There are multiple fundamental misconceptions concerning both what the Michelson & Morley result means and what the SR/GR model is.

Let's first discuss the M&M experiment physically, independent of the derivation of the SR/GR model and then let's discuss what the SR/GR model is.

Does the M&M result prove space is empty? Or does the M&M result support the assertion that only one of the following two general world pictures is correct?

World Picture 1): (Classic) Physical matter is assumed to be particular (Matter is assumed to consist of “particles” that carry properties through space. Particles have the capacity to create fields or perhaps emit exchange particles) and physical space is assumed to be full of something (let’s call the full space in world picture 1, “ether’) is not correct. If matter was particular and space was full, there would be a space wind created as the earth and the M&M experimental apparatus moved through space. Michelson and Morley’s experimental results showed there is not a space wind, generated. It should be noted that the M&M experiment null result does require the Lorentz contraction.

World Picture 2): Matter is assumed to be some sort of disturbance in physical space. Physical space is assumed to be full, however, there is only one assumed primitive. With world picture 2, there is only disturbed space and undisturbed space. There is not matter and space. (i.e. There are not two separate primitives only one.) With world picture 2), there cannot be a space wind generated, as the earth and the M&M experimental apparatus are disturbances that move through space. Let’s call space, in world picture 2, “M-Space”.

Comment:
1) World Picture 2) is further supported by the experimental result that physical processes slow down (The slowing down of physical processes is by convention called "time dilulation".), when matter moves, as compared to the same type of atom or "particle" that are moving slower.

2) i.e. It is asserted if physical processes slow down, then moving matter must be different than the matter that is not moving or that is moving slower. (i.e. Changes happen for physical reasons. If there is a change in an experiment when an experiment is repeated, there must be a physical change /reason to explain the different experimental result.)

Who cares? An aether in the sense of absolute space is:
a) unnecessary in support of our current theories; and
b) as yet undetected; and hence,
c) meaningless.

The Lorentz contraction is consistent with Maxwell's equations under changes of inertial frames. The Lorentz Transformation and the postulates from which it is derived have been experimentally verified and thus derived from first principles.

I don’t see the point of continually beating a dead luminous aether horse, unless its resurrection is requisite to the postulates of a new theory. So far, I have not seen any evidence of such in this topic. And I certainly do not see how it could be considered a "conceptual flaw in GR".

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

Hasn't a lot of work been done in all those years since Einstein published? How come ATMers seem to refer to work thats always so old?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Yes, decades worth. And this is more like revisiting the validity of phlogiston in lieu of analyzing the mountains of most recent technological data available to us.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

[
OT to this thread:
It's akin to nit-picking at Darwin, expecting that all research into evolution since will fall like a house of cards.
There's sometimes an odd mix of wanting to knock down an identifiable target while at the same time wanting the same recognition as that target acquired.
]

__________________
Measure once. Cut twice. Power tools are fun.

I'm not making sense out of that. Which theory are you saying has the Lorenz Transformation added?

The problem arises in Quantum Gravity. Bell proved that it is not possible to get a smooth GR equation by a discrete QM. We need an additional background mediating time dilation.

How hard is it to prove that you can't get smooth from discrete?

I mean, clearly we have PV=nRT with discrete atoms, but that's just an approximation, in the big numbers limit, right?

Hi Jamini, I really appreciatethe time and effort you are putting in to this thread. I'm not a scientist. The claims I make are not mathematical, they are logical deductions from the original definition of the Lorentz contraction (which later became known as the Lorentz effect or transformation).

In his 1905 paper, Einstein applied the effect in a context which, by Lorentz's definition of the effect, it could not arise. He did not explain why he thought it would arise in that context. In 1916, he changed the context, but there is still differences of opinion on whether that new context implied the existence of a material space (which would support the effect) or not. That is why I avoided that argument. It is inconclusive (as far as I'm aware).

Instead I pointed out that either choice fails to satisfy Lorentz's definition of the effect (as far as I can see). By Lorentz's definition of the effect, it only arises in the presence of a material medium, and is counteracted (or counteracts) an opposite effect, resulting in an apparently constant velocity of light. Einstein claims a constant velocity of light, but only applies the Lorentz contraction in isolation.

