Isn't this a weak basis for time paradoxes ?

[selfAdjoint]

After quoting Einstein on his "new aether" (he spelled it that way), by which he ment his gravity field, you say:

But trying to pin down this “ether” and identify it for sure and describe exactly how it works, has been one of the most frustrating things in all of physics.

This is not true. I repeat, Einstein's aether is his gravity field, and for him there IS NO spacetime, only the gravity field. This is because the physical effects of spacetime curvature can be locally "rotated way", as in the zero-g of a falling body, which the gravity field itself cannot; even though the falling body experiences zero-g locally, it is still accelerating globally.

 

[ahrkron]

I’m having a discussion with Doc, and I think he is capable of handing his side of the discussion by himself.

He surely can, but you probably should realize that this are public forums. If you want to have a private conversation, you should use PM's. Otherwise, everybody has every right to reply.

 

[yogi]

David - yes - I am familiar with the local ether theory - and it does work to explain the MMx null and at the same time it permits us to detect the Doppler shifts related to the Earth's orbit around the sun relative to a distant star (we also observe a diurnal variation in the CBR - also presumably due to our motion relative to something) - but would you not get the same result without a medium - in other words, why can't the em waves be self sustaining - moreover, what part does the medium play? I don't see how the medium is necessary to regulate the speed (I am not saying that it isn't - I don't see where the connection is - it is true that once the light leaves the star or whatever, it will be independent thereof - and its attributes (velocity etc) are thereafter determined by the properties of space - but can't we get to the same result by simply accepting the notion of a self-sustaining em wave?

 

[yogi]

David - what if it turns out that we conduct an MMx type experiment in free space and we get the same result (null). The problem I have with the local ether theory is that it is a johnny come lately ad hoc. It could be correct - if it isn't you and Tom Van Flanderen will be dining exclusively on Crow.

 

[David]

David - what if it turns out that we conduct an MMx type experiment in free space and we get the same result (null). The problem I have with the local ether theory is that it is a johnny come lately ad hoc. It could be correct - if it isn't you and Tom Van Flanderen will be dining exclusively on Crow.

A lot of guys believe in the “local ether” theory. Dr. Ching-Chuan Su of Taiwan has written many papers about it in major mainstream journals around the world:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:flaoWtHDgq8J:www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/+%22local+ether%22+Su&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Davis and Lineweaver have explained it in terms of local “comoving space”.

The problem with SR today is that guy invest a total of $9.95 for “The Principle of Relativity” and they think those old Einstein theories still apply, but many of them don’t. Science has progressed since 1905. A modern relativity cult has grown up around just those papers in that book. In the meantime, the cultists totally ignore Einstein’s changes that he made to his theories in his later papers. For example, he re-introduced the “ether” concept in 1918 and 1920 papers. You need to read them.

Anyway, Einstein got most of his ideas for SR from Lorentz’s “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern”, published in 1895. Get a copy of the Lorentz book and you’ll see what I mean.

 

[yogi]

I would take issue with your comment that Einstein got his ideas from Lorentz - it was Lorentz that made adaptations to his ether theory after Einstein successfully embellished upon SR to derive the equivalence of mass and energy, time dilation, the relationship between inertia and velocity, etc. I know the transforms are identical - but the meaning of the temporal term is different - I would agree that Einstein was vague on the issue of actual vs apparent time slipage - still a subject of debate on these forums since both interpretations are advanced depending upon the post person -

I would also take partial issue with the idea that Einstein reintroduced the ether principle - first of all he never abolished it - he only said you can get the correct relationships without making any assumptions that an ether exists - and he seemed to be firmly committed even after 1920 that it was impossible to detect motion with respect to space - while at the same time he regarded space as having properties. I wonder what he would have said had he known of the anisotrophy of the CBR? Not only did it embrace gravitational and electrical fields - but his most significant statement about the reality of the ether was in connection with the inertial force that instantly arises whenever matter is accelerated.

 

[yogi]

David - in connection with the above - here is a quote you will probably enjoy:

As its founder recognized, Special Relativity was, however, compatible with the notion an ethereal medium? In his 1929 tribute to Faraday and Newton:

“..every attempt to deny the physical reality of space collapses in the face of the law of inertia. For if acceleration is to be taken as real, then space must also be real within which bodies are conceived as accelerated. Newton saw this with perfect clarity and consequently he called space ‘absolute” ..the forces between particles were regarded as unconditionally associated with the particles themselves. ...Mere empty space was not admitted as a carrier for physical changes and processes. It was only ..the stage on which the drama of material happenings was played.”

“...The ether was invented, penetrating everything, filling the whole of space, and admitted as a new kind of matter. ... it was overlooked that by this procedure, space itself had been brought to life...It (the ether) was thus to some degree identical with space itself... In this way the field theory was born as a illegitimate child of Newtonian physics.”

“To become fully conscious of this change in outlook was a task for a highly original mind whose insight could go straight to essentials, a mind that never got stuck in formulas. Faraday was this favored spirit. His instinct revolted at the idea of forces acting directly at a distance which seemed contrary to every elementary observation.” If one electrified body attracts or repels a second body, this was for him brought about not by a direct action from the first body to the second, but through an intermediary action. The first body brings the space immediately around it into a certain condition which spreads itself into more distant parts of space according to a certain spatiotemporal law of propagation. This condition of space was called ‘the electric field.’ The second body experiences a force because it lies in the field of the first, and vice versa. The ‘field’ thus provided a conceptual apparatus which rendered unnecessary the idea of action at a distance. Faraday also had the bold idea that under appropriate circumstances fields might detach themselves from the bodies producing them and speed away through space as free fields; this was his interpretation of light.”

 

[David]

David - in connection with the above - here is a quote you will probably enjoy:

As its founder recognized, Special Relativity was, however, compatible with the notion an ethereal medium? In his 1929 tribute to Faraday and Newton.

Yes, that’s an excellent Einstein quote from the paper in which Einstein discussed his “Unitary Field Theory”. This was supposed to be his “Third” great “Stage” of relativity theory. Unfortunately, it never worked out.

See the part where he says the fields can “detach” themselves and “speed away through space”? This is basically Maxwell’s oscillating fields theory of light propagation. With this concept, it would seem that light does not need a propagating medium. And if this is true, then light does not need an “ether” in which to propagate.

However, there is plenty of evidence that shows light speed is somehow “regulated” inside the various areas of space through which it travels. One of the best evidences of this is in the light from revolving binaries. You’ve probably heard about this one, the “fast” light never overtakes the “slow” light, and this is a solid indication that some kind of “speed regulating medium” regulates the light speed to “c” in the space between the binaries and the earth.

Einstein never could quite figure out how this “regulating” worked, i.e. the exact quantum-level physical mechanism of how it worked. Other guys have been working on this for years, and such a “medium” is absolutely necessary, based on what we see of light coming into the Earth from deep space.

Think of it this way: We’ve got billions of galaxies moving rapidly relative to one another. We assume that light travels through each galaxy at an average of “c”. But when light leaves a moving galaxy and enters our galaxy and eventually arrives at the earth, it is traveling locally at “c”. So, what causes it to change rates from the relative speed of “c” in the distant moving galaxy to the relative speed of “c” when it arrives in our galaxy? The basic “local ether” theory says this has something to do with the fields in each galaxy, with the local fields traveling with each galaxy, and the fields acting as the speed regulating “medium” for light inside each galaxy.

The Davis-Lineweaver paper takes this approach, but they just call the local medium the “comoving space” of an individual galaxy, and they avoid talking about the quantum physical mechanism of that “space” that actually does the light-speed regulating in each galaxy.

 

[David]

I would take issue with your comment that Einstein got his ideas from Lorentz -

Well, before you say that, you need to get a copy of the 1895 Lorentz book. It was Lorentz who invented “time dilation” in oscillating atomic clocks (fundamental oscillating atoms). He also invented “length contraction”, the “speed limit of c”, increased mass due to motion, and the “relativistic” Doppler effect. This stuff is in the 1895 book, which was published when Einstein was 16 years old. Lorentz started writing papers about relativistic electrodynamics in 1892, when Einstein was just 13 years old.

In a 1907 paper Einstein credits this 1895 book as being the origin and inspiration of his own “time dilation” ideas.

In Lorentz’s 1920 book, he quoted Einstein as telling a New York Times reporter:

“This led the Dutch professor, Lorentz, and myself to develop the theory of special relativity.”

In a 1907 paper Einstein quoted Paul Ehrenfest as saying:

”In the formulation in which Mr. Einstein published it, Lorentzian relativistic electrodynamics is rather generally viewed as a complete system.”

So, it was well known in the 1905-1920 era that Lorentz, not Einstein, developed the basic modern “relativity” theory, and that in SR Einstein merely modified the original Lorentz theory, specifically leaving out the “ether”, which Einstein re-introduced back into “relativity” in 1918.

 

[selfAdjoint]

No, from your own quotes, what Lorentz developed and Einstein recast was "relativistic electrodynamics". In the course of doing that recasting Einstein invented Relativity properly so called.

 

[russ_watters]

After quoting Einstein on his "new aether" (he spelled it that way), by which he meant his gravity field...

And yes - David already knows this as well. We've had this discussion (complete with those and other Einstein quotes) several times. There is even a great quote where Einstein says something like 'I can't imagine a universe without an aether...' [David stops there] and then goes on to explain exactly what he means: that his "aether" is not the classical "ether."

A lot of guys believe in the “local ether” theory. Dr. Ching-Chuan Su of Taiwan has written many papers about it in major mainstream journals around the world:

And as we have also already discussed, Su admirably and honestly admitted flat out that at the moment his theories do not match observations very well.

 

[David]

I repeat, Einstein's aether is his gravity field,

This is true, but neither he nor anyone else has been able to come up with the exact quantum-level mechanics of exactly how gravity acts as a light-speed-regulating medium.

And there is another problem... we all know that the strongest parts of the gravity field “travel through space” with the astronomical bodies that generate them, but what happens in deep space when the fields of many bodies are “blended”? How do the fields “blend”? If gravity fields propagate, then how do they blend and propagate at the same time? How can the gravity field affect the speed of free and self-propagating oscillating electric and magnetic fields?

These are difficult questions to answer.

 

[David]

There is even a great quote where Einstein says something like 'I can't imagine a universe without an aether...' [David stops there] and then goes on to explain exactly what he means: that his "aether" is not the classical "ether." And as we have also already discussed, Su admirably and honestly admitted flat out that at the moment his theories do not match observations very well.

I know it is not a “classical ether”. In fact, a better term for it would be a “light speed regulating medium”, especially if light is “self propagating”. The classical universal ether was sort of like a thin “gas”, but the real “local ether” is more like a “field”.

What Einstein said about “ether” at the end of his 1918 and 1920 papers is that while gravity fields act as a kind of ether, they don’t move through space. However, he amended that idea somewhat in his 1952 appendix to his 1916 book, when he acknowledged that at least an electric field moves through space with the body that generates it.

I gave you a long list of several experiments that Dr. Su said his theory matches perfectly. You just ignore it every time I post it.

In one of his papers he specifically said:

“In spite of such a restriction on reference frame, the consequences of this new classical
theory account for a wide variety of experiments with the propagation or
interference of electromagnetic wave, and are in accord with another variety of experiments
commonly ascribed to the special relativity, the general relativity, the Lorentz
mass-variation law, or to the de Broglie matter wave. These experiments include
the Sagnac effect in GPS, the intercontinental microwave link, and in the rotating loop
interferometry; the round-trip Sagnac effect in the interplanetary radar; the
apparently null effect in the Michelson-Morley experiment; the constancy of speed of
light radiated from a moving source; the spatial isotropy with phase stability in the
Kennedy-Thorndike experiment and the one-way fiber-link experiment; the Doppler
shift in Roemer’s observations and CMBR; the effects of a moving medium in Fizeau’s
experiment and the Sagnac loop interferometry; the light deflection by the Sun; the
gravitational effect on the interplanetary radar echo time; the gravitational redshift
in the Pound-Rebka experiment; the speed- and gravitation-dependent atomic clock
rate in GPS, the Hafele-Keating experiment, and in spacecraft microwave links; the
spatial isotropy with frequency stability in the Hughes-Drever experiment; the resonant
absorption in the Ives-Stilwell experiment, in the output frequency from ammonia
masers, and in the Mossbauer rotor experiment; the matter wavelength in the
Davisson-Germer experiment and the double-slit diffraction; the matter-wave Sagnac
effect; and the effects of earth’s rotation and gravity in the neutron interferometry.
Meanwhile, this theory leads to some predictions, particularly the effects of earth’s
motions, which then provide different approaches to test the validity of the local-ether
wave equation.”

 

[David]

No, from your own quotes, what Lorentz developed and Einstein recast was "relativistic electrodynamics". In the course of doing that recasting Einstein invented Relativity properly so called.

Relativistic electrodynamics is the major part of relativity theory. In fact the concept of “time dilation” depends on it.

Keep in mind that after 1911 Einstein began using atomic clocks in his papers. That was because he finally realized that “balance wheel” clocks and other kinds of clocks don’t react to gravity fields and acceleration the same way atomic clocks do.

In 1905 he thought that just “kinematical” and “relative motion” effects would slow down any kind of clock, but he finally realized in 1911 why Lorentz had specifically used atomic clocks in his original relativity theory. This is why Einstein removed balance wheel clocks from his 1918 “clock paradox” paper, and he added atomic clocks, gravity fields, and acceleration effects.

The changes in atomic clock rates that are observed today ARE “electrodynamical” effects.

 

[russ_watters]

I gave you a long list of several experiments that Dr. Su said his theory matches perfectly. You just ignore it every time I post it.

I'm quite aware that aether theories can explain a lot and I have never denied it. This is, however irrelevant: aether theories cannot, by Su's own admission, explain as much as Relativity. They are therefore inferior to Relativity (just as Newton's theory is inferior to GR).

 

[David]

David - yes - I am familiar with the local ether theory - and it does work to explain the MMx null and at the same time it permits us to detect the Doppler shifts related to the Earth's orbit around the sun relative to a distant star (we also observe a diurnal variation in the CBR - also presumably due to our motion relative to something) - but would you not get the same result without a medium - in other words, why can't the em waves be self sustaining - moreover, what part does the medium play?

Sorry I missed this question earlier.

Here’s the problem... If EM waves leave a star based on the star being “an inertial frame”, then let’s say the waves leave the star in all directions at “c”. Ok, now let’s say the star is moving rapidly away from us. That means the star’s light waves are moving toward us at c – v. I think it has been determined by observation of revolving binaries that this can’t happen. Therefore, when we receive the waves, they are traveling at “c” relative to the Earth (but c + v relative to the star that emitted them). This means that some kind of light speed regulating “medium” adjusted the speed of the light to “c”, first at and near the surface of the star, and then later at and near the surface of the earth.

Also, without a “local ether,” light emitted by a superluminal galaxy would never reach us, if the light always traveled at “c” relative to that galaxy, since the light could never move toward us, since the galaxy would always be moving away from us at faster than “c”.

What D&L say in their paper is that the light leaves a superluminal galaxy at “c” and is actually moving away from us, but later begins to move toward us and we receive it at “c” here at the earth. This is a “local ether” theory, but they don’t say what the “local ether” is. They just call it local “comoving space” and they avoid the controversy about the “ether”.

In fact, a “local ether” theory is widely accepted in astrophysics today, but it is almost always called local “comoving space” and never a “medium” or an “ether”.

 

[David]

I'm quite aware that aether theories can explain a lot and I have never denied it. This is, however irrelevant: aether theories cannot, by Su's own admission, explain as much as Relativity. They are therefore inferior to Relativity (just as Newton's theory is inferior to GR).

He never said that. And SR never predicted the Westbound clocks would speed up. LOL.

So what do you think about Einstein's 1918 paper about the "clock paradox"?

Don’t you think it is funny that he said, “U2 bleibt in Ruhe” instead of “U1 bleibt in Ruhe” in Teilprozesse 4a? LOL!

 

[quantumdude]

Janus: Very well. For one, it can be shown that it the speed of light were not consistent for all observers, electrormagnetic radiation emitted by one source would not be detected as a wave by an observer moving with respect to the source. (I.E. a radio in a moving car would not be able to pick up any radio stations) .

David: That’s nonsense. By that same false reasoning, a moving sound observer would not be able to hear any sound.

Well, duh, that only strengthens the case for relativity!

Both EM waves and sound waves satisfy the same wave equation. Janus is correct when he says that the Galilean transformed wave equation is not a wave equation in a frame that is moving with respect to the source. You can see what the EM wave equation looks like under the Galilean transformation either by doing it yourself (if you can), or by looking at Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics Section 11.1. I posted the mathematical details at Sciforums (I'm "Tom2" there). I'll try to find them, but if I can't, then you have a reference to track down.

 

[quantumdude]

I posted the mathematical details at Sciforums (I'm "Tom2" there). I'll try to find them, but if I can't...

Found them.

From the thread RCM an Alternative to Relativity at Sciforums, I made the following post. It was originally in response to another member, so to put everything in context I'll break it up with commentary.

From Maxwell's Equations to the EM Wave Equation:

Using the boldface ∂ for the "del" operator, Maxwell's equations in vacuo are:

∂xE+(1/c)∂E/∂t...(1)
∂xB-(1/c)∂E/∂t...(2)
∂^.E=0...(3)
∂^.B=0...(4)

Making use of the vector identity:

∂x∂xA=∂(∂^.A)-∂²A,

We can take the curl of equation (1) to obtain:

∂x∂xE+(1/c)(∂/∂t)∂xB=0
∂(∂^.E[/color])-∂²E+(1/c)(∂/∂t)∂xB[/color]=0

The part in blue[/color] vanishes by virtue of equation (3), and the part in red[/color] can be rewritten as -(1/c)∂E/∂t, by virtue of equation (2).

This gives us:

∂²E-(1/c²)∂²E/∂t²=0,

which is a wave equation. Taking the curl of equation (2) and following a similar path will show you that B satisfies the exact same wave equation.

Solutions of the EM Wave Equation:

The components of the plane wave solutions of the wave equation are of the form:

A_i(x,t)=A_i0sin(k^.x-wt+f)

where w/|k|=c. Since the solutions have constant phase, we can derive the speed of the waves to be c.

Why Galileo and Maxwell Can't Both Be Right:

If electrodynamics is to be reformulated so that it is Galilean invariant, then the resulting equations will not be Maxwell's equations.

Here's what the reference from Jackson has to say about it. First, assume Galilean relativity. For a moving frame S' and a stationary frame S, we have:

x'=x-vt
t'=t

Let the wave equation hold in frame S. What does it look like in S'? We can derive that as follows:

∂/∂x=(∂x'/∂x)∂/∂x'=∂/∂x'
∂/∂y=(∂y'/∂y)∂/∂y'=∂/∂y'
∂/∂z=(∂z'/∂z)∂/∂z'=∂/∂z'

∂/∂t=(∂x'/∂/t)(∂/∂x')+(∂y'/∂t)(∂/∂y')+(∂z'/∂t)(∂/∂z')+(∂t'/∂t)(∂/∂t')
∂/∂t=v^.∂'-(1/c)∂/∂t'

Squaring each operator and writing the equation in the coordinates of S' yields:

(∂'²-(1/c²)(∂²/∂t'²-(2/c²)v^.∂'(∂/∂t')-(1/c²)(v^.∂)²)A_i=0

where A_i is any component of either the E or B field.

Notice that the above equation is not a wave equation[/color]. That means that, if Galilean relativity is correct, then radio waves emitted from towers should become non-waves when you are driving in your car. If Galilean relativity is correct, then you should not be able to listen to the radio in your car.

Why the Correctness of Maxwell Implies the Correctness of Einstein:

The Lorentz transformation, on the other hand, does preserve the form of the EM wave equation.

And to Wrap Up:

This is what none of the preachers of the Anti Relativity Religion understand. Einstein did not pull length contraction and time dilation out of thin air. They are logically derived consequences of the requirement that the EM wave equation and the speed of light be the same in every frame. The original paper was not even called, "Intro to Special Relativity", it was called, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

Like it or not folks, relativity is correct. If any of you wants to convince thinking persons otherwise, then you will have to argue on these terms, because these are the terms in which relativity was formulated.

edit: converted subscript and superscript brackets from sciforums format to PF format

 

[David]

Well, duh, that only strengthens the case for relativity!

Both EM waves and sound waves satisfy the same wave equation. Janus is correct when he says that the Galilean transformed wave equation is not a wave equation in a frame that is moving with respect to the source

Do you know why a radio antenna is supposed to be the same length as a radio wavelength (or a certain fraction of it, like a quarter-wave or half-wave antenna)?

Because it is the bump, bump, bump of the wave that makes the antenna resonate, and an antenna resonates the most when the antenna length matches the wavelength. Now, you can slow that “bump” rate (frequency) down by either stretching out the wave by moving the emitter or by slowing down the antenna-relative speed of the wave by moving the antenna. Either one will change the frequency.

The motion of the distant galaxies is what causes their redshifts. This lengthens their wavelengths and slows down their EM frequency that we receive. On the other hand, when the Earth moves away from a star that is fixed relative to the sun, it is the c – v effect that slows down the frequency and causes the redshift at the earth.

 

[quantumdude]

David, this has not one thing to do with Doppler shifts. Read my second post.

 

[David]

Einstein did not pull length contraction and time dilation out of thin air.

No, he got them right out of Lorentz’s 1895 book, “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern”.

 

[quantumdude]

No, he got them right out of Lorentz’s 1895 book, “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern”.

This isn't about the history of science, it's about the veracity of special relativity.

 

[David]

Notice that the above equation is not a wave equation. That means that, if Galilean relativity is correct, then radio waves emitted from towers should become non-waves when you are driving in your car. If Galilean relativity is correct, then you should not be able to listen to the radio in your car.

You are joking, right?

When the Earth revolves around the sun the earth-relative speed of the light coming through our solar system is c – v and c + v relative to the earth, at some distance from the surface of the earth, and we still receive radio waves from stars, galaxies, etc. They don’t become “non-waves” just because the Earth is moving at 18.6 mps around the sun.

 

[David]

This isn't about the history of science, it's about the veracity of special relativity.

Tom, are both the relatively moving K and K’ systems in the 1905 SR theory Galilean systems, with the relative motion between them being non-accelerated?

 

[quantumdude]

You are joking, right?

You hear me laffin?

When the Earth revolves around the sun the earth-relative speed of the light coming through our solar system is c – v and c + v relative to the earth, at some distance from the surface of the earth, and we still receive radio waves from stars, galaxies, etc. They don’t become “non-waves” just because the Earth is moving at 18.6 mps around the sun.

This is so frustrating.

Yes, David, I know that. The WHOLE POINT of the argument I presented is that the fact you just cited is a confirmation of special relativity, and a falsification of Galilean relativity.

If you don't understand why, just say so.

 

[quantumdude]

Tom, are both the relatively moving K and K’ systems in the 1905 SR theory Galilean systems, with the relative motion between them being non-accelerated?

Are both the relatively moving systems what?

And what is a "SR theory Galilean system"?

I don't understand the question.

 

[David]

Are both the relatively moving systems what?

And what is a "SR theory Galilean system"?

I don't understand the question.

Non-accelerated inertial systems, “inertial frames”. Relative motion in a straight line at a steady speed with no acceleration.

 

[quantumdude]

Non-accelerated inertial systems, “inertial frames”. Relative motion in a straight line at a steady speed with no acceleration.

Yes, the systems are nonaccelerated and moving in a straight line.

 

[David]

Yes, the systems are nonaccelerated and moving in a straight line.

Hi Tom,

I tried to send you a PM but the board wouldn’t let me. I can’t read my previous PMs or see your or my profile. Would you happen to know why?