Difference between Lorentz and Einstein

[NotAName]

For Dalespam:

The difference between Lorentz and Einstein is that the transformation is only applicable to one frame and must be fully inverse for the moving frame. Lorentz transform into the moving frame but invert the calculation to arrive back at the stationary one. The transformation is applied the same in both frames for SR, because both frames actually are equivalent. The frames only "appear" equivalent to each observer in LET. In LET you convert from the "truth" of the stationary frame to the "illusion" of the moving frame whereas you convert from "truth" to "truth" in SR. It's not a difference in the math but in the application of it.

There is absolutely no version of the twins paradox in LET because of this. In LET, the moving frame is length contracted and time dilated, but if you ever attempt to convert from the moving frame to the stationary then the moving frame sees the stationary frame as length dilated and time contracted. If you do not understand what I'm saying then you simply don't understand the genesis of LET which is perfectly understandable because it's a very esoteric subject. Most people don't spend their time learning old incorrect theories in detail. I do.

Surely you understand that a child can show all their work for a word problem, solve every equation properly, but still solve the word problem improperly. This is the difference between the theories. Einstein showed that Lorentz had the right equations, solved them properly but failed the word problem.

I'd be glad to help you understand this further if you're willing to learn about this old defunct theory. But your assumption that there is no difference between the theories just comes from the fact that nobody really cares anymore just like they don't care about the exact minutia in corpuscular theory, so some detail about the old theories get lost.

I, however, enjoy looking into the process of errors that led us to where we are. If you are willing to have some patience, I will explain in detail -when I have a few minutes- why LET would assume that light would arrive at .466 but why SR knows it is .288 The difference is a single preferred frame of ether. The difference is that LET frames are not actually equal even though they appear to be to the observer inside them. In SR the frames are actually equivalent.

In LET light appears constant in the moving frame because the changes to light's apparent speed (from being retarded by the ether) are balanced by changes to time such that they cannot be detected. (an illusion) In LET light governs time, in SR time governs light.

As I said, if you wish, I can provide more detail and I believe you will see that what I'm saying makes sense if light traveled like sound does. We now know that it doesn't but it's entertaining to see that the Lorentz transformation will actually work for sound if you apply it as Lorentz initially did. (because he believed light was a mechanical wave in a medium)

You only see that I'm applying the transformation incorrectly. You can see what Einstein saw about Lorentz, that I'm solving the word problem incorrectly (as Lorentz did), but wouldn't you also like to see what Lorentz saw?

 

[NotAName]

My OP above was actually was a continuation of, well, somewhat of a thread hijacking but tangentially related. Below was my first post on it. Dale basically commented that it was wrong and that there is no difference between the Lorentz transformations in LET and those in SR. I agree, with the below exception...

While I do not doubt my understanding of the Lorentz derivation, I do doubt my understanding of how exactly it transitioned into light constancy and a lack of simultaneity (lack of simultaneity does not exist in LET) which leads to my final question below.



According to Lorentz, a traveller going to a star .5 lightyears away at .5C takes 1 year in the stationary frame but the traveller only records .866 as much time elapsing for a total of .866 years to arrive. Many perspectives were changed for the traveller however: During his travel he believed the point he traveled to was 1.1547 as many units away. He believes light to travel at 1.33 units per second but also still calculates his speed as .5C (because time effects from shortening affect distance inversely leaving only the wind effect visible to in-frame observers).

According to Einstein, a traveller going to a star .5 lightyears away at .5C takes 1 year according to the stationary frame but the traveller only records .866 as much time elapsing for a total of .866 years to arrive. The traveller believes himself to be stationary and that the distant object is approaching at .5C from a distance of .433 lightyears away.

So far there is little effective difference, however:

According to Lorentz, a beam of light traveling to that distant star would take .5 years in the stationary frame and would take .433 years in the moving frame.

According to Einstein, a beam of light traveling to that distant star would take .5 years in the stationary frame and would take .433 years in the moving frame less the movement of the distant star for a total of .288 years.

So the point is that in LET, the motion relative to the universal reference frame is already accounted for in the calculation, whereas in SR, even after the calculation, motion must still be accounted for. (or so I understand)

My question is this: SR leads to two different arrival times for light in the stationary frame: .5 years and (.288 * 1.1547 =) .332 years for the beam of light. Is this part of the lack of simultaneity?

It seems like that since I should only have to apply gamma once after calculating distances:
IE the traveler says he arrives in .866 years, therefore (.866 * 1.1547=)1 year is the simultaneous calculation for my frame.

Yet this somehow seems to not work for light. What did I do wrong and what did I misunderstand?



Looking back on this I suppose it's because you can't keep going back and forth between the frames with the transformation because you'll end up in an ever-growing or ever-diminishing loop. This seems to be the cardinal difference between relativity and all other mathematical theories before it.

We learn in grade school to work our problems backwards by inverting the sign to check them and in this way we can just go back and forth at will. This simply isn't true about relativity which is really quite revolutionary.

I suppose this is only true frames that have never experienced acceleration though, since the two frames in the twins paradox are not actually equivalent. We solve the twins paradox by simply assigning the true stationary frame to the one who dos not experience acceleration.

Interestingly, this leads to a very LET-like situation. Now that we have established that the planetary twin is truly the one experiencing more time, we find that from the perspective of the traveling twin, the stationary twin is length dilated and time contracted. IE he sees the stationary twin as longer and his time seems to elapse more quickly. IE the Lorentz transformation must be inverted to properly model the solved twins paradox if one is converting from the moving twin's frame to the stationary twins frame.

And with this Lorentz-like model we go back to the elementary method of working equations backwards and can switch frames infinitely without an ever-growing or ever diminishing answer.

So I guess my question is better stated as, what is it that led to the "non-reversible", or non-looping version of the theory. Does it have something to do with non-simultaneity?

 

[Dale]

Hi NotAName, sorry it took me a while to respond. I felt that it would be rude to not respond, but I have no interest in the subject so my response is a little rude also. In the end, I figured it was better to be open about my lack of interest.

I will explain in detail -when I have a few minutes- why LET would assume that light would arrive at .466 but why SR knows it is .288

This is wrong, as I already explained in the locked thread. Because I firmly believe you have a misunderstanding I am not terribly interested in your opinions on LET.

However suppose that we discussed for several pages and you managed to convince me that you are correct. That would mean that LET produces different experimental predictions than SR; in which case LET has already been experimentally falsified and I would have even less interest in the topic. So, all you could possibly accomplish would be to convince me that I am even less interested than my current level of dis-interest.

If you are interested in learning SR I will be glad to participate. If you are interested in promoting or explaining LET then I am not going to be the best contact.

 

[NotAName]

However suppose that we discussed for several pages and you managed to convince me that you are correct. That would mean that LET produces different experimental predictions than SR; in which case LET has already been experimentally falsified and I would have even less interest in the topic. So, all you could possibly accomplish would be to convince me that I am even less interested than my current level of dis-interest.

If you are interested in learning SR I will be glad to participate. If you are interested in promoting or explaining LET then I am not going to be the best contact.

Lol... yeah, I didn't think you would be terribly interested in LET in particular. Some people study history and some people study other subjects. I happen to like both physics and history.

The thing is, while I want to learn about SR I want to learn it in the context of its predecessors. I am now at the point of transition which is why I asked the questions above.

