In
(chaverondier) wrote:
In
"Harry" wrote:
In
Jeff Krimmel wrote:


Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
We find that the LET approach is a deeper
theory,
providing reasons (causes or explanations) for
many things that can only be assumed in SR. LET
brings logic back into our thinking. The
kinematics of LET is fairly simple Newtonian
mechanics.

Jeff Krimmel
Please restate this last sentence in a
mathematically rigorous form. After
that, draw the distinction between LET and SR in
this context.

Harry
There is no mathematical distinction. For physics
in the narrow sense - that is, only the laws -
"LET" (SRT-Lorentz) is identical to "SRT" (SRT-
Einstein.

Bernard Chaverondier
Provided that only Lorentz invariant phenomena are
considered, or provided that some of quantum
phenomena that may (should ?) be interpreted as non
local in our 4D space-time are nevertheless
interpreted as being local (1).

O'Barr comments:
And isn't this great! As long as SR remains in
their deluded belief that all things are Lorentzian,
then they are safe. But as soon as we begin to
'physicalize' (make realistic or objective) QM, or
any other area of science that has to tie in with SR,
then there is going to be problems. The ether
approach has the flexibility of doing this. In LET,
in the absolute frame, all velocities can be measured
and considered, to include infinite velocities. And
in the absolute frame, there are no back-in-time, or
jump-in-times that are involved with such acts.

Bernard Chaverondier continues:
Indeed, to enable quantum waves to be interpreted as
objective waves propagating in a medium, you need to
change slightly the physical interpretation of the
relativist invariance. You have to interpret the
physical property of covariance with regard to the
restricted Poincaré group action as an intrinsic
property of phenomena that actually satisfy this
symmetry (instead of considering it as a sort of
geometrical framework that would exist independently
of phenomena that occur in it and would force
phenomena to satisfy this geometrical canvas).

O'Barr comments:
Absolutely correct! We must keep separate the
math from the physics! What physically occurs can
only be that which can be caused to occur. The
simple existing of a math function cannot really be
the controlling function.

Bernard Chaverondier wrote:
This physical interpretation needs noteworthy to
drop the interpretation of the Boost-invariance as
an universal principle (considering boost-invariance
as a phenomenological model satisfied as far as
irreversible quantum phenomena don't show up).
Mathematically, this amounts to enlarge our space-
time geometry to the less restrictive geometry of
Aristotle space-time letting boost-symmetry
invariance to be chosen by phenomena that actually
have decided to dress themselves in a suit (with
this boost-symmetry), more casual dressing being
nevertheless tolerated.

O'Barr comments:
In the at theory, the particles that make up the
ether do not change their mass, lengths or rates with
their velocities. The Lorentzian acts are confined
only to the particles that use the ether to maintain
the forces they exercise upon other particles in the
medium. This 'Aristotle space-time' that is being
mentioned above is a smart way to talk about the
ether, without having to say so! It is a simple 3-D
combined with a simple 1-D math function.


Bernard Chaverondier continues:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
Compatibility of an interpretation of Alain Aspect
experiment as an action at a distance, in the
framework of Aristotle space-time (with an
interpretation of relativist invariance as an
intrinsic property of physical phenomena that
actually satisfy it rather than a geometrical
property of space-time that would exist
independently of any phenomenon occurring in it).

(1) Locality of quantum mechanics is mathematically
satisfied in configuration space in the framework of
quantum field theory. Now, the interpretation of
quantum effects as being local in our 4D "real
space", is more or less possible too thanks to a
lack of present experiments that would provide an
indisputable proof that causal links between
spacelike phenomena actually occur (noteworthy
thanks to quantum measurements, quantum diffusion
and EPR correlations). Indeed, up to now, only
quantum noise is transferred at superluminal speed
(as Bell inequalities violations strongly suggest)
which is interpreted by most physicists as no
superluminal transfer at all.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, as soon as we have the concept that faster
than light info can and does exist, then we will be
forced to consider a change. But I know that there
are already sufficient reasons to make the change
now!
Thank you, Bernard Chaverondier. There are better
places for you to post, but I do appreciate your help
on this net, and on this post!


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

(Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote in message . com...
In
(chaverondier) wrote:
In
"Harry" wrote:
In
Jeff Krimmel wrote:


Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
We find that the LET approach is a deeper
theory,
providing reasons (causes or explanations) for
many things that can only be assumed in SR. LET
brings logic back into our thinking. The
kinematics of LET is fairly simple Newtonian
mechanics.

Jeff Krimmel
Please restate this last sentence in a
mathematically rigorous form. After
that, draw the distinction between LET and SR in
this context.

Harry
There is no mathematical distinction. For physics
in the narrow sense - that is, only the laws -
"LET" (SRT-Lorentz) is identical to "SRT" (SRT-
Einstein.

Bernard Chaverondier
Provided that only Lorentz invariant phenomena are
considered, or provided that some of quantum
phenomena that may (should ?) be interpreted as non
local in our 4D space-time are nevertheless
interpreted as being local (1).

O'Barr comments:
And isn't this great! As long as SR remains in
their deluded belief that all things are Lorentzian,
then they are safe. But as soon as we begin to
'physicalize' (make realistic or objective) QM, or
any other area of science that has to tie in with SR,
then there is going to be problems. The ether
approach has the flexibility of doing this. In LET,
in the absolute frame, all velocities can be measured
and considered, to include infinite velocities. And
in the absolute frame, there are no back-in-time, or
jump-in-times that are involved with such acts.

Bernard Chaverondier continues:
Indeed, to enable quantum waves to be interpreted as
objective waves propagating in a medium, you need to
change slightly the physical interpretation of the
relativist invariance. You have to interpret the
physical property of covariance with regard to the
restricted Poincaré group action as an intrinsic
property of phenomena that actually satisfy this
symmetry (instead of considering it as a sort of
geometrical framework that would exist independently
of phenomena that occur in it and would force
phenomena to satisfy this geometrical canvas).

O'Barr comments:
Absolutely correct! We must keep separate the
math from the physics! What physically occurs can
only be that which can be caused to occur. The
simple existing of a math function cannot really be
the controlling function.

Bernard Chaverondier wrote:
This physical interpretation needs noteworthy to
drop the interpretation of the Boost-invariance as
an universal principle (considering boost-invariance
as a phenomenological model satisfied as far as
irreversible quantum phenomena don't show up).
Mathematically, this amounts to enlarge our space-
time geometry to the less restrictive geometry of
Aristotle space-time letting boost-symmetry
invariance to be chosen by phenomena that actually
have decided to dress themselves in a suit (with
this boost-symmetry), more casual dressing being
nevertheless tolerated.

O'Barr comments:
In the at theory, the particles that make up the
ether do not change their mass, lengths or rates with
their velocities. The Lorentzian acts are confined
only to the particles that use the ether to maintain
the forces they exercise upon other particles in the
medium. This 'Aristotle space-time' that is being
mentioned above is a smart way to talk about the
ether, without having to say so! It is a simple 3-D
combined with a simple 1-D math function.


Bernard Chaverondier continues:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
Compatibility of an interpretation of Alain Aspect
experiment as an action at a distance, in the
framework of Aristotle space-time (with an
interpretation of relativist invariance as an
intrinsic property of physical phenomena that
actually satisfy it rather than a geometrical
property of space-time that would exist
independently of any phenomenon occurring in it).

(1) Locality of quantum mechanics is mathematically
satisfied in configuration space in the framework of
quantum field theory. Now, the interpretation of
quantum effects as being local in our 4D "real
space", is more or less possible too thanks to a
lack of present experiments that would provide an
indisputable proof that causal links between
spacelike phenomena actually occur (noteworthy
thanks to quantum measurements, quantum diffusion
and EPR correlations). Indeed, up to now, only
quantum noise is transferred at superluminal speed
(as Bell inequalities violations strongly suggest)
which is interpreted by most physicists as no
superluminal transfer at all.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, as soon as we have the concept that faster
than light info can and does exist, then we will be
forced to consider a change. But I know that there
are already sufficient reasons to make the change
now!
Thank you, Bernard Chaverondier. There are better
places for you to post, but I do appreciate your help
on this net, and on this post!


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

Yeah, "LET" is superior because of the absolute frame (which nobody
has been able to detect yet). Same argument the theologians have
about GOD.

(Alan McIntire) wrote in message . com...

Yeah, "LET" is superior because of the absolute frame (which nobody
has been able to detect yet). Same argument the theologians have
about GOD.

I think that these superiority or inferiority issues about such or
such model of physical phenomena as well as theologians' like
arguments are shear nonsense. We should rather remind that we are
discussing about physics and that the grounding for such discussions
should be experimental observations and not philosophical prejudices.

We should consider the question of possible Faster Than Light
communication thanks to EPR effect (together with a possible mean to
bias the statistics of quantum measurement outcomes thanks to a
stringent control of the quantum state of a measuring apparatus and of
its environment) as well as the search for a better coexistence of
quantum physics, relativity and gravity, which in my opinion are the
two main reasons that may lead to a possible need to drop the
boost-invariance interpretation as an universal principle, in a more
serious manner than a TV game.


Bernard Chaverondier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
Compatibility of an interpretation of Alain Aspect experiment as an
instantaneous action at a distance, in the framework of Aristotle
space-time (with an interpretation of relativist invariance as an
intrinsic property of physical phenomena that actually satisfy this
symmetry rather than a geometrical property of space-time that would
exist independently of any phenomenon occurring in it).