The Preferred System of Reference Reloaded by Israel Omar Perez

Dear Daniel this is part 1

You: What I have tried... ...the problem

The argument of the snapshot has some issues. The first is that it is referred to macroscopic situations. In this sense I agree with you that you cannot tell the difference because macroscopic objects do not change too much from time to time. But at the microscopic level this no longer holds due to the continuous activity of the vacuum. One unrealistic situation that I found in the idea of a snapshot is that one cannot take instantaneous pictures of an event, basically for two reasons: First because the uncertainty principle will play the role in the outcome of the snapshot and second because an instant implies an interval of zero time which is physically inconceivable and experimentally unrealizable (although mathematically is possible). The idea that a snapshot captures an instant of time is misleading. One can only capture intervals of time different from zero (this is also stated in the uncertainty principle delta t delta E=h). And the problem comes from the mathematical representation of space and time as a continuum. Weistrass assigned to each value of a variable t a corresponding value of the function x and defined a one-to-one correspondence between an element of a domain and its counterpart in the image group. By doing this he got rid of the problem of infinitesimals (small intervals). Which misled physicists by making them think that a physical object can occupy a point in space and time. Mathematically this is correct, but physically is inconsistent since physical objects occupy space intervals (volumes) and things occur within time intervals. In a point of time (interval of zero magnitude) nothing occurs, everything seems to be frozen and if nothing changes how can we justify motion? If one assumes that space-time is physically continuous (composed of adimensional points) one arrives at the well know zeno's paradoxes. This is a topic I do not wish to address here. And like I said, despite these paradoxes, the continuum conception has been useful so far.

You: but experimental evidence, at least to the extent that I know, has never produced such information... ...No experiment has ever revealed a preferred position, but a theory built upon a PSR would necessarily refer to such positions (I can't see how it could be done otherwise, if you have any idea please tell me). So this is why I concluded that the concept of PSR much be REALLY useful if we are going to introduce it.

There are many experiments claiming the detection of the PSR, but since the PSR is not even recognize by the mainstream of physics they are not widely known. My reference 17 (Eq. 3.14 for instance) shows that in principle the PSR can be detected. There I explain that the measurement of velocities is not a trivial task as most people think.

Your arguments to refute the PSR are the same arguments that have been given against the PSR since the special relativity was put forward. I have laid down some arguments in my previous reply to you and I think that my essay gives some others. The special relativity has used the principle of relativity to establish that there are no PSR, to argue that there is no privileged observer for the description of physical phenomena. All systems of reference are equivalent. And I think this is misleading. They are equivalent not because there is PSR but because an experiment has the same result no matter its state of motion, absolute rest or motion. I am going to express how the principle of relativity should be really understood. Just keep in mind that above all physics is not only a theoretical science but also an experimental one. So, imagine an observer equipped with his measuring instruments at rest in the PSR, i.e., in vacuum/aether. He then performs a series of experiments to find the relations among the different physical quantities. From these results he arrives at the formulation of the laws of physics. He then put his whole equipment in a rocket and moves at a constant speed in relation to the PSR. Then, he performs the same experiments and the same operations in the rocket to find the laws of physics. For his surprise he finds the same laws as those he found while in the PSR. He then arrives at the reasonable conclusion that the laws of physics should be the same in any other system of reference and hence establishes the principle of relativity. So far so good, but here it comes the anxious question: What experimental reasons does the observer have to reject the PSR despite the fact that he cannot identify with his experiments whether he is really at rest or in motion relative to the PSR? One will easily realize that there is no experimental argument to refuse the PSR, since he knows that the same laws will be found everywhere. If our friend accepts the existence any other system, why should he reject the PSR? Do you have an experimental argument to refuse it?

Israel

This is part 2

Of course one can argue as you did. If I cannot determine whether I am at rest or in motion it is meaningless to say ''what is my absolute position?''. Above all, this is just a technical problem but this does not imply that the PSR does not exist. In my previous post, I asked you take a look at my reference 17. There I explain, for instance, that the one-way speed of light cannot be experimentally determined and it has never been measured. So, if I follow your same line of reasoning I could argue that the second postulate of special relativity is meaningless because it can never be experimentally verified. Again the determination of the one-way speed of light is a technical problem but the fact that it cannot be measured does not imply that (in an isotropic and homogenous space) the speed of light is not isotropic. In this same article I made the calculation of the measurement of the one-way speed of light. I showed that it is necessary, if one wishes to be coherent, to introduce a special system of reference (isotropic system) where it is assumed that the one-way speed of light is isotropic. Then, if an observer in the isotropic system judges the operation of measuring the speed of light of another observer in a system moving at constant speed v relative to the isotropic system, he will find that the observer in motion should measure a one-way speed of light dependent of v, i.e., anisotropic. But since the observer in motion can only measure round trip speeds, the average speed he will find is c, in agreement with actual experimental observations. So the observer in motion thinks that in his system the speed of light is also isotropic. Hence again, from the point of view of the observer in motion, he assumes that his system is the isotropic system and concludes that in the initial isotropic system the one-way speed of light is anisotropic although the two-way speed of light remains constant. Again we have another paradox since no observer can decide which system is the isotropic system, both are isotropic and both are anisotropic. If you are really interested in this problem you should take a look at my reference and references there in. There you will familiarize with the perplexities of special relativity. And so, probably, you will understand why one has to reintroduce the PSR; this is one way to eliminate all these antinomies.

