Why the Ether is Unobservable
Tom Roberts
Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Date: November 21, 1999 -- Repost: February 5, 2001
This is the second of three articles posted to sci.physics.relativity:
[1] Subject: Theories Equivalent to SR
[2] Subject: Why the Ether is Unobservable
[3] Subject: Why the Ether is Not Part of Modern Physics
These articles should be read in order, as a set; they do not stand
alone from each other.
The ether has been absent from mainstream physics for almost a century.
There are good reasons for this, the foremost being that the ether is
unobservable -- that is, there is no conceivable experiment using light
which could detect its presence.
Note: I mean unobservable using any light-based phenomenon, but
this is the only aspect of ether which is considered by any
current ether theory. If one imagines _other_ aspects of a
putative ether, then those other aspects could potentially be
observable. So far, no ether theory has gotten beyond the point
of assuming the existence of an ether and how it affects the
propagation of light -- detecting the ether of any of these
theories has so far proven unattainable.
Even if one postulated some additional property of the ether which is
observable, one would have the difficulty of showing that the observable
property really and truly belongs to the ether which is the medium for
the propagation of light.
In order for the ether to be observable, one must have two things:
1) a viable ether theory which describes how light, clocks, and
rulers behave when in motion wrt the ether.
2) it must predict some observable phenomenon which permits one to
measure one's velocity wrt the ether using light, clocks, and
rulers.
[Take this as a definition of the ether being observable.
Nothing less would be definitive evidence of an ether.]
There have been many experiments attempting to find the ether, and all
have failed in one way or another. But these experiments impose such
stringent constraints on the form of any viable ether theory that those
two requirements cannot be met by _any_ viable ether theory. Why this is
so is the subject of this article. By "viable" I of course mean "not
already refuted by experiments".
A major difficulty with ether theories is that there are so many of them.
There is no general consensus of what the ether actually is or how it
acts, or what properties it may or may not have. As Kuhn says [21],
this is strong evidence of a theory in crisis -- ether theory has been
in crisis for over a century, with no end in sight. In fact, most modern
physicists would probably say that ether theory is dead, not merely in
crisis. I believe this is a slight overstatement; ether theory is
irrelevant but not dead: because of the equivalence classes discussed
in [1] there is no way to refute such ether theories without also
refuting SR. Because of the complexities inherent in computing with any
of the viable ether theories, they will never replace SR without a
definitive observation of the ether as above -- but that is impossible
as discussed below.
To begin, I present a brief list of ether theories. I make no claim
it is complete, but I believe it does capture all major types of ether
theories. I then present a brief summary of important experiments, and
we will see that only the members of the equivalence classes of [1]
remain viable (i.e. not refuted by experiments). The rest of this
article shows why the ether is unobservable in such theories.
A BRIEF LIST OF ETHER THEORIES
------------------------------
1 Simple Ether Theories
Simple ether theories are those for which the only consequences of
the ether are the way it affects the propagation of light.
1.1 Rigid Ether
The original ether theory is that of Fresnel, Maxwell, Michelson and
others, in which the ether permeates all of space, objects move freely
through it without resistance or any other interaction with it, and the
speed of light is c in the rest frame of the ether (because of the
structure of Maxwell's equations). The ether is assumed to be at rest
in some still-to-be-determined global inertial frame.
This theory is refuted by the MMX (and repetitions) and by any
measurement of the speed of light on earth (which is moving wrt
the ether).
1.2 Fully-Dragged Ether
The ether is not rigid, and is dragged by any material body, such as
the earth. Full drag implies that this theory agrees with the MMX and
similar measurements of light on earth.
This theory is refuted by observations of stellar aberration,
and by non-terrestrial experiments such as lunar laser ranging
and the Shapiro time delay. It also has difficulty explaining
how the ether is dragged by the earth and planets but they are
not dragged by the ether.
1.3 Partially-Dragged Ether
The ether is not rigid, and is partially dragged by material bodies.
This is an attempt to "live within the error bars" of the MMX and
of stellar aberration.
This theory is refuted by either stellar aberration or the
MMX (and repetitions), depending upon the amount of drag. The
error bars are now too small and there's no room for a theory.
It also has difficulty explaining how the ether is dragged by
the earth and planets but they are not dragged by the ether.
2 Complex Ether Theories
Complex ether theories are those in which the ether has additional
consequences other than its effect on the propagation of light.
2.1 Lorentz Ether Theory
This is the original theory of this class. It postulates that there
is a unique inertial ether frame, and that clocks and rods moving
relative to the ether behave according to the Lorentz transform
between the ether frame and their rest frame (other equivalent
postulate sets are possible).
This theory is not refuted by any reproducible experiments.
As shown in [1], it is mathematically equivalent to SR and
experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Most physicists
consider it "the same" as SR (because the touchstone is
comparison with experiment, not words and interpretations).
2.2 Ether Theories of Edwards' Test Theory of SR
These are not very well known, and arise from the unobservable
parameters in Edwards' test theory of SR. There is an entire
class of theories characterized by the anisotropy in the 1-way
speed of light; in each the round-trip speed of light is
isotropically c in every inertial frame, and there is one frame
(the ether frame) in which the one-way speed of light is
isotropically c. SR and LET are members of this class (with
isotropic 1-way speed in every inertial frame).
These theories are not refuted by any reproducible experiments.
As shown in [1], they are experimentally indistinguishable from
SR. Most physicists have not considered them very much, if at
all.
[I doubt that Edwards would consider himself a constructor of
ether theories, but could come up with no better name.]
3 Exotic Ether theories
These are theories which do not fit in any of the previous categories.
Their claim to being "ether" theories is nebulous, and many people
might dispute these being ether theories at all. And none of them have
really been described well enough to make any computation in. I
mention them here for completeness, but because of their ill-defined
status cannot and do not consider them any further.
3.1 Particulate Ether Theories
The ether is conceived as a bunch of particles, and light propagates
in a manner analogous to sound in air. This structure is very different
from what most physicists think of as "ether". Such a theory has never
been completely described, except for claims that it yields the same
formulas as LET. In some versions the particles all move with speed c,
in other versions the particles have varying speeds (it is not clear
what these speeds are referenced to). It is not clear that there really
is a self-consistent theory here.
No compelling explanation has been given of how transverse waves
can be carried by such a particulate ether.
3.2 Multi-Component Ether Theories
Again the structure here is very different from what most people think
of as "ether". The only theory of this type I know of is one in which
one component of the ether is fixed in some as-yet-undetermined
inertial frame, and light rays always propagate in straight lines
with respect to this component. The other component of the ether is
dragged by material bodies, and it determines the speed of light.
With careful matching of the amount of drag in the second component,
this theory might be able to "live within the error bars" of
existing experiments. It is not clear that there really is a self-
consistent theory here.
This seems rather ad hoc -- the first component seems
specifically designed for stellar aberration, and the second
for earth-based measurements. No real physical justification
for either component has been given, nor any explanation of
how the first component enforces straight lines without
affecting speed.
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------
While there have been many experiments which test the validity of SR,
for our purposes here there are really only two basic experimental
measurements of interest:
1) measurements of the round-trip speed of light.
2) the existence of pion beams and their properties.
Measurements of the round-trip speed of light have been done many times,
including the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) [22], and continuing with
refined techniques [23] [24]. While those are precision measurements of
the isotropy of c, the many standards organizations of the world also
measure its value to comparable accuracy (invariably using a round-trip
path, but that is often not emphasized). It is solidly established that
the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame
occupied by an earthbound laboratory, with an accuracy of a few parts in
10^15 [23]. This directly implies that the round-trip speed of light is
isotropically c in _any_ inertial frame, and that is the criterion I will
use, the criterion of the larger equivalence class of [1].
The existence of pion beams is well known, as is the fact that the
unstable pions travel far longer than the product of their rest lifetime
times their velocity, and also the fact that as the pion's energy
increases it asymptotically approaches c but never exceeds it. While
this ostensibly provides an independent criterion to narrow the class of
viable theories, all theories selected by the above criterion also
satisfy this one. In fact this is true for _all_ the different tests of
SR -- the above criterion selects theories which satisfy them all
(that's the subject of [1]). For this reason the many other tests of SR
are not useful here -- they do not narrow the class of viable theories.
WHY EXPERIMENTS CANNOT FIND THE ETHER IN A COMPLEX ETHER THEORY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The complex ether theories above are all members of the larger
equivalence class discussed in [1], and are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR. But knowing this is so, and knowing how and
why it is so are different things.
As examples I consider three basic types of experiments which ostensibly
might have the ability to discover the ether frame. I show how and why
they are incapable of this, for all theories in the larger equivalence
class of [1].
I repeat: from here on the only ether theories considered
are members of the larger equivalence class of [1]. As
discussed above this is essentially dictated by experiment.
Interferometer Experiments
--------------------------
Some people claim that Silvertooth's experiment[25] detects the
ether. Similar claims have been made for Kantor's experiment[26],
and others. This is not so in this equivalence class of theories.
Lemma. In any theory of this class and for any assumed anisotropy
in the 1-way speed of light, the time delay for a signal to make a
round trip around any path of fixed shape and size is independent
of the orientation of the path in an inertial frame.
[The "round-trip" of the specification of the equivalence class
is really only for a straight out-and-back path. This lemma
generalizes it to any arbitrary round-trip path.]
Outline of Proof: The time delay for such a path is measured by a single
clock, so differences in clock synchronization cannot affect the
measurement of delay for a round-trip path. This lemma is clearly true
for one theory of the class (SR), and the only difference between the
theories of this class is how clocks are synchronized [1], so it is
true for all of them.
Outline of Second Proof: Erect Cartesian coordinates rigidly fixed to
the path, and approximate the actual path by steps parallel to one of
the three axes. As this is a round-trip path, all of the steps parallel
to X total up to equal distances in the +X and -X directions, so the
time delay for the sum of the X steps is constant and independent of
orientation (remember for all theories in this class the round-trip
speed of light is isotropically c [1]). Similarly for Y and Z, so for
the approximate path the total delay is independent of orientation. In
the limit as the stepsize goes to zero, the time delay remains
independent of orientation, and the approximation becomes arbitrarily
good to the actual path in question.
Corollary. For any experiment which has a single source and a single
detector which measures the time delay between two signals from the
source propagating by different paths of fixed shape and size, the
detector output will be independent of the orientation of the paths
in an inertial frame. This is true for any theory of this class and
for any assumed anisotropy in the 1-way speed of light.
Outline of Proof: Let T1 and T2 be the time delays from source to
detector over the two paths; let T2b be the time delay for a light ray
going backward from the detector to the source along path 2. We have:
T2 - T1 = T2 - T1 + (T2b - T2b)
= (T2 + T2b) - (T1 + T2b)
The first term is a round trip source->detector->source along path 2
(forwards then backwards), and the second is a round trip source->source
using first path 1 then path 2 (backwards); the lemma applies to each
individually. As the right-hand side is independent of orientation so
is the left side, which is what the detector measures.
Outline of Second Proof: move the source so it is collocated with the
detector, and transfer its output to where it was originally located by
a path of fixed shape and size. Now the signals are round-trip and the
lemma applies; as the time delay from emission to detection is
independent of orientation for each signal, their difference must also
be independent of orientation. As the additional path contributes
identically to both paths, this must be true for the original
configuration.
This corollary directly applies to any interferometer measurement. So
neither Silvertooth's nor Kantor's experiment is predicted to have a non-
null result by any theory of this class. In other words, neither can
observe the ether; nor can any other interferometer experiment.
Two-Clock One-Way Experiments
-----------------------------
I consider experiments with two clocks fixed on a rotatable platform
which look for variations in the 1-way propagation of a light signal
between the clocks by comparing the phase of a local signal from one
clock to the phase of a light signal from the distant clock. These
(perfect) clocks emit a sinewave of fixed frequency. This discussion
applies directly to the experiments of Krishner et al [27], Cialdea
[24], Torr and Kolen [28], and similar experiments. It is simplest to
build up to the final result via two gedanken experiments.
Gedanken I
----------
Consider the following physical setup:
|----> X axis
----------- signal path in vacuum
| clock A |>-----------------------------------------| mirror B
----------- |
|
v
----------------------
| Phase Comparator 1 |
----------------------
Here phase comparator 1 compares the phase of the local signal from
clock A to the reflected vacuum signal.
We will arbitrarily consider the positive peak of the signal's sinewave
to be the "standard phase" (i.e. phase=0). We can draw the path of a
particular phase=0 point of the signal in the X-T coordinates (T is
elapsed time of clock A):
T
^
|
|
A3 |O
| O
| O
| O
| O
| O
| O
| O
| O
| O
| O
| O
| O |
| o| B2
| o |
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
A1 |o
|
|--> X
A1 is the emission event for this phase point, B2 is the reflection of
this phase point at the mirror, and A3 is the arrival at X=0 of the
reflected phase point. Here "o" indicates the passage of the light
signal A->B and "O" is B->A (in all diagrams draw a smooth line through
the ASCII symbols).
Note that there is another identical phase point a clock period
later than this drawing was drawn, etc. So one should imagine a
series of these drawings superimposed on each other, extending
forever up the page (to larger T). We will ignore this and
consider a single phase point and its drawing.
The lemma says that the time T(A3)-T(A1) is constant, independent of
any assumed anisotropy of the speed of light. So for _any_ theory in
this class the phase difference in comparator 1 is constant, independent
of the orientation of the X axis of the apparatus. Its actual value
depends upon the length of the round-trip path and the round-trip
speed of light in vacuum, but all we really care about is that it
is constant and independent of orientation.
For variations in the one-way speed of light (due to orientation), B2
will move up and down relative to A1 and A2, because the one-way speed
is the slope of the two light rays in the plot. But the triangle remains
a triangle because the mirror continues to reflect the light ray, and
T(A3)-T(A1) remains constant as proven by the lemma.
Gedanken II
-----------
Add the following to the above physical setup:
signal path in vacuum -----------
(clock A) >-----------------------------------------<| clock B |
| -----------
|
v
----------------------
| Phase Comparator 2 |
----------------------
Here phase comparator 2 compares the phase of the local signal from
clock A to the incoming signal in vacuum from clock B. In one specific
but arbitrary orientation we will initially adjust the output phase of
clock B so that the two phase comparators (at clock A) give the same
readout. In other words, we synchronize clock B to clock A using the
outgoing signal from clock A. After this initial adjustment it remains
fixed.
Here's the X-T diagram:
T
^
|
|
A3 |*
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| * |
| o| B2
| o |
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
| o
A1 |o
|
|--> X
A1 is the emission event for the phase point, B2 is the reflection of
the phase point at the mirror _AND_ the emission of an identical
phase point from clock B, and A3 is the arrival at X=0 of the
reflected phase point _AND_ that from clock B. Here "o" indicates the
passage of the light signal A->B and "*" is B->A for _both_ signals
(reflected and from clock B).
Note that the identical phase points of clock B and the reflected signal
travel exactly together because we adjusted clock B to do just that.
It is clear that the emission by clock B of this phase point exactly
coincides with the arrival of the same phase point from clock A (over
vacuum path A->B). This relationship is independent of any assumed
anisotropy in the one-way speed of light, because the two beams B->A
are always going in the same direction, with the same 1-way speed,
and they arrive at A3 simultaneously (they did so for the orientation
in which clock B was synchronized, and in every orientation the two
B->A signals travel exactly together).
For variations in the one-way speed of light (due to orientation), B2
moves up and down as before. But the clock B output _must_ vary precisely
as required to remain in phase with the incoming signal from clock A and
the outgoing signal from the mirror. This is so because its output signal
must exactly track the Gedanken I signal from B->A, and that signal
exactly tracks the A->B signal at event B2. Equivalently, this is so
because the A->B signal can be used to continuously synchronize clock B
with clock A. Equivalently, in the X-T diagram the two events (reflection
from mirror) and (clock B emission) cannot move apart: they cannot move in
X because the distance is fixed, and they cannot move in T because the two
clocks have the same frequency (the output of clock B is the same
frequency as both the incoming signal from clock A and its outgoing
reflection from the mirror).
So for any theory in our class the phase difference in comparator 2 is
constant, independent of the orientation of the X axis of the apparatus.
This is clearly independent of the clocks' initial synchronization (or
lack thereof). This can easily be extended to the case where the clock B
-> clock A signal is carried in a cable or optical medium with refractive
index > 1. And clearly this remains true even if clock A never emits a
signal and both the mirror and comparator 1 are absent. Every theory of
this class predicts a null result for all experiments of this type.
This result depends directly upon the way slow clock transport affects
the clocks. I used a graphical technique here because of the inordinate
complexities inherent in doing the algebra of ether theories. In the
next section I demonstrate such computations for a much simpler and more
tractable physical situation.
Slow Clock Transport
--------------------
One might imagine that the one-way speed of light could be measured by
using two clocks, starting with them together and synchronized,
separating them slowly to a separation L, measuring the time-of-flight
for a light ray between them, and computing L/flight-time. This is not
so, and in this section I show that for _any_ theory of this class, such
a measurement is predicted to yield the value c in any inertial frame,
NOT the 1-way speed of light in the theory. For brevity I only compute a
path along the motion of the frame wrt the ether, but we will see this is
actually true for any direction of the light path, and for slow transport
of the clocks over any path.
Consider a clock transported along the X axis, slowly wrt a moving frame,
to a clock a distance L away from the origin in the moving frame. I use
the notation of [1]; all axes are parallel, and the origins of each
coordinate system coincide at X=0,T=0. Because I consider only paths along
X, I will completely ignore Y and Z. X,T are the coordinates in the ether
frame; x',t' are the coordinates in the moving frame which moves along X
with velocity v wrt the ether frame; and x",t" are the coordinates of the
clock frame which moves along X with velocity v+u. Slow clock transport in
the moving frame then corresponds to the limit u->0. Note that u is NOT
the velocity of the clock wrt the moving frame; u+v, like v, is referenced
to the ether frame.
I repeat the transform of [1] for reference:
x' = g (X - v T) |
t' = g [(1 + (v/c)q') T - (v/c + q') X/c] | (1)
g = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) |
At time T in the ether frame, the clock is at position X:
X = (v+u) T (2)
The clock is then at position x' in the moving fame:
x' = g ((v+u)T - v T) (3)
We will compare to a moving coordinate clock located at x'=L, so the
ether coordinates when the moving clock reaches this x'=L coordinate
clock are [set x'=L in (3), solve for T, and use (2)]:
T = (L/u)sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) | (4)
X = (L/u)(v+u)sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) |
Substituting (4) into (1) gives the moving-frame coordinates of the
instant when the moving clock meets the x'=L coordinate clock:
x' = L | (5)
t' = (L/u)(1-v^2/c^2-uv/c^2) - Lq'/c |
Doing the same for the transform (1) but with velocity (v+u) gives
the slowly-transported clock's time when it meets the x'=L clock:
x" = 0 | (6)
t" = (L/u)sqrt((1-v^2/c^2)(1-(u+v)^2/c^2)) |
Note that q" cancels out, so we need not specify how q' varies as a
function of velocity wrt the ether frame.
Using (5) and (6) and a half-page of algebra with l'Hospital's rule:
lim[u->0] (t"-t') = Lq'/c (7)
[There is a shortcut to (7) -- remember that q'=0 corresponds
to SR, and in SR this limit is known to be 0, so all those
complicated expressions which are independent of q' in t"-t'
must cancel to 0 in this limit.]
Exercise: compute (7) in SR using the Lorentz transform. Hint:
work in the x',t' frame; 4 lines is enough. The Lorentz symmetry
of SR justifies this approach, and makes such computations
vastly easier than in ether theories (which lack such symmetry).
Comparing (7) to equation (4) of [1], we see that the slowly-transported
clock is synchronized according to the SR coordinates in the moving
frame. So a measurement of the one-way speed of light using this clock
and the clock at the origin will yield c. That is for the X axis, but in
every theory of this class the one-way speed of light in the Y-Z plane is
c, so slow clock transport over any path will yeild a measurement of c for
the one-way speed of light. In other words, _every_ theory of this class
makes the same prediction as does SR for measurements of this type -- just
one more example of the inability of experiments to distinguish among the
theories of this class; one more example of the unobservability of the
ether.
Exercise: use this result to algebraically prove that the
graphics of the previous example are correct.
Exercise: use this result to provide another proof of the lemma
and corollary of the first example (hint: slowly transport a
clock along each light path, totaling the time delay as you go).
CONCLUSION
----------
In order for the ether to be observed, one must have a viable ether
theory, and that theory must predict that there is some aspect of the
ether which makes it possible to detect it. There is no viable ether
theory which makes such a prediction, and the ether remains unobservable,
both theoretically and experimentally.
In the third article of this set I discuss why the ether is not any
part of modern physics. This is so even though there are ether theories
equivalent to SR and indistinguishable from it.
REFERENCES
----------
[21] T.Kuhn, _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_.
[22] Michelson and Morley, Am. J. Sci. _34n_ (1887) p333; Hil. Mag.
_24_ (1887), p449.
[23] Brillet and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. _41_#9 (1979), p549.
[24] Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento _4_ (1972), p821.
[25] Silvertooth, Spec. Sci. Tech. _10_#1 (1986), p3;
[26] Kantor, JOSA _52_ (1962), p978.
[27] Krishner et al, Phys. Rev. _D42_#2 (1990), p731.
[28] Torr and Kolen, Found. Phys. _12_#4 (1982), p401; NTIS Spec.
Publ. 617 (1984), p675-679.
Dennis McCarthy
>There are good reasons for this, the foremost being that the ether is
>unobservable -- that is, there is no conceivable experiment using light
>which could detect its presence.
Dennis: This is a bizarre argument that continues to be repeated (by Roberts in
particular.) The following are examples of effects that are predicted by ether
theory before they were discovered:
1) Sagnac
2) Doppler
3) refraction,
4) diffraction,
5) amplitude,
6) frequency
7) aberration,
8) Interference
Etc., etc, etc,
> Note: I mean unobservable using any light-based phenomenon,
Dennis:The above are light-based phenomena
but
> this is the only aspect of ether which is considered by any
> current ether theory. If one imagines _other_ aspects of a
> putative ether, then those other aspects could potentially be
> observable. So far, no ether theory has gotten beyond the point
> of assuming the existence of an ether and how it affects the
> propagation of light -- detecting the ether of any of these
> theories has so far proven unattainable.
Dennis: All of those characteristics desribed above were predicted by ether
theory before they were discovered
>
>Even if one postulated some additional property of the ether which is
>observable, one would have the difficulty of showing that the observable
>property really and truly belongs to the ether which is the medium for
>the propagation of light
Dennis: This is particularly true if you have other theorists who are willing
to attribute media effects to unimaginable effects involving bodiless fields or
empty space.
But, as is obvious, one could come up with a theory that all the effects of
the atmosphere are really due to various pressure fields. This is why people
like Mach were arguing against the existence of molecules even into the
beginning of the 20th century.
The view seems embarrasing today though.
Roberts:
>In order for the ether to be observable, one must have two things:
> 1) a viable ether theory which describes how light, clocks, and
> rulers behave when in motion wrt the ether.
> 2) it must predict some observable phenomenon which permits one to
> measure one's velocity wrt the ether using light, clocks, and
> rulers.
Dennis: Do you really not understand how arbitrary your defition of
"observable" is or are you spoofing?
Why not say the ether is not "observable" unless we know its temperature? Or
the volume of its particles? Or something equally arbitrary?
Do you have a dictionary which suggests your definition of observable?
Anyway even given your bizarre definition:
Roberts: 1) a viable ether theory which describes how light, clocks, and
> rulers behave when in motion wrt the ether.
Dennis: Okay, nothing happens to rulers. Light speed varies in a Galilean
fashion. And EM processes retard due to motion a la Lorentz.
Roberts: 2) it must predict some observable phenomenon which permits one to
measure one's velocity wrt the ether using light, clocks, and
rulers.
Dennis: Great. Done that. Michelson-Gale measured transverse velocity through
the ether as being equal to the rotational velocity of the Earth at that
latitude.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
Roberts:
" it must predict some observable phenomenon which permits one to
measure one's velocity wrt the ether using light, clocks, and rulers."
D: Okay, so what is our velocity with respect to dark matter? And how would you
measure it?
If you can't given an answer, then, according to you, dark matter is
unobservalbe and not an adequate theory.
Dennis McCarthy
Luc Bourhis
~> login supersophist
Super Sophist, Model 2001, revision 00
~> status
Batteries: full charge
Modules:
Sagnac: precompiled, loaded
Dark Matter: precompiled, loaded
Wave phenomena: precompiled
Kinetic Theory: precompilation in progress ....
Logic unit:
twisted: OK
opinionated: OK
obstinate: OK
Output:
quotations: default (non-standard)
lines length: default (too long)
~> unleash
Super Sophist is now running ... God saves sci.physics.relativity ...
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis: That's actually quite funny. At least, a little better than the usual
contemptible, crackpot, conman, socipath, zoo animal, etc...
Anyway, for an example of sophistry, perhaps, you should consider the
following:
Any hypothetical substance is "unobservable" (and therefore the basis of an
inadequate theory) if
A) There is no evidence for it and it makes no confirmed predictions
Or B) You can't presently determine how fast the substance is moving
Roberts actually thinks the answer to this question is B.
Do you think that's the major criterion for observability and theory adequacy?
And if not, why do you suppose that Roberts chose that particular criterion
for theory adequacy of all possible criteria?
Now, that's sophistry. In my opinion, someone who attacks that argument and
shows that it leads to rejection of other adequate hypotheses like dark matter
is the one who is being intellectually honest.
--Dennis
Dennis McCarthy
Stephen Speicher
Two small points:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> 2.2 Ether Theories of Edwards' Test Theory of SR These are not
> very well known, and arise from the unobservable parameters in
> Edwards' test theory of SR.
Properly speaking (and Tom Roberts is as proper as it gets on
this group :) ), a 'test theory' of SR is a theory which gives
different predictions to actual physical experiments. Edwards
then is not properly a test theory of SR because of its
equivalence with SR.
>
> Two-Clock One-Way Experiments
> -----------------------------
>
> I consider experiments with two clocks fixed on a rotatable
> platform ...
For an interesting perspective on various usages of 'velocity',
and if for no other reason than its historical perspective, you
should look at "The Measurement of the Velocity of Light by
Signals Sent in One Direction", Herbert E. Ives, _Journal of the
Optical Society of America_, Volume 38, Number 10, October 1948.
(Yes, that _is_ 1948!).
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
BPmb61
following the creation of relativity the term "ether" was still in the language
of the physicist. An not simply to say that it is unobservable.
It was postulated that the ether was the medium which propagated EM waves. As
such one could speak of the absolute motion with respect to the ether. When
relativity came along and showed that the velocity of the ether couldn't be
detected. It was not shown, depending on the definition of course, that such a
medium didn't exist.
Today there are some who refer to the "sea "of virtual particles as the ether.
This "sea" is observable but it's motion not detectable.
Tom Roberts
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Properly speaking (and Tom Roberts is as proper as it gets on
> this group :) ), a 'test theory' of SR is a theory which gives
> different predictions to actual physical experiments. Edwards
> then is not properly a test theory of SR because of its
> equivalence with SR.
Good point. However there are other parameters of Edwards' test theory which
are observable. It's been a while since I read his article, but IIRC he did
not realize the unobservabiliy of his anisotropy paramter -- Zhang published
an article several decades later whose basic point was this unobservability.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> D: Okay, so what is our velocity with respect to dark matter?
I don't know -- we haven't been able to see it and measure it....
> If you can't given an answer, then, according to you, dark matter is
> unobservalbe and not an adequate theory.
Yes, dark matter is not an adequate theory.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bill Rowe
djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
>Any hypothetical substance is "unobservable" (and therefore the basis of an
>inadequate theory) if
>
> A) There is no evidence for it and it makes no confirmed predictions
>
> Or B) You can't presently determine how fast the substance is moving
>
> Roberts actually thinks the answer to this question is B.
All you have done is demonstrate you have a reading comprehension
impairment since what you've written above is most definitely not
equivalent to what Tom Roberts posted.
--
-
PGPKey fingerprint: 6DA1 E71F EDFC 7601 0201 9243 E02A C9FD EF09 EAE5
Tom Roberts
> The following are examples of effects that are predicted by ether
> theory before they were discovered:
> 1) Sagnac
> 2) Doppler
> 3) refraction,
> 4) diffraction,
> 5) amplitude,
> 6) frequency
> 7) aberration,
> 8) Interference
Sure, various ether theories make lots of predictions, and many of them have
been experimentally confirmed.
Somehow you forgot to mention those rather striking and important
aspects of light which are NOT predicted by any ether theories (except
those which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR): the
universality of c, and quantum phenomena.
But note that every one of your effects can be observed in water waves. Now:
which of them involve an observation not of wave phenomena but of _WATER_?
I can easily scoop up a cup of water (and flour!), but not ether....
And as I said, not all of the properties of light are reproduced
by water waves. In particular their universal velocity wrt inertial
frames, and the class of phenomena known as quantum mechanics.
As I have said so often, the death of ether _THEORIES_ is that if they are
to agree with experiment they must _ALSO_ predict that their underlying
ether is unobservable, because they must be equivalent to SR. Perhaps
you should actually read the articles....
As these articles show, their might actually be "an ether" out there, but
we'll never know.... Unless someone can come up with some other "handle" on
it. But then we'll never know if that "handle" is on the same ether as
underlies light....
> >Even if one postulated some additional property of the ether which is
> >observable, one would have the difficulty of showing that the observable
> >property really and truly belongs to the ether which is the medium for
> >the propagation of light
>
> Dennis: This is particularly true if you have other theorists who are willing
> to attribute media effects to unimaginable effects involving bodiless fields
> or empty space.
First you have to show that light is a "media effect". OOPS!!! -- you are up
against the very same impossibility I demonstrated in these articles.
> Roberts:
> >In order for the ether to be observable, one must have two things:
> > 1) a viable ether theory which describes how light, clocks, and
> > rulers behave when in motion wrt the ether.
> > 2) it must predict some observable phenomenon which permits one to
> > measure one's velocity wrt the ether using light, clocks, and
> > rulers.
>
> Dennis: Do you really not understand how arbitrary your defition of
> "observable" is or are you spoofing?
Apparently you did not read what I wrote earlier. I am using "ether" in the
usual sense as an underlying medium for light. As I said before, if one comes
up with some other property of ether which is measurable, one has the
difficulty of showing that the mechanism of that other property is the SAME as
the ether which is the underlying medium for light. And doing _that_ will
require what I said here. If one is going to discover an underlying medium for
light, one _MUST_ observe it using light.
> Why not say the ether is not "observable" unless we know its temperature?
> Or the volume of its particles? Or something equally arbitrary?
Because that is not related to ether _qua_ underlying medium for the
propagation of light. Ditto. Ditto.
> Michelson-Gale measured transverse velocity through
> the ether as being equal to the rotational velocity of the Earth at that
> latitude.
Not true. They did not measure any such "velocity", they measured a _rotation_,
as is explicit in their formulas.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Stephen Speicher
Unless you are thinking of something else which I am missing,
perhaps you mean Robertson's test theory. Zhang wrote a 1995
paper** in which he demonstrated that there is an observable
difference between the Mansouri-Sexl transformation (a
generalization of the Robertson transformation) and the Lorentz
transformation. He showed that a physical test of the
Mansouri-Sexl transformation is actually a test of the two-way
speed of light, not the one-way speed. Zhang also discusses
aspects of this in Chapter 7 of his book.
**"Test Theories Of Special Relativity", Zhang YZ, _General
Relativity And Gravitation_, 27: (5), 475-493, MAY 1995.
Peter Riedt
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3A7ECDF9...@lucent.com...
> Subject: Why the Ether is Unobservable
> Author: Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
> Date: November 21, 1999 -- Repost: February 5, 2001
>
>
> This is the second of three articles posted to sci.physics.relativity:
> [1] Subject: Theories Equivalent to SR
> [2] Subject: Why the Ether is Unobservable
>
> There are good reasons for this, the foremost being that the ether is
> unobservable -- that is, there is no conceivable experiment using light
> which could detect its presence.
>
the ether may or may not be directly observable but the effects of the ether
are emminently observable unless you are blind.
Regards, Peter Riedt
Bilge
Re: Why the Ether is Unobservable to usenet:
>
>Whether the ether unobservable or not depends on its definition. In the
>years following the creation of relativity the term "ether" was still in
>the language of the physicist. An not simply to say that it is
>unobservable.
>
>It was postulated that the ether was the medium which propagated EM waves.
>As such one could speak of the absolute motion with respect to the ether.
>When relativity came along and showed that the velocity of the ether
>couldn't be detected. It was not shown, depending on the definition of
>course, that such a medium didn't exist.
the ether as you've defined it, with any experiment you can describe,
whether or not the experiment is currently realizable (realizable
doesn't suggest imaginary or "physically possible by violating one
"minor" phyically inconvenient constraint). If not, then it doesn't
exist.
>
>Today there are some who refer to the "sea "of virtual particles as the
ether. This "sea" is observable but it's motion not detectable.
Mainly because people that aren't yet profesional trollers will
be happy enough with considering the two equivalent enough, which is
fine. However, the vacuum is not anything like any ether that's ever
been described. The concept of a "sea" is basically just handy imagery,
but the sea concept really isn't necessary. I will admit the imagery
makes it simpler to discuss, but it shouldn't be taken literally.
In addition, if one wishes to think of it that way, one may not state
that the sea itself is observable. Only the interactions with it are
observable. Quantum mechanics is very pedantic about only giving meaning
to measurable quantities. Those which cannot be measured, are fiction.
This means, one cannot say anything about the sea itself in such a picture.
One must describe it in terms of its observable effects. This is quite
different from an ether which is supposed to have definite properties,
and which seems to get more and more complicated in order to conspire
to PREVENT any observable effects. In effect the ether ends up being
something that let's people attribute what they don't understand to
some hidden object which as soon as a phenomenon is understood, means
attributing more properties to the ether to make the original reason
one used it, appear to be just relativity.
Personally, I prefer giving the status of existence to something
that has some effect in this universe which can be measured.
rry...@hotmail.com
dav...@david15.dallas.nationwide.net wrote:
> BPmb61 said some stuff about
> Re: Why the Ether is Unobservable to usenet:
> >
> >Whether the ether unobservable or not depends on its definition. In
the
> >years following the creation of relativity the term "ether" was
still in
> >the language of the physicist. An not simply to say that it is
> >unobservable.
> >
> >It was postulated that the ether was the medium which propagated EM
waves.
> >As such one could speak of the absolute motion with respect to the
ether.
> >When relativity came along and showed that the velocity of the ether
> >couldn't be detected. It was not shown, depending on the definition
of
> >course, that such a medium didn't exist.
>
> Define it as you see fit. Is it possible to find an effect from
> the ether as you've defined it, with any experiment you can describe,
> whether or not the experiment is currently realizable (realizable
> doesn't suggest imaginary or "physically possible by violating one
> "minor" phyically inconvenient constraint). If not, then it doesn't
> exist.
Rod: ???
Can you se air ?
Was it long ago visible ?
What of waves ?
EM waves are not waves moving through a medium ?
What of electricity (CURRENT) ?
Emitted photons from high energy electrons ???
Where'd that positron come from ?
SON !
> Personally, I prefer giving the status of existence to something
> that has some effect in this universe which can be measured.
Rod: Yeah , let's discuss electricity (CURRENT) .
--
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth .
http://www.Rod_Ryker.homestead.com/
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Bilge
>Can you se air ?
Sure. I just use the proper detectors. Optics and biochemistry suggest
eyes don't work reliably for objects at the nano-meter level. If you
are handicapped by a limited ability to use the right tools, you'll
never do anything properly. As an example, try welding aluminum using
just a handheld propane torch. You wouldn't be considered very skillful if
you then proclaimed one could not weld aluminum while all around you,
it was being done.
>Was it long ago visible ?
Gt me on this. I haven't the faintest idea what it means.
>What of waves ?
What of them? I can see waves of water, so long as someone doesn't
decide to take issue with any semantics when they full well know
there is not anything to take issue with.
>EM waves are not waves moving through a medium ?
No they are not. E&M waves are photons. Representing them as waves
is often convenient.
>What of electricity (CURRENT) ?
Sure. One can even measure current, particle by particle in the
beamline of an accelerator. In fact, things like uA, nA, pA are
common units to denote the charged particle flux.
>Emitted photons from high energy electrons ???
Accelerated aelectron. Only the ones that land in my retina
and cause the right chemical reaction. X-rays might cause a reaction,
but certainly not a useful one.
>Where'd that positron come from ?
The lepton section of the charged particle department store.
>SON !
I don't recall anyone mentioning I had a stepmother somewhere.
>
>> Personally, I prefer giving the status of existence to something
>> that has some effect in this universe which can be measured.
>
>Rod: Yeah , let's discuss electricity (CURRENT) .
I would, but you seem to be unable to get past the "intent"
stage before losing your bearing.
Luc Bourhis
>> As every Etherist on this newsgroup you like to quibble about a few
>> experiments (snip)
>
> [...]
>
>> while forgetting plenty of other ones because you know you have no
>> theory which can fit all data.
>
> Dennis: False. IGS fits the data--and is consistent with BH (which SR is not.)
So you say.
> >Examples of experimental results
> >you will never ever explain quantitatively:
> >- the repetition of Kennedy-Thorndike experiment based on Lunar ranging
> >data [1].
> >- shapiro time delay
> >- bending of light
>
> Dennis: asdkjf;asldkfj Sorry. My head hit the keyboard.
> Yes, I'm sure etherists could never explain the slowing and bending of light
> in gravitational ether flows. Holy cow.
> Do you really believe what you type?
No scientific answer whatsoever and you did not even tackle the two
century old aberration of light I mentionned. Reminder:
>> But let's be even more mundane. What about aberration of stars ? Note
>> that I do not ask for the usual kind of hand waves we see around but
>> for real quantitative predictions. Can you take up these challenges ?
You keep proving you are not even remotely interested in science.
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Gerry Quinn
>
>
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Consider the postulate that all forces are fundamentally mediated by the
>> exchange of massless particles (or waves, or signals, or vibrations in
>> the aether) travelling at a universal speed c. Short-range forces such
>> as the weak force are in such a theory not fundamental, and exchange
>> composite particles composed ultimately of massless ones.
>>
>> This theory is at worst not significantly more complicated than special
>> relativity. All the forces are naturally included, and all the effects
>> associated with the aether are a consequence of one simple law. (Some
>> have objected that this IS special relativity, but I think they are
>> somewhat distinct.)
>>
>> - Gerry Quinn
>
>Yes, it is distinct from SR. But how does ether interact with matter in the LET
> sense?
In a model like this (probably in all sensible aether models), all
matter is composed of disturbances or inhomogeneities in the aether.
The easiest way to picture aether theories, in general, is as follows:
Imagine a solid block, in which vibrations interact with each other via
the medium of the solid. The vibrations are aware only of each other -
they don't detect the solid because they ARE the solid.
If the system is sufficiently linear (at the energies accessible to any
complex system of vibrations) a system of vibrations travelling through
the solid will suffer contractions and time dilatations as seen by other
systems, but will not see itself as affected.
It's easy to picture this as analogous to a system composed of light
clocks moving through space. We can assume that the sources and sinks
for the massless reciprocating vibrations are also massless, and their
configuration is locked to the standing wave patterns of the
reciprocating vibrations.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> Except that it was primarily luck. There was no justification
>for treating light as a wave, since the waves are unlike that
>which it was patterned after. It doesn't bother me in least that
>people believed these things. What is hard to fathom is how anyone
>that spent 10 minutes thinking about it could say the honestly
>could picture light moving as a wave more naturally than as a
>particle. Anyone that thinks so, is welcome to sketch the motion
>of what they have observed in propagating light looks like.
>Ever see a piece of a sine wave? People only think waves are
>natural because they don't want to question the dogma they grew
>up with, even if they can't justify the picture in the least.
Start with a slow electric and magnetic oscillation coupled to a
physical system - that looks very much like a wave in the physical
system, just as a water wave is a gravitationally-coupled oscillation in
the sea.
Speed it up and replace the physical electrons with some sort of vacuum
polarisation. Ergo, a wave in the aether. Natural enough, IMO.
When YOU figure out something important, you can call it luck if you
like ;-)
- Gerry Quinn
Dennis McCarthy
>
>In article <20010206102647...@ng-mi1.aol.com>,
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
>
>>Dennis: Well, then I'll quote him directly--and please explain what
>>you think he thinks he means by this:
>>"In order for the ether to be observable, one must have two things:
>> " it must predict some observable phenomenon which permits one to
>> measure one's velocity wrt the ether using light, clocks, and rulers."
>
>to say what you are trying to demonstrate.
>
>The part you edited read:
>
>In order for the ether to be observable, one must have two things:
> 1) a viable ether theory which describes how light, clocks, and
> rulers behave when in motion wrt the ether.
> 2) it must predict some observable phenomenon which permits one to
> measure one's velocity wrt the ether using light, clocks, and
> rulers.
>
>phenomena, not the "ether" a thing predicting observable phenomena.
Dennis: ?? I have no clue what you mean. Here I'll make it clearer. I
contend that Roberts meant that in order for the ether to be observable, the
ether theory must at least predict some observable phenomenon which permits one
to measure one's velocity wrt the ether using light, clocks, and rulers.
Now, what do you think he meant?
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Clarke
> >> Clarke: >Not centuries in all cases. The Doppler shift was predicted and
> >> discovered
> >> >within the lifetime of Christian Doppler (1803-1853).
>
> >> Dennis: Huygens ether theory was developed in 1690's. So that's a century
> >and
> >> a half.
>
> Clarke: >No one predicted the Doppler effect until Doppler. I make that out to
> be
> >a few decades as most. Whether Doppler used Huyghen's waves or
> >Newton's corpuscles is irrelevant.
>
> Dennis: Doppler is an inherent and necessary prediction of all classical
> media--and classical media theories of light--regardless of whether anyone
> states this aloud.
Nevertheless it not that obvious if it took over a century from Huyghens to
its conscious prediction by Doppler. Hence I don't think you can make
the claim that the wave theory of light predicted the Doppler frequency
shift and that it then was not experimentally confirmed for over a century.
The prediction was made aloud, published etc, and then confirmed within
a relatively short time.
> >> ClarkL >Argument from history is not good for current science anyway.
>
> >> Dennis: Sagnac, Doppler, interference effects are physical effects of light
> >> that are still observed and are still important today.
>
> Clarke: >And are explained just as well without ether theory.
>
> Dennis: That's irrelevant to the plain fact that Sagnac, Doppler, Interference,
> etc, are physical effects that are predicted by ether theory and are observed.
That is irrelevant to the plain fact that Sagnac, Doppler, interference etc are
phyiscal effects that are predicted by standard light theory and are observed.
Why is this statement not just as valid? Or do you agree it is?
> >> Tclarke: >For example Carnot believe that heat was a weightless fluid,
> >> "caloric".
> >> >Clearly he was wrong in this, but his other ideas survive today
> >> >in thermodynamics and heat engines.
>
> >> Dennis; I'm not arguing that ether theory is valid because it's an old
> >theory
> >> believed by past praised intellectuals.
>
> Clarke: >But you are. Or else what is the point of citing historical
> scientists.
>
> Dennis: ? I am citing the fact that the ether theory was invented *before*
> many of its predictions were confirmed.
Sure. So was the theory of caloric.
I am quibbling about the order and time span of some of the predictions and
whether the predictions are unique to wave theory - aberration of light would
be expected under Newton's theory as well.
For these predictions to have been made it had to be an "old
theory believed by past praised intellectuals." That is pretty much
what it means to be a theory.
> That's whole point of this discussion.
> If you would prefer, I won't tell you who made these predictions or conducted
> these experiments--so you won't have to read about "historical scientists."
But you have to say when and in what sequence these predictions occurred -
easiest to do this by naming who made the predictions.
Incidentally, Sagnac published his results in 1913, so I'm not sure you can
site this as a prediction of ether theory, as ether theory was well on its
way out by then.
> D: >> What I'm doing is pointing out that, despite the ludicrous title of this
> >> thread, ether theory predicts physical effects that have been observed.
> >> That's a simple fact that may irritate some people--but it's not going to
> >go
> >> away.
>
> Clarke: >So does caloric theory.
>
> Dennis: 1) What new effect did caloric theory predict?
The thermodynamic efficiency of heat engines. Conduction of heat according
to Fourier's equation.
[These are still valid but are now understood in terms of statistical mechanics.
Carnot got the right
> 2) The whole point is that despite the ludicrous title of this
> thread, ether theory predicts physical effects that have been observed.
> That's a simple fact that may irritate some people--but it's not going to
> go away.
And non-ether theory predicts the same physical effect - and more.
This is a simple fact that may irritate some people -- but it's not going to
go away.
Why is this statement not equally valid?
> Clarke: But it went away. Do you miss caloric as well?
>
> Dennis: ? No. Are you implying that since both caloric and ether theories are
> old theories that therefore they have the same validity--or are trying to
> suggest that since I follow ether theory that I should follow all abandoned
> theories?
The former. But I wonder about the later - you would be consistent then.
Ether now seems to have served the role of a nice "mnemonic" device that
helped in the development of the current theory which has so far met all
tests. In a similar way, caloric was good "mnemonic" device for Carnot
and his predecessors that helped them develop the theory of thermodynamics
and statistical mechanics that so far has met all tests.
Why is heat flow without a substance to flow OK to you, but wave motion without a
medium is not?
> >> >The parallel is that while Huygens and successors based their wave motion
> >> >ideas on resistanceless, weightless ether, they were wrong in this.
>
> >> Dennis: Huygens ether was not resistanceless--and it did have mass.
> >> And the question of whether they were wrong is still not resolved.
>
> Clarke: >Not resistanceless? Why is the earth still in orbit then?
>
> Dennis: Because of the ether.
???
I guess I'm not familiar enough with your theory for that to make sense to me.
<snip sequence of historically significant scientists and their discoveries>
> Dennis: Usually correct predictions are counted as evidence for a theory.
Yes. Usually incorrect predictions are a sign that the theory is flawed and
may need to be replaced. This was the case with ether.
Yes - sometimes the problem is incorrect interpretation of a theory, but
sometimes not.
Have you read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientic Revolutions"?
> The
> alternative, that for 200 years all the people who followed the theory were
> lucky and guessed the right equations while following the wrong line of
> reasoning, seems a little silly.
They were right about light moving as waves
- partly, QM brought the particle aspect back in.
But they were wrong about the nature of the waves,
they are not waves in a medium like air or water.
At least no medium that makes much sense. If there
is a medium it is so far totally indistinguishable from no-medium.
> >> Sagnac/Michelson came up with the Sagnac equation following ether theory
> >as
> >> well. Lucky once more. Fizeau and Fresnell got the right equations as well.
> Tclarke: >Now you are mixing issues of simultaneity/light speed with issues of
> wave
> >nature
> >of light. For example parallel and aberration of light would be expected
> >whether
> >Newton or Huyghens were right.
>
> Dennis: I'm not sure what you're referring to. Sagnac is clearly a medium
> effect--and was predicted by etherists before the experiment.
Sagnac is clearly an effect caused by rotating - non-inertial -
reference frames.
> D:
> >> Etherists are some of the luckiest people in history, always accidentally
> >> stumbling over the correct equations while following a medium theory--when
> >of
> >> course, light has nothing to do with media systems.
>
> Tclarke:
> >Nature choses to have waves without media. Who are we mere humans to
> >quibble with nature?
>
> Dennis: You are simply assuming Nature chose that for some arbitrary reason
> (perhaps to make etherists lucky)--even though all other waves require a
> medium.
Not all other waves. All the "matter waves" quantum field theory have no medium
- maybe it is an 11 dimensional string-medium or brane-medium - but that is
pretty speculative.
Nature is nature. It is what it is.
Our theories are just attempts to explain and predict what is. Lately the
prediction has the upper hand and explanation is rather mathematically obscure,
but then since we are apes evolved to live on a savannah it is a wonder that we
can understand any sort of waves at all.
> Tclarke:
> >By the way, you don't count Einstein as lucky when he correctly calculated
> >gravitational redshift and deflection of light by the sun?
>
> Dennis: No, I, unlike you, actually think that correct predictions are
> important pieces of evidence.
So you agree with relativity?
I've not been following this group long enough to know your views thoroughly.
I mostly jumped in because your history was off.
Your theory is a relativistic ether theory?
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> >> Dennis: No and again, the ether was developed **before** it was
> >experimentally
> >> shown that light was a wave.
>
> Clarke: >Not sure what you mean by that.
>
> Dennis: I'm not sure what is unclear:
> The experimental confirmation that light was a wave came in early 19th century
> after Young's 2 slit experiment.
> Huygen's ether theory predicted that light was a wave in the late 17th
> century.
> Thus, the ether theory was constructed before experimental confirmation that
> light was a wave.
OK. I guess I was thinking about all the later modifications of ether theory to try to
make it fit Maxwell's equations and then to account for MMX etc.
A hypothetical question - suppose Huyghens had made a leap of intuition and postulated
a mediumless wave theory back the 17th century - that is light without an undulatory
ether?
Would luminiferous ether have ever been developed?
> Clarke: I do see that Huyghens refers to an
> >"undulatory ether" as the basis for his waves
>
> >[http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Huygens/RouseBall/RB_Huygens
> .html]
>
> Dennis: So then what am I not communicating? Now, you see that Huygens has an
> ether theory that predicts waves in the 1690's, right?
Well I would rather put it the other way. Huyghens has a wave theory that he thought
required ether in the 1690's. Had he been a bit more ahead of his time ...
> Confirmation that light waves didn't come until the early 1800's.
> Now, put those two facts together.
And I see implications for the wave theory of light, not necessarily for ether.
> Clarke:
> >Yes. Young's experiment is generally regarded as a critical experiment
> >distinguishing the Newtonian particle theory of light from the wave theory
> >of Huyghens.
>
> Dennis: Yes. So, what's the argument, here?
The argument is about whether a medium is required for waves.
> Now as is agreed: Despite the
> title of this thread, the ether theory predicts physical effects that are
> observed.
As the title of this thread implies, non-ether wave theory predicts physical
effects that are observed.
Now, is this agreed?
> D: >> Now that may be irritating--but you really can't deny it.
>
> Clarke: >Why should I?
>
> Dennis: Well, other people have tried to suggest that the ether has no
> observable effects or that the the ether theory was proposed in order to
> explain why light waved. This is false as we now.
Waves do not necessarily need a medium. We now understand this.
Ether may just be/was a "mnemonic" device.
> Clarke: >Then in 1900/05 particles came to the fore with Planck/Einstein
> >and led to the quantum sythesis.
>
> ....
> >> Dennis; No.
> >> 1) Ether came first--
> >> 2) Confirming discovery that light waves came centuries later.
>
> Clarke: >"for the wave _theory_" the theory had "undulatory ether" right
> >from the beginning apparently.
>
> Dennis: Yes, Huygens used the material medium for light to predict that light
> waves in the 1690's.
I think you have this precisely backwards. I think waves -> ether to the 17th
century mind.
But there were all those ideas about something filling space as a medium for
gravity etc floating around in those days {despite Newton's denial of making
no hypotheses}. Maybe this suggested waves to Huyghens.
Do you have any sources that show the implication ether->waves ?
> Then confirmation of that fact came in the 1800's.
> What's the problem?
Well. I did go to
[http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Newton/RouseBall/RB_Newton.html]
{handy web site that}
and it said that to account for Newton's rings - an interferece effect between optical
surfaces know to Newton (clearly), Newton had
"to add a somewhat artificial rider,
that his corpuscules had alternating fits of easy reflexion and
easy refraction communicated to them by an ether which filled space."
[Sort of like Bohm's QM]
So this issue was far from cut and dried. It was not Huyghens
using ether predicted interference - gap of a century - confirmed
by Young.
> >> 3) The bizarre notion that despite what is observed in all other fields of
> >> science, light is a wave that doesn't need a medium --(but is just a
> >> self-propagating, massless, thingamajig that serpentines through empty
> >space
> >> for secret reasons of its own) came even later than that.
>
> Clarke; >Yes. This is the modern theory that so far meets all tests.
>
> Dennis: No. SR is not consistent with Brillet Hall. GR is not consistent with
> Pioneer effect.
I'm not familiar with Brillet Hall - web search ...
I found [http://www.phys.uidaho.edu/~pbickers/Courses/310/Notes/book/node49.html
and an improvement http://www.pku.edu.cn/academic/xb/97/_97e509.html]
it seems to be a null experiment that demonstrates the isotropy of the speed of light.
Is there another Brillet Hall?
There are just too many "Pioneer effects" on the web. Can you provide a pointer.
> GR requires dark matter in order to be consistent with
> galactic motions--and all efforts to find the required amount of dark matter
> has failed.
You boast about it taking a century to confirm the ether/wave theory
Huyghens to Young. Why so impatient?
> Clarke: Even those
> >the ether-based theories fail.
>
> Dennis; You mean like the MM?
Yes.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> >Tclarke: >It is an explanation then and the theory only gets part credit. If
> >the
> >>prediction
> >>is of an unobserved phenomena, then the theory gets full credit.
>
> >Dennis: Well in that case, ether theory gets full credit for Doppler, Sagnac,
> >interference, etc., while SR does not.
>
> >>> Dennis: Huygens ether theory of light (which is extremely similar to the
> >>one
> >>> that some etherists still follow--including myself) was developed in the
> >>> 1690's--before the discovery of aberration.
Aberration doesn't need wave theory, I think you struck it from your list.
> >Tclarke: >Long before? It was centuries, now it is 30 years.
>
> >Dennis: I wrote that "in some cases" it was centuries. Sagnac, Doppler,
> >interference effects were discovered between 100-200 years after Huygens
> >ether
> >theory.
>
> CORRECTION: I did not write "in some cases." However, the quote involving
> centuries referred to just "interference fringes, Doppler, Sagnac, etc." And
> the three specified effects all were experimentally confirmed more than a
> century after Huygens origination of the theory.
I still don't see it that way, but whatever.
Hey I just found
http://history.hyperjeff.net/electromagnetism.html
"Sketches of a History of Classical Electromagnetism"
The following are the first references to waves:
1618: Francesco Maria Grimaldi discovers diffraction
patterns of light and becomes convinced that
light is a wave-like phenomenon.
The theory is given little attention
1664 Robert Hooke puts forth a wave theory of light in his
Micrographia, considering light to be a very high speed
rectilinear propagation of longitudinal vibrations
of a medium in which individual wavelets spherically spread.
[So he has a medium]
1677 Christiaan Huyghens extends the wave theory of light
in his work Treatise on Light, unpublished until 1690.
[First mention of ether]
1801 Thomas Young's work on interference revives interest in the
wave theory of light. He also accounts for the recently discovered
phenomenon of light polarization by suggesting that light is a
vibration in the aether transverse to the direction of propagation.
{interestingly}
Johann Georg von Soldner makes a calculation for the deflection
of light by the sun assuming a finite speed of light corpuscles and
a non-zero mass. (The result, 0.85 arc-sec, was rederived
independently by Cavendish and Einstein (1911), but went unnoticed until 1921.
1817 Fresnel predicts a dragging effect on light in the aether.
1879 Maxwell suggests that an earth-based experiment to
detect possible aether drifts could be performed,
but that it would not be sensitive enough.
1881 A.A. Michelson begins his interferometry experiments
to detect a luminiferous aether.
1889 George Francis FitzGerald suggests that bodies contract in the direction of
motion against
the luminiferous aether by an amount which would account for the null results
coming from the
Michelson-Morley experiments on aether motion. (A more detailed calculation is
performed
independently by Lorentz in 1895.) FitzGerald also suggests that the speed of
light is an upper bound on any possible speed. (This suggestion reappears in 1900
by Lorentz, in 1904 by Poincaré, and again in 1905 by Einstein.)
1905 Einstein publishes his paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,"
drawing out the symmetries of Lorentz's electromagnetic theory, underlying
connection in measurement theory
and the status of the electromagnetic aether.
Tom Clarke
Dennis McCarthy
>>> But let's be even more mundane. What about aberration of stars ? Note
>>> that I do not ask for the usual kind of hand waves we see around but
>>> for real quantitative predictions. Can you take up these challenges ?
>
Dennis: Comments like this are just unnecessary. I have discussed with you
personally practially all aspects of science from Bjorken scaling and vortex
dynamics to the Sagnac effect to the germ theory of disease.
How can you possibly write that I am "not even remotely interested in
science"?
And if we continue discussing these subjects, are you going to making such
public denunciations?
Dennis McCarthy
Jackie & Barry
Tom Clarke wrote:
> Why is heat flow without a substance to flow OK to you, but wave motion without a
> medium is not?
Another incorrect analogy.
In this case, heat (which flows) is analogous to waves (which flow).
An iron rod (in which heat flows) is analogous to an ether (in which
waves flow).
Try measuring heat without a medium.
(Look up recent discussions on the temperature of space.)
Barry
Tom Roberts
> The universality of the speed of light is not explained by SR but it
> is postulated.
Yes, in Einstein's original exposition of SR. But other sets of postulates
are possible and do not assume this. The universality of c in inertial frames
is then explained as a symmetry of spacetime.
The basic issue is: what is SR? -- is it the original postulates and
derivation by Einstein? Or is it the collection of all theorems? Both
meanings are reasonable, but yield different answers here....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Luc Bourhis
> >>> But let's be even more mundane. What about aberration of stars ? Note
> >>> that I do not ask for the usual kind of hand waves we see around but
> >>> for real quantitative predictions. Can you take up these challenges ?
