Time's Up

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 As a classical theory, SR is as good as LET, makes the same empirical
 predictions. The argumentation which favours relativity is positivistic.
 Thus, without positivism no preference for relativity.

Once more, the preference for relativity among scientists is based on
its unity, coherence, and heuristic power, not on positivism.  (If
positivism were the governing criterion, one would be forced to reject
relativity.)  Without challenging its unity and coherence, you've
questioned whether relativity has actually demonstrated superior
heuristic power.  In response I've given both a substantive example
and a review of the actual historical case (which, after all, is what
really counts in a consideration of heuristic value).

For a substantive example, I explained in some detail how the
equivalence of mass and energy emerges naturally from the principle
of relativity, in which the increased inertia of moving bodies is
actually the same as the inertia of bodies at rest.  In contrast,
Lorentzian notions of ether drag do not suggest a fundamental
identity between energy and inertia.  I also cited other examples,
particularly the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass,
which was seen as accidental prior to relativity, but becomes a
powerful principle within the context of the relativity program,
leading to several predictions that have been confirmed by
experiment.

From the historical point of view, I've mentioned that H. Lorentz
(who obviously wasn't prejudiced against LET) openly acknowledged
and exploited the greater heuristic power of relativity.  The same
is true of Planck, Born, Pauli, Minkowski, Eddington, Weyl,... and
on up to Penrose, Hawking, etc.  (By the way, PLEASE do not respond
by saying that you don't believe in "majority rule for science",
because the issue here is the *heuristic* value of the relativity
program as experienced by the major physicists of this century.
On this question the opinions of the individuals involved is
entirely relevant.)

Of course, one can always, after the fact, take the developments
arising from one theoretical program and make the claim that they
would also have arisen out of some other program, and therefore the
latter program should be regarded as being just as heuristically
useful as the former.  However, claims of that nature are never
very persuasive.


Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 ..for the discussion of foundational questions related with EPR/Bell
 we need some base in scientific methodology, common sense is not
 enough.  Here, Popper gives the only system I have seen yet which
 really works.

You give no evidence of having examined any system other than Popper,
who was an unoriginal popularizer of a perfectly natural point of view
that essentially advocated the classical Scientific Method in reaction
to the logical positivists of the 20's.  Popper did not originate any
fundamental principle of philosophy, and nothing he wrote rises above
the level of common sense.  No serious person would argue that Popper
provides an unambiguous guide for the resolution of EPR or any other
scientific issue.


Albro Swift wrote:
 It has ALWAYS been possible to cast relativity in the form of an
 ether theory.  That is well-known, but the result simply does not
 appeal to most scientists.  Your use of the word "now" suggests
 that you think there was a time when this was not known, just as
 you seem to think the ideas you attribute to Karl Popper were not
 known prior to 1934.  You're mistaken on both counts.

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 A reference would be nice.

References on which?  Alternative interpretations of GR, or the
existence of common sense and the Scientific Method prior to 1934?
For the latter I would suggest that you go to the nearest library
and look for anything on "The Scientific Method".

For the former, you might start with Earman's discussion of manifold
substantivalism in "World Enough and Spacetime".  You could also take
a look at the chapter entitled "A Conventional World?" in Ray's
"Space, Time, and Philosophy".  Also, see Weinberg's confession of
heterodox views regarding "the geometric analogy" in his book
"Gravitation and Cosmology", and Max Born's discussion of the ether
vis a vis relativity in "Einstein's Theory of Relativity".  Also, you
should definitely study Zahar's book "Einstein's Revolution", which
includes a thorough consideration of the comparative merits of ether
theories and relativity, and the criteria that led to the near
universal acceptance of the relativistic outlook.

In addition, you should certainly study Reichenbach, who started out
as a positivist and then saw the light, and wrote the classic "The
Philosophy of Space and Time"; see in particular his discussion of
genidentity and the re-consideration of ether theories in Chapter III.
Also, see any description of the Brans-Dicke Theory, particularly in
the limit as the coupling parameter "w" goes to infinity (when the
predictions become identical to those of GR).  Also, review the
discussion in Friedman's "Foundations of Space-Time Theories".  
References abound, although I'm not sure why references are needed 
for something as painfully obvious and trivial as this.  After all, 
Einstein himself observed that GR can be interpreted as a kind of 
"ether theory", so it's hardly surprising that one can tinker with 
the interpretation and definitions of terms and give an ether 
formulation of GR, analogous to Lorentz's ether formulation of SR.


Albro Swift wrote:
 There are MANY loopholes; in fact, there are TOO many...

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 These alternatives reject at least on of the principles I have listed.
 Because, based on these principles, we can prove Bell's inequality.

