Relativity vs competing theories

[mangaroosh]

hey guys,

I'm just wondering about the existing competing theories; it's been mentioned in a number of threads that there are a couple of theories which equally explain the results of relativity experiments, but which are based on different underlying principles. I've also read that relativity is the only one that involves relativity of simultaneity; is that true? Do the other theories involve absolute simultaneity?

I'm also wondering what those other theories are?

 

[Dale]

The only one I am aware of is Lorentz aether theory (LET). There is some disagreement on another thread about what LET is and questions like the one you raised. LET was essentially abandoned early on, so it doesn't have a real clear definitive interpretation. So the arguments tend to be difficult to resolve as far as what LET itself means.

 

[bcrowell]

There are probably quite a few theories of classical gravity that are consistent with all the empirical evidence. Whether these are particularly well motivated is a matter of taste.

Brans-Dicke gravity is viable, but only for values of the omega parameter that make it very similar to GR.

Østvang’s quasi-metric relativity: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0112025v6

Jacobson Einstein-Aether gravity: Ted Jacobson, David Mattingly, "Gravity with a dynamical preferred frame," 2000, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007031 ; Ted Jacobson, "Einstein-aether gravity: a status report," 2008, http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1547 ; http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ (has experimental tests)

Of these three, the only one I really know anything significant about is BD gravity, which incorporates relativity of simultaneity in the same way as GR. I can't imagine how any viable theory of gravity could fail to incorporate relativity of simultaneity, since that's a feature of SR, and SR has been verified to extremely high precision.

 

[Dale]

Oh, good point. I was just talking about SR, not gravity.

 

[tom.stoer]

I would like to add Einstein-Cartan-theory which is (as an enhancement of GR) indistinguishable from GR due to the tininess of the spin-current and torsion effects, but which is favoured by theoretical reasons.

 

[harrylin]

hey guys,

I'm just wondering about the existing competing theories; it's been mentioned in a number of threads that there are a couple of theories which equally explain the results of relativity experiments, but which are based on different underlying principles. I've also read that relativity is the only one that involves relativity of simultaneity; is that true? Do the other theories involve absolute simultaneity?

I'm also wondering what those other theories are?

Probably you refer here to Special Relativity (SR) and physical models for it ("metaphysical" explanations). As a matter of fact, SR is based on postulates about phenomena and not directly on physical models. However, the second postulate was based on the success of the Maxwell-Lorentz model of light propagation, and that theory involved the concept of absolute simultaneity. Since SR emerged from those foundations, it is not really a "competing" theory. Einstein phrased it as follows:

"We [...] assume that the clocks can be adjusted in such a way that
the propagation velocity of every light ray in vacuum - measured by
means of these clocks - becomes everywhere equal to a universal
constant c, provided that the coordinate system is not accelerated.
[..this] "principle of the constancy of the velocity of light," is at
least for a coordinate system in a certain state of motion [..] made
plausible by the confirmation through experiment of the Lorentz theory
[1895], which is based on the assumption of an ether that is
absolutely at rest".
- http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/E-1907.pdf

The essential point of SR is that "absolute rest" cannot be detected; and consequently also no "absolute simultaneity" can be detected either. SR only relates to things that can be detected.

Addendum: there are competing explanations for SR, just as there are also many competing explanations for quantum mechanics. Some main explanations of SR:
- the existence of a (3D) "ether" (also called physical space or vacuum)
- the existence of a 4D physical "spacetime" (also called block universe or 4D ether)
- shut up and calculate (a non-explanation, but possibly most popular)

 

[ghwellsjr]

hey guys,

I'm just wondering about the existing competing theories; it's been mentioned in a number of threads that there are a couple of theories which equally explain the results of relativity experiments, but which are based on different underlying principles. I've also read that relativity is the only one that involves relativity of simultaneity; is that true? Do the other theories involve absolute simultaneity?

I'm also wondering what those other theories are?

Just in case you are asking about competing theories to Special Relativity (and not General Relativity), the wikipedia article on the One-way speed of light provides two, Lorentz ether theory and [STRIKE]Roger's[/STRIKE] Edwards' theory. The only difference between these three theories is the differing "second" postulate that they are based on. The "second" postulate has to do with simultaneity, that is, how they arbitrarily decide to divide the time of the round-trip measurement of the speed of light into its two parts, one for the outbound part of the trip and one for the inbound part of the trip. Special Relativity makes them equal. Lorentz ether theory makes them unequal except in one presumed state of rest. [STRIKE]Roger's[/STRIKE] Edwards' theory emphasizes that the division is truly arbitrary and let's you pick and choose anyone you want in any particular situation.

