Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 11 Jul 2010 13:40 harald wrote: > What kind of Lorentzian relativity predicts a violation of its own > invariance??. You are confused. Lorentz was a prolific physicist with a long and varied career, and his name is associated with many different phenomena and equations. His LR (LET) does not satisfy local Lorentz invariance (LLI). This is so despite his name being associated with both. I do not know when local Lorentz invariance was first stated as a guiding principle for theoretical physicists, but I strongly suspect it was well after his death in 1928, at a time when LR (LET) had been abandoned and essentially forgotten. I'm basing this on the history of QM and QED, not GR. > That doesn't make any sense. It makes perfect sense once one knows what LLI actually means and what the structure of LET (LR) actually is. And this is not "predicts". LLI is a symmetry property of a theory, not any sort of prediction about the world or experimental results. > Anyway, if the "mere existence" of an "ether frame" violates LLT, then > the realistic interpretation of QM violates LLT. I assume LLT => LLI. Yes, QM violates LLI -- it's a non-relativistic theory. QED does not violate LLI, nor does the standard model. Indeed, the notion that LLI applies to every theory was essential to their discovery and development. That notion, of course, was motivated by SR, and came well after LR (LET) was presented. Tom Roberts
From: mpc755 on 11 Jul 2010 13:46 On Jul 11, 1:18 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > It is silly on its face to claim that the CMBR does not illuminate the > > rest frame of our universe. > > In cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, the CMBR dipole=0 frame > is also the cosmological frame in which the dust particles (galaxies) are at > rest, due to the way the CMBR was generated. This is merely a symmetry of the > manifold, and no "aether" is present, and the cosmological frame does not > participate in the dynamics. > There is dark matter. The state of which is determined by its connections with the matter. Dark matter participates in the dynamics. > In an expanding universe, it's not clear what "rest frame of our universe" means > -- NOTHING is "at rest", and it is not possible to compute any sort of "average" > [#]. But at each point in the FRW models there is a cosmological frame > reflecting the symmetry of the manifold, and it can be determined via local > measurements. > > [#] One might be able to compute an average over the visible > universe, but that's not at all the entire universe. > > Tom Roberts
From: Edward Green on 11 Jul 2010 14:04 On Jul 10, 11:17 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 7:15 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:05 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <...> > > > What, very specifically is your beef with the 'principle of > > > relativity'? > > > The fact that it purports that there are no absolutes in nature. > > But AFAIKT it does not really purports that. It purports that > physical processes will behave in the same manner regardless of one's > linear velocity. By extension, this means light's speed also appears > to measure the same speed. It actually says nothing about absolutes. > What it is really saying is, the universe is internally self > consistent. The real issue 'at the time' of both LET and SR > development was the very basic structure, and nature, of material > systems since these are necessary to make any such measurements. <...> I am sympathetic and intrigued by so called LET, but I wonder if there isn't a third way. SR essentially asserts a symmetry (LLI, as it is now styled -- the acronyms seems to grow in this group at military rates of accretion), whereas LET explains that symmetry. But LET leaves the ghost of an undetectable absolute frame. I wonder is there isn't a more mechanistic way of understanding LLI which eliminates the need for an absolute frame of reference.
