Still More Light

Albro Swift wrote:
 Complete mass-energy equivalence is logically incompatible
 with the concept of absolute time... an "ether" theory can 
 only incorporate mass-energy equivalence in an entirely ad hoc
 and logically incongruous way...

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 Why does this notion of *complete* mass-energy equivalence (compared
 with some incomplete mass-energy equivalence, whatever this means)
 suggests a lack of coherence in my views?

Once more, the reasoning is roughly as follows:  We observe that
massive objects exhibit an intrinsic resistance to acceleration
in any surroundings, and we call this resistance by the name of
inertia.  Then we notice that as an object moves faster, its
resistance to acceleration increases.  But then we say "This is
not increased inertia, it is simply aerodynamic drag".  Thus, we
understand that we haven't actually changed the inertia of the
object, we have just encountered the effects of an *interaction*
between that object and other entities, and this interaction simply
mimics some (but not all) of the attributes of inertia. Fine.

Now we consider an object in a vacuum, but again we notice (at much
higher speeds) that the resistance to acceleration increases as
the object moves faster.  Now we ask ourselves again, "Is this
an increase in the inertia of the object, or is it an extrinsic
phenomenon, i.e., an interaction with surrounding entities (such
as the components of an ether) that simply mimics some of the
attributes of inertia?"

Here we arrive at the crucial point.  If the increased resistance
is an extrinsic effect (such as "drag" imposed by an ether), and
the particle's intrinsic inertia is invariant (consistent with the
notion of an absolute time axis), then can we - with the full
application of every scrap of intellectual honesty that we possess -
claim to infer from this increased resistance that the intrinsic
inertia of the particle is transmutable with kinetic energy?  What
would be the basis of such a claim?  I contend that anyone who
doesn't already have his entire ego invested in a contrary position
will agree that the "ether" interpretation certainly does NOT
suggest, and is actually distinctly incompatible with, the idea
that inertial mass is transmutable with energy.

If the increased resistance to acceleration is due to extrinsic
drag (for example) then we have no way of accounting for the
complete conversion of mass to energy represented by the
annihilation of electrons and positrons.  "Ether drag" (or any
other extrinsic proposition) simply does not accord with this
demonstrated transmutability of inertial mass and energy.  In
such a context we can only introduce mass-energy equivalence
on a completely ad hoc basis, and as a completely separate
phenomenon from the increasing resistance to acceleration at
high speeds, which ostensibly is what suggested the equivalence
in the first place!

The equivalence of mass and energy emerges very naturally
from the principle of relativity, and forms a coherent whole,
especially with the general theory, but in an ether theory the
equivalence of mass and energy is a distinct anomaly.  Likewise,
the equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass, which
has also been demonstrated to a very high degree of precision,
and which is in perfect accord with the principles of general
relativity, must appear simply as an accident in an ether theory,
or any other theory with an absolute time axis.

Bare falsifiability is not the ultimate criterion for a theoretical
framework.  Above all, from an observationally viable theory we
seek unity, coherence, logical simplicity, beauty, and heuristic
power.  General relativity has all of those in the extreme.  Ether
theories have none of them.


Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 The question is if there was any progress in physics during this
 century which probably would not have been happened without
 relativistic ideology.  I see no reason for this. The basic SR
 formulas have been found by Poincare without relativistic help,
 positrons have been found using the electron/hole picture, not 
 your relativistic suggestions.

As I recall, anti-matter was first predicted by Dirac on the basis
of his efforts to relativize QM, and the "hole theory" was an attempt
to conceive of some detailed mechanism.  Of course, you might say
he was trying to Poincarize QM.

In any case, I think the question is ill-posed.  You're asking
whether, if the theory of relativity did not exist, the progress
in physics during this century would have been sigificantly
hindered.  It would be more illuminating to consider whether, given
the developments of experimental and theoretical physics in this
century, it would have been possible to NOT develop the theory
of relativity.  Could such an elegant and powerful point of view
have gone unnoticed in the light of modern physics?  It seems
unlikely.  To paraphrase an old philosopher, if relativity theory
had not existed, we would have had to invent it.


Ilja Schmelzer  wrote:
 I have not seen anything incriminating in your sentence - not more
 than the standard "ad hoc" name-calling.

I haven't applied the "ad hoc" label in a "name-calling" fashion, I
carefully explained WHY the introduction of mass-energy equivalence
to an ether theory is ad hoc, and does not fit naturally with the
essential rationale of such a theory.  If you find that people often
criticize your ideas as being too "ad hoc", it's possible that those
people have some valid basis for that opinion.  I simply made an
honest effort to explain why ether theories strike me as ad hoc.


Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 ...the only example of a success of "relativistic ideology" is
 general relativity.

ONLY general relativity?  That covers a lot of territory (like the
universe), and the theory itself is regarded by many knowledgeable
scholars as the most beautiful physical theory we have.


Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 It was done by the guy who has proposed later a criterion of
 reality which (if accepted) allows to falsify relativity now.

Once again, it is my considered opinion that you are simply mistaken
on this point.  EPR does not falsify relativity.


Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 The progress of quantum theory was not based on relativistic
 invariance.  Even relativistc quantization was proposed first
 in a not very covariant way, as for the electron (electron/hole
 picture), as for the field (Fermi/Dirac vs. the covariant Gupta/
 Bleuler approach).

I agree that quantum theory progressed mainly on a separate track
from special relativity (to say nothing of general relativity),
and I would certainly never try to claim that relativity was
essential for much of the "progress" in quantum physics.  On the
other hand, I would place the word "progress" in quotes, because
it has been largely a cataloging and classifying of experimental
results (cf, "who ordered that?"), and this is a widely perceived
shortcoming of quantum theory.  Also, the efforts to relativize
quantum theory have provided much of whatever theoretical coherence
the theory presently possesses, so even here we again see the
persistent heuristic power of the relativistic point of view.  In
addition, I think we need to regard quantum theory as a "work in
progress", and it's at least possible that relativity may shed
still more light on the subject.