Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued
From: Martin Hogbin (goatNOSPAM1_at_hogbin.org)
Date: 07/04/04
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- Previous message: Y.Porat: "Re: Radius of electron"
- In reply to: Trevor Morris: "Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued"
- Next in thread: Trevor Morris: "Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued"
- Reply: Trevor Morris: "Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 09:02:15 +0000 (UTC)
"Trevor Morris" <tedd90@XXXfreeuk.com> wrote in message news:1088638350.26499.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.uk.clara.net...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Hogbin" <goatNOSPAM1@hogbin.org>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 6:35 PM
> Subject: Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued
>
> > "Trevor Morris" <tedd90@XXXfreeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:1088290492.627.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> > > "Martin Hogbin" <goatNOSPAM1@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > > news:cb3i8m$6gu$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Trevor Morris" <tedd90@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a98f5d4d.0406180406.427c3a16@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Martin Hogbin" <goatNOSPAM1@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > > news:<c8lq18$kdq$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > > > > > "Trevor Morris" <tedd90@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a98f5d4d.0405200710.1a818287@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > [Sorry for the delay - picking it up via Google]
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Martin Hogbin" <goatNOSPAM1@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > > news:<c72eq9$ivk$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > >
> > > OK, we can give up if you like, but surely you can see that LET leads to
> > > (i.e. "explains") Einstein's postulates. Conversely, while Einstein's
> > > postulates do not preclude LET, they certainly do not "explain" them.
> > >
> > No, either can be used to 'explain' the other.
>
> Look, just suspend your disbelief
OK, but in return I will ask you at the end to free your mind of
self-imposed limitations.
> and imagine for a moment that space really
> is a kind of universal medium for all radiative energy propagation, and that
> nothing can go faster than a certain speed limit relative to that unique
> medium. What would be the results of such a scenario? The results would
> clearly be that inertial observers would find that the laws of physics were
> independent of their unaccelerated motion, and they would find that they all
> agreed on the measured value of the speed limit, using certain agreed
> procedures.
Yes I have always agreed this.
> Those latter *results on their own* are *consistent* with that
> given scenario, but in no way *explain* it. There is a definite logical
> asymmetry between the LET and SR approaches, with LET => SR as a result ,
> but SR not necessarily => LET as a reason, though not precluding it either,
> in spite of declaring it superfluous. In fact SR as normally promulgated
> studiously avoids making *any* logical implication as to what might underlie
> its postulates - and most see that as a great virtue.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. I will talk about it at the end.
> > > OK, but some choices are more logical than others. LET => SR is logical
> > > and inevitable.
> >
> > Yes, but not in the sense you mean it. Once you see that in LET
> > the aether becomes redundant it is logical to dispense with it.
>
> No again: it is in SR that the ether is declared redundant (unjustifiably
> imho), not in LET.
>
> > > The other way, all we can say is that SR does not preclude LET,
> > > which is much weaker, imo.
> >
> > Agreed also, but not the way you mean it.
> > > Your suggestion was presciently adopted
> > > by S J Prokhovnik in 1967: "The Logic of Special Relativity" (pub. CUP),
> > > and I doubt that I could do much better.
> >
> > I have not seen this book but from the title and what I can find out
> > about it in the web it does not seem to me to be a book that
> > is mainly about presenting LET as a usable theory.
>
> I would say it is about how all the ambiguities and difficulties of
> interpretation of SR vanish if you start from the LET model and show how
> that leads to SR.
I will take you word for that as I have not seen the book. But that is still
not quite what I meant. I meant a book entitled something like, 'An
introduction to Lorentz Ether Theory'. The book would derive all the
standard SR/LET results, starting of course with the Lorentz
transformations, and including the (apparent) equivalence of mass and
energy, all strictly from the viewpoint of a Lorentz aether. Showing that
LET is equivalent to SR and then using the techniques and philosophy
of SR will not do. If you want the aether then you must keep it.
Most equations would include an unknown vector representing
motion through the aether. This would always drop out as the
calculations continued.
> > How do you
> > account for the fact that all the world physicists (with very few
> > exceptions indeed) prefer Einstein's theory of relativity to LET?
