Re: "The Einstein Hoax"


"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jzNs5MEZMT8CFwlM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Harry wrote:
> >
> >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:hOr8WZAeLf7CFw$v@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >| Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel wrote:
> >| >
> >| >Pohs wrote:
> >| >> "The Einstein Hoax"
> >| >>
> >| >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
> >mediocre
> >| >> minds." - A. Einstein
> >| >
> >| >"Mine's a double bourbon." - A Kook
> >| >
> >| >>
> >| >> "The Einstein Hoax" is intended for those who have been
suspicious
> >of
> >| >> the premise that reality is so subtle that it can only be understood
in
> >| >> terms of sophisticated abstract mathematics to which only the elite
was
> >| >> privy.
> >| >
> >| >
> >| >B-b-but special relativity's perfectly simple! I can explain it in a
> >| >sentence.
> >| >
> >| >Spatial length and time measurements depend on the velocity of the
> >| >observer,
> >|
> >| Relative to what?
> >|
> >| > in accordance with the rule
> >|
> >| Correction - Assumption
> >|
> >| > that the speed of light is the
> >| >same for all observers.
> >|
> >| This assumption is derived as follows:
> >|
> >| 1/ Light is a wave travelling in the ether its speed is controlled by
> >| the physical process of propagating in a medium so cannot be affected
by
> >| the speed of the source.
> >|
> >| 2/ If you assume the truth of 1 and combine it with the empirical
> >| evidence of MMX, which indicated that the speed of the measuring
> >| apparatus relative to the ether had no affect on the measured value
then
> >| the assumption at the heart of relativity is justified.
> >|
> >| ".. that the speed of light is the same for all observers" independent
> >| of the speed of the source relative to the observer (which is true if
> >| you assume 1/) and independent of the speed of the observer as per MMX.
> >|
> >| Lorentz explained this by interaction between the ether and 'ordinary
> >| matter' as described mathematically by Lorentz transforms.
> >|
> >| What Einstein did NOT do is dismiss Lorentz's ideas, go back to MMX and
> >| assume 'no ether'. He never made any such claim but had he done so the
> >| logic is inescapable.
> >|
> >| If there is no ether then the process determining the speed of light
> >| cannot be the physical process of propagating in the ether. If one
> >| insists on the physical reality of the physical world the speed of
light
> >| must therefore be the result of a different physical process. The only
> >| other physical process is the physical process taking place in the
> >| source generating the light. Thus light must then be ballistic in
nature
> >| and its speed must (at least until it encounters something which can
> >| physically affect it) be c relative to the source, which is the
simplest
> >| explanation of the MMX result.
> >|
> >| Einstein's modification to Lorentz's theory (SR) is somewhat
overrated
> >| and widely misunderstood. Far from dismissing Lorentz's theory he
> >| described his work thus:
> >|
> >| "Lorentz ... brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a
> >| wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved
> >| the most important advance in the theory of electricity since
> >| Maxwell"
> >|
> >| Praise indeed. Lorentz said there was an ether as per Maxwell and the
> >| speed of light is constant w.r.t it but that interaction between
> >| ordinary matter and the ether distorted measurement (Lorentz
transforms)
> >| in such a way that it appears to every observer that he is stationary
> >| w.r.t the ether.
> >|
> >| Einstein's objection was to the unique FoR in the theoretical
structure,
> >| - the FoR stationary w.r.t the ether - which was not reflected in
> >| physical experience. Einstein assumed the symmetry of measurement was a
> >| reflection of the symmetry of nature.
> >|
> >| While Lorentz said that it would *appear* to every observer that he is
> >| stationary w.r.t the ether Einstein postulated that every observer IS
> >| stationary w.r.t the ether - which is what the second postulate
> >| describes. Essentially it is an assumption of symmetry. That every
> >| inertial observer's relationship with the ether must be the same.
Viewed
> >| in this light it is easy to understand why the maths of the two
theories
> >| is the same.
> >|
> >| "It may be added that the whole change in the conception of
> >| the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,
