Lorentz Ether Theory

[DryLab]

Dryad, are you there? How does this respond to your OP? Sorry if it looks like I'm drifting off the point here.

I've been lurking; just following along. I gave up when we came to "ad hoc explanations" to describe the most fundamental great truth of all physical reality.

 

That is because relativity phenomena is the natural result if the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. We have known that since before Einstein. Lorentz knew that even though he wasn't ready to completely discard particles altogether as we know we must if electromagnetic unification is a possibility.

[LaurieAG]

He wasn’t talking about velocity as a vector quantity. He didn’t mean the curvature of light was there because the light changed direction. He meant that the curvature was there because the speed changes. He meant c varies. He was talking about what you would call an aether theory. Here's another quote from Einstein:

 

"According to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it".

 

This aether is not the old aether that "flows", or blows like some wind. This is something different. It's space. Note that it's space, not spacetime. Because, as Einstein always said, time is suspect.

 

Hello Popular,

 

While I agree with your last point I don't think that Einstein meant that SR involved a varying speed of light but that SR didn't work when gravitational influences couldn't be discounted. I suspect that by joining SR with gravity he hoped to reconcile these differences so that the apparent 'deflection' (or as you say, varying of c) of photons heading towards the observer, by gravitational fields, could be represented by one consistent equation.

 

I looked up 'inedia' and it seems like it is an Italian word for starvation. In this case it appears he is saying that his ether is like an invisible grid made up of consistent (e.g. 1 light year blocks) that don't change with respect to the mass contained in the grid (i.e the ether/grid doesn't shrink). When a photon travels through this ether its path can be distorted by gravity and therefore it will take longer to reach the observer than it would if there was no gravitational influence. The extra distance and the extra time taken by the photon to travel that distance leave the photons speed the same.

 

That's one thing that isn't always made clear in 'relativity', that the relativeness is actually 'relative to the speed of light in a vacuum (with no obstacles/influences)'.

[Erasmus00]

We can talk about interpretation, and what this means, just like we can talk about "curved spacetime". But I've read other stuff too. I know what he was saying above. He wasn’t talking about velocity as a vector quantity. He didn’t mean the curvature of light was there because the light changed direction. He meant that the curvature was there because the speed changes. He meant c varies.

 

This is not a surprise to anyone who knows a little general relativity- special relativity holds locally. For some fun with the idea that c is a local limitation google Alcubierre.

 

He was talking about what you would call an aether theory. Here's another quote from Einstein:

 

As you yourself say below, Einstein is talking about a very different sort of aether than what was involved in Lorentz theory.

 

This aether is not the old aether that "flows", or blows like some wind. This is something different. It's space. Note that it's space, not spacetime. Because, as Einstein always said, time is suspect.

 

I think you have missed the point- with special and general relativity we simply CANNOT remove space from time. After Einstein and Minkowski we must realize that they are forever bound together. The very mathematical language we use ties the two together.

 

If I can make a suggestion- reading ABOUT a mathematical theory will never get you as far as learning the theory. Its more difficult, but ultimately I think, much more rewarding. Rather than quote what others have said about the theory, you can begin to engage and discuss it yourself.

-Will

[Farsight]

While I agree with your last point I don't think that Einstein meant that SR involved a varying speed of light but that SR didn't work when gravitational influences couldn't be discounted. I suspect that by joining SR with gravity he hoped to reconcile these differences so that the apparent 'deflection' (or as you say, varying of c) of photons heading towards the observer, by gravitational fields, could be represented by one consistent equation.

 

I think he did, Laurie. Look at it again. He talks about the constant velocity, rather than constant speed, but we recognise that as Lorentz Invariance.

 

In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity...

 

Then he says the velocity cannot be constant, and we suddenly assume this doesn't mean speed. I think it's black and white. He meant speed.

 

..and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.

 

I think you have missed the point- with special and general relativity we simply CANNOT remove space from time. After Einstein and Minkowski we must realize that they are forever bound together. The very mathematical language we use ties the two together.

 

If I can make a suggestion- reading ABOUT a mathematical theory will never get you as far as learning the theory. Its more difficult, but ultimately I think, much more rewarding. Rather than quote what others have said about the theory, you can begin to engage and discuss it yourself.

 

I have engaged and discussed it myself. IMHO Minkowski was wrong. The mathematical theory delivers the wrong concept. See below for details.

[Farsight]

Sorry if this is getting a bit too far off the OP Dryad, and sorry to repeat this everbody. Please note that this is my explanation of time. I hesitate to call it "my theory", because the ideas herein have been around for a long time. It's a model, and it's what's called a "toy model" because it's written in a popular-science style rather than with scientific rigour. The model presented herein is not an official model that is universally accepted by the physics community at large. Some physicists would agree with me, most would not.

 

MOD NOTE: I deleted the large post because it can be found elsewhere on the site and was quite far off topic:

Popular's time explained:

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/9504-time-explained-v2-1-a.html

[Erasmus00]

I have engaged and discussed it myself. IMHO Minkowski was wrong. The mathematical theory delivers the wrong concept. See below for details.

 

Then, quite simply, GR is wrong. GR incorporates Minkowski's SR at its core. While at first Einstein thought Minkowski's addition was unnecessary, he later changed his mind (and again, this became the basis of GR).

-Will

[Farsight]

Then, quite simply, GR is wrong. GR incorporates Minkowski's SR at its core. While at first Einstein thought Minkowski's addition was unnecessary, he later changed his mind (and again, this became the basis of GR). Will

 

I don't like to think of it as "wrong", Wilf. Just incomplete.

[The_Right_Stuff]

I my case, due not having any education in physics, I was a bit puzzled about Motion.

 

I used to sit back and think about Motion, and did so until the questions that popped up were answered.

 

See --> CONSTANT MOTION

 

The idea of constant motion came into my picture. I analyzed it, converted that which I understood into geometric form, and then used this to convert my ideas into equations.

 

Years later, I found out that my equations were identical to those known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity Addition equation.

 

So far, everyone has said that my CONSTANT MOTION theory is .........