Perhaps I should re-state my question? Here, let's try this:

Why is it that when we solve the twins paradox, there is an inverse relationship between the two frames. (The shorter sees the other as longer and the slower sees the other as faster - and vice versa) yet this relationship does not exist in fully inertial frames?

IE: In fully inertial frames, the slower sees the other as slower and the shorter sees the other as shorter.

What is the cause of this difference? This is the essence of Einstein's revelation. The one difference between the theories so understanding it seems crucial to me.

 

[Dale]

Why is it that when we solve the twins paradox, there is an inverse relationship between the two frames. (The shorter sees the other as longer and the slower sees the other as faster - and vice versa) yet this relationship does not exist in fully inertial frames?

IE: In fully inertial frames, the slower sees the other as slower and the shorter sees the other as shorter.

What are you talking about here? I have read this several times and can't seem to parse it.

 

[mananvpanchal]

Why is it that when we solve the twins paradox, there is an inverse relationship between the two frames. (The shorter sees the other as longer and the slower sees the other as faster - and vice versa) yet this relationship does not exist in fully inertial frames?

IE: In fully inertial frames, the slower sees the other as slower and the shorter sees the other as shorter.

What is the cause of this difference? This is the essence of Einstein's revelation. The one difference between the theories so understanding it seems crucial to me.

There are three frames in twin paradox. One frame is for rest observer and two frames is for moving observer (outgoing and incoming). Yes, in SR one frame sees other as slower and shorter. The rest sees outgoing is slower and shorter, same the outgoing sees for rest, and this applies to rest and incoming too. The age difference is cause of gap between lines of simultaneity of outgoing and incoming frame to rest frame. The observer jumping from outgoing to incoming sees time jumping in rest.

 

[PhilDSP]

A few general comments: I don't believe Lorentz employed the concept of "inertial frame" very heavily (and possibly not at all). But we should check his book again. Granted even in SR it's a bit of an idealization because an inertial frame implies that no outside forces are acting on the frame and that effectively occurs only for temporally non-interacting particles such as neutrinos.

One essential difference between Lorentz's work and SR is that SR addresses only 2 frames at a time (with the exception of a possible third frame whose relative velocity is linked according to the rule of velocity addition). Lorentz (and his predecessors such as Hertz, Cohn and Ritz) considered a universal or invariant perspective important where 2 particles not only have a relationship between themselves but a relationship to the rest of the universe as well. SR provides a covariant perspective in comparison.

 

[NotAName]

Well said PhilDSP...

What are you talking about here? I have read this several times and can't seem to parse it.

This concept seems hard to grasp for people who work in Relativity a lot...

If I were to shrink you, what would the world look like to you? Think of "Honey I shrank the kids" When you are smaller, everything else looks bigger but you seem normal sized to yourself.

When you are slowed, you seem normal speed to yourself but everything else seems sped up.

Once we determine for certain that one twin is actually shortened and actually slowed we also then determine that his viewpoint will be skewed in an inverse way. This is a truth of reality and is reflected in the simple basics of math. When you "look through" a problem from reverse, the sign changes. IE if I parse an equation backwards it's like seeing it from the opposite perspective. From the end...

Therefore, in the solution of the twins paradox, we have established that one of the frames is accelerating and therefore is the one that undergoes and change while the other does not.

This means that the traveling twin looks through the equation backwards, just like the kids in "Honey, I shrank the kids" The traveling slowed and shortened twin, looks at his other twin through a telescope back to Earth and sees his twin running about very quickly and also notices that he is lengthened.

This is the normal way math is done. This is not how you do the math in SR when both frames are inertial. Ergo a very fundamental change to the way we do math and the way we see reality. This is Einstein's contribution quite specifically.

It is the reason we even think there is a twin's paradox in the first place. The expectation of inverse viewpoints. Unfortunately, the resolution of the twins paradox tells us nothing with regard to Einstein's special revelation since we reduce it to an invert-able intuitive problem to solve it.

In SR, nobody experiences the lengthening and speeding up that would be required of classical physics and any intuitive view of the situation...

So, as I said before I'm just trying to understand this specific difference between the two because the solution of the twins paradox just reduces the situation to a classical one and isn't useful for this purpose.

 

[Dale]

This is the normal way math is done. This is not how you do the math in SR when both frames are inertial. Ergo a very fundamental change to the way we do math and the way we see reality.

This is completely wrong. Einstein used the same math that everyone else uses. There is no change whatsoever about how you use math. All he did is expand the set of quantities which are frame variant.

In Newtonian physics it is possible that v_A>v_B and v'_A<v'_B, so Einstein didn't change math and what you are attributing to him is simply a standard property of frame variant quantities that has been part of physics from the beginning.

 

[NotAName]

This is completely wrong. Einstein used the same math that everyone else uses. There is no change whatsoever about how you use math. All he did is expand the set of quantities which are frame variant.

In Newtonian physics it is possible that v_A>v_B and v'_A<v'_B, so Einstein didn't change math and what you are attributing to him is simply a standard property of frame variant quantities that has been part of physics from the beginning.

You are linking two unrelated things above: Yes of course coordinate systems in motion wrt each other will measure the same object differently... this truth is utterly off topic.

Let me make this abundantly clear: I understand that the addition of a an additional dimension we call time simply changes the relationship of the two frames as though they are at an angle to each other.

Let me say the same thing in terms a little more agreeable. Never before in math has it been thought of to simply add an additional subscript on an array to make a paradoxical answer no longer paradoxical. You see it in particular terms you are used to but I'm attempting to tell you that I'm looking for the justification to go from three dimensions to four. That is the big leap. Perhaps this is more agreeable nomenclature?

Furthermore I'm pointing out that the same transformation were used with only three dimensions and that when you reduce the twins paradox to one twin actually being larger and the other twin actually being shorter, the fourth dimension gets eliminated in the process. You've simply reduced it to a neo-classical explanation that Lorentz might give if he ever shifted perspective into the moving frame to view a stationary one. (Not all frames were equal in LET because the ether defined them. There was only one universal frame by which all others were judged)

The twins no longer see each other equally shortened and slowed. One sees the other as lengthened and sped up.


Do you understand that the Lorentz transformation will work for a physical wave in a medium with all the same results? Let me explain in a separate post to follow...

What Lorentz thought was an illusion, Einstein discovered was a reality...

 

[NotAName]

Before going further, it is important to understand:
1) That Lorentz believed a substance flowed across atoms causing their electromagnetic bonds to increase in strength thus physically shortening objects.
2) There is a neo-classical understanding of time effects that is a "given" in LET and prior ether theories. It is inferred that light having to travel "upstream" and "downstream" between atoms would cause all electromagnetic interactions to happen slower, thus slowing time for a traveler.

Below is a description of an experiment analogous to the Michelson Morely that, very surprisingly, will actually work. Please use the image below for visual aid:

In this experiment we are studying sound and echo. We have a material that is very well suited for reflecting sound. In our discussion of the experiment we will use a simplified model that disregards finite details such as turbulence temperature etc.

For the sake of simplicity we will assume there is some elevation and temperature at which sound travels one foot in one millisecond and use this as a convenient dual unit of measurement.

We will mount a speaker as an origin point at the back of an open flat-bed trailer and conveniently also use it as a microphone. We will then mount a reflective surface exactly ten feet closer to the front of the trailer. We will also mount a second reflective surface at a ninety degree angle off the left side of the trailer.

When the trailer is parked and a chirp is emitted from the speaker/microphone, it will record an echo from both reflective surfaces at precisely the same moment 20 milliseconds later.


In the process of putting the experiment in motion we found that the echos from the reflective surfaces no longer arrive simultaneously and to study the echo properly we wanted them both to arrive at the same time. We wanted an experiment in motion to have the same experience as a stationary experiment.

An associate of mine we call “Fitz” suggested we simply move the upwind mirror a bit closer. Henry, the math wiz kid of our group, then went about figuring out how far we'd need to move the mirror for any given experimental speed.

It turns out that we'd have to move the mirror back to 8.66 feet if the truck was moving at half the speed of sound and instead of taking 20 milliseconds to hear the echo, it would take 23.094 milliseconds so the experiment is a little slower overall. We wanted it to be the same experience as stationary but it turns out a stationary experiment could elapse 1.1547 times in the period it took the moving experiment to only occur once.

A very astute listener might recognize those numbers as the change factor from Special Relativity and Lorentz Ether Theory. That listener should be intrigued that it works perfectly for a conventional mechanical wave propagating at differing angles through a moving medium. For if he is not intrigued by these results, he lacks a very fundamental understanding of the concept of light speed constancy...

Sound's "constancy" could be erroneously inferred from these observations but these observations obviously do not require sound to be "constant" like light is constant.

IE: If we simply assume that air flow will always shorten this experiment the right amount just like Lorentz assumed ether shortened objects just the right amount then sound waves can replace light waves and we can use all the conventions of synchronizing clocks etc found in OEMB to infer that the speed of sound is constant in the same way light is inferred to be constant.

This begs the question: Did Einstien know something else he didn't tell us that led to his discovery of the special properties of light, or (quite unlikely) did he come up with the right answer for the wrong reason?

 

[Dale]

Let me say the same thing in terms a little more agreeable. Never before in math has it been thought of to simply add an additional subscript on an array to make a paradoxical answer no longer paradoxical. You see it in particular terms you are used to but I'm attempting to tell you that I'm looking for the justification to go from three dimensions to four. That is the big leap. Perhaps this is more agreeable nomenclature?

It doesn't seem like a big leap to me. A couple of years before I learned about relativity I did a similar thing in a completely different context simply because I wanted to use the matrix exponent to solve my system. Also, physicists had been working with higher dimensional phase spaces for quite some time The math justifies it, and it makes things easier to calculate. What is the big leap?

You keep describing things as though Einstein completely rewrote all of math and physics, he didn't. He took the already existing equations at face value, and came up with an exceptionally simple derivation of them with a small number of powerful postulates. That was his genius.

FYI, I didn't respond to the rest because, as I wrote above, I am uninterested in LET. My apologies, I know it is irritating to write so much and have it be ignored.

 

[NotAName]

It doesn't seem like a big leap to me. A couple of years before I learned about relativity I did a similar thing in a completely different context simply because I wanted to use the matrix exponent to solve my system. Also, physicists had been working with higher dimensional phase spaces for quite some time The math justifies it, and it makes things easier to calculate. What is the big leap?

You keep describing things as though Einstein completely rewrote all of math and physics, he didn't. He took the already existing equations at face value, and came up with an exceptionally simple derivation of them with a small number of powerful postulates. That was his genius.

Math does not justify reality, reality justifies math. Of course additional dimensions were already part of math. Not, however, part of reality.

You're just not following what I'm saying. I put it in different terms than usual because the question I'm asking is poorly represented in other terms. I'll attempt -in a moment- to represent it in those poor other terms which seem to be required, but first let me continue down a little more metaphorical track.

If you ask a student to describe the motion of two trains on the same track moving towards each other in terms of their relation to each other mathematically and that student describes the experience of each train in such a way that the two descriptions taken together cause a paradox but the student simply adds an additional dimension you give him an F.

IE: If I say two trains on an East-West rail are approaching each other. The eastbound train is moving 25 miles per hour and the westbound train is moving 75. You can change coordinate systems around such that one believes it is traveling 33 1/3 and the other is traveling 66 2/3 or any number of other descriptions which add up to 100.

If however, any of your answers add up to 120 miles per hour or only a total of 80, you get an F...

Even if you create a knifty coordinate system, in which you arbitrarily add the additional "dimension of smell" where both trains see the other "at an angle" (for lack of a better description), which causes them to seem slower such that each believes itself and the other to be traveling 40 miles per hour and therefore have a total closing speed of 80 -and I'm sure you are personally capable of doing this-, you still get an F...

Why? Because, your math can be correct and your application be an invalid description of reality. (or at least defy all proof up to this point in history)

If you could, however, prove the dimension of smell was real, then every grade-schooler from now on would be even more confused by trains and tunnels but that is not my interest. My interest is how you figured out there was a dimension of smell in the first place with the current set of proof.

Now, the question is muddled but the essence of it in the poorer terms you're looking for is back to: why did he decide another dimension is proper to add? Not what proof vindicated him after the fact.. what led up to that decision.

FYI, I didn't respond to the rest because, as I wrote above, I am uninterested in LET. My apologies, I know it is irritating to write so much and have it be ignored.

No, not at all, don't sweat it. I'm quite used to seeing that. ;) It wasn't written for you in the first place, anyway. I'm writing for those with more interest in the proofs that lead up to their beliefs. History isn't everyone's favorite subject. This is just for a history project I'm working on.

Some people look back and others just focus forward. Forge ahead my good man, I won't stop you.

 

[NotAName]

Truthfully, I suppose the answer to the question of "why additional dimensions" is likely because of Lorentz and others already considering classical effects on time caused by "additional distance" required for electromagnetic interactions in moving objects.

So the better question, I suppose, is why to deviate from Lorentz's idea of an illusion (caused by shortening, ether, and time effects on the observer) in which both observers see the same light? Why deviate from Lorentz's two systems in which events are simultaneous, to create a system in which events are not simultaneous? (Lorentz's frames disagreed on times and lengths but under transformation, events are, while perceived differently actually simultaneous)

And I suppose we can refer to OEMB in which Einstein shows that light constancy in each frame makes each frame disagree on the simultaneous location of a single beam of light. This constancy would explain why light, while the same within a frame, is different when frames are compared... because neither can be identified as truly universal.

But why light constancy as a reality instead of as an illusion? Why break Lorentz's simultaneous model? Why remove a single universal frame and treat each perspective as having its own universal frame?

Why make time govern light instead of light govern time?

 

[Adel Makram]

SR didn't try to explain why c is invariant,,, it turned around that valid observation and considered it as a preposition then jumped to LT,,, so SR is not a fundamental theory of light. Einstein didn't bother to explain facts, instead, he skiped that and turned to other problem of how coordinates correlated for different observers

Therefor, if light propagation has to be thought, SR should not be considered at all. C is invariant in one FOR -> x & t transformed between FORs given that c is invariant there too -> new sets of x & t -> c is invariant again in that new FOR,,,, circular motion!

 

[Dale]

Math does not justify reality, reality justifies math. Of course additional dimensions were already part of math. Not, however, part of reality.

