LET & SRT : experiments

[alvydas]

I am not so sure why you are so negative about alternative views.
For example serious IT companies offers good money to hackers just for try to break their system.
In this way they becomes stronger.
By analogy main science community may/could/must offer for example 1000 000$ for just an idea which shows where relativity will not fit to experiment.
I am not carry if somebody will take this price.
I am saying that in this way thinking atmosphere would be much more healthy.
Much more people would be interested to discus about science instead of spending time playing lets say "durak" or similar things.
Therefore total IQ of usual people would arise significantly.
If you do not agree just try to speak about it with professionals of mass thinking.

Also I am not convinced that LET do not predict phase shift at mentioned case.
LET use absolute time and 3D space. And not even space contraction, just contraction of hard bodies if you read Lorenz itself.
For this case only contraction of hard bodies can be applied from Lorentz view point.
But it also have not sense, because rotation is to 180 degree.

[photon]

Переехали

[Munin]

alvydas в сообщении #615029 писал(а):

I am not so sure why you are so negative about alternative views.

There are 'alternative views' of different kinds. One kind is healthy scientific theories and hypotheses, which compete with the mainstream one. And the other kind is pseudoscience, failing to be scientific at all. They show the wrong approach to composing the systematic explanations, and thus they are closer to religion, myths and fiction than to science.

If you don't care about adequacy, you are free to prefer any fiction. But don't compare it to science. Here is a scientific forum, and non-scientific views are not preferred here.

alvydas в сообщении #615029 писал(а):

For example serious IT companies offers good money to hackers just for try to break their system.
In this way they becomes stronger.

The science is the same. Many theorists work to break any theories their colleagues make up. They are not hired and paid specifically for this, but this is the part of their usual activities. SR, for example, endures such attempts for more than 100 years. It has become unbelievably strong by that.

But don't confuse such hackers, the fair workers, to cheaters who just claim to break something, but never do the real thing. That's what the pseudoscience is.

alvydas в сообщении #615029 писал(а):

I am saying that in this way thinking atmosphere would be much more healthy.

It IS that healthy, for real. Pages of scientific magazines are place for heated debates and bloody battles. It's just this is invisible to outstanders.

alvydas в сообщении #615029 писал(а):

Also I am not convinced that LET do not predict phase shift at mentioned case.

No problem. Just study SR.

You cannot be convinced of something just by reading few words. This takes a lot of study, a lot of work, a lot of time and a lot of calculation. I could not convince you unless I give you a lecture course on SR and adjacent things and that would take long. You'd better just read some proper textbook on the subject. I personally prefer to recommend the 'Spacetime Physics' by Taylor & Wheeler. It can be downloaded easily.

alvydas в сообщении #615029 писал(а):

And not even space contraction, just contraction of hard bodies if you read Lorenz itself.

Some cheater has told that to you. If you actually read Lorentz himself (I've done that), you will find that he proposed contraction of bodies at first, and then expanded it to the full-fledged spacetime coordinate transform. It was a hard-working path from 1880s to 1904.

[alvydas]

[quote="Munin в [url=http://dxdy.ru/post615043.html#p615043]]
There are 'alternative views' of different kinds. One kind is healthy scientific theories and hypotheses, which compete with the mainstream one. And the other kind is pseudoscience, failing to be scientific at all. They show the wrong approach to composing the systematic explanations, and thus they are closer to religion, myths and fiction than to science.[/quote]

Ok, why to fight at all. Look at the sky, we small dusts somewhere lost in space and inteligent people fight for their views instead to have fun discussion.
Let say you see some another view. You don't like it for some reason. Just say what experiments they contradict and which they can not explain. It is all for intelligent discussion. If you can not name such experiments you can not say nothing more.
Maybe they are at the beginning of some better way.
And they will be happy if you name what experiments they contradict and what exactly already tested things they can not predict.
They would much learn from such communication and will try to modify their view.
But you dominate and still fight. Thats funny a bit. Especially if to look at human beans from a side :)

From other point, lets say I am inventor-experimenter who do not cary about theories in sense which is better.
Lets say I am just hunting new phenomenas. For that I need different ideas to make interesting experiment setup.
There is no chance to make clever setup for new phenomena inside one theory.
And usualy calculations of many experiments do not requared very deep knowledge of each view.
The main point is to find differences.
For particular case I mentioned with 2 masers/lasers stabilized by extremely stable clock I understand both theories enough.
But you escaping to discuss about it.

[Munin]

alvydas в сообщении #615085 писал(а):

Let say you see some another view. You don't like it for some reason. Just say what experiments they contradict

How many times should I repeat? This question has any sense only when applied to some scientific hypothesis. When you bring forward some non-scientific view, it is not supported by solid reasoning, and it cannot be discussed on par with a corresponding scientific theory at all. There are certain criteria that must be fulfilled for the view to be scientific, and until that, the view fails even before any experiments are discussed. Comparison to experiments is not for anything but only for something that has passed the gate.

alvydas в сообщении #615085 писал(а):

It is all for intelligent discussion.

It is not intelligent character, it is scientific character that is in question.

alvydas в сообщении #615085 писал(а):

Maybe they are at the beginning of some better way.

It is guaranteed that no. Such an ill beginning cannot make any better.

alvydas в сообщении #615085 писал(а):

And they will be happy--- They would much learn

You are deeply wrong assuming that. You confuse them with some fair scientists who would really learn something and be happy to have a chance to. But it is clear from what they are saying that they are not scientists at all. Their goals are totally different. So they would not learn and they would not be happy to do the real research. They never intended to.

alvydas в сообщении #615085 писал(а):

There is no chance to make clever setup for new phenomena inside one theory.

There are many good scientific alternatives to SR. They are stated in published papers. They are open to use for experimenters. It's just that 'LET' is not one of them.

For reference, read the link I posted already in this thread: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... ments.html

alvydas в сообщении #615085 писал(а):

And usualy calculations of many experiments do not requared very deep knowledge of each view.

Quite the contrary, every experiment requires proper calculations considering all details, because in the other case the experiment itself could be found absolutely meaningless later.

alvydas в сообщении #615085 писал(а):

For particular case I mentioned with 2 masers/lasers stabilized by extremely stable clock I understand both theories enough.
But you escaping to discuss about it.

You don't understand both theories enough, you don't understand even one. Both theories predict exactly the same result: no differences would be found in experiment. The shift you have calculated for 'LET' is unobservable, and when the observable value would be calculated (which you are not able to perform at the moment), it would cancel out with other term, and result in exactly 0.

To find this, you have to learn advanced concepts and advanced techniques of calculation. But you avoid learning anything. That's why further discussion is meaningless.

[alvydas]

Munin в сообщении #p615114 писал(а):

To find this, you have to learn advanced concepts and advanced techniques of calculation. But you avoid learning anything. That's why further discussin is meaningless.

It is no a problem, I hope here is not just 1 man forum, but if so it is also not a problem. Best.

[photon]

От обсуждения с другими форумчанами ложное представление не станет корректным. Если дискуссия будет продолжаться в том же духе, я закрою тему

[Munin]

Either you learn or not. If you learn, you will get lots of help. If you don't, nothing can be done to help you. This wouldn't change if just me or other 30 people say this to you.

Scientific forum is not the place where you can come and after enough talking get any answer you'd like to hear. Opinions are filtered here.

[alvydas]

Munin в сообщении #615161 писал(а):

Either you learn or not. If you learn, you will get lots of help. If you don't, nothing can be done to help you. This wouldn't change if just me or other 30 people say this to you.

Scientific forum is not the place where you can come and after enough talking get any answer you'd like to hear. Opinions are filtered here.

I think you somehow mix science with nature.
Science is just brain construction to help to reflect properties of nature, not more.
Nature do not works by science laws. These laws is just some far approximations of same real relations
with purpose to predict experiments.
All views somehow reflect reality. Some of them predict more currently known experiments.

You named not right gates for experiments. Gates is only money, nothing more.
You have more money for that, but the problem is these money is not yours. All people pay taxes, so they may control where you spend them. (Of course not I personally, because I am not from Russia, but I was here in army long time ago).

How I can learn if you do not answering the main question I am most of all interesting?

But your country have many very rich people who may personaly support some laboratory in Russia to work on such experiments.
So these money still would stay in your country.
Just some your scientist would have more job, and so more salary. Is this bad idea.
And I would have info.

[photon]

I think further discussion is useless. Closed.

[photon]

открыто по просьбе форумчан, но может быть закрыто вновь - смотря как пойдет дискуссия

[Ilja]

Munin в сообщении #614715 писал(а):

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.

That's funny. If it is exactly the same theory, but is not a scientific theory, that means that SR is not a scientific theory too.

