Ask yourself, was LET _ever_ popular?
Joe Fischer
There was always ether, at least by the dark ages,
but the attempt by Lorentz barely had a chance to become
known before Planck and Einstein showed the quanta didn't
need ether.
Add your own impressions. :-)
Joe Fischer
--
3
greywolf42
Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3ba9b...@news.iglou.com...
Whether a given theory was ever "popular" is irrelevant. Science judges on
the merits of the theory or argument. Sycophants judge by who or how many
agree with a point of view.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer wrote:
:> There was always ether, at least by the dark ages,
:> but the attempt by Lorentz barely had a chance to become
:> known before Planck and Einstein showed the quanta didn't
:> need ether.
:> Add your own impressions. :-)
: Whether a given theory was ever "popular" is irrelevant. Science judges on
: the merits of the theory or argument. Sycophants judge by who or how many
: agree with a point of view.
Actually it is relevant to the scientific community,
if a theory has merit, it becomes popular with scientists.
But I just started this thread so the etherists
would be able to find at least one ether newsgroup, now
if they can just get somebody to tie their shoelaces. :-)
Joe Fischer
--
3
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>: Joe Fischer wrote:
>:> There was always ether, at least by the dark ages,
>:> but the attempt by Lorentz barely had a chance to become
>:> known before Planck and Einstein showed the quanta didn't
>:> need ether.
>:> Add your own impressions. :-)
>:
>: Whether a given theory was ever "popular" is irrelevant. Science
>: judges on the merits of the theory or argument. Sycophants judge
>: by who or how many agree with a point of view.
>
> Actually it is relevant to the scientific community,
> if a theory has merit, it becomes popular with scientists.
Really? By that measure (and one must add, absolutely STOOOPID logic
and reasoning) ether theories are the most sucessful, being 'popular'
with the vast majority of 'scientists that have lived in the last
400 years.
> But I just started this thread so the etherists would be able to
> find at least one ether newsgroup, now if they can just get somebody
> to tie their shoelaces. :-)
Considering the source (from someone that somehow thinks expanding
matter can account for gravity but can't explain how) I'll take the
reasoning ability of most etherist posting here over your anytime...
Paul Stowe
greywolf42
Spoken like a true sycophant. Even the Ptolemaic model had "merit." It was
far more precise than the Copernican heresy. And it was far more popular.
More recently, one can point to the very popular theory of magnetic
monopoles (postulated via "symmetries" in the early standard model).
Theories don't lose merit when they become less popular.
Nor does the mass of bureaucratic PhD's, valiantly trying to not offend
grant-awarding committees meet any definition of "scientists."
Joe Fischer
:Joe Fischer wrote:
:>etherwolf wrote:
:>: Joe Fischer wrote:
:>:> There was always ether, at least by the dark ages,
:>:> but the attempt by Lorentz barely had a chance to become
:>:> known before Planck and Einstein showed the quanta didn't
:>:> need ether.
:>:> Add your own impressions. :-)
:>:
:>: Whether a given theory was ever "popular" is irrelevant. Science
:>: judges on the merits of the theory or argument. Sycophants judge
:>: by who or how many agree with a point of view.
:>
:> Actually it is relevant to the scientific community,
:> if a theory has merit, it becomes popular with scientists.
:
: Really? By that measure (and one must add, absolutely STOOOPID logic
: and reasoning) ether theories are the most sucessful, being 'popular'
: with the vast majority of 'scientists that have lived in the last
: 400 years.
But not with any "scientists" still living.
:> But I just started this thread so the etherists would be able to
:> find at least one ether newsgroup, now if they can just get somebody
:> to tie their shoelaces. :-)
:
: Considering the source (from someone that somehow thinks expanding
: matter can account for gravity but can't explain how) I'll take the
: reasoning ability of most etherist posting here over your anytime...
: Paul Stowe
I wish they would quit posting over my anytime,
but it is still a free country. What would be nice
is that they all supported the same ether theory, but
the reason they post is to try to show how brilliant
their pet theory is, and what mathematical genius they
possess, inflating their ego.
None are scientists, and none have intentions
other than self gratification.
Now lets talk about something logical and rational,
like gravity being caused by the Earth doubling in size
every 10 minutes or so. :-)
Joe Fischer
--
3
Tom Roberts
> By that measure [...]
> with the vast majority of 'scientists that have lived in the last
> 400 years.
That is most definitely false. Just as over half of all the people who
have ever lived are alive today, so too are over half of all the
scientists who ever lived. And ether theories are not "popular" at
all among scientists today.
I'm not certain about that "half", but it is surely close.
Especially for scientists.
Yes, ether theories were "popular" over several centuries, but not in
the form we know them today -- for that one had to wait until the
early-to-mid 1800's as the properties of electricity and magnetism
were being explored; and their "popularity" waned in the first few
decades of the 1900's, in favor of SR. Remember Newton believed in a
"corpuscular theory" of light, not an ethereal one.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
dave orton
most anyone can see he's retarded. he's an old angry dying man that
failed.
he gave my daughter a hard time on deja years ago and has payed dearly
since.
the rotation of the cavendish balance rules out "matter expansion" as
a cause of gravitation and who needs a place without space energy. a
place cannot exist at any time without energy density.
that is where he's at, no place. <grin> he really asked for it.
accelerated expansion of regenerative energy densities causing six
dimensional motion of spacemass densities resulting in time measured
motion of compound entities is not in their ancient historical "modern
(1950-1970), physics" library books. very little of my stuff will be
released before 2042.
i just look in to laugh at this backward forum now and then.
if we knew it all we wouldn't be in research!
dr. a. einstein
i also leave an escape route for the few sane folks:
if you like, see the following at this university site:
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_why15.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_elspacec.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_unified.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_unified2.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_haupt.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_elmodel.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_why12.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/index.html
dave orton
anyone with at least half a brain can figure out how to e-mail me.
any of my info is backed by my employer....ME! ... take a hike flunky.
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<9olgf5$h9k$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
Joe Fischer
:> : Joe Fischer wrote:
:> :> There was always ether, at least by the dark ages,
:> :> but the attempt by Lorentz barely had a chance to become
:> :> known before Planck and Einstein showed the quanta didn't
:> :> need ether.
:> :> Add your own impressions. :-)
:> :
:> : Whether a given theory was ever "popular" is irrelevant. Science
:> : judges on the merits of the theory or argument.
:> : Sycophants judge by who or how many agree with a point of view.
:>
:> Actually it is relevant to the scientific community,
:> if a theory has merit, it becomes popular with scientists.
:>
:> But I just started this thread so the etherists
:> would be able to find at least one ether newsgroup, now
:> if they can just get somebody to tie their shoelaces. :-)
: Spoken like a true sycophant.
Is that something like a crazy elephant?
: Even the Ptolemaic model had "merit."
Of course it did, and as long as it was
the best tool available, it was right to use it.
: It was far more precise than the Copernican heresy.
I don't know about that.
: And it was far more popular.
Popular with whom?
: More recently, one can point to the very popular theory of magnetic
: monopoles (postulated via "symmetries" in the early standard model).
: Theories don't lose merit when they become less popular.
Of course not, they never had more merit in the first place.
: Nor does the mass of bureaucratic PhD's, valiantly trying to not offend
: grant-awarding committees meet any definition of "scientists."
Well, stupid, what does that have to do
with whether or not they use ether theory?
I would be willing to bet that if all of Congress,
the leasers of NSF and other funding entities demanded
that ether theory be the only theory used, most physicists
would quit rather than indulge in reverting to the insanity
of basing anything on an invisible and undetectable medium.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Luc Bourhis
> Nor does the mass of bureaucratic PhD's, valiantly trying to not offend
> grant-awarding committees meet any definition of "scientists."
This is always vociferated by those who have not got a PhD. There is
definitively a pattern there. Something like envy, frustration, need to
get a life, etc. I do sincerely pity you and your kind.
--
Luc J. Bourhis
xxein
I don't know why anyone would want to consider an ether. SR-GR offers
so much. And SR-GR is clear and concise also. As a matter of fact,
any answer may be obtained by merely clicking to the relevant site.
For example: click and drag my finger...
Bilge
Re: Ask yourself, was LET _ever_ popular? to usenet:
Spoken by a true sophist, dependent upon slogans.
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer wrote:
:> There was always ether, at least by the dark ages,
:> but the attempt by Lorentz barely had a chance to become
:> known before Planck and Einstein showed the quanta didn't
:> need ether.
:> Add your own impressions. :-)
: I don't know why anyone would want to consider an ether.
There was a time. But it is rather simple, most
of the etherists have one lofty objective, and that is
to explain things like "why does the moon move in a ellipse",
and other things that they would like to know the mechanism of.
But an ether does nothing in this respect.
: SR-GR offers so much. And SR-GR is clear and concise also.
Not to those with a web site and an agenda other
than fact and truth.
: As a matter of fact,
: any answer may be obtained by merely clicking to the relevant site.
: For example: click and drag my finger...
Another site? :-)
Joe Fischer
--
3
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
xxein <xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cce403e3.01092...@posting.google.com...
> Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:<3ba9b...@news.iglou.com>...
> > There was always ether, at least by the dark ages,
> > but the attempt by Lorentz barely had a chance to become
> > known before Planck and Einstein showed the quanta didn't
> > need ether.
> > Add your own impressions. :-)
> >
> > Joe Fischer
>
> I don't know why anyone would want to consider an ether. SR-GR offers
> so much. And SR-GR is clear and concise also.
Yes and GR clearly and concisely predicts Global Non-Conservation of Energy.
Personally, I don't like this. You may love it. Good for you. An ether
theory of gravity erases this problem. Ether changes the way one thinks and
causes one to question many things. To me, this is a good thing, because
it will in my opinion inspire many advances in physics.
No one hears me saying that SR is a false theory. What one hears me saying
is that it no more than a different way of modeling the Lorentzian Ether.
There is truly no way for us to distinguish between the two theories
regarding predictions. I can tell you without question, that in the same
way that SR's postulates can be derived from the Lorentzian ether
postulates, so can the Lorentzian ether postulates be derived from SR's
postulates. They are related as the mathematics clearly shows us.
