Does the Lorentz Ether Theory "Work"?
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 13 Apr 2010 14:12 On Apr 13, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 10:07 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I know that Einstein eliminated the need to postulate the existence of > > ether based on the principles of Machian empiricism. > > > But, otherwise, does the Lorentz ether theory work? Does the theory > > of length contraction caused by motion relative to the ether produce a > > theory that is equivalent to SRT? > > What LET needs to change is the notion that aether is an absolutely > stationary space. > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > Aether is displaced by matter. > Displacement creates pressure. > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > With this understanding of aether, LET is at least, if not more, > applicable than SR because not everything is relative. Everything is > with respect to the aether. > Everything is with respect to the aether, its state determined by its connections with the matter, which is the aether's state of displacement. > For more information, see the 'Aether Displacement' thread (http:// > groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ > ff54796d46551426#) which starts off with: > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > Aether is displaced by matter. > Displacement creates pressure. > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer'http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html > > "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without > friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such > particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer > who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the > swimming pool." > > In the analogy the swimmer is any body and the water is the aether. > Just as the swimmer displaces the water, whether the swimmer is at > rest with respect to the water, or not, a body displaces the aether, > whether the body is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. > > In the analogy the moving swimmer creates a displacement wave in the > water. A moving body creates a displacement wave in the aether. > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as > the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and > the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results > of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum > medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though > interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and > thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." > > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, > whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid > medium, or not. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the > super fluid medium. > > A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is > at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an > individual nucleus. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in > the aether. > > Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity > as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what > is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every > nucleus which is the matter which is the object.
From: Tom Adams on 13 Apr 2010 21:36 On Apr 13, 11:36 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Tom Adams wrote: > > does the Lorentz ether theory work? Does the theory > > of length contraction caused by motion relative to the ether produce a > > theory that is equivalent to SRT? > > The "equivalence" of LET and SR is rather restricted: within their mutual > domain, Lorentz ether theory is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. But > LET has a smaller domain of applicability: LET is restricted to geometry and > electromagnetism, while SR is more generally applicable to any physical > situation in which gravitation can be neglected. > > In order to expand LET's domain to that of SR, it is necessary to postulate a > set of additional ethers that "just happen" to behave exactly the same as the > lumeniferous ether. That makes it very ugly to modern eyes. > > Tom Roberts I was reading something today that implied that LET was even more retrictrive than that. It only applied to electromagnetism. It was only general if you assumed that electromagnetism was the only atomic force. "Lorentzs reluctance to fully embrace the relativity principle (that he himself did so much to uncover) is partly explained by his belief that "Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced... from the equations of the electromagnetic field". If this were true, it would be a valid reason for preferring Lorentz's approach. However, if we closely examine Lorentz's electron theory we find that full agreement with experiment required not only the invocation of Fitzgerald's contraction hypothesis, but also the assumption that mechanical inertia is Lorentz covariant. It's true that, after Poincare complained about the proliferation of hypotheses, Lorentz realized that the contraction could be deduced from more fundamental principles (as discussed in Section 1.5), but this was based on yet another hypothesis, the co-called molecular force hypothesis, which simply asserts that all physical forces and configurations (including the unknown forces that maintain the shape of the electron) transform according to the same laws as do electromagnetic forces. Needless to say, it obviously cannot follow deductively "from the equations of the electromagnetic field" that the necessarily non-electromagnetic forces which hold the electron together must transform according to the same laws. (Both Poincare and Einstein had already realized by 1905 that the mass of the electron cannot be entirely electromagnetic in origin.) Even less can the Lorentz covariance of mechanical inertia be deduced from electromagnetic theory. We still do not know to this day the origin of inertia, so there is no sense in which Lorentz or anyone else can claim to have deduced Lorentz covariance in any constructive sense, let alone from the laws of electromagnetism." http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm
From: Surfer on 14 Apr 2010 00:03 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Adams <tadamsmar(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >I know that Einstein eliminated the need to postulate the existence of >ether based on the principles of Machian empiricism. > >But, otherwise, does the Lorentz ether theory work? Does the theory >of length contraction caused by motion relative to the ether produce a >theory that is equivalent to SRT? > I wouldn't call it "Lorentz ether theory", but a similartheory has successfully explained the spacecraft earth-flyby anomalies. Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed Anisotropy http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039
From: PD on 14 Apr 2010 01:23 On Apr 13, 9:07 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I know that Einstein eliminated the need to postulate the existence of > ether based on the principles of Machian empiricism. > > But, otherwise, does the Lorentz ether theory work? Does the theory > of length contraction caused by motion relative to the ether produce a > theory that is equivalent to SRT? It works within a small class of phenomena. However, it makes no claim to govern the behavior of, say, strong and weak interactions, where SR does have a claim. Some ether fans will say that LET hasn't been given the chance.
From: mpc755 on 14 Apr 2010 01:57
On Apr 13, 2:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 13, 10:07 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > I know that Einstein eliminated the need to postulate the existence of > > > ether based on the principles of Machian empiricism. > > > > But, otherwise, does the Lorentz ether theory work? Does the theory > > > of length contraction caused by motion relative to the ether produce a > > > theory that is equivalent to SRT? > > > What LET needs to change is the notion that aether is an absolutely > > stationary space. > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > Displacement creates pressure. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > With this understanding of aether, LET is at least, if not more, > > applicable than SR because not everything is relative. Everything is > > with respect to the aether. > > Everything is with respect to the aether, its state determined by its > connections with the matter, which is the aether's state of > displacement. > > > For more information, see the 'Aether Displacement' thread (http:// > > groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ > > ff54796d46551426#) which starts off with: > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > Displacement creates pressure. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer'http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html > > > "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without > > friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such > > particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer > > who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the > > swimming pool." > > > In the analogy the swimmer is any body and the water is the aether. > > Just as the swimmer displaces the water, whether the swimmer is at > > rest with respect to the water, or not, a body displaces the aether, > > whether the body is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. > > > In the analogy the moving swimmer creates a displacement wave in the > > water. A moving body creates a displacement wave in the aether. > > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as > > the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and > > the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results > > of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum > > medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though > > interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and > > thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." > > > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, > > whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid > > medium, or not. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the > > super fluid medium. > > > A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is > > at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an > > individual nucleus. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in > > the aether. > > > Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity > > as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what > > is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every > > nucleus which is the matter which is the object. > > What is more correct is a combination of LET and Einstein's concept of ether. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places,...disregarding the causes which condition its state." The cause which conditions its state is its displacement by matter. So much of what is not understood or is misunderstood today in physics is easily understood once you realize aether is displaced by matter. One example is a C-60 molecule in a double slit experiment. In de Broglie Wave Mechanics a moving particle has an associated wave. In de Broglie Wave Mechanics the wave can be an external wave acting on the particle. In Aether Displacement, the moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The aether wave exits the slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (turns it into chop) and there is no interference. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. |