The special relativity is only a special case. The question can not rely on it. On the contrary, the assumption of equal speeds of light leads to existence of the absolute reference frame within theory of relativity. General relativity assumes privileged reference frame. In its turn, this privilege can be easily eliminated by certain model of the Multiverse. In any case too early to have solid proof of something.

As sociological survey response I add personal opinion: there is no absolute RF. Currently mankind has sufficient information to have more than 50% confidence in that.

There is a strong debate about reference frames, I remind that if we count the motions that we participate as Earth entities we shall lose the counting.

The problem by my thought is the speed of light

c = 1/√ε0μ0

and the fact that 'vacuum' is not so neutral, since it has specific values for ε0μ0,,,

It comes from postulate

Postulate: suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

 In the generally accepted modern view of the world, all laws of nature are the same in any reference frame (RF).  In this respect, all RF are equivalent, and there is no such thing as an absolute frame. If we consider a RF attached to the edge of a fly's wing during its flight, it will be as legal as any other frame. Another matter, that the picture of the world as well as its description would be much more complicated in such frame due to the corresponding Coriolis forces. Also, this type of RF cannot be  extended by using a rigid frame. According to Relativity, an absolutely rigid body is a fiction, just as an absolute RF (see, e.g., L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, Course of Theor. Phys., Viol. 2, Sec. 82) . As to the original question, - to my knowledge, there is no proof of non-existence of an absolute RF, and there is no need in it because it is just a corollary of general principle of relativity. The latter is a postulate, which is consistent with all available scientific evidence. It is not fundamentally different from Galileo's relativity - it only generalizes it from mechanics to all physics and all RF.                                                     We should not confuse the physical equivalence of all RF with their convenience for us. The RF associated with rotating Earth is far less convenient than the one associated with the Sun, and only when Copernicus switched to the latter, he and then Kepler, got the laws of planetary motions unmasked. In this respect, we can talk about a preferable RF, rather than about an absolute RF.  Today, the most preferable RF is the one in which the cosmic background radiation is closest to isotropic.                                                                                                                                        With all that, we can still talk about RF of absolute rest. But this is possible only in the closed (or compact) spaces (see, e.g., my recent article "Relativistic Paradoxes and Lack of Relativity in Closed Spaces",  arXiv: 1504.01670 [physics.gen-ph] ). But as far as we know today, our real universe is open.

The thread’s problem is discussed in the RG many times; and already has been answered, if briefly:

(1) - in the special relativity the absence of the absolute frame – and, correspondingly, the total equivalence of all inertial reference frames - was postulated by Einstein (repeated from Poincaré) in 1905 paper;

(2) - this postulate [above] is the “ground” of the next (Minkowski) postulate that “…space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows…”, i.e. he postilated that the space, the time, and the spacetime are totally depend on the inertial reference frames and can be really transformed by the frames; at that, besides, he postulated that the real spacetime in Universe isn’t Euclidian – but it is the pseudo Euclidian Minkowski space, with imaginary the time or the space. Einstein agreed; moreover, in the GR it was postulated that the real spacetime in Universe is the pseudo Riemannian;

(3) – but from the postulate about the total equivalence of all inertial reference frames follow absurd physical consequences, for example follows that every of two moving relatively observers ages simultaneously faster and slower – the Dingle problem of the SR.

(4) – all problems of the SR immediately become be solved by introducing the absolute reference frame(s) that is /are at rest relating to the absolute 3D space in the 4D Euclidian spacetime. In this spacetime all material objects move with 4D speeds having identical absolute values that are equal to the speed of light, so every object has concrete 4D coordinates in the spacetime that are, of course, independent on any measurements results of any observers and of what any theory claims. Though, of course, correct theory can depict the material objects motions and interactions adequately, but what is evident – this theory necessarily must postulate the existence of the absolute spacetime and corresponding inertial (at 3D spatial rest) absolute reference frames.

(5) – any discussion of this problem evidently cannot have some sense if there is no definition of “what is the space”, “what is the time”, and “what is the spacetime”, “what is the motion”. Just because of in the relativity theories these notions aren’t defined, from these theories follow evidently senseless consequences and  such strange “relativistic effects” as “time dilation” , “space contraction” and other “spacetime transformations”, though neither space, nor time, nor spacetime can be impacted/ transformed by any material object and by any material force. As well as they cannot be transformed by any non-material “observer”.