Munin в сообщении #614715 писал(а):

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.

Clearly wrong. In this case, it is a separate theory, with different predictive power.

Munin в сообщении #614715 писал(а):

So no experimentum crucis is possible to distinguish between them.

Wrong. In this case, an experiment which falsifies the more general predictions made by SR would falsify SR but not LET.

Munin в сообщении #614715 писал(а):

And what is more, Lorentz has nothing to do with this 'theory'.

Quite irrelevant. The meaning of LET is close to the views of Lorentz, the theory or interpretation is important and interesting enough to deserve a name, and LET is the name which is widely used.

Munin в сообщении #614715 писал(а):

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.

So what? We are talking here about LET, not LT.

But let's have a look at the difference between LET and SR:

Munin в сообщении #614715 писал(а):

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.

Quite artificial.

Munin в сообщении #614715 писал(а):

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.

First, GR has a different symmetry than SR. You cannot even define a Lorentz transformation to a global GR solution with nontrivial topology.

Then, gravity was known 1905, and the first attempt to develop a theory of gravity in agreement with Lorentz symmetry was made by Poincare 1905. It was not successful, but that's not the point - it was a natural part of the approach of Lorentz and Poincare too, no need for the Einstein-Minkowski interpretation.

So, "entirely accounting" the success of the simple idea to try to make other theories compatible with Lorentz symmetry too is unjustified.

Munin в сообщении #614715 писал(а):

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.

Of course, many people have recommended me to use another name for my theory instead of "ether". But not because there is something incompatible between the modern ether, which gives the particles of the standard model of particle physics as well as the Einstein equations of GR in a natural limit. The only reason is a political one: "Ether" is an unpopular word in mainstream physics.

But there is nothing incompatible with the very idea of ether in modern physics. Only in modern metaphysics.

Munin в сообщении #614715 писал(а):

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

Wrong. First, not a single thing is mentioned where a prediction of LET is not fulfilled.

Then, if we would really apply the concept proposed here, then it is easy to find an experimental falsification of SR which does not falsify LET. You don't believe?

Take a look at the proof of Bell's inequality. Without knowing anything about quantum theory, but seeing Bell's theorem and its proof, everybody would have accepted Bell's inequalities as a prediction of SR. Instead, in LET it cannot be excluded that there are some yet unknown possibilities for superluminal causal information transfer, so it would not be a provable theorem in LET.

But we know today that Bell's inequalities are violated.

[Munin]

Ilja в сообщении #628206 писал(а):

That's funny. If it is exactly the same theory, but is not a scientific theory, that means that SR is not a scientific theory too.

If you wanted to pull jokes, you're doing that in the wrong part of the forum.

To the rest:
It is clear you have not understood what 'LET' is. I don't want to explain pseudoscientific 'theories' on the scientific forum. So you better read that thoroughly yourself, and then re-read everything I've written in this thread.

Ilja в сообщении #628206 писал(а):

it was a natural part of the approach of Lorentz and Poincare too, no need for the Einstein-Minkowski interpretation.

There were no different interpretations of SR. Poincare's interpretation is exactly the same as Einstein's and Minkowski's, and was even foreseen by Poincare in his philosophical works in late 1800-s - early 1900-s. Lorentz did not reach the final interpretation by himself, though he was first who started building it, with Fitzgerald, but he readily and fully accepted the interpretation of Poincare, Einstein and Minkowski.

Ilja в сообщении #628206 писал(а):

the modern ether, which gives the particles of the standard model of particle physics

I don't want to entwine that discussion with a clear case of pseudoscience that is discussed here. You may advertise your theory for crackpots but not on this forum. Here on this forum science and pseudoscience are to be clearly distinguished.

Ilja в сообщении #628206 писал(а):

Without knowing anything about quantum theory, but seeing Bell's theorem and its proof, everybody would have accepted Bell's inequalities as a prediction of SR.

Without knowing anything many wrong assumptions can be done. For example, without knowing anything about globe and the Solar system, everybody would have accepted sunrises and sunsets as an evidence of the Sun going around the Earth.

[Ilja]

Munin в сообщении #628300 писал(а):

Ilja в сообщении #628206 писал(а):

That's funny. If it is exactly the same theory, but is not a scientific theory, that means that SR is not a scientific theory too.

If you wanted to pull jokes, you're doing that in the wrong part of the forum.