The battle which rages is whether we will allow SR to deny that which it
clearly depends upon to be true, namely, the Lorentzian ether. And whether
one will be _allowed_ to contemplate a Lorentzian ether. Very little of the
discussion on the part of SR propenents have been rational regarding the
Lorentzian ether.
The unfortunate situation is that freedom of thought is not allowed, it is
in fact ridiculed, in spite of the validity of the Lorentzian ether
regarding the outcomes of predictions. Which is, truly shameful,
irrational, and unscientific.
Joe Fischer
PHILLIP V GLASGOW <pas...@prodigy.net> wrote:
: xxein wrote:
:> Joe Fischer wrote:
:> > There was always ether, at least by the dark ages,
:> > but the attempt by Lorentz barely had a chance to become
:> > known before Planck and Einstein showed the quanta didn't
:> > need ether.
:> > Add your own impressions. :-)
:>
:> I don't know why anyone would want to consider an ether. SR-GR offers
:> so much. And SR-GR is clear and concise also.
:
: Yes and GR clearly and concisely predicts Global Non-Conservation of Energy.
: Personally, I don't like this.
I don't like the fact that we apparently don't have
a formalized theory that conserves energy globally, but in
any theory where "space" is not defined as being like the
rigid 3-D Euclidean space, there isn't any reason to give
global conservation of energy a role as strict as kinetic
theory in Newtonian mechanics.
: You may love it. Good for you.
I doubt if it is the most satisfactory part.
: An ether theory of gravity erases this problem.
Not without rigidly defined "space", which is
not considered valid any more, and has been proven
invalid by experiment.
: Ether changes the way one thinks and causes one
: to question many things.
Questioning is good, but sometimes learning
should come before thinking, unless you are afraid
of facts.
: To me, this is a good thing, because
: it will in my opinion inspire many advances in physics.
Well, if it hasn't by now, can science afford to wait?
: No one hears me saying that SR is a false theory. What one
: hears me saying is that it no more than a different way
: of modeling the Lorentzian Ether.
As far as the kinematics and mathematics go, and
in SR as modeled in _Euclidean_ space, relativists seem
to agree, but the many an varied phenomenae demonstrate
that there is a difference in fact.
: There is truly no way for us to distinguish between
: the two theories regarding predictions.
Of course there is, find the 3 or 4 volumes
of the Princeton University Press publications of
the "Complete Writings of Albert Einstein" and read.
: I can tell you without question, that in the same
: way that SR's postulates can be derived from the
: Lorentzian ether postulates, so can the Lorentzian ether
: postulates be derived from SR's postulates.
: They are related as the mathematics clearly shows us.
Which is not enough, each separate phenomenon
must be evaluated and subjected to experiment many
times, by different people, and the results documented.
Then after 80 or 90 years, the documented results
determine the assumption that should be given priority
until and unless better evidence shows otherwise.
: The battle which rages is whether we will allow SR to
: deny that which it clearly depends upon to be true,
: namely, the Lorentzian ether.
That is false, nothing denies nothing, the
ether failed because it depended on assumptions which
were not needed, and which had no basis foe existence.
Both SR and ether theory require a rigid space
identical to Euclidean space, and SR works just as well,
without the assumption of a medium.
: And whether one will be _allowed_ to contemplate
: a Lorentzian ether.
Where are you anyway, as far as I know, anybody
and everybody is able to contemplate anything they want,
regardless of whether or not they are _allowed_!
Or do you mean, allowed to force people to
comtemplate ether whether they want to or not?
: Very little of the discussion on the part of SR
: propenents have been rational regarding the Lorentzian ether.
Do you mean I am not rational if I say it doesn't exist?
: The unfortunate situation is that freedom of thought is not allowed,
You seem to be exercising considerable freedom,
but you are acting like a baby because you can't force
ythe ether nonsense on other people.
You can go to the newsgroup(s) with ether in
the title and "think" your style all you want and
I doubt if any relativist will interfere as long
as you don't crosspost to other groups.
: it is in fact ridiculed,
As things regarded as stupid usually are.
: in spite of the validity of the Lorentzian
: ether regarding the outcomes of predictions.
Your opinion on the validity, but perhaps
you are confusing the duality of light in some way.
: Which is, truly shameful, irrational, and unscientific.
So you can't get a job using ether theory?
I can't find a job testing mattresses, so I
am complaining also.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Tom Roberts
> Yes and GR clearly and concisely predicts Global Non-Conservation of Energy.
Hmmm. The problem is not in the "conservation" part, it is in the "energy"
part -- there is no way to define "energy" in a self consistent manner
throughout a general curved manifold (it can be defined for certain ones).
In fact, there are precious few global quantities which can be defined
unambiguously, and AFAIK they are all of a topological nature and are
useless for dynamics (e.g Betti number).
> An ether
> theory of gravity erases this problem.
If so, it must look VERY different from GR, and then how can you be
assured that you can "tune" it to agree with the myriad highly-accurate
experiments which are already known to agree with GR? Your claim is
completely empty until and unless you can display such a theory and show
it is in accord with _ALL_ of the experiments.
> Ether changes the way one thinks and
> causes one to question many things. To me, this is a good thing, because
> it will in my opinion inspire many advances in physics.
The historical record refutes your claim. As does the performance of the
many ether advocates around here. It seems that ether rots the brain....
> No one hears me saying that SR is a false theory. What one hears me saying
> is that it no more than a different way of modeling the Lorentzian Ether.
That is simply not true. SR is based upon symmetries of the world, while
LET is a collection of guesses which were carefully tuned to obtain
agreement with experiments. Lorentz made a shrewd _GUESS_ about the
functional form of his transforms, one which has no justification
whatsoever to be applied to non-electromagnetic phenomena (other than
another _GUESS_).
LET is "tuned" in the sense that two functions were arbitrarily
chosen by the condition that the resulting theory agreed with
experiment. That is, Lorentz chose specific values for an infinite
set of parameters.
> The battle which rages is whether we will allow SR to deny that which it
> clearly depends upon to be true, namely, the Lorentzian ether.
1) there is no "battle".
2) SR has no dependence whatsoever on the Lorentzian ether. Yes, if either
LET or SR is valid so is the other, but this does not display "dependence"
in the way you use the term above (in the naive sense of "causation").
> And whether
> one will be _allowed_ to contemplate a Lorentzian ether. Very little of the
> discussion on the part of SR propenents have been rational regarding the
> Lorentzian ether.
On the other hand, very little of the discussion on the part of LET
advocates has been "rational", knowledgeable, or correct. At least
around here. Present company NOT excepted, of course.
> The unfortunate situation is that freedom of thought is not allowed, it is
> in fact ridiculed, in spite of the validity of the Lorentzian ether
> regarding the outcomes of predictions. Which is, truly shameful,
> irrational, and unscientific.
That is both absurd and just plain wrong. Witness your own ability to
post messages.... The fact that most physicists don't want to be bothered
with ancient, outmoded, known-to-be-useless ideas does not support your
claim in the least.
As soon as you can show how an ether theory can naturally handle
quantum phenomena, you might gather a mainstream audience. But
not until then....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in message
news:3BB1387B...@avenew.com...
> PHILLIP V GLASGOW wrote:
>
> > No one hears me saying that SR is a false theory. What one hears me
saying
> > is that it no more than a different way of modeling the Lorentzian
Ether.
>
> That is simply not true. SR is based upon symmetries of the world,
Not the world necessarily. Only the symmetries of measurements taken by
observers, it is after all our measurements which confirm the model. You
can say no more than this about the symmetries of SR.
>while
> LET is a collection of guesses which were carefully tuned to obtain
> agreement with experiments.
The ether is a guess, but I don't think that foreshortening is a guess. It
must be true if the Ether and the hidden postulates are true. It is a
derived, not an assumed understanding, which is required by _reality_ if one
postulates an ether.
>Lorentz made a shrewd _GUESS_ about the
> functional form of his transforms, one which has no justification
> whatsoever to be applied to non-electromagnetic phenomena (other than
> another _GUESS_).
The functional form of his transforms clearly indicate the equivalence of
all inertial frames for EM laws. One need not guess about this. In fact,
history recognizes that Lorentz explained to Einstein that the
transformations mean that the laws of EM are true for each and every
inertial observer. History also indicates that Einstein discovered that the
transforms indicated that the speed of light is a constant independent of
the velocities of source or state of observers motion. This is an easy
theorem of the Lorentzian Ether. SR can only differentiate itself from LET
in that it assumes the principle of relativity, but you must confess, it is
the relativity of Lorentz's model for EM which inspired Einstein postulates.
What justification does Einstein have in assuming the principle of
relativity? Why do you insist it does not apply to the Lorentzian Ether
except for EM phenomena, which is merely classical ether wherein objects
foreshorten as a function of motion wrt the ERF. What prevents one who
evaluates the world from the perspective of a Lorentzian ether model from
acknowledging the principle of relativity?
> LET is "tuned" in the sense that two functions were arbitrarily
> chosen by the condition that the resulting theory agreed with
> experiment. That is, Lorentz chose specific values for an infinite
> set of parameters.
If by two functions you are referring to the transformations, the word
arbitrarily chosen doesn't describe them at all. It is true that the
foreshortening relationship results from the MMX experiment. Reality
demands this relationship if the ether hypothesis is to be assumed. The
Lorentz transformations follow logically from there without tuning a thing.
When one thinks about it, the words "_arbitrarily chosen_ by the condition
that the resulting theory agreed with experiment", describes Einstein's
postulates to a tee. He knew the law of EM were a relativity as he was
taught by Lorentz and he knew Lorentz's model predicted the constancy of the
speed of light. He also knew the predictive power of Lorentz's model
regarding phenomena. His postulate were chosen by the condition that the
resulting theory agreed with experiment.
> > The battle which rages is whether we will allow SR to deny that which it
> > clearly depends upon to be true, namely, the Lorentzian ether.
>
> 1) there is no "battle".
> 2) SR has no dependence whatsoever on the Lorentzian ether. Yes, if either
> LET or SR is valid so is the other, but this does not display "dependence"
> in the way you use the term above (in the naive sense of "causation").
To me it is not a matter of causation. It is a mathematical certainty.
After thinking about it I would prefer to say:
The battle which rages is whether we will allow SR to deny that which it
clearly depends upon to be true, namely, a rest frame equivalent to the
Lorentzian ERF
> > The unfortunate situation is that freedom of thought is not allowed, it
is
> > in fact ridiculed, in spite of the validity of the Lorentzian ether
> > regarding the outcomes of predictions. Which is, truly shameful,
> > irrational, and unscientific.
>
> That is both absurd and just plain wrong. Witness your own ability to
> post messages.... The fact that most physicists don't want to be bothered
> with ancient, outmoded, known-to-be-useless ideas does not support your
> claim in the least.
The point I was making is clearly demonstrated above. It is full of
un-scientific descriptions, e.g. ancient, outmoded, known-to-be-useless.
All of which have no useful or significant scientific meaning. Regarding
his claim of uselessness, Einstein certainly found the Lorentzian Ether
quite useful. It is the source of his postulates. It truly is shameful the
way people here do not give Lorentz the honor for which he entitled
regarding his contributions to _modern_ physics.
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote
> > SR is based upon symmetries of the world,
> Not the world necessarily. Only the symmetries of measurements taken by
> observers,
Go back and _READ_ the postulates of SR in Einstein's 1905 paper. They
do not mention "observations", they mention _STATES_.
It is LET which only has Lorentz symmetry for measurements; SR is far
more general, as I said before.
> it is after all our measurements which confirm the model.
Yes, of course.
> > LET is a collection of guesses which were carefully tuned to obtain
> > agreement with experiments.
> The ether is a guess, but I don't think that foreshortening is a guess. It
> must be true if the Ether and the hidden postulates are true.
Not true -- the pre-Lorentz ether theory used by Michelson and others
had no such foreshortening, but satisfies the hidden postulates. Even
plain old Galilean relativity satisfies them.
> What justification does Einstein have in assuming the principle of
> relativity?
The fact that it appears to be valid in every experiment we perform,
INCLUDING the electromagnetic experiments, which is why the relationship
between Galilean relativity and Maxwell's equations was so problematical.
> What prevents one who
> evaluates the world from the perspective of a Lorentzian ether model from
> acknowledging the principle of relativity?
The fact that in LET the ether frame is unique.
> > LET is "tuned" in the sense that two functions were arbitrarily
> > chosen by the condition that the resulting theory agreed with
> > experiment. That is, Lorentz chose specific values for an infinite
> > set of parameters.
> If by two functions you are referring to the transformations, the word
> arbitrarily chosen doesn't describe them at all.
Sure it does -- they were specifically chosen to agree with experiments
(via the intermediary of Maxwell's equations). But there is an infinite
class of transforms ("functions"), and Lorentz made an _ARBITRARY_
choice among that class. The fact that at the time he didn't realize
this entire class existed does not change this.
> The foreshortening relationship results from the MMX experiment. Reality
> demands this relationship if the ether hypothesis is to be assumed. The
> Lorentz transformations follow logically from there without tuning a thing.
Not true. Look at the equivalence class I have presented several times
around here. To obtain LET one must _ASSUME_ that q'=0 (remember that the
free parameter q' describes the one-way anisotropy in the speed of light
in the frame in question). And one surely needs a time-dilation hypotheses;
remember that one cannot use the group-theory arguments which lead quickly
and directly to SR, because the ether frame is unique....
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Glird
writes:
>> What prevents one who
>> evaluates the world from the perspective of a Lorentzian ether model from
>> acknowledging the principle of relativity?
>
>The fact that in LET the ether frame is unique.
>
Evidently Tom doesn't understand that the principle of relativity,
that our mathematical laws of nature should have the same form
regardless of the state of motion of a chosen frame of reference, applies
just as well to the ether frame as to any other.
'
xxein
that you seem to imply you have. Stone-age ether is all you know?
> : Ether changes the way one thinks and causes one
> : to question many things.
>
> Questioning is good, but sometimes learning
> should come before thinking, unless you are afraid
> of facts.
xxein: One could learn many things, but inevitably the *facts* clash.
> : To me, this is a good thing, because
> : it will in my opinion inspire many advances in physics.
>
> Well, if it hasn't by now, can science afford to wait?
>
> : No one hears me saying that SR is a false theory. What one
> : hears me saying is that it no more than a different way
> : of modeling the Lorentzian Ether.
>
> As far as the kinematics and mathematics go, and
> in SR as modeled in _Euclidean_ space, relativists seem
> to agree, but the many an varied phenomenae demonstrate
> that there is a difference in fact.
>
> : There is truly no way for us to distinguish between
> : the two theories regarding predictions.
>
> Of course there is, find the 3 or 4 volumes
> of the Princeton University Press publications of
> the "Complete Writings of Albert Einstein" and read.
>
> : I can tell you without question, that in the same
> : way that SR's postulates can be derived from the
> : Lorentzian ether postulates, so can the Lorentzian ether
> : postulates be derived from SR's postulates.
> : They are related as the mathematics clearly shows us.
xxein: No! Not quite so. SR #2 flatly says that c is c in all
inertial frames, but if it said *measured as c*, then I would concede
to you.
> Which is not enough, each separate phenomenon
> must be evaluated and subjected to experiment many
> times, by different people, and the results documented.
> Then after 80 or 90 years, the documented results
> determine the assumption that should be given priority
> until and unless better evidence shows otherwise.
xxein: I could extent that to mean that we have knowledge of velocity
addition (all well and good), and I can extend that even further to
point out that we don't know what gravity is yet. The analogy here is
that we finger point in theory without a clue.
> : The battle which rages is whether we will allow SR to
> : deny that which it clearly depends upon to be true,
> : namely, the Lorentzian ether.
xxein: I doubt that the Lorentzian ether is any more than the
previous finger point (gravity).
> That is false, nothing denies nothing, the
> ether failed because it depended on assumptions which
> were not needed, and which had no basis foe existence.
> Both SR and ether theory require a rigid space
> identical to Euclidean space, and SR works just as well,
> without the assumption of a medium.
xxein: Ether, locally and SR, locally. GR has no real basis for
gravity and a rigid ether is no better.
> : And whether one will be _allowed_ to contemplate
> : a Lorentzian ether.
xxein: Why Lorentzian?
> Where are you anyway, as far as I know, anybody
> and everybody is able to contemplate anything they want,
> regardless of whether or not they are _allowed_!
xxein: I did.
> Or do you mean, allowed to force people to
> comtemplate ether whether they want to or not?
xxein: That seems to be the modus operandi of this ng that bears a
name. Or is this ng a cult?
> : Very little of the discussion on the part of SR
> : propenents have been rational regarding the Lorentzian ether.
xxein: They see far enough ahead. Lorentz had no gravity either.
> Do you mean I am not rational if I say it doesn't exist?
xxein: Exactly so. You do not have enough info to rule anything out.
> : The unfortunate situation is that freedom of thought is not allowed,
>
> You seem to be exercising considerable freedom,
> but you are acting like a baby because you can't force
> ythe ether nonsense on other people.
> You can go to the newsgroup(s) with ether in
> the title and "think" your style all you want and
> I doubt if any relativist will interfere as long
> as you don't crosspost to other groups.
>
> : it is in fact ridiculed,
>
> As things regarded as stupid usually are.
xxein: Until shown otherwise. Don't get upset. It's just that we
tend not to learn some histories.
> : in spite of the validity of the Lorentzian
> : ether regarding the outcomes of predictions.
>
> Your opinion on the validity, but perhaps
> you are confusing the duality of light in some way.
>
> : Which is, truly shameful, irrational, and unscientific.
>
> So you can't get a job using ether theory?
>
> I can't find a job testing mattresses, so I
> am complaining also.
>
> Joe Fischer
xxein: All in all, just a conflict in opinion using ambiguous *facts*
as refference.
Joe Fischer
:> a formalized theory that conserves energy globally, but in
:> any theory where "space" is not defined as being like the
:> rigid 3-D Euclidean space, there isn't any reason to give
:> global conservation of energy a role as strict as kinetic
:> theory in Newtonian mechanics.
:>
:> : You may love it. Good for you.
:>
:> I doubt if it is the most satisfactory part.
:>
:> : An ether theory of gravity erases this problem.
:>
:> Not without rigidly defined "space", which is
:> not considered valid any more, and has been proven
:> invalid by experiment.
:
: xxein: Joe, I can tell that you haven't given ether the consideration
: that you seem to imply you have. Stone-age ether is all you know?
If I gave it 30 seconds it would be too much.
:> : Ether changes the way one thinks and causes one
:> : to question many things.
:>
:> Questioning is good, but sometimes learning
:> should come before thinking, unless you are afraid
:> of facts.
:
: xxein: One could learn many things, but inevitably the *facts* clash.
Facts never clash, only impressions and interpretations do.
:> : There is truly no way for us to distinguish between
:> : the two theories regarding predictions.
:>
:> Of course there is, find the 3 or 4 volumes
:> of the Princeton University Press publications of
:> the "Complete Writings of Albert Einstein" and read.
:>
:> : I can tell you without question, that in the same
:> : way that SR's postulates can be derived from the
:> : Lorentzian ether postulates, so can the Lorentzian ether
:> : postulates be derived from SR's postulates.
:> : They are related as the mathematics clearly shows us.
:
: xxein: No! Not quite so. SR #2 flatly says that c is c in all
: inertial frames, but if it said *measured as c*, then I would concede
: to you.
I suggest that c is always what is measured,
but I yield to any physicist on this.
:> Which is not enough, each separate phenomenon
:> must be evaluated and subjected to experiment many
:> times, by different people, and the results documented.
:> Then after 80 or 90 years, the documented results
:> determine the assumption that should be given priority
:> until and unless better evidence shows otherwise.
:
: xxein: I could extent that to mean that we have knowledge of velocity
: addition (all well and good), and I can extend that even further to
: point out that we don't know what gravity is yet. The analogy here is
: that we finger point in theory without a clue.
Yes, groping in the dark, and that is why
good writings areso good.
:> : The battle which rages is whether we will allow SR to
:> : deny that which it clearly depends upon to be true,
:> : namely, the Lorentzian ether.
:
: xxein: I doubt that the Lorentzian ether is any more than the
: previous finger point (gravity).
I doubt if there is any ether.
:> That is false, nothing denies nothing, the
:> ether failed because it depended on assumptions which
:> were not needed, and which had no basis foe existence.
:> Both SR and ether theory require a rigid space
:> identical to Euclidean space, and SR works just as well,
:> without the assumption of a medium.