Etc.

More - see    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for the answers so far. A few interesting points are being made here ranging from non-existence through 50%chance to definite existence of the preferred frame. I will try to address the issue you raise here from the perspective of my own investigation on this matter in later posts. For simplicity one can only discuss the steady state case of Special relativity and clearly step-by demonstrate mathematical reasoning for or against the preferred frame.

The answer in the context of SR depends on the answer to the question whether one way speed of light different on the two legs of a round trip experiment can be mathematically defined at all within the SR framework and if so, can it be experimentally detected. There is a range of claims and counter-claims in that matter in literature.

 Moses,

"According to Relativity, an absolutely rigid body is a fiction, just as an absolute RF"

When you think of a rigid body as an object you want accelerate by physical action it is indeed a kind of fiction, but to do physics, you apply fiction all the time.

The rigid body is indistinguishable from the concept of common rest. Any number of points at rest with each other could belong to a rigid body spanning across them.

When some point is accelerated and the other not, we have the receding system of points behaving like a rigid body put in motion, and it is hard to deny this. The very concept of coordinate systems used in Minkowski's and Einstein's SR is intimately a model of reference rigid bodies.

Andrew,

   How do you prove a negative? How do you prove that ghosts do not exist? Einstein decided he could not prove the aether [rest frame] did NOT exist; nor could anyone prove that it did exist; so he postulated its alternative. Until there is evidence to the contrary people will probably stick with his postulate.

   Responses you get here are both wheat and chaff and it is up to you to judge...

Regards,

Paul

Paul Klevgard's is the most sensible answer so far.

No one can ever prove the non-existence of a postulated thing/concept.

It also shows how poor we physicists are in matters of logic.

The presence of the Absolute Rest frame is emerging, not exactly the Reference Frame. A Reference Frame so far needs some fermionic matter in order to be defined because it has be possible to perform physical experiments in an RF. This is the limit of the definition of an RF.

The Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation is the way to find the presence of an absolute rest frame. If the flux of the CMBR through a sphere is approximately the same at every point, that sphere belongs to the rest frame of the CMBR. It is presently used by astronomers in order to measure the speed of the celestial bodies by means of the Doppler Effect on CMBR. The Earth is moving at some 320 km/s towards the constellation of LEO it seems...

Paul,

You are absolutely right about:

“ How do you prove a negative? How do you prove that ghosts do not exist? ”

However, there is some class of problems for which you can prove non-existence. This is mainly in the domain of mathematics. There are equations for which one can prove no solutions exist. You can also make a false assumption which in consequence leads to clear contradiction so the false assumption equates to non-existence of the feature the assumption is about. I was hoping one can show that assumption of the absolute reference frame leads to contradictions.

The non-existence of the absolute frame is being publicly declared in the context of the Special Relativity. From such mathematised theory I expect nothing less than an elegant proof of a contradiction when assuming a privileged inertial frame exists. Instead we only see that on the surface the SR makes it possible to avoid the absolute frame through a formalism of Einstein clock synchronisation method.

So my question was formulated in that way to find out if anyone has ever attempted such negative proof.

I already know from my current research it is not possible but I want other opinions just in case I am wrong.

Stefano,

It is a good news. I have just found out that Miller detected the motion relative to space in 1925 and estimated solar system velocity was 208 km/sec towards constellation Dorado wherever that might be. I have seen other measurements by Reginald T. Cahill from Flinders University estimating the velocity to 480 km/s. You quote 380 km/s.These discrepancies are kind of big

I did some novel work gauge theory once that treated the question from a different point of view.  If you posit a reference frame and define your fields and interactions you can then ask what are the most general transformations that observers cannot detect. This requires one have have observers that are made of the fields themselves.  This is not a trivial construction because one can then have "manifest variance" of the equations under transformations that still have no physical effects to observers.  

As to the question here, one can then have boosts that are not of an invariant form but still equivalent to observers.  The speed of light is then measured relative to the local candles in space and time based on microscopic dynamics that interpolate space time positions.  A class of equations that leave this invariant seems to be the ones nature has chosen.  

Dear Andrew,

yes they are big because only in recently there have been the opportunity to be sufficiently accurate with the measurements of the RDE in the CMBR.

