Part 2

You´ve written: ''But we may distinguish rest and motion, absolute and relative, one from the other by their properties, causes and effects. It is a property of rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at rest; but...

view entire post

Part 2

You´ve written: ''But we may distinguish rest and motion, absolute and relative, one from the other by their properties, causes and effects. It is a property of rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at rest; but IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW, from the position of bodies to one another in our regions whether any of these do keep the same position to that remote body''

Perfectly. As I have stated in my essay, inertial frames of reference were defined operationally in the 19th century. You may introduce absolute space, but there is no way to operationally define absolute velocity and absolute position! These are, as you put, impossible to know. No problem with this, as long as absolute space is useful. However, if we can do mechanics without invisible concepts, why not do it? Relational particle dynamics is superior to Newton´s theory: it recovers the concepts of inertial frame and duration solely from observable data. Furthermore, there are very objective advantages, such as relational particle dynamics reducing the number of initial conditions needed to solve the equations for motion: it has a bigger predictivity. Less data is needed.

The only way out is if, by some procedure upon the quantum vacuum you propose, it could be possible to have distinguised positions! I have big doubts on that however, because GR is background independent!

In the end, if the absolute background hypothesis you advocate proves to be useful, I will always agree that theories should be built with it. But, I tried to make clear that it must be REALLY useful, because it is not simpler then stating that there is no background.

Actually my essay was not strictly about the relational formulation for mechanics. I try to argue that there are more ways one can conceive motion other than absolutely or relationally. You should discuss these points more thoroughly with Julian Barbour, he´s the author of Shape Dynamics and strongly advocates Machian philosophy.

Best Regards,

Daniel

view post as summary

Dear Daniel

You seem to overlook Newton's words, I quote them again to remark their deep meaning. "And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones". Notice how he was aware that for practical matters we use relative places and motions. Notice also how he was relating motion not only to reference bodies but also to space. I agree with you that is difficult (or may be...

view entire post

Dear Daniel

You seem to overlook Newton's words, I quote them again to remark their deep meaning. "And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones". Notice how he was aware that for practical matters we use relative places and motions. Notice also how he was relating motion not only to reference bodies but also to space. I agree with you that is difficult (or may be impossible) to put a material object at rest relative to the ZPF, but despite that one cannot reject its existence. In my entry I replied to you and discussed how the principle of relativity should be understood. I would be glad if you take a look at it and answer the questions I raised there in relation to the rejection of the PSR.

As far as I can see you do not get the usefulness as I do, and so you conclude that, as absolute newtonian space, my arguments are devoid of utility. This is not the case. In my last replied to you I provided a counter example in allusion to the measurement of the one-way speed of light. So far, no experiment has ever measured it, but despite this, as we all have witnessed, the special relativity has been quite successful for physics. The case is similar with the ZPF, despite that the absolute position of an object relative to ZPF could not be determined I find the assumption elucidating and helpful for the construction of a strong and coherent theory. Just because fields (gravitational, electromagnetic) cannot be seen by the senses, this does not mean that they do not exist. Similarly occurs with the ZPF. Despite that it cannot be perceived by the senses we know it is there (do you deny this?), just recall the Casimir effect. So, I can assume it as a continuous fluid because this will help me to explain the body of observations. Moreover, the existence of this omnipresent field allows us to assume the PSR, again, despite the fact that (as Newton argued) we only had access to relative measurements. The ZPF and the PSR has to be considered, above all, because light, seen as a wave, demands it (as a photon the explanation becomes faint). Because its speed is defined relative to the ZPF, not relative to the source or any other material body. Light does not travel relative to the empty space as Newton contended, but relative to the ZPF. If you have understood this, I ask you to provide any objection to the motion of light. According to you, with respect to what physical entity do light move? What physical entity defines the speed of light waves?

In addition to these arguments, I pointed out another paradox in relation to the isotropy of the speed of light (see my reply to you in my entry). To avoid the paradox, it is necessary to assume the PSR. You say: if we can do mechanics without invisible concepts, why not do it? Because if do not introduce the PSR we arrive at several paradoxes. Furthermore, if a theory A assuming a PSR explains the same amount of observations as another theory B in which there is no PSR, I would chose theory A, because theory A would be free from paradoxes.

You: You should discuss these points more thoroughly with Julian Barbour, he´s the author of Shape Dynamics and strongly advocates Machian philosophy.

As I explained, Newton was also relational contrary to the customary view. The material objects we used as reference systems are in space, but one has be careful in how we conceive space. From my perspective, Mach misconceived the deep meaning of Newton conceptions because Mach thought of space as an empty vessel not as a massive fluid, this is why he claimed that the stars, and not space, were playing the major role in defining inertia and centrifugal forces.

Best Regards

Israel

view post as summary

Dear Israel

''You seem to overlook Newton's words, I quote them again to remark their deep meaning. "And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones". Notice how he was aware that for practical matters we use relative places and motions. Notice also how he was relating motion not only to reference bodies but also to space.''

Agreed. Newton takes absolute space...

view entire post

Dear Israel

''You seem to overlook Newton's words, I quote them again to remark their deep meaning. "And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones". Notice how he was aware that for practical matters we use relative places and motions. Notice also how he was relating motion not only to reference bodies but also to space.''

Agreed. Newton takes absolute space for granted. Classical mechanics is tremendoulsy powerful. However, notice that the statements of Newton´s mechanics

can never be classified as true or false (because F=ma and ''a'' is defined in the absolute space frame which cannot be seen, so there´s no way we can verify the theory). We must choose an object to become ou reference frame, so that we measure distances upon it (x,y,z). Now if this frame is inertial,

-(grad V)=ma.So we could almost see absolute space, except that we still could never measure absolute position and velocity. Again, any problem with that? Well, we know classical mechanics is incredibly useful. But that is because we take the ''distant stars'' as a substitute for absolute frame, and that is very practical and as precise as we need for everyday engineering. But if we can create a theory WITHOUT unobservable data and which lead to the same (and/or new) verified results, then shouldn´t we prefer it? So why did it take so long for someone to find a substitute for Newton´s classical mechanics which didn´t have unobservable statements? The general belief that it could not be created. Let´s move on.

'' I agree with you that is difficult (or may be impossible) to put a material object at rest relative to the ZPF, but despite that one cannot reject its existence. In my entry I replied to you and discussed how the principle of relativity should be understood. I would be glad if you take a look at it and answer the questions I raised there in relation to the rejection of the PSR.''

Okay, I see you have written new arguments there, I will definitely take a look.

''As far as I can see you do not get the usefulness as I do, and so you conclude that, as absolute newtonian space, my arguments are devoid of utility.''

That´s not the case actually. With the snapshot argument I tried to remark that the ZPF by itself cannot be identified with a PSR. But PSR have utility. For instance, as far as I know, string theory is a backgound dependet theory. So if in the end it proves to be correct, we see that there would be a PSR, even though symmetries of the theory would make it become unobservable. But strictly at the classical level, I think relational formulations have clear advantages as I explained above and in other replies.

''This is not the case. In my last replied to you I provided a counter example in allusion to the measurement of the one-way speed of light. So far, no experiment has ever measured it, but despite this, as we all have witnessed, the special relativity has been quite successful for physics. ''

It really does not break your argument, but anyway, you will find interesting that a guy has filmed light moving! Video link. I agree that we may have unobservable data in physical theories. Maybe they are inevitable. Who knows? But don´t you think we should get rid of them if we can?

''The case is similar with the ZPF, despite that the absolute position of an object relative to ZPF could not be determined I find the assumption elucidating and helpful for the construction of a strong and coherent theory.''

That´s the point. If it is REALLY useful, yes, I agree we should take the PSR proposal. But then we must always bear in mind that such a theory would provide us unobservable data (like newton´s mechanics). Nevertheless, it is a way to conceive motion. There may be others as well. The point of my essay is to study all these possible conceptions systematically.

''Just because fields (gravitational, electromagnetic) cannot be seen by the senses, this does not mean that they do not exist.''

They can be seen, where by ''seen'' I mean detected. This is different form PSR.

'' Similarly occurs with the ZPF. Despite that it cannot be perceived by the senses we know it is there (do you deny this?), just recall the Casimir effect.''

Yes, it is there. But we cannot use it (as far as I know, please correct me if I´m wrong) to define a preferred position. So it is as invisible as absolute space (this is where the snapshot argument comes in).

''So, I can assume it as a continuous fluid because this will help me to explain the body of observations. Moreover, the existence of this omnipresent field allows us to assume the PSR (...)''

don´t agree that the existence of ZPF allows us to assume PSR, because PSR can´t be used to define a preferred position. Same aguments as before.

''(...), again, despite the fact that (as Newton argued) we only had access to relative measurements. The ZPF and the PSR has to be considered, above all, because light, seen as a wave, demands it (as a photon the explanation becomes faint). ''

I don´t see why this is so. We can easily imagine electromagnetic waves without ether. Instead of saying an eletric field E=E(x,y,z,t) is a pertubation of some invisible ether it can be seen as telling you that the measurements of that quantity you call eletric field in the position (x,y,z,t) as seen by an observer has the value E. The wave would be a compact way of telling us operational procedures. Above all, what I´m trying to say is that there is no strictly LOGICAL need for a medium where electromagnetic waves would propagate. In more advanced theories like string theory, the vibrating strings would produce the waves and even space-time itself.

''Because its speed is defined relative to the ZPF, not relative to the source or any other material body.''

As far as I know, no one has ever measured the speed of light against the background of ZPF (and I still argue that the ZPF cannot provide a background, snapshot argument). The speed of light is always measured against a material, visible object. What empirical experiences say is that, no matter what object you choose as reference, the speed value is always ''c''.

''Light does not travel relative to the empty space as Newton contended, but relative to the ZPF. If you have understood this, I ask you to provide any objection to the motion of light. According to you, with respect to what physical entity do light move? What physical entity defines the speed of light waves?''

As argued above, you can choose any physical entity as reference, when the speed of light is measured the value is always ''c''.

''In addition to these arguments, I pointed out another paradox in relation to the isotropy of the speed of light (see my reply to you in my entry). To avoid the paradox, it is necessary to assume the PSR.''

Once again, I will take a look. If the PSR solves any paradox, we have a strong reason to consider it, even though that would render unobservable statemets. Bt again, if these paradox can be solved by a theory without unobservable statements, we should prefer this theory.

''You say: if we can do mechanics without invisible concepts, why not do it? Because if do not introduce the PSR we arrive at several paradoxes.''

Again, this is the good point. Now our discussion should turn to this paradoxes.

''Furthermore, if a theory A assuming a PSR explains the same amount of observations as another theory B in which there is no PSR, I would chose theory A, because theory A would be free from paradoxes. ''

Again, these paradoxes should now be the center of our discussion.

''You: You should discuss these points more thoroughly with Julian Barbour, he´s the author of Shape Dynamics and strongly advocates Machian philosophy.

As I explained, Newton was also relational contrary to the customary view. The material objects we used as reference systems are in space, but one has be careful in how we conceive space. From my perspective, Mach misconceived the deep meaning of Newton conceptions because Mach thought of space as an empty vessel not as a massive fluid, this is why he claimed that the stars, and not space, were playing the major role in defining inertia and centrifugal forces.

Best Regards''

Once again, this massive fluid (that you identify with ZPF) must be able to define a preferred position, so that (x,y,z) can be meaningful even without any material object. If we could identify this ZPF field values with absolute space, then we could finally see absoulte space. But the existence of this field by itself does not (see snapshot argument again) entail that the PSR is any more reasonable then in the classical case.

Now, let´s turn to the paradoxes in your entry.

Best regards

Daniel

view post as summary

Daniel Wagner (Part 1)

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. To avoid discussing this topic in both entries, mine and yours, I will reply in yours only. So far I think we have reached a point in which we have made clear our positions. So I would like to summarize them.

I would like to start with one of your paragraphs: Let's get to a final conclusion. The PSR...

view entire post

Daniel Wagner (Part 1)

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. To avoid discussing this topic in both entries, mine and yours, I will reply in yours only. So far I think we have reached a point in which we have made clear our positions. So I would like to summarize them.

I would like to start with one of your paragraphs: Let's get to a final conclusion. The PSR assumption weakens our theories in one respect (makes unobservable statements) but according to you it also explain some other phenomena. We should be aware of these strengths and weaknesses in order to choose, finally, what´s the most FRUITFUL conception of motion.

I definitely agree with you. I see your position as Einstein’s, that is, parsimonious. I agree also with this, and this is why I revive the PSR and the aether. In Einstein times the aether was superfluous, but today I see it necessary and parsimonious to explain contemporary problems. You may have realized that theoretical physics has been in a state of stagnation for more than 30 years. I have studied and meticulously analyzed the present stage of physics along with its foundations. I have identified, as I reported in my essay, that there are no weighty arguments to reject the aether. You have contented that there are no experimental reasons to reject nor to accepted. So we can assume it because it is useful. So, according to my analysis, the rejection of the aether has led physics to the present state. First, since SR rejected the aether, physics has been deprived of a massive medium for light waves, since there is no medium for light there is no mechanism for light to lose energy (i.e., cosmological red shift). Based on Hubble’s law, this led physicists to resort to the space expansion hypothesis whose consequence is the big bang theory (BBT). In turn the BBT has led physics to the problem of flatness, the horizon problem, dark energy and dark matter problems and so on and so forth. However, I found that by reintroducing the aether we are reintroducing a mechanism to explain the red shift and therefore there is no need of postulating expansion of the universe. It follows that there is no horizon problem and no dark energy problem (as you can see, the aether assumption is washing out needless hypotheses). The model also is based on Euclidean geometry and therefore the flatness problem is justified. Taking into account the massive character of the aether there is also no need to invoke dark matter. Dark matter can be seen simply as an increase of density of this fluid within galaxies. Under the aether proposal, the cosmic background radiation is not interpreted as the relic of the BB but as the radiation given off by the medium in thermodynamical equilibrium with the millions of stars in the universe. Of course, I am telling you in a few lines the highly condensed version of the story. So, if you do not have the whole background of how the events developed up to our present days, you won’t believe me. And, the great problem that I see is that physicists are not even open to entertain this way of conceiving things.

You may recall that Hendrik Lorentz developed in 1904 the kinematical part of relativity departing from the principle that there was aether. Under this assumption he showed that the Lorentz symmetry (as we know it today) naturally emerges. On the contrary, Einstein saw the aether superfluous and derived the same kinematics from his two postulates. As early as 1899 Lorentz was aware that kinematical experiments could not tell about the state of motion relative to the aether. Let's call for the sake of illustration the Lorentz' approach, Lorentz theory (LT) and Einstein' approach, SR. These two theories explain the same physical phenomena, i.e. time dilation, length contraction, Doppler effect, addition of velocities, etc. The weakness of LT is that the aether, apparently, cannot be detected and, as Einstein (and you) argue, the notion of absolute position has no meaning. On the other hand, the weakness of relativity is the series of paradoxes that arise by denying the PSR (unfortunately, relativists do not even acknowledge the paradoxes, but let us assume for our purposes that they acknowledge them). So, the weakness of SR is the strength of LT and viceversa. Since these two theories explain the same body of experimental evidence, at first sight, it turns out to be inconsequential what theory we use to make calculations. But since SR had less assumptions physicists prefered SR above LT. So far so good.

Einstein also argued that fields were not states of any medium, that electromagnetic fields are independent realities, and so there is no need of aether. Following this line of thought you claim that the ZPF (aether) does not imply a PSR and that fields do not need a bearer, actually, according to the most modern theories the fields can generate space. Ok, I have no problem with this, it is one approach. But I am following another one. I hold a different view and support Lorentz approach, that space is a fluid and that fields are states of it even if it could not be detected. So, in analogy with the previous paragraph my weakness is that it may not be possible to detect the motion relative to the ZPF but despite this, my view has no paradoxes as in the case of SR. Of course, as I explained above, my proposal goes beyond relativistic matters, it endeavors to explain as much physics as possible at all scales.

to be continued...

Israel

view post as summary

Part 2

Fortunately, we have one important point of agreement. You acknowledge that a theory is valuable due to its utility to solve the problems under consideration. And you also agree that if a theory assuming the PSR can explain most experimental observations, it would be worth of consideration. Indeed, this is why I support the PSR and the fluid assumption.

If we are looking for...

view entire post

Part 2

Fortunately, we have one important point of agreement. You acknowledge that a theory is valuable due to its utility to solve the problems under consideration. And you also agree that if a theory assuming the PSR can explain most experimental observations, it would be worth of consideration. Indeed, this is why I support the PSR and the fluid assumption.

If we are looking for parsimonious theory, I think I have it because it is based on only one single postulate, that is, that space is a massive fluid. This postulate alone suffices to explain most of the problems of modern physics. But this requires a radical change in our present conceptions of the physical world. By this I mean, for instance, that we have to abandon the assumption that fields do not need a medium. Certainly, this is the opposite view that you and current physics hold and this is a big problem. So, I am not going to convince you or anybody else only by epistemological or ontological arguments but also by providing a new theoretical and consistent framework where the facts could be satisfactorily explained. Actually, I am working on this part.

Among the problems that my proposal has the potential to explain (or eliminate) are: the dark matter and dark energy problems, the expansion of the universe, the flatness problem, the vacuum catastrophe and the horizon problem (which from the perspective of my proposal are all illusory problems in the sense that they are the result of the choice of the fundamental assumptions in the prevailing theories such as there is no aether, fields are not states of the aether, etc.), the fly-by and pioneers anomalies, the baryon asymmetry, the GZK limit, the cosmological constant problem and so forth. Some other problems of theoretical character such as the Hawking paradox, the arrow of time, the reality of the wave function, the wave-particle duality and the nonlocality of QM can also be solved. In fact, my proposal has the potential to make QM to be utterly local. In addition to all of this, the theory I support not only will solve most of the problems but also will make the physics very intuitive. Modern theories lack this virtue and so they lose credibility. Their lack of an intuitive picture is the result of too much mathematical formulation and very few philosophical reasoning. Fortunately, physicists have realized this and they are going back to the old way of doing physics (e.g., check the Trouble with Physics of Lee Smolin or look up at the Herman Minkowski Institute on the web), actually this contest is a recognition that the old way of doing physics should be recovered.

to be continued...

Israel

view post as summary

Part 3

Finally, you said: guy has filmed light moving! Well, if your idea is to present this experiment as a test that the one-way speed of light or any other physical entity can be measured, I invite you to analyze it in great detail so you can convince yourself that measuring speeds is not just defining a distance and measuring the time it takes for a physical entity to travel it. This...

view entire post

Part 3

Finally, you said: guy has filmed light moving! Well, if your idea is to present this experiment as a test that the one-way speed of light or any other physical entity can be measured, I invite you to analyze it in great detail so you can convince yourself that measuring speeds is not just defining a distance and measuring the time it takes for a physical entity to travel it. This will be useful as an exercise for you to realize that the one-way speed of light can not be measured. It will also help you to understand that one has to assume a special system of reference where the one-way speed of light is isotropic (see my reference 17 to follow the approach).

You: My above comments are related to this paragraph. What I can figure out is that you are confusing the experimental implications of the theory (i.e., the predictions of the theory) with the internal consistency of the theory. From the experimental point of view relativistic effects are real, they do occur (and they are real because the PSR must exist)''

Can´t see why they are real because the PSR exist.

According to the LT objects in motion really contract and clocks in motion really dilate because to accelerate an object from absolute rest one has to apply forces. Being the aether a fluid, the aether opposes to the applied force and the object deforms (contracts). Clocks in motion relative to the aether dilate because electromagnetic fields are states of the aether and so fields have to travel longer distances in the aether as the clock moves through it. Again, imagine the light clock placed in a perpendicular direction to the motion. Light has to travel in a diagonal in the forward and backward journeys, covering a longer distance than when the clock is at rest on the aether. The faster the clock moves the slower the ticks because light traveling trough the aether will take a longer absolute time to reach the upper mirror and go backwards. So, as measured by an observer at rest in the aether, the process of completing a tick lasts more while in motion than at absolute rest.

If you have understood this picture, then you will probably understand why it is said that in SR relativistic effects are only apparent and not real. The word "REAL" implies an absolute system of reference in the sense of LT. Since in SR there are no PSRs, the effects cannot be real or absolute. To understand this problem further you have to study it deeper. My suggestion is that you should do the exercise above and consider my reference 17 and references there in. As long as a relativist does not spend some time studying this problem he will never understand it (and what is worst he will be denying it for the rest of his life).

I hope you have grasped a little the great importance of reintroducing the aether and the PSR. So, if you are interested we could be in touch far beyond this forum. In any case, I see in you someone with great potential for physics, and it would be a shame if you focus your efforts in something fruitless. It took me many years of hard work to realize where the problem was and I'll move on with this approach because I am 99.9% that I am right. If you would like to join my endeavor now or in the future you will be more than welcomed.

Good luck in your life and the contest

Best regards

Israel

view post as summary