:
: xxein: Ether, locally and SR, locally. GR has no real basis for
: gravity and a rigid ether is no better.
GR is on the right track, it just doesn't
go far enough away from coordinate space, fields,
and mediums that exert forces.
:> : And whether one will be _allowed_ to contemplate
:> : a Lorentzian ether.
:
: xxein: Why Lorentzian?
Didn't you write that?
:> Where are you anyway, as far as I know, anybody
:> and everybody is able to contemplate anything they want,
:> regardless of whether or not they are _allowed_!
:
: xxein: I did.
:
:> Or do you mean, allowed to force people to
:> comtemplate ether whether they want to or not?
:
: xxein: That seems to be the modus operandi of this ng that bears a
: name. Or is this ng a cult?
I am beginning to think it is the stupid ether
believers cult. You can think anything you want,
but there will come a time when nobody else wants
to talk about something that doesn't exist.
:> : Very little of the discussion on the part of SR
:> : propenents have been rational regarding the Lorentzian ether.
:
: xxein: They see far enough ahead. Lorentz had no gravity either.
Didn't you write that?
:> Do you mean I am not rational if I say it doesn't exist?
:
: xxein: Exactly so. You do not have enough info to rule anything out.
I do not rule anything in unless the info says to.
:> : The unfortunate situation is that freedom of thought is not allowed,
:>
:> You seem to be exercising considerable freedom,
:> but you are acting like a baby because you can't force
:> ythe ether nonsense on other people.
:> You can go to the newsgroup(s) with ether in
:> the title and "think" your style all you want and
:> I doubt if any relativist will interfere as long
:> as you don't crosspost to other groups.
:>
:> : it is in fact ridiculed,
:>
:> As things regarded as stupid usually are.
:
: xxein: Until shown otherwise. Don't get upset. It's just that we
: tend not to learn some histories.
I have been reading hundreds of pages where
Einstein found one aspect after another where ether
would not work, and the great scientists of the time
agreed with him
:> : in spite of the validity of the Lorentzian
:> : ether regarding the outcomes of predictions.
:>
:> Your opinion on the validity, but perhaps
:> you are confusing the duality of light in some way.
:>
:> : Which is, truly shameful, irrational, and unscientific.
:>
:> So you can't get a job using ether theory?
:>
:> I can't find a job testing mattresses, so I
:> am complaining also.
:>
:> Joe Fischer
:
: xxein: All in all, just a conflict in opinion using ambiguous *facts*
: as refference.
Discussing something that does not exist is
not ambiguous, it is futile and vain.
I am far more into electromechanical processes,
which provide the physics that etherists claim ether
provides.
I hope this all helps everyone tire of ether,
frankly i am going to tear the Lorentz papers out of
one of my copies of the Dover paperback.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Ilja Schmelzer
> I don't know why anyone would want to consider an ether. SR-GR offers
> so much.
They don't offer a way to quantum gravity.
They are incompatible with classical realism. A consequence of the
violation of Bells inequality. A realistic hidden variable theory
(like Bohmian mechanics) needs a preferred frame.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Ilja Schmelzer
> > Yes and GR clearly and concisely predicts Global Non-Conservation of Energy.
>
> Hmmm. The problem is not in the "conservation" part, it is in the "energy"
> part
Yep.
> > An ether
> > theory of gravity erases this problem.
> If so, it must look VERY different from GR,
As different as GET is sufficient. GET has well-defined conservation laws.
> and then how can you be assured that you can "tune" it to agree with
> the myriad highly-accurate experiments which are already known to
> agree with GR?
No problem, GET has GR Einstein equations as a limit.
> Your claim is completely empty until and unless you can display such
> a theory and show it is in accord with _ALL_ of the experiments.
No problem. See get.ilja-schmelzer.net.
> > No one hears me saying that SR is a false theory. What one hears me saying
> > is that it no more than a different way of modeling the Lorentzian Ether.
>
> That is simply not true. SR is based upon symmetries of the world, while
> LET is a collection of guesses which were carefully tuned to obtain
> agreement with experiments. Lorentz made a shrewd _GUESS_ about the
> functional form of his transforms, one which has no justification
> whatsoever to be applied to non-electromagnetic phenomena (other than
> another _GUESS_).
The axioms of any theory are always guesses. Read Popper.
> LET is "tuned" in the sense that two functions were arbitrarily
> chosen by the condition that the resulting theory agreed with
> experiment. That is, Lorentz chose specific values for an infinite
> set of parameters.
So what, criticize the GET axioms.
> As soon as you can show how an ether theory can naturally handle
> quantum phenomena, you might gather a mainstream audience. But
> not until then....
In GET quantization we have no problem of time, no black hole
information loss problem. Already much better than GR. Nonetheless
you ignore it.
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
> Joe Fischer <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:<3bb0c...@news.iglou.com>...
> > In sci.physics.relativity
> >
> > PHILLIP V GLASGOW <pas...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > : xxein wrote:
> > :> Joe Fischer wrote:
> > :> > There was always ether, at least by the dark ages,
> > :> > but the attempt by Lorentz barely had a chance to become
> > :> > known before Planck and Einstein showed the quanta didn't
> > :> > need ether.
> > :> > Add your own impressions. :-)
> > :>
> > :> I don't know why anyone would want to consider an ether. SR-GR
offers
> > :> so much. And SR-GR is clear and concise also.
> > :
> > : Yes and GR clearly and concisely predicts Global Non-Conservation of
Energy.
> > : Personally, I don't like this.
> >
> > I don't like the fact that we apparently don't have
> > a formalized theory that conserves energy globally, but in
> > any theory where "space" is not defined as being like the
> > rigid 3-D Euclidean space, there isn't any reason to give
> > global conservation of energy a role as strict as kinetic
> > theory in Newtonian mechanics.
3-D space is Euclidean in the Lorenztian Ether, SR, GR, and a viable ether
gravity theory. GR does not conserve energy globally because of the
principle of equivalence.
> > : You may love it. Good for you.
> >
> > I doubt if it is the most satisfactory part.
> >
> > : An ether theory of gravity erases this problem.
> >
> > Not without rigidly defined "space", which is
> > not considered valid any more, and has been proven
> > invalid by experiment.
Positions in space must be rigid. Physical relationships, even prior to SR,
were based on the notion of relativity and where positions are labeled with
observer dependent coordinate systems. The places where events occur have
always been at rest since the time of Euclid and remain so today even with
the notion of relativity.
> xxein: Joe, I can tell that you haven't given ether the consideration
> that you seem to imply you have. Stone-age ether is all you know?
Yes, it appears that Joe is in the Stone-age.
> > : Ether changes the way one thinks and causes one
> > : to question many things.
> >
> > Questioning is good, but sometimes learning
> > should come before thinking, unless you are afraid
> > of facts.
Afraid of what fact? That the Lorentzian ether is confirmed by experiment?
> xxein: One could learn many things, but inevitably the *facts* clash.
>
> > : To me, this is a good thing, because
> > : it will in my opinion inspire many advances in physics.
> >
> > Well, if it hasn't by now, can science afford to wait?
The question is, can science afford to put off ether research?
> > : No one hears me saying that SR is a false theory. What one
> > : hears me saying is that it no more than a different way
> > : of modeling the Lorentzian Ether.
> >
> > As far as the kinematics and mathematics go, and
> > in SR as modeled in _Euclidean_ space, relativists seem
> > to agree, but the many an varied phenomenae demonstrate
> > that there is a difference in fact.
No. There is not one shred of experimental evidence which supports SR which
does not support the Lorentzian ether. This is because SR is a logical
subset of LET.
> > : There is truly no way for us to distinguish between
> > : the two theories regarding predictions.
> >
> > Of course there is, find the 3 or 4 volumes
> > of the Princeton University Press publications of
> > the "Complete Writings of Albert Einstein" and read.
You are mistaken. In fact, many relativists here including Tom Roberts
agree that the two theories have the same predictions.
> > : I can tell you without question, that in the same
> > : way that SR's postulates can be derived from the
> > : Lorentzian ether postulates, so can the Lorentzian ether
> > : postulates be derived from SR's postulates.
> > : They are related as the mathematics clearly shows us.
>
> xxein: No! Not quite so. SR #2 flatly says that c is c in all
> inertial frames, but if it said *measured as c*, then I would concede
> to you.
In essence, SR does say this, that is, that c is a measurement constant.
Think of it like this. What if we measured the speed (one-way) of light
other than c. Wouldn't one call into question the validity of SR. SR IS A
MEASURMENT THEORY BECAUSE IT IS CONFIRMED BY MEASUREMENTS. It predicts what
our measurements will be, just as LET does.
> > : The battle which rages is whether we will allow SR to
> > : deny that which it clearly depends upon to be true,
> > : namely, the Lorentzian ether.
>
> xxein: I doubt that the Lorentzian ether is any more than the
> previous finger point (gravity).
>
> > That is false, nothing denies nothing, the
> > ether failed because it depended on assumptions which
> > were not needed, and which had no basis foe existence.
> > Both SR and ether theory require a rigid space
> > identical to Euclidean space, and SR works just as well,
> > without the assumption of a medium.
>
> xxein: Ether, locally and SR, locally. GR has no real basis for
> gravity and a rigid ether is no better.
I don't know what you imply or define by rigid ether. Ether is best modeled
as a particulate gas. As such it can expand, contract, conduct light,
conduct momentum forms, and transport momentum and energy. It models well a
gravity field and has many of the same predictions as GTR.
> > : And whether one will be _allowed_ to contemplate
> > : a Lorentzian ether.
>
> xxein: Why Lorentzian?
Because, experiments suggest that light speed is independent of source or
observer. Experiments, support the Lorentzian ether.
> > Where are you anyway, as far as I know, anybody
> > and everybody is able to contemplate anything they want,
> > regardless of whether or not they are _allowed_!
I am where NO resources will be devoted to theoretical ether research by
institutions and where people who may be employed by such institutions
understand that they will lose there jobs if they dabble with the ether.
This is the good ole USA.
> xxein: I did.
>
> > Or do you mean, allowed to force people to
> > comtemplate ether whether they want to or not?
>
> xxein: That seems to be the modus operandi of this ng that bears a
> name. Or is this ng a cult?
Good point.
