Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory
From: John Kennaugh (JKNG_at_kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 01/03/05
- Next message: Przypadek: "Re: VOTE! - Usenet Kook Awards, December 2004"
- Previous message: Aratzio: "Re: VOTE! - Usenet Kook Awards, December 2004"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:45:17 +0000
Harry writes
>
>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:EfwZTiBFA5xBFwmP@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> Harry writes
>> >
>> >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:zEDklaKNJgwBFwYz@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> >> In message <slrncrbfja.f0.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, Bilge
>> >> <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> writes
>> >> > David Johnson:
>> >SNIP
>> >
>> >Allow me a few additional clarifications, as it's interesting stuff -
>also
>> >some questions:
>> >
>> >> >In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
>> >>
>> >> You should perhaps question what that means and whether they should be.
>> >> The history goes like this:
>> >>
>> >> Once upon a time there was a chap called Newton. To him velocities
>> >> simply add. If you can throw a javelin at 30mph when standing still
>then
>> >> if you run at 6mph and throw it, it will travel at 36mph relative to
>the
>> >> ground.
>> >
>> >To be precise, that was because he assumed (a very reasonable assumption
>at
>> >the time) that mass is not affected by its speed relative to his
>"absolute
>> >space". Thus his law of conservation of momentum m*v is consistent with
>the
>> >Galilean transformation, implying no other physical effect from "absolute
>> >space" than the existence of inertia and the need of inertial reference
>> >frames for his laws. With the corrected mass law as proposed by Lorentz
>we
>> >obtain the modern relativistic corrections and the velocity-sum equation
>of
>> >Einstein.
>>
>> >> Newton thought that light was made up of little particles he
>> >> called corpuscles and assumed that their speed would add to the speed
>of
>> >> the source like everything else does.
>> >
>> >- like he *assumed* that everything else does.
>>
>> Fair enough but one should always assumes the simplest model until it
>> proves untenable. I am happy to rephrase it:
>>
>> "[He] assumed that their speed would add to the speed of the source like
>> everything else appeared to do."
>>
>> >> Newton was completely wrong. Light
>> >> is not made up of particles called 'corpuscles', we now know that they
>> >> are called 'photons' :o).
>> >
>> >He was mainly wrong with his particle concept for light bending.
>>
>> >> He lost out to the wave-ether theory of light. This says that
>everywhere
>> >> in the universe is filled with something called the ether and that
>light
>> >> is a wave, a disturbance, propagated in that ether at a constant speed
>> >> relative to the ether. One can conclude from this that if the speed is
>> >> constant w.r.t the ether it will not be effected by the speed of the
>> >> source (shorthand - source independence) neither will it be constant
>> >> w.r.t the observer.
>> >>
>> >> An experiment was devised to detect the existence of the ether -
>> >> Michelson- Morley experiment (shorthand MMX). It didn't
>> >
>> >- to be precise: it did not detect the expected signal that was predicted
>> >from the used model -
>> >
>> >> which lead to a
>> >> bit of a crisis. It represents a cross roads in physics or really more
>> >> of a T-junction.
>> >
>> >Even more than a T junction, looking at what you write below.
>> >
>> >> In one direction you have Walter Ritz. The basic argument is very
>simple
>> >> - If there is no ether then a source is surrounded by nothing which can
>> >> effect the speed of light so the only thing which can effect the speed
>> >> of light are the physical processes taking place in the source. i.e.
>the
>> >> speed of light must add to that of the source. Light was found to be
>> >> made up of photons, particles, they don't need an ether and there seems
>> >> no conceivable reason why their speed should not be c relative to the
>> >> source ejecting them.
>> >
>> >But if light consists of particles, why *would* its speed be c and
>> >independent of energy...
>>
>> Essentially if space is empty there is nothing else which can make its
>> speed c other than the processes taking place in the source. Why its
>> speed is c is a valid question but does not effect that argument.
>>
>> It is tied in with 'what is a photon?'. My own suggestion which is pure
>> speculation is that a photon spins which is why it has a property we
>> call frequency.
>
>No proper frequency at all is required for a photon to "have" a frequency
>relative to a detector.
Explain? According to Plank each photon has an energy dependent upon its
'frequency'. Every photon has a property called 'frequency'. It may or
may not be related to what we conventionally think of as frequency. OTOH
it could be said that the energy of a photon and its frequency are one
and the same.
