Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

Back in 1904 H. A. Lorentz worked to develop an Ether Theory that would unify all the forces of nature. Most scientists at that time thought that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality was the electromagnetic field. Lorentz showed that one would notice strange distortions of moving objects and even time itself would seem distorted if this were the reality. This work produced the Lorentz Transformations which so far as we know do correctly predict the distortions observed in real life.

 

Then, a year later, Einstein came out with Special Relativity. Everybody signed on and we seem to have forgotten that the Lorentz description of relativity phenomena did not require the bending of space and time. Space and time remained pristine in the classic sense, yet all relativity phenomena was predicted.

 

I'm wondering why it was that we abandoned LET and accepted warped space-time so easily when both theories use the same equations.

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

You are confused. The special theory of relativity (which replaced ether theory) does NOT involve bending of space or time. It replaced the Lorentz theory because it requires fewer ad-hoc assumptions.

 

The GENERAL theory of relativity requires bending of space/time. This theory extends special relativity to include gravity, which the Lorentz theory never covered.

-Will

Posted
You are confused.
Well, I get that way a lot:) I thought that SR was about objects in motion and GR extended that to cover accelerated motion and gravity.

 

In most discussions about SR I see the assumption that the observed distortions are the result of distortions in space and time.

Lorentz seemed to assign all the distortions to the objects in motion. It would assume a special frame of reference, like maybe the CMBR. It seemed reasonable.

 

This theory extends special relativity to include gravity, which the Lorentz theory never covered.
GR was a great work and very useful, but I see no reason that the Lorentz concept couldn't have been extended as well.

 

The point is that it is not necessary to assume that space and time are distorted by objects in motion. Distortion of the moving objects themselves can account for all observations.

 

Then go back a hundred years and you find the construct of matter that would produce such distortions.

the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality was the electromagnetic field
Posted
In most discussions about SR I see the assumption that the observed distortions are the result of distortions in space and time.
You are talking vaguely about "distortions" but this only makes confusion linger.

 

The Lorentz transformations do not distort spacetime, they are just coordinate transformations which are formally much like rotations. The same things have different coordinates for different observers. With these changes of coordinates things match up, even the Michelson-Morely experiment. Now these changes of coordinates have a consequence which is numerically like saying that things get shorter and slower, which is the idea Lorentz had for making M&M match up. There is however a lot more than just that experiment, the coordinate transformations are essential for instance to high energy particle physics.

Posted

Hi Qfwfq

I have no argument with anything in your post. But the point was:

The point is that it is not necessary to assume that space and time are distorted by objects in motion. Distortion of the moving objects themselves can account for all observations.

I stated that as a fact, but I don't know that it is so. Is it really true that all of relativity phenomena can be accounted for by distortions of objects in motion.? So instead of time dilation, we would have the object in motion experiencing time dilation because of its construct.

Posted
Well, I get that way a lot:) I thought that SR was about objects in motion and GR extended that to cover accelerated motion and gravity.

 

Well, this comes naturally, its actually a mistake in many intro text books! Special relativity CAN actually handle anything in "flat" space-time (i.e. no gravity). See for instance Acceleration in Special Relativity

 

In most discussions about SR I see the assumption that the observed distortions are the result of distortions in space and time.

 

I think that the best simple discussion of time dilation/length contraction can be found here ticks 'n bricks I think it gets right to the heart of what is happening in special relativity.

 

GR was a great work and very useful, but I see no reason that the Lorentz concept couldn't have been extended as well.

 

I disagree. The manner in which SR was formulated by Minkowski (in terms of 4 vectors) allowed for the extension to encompass GR. Unfortunately, the Lorentz ether theory, while making the same predictions, does so without at all suggesting an easy extension.

 

The point is that it is not necessary to assume that space and time are distorted by objects in motion. Distortion of the moving objects themselves can account for all observations.

 

Read the ticks and bricks link above. I think that the easiest way isn't to think of time/space dilation but rather to think that in different frames of reference space and time look different.

