relativistic mass increase in
Galilean spacetime, without the assumption of the principle of
relativity. Consequently, a Lorentzian theory must, in my view, rule
out such particles. (The postulate that all fundamental particles are
massless also leads naturally towards a Lorentzian model of gravity.)
So discovery of such a particle would rule out a Lorentzian theory.
Conversely, indications that this prediction is correct would - or
should - lead to Lorentzian theories being favoured as fundamental
descriptions of the world (even though SR would still often be used in
calculations).
[--]
>
>> >Since theories other than SR require a mechanism underlying the
>> >principle of relativity, they make stronger predictions than SR.
>
>Actually not -- they make _THE_SAME_ predictions as SR, at least
>as far as experimental measurements go. All the rest is merely
>interpretation and has no foundation in "reality", it is mere
>opinion....
>
SR predicts that all fundamental particles are intrinsically massless
(i.e. all mass derives from interaction). Where?
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>In <7zdT4.21060$sB3....@news.indigo.ie> ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
>writes:
>>My own pet theory is not really an ether theory (I don't even
>>propose a mysteriously 'curved' but otherwise not physically
>>existing or detectable 'spacetime manifold' to explain gravity!),
>
>Oh how 90's, politically correct... a 'closet' etherist.
>
I'm kind of in and out on the issue. I do think we need a background,
but for the moment I am ignoring its properties except insofar as it
causes massless particles to move at a particular speed. So you could
say I am assuming a flat homogeneous rigid ether, but I don't actually
need to talk about it at this point.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>
>Interestingly Schroedinger -- who did never really renounce to the
>idea that wave functions could be some kind of "physical" waves --
>did not have any part in the birth of quantum field theory and it
>is on the contrary Heisenberg -- whose positivism is very well
>known -- who was one of the major leading force in this delivery.
>
Encyclopaedia Brittanica: Werner Heisenberg:
"Although he early, and indirectly, came under the influence of Ernst
Mach, Heisenberg, in his philosophical writings about quantum mechanics,
vigorously opposed the Logical Positivism developed by philosophers of
science of the Vienna Circle. According to Heisenberg, what was revealed
by active observation was not an absolute datum, but a theory-laden
datum; i.e., relativized by theory and contextualized by observational
situations. He took classical mechanics and electromagnetics, which
articulated the objective motions of bodies in space-time, to be
permanently valid, though not applicable to quantum mechanical systems;
he took causality to apply in general not to individual quantum
mechanical systems but to mathematical representations alone, since
particle behaviour could be predicted only on the basis of probability."
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>If you mean curvature of spacetime as a representation of gravity in GR,
>it is dead easy to measure experimentally.... But I know of no waves
>for which that is a "medium"....
>
>Tom Robertts tjro...@lucent.com
So do you think there is something physical that can be curved, i.e.
have a shape? It's quite a bit like aether, isn't it? In fact I think
that's what Einstein called it.
In fact GR predicts gravitational waves too. Really, GR is an
obsolescent classical wave theory of gravity, and we need to move on
conceptually, along the path outlined by Feynman, Weinberg and the
modern string theorists.
- Gerry Quinn
Joe Fischer
: (Paul Stowe) wrote:
: (Gerry Quinn) writes:
: >>My own pet theory is not really an ether theory (I don't even
: >>propose a mysteriously 'curved' but otherwise not physically
: >>existing or detectable 'spacetime manifold' to explain gravity!),
: >
: >Oh how 90's, politically correct... a 'closet' etherist.
:
: I'm kind of in and out on the issue. I do think we need a background,
: but for the moment I am ignoring its properties except insofar as it
: causes massless particles to move at a particular speed. So you could
: say I am assuming a flat homogeneous rigid ether, but I don't actually
: need to talk about it at this point.
: - Gerry Quinn
Oh, please talk about it, this newgroup really
needs more ether talk. :-)
The background for gravity is the centers of mass
of matter, what else would matter, what else would be
needed?
A line through the center of mass of a planet
and a test particle shows where the test particle would
be anytime in the past, present, or future.
The (current) vector/velocity of the test particle
can be found by examining the past history.
In any case, the test particle and the surface
of the planet will collide regardless of what the
affine connection is, "an attraction", or expansion
of the planet.
But where would a "background" of ether, space,
space-time, particles, or any medium, enter into the
physics?
As with Special Relativity, "NOT NEEDED! NOT NEEDED!
NOT NEEDED!".
Joe Fischer
---
Paul Stowe
writes:
>: >Forgive me for taking a shortcut in writing, in view of the
>: >literally hundreds of times I have mentioned this equivalence
>: >class in this newsgroup. The equivalence extends only to being
>: >of the items in those equations (LET and SR share the same
>: >equations but not the interpretations).
>: Nor, the very physical consequences of motion. Like the fact that
>: in LET the object 'actual' physical length is a function of NOT it's
>: relative motion wrt another object, but its ACTUAL motion wrt to the
>: base ether frame.
>
> And how did you measure that?
The easiest is, wrt the CMBR...
>: >Also I do not see how ether theory is "more 'physically'
>: >fundamental" than SR. SR basically asserts a symmetry of the
>: >world, the local isometry group, which is about as fundamental
>: >as it gets.
>:
>: I know, and the very fact that you don't 'get it' (as to the
>: ability to discern the difference between physical and abstract)
>: and probably never will, is the vast gulf that separates mentalities
>: like yours from mine.
>:
>: Paul Stowe
>
> WOW! Can I have you permission to quote this? Only those
> with mentalities that can detect the ether and measure it's flow
>will ever be able to do basic physics.
Detection is very straight forward, I'm doing that as I type the words
to you. Capabilities and worldviews (a.k.a mentalities) vary from one
individual to the next. That has NOTHING to do who is 'smarter' than
who...
The true measure of objectiveness and being open minded (part of one's
mentality) has everything to do with 'really understanding' (and more
importantly being willing to understand) a totally different view than
the one you have sold yourself.
> Now why did I spend all that money buying all of the Writings
> of Albert Einstein, ...
Beats me, you have by your postings, have clearly demonstrated that you
don't understand them. You do try to 'use' them to bolster your point
of view.
>I could have just captured all messages by Paul Stowe, Ken Seto and
>Charlie McCarthy.
And those of Urban, Roberts, Clark, Carr, Bergman, ... Harris and many,
many, others. IOW, it is the combined views of ALL that can provide
one with a truly informed opinion on a topic. One will 'see' within
all of these, the mentalities which are political, and not scientific.
But that is the character of humans, not nature...
Paul Stowe
Luc Bourhis
(in message <20000513180633...@ng-cf1.aol.com>):
> Dennis: The fact that a particle decays less quickly when in motion doesn't
> affect the time standard in Galilean analyses (or the time used in GPS.)
For God sake, try to be open minded for just 2 seconds. In its rest
frame a pion has a life time T. In a frame in which it moves with a
constant speed v it has a life time T(1-v^2)^(1/2) whatever is the
speed v. This is trivially predicted by postulating Special
Relativity and the Lorentz invariance of pions models. In this
context the pion does not care a toss about the GPS time and
neither did the particle physicists. What matters is that the
Lorentz transforms **between the pion rest frame and the lab
frame** give us everything we need to deal **very easily** with
pions life time.
