Re: LET prediction wanted
From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 09/24/04
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Properties"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: shevek: "Re: LET prediction wanted"
- Next in thread: shevek: "Re: LET prediction wanted"
- Reply: shevek: "Re: LET prediction wanted"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:50:45 +0200
"shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c2ee115b.0409230910.182bdd51@posting.google.com...
> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:<41528fb1$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> > "shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:c2ee115b.0409220824.3da4cb22@posting.google.com...
> > > harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch (Harry) wrote in message
> > news:<3bff5641.0409210351.69a53acb@posting.google.com>...
> > > > shevek4@yahoo.com (shevek) wrote in message
> > news:<c2ee115b.0409170758.12a6f9e8@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > news:<4149c71f$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> > > > > > "shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:c2ee115b.0409160633.628f912c@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:<aC72d.2842$Qv5.521@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > > > > > > shevek wrote:
> > > > > > > > > [... long description]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > I understand that SR and the Lorentz transformations give the
result
> > > > > as quoted by Tom, but I'm trying to figure out what an ether
theory
> > > > > would predict.
> > > >
> > > > Which one? The one of Lorentz predicts what his transformations
> > > > predict.
> > > > Why is that so hard to understand?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because you simply assert it and do not attempt to explain how or why.
> >
> > How can you think that? I explained your next question:
> > "> In particular what exactly is wrong with what I wrote. The clocks
are
> > > in synch only in a given frame, I understand that."
> >
> > By writing:
> >
> > "When the time interval is measured with two clocks that are improperly
> > synchronized, the measured time interval also depends on the time
> > diference between the clocks."
> >
> > But you snipped it! Weird. It's the key point, as also elaborated in the
> > reference I gave you.
>
> I agree completely with that statement. I think where we differ is in
> determination of the synchronization offset.. where you apply the
> symmetric Lorentz transformations I was asking about ether in
> gallilean relativity with Lorentz-Fitzgerald contractions.
No we don't differ, at least not in principle. This offset was qualitatively
explained in 1904, before the Lorentz transformations. It follows directly
from the assumption that light speed is isotropic in the ether frame, so
that the assumption of isotropy in other frames leads to asynchronous clocks
in those frames (and "measured" isotropy).
> > > By Lorentz transformations I assume you are referring to those
> > > transformations used in SR to accomodate the equivalence of all
> > > inertial frames. This does not apply to an ether theory! By LET I
> > > did not mean rote application of the Lorentz transformations, I meant
> > > an ether theory with Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction.
> >
> > It is that theory that, with the PoR in mind, led to the Lorentz
> > transformations of Poincare. That was _before_ anyone heard of Einstein
or
> > the expression "special relativity". The main point to understand with
its
> > consequences, emphasised by Poincare in 1904, is that what is thought to
be
> > simultaneous in one frame is thought to be not simultaneous in another
> > frame. Taking readings of those two clocks as you did will therefore not
> > yield the relationship you thought as they are not correctly
synchronized.
>
> My reponse to Roberts' post about velocity in the ether frame was
> wrong. Sorry about that. I did indeed use something like "the
> reading at clock A when object arrives at clock B", which of course
> makes no sense.
>
> Also, my use of the term "LET" was probably incorrect.. I was
> thinking about an ether theory in galilean space-time, with
> Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction;
That is either a self contradiction or a too hazy statement. The moment you
have contraction of your rulers, your ruler's measure disagrees with
"Galilean space-time". The laws of physics such as expressed with the
Lorentz transformations relate to measurements with physical clocks and
rulers that move at unknown speed. From that point onward, "Galilean
space-time" must be admitted to be outside of our field of observation.
> hence my refusal to apply the Lorentz
> transformations as step one of determining clock synchronization
> offsets.
You don't need them. From assuming time dilation of your clocks and length
contraction of your rulers you can obtain the Lorentz transformations, or
you can use those assumptions directly to calculate clock synchronization
offset as function of speed. As one follows from the other, there is no
fundamental difference.
Harald
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Properties"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: shevek: "Re: LET prediction wanted"
- Next in thread: shevek: "Re: LET prediction wanted"
- Reply: shevek: "Re: LET prediction wanted"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