> >
> >You keep proving you are not even remotely interested in science.
>
> Comments like this are just unnecessary. I have discussed with you
> personally practially all aspects of science from Bjorken scaling and vortex
> dynamics to the Sagnac effect to the germ theory of disease.
> How can you possibly write that I am "not even remotely interested in
> science"?
> And if we continue discussing these subjects, are you going to making such
> public denunciations?
That you discuss scientific subjects on usenet does not mean you are
interested in what the rest of us calls science. You are only interested
in your personal definition of science actually, which you defend with
religious zealotry by means of debating technics which are not
scientific by any standard. Oversimplifications, omissions, biased
extrapolations are the bread and butter of your postings. Since I have
indeed debated for ages with you I know this too well, as many other
physicist contributing on spr do.
However I always naively hope people can mend their ways. It is thus up
to you to show you can discuss Ether in a scientific way.
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>
>> >> Clarke: >Not centuries in all cases. The Doppler shift was predicted
>and
>> >> discovered
>> >> >within the lifetime of Christian Doppler (1803-1853).
>>
>> >> Dennis: Huygens ether theory was developed in 1690's. So that's a
>century
>> >and
>> >> a half.
>>
>> Clarke: >No one predicted the Doppler effect until Doppler. I make that
>out to
>> be
>> >a few decades as most. Whether Doppler used Huyghen's waves or
>> >Newton's corpuscles is irrelevant.
>>
>> Dennis: Doppler is an inherent and necessary prediction of all classical
>> media--and classical media theories of light--regardless of whether anyone
>> states this aloud.
>
Clarke: >Nevertheless it not that obvious if it took over a century from
Huyghens to
>its conscious prediction by Doppler.
(...)
Dennis: No one denies that the ether theory as developed by Huygens in the
1690's demands a Doppler effect as a consequence. That's the major point as it
regards evidence of the theory. Exactly how long the formal prediction was
published before its experimental confirmation is both irrelevant and a
quibble.
>> >> Clarke >Argument from history is not good for current science anyway.
>>
>> >> Dennis: Sagnac, Doppler, interference effects are physical effects of
>light
>> >> that are still observed and are still important today.
>>
>> Clarke: >And are explained just as well without ether theory.
>>
>> Dennis: That's irrelevant to the plain fact that Sagnac, Doppler,
>Interference,
>> etc, are physical effects that are predicted by ether theory and are
>observed.
>
Clarke: >That is irrelevant to the plain fact that Sagnac, Doppler,
interference etc
>are
>phyiscal effects that are predicted by standard light theory and are
>observed.
>
>Why is this statement not just as valid? Or do you agree it is?
Dennis: Well, actually, with the way you define "prediction," SR doesn't get
full credit for any of these phenomena, as they were never formally predicted
by SR before they were discovered. Indeed, Doppler and interference effects
were well known before SR. SR explains them after the fact with simply the
assumption that light is some sort of wave (something which everyone already
knew.)
Anyway, I certainly agree that SR makes confirmed predictions and has
observable consequences --but please look to the top of the page for the title
of this thread. This thread concerns the question of whether **ether theory**
produces observable effects. It does as I have shown.
Now, this does NOT mean that SR is false.
This does NOT mean that SR makes no observable predictions.
So, again, it is a simple fact that ether theory made predictions regarding
physical effects that have been later confirmed, thus, it has observable
consequences--despite Roberts' paper.
>> >> Tclarke: >For example Carnot believe that heat was a weightless fluid,
>> >> "caloric".
>> >> >Clearly he was wrong in this, but his other ideas survive today
>> >> >in thermodynamics and heat engines.
>>
>> >> Dennis; I'm not arguing that ether theory is valid because it's an old
>> >theory
>> >> believed by past praised intellectuals.
>>
>> Clarke: >But you are. Or else what is the point of citing historical
>> scientists.
>>
>> Dennis: ? I am citing the fact that the ether theory was invented
>*before*
>> many of its predictions were confirmed.
>
Clarke: >Sure. So was the theory of caloric.
>I am quibbling about the order and time span of some of the predictions and
>whether the predictions are unique to wave theory - aberration of light would
>be expected under Newton's theory as well.
>
>For these predictions to have been made it had to be an "old
>theory believed by past praised intellectuals." That is pretty much
>what it means to be a theory.
Dennis: The point was that the reason for my accepting the ether theory as
valid today has nothing to do with the fact that it's an old theory believed by
past praised intellectuals (as you claimed incorrectly was my reason above.)
The point I am making here is simply that that the ether theory was invented
*before* many of its predictions were confirmed.
Now, if you would like me not to tell you who made or confirmed these
predictions, then I won't--as its immaterial to the point and it causes you to
infer, for some strange reason, that I believe the theory because it was
accepted by past prodigies.
D:
>> That's whole point of this discussion.
>> If you would prefer, I won't tell you who made these predictions or
>conducted
>> these experiments--so you won't have to read about "historical scientists."
>
Clarke: >But you have to say when and in what sequence these predictions
occurred -
>easiest to do this by naming who made the predictions.
Dennis: Exactly. So now you seem to understand my motivations for bringing up
historical scientists in this thread.
Clarke; >Incidentally, Sagnac published his results in 1913, so I'm not sure
you can
>site this as a prediction of ether theory, as ether theory was well on its
>way out by then.
Dennis: Wow, where to begin...
1) Sagnac was an etherist who predicted and calculated the effect based on the
ether.
2) Just because mainstream scientists no longer favor a particular theory
doesn't mean that the theory no longer makes predictions.
3) As many people still accept the ether theory--and comments on the ether
have been published recently in mainstream journals (F. Wilczek “The
Persistence of Ether" Physics Today January, 1999)--the ether theory is still
not out.
>> D: >> What I'm doing is pointing out that, despite the ludicrous title of
>this
>> >> thread, ether theory predicts physical effects that have been observed.
>> >> That's a simple fact that may irritate some people--but it's not going
>to
>> >go
>> >> away.
>>
>> Clarke: >So does caloric theory.
>>
>> Dennis: 1) What new effect did caloric theory predict?
>
Clarke: >The thermodynamic efficiency of heat engines. Conduction of heat
according
>to Fourier's equation.
>[These are still valid but are now understood in terms of statistical
>mechanics. >Carnot got the right
Dennis: Those are mathematical expressions of phenomena or principles that
Carnot observed. They are not predictions of new effects based on caloric.
Indeed, by the 1820's, letters suggest Carnot was dropping the theory of
caloric.
>> 2) The whole point is that despite the ludicrous title of this
>> thread, ether theory predicts physical effects that have been observed.
>> That's a simple fact that may irritate some people--but it's not going to
>> go away.
>
Clarke: >And non-ether theory predicts the same physical effect - and more.
Dennis: 1) Given your definition of "predicts" SR does not get full credit for
prediction of the wave-based effects--as they were all confirmed before SR was
a theory.
2) The whole point of my discussion here is that the ether theory has
observable consequences--despite the title of this thread.
>
>> Clarke: But it went away. Do you miss caloric as well?
>>
>> Dennis: ? No. Are you implying that since both caloric and ether theories
>are
>> old theories that therefore they have the same validity--or are trying to
>> suggest that since I follow ether theory that I should follow all abandoned
>> theories?
>
Clarke; >The former.
Dennis: You actually think all theories of a certain age have equal validity?
Clarke: But I wonder about the later - you would be consistent then.
Dennis: And you also think that it would be "consistent" to accept all
abandoned theories, if you accept one?
Hmm. Do you really not see any other reasonable way one could consider that
an abandoned theory may still be valid--or are you spoofing?
Clarke:
>Ether now seems to have served the role of a nice "mnemonic" device that
>helped in the development of the current theory which has so far met all
>tests.
Dennis: "Mnemonic"? What do you actually mean by the use of the term? As I
assume we now agree ether theory *predicted* all the wave-like qualities of
light that SR now simply assumes.
Clarke: In a similar way, caloric was good "mnemonic" device for Carnot
>and his predecessors that helped them develop the theory of thermodynamics
>and statistical mechanics that so far has met all tests.
Dennis: They didn't use caloric to develop the theory of thermodynamics. In
fact, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics is based primarily on the
**kinetic theory** of matter--which a purely Materialistic theory that was
favored by etherists.
Clarke:
>Why is heat flow without a substance to flow OK to you, but wave motion
>without a
>medium is not?
Dennis: Heat flow does require a medium. The kinetic theory of heat, like
ether theory, is actually a purely Materialistic theory developed completely by
Materialists. The caloric theory is not a Materialistic theory because the
substance caloric was endowed with the intangible quality of being "hot." This
is more similar to theories of today where particles are endowed special
abilities and qualities by which they produce manifest results-- like charges
and electrons...
>> >> >The parallel is that while Huygens and successors based their wave
>motion
>> >> >ideas on resistanceless, weightless ether, they were wrong in this.
>>
>> >> Dennis: Huygens ether was not resistanceless--and it did have mass.
>> >> And the question of whether they were wrong is still not resolved.
>>
>> Clarke: >Not resistanceless? Why is the earth still in orbit then?
>>
>> Dennis: Because of the ether.
>
Clarke: >???
>I guess I'm not familiar enough with your theory for that to make sense to
>me.
Dennis: Check Google search on Rado McCarthy and Aethrokinematics.
><snip sequence of historically significant scientists and their discoveries>
>
>> Dennis: Usually correct predictions are counted as evidence for a theory.
>
Clarke: >Yes.
Dennis: Well, then calling them lucky seems odd.
Clarke; Usually incorrect predictions are a sign that the theory is flawed and
>may need to be replaced. This was the case with ether.
Dennis: Well, we know today that's the case with SR. Brillet-Hall is
inconsistent with SR. But what experiment do you think falsifies ether theory.
Clarke: >Yes - sometimes the problem is incorrect interpretation of a theory,
but
>sometimes not.
>Have you read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientic Revolutions"?
Dennis: Yes. The book explains that phenomena that refute a paradigm--like
Brillet Hall, Pioneer effect, the rotation of galaxies, etc, are largely
ignored or that ad hoc hypotheses are used and automatically accepted.
D:
>> The
>> alternative, that for 200 years all the people who followed the theory were
>> lucky and guessed the right equations while following the wrong line of
>> reasoning, seems a little silly.
>
Clarke: >They were right about light moving as waves
>- partly, QM brought the particle aspect back in.
>But they were wrong about the nature of the waves,
>they are not waves in a medium like air or water.
>At least no medium that makes much sense. If there
>is a medium it is so far totally indistinguishable from no-medium.
Dennis: ?? No. If it were indistinguishable from no medium, then it wouldn't
exhibit Doppler, Sagnac, interference fringes, reflection, refraction,
frequency, etc., and all the other media effects we have been discussing for
the past three days. I mean, do you the atmosphere is also "totally
indistinguishable from no-medium" --because sound possesses these same media
qualities.
In fact, perhaps, you would like to explain what effects of sound or the
atmosphere are there which suggests to you it is a particulate medium?
D:
>> >> Sagnac/Michelson came up with the Sagnac equation following ether
>theory
>> >as
>> >> well. Lucky once more. Fizeau and Fresnell got the right equations as
>well.
>
>> Tclarke: >Now you are mixing issues of simultaneity/light speed with issues
>of
>> wave
>> >nature
>> >of light. For example parallel and aberration of light would be expected
>> >whether
>> >Newton or Huyghens were right.
>>
>> Dennis: I'm not sure what you're referring to. Sagnac is clearly a medium
>> effect--and was predicted by etherists before the experiment.
>
Tclarke: >Sagnac is clearly an effect caused by rotating - non-inertial -
>reference frames.
Dennis: You again confuse assumptions for what is known. The idea that Sagnac
is due to non-inertiality (or other more complicated reasons) is what was
*assumed* by relativists once etherists discovered the effect. But what is
*known* is there's a sound Sagnac effect--and the table frame does not have to
be rotating or accelerating. It is *known* that motion through the medium that
is relevant to sound Sagnac. And it is *known* that Sagnac is as clearly a
media effect as much as interference is.
>> D:
>> >> Etherists are some of the luckiest people in history, always
>accidentally
>> >> stumbling over the correct equations while following a medium
>theory--when
>> >of
>> >> course, light has nothing to do with media systems.
>>
>> Tclarke:
>> >Nature choses to have waves without media. Who are we mere humans to
>> >quibble with nature?
>>
>> Dennis: You are simply assuming Nature chose that for some arbitrary reason
>> (perhaps to make etherists lucky)--even though all other waves require a
>> medium.
>
Clarke: Not all other waves.
Dennis: Yes, all other waves the mechanisms of which is not subject to dispute.
You can't assume your conclusion as you do below.
Clarke: All the "matter waves" quantum field theory have no
>medium
Dennis: That...is...an...assumption. What is agreed by everyone is that all
other known waves (macroscopic ones) require a medium. The latter is what we
*know*, the former is what you assume.
(...)
>
>> Tclarke:
>> >By the way, you don't count Einstein as lucky when he correctly calculated
>> >gravitational redshift and deflection of light by the sun?
>>
>> Dennis: No, I, unlike you, actually think that correct predictions are
>> important pieces of evidence.
>
Tclarke: >So you agree with relativity?
Dennis: No. I agree that this is strong evidence that the assumption Einstein
used to develop that prediction is correct at least within this particular
domain of observations. The equivalence principle, or an approximation
thereof, has to be part of any successful theory of gravitation--or at least an
explanation must be made why the equivalence principle was an accurate
predictor for such phenomena.
Saying that gravitational phenomena has nothing to do with this phenomena and
that Einstein was just plain lucky seems a little silly, don't you think?
Now, imagine how silly it is to call umpteen scientists over the course of 200
years lucky?
>I've not been following this group long enough to know your views thoroughly.
>I mostly jumped in because your history was off.
Dennis: ?? What history was off? You jumped in not knowing when ether theory
was invented or whether Huygens or Young were even etherists.
Clarke: >Your theory is a relativistic ether theory?
Dennis: Well, it includes classical principle of relativity, Lorentzian clock
retardation and principle of equivalence--which were all formulated
pre-Einstein by etherists.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
ade a ade
"Jackie & Barry" <here...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:3A80C75D...@mts.net...
>
>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > In other words: ether implies X (for every X in your list), but that
does not
> > mean (all those X) imply ether. <shrug>
>
> Correct in a purely Logical sense, almost correct in a Scientific sense
> - but Science and Logic are not the same Animal, are they?
>
> It's often said that the test of a scientific theory is that it must
> make testable predictions.
>
> So if (an) ether (theory) implies X, and X is observed, them (the) ether
> (theory) has passed that test.
>
> Never in the history of human discussion as anything been been said so
> often, by so many, with so little thought as the statement: "No
> scientific theory can ever be proved to be correct."
>
> On that basis, ether theories, like all others can never be proved
> correct.
>
> On the other hand, if (an) ether (theory) passes the tests, in
> predicting X, Y etc. then it is not unreasonable to say that X, Y etc.
> imply that (the) ether (theory) is "correct within its domain of
> applicability".
>
> After all, that's precisely what is said of SR and GR - very frequently.
>
> Example:
>
> SR predicts time dilation.
>
> Time dilation is observed.
>
> Conclusion: the observation of time dilation implies that SR is correct
>
> Not logically sound, as it stands, but logic is never enough is it?
>
> Barry
Very good point, let's hope both sides of the argument keep this in mind.
ade
Ilja Schmelzer
> > Somehow you forget GET.
>
> Yes, I have never had the time or inclination to study it. It looks to me
> like it is an ether theory which "lives in the error bars" -- if so then the
> theorems about equivalence with SR don't apply to it....
It gives GR in some quite natural limit.
> Make some prediction significantly different from SR and have some
> experimenter measure and confirm it -- _THEN_ GET will become
> mainstream right quick!
Infinite cosmological horizon size because of "big bounce" instead of
big bang, a dark matter term - all fits observation, and better than
GR which needs artificial terms for this purpose.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke wrote:
>
> > Why is heat flow without a substance to flow OK to you, but wave motion without a
> > medium is not?
>
> Another incorrect analogy.
>
> In this case, heat (which flows) is analogous to waves (which flow).
That is the analogy, yes. I don't see it as incorrect.
Before heat was understood as the result of mechanical motion
of molecules, no one could conceive of how heat could flow
without something that was hot and had the property of heat
to do the flowing. As it is not understood, the iron bar
is hot, but it is just the random motion of iron atoms;
the iron atoms cannot be said to have heat.
> An iron rod (in which heat flows) is analogous to an ether (in which
> waves flow).
But it is not heat that is flowing, it is a propagation of motion of
the iron atoms. Speaking of the flow of heat is just a convenient
approximation.
We know that light is photons which move as if they were waves
according to quantum electrodynamics. Speaking of light waves
is just a convenient approximation.
> Try measuring heat without a medium.
Try measuring light without a photon.
> (Look up recent discussions on the temperature of space.)
Do you have a URL handy?
Tom Clarke
Ilja Schmelzer
> Indeed on one hand General Relativity plus dark matter results in a
> mathematically consistent theory whose quantitative predictions are in
> good agreement with astronomical observations.
Because with dark matter terms you can always fit
G_ij = T_ij. Simply define T_ij^dark = G_ij - T_ij^observable
> On the other hand there is no Ether theory fulfiling these
> requirements.
Wrong, there is GET.
> Note that I do not even speak about simplicity or elegance.
Let's start to speak. GET is very elegant. It combines two very
elegant GR things: harmonic coordinates and ADM decomposition, and
gives a nice interpretation of these tools.
GR has an aesthetic problem: it does not explain the reason why there
exist such very beautiful special coordinates as the harmonic
coordinates, and why there exists such a beautiful decomposition into
space and time part as the ADM decomposition.
GET needs beautiful preferred coordinates and a beautiful
decomposition into space and time to be beautiful. And they, o
wonder, exist. And are so beautiful that the GR guys have found them
themself and use them all the time - for example to prove existence
and uniqueness theorems for GR (Choquet-Bruhat), to try quantization
(canonical approach).
And GET is simple. Very simple.
A unique condensed matter with continuity and Euler equation, which
appear as Euler-Lagrange equations for the preferred coordinates taken
as field variables - in agreement with Noether's theorem which
connects conservation laws with translations in the preferred
coordinates. Is this complex?
> I would just like to see an Ether theory which can pass all the
> tests General Relativity passed successfuly.
No problem for GET, once it has a GR limit of their equations.
> That would not be the end of the story but anyhow I know it is
> extremely unlikely I will ever see such theories on this forum.
Not fair. You know about GET already a long time.
Dennis McCarthy
>> >> 3) The bizarre notion that despite what is observed in all other fields
>of
>> >> science, light is a wave that doesn't need a medium --(but is just a
>> >> self-propagating, massless, thingamajig that serpentines through empty
>> >space
>> >> for secret reasons of its own) came even later than that.
>>
>> Clarke; >Yes. This is the modern theory that so far meets all tests.
>>
>> Dennis: No. SR is not consistent with Brillet Hall. GR is not consistent
>with
>> Pioneer effect.
>
>I found
>[http://www.phys.uidaho.edu/~pbickers/Courses/310/Notes/book/node49.html
>and an improvement http://www.pku.edu.cn/academic/xb/97/_97e509.html]
>it seems to be a null experiment that demonstrates the isotropy of the speed
>of light.
>Is there another Brillet Hall?
Dennis: No, it's the same experiment. But, not surprisingly, you will find
that almost all texts on the subject will neglect to mention the persistent
spurious non-null effect that Brillet Hall determined with respect to the lab
frame. This is not well known--but it's not controversial among those who know
it. I suggest you get the papers, A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett.
42, 549 (1979) or Harold Aspden, Physics Letters, 85A, 411 (1981).
The signal was clear and, at 17 hz, far above the error bars.
Check:
http://www.energyscience.co.uk/bib/1981e.htm
And you will find the following:
************************************************
1981e
The following is a paper by H. Aspden published in Physics Letters, v. 85A, pp.
411-414 (1981).
LASER INTERFEROMETRY EXPERIMENTS ON LIGHT-SPEED ANISOTROPY
Abstract: Although gas lasers provide highly coherent light sources useful in
interferometry experiments, their application to the measurement of light-speed
anisotropy can produce inconclusive results unless reflection effects at mirror
surfaces are taken fully into account. A recent experiment by Brillet and Hall
is discussed and shown to indicate a local anisotropy due solely to Earth
rotation.
Commentary: The author was here directing attention to the sensing the Earth's
west-east speed, as opposed to rotation, that was evident in the Brillet and
Hall experiment. Though quoted as a test for Einstein's theory, owing to the
failure to sense motion through space at a cosmic speed, the sensing of actual
speed, owing to linear motion relative to the inertial frame, invalidates the
theory of relativity. The author later underlined the point made in this paper
by the more extensive analysis presented in reference [1982e].
********************************************************
Here is a quote from Aspden's paper: "Interpreting the 17 Hz signal at the
second harmonic of table rotation found by Brillet and Hall in relation to the
laser frequency 8.85 x 10^13 Hz we find the ratio 1.92 x 10^-13 and, as this is
0.131(v/c)^2, we find that v/c is 1.21 x 10^-6, giving v as 363 m/s. If our
theory is correct then, within the errors of measurement, this should be the
west-east speed of earth rotation at Boulder, Colorado. Being at 40 N, Boulder
has, in fact, an earth rotation speed of 355 m/s."
Clarke: >There are just too many "Pioneer effects" on the web. Can you provide
a
>pointer.
Dennis: Turyshev, Anderson, et. al., "The Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range
Acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11," gr-gc/9903024
Search the following: http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/physics
D:
>> GR requires dark matter in order to be consistent with
>> galactic motions--and all efforts to find the required amount of dark
>matter
>> has failed.
>
Clarke: >You boast about it taking a century to confirm the ether/wave theory
>Huyghens to Young. Why so impatient?
Dennis: This is not a matter of simply confirming GR. GR has been refuted by
observations of Galactic motion--and the hypothesis of dark matter was added
after the fact in order to save the theory. All tests trying to find dark
matter have failed.
>> Clarke: Even those
>> >the ether-based theories fail.
>>
>> Dennis; You mean like the MM?
>
Clarke; >Yes.
Dennis: Well, I'm certainly glad you agree a single MM experiment can refute a
theory. Brillet-Hall was an MM experiment--except far more accurate. A
non-null effect was clearly found that existed well above the error bars of the
Brillet Hall experiment but well below the error bars of the MM experiment
(showing why MM result was essentially null.)
So, as you write above, you must now agree that SR fails. But that ether
theory is consistent with these experiments.
******
>
>> >> Dennis: No and again, the ether was developed **before** it was
>> >experimentally
>> >> shown that light was a wave.
>>
>> Clarke: >Not sure what you mean by that.
>>
>> Dennis: I'm not sure what is unclear:
>> The experimental confirmation that light was a wave came in early
>19th century
>> after Young's 2 slit experiment.
>> Huygen's ether theory predicted that light was a wave in the late
>17th
>> century.
>> Thus, the ether theory was constructed before experimental
>confirmation that
>> light was a wave.
>
Clarke: >OK. I guess I was thinking about all the later modifications of ether
theory
>to try to
>make it fit Maxwell's equations and then to account for MMX etc.
>
>A hypothetical question - suppose Huyghens had made a leap of intuition and
>postulated
>a mediumless wave theory back the 17th century - that is light without an
>undulatory
>ether?
Dennis: That's not possible. The **only reason** Huygens came up with the
ether theory was because he was a strict materialist and started out his entire
treatise saying that,
"It is inconceivable to doubt that light consists in the motion of some sort
of matter......(A)t least in the true Philosophy, in which one conceives the
causes of all natural effects in terms of mechanical motions. This, in my
opinion, we must necessarily do or else renounce all hopes of ever
comprehending anything in Physics.
"And, according to this Philosophy, one holds as certain that the sensation of
sight is excited only be the impression of some movement of a kind of matter
which acts on the nerves at the back of our eyes, there is here one reason more
for believing that light consists in a movement of the matter which exists
between us and the luminous body...."
Here was the problem. If light had to be material--and if light rays were
able to pass through each other without hindrance--then light, according to
Huygens, had to be the result of motion of a medium, which supports transfer of
energy through locations without hindrance.
Now, if light is indeed bodiless, then there is no concern for light rays
passing through each other without hindrance. So there's no reason to assume
waves.
This is why only an etherist came up with it.
Lucky guy, huh?
>> Clarke: I do see that Huyghens refers to an
>> >"undulatory ether" as the basis for his waves
>>
>> >[http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Huygens/RouseBall/RB_Huygens
>> .html]
>>
>> Dennis: So then what am I not communicating? Now, you see that Huygens has
>an
>> ether theory that predicts waves in the 1690's, right?
>
Clarke; >Well I would rather put it the other way. Huyghens has a wave theory
that he
>thought
>required ether in the 1690's.
Dennis: Then you put it in an incorrect--and misleading manner. Huygens did
not first develop the theory of waves--and then say the waves probably need a
medium. Huygens first started out with the idea that light required material
bodies to transfer the effect--and he thought it rather silly to think of light
in any other way. The notion of the medium led him to the hypothesis of waves.
Clarke: Had he been a bit more ahead of his time ...
Dennis: LOL. Imagine if Huygens were around now, after watching all his
predictions confirmed, and then seeing the type of anti-Materialist views of
light that pervade today--and which he had fought against all his life.
D: >> Confirmation that light waves didn't come until the early 1800's.
>> Now, put those two facts together.
>
Clarke: >And I see implications for the wave theory of light, not necessarily
for
>ether.
Dennis: 1) As shown, Huygens based the wave theory of light on his notion of
the ether, which grew from his Materialism.
2) What is **known** is that, disregarding assumptions about the subject of
our dispute, waves are unique to and characteristic of all media phenomena.
What you have **assumed**is that empty space or bodiless fields can wave in an
unimaginable manner.
In logic, you can't assume your conclusion (i.e., that light is a bodiless
wave) and then use that to argue that wave effects are not evidence of a
medium.
Evidence is determined by what is known. And what we know is that all other
wave phenomena, outside the subject of our dispute, i.e., SR/QM, requires a
medium.
>> Clarke:
>> >Yes. Young's experiment is generally regarded as a critical experiment
>> >distinguishing the Newtonian particle theory of light from the wave theory
>> >of Huyghens.
>>
>> Dennis: Yes. So, what's the argument, here?
>
Clarke; >The argument is about whether a medium is required for waves.
Dennis: It is given what we both know. Disregarding what we know, and
assuming your conclusion is not logically valid.
D: >> Now as is agreed: Despite the
>> title of this thread, the ether theory predicts physical effects that are
>> observed.
>
Clarke:
>As the title of this thread implies, non-ether wave theory predicts physical
>effects that are observed.
>Now, is this agreed?
Dennis: 1) How does the title of the thread regarding ether phenomena imply
anything about non-ether phenomena?
2) Well, that's not your definition of "prediction," is it? You think finding
out that light has wave like characteristics--and then decades afterwards,
explaining this with the assumption that light is some sort of bodiless
wave--is a "prediction"?
>> D: >> Now that may be irritating--but you really can't deny it.
>>
>> Clarke: >Why should I?
>>
>> Dennis: Well, other people have tried to suggest that the ether has no
>> observable effects or that the ether theory was proposed in order to
>> explain why light waved. This is false as we [k]now.
>
Clarke: >Waves do not necessarily need a medium. We now understand this.
Dennis; No, you now assume this. All wave phenomena that we know about (other
than the subject of our dispute) requires a medium.
Clarke >Ether may just be/was a "mnemonic" device.
Dennis: What you mean by that I have no idea.
>> Clarke: >Then in 1900/05 particles came to the fore with Planck/Einstein
>> >and led to the quantum sythesis.
>>
>> ....
>> >> Dennis; No.
>> >> 1) Ether came first--
>> >> 2) Confirming discovery that light waves came centuries later.
>>
>> Clarke: >"for the wave _theory_" the theory had "undulatory ether" right
>> >from the beginning apparently.
>>
>> Dennis: Yes, Huygens used the material medium for light to predict that
>light
>> waves in the 1690's.
>
Clarke: >I think you have this precisely backwards. I think waves -> ether to
the
>17th
>century mind.
Dennis: Well, you should read Huygens, perhaps, like the quotes above. He
started out determining that there is no doubt that "light consists in a
movement of the matter which exists between us and the luminous body."
Clarke: >But there were all those ideas about something filling space as a
medium for
>gravity etc floating around in those days {despite Newton's denial of making
>no hypotheses}. Maybe this suggested waves to Huyghens.
>Do you have any sources that show the implication ether->waves ?
Dennis: Up above. His entire treatise in fact.
>
D: >> Then confirmation of that fact came in the 1800's.
>> What's the problem?
