Re: Logical inconsistency in Lorentz's theory

RP wrote: 


jem wrote:

RP wrote:



RP wrote:



Paul Cardinale wrote:

Richard Perry wrote:

<[Submitted to sci.physics.research, posted here for a broader
unmoderated discussion] Harald informs me that he won't be continuing
with the discussion, so Harald, thanks for your input so far, and may
"the ether" bless you (Same diff, eh? :)  >
_______

As has been discussed at length recently here, Lorentz ether theory is
almost universally regarded as equivalent to special relativity. In
mathematical form, namely in the form of the lorentz transform, this is
a necessary truth, since the interpretation of an equation is really
independent of its empirical validity. Also an equation is always
equivalent to itself. It still remains however that if a premise has a
form of mathematical expression, and if that expression is
mathematically contradictory to some other mathematical expression that
is in turn contained in some overall theory, then it must follow that
this premise is contradictory to the theory. If in turn the theory is
slated to be based upon the premise, then it is regarded as a part of
the theory, and the theory is thus internally inconsistent. This is the
case with the fixed ether of Lorentz in the context of the lorentz
transform.

Though Albert Einstein was inclined to interpret the equations as not
implying an ether, nor even an absolute frame, he apparently failed to
formulate a formal proof of that conjecture. Here is an extremely simple
proof that the lorentz transform not only doesn't imply an ether, but
that it is actually contradictory to such an entity as it is defined by
Lorentz.

First let's define Lorentz's conception of the ether: Lorentz held that
alterations in ticking rates of clocks (due to motion
wrt the ether) are simply physical alterations, i.e. that time flows
equitably and independently of the ticking rates of clocks. IOW, he
shared Newton's view of time. Measuring sticks similarly experience only
a physical contraction along the line of motion wrt the ether, not at
all unlike that due to a thermal contraction. In summary, measuring
devices interact with the ether as a function of their velocity wrt it,
causing in turn physical alterations to their geometric structure. This
is the commonly accepted description of Lorentz's theory...AFAIK.

Now let's introduce a simple gedanken in typical Einstein fashion. We'll
use a rail car moving along a rail wrt an embankment. We will
regard the embankment as at rest wrt the ether, though this is overly
sufficient for the argument; we only require that the railcar be in
motion wrt the ether. Now wrt an observer at
rest wrt the railcar and located at it's center, this observer
simultaneously fires identical rounds (special rounds with tiny clocks
fitted in them) from identical rifles, toward the ends of the rail car
respectively. Initially these clocks were synchronized wrt each other in
the railcar frame. We need not even concern ourselves with any clocks
that might be at rest wrt the embankment in this gedanken, or even the
observer's clock, since these clocks don't enter into the
argument.

Now when these rounds arrive at the ends of the railcar, they will do so
simultaneously wrt the railcar observer, that is, having moved at equal
speeds wrt him, and thus wrt the railcar that he is at rest on. Upon
entering targets located at the ends of the railcar the tiny clocks
located within them are switch off by the impact, simultaneously wrt the
railcar observer, never to tick again. Owing to the symmetry of these
occurrences we would naturally expect that the now permanent readings on
these tiny clocks be identical, and according to the lorentz transform
they will in fact be identical. This will not be true, however,
according to Lorentz's premise of an absolute ether (as defined above),
except in the special case where the railcar is at rest wrt the ether.
It will be untrue in any instance in which the railcar is in motion wrt
the ether.



False. The two clocks will have traveled for different periods of
time. So even though they ran at different rates, they end up with the
same readings.

Paul Cardinale





Wrt whom? Wrt the railcar observer they traveled for equal periods of time, yet each in a different state of motion wrt the absolute ether. Are the two paths of the clocks different length wrt the railcar? They must be in order to account for the results obtained, that is, if in fact the clocks are ticking at different absolute rates. Different absolute rates because their motions are absolute, and are absolutely different. You will need to justify the necessary difference in path lengths wrt the railcar observer in the context of the fact that they were defined to be equal wrt him? I don't believe that is possible by any stretch of the imagination, do you?

