Does the Lorentz Ether Theory "Work"?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 15 Apr 2010 21:46 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:16:56 -0700 (PDT), dlzc <dlzc1(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. > It depends on how the error bars are calculated. When a sensor picks up a mixture of signal and noise, its normal practice to pass the output through a filter to remove noise. When people do this, they calculate error bars from the signal output by the filter, not from the mixture of noise and signal output by the sensor. As the output from Miller's sensor (his interferometer), was quite noisy, he did exactly that, processing the raw data with an algorithm to remove noise. Based on the output, he was able to estimate probable error as follows. (On Page 238 of his 1933 paper) <Start extract> Probable error A study of the numerical results plotted in Fig 26 shows that the probably error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from ten to eleven kilometers per second is +/- 0.33 kilometers per second, while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/- 2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and declinations of the polar chart, Fig. 28 is +/- 0.5 degrees." <End extract> Some critics of Miller calculate much larger error bars. But the only way they can do this is by calculating their error bars from Miller's raw data. They thereby include in their calculations much irrelevant noise. But if Miller's experiment detected absolute motion, how can that be reconciled with the very accurate vacuum MM experiments that don't detect such motion? The answer is that absolute motion affects refractive index, so while vaccum MM experiments cannot detect absolute motion, MM experiments with optical media in the light path can. This has been intensively investigated in Russia. What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2899
From: BURT on 15 Apr 2010 23:32 On Apr 15, 6:46 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:16:56 -0700 (PDT), 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. > > It depends on how the error bars are calculated. > > When a sensor picks up a mixture of signal and noise, its normal > practice to pass the output through a filter to remove noise. When > people do this, they calculate error bars from the signal output by > the filter, not from the mixture of noise and signal output by the > sensor. > > As the output from Miller's sensor (his interferometer), was quite > noisy, he did exactly that, processing the raw data with an algorithm > to remove noise. > > Based on the output, he was able to estimate probable error as > follows. (On Page 238 of his 1933 paper) > > <Start extract> > > Probable error > > A study of the numerical results plotted in Fig 26 shows that the > probably error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from > ten to eleven kilometers per second is +/- 0.33 kilometers per > second, while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth > is +/- 2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and > declinations of the polar chart, Fig. 28 is +/- 0.5 degrees." > > <End extract> > > Some critics of Miller calculate much larger error bars. But the only > way they can do this is by calculating their error bars from Miller's > raw data. They thereby include in their calculations much irrelevant > noise. > > But if Miller's experiment detected absolute motion, how can that be > reconciled with the very accurate vacuum MM experiments that don't > detect such motion? The answer is that absolute motion affects > refractive index, so while vaccum MM experiments cannot detect > absolute motion, MM experiments with optical media in the light path > can. > > This has been intensively investigated in Russia. > > What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure?http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2899 Time is aether and you cannot leave time rate out of the universal equation. Mitch Raemsch
From: harald on 16 Apr 2010 05:32 On Apr 16, 12:43 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Apr 14, 3:36 am, 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. PS: that they essentially proposed the same theory was already admitted by Einstein in 1907 when he wrote in his paper "Ueber das Relativitaetsprinzip [..]" (translation mine): "The following is an attempt to summarize in one whole the works that until now came out of uniting the H. A. Lorentz theory [of 1895] and the Relativity principle. [..] I held myself to the works of H.A. Lorentz ([..] 1904) and A. Einstein ([..] 1905). You may find a translation of it in "The collected papers of Albert Einstein". Oh I already found it with Google before pressing the "send" button. The official translation reads: "The following is an attempt to summarize the studies that have resulted to date from the merger of the H. A. Lorentz theory and the principle of relativity. The first two parts of the paper deal with the kinematic foundations as well as with their application to the fundamental equations of the Maxwell-Lorentz theory, and are based on the studies by H. A. Lorentz ([...] 1904) and A. Einstein ([...] 