Re: Aether or whatever
- From: surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 19 Oct 2006 07:33:07 -0700
LEJ Brouwer wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Anyone who has actually performed a COMPUTATION in any viable aether
theory knows that they are all considerably more complicated to use than
is SR.
Two things I would point out here - just because calculations are more
difficult does not mean that the underlying concept is not simpler.
Zwiebach's formulation of string field theory uses the concept of
minimal area surfaces - which is a simple intuitive idea, but actually
calculating the surfaces can be rather difficult.
Also has already been mentioned, there have been several different
meanings attached to the word 'aether' in the past. One implies the
existence of a preferred reference frame with the hope of providing an
alternative explanation for relativity.
Let's do a little groundwork in the philosophy of science to disabuse
ourselves of these damn persistent misconceptions. In physics,
explanations exist in the form of physical theories. Physical theories
explain phenomena, not other physical theories!
Now, you could invent a sociological theory to explain why some
physical theories in modern physics are more appealing to most
physicists than are other physical theories. Einstein did that when he
explained why in the early part of the 20th century 'constructive'
theories were more generally favored than 'principle' theories --- but
that has turned around completely since then. Thus, Tom is perfectly
correct on his claim about 'modern physics'.
Modern physics is very much based on a collection of very broad and
theory-constraining empirical principles, such as the Light Principle,
the PoR, the Principle of Equivalence, the Uncertainty Principle, the
Pauli Principle, and so on. (These principles are 'empirical' in the
sense that they have direct empirical consequences.)
Finally, LET and SR (c.1905) are two VERY different physical theories
to explain the phenomena of optics/electrodynamics.
On the other hand the
'luminiferous aether' is a space-filling medium which is responsible
for the propagation of electromagnetic waves - the latter need not be
an alternative description of SR, and moreover can be compatible with
it (see my last paper). You seem to be ignorant of this fact.
And until someone explains how an aether can induce quantum behavior, no
aether theory will be acceptable to anyone who knows very much about
modern physics. <shrug>
[This is in agreement with the observation that few aether
advocates know much about the actual experimental record.]
Apparently you are unaware that the aether was not introduced to
explain quantum behaviour, and neither was special relativity.
That's true, but irrelevant. Tom's claim is true just the same.
Modern physics = relativity + Copenhagen QM,
and physics has moved along quite a bit since the first paper on SR.
The typical modern physicist has no patience for or interest in a
mechanical ether, because, as it stands now, ether theories are a lot
of extra ontology with no increase in predictive power. For a similar
reason Bohm's theory never became dominant in modern physics as a
replacement for Copenhagen QM.
If modern physicists are ever to get interested in such a medium,
theories based on it had better be damn good explainers of the quantum
nature of light phenomena (as they were supposed to be under the
Mechanical Program, which claimed that mechanics can explain
everything!) or they're not interested. And 'good' explanations don't
carry with them a lot of ad hoc explanations.
Imagine
saying something like "special relativity will not be acceptable to
anyone who knows very much about modern physics". How many aether
advocates do you actually know by the way? Just those that frequent
sci.physics.relativity?
More to the point is how many modern physicists does Tom know (either
directly or through their writings), since his comment was of a
sociological nature within the physics community.
In any case, it is quite possible that an aether theory may have much
to say about the origins of quantum mechanics - your statement is, as
usual, one of ignorance. Just because YOU have no idea how an aether
may induce quantum behaviour does NOT imply that it is impossible for
an aether model to induce quantum behaviour.
And Tom told you what etherists must do to get their ether theories
generally accepted -- and today that's a lot more burden for them to
carry than Lorentz carried in 1904 LET. That's all he was saying.
.
- References:
- Re: Aether or whatever
- From: xxein
- Re: Aether or whatever
- From: LEJ Brouwer
- Re: Aether or whatever
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Aether or whatever
- From: LEJ Brouwer
- Re: Aether or whatever
- Prev by Date: Re: Faster than Light?
- Next by Date: The Speed of Light
- Previous by thread: Re: Aether or whatever
- Next by thread: Re: Aether or whatever
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
