Does the Lorentz Ether Theory "Work"?
in [Relativity]
|
From: spudnik on 17 Apr 2010 23:50 some of the problem is just math; like, when one uses ray-tracing or "geometric optics" a la Newton, and then assumes that the wave is akin to a mere "ray" of light (which is really just a sort of dual method to Huyghens wavelets -- just because the "line of sight" is more or less, y'know, linear. > > What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: funkenstein on 18 Apr 2010 13:22 On Apr 15, 11:16 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear victoria Bippart: > > On Apr 15, 12:15 pm, victoria Bippart <vickybipp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > and, while it does nothing to say that > > there is needed an aether, > > MMX most certainly did not have a null result, and > > this was elaborated by others for decades, at least > > (see Dayton C. Miller e.g., if you can refrain > > from the googolplex). > > There is no need for an aether, and Miller's results are not > discernable from the error bars. This has been done to death. Others > that tried to repeat it, that did not make the same mistakes, got a > null result. > You can't measure the magnetic vector potential either.. does that mean there is no need for it?
From: funkenstein on 18 Apr 2010 13:24 On Apr 17, 10:48 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 Neutrinos? Differences flavored quark masses?
From: Paul Stowe on 18 Apr 2010 14:04
On Apr 18, 10:24 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 10:48 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 ofinertiais simple, it's > > > F = SUM i = 1 to n, q(i)dv Where q is the elemental charges in the > > physical system. > > > Paul Stowe > > Neutrinos? > Differences flavored quark masses? Quarks are charged, neutrino mass is debatable... For information on Quarks see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark On neutrinos see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino By very definition, an eV is not mass, it's energy... Now if one A-S- S-U-M-E-S mc^2 then the mass equivalent is eV/c^2. But, the is also true for a photon... Paul Stowe |