Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:57:42 GMT

On 16 Sep 2004 06:59:44 -0700, reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:

>Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<hhhhk09tlj332nt0jtris3r0abhp6f9dr4@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Sep 2004 10:21:51 -0700, reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<9ftek0lnne7rv6dnh0dqbdn2lsn0ni6h9i@4ax.com>...
>>>> On 14 Sep 2004 06:55:19 -0700, reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<qlick0p3uhfcbebll3cfbmjh813gahj2oc@4ax.com>...
>>>>>> On 13 Sep 2004 07:59:53 -0700, reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
 
 [snip]

>>> I made no claim that the two theories have an observational
>>> distinction! Quite the opposite. They cannot because they
>>> are both Lorentz covariant theories.
>>
>> Then they are then both relativistic, or, conversely, the POR
>> has NO distinctiveness from a real world observable standpoint.
>
> In order to be a relativistic theory, a theory either has to
> treat all inertial frames of reference exactly alike,

 And here I thought Galileo was a proponent of the priniciple
 of relativity. Now, in the 'real world' all theories based upon
 Maxwell/Lorentzian aether do also. Evvidenced by your continued
 inability to define/describe/demonstrate any physical/observable
 differences.

> ... or to make no use of absolute velocity.

 If, by chance you ever DO get around to reading Lorentz's work
 you'll realize that he 'makes NO USE' of absolute velocity other
 than to show that transformations to any arbitrarily moving
 coordinate system retains the same form for all EM based
 equations.

> By either of those two criteria LET fails to be relativistic.

 Bull***!
 
>> If, as you just admitted, the POR has no properties or
>> characteristics that can uniquely separate it from basic local
>> Lorentz covariance it isn't scientifically verifiable.
>
> Phenomena is explained by laws + happenstance + interventions

 Nope, phenomena is 'explained' by people, period! There are
 NO happenstance in nature.

> The PoR can be stated as such: apart from happenstance and
> interventions the behavior of the universe is the same in all
> inertial frames of reference.
>
> That claim is observationally verifiable.

 It damned well better be or nature wouldn't be internally self
 consistent. But, the beloved bilateral symmetery can be a
 illusion of nature. The POR (as you perceive it) is simply not
 in the scientific arena.

 What IS obervationally verifiable is perfect (or nearly so)
 local Lorentz Covariance. IOW, that the LT's hold. Given
 their second order nature, any asymmetries cannot not be
 investigated.

>> On the other hand, Lorentz covariance can be can be shown to be
>> a direct physical result of a kinetic particulate system in
>> which no disturbing process can be propagated at speeds greater
>> than the mean speed of the particle's population.
>
> Lorentz covariance is a form; a heuristic, ...

 It a mathematical relationship, that's far stronger that a
 heuristic...

> ... since it acts on the formulation of laws and no one can prove
> that laws are real. (Please distinguish laws from the behavior
> they are intended to point to)

 If no-one could disprove the LT relationships the whole thing
 would be philosophical, not science.
 
>> I'll take the physical founding explanation over a hand-waving
>> 'feel good' principle any day.
>
> Groovy!

 :)
 
 [snip]

>>> Lorentz's theory, claimed Einstein, has the laws of Maxwell true in
>>> only the rest frame of the ether!
>>
>> If that was, in fact, true then there WOULD BE a discernable difference
>> in Lorentz's proposition and standard SR. On the contrary BOTH solved
>> for exactly the same thing, holding Maxwell's equations unchanged in
>> any inertial moving system. That is, how Maxwell defined and derived
>> them.
>
> No. No. NO. I explained below!

 'You' can attempt to 'explain' to the cows come home but the written
 words of both Lorentz & Einstein's papers a objective evidence to the
 contrary.
 
>>> This requires a subtle semantic argument. The notion of a law of
>>> physics has evolved over the years. Before Einstein, a law was an
>>> invariable relationship on absolute quantities, such as absolute
>>> time (not local time) and absolute space (not contracted space).
>>
>> I think that most aetherist, even at the time of Lorentz/Einstein
>> would NOT claim that absolute values were discernable.
>
> Yet Lorentz's theory used them.

 Good, then referencing his paper, point these out!

>> There, yes, but not observable due to the constraints on who & what
>> we are and are made of.
>>
>>> But after Einstein, a law is an invariable relationship on the
>>> variables of physics, be they measurable or theoretical quantities.
>>
>> Pure handwaving 'philosophy'. Nature is not, nor cares not, about
>> theoretical quantities.
>
> Of course Nature doesn't give a damn what humans do. Nature invents
> natural events;

 Nature 'invents' nothing... Now that IS anthrophomorphic...

> humans invent theories to explain those events.

 Human do come up with proposed explanations, yes...

> The theories belong to humans, not to Nature! Didn't they teach
> you even the basics of what a scientific theory is in school?

 Yup, & one step was, based upon observation, form a hypothesis.

 BTW, hypothesis IS NOT a theory.
 
>>> From Einstein's PoV, Lorentz's theory not only held the PoR to
>>> no effect,
>>
>> One could, as I've done above, argue the opposite. In fact, using
>> the kinetic process limitation, they have a solid foundation to
>> argue that the POR (as you envision it) is pure pie in the sky
>> musings without ANY actual physical foundation. If you think
>> otherwise, please feel quite free to point out the first principle
>> modeling connections that will lead directly to a local but not
>> global Lorentz covariance.

