09-02-2016, 04:14 PM

Okay, I did read Schmelzer's take on LET (Basic Ideas).

Being familiar with the arguments and counterarguments, I shall respond to the counterarguments set:

1. Positivism is wrong, and has to be replaced by the Popperian method. It does not contain a requirement that all objects of theories are observable.

I agree. I am a Popperian.

2. Against the conspiracy, already Lorentz has found an argument. If the force which holds matter together is the electromagnetic force, or some other force which follows a similar equation, then the equations which describe matter, that means, also our rulers and clocks, have the same symmetry as the Maxwell equations of electromagnetism. But these equations are Lorentz-symmetric. Therefore, the equations describing clocks and rulers also would have to be Lorentz-symmetric. This is already sufficient to prove time dilation and length contraction.

I can't see that Lorentz symmetry necessarily holds in a domain where every observer carries her own clock. It is effectively approximate for rigid transformations.

3. Occam's razor could be, as well, applied against the spacetime. In the Lorentz ether, only space exists, filled with the ether, and what is in space changes in time. This is sufficient. There does not have to exists some four-dimensional spacetime. So it is the Minkowski spacetime which introduces entities - a whole additional dimension - without necessity.

Occam's razor is invoked erroneously. The added pseudo-dimension of time is not superfluous; this degree of freedom is necessary to explain why change in time does not change space. Covariance applies to the complete spacetime.

4. It appears that the two interpretations are not completely equivalent. In the spacetime interpretation, one can prove Einstein causality, and, as a consequence, Bell's inequality for space-like separated events. The Lorentz ether allows hidden causal influences faster than light, but from past into future in true, absolute time. This makes it impossible to proof Bell's inequality. Given that Bell's inequality is violated, this becomes a strong argument in favor of the Lorentz ether.

The speed of light is absolute -- not time. Special relativity is indifferent to past and future. Bell's inequality is mathematically correct, but can't be physical, for omitting the time parameter.

5. An extension of the Lorentz ether interpretation to gravity exists. It can be considered and discussed here too. One can reasonably assume that the fact that this ether interpretation for the GR equations was unknown was a decisive argument against the ether. But this decisive argument appears invalid.

I will withhold judgement for now.

Being familiar with the arguments and counterarguments, I shall respond to the counterarguments set:

1. Positivism is wrong, and has to be replaced by the Popperian method. It does not contain a requirement that all objects of theories are observable.

I agree. I am a Popperian.

2. Against the conspiracy, already Lorentz has found an argument. If the force which holds matter together is the electromagnetic force, or some other force which follows a similar equation, then the equations which describe matter, that means, also our rulers and clocks, have the same symmetry as the Maxwell equations of electromagnetism. But these equations are Lorentz-symmetric. Therefore, the equations describing clocks and rulers also would have to be Lorentz-symmetric. This is already sufficient to prove time dilation and length contraction.

I can't see that Lorentz symmetry necessarily holds in a domain where every observer carries her own clock. It is effectively approximate for rigid transformations.

3. Occam's razor could be, as well, applied against the spacetime. In the Lorentz ether, only space exists, filled with the ether, and what is in space changes in time. This is sufficient. There does not have to exists some four-dimensional spacetime. So it is the Minkowski spacetime which introduces entities - a whole additional dimension - without necessity.

Occam's razor is invoked erroneously. The added pseudo-dimension of time is not superfluous; this degree of freedom is necessary to explain why change in time does not change space. Covariance applies to the complete spacetime.

4. It appears that the two interpretations are not completely equivalent. In the spacetime interpretation, one can prove Einstein causality, and, as a consequence, Bell's inequality for space-like separated events. The Lorentz ether allows hidden causal influences faster than light, but from past into future in true, absolute time. This makes it impossible to proof Bell's inequality. Given that Bell's inequality is violated, this becomes a strong argument in favor of the Lorentz ether.

The speed of light is absolute -- not time. Special relativity is indifferent to past and future. Bell's inequality is mathematically correct, but can't be physical, for omitting the time parameter.

5. An extension of the Lorentz ether interpretation to gravity exists. It can be considered and discussed here too. One can reasonably assume that the fact that this ether interpretation for the GR equations was unknown was a decisive argument against the ether. But this decisive argument appears invalid.

I will withhold judgement for now.