The Neck of God: Einstein or Lorentz?
From: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: Twin Paradox a blasphemy to Relativity"
- Previous message: DavidBowman: "Re: Treatment of some posters"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:37:00 GMT
On Feb 8, 2005, at 5:32 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The Neck of God
On Feb 8, 2005, at 12:56 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:36 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
"You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a
preferred inertial frame that is empirically
detectable."
J: That is wrong Paul. The SR dynamics remain unchanged even when there
is a preferred frame.
Z: But the *physical reasons* for this invariance of the dynamics are
then totally different.
J: So what?
Z: This goes to the heuristic core of Einstein's 1905 theory and its
differences with respect to the Lorentzian model.
J: Too vague. Paul give brief explanations of your understandings of the
Lorentzian and Einsteinian different interpretations (informal language
of Bohm) of the same equations, so we get the nuance of what you are
talking about.
J earlier: ONLY A TRIVIAL INTERPRETATIONAL INFORMAL LANGUAGE PROVISO
CHANGES. YOU ARE FOCUSED ON THE TRIVIAL!
Z: But I would say that *you* are focussing on the trivial, since you
only seem to be concerned with formal O(1,3) symmetry of the field
dynamics at the micro-level.
J: What else is important? Physics is an empirical science. We are
interested in elegance of formulation of course - the Zen (Dirac) Ideal
of More Empirics with Less Excess Verbal and Mathematical Baggage. Not
math for math's sake, or long-winded reconstructionist post-modern
verbosities that are neither here nor there, and that dull the mind with
little contact with observation and experiment. We are not interested in
beautiful rigorous mathematical proofs unless they are directly relevant
to the proper understanding of some important phenomenon - or better yet
unify seemingly different phenomena under one insight. Let a thousand
flowers bloom, but there are too many mathematical weeds in The Garden
of Theoretical Physics that has grown decadent with the advent of string
theory. Quite a tangled wood.
J earlier: The laws of nature either classical or quantum do not change
their form, nor do they change their transformations under O(1,3). There
are no explicit dynamical terms in any of the laws of nature that
violate O(1,3) (not talking GR, if GR then I mean local O(1,3)).
Z: Would you say that this is also true in Lorentz's theory? If not, why
not?
J: Of course it is! But I am not sure what YOU mean by "Lorentz's
theory"? Spell out exactly what you mean as best you can and as
concretely as you can.
J earlier: The detection of the preferred frame is strictly in that
isolated class of measurement like Cahill alleges. There is no
contamination of other battle-tested effects.
Z: You are ignoring or discarding the classic Machian basis for
Einstein's classic 1905 treatment. Which is OK, as long as you
acknowledge it.
J: What are you talking about? Spell it out. I do not want to argue over
undefined buzz words. Spell out what you mean here? Operationalism?
Mach's idea that distant matter there makes inertia here? What?
J earlier: Paul, you still do not understand the difference between
dynamics and the vacuum.
Z: Of course I do. Your field dynamics at the micro-level (as determined
by a field Lagrangian) is Lorentz-invariant, while your physical vacuum
ground state solution at the macro-level has less than full O(1,3)
symmetry, and thus admits a preferred
inertial frame.
J: OK, so that is the end of the story! There is nothing more of
interest there. You are chasing Phantoms like WMD in Iraq.
J earlier: Your remark is amateurish,
Z: It seems that anything that addresses the deep interpretation of
formal dynamical invariance at the micro-level will be considered
"amateurish" according to the current professional standards of modern
physics.
J: Nice in a court room perhaps. But what are you talking about? You are
much too "deep" for me.
Z: I'm trying to approach these issues from a very different
neo-classical angle.
J: For Art stopped short in the cultivated Court of The Empress
Josephine. (Patience G&S) Pardon me while I straighten my glasses.
Neo-classical? Who ordered that? BTW I hope you understand by now that
the "classical world" "neo" or not is a fiction. It's a delusion like
Our Man of La Rancha charging The Windmill thinking it was WMD and that
Iraq was Iran. What a difference the "M" and the "n" make. We do not
live in the classical world. Bohr was wrong! We live in the
MACRO-QUANTUM WORLD on spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry. The local
smooth Einsteinian warped geometrodynamics, the rumpled twisted
inelegant fabric of space-time emerges from the MACRO-QUANTUM
"multi-layered multi-colored" Coat of Jacob the Cosmic Super Conducting
Vacuum Field from the partial cohering of the virtual ZPF "PV"
electron-positron plasma.
Z: But I can see that you are simply concerned with developing a
workable Andersonian ODLRO formalism that gives sensible results at the
macro level, while preserving Lorentz invariance of the field dynamics
at the micro-level -- which is fine as far as it goes.
J: That's right. No need to go further than that! No excess verbal
baggage allowed. Keep it as simple as possible, but not simpler than is
possible. Puthoff makes that mistake. His "PV without PV" is simpler
than is possible and your "meta-theoretics" is more complex than is
desirable as is most of the disembodied theories today most likely.
J earlier: the equivalent statement would be that the existence of
ferromagnetism requires an explicit breaking of O(3) in the Hamiltonian
of the ferromagnet. These phenomena are NOT like the Zeeman and Stark
effects in atomic physics, nor is it like the Stern-Gerlach. This is a
subtle idea that escapes your comprehension.
