Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 10 Jul 2010 06:50 On Jul 10, 2:12 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2:30 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > Edward Green wrote: > > > >> On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > >>> Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > > > >>> ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > > > >>> no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > > > >>> put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > > > >>> some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > > > >>> CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. > > > > > Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate? > > > > Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in 1928. > > > > The CMBR has a rich and varied multipole structure, as any good reference on it > > > will show. There are maps of CMBR temperature in all directions, and they have > > > LOTS of structure; ironically, they are invariably displayed in the dipole=0 > > > frame (because otherwise the dipole would obscure the structure because the > > > dipole is by far the largest multipole present). Selecting the frame in which > > > its dipole moment is zero cannot cancel all the other multipoles, and thus it is > > > not isotropic in that frame. > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with PaulStowe, who says the > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > > -- however exactly that is quantified. > > http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec23.html > > Quote, > > "The CMB is highly isotropy, uniform to better than 1 > part in 100,000. Any deviations from uniformity are > measuring the fluctuations that grew by gravitational > instability into galaxies and clusters of galaxies." > > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9709058http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs-Wolfe_effect > > Paul Stowe Thanks for the references! Harald
From: Tom Roberts on 10 Jul 2010 07:35 eric gisse wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: >> On Jul 9, 7:58 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> PaulStowewrote: >>>> Well, since all 'local' time and distance relate by behavior explained >>>> by 'Lorentz' AND alway have the very same measured values as that >>>> which would be measured in the rest frame I'd say that WAS! local >>>> Lorentz invariance'... >>> Say that all you want, it means nothing, because that is not what "local >>> Lorentz invariance" actually means. >>>> So, produce a property of observation that will result in a LLI >>>> violation for LR. >>> That is not how one establishes LLI. For LET (LR) the equations for >>> observable quantities agree with those of SR, which has LLI. But there >>> are other equations of LET (LR) that don't obey LLI, such as velocity wrt >>> the ether frame. The mere existence of a special frame violates LLI. >> >> One does not 'establish' LLI, it either physically exists, or does >> not... Not true. LLI is not a "physical" property. LLI is a symmetry of a THEORY. That is, it is an aspect of the MODEL. When I used the word "establish" above, I meant that one must mathematically prove LLI for a given theory, and for LET (LR) that proof fails. >> If it does not, then, there's your distinguishing difference >> between LR & SR. Lack of LLI is certainly one difference between LR (LET) and SR. But in this case it is not a MEASURABLE difference, it is a THEORETICAL difference. It is related to the structure of the model, not to the correspondence between model and world (in this case). > Since there hasn't been a single test that has shown a violation of Lorentz > invariance, I guess SR is right and LR is wrong. It's not that simple. LR (LET) is not "wrong" in the sense that it fails any experimental test, because it does not (within its domain). But as I have said so often, LET is not useful, in the sense that it could not have led to most of the advances in theoretical physics over the past century. During that time, it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to abandon the concept of aether for electrodynamics, and recognize the importance of fundamental symmetries, most particularly LLI. LLI has a profound effect on the permissible structure of potential theories -- that's what makes it so powerful. One of the major steps in the development of modern QM was Wigner recognizing that the angular momentum states are irreducible representations of the Lorentz group.... Note that QM was then a NON-relativistic theory, and this was a great big hint about how to generalize to a theory that satisfies LLI, which became QED. Tom Roberts
From: Paul Stowe on 10 Jul 2010 10:25 On Jul 10, 4:35 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > eric gisse wrote: > > PaulStowewrote: > >> On Jul 9, 7:58 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> PaulStowewrote: > >>>> Well, since all 'local' time and distance relate by behavior explained > >>>> by 'Lorentz' AND alway have the very same measured values as that > >>>> which would be measured in the rest frame I'd say that WAS! local > >>>> Lorentz invariance'... > >>> Say that all you want, it means nothing, because that is not what "local > >>> Lorentz invariance" actually means. > >>>> So, produce a property of observation that will result in a LLI > >>>> violation for LR. > >>> That is not how one establishes LLI. For LET (LR) the equations for > >>> observable quantities agree with those of SR, which has LLI. But there > >>> are other equations of LET (LR) that don't obey LLI, such as velocity wrt > >>> the ether frame. The mere existence of a special frame violates LLI. > > >> One does not 'establish' LLI, it either physically exists, or does > >> not... > > Not true. LLI is not a "physical" property. LLI is a symmetry of a THEORY.. That > is, it is an aspect of the MODEL. When I used the word "establish" above, I > meant that one must mathematically prove LLI for a given theory, and for LET > (LR) that proof fails. > > >> If it does not, then, there's your distinguishing difference > >> between LR & SR. > > Lack of LLI is certainly one difference between LR (LET) and SR. But in this > case it is not a MEASURABLE difference, it is a THEORETICAL difference. It is > related to the structure of the model, not to the correspondence between model > and world (in this case). > > > Since there hasn't been a single test that has shown a violation of Lorentz > > invariance, I guess SR