>
> That is a good question. You are alluding to the common delusion of nutters
> that they are right and everybody else is wrong. If you focus in on the
> question a bit, though, you can begin to see that its main assumption may
> not be very robust. For a start, how many qualified physicists would you
> say do any more than I did re. SR: i.e. learn the standard derivations and
> reproduce them in an Hons. Physics exam (one of a series of seven, iirc),
> applying them maybe to a little problem re. muons, and then find a job in
> the real world in which detailed consideration of the origins of SR is quite
> a rare necessity?
Very few.
> Certainly, I worked and dealt with many professional
> scientists over 30-odd years, but I can recall finding only two or three who
> were capable of carrying out a serious, informed discussion on the
> background of SR, one of whom was Prof. Simon Prokhovnik, as a result of my
> reading his book and writing to him.
>
> I found some of my final exam question papers the other day, and I had
> actually chosen to answer the question on SR (I had forgotten that!), even
> though we had only to do 4 out of 10 questions given. So you see I was
> pretty keen to demonstrate my prowess in SR, back then, and I had to use its
> results (which are the same as those of LET, of course) at work later on.
> (I got a 2-1, btw., and I'm pretty sure that my derivation of the Lorentz
> transformations from Einstein's postulates was "correct" in exam terms.)
>
> So of "all the world's physicists", how many would you guess have *really*
> thought beyond their textbooks and exam answers re. SR itself,
Less than ten percent
>still less
> re. SR vs LET, when they are unlikely to have learned anything at all (and
> even less likely anything correct) about LET? Damn few, I would guess.
Sure, maybe one percent or less.
> And
> I would also guess that it is in the ranks of those damn few that you will
> find those who like me are quite relaxed about the fact that Lorentz may
> have got it essentially right, but sad that he didn't get the credit he
> deserved. And then there will be even damn fewer (of those already damn
> few) who are going to stick their neck out for Lorentz at the risk of being
> declared a nutter while still hoping for a career ...
I accept your argument that a very small proportion of physicists
will look into the subject that closely, still less care about it, but there
must be literally millions of physics graduates in the world. Even if
one in a thousand meets your criteria there would be thousands
of bright willing physicists challenging SR. Even in parts of the world
with ideologies that conflict wildly with our own, no one does this.
Relativity has been around for nearly a century and it has been
critically examined many times.
>So I attach very
> little weight to what "all the world's physicists" might be imagined to
> think about LET and SR. I know what a select few who have really thought
> about this topic have concluded, and I refuse to be cowed by any views
> assumed to be held by those who will in the vast majority of cases have
> looked only at standard textbooks,
What about the people who wrote the text books?
> I hope that answers your question.
One of the better attempts but it still fails. There have been many
mistakes, hoaxes, and scams in science. Some fooled many
scientists fore some time but you cannot fool all of the people all
of the time.
Even on this newsgroup, apart from a hard core of crackpots
who could not even agree on how to measure the speed of
a train, there is little support for LET.
As mentioned above, the main difference between us is the
philosophy of what constitutes a good 'explanation'.
As an example, consider Newtonian gravitation (or
classical electrostatics for that matter). Newtonian
gravitation was accepted as one of the great theories of
physics but, despite this, it is nothing more than a recipe,
as you call it. It lets us calculate the force between any
two masses but does not give any 'explanation' of why
this force exists.
But what form could an 'explanation' take that would not
lead to greater complication for no benefit? Are we to
imagine an 'aether' of undetectable particles that leads to
the attraction between masses? Would it make you
happier to find that there is an 'explanation'
What kind of explanation could exist that would not
lead to even more questions?
Much better, in my opinion, to accept philosophical
concepts as the final answer (unless and until they are
disproved by experiment). Most people find concepts
like symmetry and conservation attractive, thus they
often play a part in theories of physics.
You seem to be compelled to want to 'explain' everything
in terms of the familiar. Let me ask you this question. If
Newtonian gravity had proved to be in complete
agreement with experiment, would you have insisted that
there must be some 'explanation' for it?
Martin Hogbin
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- Previous message: Y.Porat: "Re: Radius of electron"
- In reply to: Trevor Morris: "Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued"
- Next in thread: Trevor Morris: "Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued"
- Reply: Trevor Morris: "Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
