On 01/28/2010 08:20 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Stephen, > > Thank you for the explanation, I wasn't aware of anything called > Lorentz ether theory existed but will be investigating it shortly. At least > > I am not crazy - someone with chops came to similar conclusion and now I > can just reference LET instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. > > I am aware that my speculation is only just that without predictions and > confirmation but as must be obvious from my lack of familiarity with LET > I am still gathering my arguments.
I don't know if Lorentz ever published a paper in which he laid it all out in an easy to comprehend form. It comes up in arguments over relativity; I haven't seen it mentioned in other venues. > > > > Can I take it then that Gamma proves the extra dimension is there and > the controversey regarding "LET" is only whether it is occupied by ether > or a true vacuum? I just peeked at Wikipedia and Lorentz was promoting a > stationary > ether, I can see him saying no spatial motion but stationary? this > doesn't seem to agree with V^2/C^2 I'm not sure what you mean by "the extra dimension". Do you mean time? That's there no matter what theory you use, though the geometry is quite different in Newtonian mechanics and the time coordinate doesn't have the same properties as a space coordinate. In any case, as I recall, in LET the ether is stationary, undragged, and provides a unique universal rest frame. However, objects in motion with respect to the ether are physically contracted along the line of motion. I realize it writing this that I can't recall how the logic works with regard to time, which is also affected by motion through the ether, but the result of Lorentz's assumptions was that he derived the Lorentz transformations. (Not, please note, the "Einstein" transformations!! And this is why.) The upshot is that his ether theory predicts exactly the same results as special relativity, and in fact the "ether frame" is undetectable -- you can't tell whether you're in absolute motion in LET any more than you can in SR. > > > > My thoughts aside on LET, I approached this from relativistic > interpretation of Casimir effect based on "Cavity QED" > > and a new book "advances in Casimire effect" 2009 from Oxford press, The > book makes a case for Casimir plates being > > treated as a field source (big sail with a little hole creates a > vortex). I combined this with the relativistic interpretation of the > Casimir effect and suddenly had a new perspective on catalytic action- > Am I way out on a limb describing catalytic action as time dilation ? > > Again there is no ether to measure but we appear to have reactants > exhibiting time dilation. What if we found a way to "resist" the > acceleration such that the casimir effect did useful work in place of > time dilation? could that be considered proff of a LET or LET like theory? Sorry, I have no idea... I don't understand the Casimir force well enough to have a clue in this area. > > Best Regards > > > > Fran > > > > > > > > > > The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at > this time. Gamma is considered proof that the length and time > contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or > 'real' or anyway 'measurable'. However, the assertion that "the > geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1]" > is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that > there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions. > > In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable > ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and > (theoretically) unprovable assumption. Consequently, Lorentz ether > theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor > falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory. > > The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course. But it apparently > can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid > evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's > most mature version of ether theory). > > >> My point >> is that the ether may be moving at C perpindicular to space > > If you can come up with a way to test that assertion, great. If you > can't test it or measure it, however, then it doesn't rise above the > level of 'speculation'. > > If you can't make testable predictions from a set of assumptions, then > they don't form a valid theory. >
