Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<XnaepF7V1yrBRc6Mrikozksxn4M@jntp> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp Message-ID: <XnaepF7V1yrBRc6Mrikozksxn4M@jntp> JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net JNTP-DataType: Article Subject: Relativity is neither wrong physics nor bad physics References: <eadae7722aa4042797d8a9dd39fac8b4@www.novabbs.com> <1qqxctr.cx8smcpwxnigN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <4e512aaf748e2bc2d6ad31eeb3d40ea2@www.novabbs.com> <1qqz0eh.1kx2ym5reuvw4N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <uts53j$15lls$1@tor.dont-email.me> <utusco$1tmg6$1@dont-email.me> <uu13p5$2rclo$1@tor.dont-email.me> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math JNTP-HashClient: uHHhJHlwPCvZ-MnW-0OLl1_F4sQ JNTP-ThreadID: eadae7722aa4042797d8a9dd39fac8b4@www.novabbs.com JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=XnaepF7V1yrBRc6Mrikozksxn4M@jntp User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net Date: Wed, 27 Mar 24 23:28:24 +0000 Organization: Nemoweb JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/121.0.0.0 Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="601f4a4a60dc6043f0c3ab83656fd85fb6bc327d"; logging-data="2024-03-27T23:28:24Z/8795324"; posting-account="219@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com" JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1 JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96 From: Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> Bytes: 15202 Lines: 297 Le 27/03/2024 à 22:34, Aether Regained a écrit : > Volney: >> On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote: >>> J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether. >>>> >>>> Wrong, both historicaly and factualy. >>>> >>>>> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether. >>>>> >>>>> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether. >>>> >>>> Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him) >>>> saw that the aether has no observable properties. >>>> Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2, >>>> and after Einstein 1905 he saw >>>> that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c. >> >> In the LET, the aether is undetectable. >>>> >>> >>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the >>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of >>> an aether? >> >> Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with >> associated constants such as ε₀ and μ₀. The old fashioned luminiferous >> aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like >> sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you >> could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether, >> but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s. >> Einstein explicitly stated that aether had no mechanical properties, so >> velocity relative to the aether is meaningless. "But this ether may not >> be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable >> media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The >> idea of motion may not be applied to it." > > @Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and > Aether?", which is cited below too: > > The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein > that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in motion. > > Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?" > https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0 > ######################################## > > In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether > was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of > electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in > 1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to > the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws. > It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in > with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether > was abandoned. > > Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the > arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If > one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one > finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good > reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether. > > Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that > the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a > region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no > matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of > relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz sense—all > directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another. > According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there > must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the > velocity of light. This velocity provides a preferred direction within > the light-cone in space-time, which direction should show itself up in > suitable experiments. Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic > requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent. > > This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the > present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum > mechanics to the aether. The velocity of the aether, like other physical > variables, is subject to uncertainty relations. For a particular > physical state the velocity of the aether at a certain point of > space-time will not usually be a well-defined quantity, but will be > distributed over various possible values according to a probability law > obtained by taking the square of the modulus of a wave function. We may > set up a wave function which makes all values for the velocity of the > aether equally probable. Such a wave function may well represent the > perfect vacuum state in accordance with the principle of relativity. > > One gets an analogous problem by considering the hydrogen atom with > neglect of the spins of the electron and proton. From the classical > picture it would seem to be impossible for this atom to be in a state of > spherical symmetry. We know experimentally that the hydrogen atom can be > in a state of spherical symmetry—any spectroscopic S-state is such a > state —and the quantum theory provides an explanation by allowing > spherically symmetrical wave functions, each of which makes all > directions for the line joining electron to proton equally probable. > > We thus see that the passage from the classical theory to the quantum > theory makes drastic alterations in our ideas of symmetry. A thing which > cannot be symmetrical in the classical model may very well be > symmetrical after quantization. This provides a means of reconciling the > disturbance of Lorentz symmetry in space-time produced by the existence > of an aether with the principle of relativity. > > There is one respect in which the analogy of the hydrogen atom is > imperfect. A state of spherical symmetry of the hydrogen atom is quite a > proper state—the wave function representing it can be normalized. This > is not so for the state of Lorentz symmetry of the aether. > > Let us assume the four components v_μ of the velocity of the aether at > any point of space-time commute with one another. Then we can set up a > representation with the wave functions involving the v's. The four v's > can be pictured as defining a point on a three-dimensional hyperboloid > in a four-dimensional space, with the equation : > > v₀²-v₁²-v₂²-v₃² = 1, v₀ > 0 (1) [LaTeX: v_0^2 - v_1^2 - v_2^2 > - > v_3^2 = 1, v_0 > 0] > > A wave-function which represents a state for which all aether velocities > are equally probable must be independent of the v's, so it is a constant > over the hyperboloid (1). If we form the square of the modulus of this > wave function and integrate over the three-dimensional surface (1) in a > Lorentz-invariant manner, which means attaching equal weights to > elements of the surface which can be transformed into one another by a > Lorentz transformation, the result will be infinite. Thus this wave > function cannot be normalized. > > The states corresponding to wave functions that can be normalized are > the only states that can be attained in practice. A state corresponding > to a wave function which cannot be normalized should be looked upon as a > theoretical idealization, which can never be actually realized, although > one can approach indefinitely close to it. Such idealized states are > very useful in quantum theory, and we could not do without them. For > example, any state for which there is a particle with a specified > momentum is of this kind—the wave function cannot be normalized because > from the uncertainty principle the particle would have to be distributed > over the whole universe — and such states are needed in collision problems. > > We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum > mechanics and conforming to relativity, provided we are willing to > consider the perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in > practice. From the experimental point of view, there does not seem to be > any objection to this. We must make some profound alterations in our > theoretical ideas of the vacuum. It is no longer a trivial state, but > needs elaborate mathematics for its description. > > I have recently (Proc. Roy. Soc., [A, 209, 291 (1951)]) put forward a > new theory of electrodynamics in which the potentials A_μ, are > restricted by : > > A_μA_μ= k², [LaTeX: A_{\mu} A_{\mu} = k^2] > > where k is a universal constant. From the continuity of A₀ we see that > it must always have the same sign and we may take it positive. We can > then put > > k⁻¹A_μ = v_μ (2) [LaTeX: k^{-1} A_{\mu} = v_{\mu}] > > and get v's satisfying (1). These v's define a velocity. Its physical > significance in the theory is that if there is any electric charge it > must flow with this velocity, and in regions where there is no charge it > is the velocity with which a small charge would have to flow if it were > introduced. > > We have now the velocity (2) at all points of space-time, playing a > fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the > velocity of some real physical thing. THUS WITH THE NEW THEORY OF > ELECTRODYNAMICS WE ARE RATHER FORCED TO HAVE AN AETHER. > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========