>
Clarke; >Well. I did go to
>[http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Newton/RouseBall/RB_Newton.html]
>{handy web site that}
>and it said that to account for Newton's rings - an interferece effect
>between optical
>surfaces know to Newton (clearly), Newton had
>"to add a somewhat artificial rider,
>that his corpuscules had alternating fits of easy reflexion and
>easy refraction communicated to them by an ether which filled space."
Dennis: No that's diffraction--not two slit interference fringes.
Clarke: >[Sort of like Bohm's QM]
Dennis: Another ether-type theory.
Clarke:
>So this issue was far from cut and dried. It was not Huyghens
>using ether predicted interference - gap of a century - confirmed
>by Young.
Dennis: The issue is cut and dried among all historian of scientists of which I
am aware. Huygens ether theory predicts interference fringes in the two slit
experiment that was confirmed a century later. Now that may be irritating but
its true.
>> >> 3) The bizarre notion that despite what is observed in all other fields
>of
>> >> science, light is a wave that doesn't need a medium --(but is just a
>> >> self-propagating, massless, thingamajig that serpentines through empty
>> >space
>> >> for secret reasons of its own) came even later than that.
>>
>> Clarke; >Yes. This is the modern theory that so far meets all tests.
>>
>> Dennis: No. SR is not consistent with Brillet Hall. GR is not consistent
>with
>> Pioneer effect.
>
Clarke: >I'm not familiar with Brillet Hall - web search ...
>I found
>[http://www.phys.uidaho.edu/~pbickers/Courses/310/Notes/book/node49.html
>and an improvement http://www.pku.edu.cn/academic/xb/97/_97e509.html]
>it seems to be a null experiment that demonstrates the isotropy of the speed
>of light.
>Is there another Brillet Hall?
Dennis: No, it's the same experiment. But, not surprisingly, you will find
that almost all texts on the subject will neglect to mention the persistent
spurious non-null effect that Brillet Hall determined with respect to the lab
frame. This is not well known--but it's not controversial among those who know
it. I suggest you get the papers, A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett.
42, 549 (1979) or Harold Aspden, Physics Letters, 85A, 411 (1981).
The signal was clear and, at 17 hz, far above the error bars.
Check:
http://www.energyscience.co.uk/bib/1981e.htm
And you will find the following:
************************************************
1981e
The following is a paper by H. Aspden published in Physics Letters, v. 85A, pp.
411-414 (1981).
LASER INTERFEROMETRY EXPERIMENTS ON LIGHT-SPEED ANISOTROPY
Abstract: Although gas lasers provide highly coherent light sources useful in
interferometry experiments, their application to the measurement of light-speed
anisotropy can produce inconclusive results unless reflection effects at mirror
surfaces are taken fully into account. A recent experiment by Brillet and Hall
is discussed and shown to indicate a local anisotropy due solely to Earth
rotation.
Commentary: The author was here directing attention to the sensing the Earth's
west-east speed, as opposed to rotation, that was evident in the Brillet and
Hall experiment. Though quoted as a test for Einstein's theory, owing to the
failure to sense motion through space at a cosmic speed, the sensing of actual
speed, owing to linear motion relative to the inertial frame, invalidates the
theory of relativity. The author later underlined the point made in this paper
by the more extensive analysis presented in reference [1982e].
********************************************************
Here is a quote from Aspden's paper: "Interpreting the 17 Hz signal at the
second harmonic of table rotation found by Brillet and Hall in relation to the
laser frequency 8.85 x 10^13 Hz we find the ratio 1.92 x 10^-13 and, as this is
0.131(v/c)^2, we find that v/c is 1.21 x 10^-6, giving v as 363 m/s. If our
theory is correct then, within the errors of measurement, this should be the
west-east speed of earth rotation at Boulder, Colorado. Being at 40 N, Boulder
has, in fact, an earth rotation speed of 355 m/s."
Clarke: >There are just too many "Pioneer effects" on the web. Can you provide
a
>pointer.
Dennis: Turyshev, Anderson, et. al., "The Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range
Acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11," gr-gc/9903024
Search the following: http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/physics
D:
>> GR requires dark matter in order to be consistent with
>> galactic motions--and all efforts to find the required amount of dark
>matter
>> has failed.
>
Clarke: >You boast about it taking a century to confirm the ether/wave theory
>Huyghens to Young. Why so impatient?
Dennis: This is not a matter of simply confirming GR. GR has been refuted by
observations of Galactic motion--and the hypothesis of dark matter was added
after the fact in order to save the theory. All tests trying to find dark
matter have failed.
>> Clarke: Even those
>> >the ether-based theories fail.
>>
>> Dennis; You mean like the MM?
>
Clarke; >Yes.
Dennis: Well, I'm certainly glad you agree a single MM experiment can refute a
theory. Brillet-Hall was an MM experiment--except far more accurate. A
non-null effect was clearly found that existed well above the error bars of the
Brillet Hall experiment but well below the error bars of the MM experiment
(showing why MM result was essentially null.)
So, as you write above, you must now agree that SR fails. But that ether
theory is consistent with these experiments.
Dennis McCarthy
ade a ade
"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010206163055...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >
> >
> >Dennis McCarthy said some stuff about
> >Re: Why the Ether is Unobservable to usenet:
> > >> Define it as you see fit. Is it possible to find an effect from
> > >>the ether as you've defined it, with any experiment you can describe,
> > >
> > >experimental light-based effects of interference fringes, Doppler,
Sagnac,
> > >etc...
> > >All of these physical effects were predicted by the ether theory,
> > >but were not discovered till centuries later.
> >
> Davids: And despite being incorrect worked until phenomenon were
> discovered
> >that made the shortcomings of those models painfully obvious.
>
> Dennis: Before we argue on the shortcomings of ether vs. SR, the point
here is
> that, despite the ludicrous title of this thread, it is still a fact that
ether
> theory predicted many physical effects which were later observed.
> Now, that may be irritating, but it can't be denied--not matter how many
> papers Roberts writes repeating this same theme.
>
> Dennis McCarthy
>
Hi Dennis,
I have been following the arguments on both sides of this debate and it
seems
to me that both you and Roberts are implicitly assuming that the ether is
EITHER observable
OR unobservable. Has it occurred to you that the ether may be BOTH
observable AND
unobservable. It is observable in the sense you have successfully argued,
but it is also
unobservable in the sense of Robert's posting. Since certain effects were
predicted by the
ether theory and were later observed, then the ether is in fact observable.
But if you discard
the ether theory and reexplain these effects without the ether, then the
ether is in fact unobservable.
The point is that whether or not the ether is "in fact" observable depends
on your worldview.
As an etherist, you have good reasons to believe the ether has been
observed. As a relativist,
Robert has good reasons to believe the ether has not been observed (even
though some people
might have thought it observable historically). You both have good points
and no amount of arguments
will resolve the debate one way or another.
My suggestion ? Let it go before many other people who can think straight
call you more names. If you do
that, you may just draw the debate; otherwise, you will lose outright, not
because of any error in your
reasoning, but because you are up against popular opinion - and then your
whole point will be pointless.
ade a. ade
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy <djm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> But let's be even more mundane. What about aberration of stars ? Note
>> >>> that I do not ask for the usual kind of hand waves we see around but
>> >>> for real quantitative predictions. Can you take up these challenges ?
>> >
>> >You keep proving you are not even remotely interested in science.
>>
>> Comments like this are just unnecessary. I have discussed with you
>vortex
>> dynamics to the Sagnac effect to the germ theory of disease.
>> How can you possibly write that I am "not even remotely interested in
>> science"?
>> And if we continue discussing these subjects, are you going to making such
>> public denunciations?
Bourhis:
>That you discuss scientific subjects on usenet does not mean you are
>interested in what the rest of us calls science.
Dennis: Why would I discuss these topics if I were not interested in them?
Even if I were a Creationist or an Astrologer, if I came to these boards and
attacked various scientific theories, I am still interested in science--if only
to refute its precepts.
What you are claiming is very petty and mean. As we both disagree on what is
acceptable scientific theory, it seems rather small of you to suggest that
since I am a Materialist that therefore I am not interested in discussing
science (where you define "science" in a way that specifically excludes
Materialism.)
Bourhis:
You are only interested
>in your personal definition of science actually,
Dennis: And you are interested in your "personal definition of science." Do
you think I would ever stoop to say that since it doesn't agree with my view,
you are not interested in science?
Bourhis: which you defend with
>religious zealotry by means of debating technics which are not
>scientific by any standard.
Dennis: Another unsubstantiated insult--with no reference to any argument in
particular. Please allow me to give an example of actual quoted text from you
that perhaps suggests the use of questionable debating tactics--and extreme
devotion to a cause:
[SET UP: Before Bourhis had known that Brillet Hall was inconsistent with SR
he marveled in this newsgroup about its "astonishing precision." During that
time I got him to admit that a discovery of anisotropy in experiments like
Brillet Hall would indeed falsify SR. I then proved, that despite what is
always said about BH, that their experimental results clearly showed
anisotropy. Here was his response:
************
>>
D:>> I see. You had said that anisotropy in BH would falsify SR.
>
B: >No. I said "anisotropy in experiments like Brillet and Hall". This can
>be interpreted in too many ways for you to use this as an argument.
>What I wanted to say should be clear now.
***************************
I had thought that Brillet Hall was an experiment like Brillet Hall--but, who
am I to say.
Here are further comments, showing that Bourhis now believes, since the BH
revelation, you need a "sizeable percentage" of contradictory experiments to
refute a theory:
*******************
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:30:12 +0100, Dennis McCarthy wrote
>(in message <20000325173012...@ng-fc1.aol.com>):
>
>>
Dennis: Apparently, with the way you view experiments regarding SR, it's
>> unfalsifiable and I'm in a debate I can't win. You had written that if BH
>> showed a non-null effect (when determined wrt the lab frame), then you
>would
>> agree that SR/GR was falsified. Now, that you discovered that the data was
>> consistent with anisotropy, you are arguing that it's some unknown and
>> unspecified instrumentation effect.
>
Bourhis: >People like you do always use the same method: you emphasize a few
>glitches without taking into account the whole picture.
(...)
Dennis:
>> So now if one of these other experiments also showed a non-null
>> effect, will you now agree that SR and GR are falsified--or are you
>> willing to believe in as many instrument effects as necessary?
>
Bourhis: >The question is insulting. Of course, yes. It is how science works:
if
>a sizeable percentage of experiments are clearly incompatible with a
>model, one has to discard the model.
****************************************************
So now its a "sizable percentage."
[In the following when talking about the Pioneer effect, an observation that
contradicts GR, Bourhis once again reiterated his belief that you need many
experimental refutations to abandon a theory--depending on whether experts are
willing to abandon it:]
******************************************
>Dennis McCarthy <djm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >> So how many experimental contradictions are you allowed?
>>
[Bourhis:]
>> >One can be enough to bring down a theory if it is able to convince the
>> >scientific community of the specialists of this domain. For the moment,
>> >astronoms are not convinced and I can understand why. What can I add ?
>>
Dennis:
>> Oh, I see. So experimental contradictions are not what matters but the
>> convincing of experts is the hallmark of a good theory. Usually, one
>> experimental contradiction can refute a theory *if* the experts agree.
Bourhis: >Yes, if the experts agree. They don't for Pioneer effect and
therefore
>the debate is over for me.
******************************************
[In the following Bourhis doesn't want to admit that the recent discovery that
neutrinos have mass suggested that the physicists who had contended they were
massless were wrong: ]
*************************
Dennis: The majority of physicists used to believe and claim that neutrinos
were massless. They aren't. They were wrong. Indeed, even a few years ago this
became the subject of heated debates.
This may be irritating but it doesn't go away by the following silly comments
about "What is the meaning of 'wrong'" that you try below:
>
>> Dennis: Bourhis here is now explaining *why* the majority of
>> physicists were wrong.
>
Bourhis: >What is the meaning of "wrong" in physics ?
Dennis: Not right or not in accordance with reality. If physicists don't know
what "wrong" is one wonders how physics professors correct tests. Do you think
reality is completely subjective, and that no one is ever really "wrong."
I'll give you examples of what I mean by the term: When physicists used to
argue that the atmosphere was not composed of particles with inertial mass and
extension, they were wrong. When physicists used to claim neutrinos were
massless, they were wrong.
When physicists used to claim that VN's mathematical exercise was proof that
hidden variables in qm couldn't exist, they were wrong.
What word do you think I should use instead above instead of wrong?
Bourhis: The vast majority of
>physicists does not believe that there is an ultimate truth for us to
>discover.
Dennis: And so they don't believe any idea can be "wrong"?
******************************************************************
I'll let readers conclude from the comments above Bourhis's devotion to modern
physics theory and they type of arguments he will employ in its defense.
Anyway, the difference here between your post and mine--is that you post
unsubstantiated insults without referencing any argument in particular--while I
use actual quotes from your past posts and let the reader draw his own
conclusion.
Bourhis:
Oversimplifications, omissions, biased
>extrapolations are the bread and butter of your postings.
Dennis: Where, where, and where? How can one defend such an attack?
Examples of your posts are above--but you provide no reference whatsoever.
And with regard to your willingness to launch into ad hominems, one only need
reference this post in particular.
It's a shame really. It would be nice if the posts could be directed more to
the subject--and not at the person...
Dennis McCarthy
Bilge
>
>Start with a slow electric and magnetic oscillation coupled to a
>physical system - that looks very much like a wave in the physical
>system, just as a water wave is a gravitationally-coupled oscillation in
>the sea.
These were not known about in the study of light at the time.
The explanation for light as a wave phenomenon was to explain
interference effects.
>Speed it up and replace the physical electrons with some sort of vacuum
>polarisation. Ergo, a wave in the aether. Natural enough, IMO.
For one thing, no one knew about electrons at the time or radios.
Can you measure the sinusoidal variation in the amplitude of the E
and B fields over a wavelength of light? I can measure the sinusoidal
amplitude of water. What direct evidence is there that shows sinusoidal
fields. The only evidence is indirect from the theoretical models, which
end up being best explained by quantum mechanics anyway, since it predicts
direct evidence for quanta from which maxwell's equations follow.
I want to see someone explain what direct measure of light
from a single source will show me there is some sort of sinusoidal
variation in space and time as people think justifies the E*sin(kx-wt)
people draw to represent light and why this just seems so _natural_
that it requires no explaining. Since I can't seem to see this
as _natural_, I'd like to see it explained without the indirect
inferences to interference phenomenon which requires me to accept
the wave nature as obvious first in order to claim the wave nature is
natural.
Elementary textbooks that explain light, do so first by describing
light as sinusoidal and spend a lot of time building the model BEFORE
by using water waves and ripple tanks before ever getting to the
light itself. So people accept the model of light as a wave without
question when used in explaining the effects. People accept it because
this explanation because it was the first one they were given.
I find it galling that people consider questioning the second
model they are given, quantum mechanics, to somehow indicate
innovative thinking while questioning the first model in favor
of the second to be bowing to dogma as an unthinking traditionalist.
The person that is unthinking is the one that doesn't realize the
only "natural" aspect to a classical viewpoint is that they grew
up with it and don't want to question the possibility that the first
20 years of their life involved no exposure to phenomenon that are
not of a scale they can touch or see directly. Unthinking is applying
the rules appropriate for scales of 10^-6 m - 10^6 meters without
thought to those from < 10^-30 to 10^24 meters as if 12 orders of
magnitude were the bulk of the 10^54 orders of magnitude. Unthinking
is seeing that that it is not from examples like transistors and
nuclear reactions, and then claiming the models that explain it
can't be correct just becuase they do so with unprecedented precision.
Unthinking is being stuck in a classical rut because questioning the
classical viewpoint requires too much thought.
>When YOU figure out something important, you can call it luck if you
>like ;-)
Many examples of luck leading to the correct theory occur in
physics. The quark model is even one of them. The original quark
model was a flavor SU(3). As more quarks were needed, it did not
become SU(4), SU(5) etc, however by simply adapting to the phenom-
enology. A different model that coincidently required a force with
3 parameters was founs, hence the retension of the type of theory,
SU(3), but it explains an arbitrary nummber of quarks (without
additional constraints observed mixing).
I accept luck as part of discovery. It doesn't have to sacrosanct
or even correct, to be great. Discoveries and luck should be put in
the context of the theories to which further investigation and discoveries
based upon them, lead. The correctness of quantum mechanics and relativity
will be determined by whatever discoveries remain to be found, not by
attempting to build new classical theories to include them as
approximations. Classical physics is an approximation of qm and gr.
gr and the standard model will be approximations to something simpler
not complex extensions to something already complex.
Bilge
>
>Dennis: Well, you can obvously remove the atmosphere and explain all its
>pressure and drag effects by fields and all sound effects by bodiless waves.
No you can't. Pump out a chamber and see if sound propagates.
Tom Clarke
> Clarke: >Nevertheless it not that obvious if it took over a century from
> Huyghens to
> >its conscious prediction by Doppler.
> (...)
>
> Dennis: No one denies that the ether theory as developed by Huygens in the
> 1690's demands a Doppler effect as a consequence. That's the major point as it
> regards evidence of the theory. Exactly how long the formal prediction was
> published before its experimental confirmation is both irrelevant and a
> quibble.
A quibble, but not irrelevant.
....
> >> Dennis: That's irrelevant to the plain fact that Sagnac, Doppler,
> >Interference,
> >> etc, are physical effects that are predicted by ether theory and are
> >observed.
>
> Clarke: >That is irrelevant to the plain fact that Sagnac, Doppler,
> interference etc
> >are
> >phyiscal effects that are predicted by standard light theory and are
> >observed.
>
> >Why is this statement not just as valid? Or do you agree it is?
>
> Dennis: Well, actually, with the way you define "prediction," SR doesn't get
> full credit for any of these phenomena, as they were never formally predicted
> by SR before they were discovered.
Granted. But I am answering your argument so your generous definition
is the one to use.
> Indeed, Doppler and interference effects
> were well known before SR.
Interference effects were well know before the wave theory - they apparently
prompted the wave theory. Can't say about Doppler. Discovery
apocryphally has to do with sound of moving trains - nothing moved that
fast making a tone-like noise before trains.
> SR explains them after the fact with simply the
> assumption that light is some sort of wave (something which everyone already
> knew.)
Wave's will do. With QED the full machinery of wave/particle duality
comes in.
> Anyway, I certainly agree that SR makes confirmed predictions and has
> observable consequences --but please look to the top of the page for the title
> of this thread. This thread concerns the question of whether **ether theory**
> produces observable effects. It does as I have shown.
It does not, as most everyone knows.
> Now, this does NOT mean that SR is false.
I'll grant that an ether-like theory could be constructed but it would probably
be in 11 dimensions and involve branes and other mathematical stuff that I
don't think you would like judging from remarks you have made.
> This does NOT mean that SR makes no observable predictions.
Lots. Time dilation. Length contraction to name two.
> So, again, it is a simple fact that ether theory made predictions regarding
> physical effects that have been later confirmed, thus, it has observable
> consequences--despite Roberts' paper.
Once again, wave theory has observable consequences.
Ether theory is not necessary for wave theory.
> <snip>
>
> Clarke: >Sure. So was the theory of caloric.
> >I am quibbling about the order and time span of some of the predictions and
> >whether the predictions are unique to wave theory - aberration of light would
> >be expected under Newton's theory as well.
>
> >For these predictions to have been made it had to be an "old
> >theory believed by past praised intellectuals." That is pretty much
> >what it means to be a theory.
>
> Dennis: The point was that the reason for my accepting the ether theory as
> valid today has nothing to do with the fact that it's an old theory believed by
> past praised intellectuals (as you claimed incorrectly was my reason above.)
> The point I am making here is simply that that the ether theory was invented
> *before* many of its predictions were confirmed.
And the caloric theory was invented before Carnot took it - the swan song
of caloric theory actually - and derived the thermodynamics efficiency of
heat engines with it. We now know that there is no heat containing fluid that
flows from hot reservoirs to cold reservoirs through heat engines.
The wave theory made use of the visualiztion aid of waves in a media.
We now know that the media is not necessary just as we don't need
a heat fluid.
> Now, if you would like me not to tell you who made or confirmed these
> predictions, then I won't--as its immaterial to the point and it causes you to
> infer, for some strange reason, that I believe the theory because it was
> accepted by past prodigies.
Irrelevant who made them, but it does set the historical stage. The timing
of which and so forth about which I quibble.
As I said:
> Clarke: >But you have to say when and in what sequence these predictions
> occurred -
> >easiest to do this by naming who made the predictions.
> Dennis: Exactly. So now you seem to understand my motivations for bringing up
> historical scientists in this thread.
But then why does not the same argument apply to caloric?
Hint - it does but it is not a good argument.
> Clarke; >Incidentally, Sagnac published his results in 1913, so I'm not sure
> you can
> >site this as a prediction of ether theory, as ether theory was well on its
> >way out by then.
>
> Dennis: Wow, where to begin...
> 1) Sagnac was an etherist who predicted and calculated the effect based on the
> ether.
> 2) Just because mainstream scientists no longer favor a particular theory
> doesn't mean that the theory no longer makes predictions.
> 3) As many people still accept the ether theory--and comments on the ether
> have been published recently in mainstream journals (F. Wilczek “The
> Persistence of Ether" Physics Today January, 1999)--the ether theory is still
> not out.
OK. But is not your grandfather Sagnac's ether theory.
<with regardi to caloric>
> Clarke: >The thermodynamic efficiency of heat engines. Conduction of heat
> according
> >to Fourier's equation.
> >[These are still valid but are now understood in terms of statistical
> >mechanics. >Carnot got the right
>
> Dennis: Those are mathematical expressions of phenomena or principles that
> Carnot observed. They are not predictions of new effects based on caloric.
> Indeed, by the 1820's, letters suggest Carnot was dropping the theory of
> caloric.
As I said above Carnot's work was the caloric swan song.
But I differ about how significant understanding of heat engines was -
it is pretty fundamental.
> >> 2) The whole point is that despite the ludicrous title of this
> >> thread, ether theory predicts physical effects that have been observed.
> >> That's a simple fact that may irritate some people--but it's not going to
> >> go away.
>
> Clarke: >And non-ether theory predicts the same physical effect - and more.
>
> Dennis: 1) Given your definition of "predicts" SR does not get full credit for
> prediction of the wave-based effects--as they were all confirmed before SR was
> a theory.
My definition, but I think we have to use yours since we are discussing your argument
for how past predictions - which no one knew to make - shore up ether theory.
> 2) The whole point of my discussion here is that the ether theory has
> observable consequences--despite the title of this thread.
The whole point I am trying to make is that every single one of those
consequences is the result of light having a wave-like nature, not that
light is waves in some medium, the ether.
> >> Clarke: But it went away. Do you miss caloric as well?
>
> >> Dennis: ? No. Are you implying that since both caloric and ether theories
> >are
> >> old theories that therefore they have the same validity--or are trying to
> >> suggest that since I follow ether theory that I should follow all abandoned
> >> theories?
> >
> Clarke; >The former.
>
> Dennis: You actually think all theories of a certain age have equal validity?
No. Neither ether theory nor caloric is valid now.
I am saying that they were theories that were accepted by the scientists of
the time. They were valid scientific theories then, but not now.
> Clarke: But I wonder about the later - you would be consistent then.
>
> Dennis: And you also think that it would be "consistent" to accept all
> abandoned theories, if you accept one?
Yes. That would be a position one could take. I wouldn't take it,
but then I see no reason for either caloric or ether.
> Hmm. Do you really not see any other reasonable way one could consider that
> an abandoned theory may still be valid--or are you spoofing?
I tend toward positivism in science. If the theory does not need it then it is
superfluous.
Ether is superfluous.
> Clarke:
> >Ether now seems to have served the role of a nice "mnemonic" device that
> >helped in the development of the current theory which has so far met all
> >tests.
>
> Dennis: "Mnemonic"? What do you actually mean by the use of the term?
I know "mnemonic" means memory aid. That's why I put it in quotes.
I couldn't think of a general term for aid to thought or visualization.
Perhaps the word is "analogy"?
> As I
> assume we now agree ether theory *predicted* all the wave-like qualities of
> light that SR now simply assumes.
No. Wave theory predicted the wave-like qualities. Ethere was an
aid to thought and visualization of how the wave-like properties of light operated.
> Clarke: In a similar way, caloric was good "mnemonic" device for Carnot
> >and his predecessors that helped them develop the theory of thermodynamics
> >and statistical mechanics that so far has met all tests.
> Dennis: They didn't use caloric to develop the theory of thermodynamics. In
> fact, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics is based primarily on the
> **kinetic theory** of matter--which a purely Materialistic theory that was
> favored by etherists.
You are wrong in this. Carnot's formulation is very much a continuum "caloric-type"
theory. The kinetic theory explanation became later. I recently read a book that
discussed this, that is why it came to mind.
> Clarke:
> >Why is heat flow without a substance to flow OK to you, but wave motion
> >without a
> >medium is not?
>
> Dennis: Heat flow does require a medium. The kinetic theory of heat, like
> ether theory, is actually a purely Materialistic theory developed completely by
> Materialists. The caloric theory is not a Materialistic theory because the
> substance caloric was endowed with the intangible quality of being "hot."
Yes indeed, just as the ether is endowed with the intangible quality of
having waves.
Name one other property of ether that can be observed. If the only observable
thing about ether is that it has waves, then it is as superflous as the caloric
whose property was heat.
> This
> is more similar to theories of today where particles are endowed special
> abilities and qualities by which they produce manifest results-- like charges
> and electrons...
Yes, QED is the best theory of light to date.
<regarding resistanceless ether>
> >> Clarke: >Not resistanceless? Why is the earth still in orbit then?
>
> >> Dennis: Because of the ether.
>
> Clarke: >???
> >I guess I'm not familiar enough with your theory for that to make sense to
> >me.
>
> Dennis: Check Google search on Rado McCarthy and Aethrokinematics.
I found
http://www.omicron-research.com/RecDocE/DennisE.pdf
I guess omicron-research is your web site?
That's a 35 page document. Mayhaps I'll peruse later.
> ><snip sequence of historically significant scientists and their discoveries>
>
> >> Dennis: Usually correct predictions are counted as evidence for a theory.
>
> Clarke: >Yes.
>
> Dennis: Well, then calling them lucky seems odd.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
I was just going with your word, not mine.
> Clarke; Usually incorrect predictions are a sign that the theory is flawed and
> >may need to be replaced. This was the case with ether.
>
> Dennis: Well, we know today that's the case with SR. Brillet-Hall is
> inconsistent with SR. But what experiment do you think falsifies ether theory.
Michaelson-Morely
> Clarke: >Yes - sometimes the problem is incorrect interpretation of a theory,
> but
> >sometimes not.
> >Have you read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientic Revolutions"?
>
> Dennis: Yes. The book explains that phenomena that refute a paradigm--like
> Brillet Hall, Pioneer effect, the rotation of galaxies, etc, are largely
> ignored or that ad hoc hypotheses are used and automatically accepted.
The discrepancies build up until the paradigm shift occurs. If you are right,
there just have not been enough built up. But I don't see the discrepancies
you do.
> D:
> >> The
> >> alternative, that for 200 years all the people who followed the theory were
> >> lucky and guessed the right equations while following the wrong line of
> >> reasoning, seems a little silly.
>
> Clarke: >They were right about light moving as waves
> >- partly, QM brought the particle aspect back in.
> >But they were wrong about the nature of the waves,
> >they are not waves in a medium like air or water.
> >At least no medium that makes much sense. If there
> >is a medium it is so far totally indistinguishable from no-medium.
>
> Dennis: ?? No. If it were indistinguishable from no medium, then it wouldn't
> exhibit Doppler, Sagnac, interference fringes, reflection, refraction,
> frequency, etc., and all the other media effects we have been discussing for
> the past three days.
Then you don't understand SR and its offspring QED. These effects are
explained without any medium in SR/QED.
> I mean, do you the atmosphere is also "totally
> indistinguishable from no-medium" --because sound possesses these same media
> qualities.
Silly. Did you every stick your hand out of a moving car and feel the wind
pressure?
I've yet to see an experiment that reliably reports ether pressure.
> In fact, perhaps, you would like to explain what effects of sound or the
> atmosphere are there which suggests to you it is a particulate medium?
Brownian motion. Kind of tough to arrange with a gas, but a particle in gas
undergoes brownian motion visible under a microscope just a one in a liquid.
Oh, and blue sky is the result of Rayleigh scattering from the particulate
nature of air.
> <snip>
> >> Dennis: I'm not sure what you're referring to. Sagnac is clearly a medium
> >> effect--and was predicted by etherists before the experiment.
>
> Tclarke: >Sagnac is clearly an effect caused by rotating - non-inertial -
> >reference frames.
>
> Dennis: You again confuse assumptions for what is known. The idea that Sagnac
> is due to non-inertiality (or other more complicated reasons) is what was
> *assumed* by relativists once etherists discovered the effect.
