Re: O'Barr's comments on SR and LET.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
O'Barr's comments on SR and LET.


This is an important post. For some days now, I
have posted several articles on SR and LET. Let me
put some of these thoughts into one post.

We, as scientists, really do have a serious
problem in terms of SR and LET. They are always
presented as being two different theories, even being
complete opposites of each other. SR is usually
presented as a theory that says there is no absolute
frame (at least it is said, that an absolute frame is
not necessary), and LET is presented as an absolute
reference frame theory, actually being derived by
assuming and using such a frame.

LET says there is an absolute FoR - but you cannot distinguish it from all other FoR.
Einstein said - as an article of faith - that no such frame exists.

However, they really do make the same math
predictions. This has been explained that this is
due to the fact that they both use the same math.

If you are doing LET maths then everything is transformed in theory from the aether FoR. You don't know which it is - but no matter - you can arbitrarily choose *any* FoR, call it the aether FoR, and the maths gives the same answer. It follows therefore that you can choose the observer's FoR as the aether FoR and get the same answer - which is what SR does. The maths therefore are identical. Essentially the second postulate simply describes exactly what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. This in turn comes from the fact that the MMX always showed that the speed of the observer relative to the aether is always zero - assuming you don't question the absolute validity of Maxwell.

They both use Lorentz transforms. And for this
reason, a scientific choice becomes difficult. We
cannot, it seems, as yet, find a simple test that can
scientifically decide for us which one is correct.

As above - SR is a specific instance of LET maths so it is inherently impossible to distinguish the two.

My solution is simple: they are both correct.

If one is correct they are both correct. They could of course both be wrong.

And
my solution works. What might indicate the
correctness of my decision? Let us just look at a
few facts.

My solution explains why we cannot find a test to
distinguish between these two theories. If SR really
is the correct math, and LET is the correct physics
upon which the math is correctly based, then it would
be impossible to find any test that could show them
to be different theories. This is an important
accomplishment of this approach.
SR says (in free space) that the speed of light is
a constant c in all inertial frames. LET says that
the actual speed of light is c only in the rest frame
of the ether. So let us see how these two theories
can be united in this area. Yes, in LET, the actual
speed of light is c only in the ether frame. And in
all other frames, it is not c. But, in LET, it is
shown that when any inertial frame use their rulers,
which have been properly shortened, and their clocks
which have the proper slower rates, and they do an SR
synch, LET shows that the speed of light in that
frame will be measured to be c.
Therefore, what SR says, and finds to be true, can
be explained by LET. And since LET is the more basic
theory, we see that LET has the power to explain SR,
but SR, just being math, has no power to explain LET.
Again, we see that this statement that LET is the
correct physics, and SR is the correct math, makes
perfect sense. And it is specifically confirmed by
these simple facts.

Surely IF LET is the right physics AND IF SR is the correct maths AND IF LET maths is identical to SR maths THEN SR is redundant because LET is the right physics and the right maths.

IF one is convinced by Einstein's philosophical statement that LET is not the right physics - as many are - then it would seem that there is an imperative to find the right physics or so one might assume. Having rejected the physics of LET Einstein's own attempt failed. His argument was that the FoR stationary w.r.t the aether was a nonsense but that the aether itself was a valid concept (1920 lecture). His argument seemed to be that nature is empirically symmetrical (MMX) and it was a nonsense to interpret this as other than nature is symmetrical in an absolute sense. IF nature is symmetrical AND IF you don't question the absolute validity of Maxwell THEN nature must provide an aether which every observer has an equally valid (symmetrical) relationship with i.e. one which every observer is naturally stationary w.r.t. his aether "without the immobility of Lorentz's ... which cannot be tracked through time.
Again I remind you that the second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t. the aether would experience and the MMX was interpreted as showing that an observer's speed relative to the aether was always zero - an observer is always stationary w.r.t. the aether.

The fact that this mobile aether idea is not part of modern physics and isn't mentioned in any text book shows that he failed to convince anyone that this was the 'right physics'. Physicists were left in a situation of being convinced by a philosophical argument that LET is the wrong physics yet failing to come up with a more convincing physics to replace it.

