A Generalization Of The Lorentz Ether Interpretation To The Einstein Equations Of Gr

[Dubbelosix]

Also relevant he recapulates

 

"Recapitulating, we may say that 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 media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

[Dubbelosix]

No reply today? I was looking forward to see how you address these issues: Your theory appears to be at odds with mainstream literature. Maybe you are reflecting on the literature given...

[Schmelzer]

"Recapitulating, we may say that 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 media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

 

I know this quote.  And here I simply disagree with Einstein.  And it is the Lorentz ether interpretation which I propose which proves that this can be done.  I apply the idea of motion to the ether.  

 

Of course, there are two excuses for Einstein. First of all, and most importantly, he simply did not know about this possibility. 

 

The other justification is that he was, at that time, under strong influence of Mach's positivism. He was, of course, aware that Lorentz attributed to the ether a velocity, namely zero.  In this quote he rejects this:

 

 

Here is a quote from Einstein which I think is relevant here

 

"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. "

 

This is a prescription based on positivism - once we have no possibility to measure the velocity, it should not be used in physics.  But positivism is an outdated philosophy of science. 

 

Well for starters, general relativity concluded that if there was such an aether, it wasn't made of particles. When you assign a velocity to the aether, the immediate question that arises for me at least, is why... And if there is a motion, why can we not detect it?

In my ether theory, this is explained.  The Einstein equivalence principle follows from the "action equals reaction" symmetry of the Lagrange formalism.

[Dubbelosix]

I know this quote.  And here I simply disagree with Einstein.  And it is the Lorentz ether interpretation which I propose which proves that this can be done.  I apply the idea of motion to the ether.  

 

Of course, there are two excuses for Einstein. First of all, and most importantly, he simply did not know about this possibility. 

 

The other justification is that he was, at that time, under strong influence of Mach's positivism. He was, of course, aware that Lorentz attributed to the ether a velocity, namely zero.  In this quote he rejects this:

 

 

 

 

This is a prescription based on positivism - once we have no possibility to measure the velocity, it should not be used in physics.  But positivism is an outdated philosophy of science. 

 

 

In my ether theory, this is explained.  The Einstein equivalence principle follows from the "action equals reaction" symmetry of the Lagrange formalism.

 

 

You simply disagree? You'll have to do better than that to convince me. For instance you speak of an action in general relativity and yet the action you speak of is a classical pseudo force.

[Dubbelosix]

Also, the lumineferous ether has been largely debunked from experimental prowess. I don't understand why you think proposing this dead horse has any relevance. Also you speak about the Lorentz ether as if it makes sense and this is troubling. Also his original theory was motionless, which agreed with the aspect of mechanical immobility.

 

What was deducted was the following:

 

"Between 1892 and 1904, Hendrik Lorentz developed an electron-aether theory, in which he introduced a strict separation between matter (electrons) and aether. In his model the aether is completely motionless, and won't be set in motion in the neighborhood of ponderable matter."

[Schmelzer]

You simply disagree? You'll have to do better than that to convince me. For instance you speak of an action in general relativity and yet the action you speak of is a classical pseudo force.

No, I do not "simply disagree", but with presenting explicitly, with formulas, an ether interpretation of the GR equations which have the properties Einstein has claimed that they cannot be assigned to the GR ether.  Whatever you need, is presented in the paper and on the website. If you think something is not explained in a sufficiently clear way, feel free to object. 

 

The instance you mentioned is easy to handle. The "action equals reaction" symmetry is a property of the Lagrange formalism.  Essentially it is simply that the order of the variational derivatives does not matter:  

 

[math]\frac{\delta}{\delta u}\frac{\delta}{\delta v} S =  \frac{\delta}{\delta v}\frac{\delta}{\delta u} S [/math]

 

So, if the equation for u (which is [math]\frac{\delta}{\delta u}S[/math]) depends on v, then the equations for v also depends on u.  I have named this "action equals reaction" because this name is traditional for this property.  But no particular force or so is necessary.  

 

Once the equations for the preferred coordinates [math]\square X^\mu = \partial_\nu (g^{\mu\nu} \sqrt{-g}) = 0 [/math] depend only on the gravitational field, but not on matter fields, the equations for matter fields will not depend on the preferred coordinates too.  

[Schmelzer]

Also, the lumineferous ether has been largely debunked from experimental prowess. I don't understand why you think proposing this dead horse has any relevance. Also you speak about the Lorentz ether as if it makes sense and this is troubling. Also his original theory was motionless, which agreed with the aspect of mechanical immobility.

First, "Lorentz ether" is essentially a name for an interpretation of SR.   The details of what Lorentz has tried is quite irrelevant.  The formulas for the velocity in my generalization of the Lorentz ether give for the Minkowski metric also a motionless ether, so that there is no contradiction at all.  

 

There is, indeed, a difference that the old ether was lumineferous but my ether is universal.  

 

I'm not proposing a dead horse, but I'm proposing a new theory compatible with all of modern physics.  So, there is nothing in my theory which has been debunked. By some accident, it shares a lot of properties with the classical Lorentz ether:  There is, in particular, an absolute Newtonian space and absolute time, there is some medium in that space named ether, there are various waves in that ether, and the corresponding wave equations have the speed of light as the characteristic velocity of these waves.  Moreover, as the Lorentz ether, the new ether also distorts length and time measurements, making it impossible to measure absolute distances and absolute time.  These are simply enough properties shared with the old Lorentz ether that to name it a generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity seems reasonable. 

[Dubbelosix]

No, I do not "simply disagree", but with presenting explicitly, with formulas, an ether interpretation of the GR equations which have the properties Einstein has claimed that they cannot be assigned to the GR ether. 

 

Do you understand why Einstein said this though?

[Dubbelosix]

First, "Lorentz ether" is essentially a name for an interpretation of SR. The details of what Lorentz has tried is quite irrelevant. The formulas for the velocity in my generalization of the Lorentz ether give for the Minkowski metric also a motionless ether, so that there is no contradiction at all.

 

You'll need to elucidate why this is not a contradiction...

Edited November 10, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Schmelzer]

Do you understand why Einstein said this though?

Yes. It is the positivist idea that what is unobservable does not exist.   

 

You'll need to elucidate why this is not a contradiction...

The Lorentz ether, as an interpretation of SR, gives zero velocity for the Minkowski metric, which is the only metric considered in this theory.  

My general formulas also give zero velocity for the Minkowski metric.  

 

I don't see a contradiction. It is you who has to explain where you see a contradiction.  

[Schmelzer]

Would either of you two care to expand on these statements?

 

ie How does one measure the velocity of a virtual particle, if for example the aether you speak of is made up of virtual particles. 

From a practical point of view, we have a quite obvious candidate for a preferred system of coordinates - the CMBR frame, or the comoving coordinates together with proper time of clocks at rest after the Big Band as used in the FLRW ansatz.  With this assumption, the universe would be homogeneous on the large scale even from an ether point of view.  These comoving coordinates are even harmonic, thus, fulfill the equations for the preferred coordinates.  

 

So, from a practical point of view we can measure absolute velocity, it is the velocity we name "velocity relative to the CMBR frame".  Of course, the problem stands that the whole ether as far as we can observe it may be not in rest but in some movement as a whole.  But according to Occam's razor we can ignore such theories which add additional complexity without any necessity.  

 

The theoretical problem nonetheless remains, we have the Einstein Equivalence Principle in my theory, thus, with local measurement devices we cannot measure absolute speed. 

 

But different to what was known before, there is no longer a problem of a missing explanation for this symmetry, given that it is now derived from different first principles (action equals reaction, as  following from the Lagrange formalism).  Once an explanation exists for our inability to measure absolute speed, what is the remaining problem?  

 

In my opinion, if one uses the correct scientific method, as it has been proposed by Popper (except for the interpretation of probability, which has been done by Cox and Jaynes) there is no problem with an impossibility to measure something which really exists.  A scientific theory has to be able to make predictions of observable effects.  But this does not mean that only observable objects have to be used in it.  Adding some unobservable structure can add some empirical predictions,  Say, the Lorentz ether adds the predictions "there are no wormholes" and "there are no causal loops", which are not predictions of GR.  

 

The complete rejection of all unobservable things from scientific theories is, instead, the key of empiricism and positivism. They follow the idea that scientific theories have to be derived from what has been observed. A nice idea, but it does not work because one cannot derive anything in  mathematical rigorous sense from observation. This is the "problem of induction".  Whatever we observe may follow some general rules.  But one cannot derive these general rules from the observation, and one cannot prove that the next observation will continue to follow the same general rule.  One may not like this, but there is no way aroun it.  Physical theories remain guesses, they are considered to be useful and reliable tools if many of their predictions have been tested and no such test has failed.  But it does not matter how many tests have been made, we cannot be sure that the next test tomorrow will give the next confirmation of the theory, or if it will falsify the theory. 

 

It is this failed program of empiricism and positivism which forces one to reject anything unobservable.  This is quite trivial, if something is unobservable, we cannot derive its properties from observation. 

 

But if one has rejected positivism and accepted the Popperian approach, then what makes the difference between a scientific theory and a metaphysical one is that the scientific theory makes empirical predictions, the metaphysical theory not.  And it is in no way that everything in the scientific theory is observable.  

[Dubbelosix]

Yes. It is the positivist idea that what is unobservable does not exist.   

 

 

 

 

Its actually rooted in the philosophy of the scientific method, in which you deduct from nature what you can extrapolate through measurement. If it cannot, then a theory maybe deemed unscientific. The idea is that a theory is able to be falsified.

[Dubbelosix]

   

 

 

The Lorentz ether, as an interpretation of SR, gives zero velocity for the Minkowski metric, which is the only metric considered in this theory.  

My general formulas also give zero velocity for the Minkowski metric.  

 

I don't see a contradiction. It is you who has to explain where you see a contradiction.

 

You said on one hand there was motion and on another said the metric velocity is zero - I am usually a clear thinker so I am wondering as to the nature of your aether. You say it is rooted in gravitational physics and maybe that is true, but it has been clear as mud so far. Not to be offensive.

[Schmelzer]

You said on one hand there was motion and on another said the metric velocity is zero - I am usually a clear thinker so I am wondering as to the nature of your aether. You say it is rooted in gravitational physics and maybe that is true, but it has been clear as mud so far. Not to be offensive.

I don't understand your problems with the simple formula [math]v^i(x,t) = g^{0i}(x,t)/g^{00}(x,t)[/math] which holds in the preferred (harmonic) coordinates.  In general, it defines a nontrivial velocity.  But in particular cases (Minkowski metric, Schwarzschild metric, FLRW ansatz, all in harmonic coordinates) we have [math]g^{0i}(x,t)=0[/math] and therefore the ether velocity for these cases will be zero.  

 

SR is the limit of GR where we have no nontrivial gravitational field, so that the metric is the Minkowski metric [math]\eta^{\mu\nu}[/math].  This metric is obviously a case where the formula above gives also [math]v^i(x,t)=0[/math]. So, in the SR limit, where my theory should give the classical Lorentz ether, we have automatically what is required for the classical Lorentz ether, namely zero ether velocity.  

 

Its actually rooted in the philosophy of the scientific method, in which you deduct from nature what you can extrapolate through measurement. If it cannot, then a theory maybe deemed unscientific. The idea is that a theory is able to be falsified.

The first two sentences follow positivism/empiricism, which is outdated and understood to be wrong.  There can be no deduction of theories from nature, and extrapolation always needs some hypotheses how to extrapolate. 

 

Popper's critical rationalism (fallibilism) is much superior in comparison.  It is obviously behind the third sentence.  So, I see a mixture of two theories about the scientific method which contradict each other. 

[Dubbelosix]

I don't understand your problems with the simple formula [math]v^i(x,t) = g^{0i}(x,t)/g^{00}(x,t)[/math] which holds in the preferred (harmonic) coordinates.  In general, it defines a nontrivial velocity.  But in particular cases (Minkowski metric, Schwarzschild metric, FLRW ansatz, all in harmonic coordinates) we have [math]g^{0i}(x,t)=0[/math] and therefore the ether velocity for these cases will be zero.  

 

SR is the limit of GR where we have no nontrivial gravitational field, so that the metric is the Minkowski metric [math]\eta^{\mu\nu}[/math].  This metric is obviously a case where the formula above gives also [math]v^i(x,t)=0[/math]. So, in the SR limit, where my theory should give the classical Lorentz ether, we have automatically what is required for the classical Lorentz ether, namely zero ether velocity.  

 

 

The first two sentences follow positivism/empiricism, which is outdated and understood to be wrong.  There can be no deduction of theories from nature, and extrapolation always needs some hypotheses how to extrapolate. 

 

Popper's critical rationalism (fallibilism) is much superior in comparison.  It is obviously behind the third sentence.  So, I see a mixture of two theories about the scientific method which contradict each other.

 

 

Its not so much math, if I had a problem with your math, I'd say so. This is about whether your theory will cohere with modern understanding of aether theories. If it means anything, it's gettinga little clearer, but I need to understand more about the reasons why you chose this.

[Dubbelosix]

I'll consider this more and be back.

[Dubbelosix]

Just a small question how are the dimensions being constructed on the right hand side here;

 

v_i(x, t) = g_[oi](x, t) / g_[oo](x, t)

 

I know the definition 9f the metric terms, so this is just a general question about the dimensions alone. Thanks in advance.