>
> > : Very little of the discussion on the part of SR
> > : propenents have been rational regarding the Lorentzian ether.
>
> xxein: They see far enough ahead. Lorentz had no gravity either.
>
> > Do you mean I am not rational if I say it doesn't exist?
Yes, you are not rational if you say it doesn't exist. You would be
rational to say it _may_ not exist.
> xxein: Exactly so. You do not have enough info to rule anything out.
>
> > : The unfortunate situation is that freedom of thought is not allowed,
> >
> > You seem to be exercising considerable freedom,
> > but you are acting like a baby because you can't force
> > ythe ether nonsense on other people.
I could not be exercising this freedom as an instructor or researcher or I
would be silenced or lose my job.
> > You can go to the newsgroup(s) with ether in
> > the title and "think" your style all you want and
> > I doubt if any relativist will interfere as long
> > as you don't crosspost to other groups.
> >
> > : it is in fact ridiculed,
> >
> > As things regarded as stupid usually are.
If the Lorentzian Ether is stupid, then so is SR. They are complementary.
> xxein: Until shown otherwise. Don't get upset. It's just that we
> tend not to learn some histories.
>
> > : in spite of the validity of the Lorentzian
> > : ether regarding the outcomes of predictions.
> >
> > Your opinion on the validity, but perhaps
> > you are confusing the duality of light in some way.
No, it is you who is confused.
> > : Which is, truly shameful, irrational, and unscientific.
> >
> > So you can't get a job using ether theory?
I'm not looking for a job using ether theory nor do I want one. I couldn't
stand the pathetic pay that educators and researchers get.
> > I can't find a job testing mattresses, so I
> > am complaining also.
You shouldn't complain. You are incompetent.
Joe Fischer
:> Joe Fischer wrote:
:> > PHILLIP V GLASGOW <pas...@prodigy.net> wrote:
:> > : xxein wrote:
:> > :> Joe Fischer wrote:
:> > :> > There was always ether, at least by the dark ages,
:> > :> > but the attempt by Lorentz barely had a chance to become
:> > :> > known before Planck and Einstein showed the quanta didn't
:> > :> > need ether.
:> > :> > Add your own impressions. :-)
:> > :>
:> > :> I don't know why anyone would want to consider an ether. SR-GR
:> > :> offers so much. And SR-GR is clear and concise also.
:> > :
:> > : Yes and GR clearly and concisely predicts Global Non-Conservation of
:> > : Energy. Personally, I don't like this.
:> >
:> > I don't like the fact that we apparently don't have
:> > a formalized theory that conserves energy globally, but in
:> > any theory where "space" is not defined as being like the
:> > rigid 3-D Euclidean space, there isn't any reason to give
:> > global conservation of energy a role as strict as kinetic
:> > theory in Newtonian mechanics.
:
: 3-D space is Euclidean in the Lorenztian Ether, SR, GR,
I wasn't aware of 3-D space in GR.
: and a viable ether gravity theory.
Please don't go bananas, please link words that
fit together, viable and gravity never belong in the
same sentence with gravity.
: GR does not conserve energy globally because of the
: principle of equivalence.
GR is the Principle of Equivalence applied
to the incorrect interpretations of acceleration
used in Newtonian gravitation.
Energy is conserved, just not simply on the
basis of kinetic energy and little more.
:
:> > : You may love it. Good for you.
:> >
:> > I doubt if it is the most satisfactory part.
:> >
:> > : An ether theory of gravity erases this problem.
:> >
:> > Not without rigidly defined "space", which is
:> > not considered valid any more, and has been proven
:> > invalid by experiment.
:
: Positions in space must be rigid.
Not in nature, not in General Relativity, and
not in any logical and consistent thinking.
If you can't mark space, you can't say much
about it.
: Physical relationships, even prior to SR,
: were based on the notion of relativity
Except where biased by Euclidean concepts.
: and where positions are labeled with
: observer dependent coordinate systems.
Coordinate systems are used in math, and
on maps, they do not exist in nature.
In the mountains of California there are
places where metal rods have been planted into the
slopes, and they move relatively, and this is used
to keep track of fault motion.
And etherists expect to be able to consider
space as rigid?
: The places where events occur have
: always been at rest since the time of
: Euclid and remain so today even with
: the notion of relativity.
That is news to me, and it doesn't seeem
to agree with worldline diagrams.
:> xxein: Joe, I can tell that you haven't given ether the consideration
:> that you seem to imply you have. Stone-age ether is all you know?
:
: Yes, it appears that Joe is in the Stone-age.
No, Joe didn't even like the 1930s under Roosevelt,
everything was dull and boring, just like reading about
nonexistent ether.
:> > : Ether changes the way one thinks and causes one
:> > : to question many things.
:> >
:> > Questioning is good, but sometimes learning
:> > should come before thinking, unless you are afraid
:> > of facts.
:
: Afraid of what fact?
I don't know, ether gives no clues at all.
: That the Lorentzian ether is confirmed by experiment?
Please stop halucinating, every scientist
in the world probably would laugh at that.
:> xxein: One could learn many things, but inevitably the *facts* clash.
:>
:> > : To me, this is a good thing, because
:> > : it will in my opinion inspire many advances in physics.
:> >
:> > Well, if it hasn't by now, can science afford to wait?
:
: The question is, can science afford to put off ether research?
What ether? Where would you start? You are
arguing without basis, where is your first experiment?
:> > : No one hears me saying that SR is a false theory. What one
:> > : hears me saying is that it no more than a different way
:> > : of modeling the Lorentzian Ether.
:> >
:> > As far as the kinematics and mathematics go, and
:> > in SR as modeled in _Euclidean_ space, relativists seem
:> > to agree, but the many an varied phenomenae demonstrate
:> > that there is a difference in fact.
:
: No. There is not one shred of experimental evidence which
: supports SR which does not support the Lorentzian ether.
The trend has moved on to General Relativity, hadn't
you noticed, ether theory was discarded before you were born,
that is why you didn't get it.
: This is because SR is a logical subset of LET.
You should attribute that to Ken Seto or GLOBARR.
:> > : There is truly no way for us to distinguish between
:> > : the two theories regarding predictions.
:> >
:> > Of course there is, find the 3 or 4 volumes
:> > of the Princeton University Press publications of
:> > the "Complete Writings of Albert Einstein" and read.
:
: You are mistaken.
Mistaken about what? I have the collection,
I have read part of it, and you are too cheap to buy
the reference I gave.
: In fact, many relativists here including Tom Roberts
: agree that the two theories have the same predictions.
For the math transformations yes, but wait
until he gets into all the points Einstein raised in
the dozens of papers about phenomena that ether can't do.
:> > : I can tell you without question, that in the same
:> > : way that SR's postulates can be derived from the
:> > : Lorentzian ether postulates, so can the Lorentzian ether
:> > : postulates be derived from SR's postulates.
:> > : They are related as the mathematics clearly shows us.
:>
:> xxein: No! Not quite so. SR #2 flatly says that c is c in all
:> inertial frames, but if it said *measured as c*, then I would concede
:> to you.
:
: In essence, SR does say this, that is, that c is a measurement constant.
Which doesn't even mean in any specific coordinate
system, it applies even to cases that ether can't duplicate.
: Think of it like this. What if we measured the speed (one-way) of light
: other than c. Wouldn't one call into question the validity of SR. SR IS A
: MEASURMENT THEORY BECAUSE IT IS CONFIRMED BY MEASUREMENTS. It predicts what
: our measurements will be, just as LET does.
It also predicts measurements other than light,
face it, ether theory was cute for light when physics
was in it's infancy, things are different now, people
won't buy the vaporess ideas any more, wake up.
:> > : The battle which rages is whether we will allow SR to
:> > : deny that which it clearly depends upon to be true,
:> > : namely, the Lorentzian ether.
:>
:> xxein: I doubt that the Lorentzian ether is any more than the
:> previous finger point (gravity).
:>
:> > That is false, nothing denies nothing, the
:> > ether failed because it depended on assumptions which
:> > were not needed, and which had no basis foe existence.
:> > Both SR and ether theory require a rigid space
:> > identical to Euclidean space, and SR works just as well,
:> > without the assumption of a medium.
:>
:> xxein: Ether, locally and SR, locally. GR has no real basis for
:> gravity and a rigid ether is no better.
:
: I don't know what you imply or define by rigid ether.
If it isn't stationary, it is invalid even for em.
: Ether is best modeled as a particulate gas.
Oh, not continuous any more?
: As such it can expand, contract, conduct light,
: conduct momentum forms, and transport momentum and energy.
That is a problem, not an asset, once the energy
is in the ether, it can't all be returned to matter,
and is not conserved.
: It models well a
: gravity field and has many of the same predictions as GTR.
It cures the common cold, relieves aches and pains.........
:> > : And whether one will be _allowed_ to contemplate
:> > : a Lorentzian ether.
:>
:> xxein: Why Lorentzian?
:
: Because, experiments suggest that light speed is independent of source or
: observer. Experiments, support the Lorentzian ether.
For an observer, in that model, the ether would
become the source andthe carrier, and your physics
is defective, please get an estimate on repairs.
:> > Where are you anyway, as far as I know, anybody
:> > and everybody is able to contemplate anything they want,
:> > regardless of whether or not they are _allowed_!
:
: I am where NO resources will be devoted to theoretical ether research by
: institutions and where people who may be employed by such institutions
: understand that they will lose there jobs if they dabble with the ether.
: This is the good ole USA.
You are free to contemplate, you are free to
experiment, you just can't force anybody to do things
they don't want to do or support with their money.
:> xxein: I did.
:>
:> > Or do you mean, allowed to force people to
:> > comtemplate ether whether they want to or not?
:>
:> xxein: That seems to be the modus operandi of this ng that bears a
:> name. Or is this ng a cult?
:
: Good point.
If it is a cult, it is a cult of ethernuts,
there is very little physics or relativity being spoken
here.
:> > : Very little of the discussion on the part of SR
:> > : propenents have been rational regarding the Lorentzian ether.
:>
:> xxein: They see far enough ahead. Lorentz had no gravity either.
:>
:> > Do you mean I am not rational if I say it doesn't exist?
:
: Yes, you are not rational if you say it doesn't exist. You would be
: rational to say it _may_ not exist.
