Is Lorentz Ether Theory a Viable Alternative to General Relativity?

[Dale]

It's important to be clear that every physical theory has two components: the mathematical formalism and the interpretation of the formalism. I highlighted the fact in my first post that LET and SR are empirically equivalent - due to the fact they are essentially equivalent in their formalisms.

OK, so from this it sounds like you understand LET and SR to be experimentally indistinguishable interpretations of the same structure, the Lorentz transforms.

So what is not equivalent is the interpretation of the formalisms, that is, what is the physical reality described by the formalisms? This is what is most important to me, though perhaps for many physicists such issues are not particularly important as long as "the math works."

I fall into the second camp, largely because I doubt that any of the interpretations are "true" and all of the interpretations "work". So I tend to learn all of the interpretations and use each when it suits me. They don't change the math at all, they just help to organize my thoughts. I shamelessly use LET when talking about relativistic Doppler, because the correlation with sound waves keeps my thoughts organized. I tend to use SR for everything else because other than Doppler the aether just gets in the way for me.

As I mentioned to Dale, however, if we have two empirically equivalent theories, one of which leads to a more commonsensical view of physical phenomena (and more comforting re the validity of free will) and another that doesn't, wouldn't we want to choose the former?

YOU might want to make that choice and YOU would be perfectly justified in choosing LET over SR based on "common sense" (not everyone will agree with you on matters of common sense, but that doesn't really matter in terms of your choosing one interpretation over another). I am also justified in making my choice to use both because it suits me, and others are also justified in making their choice to use SR based on Occham's razor. All of these are various aestetic reasons, which are the only reasons to choose between different interpretations.

 

[jtbell]

It's important to be clear that every physical theory has two components: the mathematical formalism and the interpretation of the formalism. I highlighted the fact in my first post that LET and SR are empirically equivalent - due to the fact they are essentially equivalent in their formalisms. So what is not equivalent is the interpretation of the formalisms, that is, what is the physical reality described by the formalisms? This is what is most important to me, though perhaps for many physicists such issues are not particularly important as long as "the math works."

In that case, this thread properly belongs in the Philosophy forum, similarly to the way we treat extended discussions of interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

[lalbatros]

Tam,

Beware that the "action at a distance" confirmed by Alain Aspect and others can in no way be used to synchronize clocks.

Personally, I strongly believe that this is a fundamental direction to be investigated.
I also think this could be related to the structure of space time.
However, I see no reason to go back to the old discussions related to Einstein STR or aether or else.
If entanglement will change our view on space time, it will certainly not bring it back to older times.

On the contrary, I am quite sure a new view on spacetime integrating "entanglement" will be even more counter-intuitive. We will have the sum of SR and quantum against common sense. Hopefully beauty will compensate!

 

[Tam Hunt]

Thanks Dale - I think we're almost entirely in agreement. I'll add one final thought and perhaps extend this in the philosophy forum: as a realist, the choice of interpretations is, for me, more important than just an aesthetic decision. If you believe, as I do, that physical theories should attempt to get to the true underlying reality, then our choice of interpretations of formalisms provide very important components in our understanding of reality. And if there is in fact an ether, it provides a physical basis that helps explain many other features of our universe. Nuff said! On to the philosophy forum...

 

[DrGreg]

Franco Selleri, an Italian physicist, has transformed the Lorentz Transformations into what he calls the "inertial transformations." In his reworking (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1SEL.pdf), he derives equations that don't lead to any time dilation at all, giving rise to the possibility at least that an empirically valid set of transformation equations may be used that doesn't lead to strange non-commonsensical notions such as time dilation (with all the disturbing consequences for free will that follow).

You seem a little confused over what "time dilation" means, i.e. two clocks deemed to be ticking at different rates according to some criterion. Selleri's paper certainly does incorporate time dilation as the factor R which appears in equation (4) (p.261) and in assumption (vi) (p.260), and usually denoted 1/\gamma by everyone else.

What Selleri's paper does do is eliminate the relativity of simultaneity. Maybe that's what you meant by "dilation". He chooses a non-standard synchronisation convention such that all frames agree on simultaneity.

But the problem, as I see it, is that the convention that all Selleri-observers agree on is itself arbitrary. You choose one SR-inertial frame and label that as "aether", and synchronise everything to the aether. But you have an infinite choice of candidate aethers to choose from, all equally good as each other, and all predicting exactly the same experimental results as each other and as special relativity.

Incidentally, much of this becomes clearer when you think in terms of the 4D geometry of spacetime. All Selleri is doing is ignoring the usual orthogonal coordinate systems we usually use, and preferring skew-coordinates where the space axes are no longer all chosen to be orthogonal to the time axis. It's just a change of coordinates, describing exactly the same 4D-geometry.

So back to my initial question: what efforts are being pursued currently re generalizing LET?

Hardly anyone is bothering because it's a pointless exercise, for the reasons DaleSpam and others in this thread have given.

 

[Dale]

as a realist, the choice of interpretations is, for me, more important than just an aesthetic decision.

The question is not on the importance of the choice, the question is on what basis do you make the choice between two different interpretations? They make the same predictions so you cannot make a choice based on experimental data. They use the same mathematical framework so you cannot make a choice based on logic. What is left besides aestetics?

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, as I've mentioned a couple of times, there is much left other than aesthetics. If we are realists (as I am), our choice of interpretation is highly important in terms of what reality we are describing. Is the universe truly relativistic in the sense that the E/M interpretation of relativity suggest it is, that is, with no frame to be preferred over another and thus no absolute space/ether? Or is there an absolute space/ether, regardless of whether it is detectable? Even if it is not detectable, we find ourselves able to explain the energy of the vacuum more easily (Higgs field, in modern parlance) with the ether concept present. We know that space does indeed have properties - space is not "nothing." The void/vacuum of space is anything but, as we quickly realize by thinking about the basis for inertia and acceleration. The question really is: is this space relativistic (as Einstein stressed for years in his "new ether" concept, which he advocated from 1916 onward, after initially rejecting the ether as a "superfluous" concept in 1905) in that no motion may be ascribed to this ether, or is the ether non-relativistic, as Lorentz asserted, in that motion may be ascribed to it?

Last, I've mentioned Reg Cahill's work in this thread and I'm curious what folks think of his work in detecting absolute motion through the ether - or what he generally calls the "homotopic quantum field." His papers are available on www.arxiv.org and he has written many papers on the alleged misinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment and Miller experiments. He's also performed his own experiments, leading him to conclude that the Earth's velocity through the ether is measurable - and has in fact been measured many times over. If he's right in these assertions, we find very strong support for the Lorentz Ether Theory and we then do have empirical grounds for rejecting the E/M interpretation of relativity, as Cahill himself asserts.

 

[Tam Hunt]

DrGreg, thanks for the feedback - I think you're that I mis-spoke in my earlier post on Selleri's paper. I'll post more later on this.

However, as I just wrote to Dale, there are very good reasons to prefer the ether interpretation over the standard E/M interpretation even if we can't distinguish which is the "real" preferred frame/absolute space. And if we accept Cahill's evidence/arguments re absolute space, we see that there are very good empirical reasons for rejecting the E/M interpretation and, instead, looking for some way to generalize LET - perhaps along the lines that Quentin Smith has proposed recently (suggesting a Bohm-Bell-Lorentz amalgam).

 

[Dale]

The stance as a realist is itself an aesthetic judgement. Similarly for any other philosophical preference. If you would prefer to call it "philosophical" instead of "aesthetic" then I am fine with that also. My only point is that it is not based on logic or experiment, since they are indistinguishable on those two fronts.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, not to belabor the point - but it's an important point so I'll belabor it a little more - if your position is, as it appears to be, that anything that is not strictly mathematical in nature is aesthetic, you end up in a self-contradictory position. As you know, mathematics has a significant aesthetic component - simpler, more elegant theories are often proclaimed over other less elegant theories. In fact, relativity theory itself is often lauded as being a simpler physics than other theories (I don't agree with this, but it is often stated).

Second, if you believe, as you apparently do, that physics should help us figure out how the universe works, as opposed to what it really is, then you are also led to agree that interpretations of formalisms is still important because, as mentioned, attending to the interpretations of the formalisms leads to a better understanding of how reality really is as well as how it works. Einstein famously transformed over his career from a positivist to a realist. And he dwelt much in his later years on what the nature of reality really is.

Last, returning to my initial inquiry, we may in fact look to empirical differences between general relativity and alternative theories (such as some type of generalized LET, which may include different formalisms) that go beyond your assertion re aesthetics. Specifically, there are many observational anomalies re GR, such as faster than predicted expansion of the universe, different galactic rotation velocities than predicted, borehole anomalies, Pioneer spacecraft anomalies, and others. A generalized LET theory may offer - as some have suggested - a better theory that may resolve these anomalies, by relying, in part, on a postulated ether as a basis for the theory.

 

[Dale]

if your position is, as it appears to be, that anything that is not strictly mathematical in nature is aesthetic, you end up in a self-contradictory position. As you know, mathematics has a significant aesthetic component - simpler, more elegant theories are often proclaimed over other less elegant theories. In fact, relativity theory itself is often lauded as being a simpler physics than other theories (I don't agree with this, but it is often stated).

I said mathematical or experimental. But in any case, there is no self-contradiction in my position. I have never said that there is anything wrong with making aesthetic choices provided they do not contradict logic or experiment and provided that you do so consciously. In fact, such choices are very valuable and are a key factor in my personal enjoyment of science. I find beauty in discovering a theory that shows hidden connections that I hadn't seen before, and that beauty motivates me to learn more. In this sense, there are two primary differences between you and me, 1) we have different aesthetic viewpoints, 2) I recognize my aesthetic choices as such and value them for what they are.

I am in no way demeaning your aestetic preference of LET over SR. It is a perfectly fine choice. But regardless of how important it is, it is simply not based on empirical evidence nor logic and you are deluding yourself if you think it is.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, I've mentioned a few reasons why LET may be preferred over E/M SR, but, more to the point, I've mentioned why a generalized LET may be preferred over GR, based on empirical and what you label aesthetic reasons. You have addressed the former but haven't yet addressed the latter.

 

[Dale]

To my knowledge there is no such theory as a generalized LET, so it is a little premature to speculate on what properties it might have. I won't engage in a discussion about a non-existent theory.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, in the original post, I listed a number of physicists and philosophers who have proposed a generalized LET. Focusing on one, I'd like your feedback re Quentin Smith's proposed Bohm-Bell-Lorentz theory, as described in the 2008 volume, edited by Smith and William Lane Craig, Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bG...ith+einstein&ei=5bO_SaqVL4jWNqmUleoL#PPA73,M1

Smith's contribution is horribly edited, with typos abounding, but it seems to me that his ideas may have some merit that are, at the least, worth considering given the difficulties with GR.

 

[Dale]

I will take a look at it and get back to you.

 

[Dale]

Having read it (or at least the pages on Google books) I stand by my previous statement that to my knowledge there is no such theory as a generalized LET so it is premature to speculate on what properties it might have. Ideas that "have some merit" and are "worth considering" do not make a scientific theory.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, if you don't consider Smith's theory sufficiently fleshed out to merit analysis, check out Reg Cahill's "process physics." He has written a book and numerous articles. He doesn't call his theory a generalized LET, but it is in my view such a theory.

Here's a long paper that is a good introduction to his theories, and there are many others on www.arxiv.org.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203015

And here's his book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CiSUAAAACAAJ&dq=reginald+cahill&ei=4fXISaPUMYyuMqTX9ZoL

 

[Dale]

I am absolutely convinced that you can find more references than I have time to read. So let me give you my general perspective.
1) For an idea to qualify as a scientific theory it must have a coherent mathematical framework that can be used to make testable experimental predictions

2) If two theories make the same prediction for a given experiment then that experiment cannot distinguish between the two theories.

3) If two theories share the same mathematical framework then they cannot be distinguished by any experiment, and are more properly called two different interpretations of the same theory.

4) Anyone is free to pick any interpretation of an experimentally validated theory that they want for any or no reason.

Applying this to a GLET. As long as it has a mathematical framework that makes experimental predictions it is a scientific theory (that is what was missing from the previous link). If it uses the same framework as GR then it is just another interpretation of GR. If it makes different predictions then we can use experimental evidence to choose between it and GR.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, trust me, Cahill's theory fits the bill. It's rigorous mathematically and makes different predictions than GR, so it is experimentally distinguishable in many ways. It resolves the dark matter and dark energy anomalies in what seems to be an intellectually satisfying fashion and it creates a very different approach to physics and relativity - an information-theoretic approach, which leads directly to dynamical and kinematic theories. I don't know if I buy all of Cahill's intellectual edifice at this point, but it is certainly worth examining.

 

[Dale]

It's rigorous mathematically and makes different predictions than GR, so it is experimentally distinguishable in many ways.

Excellent. I look forward to the experimental results.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, Cahill has abundant experimental evidence that demonstrates, in his view, absolute motion of the Earth through absolute space (ether), as a stepping-off point for departing from the GR paradigm. I'm not equipped to judge the merits of his analysis in detail, so I'd be grateful for your feedback on his results and interpretation. Here are a couple of his papers detailing his analysis of Michelson-Morley and Miller data, as well as his own new experiments using fiber optic equipment, which he believes demonstrate an absolute motion of the Earth at 400 km/s through absolute space:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0508/0508174v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0412039

 

[lalbatros]

The language of these papers makes them good candidate for pseudo-science.
See the check-list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience .

In figure 2 in the second paper it talks about "great suppressed discoveries in physics".
This is such an exageration and a disrespect for the work of others, that this casts doubt about the objectivity of the author.

In additon, the accumulation of arguments instead of a detailled discussion of one of them makes these paper probably useless.

The MMX experiment have been analysed by many people, repeatedly.
Yet the author does not mention or discuss to opposite view.

Because of the historical importance of the mmx experiments, I think that it should be extremely useful if competent physicist could collect and organize all the details of the data in a structured way on he web.

 

[lalbatros]

This quote from the conclusion in the second paper is also a pseudo-science joke:

We are now in the position of understanding that space is a different phenomenon from time, that they are not necessarily fused into some spacetime amalgam, and that the spacetime ontolgy has been one of the greatest blunders in physics. This must not be misunderstood to imply that the numerous uses of a mathematical spacetime, particularly in Quantum Field Theory, were invalid. What is invalid is the assertion that such a spacetime is a physical entity.

He wants spacetime to be banned from physics. But he could well compromize and accept its use in QFT, maybe on the condition that we are careful to stress each time that this is "only" mathematics. Did he consider that QFT is another world of evidence that Einstein was right? He found a very easy way to avoid discussing further problem with his dogmatic position.

Stressing that time is different from space is like trying to convince the convinced. He probably missed the difference between space and time that is so clear in the distance formula: ds²=dx²+dy²+dz²-c²dt² . This difference is apparent in all relevant formulas from special relativity. Why would that invalide einstein's relativity? He probably doesn't know the answer, except that it hurts him on the "ontology" organ.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Lalbatross, Cahill is a tenured professor of physics at Flinders University in Australia. I think he knows (as do I) what constitutes science. He is challenging the consensus views on key issues re SR and GR. Just look back to when Einstein himself introduced his theories, or Darwin his, and read the reaction of many established scientists. Then read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

That said, I agree that Cahill's bombastic/resentful language isn't helpful for his cause.

Last, re spacetime, Cahill's position is entirely consistent. Physicists often have a hard time distinguishing epistemology from ontology. This is, in my view, the basis of the mistakes re considering spacetime a real entity - the geometrization of time, which is the basis for the Einstein/Minkowski interpretation of relativity. As I've discussed in this thread, the E/M view leads to a "block universe" in which time has no arrow and the past, present and future all exist at once. There is no "becoming," there is only "existence," as Einstein himself states in his 1916 book on SR and GR. This view of the universe is anathema to me and to the large majority of intellectuals when they realize its consequences: a denial of the reality of time and therefore of the reality of free will.

If we can develop a theory that is empirically valid, self-consistent and doesn't eliminate the reality of time or free will, shouldn't we be inclined to accept said theory? This is why I'm exploring these various approaches to generalizing LET, including Cahill's.

I urge you to read Cahill's works in full as I think he has a lot to contribute - if you can get through the bombast.

 

[lalbatros]

Tam,

I appreciate your encouragement to get through the bombast.
However, on a question like the MMX experiment, it makes no sense to read Cahill.
So much has already been written, and Cahill is just contradicting totally the huge majority.
If I had the time and the courage, reading Cahill would not be useful, I should instead collect the whole set of data on the MMX and analyse that myself. This is specially true considering that Cahill will not deliver a balanced view of this topic.

 

[Tam Hunt]

And hence the difficulty in changing paradigms (scientific revolutions)... No one has the time or inclination to check contrary interpretations or data because surely many have already done it. I urge you to check out Cahill's papers when you are so inclined.

 

[lalbatros]

I have no problem with contrary interpretations.
Considering them, even if I can prove them wrong, can be stimulating and increase creativity. Often they go back to basic problems that are worth considering. In addition, I may well have myself alternative approaches.

The first problem is with an "activist" approach in physics.
I find that extremely dangerous.
Science is not about speaking louder, but it is about clarifiying and understanding.
It is more about learning more than about convincing.

The second problem, with Cahill as with others, other is that he preffer to expose his biased analysis of experimental data instead of allowing people to judge by themselves. This does not imply forgetting his arguments, it implies stressing the data and explaining in a clear and comprehensive way why he found a different result.

For the mmx, I have always felt this would be worth a full book, with all the data and discussion of the how to analyse them.

 

[Tam Hunt]

lalbatross, every scientific assertion is just that: an assertion. Cahill has re-analyzed the MMX data and asserts that it has been mis-interpreted for over a hundred years. His arguments may have merit. They certainly have enough merit to be considered and not dismissed. He also points out that MM themselves found that their data suggested that the Earth was moving at 8 km/s through absolute space (ether), but this finding was not in keeping with their predictions and so was dismissed. I agree a whole book could be written on this topic and Cahill has started it with his many papers and one book on this topic. His book (2003) has a number of chapters devoted to MMX, Miller and many other experiments that in Cahill's judgment demonstrate the reality of absolute motion.

 

[lalbatros]

I will look for a data source on this topic (mmx).
I have been often interrested by this topic.

However, in principle, I think we have sometimes to decide on a way to follow.
Deciding implies accepting the possibility of being mistaken.
It makes therefore perfectly sense to decide on the basis of probabilities, because it is not a purely mechanical process based on pure logic.

It is my feeling that this "bombast" indicates a lack of confidence by Cahill himself.
On the other side, there are many constraints from other experimental and theoretical physics that are hard to reconcile with the standard mmx conclusion
Therefore, I see little chance that Cahill would be right.

Finally, given the difficulties in the interpretation of the mmx, I think that other experiments should be used for clarification. Therefore, it would also make sense to invest energy on this side.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Lalbatross, Cahill's bombast could just be an unfortunate reaction to not being taken seriously for many years (and I suspect it is).

Re new experiments, he has done just this and he describes his new experiments in one of the papers I linked to above. His experiments (perhaps unsurprisingly) confirm his interpretation of MMX and Miller.

Last, it is possible, though I personally think perhaps a little awry from the best course, to follow a pure Lorentzian view of Cahill's reinterpretations - and this is partly what Cahill himself has done in not rejecting data supporting SR effects; rather, Cahill and many others have simply interpreted such data in the Lorentzian manner, which relies on an ether/absolute space as the underlying cause for length contraction and time dilation. This is contrary to SR, which asserts that time and space themselves are malleable and light speed is constant. Under Lorentz's Ether Theory, space is absolute, local time may be distorted and length can be contracted through electromagnetic interaction with the ether/absolute space. For Lorentz, SR and his theory were empirically equivalent. See Lorentz's Theory of Electrons for his full theory.

I am personally torn between simply accepting that SR is empirically valid and following the Lorentzian interpretation, or acknowledging that there are many empirical anomalies re SR and GR and, accordingly, seeking an alternative theory entirely.

Cahill adopts the Lorentzian approach in part, but he also develops his own information theoretical mathematical formalisms that, in his view, resolve empirical anomalies with GR, such as dark matter, dark energy, borehole and Pioneer anomalies.