| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Parti Lad" |
| Date: |
02 Mar 2006 04:59:21 AM |
| Object: |
Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted by
physicists. I'm generally confused of the many definitions and
versions of aether. How does the above differ to Lorentz Aether
Theory? I can't understand the full mathematics so I can't
analyze all on my own. Can't one of your aetherists make a
FAQ or similar along this line. The following seems
to be a general idea of it I acquired when I searched under
"covariant ether". I hope the most critical anti-aetherist Bilge
can help us sort thru this. I'm at a loss how one can make a
coveriant aether version of particle physics.
Aetherists, is the following the view you also take?
"Additional clarity comes from saying that you are using a
covariant ether.
"The "new ether" theories still contain light as
a disturbance in the medium. However, this is not taken on any
classical level whatsoever. The new idea behind light is similar
to quantum sound in solid state physics. It is still described as
a particle. The wave-function of the photon describes the
vibration states of the "ether". Thus, in the classical limit
where we ignore the particle and speak only of the EM field, the
phenomenon becomes just like sound (with the exception that it
always moves at c, which is another topic). The "reason"
relativity works as it does is through the connection between
ether motions and measurement. This is a new idea. Lorentz ether
was "similar" in that ether motions effected lengths and clocks
of objects, however his idea was not complete. Here it isn't the
actual objects which are shrinking, but the measurements
themselves. In other words, ether motions effect the metric of
the space. In this way, relativity as proposed by Einstein
remains intact in every way. The idea behind connecting ether to
the metrical properties of space is to make quatization a more
natural process. With ether is this light, we "simply" quantize
the ether field in the same way EM is quantized. This then will
give us quantum states of the metric and thus quantum gravity."
Bilge, Aetherist(s), what is your opinion about all this??
Bilge, especially this... do you agree with it?
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
Parti Lad
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
07 Mar 2006 02:45:12 AM |
|
|
Parti Lad:
vibration states of the "ether". Thus, in the classical limit
where we ignore the particle and speak only of the EM field, the
phenomenon becomes just like sound (with the exception that it
always moves at c, which is another topic). The "reason"
Quite honestly, I don't see the point of the article. It really
has nothing at all to do with an ether theory, since it assumes
relativity by assuming minkowski space. The reference made to
LET regarding the ``postulates of Lorentz Ether Theory in its
modern form,'' is a semantic word game. The author states them
as the existence of an absolute reference frame in which the
speed of light is isotropic, and, the velocity of light is
in some other frame is c' = c - v. Well, if the first is true,
then the range of velocities is -\infty to \infty.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ilja Schmelzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
06 Mar 2006 02:25:07 AM |
|
|
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> schrieb
"Additional clarity comes from saying that you are using a
covariant ether.
I'm using a covariant ether in the continuous limit.
"The "new ether" theories still contain light as
a disturbance in the medium. However, this is not taken on any
classical level whatsoever. The new idea behind light is similar
to quantum sound in solid state physics. It is still described as
a particle. The wave-function of the photon describes the
vibration states of the "ether". Thus, in the classical limit
where we ignore the particle and speak only of the EM field, the
phenomenon becomes just like sound (with the exception that it
always moves at c, which is another topic).
Correct.
The "reason"
relativity works as it does is through the connection between
ether motions and measurement. This is a new idea. Lorentz ether
was "similar" in that ether motions effected lengths and clocks
of objects, however his idea was not complete. Here it isn't the
actual objects which are shrinking, but the measurements
themselves.
This description is not correct for my ether. Clocks are affected
by the ether. The difference to the Lorentz ether is in a different
direction: The usual matter fields as well as gravity are also
waves of the ether, similar to light.
In other words, ether motions effect the metric of
the space. In this way, relativity as proposed by Einstein
remains intact in every way.
This is, again, correct.
The idea behind connecting ether to
the metrical properties of space is to make quatization a more
natural process. With ether is this light, we "simply" quantize
the ether field in the same way EM is quantized. This then will
give us quantum states of the metric and thus quantum gravity."
Almost correct.
Ilja
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
06 Mar 2006 06:51:11 AM |
|
|
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141297160.979821.136960@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted by
physicists. I'm generally confused of the many definitions and
versions of aether. How does the above differ to Lorentz Aether
Theory? I can't understand the full mathematics so I can't
analyze all on my own. Can't one of your aetherists make a
FAQ or similar along this line. The following seems
to be a general idea of it I acquired when I searched under
"covariant ether". I hope the most critical anti-aetherist Bilge
can help us sort thru this. I'm at a loss how one can make a
coveriant aether version of particle physics.
I'm at a loss from a fast look at the above paper:
According to Kholmetskii, a difference "appears on an experimental level
[...] in successive space-time transformations."
I don't think so - the predictions must be the same. Anyone who understands
his reasoning?
Harald
Aetherists, is the following the view you also take?
"Additional clarity comes from saying that you are using a
covariant ether.
