Does the Lorentz Ether Theory "Work"?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 15 Apr 2010 01:17 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:073ac1e2-9dfa-4e75-bdf1-4f473ea17e17(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Apr 13, 6:36 pm, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. If the mathematics of LET and SR is IDENTICAL, ========================================= There is no "if", they are not identical. LET: L = L0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) SR: L = L0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) Multiplication is not identical to division.
From: Steven D'Aprano on 15 Apr 2010 03:14 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:43:24 -0700, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Apr 13, 6:36 pm, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > 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> Well, that's certainly true... Larry's Excellent baking Theory (LET) 2 * number of cups of plain flour in the cake = number of eggs needed Steven's Special theory of integer Relationships (SR) 2 * any integer = even integer Clearly both LET and SR have identical mathematics but they have very different problem domains. LET only applies to positive and zero, and only in the very restricted domain of certain cakes (not even all cakes), while SR applies to all integers, positive, negative or zero. There is no requirement that just because the mathematics of two problems are similar, or identical, that the problem domains they apply to must also be identical. -- Steven
From: Peter Webb on 15 Apr 2010 04:33 I have used this analogy/explanation before, and quite recently, but its worth repeating. Assuming you actually want to learn. There are two parts, the first is the relationship between the Lorentz model and SR, and the second is the relationship of each of these with strong and weak interactions. Kepler's law of equal areas - that a body in orbit always traces out the same area in the same time is with the benefit of hindsight and calculus identical mathematically to Newton's inverse square law for gravity. That is, with calculus you can show that Kepler's law proves that gravitational acceleration follows an inverse square law, and an inverse square law proves the equal areas of Kepler. The predictions of orbits are *identical*. But they are clearly not the same theory - Newton's law of gravity gave a very simple universal law which predicts orbital dynamics exactly; Kepler gave a an exact empirical observation. Newton's laws in a sense explain why Kepler's laws hold, and allow them to be generalised, whereas Kepler just stated what he saw, and offered no explanation of why the planets don't just fly off into space. While Kepler and Newton laws are mathematically identical, I bet there are zero people designing satellite orbits using Kepler's laws instead of Newton's, because Newton gave a far simpler mathematical formulation which at some level obviously describes what is "really" going on. The relationship between Lorentz and SR is similar. Lorentz is basically a description of how space must contract for the MM theory to have a null result. Einstein derived this independently and from a completely different and simpler starting position (as Newton did with Kepler). SR essentially explains why Lorentz is true, and again does this with fewer assumptions, more generally, and more simply. The argument concerning weak and strong nuclear forces essentially enters the plot in the following manner. Lorentz knew light was composed of electric and magnetic fields, and as far as he knew (thought) matter is held together by electric fields. So if there was some resistance from the ether which affected electric fields, it could affect matter and light equally, and hence make the equations for physical length and light work the same way, as MM required. Now this argument doesn't quite stack up anyway, as it assumes that masses are point objects, and has other problems. But if you squint its sort of plausible, at least. However, the existence of strong and weak nuclear forces - which don't even follow inverse square laws - kills this putative mechanism stone dead. Its not just electric fields, matter and light that need to follow Lorentz contraction, it is all these other fields unrelated to electromagnetism that must also contract in the same manner. It is compelling evidence that the effect derives from (informally) space shrinking, not the matter and forces within it all being compressed the same by the ether. If you want to use a Lorentzian model for your own calculations, you go right ahead. The Lorentz length rules for compressed ether are mathematically equivalent to SR. But you will miss out on a much simpler and insightful model, just as everybody today uses Newton's laws in preference to Kepler's law of equal areas when thinking about planetary orbits.
From: whoever on 15 Apr 2010 06:13 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4bc6cf59$0$5591$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > The relationship between Lorentz and SR is similar. Lorentz is basically a > description of how space must contract for the MM theory to have a null > result. Not really .. LET does not have space contracting. It has objects contracting within a simple euclidean/galillean/newtonian 3D space. Similarly it has all processes slowed down, but time is a simple absolute orthogonal independent 'dimension' as it is in euclidean/galillean/newtonian physics. Of course, the upshot of this is that all the rulers and clocks we use to measure space and time are 'distorted' and the measurements you get are the same as what SR predicts you would measure. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: PD on 15 Apr 2010 06:16
On Apr 14, 11:43 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 6:36 pm, Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > 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. > > > "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..." > > >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm > > Isn't that amazing that someone can conjure up so much bullshit to > show how drastically two different interpretations to the same > mathematics can be? It is all word salad topped with Einstein's > fermented diarrhea as dressing. <shrug> > > Well, a close example is to tell which of the following circuit a > black box with two exposed electrodes contains. > > ** A battery of 1V with a 1-ohm series resistance > > ** A 1A current source with a 1-ohm shunt resistance > > Both circuits are Thevenin equivalent. |