Richard Perry




Just in case you still didn't follow the argument, here's another approach that should clarify it for you: In Lorentz's view simultaneity is absolute, thus, if the clocks were launched simultaneously in the railcar frame, then they were launched simultaneously in every other frame. The same goes for their impacts with the targets; simultaneous wrt every observer. The times of flight for the clocks are thus equal in every frame, in contrast to your statement above that they are not.

What you meant to say was that the trip lengths aren't equal in every frame, but the ticking rates of the clocks are different as well, and cancel the differences in trip length, thus leading to them having the same readings at their respective impacts.

The argument doesn't however even need to address the events from some other frame of reference, it suffices that wrt the railcar observer the clocks should be ticking at different rates due to their differences in absolute motion wrt the ether. Since this isn't observed, it follows that either the railcar is at rest wrt the ether, or else there is no correlation between ticking rates of clocks and their motion wrt the ether. Since it was defined that the railcar is in motion wrt the ether then we are left with the latter conclusion, to wit, there is no fucking ether. Or at least, if there is, it plays no role whatsoever in the events and is as good as non-existent, being forever non-participatory in the workings of nature. It is thus reduced to the status of fictitious. It has no more reality than that it was postulated 'ad hoc' to exist.

I postulate that large green telepathic crickets with gout inhabit the interior of all electrons, steering their paths. Electrodynamic laws and QM work, thus the theory must be correct.



You're talking nonsense above. You're so emotionally hung up on the word "ether" that you'll entertain absurities in order to get rid of it.

Consider SR with measurements done from one arbitrarily chosen Inertial frame (the "special frame") - that's LET.


No it isn't, that's Special Relativity wrt a single inertial frame, though you need to change the word *special* to *proper*, since there is nothing special about an arbitrarily chosen frame, that is, other than we've chosen at a whim to be the proper frame.

Simultaneity is absolute because time is only measured by clocks in the special frame, and the ether is substantial by virtue of the fact that (by definition) it affects things (in spite of the fact that there's no way to identify its motion wrt anything but light). 


Simultaneity is not "absolute". Absolute in this context means:

Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.,

Thus by extension to relativity as a particular context within physics: "an invariant quantity"

You cannot even apply this term validly to observations made within a single frame. In this case your absoluteness is self referential. IOW, you are saying the equivalent of "events that are simultaneous in the proper frame are simultaneous in the proper frame", and implicitly "and there exists only the proper frame". Still not LET, just a rather useless and perfectly incorrect observation.

You're embarrassing yourself with this nonsense.

I'm embarassed not to have realized that anything I said would just go in one ear and out the other.

Please insert right indes finger into right ear. Time in LET doesn't mean the same thing as time in SR. In SR, time is the reading on any (standard) clock, while in LET, time is the reading on any ether frame clock.

Naturally then, simultaneity takes on different meanings in the 2 models. In SR, simultaneous events are events for which clocks in any given reference frame, which are collocated with the events, reflect the same reading (i.e. simultaneity is a frame dependent concept). However, in LET, events are simultaneous if collocated ether frame clocks reflect the same reading (i.e. simultaneity is not frame dependent).

Consider that for 5 minutes, then remove finger.



LET and SR are different interpretations of the same theory. Either they're both right or they're both wrong. Learn to live with it.


The LET interpretation is a philosophical brain-fart, equivalent in rationality to the remark that I made about green crickets. You are free to interpret the the theory as singling out one frame as the ether frame, but the fact remains that there is neither a physical nor mathematical difference between your frame and any other. What property of the ether is it, therefore, that differentiates it from nothing at all? There is no basis for such an interpretation, none. Had the ether not been postulated pre-Special Relativity, it would never have been proposed afterward.

Richard Perry


.

Quantcast