Difference between Lorentz and Einstein

[Dale]

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.

This is simply not the case. It is a fundamental part of the behaviors of all the things in the universe. The invariance of c is an essential part of EM, the weak force, the strong force, and gravity. That encompasses everything we know. Far from being divergent, it is unifying.

But my terminology was only meant to reflect that counter-intuitive aspect.

If that is what the terminology is meant to refelct then I strongly recommend the use of the word "counter-intuitive" rather than the word "reality".

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 don't understand what you are saying here. Perhaps you can write it out mathematically for clarity, or pictorially with a good spacetime diagram?

When you Lorentz transform between frames you transform the worldlines of any light pulses just the same way as you transform the worldlines of massive objects.

The theory does not deviate from the Michelson Morely at all.

Then it must deviate from one of the other three I mentioned. Either way it has been experimentally falsified.

 

[NotAName]

Let me quickly add that, LET gives us the ability to add an additional coordinate system that describes the original one in different terms. SR gives us two different coordinate systems.

If you're remember back to the beginning of the conversation, I asked if the "motion was already in the calculation" which is what is true of LET. That is why there is only one simultaneous arrival time for light in LET which is represented in the original as .5 and .488 There is no need to add the motion again because it is accounted for in the universal frame and the calculations used to transform.

Whereas in SR, they are non simultaneous which gives the .2?? and the illusion of three different arrival times or more.

The difference in arrival times and all other effect are the result of constancy, which leads to lack of simultaneity, which in LET terms allows the speed of the traveler to seem to be added twice to the calculation of the arrival time of the beam of light.

Both theories describe the MM exactly the same however.

 

[Mentz114]

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.

A wavefront, like any physical manifestation can only be in one place at one time. Its position, when described in different coordinate systems can give different coordinates.

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.

More twaddle. Any system which insists on absolute simultaneity is in contradiction with experiment and everyday experience.

 

[NotAName]

A wavefront, like any physical manifestation can only be in one place at one time. Its position, when described in different coordinate systems can give different coordinates.


More twaddle. Any system which insists on absolute simultaneity is in contradiction with experiment and everyday experience.

Everyday experience? Like mechanical sound waves? ... If you think that then you absolutely do not understand what "lack of simultaneity" means. Period.

I'm sorry that you don't understand what I'm talking about but I'm afraid your confidence in the idea that I'm saying something faulty is leading you astray. You are relying upon rote memorization instead of actually going through the problem presented. Your rote memorization does not fit this problem.

It's quite unfortunate if you don't understand the principle of the lack of simultaneity and its physical consequences. Do you not understand the need for light cones and other representations? It is the addition of a fourth dimension. To explain a wholly new effect in reality.

If you will simply mathematically run through one single iteration of the specific situation I described above (and copied below), you will find that SR does not simply use classical coordinate systems that can be overlapped. You cannot freeze one moment in time and find the location of a certain wave of light. As soon as you move to find the wave, the wave changes location in space-time. It's a bit like the inverse of the uncertainty principle.

If you will look at my explanation of the trucks and sound waves experiment and then apply classical and non-classical mechanics to the situation like I described in the second post on this thread (copied below), you will find only two descriptions of the location of the first wavefront for a physical wave. There are more for light...

Please substitute light for sound below and use the trucks experiment as a guide. The point is to show that if we were to attempt to apply the full weight of relativity theory towards sound waves we would find relativity theory to be in error, of course. What I've been talking about is the reason why. LET was still a classical theory, SR is not. LET will have no disagreement with a classical prediction.

(Below there is a small mis-statement. A lorentzian observer would only calculate the speed of light as 1.33 units per second if he could detect the motion of ether. This excerpt below had a particular context that is misleading for a normal discussion of later versions of LET in which it was acknowledged that we cannot use knowledge of the ether frame.)

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.

In mechanical wave theory there exists only .5 years for sound's travel time and .433 years for the skewed frame's perspective. Two frames, two locations for the first wave front.

