LET & SRT : experiments

alvydas · 03/09/12 46

Hello,
I am new to this forum.
I understand Russian well, but I can not write in it.
Can you name some already done experiments which would support special theory of relativity, but do not support Lorentz ether theory?
Thanks.

photon · 23/12/05 12064

i

Тема перемещена из форума «Дискуссионные темы (Ф)» в форум «Карантин»
Тема перемещена в Карантин по следующим причинам:

Пожалуйста, приведите обсуждаемый вопрос непосредственно в теме, не отсылая, по возможности, ко внешним источникам.

Исправьте все Ваши ошибки и сообщите об этом в теме Сообщение в карантине исправлено.
Настоятельно рекомендуется ознакомиться с темами Что такое карантин и что нужно делать, чтобы там оказаться и Правила научного форума.

photon · 23/12/05 12064

i	Возвращено

EvilPhysicist · 07/06/11 1890

(Оффтоп)

alvydas в сообщении #614186 писал(а):

I understand Russian well, but I can not write in it.

Problems with fonts?

alvydas в сообщении #614186 писал(а):

Can you name some already done experiments which would support special theory of relativity, but do not support Lorentz ether theory?

How about Mickelson-Morley experiments? (I hope i wrote they names correctly).
Bun i doubt that somebody can gave you links to experiments supporting S.R. because it was published around year 1905. You may found experiments supporting General Relativity.

Munin · 30/01/06 72407

There is no such thing as 'Lorentz ether theory'. It's a myth. A pseudoscientific myth.

'LET' cannot be a scientific theory. It has exactly the same formulas, exactly the same mathematical model as Special Relativity does. So effectively it is equal to the Special Relativity theory. Any numerical prediction 'LET' could give would also be given by SR. (Converse is not true: SR gives some general predictions that 'LET' fails to give, but does not conflict with, and those predictions hold.) By the criteria of scientific theories, it cannot pass as a separate theory. So no experimentum crucis is possible to distinguish between them.

And what is more, Lorentz has nothing to do with this 'theory'. He has never formulated it. He has worked with ether, yes, and he has done some contribution to Special Relativity, while thinking he is talking about ether. But his results were particular and did not make a consistent theory by themselves, they were made consistent only when they were included into the body of the Special Relativity theory. That was done by Poincare and independently by Einstein.

So, 'LET' cannot be attributed to Lorentz, it is attributed to some pseudoscience ether freaks of the end of 20th century, who fashioned it out of nothing and started to advertise. Just don't believe them, and ignore their claims. 'Ether' is dead for ages and will never return.

Also, a name 'Lorentz theory', when met in a trusted context, does not refer to the Special Relativity theory or some ether theory. It refers to the 'Lorentz electron theory', meaning the theory of electricity in substances, conductivity, polarisation, optical properties and so on. All these phenomena, by this theory, are due to electrons. As you see, there is nothing freakish here. Such views are entirely supported by the modern science, except some numerical calculations modified by quantum theory of solid state. Also, Lorentz was trying to build the model of electron itself, as small but not point-like particle, alongside with many other theorists of the time: Poincare, Abraham, Langevin. And this attempt failed. Electron had to wait until quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics for the valid model, until Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Pauli and Dirac. All this story has nothing to do with ether.

-- 04.09.2012 17:12:28 --

EvilPhysicist в сообщении #614651 писал(а):

How about Mickelson-Morley experiments? (I hope i wrote they names correctly).

Michelson–Morley. Михельсон, да-да :-)

EvilPhysicist в сообщении #614651 писал(а):

Bun i doubt that somebody can gave you links to experiments supporting S.R.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... ments.html

alvydas · 03/09/12 46

Munin в сообщении #614715 писал(а):

Converse is not true: SR gives some general predictions that 'LET' fails to give

Yes, this is what I am asking. What testable cases LET can not predict?

EvilPhysicist · 07/06/11 1890

alvydas в сообщении #614771 писал(а):

What testable cases LET can not predict?

You better ask what LET can predict? Or rather, is LET is actual theory?
Personally I don't know nether Lagrangian for LET not any motion equation.

Munin · 30/01/06 72407

It is not some particular experiment. It is a statement that everything in the world, every law of physics, either known or unknown, obeys the Principle of Relativity, and thus the Lorentz invariance. So, any new fundamental law of physics we would ever discover, would have the Lorentz-invariant wording (in its most general form). 'LET' fails to predict this, because it views the Lorentz invariance as a particular fact of only those laws we know at the moment, and there is no cause for new laws to have the same property.

What is more, the very concept of ether fails the same way, and even calls for search of Lorentz-breaking laws. Of course, the search is interesting and important for physics by itself, and it is conducted permanently, but without any relation to ether. The search always fails, for about a century. And even if it would find something not invariant, it would be called something else, not ether, maybe some unknown vector field of non-zero value, because the conceptual framework of physics has changed fundamentally, and new concepts are incompatible with the very idea of ether.

When SR was first formulated, it covered only two theories: classical point mechanics, and the theory of classical elecromagnetic field. In the next years many more fundamental theories emerged, in rough outline: the theory of gravitational field (GR), quantum mechanics, the theories of quantum electromagnetic field, of strong interaction, of weak interaction. All of these theories were found to be Lorentz-invariant, that is, the phenomena themselves, new and unknown to the physicists of 1905, are all obeying the Principle of Relativity. This is a very non-trivial fact, and it should be entirely accounted in favour of SR.

So, SR is strongly supported by all that evidence, and 'LET' is not.

alvydas · 03/09/12 46

Munin в сообщении #614799 писал(а):

So, SR is strongly supported by all that evidence, and 'LET' is not.

Ok, lets say Lorentz personally does not made full theory.
But can SR be reformulated into numerically eqvivalent theory in style of LET with only 1 main reference frame for c?

I am not sure I right remember, but maybe I have read it is already done by somebody?

EvilPhysicist · 07/06/11 1890

alvydas в сообщении #614811 писал(а):

Ok, lets say Lorentz personally does not made full theory.

What are we discussing then?

alvydas в сообщении #614811 писал(а):

But can SR be reformulated into numerically eqvivalent theory in style of LET with only 1 main reference frame for c?

And why we should reformulate SR?
It working and more simple then LET.

Munin · 30/01/06 72407

alvydas в сообщении #614811 писал(а):

But can SR be reformulated into numerically eqvivalent theory in style of LET with only 1 main reference frame for c?

Yes it can. And by the rules of naming scientific theories, it would still be referred to as SR.

Let me say it again, 'Lorentz ether theory' is a myth, there is no such theory!

alvydas в сообщении #614811 писал(а):

I am not sure I right remember, but maybe I have read it is already done by somebody?

It can be done by any student as a simple exercise, and there is absolutely no scientific novelty in such a transform. This is just a trivial reduction of an existing theory. So it is useless to seek when it was done for the first time. No one praises anyone for that, nor attributes a priority.

alvydas · 03/09/12 46

Munin в сообщении #614844 писал(а):

Yes it can.

Ok, now lets consider such experiment:
we have hard rod and two very very stable independent masers (M1 and M2) with the same frequency on it.

M1..>..................R..................<..M2

And at the middle we have receiver R.
Lets corect position of the receiver so that phase shift would be equal to 0.

Now lets reverse the constriction (we can do it slowly).

M2..>......c............R.......c...........<..M1

By usual SR we will not notice any phase shift also.
But by modified SR in style of LET we will have phase shift because of c-v and c+v

Inicial position (as you remember we initialy had ajusted position of R so that no phase shift would be detected )
M1..>...........c-v.......R........c+v..........<..M2
Now after rotation to 180 degree
M2..>...........c-v.......R........c+v..........<..M1

LET or modified SR will predict phase shift after rotation.

Munin · 30/01/06 72407

alvydas в сообщении #614911 писал(а):

Ok, now lets consider such experiment

Let's not. As I said before, the mathematical model is exactly the same, so in no way you can find any differences, unless you make some mistakes.

alvydas в сообщении #614911 писал(а):

By usual SR we will not notice any phase shift also.
But by modified SR in style of LET we will have phase shift because of c-v and c+v

This shift would be unobservable. The effect is the same as using skew coordinates instead of cartesian to describe a rectangular house. By calculations, you will have a shift between walls' origins, but by looking at the house you will find it's straight, and walls are even. In skew coordinates, you will have to admit that eyes have the same shift in their shape, and it compensates the shift in the shape of the house, and makes it unobservable.

-- 05.09.2012 00:19:01 --

If you want to take some classes in SR, let's forget about 'LET' and start a new thread.

alvydas · 03/09/12 46

Munin в сообщении #614926 писал(а):

alvydas в сообщении #614911 писал(а):

Ok, now lets consider such experiment

As I said before, the mathematical model is exactly the same, so in no way you can find any differences, unless you make some mistakes.[/color]

If not this experiment I would not come here and would not open this tread. Therefore I would like to analyze from all possible points until everything will be clear.

Ok you don't like the name LE theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
lets name it LE hypothesis.
From the state we know about it here could be phase shift.
Do you agree with this point? And why exactly if not?

SR you know better therefore lets consider it later (At a new tread if you like). I would be glad you explain me exactly why here will not be any phase shift at modified SR. For the moment you just only pointed to analogy with coordinates.

Munin · 30/01/06 72407