Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.


"shuba" <tim.shuba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
> Ilja wrote:
> > Nonetheless, in the classical special-relativistic limit LET vs. SR
> > the mathematics and the physical predictions are identical, and the
> > difference is purely interpretational.

> LET and SR are obviously not the same physically, even for
> classical electromagnetism. LET requires at very least
> *something* physical to justify its preferred frame.

To justify particular elements of scientific theories is not necessary.
What is necessary for physical theories is the ability to derive
falsifiable predictions from the theory as a whole, usually
in combination with other theories.

If two theories make identical physical predictions, they are usually
called different interpretations of the same theory. An example of
this are LET and SR.

(This is also a simplification. There is a difference, we have
SR + classical realism => Bells inequality, but this does not
hold for LET. The point is that LET allows causal FTL
influences, it requires only that their observable consequences
do not allow to measure their direction.)

> Asserting
> that this physical difference can just be ignored in the standard
> model or general relativity, and therefore they are ether-based
> theories, is nonsense.

Agreement. The SM is not ether-based, only _compatible_
with a preferred frame. GR is not ether-based, and not compatible
with ether theory, because we have to modify the theory to introduce
the ether. Even if this modification does not lead to many observable
differences.

> If the ether is something that
> can be ignored or inserted into any physical theory based solely
> on capriciousness, it is worthless.

Indeed. But this is certainly not the case. If you have a
continuous ether theory, you can always ignore the physical
interpretation and you obtain a valid field theory, where
for example T is not something related to the energy of atoms
but an abstract field named "temperature". But the existence
of an ether interpretation for field theories is very nontrivial.

> There is no justification
> for claiming that e.g. electoweak theory is explained by ether,
> unless the explanation can be quantified *in terms of the
> definition of the ether*. Since you attempt to do just that,
> it's odd that you seem to agree with the people who misrepresent
> relativity as "just math explained by the physical ether".

The point is that the classical ether, even if there was no
microscopic model for the EM field (no wonder, once
the SM was unknown) has explained qualitatively some
important properties of the EM field: wave properties of
light, and, mainly, the source independence of its speed.

Instead, the usual argumentation against the ether is simply
false, based on positivism. Positivism (a philosophical
theory about science) is simply wrong. This has been
shown by Popper, Logic of scientific discovery, 1935.

The other ether proponents here don't know enough
about modern physics (QM, GR, SM), but they understand
more or less some ideas of science around 1900. And they
have at least a feeling that the positivistic argumentation
against the ether is nonsensical. So I don't have much to
object, except that they are unable to understand modern
physics, including my ether theories.

Discussions with relativists are more interesting. They
at least know something about modern physics. And, as
long as they propose positivism, there is much to object.

Ilja


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... >>| 1/ Light is a wave travelling in the ether its speed is controlled by ... >>| the assumption at the heart of relativity is justified. ... > in physics. ... > distortion of A's measurements due to his motion relative to the ether ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Winds of change
    ... >>OTOH if there is no ether a field is metaphysical. ... >>that a photon must contain charge. ... interpretation is unnecessary in physics theories. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... You may wish to divorce physical process from the mathematics in order to preserve your belief system but I see no evidence that Einstein did. ... If you decide there is no ether then you have ... The only physical model which will give you source independence is the ... distance were axioms of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... be of the opinion that Einstein came up with a clever theory which got rid of the ether. ... 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. ... They suggest that again and again physicists have from diverse viewpoints hit upon similar-looking mathematics, and have agreed about formulas, but have differed, sometimes bitterly and permanently, on the physical interpretation needed to give operational meaning to the formulas. ... Whatever takes place in a Black Box may be a mystery, you may not wish to enquire as to the nature of that mystery but if the O/P is not directly related to the Input then a physical process has taken place. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... >| apparatus relative to the ether had no affect on the measured value then ... >| the assumption at the heart of relativity is justified. ... >| matter' as described mathematically by Lorentz transforms. ... >| most theories in physics are what he describes as 'constructive ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)