The Preferred System of Reference Reloaded by Israel Omar Perez

This is part 3

...From here we see that for Maxwell vacuum only meant: "deprived of macroscopic matter". He also realized that electromagnetic experiments could be quantitatively explained whether the aether was included or not in his theory. Gibbs applied Maxwell's equations to refraction problems and also arrived at the same conclusion (notice that Gibbs was being mathematically pragmatic even though in philosophical terms the notion of aether was suggested). By 1887-8 Hertz in Germany discovered the electromagnetic waves and Hertz experiments were reproduced in England by Oliver Lodge corroborating Hertz' discovery. Hertz generalized Maxwell's equations to include the notion of the medium, but unfortunately his formulation was disregarded and considered as "unnecessary". As in the case of Newton in which the law of gravitation does not suggest any aether, Maxwell electrodynamics could live without it. This fact was exploited by Einstein when he rejected it in his famous article of 1905 "The electrodynamics of moving bodies" and later when he contented that fields were not states of the aether but physical realities independent of a bearer. But by denying the aether, space was left EMPTY. To avoid the action at a distance he reconsidered the gravitational field as the new aether. For Einstein also EMPTY space was a mere metaphysical artifice. He held that the gravitational field was space itself, He said that if there is no gravitational field, no electromagnetic field and no matter, then there remains nothing, and, again, nothingness was absurd for him. The problem with Einstein's aether is that it is, obviously, ontologically deprived of matter. Nowadays the astronomical observations suggest that there is more matter (dark matter) than the one observed. I think that this matter would be have easily related to the material aether that Einstein denied based only on epistemological considerations.

The application of the general relativity to cosmology has led physics to postulate the big bang model, the expansion of the universe, the microwave background radiation, etc. Nonetheless, despite the success of these models it is unquestionable that the INTUITIVE picture of the WORLD has been lost since the 1920s. I know also that the intuitive picture is highly disregarded in physics; modern physics no longer uses philosophical reasoning and intuition as tools to build theories. But like I mentioned before, mathematical reasoning cannot see what intuition and philosophical reasoning can. Descartes once said that it is good to learn all sciences because they are all the result of intelligence and reasoning. In this sense, those who also use philosophy as a tool to discover the mysteries of the universe have more advantages above those who only use mathematical reasoning. This is what Newton learned from Descartes. Newton was the model of a physicists: a magnificent mathematician, exquisite experimentalist and marvelous philosopher. Nowadays, it is really rare to find one scientist like this. Einstein was an excellent theoretician and an outstanding philosopher, but not a good experimentalist; perhaps this is the reason why he underestimated the importance of the experimental part in the principle of relativity. It is evident that, experimentally, the PSR cannot be denied. Since there is no experimental reason to reject it, there is also no reason to deny Descartes' (or Lorentz) notion of the aether. I'm convinced that these two concepts are the key for the progress of physics.

I hope I have dispelled some doubts.

Israel

Dear Juan

Thanks for your comments, they are interesting.

Based on my research, I see no reason to reject the PSR. The PSR has already been found though not identify as such. In my reference 14 (eq. 3.14), I provide just one example that the PSR can be, in principle, experimentally determined.

One should understand that the physical interpretation of experimental evidence depends to a high degree on the theoretical framework under consideration. Based on the current paradigm in physics, it is evident that there is no PSR since its conception is no longer a fundamental part in any of the accepted theories.

But one can build a theory including the PSR and reinterpret the current observations within this new theoretical framework. Such theory (lets name it DKT) is already developed but not recognized by the mainstream of physicists. In DKT, the aether is conceived as a material continuum pervading the whole universe and at the same time as the PSR. However, what in DKT is interpreted as the PSR, the prevailing paradigm interpret it as the remnants of the big bang, now known as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). From the DKT the CMBR is only the temperature of the material continuum.

The continuum can be assumed, in general, to be dynamic but in its simplistic conception one can assume it at rest. In this scenario, the continuum resembles the Lorentz aether and therefore the Newtonian absolute space. I have provided a couple of epistemological arguments in my threads here in reply to John Merryman and Eckard Blumschein. There, I elucidate that even Newton considered that space was not empty at all and that he attributed the cause of gravitation to the flow of the aether. This fact tell us that, in the philosophical conception about gravity, Newton was actually a Cartesian. I also explain some of the misconceptions about the aether, the vacuum and the notion of fields (please see my threads below). The assumption of the PSR and the continuum can solve most of present problems in physics relatively easy. The key point is to get rid of the preconceptions of the present paradigm. This is the most difficult part.

