Aether theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

[clj4]

See http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath386/kmath386.htm" reference for the supporting math:

Inertia is not isotropic in a frame where speeds are not isotropic, so if we "reserve the expression “inertial coordinate system” to those systems of space and time coordinates in terms of which inertia is homogeneous and isotropic", then: Do you understand and accept the need for inertial isotropy as part of the definition of "inertial frame"?

First off, drop the "superior" tone.
Second off, I asked you to do a mathematical proof, what do you know, you come back with quoting a site and some more of your speciality (prose).

OK, so let's look at the website, I know the guy, he's a very respected person in the field,a Cornell professor, so his operational definition of inertial frames is indeed very good. Based on his definition , I will ask you a few things now:

1. In your OWN math, please prove your above assertion, i.e. that all "other" frames in MS are non-inertial

2. In your OWN math, please prove your above assertion, i.e. that all other frames in GGT are non-inertial

3. In your own math, please prove that all the frames employed by SR are inertial (no, it is not obvious, look at his example).

4. What is the relevance of all this new subject that you introduced?
-I.e. how does a more complete operational definition of inertial frames affect the result of the 11 experiments in discussion?
-Does it change the outcome of the 11 experiments?
-Does it invalidate the methodology used by the test theories?
I'll answer this one for you: it doesn't change an iota. It was an interesting detour through terminology and philosophy of science but this is about as far as it goes.

 

[JustinLevy]

In ALL the OTHER frames, light speed is NOT isotropic. This is exactly what you quoted me saying above. Are you quibbling about not adding the qualifier \"inertial\"? Isn\'t that obvious enough?

Apparrently it is not obvious enough, for you clearly are misunderstanding inertial frames. As a reminder, in the quote you state: What about the infinity of non-preferentail inertial frames in the Mansouri-Sexl theory? Last I checked , light speed was not isotropic in ANY of them, just in the preferentail frame. And they all are inertial

That quote also directly shows why your complaint here:

This does not mean all MS transformations yield inertial frames.

No one said this , you seem to be on your way of constructing a strawman.

shows the blatant contradiction of your claims. There is no strawman here. You really are claiming that. You really are misunderstanding, and are not seeing the contradictory nature of your statements.


I am glad that you finally admitted that the statement the speed of light is isotropic REQUIRES a qualification to be correct. But you are still misunderstanding this subject.

You keep ignoring the fact that the framework of the discussion has always been the inertial frames of SR. Why do you keep beating the poor strawman? Leave it alone.

It is not a strawman, it is your misunderstanding that is at issue. We finally agree that the statement the speed of light is isotropic REQUIRES the qualification in an inertial frame. But now you seem to not understand the definition of inertial frame used in that statement.

MS transformations DO NOT relate inertial frames (except for when the parameters chosen reduce it to Lorentz transformations). Non-inertial frames have been a part of this discussion the whole time.

4. What is the relevance of all this new subject that you introduced?

It is not a new subject. It has been part of your misunderstanding that we have been trying to correct for some time now. We are making progress, and once you fix this last error, we can be done with this topic and move on.

1. In your OWN math, please prove your above assertion, i.e. that all \"other\" frames in MS are non-inertial

2. In your OWN math, please prove your above assertion, i.e. that all other frames in GGT are non-inertial

3. In your own math, please prove that all the frames employed by SR are inertial (no, it is not obvious, look at his example).

You can use the first or the second postulate of SR to define an inertial frame. Therefore there is no math to show, as #1,#2, and #3 follow directly from definition.

Put another way, if you are claiming GGT or MS frames are inertial frames, you are claiming SR is wrong (since the speed of light is NOT isotropic in these frames). I know perfectly well that you are not claiming SR is wrong, so I hope this will help you realize your errors regarding inertial frames.

 

[JustinLevy]

It is my understanding that the \\epsilon parameter selects the coordinate system, and can\'t be constrained by experiment; but the \\alpha, \\beta, and \\delta parameters are coordinate-system independent parameters that can be constrained by experiment. Do you have a copy of the Mansouri-Sexl papers? I can make them available for download if you don\'t already have them.

