Re: Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?

From: Gregory L. Hansen (glhansen_at_steel.ucs.indiana.edu)
Date: 03/04/05 

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 01:54:37 +0000 (UTC)

In article <1109891618.148176.46840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
SRorLTAT <einsteinaether@go.com> wrote:
>
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
>> Lorentz's aether theory is a theory concerning electromagnetism, and
>in
>> matters of electromagnetism makes the same sorts of predictions as
>> relativity. But LET does not say anything in particular about
>gravity or
>> the nuclear forces. Maybe it could be spruced up to do so, for
>instance
>> by adding more aethers, but I'm not aware of any successful attempts
>to do
>> so.
>
>
>Lorentz's Ether Theory explained that the reason for the MMX
>null result is due to the instrument stretching in response
>to gravity. This is somewhat confusing. Can't a person see
>the object or instrument stretching? Can't it be measured??

Shrinking in response to aether flow. Everything, including the observer,
would shrink by the same factor regardless of individual material
properties.

>
>Another thing. Can't time effects be added in Lorentz Ether
>Theory such that it can explain the time dilation effects of
>SR too such as the GPS thing?

Time is also transformed, according to Lorentz in his 1904 paper. But at
that point the theory had nothing to do with gravity.

Gravitational effects probably could be added in some way, but I'm not
really sure how to do that in a way that maintains a consistent world
view. I mean, you could suppose the lumeniferous aether is compressed
around a planet just as an atmosphere is, but that would be supposing a
force not transmitted mechanically by "stuff". Maybe LeSage's
gravitational aether could push the lumeniferous aether to the planet, and
changes in lumeniferous density could be related to time rates or
something.

There must be some way to make it work. But so what if there is?

>
>Maybe LET is in an undeveloped stage with no conceptual
>foundation. That doesn't mean it is not right. It's just that
>it's not yet developed.

What do you mean by "right"? Do you mean the theory describes how nature
REALLY works, gives us a glimpse at the Cosmic Blueprints? That criterion
is meaningless. Even if there is some definite underlying "reality" that
can be described by a mathematical theory, we can never know if we got it
right.

But (as far as I know) the aether has started seeing serious use in
physical theory by Descartes. That's around 400 years ago. So it's not
like it's the neglected new kid. New aethers were proposed to explain
every little thing like electricity and heat. Descartes' gravitational
theory involved whirlpools of aether pushing the planets in their orbits.
It was the dominant paradigm until the 20th century.

>
>> Relativity concerns the transformations of space and time, and the
>realm
>> therefore is not just electromagnetism, but all of mechanics. If the
>
>> strong force didn't transform the way special relativity says it
>should,
>> special relativity would have been disproven. If the weak force
>didn't
>
>You mean QCD uses relativity? Can you give an example of how it
>uses it? Are you referring to relativistic quantum field theory?
>But since the quarks have not been seen. How do you prove the
>behavior can't be explained by for example an enhanced LET model
>or others?

The standard model of particle physics is assumed to transform by Lorentz
transformations. The standard model includes electromagnetic, strong, and
weak interactions, and does a very good job of describing pretty much
everything relevant that we've been able to measure so far.

An example of a breakdown would be if the time dilation of particles is
different depending on whether they decay by an electromagnetic process
(like muons) or a strong force process (like pions). We have to be a
little careful there because if we assume Lorentz aether theory that will
affect the rulers and clocks we use to make our measurements. But if we
use the same instruments to examine different decay modes, a discrepency
might be seen.

>
>> transform the way special relativity says it should, then special
>> relativity would have been disproven. If any new force not yet
>discovered
>> doesn't transform the way special relativity says it should, then
>special
>> relativity would be disproven. That universal applicability gives
>many
>> more ways to test it and pleases the intellect to think it's found
>> something important rather than cobbling together special cases for
>one
>> observation or another.
>
>What if you can use other models to explain the relativistic effects.

Then you'll have another model that can explain the relativistic effects.

>What is the best candidate do you think can explain the data not
>using Special Relativity?

I haven't been keeping current. You might ask Paul Stowe if he's hanging
around.

>Isn't it SR in particles is primarily
>due to the fact that moving particles can last longer because
>time slows down. But what if the particles don't really last
>long in the first place due to it being just effects from the
>Aether. What would you know??

You would make detailed predictions stemming from a model under
investigation, and compare those predictions with data. That's all you
can know about the validity of the model, other than asserting personal
preferences. 

-- 
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal.  The rest is 
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... you accept "no aether" the decision to go with Einstein makes absolutely ... Physics ... impression that the evidence for relativity is stronger than it actually ... Relativity - light leaves the source at different speeds relative to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whats the beef with Einstein?
    ... How do you model these effects without relativity? ... I postulate an aether, the simplest one, made of point-like particles ... speeds due to a particle A is no longer standard (because it is not ... > being consistent with observations to date. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... The aether is ... But it's specifically a theory of electromagnetism and doesn't ... encompass nuclear forces or gravity, except to the extent that it distorts ... Special relativity forms the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... > I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > to the physical properties of the aether, ... > of Einstein's theories of relativity, ... > substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... > I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > to the physical properties of the aether, ... > of Einstein's theories of relativity, ... > substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)