Dear Arno,

we cannot certainly infer that CMBR has its roots on the BIG BANG, but we can measure it and be aware of its presence and exploit its peculiar properties of propagation in the same hypermedium thanks to which we can interact as being different entities..

Dear Andrew,

If we postulate there is no ARF in SRT, it would contradict GR which has one and is a generalization of SRT.

Andrew Wutke,

regarding proof of non-existence by method of contradiction, the method works only in classical logic. In quantum logic or fuzzy logic it does not work. A thing can be " A " and "not A " simultaneously.

So the method of contradiction is limited in scope.

Dear Andrew, you can say something with certainty only about particular abstract model (not real Universe). If you consider the processes in the context of SRT model, of course you can confidently say that privileged RF does not exist there. It is postulated therein. So in "some class of problems... mainly in the domain of mathematics" it can be used without any controversy and proofs. The known (and described above) paradoxes arises when you try to go beyond the terms of applicability of the model.

Rajat

I cannot say about quantum logic but i had a few successful fuzzy logic projects and i respect it as a tool. One of my biggest surprises was to see that a manifestly false rule in the system of rules improved the working of the rules of relative high degree of truthfullness.

But fuzzy logic is still a graceful way of saying "I dont know"

What would one mean by a proof of nonexistence of an absolute frame? Do you mean a physical proof? If so, then one may consider standard physics results like Lorentz contraction or other experiments confirming the predictions of special relativity as such proofs. 

Sukartu,

As explained in one of my posts above, a theoretical proof that the assumption of absolute frame causes contradiction. The physical proof for non-existence is not possible. Time dilation does not prove  non existence of the absolute frame. If anything it more likely indicate the opposite. 

Though in this thread there is corresponding SS post on 1-th page already, it seems necessary to post again, since the discussion about the absolute spacetime/frames continues.

Again – before defining/understanding critical [for the discussion] notions – what are the space, the time and the spacetime - any discussion in this topic is senseless and cannot result in something that is reasonable. Though yea, there were and are seems millions of similar debates already. But the ResearchGate must differ from other forums, conferences, journals, books, etc.!

 Including

– in the main problem of the SR that from the postulate about the absence of the absolute spacetime and corresponding ARF follows absurd consequence that, say, two relatively moving “observers” simultaneously   age faster and slower relating to each other

 – there is no sense in a considering   of some different “logics”. The events above aren’t simply “an event A” and “an event B”, these events are mutually exclusive and cannot exist simultaneously in any logic – “fuzzy”, “non-fuzzy”, etc.

The unique logically correct consequence is that for every of the reference frames there exist its own Universe, where the following from the SR result really exist. But in this case for any material object it is possible to establish a reference frame – and so from this follows that now there exist  a practically infinite number of Universes, moving in any direction and with practicllly any speeds, what seems again as quite evident absurd.

Though this relativistic effect above is not too more absurd then, say, the claims that muons reach Earth surface because of in their reference frames the space is really contracted in gamma-factor times, which yet near 80 years is claimed as a “rigorous experimental confirmation” of the validity of the SR.

Again, without of correct definitions of the notions above some claims as “…a theoretical proof that the assumption of absolute frame causes contradiction…” cannot be true. Quite the contrary, from the evident incorrectness of the SR postulate about the total equivalence of all frames frames directly follows the existence of the absolute spacetime and absolute frames;  moreover, an observation of the absolute spacetime – i.e.  an observation and a measurement of absolute [spatial] speed of a spacecraft [and further, say, of Earth, of course ]  is possible and corresponding experiment is rather simple and cheap – a next time see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_To_measure_the_absolute_speed_is_possible  ; and the RG link in the SS post on 1-th page.

(Though the paper “Measurement of the absolute speed…” above was rejected by Phys. Rev. editors in a few days because of that the journal “[considers] …only those studies that offer clear evidence for important new advances in physics…”)

Besides to the links above for the space-time notions understanding can be useful to look through SS-Alan posting in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_relative_simultaneity_a_misinterpretation_of_Special_Relativity/49

pages 49-50

Cheers

Article Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?

Dr/ Mr. Wutke,

I do not promise I shall enter into an exchange because I have very little time. Several people have already provided you with the right answer. Llet me add some remarks.

Are you talking about experimental proof?  Experiments never prove theories; they may only disprove them.

You said " Special Relativity tells us there is no privileged frame but these are just words in Einstein's seminal paper." True but the Lorentz transformations (LTs) do not lead necessarily imply  SP relativity. There could be a preferred frame. Also you could have a still larger "discrepancy" with special relativity and yet the LT's would appear to be the case and the one way speed of light be equal to the two way one. This has been known to philosophers of science (called conventinalists: Grunbaum, Reichenbach) and physicists like David Bohm. Google "U(1) x SU(2) from the tangent bundle" to download a paper of mine where I deal with this issue and provide some references. In particular, you can read there about the one way speed of light.

The issue, however, is that the one way speed of light is no the end of the story, the end of the problem, which conventionalists would like us to believe.  Speed is a quotient of differences of spacetime markers. What matters are the frames, which are at the basis of the foundations of geometry, not coordinates.. You could have a change of markers without changing the frames. In other words, you could have relativistic markers in a non-relativistic world.  

I hope this may help a little bit.

Jose

I

I am in essential agreement with Paul Kievgard: in special relativity, the inobservability of rectilinear uniform motion is postulated. For this reason it cannot be proved. On the other hand, this postulate leads, as shown by Mermin among others, see Mermin, N. D. (1984). Relativity without light. American Journal of Physics, 52(2), 119-124., to the fact that the transformation law from one inertial reference frame transforms to another is either Galilean or takes the Lorentz form for some given value of c. Whether this speed corresponds to the speed of light is then another issue, but of course there is ample experimental confirmation for this identification.

Thus Lorentz transformation follows from the relativity principle, no additional assumptions being needed (except excluding the Galilean transformation).

That we cannot have a proof of a basic assumption should be clear enough. On the other hand, the Lorentz transformation implied by the relativity principle (assuming additionally that the velocity occurring in these transformations is also the speed of light ) have a large number of experimentally verifiable consequences, which have been extensively verified.

This is, of course, not anything like a proof. But it does provide a reason for accepting the validity of this particular axiom or postulate.

Dear all,

CMBR explanation is quite good for a proof of an ARF.

Hafele-Keating experiment too, where the privileged frame is the one where time dilation (illusion or not) is minimal. (the others are moving faster because time dilation is greater, try the other observator's views, it doesn't make sense to state they are more static.)

Nevertheless these ascertainments might be linked to the existence of specific fields.

In order to answer this question, it needs before to find adequate answers to other related questions: 1. What is a reference frame? 2. What is an absolute reference frame? 3. What is a privileged reference frame?  Those answers have been given in the Theory of Reference Frames.

If someone postulates the existence of an absolute reference frame, he has to prove its existence and others don't have to prove its non-existence. The Michelson-Morley experiment  was projected just for proving the existence of the absolute reference frame that in classical physics coincided with ether. We know the result of the experiment. After ether now the absolute reference frame is identified by a few physicists with the CMBR, that exists but for evident reasons it isn't an absolute reference frame. The question is more interesting if we consider  the non-absolute privileged reference frame.

A last consideration: physics is an autonomous subject  that doesn't  have to obey our wishes and our theoretical models, but through the correct use of the scientific method it has to search for explaning the behavior of nature independently of cultural and philosophical prejudices.

Michelson-Morley supports the independence of direction of the two way speed of light. Kennedy-Thorndike supports the  independence of velocity with respect to a hypothetical preferred frame of the two way speed of light. One has to add to that the Ives-Stilwell experiment, concerned with time dilation. Iall that was first stated by H. P. Robertson, of Robertson-Walker fame. Finally, there is the issue of the tone way speed of light, of which I said enough in a previous answer.  

Andrew:

I think your question has been correctly answered a few times; a postulate is a postulate.  In my opinion the problem lies in the postulate itself,  Einstein assumed that c represents the speed of light, but I believe like many others that it does not; the constant c is really a scale constant that defines the relationship between space and time at our particular level (scope) of reality, and therefore a scalar without direction.

If we postulate c as a scale-constant instead of a speed (I use c_0 in my Special Relativity Unveiled monograph to differentiate it from the speed of light) and we get rid of the requirement for a Minkowsky 4D space by postulating an orthogonal process to replace it, we can consequently use these two assumptions (and a few others, logical but a little hard to swallow), to derive a special relativity theory resulting in the absence of any physical acrobatics or paradoxes.  This new SRT results in the re-establishment of the same old Euclidian 3D space (discrete, but nevertheless old) and an AFR, without conflict.  I think GR will also follow suit, which is part of a monograph I’m still working on.

Regards,

Bernardo.

The absolute reference system (ARS) exists. We measure now the absolute speed of all objects in the Universe relative to it. As has been thought Newton, ARS is not connected with any physical reference point. It is the system in which the dipole component of the CMB is zero. The ARS existence does not contradict either Galileo or Einstein kinematics.

Best regards,

E.T.

Physics not needs postulates but experimental facts and experimental facts have to be interpreted correctly.

The Michelson-Morley experiment proves only there isn't ether wind and there isn't ether. Any other additional interpretation on the light speed is completely arbitrary.

The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment supports an obvious truth that is largely defined and described by the Principle of Reference in the Theory of Reference Frames and it is in concordance with the Galilean relativity.

The Ives-Stilwell experiment proves the existence of second order effects relative to the wavelength shift due to the Doppler effect. Time dilation is altogether unable to explain the Doppler effect that generates whether redshift or blueshift while time dilation time is able to explain only the redshift.

The claim "the absolute reference frame is the system where the dipole component of the CMB is zero" doesn't  consider that component is measured with respect to a reference frame that is attached to Sun system. Outside the Sun system a different absolute reference frame there would be and it contradicts just the concept of absolute reference frame.

At last a special relativity and a general relativity don't exist, in physics only one relativity exists and it is defined by the Principle of Relativity.

Dear Andrew,

Many thanks for your question. I suppose that if you put this question, it is considering some difficulties to understand some problem. Like this it is difficult to answer.

So I will choice the problem of the rotation of the electron around the proton. If we choice the plane of gravitation to describe the motion, we neglect the possible quantification in the perpendicular direction to this plane.

Furthermore if we introduce the spin notion with two possible directions we neglect the way in which we can consider the rotation.

Now let me I express the notion of space, in considering the special relativity of Einstein, "physical laws should be independent of the place of observation".  But Einstein has also taught us that the mass is equivalent to an amount of energy by establishing the relationship: E=mc2.

This energy is huge so that it suggests that the electromagnetic field can be described by a discontinuous flow of grains of matter, constituting the mass, between the proton and the electron. I hope this clarifies the problem of the space in this case. You can find more information in: Quantum State and Periodicity, Ann. Fondation Louis de Broglie, 135-157, volume 36, 2011.

I expect that it will be useful for you and your colleagues.

Cordially,

Xavier Oudet

I agree with Prof. Tolkachev except PERHAPS for his last statement: depending on what he means by kinematics in GR. He said:  " The ARS existence does not contradict either Galileo or Einstein kinematics". That is the party line. See, however, the following. If I am wrong, I shall be pleased to be corrected by mathematical argument.. 

The velocity defined by the dipole coincides within experimental limits with the velocity of the earth with respect to mater at large in this part of the universe. No surprise there. On the other hand, standard cosmology is based on the assumption of a system of a frame field  of isotropy of the distributioon of mass/energy, which then is supposed to coincide with the frame field defined at each "point" by the distribution of mass in the large ("thick point"). So, we have a preferred frame field. But a metric together with a preferred frame field determines a teleparallel connection, not the Levi-Civita (LC) connection. The metric properties of a manifold do not depend on the affine connection, only on the metric and its derived invariants. This has consequences. You cannot add vectors at a distance in general, but you can if the affine connection is teleparallel. All this means that we can have different manifolds on the same metric. As E. Cartan pointed out in 1922: "The metric does not contain all the geometric reality of space". 

Inidentally, there was no affine connection in 1915 GR. the LC connection is from 1917. I could go on for ever with this discussion. But it may not be needed depending on what is meant by kinematics. Isthe connection kinematics?

Dear Everybody,

The question of an absolute reference frame is not completely defined. Please say, which moving system you have in mind? When sound moves through water, the water is a preferred frame in the sense that describing the sound energy propagation in any other frame that the rest frame of the water, is complicated. (The rest frame of the water is the one where the total linear momentum of the water molecules is at rest in absence of the sound.)

About the wave-function of a quantum system, does it move according to a preferred frame of reference? We will know the answer ONLY if and when we will be able to say what is the wave-function. In this context, the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of the QM, CLAIMS that YES there exists a preferred frame. However, until now, experiments of Gisin for detecting NON-preferred frames, were non-conclusive. In short, NOBODY KNOWS.

Therefore, PROPOSALS of experiments for testing whether the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation IS CORRECT OR NOT, are VERY welcome.

As to proving that something does not exist, YES IT'S POSSIBLE if one can translate the problem into a binary experiment, i.e. with result 'yes' or 'no'.

Discussions are important because they would have to help to understand better whether the nature behavior or prospective errors in the interpetation of the same. With regard to the claim "Physical laws should be independent of the place of observation" I would want to specify it must be interpreted in precise manner because it seems to neglect important effects due to symmetry or to asymmetry, also in the absence of relativistic facts. With regard to the physical phenomenon of simultaneousness, for instance, it is easy to prove simultaneousness of  two rays of light depends on the place of observer, also inside the same reference frame without any relativistic implication. Physical phenomena therefore aren't independent of the place of observation. And in fact the Principle of Relativity says a different  thing: physical laws are independent of the inertial relative speed of reference frames.

Equivalence that was established between light and electromagnetism doesn't consider the fact that electromagnetism studies the behaviour of electromagnetic field generated by variable sources of charge densities and/or current densities, while in general the theory of energy quanta studies the behaviour of electromagnetic nanofield generated by physical phenomena related to the behaviour of single elementary particles.

In a binary logic the Michelson-Morley experiment gave the result "no" to the question on the existence of the absolute reference frame. If that experiment isn't considered satisfactory it seems to me that no other experiment has proved a different result for that question. From my viewpoint  then the question of the privileged reference frame is different  from the question of the absolute reference frame.

Daniele,

 “…The Michelson-Morley experiment proves only there isn't ether wind...” – that is correct, but   that “…and there isn't ether.” – isn’t.

                                       ***

Besides it seems rather strange that the discussion about the absolute frames continues when the post writers again don’t take any attention on the at east two evident points: (1) – any discussion of this problem is senseless if the basic notions in this case, i.e. – what are the time, space, spacetime and motions – aren’t defined; and (2) – the suggestion (the postulate in the SR) that all inertial reference frames are totally equivalent is evidently wrong, since from that follows absurd physical situations.

When from correct definitions of the notions above in (1) and from (2) immediately follows the existence of the absolute spacetime and corresponding absolute reference frames that are at rest in the 3D space.

Besides, the absurdity of the  SR postulate above reveals in a number of other “SR paradoxes”, including in the “Bell paradox”, where it becomes be clear that in a system of free bodies there is neither “space contraction” nor “the relativity of the simultaneity” and so using such a system allows to detect the absolute spacetime and to measure the absolute spatial speed of the bodies.

But in the reality an application of some “Bell composition” of a couple of free  clocks to measure the absolute speed seems as is technically impossible, because of in this case there is too strong requirement on the stability of the distance between the clocks; though at that the linear deviations of the V/c values are measured. But the experiment in the https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_To_measure_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

is rather simple and  evidently executable by using existent techniques.

So there are no problems with the experimental confirmation of the absolute motion, besides some purely subjective problems. Though here it seems rather probable that the results will be true only in some local region of the Matter’s spacetime, since there are some observations that on large scales the spacetime properties probably change by some ways. But in this case the local region has a radius of a number of hundreds of millions of the light years, what is at least better then nothing; and – to study the spacetime changes is necessary first of all to have some initial data, in other cases some researches on large scales have a little sense…

Cheers

Article Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?

If there isn't ether wind and there is ether it means only one thing: the Earth is immobile with respect to ether.

Thank you all for this great discussion. I am too busy now to reply. Hopefully I will come back over the weekend

An ether and a preferred frame field are different stories. In differential geometry, where there is no concept of ether, there are structures with preferred frame fields. That was not known until 1923 (explicitly 1924), with E. Cartan's work on differential geometry.

I do not believe in an aether of any sort but believe that an absolute frame field exists, and I am milking the idea. I thank the nay sayers for slashing the competition. An absolute frame field is in some sense like the center of the sphere: it does not belong to the sphere and yet we say "of the sphere". Both "belong" and "does not belong" are correct.

I could not agree more with the statement: "Responses you get here are both wheat and chaff ..."

In reference to any experiment attempting to observe the aether, I propose the following thought experiment.

