Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.


"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
> Ilja Schmelzer:
> >"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
> >> What
> >> does that mean in LET, since symmetry means nothing in LET?
> >
> >Why do you think that symmetry means nothing in LET? Of course
> >symmetry is very important in LET, as well in my GLET. I derive
> >relativistic symmetry in GLET.
> >
> >Symmetry is not fundamental in LET. That's a very different question.
>
> But that happems to be the point of the thread. That makes the
> mathematics _different_. The original assertion was that LET and
> special relativity have _identical_ mathematics and therefore
> must make identical predictions. I asked for one of the two people
> asserting this to prove it with the examples I provided. I'm not
> precluding either of them from showing that they can obtain similar
> results starting with different assumptions. I'm simply refusing to
> let them assert that LET and special relativity must be identical
> by virtue of having the lorentz boosts in common. You certainly make
> no claims that your theory is mathematically identical to relativity
> nor that your theory can't predict anything different from relativity.

Nonetheless, in the classical special-relativistic limit LET vs. SR
the mathematics and the physical predictions are identical, and the
difference is purely interpretational.

SR leads to GR, LET leads to GLET, GR and GLET are already
different physical theories, with different physical predictions. This
proves the claim that they suggest different ideas to future research.
But this is not a difference in math or in the physical predictions
between SR and LET.



> Unless you're going to assert that ether theories are indistinguishable
> from relativity and make use of the same mathematical structure at
> every level, you're addressing an issue that isn't being posed here.

May be I have indeed misunderstood the issue:

>> >"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >news:slrnd7u0ik.5c.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >SNIP
>> >
>> >> > Do you disagree that LET establishes the same math
>> >> > as SR?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I disagree.

Other theories (like GR, GLET) may be the result of
further theoretical work which has been started with SR
or LET, but the math of these other theories is IMHO
nothing _established_ by SR or LET.

>
> >
> >> Third, there
> >> is no principle in LET that provides for the equivalence of
> >electromagnetic
> >> mass, weak mass and strong mass, much less defining it all as inertial
> >> mass.
> >
> >The EEP is derived in GLET. Or what do you have in mind here with
> >equivalence of different masses?
>
> The equivalence principle establishes only the equivalence of
> gravitational mass and _inertial_ mass. It does not establish any
> relationship between the effective masses due to forces and inertial mass.

The effective mass differences because of binding energy? Ok.

> The equivalence of electromagnetic mass and say, strong mass, comes about
> in special relativity for the following reasons. (1) Noether's theorem
> establishes a mass-energy-momentum relation as a conserved current which
> does not depend on the introduction of a force at all. The invariant mass
> is then an inertial mass.

Ok, Noether is not specific to SR. LET as well as GLET have
a Lagrange formalism too.

> (2) The theories for all of the forces are
> constructed from the same geometry used to define the inertial mass,
> independent of the particles that actually propagate and carry those
> forces. The important point here is that the definition of inertial
> mass defines the wave equation, not the interpretation of light as
> a wave in a medium. Light has no significance for relativistic theories.

"Everything constructed from the same geometry" is IMHO equivalent
to the universality of the ether in GLET. Mathematically it is the
axiom that the Noether conservation laws are continuity and
Euler equations of some material which does not interact
with anything else.

The velocity of light is not important for GLET too.

> By contrast, the interpretation of light propagating with a velocity `c',
> as a wave in a medium immediately begs the question of why the weak force
> should not be considered the same way, i.e., a wave propagating in a
> medium with a velocity c' that defines mass differently than electro-
> magnetism through it's own wave equation, E'^2 = (p'c')^2 + (m'c'^2)^2,
> such that all of the force carrying particles propagate at their
> respective values for c, c', etc. That defines masses differently for
> different forces. This is consistent with the interpretation, too.
> The ``massless'' phonons in different media propagate at velocities that
> depend upon the interaction strength between the constituents of the
> media.

I agree that in certain directions relativity is more restrictive. But in
other
directions ether theory is more restrictive (like topology of spacetime).

> On what basis is gauge invariance justified in LET?

It is well-known that gauge fields may be used to describe
lattice defects in crystals.

Then, gauge theories are renormalizable, and renormalizable
theories are likely to appear in large distance limits.

