I Lorentz Ether Theory: History & Explanation

Messages
10,919
Reaction score
3,795
This is purely a historical question that came up in another thread. I always thought LET was the theory put forward by Lorentz that said the Lorentz-Fitzgerald formula contracts objects moving through the aether. Clocks slowed down due to a shortening of their components. Light was an undulation of the aether. The electric field was a dielectric displacement in the aether. I forget what magnetic fields were supposed to be. There is also the idea of a preferred frame independent of LET. That breaks the POR that says all inertial frames are equivalent but does not have the properties of the aether in Let.

Also, in LET, the Galilaean transformations still hold; the Lorentz transformations are mere appearance.

Thanks
Bill
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bhobba said:
I always thought LET was the theory put forward by Lorentz that said the Lorentz-Fitzgerald formula contracts objects moving through the aether.
That's what I take "LET" to refer to historically, yes. However, in my experience, many partisans of LET end up redefining "LET" to mean whatever pet theory they favor that happens to use the term "ether" somewhere.
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Likes vanhees71 and bhobba
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top