I am not rational then, as I say no physical
manifestation of a gravitational "field" exists,
and I say no "gravitons" exist, and I say these
things are not needed, and in fact are contrary
to the core concepts of General Relativity.
It all boils down to a bunch of laymen and
novices who have read a little, and have egos that
support promoting some stupid ideas from the past.
:> xxein: Exactly so. You do not have enough info to rule anything out.
:>
:> > : The unfortunate situation is that freedom of thought is not allowed,
:> >
:> > You seem to be exercising considerable freedom,
:> > but you are acting like a baby because you can't force
:> > ythe ether nonsense on other people.
:
: I could not be exercising this freedom as an instructor or
: researcher or I would be silenced or lose my job.
Right, the Constitution requires a certain amount
of separation of church and state, and what you preach
has no redeeming value at all, it is just opinion, and
the only nice thing I can say about is that you appear
to be trying to attach a causal mechanism to phenomena.
To bad it is already known that a medium or any
causal mechanism that exerts forces doesn't work.
But you don't want to hear this, because it is
exactly what you are trying to change, you want a
causal mechanism. But you bought a pig in a poke.
:> > You can go to the newsgroup(s) with ether in
:> > the title and "think" your style all you want and
:> > I doubt if any relativist will interfere as long
:> > as you don't crosspost to other groups.
:> >
:> > : it is in fact ridiculed,
:> >
:> > As things regarded as stupid usually are.
:
: If the Lorentzian Ether is stupid, then so is SR. They are complementary.
Up to a point, yes, why do you think General Relativity
was developed?
:> xxein: Until shown otherwise. Don't get upset. It's just that we
:> tend not to learn some histories.
:>
:> > : in spite of the validity of the Lorentzian
:> > : ether regarding the outcomes of predictions.
:> >
:> > Your opinion on the validity, but perhaps
:> > you are confusing the duality of light in some way.
:
: No, it is you who is confused.
It is not me trying to sell an invisible vapor.
:> > : Which is, truly shameful, irrational, and unscientific.
:> >
:> > So you can't get a job using ether theory?
:
: I'm not looking for a job using ether theory nor do I want one. I couldn't
: stand the pathetic pay that educators and researchers get.
And you don't have the same desire to teach,
so please don't do it for free.
:> > I can't find a job testing mattresses, so I
:> > am complaining also.
:
: You shouldn't complain. You are incompetent.
I assure you I am more competent at testing
mattresses than you are at physics.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Bilge
Re: Ask yourself, was LET _ever_ popular? to usenet:
>> I don't know why anyone would want to consider an ether. SR-GR offers
>> so much.
>
>They don't offer a way to quantum gravity.
>
>They are incompatible with classical realism. A consequence of the
>violation of Bells inequality. A realistic hidden variable theory
>(like Bohmian mechanics) needs a preferred frame.
This presumes that classical realism is preferable and that
quantum mechaincs would be improved for some reason if it were
like classical physics.
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> I don't know why anyone would want to consider an ether. SR-GR offers
>>> so much.
>> They don't offer a way to quantum gravity.
>> They are incompatible with classical realism. A consequence of the
>> violation of Bells inequality. A realistic hidden variable theory
>> (like Bohmian mechanics) needs a preferred frame.
> This presumes that classical realism is preferable and that quantum
> mechaincs would be improved for some reason if it were like
> classical physics.
There is no reason to give up such very successful principles like
classical realism. And it is certainly an improvement. Based on the
assumption of classical realism, we can prove theorems (make
predictions) which are falsifiable.
Bilge
Re: Ask yourself, was LET _ever_ popular? to usenet:
Now you are mixing metaphors. One does not need to give up proving
theorems or making predictions. Theorems in statistics are proved all
the time. Quantum cryptography works. I do not need to know which
particles will decay to predict the behaviour of macroscopic numbers
of them. In fact, I can't see how one can reconcile the notion of
identical particles if one can count them. Classical realism allows
me to do that.
Ilja Schmelzer
>>>>> I don't know why anyone would want to consider an ether. SR-GR offers
>>>>> so much.
>>
>>>> They don't offer a way to quantum gravity.
>>>> They are incompatible with classical realism. A consequence of the
>>>> violation of Bells inequality. A realistic hidden variable theory
>>>> (like Bohmian mechanics) needs a preferred frame.
>>
>>> This presumes that classical realism is preferable and that quantum
>>> mechaincs would be improved for some reason if it were like
>>> classical physics.
>>
>> There is no reason to give up such very successful principles like
>> classical realism. And it is certainly an improvement. Based on the
>> assumption of classical realism, we can prove theorems (make
>> predictions) which are falsifiable.
>
> Now you are mixing metaphors. One does not need to give up proving
> theorems or making predictions. Theorems in statistics are proved all
> the time.
That was not my claim. My claim is not that without realism there are
no falsifiable predictions, but that realism allows to add some more
of them.
> In fact, I can't see how one can reconcile the notion of identical
> particles if one can count them. Classical realism allows me to do
> that.
Bohmian mechanics shows how to do it.
Bilge
Re: Ask yourself, was LET _ever_ popular? to usenet:
>ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) writes:
>> Ilja Schmelzer said some stuff about
>>>
>>> classical realism. And it is certainly an improvement. Based on the
>>> assumption of classical realism, we can prove theorems (make
>>> predictions) which are falsifiable.
>>
>> Now you are mixing metaphors. One does not need to give up proving
>> theorems or making predictions. Theorems in statistics are proved all
>> the time.
>
>That was not my claim. My claim is not that without realism there are
>no falsifiable predictions, but that realism allows to add some more
>of them.
Any asumption allows you to prove theorems which use it. That does
not have any bearing on whether nature assumed the same thing so
that the theorems relate to anything physical. My initial comment was
that nothing but preconception suggests that classical concepts have
some advantage at quantum scales or that a deterministic theory is
anything but a detriment to a fundamental theory of nature. Answer
this. Is it possible to use a _single_ photon to send a single message
(e.g., yes/no depending upon receipt)? Is it possible for the receiver
to determine if any single photon received was that request for that
yes/no response?
>> In fact, I can't see how one can reconcile the notion of identical
>> particles if one can count them. Classical realism allows me to do
>> that.
>
>Bohmian mechanics shows how to do it.
I've read as much reasobably serious material as I can locate
through search engines regarding bohmian mechanics and I don't see
it. Actually, counting particles is a perfect example of trying to
have it both ways, but trying to disguise the quantum mechanics in
semantics. If bohmian mechanics allows this, then you cannot construct
the correct statistics to describe even a maxwell-boltzmann distribution.
The factor of N! in boltzmann counting cannot be justified if particles
are distinguishable. Distinguishability is all that matters in the
counting argument and quantum mechanics simply offers a reason for it.
Distinguishability here is not merely an experimental detail. If one
can tag particles to count them, even if _only_ _in_ _principle_, then
in principle, those particles are distinguishable, in which case,
you have no N! to justify.
Let me see if I have the basic plot here. From a paper referencing
Holland (The Quantum Theory of Motion, 1993) as the source, I find
the following as postulates of bohmian mechanics:
(1) An individual system comprises a wave propagating in
space and time together with a point particle which
moves continuously under the guidance of a wave.
(2) The system is described mathematically by \Psi(x,t), the
solution to the schroedinger equation.
(3) The particle motion is obtained for x(t) by solving the
equation:
v(x,t) = dx/dt = (1/m)\grad S(x,t)
where S(x,t) is the phase of the wavefunction evaluated at
an intial point x=x(t_0).
(4) The probability that the particle will be found in the region
x and x+dx is given by:
R(x,t)^2 d^3x, R(x,t) == |\Psi(x,t)|
-----------------
If I understand the plan, one writes \Psi as \Psi(x,t)exp(iS/hbar)
and uses the schroedinger equation to obtain an expression which is
then separated into real and imaginary parts to get two new equations.
Provided I kept didn't lose a factor of 2, hbar and/or i somewhere, I
get:
R dS(x,t)/dt = (hbar^2/2m)\grad^2 R(x,t) + (R(x,t)/2m)(dS(x,t)/dt^2)
dR(x,t)/dt = (2/hbar)(\grad R(x,t)).(\grad S(x,t)) + R(x,t)\grad^2 S(x,t)
Now, the claim is that this represents a completely deterministic
version of quantum mechanics because there are two "real" equations
of motion? If so, then I'm afraid I don't follow. Nothing about the
ability to do this requires that the procedure yields anything physical.
Typically fulfilling that criteria is an experimental issue. This is
similar to, if not identical to using hamilton-jacobi theory to relate
geometrical optics as the classical limit of wave mechanics, with the
exception that the classical limit of geometrical optics is obtained by
taking the limit as hbar->0.
In the first place, the equations themselves originate with the
very non-classical "flaws" bohmian mechanics seeks to avoid. As soon
as you write p = -ihbar d/dx and E = ihbar d/dt, the game is over.
The relation [x,p] = -ihbar is part of your theory. Taking the terms
containing hbars and calling those "non-local" is nothing but semantics.
The only problem it solves is to reconcile quantum measurements with
classical bias by declaration.
If I follow the idea here, then I can make the following semantic
alterations to switch back and forth between quantum and bohmian mech-
anics. Instead of discovering a field theory and quantum potentials via
the behaviour of \Psi(x,t) under phase transformation \Psi(x,t) ->
\Psi(x,t)exp(iS/hbar), I discover that with more information than a real
experiment can provide, I really have a deterministic, yet non-local
potential, and a classical, localized particle which following a classical
trajectory.
Instead of saying, "All one can measure are relative phases", and
solving for it:
\Delta S = (i/hbar)\integral V^{u}d_{u},
I say, "I have a determistic theory which predicts exact locations
of particles and precise trajectories, but unfortunately, it's not
possible in any real experiment to obtain the information required
to make use of this feature." Instead of saying, "One must integrate
over all possible paths", I say, "Any path is well-defined, but which
path is a weighted coin toss." Instead of saying, "Ehernfest's theorem
demonstrates that by replacing quantum operators with expectation values,
I recover the classical equations of motion", I say, "Ehrenfest's theorem
demonstrates that by replacing the classical variables with statistical
averages, I recover the quantum operators."