> >| consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,
> >| namely, its immobility." AE 1920 lecture.
> >
> >Yeap
> >
> >| The basic problem is that Einstein never managed to get his 'mobile
> >| ether' to work in terms of a physically believable concept and in the
> >| end classified his theory as a 'principle theory'. He accepts that
> >| most theories in physics are what he describes as 'constructive
> >| theories'. Such theories naturally contain a mathematical description
> >| which means that a principle theory is a 'sub set' of what is generally
> >| accepted as a physical theory. I can see no difference between his
> >| definition of a 'principle theory' and a mathematical model.
>
> >
> >The PoR is not exactly a mathematical model, it dictates a rule for
> >mathematical models.
>
> PoR = Principle of relativity?
> 'Principle theory' as defined by Einstein thus:
>
> We can distinguish various kinds of theories
> in physics. Most of them are constructive.
> They attempt to build up a picture of the more
> complex phenomena out of the materials of a
> relatively simple formal scheme from which
> they start out.... When we say that we have
> succeeded in understanding a group of natural
> processes we invariably mean that a constructive
> theory has been found which covers the
> processes in question.
> Along with this most important class of
> theories there exists a second, which I will
> call "principle-theories." These employ the
> analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements
> which form their bases and starting-point are not
> hypothetically constructed but empirically
> discovered ones, general characteristics of
> natural processes, principles that give rise to
> mathematically formulated criteria which these
> separate processes or the theoretical
> representations of them have to satisfy.
>
> The advantages of the constructive theory
> are completeness, adaptability, and clearness,
> those of the principle theory are logical
> perfection and security of the foundations.
> The theory of relativity belongs to the latter
> class.
>
> Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?",
> Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers
> Press, p. 228-9.
>
> Unfortunately SR lacks any 'empirically discovered' element showing
> source independence so does not have any 'security of the foundations'.
> Speed is deemed independent of the source *because* speed is a property
> of the ether.
>
> >
> >| Lorentz came up with a theory including some sophisticated maths giving
> >| testable predictions. Physics has been testing those predictions for a
> >| century and I am told that so far they have not been found wanting. Of
> >| course that is not what students are taught. They are taught that it is
> >| Einstein's theory which has stood the test of time, has not been found
> >| wanting. They are also wrongly taught that relativity says no ether. A
> >| principle theory has by its very nature nothing to say on the subject
> >| but the 'no ether' route leads to source dependency.
> >
> >Correct - if one searches for a physical model.
> >
> >| At the end of the day LET and SR share the same mathematics so one
> >| cannot chose between them on the basis of the quality of their
> >| predictions. The only basis on which to choose therefore is on the
> >| believability of their physical interpretation. Here we hit a problem.
A
> >| principle theory offers no physical interpretation so SR adds nothing
to
> >| LET.
> >
> >Indeed it doesn't - IF with "LET" you mean the theory of Lorentz-Poincare
> >(thus including the PoR).
> >
> >| You say
> >| >B-b-but special relativity's perfectly simple! I can explain it in a
> >| >sentence.
> >|
> >| Given time and a reasonable intelligence it is possible to understand
> >| the mathematics of relativity to any degree one desires given the
> >| necessary dedication.
> >|
> >| No one understands the physical interpretation because there isn't one.
> >| If one speculates based only upon the assumption that relativity is
> >| different to LET one soon finds absurdity.
>
> >
> >Right. Nevertheless, Einstein tried to do so.
>
> That comment interests me. Apart from his 1920 lecture where he
> speculates regarding an ether without the immobility of Lorentz's I
> would be interested in any other attempts he made. I do not know the
> date he wrote that Relativity is a principle theory but I assume it was
> later. It is in effect an admission that he had not found an alternative
> physical explanation to that provided by Lorentz.