To the rest:
It is clear you have not understood what 'LET' is. I don't want to explain pseudoscientific 'theories' on the scientific forum. So you better read that thoroughly yourself, and then re-read everything I've written in this thread.

The aim was not to make fun, but to show an inconsistency in your argument.

I know very well what LET is. It is an interpretation of SR with a preferred frame, which is the rest frame of the Lorentz ether. Time dilation and length contraction are interpreted as being caused by the influence of the ether
on anything moving relative to the ether rest frame.

Munin в сообщении #628300 писал(а):

There were no different interpretations of SR. Poincare's interpretation is exactly the same as Einstein's and Minkowski's, and was even foreseen by Poincare in his philosophical works in late 1800-s - early 1900-s. Lorentz did not reach the final interpretation by himself, though he was first who started building it, with Fitzgerald, but he readily and fully accepted the interpretation of Poincare, Einstein and Minkowski.

So what? I have no problem if you claim that the LET is an invention of somebody else. I'm not that much interested about the priority for this interpretation. To name this interpretation the Lorentz ether seems quite fair to me, because the main ingredients of this interpretation can be found in the writings of Lorentz. Poincare has, of course, made important contributions by correcting the mathematics, but the question is about the interpretation, not the math.

That Lorentz has accepted later the Minkowski interpretation does not mean that one has to rename it. Similarly, de Broglie has also given up his approach for some time, nonetheless it is more accurate to use "de Broglie-Bohm theory" instead of "Bohmian mechanics" because the basic formulas have been found already by de Broglie.

Munin в сообщении #628300 писал(а):

I don't want to entwine that discussion with a clear case of pseudoscience that is discussed here. You may advertise your theory for crackpots but not on this forum. Here on this forum science and pseudoscience are to be clearly distinguished.

No problem. But LET is not pseudoscience. So, if you try to present LET as pseudoscience, I have the right to object.

There is, by the way, a very nice article from Bell "How to teach special relativity", where he argues that, roughly, by learning first the Lorentz approach to special relativity one obtains better intuitions about special relativity. It is published in his "speakable and unspeakable" collection. For the aim of teaching relativity, to students as well as to crackpots, this article is in my opinion very helpful.

In general, I think it is useful to know different interpretations of physical theories. It simplifies the task of distinguishing things supported by observational evidence from metaphysical parts: The latter are usually different in different interpretations.

Munin в сообщении #628300 писал(а):

Ilja в сообщении #628206 писал(а):

Without knowing anything about quantum theory, but seeing Bell's theorem and its proof, everybody would have accepted Bell's inequalities as a prediction of SR.

Without knowing anything many wrong assumptions can be done. For example, without knowing anything about globe and the Solar system, everybody would have accepted sunrises and sunsets as an evidence of the Sun going around the Earth.

Ok, let's modify this. Even knowing one version of everything one needs to compute all the QM predictions, and seeing Bell's theorem and its proof, everybody would have accepted Bell's inequalities as a prediction of SR.

What makes the rejection of realism not only imaginable in a scientific community, but even popular, is nothing one really needs to know for doing science. Knowing only the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM would be sufficient.
Science would not have a problem without the Kopenhagen interpretation, which I see as the origin of the acceptance of doubts about realism. (Of course, not knowing LET, and mingling metaphysical parts of the spacetime interpretation with physics, is a second origin.)

[Munin]

Ilja в сообщении #628364 писал(а):

I have no problem if you claim that the LET is an invention of somebody else. I'm not that much interested about the priority for this interpretation.

The name of Lorentz adds very much to its popularity. Which is very important to pseudoscience.

Ilja в сообщении #628364 писал(а):

But LET is not pseudoscience.

It is, exaclty because it is presented as something different from SR.

Ilja в сообщении #628364 писал(а):

In general, I think it is useful to know different interpretations of physical theories.

In this case, it is not the interpretative part that is discussed. Interpretations cannot be checked by themselves, and metatheoretical predictions can. So they are part of full value of SR, and not just some interpretations, despite the fact they are not mathematical. That's okay: physics is not mathematics, and it is nowhere stated that a physical theory should be all parts purely mathematical.

Ilja в сообщении #628364 писал(а):

Even knowing one version of everything one needs to compute all the QM predictions, and seeing Bell's theorem and its proof, everybody would have accepted Bell's inequalities as a prediction of SR.

That's only your weird opinion and I won't discuss it here anymore.