"The "new ether" theories still contain light as
a disturbance in the medium. However, this is not taken on any
classical level whatsoever. The new idea behind light is similar
to quantum sound in solid state physics. It is still described as
a particle. The wave-function of the photon describes the
vibration states of the "ether". Thus, in the classical limit
where we ignore the particle and speak only of the EM field, the
phenomenon becomes just like sound (with the exception that it
always moves at c, which is another topic). The "reason"
relativity works as it does is through the connection between
ether motions and measurement. This is a new idea. Lorentz ether
was "similar" in that ether motions effected lengths and clocks
of objects, however his idea was not complete. Here it isn't the
actual objects which are shrinking, but the measurements
themselves. In other words, ether motions effect the metric of
the space. In this way, relativity as proposed by Einstein
remains intact in every way. The idea behind connecting ether to
the metrical properties of space is to make quatization a more
natural process. With ether is this light, we "simply" quantize
the ether field in the same way EM is quantized. This then will
give us quantum states of the metric and thus quantum gravity."
Bilge, Aetherist(s), what is your opinion about all this??
Bilge, especially this... do you agree with it?
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
Parti Lad
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
02 Mar 2006 06:45:29 AM |
|
|
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141297160.979821.136960@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted by
physicists. I'm generally confused of the many definitions and
versions of aether. How does the above differ to Lorentz Aether
Theory? I can't understand the full mathematics so I can't
analyze all on my own.
Without wishing to discourage you in your quest it is generally accepted
that physics, while not mathematics, is written in the language of
mathematics. It would be wise to become familiar with the language. I
recommend - Penrose - The Road To Reality.
Thanks
Bill
Can't one of your aetherists make a
FAQ or similar along this line. The following seems
to be a general idea of it I acquired when I searched under
"covariant ether". I hope the most critical anti-aetherist Bilge
can help us sort thru this. I'm at a loss how one can make a
coveriant aether version of particle physics.
Aetherists, is the following the view you also take?
"Additional clarity comes from saying that you are using a
covariant ether.
"The "new ether" theories still contain light as
a disturbance in the medium. However, this is not taken on any
classical level whatsoever. The new idea behind light is similar
to quantum sound in solid state physics. It is still described as
a particle. The wave-function of the photon describes the
vibration states of the "ether". Thus, in the classical limit
where we ignore the particle and speak only of the EM field, the
phenomenon becomes just like sound (with the exception that it
always moves at c, which is another topic). The "reason"
relativity works as it does is through the connection between
ether motions and measurement. This is a new idea. Lorentz ether
was "similar" in that ether motions effected lengths and clocks
of objects, however his idea was not complete. Here it isn't the
actual objects which are shrinking, but the measurements
themselves. In other words, ether motions effect the metric of
the space. In this way, relativity as proposed by Einstein
remains intact in every way. The idea behind connecting ether to
the metrical properties of space is to make quatization a more
natural process. With ether is this light, we "simply" quantize
the ether field in the same way EM is quantized. This then will
give us quantum states of the metric and thus quantum gravity."
Bilge, Aetherist(s), what is your opinion about all this??
Bilge, especially this... do you agree with it?
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
Parti Lad
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parti Lad" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
02 Mar 2006 07:08:01 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141297160.979821.136960@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted by
physicists. I'm generally confused of the many definitions and
versions of aether. How does the above differ to Lorentz Aether
Theory? I can't understand the full mathematics so I can't
analyze all on my own.
Without wishing to discourage you in your quest it is generally accepted
that physics, while not mathematics, is written in the language of
mathematics. It would be wise to become familiar with the language. I
recommend - Penrose - The Road To Reality.
Thanks
Bill
Can't one of your aetherists make a
FAQ or similar along this line. The following seems
to be a general idea of it I acquired when I searched under
"covariant ether". I hope the most critical anti-aetherist Bilge
can help us sort thru this. I'm at a loss how one can make a
coveriant aether version of particle physics.
Aetherists, is the following the view you also take?
"Additional clarity comes from saying that you are using a
covariant ether.
"The "new ether" theories still contain light as
a disturbance in the medium. However, this is not taken on any
classical level whatsoever. The new idea behind light is similar
to quantum sound in solid state physics. It is still described as
a particle. The wave-function of the photon describes the
vibration states of the "ether". Thus, in the classical limit
where we ignore the particle and speak only of the EM field, the
phenomenon becomes just like sound (with the exception that it
always moves at c, which is another topic). The "reason"
relativity works as it does is through the connection between
ether motions and measurement. This is a new idea. Lorentz ether
was "similar" in that ether motions effected lengths and clocks
of objects, however his idea was not complete. Here it isn't the
actual objects which are shrinking, but the measurements
themselves. In other words, ether motions effect the metric of
the space. In this way, relativity as proposed by Einstein
remains intact in every way. The idea behind connecting ether to
the metrical properties of space is to make quatization a more
natural process. With ether is this light, we "simply" quantize
the ether field in the same way EM is quantized. This then will
give us quantum states of the metric and thus quantum gravity."
Bilge, Aetherist(s), what is your opinion about all this??
Bilge, especially this... do you agree with it?
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
Parti Lad
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parti Lad" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
02 Mar 2006 07:08:01 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141297160.979821.136960@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted by
physicists. I'm generally confused of the many definitions and
versions of aether. How does the above differ to Lorentz Aether
Theory? I can't understand the full mathematics so I can't
analyze all on my own.
Without wishing to discourage you in your quest it is generally accepted
that physics, while not mathematics, is written in the language of
mathematics. It would be wise to become familiar with the language. I
recommend - Penrose - The Road To Reality.
Thanks
Bill
I only know basic calculus and pre-calculus. What's why I need
conceptual grasp to understand the basics. Anyway. Do you think I
should go on with partial differential equation or differential
geometry or should it be ordinary differental equations (what's next
after calculus for physics purposes). I just need enough math to get
a general grasp of it. Also now I want to know if an aether is still
likely...
or if there is no aether then reality is modelled by mathematics and
there is no physical process because somehow the entire universe
is an "idea".. an idea self created by mathematics only as in
literally.
This can explain all the symmetries. In your case, what do you think
is the origin of the symmetries? It's done for conservation law
in part. But I think the origin of symmetries is because the
universe is just an "idea", a thought of some kind modelled by
fractal mathematics. What do you think?
BTW.. provided there is an aether.. what's the particle physics
correlate of it? Any idea?
Parti
Can't one of your aetherists make a
FAQ or similar along this line. The following seems
to be a general idea of it I acquired when I searched under
"covariant ether". I hope the most critical anti-aetherist Bilge
can help us sort thru this. I'm at a loss how one can make a
coveriant aether version of particle physics.
Aetherists, is the following the view you also take?
"Additional clarity comes from saying that you are using a
covariant ether.
"The "new ether" theories still contain light as
a disturbance in the medium. However, this is not taken on any
classical level whatsoever. The new idea behind light is similar
to quantum sound in solid state physics. It is still described as
a particle. The wave-function of the photon describes the
vibration states of the "ether". Thus, in the classical limit
where we ignore the particle and speak only of the EM field, the
phenomenon becomes just like sound (with the exception that it
always moves at c, which is another topic). The "reason"
relativity works as it does is through the connection between
ether motions and measurement. This is a new idea. Lorentz ether
was "similar" in that ether motions effected lengths and clocks
of objects, however his idea was not complete. Here it isn't the
actual objects which are shrinking, but the measurements
themselves. In other words, ether motions effect the metric of
the space. In this way, relativity as proposed by Einstein
remains intact in every way. The idea behind connecting ether to
the metrical properties of space is to make quatization a more
natural process. With ether is this light, we "simply" quantize
the ether field in the same way EM is quantized. This then will
give us quantum states of the metric and thus quantum gravity."
Bilge, Aetherist(s), what is your opinion about all this??
Bilge, especially this... do you agree with it?
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
Parti Lad
.
|
|
|
| User: "sal" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
02 Mar 2006 03:09:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:08:01 -0800, Parti Lad wrote:
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141297160.979821.136960@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted by
physicists. I'm generally confused of the many definitions and
versions of aether. How does the above differ to Lorentz Aether
Theory? I can't understand the full mathematics so I can't
analyze all on my own.
Without wishing to discourage you in your quest it is generally
accepted that physics, while not mathematics, is written in the
language of mathematics. It would be wise to become familiar with
the language. I recommend - Penrose - The Road To Reality.
Thanks
Bill
I only know basic calculus and pre-calculus. What's why I need
conceptual grasp to understand the basics. Anyway. Do you think I
should go on with partial differential equation or differential
geometry or should it be ordinary differental equations (what's next
after calculus for physics purposes).
None of the above.
You need algebra, of the sort often referred to as "college algebra".
If, for example, you haven't encountered 2-forms in algebra class, then
algebra is certainly what you should look at next. It normally follows
calculus in the math sequence (or at any rate it used to back when I was
in school).
Special relativity, at the simple level, _is_ linear algebra, with
a few decorations around the edges to remind you that it's supposed to
be physics, not math.
And you need multivariate calculus -- I don't know what you mean by
"basic calculus" but if it doesn't include total derivatives, partial
derivatives, functions of multiple variables, power series in various
forms, and at least a glance at Taylor series in N dimensions, then
it's not adequate.
I just need enough math to get a general grasp of it.
That's algebra, for sure. If you're comfortable with coordinate
transformations, you're happy to sling determinants around as needed,
you know what a singular matrix is and why it's not generally a
sensible coordinate transformation, and you can guess what
P^-1 M P
might mean and why it's important, then you're in reasonable shape to
grasp the basics of SR. If you know why a matrix which represents a
2-form transforms as
P^t M P
while a matrix which represents a linear transformation transforms as
P^-1 M P
you're in even better shape.
You won't waste your time with algebra, whether or not it helps with
relativity, because it underpins nearly everything _including_
differential geometry ... which should come later.
Learning algebra in class is good. If you want to learn it on the
cheap on your own and you don't have a good book, I've seen
Modern Algebra by Seth Warner (Dover)
recommended pretty highly, and it sells for about 10 bucks used,
slightly more new (it's from Dover, after all). Be warned that it may
be dull.
Also now I want to know if an aether is still
likely...
IMHO aether theory is absurd. It substitutes an unbelievably weird
object (the aether) with bizarre physical properties for simple
geometry and claims to have done something useful. What's more the
aether itself is utterly undetectable, so believing in it is like
believing in an invisible inaudible unsmellable six-foot-tall rabbit
which follows you around wherever you go. I can't prove it's not
there but why carry around the extra mental baggage?
or if there is no aether then reality is modelled by mathematics and
there is no physical process because somehow the entire universe is
an "idea"..
Bosh. We _model_ the universe as an "idea". Whether the "idea" we
use is aether theory or relativity or a belief in fairies, the "idea"
is nothing more nor less than the _model_ of reality; it is not
reality itself.
All we can say about reality, scientifically, is that it does or
doesn't seem to behave in a way that conforms to the predictions of
one or another model of it.
If you don't understand the difference then you could use a couple
semesters of mathematical logic (it won't help with understanding
relativity but it may help with keeping straight the difference
between a theory and reality). Schoenfield's text is a nice one
though a bit dense.
an idea self created by mathematics only as in literally. This can
explain all the symmetries. In your case, what do you think is the
origin of the symmetries? It's done for conservation law in
part. But I think the origin of symmetries is because the universe
is just an "idea", a thought of some kind modelled by fractal
mathematics. What do you think? BTW.. provided there is an
aether.. what's the particle physics correlate of it? Any idea?
Parti
Can't one of your aetherists make a FAQ
Don't waste your time.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parti Lad" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
02 Mar 2006 03:53:39 PM |
|
|
sal wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:08:01 -0800, Parti Lad wrote:
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141297160.979821.136960@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted by
physicists. I'm generally confused of the many definitions and
versions of aether. How does the above differ to Lorentz Aether
Theory? I can't understand the full mathematics so I can't
analyze all on my own.
Without wishing to discourage you in your quest it is generally
accepted that physics, while not mathematics, is written in the
language of mathematics. It would be wise to become familiar with
the language. I recommend - Penrose - The Road To Reality.
Thanks
Bill
I only know basic calculus and pre-calculus. What's why I need
conceptual grasp to understand the basics. Anyway. Do you think I
should go on with partial differential equation or differential
geometry or should it be ordinary differental equations (what's next
after calculus for physics purposes).
None of the above.
You need algebra, of the sort often referred to as "college algebra".
If, for example, you haven't encountered 2-forms in algebra class, then
algebra is certainly what you should look at next. It normally follows
calculus in the math sequence (or at any rate it used to back when I was
in school).
Special relativity, at the simple level, _is_ linear algebra, with
a few decorations around the edges to remind you that it's supposed to
be physics, not math.
algebra only? SR is boring. Of course I want to master General
Relativty
and Quantum Field Theory. They are the stuff dreams are made of.
I'm interest in them because I know they are just a subset of
something.
About algebra... are you talking about linear algebra? What kind of
algebra
is there. How about tensor calculus. Can you list the order of
mathematics
(in order of progress) such as:
Basic Algebra
Basic Geometry
Basic Trigo
Basic Calculus
what's next as done in math school
LInear Algebra?
Tensor Calculus?
Partial differential calculus?
Ordinary differential calculus?
As I have said. SR is just part of it. QFT is the meat of the trade.
Modern Algebra by Seth Warner (Dover)
recommended pretty highly, and it sells for about 10 bucks used,
slightly more new (it's from Dover, after all). Be warned that it may
be dull.
Also now I want to know if an aether is still
likely...
IMHO aether theory is absurd. It substitutes an unbelievably weird
object (the aether) with bizarre physical properties for simple
geometry and claims to have done something useful. What's more the
aether itself is utterly undetectable, so believing in it is like
believing in an invisible inaudible unsmellable six-foot-tall rabbit
which follows you around wherever you go. I can't prove it's not
there but why carry around the extra mental baggage?
Maybe not entirely undetectable. What is your definition of Aether.
A scientist called EL wrote the following and I think it made sense
although I don't know how to make an aether version of QFT.
"Aether was renamed after the confusion M&M experiment did in the
community of physicists.
Thus, rather than admitting to fail to explain the results then,
Aether was refuted and idiotic battles came trotting.
The physicists have changed the *name* of Aether several times, but
they could never live without the evident concept.
Now you give the alternative name of 'quantitative properties of
Aether' as 'the metric of space'.
What is in a name?
You should better get used to think of space, vacuum or Aether as a
medium rather than a vague emptiness because it is only an escape.
What M&M proved in the experiment is that earth does not travel
through Aether in the sense of a universal static medium. Period.
This infers that Aether is containable by waves, which it pervades.
Not only contained, but in fact interacts with it, because action at a
distance is mediated by it.
There are many studies on wave interference *within* a moving medium,
such as sound waves on the surface of a current of mercury.
There are other studies with light interference within moving
transparent liquids.
The results show that the assumptions made by Michelson were plain
wrong.
Now what is the big reason behind the refutation of Aether?
This is unfathomable.
Straighten your lines and get back to serious work.
There is a continuous fluid medium that pervades all space, so get
over it."
What do you think?
Parti
or if there is no aether then reality is modelled by mathematics and
there is no physical process because somehow the entire universe is
an "idea"..
Bosh. We _model_ the universe as an "idea". Whether the "idea" we
use is aether theory or relativity or a belief in fairies, the "idea"
is nothing more nor less than the _model_ of reality; it is not
reality itself.
All we can say about reality, scientifically, is that it does or
doesn't seem to behave in a way that conforms to the predictions of
one or another model of it.