What is your alternative treatment of this question ? How do you
derive the life time of the pions in the lab frame ?
--
Luc Bourhis
Luc Bourhis
(in message <I1xT4.21273$sB3....@news.indigo.ie>):
> In article <01HW.B54341C50...@news.freeserve.net>, Luc Bourhis
> <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Interestingly Schroedinger -- who did never really renounce to the
>> idea that wave functions could be some kind of "physical" waves --
>> did not have any part in the birth of quantum field theory and it
>> is on the contrary Heisenberg -- whose positivism is very well
>> known -- who was one of the major leading force in this delivery.
>>
>
> Encyclopaedia Brittanica: Werner Heisenberg:
> "Although he early, and indirectly, came under the influence of Ernst
> Mach, Heisenberg, in his philosophical writings about quantum mechanics,
> vigorously opposed the Logical Positivism developed by philosophers of
> science of the Vienna Circle. According to Heisenberg, what was revealed
> by active observation was not an absolute datum, but a theory-laden
> datum; i.e., relativized by theory and contextualized by observational
> situations. [...]"
There are many different degrees of positivism and not all of them
are as extreme as Mach's version. His 1925 paper in which he
presented his matrix mechanics started with "The present paper
seeks to establish a basis for theoretical quantum mechanics
founded exclusively upon relationships between quantities that in
principle are observable". Later he was one of the inventor of the
S-matrix formalism, which can be seen as a vector for the same kind
of ideas since it is a kind of black box relating initial and final
states in collisions. Therefore Heisenberg embraced a sort of
positivism.
--
Luc Bourhis
Tom Roberts
> Consequently, a Lorentzian theory must, in my view, rule
You mean like the electron, muon, and tau?? One might also add the
proton, neutron, and the host of other hadrons.... And possibly some
of the neutrinos.... But the charged leptons are pointlike, primitive,
and non-composite to the limits of experimental resolutions today;
they all have clearly non-zero masses (the hadrons are surely composite,
and it's not yet clear whether or not the neutrinos have non-zero
masses).
> Conversely, indications that this prediction is correct would - or
> should - lead to Lorentzian theories being favoured as fundamental
> descriptions of the world
I have no idea why you think the existence of only massless particles
would imply the existence of a preferred frame a' la' LET. Even if one
ignores the obviously-massive particles we know about, we _still_
don't have any evidence whatsoever for a preferred inertial frame,
and that is what distinguishes LET from SR.
> >Actually not -- they make _THE_SAME_ predictions as SR, at least
> >as far as experimental measurements go. All the rest is merely
> >interpretation and has no foundation in "reality", it is mere
> >opinion....
> SR predicts that all fundamental particles are intrinsically massless
> (i.e. all mass derives from interaction). Where?
Read what I read -- I was talking about _EXPERIMENTAL_PREDICTIONS_.
Masses of particles are interpretations.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Like the fact that in
> LET the object 'actual' physical length is a function of NOT it's
> relative motion wrt another object, but its ACTUAL motion wrt to the
> base ether frame.
Those are merely _interpretations_. In particular they are unobservable.
Predictions using LET of what one can _observe_ are indistinguishable
from predictions using SR of what one can observe.
> However, follow SR's calibration procedures and you can
> pretend there is.
One need not follow SR's "calibration procedures", one can select
_ANY_ method of clock synchronization one likes and use such clocks
to make measurements. SR, LET, and all the theories of the equivalence
class I discuss make identical predictions for such measurements.
You are confusing what the theories consider "real" with what
measurements are made using a specific calibration procedure; you are
confusing a theory's natural procedure with possible procedures.
> But this can lead to logical paradoxes, twins,
> tethered spaceships ...etc.
There are no "logical paradoxes" in SR, or in any of the theories of
the equivalence class I discuss (using "paradox" in the sense of
"contradiction" rather than "unexpected and surprising relationship"
-- in the latter sense of the word LET has exactly the same
"paradoxes" as does SR).
> You yourself have conceded that one NEEDS to follow a specified
> 'calibration' procedure to obtain this POV. Others are just as
> possible, and internally self consistent.
You obviously have not understood what I have been saying. Look
above -- one can select _ANY_ self-consistent "calibration
procedure" and still the theories of my equivalence class make
identical predictions for experimental measurements. You are
confusing what the theories consider "real" with what measurements
are made using a specific calibration procedure; you are confusing
a theory's natural procedure with possible procedures.
Thus, for example, one can synchronize earthbound clocks in
the CMBR frame and use SR to predict how measurements will
turn out. This is not the simple and natural way to
synchronize clocks in SR, but the theory can still be used
to make predictions of how such clocks will behave, and
they will be identical to the predictions of Arlin Brown's
AET (for which such clocks are naturally synchronized).
> Since this is fundamentally
> concerned with attempting to understand the underpinning that leads to
> the observed behavior, it is not likely that you will ever understand,
> or even attempt to do so.
You elevate your imagination and interpretations to the status of
experimental results. That's hopeless....
> the very fact that you don't 'get it' (as to the ability to
> discern the difference between physical and abstract) and probably
> never will, is the vast gulf that separates mentalities like yours from
> mine.
I simply do not choose to put such limits on physical theories as you
seem to insist on. In fact, it is impossible to create a physical
theory within such limits, but you seem to ignore that. Mathematics
(yes, _ABSTRACT_ mathematics) is the natural language of physics, and
cannot be banished as you attempt to do.
Yes, there is a gulf here, and I am quite comfortable on my side
of it (:-)). All modern physics is based upon abstract mathematics....
> > Please quote one believable and reproducible experiment within SR's
> > domain of applicability which refutes the PoR.
> Sagnac (if you actually beleive that SR can handle it)
Nonsense. Sagnac merely shows that one can differentiate a rotating
frame from an inertial frame. The PoR only applies to inertial frames.
SR can clearly and obviously "handle" the Sagnac experiment (i.e. SR's
predictions can be compared to actual measurements, and agree with
them within experimental erors).
> I'm saying that the PoR is an illusion, a.k.a mirror symmetry never
> exists, length contraction is like time's arrow, unidirectional
> increasing with speed wrt to the frame in which the ether medium is
> isotropic where the moving object is. This is a very fundamental
> distinct between SR and any ether theory.
Yes, so you claim. I merely point out that your claim is purely
interpretation, and is not supported by any experimental observations.
Why do you think I keep mentioning the equivalence class of ether
theories and SR?? -- I _KNOW_ there is no experiment which can
distinguish among them. But you seem intent on preserving your naive
hopes and dreams in spite of evidence to the contrary.
IMHO the real difficulty is dealing with creation and annihilation,
such as: gamma + e- => e+ e- e-. QED provides an accurate prediction
of such phenomena, and I know of no ether theory which has any hope
at all of doing so. QED is incompatible with ether theory (i.e. its
interpretations are fundamentally different), but is compatible
with SR (in fact Lorentz invariance was _essential_ in developing
QED).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> So do you think there is something physical that can be curved, i.e.
