"Tom Clarke" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
om...
"Ilja Schmelzer" wrote in message
"Thomas Clarke" schrieb
Ether had a major failure in 1886. Relativity explained all the
results
and has been having predictive successes ever since 1905.
Advocates of ether theory have been trying to patch it up ever since.

And have succeeded now. See gr-qc/0205035.

Looks like a nice piece of work.
You identify potentially observable differences between
the chi,upsilon -0 limit of GLET and GR, but which of the
consequences if chi,upsilon are not zero would you expect
to be most observable. You mention consequences
for early universe, black holes, gravitational radiation.
Are there others?

I don't know about others.

This does not exclude that there will be others. Especially there
are claims that some theories of quantum gravity may be ruled out
because violations of some principles at Planck length will lead to
observable consequences for observations of something very far.

What is the state of motion of the ether?

v^i=g^0i/g^00 in the Newtonian background coordinates
(which are harmonic).

But as you note if GR is true, chi,upsilon -0 and
"In this limit the absolute background becomes a hidden variable".
And the velocities would become indeterminate.

We cannot measure them by local observation. On the other hand,
we have boundary conditions (CMBR-frame) and the theory gives
a precise equation for the preferred coordinates, thus, we can
measure the velocities in such an indirect way very accurate.

Actual observation of the predicted aether particle would do.

The question is, what would you consider as actual observation?

Something that can be reproduced in different laboratories.
As for the "knock my socks off" part, something that can't be
explained without your aether.

What about the EEP? GR cannot explain it, it postulates it.
My ether theory derives it.

EEP is a postulate underlying geometric GR.
GLET has five Axioms. GR has four (or five depending how you count).
It's a matter of preference which set of axioms one prefers.

I have given here an answer to "something that can't be explained
without the ether".

But I hope that my ether theory of the standard model gives much better
arguments in this direction. It already predicts the 24 8-component
spinors of the standard model.

BTW, my ether theory of the standard model predicts
24 fermions and already allows to describe strong interaction
on them.

That doesn't seem to be in the paper above.

Yep, it is in other papers on arxiv.org.

The technically most advanced papers are
hep-th/0310241 and hep-lat/0311009, but I
have avoided the e-word in these papers.

Instead of (T x L x L) (R^3) I favour today
(Aff(3)xCxL)(R^3) as the geometric interpretation
and the discrete ether model is given by
(Aff(3)xC)(Z^3): In each lattice node we
have a cell whose state of deformation is
described by Aff(3) - a simple cellular ether.

Species doubling gives (Aff(3)xCxL)(R^3) as
the continuous limit.

Are you counting particles and antiparticles seperately?

No. 3 generations, each with lepton, its neutrino, two flavours of three
colors of quarks.

Do you think you could have gone from Lorentz LET to your
GLET if you had not known about Minkowski spacetime?
Not known about GR [Einstein geometric approach or
Hilbert lagrangian approach]?

Of course. (Of course not - it would have been done by others
many years before my birth.)

There have been two open problems with the LET ether:

1.) Incorporation of gravity (mentioned already by Poincare
1905 with a first attempt of a scalar theory of gravity with
c as bounding velocity. We know today simple ways to rule
it out which would have been found in not much time.)

2.) The ether was incompressible, which is strange. A
description of a compressible ether in terms of
rho, v^i, s^ij is quite natural.

3.) There would have been a third problem with observation.
Maybe not 1919 as it happened, but not much later. An
approach with higher ether density for higher V_Newton
would have been the natural answer.

The symmetry group as a group has been found by Poincare,
the question if this symmetry survives a unification with
gravity was natural. Noether's theorem has been found,
I think, independent of relativity.

To find the equations (or the Hilbert Lagrangian) does
not seem to be that difficult, given that two people have
done the job almost the same time independently.

Maybe you could have, but there is probably no answer to such
hypothetical questions.

In this case, I think, the answer is possible.

That idea comes from
Dirac who was combining QM with relativity.

in a way which is more LET-like than SR-like.

I'm often amused at the etherists who demand particulate,
mechanical explanation for physical phenomena and on
that basis reject much of modern physics when
QFT is a perfectly adequate theory that is based on particles.

Ok, that's fun.

Even more funny in this context is that I prefer the field picture.
(Aff(3)xCxL)(R^3) are continuous fields in my ether theory.
The mechanical explanation is on a more fundamental level.

Relativists have tried hard to make Dirac's results more
SR-like. This was reached only much later by Gupta and
Bleuler using an indefinite Hilbert space.

Dirac constructed his equation so that it was manifestly
Lorentz invariant and yet was a QM equation. So I really
don't see why you say it is no SR-like.

The manifest invariant form is

i gamma^mu d_mu psi = m psi.

The quantization rules for the EM field in Dirac-Fermi
quantization are even more LET-like. In time direction
the role of creation and annihilation operators was
changed, which requires a preferred frame.

The original Dirac equation
id_t psi = (ialpha_i d_i + m beta) psi
is also more LET-like.

Can you define what you mean by "LET-like"?

Giving Lorentz invariance for observables starting with a
not obviously Lorentz invariant description.

This equation had strange solutions which he eventually
had courage to suggest were the basis of real particles.

With a picture in mind which was very ether-like (with a
"sea" of filled states). And which was later very successful
in condensed matter theory (electrons and holes in
semiconductors).

Maybe my
understanding of the Dirac equation already has
Gupta-Bleuler folded in already. "Gupta-Bleuler"
is new to me and I see their 1950 work is being
recently cited a lot with regard to string theory
and supersymmetry.

Gupta-Bleuler is about the EM field.

Why would a LET theorist find the mixed derivative
orders of the Schrodinger equation a problem?
[first order time, second order space]

Because it does not allow to obtain the observable
Lorentz-invariance.

Note that Lorentz-invariance would have been a guiding
principle of LET science almost as much as in the relativistic
paradigm. "Almost" means the following: People would
have always preferred something Lorentz-invariant.
This would have been required for observables, but, if
available, preferred for hidden variables too.
The only difference is that they would not have rejected
theories which have hidden not Lorentz-invariant variables.

Ilja

Paul Stowe:
On 25 Oct 2004 14:24:31 -0700, (Paul Draper) wrote:

I'm referring to your original statement that massive particles
would experience slowing due to passage through the ether.

One would have to quantify the magnitude of the deceleration to know,
right?

No, you would have to quantify it, since you're the one that
stated that it happens.

[...]
I was not dishonest. No such slowing through a beampipe has been
observed, to the precision available, which is pretty darned high.

Yes, but without the knowledge of level of deceleration imposed in the
6 µSec you cannot state whether or not the effect is of significance...

And regardless of the level at which such a deceleration is not
observed, you'll say the same thing. The correct response is that
there exists no evidence that such a deceleration occurs nor have
you provided a reason that should based upon anything but idle
speculation, without even an estimate within +/- X orders of magnitude.
By contrast, a theory you would call non-sense, like minimal SU(5),
was tested by making a prediction on proton decay to an order of
magnitude in 10^30 years.


OK, the magnitude of deceleration due to motion through the medium
according to LeSagian Theory is [7.05E-14 Sec^-1] times speed v.
I.e.,

A = [7.05E-14]v

Thus dv = At = 1.27E-10 m/sec (assuming v = ~c) and t = 6 µSec...
Nope, couldn't see it

The number 7.05 x 10^-14 coming from what?


However, take the Pioneer spacecraft. In that case its net speed is
~11,800 m/sec thus,

A = [7.05E-14]11,800 ~ 8.4E-10 m/sec^2

which is exactly the magnitude observed over the life of its travel.

I did not say infinitely high precision, or enough to rule out all
values of slowing. If you claim that current experiments are not
sensitive enough to measure it, then provide an estimate of the
sensitivity needed, or at least provide an expression for the slowing
anticipated so that I can design the sensitivity needed to measure
that.

Just FYI, in this context medium deceleration of massive particles
probably cannot be measured.

Why not? Particles from distant super nova travel a long way,
like about 170,000 ly and began the journey toward earth with
a velocity of nearly c. That means the neutrinos should have
been slowed to a velocity of about 0.68 times their original
velocity, or in other words, the head start they had on the
light would have been irrelevant. The neutrinos would have arrived
long after the light, rather than 3 hours earlier.