So according to you if its discovered by an "etherist" it is therefore always and
forevermore evidence of ether, even if another theory can explain the same
effect?
> But what is
> *known* is there's a sound Sagnac effect--and the table frame does not have to
> be rotating or accelerating. It is *known* that motion through the medium that
> is relevant to sound Sagnac. And it is *known* that Sagnac is as clearly a
> media effect as much as interference is.
Sound Sagnac has a medium. There is a postive sound MM experiment as well
because there is a medium.
So air -> positive MM and positive Sagnac
but ether -> negative MM and positive Sagnac
Ether is sure different from air as a medium.
> ....
> >> Tclarke:
> >> >Nature choses to have waves without media. Who are we mere humans to
> >> >quibble with nature?
>
> >> Dennis: You are simply assuming Nature chose that for some arbitrary reason
> >> (perhaps to make etherists lucky)--even though all other waves require a
> >> medium.
> >
> Clarke: Not all other waves.
>
> Dennis: Yes, all other waves the mechanisms of which is not subject to dispute.
> You can't assume your conclusion as you do below.
Ah. So we are both assuming our conclusion. You assume that all waves have
media, if no media is known, then there is a dispute.
Well we can leave it there I guess, each of us assuming our positions.
> Clarke: All the "matter waves" quantum field theory have no
> >medium
>
> Dennis: That...is...an...assumption. What is agreed by everyone is that all
> other known waves (macroscopic ones) require a medium. The latter is what we
> *know*, the former is what you assume.
> (...)
We disagree.
> ....
> Tclarke: >So you agree with relativity?
>
> Dennis: No. I agree that this is strong evidence that the assumption Einstein
> used to develop that prediction is correct at least within this particular
> domain of observations. The equivalence principle, or an approximation
> thereof, has to be part of any successful theory of gravitation--or at least an
> explanation must be made why the equivalence principle was an accurate
> predictor for such phenomena.
> Saying that gravitational phenomena has nothing to do with this phenomena and
> that Einstein was just plain lucky seems a little silly, don't you think?
What is "this phenomena" in the above sentence? I can't figure out the referent.
> Now, imagine how silly it is to call umpteen scientists over the course of 200
> years lucky?
Not lucky - I was playing on your word. The had the right idea - wave motion - but
the wrong visualization, they thought wave motion needed a medium but were wrong.
> >I've not been following this group long enough to know your views thoroughly.
> >I mostly jumped in because your history was off.
>
> Dennis: ?? What history was off? You jumped in not knowing when ether theory
> was invented or whether Huygens or Young were even etherists.
You dropped the claim of aberration and refraction as ether predictions.
> Clarke: >Your theory is a relativistic ether theory?
>
> Dennis: Well, it includes classical principle of relativity, Lorentzian clock
> retardation and principle of equivalence--which were all formulated
> pre-Einstein by etherists.
Got to run.
Tom Clarke
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>
>> >Tclarke: >It is an explanation then and the theory only gets part credit.
>If
>> >the
>> >>prediction
>> >>is of an unobserved phenomena, then the theory gets full credit.
>>
>> >Dennis: Well in that case, ether theory gets full credit for Doppler,
>Sagnac,
>> >interference, etc., while SR does not.
>>
>> >>> Dennis: Huygens ether theory of light (which is extremely similar to
>the
>> >>one
>> >>> that some etherists still follow--including myself) was developed in
>the
>> >>> 1690's--before the discovery of aberration.
>
list.
Dennis: But ether theory predicts it. So again its an observable consequence.
(The perhelions of Mercury don't need GR, but GR predicts it.) But you are
right it is not an effect unique to media, so is not as obvious a media effect
as say interference effects.
>> >Tclarke: >Long before? It was centuries, now it is 30 years.
>>
>> >Dennis: I wrote that "in some cases" it was centuries. Sagnac, Doppler,
>> >interference effects were discovered between 100-200 years after Huygens
>> >ether
>> >theory.
>>
>> CORRECTION: I did not write "in some cases." However, the quote involving
>> centuries referred to just "interference fringes, Doppler, Sagnac, etc."
>And
>> the three specified effects all were experimentally confirmed more than a
>> century after Huygens origination of the theory.
>
Clarke: >I still don't see it that way, but whatever.
Dennis: Well, I'm not sure what on Earth you are arguing...
1) Do you agree that Huygens ether theory of 1690's predicted interference
effects?
2) Do you agree that these effects weren't experimentally confirmed until the
19th century?
Now, just push 1 and 2 together.
Dennis: Great references.
Dennis McCarthy
Matthew Nobes
> Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> writes:
> > > Somehow you forget GET.
> >
> > Yes, I have never had the time or inclination to study it. It looks to me
> > like it is an ether theory which "lives in the error bars" -- if so then the
> > theorems about equivalence with SR don't apply to it....
>
> It gives GR in some quite natural limit.
>
> > Make some prediction significantly different from SR and have some
> > experimenter measure and confirm it -- _THEN_ GET will become
> > mainstream right quick!
>
> Infinite cosmological horizon size because of "big bounce" instead of
> big bang,
You must have missed the "experimenter measure and confirm it" part.
> a dark matter term - all fits observation,
Fine, what's the power spectrum of the CMBR. Do you get the observed
curve?
What are the limits on your two extra parameters?
You constantly claim your theory matches observation, yet refuse to
test/constrain it in these simple ways. You seem to think that computing
an actual number is somehow beneath you, yet that is the only way I could
think of to get your theory more widely known/accepted.
> and better than GR which needs artificial terms for this purpose.
Come on Ilja you know better then that. GR doesn't "need" anything, GR is
the statement
G = k T
That's it. It doesn't "need" dark matter in any way. The only issue is
what we put in for T.
--
"The mood and temper of the public in |Matthew Nobes
regard to the treatment of crime and |c/o Physics Dept.
criminals is one of the most unfailing |Simon Fraser University
tests of the civilization of any country." |8888 University Drive
|Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Winston Churchill |http://pastureh.phys.sfu.ca
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>> The universality of the speed of light is not explained by SR but it
>> is postulated.
>
>Yes, in Einstein's original exposition of SR. But other sets of postulates
>are possible and do not assume this. The universality of c in inertial frames
>is then explained as a symmetry of spacetime.
This is rather a circular statement. Symmetry of spacetime is the
result of constant light speed in all inertial frames. This means that
you can't use symmetry to explain constant light speed.
Ken Seto
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010206163055...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >Dennis McCarthy said some stuff about
>> >Re: Why the Ether is Unobservable to usenet:
>> > >DavidS:
>> > >> Define it as you see fit. Is it possible to find an effect from
>> > >>the ether as you've defined it, with any experiment you can describe,
>> > >
>> > >Dennis: The ether theory of Huygens in the 17th century predicted the
>> > >experimental light-based effects of interference fringes, Doppler,
>Sagnac,
>> > >etc...
>> > >All of these physical effects were predicted by the ether theory,
>> > >but were not discovered till centuries later.
>> >
>> Davids: And despite being incorrect worked until phenomenon were
>> discovered
>> >that made the shortcomings of those models painfully obvious.
>>
>> Dennis: Before we argue on the shortcomings of ether vs. SR, the point
>here is
>> that, despite the ludicrous title of this thread, it is still a fact that
>ether
>> theory predicted many physical effects which were later observed.
>> Now, that may be irritating, but it can't be denied--not matter how many
>> papers Roberts writes repeating this same theme.
>>
>> Dennis McCarthy
>>
Ade:
>Hi Dennis,
Dennis: Hi Ade.
Ade: >I have been following the arguments on both sides of this debate and it
>seems
>to me that both you and Roberts are implicitly assuming that the ether is
>EITHER observable
>OR unobservable. Has it occurred to you that the ether may be BOTH
>observable AND
>unobservable. It is observable in the sense you have successfully argued,
>but it is also
>unobservable in the sense of Robert's posting.
Dennis: Well, that's part of my point: Roberts unique definition of
"unobservable" casts such a wide net that it captures many other accepted
scientific hypotheses that, like the ether, are known only due to their
predicted physical effects or observable consequences. This includes, but is
not limited to: extra-solar planets, dark matter, atoms, protons, neutrons,
black holes, the atmosphere, etc...
To suggest the above are not adequate scientific theories (and Roberts has
recently admitted that dark matter is not an adequate scientific theory) is
just absurd.
Ade:
Since certain effects were
>predicted by the
>ether theory and were later observed, then the ether is in fact observable.
>But if you discard
>the ether theory and reexplain these effects without the ether, then the
>ether is in fact unobservable.
Dennis: But you can always explain **any** phenomenon with another theory. We
can explain the atmosphere with bodiless fields and bodiless waves of sound.
This is simply vacuous as a criticism.
Roberts happened upon it because he is struggling to give credibility for the
rejection of ether theory.
His effort falls short.
Ade:
>My suggestion ? Let it go before many other people who can think straight
>call you more names. If you do
>that, you may just draw the debate; otherwise, you will lose outright, not
>because of any error in your
>reasoning, but because you are up against popular opinion - and then your
>whole point will be pointless.
Dennis: Thank you. I appreciate the comment and the spirit in which it is
given.
And you are right. I have been lynched many times for sticking to my
arguments--and many relativists have written full-post attacks describing all
my faults in detail.
But it's possible that this may increase my popularity among calmer, more
judicious types.
Thanks again,
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>> The point here, Roberts, is that the Doppler, Sagnac, inteference,
>aberration
>> are, according to ether theory, physical effects of the ether that have
>been
>> **observed.**
>
Roberts; >They are not "physical effects of the ether",
Dennis: According to ether theory they are physical effects of the ether! My
God, etherists don't believe that anything is an actual physical effect of the
hypotheses described by special relativity. Does this mean that special
relativity has no observable consequences? (Because we can explain the effects
of SR with other theories.)
Roberts: they are observations of wave
>phenomena. Yes, you certainly can _INTERPRET_ them as effects of the ether,
>but that is not _OBSERVED_. You need to learn how to distinguish your
>personal hopes, dreams, and interpretations from observations.
Dennis: Oh, well, given this preposterous argument, then the atmoshpere is not
observed either. "Sure you can INTINTERPRET_ wind , pressure and sound as
effects of the atmosphere,
but the atmosphere is not _OBSERVED."
How many times do you have to be told by Ilja and others the rather obvious
fact that the THEORY determines what it predicts and what its observable
consequences are.
You can't simply say, "Oh, well, I don't care the theory predicts I still
believe that wind and pressure is NOT caused by the atmosphere. Instead, I
think that those phenomena are caused by bodiless fields. So the atmosphere is
unobservable."
Roberts:
>In other words: ether implies X (for every X in your list), but that does not
>mean (all those X) imply ether. <shrug>
Dennis: (Insert emoticon suggesting wild and hilarious laughter) Um, Dr.
Roberts, X stands for confirmed theoretical predictions. Do you realize that?
That's confirmed theoretical predictions
Not sure if you ever knew this: But for the last 400 years in experimental
science, confirmation of prediction has been considered evidence (but not
proof) of the validity of a scientific theory.
Using your same shocking argument, then nothing implies the validity of
SR--or any other theory.
Let's actually substitute words for you symbolic notation--and you get: " Just
because a theory implies some observable consequence, whether its clock
retardation or interference effects or bending of starlight, doesn't mean that
all those things impy the theory.
Hard to believe I have to tell you this...but confirmation
of...predictions...
is..considered a good thing.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>> Indeed on one hand General Relativity plus dark matter results in a
>> mathematically consistent theory whose quantitative predictions are in
>> good agreement with astronomical observations.
>
Dennis: Yes, and SR plus unexplained instrument effects also gives a
mathematically consistent theory whose quantitative predictions are in good
agreement with observations.
Dennis McCarthy
GLOBARR
<ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> (Bilge) wrote:
Jackie & Barry wrote:
Re: Why the Ether is Unobservable to usenet:
>
>
>> I can easily scoop up a cup of water (and flour!), but not
>> ether....
>
>That's not a good analogy with which to make your case.
>
>How do you scoop up a cup of neutrinos?
>
Bilge wrote:
Quite literally with a cup of dry cleaning fluid. Except a
really big cup.
Jackie & Barry wrote:
>Or photons?
Bilge wrote:
Phosphoresence?
Jackie & Barry wrote:
>A cup is a kind of "null sieve".
>
>One way of *not* scooping up water or flour (or potatoes) is
> to use a sieve of appropriate "fineness".
>
> If flour can pass through the sieve, can water pass through
> it? If water can pass thorough a sieve, could ether?
Bilge wrote:
Can't say about an ether, but that attribute applied to
particles is called a cross-section. For the same reason the
holes in a sieve have an area. The even have the same
dimensions (but a factor of 10^24 difference in nominal scale).
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
******Ether particles do not play fair!********
A very interesting thing occurs when you get down to ether
particles. Ether particles do not play fair! With normal
particles, even down to atoms, even down to electrons and
protons, even down to those particles like quarks, particles do
not normally penetrate each other. They `bounce.' Or through
the interactions of their `fields,' they repel each other so
strongly that they each end up pushing each other back in the
direction that they each had originally came from.
Under these conditions, then the size of a sieve, its area
and/or dimensions, are important. And any physical wall, if
solid enough, can contain such particles. (I assume we are not
considering high energy or the QM arenas.) But at some point
between `normal' particles and ether particles, a new
interaction occurs! When you get small enough, so small that
strong-force `charges' do not exist, when you are so small that
you actually have a collision where pure matter hits into pure
matter, a spall occurs!
With a spall, you can have even a totally solid wall, and
the particle (or replacement spall of the particle) will go
directly `through the wall.' When spalls occur, you no longer
have any effective stopping capability, no matter what sieve
size you have. It suddenly becomes meaningless. The ether
thus works in such a way that no physical limits to its motion
is possible. The ether passes through all things, even other
ether particles. These particles can change in some of their
features as they pass through other things, but nothing can
stop them from passing through.
Thus, in terms of `stopping' cross-section, this cross-
section becomes zero, even though there is matter there, with
size and momentum and energy! Welcome to the world of the
ether!!!!!
Please read the at theory, as referenced below. When spalls
become involved, entirely new mechanics have to be developed!
And these new mechanics can be developed even before we know
any details of the particles involved, just as we could with PV =nRT.
Thanks!!!!!!
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
(We need to improve the SR FAQ)
Luc Bourhis
> Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk (Luc Bourhis) writes:
> > Indeed on one hand General Relativity plus dark matter results in a
> > mathematically consistent theory whose quantitative predictions are in
> > good agreement with astronomical observations.
>
> Because with dark matter terms you can always fit
> G_ij = T_ij. Simply define T_ij^dark = G_ij - T_ij^observable
You can do the same kind of trick in electrodynamics, in Newtonian
mechanics, .... That does not make these theories less appealing. What
will ultimately matter is whether we can find such extra sources terms
by means not based on the associated field theory. The archetypical
example is the discovery of Neptune inferred from the anomalies of
Uranus orbit and the presupposed correctness of Newtonian mechanics.
Similarly, as you know, dark matter is intensively searched. By
2005-2010 this issue should have been settled by the outcomes of
TEVATRON Run II and of LHC, and perhaps earlier if one of the handful of
dark matter observatories unveil a new signals. Thus let's wait and see.
> > On the other hand there is no Ether theory fulfiling these
> > requirements.
>
> Wrong, there is GET.
> [...]
> > That would not be the end of the story but anyhow I know it is
> > extremely unlikely I will ever see such theories on this forum.
>
> Not fair. You know about GET already a long time.
Of course I know. Actually I posted a correction 3 hours after the
message of mine you have answered so as to address several shortcomings,
including this one. Well I suppose I am in an awkward state of mind when
discussing with Dennis McCarthy ... Which means that I will stop doing
so.
> > I would just like to see an Ether theory which can pass all the
> > tests General Relativity passed successfuly.
>
> No problem for GET, once it has a GR limit of their equations.
Sure. This was a challenge for Dennis McCarthy, not for GET. For your
theory the game starts after these successes. And the rules change. It
is now first of all about what new results GET predicts. I know you have
two striking predictions, which you usually refer to as "frozen stars
instead of black hole and a big bounce instead of a big bang". The
problem is that you can tweak GET so as to make differences with GR as
small as you want, which means that you can very easily live within
experimental error bars, especially since these issues are not easy ones
from an experimental viewpoint.
This life hidden below experimental sensitivities combined with a lack
of independent evidences for Ether is what Tom Roberts criticised
actually. On the other hand physicists have much more ambitious goals
nowadays. As you know they search for grand unification theories General
Relativity is a low energy limit of but which make predictions in other
area of physics as well, first of all in particle physics, which seems
to be testable at this moment -- I have in mind the recent modification
of Newtonian law induced by the so-called extra-dimensions -- or at
least in a foreseeable future -- for example most supergravity theory
predict long range fields which would invalidate the equivalence
principle. This is what does and in my humble opinion will always lack
in GET.
As a consequence your main arguments to advocate GET are about
simplicity and elegance -- interestingly almost two third of your "long
paper" are dedicated to such discussions, which is pretty unusual in the
scientific litterature.
> > Note that I do not even speak about simplicity or elegance.
>
> Let's start to speak. GET is very elegant. It combines two very
> elegant GR things: harmonic coordinates and ADM decomposition, and
> gives a nice interpretation of these tools.
>
> [...]
Fine. But you will hardly convince the community of physicists that GET
is superior to GR only because of this supposed elegance. What new
predictive power does this unveil ? None since these tools exist in GR.
To adopt your theory would require a huge jump in the way we organise
our scientific knowledge. You cannot expect physicists to make such a
leap without something really new which has testable phenomenological
consequences, especially since GET has also some shortcomings we
discussed a few months ago. In my humble opinion, and for all the
reasons I have given above, GET lacks the momentum needed to push GR
aside. Of course it does not mean that you should not be able to publish
papers about it. Who knows how wrong those who do not appreciate your
work now could be .....
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Luc Bourhis
> [...]
> I'll let readers conclude from the comments above Bourhis's devotion
> to modern physics theory and they type of arguments he will employ in
> its defense.
You have just illustrated my point. Your examples just show that, as any
decent sophist, you have been very good at taking advantages of the
weakness of my debating technics in order to trap me. Then you can claim
victory although you have not shown any scientific work whatsoever.
> Anyway, the difference here between your post and mine--is that you
> post unsubstantiated insults without referencing any argument in
> particular--while I use actual quotes from your past posts and let the
> reader draw his own conclusion.
The readers of this newsgroup are not the fool you think they are. Who
do you think you can convince with that ? There are many regular
contributors who do completely agree with me about you -- M. Nobes, D.
Cullough, W. Throop, C. Hillman, S. Carlip, Bilge, Tim Shuba, J. Carr,
.... How is it you can't see what is wrong with you ? Look at the debate
I've had with I. Schmeltzer over the year, and in this very thread, if
you want an example of how you should behave. But of course your real
problem is that, contrary to I. Schmeltzer, you do not have any theory
to propose which can match the most elementary scientific standards and
you can only survive by means of sophistry. This thread is yet another
example of this survival tactic. Indeed you could have disproved me in
this thread and silence me for ever by addressing the scientific issues
I raised in the first place. But on the contrary you prefered to make
the debate degenerate awkwardly.
>> Oversimplifications, omissions, biased extrapolations are the bread
>> and butter of your postings.
> Where, where, and where? How can one defend such an attack?
:-D :-D :-D
That's a comedia dell'arte now !!!! Dear readers, close your eyes and
imagine the scene:
Colombina:
what are you concealing in your back ?
I can see it you know !
Il Dottor:
Oooooohooooooo ! Noooooooothiiiiing ! Hooooooooow can you accuse me ?
I'm the most honest person in the world ! Hooooooo ! What a shame !
[Colombina, catching a broom and hitting badly Il Dottor]
:-D :-D :-D
And this broom is in this very thread actually. So as to illustrate that
Ether theory are still alive in mainstream science you cited an article
by F. Wilczek in Physics Today. Since this gentleman is an expert in
General Relativity, quantum gravity and superstring theories he uses the
word Ether in a sense which is not even remotely close to the sense it
has in your writings. Yet another example of oversimplifications and
omissions, made _on purpose_ to win a debate by any means.
> It's a shame really. It would be nice if the posts could be directed
> more to the subject--and not at the person...
At first I was tempted to write that it is up to you to take up the
scientific challenges I came with in this thread. But I know you will
not. Never ever. Therefore here is a loud and metallic
PLONK !
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Dennis McCarthy
>interference effects.
Dennis: The ether/wave theory of light was known long before the etherist Young
predicted and discovered interference effects.
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Roberts
> This is rather a circular statement. Symmetry of spacetime is the
> result of constant light speed in all inertial frames. This means that
> you can't use symmetry to explain constant light speed.
You did not understand what I said.
For Einstein's original postulates, the symmetry of spacetime is a consequence
of his two postulates, including the universality of the speed of light.
Consider a different set of postulates: a) the PoR, b) pion beams exist
with their observed properties, c) the hidden postulates of SR. From those
postulates one can derive all of SR. In this case there is NO assumption of
the universality of the speed of light, and yet lightspeed (and the limiting
speed of pion beams) is indeed universal -- because that is a symmetry of
spacetime deduced from these postulates.
So there is no circularity, you merely conflated two DIFFERENT situations.
With one meaning of "theory" these are two different theories which are
mathematically equivalent (share the same set of theorems). With the other
meaning of "theory" these are merely two different postulate sets for a
single theory.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bilge
from a pair of slits. You get refraction by replacing the quantity
sqrt(Hamiltonia - Potential), in the principle of least action
given by jacobi, with a term proportional to 1/velocity in the
medium. For a more informative and detailed treatment which discusses
this along with huygens principle, geometric optics, the schroedinger
equation and classical wave-particle duality (i.e. before qm), see
"Classical Mechanics", goldstein. Look in the index under "eikonal".
Just because the people centuries past didn't have access to the current
knowledge and didn't know any better doesn't mean they would appreciate
you paying homage to them by ignoring their contributions to modern
science and remaining ignorant of what their accmomplishments made
possible. If you think that's paying homage, be sincere and quit using
your computer.
Bilge
Re: Why the Ether is Unobservable to usenet:
>>
>>
>>> The point here, Roberts, is that the Doppler, Sagnac, inteference,
>>aberration
>>> are, according to ether theory, physical effects of the ether that have
>>been
>>> **observed.**
>>
>Roberts; >They are not "physical effects of the ether",
>
>Dennis: According to ether theory they are physical effects of the ether!
>My God, etherists don't believe that anything is an actual physical effect
>of the hypotheses described by special relativity. Does this mean that
>special relativity has no observable consequences? (Because we can
>explain the effects of SR with other theories.)
Apparently not without a new ether theory being required every time
it makes failed predictions. By anyone's yardstick, the ether theories
of that era failed. You cannot consider their successes to have anything
to do with you. You are a sociopath and a sophist dennis. If ethics
were food, you'd be a worldwide famine.
GRADinc
>Clarke: Aberration doesn't need wave theory, I think you struck it from your
>list.
>Dennis: But ether theory predicts it. So again its an observable
>consequence.
But any theory with a finite speed of
light predicts it. Newton's whatever.
Hence you don't get full credit.
>(The perhelions of Mercury don't need GR, but GR predicts it.)
but that was observed before GR so
the analogy is not good.
...
>Dennis: Well, I'm not sure what on Earth you are arguing...
> 1) Do you agree that Huygens ether theory of 1690's predicted interference
>effects?
I agree that Huyghen's wave theory ...
>2) Do you agree that these effects weren't experimentally confirmed until the
>19th century?
No. Many were known to Huyghens,
e.g. Newton's rings.
>Now, just push 1 and 2 together.
2 is not true.
Tom Clarke
Bennett Standeven
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrn983be...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
[...]
> I want to see someone explain what direct measure of light
> from a single source will show me there is some sort of sinusoidal
> variation in space and time as people think justifies the E*sin(kx-wt)
> people draw to represent light and why this just seems so _natural_
> that it requires no explaining.
Does radio "light" count?
Bill Rowe
djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
>>In order for the ether to be observable, one must have two things:
>> 1) a viable ether theory which describes how light, clocks, and
>> rulers behave when in motion wrt the ether.
>> 2) it must predict some observable phenomenon which permits one to
>> measure one's velocity wrt the ether using light, clocks, and
>> rulers.
>>
>
>Dennis: ?? I have no clue what you mean. Here I'll make it
>clearer. I contend that Roberts meant that in order for the ether to
>be observable, the ether theory must at least predict some observable
>phenomenon which permits one to measure one's velocity wrt the ether
>using light, clocks, and rulers.
That is the same as I read Roberts post but it isn't what you seemed to
be saying initially.
--
-
PGPKey fingerprint: 6DA1 E71F EDFC 7601 0201 9243 E02A C9FD EF09 EAE5
Peter Riedt
"Ken H. Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3a8048ea$0$1513$53a6...@news.erinet.com...
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:55:19 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Peter Riedt wrote:
> >> the ether may or may not be directly observable but the effects of the
ether
> >> are emminently observable unless you are blind.
> >
> >You got your logic backwards:
> > ether => effects
> >Not:
> > effects => ether
> >
> >All of the "effects of the ether" are well explained by the modern
theories
> >of physics, in which there is no ether. And other clearly-related effects
> >are observed which no known ether theory describes, but which the modern
> >theories of physics describe quite accurately. Specifically: the
universality
> >of the speed of light, and quantum phenomena.
>
> The universality of the speed of light is not explained by SR but it
> is postulated.
>
Ken,
Yes, it is neither explained nor proven. It never will be or can be.
Explanations like the train/platform analogy are ridiculous. In the MM
experiment, aparatus and observer are on the train but SR puts the observer
magically on the
platform. While my argument is a simple truth, how many of our learned
friends are going to dispute it?
Regards, Peter Riedt
rry...@hotmail.com
dav...@david15.dallas.nationwide.net wrote:
>> rry...@hotmail.com said some stuff about
>
>>Can you se air ?
>
> Sure. I just use the proper detectors.
Rod: See and detector . Is there a difference ?
Yes and no .
If my detector said oxygen , then fine there is oxygen .
Where are the other gasses ?
Duh , what others .
They need to be detected also .
What is the chronilogical order of discovery ?
Is there one ?
Of course .
Try thinking on your own .
SON!
>Optics and biochemistry suggest
> eyes don't work reliably for objects at the nano-meter level. If you
> are handicapped by a limited ability to use the right tools, you'll
> never do anything properly. As an example, try welding aluminum using
> just a handheld propane torch. You wouldn't be considered very
>skillful if you then proclaimed one could not weld aluminum while all
>around you, it was being done.
Rod: Yeah , Mr welder , you CAN SEE after all .
Then why the argument ?
>>What of waves ?
Rod: <snip> non responsive .
>>EM waves are not waves moving through a medium ?
>
> No they are not. E&M waves are photons. Representing them as
>waves is often convenient.
Rod: Double split .
So Bilge says the E-wave and M-wave which propagate
othogonally wrt each other are photons that are not waves ?!?!?!?
What wave that you know of propagates through _NO_ medium ???
>>What of electricity (CURRENT) ?
>
> Sure. One can even measure current, particle by particle in the
> beamline of an accelerator. In fact, things like uA, nA, pA are
> common units to denote the charged particle flux.
>
>>Emitted photons from high energy electrons ???
>
> Accelerated aelectron. Only the ones that land in my retina
> and cause the right chemical reaction. X-rays might cause a reaction,
> but certainly not a useful one.
>
>>Where'd that positron come from ?
>
> The lepton section of the charged particle department store.
>
Rod: Where did the positron come from !?!?!?
SON!
> >> Personally, I prefer giving the status of existence to something
> >> that has some effect in this universe which can be measured.
> >
> >Rod: Yeah , let's discuss electricity (CURRENT) .
>
> I would, but you seem to be unable to get past the "intent"
> stage before losing your bearing.
Rod: Hahahaha !
You are invalid .
--
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth .
http://www.Rod_Ryker.homestead.com/
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Dennis McCarthy
>Lines: 95
>Message-ID: <1eoh3xo.2aold81g4na65N%Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk>
>References: <3A7ECDF9...@lucent.com>
><20010205123321...@ng-mn1.aol.com>
><1eodbtl.rlv02c7ml8fyN%Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk>
><20010205155954...@ng-ch1.aol.com>
><1eoeotq.1yfl3jzgggehvN%Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk>
><i3gu266...@ilja-schmelzer.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cptl1.dur.ac.uk (129.234.8.177)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 981585994 18536259 129.234.8.177 (16 [60346])
>User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6
>
>
>
>Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
>
>> Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk (Luc Bourhis) writes:
>> > Indeed on one hand General Relativity plus dark matter results in a
>> > mathematically consistent theory whose quantitative predictions are in
>> > good agreement with astronomical observations.
>>
>> Because with dark matter terms you can always fit
>> G_ij = T_ij. Simply define T_ij^dark = G_ij - T_ij^observable
>
>mechanics, .... That does not make these theories less appealing.