 Yup, as expected, no answer...
 
>>> it also maintained an inferior notion of "law of physics." In
>>> Einstein's philosophy, the new notion of law of physics must be
>>> a "general" (i.e., covariant) law, which wouldn't be a considered
>>> a law at all if it held in only one frame.
>>
>> I totally agree. But that has ZERO to do with the basis of an
>> observed covariance. That is a result of strict causality &
>> conservation.
>>
>>> From Einstein's PoV, a rule that held in only one frame is not a
>>> law, though it can be transformed into a law by making the rule
>>> covariant.
>>
>> This has no pertinence in science. It either is or is not, Lorentz
>> covariant. If it is, then the rules apply across all transformations.
>
> Einstein's philosophy of physics was stronger than yours, because his
> could be generalized even further.

 A distinction without a difference. Or, present one.

>> That would seem to make the POR conceptually redundant EXCEPT from
>> a purely philosophical concept of beauty in 'symmetry'.
>
> There is no such thing as phsyics prior to philosophy. Without a
> philosphy of how to do phsyics you can't do physics.

 Sure you can...

> I'm telling you what I think is Einstein's philosophy on the issues
> here. You are entitled to your own philosophy.

 And to my intepretation of those very same writings :)

> The PoR is stronger than covariance. One could argue that once you
> have a covariant theory one doesn't need the heuristic of covariance
> any more either. The covariant equations are enough. Well, if you
> don't care how the human mind comes up with theories that work, I
> suppose you wouldn't care. But Einstein followed the same heuristic
> pattern from Newton-Lorentz to SR as he did to go from Newton-SR to
> GR.

 Heuristics is not scientific. Most will argue that the equational
 form IS paramount (not I though). To me explanatory power &
 equational quantification BOTH need be ther.
 
>>> To Lorentz covariance was at best a mere convenient happenstance
>>> to the true laws of Maxwell
>>
>> The laws of Maxwell are 'true' in all inertial frames.
>
> I already answered that. To Lorentz, Maxwell's equations had truth
> only in the rest frame of the ether because only in that frame was
> absolute time obtainable and lengths were not shortened. It's a
> semantic issue that's hard to appreciate post SR's accendency because
> few people bothered to take a close look at the subtle change in
> meaning of the term "law of physics" from pre- to post-SR.

 When one starts revising definitions then they've lost it. I
 hate to be the one to break the news to you BUT, Maxwell's
 equations, in their original form ARE Lorent covariance as is!

>> If that was not so, Faraday's studies would have revealed it.
>> Maxwell knew quite well that the Earth was far from 'at rest'
>> in the aether. Given that fact, please point to ANY derivation
>> from Maxwell that attempts to factor this into the solutions
>> sought. In fact, quite the opposite, Maxwell says that only
>> RELATIVE motion between EM components matter and need be
>> considered. This IS why Maxwell's equations, as penned, are
>> correctly 'relativistic' right out of the box. He depended
>> (although it is quite unclear whether or not he realized this
>> fact) upon the fact that any kinetic system is so constrained.
>
> Faraday was not Lorentz. Faraday did not envision local time and
> Lorentz-Fitzgerald contractions.

 Neither does nature :)

> You are confusing phenomena and the theories invented to explain
> phenomena.

 No, I'd say it was you that's clearly doing that...

> Didn't they teach you ANYTHING in your science classes?

 You lost...
 
>>> that are true in the rest frame of the ether. To Einstein, the
>>> notion of law presumes covariance.
>>
>> So, as he pointed out numerous times (including his 1920 Leyden article)
>> this is NOT incompatible (and quite the opposite) with a physical aether.
>
> Covariance is a rather light constraint in the scheme of things
> theoretically speaking. The PoR is a heavy constraint on
> theories---much more so than mere covariance.

 And the difference is...

> Adopting the PoR forced Einstein to go back to Newton and start over.
> No absolute velocity space allowed! But mechanics is Galilean
> covariant.

 No, IT is not... Our older model of it was. That held because
 we are NOT moving near light speed (relativistic velocities).

 IOW, you simply cannot discern the difference.

> So, the new theory must reduce to Galilean covariance.

 No, it does not. Strictly speaking, it does Not.

> So, what covariance is consistent with Maxwell's theory for
> electrodynamics yet is Galilean covariant on the domain of
> applicability in Newton's theory? Well, you KNOW that answer,
> don't you.

 Any system that has local Lorentz covariance...
 
 [snip]

> A conceptual 'modeling' constraint is a constraint that goes into the
> models used in a theory. Constraints on models reduce the size of the
> class of modeling options in a theory.
>
>>>> The Lorentz Covariance is an OBSERVED PHYSICAL constraint. One
>>>> is observational, the other 'philosophical'.
>
> Einstein didn't think so.

 Oh, I 'think' he did. But it really doesn't matter. The above
 is a statement of fact.

> He believed that the Lorentz Covariance did not imply Maxwell's
> equations.

 Refernce and specific quote please...

> He treated Lorentz Covariance as a heuristic of no direct empirical
> weight. He considered the PoR to have empirical evidence.
>
>>> Lorentz covariance was not a modeling constraint to Lorentz though you
>>> may think of it as such.
>>
>> Go READ his 1904 paper...!
>
> Go read Einstein for a change.

 Been there, done that. Can you say the same?

 Paul Stowe

Quantcast