>
>> If it spins and moves forward at c relative to the
>> source then there is a distance in which it will complete one revolution
>> which might be what we think of as wavelength.
>
>That would be one *twist*, without any rotational motion!
Not understood.
>
>> If energy is related to
>> the speed of spin it is possible for any amount of energy to be emitted
>> while keeping the speed constant. - I still haven't addressed the
>> question as to why the speed is constant - merely pointed out that a
>> requirement to carry away different amounts of energy does not imply a
>> need for different speeds and even if my speculation is wide of the mark
>> that whatever what we call the frequency of a photon (nu in planks
>> equation) it is this property which varies with energy level not the
>> speed. c would seem to be the maximum speed at which an electric force
>> can act so such a force will therefore eject a massless particle at c
>> relative to the source ejecting it and any particle with mass will be
>> less than c. A particle with mass, if subjected repeatedly to an
>> electrical force which can itself only act at c, will never reach c but
>> will get nearer and nearer to it. If an electric field cannot make a
>> particle travel at more than c relative to itself but can increase the
>> energy of the particle in some other way then like a photon there must
>> be an alternative mechanism for storing energy other than speed. In
>> relativity this is put down to an increase in mass (whatever mass is) in
>> a photon it is put down to frequency (whatever frequency is) both
>> represent energy so we have energy, mass, and frequency as all aspects
>> of the same thing.
>
>Not too bad. I still think that a medium requires less assumptions, and it
>appears to me that "Doppler" experiments have been conclusive.
You will have to explain that. If a photon was ballistic (c relative to
the source) and spins = frequency then if you are approaching the source
the rate of spin you see would be faster = Doppler. Again photons
on-mass have wave properties and frequency is one. If light is ballistic
(c relative to the source) then the only difference is that in SR the
observer is assumed stationary w.r.t the medium and the source moves and
in ballistic the source is stationary w.r.t the medium and the observer
moves.
>
>> >There is a number of other unanswered questions with such models, e.g.
>how
>> >can something without substance be called a particle and why would an
>atom
>> >emit them in the "shape" of violin rods (proper mass and frequency are
>> >zero).
>>
>> I do not understand your reference to violin rods nor your comment that
>> frequency is zero. It is certainly 'interpretation' of some kind based
>> upon one theory when we are discussing another. My argument is not that
>> I have any answers nor that Ritz had all the answers (he died in 1909 so
>> he didn't have long to develop his theory and his battle with Einstein
>> was short). My argument is that this route has never been adequately
>> explored and no one has tried to find whether there are answers to the
>> questions and whether the result would give a simpler model than present
>> theory.
>>
>> After all there was nothing wrong with assuming the earth was at the
>> centre of the solar system it is just that if you put the sun at the
>> centre everything looks much simpler. Having the earth at the centre
>> would never have been disproved if there had not been an alternative
>> theory to challenge it. If you have only got one theory, or if no one
>> admits the existence of another theory, that theory remains
>> unchallenged. Relativity works - but no one has tried the alternative to
>> see if it works better.
>>
>> >> In the other direction you have Lorentz who basically thought that the
>> >> wavelike behaviour of light was just too convincing and he thought up a
>> >> fix for the wave ether theory
>> >
>> >- it was a unification of Newton's and Maxwell's theories incl. their
>> >metaphysics.
>> >
>> >> whereby matter moving through the ether is
>> >> changed in such a way as to nullify attempts to detect the motion. The
>> >> interaction between ponderable matter and the ether he expressed
>> >> mathematically as the Lorentz transforms. His theory stated that
>> >> although there was an ether underpinning the laws of nature you
>couldn't
>> >> detect it and from a measurement point of view the laws of nature would
>> >> appear the same to all inertial observers.
>> >
>> >- exactly like the relativity of Newton,
>>
>> exactly
>>
>> > but adapted to the newly discovered reality.
>>
>> The 'newly discovered reality' was that the ether which displaced the
>> relativity of Newton in the first place was found not to exist.
>
>Indeed the kind of ether that some proposed in defiance of Newton was again
>not found to exist. But the newly discovered reality consisted of phenomena
>such as electromagnetic mass increase and the isotropic reflection times of
>light within moving frames despite its wave character.