Dennis: Interesting theoretical viewpoint. You think ad hoc hypotheses of
exotic phenomena which immunizes a theory from falsification (regarding that
phenomenon) is not "less appealing"?
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>Dennis McCarthy said some stuff about
>Re: Why the Ether is Unobservable to usenet:
> >>
> >>
> >>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> >>> The point here, Roberts, is that the Doppler, Sagnac, inteference,
> >>aberration
> >>> are, according to ether theory, physical effects of the ether that have
> >>been
> >>> **observed.**
> >>
> >Roberts; >They are not "physical effects of the ether",
> >
>
> >Dennis: According to ether theory they are physical effects of the ether!
> >My God, etherists don't believe that anything is an actual physical effect
> >of the hypotheses described by special relativity. Does this mean that
> >special relativity has no observable consequences? (Because we can
> >explain the effects of SR with other theories.)
>
Dennis: Your incorrect point is irrelevant to the point at hand. According to
Roberts' logic if any other theory or group of theories, describe the phenomena
predicted by special relavitivty without making the SR assumptions then SR has
no physical effects.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Again from the AOL account.
>
>>Clarke: Aberration doesn't need wave theory, I think you struck it from your
>>list.
>
>>Dennis: But ether theory predicts it. So again its an observable
>>consequence.
>
>light predicts it. Newton's whatever.
>Hence you don't get full credit.
Dennis: Well then, using the same logic, you don't think that SR should get
full credit for practically any prediction since ether theories also predict
the same phenomena.
>>(The perhelions of Mercury don't need GR, but GR predicts it.)
>
Clarke: >but that was observed before GR so
>the analogy is not good.
Dennis; Oh, that's right. According to your definition of "prediction," GR does
not predict the perihelion because it was observed before GR.
.
>>Dennis: Well, I'm not sure what on Earth you are arguing...
>> 1) Do you agree that Huygens ether theory of 1690's predicted interference
>>effects?
>
Clarke: >I agree that Huyghen's wave theory ...
Dennis: ? This is a good example of why I have to be repetitive. Do you not
understand that the hypothesis of an ideal gas medium (ether) also predicts
interference effect? If you do understand this, then you understand that
Huygens ether theory of 1690's predicted interference effects, right?
>>2) Do you agree that these effects weren't experimentally confirmed until
>the
>>19th century?
>
Clarke: >No. Many were known to Huyghens,
>e.g. Newton's rings.
Dennis: There's a difference between diffraction and the two slit interference
experiment. Newton was able to explain the diffraction with his corpuscle
theory. But that doesn't explain the two slit experiment.
So, please, forgive me for being repetitive but:
Do you agree that the two slit interference effect wasn't experimentally
confirmed until the 19th century?
Dennis McCarthy
Bilge
Re: Why the Ether is Unobservable to usenet:
>
Sure. Just tell me how to measure a field amplitude instead of calling
the square root of mod^2 the field amplitude. Exactly like the "natural"
analogy to water would suggest. Even using mod^2, you'll run into a problem
at low intensities. Just don't utilize quantum mechanics or E&M in hindsight
to claim the concept was "natural" at a time the concepts didn't exist.
Bilge
Re: Why the Ether is Unobservable to usenet:
>>the ether as you've defined it, with any experiment you can describe,
>
>Sorry. I have ho idea what that statement means.
>
It means if you can propose an explanation for something, you
should be able to propose experiments that show the effect quantitatively
even if the current technology needs to improve to realize the experiment.
In other words, something more substantial than one has by replacing
the explanation with "gnomes".
>>...In addition, if one wishes to think of it that way, one may not state
>>that the sea itself is observable. Only the interactions with it are
>>observable.
>
>I would't go so far as to say that myself. Most things considered to exist
>have only been detected by infering them from observations.
>No electron has ever been detected in any experiment. Only the effects
>that result from the theory of electrons have been observed.
And that is how electrons are defined. You can make definite predictions
by considering whatever an electron "really" is to be a point particle
of mass 511 keV, with a spin -1/2 and charge of 1. The properties are
its existence. I can call that which I can't measure anything at all, but
that isn't useful except as perhaps, a crutch.
Bilge
Dennis: Your incorrect point is irrelevant to the point at hand. According
>to Roberts' logic if any other theory or group of theories, describe the
>phenomena predicted by special relavitivty without making the SR
>assumptions then SR has no physical effects.
>
I do not intend to respond to willfull misrepresentation just to
get you off the hook by changing the subject to argue about what
someone else said in order for you to slither off. You are wrong
even if lorentz comes back from the dead and suggests little red
riding hood is resposnible for time dilation. You remind me of some
mindless busybody that has nothing better to do than attempt to distort
what people say in order to try and create a disagreement of your
own invention. It won't work, dennis. I'm not going to play along.
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn said some stuff about
>
> >
> >Start with a slow electric and magnetic oscillation coupled to a
> >physical system - that looks very much like a wave in the physical
> >system, just as a water wave is a gravitationally-coupled oscillation in
> >the sea.
>
> These were not known about in the study of light at the time.
>The explanation for light as a wave phenomenon was to explain
>interference effects.
I suppose this is true. It is hard to put oneself in the place of the
theorists of the time; we know any arguments they asserted, but not
their intuitions.
>
> I accept luck as part of discovery. It doesn't have to sacrosanct
>or even correct, to be great. Discoveries and luck should be put in
>the context of the theories to which further investigation and discoveries
>based upon them, lead. The correctness of quantum mechanics and relativity
>will be determined by whatever discoveries remain to be found, not by
>attempting to build new classical theories to include them as
>approximations. Classical physics is an approximation of qm and gr.
>gr and the standard model will be approximations to something simpler
>not complex extensions to something already complex.
Napoleon wanted "lucky" generals. Where you see luck, I see intuition.
I think we have deeper connections with the micro- and macro-worlds than
are suggested by your 10^-6 - 10^6 metre reference.
- Gerry Quinn
Tom Clarke
> >>Clarke: Aberration doesn't need wave theory, I think you struck it from your
> >>list.
>
> >>Dennis: But ether theory predicts it. So again its an observable
> >>consequence.
>
> Clarke: >But any theory with a finite speed of
> >light predicts it. Newton's whatever.
> >Hence you don't get full credit.
>
> Dennis: Well then, using the same logic, you don't think that SR should get
> full credit for practically any prediction since ether theories also predict
> the same phenomena.
By my criteris full credit only comes from prediction of a new phenomena
before that phenomena is observed. Next in order of credit would be
explanation of phenomena that other theories cannot explain. Some
credit for explaining things that other theories explain also.
Points off for disagreeing with phenomena where the situation is complex
and difficult to calculate a prediction. Failure for clearly diagreeing with
a phenomena
So relativity only gets some credit for agreeing with everything that came
before.
17th century wave theory would have to share credit with corpuscle theory
for aberration. Aberration was a surprise discovery, not a prediction, and
both theories can account for it.
> >>(The perhelions of Mercury don't need GR, but GR predicts it.)
>
> Clarke: >but that was observed before GR so the analogy is not good.
>
> Dennis; Oh, that's right. According to your definition of "prediction," GR does
> not predict the perihelion because it was observed before GR.
See above.
> >>Dennis: Well, I'm not sure what on Earth you are arguing...
> >> 1) Do you agree that Huygens ether theory of 1690's predicted interference
> >>effects?
>
> Clarke: >I agree that Huyghen's wave theory ...
>
> Dennis: ? This is a good example of why I have to be repetitive. Do you not
> understand that the hypothesis of an ideal gas medium (ether) also predicts
> interference effect?
I understand that interference effects were observed _before_ the hypothesis of
wave
theory. Apparently in 1618 by Francesco Maria Grimaldi who discovered
"diffraction
patterns of light and becomes convinced that light is a wave-like phenomenon."
> If you do understand this, then you understand that
> Huygens ether theory of 1690's predicted interference effects, right?
I understand it agreed with observed interference effects like Newton's rings.
The later Young's experiment was designed as a stringent test against the
explanations invoked by the corpuscle theory to explain Newton's rings etc.
This tilted things toward wave theory which was really cemented by Maxwell's
equations but then along came Planck and Einstein.
> >>2) Do you agree that these effects weren't experimentally confirmed until
> >the
> >>19th century?
>
> Clarke: >No. Many were known to Huyghens, e.g. Newton's rings.
>
> Dennis: There's a difference between diffraction and the two slit interference
> experiment. Newton was able to explain the diffraction with his corpuscle
> theory. But that doesn't explain the two slit experiment.
Well then say the two slit experiment. Diffraction was seen through telescopes -
the Airy diffraction pattern is especially visible in small long focal length
refractors
that were used before the reflector came along. Newton's rings and irridescent
oile patterns are the result of inteference. It all the same underlying physics.
> So, please, forgive me for being repetitive but:
> Do you agree that the two slit interference effect wasn't experimentally
> confirmed until the 19th century?
I agree that Young performed his experiment int he 19th century.
But there is an implication in your statement that the gap from theory to
experiment was over a century.
Do you have a source showing that the two-slit experiment was proposed
in the 17th century?
Tom Clarke
Bilge
>
>>
>>or even correct, to be great. Discoveries and luck should be put in
>>the context of the theories to which further investigation and discoveries
>>based upon them, lead. The correctness of quantum mechanics and relativity
>>will be determined by whatever discoveries remain to be found, not by
>>attempting to build new classical theories to include them as
>>approximations. Classical physics is an approximation of qm and gr.
>>gr and the standard model will be approximations to something simpler
>>not complex extensions to something already complex.
>
>Napoleon wanted "lucky" generals. Where you see luck, I see intuition.
>I think we have deeper connections with the micro- and macro-worlds than
>are suggested by your 10^-6 - 10^6 metre reference.
>
Luck is when faulty intuition works in spite of being blatantly
incorrect, becuse the underlying phenomena is coincidentally similar.
Lot's of physics works that way. Huygens certainly would not have
been thinking "wavefunction" or "probability distribution" when
constructing wavelets. I see intuition, but intuition is typically
used to mean as seen in hindsight because it worked. Also, "intuition"
seems to be reserved for those people that share the opinions of
the person attributing it. Perhaps you can explain why anyone suggesting
huygens to be intuitive would not simply be astounded by dirac. Dirac
not only knew his intuition was correct, it really was correct.
My reference to 10^-6 - 10^6 meters applies to those that
have severed the connection by deciding reverting to the
good old days as a viable alternative to putting in the effort to
even know what it is to which they object. I'd venture to say that
the objections to modern physics arise mostly from people that don't
understand classical physics any better.
dmcca...@my-deja.com
Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <20010207080909...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
>
> >>In order for the ether to be observable, one must have two things:
> >> 1) a viable ether theory which describes how light, clocks, and
> >> rulers behave when in motion wrt the ether.
> >> 2) it must predict some observable phenomenon which permits one to
> >> measure one's velocity wrt the ether using light, clocks, and
> >> rulers.
> >>
> >
> >Dennis: ?? I have no clue what you mean. Here I'll make it
> >clearer. I contend that Roberts meant that in order for the ether
to
> >be observable, the ether theory must at least predict some
observable
> >phenomenon which permits one to measure one's velocity wrt the
ether
> >using light, clocks, and rulers.
>
seemed to
> be saying initially.
Dennis: I said what I believe to be the logical equivalent: I said that
according to Roberts argument: If you can't determine your velocity
with respect to something (the ether, say), then it is not observable.
> -
> PGPKey fingerprint: 6DA1 E71F EDFC 7601 0201 9243 E02A C9FD EF09 EAE5
>
dmcca...@my-deja.com
dav...@david15.dallas.nationwide.net wrote:
> Dennis McCarthy said some stuff about
>
> Dennis: Your incorrect point is irrelevant to the point at hand.
According
> >to Roberts' logic if any other theory or group of theories,
describe the
> >phenomena predicted by special relavitivty without making the SR
> >assumptions then SR has no physical effects.
> >
> I do not intend to respond to willfull misrepresentation (snip)
Dennis: Sigh. We'll try this one step at a time. It seemed to me that
Roberts is arguing that effects like Doppler or interference are not
physical effect of the ether--because there exists another theory that
predicts those phenomena (e.g., Doppler, interference.) Now, do you
agree with **that** statement?
DavidS: just to
> get you off the hook by changing the subject to argue about what
> someone else said in order for you to slither off.
Dennis: Um, I was actually having a discussion with Roberts and then
you jumped in with your somewhat odd posts and odder questions.
DavidS:
You are wrong
> even if lorentz comes back from the dead and suggests little red
> riding hood is resposnible for time dilation.
Dennis: Not sure how to respond to that...
DavidS;
You remind me of some
> mindless busybody that has nothing better to do than attempt to
distort
> what people say in order to try and create a disagreement of your
> own invention. It won't work, dennis. I'm not going to play along.
Dennis: Hmm.
Luc Bourhis
> > Ilja Schmelzer <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Luc Bourhis writes:
> >> > Indeed on one hand General Relativity plus dark matter results in a
> >> > mathematically consistent theory whose quantitative predictions are in
> >> > good agreement with astronomical observations.
> >>
> >> Because with dark matter terms you can always fit
> >> G_ij = T_ij. Simply define T_ij^dark = G_ij - T_ij^observable
> >
> >You can do the same kind of trick in electrodynamics, in Newtonian
> >mechanics, .... That does not make these theories less appealing.
>
> Interesting theoretical viewpoint. You think ad hoc hypotheses of
> exotic phenomena which immunizes a theory from falsification (regarding that
> phenomenon) is not "less appealing"?
Yet another example of your anti-science debating technics. You omitted
on purpose the rest of my paragraph:
> What will ultimately matter is whether we can find such extra sources
> terms by means not based on the associated field theory. The
> archetypical example is the discovery of Neptune inferred from the
> anomalies of Uranus orbit and the presupposed correctness of Newtonian
> mechanics. Similarly, as you know, dark matter is intensively
> searched. By 2005-2010 this issue should have been settled by the
> outcomes of TEVATRON Run II and of LHC, and perhaps earlier if one of
> the handful of dark matter observatories unveil a new signals. Thus
> let's wait and see.
You can't stop trolling, can you ?
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>> This is rather a circular statement. Symmetry of spacetime is the
>> result of constant light speed in all inertial frames. This means that
>> you can't use symmetry to explain constant light speed.
>
>You did not understand what I said.
>
>For Einstein's original postulates, the symmetry of spacetime is a consequence
>of his two postulates, including the universality of the speed of light.
>
>Consider a different set of postulates: a) the PoR, b) pion beams exist
>with their observed properties, c) the hidden postulates of SR.
Item b is a consequence of the original postulate that the speed of
light is independent of the moiton of the source---btw source
independency of light speed is a property of a light conducting
medium.. I don't know what you mean by item c.
> From those
>postulates one can derive all of SR. In this case there is NO assumption of
>the universality of the speed of light,
The original assumption (universality of the speed of light) remain
unexplained.
>and yet lightspeed (and the limiting
>speed of pion beams) is indeed universal -- because that is a symmetry of
>spacetime deduced from these postulates.
Again the original postulates predict your positulate (b). Therefore
the symmetry of spacetime is a consequence of the original postulates
not the other way around as you implied.
Ken Seto
Jackie & Barry
dmcca...@my-deja.com wrote:
> DavidS;
> You remind me of some
> > mindless busybody that has nothing better to do than attempt to
> distort
> > what people say in order to try and create a disagreement of your
> > own invention. It won't work, dennis. I'm not going to play along.
> Dennis: Hmm.
DavidS jumped into Dennis' discussion (does that make him a busybody?)
in an attempt to distort what Dennis had said (does that make him a
mindless busybody?) to try and create a disagreement of his own
invention.
What I don't understand is why DavidS says, "It won't work, (D)ennis",
since it obviously *did* work for him.
Dennis, why are you wasting your time with him? He obviously can't
follow a rational argument.
Barry
Tom Roberts
> >Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> >> The point here, Roberts, is that the Doppler, Sagnac, inteference,
> >aberration
> >> are, according to ether theory, physical effects of the ether that have
> >been
> >> **observed.**
> Roberts; >They are not "physical effects of the ether",
> Dennis: According to ether theory they are physical effects of the ether!
I see I was not specific enough, and you figured out a way to misinterpret
what I said.
THERE IS NO _OBSERVATION_ WHATSOEVER OF "DOPPLER EFFECT IN ETHER", OR EVEN
OF "DOPPLER EFFECT". What we have are observations that for a source moving
wrt a detector the frequency of the received signal varies with their
relative velocity, and the observations provide the dependence of that
variation on the relative velocity (with some error bars). That is what is
_OBSERVED_. Now one can easily _INTERPRET_ that observation as being
consistent with the Doppler effect in ether theory #1, the Doppler effect in
ether theory #2, ..., and the Doppler effect in SR. And _COLLOQUIALLY_ we
humans often take verbal shortcuts and say things like "this variation is
due to the Doppler effect", and "we have observed the Doppler effect", when
in reality those are SHORTCUTS for the more accurate description above.
Ditto for all the other entries of your list.
Once one separates the ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS from the _INTERPRETATIONS_ of
those observations, it becomes clear that no _OBSERVATIONS_ are of "physical
effects of the ether" -- that is an _INTERPRETATION_. And it is by no means
unique. <shrug>
> How many times do you have to be told by Ilja and others the rather obvious
> fact that the THEORY determines what it predicts and what its observable
> consequences are.
I am completely aware of that. It fact, it is an underlying theme of these
three articles -- did you actually read them? My point is: you must separate
OBSERVATION from INTERPRETATION. No theoretical prediction can ever be
_OBSERVED_, one can at most conclude that a given set of observations are
consistent with the predictions of a given theory. <shrug>
> confirmation
> of...predictions...
> is..considered a good thing.
Sure. But earlier you were NOT discussing "confirmation of predictions",
you were discussing "observation of physical effects". The two are
_COMPLETELY_DIFFERENT_ (the first is possible, the second is not). Your
inability to distinguish between them is all too revealing.
No matter how well the observations confirm its predictions, a theory is
never "proven" to be true. And the theoretical interpretations of the
experimental results remain that: _INTERPRETATIONS_. But humans often take
verbal shortcuts which can confuse the unwary....
Your repeated example of the atmosphere shows how utterly dependent
you are on these verbal shortcuts. It's just that the theory "earth
has an atmosphere with these properties ..." is so well confirmed by
zillions of observations (e.g. wind pressure on one's cheek, sound
propagation, etc.) that is is hopelessly cumbersome to continually
repeat "assuming the atmosphere theory is valid ...". Nevertheless,
the existence of the atmosphere is a _theory_, and there are no
observations _OF_THE_ATMOSPHERE_ITSELF_, there are only observations
of physical phenomena. There are literally zillions of such theories,
and it would be impossible to carry out normal human discourse if one
referred to them in every sentence....
This is all wrapt up in language. For instance, consider the _theory_
that the chair I am sitting in exists. I can feel it, it has
continuity over time, etc. We have essentially _REDEFINED_ the
meaning of "exists" to conform to such observations INDEPENDENT of
the "real" underlying meaning of "exists". Such redefinitions occur
throughout the language, and make it extremely difficult to discuss
such issues. Yes, this difficulty affects this entire article....
As I have said so often, science is a _SOCIAL_ endeavor. A major part of the
socialization process is understanding the above.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
ade a ade
"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010207163219...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> Ade:
> >My suggestion ? Let it go before many other people who can think straight
> >call you more names. If you do
> >that, you may just draw the debate; otherwise, you will lose outright,
not
> >because of any error in your
> >reasoning, but because you are up against popular opinion - and then your
> >whole point will be pointless.
>
> Dennis: Thank you. I appreciate the comment and the spirit in which it is
> given.
> And you are right. I have been lynched many times for sticking to my
> arguments--and many relativists have written full-post attacks describing
all
> my faults in detail.
> But it's possible that this may increase my popularity among calmer,
more
> judicious types.
> Thanks again,
> Dennis McCarthy
Be careful. Some relativists may interprete your statement to mean you are
after
cheap popularity. You don't want to provide ammunition for their guns, do
you ?
ade a. ade
Ilja Schmelzer
> > > Make some prediction significantly different from SR and have some
> > > experimenter measure and confirm it -- _THEN_ GET will become
> > > mainstream right quick!
> >
> > Infinite cosmological horizon size because of "big bounce" instead of
> > big bang,
>
> You must have missed the "experimenter measure and confirm it" part.
You must have missed the "cosmological horizon" problem of GR without
inflation.
> > a dark matter term - all fits observation,
>
> Fine, what's the power spectrum of the CMBR. Do you get the observed
> curve?
If I assume equilibrium before the big bounce - and there was time
enough to establish it - yes.
> What are the limits on your two extra parameters?
The qualitative prediction (big bounce) depends only on the sign of Y.
An assumption that a dense enough state has existed gives an upper
bound for Y. The function Y(\varepsilon_min) is easy to compute.
I have not searched for the current actual bounds for \varepsilon_min
and therefore not computed an actual bound for Y in MKS units.
The other parameter X influences the global universe evolution in the
following way:
\dot{a}^2 = 2GM/a - X c^2 + Lambda c^2 a^2/3
Compare this with the usual Friedman equation with curvature k:
\dot{a}^2 = 2GM/a - k c^2 + Lambda c^2 a^2/3
IOW, take the actual boundaries for curvature obtained from
observations of a(tau) (but not from other ways of curvature
measurements) and you have the boundaries for X.
> You constantly claim your theory matches observation, yet refuse to
> test/constrain it in these simple ways.
Because I have not time to be up to date in cosmological observations,
and to judge competently the various claim, error bounds, and so on.
Is there any reason for specialization in science? What I have done
is to make it easy enough for specialists who know the actual best
values to compute the bounds in short time.
> You seem to think that computing an actual number is somehow beneath
> you, yet that is the only way I could think of to get your theory
> more widely known/accepted.
Computing an actual number depends on knowledge of actual values of
various parameters.
>> and better than GR which needs artificial terms for this purpose.
>
> Come on Ilja you know better then that. GR doesn't "need" anything, GR is
> the statement
>
> G = k T
>
> That's it. It doesn't "need" dark matter in any way. The only issue is
> what we put in for T.
In this sense, GR needs nothing and is unfalsifiable. Set
T^dark = G^observed - T^observed
and GR is universally immunized against any possible observation.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Ilja Schmelzer
> > > Indeed on one hand General Relativity plus dark matter results in a
> > > mathematically consistent theory whose quantitative predictions are in
> > > good agreement with astronomical observations.
> >
> > Because with dark matter terms you can always fit
> > G_ij = T_ij. Simply define T_ij^dark = G_ij - T_ij^observable
>
> You can do the same kind of trick in electrodynamics, in Newtonian
> will ultimately matter is whether we can find such extra sources terms
> by means not based on the associated field theory. The archetypical
> example is the discovery of Neptune inferred from the anomalies of
> Uranus orbit and the presupposed correctness of Newtonian mechanics.
That means seeing some light (like from Neptun) from the dark matter.
I agree that you can always hope to see some light from currently dark
matter. But we can always hope for it too if G_ij = T_ij is false,
and T_ij^dark = G_ij - T_ij^observable described the error of GR.
> Similarly, as you know, dark matter is intensively searched. By
> 2005-2010 this issue should have been settled by the outcomes of
> TEVATRON Run II and of LHC, and perhaps earlier if one of the handful of
> dark matter observatories unveil a new signals. Thus let's wait and see.
We can wait forever. And you can always hope it will be seen in near
future.
> > > I would just like to see an Ether theory which can pass all the
> > > tests General Relativity passed successfuly.
> >
> > No problem for GET, once it has a GR limit of their equations.
>
> Sure. This was a challenge for Dennis McCarthy, not for GET. For your
> theory the game starts after these successes. And the rules change. It
> is now first of all about what new results GET predicts. I know you have
> two striking predictions, which you usually refer to as "frozen stars
> instead of black hole and a big bounce instead of a big bang". The
> problem is that you can tweak GET so as to make differences with GR as
> small as you want, which means that you can very easily live within
> experimental error bars, especially since these issues are not easy ones
> from an experimental viewpoint.
Yep. But above terms come out of the derivation, which has nothing to
do with fitting some observation, but have a justification in
observation. X is reasonable as a dark matter term and can possibly
replace the hot (homogeneously distributed) dark matter part of the
dark matter problem. And Y gives the qualitative prediction of the
bounce, which gives infinite cosmological horizon size.
Thus, above additional parameters give something people are looking
for, something people solve with ad hoc terms and inflation.
> This life hidden below experimental sensitivities combined with a lack
> of independent evidences for Ether is what Tom Roberts criticised
> actually. On the other hand physicists have much more ambitious goals
> nowadays. As you know they search for grand unification theories General
> Relativity is a low energy limit of but which make predictions in other
> area of physics as well, first of all in particle physics, which seems
> to be testable at this moment -- I have in mind the recent modification
> of Newtonian law induced by the so-called extra-dimensions -- or at
> least in a foreseeable future -- for example most supergravity theory
> predict long range fields which would invalidate the equivalence
> principle. This is what does and in my humble opinion will always lack
> in GET.
These are hopes only. Hopes do not count in science.
> As a consequence your main arguments to advocate GET are about
> simplicity and elegance -- interestingly almost two third of your
> "long paper" are dedicated to such discussions, which is pretty
> unusual in the scientific literature.
I disagree that 2/3 are about simplicity and elegance. Strange count.
Of course, elegance arguments are important. It is quite usual in
argumentation to refer to the beauty and simplicity of GR. Including
your argumentation:
> > > Note that I do not even speak about simplicity or elegance.
So it was your second request after agreement with experiment.
> > Let's start to speak. GET is very elegant. It combines two very
> > elegant GR things: harmonic coordinates and ADM decomposition, and
> > gives a nice interpretation of these tools.
> Fine. But you will hardly convince the community of physicists that
> GET is superior to GR only because of this supposed elegance.
Why was it your second question after agreement with observation?
Because it is not important?
We have agreement with observation, reasonable observational support
for the additional terms, favour in elegance and simplicity, favour in
compatibility with other principles (quantum theory, local energy
conservation, classical realism and causality), less theoretical
problems (no big bang and big bang singularity, no closed causal
loops).
Is there any favour of GR, except being already accepted?
> What new predictive power does this unveil? None since these tools
> exist in GR.
Why is there so much reasearch about quantum gravity? Has all this
research given even a single bit of testable phenomenological
consequences until now? GET has already given more testable
phenomenological consequences, and you know this. Why these double
standards?
> To adopt your theory would require a huge jump in the way we
> organise our scientific knowledge. You cannot expect physicists to
> make such a leap without something really new which has testable
> phenomenological consequences,
I know I have almost no chance in science as it works today. GET
probably will never be published, people know how to immunize GR
against observation (dark matter), can always continue to ignore the
conceptual quantum gravity problems. I have also no hope for future,
because the GR guys in power will always teach only GR. Ignorance
should not be an argument in science, in principle. In reality it is
a very strong one.
And that's completely independent of the question if GET is true or
not. It is simply sociology of the scientific community.
> especially since GET has also some shortcomings we discussed a few
> months ago.
There was no shortcoming of GET, there was only a failure to derive
some gauge symmetry from first principles.
> Of course it does not mean that you should not be able to publish
> papers about it. Who knows how wrong those who do not appreciate your
> work now could be .....
Ilja Schmelzer
> The easiest way to picture aether theories, in general, is as follows:
>
> Imagine a solid block, in which vibrations interact with each other via
> the medium of the solid. The vibrations are aware only of each other -
> they don't detect the solid because they ARE the solid.
>
> If the system is sufficiently linear (at the energies accessible to any
> complex system of vibrations) a system of vibrations travelling through
> the solid will suffer contractions and time dilatations as seen by other
> systems, but will not see itself as affected.
>
> It's easy to picture this as analogous to a system composed of light
> clocks moving through space. We can assume that the sources and sinks
> for the massless reciprocating vibrations are also massless, and their
> configuration is locked to the standing wave patterns of the
> reciprocating vibrations.
Exactly the picture of GET.
Matthew Nobes
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> writes:
> > > > Make some prediction significantly different from SR and have some
> > > > experimenter measure and confirm it -- _THEN_ GET will become
> > > > mainstream right quick!
> > >
> > > Infinite cosmological horizon size because of "big bounce" instead of
> > > big bang,
> >
> > You must have missed the "experimenter measure and confirm it" part.
>
> You must have missed the "cosmological horizon" problem of GR without
> inflation.
This is not an observational problem though. It's a "fine tunein"
problem. Current theory could well be correct just with extremely fine
tuned intial conditions. I (like most others) find this distinctly
unapealling, but it in no way conflicts with observations.
> > > a dark matter term - all fits observation,
> >
> > Fine, what's the power spectrum of the CMBR. Do you get the observed
> > curve?
>
> If I assume equilibrium before the big bounce - and there was time
> enough to establish it - yes.
Where in your paper can I see this?