Here are the MS transforms http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2005-5&page=articlesu9.html
Except for the singular cases (where the transformations yield infinities or are non-invertable), any values of the parameters specify valid coordinate systems.

We can describe the universe with any coordinate system we want, so experiment cannot constrain any of the values in general. Experiments CAN however constrain the parameters in specific/non-general cases such as in inertial frames.

Do you disagree with any of this? and are we now in agreement?

 

[Aether]

Here are the MS transforms http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2005-5&page=articlesu9.html
Except for the singular cases (where the transformations yield infinities or are non-invertable), any values of the parameters specify valid coordinate systems.

We can describe the universe with any coordinate system we want, so experiment cannot constrain any of the values in general. Experiments CAN however constrain the parameters in specific/non-general cases such as in inertial frames.

Do you disagree with any of this? and are we now in agreement?

The linked articles says:

The RMS formalism can be made less ambiguous by placing it into a complete dynamical framework, such as the standard model extension of Section 4.1.1. In fact, it was shown in http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2005-5&page=articlesu9.html" that the RMS framework can be incorporated into the standard model extension.

I don't necessarily disagree. I haven't studied the standard model extension, so you could be right. How can actual measurements be coordinate-system dependent? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

 

[JustinLevy]

The linked articles says: [-quote removed-]

I don\'t necessarily disagree. I haven\'t studied the standard model extension, so you could be right. How can actual measurements be coordinate-system dependent? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

You asked if I had access to the MS papers, for you felt we were not \"on the same page\" if you will. I linked to that only to show the MS transforms to make sure we were indeed discussing the same transforms. I did not mean to bring that whole page into discussion. So when I asked if you agreed, I merely meant if you agreed with the transformations and my statements.

So I was not talking about the standard model extensions (which is outside the scope of this discussion), but merely what cannnot be said in a coordinate independent manner.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you are asking: how can anything be measured in a coordinate independent manner. Any combination of tensors/vectors that results in a scalar will be a coordinate independent quantity. These invarients are quite important and there has been a strong push by people in the field to focus more on these invarients (the coordinate system independent / \"geometry\" approach which has become the modern view of the theory of relativity) instead of getting lost in the details of coordinate systems.

 

[Aether]

You asked if I had access to the MS papers, for you felt we were not \"on the same page\" if you will. I linked to that only to show the MS transforms to make sure we were indeed discussing the same transforms. I did not mean to bring that whole page into discussion. So when I asked if you agreed, I merely meant if you agreed with the transformations and my statements.

I agree with the transformations. I don't necessarily disagree with your statements; you are raising an issue where I'm not sure of the answer.

So I was not talking about the standard model extensions (which is outside the scope of this discussion), but merely what cannnot be said in a coordinate independent manner.

Ok.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you are asking: how can anything be measured in a coordinate independent manner.

All real measurements are coordinate independent, so what I'm really asking about is the coordinate-independent modeling of physical theories.

Any combination of tensors/vectors that results in a scalar will be a coordinate independent quantity.

And the Mansouri-Sexl parameters $$\alpha$$, $$\beta$$, and $$\delta$$ don't fit that description? That is specifically what I'm asking.

These invarients are quite important and there has been a strong push by people in the field to focus more on these invarients (the coordinate system independent / \"geometry\" approach which has become the modern view of the theory of relativity) instead of getting lost in the details of coordinate systems.

Yes, that is what this discussion is really about.

 

[clj4]

Apparrently it is not obvious enough, for you clearly are misunderstanding inertial frames. As a reminder, in the quote you state: What about the infinity of non-preferentail inertial frames in the Mansouri-Sexl theory? Last I checked , light speed was not isotropic in ANY of them, just in the preferentail frame. And they all are inertial

That quote also directly shows why your complaint here: shows the blatant contradiction of your claims. There is no strawman here. You really are claiming that. You really are misunderstanding, and are not seeing the contradictory nature of your statements.


I am glad that you finally admitted that the statement the speed of light is isotropic REQUIRES a qualification to be correct. But you are still misunderstanding this subject.


It is not a strawman, it is your misunderstanding that is at issue. We finally agree that the statement the speed of light is isotropic REQUIRES the qualification in an inertial frame. But now you seem to not understand the definition of inertial frame used in that statement.