Best regards

Israel

Hi Eckard,

Well I tried to explain my points but it seems to me that you did not see the connection. I have already read your essay which I enjoyed, I made some comments and I am aware of the references you cited. I remember Gifts, he claims this:

"CONCLUSION

Using the synchronized clocks of the GPS, light speed variation c +/-v arising because of rotating Earth has been demonstrated in this paper. This is at variance with the principle of light speed constancy used in the Einstein synchronization procedure but confirms the GPS light speed findings..."

Gift based his measurements on the synchronization of clocks in the GPS. However, the calculations for the synchronization of clocks are carried out ASSUMING IN ADVANCE THE VALIDITY of the constancy of the one-way speed of light and the application of relativistic effects. The reference he cites says:

"The principles of position determination and time transfer in the GPS can be very simply stated. Let there be four synchronized atomic clocks that transmit sharply defined pulses from the positions r_j at times t_j , with j=1,2,3,4 an index labeling the different transmission events. Suppose that these four signals are received at position r at one and the same instant t. Then

from the PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT,

c^2(t-t_j)^2=|r-r_j|^2

where the DEFINED value of c is exactly 299792458 m/s. The principle of the constancy of c finds application as the fundamental concept on which the GPS is based..."

Obviously, with this in mind, the experiment is invalidated. Roemer's approach experiences the same fate.

As I said, I accept the mathematical formulation of relativity but not the physical content. It is not my wish to reconcile the PSR with relativity, I am aware that the PSR is not included per se in relativity, so it would be futile to endeavor such a reconciliation. Instead a new powerful theory in which the PSR is assumed may emerge. Just bear in mind that an experimentalist would not reject the PSR because if he conducts the same experiments in any other system of reference he will deduce the same physical laws as in the PSR.

Israel

Hi Juan

Due to the lack of space, I will split my reply in two parts. This is part 1.

Thanks for your comments. Certainly, the PSR and the aether are not mainstream so far, but I am optimistic that they will be in the following years to come because it is one of the most viable solutions to contemporary physics.

You said: I even feel people who support the relativistic - based on GR- "block universe" tend to assume something quite "absolute" as PSR.

I agree, some observations suggest the PSR. The essay of Daryl Janzen is one of this cases.

You: Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration"

Many people think that considering the PSR means abandoning relativism. This is a misconception. The PSR can go along with the principle of relativity.

You: But I have no faith in PSR...

I understand that many people do not believe in the PSR, some times it is matter of taste, but as I argue in my essay the PSR could be helpful to solve many of the present problems in physics. This is why it is important.

To be continued...

Israel

This is part 2.

You: how do you think PSR would help to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe?

To answer your question we first need to understand how physicists arrived at the conclusion that space is expanding. For this purpose we have to go back to the beginning of the XX century before the discovery of the general relativity around 1915. By then the special relativity (SR) had been already developed. Astronomers thought that the Copernican principle was valid, this principle estates that the earth is not the center of the universe. They were also learning how to determine the distance of distant astronomical objects such as galaxies. But their methods were base under the assumption that the inverse square law for the intensity of light held. This was learned in previous centuries and is true as long as one thinks that light needs no medium, that is, that light propagates in EMPTY space or vacuum. The consideration that space was empty and infinite in extension led thinkers to arrived at the famous Olbers' paradox which says that the night should be as brilliant as the day because in every direction of the sky one will find a star. Astronomer and physicists were in real trouble and they did know how to solve this puzzle. Now, from the SR they knew that when a light source moves relative to an observer, he will experience the Doppler effect. If the light source approaches the observer the emission spectra will be blushifted, on the contrary, if the source recedes from the observer the spectra will be redshifted. By characterization of stars they learned how to estimate the distances of the objects by several methods, cepheid variables, etc. As well by applying SR they interpret the redshift found in spectra as a recessional velocity. Thus, if one constructs a plot of redshift vs distance one would obtain what by 1929 was known as the Hubble's law. This relationship of distance-velocity suggests two ideas if we based only their interpretation on SR, that is: galaxies are moving away from our own galaxy and that the farther the galaxy the greater the velocity. The Copernican principle can be used to support this hypothesis. So the expansion of the universe was one way to solve in part the Olber's paradox. In 1917 Einstein published a paper were he had added the cosmological constant LAMBDA to avoid the collapse or expansion of the universe due to gravity. In this model the universe was static. However, by 1922 a couple of models suggesting expansion were put forwarded. One of this was due to Alexander Friedmann. He showed that Einstein's Universe was a special case of the more general solutions, in which the universe is expanding. In 1927 George Lemaitre found a similar solution to that of Friedmann. By 1929 Hubble published his famous law (it was Vesto slipher and others who first discovered Hubble's law before 1929). Now we have data suggesting expansion and we have a theoretical framework where data can be given a physical interpretation. The rest is the history that we all know: big bang, cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), acceleration of the expansion, horizon problem, etc.

