Difference between Lorentz and Einstein

harrylin

Hmm it's hard to be more wrong: Lorentz believed that all matter is manifestations in the ether (he rejected a material ether such as that of Stokes), and that the equilibrium position is affected by speed. The electromagnetic bonds do not increase in strength!

ghwellsjr

1911 was not the very first discussion of the "twins paradox". It was first introduced by Einstein in his 1905 paper, near the end of section 4, and it was not based on the ether concept, but you're right about it not being paradoxical.

ghwellsjr

Maybe that's because prior to Einstein, there was no version of LET that allowed LET believers to recognize the issue that the twins paradox reveals.

Which version of LET do you keep referring to?

harrylin

Although not for space travel but for clocks on Earth, indeed Einstein calculated a similar clock retardation there - however it was from a single perspective. It's essential for a possible paradox to describe the situation from the perspective of each twin.

And of course, that's besides the point. The point was here that a reading of Langevin's paper (which presents special relativity from the combined viewpoints of Minkowski and Lorentz) should show the OP that there is no difference in calculation, contrary to what he/she claims.

But when I wrote "based on" I was not clear enough, sorry. The calculation is simply based on the Lorentz transformations and interpretation cannot change this. However the metaphysical interpretation may be absent (as in Einstein's paper), or based on a physical model (as in Langevin's paper).

ghwellsjr

You're right, Einstein didn't go into the details of the Doppler shifts that each clock would see of the other ones clock like the 1911 paper did, but that also is not what is meant by the paradoxical nature of the "twins paradox". The "paradox" in the "twins paradox" is what happens when you assign a Frame of Reference to both inertial portions of the traveling twin's trip during which his clock ticks normally while the home twin's clock ticks slower while in the home twin's FoR, his clock is ticking normally while the traveling twin's clock is ticking slower.

But if you use just one FoR for the entire scenario, there is no paradox, which is what Einstein did.

So as you said, the 1911 paper also does not treat the "twins paradox" as a paradox, so I don't know why you want to give credit to it for first discussion of the "twins paradox" when it was Einstein who was first.

ghwellsjr

I see you edited your post while I was composing my comment.

First off, Einstein's clocks were not limited to Earth. He merely made a prediction that could possibly be carried out long before space travel became feasible.

The problem with the OP's ideas is that he hasn't nailed down which version of LET he is talking about. He expressed an interest in the historical development of SR and how Einstein came up with his ideas but he seems unaware that LET was truly an evolving theory prior to 1905 and it wasn't until Einstein's single presentation of SR in 1905 that LET could then adopt all of his results and claim them as their own in what is now discussed as LET or neo-Lorentzian Theory which is nothing more than SR stripped of it second postulate and inserted with the postulate that light travels at c in only one fixed absolute frame.

NotAName

Neither. Einstein seemed to have some great insight into reality and I am just trying to find his "in-road" to that insight. At the time, there was no motivation (experimental evidence) to come to that idea and a great big pile of motivations not to. I mean for god's sake, nothing in the history of mankind or science has ever behaved that way! So it's unbelievably revolutionary.

More specifically, in that quote, I was saying that you cannot justify a completely new way of solving a problem that does not fit with the rest of reality if you do not have some link(experimental data) that supports that idea.(and he didn't have it at that point) Math alone cannot justify a completely new version of the way reality works. It seems some string theorists believe that if the math works out then that's all you need and unfortunately I think we're starting to see that as a laughable, or sad, mistake. I guess they are all hoping to be the next Einstein...

I'm saying that there is a much greater distance between Einstein and Lorentz than it seems at first glance, and I suppose I'm also saying "I'm no Einstein" because try as I might, I just can't see how he got there unless it truly was just a leap of faith and serendipity that he didn't get laughed out of physics before they found evidence of this new view of reality.

...though I suspect there might be some small piece of the puzzle I've missed that leads to light constancy.

His "logical derivation" (the words that justify the math) for light constancy in the first few sections of OEMB, unfortunately would work for LET and even for clocks synchronized by sound waves so he didn't convey his insight at that point.

I've been attacking it from every angle to try to find where the idea came from and hoping others might be able to use some of the info I have to help me nail down where this moment in history came from.

NotAName

My ideas agree with what you are saying. I'm not sure what you're saying the disagreement is. First off, how do you pick a single version if it is a work in progress? Secondly, yes Lorentz was still basing his idea of ether theory upon Maxwell's version of the ether which was the dominant explanation of the time. (That doesn't invalidate anything I've said) To Maxwell, all atoms were simply vortices of ether which is where most crackpots get their idea of "ether vortices." He referred to the ether as a "wheels and pulleys" (It's actually kind of intriguing) But there was an initial idea used in the derivation of Lorentz Ether Theory that atoms were drawn together because of the motion of the ether and this was developed in coordination with George FitzGerald who was the first to come up with the idea of shortening. They also believe that perhaps atoms were repelled along the other axis at the same time but later discarded that idea.