Did you read his explanation of the Twin Paradox? It's like the movie
Matrix, but less believable as it boils down to multiple realities. For him
at that time (1918), what is truth for the one is untruth for the other, and
both experiences he considered "real"...

> >| The only way to achieve greater understanding is to understand the
> >| historical background and thought processes which led to relativity
> >| rather than the 'spin' version carefully presented to students. It is
> >| legitimate to ask whether the real provenance justifies its acceptance
> >| and whether, if indeed the mathematics have stood the test of time,
> >| Lorentz should get the credit.
> >
> >He should get the credit, but not he alone: Poincare and Einstein deserve
> >credit too as in 1905
> >Lorentz didn't understand yet the full symmetry that his theory implied.
>
> As I see it Lorentz's theory did not imply symmetry in the theoretical
> structure. Einstein's attempt to produce a symmetrical version failed.
> I am not clear exactly what Poincare's contribution was.

Exactly that: the *observational* symmetry that he discussed in earlier
papers (one of which Einstein had read and thorougly discussed with friends
before 1905, see Pais) was, as he explained in 1905, fully provided with the
Lorentz transformations which he first wrote down as correction to some
glitches that Lorentz made in his 1904 paper. Einstein's contribution was to
show how these equations can be directly derived by first of all assuming
the modern PoR (which again was first described by Poincare, as far as I can
tell) to be exactly true.

> In his 1920
> lecture Einstein says that Lorentz's contribution to em theory was the
> greatest since Maxwell but does not acknowledge Poincare's contribution
> at all. OTOH I have a reference which implies that Einstein only made a
> modest extension to the 'relativity theory of Lorentz-Poincare'.

Sure. In practice, what one uses for SRT predictions are Poincare's PoR and
Poincare's "Lorentz transformations" (he also gave that name to them). But
is was Einstein (he or she) who provided the top-down derivation.

> >| If one insists on the physical reality of the physical world then 'no
> >| ether' leads to ballistic theory. If the speed of light is not
dependent
> >| upon the physical processes taking place in the source it must be the
> >| result of some other physical process and not simply a result of maths.
> >
> >I agree.
> >
> >| In effect Einstein based his theory on the assumption that every
> >| observer is stationary w.r.t the ether.
> >
>
> >He would not agree with putting it that way, I think. I doubt that his
view
> >matches any such presentation.
>
> Maybe not but the second postulate describes what an observer would
> experience if he were stationary w.r.t the ether.

True, we agree on that.

> If you were in a
> balloon above a lake and you drop a stone in, then if you remain at the
> centre of the circle of waves you are stationary w.r.t the lake. If you
> take that in conjunction with his 'mobile ether' he is implying an ether
> which every observer can be stationary w.r.t. i.e. symmetry. It doesn't
> work conceptually.

I agree with you, but somehow it seems to have worked for Einstein likely
because of his different sense of "reality".

> The point I would make is that in ruling out a FoR
> stationary w.r.t the ether as per Lorentz you rule out the possibility
> that you are only *apparently* stationary w.r.t the ether, you must
> *actually* be so. An example I have presented before:

I agree, but Einstein in 1920 tried to squeeze out of it by proposing a more
magical explanation, that no speed should be accorded to it...

> A S
> B-->v
>
>
> A source S gives out a flash of light which reaches A (stationary w.r.t
> S) just as B (moving at v towards S) is alongside. SR and LET agree as
> to what A and B will observe. They will both compute the speed of light
> to be c and will compute different times for the distant event.
>
> Lorentz says the speed of light is c w.r.t the ether but because of the
> distortion of A's measurements due to his motion relative to the ether
> and the different distortion of B's measurements due to his, they both
> compute the speed of light as c. Their measurements being differently
> effected they compute the time of the event differently. The point which
> relativists seem to miss is that the importance of the ether in LET is
> not primarily as a means of transporting light but to give a physical
> mechanism whereby A and B can experience different distortions of the
> same reality.

Very right.

> If you remove the concept of the FoR stationary w.r.t the
> ether there is no physical causality which can distort A's measurements
> differently to B's.
>
> As A measures the speed of light relative to himself as c and as there
> is nothing to distort that measurement the speed of light must actually
> be c not merely appear to be c. Likewise the speed of light must
> actually be c relative to B.
>
> The light which leaves the source to go to A must leave the source at c
> relative to the source. That which goes to B must leave the source at
> c-v relative to the source (that being c relative to B) and the event
> which caused the flash must actually take place at two different times
> because there is nothing which can distort either measurement.
>
> It is as if A and B are in two parallel universes.

That is, I think, a better way to describe Einstein's theory.

> In A's universe all
> the light travels at c relative to A and in B's Universe it travels at c
> relative to B and the event takes place at different times in the two
> universes. Mathematically one call A's universe A's FoR and B's universe
> B's FoR and one is back to bog standard SR. We are so used to assuming
> that measurements in one FoR are different to those in another that we
> have lost track of the fact that there is nothing which can bring that
> about. A FoR maps physical space which cannot support different
> realities.
>
> >| It is a cheat to call that ether
> >| 'the observers FoR' and ascribe to it the properties of a stationary
> >| ether, while at the same time claiming that the physical space that FoR
> >| defines does not contain any physical entity which can support the
> >| properties the maths is describing. The absurdity which is the present
> >| basis of orthodox physics
> >
> >Right.

Harald


.

Loading