If you don't understand the difference then you could use a couple
semesters of mathematical logic (it won't help with understanding
relativity but it may help with keeping straight the difference
between a theory and reality). Schoenfield's text is a nice one
though a bit dense.
an idea self created by mathematics only as in literally. This can
explain all the symmetries. In your case, what do you think is the
origin of the symmetries? It's done for conservation law in
part. But I think the origin of symmetries is because the universe
is just an "idea", a thought of some kind modelled by fractal
mathematics. What do you think? BTW.. provided there is an
aether.. what's the particle physics correlate of it? Any idea?
Parti
Can't one of your aetherists make a FAQ
Don't waste your time.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
02 Mar 2006 08:26:15 PM |
|
|
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141336419.075411.200710@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
sal wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:08:01 -0800, Parti Lad wrote:
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141297160.979821.136960@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted by
physicists. I'm generally confused of the many definitions and
versions of aether. How does the above differ to Lorentz Aether
Theory? I can't understand the full mathematics so I can't
analyze all on my own.
Without wishing to discourage you in your quest it is generally
accepted that physics, while not mathematics, is written in the
language of mathematics. It would be wise to become familiar with
the language. I recommend - Penrose - The Road To Reality.
Thanks
Bill
I only know basic calculus and pre-calculus. What's why I need
conceptual grasp to understand the basics. Anyway. Do you think I
should go on with partial differential equation or differential
geometry or should it be ordinary differental equations (what's next
after calculus for physics purposes).
None of the above.
You need algebra, of the sort often referred to as "college algebra".
If, for example, you haven't encountered 2-forms in algebra class, then
algebra is certainly what you should look at next. It normally follows
calculus in the math sequence (or at any rate it used to back when I was
in school).
Special relativity, at the simple level, _is_ linear algebra, with
a few decorations around the edges to remind you that it's supposed to
be physics, not math.
algebra only? SR is boring.
You may find it boring but you really do need to understand it before moving
on.
Of course I want to master General Relativty
and Quantum Field Theory.
Then master SR first.
They are the stuff dreams are made of.
I'm interest in them because I know they are just a subset of
something.
About algebra... are you talking about linear algebra? What kind of
algebra
is there. How about tensor calculus. Can you list the order of
mathematics
(in order of progress) such as:
Basic Algebra
Basic Geometry
Basic Trigo
Basic Calculus
what's next as done in math school
LInear Algebra?
Tensor Calculus?
Partial differential calculus?
Ordinary differential calculus?
I recommend Seeley - Calculus One and Several Variables available secondhand
quite cheap:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0673077799/qid=1141352357/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5062402-6390535?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
For linear algebra see
http://www.numbertheory.org/book/
In parallel study Penrose - The Road to Reality and perhaps the Feynman
Lectures on Physics
After that study Tensors, Differential Forms, and Variational Principles by
Lovelock and Rund
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486658406/ref=sr_11_1/102-5062402-6390535?%5Fencoding=UTF8
and Sean Carol's notes
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll_contents.html
Then you will be in a position to study Wald - General Relativity.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226870332/qid=1141352487/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-5062402-6390535?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Yes a long road - but there is no short cuts. You will not get a correct
understanding from populist writings.
As I have said. SR is just part of it. QFT is the meat of the trade.
IMHO QFT is even more difficult - get a grounding in GR first.
Thanks
Bill
Modern Algebra by Seth Warner (Dover)
recommended pretty highly, and it sells for about 10 bucks used,
slightly more new (it's from Dover, after all). Be warned that it may
be dull.
Also now I want to know if an aether is still
likely...
IMHO aether theory is absurd. It substitutes an unbelievably weird
object (the aether) with bizarre physical properties for simple
geometry and claims to have done something useful. What's more the
aether itself is utterly undetectable, so believing in it is like
believing in an invisible inaudible unsmellable six-foot-tall rabbit
which follows you around wherever you go. I can't prove it's not
there but why carry around the extra mental baggage?
Maybe not entirely undetectable. What is your definition of Aether.
A scientist called EL wrote the following and I think it made sense
although I don't know how to make an aether version of QFT.
"Aether was renamed after the confusion M&M experiment did in the
community of physicists.
Thus, rather than admitting to fail to explain the results then,
Aether was refuted and idiotic battles came trotting.
The physicists have changed the *name* of Aether several times, but
they could never live without the evident concept.
Now you give the alternative name of 'quantitative properties of
Aether' as 'the metric of space'.
What is in a name?
You should better get used to think of space, vacuum or Aether as a
medium rather than a vague emptiness because it is only an escape.
What M&M proved in the experiment is that earth does not travel
through Aether in the sense of a universal static medium. Period.
This infers that Aether is containable by waves, which it pervades.
Not only contained, but in fact interacts with it, because action at a
distance is mediated by it.
There are many studies on wave interference *within* a moving medium,
such as sound waves on the surface of a current of mercury.
There are other studies with light interference within moving
transparent liquids.
The results show that the assumptions made by Michelson were plain
wrong.
Now what is the big reason behind the refutation of Aether?
This is unfathomable.
Straighten your lines and get back to serious work.
There is a continuous fluid medium that pervades all space, so get
over it."
What do you think?
Parti
or if there is no aether then reality is modelled by mathematics and
there is no physical process because somehow the entire universe is
an "idea"..
Bosh. We _model_ the universe as an "idea". Whether the "idea" we
use is aether theory or relativity or a belief in fairies, the "idea"
is nothing more nor less than the _model_ of reality; it is not
reality itself.
All we can say about reality, scientifically, is that it does or
doesn't seem to behave in a way that conforms to the predictions of
one or another model of it.
If you don't understand the difference then you could use a couple
semesters of mathematical logic (it won't help with understanding
relativity but it may help with keeping straight the difference
between a theory and reality). Schoenfield's text is a nice one
though a bit dense.
an idea self created by mathematics only as in literally. This can
explain all the symmetries. In your case, what do you think is the
origin of the symmetries? It's done for conservation law in
part. But I think the origin of symmetries is because the universe
is just an "idea", a thought of some kind modelled by fractal
mathematics. What do you think? BTW.. provided there is an
aether.. what's the particle physics correlate of it? Any idea?
Parti
Can't one of your aetherists make a FAQ
Don't waste your time.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sal" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
02 Mar 2006 08:49:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:53:39 -0800, Parti Lad wrote:
sal wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:08:01 -0800, Parti Lad wrote:
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141297160.979821.136960@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted
by physicists. I'm generally confused of the many definitions
and versions of aether. How does the above differ to Lorentz
Aether Theory? I can't understand the full mathematics so I
can't analyze all on my own.
Without wishing to discourage you in your quest it is generally
accepted that physics, while not mathematics, is written in the
language of mathematics. It would be wise to become familiar
with the language. I recommend - Penrose - The Road To Reality.
Thanks
Bill
I only know basic calculus and pre-calculus. What's why I need
conceptual grasp to understand the basics. Anyway. Do you think I
should go on with partial differential equation or differential
geometry or should it be ordinary differental equations (what's
next after calculus for physics purposes).
None of the above.
You need algebra, of the sort often referred to as "college
algebra". If, for example, you haven't encountered 2-forms in
algebra class, then algebra is certainly what you should look at
next. It normally follows calculus in the math sequence (or at any
rate it used to back when I was in school).
Special relativity, at the simple level, _is_ linear algebra, with
a few decorations around the edges to remind you that it's supposed
to be physics, not math.
algebra only?
Algebra _first_. (SR at the "simple level", I said.)
There are two kinds of "algebra". There's the stuff you studied in
high school, where you look at functions of a single variable, and
polynomials, and you learn the quadratic formula, and stuff like that.
That's _not_ what I'm talking about.
Then there's what I would call "college algebra" for want of a better
name -- it is most often just called "algebra" -- and it's almost
entirely unrelated to "high school algebra."
_PART_ of it is what you may think of as "linear algebra".
Do you know what a group is? A ring? A division ring? A field?
Do you know what a module over a ring is?
Do you know what a Lie group is?
An ideal?
Do you know what bilinear forms are? Do you know what the Spectral
theorem is, and do you know what a skew-symmetric, symmetric, and
positive definite form are? Do you know what Hermitian forms are, and
what the unitary group is?
That's all part of algebra. What's more, every one of the items I
named in the last paragraph is vital to an understanding of
special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and quantum
field theory.
Do you think you can just jump right into higher math without
mastering basic arithmetic first?
Algebra is basic arithmetic. Once you master it higher math becomes
possible. Until you master it anything more advanced is going to be
far, far harder if not completely impossible.
SR is boring.
Too bad you feel that way. Too trivial, is that it?
Walk first, run later. GR is based firmly on SR.
SR takes place in four dimensions and uses tensor calculus, just like
its big brother, GR. If you want to be taken farther than you can
go, and get some idea of just how little you really know about SR,
pick up a copy of Rindler's "Introduction to Special Relativity".
It's a slender volume -- hardly more than a monograph, really. And
it's just special relativity -- nothing too advanced, eh?
Of course I want to master General Relativty and Quantum Field
Theory. They are the stuff dreams are made of. I'm interest in them
because I know they are just a subset of something.
Right. First, learn algebra.
If you don't like the idea of getting a used copy of Warner
second-hand for 10 bucks, then shell out $100 and get a copy of
Michael Artin's "Algebra". It covers the same material, but it's
clear, readable, entertaining, and it won't put you to sleep.
About algebra... are you talking about linear algebra? What kind of
algebra
is there.
See above.
How about tensor calculus.
For tensor calculus _first_ you need a very firm grounding in ... you
guessed it ... algebra, because tensors are what we might call algebraic
entities. In tensor calculus, you could say you start with smooth but
floppy higher-dimensional object on which you would like to be able to use
calculus. Then in order to provide enough structure to make calculus work
you glue large amounts of math you learned back in algebra class onto it.
Can you list the order of
mathematics (in order of progress) such as:
Basic Algebra
Basic Geometry
I don't know what you mean by 'basic' algebra or geometry. Do you mean
stuff like (x-y)^2 = x^2 - y^2, and a^2 + b^2 = c^2?
That's necessary, of course, but you really should have gotten through it
in pre-calculus.
Basic Trigo
Basic Calculus
You've just listed a high school curriculum. That's not what we're
talking about; we're talking about what starts _after_ that.
In some schools, after high school algebra, geometry, and trig, you have
calculus I, II, and III, where I and II are single and multivariable
calculus and III is basic linear algebra.
Calc II should include div, grad, curl, Green's theorem, Stokes'
theorem, the divergence theorem, and multiple integration, of course,
as well as functions of multiple variables and such.
Along with linear algebra, that's the bare minimum for SR. For anything
more you need a rather heavy-duty grasp of yet more algebra, followed by
tensor calculus for GR (which builds on the algebra, believe me) and some
differential equations for QM and related areas.
Differential geometry is the marriage of algebra and calculus and
forms most of the basis for tensor calculus.
what's next as done in math school
What's "math school"?
LInear Algebra?
Tensor Calculus?
Partial differential calculus?
Ordinary differential calculus?
Do you have a clue what you mean by any of this?
As I have said. SR is just part of it. QFT is the meat of the trade.
Modern Algebra by Seth Warner (Dover)
recommended pretty highly, and it sells for about 10 bucks used,
slightly more new (it's from Dover, after all). Be warned that it may
be dull.
Also now I want to know if an aether is still likely...
IMHO aether theory is absurd. It substitutes an unbelievably weird
object (the aether) with bizarre physical properties for simple
geometry and claims to have done something useful. What's more the
aether itself is utterly undetectable, so believing in it is like
believing in an invisible inaudible unsmellable six-foot-tall rabbit
which follows you around wherever you go. I can't prove it's not there
but why carry around the extra mental baggage?
Maybe not entirely undetectable. What is your definition of Aether. A
scientist called EL
A scientist called "EL"? Like "Doctor EL"? What kind of name is that?
Do you by any chance mean the character who sometimes posts in this
newsgroup?
wrote the following and I think it made sense
You don't know enough _yet_ to have a valid opinion as to whether it makes
sense.
If you hit the books for the next year or two that may change.
What do you think?
I think you are clueless and arrogant but apparently sincere.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parti Lad" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
03 Mar 2006 07:18:18 AM |
|
|
sal wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:53:39 -0800, Parti Lad wrote:
sal wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:08:01 -0800, Parti Lad wrote:
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Parti Lad" <parti_lad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141297160.979821.136960@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted
by physicists. I'm generally confused of the many definitions
and versions of aether. How does the above differ to Lorentz
Aether Theory? I can't understand the full mathematics so I
can't analyze all on my own.
Without wishing to discourage you in your quest it is generally
accepted that physics, while not mathematics, is written in the
language of mathematics. It would be wise to become familiar
with the language. I recommend - Penrose - The Road To Reality.
Thanks
Bill
I only know basic calculus and pre-calculus. What's why I need
conceptual grasp to understand the basics. Anyway. Do you think I
should go on with partial differential equation or differential
geometry or should it be ordinary differental equations (what's
next after calculus for physics purposes).
None of the above.
You need algebra, of the sort often referred to as "college
algebra". If, for example, you haven't encountered 2-forms in
algebra class, then algebra is certainly what you should look at
next. It normally follows calculus in the math sequence (or at any
rate it used to back when I was in school).
Special relativity, at the simple level, _is_ linear algebra, with
a few decorations around the edges to remind you that it's supposed
to be physics, not math.
algebra only?
Algebra _first_. (SR at the "simple level", I said.)
There are two kinds of "algebra". There's the stuff you studied in
high school, where you look at functions of a single variable, and
polynomials, and you learn the quadratic formula, and stuff like that.
That's _not_ what I'm talking about.
Then there's what I would call "college algebra" for want of a better
name -- it is most often just called "algebra" -- and it's almost
entirely unrelated to "high school algebra."
_PART_ of it is what you may think of as "linear algebra".
Do you know what a group is? A ring? A division ring? A field?
Do you know what a module over a ring is?
Do you know what a Lie group is?
An ideal?
Do you know what bilinear forms are? Do you know what the Spectral
theorem is, and do you know what a skew-symmetric, symmetric, and
positive definite form are? Do you know what Hermitian forms are, and
what the unitary group is?
That's all part of algebra. What's more, every one of the items I
named in the last paragraph is vital to an understanding of
special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and quantum
field theory.
Ok. You win. I'm stuck without good level of mathematics. I just knew
how to differentiate and integrate. I have to learn the rest to know
the
trade and speak the language. Cyah.
Parti Lad
Do you think you can just jump right into higher math without
mastering basic arithmetic first?
Algebra is basic arithmetic. Once you master it higher math becomes
possible. Until you master it anything more advanced is going to be
far, far harder if not completely impossible.
SR is boring.
Too bad you feel that way. Too trivial, is that it?
Walk first, run later. GR is based firmly on SR.
SR takes place in four dimensions and uses tensor calculus, just like
its big brother, GR. If you want to be taken farther than you can
go, and get some idea of just how little you really know about SR,
pick up a copy of Rindler's "Introduction to Special Relativity".
It's a slender volume -- hardly more than a monograph, really. And
it's just special relativity -- nothing too advanced, eh?
Of course I want to master General Relativty and Quantum Field
Theory. They are the stuff dreams are made of. I'm interest in them
because I know they are just a subset of something.
Right. First, learn algebra.
If you don't like the idea of getting a used copy of Warner
second-hand for 10 bucks, then shell out $100 and get a copy of
Michael Artin's "Algebra". It covers the same material, but it's
clear, readable, entertaining, and it won't put you to sleep.
About algebra... are you talking about linear algebra? What kind of
algebra
is there.
See above.
How about tensor calculus.
For tensor calculus _first_ you need a very firm grounding in ... you
guessed it ... algebra, because tensors are what we might call algebraic
entities. In tensor calculus, you could say you start with smooth but
floppy higher-dimensional object on which you would like to be able to use
calculus. Then in order to provide enough structure to make calculus work
you glue large amounts of math you learned back in algebra class onto it.
Can you list the order of
mathematics (in order of progress) such as:
Basic Algebra
Basic Geometry
I don't know what you mean by 'basic' algebra or geometry. Do you mean
stuff like (x-y)^2 = x^2 - y^2, and a^2 + b^2 = c^2?
That's necessary, of course, but you really should have gotten through it
in pre-calculus.
Basic Trigo
Basic Calculus
You've just listed a high school curriculum. That's not what we're
talking about; we're talking about what starts _after_ that.
In some schools, after high school algebra, geometry, and trig, you have
calculus I, II, and III, where I and II are single and multivariable
calculus and III is basic linear algebra.
Calc II should include div, grad, curl, Green's theorem, Stokes'
theorem, the divergence theorem, and multiple integration, of course,
as well as functions of multiple variables and such.
Along with linear algebra, that's the bare minimum for SR. For anything
more you need a rather heavy-duty grasp of yet more algebra, followed by
tensor calculus for GR (which builds on the algebra, believe me) and some
differential equations for QM and related areas.
Differential geometry is the marriage of algebra and calculus and
forms most of the basis for tensor calculus.
what's next as done in math school
What's "math school"?
LInear Algebra?
Tensor Calculus?
Partial differential calculus?
Ordinary differential calculus?
Do you have a clue what you mean by any of this?
As I have said. SR is just part of it. QFT is the meat of the trade.
Modern Algebra by Seth Warner (Dover)
recommended pretty highly, and it sells for about 10 bucks used,
slightly more new (it's from Dover, after all). Be warned that it may
be dull.
Also now I want to know if an aether is still likely...
IMHO aether theory is absurd. It substitutes an unbelievably weird
object (the aether) with bizarre physical properties for simple
geometry and claims to have done something useful. What's more the
aether itself is utterly undetectable, so believing in it is like
believing in an invisible inaudible unsmellable six-foot-tall rabbit
which follows you around wherever you go. I can't prove it's not there
but why carry around the extra mental baggage?
Maybe not entirely undetectable. What is your definition of Aether. A
scientist called EL
A scientist called "EL"? Like "Doctor EL"? What kind of name is that?
Do you by any chance mean the character who sometimes posts in this
newsgroup?
wrote the following and I think it made sense
You don't know enough _yet_ to have a valid opinion as to whether it makes
sense.
If you hit the books for the next year or two that may change.
What do you think?
I think you are clueless and arrogant but apparently sincere.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
02 Mar 2006 05:30:07 PM |
|
|
Parti Lad wrote:
algebra only? SR is boring. Of course I want to master General
Relativty
and Quantum Field Theory. They are the stuff dreams are made of.
I'm interest in them because I know they are just a subset of
something.
About algebra... are you talking about linear algebra? What kind of
algebra
is there. How about tensor calculus. Can you list the order of
mathematics
(in order of progress) such as:
Basic Algebra
Basic Geometry
Basic Trigo
Basic Calculus
what's next as done in math school
LInear Algebra?
Tensor Calculus?
Partial differential calculus?
Ordinary differential calculus?
As I have said. SR is just part of it. QFT is the meat of the trade.
You lack of education is showing...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
03 Mar 2006 11:15:16 AM |
|
|
Google: "mathematics courses for physics majors"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22mathematics+courses+for+physics
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Covariant Ether Theories & Special Relativity |
03 Mar 2006 11:15:18 PM |
|
|
Parti Lad wrote:
http://www-cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/psif/fin_word1.pdf#search='Kholmetskii%20Covariant%20Ether%20Theories%20and%20Special%20Relativity'
The above covariant ether theories angle seems to be accepted by
physicists.
I would not go that far, as this is not exactly a major journal, and
very few physicists would bother to read an article with such a title.
I'm generally confused of the many definitions and
versions of aether.
Yes. Basically because there is no generally-accepted theory of aether.
See Kuhn, _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_ -- that's an
indication of a theory in "crisis", and aether theory has been in
"crisis" for over a century. Indeed, most physicists would say there is
no aether or any need for a theory of it.
How does the above differ to Lorentz Aether
Theory?
I have not yet read the paper, but from the abstract I'm pretty sure
that LET is an example of the theories discussed (Lorentz spelled it
"ether").
Can't one of your aetherists make a
FAQ or similar along this line.
There have been attempts by idiots to do that. It seems the "aetherists"
around here, with one or two exceptions, don't know very much about
basic physics, and their writings are exercises in futility.
"The "new ether" theories still contain light as
a disturbance in the medium. However, this is not taken on any
classical level whatsoever. The new idea behind light is similar
to quantum sound in solid state physics. [...]
Yes, there have been attempts to make that analogy. Somehow it has never
led to a complete and viable theory, however.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