Let’s say our existence (all objects in the universe) resides completely on a computer display.  Some special observer —not residing on the display— can detect the relative motion of all objects on the display and also the motion of all objects relative to the computer screen itself.

On the other hand, an observer residing on the display can observe the motion of all other objects on the display, but not their relative motion to the screen, because the screen does not belong to that observer’s existence.  Does this prove that the screen does not exist ANYWHERE?

I believe the MM experiment gives a strong indication that we may reside on something similar to a computer display, which of course nowadays is no longer such an absurd idea —many physicist suspect so—, at least not since we became surrounded and immersed into so many immaterial realities, such as, recorded music, radio, television, movies, computer games, virtual realities, etc.

I conclude that proof that something is  not observable does not imply its non existence.

Talk about triple negatives in that last sentence?

Regards,

Bernardo.

Dear Sofia,

what is known is that there exists an Absolute Rest frame and it is the one of the CMBR according to which also an absolute reference frame can be defined.

According to Physics a RF has to be a massive object. An absolute reference frame can be created  and be operatively defined only under a certain approximation:

1) a mass with a sufficiently low gravitational field

2) arbitrarily far from other masses (where gravitational interaction with other bodies is negligible) intergalactic space.

3) such that the meausure of the frequency of the CmbR measured in every directioin  is  the same (no doppler effect):  radiation isotropy experience.

Dear All,

the question of this thread is founded on a misunderstanding of what a frame is with respect to a mathematical model encoding some physical reality. To be more precise let us assume as mathematical model the Einstein General Relativity. As it is well known, this model is encoded by the Einstein equation, say (Ein), considered as a second order PDE on the fiber bundle \pi:W\to M, where W is the fiber bundle of non-degenerate hyperbolic metrics on a 4-dimensional manifold M. A frame is a local embedding i: N\to M, of the Minkowski space-time N into M, assumed on N defined a time-like flow. Therefore a frame allows to represent (Ein) on N, and to obtain an observed Einstein PDE, say (Ein)[i]. Then it is clear, that after defined the meaning of a frame, with respect to the mathematical model, we have no reason to state that there exists an absolute frame. On the other hand, this discussion should not more exist after Einstein GR legacy.

However, even if these remarks can be easily accepted, it remains a possible misunderstanding when, instead to consider an observed Einstein equation, one choices to remain on (Ein), and to find their solutions satisfying some Cauchy data X\subset(Ein). In fact since  such a solution is a 4-dimensional manifold V, propagating X, X\subset V, it is characterized by a flow on V itself.  So with respect to this solution V there exists an absolute frame. In other words, in GR does not exist an absolute frame, but in any solution of (Ein) there exists an absolute frame.

This situation can be generalized in any mathematical model encoding physical phenomena.

In particular, let consider the case of the Schroedinger equation, say (SCH), emphasized by Sofia. The classical QM is written for non-relativistic systems, hence in the Galilean space-time M. As it is well-known, in order to split M in space and time it is necessary to introduce a frame. Furthermore on the Galilean space-time conservative forces, exist only with respect to a frame. Therefore potentials considered in the classical Schroedinger equation necessitate the introduction of a frame. With this respect it is possible to share de Broglie-Bohm's opinion that when one uses the (SCH) one has a preferred frame.

"we have no reason to state that there exists an absolute frame"

In order to avoid a potentially unnecessary discussion, would it not be also correct to say that  "we have no reason to state that there DOES NOT EXIST an absolute frame"?.

Where am I driving?  Strictly speaking there have being two Einstein gravity theories, one without affine connection (1915) and one with affine connection (in years following 1917, Levi-Civita connection). His equations are consistent with both. But the mathematical models are different from a structural perspective, going beyond the Einstein equations themselves. When integrating Einstein equations one puts a lot of additional assumptions, as you very well know..

Speaking of legacy: in the late 1920''s Einstein implicitly started to disown part of what we nowadays call his legacy (but did not do it after all because he failed to  develop what would have been his cherished alternative, "Fern parallelismus"). He stated clearly why he wanted it: lack of existing of a path independent relation of equality of  vector equality at a distance, if it is not assumed. The reason is different for Riemannian geometry with and without the Levi-Civita connection. Vis-a-vis what he wanted to achieve, he did not realize the implications of what he would have achieved : Fern parallelismus involves a preferred frame field, namely the one(s)  in which the connection vanishes.   

