Re: Hobba's misconceptions

jem:
>Bilge wrote:
>
>> jem:
>> >shuba wrote:
>>
>> >> The peddlers of neo-LET in this newsgroup simply ignore that the
>> >> ether has no properties, and falsely claim that it leads to the
>> >> same mathematics used in relativistic quantum physics.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Neither LET nor SR deal with quantum issues. If you're talking about
>> >comparing extensions of those models, you shouldn't refer to it as SR
>> >vs. LET.
>>
>> I beg to differ. There is no difference between relativity as it is
>> used in a classical context and in a quantum context. Everything
>> is derived by requiring invariance.
>
>Well, if you believe there's no difference then you should have no
>problem with limiting the domain to the classical context for purposes
>of this discussion.

Why is that? I thought you said that LET was indistinguishable
from relativity. Does this mean you really don't think LET and
special relativity are the same theory, or what? They aren't, but
since you are determined to insist anything that looks like a
lorentz transform must be equivalent to the spacetime rotation
in special relativity, it would be better to use examples for
which you don't have prepackaged, knee-jerk slogans so that you
have to think.


> The first relativistic quantum
>> field theory was the result of factoring the equation E^2 = p^2 + m^2
>> (the dirac equation) and requiring the result to be gauge invariant.
>> Since gauge invariance is just a way of saying p_u x^u = constant,
>> that is an automatic requirement of relativity (and is the way one
>> obtains the doppler shift from relativity).
>>
>> >> As much as I respect Tom Roberts, from whom I've learned a lot,
>> >> the idea that "LET" and "SR" are experimentally indishinguishable
>> >> is true only by using what he would call a pun of one of those
>> >> theories, if not both. An ether theory should be a theory of,
>> >> well, of an ether.
>> >
>> >Ether isn't part of a theory though, it's part of a model (i.e. an
>> >Interpretation) of a theory.
>>
>> Invariance is part of a ``model'' too,
>
>Right, in fact invariance (i.e. of measurements) is embedded in the
>theory - it extends to all models of the theory.

You are confused. Invariance _is_ the theory of relativity.
Relativity forbids any calculation which relies on a preferred
frame, preferred gauge or preferred anything else.

> and that part of the model has
>> physical implications on how the model may be applied to answer physical
>> questions. If an interpretation applies no physical constraint, it
>> contains no physics.
>
>I'm not sure I followed that.

Then allow me to spell it out. LET was ``derived'' under assumptions
which would never be permitted in a relativistic theory.

>What I'd say is that the *only* physical
>implications are the measurement predictions,

You are merely reciting slogans without having the slightest idea of
what you are talking about. I'm an experimental physicist and I'd venture
to say that I have a great deal more experience with ``measurement
predictions'' (and publishing the results) than you imagine is possible.
Instead of repeating slogans, would you care to see how far you get
predicting anything at all without having a physical interpretation of
of a theory?

>and those are common to all models of a physical theory.

Wrong. If you think so, I'll let you try your luck.

>In that sense, no interpretation contains physics.

Then you should look for a mathematics newsgroup. In physics,
the goal in to interpret mathematics into the physics we observe.

>> Right - quantum theory survives because the alternative interpretations
>> strive to add only junk which is physically meaningless.
>
>Sure, interpretations are heuristics which facilitate working with a
>theory; they don't alter the theory.

That is false on its face. If the interpretation made no difference,
relativity would have never displaced the ether. The fact is, physicists
do abandon convoluted interpretations precisely because those inter-
pretations suggest different physics leading down different paths.

>> LET has become history because no one is even interested in trying
>> to exploit it as a model of anything.
>
>Well, not "no one".

Oh, really? Name someone who is actually interested in LET beyond
proclaiming the metaphysical fluff and then dropping the concept
like a rock in favor of relativity. I can't even find 2 people
who agree on what the mathematics of the thery are, even though
everyone of them is absolutely, positively certain that whatever
it is, it must be identical to special relativity.

>> The reason everyone claims that it is equivalent to special
>> relativity is because they _don't_ want to use LET as a model.
>
>But in order for LET to be equivalent to SR, it _must_ be a model for
>the theory that underlies SR.

But since it isn't, there's a great deal of wishful thinking in the
form of slogans to avoid having to cough up a genuine proof.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: High-level question about the relationship relativity and quantum mechanics
    ... All theories of high energy physics are Lorentz ... That is, they conform to relativity. ... There exists no unification of quantum ... mechanics with relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: High-level question about the relationship relativity and quantum mechanics
    ... of theoretical high-energy physics is to unify quantum mechanics and ... All theories of high energy physics are Lorentz ... That is, they conform to relativity. ... There exists no unification of quantum ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: RAH and Light speed
    ... examined and found wanting if classical principles had been reinstated. ... (Relativity would not have disappeared as ... it combined with the old quantum mechanics, ... but times were busy and physics was confused. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
    ... Dispersion of short wavelength light by a black hole doesn't seem to be ... > this frame necessarily violate relativity? ... the article was about quantum gravity - a theory that does not yet ... "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
    ... it is arbitrarily long when viewed from a reference frame ... this frame necessarily violate relativity? ... quantum mechanics would involve a shortdistance cutoff, ... "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on ...
    (sci.physics)