Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Computing heat capacities in Bohmian Mechanics
@user7348: I tell you what the interpretation named "Lorentz ether" tells. It is an interpretation of the same physical theory, today known as "special relativity", at that time known as "Lorentz-Einstein theory". So, there is no difference about the physical predictions. This certainly includes the behavior of clocks.

Proponents of the Lorentz ether are not people who think Lorentz is the Annunciator of the Revelation and his words are Holy. If, for whatever reason, Lorentz would have had some ideas incompatible with SR as a physical theory, these ideas would be simply moved to the history section and corrected. I'm a scientist, so I care about the physical theory, not about Holy Scriptures. And the physical theory certainly predicts that the twins age differently.

Then, instead of naming a position you reject "totally wrong" (as if simply "wrong" would not be sufficient) and "100% documented" (instead of simply "documented" would not give the same information) you would have better provided a link to the documentation, with a relevant quote. Instead of asking us to provide you with sources. You have, now, made a claim about Lorentz personal views, so it is your obligation to provide a source.

@secur: I don't think this article is good. It is a justification to forbid, in a physics forum, a reasonable and important discussion about physics.

The interpretation of the physical theories is an important part of physics, even if it does not give immediate results in experiments. And, by the way, the point that the two interpretations cannot be distinguished by observation is simply wrong. In the spacetime interpretation, causality can be only Einstein causality, and, as a consequence, we can prove nontrivial theorems like Bell inequalities. In LET, the fundamental causality is connected with absolute time. As a consequence, we cannot exclude hidden influences between space-like separated event, and, therefore, cannot prove Bell's inequalities.

This is, of course, a point why the proponents of fundamental relativity do not like to discuss such differences.

History shows that the imho greatest success of physics - the atomic theory - was the result of many years of theoretical works in thermodynamics, kinetic gas theory and condensed matter theory based on the atomic hypothesis. Which was, for many years, nothing more than an interpretation of something one would name today field theories. What is thermodynamics and condensed matter theory in the continuous limit? First of all, these are some continuous functions, which follow some evolution equations guessed by physicists. That means, these are field theories, similar to the field theories we have today in the standard model. But at that time people have cared a lot how to interpret these fields in terms of some atomic theories. Research which has given a lot of results even before finally atoms have become observable.

And, last but not least, there is no need at all to use Lorentz transforms, except for bullying poor students. One can do all computations necessary for computing predictions in a single frame, or system of coordinates.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)