The difference created by SR is that each observer is treated as the universal frame and both frames are given the attribute of motion. This is why, when applying relativity to a physical wave, your error will be to add the motion twice resulting in .288 years. The motion was already present in the transformation. (hopefully you understand to substitute lightyears for soundyears etc and I need not explain this)

If you want to attack my position you must assert the following and I will ignore any side arguments that do not include this assertion as just attempts to change the subject:
Does physical wave theory predict a different arrival time for the first wave front of sound, when considered from a moving perspective (whose clocks run at a slower rate), than Special Relativity would if applied to sound? My answer is yes.

Let me re-iterate an important principle: The clocks on the moving vehicle have substituted a pendulum for a chirp-reflection-detection system when considering the problem classically. They are therefore slowed by gamma when put in motion. This was the presumption of LET and it is true of the devices just briefly described.

I know this is a somewhat difficult classical physics question for you that you might not feel like solving but if you're not willing to take my word for it then you must prove I'm wrong, not just claim it emotionally. Do you need any further information to solve the problem? Some of the things I've mentioned most people even in physics have never considered, such as the idea of clocks running on sound being subject to time effects when in motion. This classical time effect is rarely understood and most are surprised to find that it is subject to the Lorentz transform.

The difference I'm asserting is this: Classical wave theory predicts only .5 and .433 whereas SR predicts .5 and .288 years. But the catch and the "additional times predicted by SR" that I'm referring to is the fact that when we convert .288 of the moving fame's years into stationary frames years using gamma we get yet another prediction: (.288 * 1.1547 =) .332 years

So, in effect, if we switch back and forth between frames using the conversion we'll cause a problem. We currently have .288 .332 and .5 as predictions of arrival time and we could produce more by continuing to convert results back and forth. This error cannot be performed/produced in classical physics. IE we can go back and forth between .433 and .5 using the transform and there is always only two numbers. (.433*1.1547 = .5 *.866 = .433)
That is because in classical physics we invert the operation each time we go from one frame to the other.

I'm trying to show you this subtle difference between the theories but I don't think any of you get it which is really starting to weird me out. Just solve the problem with sound and I think you'll finally follow the difference between classical and non-classical predictions.

Do your homework and you'll understand. Just emotionally claiming I'm wrong will not suffice.

(I think I'll start a wholly new thread to explain just the classical physical geometric solution Lorentz initially created with more of the diagrams from the paper I'm working on. Maybe that will clear the air a bit)

 

[Mentz114]

Does physical wave theory predict a different arrival time for the first wave front of sound, when considered from a moving perspective (whose clocks run at a slower rate), than Special Relativity would if applied to sound?

I cannot understand this at all.

It's quite unfortunate if you don't understand the principle of the lack of simultaneity and its physical consequences. Do you not understand the need for light cones and other representations? It is the addition of a fourth dimension. To explain a wholly new effect in reality.

Gee, a fourth dimension ! You're kidding me.

The difference created by SR is that each observer is treated as the universal frame and both frames are given the attribute of motion.

Gobbledegook.

This is why, when applying relativity to a physical wave, your error will be to add the motion twice resulting in .288 years.

You can predict the future, including my mistakes !

Some of the things I've mentioned most people even in physics have never considered, such as the idea of clocks running on sound being subject to time effects when in motion. This classical time effect is rarely understood and most are surprised to find that it is subject to the Lorentz transform.

Clocks don't experience relativistic effects it is time itself that does. Thus all relativists already know that your 'sound clocks' will do the same as other clocks. No surprise.

I'm trying to show you this subtle difference between the theories but I don't think any of you get it which is really starting to weird me out.

You are not making a good case by saying things are not true and ignoring post#3.

I have to say you sound like a serious person but I just don't get it. You don't seem to understand basic relativity.

 

[harrylin]

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

You confounded people; as a result the one your were talking to may not have noticed!
In contrast, I encourage you not to fall in the trap of discussing something that never really existed but instead, to stick to your topic: Einstein and Lorentz did exist, and they did have (slightly) different opinions.

 

[harrylin]

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. [..]

As that paper is in support of Lorentz's ether concept, I can't make any sense of what you mean - except if you didn't even look at it, but just wasted your time on writing a long inappropriate response. Is that the cause perhaps?

 

[Dale]

The difference I'm asserting is this: Classical wave theory predicts only .5 and .433 whereas SR predicts .5 and .288 years. But the catch and the "additional times predicted by SR" that I'm referring to is the fact that when we convert .288 of the moving fame's years into stationary frames years using gamma we get yet another prediction: (.288 * 1.1547 =) .332 years

Why are you re-posting this mistake when I already corrected you on it in the other thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3829450&postcount=48

Also, the speed of sound violates the second postulate, i.e. it is not invariant. So you cannot just replace c in the Lorentz transform by the speed of sound and get a theory which is consistent with observation.

 

[NotAName]

Why are you re-posting this mistake when I already corrected you on it in the other thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3829450&postcount=48

Also, the speed of sound violates the second postulate, i.e. it is not invariant. So you cannot just replace c in the Lorentz transform by the speed of sound and get a theory which is consistent with observation.

Why am I re-posting it? Because you don't understand what I'm saying and may never understand apparently. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you... It's not a mistake, it is a fact of a physical wave in medium theory. I'm relaying new information that you've never seen before and you're rejecting it because it is new to you. That number represents the difference between the theories. It comes from having a single reference frame that is "real" instead of multiple reference frames which are valid. But you're not even trying to get it because apparently you think you already know all there is to know in the universe.

Yes the speed of sound violates the second postulate but the second postulate isn't needed for LET because it's a wave in medium theory. The constancy of the second postulate was an illusion in LET. An illusion that was undetectable from within the frame in which it was observed, but still an illusion. Do you not get that LET had both mechanical-waves-in-a-medium and constancy? Have you never thought about that? How is that possible? (hint: that's what I've been trying to help you understand)

And finally, you are wrong about replacing c with the speed of sound and haven't even tried to do the math even though I've given you an experiment with a drawing that shows that the Lorentz transform will work for sound-based observations. More specifically let me state that gamma will work for all percentages of sound as though they are c. In the experiment outlined the total experiment will take gamma longer to complete and only shortening the forward mirror by gamma will result in simultaneous return arrival at the source.

Why do you make pronouncements which you haven't even checked in to? Only an acolyte of a religion not a scientist does that sort of thing. I challenge you to look at the sound experiment I've set up and detailed on this thread.

Prove me wrong... don't just pronounce it like a priest.


But let me make a prediction: You're going to find that I'm right but try your best to avoid using the obvious details I've set out in the experiment. Perhaps in your first attempt you'll say that time is not actually effected by ignoring my specialized clocks described. Then perhaps you'll show it mathematically wrong by not allowing the forward mirror to be moved back by the wind the proper amount. (the replacement for shortening)

Regardless, one way or another you're going to find I'm right and never admit it. Because now it's slipped from science to pride. (or you can prove me wrong about that too)

Additionally, let me ask you a quick question as an aside because it seems so many people don't understand certain things about what gamma really is: What's the fastest way to find gamma for a given percentage of c on a scientific calculator?

 

[NotAName]

As that paper is in support of Lorentz's ether concept, I can't make any sense of what you mean - except if you didn't even look at it, but just wasted your time on writing a long inappropriate response. Is that the cause perhaps?

No, you guys just haven't yet grasped the concept of a mathematical illusion because you've never seen it before. Instead of trying to understand by actually listening you instead respond with what you "know" which has no relevance to the conversation.

Lorentz's ether concept is that ether played a trick on us. A completely mechanical-wave-in-medium was capable of making light appear to be constant for observers when it, in fact, was not.

I've given you enough information to understand it but you guys just aren't trying to use your brains... You just whip out memorization without ever attempting to engage understanding. Until you understand the concept of a mathematical illusion which Lorentz created, you're not going to follow me.

So... explain to me what the heck I'm talking about when I say that Lorentz was describing an illusion mathematically. If you can't then you need to just hush and listen. And actually pay attention and learn.

 

[NotAName]

I cannot understand this at all.

Because you have not yet understood how to develop gamma from a classical physical wave theory. This is something I've tried explaining but you all have not tried to understand.

What I am saying in that quote is this. If you apply a physical wave theory treatment to the "trucks" diagram and experiment and then further extend what you have learned there to predict a similar situation where we are predicting when a wave will reach a distant object, will you find that physical wave theory (as described by my experiment) will give you the .5 and .433 whereas an SR treatment will give different numbers.

The reason you don't understand what I said is because NONE of you have yet understood what I'm trying to teach you. And the problem is not your lack of ability but your lack of attempt to understand a new concept.

You are so convinced I cannot teach you something new that you have made that prophecy self-fulfilling.

Gee, a fourth dimension ! You're kidding me.

While your sarcasm may help your social status, it does nothing for your ability to learn.

Gobbledegook.

Hmm, where have I heard this before? Perhaps first year physics students being introduced to Relativity?

That which you do not understand you ridicule. How disappointing...

You can predict the future, including my mistakes !

Yet more evidence that you're not even trying. You could actually accomplish something if you'd apply yourself.

Or do you wish to assert that when someone applies the wrong mathematical treatment to a problem you can't predict their mistakes?

Clocks don't experience relativistic effects it is time itself that does. Thus all relativists already know that your 'sound clocks' will do the same as other clocks. No surprise.

Once again a complete fundamental lack of understanding the problem with the utter arrogance of one who believes he does. Though in this case I'll admit that I did explain the clocks quite briefly.

If a clock substitutes a pendulum for chirps of sound for timing and then that clock is put in motion with respect to the air, the time that clock keeps will be changed by gamma. (in perfect, non turbulent air of course) IE: At non relativistic speeds, this sort of clock will be change by gamma if we substitute light for sound. EG: After being synchronized with stationary clocks and then put in motion at .5 the speed of sound, this type of clock will tick .866 times for every time a stationary clock of the same type ticks.

You are not making a good case by saying things are not true and ignoring post#3.

Okay here I'm just not sure which post you're talking about

I have to say you sound like a serious person but I just don't get it. You don't seem to understand basic relativity.

And you sound like an intelligent reasonable person but we keep trading little jibes and so the conversation stays mildly off track at all times because of our respective huge egos ;)

I know basic relativity. I'm not talking about basic relativity. I'm talking about the theory which led into basic relativity and I know for a fact that you don't understand certain aspects of that old theory.

Specifically, I believe the disconnect is that you don't yet understand the difference between the illusion of perspective Lorentz created mathematically and the factual changes to our knowledge of reality that Einstein created. One was a theory of mechanical waves that appeared to behave like the second postulate. The other was a theory in which the waves really do behave like the second postulate. While the difference seems subtle, it is not subtle once you understand what I've been trying to teach in this thread.

Once you understand the classical physical wave theory and how it applies to the trucks you will finally understand what I'm talking about.

 

[NotAName]

By the way, everyone excuse my rude demeanor, especially if you haven't been rude and I didn't notice. It just seems everyone here wants to attack the person instead of the problem and so I've gotten a little defensive and rude in return for what seems like an onslaught from every direction...

I do have something to teach you however and if you're just not listening, then I suppose a little rudeness may not be totally out of line. Regardless, I'd like to take this opportunity to lower the emotional content a bit.

We all have quite large egos here, so let's try to keep that under control and assume everyone here is likely a professional and well learned in their own fields of expertise. Much of what is happening is misunderstanding and then subsequent frustration leading to ego bruising.

I apologize for my part in our collective nonsense...

 

[jtbell]

Time out while the Mentors consider what to do about this thread...