I don't follow. More explanation needed.
>
>> >BTW it was Poincare who derived the Lorentz transforms and announced -
>based
>> >on Lorentz' theory - the "new mechanics" that reestablished the PoR.
>> >
>> >> Einstein (with some conceptual help from Poncere) decided that the
>> >> answer was correct but the way of reaching it was unconvincing.
>> >
>> >Lorentz agreed and later preferred Einstein's top-down approach.
>>
>> I understand from Lorentz supporters that Lorentz always referred to GR
>> as "Einstein's theory" he claimed SR was his - but I do not know if they
>> are correct.
>
>Not exactly, for he didn't realise the full consequences of his theory until
>Einstein explained it (he had overlooked or skipped through the intermediate
>publications of Poincare).
>
>> >> That the
>> >> idea that the laws of nature are the same for all observers, that there
>> >> is no such thing as absolute velocity, that velocity was always
>relative
>> >> could be considered as an axiom - The principle of relativity. (short
>> >> hand PoR).
>> >
>> >BTW this was not really new, not even Poincare was original about it
>> >although Poincare may have been the first writer to use the expression
>> >"PoR".
>> >Notice the enormous conceptual gap between Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz ,
>> >Poincare on the one hand and Einstein on the other hand, eventhough
>Einstein
>> >used their expressions.
>>
>> In Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of Theories of Aether and
>> Electricity, published in 1953, there is apparently a chapter on
>> relativity, entitled, "The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz."
>> Einstein isn't mentioned until the thirteenth page of that chapter and
>> is credited only with adding the Doppler and aberration equations
>> suggesting that the gap between Poincare and Einstein was only in
>> presentation and in grabbing the headlines.
>
>Interesting. Indeed, Poincare didn't acknowledge Einstein at all, and it's
>easy to understand why. But I thought that Einstein also provided the
>velocity addition equation.
Pass.
>
>> >Where Ritz was in that conceptual dividing line is not clear to me.
>>
>> The idea of the ether had its ups and downs.
>
>I pointed out a different dividing line, between Natural Philosophy and the
>idea that only mathematics matters for physics.
I am in agreement with T.E Phipps Jr
"...interpretation looms as the major stumbling block to the joining-up
of mathematics with physics. The attitude prevalent today is that the
main problem in theoretical physics is to hit upon the right
mathematical formalism, and that physical interpretation will follow
as a simple - perhaps even unnecessary - adjunct. In other words, the
math is the hard part and interpretation is practically automatic. But
the facts of the history of science point in precisely the opposite
direction. .... In short, history can be read as saying that the
mathematics of physical description is the easy part the hard part the
part that perennially gives rise to lasting disputes among intelligent
people - being the interpretation."
Relativity is a theory which defies credible physical interpretation
(unless you accept that it is merely the maths of LET without the theory
which to me seems likely). To me that is a reason to reject relativity
or at least to add a health warning to those using the theory. Instead
modern physics has drifted away from seeing a need for physical
interpretation (at least in part I suspect to accommodate relativity)
As Scott Murray says
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."
>
>> Its low point was when it
>> was decided it needed to be a solid stiffer than steel. Maxwell gave it
>> a huge boost by showing light to be concerned with electricity and
>> magnetism. The MMX was a major blow to the ether if not to Maxwell's
>> equations. If you take Lorenz's theory Maxwell's equations remain
>> intact. If you say that MMX showed there to be no ether Maxwell's
>> equations become solutions to an unknown problem.
>>
>> Maxwell's equations failed when Rayleigh tried to use them to explain
>> black body radiation. Plank succeeded in explaining black body radiation
>> by assuming light generation was quantised. Einstein explained the
>> photo-electric effect by simply assuming light remained quantized (as
>> per Plank) throughout its life. Surely this sidelines Maxwell's
>> equations as being useful, approximate, mathematical models who's
>> applications are limited. Light is made of particle as Newton said.
>
>A particle is a form of matter. In my definiton, light seems to have no rest
>mass and therefore isn't made up of particles.
A semantic problem. In my definition a particle is simply a small self
contained entity as opposed to something which is continuous. I would
also define anything which has a real physical existence (can produce a
real physical affect) as being 'matter' unless you have another umbrella
word under which 'matter' is a sub division.