> LET posits
> an absolute frame, and therefore the absolute phase of a wave
> is a physically meaningful quantity in LET.

Yep. But it does not follow that they are observable for
internal observers. The reasons why not everything is observable
for internal observers has been described and proven in detail
in GLET (gr-qc/0205035).

> >In LET, the usual principles of science remain valid. That means,
> >in LET we have to use Occam's razor, and we are interested in
> >symmetry and in unified theories.
>
> But my question addressed the assertion that LET and special relativity
> were mathematically identical, not whether one could attempt to construct
> some theory that eventually made many similar predictions.

For this question it is nonsensical to discuss theories related with QM or
SM
and so on. The math of SR and LET are essentially the Lorentz
transformations. The theoretical difference is that in SR everything should
be Lorentz-invariant, in LET only observations.

> I do assert
> that the only way the two could make identical predictions is to construct
> an ether theory with equivalence as the objective rather than being
> motivated by the physical ontology.

I think the derivation of GLET I have given, which starts with
non-relativistic "ether" axioms, is already a counterexample.
The Einstein equations then appear as a natural limit.

Now I obtain the 24 SM fermions with
SU(3)_c + SU(2)_L + SU(2)_R + U(1)_(B-L)
gauge fields starting with a simple ether model.

I concede that I have used agreement with GR and SM
in some limit as an objective. But such a correspondence
is also standard scientific methodology.

> >BTW, in Poincare's 1905 SR paper (AFAIR) the question of
> >using the same c (the same symmetry group) for gravity was
> >already considered.

> I'm not even considering gravity here. I'm considering only the
> argument for equivalence between masses defined by different forces
> and the justification LET offers for equating those with inertial
> mass. Poincare had no basis to even consider the question, as he
> died long before any other forces were known. The first theory of
> the weak interacton was given by fermi in 1931.

Yep. But based on Poincare's relation to gravity we can make
conclusions about the natural behaviour for reasonable
ether theorists to other forces. It is natural for them to try to unify
them with EM theory in the simplest possible way.

> >BTW, I also like relativistic equations, for example I have
> >used a relativistic wave equation (the harmonic condition)
> >for the definition of the preferred coordinates.

> Well, the question here is not whether one can construct an alternative,
> especially one which makes different predictions, but whether LET and
> special relativity are inherently constrained to make identical
predictions.

In this case, what means "inherently constrained"?

We have LET and SR as two theories about EM and mechanics of charged
particles. Above theories are more or less phenomenological. We can
formulate the equivalence principle of SR in such a way that it holds in
LET too (which is, BTW, the usual way: "No experiment allows to
distinguish ..."). The difference (existence of a preferred frame) is
metaphysical. They make identical predictions.

Then we have a set of metaphysical ideas, guiding rules for the development
of future theories. This set of ideas is not mathematical, not well-defined,
uncertain, and not very obligatory for the proponents of the theory. Thus,
we cannot even talk about predictions made by this set of vague ideas.

> I say they are not. The questions LET has to answer differ from those
> relativity has to answer by virtue of the difference in starting
> assumptions.

If we are talking about the questions scientists have to answer
during their development of future theories, I fully agree that
LET and SR are different. But this is not a difference in physical
predictions.

> I know how to answer the questions using relativity.
> What I can't seem to do is get either of the two people who posted
> earlier to even understand the questions, much less answer them.

In this case, the failure is IMHO at least partially yours, because
you do not distinguish in a sufficiently clear way the given theories
(LET, SR, as classical theories about EM and charged matter
without gravity and other forces) which have math and make
predictions and the related paradigms (ether vs. relativity)
which do not have math and don't make predictions but
are important tools for the future development of theories
with math and predictions.

> >> >The Dirac equation is one of many equations compatible with SR
> >> >(and, as a consequence, with LET). Nothing more.
> >
> >> Since you essentialy use the ether as little more than a metaphor,
> >> I don't see your criticism as valid.
> >
> >The ether in my usage is much more than a metaphore. It is
> >a set of well-defined theories, LET, GLET, my approach to
>
> I would disagree based upon having read several iterations of
> your paper. You begin by stating some things about the ether,
> but once you start trying to describe the strong interaction, for
> example, you are doing straight lattice calculations and employing
> the same ideas in standard lattice gauge theory. For example,
> in hep-lat/0111057, you mention the ether on page 2 and refer
> to the appendices for discussion, then don't mention it again
> until page 6, here you mention it a couple of times, again
> referring to the appendices and then don't mention it again until
> the appendix on page 11. It really plays no role in anything
> developed in the article.

This is mainly the consequence of my attempts to avoid the
use of "bad words" in scientific articles, partially following the
recommendation of many people.

Therefore, the parts of my ether theory which may be presented
as useful math in the context of something else (for example to
solve problems like fermion doubling or the problems of chiral
gauge theories on the lattice) I try to sell in such a way.

The e-word is mentioned only if the idea I try to describe is
meaningful only in the context of an ether theory.

> For the most part, you try to dispense with the absolute frame up front
> with an argument which replaces your absolute frame with some abstract
> fields that might as well be called ``carriers of invariance.''
> However, you don't entirely avoid invariance as an argument, since
> you _assume_ your coefficients, \gamma^i, defined at the top of page
> 10 in gr-gc/0001101, are all equal to each other. There is no
justification
> for that assumption, given that in the same sentence, you say there is
> no reason to suppose a relation between \gamma^0 and the \gamma^i.
> I mean, what's up with that? 0-3 are just indicies. Why is it justified
> to single one of those out for special treatment and assume something
> about the other three?

The identity of the \gamma^i follows from the assumption of isotropy
of space, which is quite natural in an ether theory. A similar assumption
of symmetry between space and time is not natural. BTW, the justification
and axiomatic derivation is given in gr-qc/0205035 in a much better way.

> >the SM fermions as Aff(3)xC(Z^3), realistic interpretations
> >of QM like Bohmian mechanics, and all these theories follow
> >the same principles: classical realism, a preferred frame.

> First of all, bohmian mechanics is practically a cult devoted to
> re-establishing classical determinism, which neither hiley nor bohm
> even considered viable [according to hiley].

It is more viable then, say, LET or SR have been for Poincare and
Einstein. For these theories it was clear that they are false,
because of gravity. For BM, there is only an esthetical feeling
that it is not the final truth. But in the sense of agreement with
observation BM is as viable as QM.

> So, I don't consider
> bohmian mechanics to be a point in favor of any theory. Second,
> there is experimental evidence against such a theory with a preferred
> frame, done with moving beam splitters. For example, Physical Review. A,
> volume 67, 042115. Also, quant-ph/0311004 and references therein.

I don't believe in experimental evidence against BM which
is not experimental evidence against QM because the
equivalence of the physical predictions of BM and QM
is a simple proven theorem.

I know that such nonsense exists, and have discussed it in
detail, see google.

> I also think the entire concept of classical realism is unphysical,
> so that is also not an advantage from my standpoint. In my opinion, you
> would better off if you separated the physics from the philosophy and just
> tried publishing the hard physics. Having the physics accepted would
> pave the way for the rest (in the appropriate journals).

I no longer try to publish my papers and give away my copyright
for nothing. (I have lost too much time reformulating my articles to
meet the minor objections of various reviewers, until I have
understood that the papers are rejected simply because they are
about ether theory.)

Ilja


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory
    ... With the corrected mass law as proposed by Lorentz ... > need for different speeds and even if my speculation is wide of the mark ... Relativity works - but no one has tried the alternative to ... Indeed the kind of ether that some proposed in defiance of Newton was again ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why LET Is Superior to SR!
    ... That's my opinion as well and one of the predictions that I see ... the dirac equation means in terms of an ether. ... For example, the strong and weak force also satisfy a wave equation, ... so there is no reason that weak mass should equal strong mass should ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mickelson-Morley & Miller
    ... One ill-conceived response has been to say that the ether ... yet quantum mechanics has not been disregarded. ... >> built upon general relativity, yet no one has followed that approach. ... not testing it in the sense that physics depends upon where you are in the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?)
    ... in doubt the theory of Special Relativity of Einstein? ... THE ELECTROMAGNETIC ETHER THEORY ... dichotomy that had once plagued physics had now becorne repaired. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Can Lorentz E Theory replace S. Relativity?? (is George Sagnac correct?)
    ... in doubt the theory of Special Relativity of Einstein? ... THE ELECTROMAGNETIC ETHER THEORY ... dichotomy that had once plagued physics had now becorne repaired. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast