SR, LET, FTL & Causality Violation

[Dale]

V -> Velocity with respect to (wrt) the aetherial background (CMBR)

There is no justification in LET for equating the CMBR with the aether. It certainly was not suggested by Lorentz, since the CMBR was discovered after his time.

Lorentz explicitly uses V & v (defined above) but shows that for the transform only the net (dv) is necessary.

I would like to see a reference for that. If it is correct then LET would not be experimentally identical to SR. It would instead be a logically inconsistent theory as well as experimentally invalidated.

Likewise. Lorentz NEVER! proposed relative simultaniety.

This is straight up false. It is part of the Lorentz transform, as Jorrie mentioned.

 

[Fredrik]

This is straight up false. It is part of the Lorentz transform, as Jorrie mentioned.

I don't know what terminology is used in the context of LET, but it seems reasonable to me to not call this "relativity of simultaneity". Isn't the main point of LET that there is absolute simultaneity, and that Lorentz transformations tell us e.g. how clocks fail to measure the "actual" time?

Disclaimer: I don't know LET.

 

[Dale]

The relativity of simultaneity (AFAIK) refers to the fact that different frames disagree on whether or not two given events are simultaneous. This is certainly the case under LET, different frames do disagree. The only difference between LET and SR is that in SR all frames are right and in LET all frames except the aether frame are wrong.

 

[Jorrie]

I don't know what terminology is used in the context of LET, but it seems reasonable to me to not call this "relativity of simultaneity".

AFAIK, Lorentz referred to $t' = \gamma(t-vx/c^2)$ as "local time", originally meaning time in the frame that is 'moving relative to the aether'. Although the implication is inevitably the relativity of simultaneity, I do not think Lorentz ever called it such.

 

[Fredrik]

The relativity of simultaneity (AFAIK) refers to the fact that different frames disagree on whether or not two given events are simultaneous.

My point is that in the context of LET, it might make more sense to say that different frames may disagree about which events are to be assigned the same time coordinate as a given event. In the context of LET, I think I would choose to not use the term "simultaneity" for anything other than the absolute simultaneity.

This is of course just a matter of choice. But I'm also thinking that if we stick to SR terminology, then are we really doing LET? If the two theories really make the same predictions, then the entire difference should be in the terminology.

 

[Dale]

OK, I can see that. I guess the appropriate terminology would be something like relativity of local simultaneity with absolute simultaneity in the aether.

Unfortunately, it is too late to edit my earlier comments.

 

[Fredrik]

Unfortunately, it is too late to edit my earlier comments.

It's not too late to complain about that here.

 

[harrylin]

OK, I can see that. I guess the appropriate terminology would be something like relativity of local simultaneity with absolute simultaneity in the aether.

Unfortunately, it is too late to edit my earlier comments.

Interesting thread, I just discovered it. I agree with your terminology, that sounds very clear, and close to how Lorentz formulated his view of SR (thinking of his "local time").

Note that for readers (e.g. me in this case) it's less confusing if people cannot edit their comments that are far back in a conversation. Anyway this forum is a record of discussions with the purpose that we can all improve thanks to these discussions.

 

[Dale]

Interesting thread, I just discovered it. I agree with your terminology, that sounds very clear, and close to how Lorentz formulated his view of SR (thinking of his "local time").

Note that for readers (e.g. me in this case) it's less confusing if people cannot edit their comments that are far back in a conversation. Anyway this forum is a record of discussions with the purpose that we can all improve thanks to these discussions.

I understand that, but when I make a mistake I like to edit my mistaken post to identify the error, like here. My concern is that my mistake be taken out of context and treated as correct.

 

[harrylin]

I understand that, but when I make a mistake I like to edit my mistaken post to identify the error, like here. My concern is that my mistake be taken out of context and treated as correct.

OK. Yes, that kind of additional remarks can be very helpful!

 

[stglyde]

OK, I can see that. I guess the appropriate terminology would be something like relativity of local simultaneity with absolute simultaneity in the aether.

Unfortunately, it is too late to edit my earlier comments.

With this change of heart. Do you (and ghwellsjr) finally agree with the following?

What are dv, V, and v?

V -> Velocity with respect to (wrt) the aetherial background (CMBR)
v -> Velocity of a second moving object (Frame), again wrt the aetherial frame
dv -> net differential speed

You answered: There is no justification in LET for equating the CMBR with the aether. It certainly was not suggested by Lorentz, since the CMBR was discovered after his time.

Lorentz said/says that everything is related to the aether frame. He then says 'relative to' the aether frame there exists 'local frames'. Further all frames are related to each other by the factors we call the Lorentz transforms. Two 'local frames' are also related by sais transforms. Thus the aether frame isn't needed to compute what each will SEE! wrt to the other. The key word here is SEE. Are you the type that sits in an audience watching a magician and saying to yourself seeing is believing?

Lorentz explicitly uses V & v (defined above) but shows that for the transform only the net (dv) is necessary. In other words (IOW) one can assume any 'local frame' is a 'rest frame' and only the net (delta)

You answered: I would like to see a reference for that. If it is correct then LET would not be experimentally identical to SR.

LET is not identical to SR and, while they share the very same transform they do not share the same philosophical underpinning and interpretations. Since they do share the same transform they do share the very same results of what can be 'seen' of a moving system and how the signal delays and physical contraction show these to each other's system. However, it is VERY CLEAR in LET that each system's physical state (length & time) are local values and are distorted by velocity wrt the aether background frame. This is independent of what is 'seen' or measured in any other frame. Now, you can pretend you're not moving, assume your length & time are not distorted and get by since by doing so you renormalize your basis to the aether background frame. In SR this is call proper length & time.

You wrote: This is straight up false. It is part of the Lorentz transform.
Dorrie wrote: Lorentz introduced/accepted the Lorentz Tranformation, which for time
t'= (lorentz factor) (t-vx/c^2) Does this not imply the relativity of simultaneity?

No it does not. No more that where one is situated should determine the sequence of detonation of two firecrackers who explode 'at the very same instant'. If you are equaldistant between them you say that you hear them simultanieously but if standing next to one you'd say you hear it first. The 'actual' order of events is not affected or limited to hearing. Lorentz was smart enough to know this. He never ascribed to seeing is believing or perception is
reality...

LET doesn't care what they 'see' or 'measure'. In LET the actual physical ordering is determined by the order it happens in the actual physical universe. This is alway occurring based on a physical background, the aether frame. Yes, LET says given a local frame,
what 'they' can see or measure of moving distant objects is limited to propagating signal from those distant moving objects, therefore here's how to relate these. It does not say, or suggest that such seeing is to be taken as anything other than that.

In LET it is explicitly acknowledged that all moving objects have distorted measuring devices (both clocks and rulers), therefore what you see (based on your own rulers & clocks) is an equally distorted view of reality. If you're smart enough to know this going in then you damned well better realize seeing can't be actual reality. In Lorentz's time they did not know how to determine the aether frame since there was no physical marker. We know now that
the CMBR can (and does) illuminate this background.

The following inside the quotes is statements made by ghwellsjr. Since Dalespam, PeterDonis shares the same views as ghwellsjr, then please address them as well.

In "your inertial frame", meaning in a frame in which you are at rest, you are not experiencing length contraction (or time dilation) and that is the reason why everything is normal to you. It would be just like if you happened to be at rest in the one and only aether frame, wouldn't it?

In LET YES, you are experiencing distortions of time & space. He explicitly talks about this as the 'local frame', try actually reading his paper:

http://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publications/PU00014148.pdf


What seem to fail to grasp is you're Dirac's fish in this case... As said, you can pretend your frame is the aether rest frame for the convenience of computing offset into other moving systems SINCE only delta or relativie velocities matter to these computations. This is why we use the ECI and GR analyst use the CMBR as preferred baselines.

But those other people traveling with respect to you, and therefore with respect to the aether (if you want to think of it this way), will be experiencing length contraction and time dilation but they won't know it because their rulers are contracted along the direction of
motion and their clocks are running slow. Now when they view you, still while in your rest frame, they will measure you to be length contracted and time dilated.

You do seem to love seeing is somehow believing. Any magician wants an audience filled with people like you.

One way to help understand this is to consider what happens when they approach you and pass right by you. If you had identical spaceships, you could each measure the length of other one by seeing how long it takes the front of each spaceship to traverse the distance from the front of the other one to its rear. Since you are at rest with respect to the chosen frame, you are not experiencing length contraction or time dilation so the time according to your clock that it takes the other ship to pass you multiplied by its speed gives you its length.

But both can certainly be distorted. This is the crux of the pole in the barn paradox case. There are no such paradoxes in LET. What is physically real is based solely upon thec total velocity of each object wrt to the local background. There length in the direction of mation
and the tick rastes of their clocks. This way it sucked to be A in that tachyon duel :). He NEVER HAD A CHANCE!

Now they are doing the same thing with respect to you but remember this will all be considered from the same frame where their ship is length contracted and their clocks are running slow. Now when they are at the front of your spaceship, they note the time on their clock (just like you are doing). Then some time later, when they reach the rear of your ship, they make another note of the time on their clock. Since their clock is running slow, they will get a smaller value than they otherwise would and when they do the division, they conclude that it is your spaceship that is length contracted. See how this works? All in a single arbitrarily chosen inertial frame.

This is where SR & LET's domsins overlap. It takes T I M E for signals to go from one point in space to any other. ThustThe coordinate offsets are related by the same transformations. Thus the observed as in 'determined' behavior AS SEEN! is descibed by those equations. But,
in Lorentzian Relativity (LR) seeing is just that, seeing, and not actual reality. Thus there are no possibility of symmetry or paradoxes or time reversals or meeting oneself by FTL travel. Time's arrow is 'actually' never affected by any speed.

So even though they are the ones that are length contracted, they
still think you are the one that is length contracted. Every measurement that you make of them, they will make of you, even though they are the ones that are "really" experiencing length contraction and time dilation, so it's impossible to tell who really is at rest with respect to the aether.

I think you need a better understanding Lorentz's version. To master an opponent you
must know thine enemy. Therefore understand the underpinning of both SR and LR. Just FYI superluminal (sL) velocities are allowed in both LR and LR BUT! if it happens both are moot on describing its behavior. LR has a patheway for extension which I cannot see for SR. Given
the observance of Chererov radiation in media the LR extension has some basis in observation behavior.

 

[PeterDonis]

LET is not identical to SR and, while they share the very same transform they do not share the same philosophical underpinning and interpretations.

I'm confused. If LET shares the same transform as SR then what about this:

About v = (V + dv) - (V - dv) = 2dv = 0.866c

Note that the aetherial speed V factored out.

As DaleSpam pointed out, this is not the correct velocity addition law. If LET uses the same transform as SR does, then it uses the same velocity addition law as SR does. That means you can't cancel out the V in the above.

Also, you're talking a lot about "actual" or "real" things that can never "actually" or "really" be measured; for example:

In LET the actual physical ordering is determined by the order it happens in the actual physical universe.

Which can't be determined because we can't know which frame is the aether frame. So what's the point of talking about it? SR accounts for all our observations without having to even worry about the fact that we can never figure out what our "actual" state of motion is.

 

[Dale]

With this change of heart.

"Change of heart" is overstated. I would make a minor adjustment to language. SR has relativity of simultaneity, LET has relativity of local simultaneity. They both come from the Lorentz transform.

LET is not identical to SR and, while they share the very same transform they do not share the same philosophical underpinning and interpretations.

I have said so myself several times.

In Lorentz's time they did not know how to determine the aether frame since there was no physical marker. We know now that
the CMBR can (and does) illuminate this background.

No we don't know that. That is purely speculation/assumption. Since we cannot measure the velocity of any frame wrt the aether we cannot know that the CMBR is at rest wrt the aether.

What seem to fail to grasp is you're Dirac's fish in this case... As said, you can pretend your frame is the aether rest frame for the convenience of computing offset into other moving systems SINCE only delta or relativie velocities matter to these computations. This is why we use the ECI and GR analyst use the CMBR as preferred baselines.

Please find a mainstream science reference where a GR analyst states that their reason for using the CMBR as a reference frame is because it is Lorentz's aether frame. Otherwise don't make such a claim.

I would also still like to see a reference that shows that LET does not use the relativistic velocity addition formula.

This way it sucked to be A in that tachyon duel :). He NEVER HAD A CHANCE!

I showed the math above. If you disagree then please post your work.

In LET, if something is always a tachyon relative to its emitter then it is always possible to find an emitter from which it will go backwards in time in the aether, and violate causality. Conversely, if something is a tachyon only wrt to the aether then it is always possible to find a local frame in which it goes backwards in time, but it will not violate causality.

 

[PeterDonis]

Given the observance of Chererov radiation in media the LR extension has some basis in observation behavior.

Are you claiming that SR can't account for Cherenkov radiation? If so, you need a better understanding of SR.

 

[atyy]

By LET (there is no standard terminology, so I'm proposing the definition for this thread), I mean the laws of physics stated in a particular Lorentz inertial frame.

A good reference on LET so defined is John Bell's "How to teach special relativity" in which he says "Lorentz, on the other hand, preferred the view that there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the "aether", even though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it experimentally. The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one philosophy rather than the other. And we need not accept Lorentz's philosophy to accept a Lorentzian pedagogy. Its special merit is to drive home the lesson that the laws of physics in anyone reference frame account for all physical phenomena, including the observations of moving observers." http://books.google.com/books?id=qo...each+special+relativity&source=gbs_navlinks_s, p70.

 

[PeterDonis]

In LET, if something is always a tachyon relative to its emitter then it is always possible to find an emitter from which it will go backwards in time in the aether, and violate causality. Conversely, if something is a tachyon only wrt to the aether then it is always possible to find a local frame in which it goes backwards in time, but it will not violate causality.

I think a slight clarification is needed: by "is a tachyon relative to X" I think you mean "is emitted with a fixed velocity v > c relative to X". Whether or not something "is a tachyon" in the sense of moving on a spacelike worldline is frame-invariant; but which specific spacelike worldline it moves on depends on which rule we adopt for how its velocity is determined, as you note.

 

[PAllen]

By LET (there is no standard terminology, so I'm proposing the definition for this thread), I mean the laws of physics stated in a particular Lorentz inertial frame.

A good reference on LET so defined is John Bell's "How to teach special relativity" in which he says "Lorentz, on the other hand, preferred the view that there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the "aether", even though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it experimentally. The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one philosophy rather than the other. And we need not accept Lorentz's philosophy to accept a Lorentzian pedagogy. Its special merit is to drive home the lesson that the laws of physics in anyone reference frame account for all physical phenomena, including the observations of moving observers." http://books.google.com/books?id=qo...each+special+relativity&source=gbs_navlinks_s, p70.

This is an important insight. Sydney Coleman once said (in a GR lecture) : you only need one coordinate system for everything, the egocentric coordinate system (centered on Coleman's lab).

 

[PeterDonis]

By LET (there is no standard terminology, so I'm proposing the definition for this thread), I mean the laws of physics stated in a particular Lorentz inertial frame.

That doesn't seem to be the definition other posters are using, because "LET" as it is being used here appears to be incompatible with this:

The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one philosophy rather than the other. And we need not accept Lorentz's philosophy to accept a Lorentzian pedagogy.

I personally agree with this, and I also think that "Lorentzian pedagogy" as described by Bell, that "the laws of physics in anyone reference frame account for all physical phenomena, including the observations of moving observers," is perfectly compatible with standard SR. IIRC, Bell goes on to show how this method of accounting for everything from one reference frame works well, for example in giving a simple way to get the right answer in the Bell Spaceship Paradox.

But as far as I can see, "LET" claims more than this; it claims that only one philosophy is the "correct" one, the philosophy that "there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the aether, even though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it experimentally." Bell, as you note, did not subscribe to the view that this philosophy was the only "correct" one. Nor do I. I don't think the "philosophy" matters at all, since it makes no difference to experimental predictions. Any method that yields correct predictions is fine by me.

 

[atyy]

But as far as I can see, "LET" claims more than this; it claims that only one philosophy is the "correct" one, the philosophy that "there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the aether, even though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it experimentally." Bell, as you note, did not subscribe to the view that this philosophy was the only "correct" one. Nor do I. I don't think the "philosophy" matters at all, since it makes no difference to experimental predictions. Any method that yields correct predictions is fine by me.

Yes, LET is not standard terminology in our times. Clearer would be Bell's "Lorentzian pedagogy". Certainly if LET is defined to include the statement that there is a unique preferred frame, then it is not even wrong, because Lorentz invariant laws stated in one preferred frame automatically define a whole class of preferred frames, which are of course the class of Lorentz inertial frames. So for fruitful discussion, and in the absence of standard terminology, I think we should define LET as Poincare invariant laws stated in a particular Lorentz inertial frame, ie. LET is our shorthand for Bell's "Lorentzian pedagogy".

 

[PeterDonis]

Yes, LET is not standard terminology in our times. Clearer would be Bell's "Lorentzian pedagogy".

Yes, I agree. But I would not use the term "LET" to mean "Lorentzian pedagogy", because for better or for worse, many people seem to think "LET" means the "not even wrong" claim, not just the pedagogical claim. IMO it would be better to just abandon the term "LET" altogether except when pointing out to proponents of it that it is not even wrong.

 

[atyy]

Yes, I agree. But I would not use the term "LET" to mean "Lorentzian pedagogy", because for better or for worse, many people seem to think "LET" means the "not even wrong" claim, not just the pedagogical claim. IMO it would be better to just abandon the term "LET" altogether except when pointing out to proponents of it that it is not even wrong.

Can do too. As you know, I am a big fan of confusing terminology:) But I am no fan of a discussion where the definitions change all the time:(

This is an important insight. Sydney Coleman once said (in a GR lecture) : you only need one coordinate system for everything, the egocentric coordinate system (centered on Coleman's lab).

 

[PeterDonis]

The difference in inertia would be rather small...Since artificially generated forces are nowhere as reliable as a mass determinant as forces dictated by the natural law of gravity, it would seem that a Cavendish-type experiment would have to be created which can rule out extraneous forces, such as that from electrical charge.

Are you proposing to measure "real mass" by inertia, or by gravity? Are you claiming that the answers might be different? The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is experimentally verified to one part in 10^-13, so any variation in the equivalence due to state of motion of order parts per million or parts per billion is well within our ability to detect, and it hasn't been detected.

 

[kmarinas86]

[W]e can't know which frame is the aether frame. So what's the point of talking about it? SR accounts for all our observations without having to even worry about the fact that we can never figure out what our "actual" state of motion is.

If the aether frame determines the "real" amount of energy an object has, then it should also determine the "real" mass that an object has. Any proper acceleration with respect to the aether would result in a gain of mass, and any proper deceleration with respect to the aether would result in a loss of mass. The difference in inertia would be rather small. Thus, it would appear that the claim that the aether cannot be detected is actually based on the flawed assumption that "we can't know" it, which is really rather circular as a statement and proves nothing. I would also like to add that these mass changes are not measured in the Michelson-Morley experiment, so that experiment does not disprove the general hypothesis of a detectable aether not yet disproved by other experiments. These changes are tiny. Increasing speed with respect to the aether by 30,000 mph would result in a change of mass by a factor of 1 part in 100 million. Decreasing speed with respect to the aether would result in a similar, but opposite, effect. Any significant speed achieved in particle accelerators is also likely to be relativistic respect to the aether, regardless of direction, while the Earth, Sun, and Milky Way move slow in comparison to the speed of light with respect to that frame. Thus, any variations of the inertia of a particle moving that fast and making complete 360-degree turns millions of times a second would be in the range of parts per billion to parts per million. We are not capable of such measurements in any case, so it is clear this has not been disproved either. Since artificially generated forces are nowhere as reliable as a mass determinant as forces dictated by the natural law of gravity, it would seem that a Cavendish-type experiment would have to be created which can rule out extraneous forces, such as that from electrical charge.

 

[kmarinas86]

Are you proposing to measure "real mass" by inertia, or by gravity? Are you claiming that the answers might be different? The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is experimentally verified to one part in 10^-13, so any variation in the equivalence due to state of motion of order parts per million or parts per billion is well within our ability to detect, and it hasn't been detected.

The question is not of their equivalence, of which I am not disputing. Rather, I am speaking of their ability to co-vary with respect to motions relative to the aether. If the former increases by 1 part in a billion, then so should the other.

 

[harrylin]

Yes, I agree. But I would not use the term "LET" to mean "Lorentzian pedagogy", because for better or for worse, many people seem to think "LET" means the "not even wrong" claim, not just the pedagogical claim. IMO it would be better to just abandon the term "LET" altogether except when pointing out to proponents of it that it is not even wrong.

