Is Lorentz Ether Theory a Viable Alternative to General Relativity?

[Tam Hunt]

Lalbatross, it seems that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of SR - or I am. SR covers ONLY inertial frames and does not include gravity or accelerating frames. Einstein's "equivalence principle," in which he realized that gravity and acceleration could be treated as essentially the same thing, led to his general principle of relativity, which asserts that the laws of physics are the same in all moving frames. The general principle of relativity is the basis for the general theory of relativity. The special principle of relativity only applies to inertial frames, and it is the basis for the special theory of relativity (along with the principle of the constancy of the speed of light).

 

[Dale]

Additionally, if we accept Cahill's evidence and conclusions in favor of the ether, we must also accept that SR has been falsified.

This is circular reasoning. Obviously, if we accept Cahill's conclusions then we must accept that SR has been falsified since that is Cahill's conclusion. In any case, a conclusion is not empirical evidence, only measurements are.

Dale, I see now why we've been missing each other. You're defining LET and SR narrowly - including in these theories only their predictions re length contraction and time dilation. As you know, the basis for LET is the assertion that the ether is the cause of such effects. As such, we may simply have to disagree that an experiment demonstrating the validity of absolute space/ether is support for LET over SR.
...
This goes back, it seems, to our disagreement over what constitutes a physical theory. I and many others maintain that every physical theory has two key components: the mathematical formalisms and the interpretation of those formalisms. You seem to hold the view that the only thing that truly comprises a physical theory is the mathematical formalism

I am not defining either LET or SR narrowly, and I understand that the interpretation is part of a theory as are the postulates and the derivation of the mathematical framework from them. I am not saying that two interpretations are the same; I am just rejecting your fallacious assertion that there can possibly be any experimental distinction between them. There is no such thing as an interpretometer that we could use to gather direct evidence about interpretations. All we can experimentally verify or falsify is a theory's prediction about a given measurement.

I think that you actually know that it is impossible to distinguish the two experimentally. That is why you have not even attempted to work out an example of an experimental measurement that could distinguish SR from LET. It remains useless to proceed until you either do so or concede the point.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, this is perhaps an interesting example of why it's so hard to change paradigms: you somehow skipped right over the word "evidence" in my sentence that you actually quoted in your response. My reasoning was not circular.

Cahill and others have presented reams of data purporting to show that there is an absolute space/ether. This is "evidence." "Conclusions" follow from this "evidence."

If we accept this evidence, and therefore, the conclusion that there is an absolute space/ether, we THEN accept that SR is falsified.

I don't know how to make this any more clear.

I like your neologism "interpretometer." :-) Fortunately for us, we don't need an interpretometer. All we need is an interferometer. Please go back to my response a few turns ago and see my answers to your previous objections to Cahill's experiments and interpretations re absolute space/ether. By continuing that discussion, we may actually arrive at a fruitful conclusion to our interesting but sometimes frustrating dialogue.

 

[lalbatros]

Tam,

Again: experiments that demonstrate the existence of absolute motion/ether, if valid, distinguish LET and SR because LET relies on the ether as the basis for length contraction and time dilation. I don't know how to state this point more simply. LET is not simply the Lorentz transformations - it's a fully fleshed out theory that includes the ether.

From the Lorentz transformation, the speed of light does not depend on the (inertial) frame of reference that is chosen to measure it.
Therefore, if LET admits the LT, LET should predict that the speed of light is invariant.
Therefore, LET should not predict that detecting an absolute motion is possible.
Therefore, if the LET derivation of LT is based on the existence of an absolute frame of reference,
then the LET must also contain another hypothesis that makes this frame finally unobservable.
In any case, your point does not point us to a way to distinguish SR and LET experimentally.

I am still open to discuss such a possible experiment, but I cannot describe one myself.
Assuming that both LET and SR agree on the LT, it seems to me that distinguishing LET and SR experimentally is not possible.

Suppose, for example, that the MMX experiment would deliver a 1000000 times better precision than before.
Suppose also it would lead to a certainty about an absolute frame of reference.
I would then conclude that both SR and LET would be invalidated.
They would be invalidated because both theories would predict the speed of light is invariant,
and the experiment would then have demonstrated the contrary.

It does not matter that a "absolute frame" was mentioned in the derivation.
Only the predictions of the theory matters.
I don't see any prediction of the LET that depends on the preffered frame hypothesis.

Conversly, we can also conclude that SR does not rule out the aether hypothesis.
SR simply makes the aether hypothesis "superfluous", as it is well known.
It is superflous as far as the LT is involved.
In this sense, the SR derivation by Einstein is a cleaned version of the LET.
It goes without saying that SR brings more than that.

 

[lalbatros]

Tam,

You need to make your statement more precise:

SR covers ONLY inertial frames

If you mean that with SR you cannot derive the mechanics in an accelerated frame, then you are wrong.
Even Newtonian mechanics allows that, why the "inertial forces" are known since long.
Actually, the Newtonian relativity was precisely aimed at distinguishing inertial forces from other forces.
The general principles of relativity goes a step further than that so as to make inertial forces and gravitational forces locally undistinguishable.
For the motivation of GR, I always refer to page 245 in Landau (1).

If you mean instead that the relativity principle is about the equivalence of inertial frames, which have no relative acceleration, then you are right.

(1) http://books.google.com/books?id=QI...cover&dq=classical+theory+of+fields#PPA245,M1

 

[lalbatros]

Tam,

This is simply wrong:

Cahill and others have presented reams of data purporting to show that there is an absolute space/ether.

Cahill has systematically biased all the conclusions.
His analysis of the historical MMX is very clear in this respect.
Just read about the experimental procedure, and you will clearly see that the assumed "positive signal" is much below the error bars of this experiment. See also the analysis of the Miller trials, which is very instructive. (1)

Concerning the De Witte coaxial experiment that he systmatically reffers to, there is simply no data available from this experiment. And Cahill will be the first to claim about a conspiracy to hide such data, proving so that these data are not available. Would a conspiracy theory replace experimental data?

Cahill is not about scientific evidence, he is about shelling any evidence against his theory.

(1) http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238

 

[Tam Hunt]

lalbatros, you write:

Therefore, if LET admits the LT, LET should predict that the speed of light is invariant.
Therefore, LET should not predict that detecting an absolute motion is possible.
Therefore, if the LET derivation of LT is based on the existence of an absolute frame of reference,
then the LET must also contain another hypothesis that makes this frame finally unobservable.
In any case, your point does not point us to a way to distinguish SR and LET experimentally.

You are misunderstanding LET. LET states that the speed of light will APPEAR invariant to all observers, not that it is actually invariant. This is the whole point of the ether in Lorentz ether theory: it is through electromagnetic interaction with the ether that matter (the arms of a vacuum-mode interferometer, for example) is length-contracted in the direction of motion. This was Lorentz's hypothesis explaining the apparent null result of MMX.

To be clear: for Lorentz, the speed of light was not actually invariant, it just appeared invariant because of length contraction of all apparati built to measure it.

Cahill's work is potentially ground-breaking because he, Miller, and others have shown that we can in fact detect absolute motion by changing to gas-mode interferometers or with fiber optic experiments.

As such, Cahill, Milller, and others have shown how LET and SR may be experimentally distinguished, due to evidence supporting the existence of the ether/absolute space. As I've also mentioned previously, this would make SR an interesting epistemological theory, but not a theory that actually describes reality. You are free to say, in such a scenario, that SR remains unfalsified, but I prefer the realist school of thought, not the school of thought that accepts epistemological theories masquerading as physical theories.

I'm glad in your last post that you return to discussing the merits of Cahill's experiments and interpretations. As I wrote already in response to Dale, Cahill has fully considered error bar analysis. Here's what Cahill wrote in response to me when I asked him about this issue some time ago:


Miller in his 1933 paper reported (page 238) speed errors at the level of approx 3% and azimuth errors of 2.5 degrees. My analysis of Miller's data gives a maximum speed error of 5% for the good data - i.e that without obvious glitches. That analysis is based on the rms error from fitting the expected form (including temperature drifts, the Hick's effect and expected cos[2*angle] effect), and using the usual definition of rms error. Indeed the quality of his data is truly remarkable.

 

[Tam Hunt]

lalbatross,

In your follow up re SR and inertial frames, you seem to be confusing "inertial frames" with "inertial forces." These are very different beasts and have limited relations to each other.

Again, please read Einstein's 1916 book on these issues (it's quite short). I think you'll find it interesting and helpful.

 

[Dale]

you somehow skipped right over the word "evidence" in my sentence that you actually quoted in your response. My reasoning was not circular.

Cahill and others have presented reams of data purporting to show that there is an absolute space/ether. This is "evidence." "Conclusions" follow from this "evidence."

If we accept this evidence, and therefore, the conclusion that there is an absolute space/ether, we THEN accept that SR is falsified.

Your reasoning is completely circular. Your premise "Cahill's evidence and conclusions" explicitly contains your conclusion "SR has been falsified". Circular reasoning at its most obvious and basic. Another way to http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html" is when an argument "assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side", which you are clearly doing here.

Additionally, it is possible to accept a scientist's evidence without accepting his conclusions. After all, this is exactly what you are doing re: all of the http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html" . Your statement "'conclusions' follow from this 'evidence'" is simply untrue. It is always possible to find another interpretation which explains the same observation thus yielding a different conclusion from the same evidence.

And you still haven't addressed the challenge.

 

[ZapperZ]

Miller in his 1933 paper reported (page 238) speed errors at the level of approx 3% and azimuth errors of 2.5 degrees. My analysis of Miller's data gives a maximum speed error of 5% for the good data - i.e that without obvious glitches. That analysis is based on the rms error from fitting the expected form (including temperature drifts, the Hick's effect and expected cos[2*angle] effect), and using the usual definition of rms error. Indeed the quality of his data is truly remarkable.

And did you challenge him on this? If there is THAT much of a discrepancy, wouldn't this already show up in the GPS system that we have set up that clearly does not take into account such variation? I mean, it doesn't take much to throw it off, and such error will in fact accumulate very quickly.

I don't understand this thread. The Miller's paper has been discussed on here, and in literature, ad nauseum! Somehow, that work is in such HIGH regards that its worshipers seems to ignore all the subsequent tests using much more sensitive set up, such as using the Kennedy-Thorndike method. What gives? How are you able to pick-and-choose like that?

Maybe you should visit the good folks running LIGO and tell them they have been calibrating their setup all wrong.

Zz.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, I'm going to give this one more shot and them I'm done - recognizing that perhaps we simply can't have a constructive dialogue on this issue.

1) Cahill, Miller, etc., have produced evidence from their experiments.

2) They interpret this evidence to show that the speed of light is inconstant - contrary to the 2nd postulate in Einstein's 1905 paper. This is a conclusion. They also interpret this evidence to show that absolute space/ether is real. This is a second conclusion. If these interpretrations/conclusions are correct (or even if only the first conclusion is correct), SR is falsified. If these interpretations/conclusions are not correct, show me why they are not correct.

3) The same evidence and conclusions could be used, in a strict approach, to falsify LET - as Lorentz himself formulated it, as you have pointed out. This is the case b/c under LET, there is no way to experimentally confirm the inconstancy of the speed of light, even though it is assumed that in actuality the speed of light is inconstant. As you know, Lorentz postulated the opposite of Einstein: the speed of light is inconstant, but we are prevented, due to length contraction of measurement equipment in the direction of motion, from detecting it.

4) Alternatively - the alternative that I prefer - we may adopt a "neo-LET" or "modern ether theory (MET)" approach, in which we adopt the Lorentzian interpretation of the Lorentz transformations, which relies on the ether as the source of length contraction and apparent time dilation, BUT we modify LET with our understanding that we can in fact detect absolute space/ether. Under MET, we find that most experimental evidence supporting SR also supports MET, with the KEY difference being that the constancy of the speed of light and consequent malleability of space and time are NOT the cause of length contraction and time dilation. Rather, electromagnetic interaction between matter and the ether is the cause of these effects.

I have answered your challenge about six times now.

 

[Tam Hunt]

ZapperZ, I'd appreciate your substantive feedback on Cahill's work. He has expanded significantly on Miller's work with his own experiments. Here's his most comprehensive discussion available online (see Chapter 10):

http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS13.pdf

And here's his most recent work on MMX:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, I'd appreciate your substantive feedback on Cahill's work. He has expanded significantly on Miller's work with his own experiments. Here's his most comprehensive discussion available online (see Chapter 10):

http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS13.pdf

And here's his most recent work on MMX:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174

So in other words, you were not at all worried that THAT kind of discrepancy doesn't show up in such thing as the LIGO alignment and our GPS's? How could you let him get away with something like that?

Zz.

 

[Tam Hunt]

ZapperZ, as we've discussed at length in this thread, the predictions of SR and LET match in terms of length contraction and time dilation because they both rely on the Lorentz transformations. So GPS calibration re SR is not a factor in this discussion (though I understand that calibration is not as clearly specially relativistic as most believe, relying rather on real-time calibrations that sort of match SR's predictions).

The issue at this point in this thread is whether we have good evidence for absolute space/ether, based on MMX, Miller, Cahill and other experiments. If so, the theoretical basis for LET (or at least a neo-Lorentzian relativity) would be supported over SR and SR may be considered falsified because its postulates would be shown to be wrong.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, as we've discussed at length in this thread, the predictions of SR and LET match in terms of length contraction and time dilation because they both rely on the Lorentz transformations. So GPS calibration re SR is not a factor in this discussion (though I understand that calibration is not as clearly specially relativistic as most believe, relying rather on real-time calibrations that sort of match SR's predictions).

The issue at this point in this thread is whether we have good evidence for absolute space/ether, based on MMX, Miller, Cahill and other experiments. If so, the theoretical basis for LET (or at least a neo-Lorentzian relativity) would be supported over SR and SR may be considered falsified because its postulates would be shown to be wrong.

You are forgetting that both the GPS systems and LIGO calibration depend entirely on the anisotropy of the speed of light. It isn't JUST the issue of time dilation and length contraction. GPS system, especially, rely on the uniformity of the speed of light as the orientation of the Earth and the satellites change with respect to "space". This is the EXACT thing that any MMX experiment measures! The same thing with the "arms" of LIGO. Any discrepancy would easily show up!

Yet, you are relying on Miller's experiment as if it is valid but somehow unconcerned that your GPS seems to work perfectly fine.

Zz.

 

[Tam Hunt]

ZapperZ, can you send me some good papers on this?

In the meantime, please do look at the Cahill links I sent you. I believe you may find that your objections are addressed in his work.

I'll need to dig into this a bit further, but I suspect we will find that GPS gets away with assuming anisotropy of light speed because we're dealing with relatively very short distances. I'll have to look into LIGO a bit more before I can opine further.

Cahill does in fact address GPS issues in his 2005 book - but good luck getting a copy. I had to wait a while for an interlibrary loan and it's not available on Google books.

But thank the Lord for arxiv.org. I just searched there and here's a link to a paper from Cahill addressing his process physics (which is based on the conclusion that absolute space is detectable and detected) and the GPS:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0309/0309016v2.pdf

 

[ZapperZ]

How are you able to buy something using "quantum foam" and use that as a valid argument against empirical evidence? I don't get it. Would you also entertain someone using, say, cosmic strings or axions and use those as "proofs" that you are wrong?

I've read this painful thread, and I think it is you who need to sit back and reexamine all these things that you somehow have convinced yourself to be valid and figure what what exact it is that you found so convincing. Your highlight of this "paper" in trying to convince me just backfired.

Zz.

 

[Dale]

3) The same evidence and conclusions could be used, in a strict approach, to falsify LET - as Lorentz himself formulated it, as you have pointed out. This is the case b/c under LET, there is no way to experimentally confirm the inconstancy of the speed of light, even though it is assumed that in actuality the speed of light is inconstant.

I cannot tell for certain, but it seems that you are finally conceeding the point that LET and SR are experimentally indistinguishable. If so, then please ignore the following.

I have answered your challenge about six times now.

You have yet to answer it even once. You have not proposed one single experimental measurement and worked out quantitatively what Lorentz and Einstein would predict differently.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, I said I was done but I'll respond one last time: you seem to have a mental block that stops you from reading what I write in full. #4 in my response directly addresses both your points.

 

[Tam Hunt]

ZapperZ, have you read either the quantum foam paper or the longer "Process Physics" paper? If so, I'd appreciate your substantive responses, not dismissive comments without substance.

As I've said previously in this thread, I'm not yet sold on Cahill's arguments. Rather, I'm seeking substantive comments from others who have reviewed his work in detail - while being openminded and fair in such review. Everything I've written re Cahill's work has been couched in conditional phrases ("if").

 

[lalbatros]

Tam,

Please be serious and avoid such kind of answer:

lalbatross,

In your follow up re SR and inertial frames, you seem to be confusing "inertial frames" with "inertial forces." These are very different beasts and have limited relations to each other.

I explained you my point already three times.
I do it once more:

In Newtonian physics, when you change from a inertial frame to a non inertial frame, the laws of motion do not stay invariant. Instead, you have additional forces, called "inertial forces" that appear in the equations.

If, in this statement above, you still think I don't know the difference between inertial frame and inertial force, then you should learn classical mechanics before talking about relativity.
Obviously a frame and a force are different beast.
Would you think a confusion would even be possible?
But you should also know that there is a relation between "inertial frame" and "inertial forces".
This is just what I explained you and that I repeated once more here above.

Again, I repeat it, saying that "SR covers ONLY inertial frames" makes not sense or at least it is a very unprecise statement.
Again, what can be done in Newtonian mechanics can also be done in special relativity.
With special relativity, you can analyse the motion in an accelerated frame if you want to do so, like in Newtonian mechanics.
If you think Einstein said the contrary, then you did not understand his saying.

The difference between SR and GR is that in GR the laws of motion have the same form in all frames, which is not the case in SR. In SR you will see "inertial forces" poping up when in an non-inertial frame. Also the gravitational field theory is invariant in GR, while this makes a fundamental difficulty in SR. However, the difficulties of SR with gravity does not prevent it from being a excellent approximation as long as V/mc²<<1, using any frame of reference as long as you do it properly.

 

[lalbatros]

Why do I prefer SR over LET?

Tam,

... LET states that the speed of light will APPEAR invariant to all observers, not that it is actually invariant. ... Cahill's work is potentially ground-breaking because he, Miller, and others have shown that we can in fact detect absolute motion by changing to gas-mode interferometers or with fiber optic experiments.

You still need to explain what difference between LET and SR would make a fiber optic sensible to absolute motion while vacuum interferometry could not. How could that be possible, when the electrodynamics and mechanics of the two theories are the same and are Lorentz-invariant? Please, write down the equations of electrodynamics and the equations of motion for both LET and SR (or give a link). Then point us to this difference.

As I told you, if you could detect an absolute frame of reference by any means, this would break SR as well as LET, because all the laws of physics in LET and SR are the same. If you think I am wrong on this point, then explain me where the differences are.

But now, based on my arguments, why do I prefer SR over LET?
For sure because of this useless hypothesis in LET.
It is useless because it is added and then canceled by design.
On the contrary, SR is based on a representation of the facts with as few additional hypothesis as possible.
We even know today that the hypothesis of the constancy of light was not absolutely necessary.
Removing it would simply leave us with an unknown constant in the Lorentz transformation.
The end result of SR is the Lorentz transformation obtained from simple facts.
Why would we need more?
In the end, the Lorentz transformation is a relation between spacetime in different frames.
Some do not like it, but the facts remain.

 

[Tam Hunt]

lalbatros, I apologize if I was overly dismissive. I'm having trouble squaring what you're writing re SR and non-inertial (accelerating frames) and my reading of SR and GR. Admittedly, I'm self-educated on these issues, so perhaps I'm simply not getting what you're saying because it seems to directly contradict what I've learned from the original sources from Einstein, Minkowski, Lorentz, etc.

It is quite clear - as I've explained - that for Einstein, at least, SR only applied to inertial frames. That said, perhaps what you're saying is reflective of a more recent understanding that goes beyond Einstein's original understanding?

That said, could you send me some arxiv.org papers or books explaining how SR can apply to accelerating frames?

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, have you read either the quantum foam paper or the longer "Process Physics" paper? If so, I'd appreciate your substantive responses, not dismissive comments without substance.

As I've said previously in this thread, I'm not yet sold on Cahill's arguments. Rather, I'm seeking substantive comments from others who have reviewed his work in detail - while being openminded and fair in such review. Everything I've written re Cahill's work has been couched in conditional phrases ("if").

I'm an experimentalist. I had to stop reading that paper because he's using non-verified physics to explain possibly non-existent phenomenon. Just how many unicorns does he need? And then he wonders why he isn't taken more seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

There is just so many "if's" that one is willing to accept. After that, it becomes so speculative that you might as well make things up. And this is what you've spent your time on and gave all this effort?

Oh wait, maybe that's why this is in the Philosophy forum rather than the SR/GR forum!

Zz.

 

[Dale]

Dale, I said I was done but I'll respond one last time: you seem to have a mental block that stops you from reading what I write in full. #4 in my response directly addresses both your points.

Your #4 neither proposes an experiment with quantitative predictions by which SR and LET can be empirically distinguished nor does it conceed that it is impossible to do so.

 

[lalbatros]

Tam,

...
That said, could you send me some arxiv.org papers or books explaining how SR can apply to accelerating frames?

It is difficult to find references on this topic, because it is totally trivial.
As I explained you, SR extends NM, and NM can do it, therefore SR can do it also.
However, I was lucky to Google this page to answer your request:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

As far as SR and GR are involved, I am also mainly autodidact.
I learned nuclear engineering and physics engineering.
SR had only a tiny place in our thick course on electrodynamics.
Thereafter I read "Gravitation by MTW" and "The Classical Theory of Fields by Landau".

If you are willing to learn physics by yourself, I strongly advise you to use the best references available. Reading Cahill and other foamy references will bring you nowhere. It is absolutely necessary to build on the rock instead of the foam.

If instead you want to lose more of your time, you can still read this one:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS13.pdf

hopefully, you will see this is a house of cards built on foamy foundations.
Read the lies of pages 67 or 70 for example.

 

[Tam Hunt]

ZapperZ, thank for you admitting you haven't even read the references I sent. Yet again, another example of why paradigms are so hard to change - we become calcified, despite abundant evidence that SR and GR rest on shaky foundations.

Check out the last two editions of Scientific American. It's not a journal, of course, but it is an indication of the zeitgeist of various fields, primarily physics and cosmology. The last two cover stories question Einstein's theories (correctly, in my view). This indicates to me that we are on the verge of the next major paradigm shift. Will Cahill be part of that? I don't know. But I do know his theories are interesting and worth at least reading before dismissing.

Substance instead of rhetoric mi amigo.

And, in case you don't know, the term "quantum foam" is commonly used in quantum mechanics. It represents in most usages the vacuum energy, which in the mainstream interpretation of QM is the seething mass of virtual particles in the vacuum - a newer name for the ether. Check out Nobel Prize-winner Frank Wilczek's book The Lightness of Being on these topics. Perhaps a Nobel Prize will induce you to read this work.

 

[Tam Hunt]

lalbatros, thanks for the links. Ironically, the first link you sent supports both your point of view and my point of view. It discusses the possibility of using a metric tensor to adapt SR to accelerating frames. This is a similar approach to that used in GR, as the link describes.

However, the piece says explicitly that SR does NOT include gravity, even in this ad hoc approach that the link and you have previously described.

So it seems that I will concede the point that SR CAN be used for accelerating frames, despite its creator's own views at the time of creation, but that it CANNOT include gravity even in its modified form. Tally: 1/2 a point for lalbatros and 1/2 a point for Tam.

Again, SR does NOT extend Newtonian mechanics in all situations. It extends NM in a narrowly defined way. One more time: read Einstein's 1916 book. He explains fully why he developed SR and GR.

Why are you suggesting Cahill is "lying" in his paper? This is a very serious charge and I would advise you not to make it lightly. You will need strong evidence to back up such a charge.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, I urge you to step back from what you think you know. One LAST time: SR and LET are not simply about the Lorentz transformation equations. With this understanding you will see I have responded to your points numerous times.

 

[Dmitry67]

Tam, I had just read the whole thread (it is fun!) and I do not see any places where you show any difference between LET and SR.

The only point I see (correct me if I am wrong) is 'Yes, LET and SR provide the identical results for all observers, but the underlying reality is different'

As a proponent of MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypotesis) for me it is een easier then for the others to say that if 2 theories are mathematically equivalent then they are the same theory.

MUH simplifies everything and get rids of many misleading questions like 'ok, here is an equation for a wavefunction, but what is actually behind it? I see, time is a coordinate, but what is actually made from? Here are QM equations, but tell me, are particles real? Do virtual particles exist?"

For me all these questions lead to nowhere. It reminds me about an explanation of consciousness using a Cartesian theater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

All these these questions about the 'reality' is one big "cartesian theater" in physics. An attempt to find tooth wheels and rubber bends behind the curtain of that carthesian theater. And this thread is a good example.