As far as I'm aware, Einstein has never justified this use of the Lorentz contraction in conceptual terms. It may well work in practice, that is the role of scientists to prove or disprove, I do not presume to comment on that.

Does this explain the basis of the conundrum?

I agree that I am taking the Lorentz contraction and the Lorentz transformation to be one and the same. The difference is in how Einstein applied it. It is the conceptual basis of that application that I question.

Hi Astrowannabe, thanks for your input. You have correctly interpreted the conundrum, but your solution is pure Special Relativity. I have shown that, by Lorentz's definition of the effect, it cannot arise in that context. See Lorentz's 1904 paper "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity Less Than Light" for the definition of the Lorentz effect.

The real issue is General Relativity, which introduces the gravitational field as a preferred frame of reference. Motion is no longer considered to be "relative" in the pure Special Relativity way. This is true even in the special case of the General Theory, where the gravitational field is uniform. The conceptual framework is entirely different. See Foresight's refrence to the Leyden address in #10.

I hope this helps!!!

Hi Captain, thanks for your input. I cannot speak for other ATMers, but I can explain why I refer to old works...

I'm interested in the concepts and logic behind the theory. So I read Lorentz's 1904 paper to understand his definition of the Lorentz effect. I read Einstein's 1905 paper "Electrodynamics" to understand how he applied Lorentz's ideas in Special Relativity. I read Einstein's 1916 paper to understand the context of General Relativity. When in that paper Einstein refers to Minkowski, I read Minkowski's 1908 paper "Space and Time" to understand that.

However, I'm also aware that Einstein's ideas evolved, so I've read appendix V "Relativity and the Problem of Space" which Einstein wrote in 1952 and added to an earlier work "Relativity The Special and the General Theory". This is a summary of Einstein's "mature" thoughts on his great work.

These are the foundations of GR, and that's what interests me. Surely, if all I was aware of was other peoples views of these works, you would tell me to "get it from the horse's mouth"? One admission I must make is that I have only read translations of these works. I can neither read nor write in German, therefore I am dependent on the translator's art in fathfully representing the originals. That's the best I can do.

You’re right hhEb09'1 – I phrased that poorly. I was trying to say that in GR, the global Lorentz covariance of SR becomes a local Lorentz covariance in the presence of matter. My point being that both theories preclude the requirement of a luminous aether.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

It is not an approximation case only. In a gas you have the discrete atoms and we can observe their motion but in QM you have a probably motion of the probably particles. You may calculate a gravitational force but you do not know what it causes. You have an electron but you don't know where it is in a certain moment. It may be in two places at once. It is not possible to approximate on quantum subatomic level. We approximate it on atom, beam, crystal's level.

I do not see any conundrum and I expressed my reasoning in the simplest possible terms. Maybe someone else can explain it in a way that will make more sense to you.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

Hi Jamini,

I'm very grateful for your comments, and appreciate the time you've given to this thread.

Many thanks.

jamini,

I do not understand you position. Are you stating that physical space is empty?

I am stating that there is experimental evidence (Say the condition of space about a magnet or about a charged surface, for example) that indicates that space is full. I am stating that the M&M experiment proves support for a world view in which there is full space and no particles, matter is some sort of disturbance in space. (See my comment for details.)

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? If so, what evidence or logic do you present to support your statement?

Jamini stated:

You are simply considering fields as properties of space. Fields are generated by matter, which is comprised of particles. That is the exact same context as Einstein used in describing a gravitational aether and it’s entirely consistent with mainstream theory. Space also contains quantum fluctuations, and has specific properties of Omega and Lambda. None of that however constitutes absolute space as a stationary inertial frame or a medium for the propagation of light.

This makes no sense to me. Please provide the actual math and physics to demonstrate the properties and parameters of the particle-free “full space” you describe and demonstrate specifically how the M&M experiment confirms your predictions, along with any relevant citations.

.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement