4 ms·

What empirical data does Lorentz ether theory seem to fit better than special relativity?

Ono-Sendai 3y ago
They both fit the data equally well, with the debatable exception of the cosmic microwave background, which debatably provides an absolute rest frame, thereby violating the SR postulate that all rest frames have the same laws of physics.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  But doesn't the negative result of the Michaelson-Morley experiment disprove the ether theory? Relativity explains that and ether does not.
  - Ono-Sendai 3y ago
    No, it doesn't disprove it. The results can be explained by the measuring apparatus undergoing length contraction and/or time dilation.
    - Teever 3y ago
      All the time, every time the experiment is run in all the locations that it has been run in? Where would we have run the experiment to confirm/deny the association you're describing?
      - Ono-Sendai 3y ago
        Yes, all the time and every time, that's how relativistic time dilation and length contraction works. Time dilation and length contraction are predicted by Maxwell's electromagnatic theory, it's no surprise they happen. EDIT: not sure if you are familiar with relativistic length contraction and time dilation or not
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        You're using relativistic time dilation and length contraction to claim that Michaelson-Morley can be explained without relativity? Your logic sounds rather shaky there...
        Ono-Sendai 3y ago
        Time dilation and length contraction are a feature of Lorentz Ether theory too. Even old-school Maxwell's equations predict it.
        Teever 3y ago
        The time dilation is constant everywhere always?
        Ono-Sendai 3y ago
        Time dilation is a function of your speed through the ether.
        Teever 3y ago
        So that leads us back to my original question: Where would we have run the experiment to confirm/deny the association you're describing?
        Ono-Sendai 3y ago
        Not sure what association you mean. Time dilation? length contraction? Both are well supported by evidence AFAIK.
        Teever 3y ago
        I don't believe that someone who is capable of writing the comments that you're writing can't actually understand what I wrote. What is your most charitable interpretation of what I just asked you?
- pdonis 3y ago
  > the cosmic microwave background, which debatably provides an absolute rest frame It does no such thing. An "absolute rest frame" would be a rest frame that is inherent in the laws of physics, independent of the distribution of matter and energy. The CMBR only provides a "rest frame" in terms of its distribution of energy, and any piece of matter or energy will do that. For example, you, as a piece of matter, define a "rest frame"--does that mean your rest frame is absolute? Of course not.
ramraj07 3y ago
Not that I’m agreeing with whatever was mentioned in the original comment, but as a semi outsider I feel we are indeed being disingenuous about this - what are quantum fields if not ether? I see no difference philosophically. Like the fundamental original reasons why we went to quantum theory itself seems like we made some leaps in hypothesis (charged electron can’t orbit without losing energy, if the universe is filled with an ether then everything will slow down, etc) only to never actually solve that original conundrum ever.
- Ono-Sendai 3y ago
  Exactly, quantum fields are basically ether by another name. The ether/aether word is just very out of fashion, having been allegedly 'disproved' (not actually) by Einstein and the Michelson–Morley experiment. To be fair, some early conceptions of the ether included it flowing, like a liquid, which we don't think it does currently, and which quantum fields don't do. If you have drunk the special relativity kool-aid, you might also be confused about how the ether/quantum field can be 'real' or something physical, if everything is relative. The Lorentz ether theory viewpoint helps with that confusion though, I think.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > what are quantum fields if not ether? Individual quantum fields are not Lorentz invariant; they define distributions of matter and energy that look different in different frames. The hypothetical ether of Lorentz ether theory, however, is Lorentz invariant: it is basically the vacuum in EM theory. So it looks the same in all frames. (Yes, LET claims that there is one particular frame that is the "absolute rest frame"--but there is no way of telling which frame it is because the ether looks the same in all frames.)
  - ramraj07 3y ago
    Is there anything in quantum fields that directly demand them to not be Lorentz invariant? I feel like these are independent hypotheses..
    - 3y ago
hilbert42 3y ago
"Lorentz ether theory" Raising ether theories is usually troublesome especially pre-Lorentz concepts such as the luminiferous ether but one can't deny the fact that c = 1/√(ε0 μ0). If we agree that this relationship is accurate then it seems to me that that just saying the vacuum permittivity and permeability are universal constants is a bit of a cop-out. If ε0 or μ0 change then so does c. Whether one uses the word ether or some other, there's something about a vacuum that's very significant/determines the rate of causality, etc. Edit: seems to me if we had a better understanding of that relationship then we'd likely have an answer to the fine structure conundrum.

They both fit the data equally well, with the debatable exception of the cosmic microwave background, which debatably provides an absolute rest frame, thereby violating the SR postulate that all rest frames have the same laws of physics.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
But doesn't the negative result of the Michaelson-Morley experiment disprove the ether theory? Relativity explains that and ether does not.
- Ono-Sendai 3y ago
  No, it doesn't disprove it. The results can be explained by the measuring apparatus undergoing length contraction and/or time dilation.
  - Teever 3y ago
    All the time, every time the experiment is run in all the locations that it has been run in? Where would we have run the experiment to confirm/deny the association you're describing?
    - Ono-Sendai 3y ago
      Yes, all the time and every time, that's how relativistic time dilation and length contraction works. Time dilation and length contraction are predicted by Maxwell's electromagnatic theory, it's no surprise they happen. EDIT: not sure if you are familiar with relativistic length contraction and time dilation or not
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        You're using relativistic time dilation and length contraction to claim that Michaelson-Morley can be explained without relativity? Your logic sounds rather shaky there...
        Ono-Sendai 3y ago
        Time dilation and length contraction are a feature of Lorentz Ether theory too. Even old-school Maxwell's equations predict it.
      - Teever 3y ago
        The time dilation is constant everywhere always?
        Ono-Sendai 3y ago
        Time dilation is a function of your speed through the ether.
        Teever 3y ago
        So that leads us back to my original question: Where would we have run the experiment to confirm/deny the association you're describing?
        Ono-Sendai 3y ago
        Not sure what association you mean. Time dilation? length contraction? Both are well supported by evidence AFAIK.
        Teever 3y ago
        I don't believe that someone who is capable of writing the comments that you're writing can't actually understand what I wrote. What is your most charitable interpretation of what I just asked you?
pdonis 3y ago
> the cosmic microwave background, which debatably provides an absolute rest frame It does no such thing. An "absolute rest frame" would be a rest frame that is inherent in the laws of physics, independent of the distribution of matter and energy. The CMBR only provides a "rest frame" in terms of its distribution of energy, and any piece of matter or energy will do that. For example, you, as a piece of matter, define a "rest frame"--does that mean your rest frame is absolute? Of course not.

ramraj07 3y ago

Not that I’m agreeing with whatever was mentioned in the original comment, but as a semi outsider I feel we are indeed being disingenuous about this - what are quantum fields if not ether? I see no difference philosophically. Like the fundamental original reasons why we went to quantum theory itself seems like we made some leaps in hypothesis (charged electron can’t orbit without losing energy, if the universe is filled with an ether then everything will slow down, etc) only to never actually solve that original conundrum ever.

Ono-Sendai 3y ago
Exactly, quantum fields are basically ether by another name. The ether/aether word is just very out of fashion, having been allegedly 'disproved' (not actually) by Einstein and the Michelson–Morley experiment. To be fair, some early conceptions of the ether included it flowing, like a liquid, which we don't think it does currently, and which quantum fields don't do. If you have drunk the special relativity kool-aid, you might also be confused about how the ether/quantum field can be 'real' or something physical, if everything is relative. The Lorentz ether theory viewpoint helps with that confusion though, I think.
pdonis 3y ago
> what are quantum fields if not ether? Individual quantum fields are not Lorentz invariant; they define distributions of matter and energy that look different in different frames. The hypothetical ether of Lorentz ether theory, however, is Lorentz invariant: it is basically the vacuum in EM theory. So it looks the same in all frames. (Yes, LET claims that there is one particular frame that is the "absolute rest frame"--but there is no way of telling which frame it is because the ether looks the same in all frames.)
- ramraj07 3y ago
  Is there anything in quantum fields that directly demand them to not be Lorentz invariant? I feel like these are independent hypotheses..
  - 3y ago

hilbert42 3y ago

"Lorentz ether theory" Raising ether theories is usually troublesome especially pre-Lorentz concepts such as the luminiferous ether but one can't deny the fact that c = 1/√(ε0 μ0). If we agree that this relationship is accurate then it seems to me that that just saying the vacuum permittivity and permeability are universal constants is a bit of a cop-out. If ε0 or μ0 change then so does c. Whether one uses the word ether or some other, there's something about a vacuum that's very significant/determines the rate of causality, etc. Edit: seems to me if we had a better understanding of that relationship then we'd likely have an answer to the fine structure conundrum.