Does the Lorentz Ether Theory "Work"?
in [Relativity]
|
From: spudnik on 16 Apr 2010 17:15 wait a second; why don't you *tell* us what it might mean?... anyway, it doesn't localize anything but light -- obviously, according to the experiment. as I recall, mister Surfer had something to say about "gas-phase" inter- ferometry of M&M (of course, "gas" or vacuum is a medium, because there is *no* vacuum). > > What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2899 > Then the matter which is the optical media causes the aether to be > 'localized' with respect to the matter, whatever that means.- Hide quoted text - --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: PD on 17 Apr 2010 01:05 On Apr 15, 6:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 15, 3:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 14, 11:43 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > If the mathematics of LET and SR is IDENTICAL, how can one be more > > > restrictive over the other when applied to electromagnetism? Someone > > > is not using his, her, or its head. <shrug> > > > Someone cannot read what was typed. They are identical when applied > > strictly to electromagnetism. The difference is that LET *is* > > restricted to electromagnetism, where SR is not. > > Hmmm... As usual, PD only argues with mysticism on its side. <shrug> I don't know what you find mysterious. Perhaps you could explain what you find mysterious.
From: PD on 17 Apr 2010 01:08 On Apr 15, 10:19 am, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 14, 1:23 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > I am switching sides in this debate just for grins. > > If Lorentz and Poincare had quickly claimed in 1905 is that all > Einstien did > was generalized LET by postulating that the operational definition of > simulteniety was necessarily tied to EM, they could have saved their > priority. > > Einstein himself made a unwarranted generalization that the either (1) > other forces like strong and weak could not be used to define > simultenaity or (2) all undiscovered forces just happened to propagate > at the speed of EM. But they don't. The weak interaction, for example, has mediators that travel at less than c. However, the theory is still Lorentz covariant. > > How is this any better than Lorentz's generalization of his > tranformation from EM to other forces? > > > > > > > Some ether fans will say that LET hasn't been given the chance.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Paul Stowe on 17 Apr 2010 16:48 On Apr 13, 6:36 pm, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 mechanicalinertiais 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 inorigin.) Even less can the Lorentz covariance of mechanicalinertiabe > deduced from electromagnetic theory. We still do not know to this day > theoriginofinertia, 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 The origin of inertia is simple, it's F = SUM i = 1 to n, q(i)dv Where q is the elemental charges in the physical system. Paul Stowe
From: BURT on 17 Apr 2010 16:55
On Apr 17, 1:48 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 6:36 pm, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 mechanicalinertiais 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 inorigin.) Even less can the Lorentz covariance of mechanicalinertiabe > > deduced from electromagnetic theory. We still do not know to this day > > theoriginofinertia, 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 > > The origin of inertia is simple, it's > > F = SUM i = 1 to n, q(i)dv Where q is the elemental charges in the > physical system. > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You can move ahead of light leaving it behind in space with a lower closing velocity. Mitch Raemsch |