This is a very strange comment in the context of this thread. Are you saying that you have some great insight into reality that allows you to know that Einstein is wrong and reality is not 4 dimensional? Or are you saying that reality used to not be 4 dimensional until Einstein had his idea and then because of his idea reality changed and is now 4 dimensional?

I don't know how you could justify either statement, and I cannot think of another way that you could intend this comment. Please clarify.

 

[harrylin]

[...]
There is absolutely no version of the twins paradox in LET because of this. In LET, the moving frame is length contracted and time dilated, but if you ever attempt to convert from the moving frame to the stationary then the moving frame sees the stationary frame as length dilated and time contracted. [..]

While I know no such theory, coincidentally the very first discussion of the "twins paradox" (although not yet twins) was based on the ether concept - and it's the opposite of what you claim, there was nothing paradoxical to it.
Thus it may be interesting for you, notably p.47-53. You can find it here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Space_and_Time

 

[harrylin]

Before going further, it is important to understand:
1) That Lorentz believed a substance flowed across atoms causing their electromagnetic bonds to increase in strength thus physically shortening objects. [..]

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]

While I know no such theory, coincidentally the very first discussion of the "twins paradox" (although not yet twins) was based on the ether concept - and it's the opposite of what you claim, there was nothing paradoxical to it.
Thus it may be interesting for you, notably p.47-53. You can find it here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Space_and_Time

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]

There is absolutely no version of the twins paradox in LET because of this.

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]

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.

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]

In that paper Einstein calculated clock retardation from a single perspective. It's essential for a possible paradox to describe the situation from the perspective of each twin.

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]

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).

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]

This is a very strange comment in the context of this thread. Are you saying that you have some great insight into reality that allows you to know that Einstein is wrong and reality is not 4 dimensional? Or are you saying that reality used to not be 4 dimensional until Einstein had his idea and then because of his idea reality changed and is now 4 dimensional?

I don't know how you could justify either statement, and I cannot think of another way that you could intend this comment. Please clarify.

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]

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.

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]

[..]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.

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.

[..] The problem with the OP's ideas is that he hasn't nailed down which version of LET he is talking about. [..]

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]

[..] 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.[..]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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/chp/text/lorentz4.xml

 

[ghwellsjr]

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.

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.

I didn't know that I was saying anything for you to agree with. I asked the question:

Which version of LET do you keep referring to?

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?

 

[Dale]

Of course additional dimensions were already part of math. Not, however, part of reality.

Einstein seemed to have some great insight into reality

you cannot justify a completely new way of solving a problem that does not fit with the rest of reality

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]

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.

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/chp/text/lorentz4.xml

Thank you both. Excellent suggestions/help!

 

[NotAName]

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.

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.

Which is why I don't discuss that strawman at all.
In contrast, the difference between Lorentz and Einstein is recorded in their writings.

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 traveling 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]

[..] 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.[..]

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.

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.

 

[Dale]

Do you understand that I'm looking at a transition between two oppositional viewpoints?

Yes, I understand that. The point I was making is that invoking "reality" in the discussion is inherently problematic.

So, your original point that Einstein was doing something which was justified by math but not justified by "reality" is simply a bad point. It requires either a reality which changes according to changes in the prevailing viewpoint or it requires some sort of mystical knowledge of what "reality" is underneath all of our measurements.

You can discuss the relationship between the two viewpoints and between each viewpoint and experimental results without making statements about which one, if either, represents "reality". When you do so, you are essentially left with the math and the experimental data, both of which justify Einstein's approach.

That is the unfortunate side effect of knowing one to be true personally by doing it myself

Insofar as you believe that SR and LET make all of the same experimental predictions then you cannot know that either one is uniquely "true". And insofar as you believe that SR and LET make different experimental predictions you can know that your LET is false.

 

[NotAName]

Yes, I understand that. The point I was making is that invoking "reality" in the discussion is inherently problematic.

So, your original point that Einstein was doing something which was justified by math but not justified by "reality" is simply a bad point. It requires either a reality which changes according to changes in the prevailing viewpoint or it requires some sort of mystical knowledge of what "reality" is underneath all of our measurements.

You can discuss the relationship between the two viewpoints and between each viewpoint and experimental results without making statements about which one, if either, represents "reality". When you do so, you are essentially left with the math and the experimental data, both of which justify Einstein's approach.

Okay, I can concede that my terminology may have been problematic. We assume however, that Einstein has the better model of the underlying thing we call reality. (I believe there is something that exists regardless of our perception regardless of copenhagen interpretations lol)

But by using the term "reality" I was hoping to convey truth that this viewpoint it utterly different from all other physical phenomena in an extremely fundamental way. Lorentz's version of an ether based illusion does not...

The situation represented in the "solved" twins paradox actually doesn't *necessarily differ from classical mechanics either...

Insofar as you believe that SR and LET make all of the same experimental predictions then you cannot know that either one is uniquely "true". And insofar as you believe that SR and LET make different experimental predictions you can know that your LET is false.

Actually, I do not believe that there is experimental evidence that would falsify the specific difference I am talking about. If you know of an experiment which would falsify that particular difference, please point me in the right direction.

Come to think of it, I don't currently know of an experiment which specifically can differentiate the two in any way, no less the particular small difference I spoke of earlier.

IE: That ether based shortening and the subsequent illusions and timekeeping differences would not change the travel time for light between frames other than by 1*gamma (instead of gamma - motion as predicted by SR)

 

[Samshorn]

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.

In order for your statement to have any meaning, you would need to say what you mean by "illusion" and "truth" in this context, but whatever you think those words mean, they certainly have no empirical basis, given that you accept LET. This is because, according to LET, all phenomena (including mechanics and electrodynamics) satisfy the same set of formal physical laws when described in terms of anyone of an infinite class of space and time coordinate systems related by Lorentz transformations. This is the empirical content of both SR and LET: Nature is Lorentz invariant.

Note well that the applicability of the laws of physics to all phenomena in terms of each and every one of these relatively moving systems of coordinates (related by Lorentz transformations) is not an illusion, it is an empirical fact, according to both SR and LET. So if you accept LET (by which we mean the only version of LET not already falsified by abundant experimental evidence) you have no substantive disagreement with SR.

Now, you urge us to adopt the viewpoint that, despite the explicit reciprocity of all those coordinate systems, we must regard ONE specific coordinate system as "the truth", and all the others as "illusions". But it is far from clear what that could possibly mean. Given your belief in LET, you agree that this distinction has no empirical foundation, so it can only be based on metaphysical beliefs (as Lorentz himself said many times).

I don't think anyone here would argue if you simply stated that you would prefer everyone to regard the rest frame of (say) your navel as the "true" rest frame, and every other system of coordinates as "illusions". This would be a well-defined (albeit kooky) proposition. But to simply assert that one particular system of coordinates is "true" and all others are "illusions", without identifying them or giving any criteria or definition of those terms, is frankly just silly - just as silly as thinking other people "don't understand the physical derivation of LET", or that it differs from the "physical derivation of SR". The empirical content of the two is identical (by definition).

 

[NotAName]

In order for your statement to have any meaning, you would need to say what you mean by "illusion" and "truth" in this context, but whatever you think those words mean, they certainly have no empirical basis, given that you accept LET. This is because, according to LET, all phenomena (including mechanics and electrodynamics) satisfy the same set of formal physical laws when described in terms of anyone of an infinite class of space and time coordinate systems related by Lorentz transformations. This is the empirical content of both SR and LET: Nature is Lorentz invariant.

In LET they were all related by Lorentz transforms but if the ether was knowable there would be a scale going up and down instead of an equivalence. Since the ether is not knowable via experiment, only a single direction of transformation was provided and the understanding of bi-directionality was expected. It was inferred.
IE If you could actually determine the ether frame then you could have three frames as such: Stationary, .25C and .5C and though the transform from "stationary" to .25 would be the same as the transform from .25 to .5, the transform from .5 to .25 would b inverted. This situation did not need to be discussed however since there was no way to detect the ether frame...

As for illusion and truth, I suppose I could say, "illusion of perspective" and "real physical effect" but you must remember that at that time in history they felt that light being a wave was sufficient empirical basis.

You need to understand that in all the rest of physics, the world, reality, whatever you want to call it; A wave is not a real physical thing. It is concept like a "run". I can go for a run but I can't be a run. It's something that happens to something else.

Specifically it is the compression and rarefaction of a medium as it attempts to reach equilibrium after that equilibrium has been disturbed. So in pre-Einstein terms it was magical thinking to believe that there was not an ether.

It was only upon the advent of relativity and subsequently the photoelectric effect was it discovered that light, like nothing else in the universe, could be a particle and a wave.

Note well that the applicability of the laws of physics to all phenomena in terms of each and every one of these relatively moving systems of coordinates (related by Lorentz transformations) is not an illusion, it is an empirical fact, according to both SR and LET. So if you accept LET (by which we mean the only version of LET not already falsified by abundant experimental evidence) you have no substantive disagreement with SR.

Actually, LET isn't falsified by experimental evidence since nearly all of its predictions match SR. And as I said before it seems quite a few people are not aware of the difference between the illusion and the factuality of constancy represented alternatively by LET and SR

Now, you urge us to adopt the viewpoint that, despite the explicit reciprocity of all those coordinate systems, we must regard ONE specific coordinate system as "the truth", and all the others as "illusions". But it is far from clear what that could possibly mean. Given your belief in LET, you agree that this distinction has no empirical foundation, so it can only be based on metaphysical beliefs (as Lorentz himself said many times).

I don't think you've read the whole thread because you've misunderstood. I never claimed that LET was more correct than SR. Nor to be a proponent of that theory. I've only claimed that there are certain parts of this proto-science theory that I understand a little better than others because of studying it for a long time with a personal bent for history.

In LET you must accept one frame over the others as universal because that was the science of the day and he was not departing that far from classical mechanics. Remember we're discussing history of modern theory here, not modern theory itself.

If Lorentz stated it was metaphysical I haven't run across it. Are you saying that Maxwell's equations were based upon metaphysical nonsense? Ether was not some magical nonsense, it was the best that could be done with the knowledge of the time. It was logical, rational, well reasoned science that simply lacked new data.

I'm really quite surprised at the lack of historical understanding I'm seeing here...

I don't think anyone here would argue if you simply stated that you would prefer everyone to regard the rest frame of (say) your navel as the "true" rest frame, and every other system of coordinates as "illusions". This would be a well-defined (albeit kooky) proposition. But to simply assert that one particular system of coordinates is "true" and all others are "illusions", without identifying them or giving any criteria or definition of those terms, is frankly just silly - just as silly as thinking other people "don't understand the physical derivation of LET", or that it differs from the "physical derivation of SR". The empirical content of the two is identical (by definition).

Nope, you're just quite arrogant in your ignorance...

You do not even understand what I mean by "true" and "illusion" but instead of asking, you simply assume it must be nonsense instead of a rational discussion of logical historical scientific theories which have been replaced once significant additional evidence was presented to the community.

The other frames are obviously not illusions. I don't know how you could think anyone would even believe that. I suppose perhaps it's related to those cultural beliefs that we are so much smarter on average than people a few thousand years ago when all physical evidence, from cranial capacity to fantastic archaeological finds of physical computing devices, points to the contrary.

...but yeah, wow it's soooo silly to believe I could possibly know something another person does not. What was I thinking?
Hey you remember my tenth birthday party... that was great wasn't it?
Oh yeah and how much gentomycin can I safely give to milk cow without contaminating the milk? Is that the right antibiotic for mastitis?
And um, what was the proper diameter for tip size when turning down a shaft for playing snooker instead of billiards?

Oh, wait... maybe some peoples lives are different and they focus on things that other people never have time to focus on, or just don't care to focus on... you think?

 

[TrickyDicky]

Let me say the same thing in terms a little more agreeable. Never before in math has it been thought of to simply add an additional subscript on an array to make a paradoxical answer no longer paradoxical. You see it in particular terms you are used to but I'm attempting to tell you that I'm looking for the justification to go from three dimensions to four. That is the big leap. Perhaps this is more agreeable nomenclature?

Furthermore I'm pointing out that the same transformation were used with only three dimensions and that when you reduce the twins paradox to one twin actually being larger and the other twin actually being shorter, the fourth dimension gets eliminated in the process. You've simply reduced it to a neo-classical explanation that Lorentz might give if he ever shifted perspective into the moving frame to view a stationary one. (Not all frames were equal in LET because the ether defined them. There was only one universal frame by which all others were judged)

To be historically rigorous, the "big leap" as you call it was formally introduced by Minkowski in 1907 and was actually not well taken by Einstein at first, he saw it as unnecessary prefering to treat time only as a parameter, only later when working on GR he totallly adhered to the Minkowki formalism. And yes it was a bit of a shock but this picture had been prepaired by Riemann's work on manifolds and generalizations to higher dimensions, so it seemed logical.

 

[NotAName]

Okay, one thing I can do to help is define what I mean by illusion since I'm just talking about it like everyone knows and apparently it's a part of history that is a bit lost.

Go back to my earlier post with the image of the truck. It is a replica of the Michelson-Morely except with sound and it relies upon a medium. Lorentz, and FitzGerald who initially suggested it, believed that since we perceive everything via light that if we were shortened up to make up for the additional time for light to travel upstream, we wouldn't be able to tell.

Look at the diagram and you'll see that truck #1 has the "light beams"(or sound chirps) come back at the same time. But if you put the truck in motion then they both take longer but one is more affected than the other. (seen with truck 2)Thus if you change the up-wind path length total to match the cross-wind path length total they arrive simultaneously like in truck 3.

Now simply assume that instead of moving a mirror, the distance is shortened by the wind blowing the mirror or something and the only way you can personally tell if anything has changed is by listening. (the equvlent of "looking" with light) As far as you know, nothing has changed even though the truck is moving. Therefore sound seems to travel the same speed in all frames of reference as far as you know.

Unfortunately the whole experiment takes longer so therefore there is a change in time overall, however when it comes to light, they believed that since electromagnetic interactions were the timekeepers of the universe, the change to time cannot be noticed.

In our little sound experiment it's a little like saying that all our clocks get slowed down a bit by wind and it just so happens that the amount they are slowed is the total extra amount required for our new "simultaneous arrival" experiment. I guess you have to understand an interferometer to understand Lorentz and FitzGeralds initial goal. A fringe shift means the beams arrive at different times. No fringe shift means they arrive simultaneously.