> have a shape?
No. In GR what is "curved" is the set of distance relationships among
points in the manifold. These are abstract relationships, not anything
physical.
> It's quite a bit like aether, isn't it?
Not at all.
> In fact I think
> that's what Einstein called it.
In the oft-repeated quote from Einstein, he is essentially doing to
"ether" what I did in my example: I define "ether" to be the number 10
so I have ether fingers. Such re-definitions are useless.
> GR is an
> obsolescent classical wave theory of gravity, and we need to move on
> conceptually, along the path outlined by Feynman, Weinberg and the
> modern string theorists.
At present GR is not "obsolescent" in the sense that there are
experiments in conflict with it. It is "obsolescent" only in the
sense that it is incompatible with other well-established theories
of physics (quantum mechanics and the standard model). Yes, there
is much work to do....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Richard Perry
> For almost a century now, a wrangle continues between those who assert the
> existence of ether, and those who deny it. Einstein himself didn't lay
> stress on the non-existence, but claimed, that ether had no part to play in
> any physical processes. It's on these lines, that disdcussion continues in
> this group even to-day turning around mainly ether wind phenomena. As if
> physics stood still all this time, which it hasn't. The reactions of
> anihilation of particle - antiparticle pairs and converse reactions of
> production of new particles with extra mass in nuclear reactions, assessment
> of energy balance in the Universe, etc., brought about the concept of
> physical vacuum, which acts as a pool of energy and stock-pile of spare
> parts for the production of all known matter. In this, the physical vacuum
> perfectly answers the specification of ancient ether.Thus, it must be said.
> that the ETHER EXISTS by the virtue of undeniable properties of the
> physical vacuum
> Yet, there remains the aspect of physical vacuum's involvment in various
> forms of field and energy transport, with the modern establishnent's
> relativistic view being, that it's, at least, not detectable. Since ether
> has already exhibited its ability to play its part in high energy reactions,
> the notion, that it's totally insensitive to lower energy processes seems
> highly improbable and counter-intuitive. There's only one unquestionably
> valid experiment - the much-discussed recently in this group Sagnac effect,
> the classical ether wind explanation of which has been universally accepted
> as infallible within its premises. The alternative GR explanation, on the
> other hand, is physically flawed, because it's based on principally
> unmeasurble parameters.
> Thus, ether makes its legitimate re-appearance in physics, albeit its effect
> on low-energy physical processes is in need of further study.
I think an essential insight has been overlooked by many people on this
NG, regarding srt.
Einstein's argument as to the nature of space and the transmission of
light
through it, is along these lines:
Given two boxes, the first smaller than the other and located within the
larger
second box, we find that both contain the space within the smaller.
Space then
seems to be an independent property; something that the boxes are
located
within. But if the smaller box is given a motion relative to the larger
we find
this condition, that since each has an equal right to consider itself at
rest,
i.e. not moving relative to space, then the other is perceived to be in
motion
relative to space. The independence of space cannot therefore be
maintained, and must
be a property of the boxes, i.e. something defined by them.
Einstein then concludes from this argument that there are an infinite
number of
spaces, all in motion relative to one another, one for each potential
observer
who claims to be at rest relative to it.
If light is characterized as a disturbance in space itself, propagating
at the
fixed rate of c through space, due to its nature, then each observer
must measure the rate
of c for any such disturbance since each, in its FOR, is at rest
relative to that space. This is
srt in a nutshell.
The above conclusions do not preclude the aether however,
which is conclusion arrived at by Einstein himself.
But srt requires, and this has been, apparently, overlooked by many thus
far, is
that an
infinite number of aethers must exist, all in motion relative to one
another, i.e. one
for each potential observer.
If light is a ripple, it must be a ripple in some "thing". The
stationary
space that
Einstein associated with each observer "is" that something; that aether.
It cannot be
nothing,
else an object could not move relative to it (RE: The argument above;
motion
relative to an observer is equivalent to motion relative to the space
associated
with that observer).
Motion through any particular space is therefore an absolute motion, in
that any mass has an absolute instantaneous velocity relative to it.
Drift rate
through the aether "can" be measured
then, and is quite simply the velocity of the object, as perceived by
the observer, who is himself necessarily at rest relative to the aether.
Again a necessary conclusion of the above
arguments.
Bottom line: The drift rate of the Earth through the aether is measured
as zero, simply because the Earth is at rest relative to the aether,
when we, the observers, are at rest relative to the Earth.
Einstein did not eliminate the need for an aether/medium, his theory
very much
requires an aether/medium, or better, very many of them.
Regards
Richard Perry
Luc Bourhis
(in message <wVwT4.21268$sB3....@news.indigo.ie>):
> SR predicts that all fundamental particles are intrinsically massless
> (i.e. all mass derives from interaction). Where?
This is a "prediction" of the Standard Model and not of SR only
which is only the kinematical framework on the top of which is
built the former. The lack of explicit mass terms in the Lagrangian
is not even forbidden by its Lorentz invariance but by gauge
invariances. SR has nothing to do with this issue and it can deal
very well with massive quantum particles of any kind.
--
Luc Bourhis
Dennis McCarthy
>
>On Sat, 13 May 2000 23:06:33 +0100, Dennis McCarthy wrote
>(in message <20000513180633...@ng-cf1.aol.com>):
>
>> Dennis: The fact that a particle decays less quickly when in motion doesn't
>> affect the time standard in Galilean analyses (or the time used in GPS.)
>
>constant speed v it has a life time T(1-v^2)^(1/2) whatever is the
>speed v. This is trivially predicted by postulating Special
>Relativity and the Lorentz invariance of pions models. In this
>context the pion does not care a toss about the GPS time and
>neither did the particle physicists. What matters is that the
>Lorentz transforms **between the pion rest frame and the lab
>frame** give us everything we need to deal **very easily** with
>pions life time.
>
>What is your alternative treatment of this question ? How do you
>derive the life time of the pions in the lab frame ?
Dennis: The life time of a pion when motionless wrt the ether is T. When
moving wrt the ether it's T(1-v^2)^(1/2)--where v is the velocity of the pion
wrt the ether. T is the standard accepted Universal coordinat time. None of
this is at all hard to understand. I shall also repeat other comments to which
you neglected to respond:
>
>
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 18:21:53 +0100, Dennis McCarthy wrote
>(in message <20000512132153...@ng-fb1.aol.com>):
>
>> Dennis: Sigh. Now, please read very, very carefully.
>> x' = x + v.t
>> t' = t
>
Bourhis: >You do not answer my question. You do not talk about the same
>physical observables as me. If dt is a duration measured by a clock
>fixed in the ECI frame, the time measured by _any_ clock known to
>mankind which moves with respect to it is
> dt'=1/gamma dt
Dennis: False. Hourglasses actually change at different rates due to motion.
Pendulum clocks change at other rates due to motion. Etc.
Bourhis; >One has to correct the reading of this moving clock in order to
>obtain dt' = dt. So I consider the _actual_ reading of
>_uncorrected_ clocks because it is what matters in fundamental
>physics.
Dennis: What you "consider" seems at odds with the fact that GPS engineers
don't use uncorrected clocks; experimental scientists don't use uncorrected
clocks; and most physicists over the last few centuries would consider it silly
to do so..
t in Galilean theories stands for time. And all reference frames agree on
just one standard (as they do for Universal Coordinate Time with GPS.) As
always, the standard chosen is the most convenient and equable motion.
That this confuses or upsets you is not a problem with this very well-known,
very old, analysis that has always been used and is still used today.
Bourhis: >It is very artificial and not natural at all to correct
>many kinds of clocks,
Dennis: Well, then you disagree with the entire operating system of GPS--and
the way experimental science has worked for centuries. Trusting whatever your
clock says no matter what the physical environment is a tad silly wouldn't you
say?
Bourhis: the life time of unstable states or Doppler
>shifted waves for example. For example when I study the decay of a
>pion in a particle detector, I can not ignore that its life time
>depends on its speed with respect to my measurement devices. I must
>use the above formula to predict the distance it travels before
>decaying.
Dennis: The fact that a particle decays less quickly when in motion doesn't
affect the time standard in Galilean analyses (or the time used in GPS.)
Bourhis:
Even from a practical point of view, one has to know what
>needs to be compensated if one wants to build a system like GPS.
Dennis: And we do know.
Bourhis:
>The questions must of course be asked about length measurements. By
>the way if there is some length contraction, how do you propose to
>correct for that effect in a global way everywhere ?
Dennis: At this point I find length contraction a superfluous (though not
necessarily improbable) hypothesis.
Bourhis: Anyway one
>_must_ know the relations between actual measurements of spacetime
>coordinates of the same event in different frame. So what are these
>relations in your theory ?
Dennis: If you don't understand how EM processes slow when in motion wrt the
ether by now, then my explaining it for the 58th time probably won't help.
D:>> The most accurate time is that kept by an ECI atomic clock.
Bourhis: >What does accurate mean ?
Dennis: This sort of reminds me of the time that you couldn't really understand
how to measure the length of a rim--and I had to explain it in detail. By
accurate I mean most continually equable motion that we can use at present.
Choice of standard is also based on convenience. The ECI clock is "the agreed
upon standard."
Bourhis: Three clocks, one fixed in the ECI, one
>in Washington and one at the center of the Sun would accumulate a
>time lag between each others. Which one is more accurate ? Why ?
Dennis: The clocks all display equable motions--and so are all "accurate."
But in Galilean relativity you have to choose a convenient agreed-upon
standard. The choice is based on convenience. Defining a second as a
particular quantity of oscillations in an atomic clock on the sun is not that
convenient to people on the Earth. This is all pretty straight-forward, and
has been known for centuries. Surely, we're on the same page now.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> >I mean that no experiment has ever determined the local inertial
>> >rest frame of the ether.
>> Dennis: 1) That's an odd definition of "undetectable."
>
Roberts" >It was not intended to be a definition, merely an explanation of
>what I was talking about. That's what the words "I mean" were
>intended to convey. You are supposed to read what I write before
>commenting.
Dennis: You often state that the ether is "undetectable." That is an odd
choice of words when you really mean to say that no experiment has ever
determined the local inertial rest frame of the ether.
>> 2) The local rest frame of the ether is not "inertial."
>
Roberts: >Hmmm.
Dennis: I'm not sure what confused you. The local rest frame of the atmosphere
is not inertial either.
>> 3) MM and BH both found the rest frame within a few 1000 MPH.
>
Roberts: >Not if the ether behaves as in LET,
Dennis: So with even your extremely idiosyncratic definition of "undetectable"
the criticism is clearly overcome for theories like IGS.
Roberts: or any other theory of the
>equivalence class I discuss. And if a theory does not predict
>such behavior then it is already experimentally refuted -- by
>MM and BH (Michelson and Morley, Brillet and Hall).
Dennis: False. SR was "refuted" by BH. A theory that predicts very small
velocity (at least horizontally) of the local ether wrt the ECI is consistent
with BH, MM, Sagnac, etc.
Dennis McCarthy
Etherman
ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 21:55:37 -0700, Etherman
><etherman2...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <391ba6d0$0$25...@news.voyager.net>,
>>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 May 2000 10:33:30 -0500, Tom Roberts
>><tjro...@lucent.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [... more of the same]
>>>>
>>>>As I have said so often, ether advocates have _NOTHING_ until
>>someone
>>>>performs the following steps:
>>>> 1) conceive an ether theory which is not indistinguishable
>>from SR,
>>>> and which is consistent with _all_ of the existing
>>experiments.
>>>
>>>I did. It is called the Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT
>>includes
>>>SR as a subset and it give the same predictions as GR but
>>without the
>>>following problematic predictions of GR: singularity, black
>>holes worm
>>>holes, young age of the universe compared to its oldest stars,
>>and the
>>>GR prediction of an expansion rate of the current universe
>>disgree
>>>with the Hubble observation.
>>
>>You've consistently failed to be able to back up these claims.
>>You haven't even tried to show agreement between your theory
>>and the four classical tests of GR.
>
>Don't be absurd. You can't even understand a simple thing like
the
>Doppler Factor and you expect me to waste all my time on you?
>
>Ken Seto
It would be easier to understand if you were consistent about
it. In any case, you have once more failure to show agreement
between your theory and experiment. I predict that if you
bother to respond to this ad at all you still won't show
the agreement. Not just to me, but to anyone.
Etherman
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dennis McCarthy
Correction:
>Dennis: The life time of a pion when motionless wrt the ether is T. When
>moving wrt the ether it's T(1-v^2)^(1/2)--where v is the velocity of the pion
>wrt the ether.
That last sentence should read: When
moving wrt the ether it's T/(1-v^2)^(1/2)--where v is the velocity of the pion
wrt the ether.
Again, T is measured according to an agreed upon standard (ECI atomic clock)
and is the same for all frames.
None of this is at all hard to understand.
Dennis McCarthy
Gerry Quinn
That is the precise point I am making. It is NOT a prediction of SR but
it is a prediction of LET (because an intrinsically massive particle
could not have any means of increasing its mass proportional to its
absolute speed). In SR there is a magic principle that simply asserts
that the measured mass will increase in the correct proportion as
relative speed increases.
LET also predicts, for the same reason, that the Higgs boson must be
composite. The Standard Model is silent on this issue, although I think
the recent discovery by Visser of yet more silly GR-related paradoxes
may have the same implication.
Conclusion: LET is stronger than SR and makes valid predictions where SR
is silent.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> Consequently, a Lorentzian theory must, in my view, rule
>> out such particles [with non-zero masses].
>> So discovery of such a particle would rule out a Lorentzian theory.
>
>You mean like the electron, muon, and tau?? One might also add the
>proton, neutron, and the host of other hadrons.... And possibly some
>of the neutrinos.... But the charged leptons are pointlike, primitive,
>and non-composite to the limits of experimental resolutions today;
>they all have clearly non-zero masses (the hadrons are surely composite,
>and it's not yet clear whether or not the neutrinos have non-zero
>masses).
>
See my answer to Luc Bourhis. It is well-understood nowadays that these
masses come about via interactions such as those with the Higgs field.
But LET makes this prediction directly.
>
>> Conversely, indications that this prediction is correct would - or
>> should - lead to Lorentzian theories being favoured as fundamental
>> descriptions of the world
>
>I have no idea why you think the existence of only massless particles
>would imply the existence of a preferred frame a' la' LET. Even if one
>ignores the obviously-massive particles we know about, we _still_
>don't have any evidence whatsoever for a preferred inertial frame,
>and that is what distinguishes LET from SR.
>
It implies it because the existence of intrinsically massive particles
would falsify it.
>
>> >Actually not -- they make _THE_SAME_ predictions as SR, at least
>> >as far as experimental measurements go. All the rest is merely
>> >interpretation and has no foundation in "reality", it is mere
>> >opinion....
>> SR predicts that all fundamental particles are intrinsically massless
>> (i.e. all mass derives from interaction). Where?
>
>Read what I read -- I was talking about _EXPERIMENTAL_PREDICTIONS_.
>Masses of particles are interpretations.
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
My word, you must be desperate! Do you think that the quantity "the
rest mass of the electron" is less scientifically definitive than the
quantity "the proportion by which the measured mass of the electron
increases when the electron travels at a measured velocity of 0.6c"?
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>> have a shape?
>
>No. In GR what is "curved" is the set of distance relationships among
>points in the manifold. These are abstract relationships, not anything
>physical.
>
And yet the "curvature" is physical? A set of abstract relationships
between non-physical entities somehow has a physical existence? That is
perilously close to what you would, in other contexts, call a reductio
ad absurdum.
- Gerry Quinn
Ken H. Seto
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 13 May 2000 23:06:33 +0100, Dennis McCarthy wrote
>>(in message <20000513180633...@ng-cf1.aol.com>):
>>
>>> Dennis: The fact that a particle decays less quickly when in motion doesn't
>>> affect the time standard in Galilean analyses (or the time used in GPS.)
>>
>Bourhis:
>>For God sake, try to be open minded for just 2 seconds. In its rest
>>frame a pion has a life time T.
This means that the difference in absolute motions of the pion and the
lab is very small. Therefore, the decay length is very small. and thus
the calculated T (from the decay length) is very small.
>> In a frame in which it moves with a
>>constant speed v it has a life time T(1-v^2)^(1/2) whatever is the
>>speed v.
This means that the difference in absolute motions between the pion
and the lab is v. Therefore, the decay length per second observed by
the lab is Lorentz invariant.. Therefore, the calculate decay time
(from the decay length) is T(1-v^2)^1/2.
There is no time dilation. The difference decay time is due to the
different states of absolute motions of the pion.
Ken Seto
Daryl McCullough
>>> "It was a logical succession," Dr. Wilczek said in an interview. "Modern
>>>quantum field theory is a direct descendant of the ether."
>>
>McCullough: >Except that there is no absolute motion in QFT,
>
>Dennis: There is no absolute motion in ether theory.
Okay, rephrase it as "there is no such thing as velocity *relative*
to the vaccuum in QFT". The vaccuum of QFT does not determine a
rest frame.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Dennis McCarthy
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>
>>>> "It was a logical succession," Dr. Wilczek said in an interview. "Modern
>>>>quantum field theory is a direct descendant of the ether."
>>>
>>McCullough: >Except that there is no absolute motion in QFT,
>>
>>Dennis: There is no absolute motion in ether theory.
>
*relative*
>to the vaccuum in QFT". The vaccuum of QFT does not determine a
>rest frame.
Dennis: You refer to velocity relative to the ECI frame--which, of course, is
the background vacuum. In around-the-world Sagnac effects, relativists prefer
the ECI frame and show that speed of light is isotropic relative to this
empty-space, vacuum frame, yet varies according to the measurements of people
on the Earth.
Dennis McCarthy
Daryl McCullough
>McCullough: >Okay, rephrase it as "there is no such thing
>>as velocity *relative* to the vaccuum in QFT". The vaccuum
>>of QFT does not determine a rest frame.
>
>Dennis: You refer to velocity relative to the ECI frame
No, I don't. I have no idea what "ECI" stands for. I'm saying
that the difference between the notion of "ether" most people
in this newsgroup talk about and the notion of "the vaccuum"
of QFT is that ether theory has a notion of "velocity relative
to the ether", but there is no comparable notion of "velocity
relative to the vaccuum" in QFT.
Joe Fischer
: Dennis: Dennis:
: Dennis: You refer to velocity relative to the ECI frame--which, of course,
: relativists prefer the ECI frame and show that speed of light is
: isotropic relative to this empty-space, vacuum frame, yet varies
: according to the measurements of people on the Earth.
: Dennis McCarthy
The ECI is the Earth Centered inertial frame,
the Earth is _solid___matter_.
Proponents of General Relativity should prefer
any object in inertial motion as it's own "rest frame"
or inertial frame, there is nothing but the material
objects to refer velocity or position to.
Apparently some people assume Euclidean space
has some special attributes, but it does ONLY in
Newtonian mechanics with Newtonian gravitation.
When you find a mile marker or road sign
in empty space, please let me know. In the meantime,
please study physics.
Joe Fischer
Luc Bourhis
(in message <8fpacp$2l...@edrn.newsguy.com>):
> ether theory has a notion of "velocity relative
> to the ether", but there is no comparable notion of "velocity
> relative to the vacuum" in QFT.
Such a notion would indeed be meaningless since by definition the
vacuum of QFT is the unique state (up to a constant phase factor)
which is let invariant by the representation of the Poincaré group
acting on the quantum states.
--
Luc Bourhis
Luc Bourhis
(in message <vFRT4.22473$sB3....@news.indigo.ie>):
> In SR there is a magic principle that simply asserts that the
> measured mass will increase in the correct proportion as
> relative speed increases.
This concept of relativistic mass is totally obsolete nowadays. In
modern language what you wrote is that the energy E and the
momentum p of a particle of velocity v are given by (c=1
everywhere)
E = m gamma(v) | (A)
p = m gamma(v) v |
It is a trivial consequence of the geometrical structure of SR
since if one postulates that (1) (E,p) is a 4-vector and that (2) p
is proportional to the velocity v then one can prove (A) when the
Lorentz invariant m^2 = E^2 - p^2 is not zero. (1) is essential for
building a coherent relativistic quantum theory since E and p are
the Fourier conjugates of respectively time t and position x which
means that E.t - p.x must be an invariant. Thus (A) is really
nothing more than Minkovskian geometry at work. You can consider
that it is magic but this is a powerful sorcery modern physicists
keep enjoying !
> It is NOT a prediction of SR but
> it is a prediction of LET (because an intrinsically massive particle
> could not have any means of increasing its mass proportional to its
> absolute speed).
Forgetting the distinction between transverse and longitudinal mass
Lorentz derived exactly (A) for the energy and momentum of an
electron in the Ether frame when it moves with a velocity v there.
However it seems to me that neither in his 1904 paper nor in his
book published in 1905 (The Theory of Electrons) he considered the
energy and momentum in an arbitrary inertial frame. Lorentz's
recognized that Einstein's proof of (A) in any frame was a great
success, something that he had not been able to do himself. See the
note 75 he added in 1915 in a reprint of his 1905 book where he
derived SR results. So it seems to me that you are mistaken: LET
has the same expression for energies and momenta than SR.
> LET also predicts, for the same reason, that the Higgs boson must be
> composite.
Come on ! How a classical theory like LET could say something about
the particles of a quantum field theory.
> The Standard Model is silent on this issue,
No. In the Standard Model the Higgs is not composite.
> although I think
> the recent discovery by Visser of yet more silly GR-related paradoxes
> may have the same implication.
????
--
Luc Bourhis
Dennis McCarthy
>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>>McCullough: >Okay, rephrase it as "there is no such thing
>>>as velocity *relative* to the vaccuum in QFT". The vaccuum
>>>of QFT does not determine a rest frame.
>>
>
Dennis: But most physicists do. "You" referred to contemporary physicists in
general.
McCullough: I'm saying
>that the difference between the notion of "ether" most people
>in this newsgroup talk about and the notion of "the vaccuum"
>of QFT is that ether theory has a notion of "velocity relative
>to the ether", but there is no comparable notion of "velocity
>relative to the vaccuum" in QFT.
Dennis: There is a notion of velocity relative to the ECI vacuum that is
important for EM and light experiments.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>On Mon, 15 May 2000 17:59:05 +0100, Daryl McCullough wrote
>(in message <8fpacp$2l...@edrn.newsguy.com>):
>
>> to the ether", but there is no comparable notion of "velocity
Bourhis: >Such a notion would indeed be meaningless since by definition the
>vacuum of QFT is the unique state (up to a constant phase factor)
Dennis: Meaningless or not, physicists do define velocities wrt a background
ECI frame (which is a background vacuum.) That's the frame they prefer. They
don't have to do that. They could use frames that make things more
complicated--and, of course, so could etherists.
Physicists also prefer the atmosphere frame for sound experiments because
that's simpler as well.
Dennis McCarthy
Paul Stowe
(Dennis McCarthy) writes:
>
>>
>>
>>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>>>McCullough: >Okay, rephrase it as "there is no such thing
>>>>as velocity *relative* to the vaccuum in QFT". The vaccuum
>>>>of QFT does not determine a rest frame.
>>>
>>>Dennis: You refer to velocity relative to the ECI frame
>>
>McCullough: >No, I don't. I have no idea what "ECI" stands for.
>
>Dennis: But most physicists do. "You" referred to contemporary
>physicists in general.
Forget ECI Dennis, we should always use the CCR (Cosmic Centered
Reference) Frame. That is, by definition, the frame in which the CMBR
is measurably isotropic. This is a common FOR for all observers of the
"real" world.
>McCullough: I'm saying
>>that the difference between the notion of "ether" most people
>>in this newsgroup talk about and the notion of "the vaccuum"
>>of QFT is that ether theory has a notion of "velocity relative
>>to the ether", but there is no comparable notion of "velocity
>>relative to the vaccuum" in QFT.
>
>Dennis: There is a notion of velocity relative to the ECI vacuum
>that is important for EM and light experiments.
Actually all the ECI does is allow removal of Earth's rotational
velocity effects.
>Dennis McCarthy
>
Dennis McCarthy
>Dennis McCarthy (djm...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Dennis: Dennis:
>: Dennis: You refer to velocity relative to the ECI frame--which, of course,
>: is the background vacuum. In around-the-world Sagnac effects,
>: relativists prefer the ECI frame and show that speed of light is
>: isotropic relative to this empty-space, vacuum frame, yet varies
>: according to the measurements of people on the Earth.
>: Dennis McCarthy
>
>the Earth is _solid___matter_.
> Proponents of General Relativity should prefer
>any object in inertial motion as it's own "rest frame"
>or inertial frame, there is nothing but the material
>objects to refer velocity or position to.
Dennis: Physicists don't refer velocity to the surface of the Earth--which, of
course, is the easiest and most convenient material object but (to quote
Hafele-Keating who first adopted this convention) to "an underlying
non-rotating space" that moves with the Earth's core.
Fischer: > Apparently some people assume Euclidean space
>has some special attributes, but it does ONLY in
>Newtonian mechanics with Newtonian gravitation.
> When you find a mile marker or road sign
>in empty space, please let me know. In the meantime,
>please study physics.
Dennis: It is of course well known that you need something physical in order to
describe relative velocities. Unfortunately, experimentalists actually ignore
the most obvious physical object (the laboratory and the surface of the Earth)
and instead **prefer** a special area surrounding the Earth but doesn't rotate
with it.
Dennis McCarthy
Joe Fischer
: >Dennis McCarthy (djm...@aol.com) wrote:
: >: Dennis: Dennis:
: >: Dennis: You refer to velocity relative to the ECI frame--which, of course,
: >: is the background vacuum. In around-the-world Sagnac effects,
: >: relativists prefer the ECI frame and show that speed of light is
: >: isotropic relative to this empty-space, vacuum frame, yet varies
: >: according to the measurements of people on the Earth.
: >: Dennis McCarthy
: >
: >Fischer: The ECI is the Earth Centered inertial frame,
: >the Earth is _solid___matter_.
: >
: > Proponents of General Relativity should prefer
: >any object in inertial motion as it's own "rest frame"
: >or inertial frame, there is nothing but the material
: >objects to refer velocity or position to.
:
: Dennis: Physicists don't refer velocity to the surface of the Earth--
Oh, but they do, in fact, that is one of the problems,
they just naturally assume that all of space is like the
"space" _connected_ to the surface of the Earth.
: which, of
: course, is the easiest and most convenient material object but (to quote
: Hafele-Keating who first adopted this convention) to "an underlying
: non-rotating space" that moves with the Earth's core.
Would you rather "space" rotates with the Earth?
: Fischer: > Apparently some people assume Euclidean space
: >has some special attributes, but it does ONLY in
: >Newtonian mechanics with Newtonian gravitation.
: > When you find a mile marker or road sign
: >in empty space, please let me know. In the meantime,
: >please study physics.
:
: Dennis: It is of course well known that you need something physical
: in order to describe relative velocities.
Thank you for a sentence that is rational.
: Unfortunately, experimentalists actually ignore
: the most obvious physical object (the laboratory and
: the surface of the Earth) and instead **prefer** a special area
: surrounding the Earth but doesn't rotate with it.
: Dennis McCarthy
That depends on the experiment. And on the physical
model being investigated or compared.
If inertial guidance hardware is involved, the reference
frame should be selected accordingly. Haven't you read any
of my messages where I say "accelerometers read correctly"?
Inertial guidance uses accelerometers and gyros to
determine changes in motion and direction. They do not
use the Earth itself, or any other material bodies.
But the motion of the center of mass of the Earth
is inertial, so the Earth Centered inertial reference frame
is useful. Rotation is a separate issue, the Sun can't
be used as a reference for rotation, so the background stars
give the best approximatiion.
When you can detect the ether, maybe things will change. :-)
Joe Fischer
Gerry Quinn
>On Mon, 15 May 2000 13:01:04 +0100, Gerry Quinn wrote
>(in message <vFRT4.22473$sB3....@news.indigo.ie>):
>
>> In SR there is a magic principle that simply asserts that the
>> measured mass will increase in the correct proportion as
>> relative speed increases.
>This concept of relativistic mass is totally obsolete nowadays. In
>modern language what you wrote is that the energy E and the
>momentum p of a particle of velocity v are given by (c=1
>everywhere)
Reiterating my point in modern language does not invalidate it.
>
>> It is NOT a prediction of SR but
>> it is a prediction of LET (because an intrinsically massive particle
>> could not have any means of increasing its mass proportional to its
>> absolute speed).
>Forgetting the distinction between transverse and longitudinal mass
>Lorentz derived exactly (A) for the energy and momentum of an
>electron in the Ether frame when it moves with a velocity v there.
>However it seems to me that neither in his 1904 paper nor in his
>book published in 1905 (The Theory of Electrons) he considered the
>energy and momentum in an arbitrary inertial frame. Lorentz's
>recognized that Einstein's proof of (A) in any frame was a great
>success, something that he had not been able to do himself. See the
>note 75 he added in 1915 in a reprint of his 1905 book where he
>derived SR results. So it seems to me that you are mistaken: LET
>has the same expression for energies and momenta than SR.
>
entirely embedded within the structure of LET. LET just adds one word -
"How?"
>> LET also predicts, for the same reason, that the Higgs boson must be
>> composite.
>Come on ! How a classical theory like LET could say something about
>the particles of a quantum field theory.
>
It is logical to conclude, from LET, that the particles of any present
and future theory, if they are massive, must gain this mass from
interactions. The mass cannot be an intrinsic quality, as it can be in
SR. No spacetime sorcery allowed. That's what I mean by "a prediction
of LET". Certainly, Lorentz did not make this prediction. It is a
prediction of the Lorentzian approach when it is applied to our current
more mature understanding of the structure of matter.
>> The Standard Model is silent on this issue,
>No. In the Standard Model the Higgs is not composite.
>
My understanding is that it doesn't much matter, i.e. the standard model
can be modified to make it composite (or again, the product of
interactions with other, ultimately massless, fields) without ruffling
anyone's feathers too much. Of course I'd greatly prefer if theorists
insisted on a Higgs boson with intrinsic mass, because then I'd have a
prediction that was startling rather than fairly ho-hum...
>> although I think
>> the recent discovery by Visser of yet more silly GR-related paradoxes
>> may have the same implication.
>????
>
You know, time machines from scalar bosons of various types?
- Gerry Quinn
Daryl McCullough
>Daryl McCullough wrote:
>> ether theory has a notion of "velocity relative
>> to the ether", but there is no comparable notion of "velocity
>> relative to the vacuum" in QFT.
>Such a notion would indeed be meaningless since by definition the
>vacuum of QFT is the unique state (up to a constant phase factor)
>which is let invariant by the representation of the Poincaré group
>acting on the quantum states.
Is that true for interacting QFT as well? In the case of spontaneous
symmetry breaking, where the Higgs field acquires a nonzero constant
value, is it the state with the unbroken symmetry that is the "vaccuum"
according to the criterion of being invariant under the Poincare group?
Daryl McCullough
>McCullough: I'm saying
>>that the difference between the notion of "ether" most people
>>in this newsgroup talk about and the notion of "the vaccuum"
>>of QFT is that ether theory has a notion of "velocity relative
>>to the ether", but there is no comparable notion of "velocity
>>relative to the vaccuum" in QFT.
>
>Dennis: There is a notion of velocity relative to the ECI vacuum that is
>important for EM and light experiments.
I can only reiterate---the vaccuum of QFT does not determine
a reference frame. If the E in ECI stands for Earth, then it is
*Earth* that is determining the reference frame, not the vaccuum.
Daryl McCullough
>Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Gerry Quinn wrote
>>> In SR there is a magic principle that simply asserts that the
>>> measured mass will increase in the correct proportion as
>>> relative speed increases.
>>This concept of relativistic mass is totally obsolete nowadays. In
>>modern language what you wrote is that the energy E and the
>>momentum p of a particle of velocity v are given by (c=1
>>everywhere)
>[--]
>Reiterating my point in modern language does not invalidate it.
But the point is that "relativistic mass" is actually *energy*
(divided by c^2). So, the increase of relativistic mass with
velocity should be no more mysterious and magical than the
increase of kinetic energy with velocity in Newtonian physics.
You just replace one velocity dependence
E = 1/2 m v^2
by another
E = mc^2/square-root(1 - (v/c)^2)
But perhaps you think Newtonian physics is magical, in this
regard, too? Are you wondering why should energy increases with
velocity?
Dennis McCarthy
>
>djm...@aol.com says...
>
>>McCullough: I'm saying
>>>that the difference between the notion of "ether" most people
>>>in this newsgroup talk about and the notion of "the vaccuum"
>>>of QFT is that ether theory has a notion of "velocity relative
>>>to the ether", but there is no comparable notion of "velocity
>>>relative to the vaccuum" in QFT.
>>
>>Dennis: There is a notion of velocity relative to the ECI vacuum that is
>>important for EM and light experiments.
>
>a reference frame.
Dennis: The vacuum surrounding the Earth is part of QFT, isn't it?
McCullough: If the E in ECI stands for Earth, then it is
>*Earth* that is determining the reference frame, not the vaccuum.
Dennis: Well, one always needs material landmarks, but in experiments we send
light through vacuums that are located near the Earth. We don't send light
through the Earth. Moreover, the easiest reference frame to use for lab
experiments is the lab frame and Earth surface frame. We specifically ignore
that frame (because light speed is not isotropic there) and instead prefer (in
the words of Hafele-Keating) "an underlying nonrotating inertial space" that
moves with the non-rotating center of the Earth around the sun.
This "underlying nonrotating inertial space" is also a vacuum in QFT, isn't
it?
Dennis McCarthy
Daryl McCullough
>McCullough: >I can only reiterate---the vaccuum of QFT does not determine
>>a reference frame.
>
>Dennis: The vacuum surrounding the Earth is part of QFT, isn't it?
Yes, and the vaccuum surrounding the Earth does not determine a
reference frame.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>Dennis McCarthy (djm...@aol.com) wrote:
>: >Dennis McCarthy (djm...@aol.com) wrote:
>: >: Dennis: Dennis:
>: >: Dennis: You refer to velocity relative to the ECI frame--which, of
>course,
>: >: is the background vacuum. In around-the-world Sagnac effects,
>: >: relativists prefer the ECI frame and show that speed of light is
>: >: isotropic relative to this empty-space, vacuum frame, yet varies
>: >: according to the measurements of people on the Earth.
>: >: Dennis McCarthy
>: >
>: >Fischer: The ECI is the Earth Centered inertial frame,
>: >the Earth is _solid___matter_.
>: >
>: > Proponents of General Relativity should prefer
>: >any object in inertial motion as it's own "rest frame"
>: >or inertial frame, there is nothing but the material
>: >objects to refer velocity or position to.
>:
>: Dennis: Physicists don't refer velocity to the surface of the Earth--
>
Dennis: They don't for light speed or clock retardation experiments that demand
tremendous accuracy.
D:>: which, of
>: course, is the easiest and most convenient material object but (to quote
>: Hafele-Keating who first adopted this convention) to "an underlying
>: non-rotating space" that moves with the Earth's core.
>
Fischer: Would you rather "space" rotates with the Earth?
Dennis: Well, as "space" is nothing, I think it's silly to attribute any sort
of special attributes to at all. But the point I was making here was that
physicists do relate velocities to a preferred background vacuum for certain
experiments.
>: Fischer: > Apparently some people assume Euclidean space
>: >has some special attributes, but it does ONLY in
>: >Newtonian mechanics with Newtonian gravitation.
>: > When you find a mile marker or road sign
>: >in empty space, please let me know. In the meantime,
>: >please study physics.
>:
>: Dennis: It is of course well known that you need something physical
>: in order to describe relative velocities.
>
Fischer:> Thank you for a sentence that is rational.
>
D: >: Unfortunately, experimentalists actually ignore
>: the most obvious physical object (the laboratory and
>: the surface of the Earth) and instead **prefer** a special area
>: surrounding the Earth but doesn't rotate with it.
>: Dennis McCarthy
>
Fischer: That depends on the experiment.
Dennis: They prefer ECI when tremendous accuracy is needed.
Fischer:
> When you can detect the ether, maybe things will change. :-)
Dennis: What do you mean by "detect"? Do you mean "see" or do you mean "observe
the consequences of"?
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis) says...
>
>>McCullough: >I can only reiterate---the vaccuum of QFT does not determine
>>>a reference frame.
>>
>>Dennis: The vacuum surrounding the Earth is part of QFT, isn't it?
>
>reference frame.
Dennis: Interesting statement with no support or comment on the ECI analysis
which clearly proves that physicist prefer an "underlying non-rotating inertial
space." I'll repost what you deleted, so you may comment: One always needs
material landmarks, but in experiments we send
light through vacuums that are located near the Earth. We don't send light
through the Earth. Moreover, the easiest reference frame to use for lab
experiments is the lab frame and Earth surface frame. We specifically ignore
that frame (because light speed is not isotropic there) and instead prefer (in
the words of Hafele-Keating) "an underlying nonrotating inertial space" that
moves with the non-rotating center of the Earth around the sun.
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Roberts
> It is NOT a prediction of SR but
> it is a prediction of LET (because an intrinsically massive particle
> could not have any means of increasing its mass proportional to its
> absolute speed).
Have you really formulated a quantum field theory which is not
Lorentz invariant and which agrees with LET in the clasical limit?
Somehow I doubt it.... Even Ilja's ether theory does not go anywhere
near that far....
Note, please, that LET is not Lorentz invariant (in the usual modern
sense of the term), only its observables are (due to a remarkable
and unexplained cancellation).
Lorentz, of course, merely postulated that an "intrinsically massive
particle increases its mass proportional to its absolute speed [sic
-- this is not really proportional at all]", without specifying any
mechanism for this. Ditto for length contraction and time dilation
(which is why it is so laughable that some people around here claim
so vehemently that LET "explains" things better than SR).
I think you are claiming far beyond what you can demonstrate. While
your conjecture is not a bad one, it is IMHO far from being
established.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Luc Bourhis
(in message <20000515030236...@ng-fm1.aol.com>):
>
> Correction:
>
>> Dennis: The life time of a pion when motionless wrt the ether
>> is T. When moving wrt the ether it's T(1-v^2)^(1/2)--where v
>> is the velocity of the pion wrt the ether.
>
> That last sentence should read: When moving wrt the ether it's
> T/(1-v^2)^(1/2)--where v is the velocity of the pion wrt the
> ether.
You are indeed not obliged to copy my typing mistake ! Anyway this
is not what is predicted by Lorentz invariant models.
Indeed the latter predict the following relation between a duration
T(v) which is a fundamental characteristic (life time, period, ...)
of a system moving with a speed v in the lab frame L:
gamma = T(v)/T(0) = [1-v^2]^(-1/2)
Your ideas should lead to a measurement of the order of
g = T(v)/T(0) = [(1-w^2)/(1-u^2)]^(-1/2)
where u is the speed of the lab frame wrt Ether and w = u + v. For
small enough u, this gives
(g - gamma)/gamma = v.u gamma^2
(the dot is a scalar product)
Therefore we have just to wait for experiments to be precise enough
to rule out values of u of the order of the speed of the lab in
ECI. This might have already been done in fact. I'll search when
I'll have some time.
--
Luc Bourhis
Luc Bourhis
(in message <sgaU4.25383$sB3....@news.indigo.ie>):
> I did not and do not dispute this. The equations of SR are in fact
> entirely embedded within the structure of LET. LET just adds one word -
> "How?"
This is the point in such a discussion where I am used to give the
following citation from Lorentz himself ["Lorentz Collected Paper",
Vol. 5, p. 28]:
<< Here we can't go into these questions just raised [of ether
motion because of the Maxwell's stresses], since the basic
assumptions which we have given lead to a different conception. In
that case, since we have already assumed that the ether doesn't
move, why should we ever speak of a force acting upon this medium ?
It would be simplest, indeed to assume that a force never acts on a
volume element of the ether, considered as a whole, or to assume
even that the concept of force on such an element, which never
moves from its place, is never even to be employed. Indeed, this
conception rejects the equality of action and reaction -- since we
really have to say basically that the ether force acts on
ponderable matter --; but, as far as I can see, there is nothing
that forces us to raise that proposition to a fundamental law of
unlimited validity >>
I do not find that postulating the existence of a medium with such
magical properties does explain anything. Ether affects electrons
in such a way that it becomes unobservable but Lorentz did not give
any mechanical model explaining that and in fact the above quote
shows that Lorentz did not think that such a model could be found.
> It is logical to conclude, from LET, that the particles of any present
> and future theory, if they are massive, must gain this mass from
> interactions. The mass cannot be an intrinsic quality, as it can be in
> SR.
Why ? In an Ether theory electrons, muons, protons, .... could be
made of the most fundamental particles of the medium which could be
massive, exactly as in standard hydrodynamics. To provide
mechanistic models is the ultimate dream of Etherists, isn't it ?
Then if instead of seeing m gamma as a real mass you understand
that E and p are expressed as the product of a constant mass by
some velocity dependent terms, there is no problem anymore. This is
exactly as in Newtonian mechanics with the exception that the
latter terms are different.
>> No. In the Standard Model the Higgs is not composite.
>>
> My understanding is that it doesn't much matter, i.e. the standard model
> can be modified to make it composite (or again, the product of
> interactions with other, ultimately massless, fields) without ruffling
> anyone's feathers too much.
One can also give an unobservable substructure to the electron or
the quarks. The difference is that the Higgs properties are only
known indirectly and therefore that there is more room to play this
kind of game with it than with the other particles of the Standard
Model.
> You know, time machines from scalar bosons of various types?
No, I don't.
--
Luc Bourhis