Sorry if this is a little disorganized, but advocacy is easier to find
than the physics being advocated. I'm having work mainly from descriptions
of the idea and guesses about how bohmians are supposed to interpret
this stuff. The results so far lead me to believe that bohmian
mechanics has little to do with bohm's goal to find a deterministic
theory as an alternative to quantum mechanics and a lot to do with
trying to find an alternative to the semantics in order to hide the
quantum mechanics. Proponents point to "problems" with qm that bohmian
mechanics "solves", but don't seriously consider the possiblity that
fixing those problems will eliminate the features essential to under-
standing nature.
Peter Donis
>>>>>
Sorry if this is a little disorganized, but advocacy is easier to find
than the physics being advocated. I'm having work mainly from descriptions
of the idea and guesses about how bohmians are supposed to interpret
this stuff. The results so far lead me to believe that bohmian
mechanics has little to do with bohm's goal to find a deterministic
theory as an alternative to quantum mechanics and a lot to do with
trying to find an alternative to the semantics in order to hide the
quantum mechanics. Proponents point to "problems" with qm that bohmian
mechanics "solves", but don't seriously consider the possiblity that
fixing those problems will eliminate the features essential to under-
standing nature.
<<<<<
Pete Donis
Ilja Schmelzer
>> That was not my claim. My claim is not that without realism there are
>> no falsifiable predictions, but that realism allows to add some more
>> of them.
>
> Any asumption allows you to prove theorems which use it. That does
> not have any bearing on whether nature assumed the same thing so
> that the theorems relate to anything physical.
Ok, but my claim was that realism allows to add theorems which relate
to falsifiable physical predictions.
> My initial comment was that nothing but preconception suggests that
> classical concepts have some advantage at quantum scales or that a
> deterministic theory is anything but a detriment to a fundamental
> theory of nature.
The usual way science works is to extend previously successful
preconceptions as far as possible. Reading Kuhn may be interesting
here. Or the methodological considerations of Rovelli, gr-qc/9903045.
> Answer this. Is it possible to use a _single_ photon to send a
> single message (e.g., yes/no depending upon receipt)? Is it possible
> for the receiver to determine if any single photon received was that
> request for that yes/no response?
I don't understanding the meaning of that question, but AFAIU the
answer is yes.
>>> In fact, I can't see how one can reconcile the notion of identical
>>> particles if one can count them. Classical realism allows me to do
>>> that.
>> Bohmian mechanics shows how to do it.
> I've read as much reasobably serious material as I can locate
> through search engines regarding bohmian mechanics and I don't see
> it. Actually, counting particles is a perfect example of trying to
> have it both ways, but trying to disguise the quantum mechanics in
> semantics. If bohmian mechanics allows this, then you cannot construct
> the correct statistics to describe even a maxwell-boltzmann distribution.
> The factor of N! in boltzmann counting cannot be justified if particles
> are distinguishable. Distinguishability is all that matters in the
> counting argument and quantum mechanics simply offers a reason for it.
> Distinguishability here is not merely an experimental detail. If one
> can tag particles to count them, even if _only_ _in_ _principle_, then
> in principle, those particles are distinguishable, in which case,
> you have no N! to justify.
The only job BM has to do is to be a realistic (hidden variable)
version of QM. If the QM theory we need is a field theory, the
related BM is a field theory too. Fermions are the result of
quantization of a Dirac field in field theory. So, in the related BFT
we have to take a Dirac field psi(x) as the configuration Q.
As long as the BFT reestablishes the QFT results, all is fine.
> (1) An individual system comprises a wave propagating in
> space and time together with a point particle which
> moves continuously under the guidance of a wave.
More general, a wave propagating in the configuration space Q and time
t.
> (2) The system is described mathematically by \Psi(x,t), the
> solution to the schroedinger equation.
Better Psi(Q,t).
> (3) The particle motion is obtained for x(t) by solving the
> equation:
>
> v(x,t) = dx/dt = (1/m)\grad S(x,t)
correct but there are better formulas today, closer to QM.
> where S(x,t) is the phase of the wavefunction evaluated at
> an intial point x=x(t_0).
>
> (4) The probability that the particle will be found in the region
> x and x+dx is given by:
>
> R(x,t)^2 d^3x, R(x,t) == |\Psi(x,t)|
>
> -----------------
>
> If I understand the plan, one writes \Psi as \Psi(x,t)exp(iS/hbar)
As R(x,t)exp(iS/hbar). But this is not necessary.
> Now, the claim is that this represents a completely deterministic
> version of quantum mechanics because there are two "real" equations
> of motion?
Nobody has a problem with complex numbers. In the modern version,
the Schrödinger equation simply remains as it is. We only need
the guiding equation v(x,t) = dQ/dt = ....
For this purpose, we need the quantum operator of the probability flow J.
Then, we have dQ/dt = Psi* J Psi / Psi* Psi.
> If so, then I'm afraid I don't follow. Nothing about the
> ability to do this requires that the procedure yields anything physical.
The point is that the equation for Q(t) is deterministic. The next
point is that, if we start with a _classical_ probability distribution
Psi(Q,t0)*Psi(Q,t0), the guiding equation has the property that the
state _remains_ in this equilibrium for all times - we observe
Psi(Q,t)*Psi(Q,t) always. Thus, the observable probability
distribution of quantum theory is explained by a deterministic
equation for Q.
> If I follow the idea here, then I can make the following semantic
> alterations to switch back and forth between quantum and bohmian mech-
> anics.
> I discover that with more information than a real
> experiment can provide, I really have a deterministic, yet non-local
> potential, and a classical, localized particle which following a classical
> trajectory.
> I say, "I have a determistic theory which predicts exact locations
> of particles and precise trajectories, but unfortunately, it's not
> possible in any real experiment to obtain the information required
> to make use of this feature."
Yep. And that's exactly what we need to save classical realism.
Note that there is no collapse, no measurement problem. Measurements
do not appear in the definition of the theory. They should and can be
derived, considering interactions between a measurement device and the
observed system. To define the evolution of the whole universe, we do
not have to impose some universe-external observer who measures
something, and therefore this game is not circular. The result of a
measurement is the configuration of the measurement device Q_1 after
the interaction with the object Q_2. Schrödingers cat has always a
well-defined configuration Q_cat.
> Proponents point to "problems" with qm that bohmian
> mechanics "solves", but don't seriously consider the possiblity that
> fixing those problems will eliminate the features essential to under-
> standing nature.
The problems solved by BM are interpretational problem. Only.
Schrödingers cat, measurement, meaning of the wave function of the
universe (who observes it?).
Bilge
Re: Ask yourself, was LET _ever_ popular? to usenet:
>ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) writes:
>>> That was not my claim. My claim is not that without realism there are
>>> no falsifiable predictions, but that realism allows to add some more
>>> of them.
>>
>> Any asumption allows you to prove theorems which use it. That does
>> not have any bearing on whether nature assumed the same thing so
>> that the theorems relate to anything physical.
>
>Ok, but my claim was that realism allows to add theorems which relate
>to falsifiable physical predictions.
To the best I can tell, this is a slogan. I tried to figure out what
this meant, but after writing several things based upon what I thought
it meant, I discvered that I have no idea what it means. Since you
didn't give an example of non-realism and the only thing that I see that
bohmian mechanics "adds" to quantum mechanics are unreal quantities, I'm
really confused. I always took reality to mean something which
could actually have an effect due to a cause which is quantifiable
by measurement.
>> My initial comment was that nothing but preconception suggests that
>> classical concepts have some advantage at quantum scales or that a
>> deterministic theory is anything but a detriment to a fundamental
>> theory of nature.
>
>The usual way science works is to extend previously successful
>preconceptions as far as possible. Reading Kuhn may be interesting
>here. Or the methodological considerations of Rovelli, gr-qc/9903045.
Your answer has nothing to do with my comment.
>> Answer this. Is it possible to use a _single_ photon to send a
>> single message (e.g., yes/no depending upon receipt)? Is it possible
>> for the receiver to determine if any single photon received was that
>> request for that yes/no response?
>
>I don't understanding the meaning of that question, but AFAIU the
>answer is yes.
Why? How? I would answer no. The noise in any instrument has a
statistical spectrum. If you have an instrument that registers a
1 when it receives a photon and a 0 otherwise for any interval \Delta t,
you get a statistical spectrum. Any single photon counted would
be indistinguishable from the statistical background. The point
being, that's all the reality you get.
>The only job BM has to do is to be a realistic (hidden variable)
>version of QM. If the QM theory we need is a field theory, the
Appaarently, you define realistic differently than I do.
I take "realistic hidden variable" to mean a variable I can
measure and hidden as not being a permanant condition. This also
does not answer my objection to indistinguishable particles. What
I want to know is how you justify boltzmann counting. I don't
need to even consider fermions or bosons here. All I need consider
is whether particles are indistinguishable, i.e. can I find a
particle, label it particle #N in state #M? If I can, then qm
is wrong. If I cannot, then bohmian mechanics is either wrong
or needs to explain where the N! comes from. Since the existence
of bohmian trajectories permits me to make such assignments, the
experimental practicality is not a way out of this. You need a
_different_ reason to solve the counting problem.
>related BM is a field theory too. Fermions are the result of
>quantization of a Dirac field in field theory. So, in the
>related BFT we have to take a Dirac field psi(x) as the
>configuration Q.
No. Fermions are the result of the symmetry in nature
that the dirac field describes. I consider this to be a
different statement, since it relates to the fundamental
motivation for the description.
>As long as the BFT reestablishes the QFT results, all is fine.
Then, I'm afraid that I don't understand the point of the excercise.
If it predicts the same things as qm and nothing different than qm, then
it _is_ qm. You can't change reality just by re-labeling. All you get
is different labels.
[...]
>>
>> If I understand the plan, one writes \Psi as \Psi(x,t)exp(iS/hbar)
>
>As R(x,t)exp(iS/hbar). But this is not necessary.
Then what is necessary? So far, everything about bohmian mechanics
contradicts any desire for realism.
>> Now, the claim is that this represents a completely deterministic
>> version of quantum mechanics because there are two "real" equations
>> of motion?
>
>Nobody has a problem with complex numbers. In the modern version,
>the Schrödinger equation simply remains as it is. We only need
>the guiding equation v(x,t) = dQ/dt = ....
This is a semantics game. You are leaving out the penalty.
Quantum mechanics provides me with exact trajectories, too.
Since bohmian mechanics admits that x cannot be determined,
how can a function which depends upon it be determined?
>For this purpose, we need the quantum operator of the probability
>flow J. Then, we have dQ/dt = Psi* J Psi / Psi* Psi.
>> If so, then I'm afraid I don't follow. Nothing about the
>> ability to do this requires that the procedure yields anything physical.
>
>The point is that the equation for Q(t) is deterministic.
My point was, so what? I can obta
That's really not true. You've taken the evolution of a probability
distribution and chosen to play "connect-the-dots". All you are doing
is taking \Delta p\Delta x = \hbar
> The next
>point is that, if we start with a _classical_ probability distribution
>Psi(Q,t0)*Psi(Q,t0), the guiding equation has the property that the
>state _remains_ in this equilibrium for all times - we observe
>Psi(Q,t)*Psi(Q,t) always. Thus, the observable probability
>distribution of quantum theory is explained by a deterministic
>equation for Q.
>
>> If I follow the idea here, then I can make the following semantic
>> alterations to switch back and forth between quantum and bohmian mech-
>> anics.
>> I discover that with more information than a real
>> experiment can provide, I really have a deterministic, yet non-local
>> potential, and a classical, localized particle which following a classical
>> trajectory.
>> I say, "I have a determistic theory which predicts exact locations
>> of particles and precise trajectories, but unfortunately, it's not
>> possible in any real experiment to obtain the information required
>> to make use of this feature."
>
>Yep. And that's exactly what we need to save classical realism.
Changing semantics does not change reality. Let me generalize
my previous comment in a concise way:
Lim BM = QM
any var-> reality
>Note that there is no collapse, no measurement problem. Measurements
>do not appear in the definition of the theory. They should and can be
>derived, considering interactions between a measurement device and the
>observed system. To define the evolution of the whole universe, we do
>not have to impose some universe-external observer who measures
>something, and therefore this game is not circular.
I see no circularity in qm. Quantum mechanics attaches no meaning
to things which are not real. I don't see that as circular.
> The result of a
>measurement is the configuration of the measurement device Q_1 after
>the interaction with the object Q_2. Schrödingers cat has always a
>well-defined configuration Q_cat.
I have no problems interpreting schrödingers cat with qm. I
have a lot of problems figuring out what it means with bm. In fact,
the more you describe it, the more I find that it really is not
equivalent to qm because the things that depend upon invariance
cannot be invariant. Invariance implies "not-measurable".
[...]
>
>The problems solved by BM are interpretational problem. Only.
>Schrödingers cat, measurement, meaning of the wave function of the
>universe (who observes it?).
I believe this wanders away from science and into the realm
of tarot cards.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> Ok, but my claim was that realism allows to add theorems which relate
>> to falsifiable physical predictions.
> To the best I can tell, this is a slogan. I tried to figure out what
> this meant, but after writing several things based upon what I
> thought it meant, I discvered that I have no idea what it
> means. Since you didn't give an example of non-realism and the only
> thing that I see that bohmian mechanics "adds" to quantum mechanics
> are unreal quantities, I'm really confused. I always took reality to
> mean something which could actually have an effect due to a cause
> which is quantifiable by measurement.
There is one well-known and famous example: using realism + Einstein
causality you can prove Bell's inequality. Without realism you cannot
prove it. The inequality is falsifiable - it has been falsified by
Aspect's experiment.
It doesn't mean that realism is falsified, or can be falsifiable
alone. Only combinations of different principles are falsifiable.
That's also quite common. For example you cannot falsify the Einstein
equations in principle, you can falsify only the Einstein equations +
some matter model.
>>> My initial comment was that nothing but preconception suggests that
>>> classical concepts have some advantage at quantum scales or that a
>>> deterministic theory is anything but a detriment to a fundamental
>>> theory of nature.
>> The usual way science works is to extend previously successful
>> preconceptions as far as possible. Reading Kuhn may be interesting
>> here. Or the methodological considerations of Rovelli, gr-qc/9903045.
> Your answer has nothing to do with my comment.
What does it mean that realism/determinism are "nothing but
preconceptions"? All scientific principles are, in some sense,
nothing but preconceptions which may be, in form of some theories
which fulfil these principles, tested.
But there is a quite common ideology that "preconceptions" are
something bad, and have to be rejected, replaced by positive
knowledge. This ideology (positivism) has failed. Instead, it has
been observed that scientists, instead of rejecting their
preconceptions, try to extend them into the domain of the unknown.
If you disagree with this observation about science, read Kuhn and
Rovelli.
>> The only job BM has to do is to be a realistic (hidden variable)
>> version of QM. If the QM theory we need is a field theory, the
> Appaarently, you define realistic differently than I do.
> I take "realistic hidden variable" to mean a variable I can
> measure and hidden as not being a permanant condition.
I follow Bell's definition. In this definition, measurability is not
a necessary criterion.
> This also does not answer my objection to indistinguishable
> particles. What I want to know is how you justify boltzmann
> counting.
Like in standard QM.
> I don't need to even consider fermions or bosons here. All I need
> consider is whether particles are indistinguishable, i.e. can I find
> a particle, label it particle #N in state #M?
Depends on the theory. You can have quantum theories for
distinguishable particles too. In the case of bosons and fermions
they cannot.
> If I can, then qm is wrong. If I cannot, then bohmian mechanics is
> either wrong or needs to explain where the N! comes from.
It comes from the wave function. As well as from the choice of the
configuration space.
> Since the existence of bohmian trajectories permits me to make such
> assignments, the experimental practicality is not a way out of
> this. You need a _different_ reason to solve the counting problem.
I need no different reason if I have a theorem that QM probability
equals BM probability.
>> related BM is a field theory too. Fermions are the result of
>> quantization of a Dirac field in field theory. So, in the
>> related BFT we have to take a Dirac field psi(x) as the
>> configuration Q.
> No. Fermions are the result of the symmetry in nature
> that the dirac field describes. I consider this to be a
> different statement, since it relates to the fundamental
> motivation for the description.
There is sometimes some confusion about "second quantization". In
QFT, the Dirac field is a classical field, similar to the EM field,
which gives particles only as an effect of quantization.
>> As long as the BFT reestablishes the QFT results, all is fine.
> Then, I'm afraid that I don't understand the point of the excercise.
> If it predicts the same things as qm and nothing different than qm, then
> it _is_ qm. You can't change reality just by re-labeling. All you get
> is different labels.
No problem, BM is sometimes called the "ontological interpretation" of
QM. The only argument against this convention is that BM has an
additional equation. We do not expect from interpretations that they
have additional equations.
The point of the exercise is to have an interpretation which agrees
with classical realism, determinism and so on. It proves that these
principles are not in contradiction with QM. Because it is often
enough claimed that classical realism and determinism are falsified by
QM, this is an important point.
>>> If I understand the plan, one writes \Psi as \Psi(x,t)exp(iS/hbar)
>> As R(x,t)exp(iS/hbar). But this is not necessary.
> Then what is necessary?
The Schrödinger equation (you can leave it as it is) and the guiding
equation. And the clarification that wave function Psi(q,t) and
(generalized) position Q(t) describe reality completely.
> So far, everything about bohmian mechanics contradicts any desire
> for realism.
I don't understand. Realism is not positivism, and does not require
observability of all real stuff.
>> Nobody has a problem with complex numbers. In the modern version,
>> the Schrödinger equation simply remains as it is. We only need
>> the guiding equation v(x,t) = dQ/dt = ....
>
> This is a semantics game. You are leaving out the penalty.
> Quantum mechanics provides me with exact trajectories, too.
> Since bohmian mechanics admits that x cannot be determined,
> how can a function which depends upon it be determined?
I don't understand the meaning of this.
Realism is not a semantics game. Read Bell's paper to see that
starting with realism (and something else) we can prove Bell's
inequality (which we cannot prove without realism, using only the
"something else"). Semantic games don't have such properties.
Of course, there are a lot of semantic games in the foundations of QM.
But that's exactly the point of BM: to get rid of them, to obtain a
consistent interpretation with a clear description of reality.
>> For this purpose, we need the quantum operator of the probability
>> flow J. Then, we have dQ/dt = Psi* J Psi / Psi* Psi.
>> The next
>> point is that, if we start with a _classical_ probability distribution
>> Psi(Q,t0)*Psi(Q,t0), the guiding equation has the property that the
>> state _remains_ in this equilibrium for all times - we observe
>> Psi(Q,t)*Psi(Q,t) always. Thus, the observable probability
>> distribution of quantum theory is explained by a deterministic
>> equation for Q.
> Changing semantics does not change reality. Let me generalize
> my previous comment in a concise way:
>
> Lim BM = QM
> any var-> reality
I don't understand this. There is no limes from BM to QM, the
predictions are identical.
>> Note that there is no collapse, no measurement problem. Measurements
>> do not appear in the definition of the theory. They should and can be
>> derived, considering interactions between a measurement device and the
>> observed system. To define the evolution of the whole universe, we do
>> not have to impose some universe-external observer who measures
>> something, and therefore this game is not circular.
>
> I see no circularity in qm. Quantum mechanics attaches no meaning
> to things which are not real. I don't see that as circular.
It attaches a meaning to things which are not real. QM is not a
realistic theory, therefore all meaning it attaches to something is
attached to something which is not real.
>> The result of a
>> measurement is the configuration of the measurement device Q_1 after
>> the interaction with the object Q_2. Schrödingers cat has always a
>> well-defined configuration Q_cat.
> I have no problems interpreting schrödingers cat with qm.
Strange. In which state is the cat before the box is opened?
> I have a lot of problems figuring out what it means with bm. In
> fact, the more you describe it, the more I find that it really is
> not equivalent to qm because the things that depend upon invariance
> cannot be invariant. Invariance implies "not-measurable".
That the minimal probability interpretation of QM follows from BM is a
simple proven theorem. Point. The symmetry of BM is lower than the
symmetry of its observable effects.
>> The problems solved by BM are interpretational problem. Only.
>> Schrödingers cat, measurement, meaning of the wave function of the
>> universe (who observes it?).
> I believe this wanders away from science and into the realm
> of tarot cards.
No. These are clear questions about the consistency of QM. BM allows
to answer them in a consistent way. In QM, the "answers" are indeed
far away from scientific standards.