neo-Lorentzian relativity

roosh

Hey guys, I've been discussing Lorentzian relativity elsewhere and something that has been mentioned is that neo-Lorentzian relativity has essentially been divested of all the trappings of Lorentzian Ether Theory except for the undetectable absolute rest frame, that includes the concept of an aether as far as I am aware.

the last vestiges of a substantial ether had been eliminated from Lorentz's "ether" theory, and it became both empirically and deductively equivalent to special relativity. The only difference was the metaphysical[C 7] postulate of a unique absolute rest frame, which was empirically undetectable and played no role in the physical predictions of the theory. As a result, the term "Lorentz ether theory" is sometimes used today to refer to a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity

current status

The objection I usually hear with regard to Lorentzian relativity is that of the assumption of the absolute rest frame, with the preference for Einsteinian relativity being linked to the absence of this assumption. Given that the experimental evidence doesn't distinguish between either theory, if the postulation of the undetectable absolute rest frame were removed from Lorentzian relativity, would there be any reason to prefer Einsteinian relativity over Lorentzian?

Morbert

I didn't see this until now.

The common objection is the dynamical explanation of length contraction and time dilation. What are those dynamics?

Einstein's relativity doesn't suffer the same issues. It simply says our intuitive "Newtonian" understanding of the geometry of kinematics turned out to be wrong.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

I didn't see this until now.

The common objection is the dynamical explanation of length contraction and time dilation. What are those dynamics?

Einstein's relativity doesn't suffer the same issues. It simply says our intuitive "Newtonian" understanding of the geometry of kinematics turned out to be wrong.

You mentioned a "plethora" of assumptions. I'm familiar with the assumption of an undetectable, absolute reference frame - which I think can easily be removed from the theory - and the above mentioned dynamics of length contraction. Are there others?

With regard to the assumptions of Einsteinian relativity, it is, arguably, reliant on a number of tacit assumptions, that neo-Lorentzian relativity doesn't require.

It still seems as though the choice is between, on the one hand, a theory which seeks to explain things in the context of the micro-structure of matter (which we know to exist); and on the other, a theory which explains things by introducing a "new kinematical structure for space and time involving essential relativized notions of duration, length, and simultaneity"; which can, incidentally, only be detected by measuring the effects of the micro-structure of matter, or the macro-structure of matter, which we know to be comprised of the micro-structure of matter.

Morbert wrote: »

Brown and Pooley argue that Einstein's relativity has the same issues as Lorentzian relativity. It doesn't, for the following reasons.

(a) The 'constraint' of Minkowski geometry occurs precisely because of the absence of mysterious dynamical forces. Brown and Pooley argue that a Minkowski geometry doesn't necessarily mean the laws of physics are Lorentz invariant. This is true insofar as you can postulate mysterious accidental dynamics to break Lorentz invariance, just as neo-Lorentzian relativity postulates mysterious dynamics to break Galilean invariance. But in the absence of such mysterious dynamics, Minkowski kinematics implies Lorentz invariant laws. And since the absence of mysterious dynamics is the virtue of Einstein's relativity, there is no problem.

I'm not sure I understand how minkowskian spacetime contrains the "complex" material bodies, because there are no dynamical forces.

Does Einsteinian relativity postulate that the micro-structure of matter remains unaffected when spacetime contracts; or whatever the process of contraction is.

Morbert wrote: »

(b) Neo-Lorentzian relativity does not explain this "accidental" microstructure of matter. Brown and Pooley adimit as much ("all explanation must stop somewhere").

Jjust wondering if this applies?

Larmor predicted the phenomenon of time dilation, at least for orbiting electrons, and verified that the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction (length contraction) should occur for bodies whose atoms were held together by electromagnetic forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Larmor][/B]Joseph Larmor - wiki

Morbert wrote: »

(c) There is an interesting rebuttal found here

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3895/

as well as other criticisms

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3655/1/Constructive_Relativity.pdf

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3108/1/Physical_Relativityfin.pdf

I don't draw anything particular from them (yet) as directly relevant to our conversation, but you might find them interesting.

cheers, I'll give them a look. Would you be familiar with any decent articles on [neo-]Lorentzian relativity? I would be interested in reading both pro- and anti-opinions.

Morbert wrote: »

When it comes to the "philosophy" of relativity, I take the (seemingly dismissive) position that Minkowski spacetime is the simplest mathematical model connecting the postulates of relativity to experimental observations.

I don't understand the ins and outs of the mathematics enough to be able to go through the logical consequences; I would have questions like, if Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity are empirically equivalent, could the maths of minkowski spacetime be used without the ontological claim to its existence?

Enkidu

The major problem with any theory that's not relativity itself is that you have to come up with some universal interactions that affects all matter the same way regardless of its structure or composition, i.e. an iron bar and a bar made of smoke both undergo identical length contractions. Neo-Leorentzian relativity doesn't have any convincing models of what these new dynamics are.

Secondly there has never been a demonstration that you can reproduce the results of the Standard Model with it. As far as I understand, modern particle physics uses quantum theories which live in Minkowski space and these produce the correct results. I've never heard of how one creates a quantised theory with this universal interaction present.