-Will

Posted
Is it really true that all of relativity phenomena can be accounted for by distortions of objects in motion.? So instead of time dilation, we would have the object in motion experiencing time dilation because of its construct.
Reasoning like Lorentz, and the various explanations conjectured for these contractions and time dilatations, leads to them being objective rather than per observer. This made no difference when the matter was only terrestial motion but it would be unable to explain phenomenology known since.
Posted
Read the ticks and bricks link above.

Thanks for the link it was a good read. I understand relativity phenomena and can get my brain around most of it.

 

but it would be unable to explain phenomenology known since.

Most of us assume that is so, but when asked to provide an example I can't do it. Back to the original quest, is there any known relativity phenomena that could not be the result of the way mass is put together.

 

For example, all the binding forces move at the invarient speed of light. Would that not cause mass to distort to accomidate motion? And might that be the whole cause of relativity phenomena?

 

The question was put to Einstein back in 1909 by

H. Ziegler. I've never seen a real good answer. Einstein didn't even respond, as far as I can tell.

Posted

Hi Popular;

John Wheeler once wrote:

Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."

I am wondering whether Wheeler missed his one great discovery that he never achieved. He was so close. Was this principle that he missed a thing that was well known in his time.

The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

The first most obvious test of that is that it completely predicts relativity phenomena in classic space-time. My quest here was to find out if there is any valid arguement to refute that.

Posted
Most of us assume that is so, but when asked to provide an example I can't do it.
For example, the only successful way to describe high energy particle physics is to use Lorentz covariant mechanics.
Posted

Hi Qfwfq

The need to use Lorentz covariant mechanics as a transformation tool does not seem to invalidate the concept. A quick Google search on "Lorentz covariant mechanics" brings up papers that attempt to prove that a preferred reference frame must exist. I don't think I could get away with that as an example of phenomenology that

but it would be unable to explain phenomenology known since.
the Lorentz transformations couldn't handle.

 

Thanks for your time; I'm not trying to put you on the spot; I'm just trying to understand.

Posted
I am wondering whether Wheeler missed his one great discovery that he never achieved. He was so close. Was this principle that he missed a thing that was well known in his time.

 

The first most obvious test of that is that it completely predicts relativity phenomena in classic space-time. My quest here was to find out if there is any valid arguement to refute that.

 

Wheeler did miss a sitter. Einstein and Godel told him, but he completely misinterpreted it. I'll have to look up the specifics, I believe it was in A World Without Time by Palle Yourgrau. But to paraphrase, what they told him was this: classic spacetime isn't spacetime, it's space.

 

I've explored the ramifications of what it means, and would say yes, the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the "electromagnetic field". However that doesn't tell you what it really is. What it is, is Einstein's "pure marble geometry".

Posted
The need to use Lorentz covariant mechanics as a transformation tool does not seem to invalidate the concept.
Perhaps you didn't catch my point on the fly:
For example, the only successful way to describe high energy particle physics is to use Lorentz covariant mechanics.
High energy particle physics means quite a wealth of phenomenological fact. Plenty of examples. It would seem out of place to go through them here and I don't know how well you are familiar with the formalism.

 

A quick Google search on "Lorentz covariant mechanics" brings up papers that attempt to prove that a preferred reference frame must exist.
Yep there are many attempts, I know of no successful ones. The nearest thing is comoving coordinates in cosmology but that doesn't support the case.
Posted
High energy particle physics means quite a wealth of phenomenological fact

Yes I know, and I'm not looking for a list. I'm looking for just one thing. I've always assumed there was a huge field of data that caused us to abandon a philosophically reasonable theory for philosopahcally unreasonable concepts. But I haven't yet found even one piece of it.

Posted
Wheeler did miss a sitter.

I met Wheeler at a conference in 1995. I suggested to him that he might find that simple principle he was looking for in the electromagnetic field as in

the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field

 

One professor wrote about it Willis Thompson but Wheeler didn't sign on.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...