Please note that all three theories share the same "first" postulate, the principle of relativity. This adds to the confusion when you ask about "relativity" without specifying what you mean. I'm assuming that you meant "Special Relativity" which is one of the three relativity theories all based on the principle of relativity.

 

[harrylin]

Just in case you are asking about competing theories to Special Relativity (and not General Relativity), the wikipedia article on the One-way speed of light [..].

If Einstein were still alive, he would probably call that Wikipedia article extremely misleading as it turns a fly (different ways of formulating or interpreting the same theory) into an elephant (different theories)...

 

[ghwellsjr]

Just in case you are asking about competing theories to Special Relativity (and not General Relativity), the wikipedia article on the One-way speed of light[..].

If Einstein were still alive, he would probably call that Wikipedia article extremely misleading as it turns a fly (different ways of formulating or interpreting the same theory) into an elephant (different theories)...

You just quoted Einstein in which he referred to Lorentz theory so I think the facts do not support your speculation.

 

[ghwellsjr]

The essential point of SR is that "absolute rest" cannot be detected; and consequently also no "absolute simultaneity" can be detected either. SR only relates to things that can be detected.

It is also an essential point of LET and Edwards' theory that "absolute rest" cannot be detected--that's the whole point of the "principle of relativity" that Einstein discussed in the 1907 paper that you referenced. It is true that "absolute simultaneity" cannot be detected but that doesn't mean that a "relative simultaneity" can be detected. Einstein's whole point, if you read what he says, is that no simultaneity can be detected, so for you to claim that SR relates to things that can be detected is wrong. That's why these three theories are indeed three separate theories, because they are each built on a different "second" postulate that defines the meaning of simultaneity in three different ways. Simultaneity of any type cannot be detected. All three of these theories equally comport with all experimental evidence. There is no way to detect which one of these three theories is preferred.

Once you understand that Edwards' theory let's you decide how to define simultaneity (which was really Einstein's idea all along), then you can see that Einstein's arbitrary choice is the preferred one because it is simpler, not because it is based on something that can be detected.

 

[Naty1]

Here is a suvery of the experimental basis of special relativity...supporting experiments.

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

In brief:

as of this writing there are no reproducible and generally accepted experiments that are inconsistent with SR, within its domain of applicability.

But this article does not discuss, that I could see in a quick scan, if any other theories also meet these all these test criteria.

 

[ghwellsjr]

But this article does not discuss, that I could see in a quick scan, if any other theories also meet these all these test criteria.

Sure it does, right here:

3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy

Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an aether frame. In all of these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called “Edwards frames”).

 

[mangaroosh]

It is also an essential point of LET and Edwards' theory that "absolute rest" cannot be detected--that's the whole point of the "principle of relativity" that Einstein discussed in the 1907 paper that you referenced.

That point about "absolute rest" is an interesting one, because the effect of Einstein's relativity (and perhaps others) appears to be the same as treating inertial reference frames as being absolute rest frames, from their own perspective.

It is true that "absolute simultaneity" cannot be detected but that doesn't mean that a "relative simultaneity" can be detected. Einstein's whole point, if you read what he says, is that no simultaneity can be detected, so for you to claim that SR relates to things that can be detected is wrong. That's why these three theories are indeed three separate theories, because they are each built on a different "second" postulate that defines the meaning of simultaneity in three different ways. Simultaneity of any type cannot be detected. All three of these theories equally comport with all experimental evidence. There is no way to detect which one of these three theories is preferred.

Once you understand that Edwards' theory let's you decide how to define simultaneity (which was really Einstein's idea all along), then you can see that Einstein's arbitrary choice is the preferred one because it is simpler, not because it is based on something that can be detected.

Einstein's theory involves relative simultaneity; do the other theories involve absolute simultaneity?

 

[ghwellsjr]

That point about "absolute rest" is an interesting one, because the effect of Einstein's relativity (and perhaps others) appears to be the same as treating inertial reference frames as being absolute rest frames, from their own perspective.

This is true for Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity but not for the others.

Einstein's theory involves relative simultaneity; do the other theories involve absolute simultaneity?

