Hi Jorrie,
Stubborn clinging to an Aether?
Einstein wrote:We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University wrote:It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
And by Length Dilation.. is was referring to Length Contraction. A rigid object of mass becomes shorter in the direction of travel.. thus when the arm of the Centrifuge is pointing away from or towards its direction of travel.. it becomes shorter than when the arm is at a right angle to its direction of travel. This was one of the reasons the M&M experiment produced a Null Result, since it was on a rotating base.
The Centrifuge Experiment:
Jorrie wrote:That platform could be rotated and also moved linearly. The results (Null) were quite devastating for 'absolute framers'.
Jorrie wrote:You are right that such an experiment is equivalent (not Null) to the twins Alice and Bob in the much discussed "paradox".
As said previously, Clock Functions in Moving Frames only works on paper when Absolutes are plugged in.
In the real world, Absolutes are hard to come by. Given Bob is moving at speed (X) and Alice is moving relative to Bob at 100,000 Kilometers Per Second faster than (X), one can not discern the clock differential (ratio) between them because the Lorentz Equation is Non-Linear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilationSo, I have no issues with Relativity itself, but find it ironic that it only works when one knows Absolutes and Relativists defend to the death.. that Absolutes can't be known. Want further proof? Look at any Relativity problem and you will see Absolutes or.. implied Absolutes.. are employed. (Ie: Alice is stationary)
Obviously, I'm what Relativists call an Absolutist. And like Einstein (and most of real world physicists) we accept the concept of an Aether or Space-Time.. as Einstein renamed it to.
Regards,
Dave :^)