MS transformations DO NOT relate inertial frames (except for when the parameters chosen reduce it to Lorentz transformations). Non-inertial frames have been a part of this discussion the whole time.


It is not a new subject. It has been part of your misunderstanding that we have been trying to correct for some time now. We are making progress, and once you fix this last error, we can be done with this topic and move on.


You can use the first or the second postulate of SR to define an inertial frame. Therefore there is no math to show, as #1,#2, and #3 follow directly from definition.

Put another way, if you are claiming GGT or MS frames are inertial frames, you are claiming SR is wrong (since the speed of light is NOT isotropic in these frames). I know perfectly well that you are not claiming SR is wrong, so I hope this will help you realize your errors regarding inertial frames.

OK,

Let's see. Since you came on this thread your contributions have been two complaints about formalism:

1. Absence of tensorial formalism in the 11 papers
2. Confusion about the DEFINITION of inertial frames.

So, supposing that the "other" MS frames, per your definition of inertial frames (must comply with POR and must exhibit constant and isotropic speed of light) are now labelled as non-inertial, is there any substantial change?
No , it isn't. The MS formalism still works just the same in terms of separating the "aether" theories from SR and the 11 papers are valid (maybe someone could tell Gagnon that his definition of inertial frames is incorrect, i.e. that assuming light speed anisotropy automatically attracts the "non-inertial" label). This whole thread is about the separability of SR from "aether" theories. I hope we agree on this one, Justin.
What irritated me (not anymore, now that I am writing this) is that you sidetracked the discussion twice:

-when you introduced the subject of the tensor formalism
-when you introduced the subject of defining the inertial frames as above

The first one is trully irrelevant, the second one is interesting in that it sets the terminology on a correct keel.


Yes, Justin, you are right about this one, I claim that SR is correct.

So, now that we get past terminology a few questions:

What is the relevance of the two subjects that you introduced? All you are talking about is the definition of inertial frames. BTW, the Cornell professor has a very good one that introduces an operatorial definition (this is why I asked you and Aether to do a little math, if you apply his definitions you get a very interesting surprise).

-How does a more complete operational definition of inertial frames affect the result of the 11 experiments in discussion?
-Does it change the outcome of the 11 experiments?
-Does it invalidate the methodology used by the test theories?
I'll answer this one for you: it doesn't change an iota. It was an interesting detour through terminology and philosophy of science.

 

[JustinLevy]

Let\'s see. Since you came on this thread your contributions have been two complaints about formalism:

Clj4,
I really am having trouble understanding you. I noticed some questions by rbj and pervect in the thread which I answered. As soon as I corrected you on something, you blew up and started claiming I was disagreeing with all these physicists. I am not. My complaints are with your misunderstanding of the papers. Not the papers themselves.

It appears that once someone corrects you, you instantly become over defensive and will not listen or consider anything people are saying after that. Please try to calm down.

So, to give the benefit of the doubt, I will try one last time. If you really wish to continue this discussion, try asking me some specific pertinent questions, or maybe answer some of my questions to help clarify your position. But if you continue this tactic of trying to claim that everything is a strawman and you never said or meant any of the mistakes we have shown you made, then I must say this nonsense is not worth my time and I am done with this thread.

So let us do a bit of a summary. I believe we agree:
1] SR agrees with experiment
2] we can use any coordinate system we chose to describe the universe
3] the statement light speed is isotropic REQUIRES the qualification in an inertial frame

Number 3 took quite awhile for you to admit, and now you seem to claim that you never denied it. (Even though in post 92 your intial response to my statement on #3 was clearly that you denied it and even claimed There are about 20 physicists that clearly disagree with the \"philosophies\" that you post. They disagree by using math and experiments.) You confuse me in that you eventually did learn your mistake here, but claim there never was a mistake. This tactic has lead to much aggressiveness on your part that is not necessary. I bring this up to help make you aware of it, so that you can hopefully prevent it in the future.


Now, onto the points we still disagree on:
4] What an inertial frame is.

