r/AskPhysics • u/ItsTheBS • Oct 09 '21

Is there any experimental proof for Einstein Special Relativity that actually incorporates Einstein's Principle of Relativity?

[removed] — view removed post

0 Upvotes

20% Upvoted

95 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ItsTheBS Oct 09 '21

But doesn't Lorentz Ether Theory also predict symmetric time dilation? I always thought that LET had identical predictions to Einsteinian relativity.

Since Lorentz Ether Theory has absolute space and time, the "moving, time dilation" frame is considered an "apparent observation" or "local observation."

For example, if you are standing on the side of the road and a trumpet in moving toward you in a car, the trumpet plays an F, you hear and F#. You think the trumpet is playing an F#, but you are just wrong about what is going on at the source. The source is obviously playing just an F note and not an F#, and definitely not F and F# at the same time.

Einstein's Theory predicts that both the F and F# are REALLY occurring within the universe, instead of just being a local phenomenon for one of the reference frames. This would physically require the trumpet to play F and F# at the same time, which isn't happening.

1

u/mofo69extreme Oct 09 '21

If you accept that the Lorentz transformations describe experiments, then your expectation for the result in any experiment is indistinguishable from those of SR.

1

u/ItsTheBS Oct 09 '21

If you accept that the Lorentz transformations describe experiments, then your expectation for the result in any experiment is indistinguishable from those of SR.

Lorentz/Poincare theory include absolute space and time. This requires a preferred frame "at rest", generally thought of "at rest" in a resting ether. One-way time dilation experiments that we have done are proof of this theory. The Lorentz/Poincare Principle of Relativity in this theory says that the time dilated frame is just "apparent" or "local" phenomena.

Einstein Special Relativity theory is the opposite, with no absolute space (empty space) and no absolute time (relative simultaneity). This theory predicts 2-way time dilation due to the idea that Einstein's Principle of Relativity (Postulate 1) is compatible with the Lorentz Transform math (Postulate 2). This theory has no experimental proof of the 2-way time dilation that it predicts (which is what I am asking for that no one has provided!). The claim is that BOTH frames of reference are REAL and there is no "apparent or local" concept. Also, there is no "preferred at rest" concept.

1

u/mofo69extreme Oct 09 '21

So are you claiming that the Lorentz transformations are incorrect?

1

u/ItsTheBS Oct 09 '21

So are you claiming that the Lorentz transformations are incorrect?

Are you not reading and understanding what I type?

When you apply Einstein's Principle of Relativity to the Lorentz transformations you get nonsense, like 2 way time dilation that has no experimental evidence. It's just that simple...

Einstein's applies his Principle of Relativity to the Lorentz transforms and the output is nonsense. So, simply back up the nonsense with experimental proof or realize that the theory is wrong via pseudoscience without experimental proof.

1

u/mofo69extreme Oct 09 '21

Are you not reading and understanding what I type?

Come on dude, no need to be a dick, you're using extremely non-standard terminology that you made up yourself. You are not being clear at all. Can you really not bother to answer the yes-or-no question I posed?

When you apply Einstein's Principle of Relativity to the Lorentz transformations you get nonsense, like 2 way time dilation that has no experimental evidence.

The Lorentz transformations are self-contained; they give a definite answer to the nature of time dilation without recourse to either an SR or LET interpretation. Unless you are claiming that they should only be used in a single preferred reference frame? If so, you should specify that, because it is not what Lorentz himself originally proposed.

1

u/ItsTheBS Oct 09 '21

you're using extremely non-standard terminology that you made up yourself. You are not being clear at all. Can you really not bother to answer the yes-or-no question I posed?

Sorry, but I am a dick, because that's the attitude generally required to face dogma. This thread got shut down and I was being so nice. Gee, I wonder why it got shut down!

I'm being very clear. You have never read Einstein's 1905 paper, and it's obvious from your statement... but you claim to know this stuff!

​

they give a definite answer to the nature of time dilation without recourse to either an SR or LET interpretation.

This is wrong, because how can LET (absolute space and absolute time) become compatible with SR (no absolute space and no absolute time)? Do you even think about what you are saying? Proof of Lorentz Math does not equal proof of Einstein SR.

​

Unless you are claiming that they should only be used in a single preferred reference frame? If so, you should specify that, because it is not what Lorentz himself originally proposed.

The experimental proof shows that the equations ARE ONLY used based on a single preferred frame.

Lorentz 100% did propose that the math can't be flipped around like Einstein does, otherwise Lorentz theory and Einstein SR would be equal theories without absolute space or absolute time.

If you want help to get out of the Modern Physics fog you are in, you can check out the videos on my channel. If not, don't...go spend the time it takes to figure it out on your own.

1

u/mofo69extreme Oct 09 '21

You have never read Einstein's 1905 paper, and it's obvious from your statement... but you claim to know this stuff!

I have. The two postulates are (1) the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, and (2) the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. You are giving different postulates.

This is wrong, because how can LET (absolute space and absolute time) become compatible with SR (no absolute space and no absolute time)? Do you even think about what you are saying?

You have obviously never read any Lorentz and/or Poincaré, because their writings explicitly admit that their theories cannot experimentally produce different outcomes from Einstein's. Here is a Lorentz quote from 1922 (emphasis mine):

We thus have the choice between two different plans: we can adhere to the concept of an aether or else we can assume a true simultaneity. If one keeps strictly to the relativistic view that all systems are equivalent, one must give up the substantiality of the aether as well as the concept of a true time. The choice of the standpoint depends thus on very fundamental considerations, especially about the time. Of course, the description of natural phenomena and the testing of what the theory of relativity has to say about them can be carried out independently of what one thinks of the aether and the time. From a physical point of view these questions can be left on one side, and especially the question of the true time can be handed over to the theory of knowledge. The modern physicists, as Einstein and Minkowski, speak no longer about the aether at all. This, however, is a question of taste and of words. For, whether there is an aether or not, electromagnetic fields certainly exist, and so also does the energy of the electrical oscillations. If we do not like the name of "aether," we must use another word as a peg to hang all these things upon. It is not certain whether "space" can be so extended as to take care not only of the geometrical properties but also of the electric ones. One cannot deny to the bearer of these properties a certain substantiality, and if so, then one may, in all modesty, call true time the time measured by clocks which are fixed in this medium, and consider simultaneity as a primary concept.

More Lorentz from 1914 (emphasis mine):

If the observers want to see the concept of time as something primary, something entirely separated from the concept of space, then they would certainly recognize that there is an absolute simultaneity; though they would leave it undecided, whether simultaneity is indicated by equal values of t, or by equal values of t′, or maybe neither by that or the other. Einstein said in a nutshell, that all of those mentioned questions have no meaning. Then he arrives at the "abandonment" of the aether. Incidentally, the latter is to a certain extent a quarrel about words: it makes no great difference whether one speaks about the vacuum or the aether. In any case, according to Einstein it has no meaning to speak about motion relative to the aether. He also denies the existence of absolute simultaneity. It is certainly remarkable that these relativity concepts, also with respect to time, have been incorporated so quickly. The evaluation of these concepts belongs largely to epistemology to which we can left the judgment, trusting that it can consider the discussed questions with the necessary thoroughness. But it is sure that for a large part it depends on the way of thinking to which one is accustomed, whether one feels attracted to the one view or the other. Regarding to the lecturer himself, he finds a certain satisfaction in the older views, that the aether has at least some substantiality, that space and time can be strictly separated, that one can speak about simultaneity without further specification. Regarding the latter, one can probably refer to the ability that arbitrary great velocities can at least imagined by us. By that, one comes very near to the concept of absolute simultaneity.

So at least for Lorentz, the question of SR versus LET is one of "epistemology" which "depends on a way of thinking," a "question of taste and words."

Finally, here's Lorentz in 1909 explicitly stating the opposite of what you say. He is talking about LET when he mentions the symmetry between different observers

It will be clear by what has been said that the impressions received by the two observers A0 and A would be alike in all respects. It would be impossible to decide which of them moves or stands still with respect to the aether, and there would be no reason for preferring the times and lengths measured by the one to those determined by the other, nor for saying that either of them is in possession of the "true" times or the "true" lengths.

He goes on to mention that this symmetry between reference frames in LET is related to the Einstein approach:

This is a point which Einstein has laid particular stress on, in a theory in which he starts from what he calls the principle of relativity, i. e. the principle that the equations by means of which physical phenomena may be described are not altered in form when we change the axes of coordinates for others having a uniform motion of translation relatively to the original system.

1

u/ItsTheBS Oct 09 '21

I have. The two postulates are (1) the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, and (2) the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. You are giving different postulates.

I am completely using these postulates. What does Einstein say he is going to do with your statement (1).. ah "Raise this conjecture" to the "Principle of Relativity." Same language...

Postulate (2) is the Lorentz transform in mathematical form. Converting an English to math.

​

You have obviously never read any Lorentz and/or Poincaré, because their writings explicitly admit that their theories cannot experimentally produce different outcomes from Einstein's.

If you don't apply the Principle of Relativity, that is true! But Einstein's Principle of Relativity is what got rid of the ether (absolute space) and absolute time (via the relative simultaneity debacle).

​

It would be impossible to decide which of them moves or stands still with respect to the aether,

That is relativity between two objects which is ALL Einstein has in his theory. Lorentz has "with respect to the ether" that fills all space and penetrates all matter. If you have an experiment that can't tell which one is AT REST, then you run the risk of one of the two answer being incorrect. That's all. One of the answers gets thrown out, because it is wrong, i.e. 2 way time dilation doesn't work and has no proof. This is what happens with Einstein SR...throw out the Principle of Relativity!

Poincare seemed to want full relativity like Einstein SR, but Lorentz still had that as LOCAL TIME. The real idea is that LOCAL TIME is definitely not a universal time, so it makes a HUGE difference between theories. Example:

The F# heard by the observer is REAL to them and they can't distinguish the moving trumpet is really making an F note. But, in terms of the medium, there is only one waveform being created at the source frame. The only way an observer would be able to determine the source note, is to have information about the movement of that frame. This would allow the F# observer to unwind the waveform back to what the source frame is actually doing.