> > What are the limits on your two extra parameters?
[snip qualitative discussion]
> > You constantly claim your theory matches observation, yet refuse to
> > test/constrain it in these simple ways.
>
> Because I have not time to be up to date in cosmological observations,
Tough luck for you then. Sory Ilja but that's the way it goes. You are
trying ot replace a near century old theory, it's going to take some
convincing wih acutal numbers.
> and to judge competently the various claim, error bounds, and so on.
> Is there any reason for specialization in science? What I have done
> is to make it easy enough for specialists who know the actual best
> values to compute the bounds in short time.
>
> > You seem to think that computing an actual number is somehow beneath
> > you, yet that is the only way I could think of to get your theory
> > more widely known/accepted.
>
> Computing an actual number depends on knowledge of actual values of
> various parameters.
Yes it does.
> >> and better than GR which needs artificial terms for this purpose.
> >
> > Come on Ilja you know better then that. GR doesn't "need" anything, GR is
> > the statement
> >
> > G = k T
> >
> > That's it. It doesn't "need" dark matter in any way. The only issue is
> > what we put in for T.
>
> In this sense, GR needs nothing and is unfalsifiable. Set
>
> T^dark = G^observed - T^observed
>
> and GR is universally immunized against any possible observation.
This is untrue, since I can in a Newtonian context set
\rho_{dark} = \grad V - \rho_{observed}
yet Newtonian gravitation is still falsified by the classic tests of GR.
--
"The mood and temper of the public in |Matthew Nobes
regard to the treatment of crime and |c/o Physics Dept.
criminals is one of the most unfailing |Simon Fraser University
tests of the civilization of any country." |8888 University Drive
|Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Winston Churchill |http://pastureh.phys.sfu.ca
Patrick Reany
Tom Roberts wrote:
[snip]
> > How many times do you have to be told by Ilja and others the rather obvious
> > fact that the THEORY determines what it predicts and what its observable
> > consequences are.
>
> I am completely aware of that. It fact, it is an underlying theme of these
> three articles -- did you actually read them? My point is: you must separate
> OBSERVATION from INTERPRETATION. No theoretical prediction can ever be
> _OBSERVED_, one can at most conclude that a given set of observations are
> consistent with the predictions of a given theory. <shrug>
>
My interpretation of what Tom is saying is this: There is no necessary
relationship -- causal or logical -- between a theoretical prediction
and a measurement, even if the measurement happens to "confirm"
a desired theoretical prediction. Another way to think of it is this:
We are never able to infer the Truthfulness of a theory on the basis
of any amount of confirming measurements. We ARE free, however,
to interpret confirming measurements as points toward our pet theory.
I certainly agree that a preferred theory may well "blind" one to possible
measurements, but that would not strictly prohibit the occurrence of a measurement
outside the expected scope of theoretical prediction. Maybe a fortunate
accident could happen in the lab, such as was the case about radium and
radioactive decay.
Patrick
Luc Bourhis
> Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk (Luc Bourhis) writes:
> > > > Indeed on one hand General Relativity plus dark matter results in a
> > > > mathematically consistent theory whose quantitative predictions are in
> > > > good agreement with astronomical observations.
> > >
> > > Because with dark matter terms you can always fit
> > > G_ij = T_ij. Simply define T_ij^dark = G_ij - T_ij^observable
> >
> > You can do the same kind of trick in electrodynamics, in Newtonian
> > mechanics, .... That does not make these theories less appealing. What
> > will ultimately matter is whether we can find such extra sources terms
> > by means not based on the associated field theory. The archetypical
> > example is the discovery of Neptune inferred from the anomalies of
> > Uranus orbit and the presupposed correctness of Newtonian mechanics.
>
> That means seeing some light (like from Neptun) from the dark matter.
>
> I agree that you can always hope to see some light from currently dark
> matter. But we can always hope for it too if G_ij = T_ij is false,
> and T_ij^dark = G_ij - T_ij^observable described the error of GR.
Sure. But we do not have enough information to discriminate these two
scenarios at this moment. But I get very well your point. For example I
think one could postulate the existence of a particle which does not
interact with any particle of the Standard Model; then in the context of
GR we could detect its distribution in the universe only by means of
gravitation (note that I am not too sure about that; would it fit in
cosmological models for example ?) I would be happier if we could
supersede General Relativity with a theory which would not require this
hypothesis. But if we can't, well, as good as it gets.
Anyway shall I remind you that GET predicts some dark matter too ? So as
to get right the rotation curves of galaxies. That you have a
fundamental parameter which can be used instead of a dark matter
distribution at cosmological scales does not matter that much after all.
> > Similarly, as you know, dark matter is intensively searched. By
> > 2005-2010 this issue should have been settled by the outcomes of
> > TEVATRON Run II and of LHC, and perhaps earlier if one of the handful of
> > dark matter observatories unveil a new signals. Thus let's wait and see.
>
> We can wait forever. And you can always hope it will be seen in near
> future.
This is not what I suggested. In my humble opinion if by 2005-2010 no
good candidate for dark matter has been discovered by particle and
astroparticle physicists our current standard theories will be in
troubles, of the kind I have sketched above.
> > > > I would just like to see an Ether theory which can pass all the
> > > > tests General Relativity passed successfuly.
> > >
> > > No problem for GET, once it has a GR limit of their equations.
> >
> > Sure. This was a challenge for Dennis McCarthy, not for GET. For your
> > theory the game starts after these successes. And the rules change. It
> > is now first of all about what new results GET predicts. I know you have
> > two striking predictions, which you usually refer to as "frozen stars
> > instead of black hole and a big bounce instead of a big bang". The
> > problem is that you can tweak GET so as to make differences with GR as
> > small as you want, which means that you can very easily live within
> > experimental error bars, especially since these issues are not easy ones
> > from an experimental viewpoint.
>
> Yep. But above terms come out of the derivation, which has nothing to
> do with fitting some observation, but have a justification in
> observation. X is reasonable as a dark matter term and can possibly
> replace the hot (homogeneously distributed) dark matter part of the
> dark matter problem. And Y gives the qualitative prediction of the
> bounce, which gives infinite cosmological horizon size.
>
> Thus, above additional parameters give something people are looking
> for, something people solve with ad hoc terms and inflation.
These are good points indeed, which I already knew. But what you have to
understand is that you are not the only one on the market with an
alternative to GR, something I have also pointed out to you many times.
Let me give you more examples so as to show you how badly GET must stand
up from the crowd. In addition to the various supergravity/superstring
stuff I have already cited, some new imaginative ideas appeared quite
recently. For example the varying speed of light theory of Joao Magueijo
in which there is no need for inflation since the speed of light was
much faster in the early universe than it is now. It started as a
"crazy" idea but Magueijo has just written a paper about a "Covariant
and locally Lorentz-invariant varying speed of light theories" [1] and
he is even investigating the consequences of his theory on stars and
black holes [3] (#). Now this is where it starts to be interesting
compared to your theory. Magueijo predicts deviations from General
Relativity for effects as mundane as bending of light and Shapiro time
delay. He predicts also a different value of the fine structure constant
in atomic line emitted at the surface of stars. And I am apparently only
scratching the surface. This makes his theory immediately exciting
because it seems to offer plenty of new phenomena to search for. On the
other hand GET lacks this kind of striking features. I know how
psychological sound my comments but this is how most physicist brains
work.
(#) His talk "Imaginative Cosmology" [2] is worth reading too for
alternative to what is becoming the standard cosmological model, i.e.
inflationary big-bang.
> > This life hidden below experimental sensitivities combined with a lack
> > of independent evidences for Ether is what Tom Roberts criticised
> > actually. On the other hand physicists have much more ambitious goals
> > nowadays. As you know they search for grand unification theories General
> > Relativity is a low energy limit of but which make predictions in other
> > area of physics as well, first of all in particle physics, which seems
> > to be testable at this moment -- I have in mind the recent modification
> > of Newtonian law induced by the so-called extra-dimensions -- or at
> > least in a foreseeable future -- for example most supergravity theory
> > predict long range fields which would invalidate the equivalence
> > principle. This is what does and in my humble opinion will always lack
> > in GET.
>
> These are hopes only. Hopes do not count in science.
Come on! You have hopes too, don't you ? I mean GET has no more
experimental support than the superstring stuff or than Magueijo's new
approach. You just hope it will be preferred by experiments to come. As
Magueijo hopes he can make a breakthrough by predicting a striking new
effect which will be discovered soon.
> > As a consequence your main arguments to advocate GET are about
> > simplicity and elegance -- interestingly almost two third of your
> > "long paper" are dedicated to such discussions, which is pretty
> > unusual in the scientific literature.
>
> I disagree that 2/3 are about simplicity and elegance. Strange count.
Well my estimate was too large. It is more like 1/2, starting with
section 14. But I agree it was not a fair criticism since this "long
paper" was a pedagogical presentation of all your paradigms. Sorry.
> Of course, elegance arguments are important. It is quite usual in
> argumentation to refer to the beauty and simplicity of GR. Including
> your argumentation:
>
> > > > Note that I do not even speak about simplicity or elegance.
>
> So it was your second request after agreement with experiment.
Sure. Elegance and simplicity are important.
> > > Let's start to speak. GET is very elegant. It combines two very
> > > elegant GR things: harmonic coordinates and ADM decomposition, and
> > > gives a nice interpretation of these tools.
>
> > Fine. But you will hardly convince the community of physicists that
> > GET is superior to GR only because of this supposed elegance.
>
> Why was it your second question after agreement with observation?
> Because it is not important?
It should be clear by now that General Relativity is considered by most
of the physics community as a mere phenomenological theory which will
end up being superseded by a quantum theory. Therefore an elegant theory
which mimics too well General Relativity is pretty boring. Either you
need some striking classical predictions which would favour your theory
or you need to work out its quantization. Again I realize plainly how
emotional are these criteria but you can not expect people to come back
to concepts abandonned one century ago without predicting a rich new
phenomenology at a time when the pan is boiling with new ideas. The last
part of my sentence is really important for it is not as if there were
only General Relativity and GET at stake nowadays.
> We have agreement with observation, reasonable observational support
> for the additional terms, favour in elegance and simplicity, favour in
> compatibility with other principles (quantum theory, local energy
> conservation, classical realism and causality), less theoretical
> problems (no big bang and big bang singularity, no closed causal
> loops).
These criteria are appealing to you but they might not be to most
theorists. Classical realism ? It has been sacrified ages ago and I do
not know any mainstream scientist who cares about its disappearance.
Which means that causality is no more an issue. No big-bang singularity
? If I remember correctly one can prove in the context of General
Relativity that there is an initial singularity. Therefore I would see
it as a sucess of GR more than as a failure. Local energy conservation ?
Being not an expert of General Relativity I am not too sure I understand
why it is such a big deal. And I do not know the state of the art of
causal loops studies. Finaly we both know the fundation of GET are not
so firm when it comes to couple fermions with the metric, unless you
have solved this problem since the last time we discussed it.
> > What new predictive power does this unveil? None since these tools
> > exist in GR.
>
> Why is there so much reasearch about quantum gravity? Has all this
> research given even a single bit of testable phenomenological
> consequences until now? GET has already given more testable
> phenomenological consequences, and you know this. Why these double
> standards?
No double standards. We know for sure we must search for a quantum
theory of gravity because we have known for ages classical theories can
not be fundamental. On the contrary it is not obvious at all that
General Relativity is not adequate as the classical limit of this
yet-to-come quantum theory, which is why it is fair to ask for a
testable new phenomenology.
> > To adopt your theory would require a huge jump in the way we
> > organise our scientific knowledge. You cannot expect physicists to
> > make such a leap without something really new which has testable
> > phenomenological consequences,
>
> I know I have almost no chance in science as it works today. GET
> probably will never be published, people know how to immunize GR
> against observation (dark matter), can always continue to ignore the
> conceptual quantum gravity problems. I have also no hope for future,
> because the GR guys in power will always teach only GR. Ignorance
> should not be an argument in science, in principle. In reality it is
> a very strong one.
>
> And that's completely independent of the question if GET is true or
> not. It is simply sociology of the scientific community.
There are sociological issues, as emphasised several times in this
message. It would be dishonest not to acknowledge it. However you are
going a bit too far in my humble opinion. Your comment about dark matter
can be applied to your theory too whereas you do only hope GET can be
quantized easily. If you had already achieved its quantization you would
be on a much better ground to criticise our failure to quantize GR so
far.
> > especially since GET has also some shortcomings we discussed a few
> > months ago.
>
> There was no shortcoming of GET, there was only a failure to derive
> some gauge symmetry from first principles.
It was about predicting spinors must be in a representation of the
Lorentz group. In General Relativity this is a consequence of the
equivalence principle which is supposed to become a theorem in GET, a
result you advocate as a big sucess of your model. If it is not a
theorem for fermions I think it is fair to state it is a shortcomings,
at least compared to what you expected GET to be.
[1] Joao Magueijo, Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 103521 [gr-qc/0007036]
[2] Joao Magueijo, lectures at the International School on Cosmology,
Kish Island, Iran, Jan. 22 - Feb. 4 1999, to be publ. in "Large Scale
Structure Formation" (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2000) [hep-ph/9912247]
[3] Joao Magueijo, Phys.Rev. D63 (2001) 043502 [astro-ph/0010591]
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Dennis McCarthy
>
>dmcca...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> DavidS;
>
>> You remind me of some
>> > mindless busybody that has nothing better to do than attempt to
>> distort
>> > what people say in order to try and create a disagreement of your
>> > own invention. It won't work, dennis. I'm not going to play along.
>
>> Dennis: Hmm.
Barry:
>DavidS jumped into Dennis' discussion (does that make him a busybody?)
>in an attempt to distort what Dennis had said (does that make him a
>mindless busybody?) to try and create a disagreement of his own
>invention.
>
>What I don't understand is why DavidS says, "It won't work, (D)ennis",
>since it obviously *did* work for him.
>
>Dennis, why are you wasting your time with him? He obviously can't
>follow a rational argument.
Dennis: You're right I should stop...
Dennis McCarthy
Gerry Quinn
I am not comfortable with the level of math in your papers; but I think
any viable rigid aether theory should fit the description above. I
suppose from my perspective the interesting thing is that fermions have
to be massless nodes acting as sources and sinks for the massless
bosonic fields. A fundamental particle with mass is incompatible with a
rigid aether model.
Once we have the reciprocating vibrations (a.k.a. the bosonic exchanges)
we can, if we like, see gravity as a directionally sensitive slowing of
these signals. This is transmitted through the aether by a second sort
of vibration (a.k.a. what is called the graviton); curiously, the
graviton feels the slowing effects also.
I suppose, though, that since I am committed to flat spacetime but not
necessarily absolute spacetime, my picture is also quite compatible with
a more conventional description of the world as what might be described
as a coherent set of peaks in the universal wave function. The
'signals' could represent phase changes/relationships instead of
slowing.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but often I find the
aether option far more attractive and comprehensible when it comes to
visualising how something can work. Maybe it's just a different way of
"mod-ing out" stuff that interferes with a simple description. Or, if
you prefer, separating the universe into two components. One local and
mechanistic, one non-local and mysterious. It's good to have several
ways to do that.
- Gerry Quinn
Dennis McCarthy
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>
>> >>Clarke: Aberration doesn't need wave theory, I think you struck it from
>your
>> >>list.
>>
>> >>Dennis: But ether theory predicts it. So again its an observable
>> >>consequence.
>>
>> Clarke: >But any theory with a finite speed of
>> >light predicts it. Newton's whatever.
>> >Hence you don't get full credit.
>>
>> Dennis: Well then, using the same logic, you don't think that SR should get
>> full credit for practically any prediction since ether theories also
>predict
>> the same phenomena.
>
phenomena
>before that phenomena is observed. Next in order of credit would be
>explanation of phenomena that other theories cannot explain. Some
>credit for explaining things that other theories explain also.
>Points off for disagreeing with phenomena where the situation is complex
>and difficult to calculate a prediction. Failure for clearly diagreeing with
>a phenomena
Dennis: That seems like intelligent criteria--and you seem to be applying it
consistently.
Tclarke: >So relativity only gets some credit for agreeing with everything that
came
>before.
>
>17th century wave theory would have to share credit with corpuscle theory
>for aberration. Aberration was a surprise discovery, not a prediction, and
>both theories can account for it.
>
>> >>(The perhelions of Mercury don't need GR, but GR predicts it.)
>>
>> Clarke: >but that was observed before GR so the analogy is not good.
>>
>> Dennis; Oh, that's right. According to your definition of "prediction," GR
>does
>> not predict the perihelion because it was observed before GR.
>
Tclarke: >See above.
Dennis: Yup. Okay, your criteria certainly seems reasonable.
>> >>Dennis: Well, I'm not sure what on Earth you are arguing...
>> >> 1) Do you agree that Huygens ether theory of 1690's predicted
>interference
>> >>effects?
>>
>> Clarke: >I agree that Huyghen's wave theory ...
>>
>> Dennis: ? This is a good example of why I have to be repetitive. Do you
>not
>> understand that the hypothesis of an ideal gas medium (ether) also predicts
>> interference effect?
>
Tclarke: >I understand that interference effects were observed _before_ the
hypothesis
>of
>wave
>theory. Apparently in 1618 by Francesco Maria Grimaldi who discovered
>"diffraction
>patterns of light and becomes convinced that light is a wave-like
>phenomenon."
>
>> If you do understand this, then you understand that
>> Huygens ether theory of 1690's predicted interference effects, right?
>
>I understand it agreed with observed interference effects like Newton's
>rings.
>The later Young's experiment was designed as a stringent test against the
>explanations invoked by the corpuscle theory to explain Newton's rings etc.
>This tilted things toward wave theory which was really cemented by Maxwell's
>equations but then along came Planck and Einstein.
Dennis: Right. So ether theory's prediction of the two slit experiment,
occurred before the experiment, and gets it "full credit."
>> >>2) Do you agree that these effects weren't experimentally confirmed until
>> >the
>> >>19th century?
>>
>> Clarke: >No. Many were known to Huyghens, e.g. Newton's rings.
>>
>> Dennis: There's a difference between diffraction and the two slit
>interference
>> experiment. Newton was able to explain the diffraction with his corpuscle
>> theory. But that doesn't explain the two slit experiment.
>
TCarke: >Well then say the two slit experiment.
Dennis: Well, I've been referring to Young's experiment from the beginning.
Tclarke:
Diffraction was seen through
>telescopes -
>the Airy diffraction pattern is especially visible in small long focal length
>refractors
>that were used before the reflector came along. Newton's rings and
>irridescent
>oile patterns are the result of inteference. It all the same underlying
>physics.
>
>> So, please, forgive me for being repetitive but:
>> Do you agree that the two slit interference effect wasn't experimentally
>> confirmed until the 19th century?
>
TClarke: >I agree that Young performed his experiment int he 19th century.
>But there is an implication in your statement that the gap from theory to
>experiment was over a century.
Dennis; And there was a gap of more than a century from theory (1690) to two
slit experiment (1800's)
Clarke: >Do you have a source showing that the two-slit experiment was proposed
>in the 17th century?
Dennis: That's certainly not relevant to any theory criteria--including yours.
You certainly don't give more than full credit, depending on how long before an
experiment, the experiment is proposed, do you?
If so, why?
Dennis McCarthy
ade a ade
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3A82C466...@lucent.com...
that Dennis has a
strong background in philosophy, and you are playing right into his hands
with this kind of post.
You see, separating OBSERVATION from INTERPRETATION is a philosophical
statement, and like all
philosophical statements, you can argue about this for etermity without
reaching an agreement because
there are just no good arguments that will establish the truth of the
statement in an absolute sense.
I suggest that you avoid discussing philosophical issues if you don't want t
o have a headache - especially with Dennis.
Regarding your original post, consider the following possible titles:
(A) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Relativity (or even Modern Physics)
(B) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Any Theory
(C) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Ether Theory
I think that you clearly meant (A), but since you didn't say so explicitly,
Dennis contends that you might just as
well have meant (B). He argues that if (B) is true then so is (C). He then
showed that (C) is false. Therefore
(B) must be false. Your response, I think, should have been to point out
that you meant (A). I don't think
that Dennis will argue that the ether is observable **in or according to
relativity **! And even if he does,
his position will be much less tenable !
ade a. ade
GRADinc
>>I understand it agreed with observed interference effects like Newton's
>>rings.
>>The later Young's experiment was designed as a stringent test against the
>>explanations invoked by the corpuscle theory to explain Newton's rings etc.
>>This tilted things toward wave theory which was really cemented by Maxwell's
>>equations but then along came Planck and Einstein.
>Dennis: Right. So ether theory's prediction of the two slit experiment,
>occurred before the experiment, and gets it "full credit."
For that one experiment the prediction occured
before probably a decade or so.
But of course it gets a failing mark for MM
and for the photelectric effect and for the
blackbody law.
snip
>TClarke: >I agree that Young performed his experiment int he 19th century.
>>But there is an implication in your statement that the gap from theory to
>>experiment was over a century.
>Dennis; And there was a gap of more than a century from theory (1690) to two
>slit experiment (1800's)
I don't think there was a theory of the two slit
experiment in 1690. There was a wave theory of
course but it was in infancy and did not have specific
predictions about the two slit situaton.
I could be wrong. You could demonstrate that
I was wrong by citing some article or source
where someone discussed a two slit experiment
in 1690.
After all in many waystwo slit experiments are easy enough to perform - just
put a mask in front of a telescope
objective with two slits in it and observe the
interference pattern. Well within 1690 technology.
Michaelson actually did this with the 100 inch Hale
telescope to get the first measurement of the size of
a star.
>Clarke: >Do you have a source showing that the two-slit experiment was
>proposed
>>in the 17th century?
>Dennis: That's certainly not relevant to any theory criteria--including
>yours.
It certainly is. If something was not theorized
about, then it is not theoretical at that time.
Yes all interference effects, MM, Sagnac, etc
etc are implicit in a wave theory, but they
were not fully developed in 1690. So you
can't make the century claim.
All effects are implicit in reality so a theory
has implicit in it all its correct predictions stated
or not when it is proposed, it also has, of course,
implicit within it the incorrect predictions which will
ultimately lead to the follow-on theory.
Galileo did not discuss light within his relativity.
One could argue that Galilean relativity
includes special relativity if it is properly
interpreted to include light and EM effects.
Imagine Simplicus asking about interference effects.
I have read that in some ways Galileo's view
was more sophisticated than Newton's.
>You certainly don't give more than full credit, depending on how long before
>an
>experiment, the experiment is proposed, do you?
> If so, why?
You are the one who keeps mentioning
"a gap of more than a century from theory (1690)
to ...experiment (1800's)"
You seem to think this has some rhetorical value.
Since we are in a debate, I don't concede the
point since the specific prediction of the phenomena
in Young's experiment did not preceed the experiment
by "more than a century".
Tom Clarke
SteveS
Tom Roberts wrote in message <3A82C466...@lucent.com>...
>earlier you were NOT discussing "confirmation of predictions",
>you were discussing "observation of physical effects". The two are
>_COMPLETELY_DIFFERENT_ (the first is possible, the second is not).
The observation of physical effects is impossible!!!
Are you seriously wanting to say that?
>This is all wrapt up in language. For instance, consider the _theory_
>that the chair I am sitting in exists.
Seems a pretty solid theory if you can sit in it
>I can feel it, it has
>continuity over time, etc. We have essentially _REDEFINED_ the
>meaning of "exists" to conform to such observations INDEPENDENT of
>the "real" underlying meaning of "exists".
What do you mean? You seem to have redefined it, but you really are speaking
for yourself there. What's this "real" underlying meaning you're talking
about?
You seem to have departed the realm of physics for some bizarre Descartian/
positivist dreamland. You haven't dropped an acid have you?
If this is the basis of your rejection of ether theories then its pure
metaphysics.
On this basis all physical theories about anything would have to be
rejected.
Physics, as its name suggests, tends to presuppose the existence of physical
reality. If your having doubts about physical reality itself then that's a
shame, but
you can't expect the rest of us to go along with it.
>As I have said so often, science is a _SOCIAL_ endeavor. A major part of
the
>socialization process is understanding the above.
How do you know? By your logic the existence of other people is pure
speculation.
Still, good luck with the chair theory.
Tom Roberts
> Regarding your original post, consider the following possible titles:
> (A) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Relativity (or even Modern Physics)
> (B) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Any Theory
> (C) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Ether Theory
> I think that you clearly meant (A),
No,NO, NO!!!!
Read the articles, and it should be clear I mean:
(D) Why the Ether is Unobservable
That's why I gave it that title. The basic reason is that there is no _VIABLE_
ether theory which contains an ether which is observable. And there is no
point in worrying about UNviable ether theories.
Remember, please, that one needs a theory to define what one means by "ether".
But I repeat the caveat that there might be an ether theory which
"lives in the error bars", but which does not belong to the
equivalence class. Such a theory could have an obervable ether
if one can perform experiments more accurate than curent ones....
With the possible exception of Ilja nobody around here discusses
any ether theory which has even a remot chance of doing that, and
for Ilja's theory it is totally infeasible to approach the
experimental accuracy rquired to distinguish it from GR and
observe its ether (AFAICT).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Stowe
Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
>ade a ade wrote:
>> Regarding your original post, consider the following possible titles:
>> (A) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Relativity (or even Modern Physics)
>> (B) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Any Theory
>> (C) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Ether Theory
>> I think that you clearly meant (A),
>
> No,NO, NO!!!!
Getting even more desperate Tom? You behavior pattern is most clearly
religious, rather than scientific. Who are you trying to convince,
yourself?
> Read the articles, and it should be clear I mean:
>
> (D) Why the Ether is Unobservable
>
> That's why I gave it that title. The basic reason is that there is no _VIABLE_
> ether theory which contains an ether which is observable. And there is no
> point in worrying about UNviable ether theories.
And clearly Tom has a myopic and irrational definition of the word 'observable'.
Somehow refraction, defraction, magnetic coupling, standard wave speed definitions
... etc. are, to him, not 'observable!
> Remember, please, that one needs a theory to define what one means by "ether".
>
> But I repeat the caveat that there might be an ether theory which
> "lives in the error bars", but which does not belong to the
> equivalence class. Such a theory could have an obervable ether
> if one can perform experiments more accurate than curent ones....
> With the possible exception of Ilja nobody around here discusses
> any ether theory which has even a remote chance of doing that, and
> for Ilja's theory it is totally infeasible to approach the
> experimental accuracy rquired to distinguish it from GR and
> observe its ether (AFAICT).
Chant that mantra, amen brother, praise that 'lord'.
Paul Stowe
Matthew Nobes
> In article <3A836FEA...@avenew.com>,
> Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
>
> >ade a ade wrote:
> >> Regarding your original post, consider the following possible titles:
> >> (A) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Relativity (or even Modern Physics)
> >> (B) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Any Theory
> >> (C) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Ether Theory
> >> I think that you clearly meant (A),
> >
> > No,NO, NO!!!!
>
> Getting even more desperate Tom? You behavior pattern is most clearly
> religious, rather than scientific. Who are you trying to convince,
> yourself?
Umm maybe he's getting frustrated of people misrepresenting what he says.
> > Read the articles, and it should be clear I mean:
> >
> > (D) Why the Ether is Unobservable
> >
> > That's why I gave it that title. The basic reason is that there is no _VIABLE_
> > ether theory which contains an ether which is observable. And there is no
> > point in worrying about UNviable ether theories.
>
> And clearly Tom has a myopic and irrational definition of the word 'observable'.
> Somehow refraction, defraction, magnetic coupling, standard wave speed definitions
> ... etc. are, to him, not 'observable!
They may be observable, but they aren't unique signatures of an ether.
They're accounted for perfectly well by QED which is *not* a classical
ether theory (you can call the vacuum an ether if you want, but it's
nothing like any Lorentz/Maxwell ether), and as we know QED predicts
vastly more things then Maxwell's theory.
> > Remember, please, that one needs a theory to define what one means by "ether".
> >
> > But I repeat the caveat that there might be an ether theory which
> > "lives in the error bars", but which does not belong to the
> > equivalence class. Such a theory could have an obervable ether
> > if one can perform experiments more accurate than curent ones....
> > With the possible exception of Ilja nobody around here discusses
> > any ether theory which has even a remote chance of doing that, and
> > for Ilja's theory it is totally infeasible to approach the
> > experimental accuracy rquired to distinguish it from GR and
> > observe its ether (AFAICT).
>
> Chant that mantra, amen brother, praise that 'lord'.
You know, it's really annoying to constantly see this analogy being made.
You sound like a creationist, take a look at a few creationist sites Paul,
you'd be suprised that they use roughly the same analogy that you do.
Face facts SR is used on a day to day basis in hundreds of situations, the
"error bars" that Tom refers to are very small. An expeirment by DeWitte
(unpublished at that) is hardly going to convince people that they're
wrong. Why does SR work everywhere else, execpt in the lab of somebody
who demonstrated that he doesn't really understand the subject he was
investigating?