Z: Of course I'm not saying anything of the kind. Of course I understand
that you are talking about a macro-solution of the micro- field
equations that has less than the full O(1,3) symmetry of the underlying
dynamics. I am not saying that there is a formal mathematical problem
with this.
J: Your point has completely evaporated with a whimper like the pop of a
tiny black hole at The End of Ordinary History.
On Feb 8, 2005, at 3:57 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Thanks Brian. I think Anderson's paper is in "A Career in Theoretical
Physics". I will look when I get back to my office. Anderson writes that
even Eugene Wigner did not get this same idea at first.
On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Brian Josephson wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 8, 2005 12:24 PM -0800 Jack Sarfatti
<sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:36 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
"You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a
preferred inertial frame that is empirically detectable."
That is wrong Paul. The SR dynamics remain unchanged even when there is
a preferred frame. ..
Paul is in good company, as C.N. Yang, co-discoverer of parity violation
in the weak interaction, was in 1966 completely unable to understand my
explanation of weakly superconductors in terms of states where phase
invariance is broken even though the underlying symmetry is not. He
maintained if the dynamics is symmetrical the states have to be also,
which is of course wrong.
The description of this dates actually back to a paper by Anderson in
Phys. Rev. in 1961 or 1962 (try vol. 112, p 1900), where he explained
his pseudospin model for superconductivity. Possibly this can be seen
on Google scholar, which has some classic papers on it.
Brian
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
Appendix: The Meaning of Special Relativity: Einstein vs Lorentz
Z: This is conceptually orthogonal to the question of *universality* of
the contraction/dilatation phenomena, i.e., the hypothesis that all
physical objects are affected in exactly the same way when they are in
relative uniform motion.
J: I think Lorentz and Einstein both would say they are universal. No
significant difference there and no evidence to suggest otherwise. Why
dig up this Red Herring?
J previously: I don't know what this means operationally or
mathematically. What are you talking about?
Z: What am I talking about?
J: Yeah Dude, what are you talking about?
Z: I'm talking about 1905 special relativity, as argued by Einstein.
That's what.
J: How can you decide this? Give a procedure.
Z: Since the immediate empirical predictions of Lorentz's and Einstein's
theories are identical, the choice between them is to that extent
empirically undecidable.
J: If that were really true, then the problem would be of no interest to
a blue collated metric engineer like me. Crank 'er up and see why she
don't fly Hal! But, in fact, you contradict what you say below.
Z: It looks like you don't acknowledge how Einstein's 1905 paper
fundamentally differs from Lorentz's theory. After all, both involve the
same "Lorentz" transformation formulas, but obviously those formulas
have very different physical meanings in the two theories.
J: What is the meaning of "physical meanings"?
Z: Einstein's rationale for building the Lorentz transformations into
the kinematics -- thus forcing the formal expression of the dynamical
laws to be Lorentz invariant -- was the supposed universality of the
contraction and dilatation effects, which was in turn supported by
Einstein's version of the relativity principle according to which the
physical distinction between the apparent uniform motion of a system
resulting from observer motion, and objective uniform motion of the
system, was erased.
J: You are too vague here Paul. Give an example what you mean. In
Einstein's picture, only the relative velocity between Alice and Bob
(both inertial frame observers) matters. From Alice's POV Bob moves at v
and from Bob's PV Alice moves at -v.
But suppose Cahill and the Catanians are correct. Suppose the O(1,3)
Lorentz group is spontaneously broken in the "empty" space that Earth
moves in. Let Eve's inertial frame, be the preferred frame of not so
"empty" space in the Earth's neighborhood. "There goes the
neighborhood!" says Einstein. v(Alice) and v(Bob) are Alice's and Bob's
absolute velocities relative to Eve's preferred inertial frame of rest
that is like the preferred direction of the ferromagnetic pseudo-vector
H (H3 = F12, H1 = F23, H2 = F13, F is the 4D curl of the A connection
field from locally gauging U(1)) in a finite domain (permeability)H = B
where the rotation group O(3) is spontaneously broken in the
ferromagnetic ground state that is the analog of the vacuum for the
spontaneous breaking of the Lorentz group O(1,3) connecting Alice, to
Bob, to Eve etc.
Then, the relative velocity between Alice and Bob, from Einstein's
kinematics that is identical in mathematical form to Lorentz's, is
v(Alice - Bob) = [v(Alice) - v(Bob)]/[1 - v(Alice)v(Bob)/c^2]
Note there is no change in rest energy measured locally, i.e. if Alice
is a detector and Bob is an electron, then when v(Alice) - v(Bob) = 0,
v(Alice - Bob) = 0.
Z: Clearly, the existence of an empirically detectable preferred frame
in a vacuum breaks this Einsteinian conceit.
J: It is an inconsequential conceit that you blow out of all proportion.
It is a small mound that you make into a mountain. A tiny pimple, not
the huge goiter on the Neck of God that you make it out to be!
- Next message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: Twin Paradox a blasphemy to Relativity"
- Previous message: DavidBowman: "Re: Treatment of some posters"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