So sure, equilibrium position is a good way of saying the same thing. If he had a model based upon ether pressure like most of the people dawdling around with it today then equilibrium can be described as pulling or pushing just like buoyancy can. One may be a little more accurate but let's not split terminology hairs... I suppose I might have missed that subtle shift in the theory though so thanks for the heads up. (I may still explain it in more modern friendly terms though)

Are you saying he didn't believe specifically in "atomic" theory? Even those who didn't believe in atomic theory believed in things made of parts so perhaps I substituted the word atoms for molecules?

However, one thing I must vehemently disagree with, you must must understand LET enough to see that it isn't "just SR stripped of the second postulate." There is an entirely different "logical derivation" for it. It can be derived with simple Pythagorean theorem and a tad of trig. Look at the experiment description posted above for a moment and I'm sure you can see it. Though if you'd like an explanation of the steps perhaps it just seems easier to me because I've read a lot on it...

And as I was saying about the twins paradox, when you make one frame be dominant there is no twins paradox but that isn't a solution, that's a deferral. Reducing it to one frame infers a universal frame and you eliminate any need for the one thing that Einstein added: Light constancy.

It's easier to understand the difference when you look at the solved twins paradox and realize that when one twin sees the other as shortened, the opposite sees the other as lengthened. When one sees the other as as slower, the opposite sees the other as faster. This is still explicable via classical ether based physics because of Lorentz.

In LET shortening causes a speed-up of time but the motion causes a much larger slowing of time. The theory gets really boggling with shorter measuring sticks leading to larger distances and then slower time somehow making up the difference... blah blah... I don't want to get into all the gory details here unless you really want me to. That part is a confusing pain but it does lead to a theory which does not have the twins paradox (of course) but still has light seeming to travel the same speed in all frames without breaking simultaneity.

If you'd like more information on how the simple derivation works though I've already got parts of a presentation created that I can post here and this is my hobby so I'm glad to help. It's really fun and entertaining to see the first workings of relativity... And that's why I'm frustrated because coming up with the transformations from the michelson-morely is really quite trivial (well after you've read all about it), but the next leap to constancy has completely stumped me.

harrylin

As this has nothing to do with the topic I'll comment just one more time: I do not call a discussion from a single perspective a discussion of a paradox or paradox scenario- that would be paradoxical in itself, like clapping with one hand.
Which is why I don't discuss that strawman at all.
In contrast, the difference between Lorentz and Einstein is recorded in their writings.

harrylin

I hope that you now read the paper that I suggested to you, as it shows you wrong. But if you won't check out references, then I'm afraid that discussion with you is a waste of time, sorry.

PhilDSP

You might want to look at the Poincare papers. With the exception of the determination of the law of velocity addition, pretty much all of the mechanics and the interpretation of SR was developed by Poincare prior to 1905.

harrylin

Indeed, and on a side note, for the velocity transformation equations one may want to check out the following 1905 letter of Poincare to Lorentz (ε=v/c):
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/c...t/lorentz4.xml

ghwellsjr

I didn't know that I was saying anything for you to agree with. I asked the question:
Apparently, you agree that it was a work in progress. While it was in progress, it was never fully developed until after Einstein presented SR. If your interest is to present the history of this progress, then you need to clearly show each step along the way. But you aren't doing this, instead, you are presenting LET as if it is one coherent fully developed theory. Am I correct in this?

DaleSpam

First you claim that Einstein was wrong and reality was not 4D, then you claim that he had great insight into reality (presumably that it is 4D), and then you go back to claiming that his 4D idea didn't fit with the rest of reality. Let me know once you have firmly decided your position on the matter. Until then I will let you finish the argument with yourself before I jump in.

NotAName

Thank you both. Excellent suggestions/help!

NotAName

Lol... well thank you! Though I think the snarkiness may be unnecessary.

Do you understand that I'm looking at a transition between two oppositional viewpoints? And can you see how that may lead to the use of terminology which represents one viewpoint and then also lead to the use of terminology which represents the viewpoint which opposes?

I must admit that because I'm trying to empathize with the thought process of each of these and all the steps that lead up to them that it may sound as though I hold both opposite viewpoints as truth. That is the unfortunate side effect of knowing one to be true personally by doing it myself and only knowing the other is true because thousands of respected professionals know it to be true.

I understand that it is a personal fault that I can find and trace the precise reasoning for one and cannot find the reasoning for the other. Posting here was for the purpose of removing that specific personal flaw. As yet, it has not been rectified.


In response to the question of "What version of LET" let me say that the requirement of nailing down an exact version is, once again, a deferral. You are doing something very much like I did when I was a kid and my parents asked me "Did you do your homework". I purposely misunderstood them so that I could answer "yes" since I did, in fact, do homework a few days ago.

After all, they did not properly define their question by stating the exact nature and version of the homework to which they were referring...

To infer that my questions and arguments are invalid because I have not defined the subject to your arbitrarily decided precision is quite the definition of a "straw-man" argument. (Thank you for the demonstration) I have a friend who is quite adept at playing this game and pointing out the reliance upon context and inference necessary for any verbal communication. It can be degraded into an infinite growth program such that even gigantic legal documents which say so little with thousands of words can still be criticized for being poorly defined. So I prefer that we not go down that typical discussion-board rabbit-hole and instead purposely attempt to understand each other to the best of our abilities.


I'll simply interpret your criticism of "not picking a version" as a request for more information.

So, let me state some of the aspects of LET that are important to me and that I find to be the principle defining factors of the theory since we agree there is no definitive version.

1) A universal frame of reference called ether than light travels through (inferring simultaneity) as a physical wave at a speed of C
2) Physical shortening that is real and therefore reciprocal in both frames when an object moves wrt the ether
3) Time effects created by a combination of A) the additional time required for light to travel upstream through the ether b) the reduced time required for electromagnetic atomic interaction created by physical shortening
4) The interactions shortening(measuring more space) of and time effects(measuring less time) which result in a moving observer viewing an interferometer experiment to have a simultaneous arrival time for both light paths and therefore have zero fringe shift resulting in the illusion of light travelling the same speed in all frames of reference without it actually doing so.


I think the problem may be that you didn't/don't understand the difference between the illusion of "light constancy" and it being a truth because you don't understand the physical derivation of LET well enough and you refuse to admit this lack of knowledge and therefore cannot learn what little I could offer you.

You shouldn't be ashamed of never going through all the paces of figuring out exactly how the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed in combination with the attempt to create a mathematical illusion. I only went through this difficult process because I have a very particular/peculiar interest. Most people have absolutely no reason to ever do this. They have no reason whatsoever to even have this monumentally esoteric knowledge. I hope you don't expect that a person is in any way less intelligent if they do not known know everything in the universe that they don't even care about. I think that would be a little absurd.


So you can now say,
"Yes, I know exactly how and why Lorentz created a mathematical illusion and why it is an illusion and I'll explain it now..."
"No, I didn't (or currently do not) understand exactly how constancy is an illusion during the development of LET (which is quite different from SR) and would enjoy hearing what you have learned because you've piqued my interest..."

Or you can say something about my grammar, my phrasing, my version, my mother or some other irrelevant thing and gain nothing.

...your choice

NotAName

I need to address this one specifically. Firstly, the paper you have was Langevin in 1911... this is so many years late in the game that you might as well have quoted something from 2007 as proof. Numerous people including Einstein in later years have explained the idea that if you can't detect an ether then the idea of it is useless... That is a part of where the idea of light constancy comes from but it is not actually true. It is only true if you disregard all the perspectives given by ether before deciding whether or not it is useful.

Even Einstein himself later after much more time to understand his own theories said that a total dismissal of ether is a mistake:
"According to the general theory of relativity, space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." -Albert Einstein 1920


You don't seem to understand the perspectives that you have discarded yet, nor do you seem to know that you have discarded them In a classical physical ether, there is a reciprocal perspective that, according to the knowledge and ability of the day was not something that could be experienced but something that could still be known.

IE: If nature conspired to create an illusion in which light always seems to travel the same speed then you can never know you are in motion even if you truly are in motion wrt the medium the light travels in. And this is where the argument comes in that the ether is a useless artifact... It is however a fallacious argument if you simply insert the possibility of detecting that ether. (even if that is currently impossible)

It is also fallacious if there is in-fact a classical-type ether because, regardless of personal experience, there is one truth that exists between the frames about motion and light speed and there is only Galilean Relativity and therefore there is no Special Relativity (a name given to differentiate it from Galilean) which allows a lack of simultaneity.


I know this sounds confusing when you focus on the fully formed theory of today... I never said it wasn't difficult to come up with relativity. But I can tell you that there is a certainly a classical perspective that Lorentz considered before special relativity. That perspective was not often a consideration because it was not a perspective one could personally experience.

You cannot experience your own time being slowed. You feel normal to yourself. You cannot experience being shortened, you look and feel normal to yourself. This is why other perspectives were not useful because they could not be detected and therefore could not be scientifically proven.

..."could not be detected" was the assumption.

That perspective is the physical reality that in a purely classical world in which there is an ether, that if your time is slowed -by classical physical effects- and your instruments are shortened -by classical physical effects- you will observe a stationary object as time sped up and lengthened.

If you cannot understand this, -regardless of its accuracy in current theory- then all I can say is I'm sorry for your limitation in understanding this aspect of physical logic.

So, no, I'm not wrong. I could be poorly explaining it. You could be misunderstanding my phrasing. But I'm not wrong about what is, at its core, a pure logic problem.