What seems to have happened is that Einstein's philosophical argument that there is no unique FoR stationary w.r.t the aether was accepted but that because such a FoR was an inherent part of conventional aether theory physicists concluded that that meant there is no aether. While Einstein was an aether man to the end of his days he is given credit for getting rid of the aether. Further they moved the goal posts and changed the definition of what a physics theory is so that a physics theory does not need to include what you describe as 'physics' (see my post in "What should a theory give us?") never mind what you would describe as 'right physics'. This corresponded with a shift in physics, a take-over by mathematicians and a downgrading of natural philosophy. Today physical interpretation is considered an unnecessary adjunct to mathematics which is a necessary attitude when the whole of physics is based on a theory which is physically absurd.

Rejecting the aether is the intellectual equivalent of sawing off the historical branch you used to get to where you are at. It is the equivalent of saying that you shouldn't be on this branch at all. If one returns to the trunk. To the challenge presented by the null result of the MMX and looks at the situation assuming there is no aether you don't go down the LET -> SR branch at all.

If there is no aether then it is hardly surprising the MMX failed to detect our motion w.r.t it.

If there is no aether then one can quite validly question the applicability of Maxwell. It is logical to do so anyway in that before SR it was discovered that light was particulate - an earth shattering fact - that was totally ignored in relativity thinking.

If there is no aether for the speed of light to be constant w.r.t then what is it constant w.r.t? The obvious answer is the source. There was no experimental evidence at the time to rule that out. It is the simplest explanation of the null result of the MMX and it fits perfectly with the idea of no aether and a particulate nature of light. There is no reason at all to assume the source has no affect on the speed of light if there is nothing physical surrounding the source to prevent it. Unfortunately the only person at the time who explored this branch of physics published his theory in 1908 and died in 1909 (Walter Ritz - emission theory). Unfortunately totally specious evidence provided by DeSitter of source independence was taken to show source independence thus this branch was never explored.

My interest is maybe not in modern physics but in the history of how we got where we are and of what might have been. One of the reasons LET was rejected was that no one could fathom how matter travelling through the aether could be physically shortened in the direction of travel. SR was 1905, Bohr's model of the atom does not appear until 1913. I am told, although I cannot confirm, that if you take Maxwell's aether and make Bohr's atom move through it the orbits of the electrons become elliptical providing the shortening required by LET. Had Bohr come before Einstein would LET have been rejected in favour of SR? I doubt it.

The one thing I have concluded is that physics does not have a rear view mirror.

[snip]

--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarrs comments on SR and LET.
    ... frame (at least it is said, ... arbitrarily choose *any* FoR, call it the aether FoR, ... The maths therefore are identical. ... and LET is the correct physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why SR?
    ... I am trying to explain basic relativity to Roberts who can do the maths better than me but clearly does not understand the very basics. ... According to Lorentz the laws of physics are such that the 'true speed' of light is concealed from us and we always compute the same value. ... according to Maxwell/Lorentz wave in aether theory there are other properties of the aether which can be detected. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... science and technology. ... It is whatever physics wants it to be. ... >>>aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test ... >> physicists to explain it to them. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... Unfortunately Ritz died at an early age in 1909. ... Physics today would be different. ... My problem is that with hindsight everything points to the fact that if you accept "no aether" the decision to go with Einstein makes absolutely no logical sense although an enormous amount of rhetoric has been expended trying to present it in a way which makes it seem sensible. ... Einsteins idea that photons travel at c wrt source and observer. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why SR?
    ... I am trying to explain basic relativity to Roberts who can do the maths better than me but clearly does not understand the very basics. ... According to Lorentz the laws of physics are such that the 'true speed' of light is concealed from us and we always compute the same value. ... There is no aether FoR in SR ... mathematicians union who in effect say "stuff the physics - lets just stick with the maths and blur the distinction between a mathematical model and a physical theory". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast