I Lorentz Ether Theory: History & Explanation

Messages
10,924
Reaction score
3,800
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
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
Back
Top