1905)." Cheers, Harald > It's better not to listen to fables and distortions, but instead to > read the sources which are freely available. As Lorentz explained (in > section 8 of his 1904 relativity paper): > > " the forces between uncharged particles, as well as those between > such particles and electrons are influenced by a translation in quite > the same ways as electric forces > in an electrostatic system. [...] whatever be the nature of the > particles" > > Similarly, further on: > > "the proper relation between the forces and the accelerations will > exist if the masses of all particles are influenced by a translation > to the same degree as the e1ectromagnetic masses of the electrons." > > -http://www.wbabin.net/historical/lorentz.pdf > > His 1904 paper is often misrepresented as a "constructive theory", > while it was based on his theory of electrons together with Poincare's > PoR - which he poorly phrased as "many electromagnetic actions are > entirely independent of the motion of the system". In order to make > that principle work for electromagnetics and matter, he had to > generalize it for other physical phenomena as well. Note that one year > later Einstein basically did the same, but in a better structured and > more effective way. > > How much B.S. is told about these matters can be illustrated by > comparing Lorentz's motivation of relativistic mass increase for > neutral matter with Einstein's motivation for the same: > > "We remark that these results as to the [electron] mass are also valid > for ponderable material points, because a ponderable material point > can be made into an electron (in our sense of the word) by the > addition of an electric charge, no matter how small." > - Einstein 1905 > > Harald > > "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: Androcles on 16 Apr 2010 09:48 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:9dba821f-3cee-47a1-a948-eee23b2c78d6(a)12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On Apr 16, 12:43 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Apr 14, 3:36 am, 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. PS: that they essentially proposed the same theory was already admitted by Einstein in 1907 when he wrote in his paper "Ueber das Relativitaetsprinzip [..]" (translation mine): "The following is an attempt to summarize in one whole the works that until now came out of uniting the H. A. Lorentz theory [of 1895] and the Relativity principle. [..] I held myself to the works of H.A. Lorentz ([..] 1904) and A. Einstein ([..] 1905). You may find a translation of it in "The collected papers of Albert Einstein". Oh I already found it with Google before pressing the "send" button. The official translation reads: "The following is an attempt to summarize the studies that have resulted to date from the merger of the H. A. Lorentz theory and the principle of relativity. The first two parts of the paper deal with the kinematic foundations as well as with their application to the fundamental equations of the Maxwell-Lorentz theory, and are based on the studies by H. A. Lorentz ([...] 1904) and A. Einstein ([...] 1905)." Cheers, Harald > It's better not to listen to fables and distortions, but instead to > read the sources which are freely available. As Lorentz explained (in > section 8 of his 1904 relativity paper): > > " the forces between uncharged particles, as well as those between > such particles and electrons are influenced by a translation in quite > the same ways as electric forces > in an electrostatic system. [...] whatever be the nature of the > particles" > > Similarly, further on: > > "the proper relation between the forces and the accelerations will > exist if the masses of all particles are influenced by a translation > to the same degree as the e1ectromagnetic masses of the electrons." > > -http://www.wbabin.net/historical/lorentz.pdf > > His 1904 paper is often misrepresented as a "constructive theory", > while it was based on his theory of electrons together with Poincare's > PoR - which he poorly phrased as "many electromagnetic actions are > entirely independent of the motion of the system". In order to make > that principle work for electromagnetics and matter, he had to > generalize it for other physical phenomena as well. Note that one year > later Einstein basically did the same, but in a better structured and > more effective way. Better structured and more effective, tord? It's basically better not to basically listen to basic fables and basic distortions.
From: mpc755 on 16 Apr 2010 13:33
On Apr 15, 9:46 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:16:56 -0700 (PDT), 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. > > It depends on how the error bars are calculated. > > When a sensor picks up a mixture of signal and noise, its normal > practice to pass the output through a filter to remove noise. When > people do this, they calculate error bars from the signal output by > the filter, not from the mixture of noise and signal output by the > sensor. > > As the output from Miller's sensor (his interferometer), was quite > noisy, he did exactly that, processing the raw data with an algorithm > to remove noise. > > Based on the output, he was able to estimate probable error as > follows. (On Page 238 of his 1933 paper) > > <Start extract> > > Probable error > > A study of the numerical results plotted in Fig 26 shows that the > probably error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from > ten to eleven kilometers per second is +/- 0.33 kilometers per > second, while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth > is +/- 2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and > declinations of the polar chart, Fig. 28 is +/- 0.5 degrees." > > <End extract> > > Some critics of Miller calculate much larger error bars. But the only > way they can do this is by calculating their error bars from Miller's > raw data. They thereby include in their calculations much irrelevant > noise. > > But if Miller's experiment detected absolute motion, how can that be > reconciled with the very accurate vacuum MM experiments that don't > detect such motion? The answer is that absolute motion affects > refractive index, so while vaccum MM experiments cannot detect > absolute motion, MM experiments with optical media in the light path > can. > > This has been intensively investigated in Russia. > > 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. |