Indeed, "LET" is not well defined and Lorentz and Einstein did not even use it. It's much better to simply discuss interpretations of SR - there are certainly more than two!

 

[ghwellsjr]

First off, you don't want to say "others outside your inertial frame" because that implies that only you are in "your inertial frame". When we say "your inertial frame" we mean a frame in which you are at rest and others are traveling but they are just as much in the same frame as you are in. Every one is in all frames.

So with this in mind, in "your inertial frame", meaning in a frame in which you are at rest, you are not experiencing length contraction (or time dilation) and that is the reason why everything is normal to you. It would be just like if you happened to be at rest in the one and only aether frame, wouldn't it?

But those other people traveling with respect to you, and therefore with respect to the aether (if you want to think of it this way), will be experiencing length contraction and time dilation but they won't know it because their rulers are contracted along the direction of motion and their clocks are running slow. Now when they view you, still while in your rest frame, they will measure you to be length contracted and time dilated.

One way to help understand this is to consider what happens when they approach you and pass right by you. If you had identical spaceships, you could each measure the length of other one by seeing how long it takes the front of each spaceship to traverse the distance from the front of the other one to its rear. Since you are at rest with respect to the chosen frame, you are not experiencing length contraction or time dilation so the time according to your clock that it takes the other ship to pass you multiplied by its speed gives you its length.

Now they are doing the same thing with respect to you but remember this will all be considered from the same frame where their ship is length contracted and their clocks are running slow. Now when they are at the front of your spaceship, they note the time on their clock (just like you are doing). Then some time later, when they reach the rear of your ship, they make another note of the time on their clock. Since their clock is running slow, they will get a smaller value than they otherwise would and when they do the division, they conclude that it is your spaceship that is length contracted. See how this works? All in a single arbitrarily chosen inertial frame.

So even though they are the ones that are length contracted, they still think you are the one that is length contracted. Every measurement that you make of them, they will make of you, even though they are the ones that are "really" experiencing length contraction and time dilation, so it's impossible to tell who really is at rest with respect to the aether.

Ghwellsjr, is the above related to relativity of simultaneity in LET where it has same behavior as SR because we can't measure the aether rest frame?

Prior to Einstein, scientists were still struggling with the concept of time and how to order the sequence of distant events. See this paper by Poincare where he concludes with:

To conclude: We have not a direct intuition of simultaneity, nor of the equality of two durations. If we think we have this intuition, this is an illusion. We replace it by the aid of certain rules which we apply almost always without taking count of them.

But what is the nature of these rules? No general rule, no rigorous rule; a multitude of little rules applicable to each particular case.

These rules are not imposed upon us and we might amuse ourselves in inventing others; but they could not be cast aside without greatly complicating the enunciation of the laws of physics, mechanics and astronomy.

We therefore choose these rules, not because they are true, but because they are the most convenient, and we may recapitulate them as follows: "The simultaneity of two events, or the order of their succession, the equality of two durations, are to be so defined that the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible. In other words, all these rules, all these definitions are only the fruit of an unconscious opportunism."

And I would say the reason he and others struggled so much with these concepts of time (which is what simultaneity is all about) is because they believed in one absolute time linked to the one absolute state of the ether. How could they think otherwise?

Also what do you make of the concept of the aether background frame being where the CMBR has no significant dirtectional Doppler shift?

I never believed the CMBR would provide any clue as to the rest state of any presumed aether. I responded once before to a question about it here at post #10.

 

[Dale]

I think a slight clarification is needed: by "is a tachyon relative to X" I think you mean "is emitted with a fixed velocity v > c relative to X".

Yes, that is what I meant.

 

[Dale]

I don't think the "philosophy" matters at all, since it makes no difference to experimental predictions. Any method that yields correct predictions is fine by me.

Same here. Personally, I think that people should know as many different interpretations as possible and switch between them interchangeably whenever convenient. E.g. I like LET for relativistic Doppler, and SR for most everything else.

 

[stglyde]

Same here. Personally, I think that people should know as many different interpretations as possible and switch between them interchangeably whenever convenient. E.g. I like LET for relativistic Doppler, and SR for most everything else.

Supposed LET were physically proven someday (for example from beyond the standard model physics beyond the higgs 500 years later.. for sake of discussion). Is the principle in LET compatible with quantum mechanics and particle physics? or do we have to invent aether versions of QM and particle physics with local lorentz violations in the aether sector? Or can LET being true be independent of QM and particle physics? Or would the QFT statement "Particles being energy and momentum of the field" becomes "Particles being energy and momentum of the aether field" for example?

 

[harrylin]

Prior to Einstein, scientists were still struggling with the concept of time and how to order the sequence of distant events. See this paper by Poincare where he concludes with:

["The simultaneity of two events, or the order of their succession, the equality of two durations, are to be so defined that the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible. [..]"]

And I would say the reason he and others struggled so much with these concepts of time (which is what simultaneity is all about) is because they believed in one absolute time linked to the one absolute state of the ether. How could they think otherwise? [..]

?? Poincare's choice of the definition of simultaneity refers to local (=relative) time.

 

[Dale]

Supposed LET were physically proven someday (for example from beyond the standard model physics beyond the higgs 500 years later.. for sake of discussion).

By "physically proven" I assume you mean via experimental validation. The problem is that the only part of a theory which can be experimentally validated is the mathematical structure that underlies the experimental predictions. The philosophical and metaphysical ideas that motivate that mathematical structure can never be proven, regardless of how many centuries of data you collect.

You can already say that LET already has over a century of experimental proof, so if you want to use it then go ahead and use it. There will never be any experimental reason to pick LET over SR, but then again there is no experimental reason to pick SR over LET either. Make whichever personal choice you prefer, but realize that it is nothing more than a personal choice and never will be more than that.

Is the principle in LET compatible with quantum mechanics and particle physics? or do we have to invent aether versions of QM and particle physics with local lorentz violations in the aether sector? Or can LET being true be independent of QM and particle physics? Or would the QFT statement "Particles being energy and momentum of the field" becomes "Particles being energy and momentum of the aether field" for example?

Yes, both LET and SR are compatible with QM/QFT/QED/etc.

 

[zonde]

What are you talking about? Why.

I was trying to illustrate why observations are symmetric even if Lorentz transformation is "physically" asymmetric according to LET.
And I was doing that because you said:

So why is it stated that the rest frame of the aether can't be found?

How does Relativity of Simultaneity differ between SR and LET?

Operationally there are no differences.
Philosophically SR says that Relativity of Simultaneity is intrinsic to spacetime while in LET it is emergent.

 

[zonde]

But as far as I can see, "LET" claims more than this; it claims that only one philosophy is the "correct" one, the philosophy that "there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the aether, even though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it experimentally." Bell, as you note, did not subscribe to the view that this philosophy was the only "correct" one. Nor do I. I don't think the "philosophy" matters at all, since it makes no difference to experimental predictions. Any method that yields correct predictions is fine by me.

Philosophy does not make any difference if you intend to use theory for making predictions within it's domain of applicability.
But philosophy makes difference in the domain where theory breaks down and you have to make adjustments to it. In case of LET and SR it would be when you bring gravity into the picture.

 

[stglyde]

By "physically proven" I assume you mean via experimental validation. The problem is that the only part of a theory which can be experimentally validated is the mathematical structure that underlies the experimental predictions. The philosophical and metaphysical ideas that motivate that mathematical structure can never be proven, regardless of how many centuries of data you collect.

You can already say that LET already has over a century of experimental proof, so if you want to use it then go ahead and use it. There will never be any experimental reason to pick LET over SR, but then again there is no experimental reason to pick SR over LET either. Make whichever personal choice you prefer, but realize that it is nothing more than a personal choice and never will be more than that.

Yes, both LET and SR are compatible with QM/QFT/QED/etc.

For LET to be even thinkable. The aether must be consistent and ponderable. But can the aether really do such? I read in wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

"Nevertheless, by this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale"

So what kind of aether is it or what must it be composed of for LET to be even acceptable by physicists?

 

[atyy]

@stglyde, I know you defined it in the Beyond forum thread. But just for clarity, could you (since you are the OP) please state the definition of LET we are using in this thread? Is LET a Poincare invariant set of laws stated in a particular Lorentz inertial frame?