Strange that.
Why do QED, QCD and GWS Electroweak work so well? They're all based on
SR, are you really sure that your ether theory lives withing their error
bars?
Really Paul, I thought you had a bit more class than Mr. Mingst, guess I
was wrong.
SteveS
a) according to Tom physical effects in general are not observable. Quote: '
you were NOT discussing "confirmation of predictions",
you were discussing "observation of physical effects". The two are
_COMPLETELY_DIFFERENT_ (the first is possible, the second is not). '
Tom's argument against ether theory seems to come down to this philosophical
principle
b) Nobody said they were unique signatures of an ether. Just that they are
predicted by ether theory.
>They're accounted for perfectly well by QED which is *not* a classical
>ether theory (you can call the vacuum an ether if you want, but it's
>nothing like any Lorentz/Maxwell ether), and as we know QED predicts
>vastly more things then Maxwell's theory.
>
>> > Remember, please, that one needs a theory to define what one means by
"ether".
>> >
>> > But I repeat the caveat that there might be an ether theory which
>> > "lives in the error bars", but which does not belong to the
>> > equivalence class. Such a theory could have an obervable ether
>> > if one can perform experiments more accurate than curent ones....
>> > With the possible exception of Ilja nobody around here discusses
>> > any ether theory which has even a remote chance of doing that, and
>> > for Ilja's theory it is totally infeasible to approach the
>> > experimental accuracy rquired to distinguish it from GR and
>> > observe its ether (AFAICT).
>>
>> Chant that mantra, amen brother, praise that 'lord'.
>
>You know, it's really annoying to constantly see this analogy being made.
>You sound like a creationist, take a look at a few creationist sites Paul,
>you'd be suprised that they use roughly the same analogy that you do.
eh?
>
>Face facts SR is used on a day to day basis in hundreds of situations, the
>"error bars" that Tom refers to are very small. An expeirment by DeWitte
>(unpublished at that) is hardly going to convince people that they're
>wrong. Why does SR work everywhere else, execpt in the lab of somebody
>who demonstrated that he doesn't really understand the subject he was
>investigating?
>
>Strange that.
>
>Why do QED, QCD and GWS Electroweak work so well? They're all based on
>SR, are you really sure that your ether theory lives withing their error
>bars?
>
>Really Paul, I thought you had a bit more class than Mr. Mingst, guess I
>was wrong.
If there's anything here about why the ether is unobservable I missed it
SteveS
SteveS wrote in message <3a83...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>...
previous postings of mine, and he gets himself in trouble in an
argument and I immediately jump in and start mocking him.
Sorry Tom, but I just couldn't believe what you were saying.
Seriously Tom, if you look back over your whole argument
with Dennis, he has actually been quite consistent and clear in what
he is saying, while your argument has been increasingly desperate.
In all honesty, you have fallen over yourself trying to duck his quite
simple, and I would have thought uncontroversial, claim that ether theory
makes predictions that observation confirms.
It need not be the only theory to make these predictions - so why are you in
denial throughout this whole argument?
Your reasoning for the unobservability of the ether has come down to
a philosophical objection to physical theory per se. It may be that you have
let slip something very revealing - is the essence of relativity just
positivist philosophy? Or did your argument just go wrong somewhere along
the line and you need
to back up?
Russell Blackadar
[snip]
Tom has courteously replied to
> previous postings of mine, and he gets himself in trouble in an
> argument and I immediately jump in and start mocking him.
> Sorry Tom, but I just couldn't believe what you were saying.
I think you must have taken something out of context. To
be honest, I no longer follow threads having anything to do
with Dennis, so I can't say for sure. But, I have never seen
Tom Roberts get "in trouble" in any argument with Dennis in
the past. Except perhaps, in the twisted imagination of
Dennis himself, and people who are fooled by him.
> Seriously Tom, if you look back over your whole argument
> with Dennis, he has actually been quite consistent and clear in what
> he is saying,
Steve, you are (I am pretty sure) a relative newcomer to
the group. Dennis has a history here. Things were nice when
he went away, but now it seems he is back. He is a skilled
rhetorician, and that's about all. As for consistency, it's
easy to be consistent if, at every fatal objection, you merely
ignore it or misinterpret it or deliberately misquote it. And
you will see, over time he is not really at all consistent;
rather, he is the master of the morphing argument. He devotes
vast energy into covering his own butt, and in a superficial
way that makes him sometimes look better than his opponents,
who in general are more interested in the science and less in
honing their rhetoric. In short, he does not argue in good
faith.
Also I suspect he is in the killfile of most of the more
knowledgable people in this group, so if he spouts off with no
apparent objections from the crowd, that doesn't necessarily
mean much. Another consequence is that folks who *do* take
him on (like Tom Roberts) come off looking all the more
isolated -- and even at times mean-spirited -- but that, too,
is an illusion.
Tom Roberts
> [about me]
> Umm maybe he's getting frustrated of people misrepresenting what he says.
Yes. And of people not reading what I write but commenting voluminously
and erroneously upon it.
> Paul Stowe wrote:
> > Somehow refraction, defraction, magnetic coupling, standard wave speed
> > definitions
> > ... etc. are, to him, not 'observable!
Not true. But they are not "observable effects of the ether", they are merely
observations of physical phenomena. Ascribing them to an ether is an
_INTERPRETATION_. Ascribing them to SR is also an interpretation.
> They may be observable, but they aren't unique signatures of an ether.
> They're accounted for perfectly well by QED [...]
Yes, but even if we had no theories but ether theories, they _STILL_ would
not be "observable effects of the ether", and ascribing them to an ether
would _STILL_ be merely an interpretation.
It might be more difficult to realize this, of course -- and _THAT_
seems to be Paul Stowe's problem: it appears to me that he cannot
imagine anything except ether theories; he is by no means unique in
this limitation around here.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote in message <3A82C466...@lucent.com>...
> >earlier you were NOT discussing "confirmation of predictions",
> >you were discussing "observation of physical effects". The two are
> >_COMPLETELY_DIFFERENT_ (the first is possible, the second is not).
> The observation of physical effects is impossible!!!
In context it was clear what I meant. Pulled out of context like this it is
not. Go back and read what I wrote. <shrug>
> >This is all wrapt up in language. For instance, consider the _theory_
> >that the chair I am sitting in exists.
> Seems a pretty solid theory if you can sit in it
Puns like that cause incredible difficulties around here.
> >I can feel it, it has
> >continuity over time, etc. We have essentially _REDEFINED_ the
> >meaning of "exists" to conform to such observations INDEPENDENT of
> >the "real" underlying meaning of "exists".
> What do you mean? You seem to have redefined it, but you really are speaking
> for yourself there. What's this "real" underlying meaning you're talking
> about?
See Aristotle, being-qua-being. The everyday meaning of "exists" is not
consistent with being-qua-being, but rather with the notions of continuity
I mentioned.
> If this is the basis of your rejection of ether theories then its pure
> metaphysics.
Good heavens, NO! I do not "reject" ether theories, and my set of three
articles shows why: there is a large class of unrefuted ether theories. But
they don't teach us anything new (compared to SR), and they don't lead
anywhere theoretically (but SR leads to QED, GR, the standard model, etc.).
Yes, such ether theories with an inherently unobservable ether are quite
unsatisfying intellectually, and that is a metaphysical sort of discomfort,
but that is not "rejection".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dennis McCarthy
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy)
>
>>>I understand it agreed with observed interference effects like Newton's
>>>rings.
>>>The later Young's experiment was designed as a stringent test against the
>>>explanations invoked by the corpuscle theory to explain Newton's rings etc.
>>>This tilted things toward wave theory which was really cemented by
>Maxwell's
>>>equations but then along came Planck and Einstein.
>
>>Dennis: Right. So ether theory's prediction of the two slit experiment,
>>occurred before the experiment, and gets it "full credit."
>
>For that one experiment the prediction occured
>before probably a decade or so.
Dennis: There we go. So full credit there.
And also for the prediction of Doppler and Sagnac, right?
Clarke: >But of course it gets a failing mark for MM
Dennis: ? We're in an argument loop because you keep repeating this false
claim. MM is not inconsistent with an ether that's moving slowly with the
Earth (or with an ether that has Lorentz contraction.)
Brillet-Hall, the most accurate MM, is inconsistent with SR and VALIDATES the
prediction of a small ether velocity with respect to the surface of the Earth.
So SR fails MM.
Clarke; >and for the photelectric effect and for the
>blackbody law.
Dennis; These too have clear ether explanations--and many have been provided.
But before we get into that, let's make sure we are clear the BH (an MM
experiment) fails SR--not ether theory.
>snip
>
>>TClarke: >I agree that Young performed his experiment int he 19th century.
>>>But there is an implication in your statement that the gap from theory to
>>>experiment was over a century.
>
>>Dennis; And there was a gap of more than a century from theory (1690) to two
>>slit experiment (1800's)
>
Clarke: >I don't think there was a theory of the two slit
>experiment in 1690.
Dennis: ??? Um, no--and that's not what I wrote.
There...was...an...ether...theory...and...then..a..two...slit...experiment.
The ether theory that was later used to predict the two slit experiment was
invented in 1690. But as with all theories, people don't realize all of its
possible predictions until later times.
(...)
>>Clarke: >Do you have a source showing that the two-slit experiment was
>>proposed
>>>in the 17th century?
>
>>Dennis: That's certainly not relevant to any theory criteria--including
>>yours.
>
Clarke: >It certainly is. If something was not theorized
>about, then it is not theoretical at that time.
Dennis: Sigh. The only relevant thing (to your criteria) is that the specific
prediction was made **before** the experiment. It doesn't matter whether it
was 100 years or 1 year before.
>>You certainly don't give more than full credit, depending on how long before
>>an
>>experiment, the experiment is proposed, do you?
>> If so, why?
>
Clarke: >You are the one who keeps mentioning
>"a gap of more than a century from theory (1690)
> to ...experiment (1800's)"
>
>You seem to think this has some rhetorical value.
Dennis: ?? I keep repeating it because you keep writing comments that seem to
contradict it--and it is an historical fact that the ether theory was invented
in 1690.
In fact, you didn't even know when you started the discussion that Huygens
used the ether theory back then.
Clarke; >Since we are in a debate, I don't concede the
>point since the specific prediction of the phenomena
>in Young's experiment did not preceed the experiment
>by "more than a century".
Dennis: I never wrote the "specific prediction."
So here is where we are agreed:
The "specific prediction" of the two slit experiment preceded the two slit
experiment (perhaps by a few years or longer.)
The theory, upon which the specific prediction was based, was invented more
than a century before the experiment.
--Dennis
Dennis McCarthy
ade a ade
"Tom Roberts" <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in message
news:3A836FEA...@avenew.com...
> ade a ade wrote:
> > Regarding your original post, consider the following possible titles:
> > (A) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Relativity (or even Modern Physics)
> > (B) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Any Theory
> > (C) Why the Ether is Unobservable In Ether Theory
> > I think that you clearly meant (A),
>
> No,NO, NO!!!!
>
> Read the articles, and it should be clear I mean:
>
> (D) Why the Ether is Unobservable
>
> That's why I gave it that title. The basic reason is that there is no
_VIABLE_
> ether theory which contains an ether which is observable. And there is no
> point in worrying about UNviable ether theories.
>
statement (B)
are equivalent, and Dennis' arguments hold because no self-respecting ether
theory will accept that the
ether is unobservable in the sense of your post. True, the ether theory may
not explain all known phenomena
yet (or not to the satisfaction of everybody), and in that sense may not be
*viable*. But if the theory
predicted certain phenomena which were later confirmed by observations, and
if the theory had practical
applications during its reign, then in a very pragmatic sense the theory can
be said to have been viable.
Again, whether or not a theory is viable is a philosophical question that
depends heavily on what one means by
*viable*, and there is no universal one-size-fits-all definition of
*viable*. One may choose to define this word
in such a way that, by definition, no ether theory is viable. But then the
statement that "no ether theory is viable"
will become a tautology - a mere consequence of definition with no physical
content. I am not sure if that was
your intent.
You will probably agree that every observation has a context, and that in
physics this context is necessarily a theory.
For the statement that the ether is observable or unobservable to have any
meaning, one needs to provide a context
within which the truth of the statement can be evaluated. If the context is
relativity or modern physics, then we have
my statement (A). If the context is ether theory, then we have my statement
(C). If the context is arbitrary, then we
have my statement (B). If the context is unspecified or unknown, then one
cannot evaluate the truth of the statement
and therefore the statement can be said to have no meaning. If, in spite of
the lack of a context, we try to evaluate
the truth of the statement, then we get precisely what is happening in this
thread - an endless series of arguments
that no side can possibly win !
Just out of curiosity, what difference would it make to your post if you had
meant
statement (A) instead of statement (D) or (B) ?
ade a. ade
Don P.
> They may be observable, but they aren't unique signatures of an ether.
> They're accounted for perfectly well by QED which is *not* a classical
> ether theory (you can call the vacuum an ether if you want, but it's
> nothing like any Lorentz/Maxwell ether), and as we know QED predicts
> vastly more things then Maxwell's theory.
True, but QED does have it's problems, one being it's
notion of so called "virtual particles" for the definition
of "charge" (and where the energy for these VPs originate
from), and two, QED is still of the notion (which is based in
SR) that single individual photons of EMR actually traverse
NON-zero distances.
Agreed, we can call the vacuum an "aether", however,
the aether of Lorentz/Maxwell/Minkowski, and the
aether that exists in the vacuum of space that is responsible
for the propagation of EMR (and other phenomena)
are of course, different.
The notion of "manifestly empty space" (i.e. no aether)
with regards to the propagation of EMR, has severely
limitted the ability to progress towards the physical
realities and evolution of the "space that is not manifestly
empty", i.e. the aether.
> Face facts SR is used on a day to day basis in hundreds of situations, the
> "error bars" that Tom refers to are very small. An expeirment by DeWitte
> (unpublished at that) is hardly going to convince people that they're
> wrong. Why does SR work everywhere else, execpt in the lab of somebody
> who demonstrated that he doesn't really understand the subject he was
> investigating?
No argument that SR has it's uses, however, it's
fundamental notion that single individual photons
actually *move* non-zero distances has hindered
a significant amount of theoretical research and
advancement.
Now SR, QED, etc. can take the view (a view
that is incorrect) that single individual photons of
EMR do *relatively* move non-zero distances,
however, I suggest that this is not the physical reality.
This incorrect view will *not* keep SR, QED, etc.
from working VERY well, but it will keep us from
taking the next necessary steps towards truly
understanding what constituents actually exist in
"manifestly empty space".
> Strange that.
Strange that mainstream science has been "dwelling
in the voids" with notions of "manifestly empty space"
with regards to the propagation of EMR, for so long
when the observation to suggest otherwise was right
under their noses.
The MMX and the constancy of the speed of EMR
regardless of the motion of the source/target, and the
observations of the experiments involving the particle/
wave duality or EMR, are just a few experimental obser-
vations that scream out that space is NOT manifestly
empty, and that what we call moving photons, may
only be *relativley* moving, and not *really* moving
at all.
> Why do QED, QCD and GWS Electroweak
> work so well? They're all based on SR, are
> you really sure that your ether theory lives
> withing their error bars?
The aethter lives in SR, QED, etc., and not
just in the error bars. The aether is masked
in the above with slights of hand, incorrect
fundamental notions, uncertainties, and in
notions virtuallality (a new word, I think) with
respect to reality.
In some respects, forms of the aether are observable,
i.e. light and EMR.
OTOH, the fundamental constiuents of the aether
at rest (and stable) are not directly observable. I
suggest that the aether particle's individual size is
much less than 10^-35 m, and it's internal oscillations
is much less than 10^-43 seconds. However, this does
not stop us from indirectly observing the effects of
the aether, as in the MMX, et al.
As long as SR, QED, etc. "dwell in the voids of
manifestly empty space" with regards to the
propagation of EMR, and are of the notion that
single, individual photons actually traverse non-
zero distances, the row will be tough to hoe.
Subsequently, most (if not all) of the theoretical
work will come from daring souls, who understand
that they will get ridiculed for suggesting (and knowing)
that space is NOT manifestly empty, *especially*
with regards to the propagation of EMR.
--
Kind Regards
Don Palermo
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>
>"Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010207163219...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>> Ade:
>> >My suggestion ? Let it go before many other people who can think straight
>> >call you more names. If you do
>> >that, you may just draw the debate; otherwise, you will lose outright,
>not
>> >because of any error in your
>> >reasoning, but because you are up against popular opinion - and then your
>> >whole point will be pointless.
>>
>> Dennis: Thank you. I appreciate the comment and the spirit in which it is
>> given.
>> And you are right. I have been lynched many times for sticking to my
>> arguments--and many relativists have written full-post attacks describing
>all
>> my faults in detail.
>> But it's possible that this may increase my popularity among calmer,
>more
>> judicious types.
>> Thanks again,
>> Dennis McCarthy
>
are
>after
>cheap popularity. You don't want to provide ammunition for their guns, do
>you ?
Dennis: LOL. No. No relativist would ever accuse me of that. ;-) In fact,
there are full threads devoted to exclusively to listing all my faults--and I
am probably the least popular person here.
I mean, that on these boards, I might be able to get through to a small
percentage of lurkers who are more Materialistically inclined than those who
defend relativistic conceptions. I have at least convinced a few people that
there exist more sensible, materialistic explanations to various relativistic
phenomena than the explanations commonly heard.
Unfortunately, I have only convinced many relativists that I am (insert
stream of insults here.)
Thanks for the comments,
--Dennis
Dennis McCarthy
Matthew Nobes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> Date: 09 February 2001 08:10
> Subject: Re: Why the Ether is Unobservable
>
>
> >On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Paul Stowe wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3A836FEA...@avenew.com>,
> >> Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >> > (D) Why the Ether is Unobservable
> >> >
> >> > That's why I gave it that title. The basic reason is that there
> >> > is no _VIABLE_ ether theory which contains an ether which is
> >> > observable. And there is no point in worrying about UNviable ether
> >> > theories.
> >>
> >> And clearly Tom has a myopic and irrational definition of the word
> >> 'observable'.
> >> Somehow refraction, defraction, magnetic coupling, standard wave
> >> speed definitions ... etc. are, to him, not 'observable!
> >
> >They may be observable, but they aren't unique signatures of an ether.
>
> a) according to Tom physical effects in general are not observable. Quote: '
> you were NOT discussing "confirmation of predictions",
> you were discussing "observation of physical effects". The two are
> _COMPLETELY_DIFFERENT_ (the first is possible, the second is not). '
> Tom's argument against ether theory seems to come down to this philosophical
> principle
No, you're just quoting him out of context.
> b) Nobody said they were unique signatures of an ether. Just that they are
> predicted by ether theory.
But the point is that they will also be predictions of SR. Thus the
"ether" portion is an interpretation of the experimental result.
Also note that non-ether theories of light (i.e. QED and/or the GWS
electroweak theory) are more preditive that ether theory.
> >They're accounted for perfectly well by QED which is *not* a classical
> >ether theory (you can call the vacuum an ether if you want, but it's
> >nothing like any Lorentz/Maxwell ether), and as we know QED predicts
> >vastly more things then Maxwell's theory.
> >
> >> > Remember, please, that one needs a theory to define what one means by
> >> >"ether".
> >> >
> >> > But I repeat the caveat that there might be an ether theory which
> >> > "lives in the error bars", but which does not belong to the
> >> > equivalence class. Such a theory could have an obervable ether
> >> > if one can perform experiments more accurate than curent ones....
> >> > With the possible exception of Ilja nobody around here discusses
> >> > any ether theory which has even a remote chance of doing that, and
> >> > for Ilja's theory it is totally infeasible to approach the
> >> > experimental accuracy rquired to distinguish it from GR and
> >> > observe its ether (AFAICT).
> >>
> >> Chant that mantra, amen brother, praise that 'lord'.
> >
> >You know, it's really annoying to constantly see this analogy being made.
> >You sound like a creationist, take a look at a few creationist sites Paul,
> >you'd be suprised that they use roughly the same analogy that you do.
>
> eh?
Take a look at creationist webpages. They make the same arguements
1) evolution is a religon
2) there is some ill defined conspiracy to hush up creationist views
3) said conspiracy also supresses data which conflicts with evolution
This is nearly identical to the patterns used by the etherists on this
board with regard to relativity.
> >Face facts SR is used on a day to day basis in hundreds of situations, the
> >"error bars" that Tom refers to are very small. An expeirment by DeWitte
> >(unpublished at that) is hardly going to convince people that they're
> >wrong. Why does SR work everywhere else, execpt in the lab of somebody
> >who demonstrated that he doesn't really understand the subject he was
> >investigating?
> >
> >Strange that.
> >
> >Why do QED, QCD and GWS Electroweak work so well? They're all based on
> >SR, are you really sure that your ether theory lives withing their error
> >bars?
> >
> >Really Paul, I thought you had a bit more class than Mr. Mingst, guess I
> >was wrong.
>
> If there's anything here about why the ether is unobservable I missed it
There isn't. Tom already settled that. I just get pissed when people
compare me to a relgious zealot.
Tom Clarke
> >>Dennis: Right. So ether theory's prediction of the two slit experiment,
> >>occurred before the experiment, and gets it "full credit."
>
> >For that one experiment the prediction occured
> >before probably a decade or so.
>
> Dennis: There we go. So full credit there.
> And also for the prediction of Doppler and Sagnac, right?
We need to talk about what gets full credit.
Young's experiment and Doppler only require that the theory
involve waves:
Credit wave theory.
Sagnac seems to have been a "Victorian" etherist, so:
Credit ether theory.
But of course Sagnac effect has an asterisk in the record book
because the prediction was made in the relativistic era.
> Clarke: >But of course it gets a failing mark for MM
>
> Dennis: ? We're in an argument loop because you keep repeating this false
> claim. MM is not inconsistent with an ether that's moving slowly with the
> Earth (or with an ether that has Lorentz contraction.)
One slowly moving with the earth makes no sense as Lorentz and others
have pointed out. If the ether is being dragged along with the earth then
why is not the earth slowed etc.
If the ether theory invokes a Lorentz contraction etc so that it is experimentally
indistinguishable from what relativity predicts, then well, the ether has
no observable effect, which I think means it is unobservable.
> Brillet-Hall, the most accurate MM, is inconsistent with SR and VALIDATES the
> prediction of a small ether velocity with respect to the surface of the Earth.
> So SR fails MM.
I did a search on Brillet-Hall and your characterization of it seems incorrect.
Most reports seem to cite them as a null experiment like MM.
In particular I found this that improves the null.
Experimental Test of the Isotropy of Two-way Speed of Light
by CHEN Shaoguang et al
http://www.pku.edu.cn/academic/xb/97/_97e509.html
Abstract:
By means of the common mode restraint technique the error caused
by the frequency instability of laser has been decreased to the level of
2X10-20 in (delta)v/v. By means of the heterodyne frequency shift
technique and the computer storage technique the sensitivity of beat
frequency achieved 1X10-4Hz. In our experiment the isotropy
of two-way speed of light has been proved at the level of 1X10-18 in (delta)c/c,
which represents a 2500-fold improvement on the previous best
measurement given by Brillet and Hall.
> Clarke; >and for the photelectric effect and for the
> >blackbody law.
>
> Dennis; These too have clear ether explanations--and many have been provided.
> But before we get into that, let's make sure we are clear the BH (an MM
> experiment) fails SR--not ether theory.
I am not clear. Can you provide a clear reference that shows how SR fails BH?
> >snip
> >
> >>TClarke: >I agree that Young performed his experiment int he 19th century.
> >>>But there is an implication in your statement that the gap from theory to
> >>>experiment was over a century.
> >
> >>Dennis; And there was a gap of more than a century from theory (1690) to two
> >>slit experiment (1800's)
> >
> Clarke: >I don't think there was a theory of the two slit experiment in 1690.
>
> Dennis: ??? Um, no--and that's not what I wrote.
> There...was...an...ether...theory...and...then..a..two...slit...experiment.
> The ether theory that was later used to predict the two slit experiment was
> invented in 1690. But as with all theories, people don't realize all of its
> possible predictions until later times.
> (...)
OK. As as to the not realizing all possible predictions,
but we still differ about what theory is being talked about.
I see it as a wave theory that happened to have an etheric basis.
You see the ether part as more fundamental, I think.
> >>Clarke: >Do you have a source showing that the two-slit experiment was
> >>proposed in the 17th century?
>
> >>Dennis: That's certainly not relevant to any theory criteria--including
> >>yours.
>
> Clarke: >It certainly is. If something was not theorized
> >about, then it is not theoretical at that time.
>
> Dennis: Sigh. The only relevant thing (to your criteria) is that the specific
> prediction was made **before** the experiment. It doesn't matter whether it
> was 100 years or 1 year before.
But it does or you wouldn't mention it. A specific prediction that
anticipates by 100 years is a lot more remarkable than one that
anticipated by only a year.
> >>You certainly don't give more than full credit, depending on how long before
> >>an
> >>experiment, the experiment is proposed, do you?
> >> If so, why?
>
> Clarke: >You are the one who keeps mentioning
> >"a gap of more than a century from theory (1690)
> > to ...experiment (1800's)"
>
> >You seem to think this has some rhetorical value.
>
> Dennis: ?? I keep repeating it because you keep writing comments that seem to
> contradict it--and it is an historical fact that the ether theory was invented
> in 1690.
But it is not a plain out and out bald fact. The specific experimental
results were not predicted in 1690. For that matter they were not predicted in
in 1618 by Francesco Maria Grimaldi.
> In fact, you didn't even know when you started the discussion that Huygens
> used the ether theory back then.
OK, that illustrates that the idea of ether is not necessary to wave theory.
I learned that Huyghens orginated the wave theory where every point of the
wavefront was the original of a new wave, and applied his theory to optics
in various ways. Being a person educated in the physics in the 20th century
I didn't think one way or the other about whether Huyghens believed in an
ether or not because I know an ether is not necessary to a wave theory of
light.
> Clarke; >Since we are in a debate, I don't concede the
> >point since the specific prediction of the phenomena
> >in Young's experiment did not preceed the experiment
> >by "more than a century".
>
> Dennis: I never wrote the "specific prediction."
No I did. I was emphasizing the distinction I am trying to make.
> So here is where we are agreed:
> The "specific prediction" of the two slit experiment preceded the two slit
> experiment (perhaps by a few years or longer.)
OK. Probably both by Young - why propose an experiment you can't perform <grin>
> The theory, upon which the specific prediction was based, was invented more
> than a century before the experiment.
OK. But no doubt we still differ about the nature of that theory.
I say wave theory assuming ether.
You say ether supporting waves.
Tom Clarke
Dennis McCarthy
>Dennis McCarthy <djm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> [...]
>> I'll let readers conclude from the comments above Bourhis's devotion
>> to modern physics theory and they type of arguments he will employ in
>> its defense.
>
Bourhis: >You have just illustrated my point. Your examples just show that, as
any
>decent sophist, you have been very good at taking advantages of the
>weakness of my debating technics in order to trap me.
Dennis: I see. So your quotes that you deleted, showed that:
1) you originally agreed you would consider SR falsified if an anisotropic
signal in experiments like BH were found
2) then when I proved to you that anisotropy signals were discovered in BH, you
backtracked, claiming that the opinions of experts and the experimentalists
were more important than experimental contradiction.
And these quotes of yours illustrate *your* point that *I* "defend" points
with "religious zealotry by means of debating technics which are not
scientific by any standard. Oversimplifications, omissions, biased
extrapolations are the bread and butter of your postings." And the reason
these rather interesting comments of *yours* reflects upon *me* is because I
clearly had to trick you into making these comments, "taking advantages of the
weakness of [your] debating technics."
All right, then, I apologize for "trap"ing you--and using such reprehensible
tactics (whatever specifically they may have been in that discussion.) So
let's forget you gave the answer you did, regarding expert opinion and
experimental contradiction--and just change your answer.
Let me repeat the questions so that you can now answer them in a way so as to
avoid all the snares and pitfalls with which I had surrounded the question:
Again,
1) Given the Brillet-Hall results and Pioneer effect, how many contradictions
or inconsistencies are the theories of relativity allowed?
2) If we conduct another MM type experiment and find anisotropy yet again,
would this falsify SR? Or should we just accept as many hypotheses of unknown
instrument effects (that occur in a repeated fashion at twice the rotation of
the table) as necessary?
Bourhis: Then you can claim
>victory although you have not shown any scientific work whatsoever.
Dennis: 1) I didn't "claim victory." I just let the points stand for
themselves.
2) Without any "scientific work whatsoever"? It actually took me a while to
explain to you that an unmistakable and repeating anisotropic signal was found
in Brillet Hall. And you said at the time that despite your previous claims
about Brillet-Hall, that I did indeed point out an issue.
Dennis McCarthy