You appear to be using Newtons first law to define inertial frames which is not a sufficient constraint to define an inertial frame.
For example here: post 105
you state: What about the infinity of non-preferentail inertial frames in the Mansouri-Sexl theory? Last I checked , light speed was not isotropic in ANY of them, just in the preferentail frame. And they all are inertial.

If you call those inertial frames, you are claiming SR is wrong. Again, I realize you are not making this claim, but you seem to have not yet realized that your statements on inertial frames are contradictory and incorrect.


5] Whether an aether theory can be indistinguishable from SR.

Point #2 above is important in this in that the user Aether seems to be claiming that there is an aether theory that agrees on the physical laws in some preferred frame, and then just uses different coordinate transformations than SR to preserve \"simultaneity\" instead of using inertial frames. (User Aether, of course feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood.)

I complained that this killed the richness of insight that SR gives us. Aether responded in agreement that one may complain along these lines, but his point is merely that such a theory agrees with SR.

In this, he is correct. The modern stance on this is: Aether theories can be indistinguishable from SR. But they provide no new predictive power (in actuality, they give less insight) and are therefore not of theoretical interest.

If you are dismissing me because I am new here, how about arguing with the veteran member JesseM (who is also listed as a Science Advisor on this board) who writes here: His model might be wrong, or it might just be equivalent to relativity but in a less elegant form (like \'aether\' models which make no predictions different than relativity).

Of course modern physics believes SR is correct. But you seem to be twisting this to mean no other theories can match SR\'s predictions ... when it is trivial to construct such a theory (but again, not a useful replacement, I do not want to get the hopes up of any pet theory people out there).

BTW, the Cornell professor has a very good one that introduces an operatorial definition (this is why I asked you and Aether to do a little math, if you apply his definitions you get a very interesting surprise).

This is another tactic that is very annoying. You imply something, but refuse to take a stance and state it (for fear of being shown wrong or something?).

The Cornell professors definition is equivalent to SRs definition (which you should automatically agree with, because I know you are not claiming he is disagreeing with SR). While operationally it is easier to use SRs second postulate to define inertial frames, I actually prefer his definition conceptually.


So if you really wish to continue this discussion,
- please avoid your annoying \'tactics\' that I have pointed out
- please try asking me some specific pertinent questions
- or maybe add new comments on some of my statements to help clarify your position

If you do not wish to do this, I am not interested in continuing this \"discussion\".

 

[JustinLevy]

All real measurements are coordinate independent, so what I\'m really asking about is the coordinate-independent modeling of physical theories. And the Mansouri-Sexl parameters \\alpha, \\beta, and \\delta don\'t fit that description? That is specifically what I\'m asking.

The a,b,d,e parameters (as well as v) are used to specify the coordinate transformations. We can use any coordinate system we chose, so no, we can not measure a,b,d,e (and similarly v) in a coordinate independant manner.

Note that we COULD measure these (except v) for the specific case of inertial frames. There is a slightly less specific case which restricts a,b,d but not e (and of course not v). Reading some earlier posts, I think this may be what is confusing you here. Tell me if this helps.

If we do not restrict our coordinate system to be inertial, but we do require that the time coordinate is the time as measured by a stationary \"standard\" clock, and the spatial coordinates to be that as measured by a stationary \"standard\" ruler, this will restrict a,b,d but not e (or v).

Is that what you were thinking of?


I am still unclear what your ultimate claims are in this thread. If you agree that SR is correct, and you agree that a theory which refers to a perferred frame that can not be experimentally found is making an untestable/unscientific claim, what exactly DO you see in aether theories that attracts you?

 

[Aether]

Point #2 above is important in this in that the user Aether seems to be claiming that there is an aether theory that agrees on the physical laws in some preferred frame, and then just uses different coordinate transformations than SR to preserve \"simultaneity\" instead of using inertial frames. (User Aether, of course feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood.)

This is an explicit claim made by Mansouri-Sexl and others. I believe that it is a correct claim.

The a,b,d,e parameters (as well as v) are used to specify the coordinate transformations. We can use any coordinate system we chose, so no, we can not measure a,b,d,e (and similarly v) in a coordinate independant manner.

Note that we COULD measure these (except v) for the specific case of inertial frames. There is a slightly less specific case which restricts a,b,d but not e (and of course not v). Reading some earlier posts, I think this may be what is confusing you here. Tell me if this helps.

If we do not restrict our coordinate system to be inertial, but we do require that the time coordinate is the time as measured by a stationary \"standard\" clock, and the spatial coordinates to be that as measured by a stationary \"standard\" ruler, this will restrict a,b,d but not e (or v).

Is that what you were thinking of?

I am still learning about these things, and try not to take strong positions here unless there is a specific guiding principle to back it up in Mansouri-Sexl, Zhang, or another credible reference.

I am still unclear what your ultimate claims are in this thread. If you agree that SR is correct, and you agree that a theory which refers to a perferred frame that can not be experimentally found is making an untestable/unscientific claim, what exactly DO you see in aether theories that attracts you?

Most, if not all, experiments to date are consistent with local Lorentz symmetry. I am interested in designing and carrying out future experiments to push the envelope beyond what has already been done in this field. I have a personal theory that predicts a specific and clear violation of local Lorentz symmetry that is beyond the resolution of current technology to detect, but which should be detectable in the not too distant future given the historical trend of increasing precision of detectors. Although I continue to learn interesting details in the course of this discussion, I am personally past the point where the fundamental issue of "Aether theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR" is a very interesting subject because there is no question whatsoever that just such an aether theory exists (e.g., GGT and SR represent the same physical theory using different coordinate systems). clj4 is the one who resurrected this thread and keeps it going, not me.

 

[Ich]

I have one question before this thread is closed.
There could be one feature that excludes aether (or SR) experimentally. I have read a paper that claims that Thomas Precession could not be explained in aether theories. Another stated (along those lines) that an accelerated body would experience a rotation if aether theories were right.
Does anyone know more about this?

 

[Aether]

I have one question before this thread is closed.
There could be one feature that excludes aether (or SR) experimentally. I have read a paper that claims that Thomas Precession could not be explained in aether theories. Another stated (along those lines) that an accelerated body would experience a rotation if aether theories were right.
Does anyone know more about this?

In this thread we are specifically talking about "Aether theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR", namely GGT (aka, Lorentz ether theory, or modified Lorentz ether theory). This is the same physical theory as SR but in a different coordinate system, and therefore no experiment can ever distinguish between the two; GGT and SR stand or fall together. Of course there are other aether theories besides GGT, so you might want to check to see if the paper you read is referring to one of those.

 

[clj4]

In this thread we are specifically talking about "Aether theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR", namely GGT (aka, Lorentz ether theory, or modified Lorentz ether theory). This is the same physical theory as SR but in a different coordinate system, and therefore no experiment can ever distinguish between the two; GGT and SR stand or fall together. Of course there are other aether theories besides GGT, so you might want to check to see if the paper you read is referring to one of those.

How quickly you forget: the Gagnon expriment clearly shows GGT being distinguishable from SR. Remember his paper?
One more thing , there is no reference in any scientific paper to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). LET is something that was cooked up on one of these science forums. GGT is a derivative of MS.

 

[clj4]

I have a personal theory that predicts a specific and clear violation of local Lorentz symmetry that is beyond the resolution of current technology to detect, but which should be detectable in the not too distant future given the historical trend of increasing precision of detectors. Although I continue to learn interesting details in the course of this discussion, I am personally past the point where the fundamental issue of "Aether theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR" is a very interesting subject because there is no question whatsoever that just such an aether theory exists (e.g., GGT and SR represent the same physical theory using different coordinate systems). clj4 is the one who resurrected this thread and keeps it going, not me.

A lot of work in this space has been done already:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2005-5&page=articlesu9.html

Doesn't look that there is much chance in proving your aether theory.

 

[clj4]

Clj4,I complained that this killed the richness of insight that SR gives us. Aether responded in agreement that one may complain along these lines, but his point is merely that such a theory agrees with SR.

In this, he is correct. The modern stance on this is: Aether theories can be indistinguishable from SR. But they provide no new predictive power (in actuality, they give less insight) and are therefore not of theoretical interest.

The bolded statement is not only patently wrong but it also perpetrates a myth. The correct and complete statement is

Aether theories can be made indistinguishable from SR by introducing additional , ad-hoc assumptions

This has always been the "Achile's heel" of all the aether theories. It is not only that they "provide less predictive power" (to quote your true statement) but that a new ad-hoc assumption needs to be cooked up for each of them.

There are a lot of other misconceptions, twisting of my words in your post but I will not bother with them, I wanted to concentrate on essence. Once we agree on the correct description of aether theories , we can proceed to secondary stuff, I will have a few very interesting questions for you.

 

[Hurkyl]

The bolded statement is not only patently wrong but it also perpetrates a myth. The correct and complete statement is

Aether theories can be made indistinguishable from SR by introducing additional , ad-hoc assumptions

And the resulting theory is then an aether theory that is indistinguishable from SR.

 

[clj4]

And the resulting theory is then an aether theory that is indistinguishable from SR.

Yes, indeed , this has been the case from the early days of SR vs. the aether theories, the resultant has been a patched up/propped up theory, with a low to zero credibility. On the other hand, SR doesn't need any such ad-hoc propping.
Not much has changed since the days of Lorentz...CM Will produced a very nice synopsis of the perpetration of this myth in physics. He made it even more interesting by pointing out a few such ad-hoc "additions". His paper is a very good way of debunking this myth, perhaps it should be introduced in the graduate classes.

 

[Aether]

How quickly you forget: the Gagnon expriment clearly shows GGT being distinguishable from SR. Remember his paper?

Recanted by the authors, thoroughly refuted in this forum and thread locked, you declared by unanimous consent as the only "against the mainstream" party to the conversation, and still you cling to this fantasy paper (which doesn't even exist) that you refer to as "refurbished Gagnon" wherein the phase differential of two waveguides isn't the difference in the two phases of the waveguides (a DC signal) but rather it is half the sum of the two phases (an ~40GHz AC signal), right?

One more thing , there is no reference in any scientific paper to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). LET is something that was cooked up on one of these science forums. GGT is a derivative of MS.

Physical Review Letters is a scientific journal. Here's an abstract of one of their papers:

http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v55/p143]Effects[/PLAIN] that could distinguish the Lorentz ether theory from Einstein’s special relativity, and their measurability, are analyzed.

 

[Aether]

I have a personal theory that predicts a specific and clear violation of local Lorentz symmetry that is beyond the resolution of current technology to detect, but which should be detectable in the not too distant future given the historical trend of increasing precision of detectors. Although I continue to learn interesting details in the course of this discussion, I am personally past the point where the fundamental issue of "Aether theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR" is a very interesting subject because there is no question whatsoever that just such an aether theory exists (e.g., GGT and SR represent the same physical theory using different coordinate systems). clj4 is the one who resurrected this thread and keeps it going, not me.

A lot of work in this space has been done already:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2005-5&page=articlesu9.html

Doesn't look that there is much chance in proving your aether theory.

You could very well be right about that. Nevertheless, this is my prime motivation for studying space-time theories and experiments.

 

[clj4]

Recanted by the authors, thoroughly refuted in this forum and thread locked, you declared by unanimous consent as the only "against the mainstream" party to the conversation, and still you cling to this fantasy paper (which doesn't even exist) that you refer to as "refurbished Gagnon" wherein the phase differential of two waveguides isn't the difference in the two phases of the waveguides (a DC signal) but rather it is half the sum of the two phases (an ~40GHz AC signal), right?

Why do you keep lying so much? Do you think lying would make things true?

1. Not recanted-you keep repeating your own phantasy.

2. Thread locked because of your "helpers", the two sock puppets that were doing your "calculations" were exposed. You abdicated all your calculations to him (the sock puppet), remember?

3. The issue of the phase is the most embarassing for your inability to think out of the box and to calculate on your own (i.e. without the assistance of the sock puppets), this is why you never answered to this posting from a LIVE thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=965955&postcount=41

Physical Review Letters is a scientific journal. Here's an abstract of one of their papers:

OK, this looks interesting. Can you source the paper in order for us to see how it might support your point? From the look of it, it seems just another run of the mill paper on Lorentz violations.

 

[clj4]

You could very well be right about that. Nevertheless, this is my prime motivation for studying space-time theories and experiments.

This is fine, you can study this all you want, just don't try to propagate lies as scientific truth.
No one argues agains your having a dream to prove Einstein and SR wrong, what I am arguing against is your attempt of proving an aether theory right BEFORE you did any conclusive experiment.

 

[Aether]

OK, this looks interesting. Can you source the paper in order for us to see how it might support your point? From the look of it, it seems just another run of the mill paper on Lorentz violations.

I'm thousands of miles away from home at the moment, and can't get to any papers. Heres the link: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v55/p143

 

[clj4]

I'm thousands of miles away from home at the moment, and can't get to any papers. Heres the link: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v55/p143

1985? With an erratum from 1986? With no followup?? I wouldn't spend any time or money tracking down this one. I'll wait until you source it.

Well, I found a scan here:

http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198506368

Pretty embarassing, one of those : "we didn't run any experiment but here are the mistakes made by the ones that ran these experiments that prove SR right". Duh.

 

[Aether]

1985? With an erratum from 1986? I wouldn't spend any time or money tracking down this one. I'll wait until you source it.

My only point in quoting this paper was to refute your claim that "there is no reference in any scientific paper to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET)." This paper does so within its abstract. I'll retrieve the full paper later, but I don't plan on bringing it up again here unless you are actually interested in the subject matter of the paper itself.

 

[clj4]

My only point in quoting this paper was to refute your claim that "there is no reference in any scientific paper to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET)." This paper does so within its abstract. I'll retrieve the full paper later, but I don't plan on bringing it up again here unless you are actually interested in the subject matter of the paper itself.

No, after seeing it I don't care for bringing it up again, it is an embarassment.
Sometimes garbage does get published.

 

[Aether]

No one argues agains your having a dream to prove Einstein and SR wrong...

I don't have any dream to prove Einstein and SR wrong. I wasn't even thinking of Einstein and SR until I realized that my theory implies a locally preferred frame.

...what I am arguing against is your attempt of proving an aether theory right BEFORE you did any conclusive experiment.

I haven't attempted that; at least not intentionally. You're argument is with Mansouri-Sexl, Zhang, and most everyone else; not just me.

 

[clj4]

I don't have any dream to prove Einstein and SR wrong. I wasn't even thinking of Einstein and SR until I realized that my theory implies a locally preferred frame.I haven't attempted that; at least not intentionally. You're argument is with Mansouri-Sexl, Zhang, and most everyone else; not just me.

You need to read Mansouri-Sexl again. More importantly, you need to read the 11 papers on OWLS and CM Will's criticism.

 

[Ich]

In this thread we are specifically talking about "Aether theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR", namely GGT (aka, Lorentz ether theory, or modified Lorentz ether theory). This is the same physical theory as SR but in a different coordinate system, and therefore no experiment can ever distinguish between the two; GGT and SR stand or fall together. Of course there are other aether theories besides GGT, so you might want to check to see if the paper you read is referring to one of those.

Those papers are about LET. They claim that both theories do not predict the same when it comes to Wigner rotations. Example: When you transform from your frame to the ether rest frame and then to a frame moving with v relative to your frame (which is what you do in LET), the result is different from a direct transformation (which you can do only in SR). That´s what one of those papers says. I don´t know enough about it to judge it. That´s why I ask.

 

[clj4]

Those papers are about LET. They claim that both theories do not predict the same when it comes to Wigner rotations. Example: When you transform from your frame to the ether rest frame and then to a frame moving with v relative to your frame (which is what you do in LET), the result is different from a direct transformation (which you can do only in SR). That´s what one of those papers says. I don´t know enough about it to judge it. That´s why I ask.

Interesting. The Thomas-Wigner precession is a very interesting effect, can you get us the titles of those papers?

 

[Hans de Vries]

Those papers are about LET. They claim that both theories do not predict the same when it comes to Wigner rotations. Example: When you transform from your frame to the ether rest frame and then to a frame moving with v relative to your frame (which is what you do in LET), the result is different from a direct transformation (which you can do only in SR). That´s what one of those papers says. I don´t know enough about it to judge it. That´s why I ask.

A good overview of the Wigner rotation/Thomas precession can be read here:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-11/2-11.htm

Since the effect can be described as the limit of a sequence of normal
transformations it should not make any difference at all if done via SR
or MS transformations.

However, the impression that the total angle of rotation as experienced
by the rotating observer is:

$$\frac{360^o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$

In SR is totally different in MS. In the latter the Lorentz Contraction is
always given with respect to the preferential frame while in SR it is given
with respect to the center of rotation.

The circular orbit becomes an ellipse flattened in the direction of motion
as a result of Lorentz Contraction in SR. taking a "sharper corner" is then
interpreted as a rotation over an angle increased by a factor gamma.

It just shows that one should be careful with this kind of interpretations,
not that there is any difference as a result from the transformation method
used.Regards, Hans

 

[clj4]

A good overview of the Wigner rotation/Thomas precession can be read here:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-11/2-11.htm

Since the effect can be described as the limit of a sequence of normal
transformations it should not make any difference at all if done via SR
or MS transformations.

However, the impression that the total angle of rotation as experienced
by the rotating observer is:

$$\frac{360^o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$

In SR is totally different in MS. In the latter the Lorentz Contraction is
always given with respect to the preferential frame while in SR it is given
with respect to the center of rotation.

The circular orbit becomes an ellipse flattened in the direction of motion
as a result of Lorentz Contraction in SR. taking a "sharper corner" is then
interpreted as a rotation over an angle increased by a factor gamma.

It just shows that one should be careful with this kind of interpretations,
not that there is any difference as a result from the transformation method
used.Regards, Hans

Would still be interesting to see the paper(s) Ich is talking about. Especially if they were published (not archived only)

 

[Ich]

The first is http://www.ipp.mpg.de/eng/for/projekte/pfmc/pfmc_workshop/abstracts/word_abstract.doc" .
It was published in Physica Scripta, Vol. 67, 381-387, 2003.
I googled the author and found that he also published in Apeiron; further he managed to misspell Lie and Kronecker. Not the best references.
I can´t find the second one, I just stumbled over it browsing arxiv. The author is also proposing his own theories.

 

[clj4]

The first is http://www.ipp.mpg.de/eng/for/projekte/pfmc/pfmc_workshop/abstracts/word_abstract.doc" .
It was published in Physica Scripta, Vol. 67, 381-387, 2003.
I googled the author and found that he also published in Apeiron; further he managed to misspell Lie and Kronecker. Not the best references.
I can´t find the second one, I just stumbled over it browsing arxiv. The author is also proposing his own theories.

Thank you, Ich

Look what he is saying:

"This approach identifies a class of phenomena for which SRT and covariant ether theories give unambiguously different predictions, and suggests new experiments for qualitatively new tests of SRT."
To make matters worse, the author (who also published a slightly modified paper on the same subject in Apeiron 2004) ignores the fact that there are multiple formats of expressing the Thomas precession, one of them being:

$$\Delta\theta=k*(v/c)^2$$

For v=c*10^-3 the angle $$\Delta\theta$$ is of the order of 10^-6 radians, ie. 6*10^-5 degrees, a "measurable" entity 2*10^4 larger than the entity $$\Omega$$ used in his paper which is of the order of 3*10^-9 rad/sec.

Also look what he's writing in Apeiron here (in the conclusion section):

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1KHO.pdf

All the above and the fact that the author is one of the senior editors in Apeiron says it all...

 

[Ich]

Yep, clear enough.
But I did not want to propose views of crackpot authors. I just wanted to know if Sexl´s equivalence regarding kinematics leaves a back door for things like Thomas Precession. Does anybody know how to deal with it without relativity of simultaneity?

 

[clj4]

Yep, clear enough.
But I did not want to propose views of crackpot authors. I just wanted to know if Sexl´s equivalence regarding kinematics leaves a back door for things like Thomas Precession. Does anybody know how to deal with it without relativity of simultaneity?

Hi Ich

I read this paper, it seems like a very good treatment of the Thomas precession:

http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:gr-qc/0501070