Now do you understand that the final truck believes that the sound travels 20 feet in each direction in 20 milliseconds but it's just an illusion of perspective? This is what Lorentz Ether Theory does...

 

[NotAName]

To be historically rigorous, the "big leap" as you call it was formally introduced by Minkowski in 1907 and was actually not well taken by Einstein at first, he saw it as unnecessary prefering to treat time only as a parameter, only later when working on GR he totallly adhered to the Minkowki formalism. And yes it was a bit of a shock but this picture had been prepaired by Riemann's work on manifolds and generalizations to higher dimensions, so it seemed logical.

Hmm, really? ...Well, for light to be "truly constant" as apposed to an illusion of perspective ... wasn't this introduced in OEMB? Hmm, now you have me thinking maybe not...(please see other posts if "illusion of perspective" seems cryptic)

Thanks for the additional piece to the puzzle! I'll have to look at this more thoroughly.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Hmm, really? ...Well, for light to be "truly constant" as apposed to an illusion of perspective ... wasn't this introduced in OEMB? Hmm, now you have me thinking maybe not...(please see other posts if "illusion of perspective" seems cryptic)
.

I was specifically addressing only what I quoted from you about the "leap" from 3 to 4 dimensions.

 

[Dale]

To be historically rigorous, the "big leap" as you call it was formally introduced by Minkowski in 1907 and was actually not well taken by Einstein at first, he saw it as unnecessary prefering to treat time only as a parameter, only later when working on GR he totallly adhered to the Minkowki formalism. And yes it was a bit of a shock but this picture had been prepaired by Riemann's work on manifolds and generalizations to higher dimensions, so it seemed logical.

Thanks for this. I am not into the history so I didn't feel knowledegable enough to make this claim on my own. But this is in line with my vague recollections of what I have heard about the historical development of SR.

 

[Samshorn]

Okay, one thing I can do to help is define what I mean by illusion... Now do you understand that the final truck believes that the sound travels 20 feet in each direction in 20 milliseconds but it's just an illusion of perspective?

I understand why you think the truck "thinks" this, and why you think it is an illusion, but I also understand why you and the truck are both wrong. When you say the truck's conception [sic] of the distance and duration of travel of the sound is an illusion, it's because you believe the "true" distance and duration are different than what the truck "thinks". In other words, you don't think the truck's method of measuring space and time intervals (using sound waves) represents the "true" measures... that's why you say the results are an illusion.

But in order for your claims to have any meaning - in order for us to be able to confirm whether the truck's measures are "true" or "not true" - you need to say in physically meaningful terms what you believe are the "true" measures of space and time.

But as soon as you try to do this, the fallacy of your thinking is exposed, because (since you accept LET) you agree that all physical phenomena are Lorentz invariant, meaning that they all satisfy the same formal laws in terms of each and every system in a class of relatively moving systems related by Lorentz transformations. So any means of measuring the "true" distances and times that you can describe will automatically (according to both LET and SR) have exactly the same description in terms of anyone of these coordinate systems.

Of course, the absolute spacetime intervals in all these descriptions will be the same, but the decomposition of those intervals into space and time components will be different. So you need to tell us why one particular decomposition is "true" and all the others are an illusion. This you cannot do, without appealing to metaphysics.

Samshorn wrote:
"So if you accept LET (by which we mean the only version of LET not already falsified by abundant experimental evidence) you have no substantive disagreement with SR."

Actually, LET isn't falsified by experimental evidence since nearly all of its predictions match SR.

You misread my comment. I said we are referring to a version of LET that is NOT falsified. It makes no sense for you to respond by saying "Actually, LET isn't falsified..."

But more seriously, when you say "nearly all of its predictions match SR" you reveal that you are NOT talking about an empirically viable theory. The version of LET you are talking about differs in its empirical predictions from special relativity, so it's already falsified (unless you're saying the difference is so small as to be undetectable, in which case... yawn.)

I never claimed that LET was more correct than SR. Nor to be a proponent of that theory.

Now hold on a minute. You said the assertions of SR are an illusion, and the assertions of LET are the truth. Are you now disavowing those statements?

I've only claimed that there are certain parts of this proto-science theory that I understand a little better than others because of studying it for a long time with a personal bent for history... If Lorentz stated it was metaphysical I haven't run across it.

For example, in 1913 Lorentz wrote "The acceptance of these concepts [SR versus LET] belongs mainly to epistemology... it depends to a large extent on the way one is accustomed to think whether one is most attracted to one or another interpretation..." Similarly Poincare wrote "Whether the ether exists or not matters little - let us leave that to the metaphysicians..."

Nope, you're just quite arrogant in your ignorance...

I see.

 

[Dale]

But by using the term "reality" I was hoping to convey truth that this viewpoint it utterly different from all other physical phenomena in an extremely fundamental way.

No it isn't utterly different. In fact, it seems to be an essential part of all four known fundamental physical forces and thus all physical phenomena. It may be utterly different from your preconceptions, but there is no evidence that it is at all different from reality.

Actually, I do not believe that there is experimental evidence that would falsify the specific difference I am talking about. If you know of an experiment which would falsify that particular difference, please point me in the right direction.

Come to think of it, I don't currently know of an experiment which specifically can differentiate the two in any way, no less the particular small difference I spoke of earlier.

The difference you mentioned earlier is a difference of 62%. Experimentally that is a huge difference. In Robertsons famous paper he demonstrated that SR could be deduced to about 0.1% from the Michelson Morely, Ives Stillwell, and Kennedy Thorndike experiments. So a difference of 62% is not compatible with existing evidence.

http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v21/i3/p378_1

 

[NotAName]

Let me make something clear here because Samhorn is really muddying the waters. Never have I claimed during any of this that SR is wrong, illusion, incorrect or in any way not the superior theory. The only thing I've been discussing is the development of LET which is a precursor to SR. Nothing else! I have admitted that I have not yet fully grasped the transition point as well as I have grasped LET but I think I am in good company when I claim that I have not fully personally matched the genius of Einstein. ...excuse the heck out of me!

I understand why you think the truck "thinks" this, and why you think it is an illusion, but I also understand why you and the truck are both wrong. When you say the truck's conception [sic] of the distance and duration of travel of the sound is an illusion, it's because you believe the "true" distance and duration are different than what the truck "thinks". In other words, you don't think the truck's method of measuring space and time intervals (using sound waves) represents the "true" measures... that's why you say the results are an illusion.

But in order for your claims to have any meaning - in order for us to be able to confirm whether the truck's measures are "true" or "not true" - you need to say in physically meaningful terms what you believe are the "true" measures of space and time.

The truck is doing everything with sound waves. It happens to be an analogy for the Michelson-Morley as conceived by Lorentz during the development of LET. This is all I'm saying. But unless you are just completely focused on me being wrong (because for some reason you just need that so badly) it should be obvious to you that, if we look at it just as an experiment with sound waves alone, then the truck does indeed experience an illusion. Period.

Whether or not this is an accurate representation of reality as we know it from modern science, is not even a question! It is only a model used to understand how and why Lorentz created the Lorentz transformation.

But in order for your claims to have any meaning - in order for us to be able to confirm whether the truck's measures are "true" or "not true" - you need to say in physically meaningful terms what you believe are the "true" measures of space and time.

But as soon as you try to do this, the fallacy of your thinking is exposed, because (since you accept LET) you agree that all physical phenomena are Lorentz invariant, meaning that they all satisfy the same formal laws in terms of each and every system in a class of relatively moving systems related by Lorentz transformations. So any means of measuring the "true" distances and times that you can describe will automatically (according to both LET and SR) have exactly the same description in terms of anyone of these coordinate systems.

The fallacy of my thinking? The fallacy of your thinking you mean. You think I've said somewhere that LET is more correct, I haven't. You think I've said the 19th century concept of ether is more correct. I haven't. But I will assert that at it's base, LET does differentiate between a true frame and one that experiences an illusion but it only does so via inference. The reason for not discussing the rest frame is because they were incapable of detecting which one was the rest frame but not because that frame didn't exist. It was called ether and it was the one universal frame.

(don't get confused at this point... when I speak about opinions of LET I'm speaking for a now deprecated theory, not attempting to argue for the validity of a defunct theory)

Of course, the absolute spacetime intervals in all these descriptions will be the same, but the decomposition of those intervals into space and time components will be different. So you need to tell us why one particular decomposition is "true" and all the others are an illusion. This you cannot do, without appealing to metaphysics.

What metaphysics? I want to know what I've discussed - at all - that is metaphysics. Are you just using it because you know it has some insulting bearing to it and that's what you really hope to convey? If you believe ether is in any way metaphysical you are wrong. Perhaps ether is "incorrect" or better yet "unnecessary" but far from metaphysical.

You misread my comment. I said we are referring to a version of LET that is NOT falsified. It makes no sense for you to respond by saying "Actually, LET isn't falsified..."

But more seriously, when you say "nearly all of its predictions match SR" you reveal that you are NOT talking about an empirically viable theory. The version of LET you are talking about differs in its empirical predictions from special relativity, so it's already falsified (unless you're saying the difference is so small as to be undetectable, in which case... yawn.)

It is blindingly obvious to anyone reading that you are grasping at straws. You are using inference alone with no knowledge of the material to "deduce history" and I'm sorry but it's not working well for you.

You are also making these broad sweeping religious faith-like assertions that anything that does not match SR is automatically falsified as though we've been everywhere in the universe. Any good scientist believes that current theory, even if it feels 99.999 certain, is still just a theory waiting for falsification. Just because something doesn't match special relativity does not mean it is falsified. Isn't there some mild differences in GR, in fact, which would be different than SR? If so, are you saying GR is also falsified?

The one thing I have mentioned that I have found is that reducing to one perspective and having one preferred frame of reference does change one particular prediction about how far light travels in a period of time for a particular frame. It is a strange little portion of SR that isn't often discussed. Given that we solve the twins paradox by reducing to one universal frame, I think there may be some justification at looking at this differential prediction and seeing if it also applies to SR under those particular circumstances. This is the most outlandish thing I've even inferred.

If you want a point to attack, there it is...

Now hold on a minute. You said the assertions of SR are an illusion, and the assertions of LET are the truth. Are you now disavowing those statements?

No, you are just interpreting my statements based upon fundamental misunderstandings. ...And it's led you add an additional layer of confusion. I've only said that LET predicts that the constancy of light is conceived as an illusion whereas in SR constancy is a fundamental truth.

For example, in 1913 Lorentz wrote "The acceptance of these concepts [SR versus LET] belongs mainly to epistemology... it depends to a large extent on the way one is accustomed to think whether one is most attracted to one or another interpretation..." Similarly Poincare wrote "Whether the ether exists or not matters little - let us leave that to the metaphysicians..."

Ahh, so there is your reason for using the word "metaphysics". An appeal to authority without any understanding of the subject. Lorentz was simply reiterating that if you can't prove it's there, then referring to an ether is a bit contrived. This was with the inference that ether could not be detected at that time and he could see no way to do so then or in the future.

There was not nearly as much discussion of the numerous permutations of the predictions back then as there are today. So if you want to attack me then focus on this:

I think there is some small possibility that there is more reason to differentiate between the theories than Lorentz thought.

I see.

You should.. but you don't.

 

[NotAName]

No it isn't utterly different. In fact, it seems to be an essential part of all four known fundamental physical forces and thus all physical phenomena. It may be utterly different from your preconceptions, but there is no evidence that it is at all different from reality.

I think Samwise might have influenced you some...

You are speaking of what is known today, that is not what I was speaking of. During his time light constancy had no analogy in nature anywhere. In fact there is still nothing else that behaves in this fashion that was not spawned by relativistic physics. By this I mean there are some strange effects in quantum physics but relativity really paved the way for those spooky effects to be accepted.

Sometimes I don't think people see a physcial model of what constancy means. It means you can't just track one particular wave of light. Light just is not that intuitive and simple like sound is. Even after conversions, light doesn't "line up" between frames.

This is pointed out by my very first post. Constancy is revolutionary. It is not some simple transition from Lorentz's idea of an illusion.

The difference you mentioned earlier is a difference of 62%. Experimentally that is a huge difference. In Robertsons famous paper he demonstrated that SR could be deduced to about 0.1% from the Michelson Morely, Ives Stillwell, and Kennedy Thorndike experiments. So a difference of 62% is not compatible with existing evidence.

http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v21/i3/p378_1

Yes, and what I mentioned earlier would still match the Michelson Morley perfectly as well. See the diagram of trucks... Therefore the difference I mention is not something that has been tested.

(now we're actually debating a real difference in assertions again. Yay, we're back on track!)

 

[Samshorn]

Never have I claimed during any of this that SR is wrong, illusion, incorrect or in any way not the superior theory. The only thing I've been discussing is the development of LET which is a precursor to SR. Nothing else!

The one thing I have mentioned that I have found is that reducing to one perspective and having one preferred frame of reference does change one particular prediction about how far light travels in a period of time for a particular frame.

Your two statements above contradict each other. The second statement reveals that you think LET is correct and SR is wrong. Several people have explained to you (including Lorentz and Poincare!) that the only empirically viable version of LET is equivalent to SR; they differ only in the fact that LET includes a superfluous metaphysical (and shifty, as Lorentz admitted in private correspondence to Einstein) commitment.

I have admitted that I have not yet fully grasped the transition point as well as I have grasped LET...

But what everyone here is telling you is that you have NOT grasped LET, by which is meant the empirically viable version of LET, which is equivalent to SR. Since they are equivalent, grasping one is the same as grasping the other. What you have grasped is a misconception... you need to release your grasp on that, and take hold of the actual fact: physics is (locally) Lorentz invariant.

The truck is doing everything with sound waves. It happens to be an analogy for the Michelson-Morley as conceived by Lorentz during the development of LET. This is all I'm saying.

But it's an invalid analogy, for the reason I explained. Look, you claim to be trying to grasp the transition from the old Lorentzian concepts to special relativity, but you consistently refuse to listen to the explanations. There is a difference between sonic-truck based measurements and what we regard as true measurements of space and time intervals. If you want to understand special relativity (and modern LET, for that matter), you MUST bring yourself to actually think about what you would regard as the "true" measures of space and time intervals - without appealing to metaphysics.

What metaphysics? I want to know what I've discussed - at all - that is metaphysics.

LET and SR are empirically equivalent. They differ only in the metaphysical commitment of LET to the idea (though not the practice) of referring everything to a single system of coordinates. The difficulty here is that you mistakenly think LET yields a prediction that differs from SR, so you deny that the difference is metaphysical. If there were such a difference, then indeed the difference between them would not be purely metaphysical, but you are mistaken in your belief. So the most productive thing for you to do would be to try to understand why your idea about the "one particular prediction" is wrong. Once you understand that, you will agree that the difference between SR and LET is purely metaphysical.

You are also making these broad sweeping religious faith-like assertions that anything that does not match SR is automatically falsified...

Only up to the level of precision that has been achieved. There are on-going tests of Lorentz invariance being carried out, at more and more extreme conditions, looking for the slightest hint of a violation, but nothing has ever been found. However, the kind of difference that you are talking about was empirically ruled out ages ago.

Isn't there some mild differences in GR, in fact, which would be different than SR? If so, are you saying GR is also falsified?

Indeed. That's why we say Lorentz invariance applies LOCALLY. Globally Lorentz invariance is broken in general relativity. But of course this has nothing to do with your imagined "difference" between SR and LET.

Ahh, so there is your reason for using the word "metaphysics". An appeal to authority without any understanding of the subject.

Hold on there partner. I had mentioned that Lorentz said the difference between SR and LET was metaphysical, and you replied that in your many years of studying the history of the subject, and your incredibly thorough and profound understanding of every historical nuance, you had never run across any statement of Lorentz to that effect (!), so I provided you with a quote... and then you come back to accuse me of making an "appeal to authority". Do you understand why your comment makes no sense?

Look, you challenged whether Lorentz ever said any such thing, I gave you a quote where he said such a thing, and threw in another quote from Poincare for good measure. You're welcome. And just to continue your education, here's another well-known quote from Lorentz, this one from 1915:

"The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t' plays the same part as t..."

If, as you say, you are really striving to understand the transition from Lorentz's original viewpoint to special relativity, you should think carefully about this. But probably the most important thing for you to do is understand why your claimed experimental difference between LET and SR doesn't exist.

 

[Dale]

I think Samwise might have influenced you some...

Hard to see how since I haven't been following your discussion with him at all.

You are speaking of what is known today, that is not what I was speaking of.

I understand that, but you keep using terms like "reality" and "physical phenomena". Presumably you do not believe that "reality" or "physical phenomena" actually changed in 1905 with the introduction of SR. So your continued statements to the effect that his breakthrough ideas didn't fit with "reality" or "physical phenomena" are absurd, please refer back to my snarky comments above.

What you should be talking about is how his theory differed from other theories of the day. Theories change, and it makes sense to talk about an experimentally validated theory not fitting with some set of other theories.

Personally, I think that you have some tightly held preconceptions about how "reality" works, and Einstein's theory challenges those preconceptions. You therefore write about his theory not fitting with "reality" because you actually feel, at a viceral level, that that is exactly the case. I am pointing out, and will continue to do so, that your viceral feeling is simply not rational. It requires either a belief that "reality" actually did change in 1905, or a belief that you have some mystical insight into "reality" beyond what is measured. I suspect that the latter more accurately reflects your attitude.

This is pointed out by my very first post. Constancy is revolutionary. It is not some simple transition from Lorentz's idea of an illusion.

I agree. So talk about that without making absurd comments about Einstein's ideas not fitting with "reality" or "physical phenomena".

Yes, and what I mentioned earlier would still match the Michelson Morley perfectly as well. See the diagram of trucks... Therefore the difference I mention is not something that has been tested.

(now we're actually debating a real difference in assertions again. Yay, we're back on track!)

MM is not the only experiment. Please read the Robertson paper I linked to. Your theory deviates from SR by > 0.1% so it violates at least one of those three experiments.

 

[NotAName]

Hard to see how since I haven't been following your discussion with him at all.

Good, because while you may be somewhat hostile, you still make sense, he on the other hand does not and I'm not going to waste my time with him further.

Though I may have made some points with him that might have served our conversation but I'll get over it...

I understand that, but you keep using terms like "reality" and "physical phenomena". Presumably you do not believe that "reality" or "physical phenomena" actually changed in 1905 with the introduction of SR. So your continued statements to the effect that his breakthrough ideas didn't fit with "reality" or "physical phenomena" are absurd, please refer back to my snarky comments above.

What you should be talking about is how his theory differed from other theories of the day. Theories change, and it makes sense to talk about an experimentally validated theory not fitting with some set of other theories.

But that's not what I'm saying. I feel justified in doubting some of the recent discoveries in quantum physics because they haven't been around as long and there is a little debate around the interpretations of some of the results. The same is not true of relativity, we have no doubt and the results are mind-blowing.

So what I'm saying is that constancy is like entanglement. Nowhere else in the universe of our understanding does instantaneous action at a distance exist. It breaks all of our understandings about that which is physical.

So when I use those terms I am still referring to the fact that it is hugely divergent from the rest of the behaviors of things in the universe. It's like being told that, when two gears are brought together with the same diameter and the same number and size of teeth that if one is made out of a special substance that when one is turned the other turns at a different rate.

Personally, I think that you have some tightly held preconceptions about how "reality" works, and Einstein's theory challenges those preconceptions. You therefore write about his theory not fitting with "reality" because you actually feel, at a viceral level, that that is exactly the case. I am pointing out, and will continue to do so, that your viceral feeling is simply not rational. It requires either a belief that "reality" actually did change in 1905, or a belief that you have some mystical insight into "reality" beyond what is measured. I suspect that the latter more accurately reflects your attitude.

You are right, there are certain things that are extremely counter-intuitive and that is part of the process fro what I've been made to understand is to get around those faulty intuitions. But my terminology was only meant to reflect that counter-intuitive aspect. It is much like my gears analogy above. It seems much like that. Like some of the spokes/teeth have to go into some other dimension or something.

I think there are a great number of people who do not grasp the full meaning and effect of constancy. You may not be one of them but please allow me to elaborate. Let's say the light beam is a laser beam, if the two coordinate systems are represented in two dimensions and laid side by side with the origin lined up. With any other physical object in the universe, no matter what the perception about location, the front of the object would be in the same place. With light, the first wavefront is not in the same place at all except at the origin.

I agree. So talk about that without making absurd comments about Einstein's ideas not fitting with "reality" or "physical phenomena".

MM is not the only experiment. Please read the Robertson paper I linked to. Your theory deviates from SR by > 0.1% so it violates at least one of those three experiments.

The theory does not deviate from the Michelson Morely at all. That has been my point the entire time. And in the situation I mentioned above, the first wavefront is in the same place in the two coordinate systems, unlike SR.

Simultaneity is still preserved in a single universal frame of ether. SR virtually creates two "universal" frames which are not only at an angle to each other but additive in a certain way that does not exist in LET.

I've not explained the derivation very well so let me post an image that will give you a little better idea. I'll explain further in another post because I'm in a huge hurry at the moment. But if you'll simply look at the image you'll see how easy it is to cause an interferometer experiment to be null via shortening alone. The other effects of time are just a result of light's travel, but the MM result only requires that both beams arrive simultaneously. Which they do with a simple shortening.

To find the formula originally you need only examine the experiment in an ether environment and use a little common sense and Pythagorean theorem. You end up realizing after a while that it's simple trig.

I've also included an image of what occurred on the original MM and what a fringe shift would look like...