Now let use imagine that we change a little bit the history of physics and keep in mind that the aether as the medium of electromagnetic waves was never rejected. Then, we will easily realized that, as any other medium, the aether is dissipative. This means that at the cosmic scale the inverse square law is not valid at all. This would imply that the determination of the distances and velocities of galaxies and stars by means of the measurement of brightness and the redshifts are in need of corrections. The fact that the aether is dissipative also explains why distant astronomical objects cannot be "seen" with "poor" optics. Since the aether is the bearer of electromagnetic waves, the energy of light emitted from distant galaxies is simply absorbed by the medium. As the distance increases the wave vanishes. This explains, at once, the Olber's paradox without need of assuming the expansion of the universe. Since there is no expansion, there is no need of Big Bang. And the CMBR can be interpreted only as the temperature of the aether, this also explains the horizon problem. Some other problems can also be solved such as dark matter. If we assume the aether as a material medium, this would immediately explain the rotational problem of stars in galaxies. As I said the theory is already developed, I think it is only a matter of time for the PSR and the aether to reemerge.

I hope I have answered your question.

Israel

Dear Peter

Thank you for reading my essay, I really appreciate your comments. I haven't taken a look at yours but I will do it as soon as possible. I am sure I will have no problems to get your ideas.

You: I derive a third option which is of real and mutually exclusive spaces, which resolves about every anomaly in astronomy, but it seems it can't be published as it is too 'different' to the old paradigm so difficult to rationalise.

I am curious about it. Thanks for your wishes and I wish you the best too, I am confident that your work is also interesting for any reader and deserves a good score.

Israel

Dear Peter

Thank you for reading my essay, I really appreciate your comments. I haven't taken a look at yours but I will do it as soon as possible. I am sure I will have no problems to get your ideas.

You: I derive a third option which is of real and mutually exclusive spaces, which resolves about every anomaly in astronomy, but it seems it can't be published as it is too 'different' to the old paradigm so difficult to rationalise.

I am curious about it. Thanks for your wishes and I wish you the best too, I am confident that your work is also interesting for any reader and deserves a good score.

Israel

Dear Juan

Thanks for your wishes and for the invitation, I will keep it in mind.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

Dear Constantinos,

Thank you for reading my essays and for your comments. I do agree that the speed of light is defined, as in any other wave, by the properties of the medium. So if light is envisaged as a wave its speed is determined by the medium. If the medium is isotropic and homogeneous then one would expect the speed to be constant relative to an observer at rest in this medium. The problem arises when there is an observer moving in relation to the medium and the question do not appear to be as simple as in the previous case. Here the Lorentz contraction and the time dilation play their role in making the speed of light (the laws of physics invariant) a constant for all observes. The notion of photon per se does not require a medium but it is not clear what physical entity defines its speed. Actually, it is simply argue that its speed is constant and the same. If one considers relativistic effects then an observer in motion will measure the same value in any inertial system. So, for practical purposes, what matters is not whether light is a wave or a photon. However, if one wishes to be conceptually coherent and consistent, as you also point it out, the notion of photon leads to intuitive contradictions whereas waves do not.

I will take a look at your essay as soon as I can. Gook luck in the contest!

Israel