>
>> There is no need for an ether, particles don't need one. If no ether
>> space is empty and there is nothing but the source for the speed of
>> light to be constant with. The real question is what is a photon. If one
>> was starting from scratch one would assume that it is something ejected
>> by the source at c when an electron falls to a lower energy state but
>> relativity insists that its speed is source independent and that surely
>> seriously inhibits progress because of a total lack of causality.
>
>Only Einstein's interpretation of it.
>
>> We
>> have known about photons for 100 years. We have known about the DNA
>> molecule for a percentage of that time. Little progress has been made on
>> the one, massive progress on the other. Surely that is indicative that a
>> wrong assumption is hampering progress?
>>
>> >> You will hear that Einstein based his theory on the PoR and that that
>> >> removed the need for the ether. What you are unlikely to hear is the
>> >> fact that Walter Ritz's theory is completely consistent with the PoR
>> >> also. The difference, and therefore what specifically defines
>relativity
>> >> comes in the second postulate of relativity which does not come from
>the
>> >> PoR at all. In fact Einstein described the second postulate as being
>> >> 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR.
>> >>
>> >> The second postulate in effect says that the speed of light is
>> >> everywhere constant with respect to the observer observing it.
>> >
>> >To be precise, constant with respect to coordinate systems in constant
>> >motion.
>> >
>> >> That in turn comes from the doctrine of source independence. If the
>> >> speed of light from a stationary source is c for all observers (PoR)
>and
>> >> light speed is source independent, then it must be c for all observers
>> >> whether the source is moving or not.
>> >>
>> >> Now comes the bit which is hard to fathom. The PoR is based on the idea
>> >> that there is no ether
>> >
>> >- to be precise, Einstein's 1905 interpretation of the PoR was that no
>ether
>> >is needed.
>>
>> No. The PoR is invalid if the ether provides a reference and there is
>> therefore a valid concept of absolute velocity.
>
>What you state implies that Newton, Lorentz and Poincare would have used
>invalid concepts.
>I think exactly the contrary.
I don't understand your point. Newton's relativity was the same as far
as I can see as the modern PoR (do not confuse the PoR with the Theory
of relativity). It was believed to be wrong because of belief in the
ether. It was assumed that it experiments would ultimately be able to
come up with experiments which would give different results depending on
the observers speed relative to the ether. (that after all was what MMX
was devised to do). Different results due to different inertial speeds
is contrary to the PoR. The PoR was reinstated when MMX and other
experiments failed. i.e. the predicted exceptions to PoR which would
have invalidated PoR, did not materialise.
>
>> It is not a question of interpretation.
>
>It has *everything* to do with interpretation.
>
>> What Einstein failed to establish was that the idea of
>> source independence requires no ether. All he did was to establish that
>> you can reconcile mathematically (not physically) the idea of source
>> independence and the PoR if you ditch the axioms of absolute time and
>> absolute distance.
>
>And Poincare had established shortly before him that you can reconcile
>mathematically AND physically the idea of source independence and the PoR if
>you ditch the axioms that our instruments measure absolute time and absolute
>distance.
My knowledge of Poncere's contribution is somewhat limited - you seem to
be confirming Sir Edmund Whittaker's view.
>
>> >> the second postulate is based on a property of
>> >> the ether - no wonder it is apparently irreconcilable. In order to
>> >> reconcile the irreconcilable, Einstein ditched both the axiom of
>> >> universal time and of universal distance.
>> >
>> >Which was already ditched by Lorentz and Poincare, insofar as time and
>> >distance refer to measurables...
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> >
>> >> You may conclude that having incorporated a property of the ether it is
>> >> hardly surprising that he ended up deriving Lorentz's transforms.
>> >>
>> >> You might also care to wonder why people who don't believe in the ether
>> >> would consider it so important to incorporate a property of the ether
>> >> that they felt it was worth losing two axioms of physics to achieve it.
>> >
>> >But those "axioms" were lost anyway, don't you agree?
>>
>> You have missed the point. They were *not* lost in the Ritz theory
>> which is completely consistent with the PoR.
>
>I see.
>
>> The idea of the ether is
>> 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR so they axioms get lost if you
>> either try to retain the ether as per Lorentz or if you try and retain a
>> property of the ether as with Einstein.