is right and LR is wrong. > > It's not that simple. LR (LET) is not "wrong" in the sense that it fails any > experimental test, because it does not (within its domain). But as I have said > so often, LET is not useful, in the sense that it could not have led to most of > the advances in theoretical physics over the past century. During that time, it > was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to abandon the concept of aether for electrodynamics, > and recognize the importance of fundamental symmetries, most particularly LLI. > > LLI has a profound effect on the permissible structure of > potential theories -- that's what makes it so powerful. > One of the major steps in the development of modern > QM was Wigner recognizing that the angular momentum states > are irreducible representations of the Lorentz group.... > Note that QM was then a NON-relativistic theory, and this > was a great big hint about how to generalize to a theory > that satisfies LLI, which became QED. > > Tom Roberts How many angels can dance on the head of a pin Tom? Since there is, NO! physical difference in the behavior of time or space AND Lorentz provides a physical casual behavior for said behavior there is only wished for 'symmetry' in the mind of Tom. Thus, as I said before your whole argument is, absurd!! Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 10 Jul 2010 10:32 On Jul 10, 3:50 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 9, 11:30 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > Edward Green wrote: > > > >> On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > >>> Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the > > > >>> ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had > > > >>> no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have > > > >>> put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be > > > >>> some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the > > > >>> CMBR was isotropic, it isn't. > > > > > Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate? > > > > Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in 1928. > > > > The CMBR has a rich and varied multipole structure, as any good reference on it > > > will show. There are maps of CMBR temperature in all directions, and they have > > > LOTS of structure; ironically, they are invariably displayed in the dipole=0 > > > frame (because otherwise the dipole would obscure the structure because the > > > dipole is by far the largest multipole present). Selecting the frame in which > > > its dipole moment is zero cannot cancel all the other multipoles, and thus > > > it is not isotropic in that frame. > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with PaulStowe, who says the > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000 > > -- however exactly that is quantified. > > Actually that is in perfect agreement; and thanks for the > clarification of the smallness of the deviations. > > Harald Perfect agreement with what??? Paul Stowe
From: PD on 10 Jul 2010 12:18
On Jul 10, 1:56 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 10, 7:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:59 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 7, 5:43 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 7, 8:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 3:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The problem, you see, is that the comic-book statement you are using > > > > > > > > as your launching point belongs in COLP's Oversimplified Relativity. > > > > > > > > It's not a comic book statement any more than Einstein's statement > > > > > > > that a moving clock lags behind a stationary clock is a comic book > > > > > > > statement. > > > > > > > Not so. Einstein's statement included things that you have discounted. > > > > > > I haven't discounted them. > > > > > > > For example, he makes note of specific events, rather than just making > > > > > > the general statement that "moving clocks" run slow. > > > > > > The description of the specific events only serves to illustrate that > > > > > it is the moving clock that runs slow compared to the stationary > > > > > clock. > > > > > Then you have misunderstood what he said. The EVENTS do more than > > > > that. > > > > How, exactly? > > So your claim regarding the events is baseless, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, he > > > > > > makes EXPLICIT mention of the statement that the clocks at points A > > > > > > and B are initially synchronized IN THE K FRAME. > > > > > > Assuming that they weren't synchonized in my general description of > > > > > "the moving clock runs slow" would be arbitrary and illogical. > > > > > They are synchronized in the K frame. They are not synchronized in the > > > > K' frame. This is essential and cannot be dismissed. > > > > If they are not synchronized in the K' frame, then the K frame becomes > > > the preferred frame of reference, which contradicts Einstein's first > > > postulate. > > > Why? Two clocks being synchronized or not synchronized do not > > determine a preferred frame. > > Yes they do. By choosing a frame in your theoretical example which > corresponds to the actual preferred frame, your example gives results > which conform to reality. If you choose an alternate frame, paradoxes > become apparent. What? No. Do you know what "preferred frame" means? If so, tell me what you think it means. > In Einstein's original example the stationary frame > is the preferred frame, as is the case for SR measurements made near > the Earth. What ever gave you the impression that Einstein took the Earth frame to be preferred? > > > A preferred frame is one in which the LAWS OF PHYSICS are different > > than in other frames. > > No, there is more to it that that. Einstien's first postulate assumes > that: "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics > possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" Sorry, but that is a conclusion FROM the postulate. The meaning of "preferred frame" as used by physicists is what I described. > > If this postulate is true then you have no basis for making your > observations from the stationary frame; i.e it would make no > difference whether you made your observations from frame K or from > frame K'. Nor does it make any difference. The laws of physics take the same form from either frame. This does NOT entail that if clocks are synchronized in K, then they are also synchronized in K'. That is not what the principle of relativity means. PD |