The expression "relative simultaneity" only makes sense when the idea of "relative time" is significant. Prior to Einstein's ideas, it just didn't occur to anyone that time could be actually relative. Even though LET uses all the same equations, the terminology is that what we now call "Proper Time" (the legitimate time displayed on any clock) was called by them "local time", meaning that it was not really the time that nature operates on, but rather a "modified" or "corrupted" time. They viewed the time on their clocks as suffering from an unknown amount of time dilation caused by unavoidable motion through the ether.

I looked up Edwards' paper and I would say he wasn't promoting a new theory but merely elaborating on Einstein's observation that the two parts of the round-trip speed of light measurement can be assigned arbitrarily in any proportion, including making the speed in one direction c/2 and ∞ in the other direction.

He has a section on using the slow transport of clocks "for the absolute synchronization of clocks in a coordinate system" and he concludes "a clock that is moved to all positions in a coordinate system to set the other clocks does not establish an absolute synchronization" [emphasis his].

But he concludes his paper saying, "For most problems the most convenient assumption to make is still that of isotropic space", in other words, Einstein's synchronization convention.

 

[mangaroosh]

The expression "relative simultaneity" only makes sense when the idea of "relative time" is significant. Prior to Einstein's ideas, it just didn't occur to anyone that time could be actually relative. Even though LET uses all the same equations, the terminology is that what we now call "Proper Time" (the legitimate time displayed on any clock) was called by them "local time", meaning that it was not really the time that nature operates on, but rather a "modified" or "corrupted" time. They viewed the time on their clocks as suffering from an unknown amount of time dilation caused by unavoidable motion through the ether.

Under LET, how is "the time that nature operates on" determined?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Under LET, how is "the time that nature operates on" determined?

It isn't. It's just presumed that it exists. Put yourself back before Einstein's time. Would you ever imagine that time runs differently under different circumstances? Not just that your clocks might be affected by those circumstances but that time itself is relative? Or that each observer determines that the other ones time is running slower? It's one thing to believe in Galilean relativity where time and spatial distances are absolute where all you have to do is have the obvious sort of offsets to get from one frame to the other but what Einstein came up with is a giant leap and not at all obvious.

 

[Dale]

Please note that all three theories share the same "first" postulate, the principle of relativity.

I still disagree with this. I think that all aether theories, including LET, violate the principle of relativity. That is, IMO, the point of the aether.

 

[mangaroosh]

It isn't. It's just presumed that it exists. Put yourself back before Einstein's time. Would you ever imagine that time runs differently under different circumstances? Not just that your clocks might be affected by those circumstances but that time itself is relative? Or that each observer determines that the other ones time is running slower? It's one thing to believe in Galilean relativity where time and spatial distances are absolute where all you have to do is have the obvious sort of offsets to get from one frame to the other but what Einstein came up with is a giant leap and not at all obvious.

That's what I was thinking, I just wanted to make doubly sure, cheers.

Just to try and get a better understanding of the differences, would you by any chance know how the light clock on the train experiment would be interpreted under LET?

Would the clock on the train slow down in that reference frame?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Just to try and get a better understanding of the differences, would you by any chance know how the light clock on the train experiment would be interpreted under LET?

Exactly the same way as under SR.

Would the clock on the train slow down in that reference frame?

Yes, but nobody knows by what amount.

The difference is that LET would never consider the ground frame because it represents the stationary ether and we don't know where that is. We're all doomed to ride around on the train having our clocks running slow (by an unknown amount) and having our lengths contracted along the direction of the train (again, by an unknown amount).

Einstein said, "You don't need the ground--just assume that you are stopped and anyone moving with respect to you is on a different train. All you care about is the relative difference in your respective trains. And everybody agreed.

 

[harrylin]

It is also an essential point of LET and Edwards' theory that "absolute rest" cannot be detected--that's the whole point of the "principle of relativity" that Einstein discussed in the 1907 paper that you referenced. It is true that "absolute simultaneity" cannot be detected but that doesn't mean that a "relative simultaneity" can be detected. Einstein's whole point, if you read what he says, is that no simultaneity can be detected, so for you to claim that SR relates to things that can be detected is wrong. [..]

That's not what I meant; probably I should have written that SR only relates to things can be experimentally verified. My point was that while the predictions of a theory of physics relate to the setting of measurement instruments, no theory depends on those settings - also not SR. No theory postulates how experimenters will act. On a side note, relative simultaneity is detected continuously with GPS receivers in the sense that corrections must be made for the motion of the geoid.

 

[harrylin]

I still disagree with this. I think that all aether theories, including LET, violate the principle of relativity. That is, IMO, the point of the aether.

The historical facts are that Lorentz and Langevin were among the most prominent early relativity teachers and Einstein came back to the ether without abandoning the PoR.

 

[harrylin]

You just quoted Einstein in which he referred to Lorentz theory so I think the facts do not support your speculation.

You are confused (perhaps due to a mistranslation): Lorentz's theory of 1895 to which Einstein refers there was not relativistic. In contrast, Einstein discusses there Lorentz's paper of 1904 and his own paper of 1905 as the same theory. Therefore also the bundle "The Principle of Relativity" starts with Lorentz-1904.

 

[harrylin]

That point about "absolute rest" is an interesting one, because the effect of Einstein's relativity (and perhaps others) appears to be the same as treating inertial reference frames as being absolute rest frames, from their own perspective.

Einstein's theory involves relative simultaneity; do the other theories involve absolute simultaneity?

The ether interpretation involves absolute simultaneity as a concept of something that exists in nature but cannot be detected; only relative simultaneity can be detected. In contrast, the physical spacetime interpretation regards relative simultaneity as slices through spacetime, without the existence of absolute simultaneity.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Please note that all three theories share the same "first" postulate, the principle of relativity.

I still disagree with this. I think that all aether theories, including LET, violate the principle of relativity. That is, IMO, the point of the aether.

I'm only repeating what Einstein repeatedly says in all his papers, books, and talks.

For example, look at his 1907 paper that harrylin quoted in post #6:

He starts off describing how Newton's laws of physics retained their form under Galilean transformation which he specifically called "the principle of relativity". But then the Lorentz's laws of electrodynamics based on "a stationary immobile ether" put that principle in jeopardy because they did not transform intact. And so the search went out to locate the ether culminating in MMX which affirmed the principle of relativity but it had to be based on a different transformation which Lorentz came up with. The only difference between Lorentz's approach and Einstein's is that Lorentz derived the transformation after an experiment forced him to, whereas Einstein starts with the generalized principle of relativity and derives the transformation from a necessary consequence of applying the second postulate. And he specifically states that it is this second postulate that makes the difference between Lorentz's theory and his own theory of Special Relativity when he says:

It required only the recognition that the auxiliary quantity introduced by H. A. Lorentz, and called by him "local time", can be defined as simply "time."

This then leads to the statement that the ether "does not fit in" with his theory.

Poincaré, in his 1904 paper, also recounts under the heading of The Principle of Relativity, how Lorentz "valiantly defended" the principle of relativity by coming up with a new transformation.

Now I'm not saying that anyone but Einstein ever formally presented two postulates as the basis for a theory or even that Einstein was claiming that Lorentz had his own two postulates but the net result was the same as if he had and I think it is helpful to point this out.

 

[harrylin]

[..] he specifically states that it is this second postulate that makes the difference between Lorentz's theory and his own theory of Special Relativity when he says:

It required only the recognition that the auxiliary quantity introduced by H. A. Lorentz, and called by him "local time", can be defined as simply "time."

[..] Now I'm not saying that anyone but Einstein ever formally presented two postulates as the basis for a theory or even that Einstein was claiming that Lorentz had his own two postulates but the net result was the same as if he had and I think it is helpful to point this out.

Yes I think so too - thanks.
Note that everyone was forced to come up with a theory that conforms to the PoR, Einstein also refers to those experiments in his 1905 paper; however Lorentz's approach was a bit messy while Einstein derived the transformation equations in a cleaner way.

But please clarify what you mean with "he specifically states", as in that sentence he doesn't mention the second postulate and the way he phrases the second postulate in that 1907 paper is in agreement with Lorentz's 1904 paper.

 

[ghwellsjr]

You are confused (perhaps due to a mistranslation): Lorentz's theory of 1895 to which Einstein refers there was not relativistic. In contrast, Einstein discusses there Lorentz's paper of 1904 and his own paper of 1905 as the same theory. Therefore also the bundle "The Principle of Relativity" starts with Lorentz-1904.

Yes, Einstein traces that development in Lorentz's ether theory but he never stops calling it a theory different than his own or pointing out that it is his second postulate which make the difference as a starting point and the lack of an ether as an ending point. I count at least seven times in the first column of page 513 where Einstein refers specifically to Lorentz's 1904 theory and two of those times are in contrast to his own theory of relativity. He never claims that they are merely two interpretations of the same theory. In this and other papers, he always shows a contrast to Lorentz's ether theory as a result of his second postulate.

 

[harrylin]

Yes, Einstein traces that development in Lorentz's ether theory but he never stops calling it a theory different than his own or pointing out that it is his second postulate which make the difference as a starting point and the lack of an ether as an ending point. I count at least seven times in the first column of page 513 where Einstein refers specifically to Lorentz's 1904 theory and two of those times are in contrast to his own theory of relativity. He never claims that they are merely two interpretations of the same theory. In this and other papers, he always shows a contrast to Lorentz's ether theory as a result of his second postulate.

First of all, no "Lorentz ether theory" existed in those days. Perhaps you mean Lorentz's 1895 theory of electrons, to which both Einstein and Lorentz referred in their respective papers? For the rest, I can find little to nothing of what you say in the paper itself, perhaps because I base myself on the German original and not on a poor translation (I think that I already made you attentive on that subtle but important detail in an earlier discussion).

 

[ghwellsjr]

But please clarify what you mean with "he specifically states", as in that sentence he doesn't mention the second postulate and the way he phrases the second postulate in that 1907 paper is in agreement with Lorentz's 1904 paper.

He doesn't use the words, "second postulate" in the first column of page 513 but he does talk about Lorentz's "local time" in contrast to Einstein's "new time concept" which come directly out of his second postulate.

Then ending on page 513 and continuing on to the first column of page 514, he develops this "new time concept" describing his synchronization convention for remote clocks and calling it the "principle of the constancy of the velocity of light". He then affirms "the experimental confirmations of Lorentz's theory, which is based on the assumption of an absolutely stationary ether". In other words, his synchronization convention is identical to the absolutely stationary ether. What "is not at all self-evident" is that this same convention, reserved only for the ether frame in LET can be arbitrarily applied to any reference frame in SR.

So LET claims that there is only one frame that has the ether-like characteristic in which light propagates at c in all directions, SR claims that any frame has that ether-like characteristic. They are two different theories based on two different "second" postulates.

 

[ghwellsjr]

First of all, no "Lorentz ether theory" existed in those days. Perhaps you mean Lorentz's 1895 theory of electrons, to which both Einstein and Lorentz referred in their respective papers? For the rest, I can find little to nothing of what you say in the paper itself, perhaps because I base myself on the German original and not on a poor translation (I think that I already made you attentive on that subtle but important detail in an earlier discussion).

The first rule of PF is that "All posts must be in English". I would think that would apply to all links too, so when you link to Einstein's original paper in German and claim that you can translate it better than the link I provided in English, it doesn't appear to me to be playing by the rules. If you want to provide another link to his paper in English that you believe is better than the one I provided, I'll be happy to consider the differences but for now, I'm going to have to point you to quotes in the paper I linked to.

Now you are claiming that when Einstein originally referenced Lorentz theory, it was not in regard to ether, just about electrons. Well, I started this train of posts at #24 quoting the beginning of Einstein's paper with regard to "Lorentz's laws of electrodynamics based on 'a stationary immobile ether'" but I changed Einstein's wording. He called it "the electrodynamic theory of H. A. Lorentz" and then he said, "That theory is founded, namely, on the assumption of a stationary immobile ether." He doesn't provide a year for this theory so I don't know if it is the same one you are talking about, but he traces the progress of Lorentz's theory from that point on, never failing to call it a theory.

I don't know if at that time it is was specifically called "Lorentz ether theory" or LET but I also don't know if Einstein's theory was called "Special Relativity" so why should we care about precise terminology?

 

[harrylin]

He doesn't use the words, "second postulate" in the first column of page 513 but he does talk about Lorentz's "local time" in contrast to Einstein's "new time concept" which come directly out of his second postulate. [..]

Hmm ... Einstein doesn't claim or suggest there that that is his new time concept, nor does he suggest that that concept comes directly out of his second postulate. However, we know that it corresponds to Poincare's new time concept which was based on Lorentz's "local time"; and Poincare had suggested to his readers that it was fully Lorentz's idea.

What "is not at all self-evident" is that this same convention, reserved only for the ether frame in LET can be arbitrarily applied to any reference frame in SR. [..]

As you probably know, no "Lorentz Ether Theory" was known by Lorentz or Einstein... Perhaps we should start a thread on that 1907 paper, as it's not exactly the topic of this thread.