From: mpc755 on 11 Jul 2010 14:26 On Jul 11, 1:18 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > It is silly on its face to claim that the CMBR does not illuminate the > > rest frame of our universe. > > In cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, the CMBR dipole=0 frame > is also the cosmological frame in which the dust particles (galaxies) are at > rest, due to the way the CMBR was generated. This is merely a symmetry of the > manifold, and no "aether" is present, and the cosmological frame does not > participate in the dynamics. > There is dark matter present. The state of which is determined by its connections with the matter. Dark matter participates in the dynamics. > In an expanding universe, it's not clear what "rest frame of our universe" means > -- NOTHING is "at rest", and it is not possible to compute any sort of "average" > [#]. But at each point in the FRW models there is a cosmological frame > reflecting the symmetry of the manifold, and it can be determined via local > measurements. > > [#] One might be able to compute an average over the visible > universe, but that's not at all the entire universe. > > Tom Roberts
From: Paul Stowe on 11 Jul 2010 14:54
On Jul 11, 11:04 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 11:17 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 7:15 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 1:05 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <...> > > > > > What, very specifically is your beef with the 'principle of > > > > relativity'? > > > > The fact that it purports that there are no absolutes in nature. > > > But AFAIKT it does not really purports that. It purports that > > physical processes will behave in the same manner regardless of one's > > linear velocity. By extension, this means light's speed also appears > > to measure the same speed. It actually says nothing about absolutes. > > What it is really saying is, the universe is internally self > > consistent. The real issue 'at the time' of both LET and SR > > development was the very basic structure, and nature, of material > > systems since these are necessary to make any such measurements. > > <...> > > I am sympathetic and intrigued by so called LET, but I wonder if there > isn't a third way. SR essentially asserts a symmetry (LLI, as it is > now styled -- the acronyms seems to grow in this group at military > rates of accretion), whereas LET explains that symmetry. But LET > leaves the ghost of an undetectable absolute frame. I wonder is there > isn't a more mechanistic way of understanding LLI which eliminates the > need for an absolute frame of reference. Just FYI, LET is to what I call Lorentzian Relativity (LR) as SR is to GR. IOW Lorentzian Relativity encompasses both SR/GR with Lorentz's take on what underlies the mathematics of GR hydrodynamical equation. Thus while LR includes LET it scope is much broader... Now, to your question, as the excerpt below demonstrates, ======== The Handbook of Physics, Section 3, Chap 8 "Acoustics ======== (Condon & Odishaw, McGraw-Hill Publishing) 9. Radiation from a Simple Source in a Moving Medium An important question concerns the effect of steady motion of the medium on the field distribution from a stationary simple source of sound located in free space. In the absence of motion of the medium the sound field will be spherically symmetrical, and the surfaces of constant phase will coincide with the surfaces of constant amplitude. Motion of the medium will split this coincidence. - - - - \ - ^ - - - - \ / | \ - - - \ | | | - - - \ | R* | - - - \ | | | - - - \ | | | - - - \ | | | - - - \ |<--R---o---------> v ---------------------------o-> v | Source | - - - /Source | | - - -/ | | - - -/ | | - - - / | | - - - / \ / - - - / - - - - - / - - - - / Figure 8.2 Subsonic Velocity Supersonic Velocity B = v/c < 1 B = v/c > 1 FIG. 8.2.Equal sound pressure contours from sound source in motion or for a stationary source in a moving medium. The contours are in both cases measured in a coordinate system attached to the source. The field distribution of a stationary source in a moving medium measured in the stationary coordinate system IS THE SAME as that of a moving source in a stationary medium measured in the frame connected with the source. The field from a point source located at the origin of the stationary coordinate system xyz in which the medium moves with a constant velocity v in the direction of the x axis is: Q(t - R/c) P(x,y,z,t) = -------------------- 4pi[R*]Sqrt(1 - B^2) Where B[x*] + R* R = ------------- Sqrt(1 - B^2) and x R*^2 = x*^2 + y^2 + z^2, x* = ------------- Sqrt(1 - B^2) which can readily be seen to satisfy Eqs. (8.7). The surfaces of constant phase, given by R = constant, are spheres of radius RSqrt(1 + +B^2) with the origin at x = RB. This can be easily seen in an elementary way by calculating the time it takes for a pulse of sound to reach x, y, z. The surfaces of constant sound pressure, on the other hand, are given by R* = constant, which corresponds to the ellipsoid x^2/(l - B^2) + y^2 + z^2 = constant = R*^2, as pictured in Fig. 8.2. It is interesting to notice that the field is the same up and down wind and that the intensity is larger in a direction at right angles to the flow. Physically the decrease of sound pressure in the directions with and against the wind can be explained as follows. Down wind the space occupied by a pulse of energy of certain length is "stretched" out, and the energy density is correspondingly decreased. Up wind the wave has effectively to travel further to reach the point of observation, and the effect of spherical divergence will be comparatively larger. ==================================================================== Moving acoustical sources create field profile who's form is consistent to Lorentz's proposal and are LLI. If one were 'restricted' to using ONLY instrumentation which consisted of agglomerations of such fields the results of any measurements would be, also, LLI. This is also explained in this paper, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4652v2.pdf and, http://www.wbabin.net/physics/rothenstein19.pdf These combined should provide ample evidence to demonstrate that LLI is the native behavior of basic acoustical fields. There is no mystery here or anything special about an aetherial medium behaving the same way. Paul Stowe |