The principles you listed are ambiguous and subject to many different
interpretations.  See, for example, "The Structure and Interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics" by Hughes, "The Quantum World" by Polkinghorne,
"The Mystery of the Quantum World" by Euan Squires, "Philosophical
Consequence of Quantum Theory", edited by Cushing and McMullin,
"Particles and Paradoxes, the Limits of Quantum Logic" by Peter
Gibbins, "Times Arrow and Archimedes Point" by Huw Price, "Quantum
Mechanics" by Alistair Rae, and so on.  Any one of these will clue
you in to the various different ways that serious people, including
Einstein, have defined the principles of realism, causality, locality,
etc. at differnt times.  Of course, the particular views of Einstein
in this context do not have any unique relevance, so the parlour
game of deciding how he would have reacted to Aspect's results
is not especially pertinent.  The question is not whether Einstein
would have abandoned relativity after Aspect (which we cannot answer), 
but whether it's RIGHT to abandon relativity after Aspect.  This is 
the point on which there are presently many differing views, and for 
you to say there is only ONE answer - singled out by Karl Popper's 
philosophy - is just silly.


Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 I know that alternatives exist, that, with Popper, immunization is
 always possible. Every rejection of relativity should be based on
 some assumptions, axioms, and these axioms may be always questioned.
 Popper's methodology gives some criteria which allow to reject such
 immunizations.

"Come, let us calculate."  But seriously, neither Leibniz nor Popper
nor any other writer has provided us with an unambiguous "calculus
ratiocinator" for scientific progress.  The closest thing we have is
still a little something called The Scientific Method (hypothesis,
experiment, etc).


Albro Swift wrote:
 ...that the etherist can tell you how light rays are deflected around
 the sun, and how Mercury's orbit precesses, and so on, just as the
 Fermat solver can tell you that there are no solutions for exponents
 greater than 2.  The point is, we don't believe that he arrived at his
 result in a way that is as conceptually sound as the way that Andrew
 Wiles arrived at it.

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 I believe that their way is simply false, if it is "conceptually" or
 otherwise sound I don't bother.

Simply false?  You should read Popper some time.  We're not talking
about ether theories that are contradicted by experiment, we're
talking about those that are patterned so closely after GR that
they give essentially the same results.  Thus, they are not "simply
false", they are simply stupid.

By the way, you say that you don't bother if a theory is conceptually,
or otherwise(!), sound.  That's a bold position for scientist.


Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 No problem. We ask him to make predictions about some experiments
 we have not yet made. He remains silent with his catalog.

Albro Swift wrote:
 Nope, he interpolates/extrapolates from his catalog, which will
 usually work for most kinds of experiments.

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 No. It doesn't work even in everyday technical applications which
 require high enough accuracy.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "catalog".  It consists
of formulas (like E=mc^2) and recipies for applying them.  This is
MORE than adequate for everyday technical applications, and even
for ensuring conformity with scientific experiments, at least until
someone pushes outside the envelope of experience that has been
explored in the past.  But in those cases even the best of theories
are sometimes found wanting.  The wonder is that sometimes they are
not (e.g., the predictions of general relativity).


Albro Swift wrote:
 Nevertheless, he will doubtless continue to claim that his catalog
 is a beautiful theory, up until the new and unusual experiment is
 performed...

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 He has worked over years for his catalog. Leave him these 15 minuts
 is happiness.

Time's up.


Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 BTW, I observe that the strongest opposition against my ether
 theory comes from people who reject Popper.

Albro Swift wrote:
 You REALLY need to get off Popper and find someone else to
 cite once in a while.

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
 Why should I?

Incessant citation of one particular source is likely to be
perceived as evidence of a narrow background and lack of erudition,
i.e., it gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that Popper is
the only author you've ever read, which damages your credibility
when, for example, you say that Popper's is the best philosophy
you've ever studied, because it appears that his is the ONLY
philosophy you've ever studied, and so your qualifications for
making a comparative judgement are called into question.  Further-
more, it cannot but occur to some readers that if a person isn't
smart enough to discern how he damages his credibility by monotonously
citing the same source for EVERY idea (no matter how trivial) he
puts forward, then he's unlikely to be smart enough to unravel the
mysteries of the universe.

One of the most effective things you could do to make people take
you more seriously is to subject each of your messages, before
posting, to a "Popper count", i.e., count the number of references
you've made to Popper, and practice limiting yourself to no more
than half a dozen or so per post.  Or, maybe more constructively,
you could force yourself to include one reference to someone else
for each reference to Popper.  Who knows?  If you acquaint yourself
with a few modern philosophers, some day you might even get through
an entire post without mentioning Popper at all!