>
>Yes.
>
>> You seem to happily accept that Einstein followed on the same path as
>> Lorentz.
>
>To the contrary, I just stressed the enormous philosophical gap between
>them. Einstein's metaphysics is even incompatible with a single physical
>reality, as you also pointed out yourself.
Allow me to instruct you in the art of "relativity-speak" which I have
unravelled by studying Bilge's comments :o)
Relativity is a 'principle theory'. This is important because it ring
fences it against any criticism in respect of physical interpretation.
Bilge uses very clever semantics saying that "SR has nothing to do with
ether". What this careful statement actually means is that as a
principle theory it has nothing to say on the subject of whether there
is or isn't an ether.
Likewise your statement is incorrect. Einstein's theory is not
inconsistent with a single physical reality because the principle theory
of relativity does not rule out the constructional theory of LET which
does allow a single reality.
If I say "Let us assume there is no ether" it is easy to show that *with
this additional assumption* SR is incompatible with a single physical
reality.
In assuming 'no ether' I have stepped outside of relativity (outside the
'principle' ring fence) and am talking about physical interpretation
which is where relativists don't want to go. They won't of course attack
my actual assumption by saying "you can't assume there is no ether
because relativity does not deal with such things" because a relativist
would rather die than admit that there might be an ether, that
relativity requires an ether, that relativity is an ether based theory -
which it is. Bilge style "relativity speak" would accuse me of
'attacking my own misconceptions about relativity' - usually followed by
a load of abuse - because in his book once you assume 'no ether' you are
no longer talking about relativity which does not discuss such things.
My 'misconception' is my lack of acceptance of the rules which says you
cannot discuss physical interpretation in the same paragraph as
relativity. I 'don't understand relativity' because if I did I would
accept this rule. In relativity-speak not accepting relativity is
equated with 'not understanding' relativity' = 'being too stupid to
understand relativity' - It is little more than playground level 'peer
pressure' but it has proved very effective over the years.
The most plausible physical interpretation of SR is LET. But no
relativist is going to argue that! 'No physical explanation' is
preferred because they don't like the only one on offer. Because belief
in relativity is compulsory and because relativity offers no physical
explanation it follows that a physical interpretation is not an
essential requirement for any theory of physics and anyone trying to
insist 'sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical
world' shows that he has 'failed to understand the modern understanding
of the true nature of a physical theory'.
>
>> If Lorenz's theory was wrong then why would you reject
>> Lorentz's theory and accept Einstein's. Einstein's SR theory is simply
>> Lorentz ether theory without the theory.
>
>No, modern theories of physics are loose from metaphysics, only about
>observables.
>When you write "Einstein's SRT theory" I suppose it implies his
>interpretations.
>
>> Lorentz assumed source
>> independence because he assumed an ether. Einstein gives no alternative
>> justification for source independence. You do not solve the problem by
>> saying "Light does not travel at c in the ether it travels at c in a
>> FoR". That is fine if you are talking mathematics.
>
>Not even so. Self-contradictions can be shown mathematically..
Possibly so but I leave that to others. There seems to be a third
postulate which says "It does not have to make sense". You would be
naive if you thought you could disprove relativity on the grounds that
it doesn't make sense - of course it doesn't :o)
>
>> If you are a
>> scientist, light consists of real physical energy which can cause real
>> physical effects. If it is made to travel at c in a FoR then it implies
>> that a FoR (a mathematical abstraction mapping out an area of space)
>> must correspond with something physical to produce the physical effect
>> described in the maths. If the speed of light is not dependent upon the
>> source as per Ritz then it must be dependent upon something else and
>> that something else must take control the moment it leaves the source.
>> Logically therefore space cannot be empty.
>
>Still other models are conceivable.
Enlighten me?
>
>> There is a second problem, a philosophical one.
>
>I suppose that here you explain the selfcontradictory nature of Einstein's
>metaphysics.
>I'll skip that for now, as I know it very well.
-- Cheers John Kennaugh - to email convert the number from hex to decimal
- Next message: Przypadek: "Re: VOTE! - Usenet Kook Awards, December 2004"
- Previous message: Aratzio: "Re: VOTE! - Usenet Kook Awards, December 2004"
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