You: I don´t quietly understand that. In relativity, there is only one space-time manifold, but different basis in which we may write 4-vector an so on. So yes, time dilatation DOES occur (see the experiment where clocks in the earth and in an airplane measure different intervals for a round trip on earth), length contraction DOES occur.

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) but strictly speaking and in theoretical terms they are apparent. They are apparent because special relativity denies the PSR and therefore there is no real motion and no real effects (or absolute as you understand).

Israel

John

You: is that light is the medium and waves are the features/information content of this expanding medium.

It is hard for me to figure out how can light be a medium instead of a wave. From the perspective of wave mechanics, light is a feature of the medium. The medium is the thing that exist and the wave is a feature of the medium. How can the wave be the medium and the medium be the wave? I do not get this and I do not see why to should we interchange the roles. If you have a reference in which this idea is more elaborated I would appreciate it. In any case as I understand you bring expansion as main ingredient to explain the frequency shift. Whether space or light expands I see both equivalent, because in both cases the mechanism is expansion. I clearly understand that expansion is one possible explanation of the red shift. However, in my previous posts I argue in favor of a model where there is no expansion; light loses energy simply because the aether, as any other medium, is dissipative/dispersive and light (seen as wave) is absorbed as the distance grows, just as a water wave vanishes in a lake as it propagates. My point is: why should we resort to expansion if it is not necessary to explain the observations?

Israel

Hi John,

I am sorry I think I misunderstood what you said. Your last paragraph helped me to understand your point. As I understand your are talking about the expansion of a wave as is propagates outwards. I agree with this, the energy per unit area decreases as function of the inverse square of the distance. But there is an additional factor due to dissipation that should be added. On the other hand, one can assume, for the sake of simplification, the aether at rest, but in general it can be in motion. So this may be in agreement with you ideas.

Israel

John

Some times in ordinary language I used the word "aether" as a synonym of "quantum vacuum", "space" or "zero-point field"(ZPF), although I know that the aether has had different connotations along its history. The sense in which I mean to use the word "aether" is making allusion to the existence of a substance (which one can say that it is space itself) pervading the universe and at the same time as representative of the PSR. To be consistent we the prevailing view in physics we can convene in naming such substance the ZPF. The Casimir effect or the Lamb shift can be considered as proofs that the ZPF (i.e. space or aether, etc.) exists. Then we have a medium for light waves and this medium is slightly dissipative due to its massive nature. For relatively short distances (a few parsecs) its effect on light is negligible but at cosmological ones its effect is predominant. As to the speed of light you should take a look at my reference 17 there I explain why the speed of light is always measured to be c for any observer. So, we have the elements to hold that there is pervading massive substance.

Cheers

Israel

Pentcho

You are still totally confused. This "If the frequency...measure c and not c'." is true. Take a look at a book where you find the Doppler effect for observers in motion relative to a source at rest, and then take a look at the case in which the observer is at rest and the source in motion and work out the calculation only of the wavelength instead of the frequency. You will realize that L'=L/(1+v/c) (the sign will depend on whether the source-observer approach or move away).

Israel

Pentcho

I am talking about light. You are mixing things again. The cases you are quoting are for the non-relativistic Doppler effect, that is, for other waves different from light. For light in inertial systems of reference the speed of light is always c, so if you have a frequency f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength has to L'=L/(1+v/c) otherwise you will have c' different from c which disagrees with experience.

Israel

Pentcho

You have to understand that the expressions you quote are for speeds v low compared to the speed of light. When astronomers use the formula f'=f(1+v/c) they are using it because v is low in comparison to c, but if v were much greater they would use the relativistic formula: f'=f sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]. The formula you quote is an approximation to this relativistic one which coincides with the Galilean Doppler formula but this coincidence does not mean that the speed of light acquires a different value from c (such as c+v), as the other wave speeds do (sound, etc.). Do not mix lines of reasoning.

The speed of light is always c in any direction and way, it is isotropic in inertial systems of reference. Hence, if the frequency were f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength would be L'=L/(1+v/c) so that f'L'=c.

Israel