Jose G. Vargas gives a geometrical definition of "preferred frame field", I gave a physical definition of "preferred reference frame". It needs now to see if the two concepts are the same thing.

Dear Jose,

in my previous contribution to this discussion I emphasized the necessity to underline the link between frame and mathematical model. I considered Einstein equation, simply as an example, in order to fix ideas. Then by considering such definition of frame we cannot have a canonical frame (or whether you prefer an absolute frame), since this should contradict the definition itself of frame. This language is well accepted in differential geometry as you well known. Of course one can add some further frame characterizations ... and talk, for example, about frames connected to "Fern parallelismus'' ... (Really Daniele underlined that you gives a geometrical definition of "preferred frame field" in this sense.) But this is another geometrical structure !

Therefore, after this further clarification I am sure that you will agree with me that we have no reason to state that there exists an absolute frame.

Dear Daniele,

What could be the framework to see what you say needs to be seen? Could it be to assume that a physical preferred  reference frame exists and then see what its consequences are? I am willing to meet the challenge and take that route. But then  Agostino might come up with the type of argument that does not try to bridge the gap. In order to make progress in connection with your issue one would have to accept the common ground (temporarily, for the sake of the argument) of  Einstein's thesis of "logical homogeneity of differential geometry and theoretical physics". Logical homogeneity does not mean identification, and certainly not all of differential geometry and not all of theoretical physics. Again:  what its consequences are.

Dear Agostino,

No, I do not agree with that statement in isolation. I can only agree with it is put together with we have no reason to state that an absolute frame does not exit. But I do not want to say this in isolation in spite of the following:  

I have arguments in gravitational theory, in relativistic quantum mechanics and in HEP where I show that the preferred frame hypothesis appears to be better suited to explain reality than one without it. But I do not want to end the comment wit something of the type: ...you will agree with me ... 

I have got a lot of mileage out of the preferred frame hypothesis, without renouncing either the Lorentz transformations or general relativity in its 1915 form, i.e. just the Einstein equations. So challenge me with specific physics questions. Otherwise, I cannot discuss with you since, for me, physical model is something badly defined, if at  all. I do not understand your use of concepts in differential geometry. And I know the subject. Go to amazon, type Jose G Vargas under books and read the reviews of my "Differential Geometry for Physicists and mathematicians" certainly not the short one by somebody who clearly understands very little. 

Regards.   

Dear Jose,

I do not aim to challenge you or some other one ... I do not think that a clever discussion on some question can be a good reason for a chivalrous challenge !

By the way, please consider that in my geometric language a physical model is encoded by a k-order PDE E_k on a fiber bundle \pi:W\to M over a 4-dimensional manifold M. The sections of this fiber bundle identify some geometric structures on M and the PDE E_k encodes the dynamic equation for such a geometric structure.

For example in the Einstein's GR, W is the fiber bundle of non-degenerate hyperbolic metrics on M, and E_k is the Einstein equation, hence with k=2.

Well. A frame for this physical model is a (local) embedding i:N\to M of the Minkowski space time N into M besides a time-like flow on N. This frame allows us to represent E_k on N, obtaining an observed PDE, say E_k[i]. This last equation encodes the observed physical model by means of the above specified frame.

Of course this language is not the same used in your book, but it represents the more general one that can be adopted by linking mathematical model and  observed mathematical model, concerning a physical theory.

My best regards,

Agostino

Dear Agostino,

All right. End of story.

 Unrelated question in case you can help. In a year and a few days fromnow, there should be a conference on Clifford Algebra and Summer School on the Kaehler Calculus that I am supposed to organize. Your CIME already organized a summer school on this calculus in 1960 in Vallombrosa. The contents was published as a long paper in U. of Rome's Rendiconti di Matematica in 1962. It is in German and has not yet been translated, I know how to get to the editors on the matter of a translation, though I have not done so yet. My inquiry goes further. 

Is anybody that you know of in the Italian environment and specially at the U of Rome who could and would gladly play a significant role in the foregoing event because of his/her involvement with that calculus? I mean may be some very young participant in that event, now in his seventies. I have not been in an academic environment for the last fifteen years and that kind of info would be difficult for me to find.

Since it no longer pertains to this exchange, please  write to [email protected].

Of course, anybody, Italian or not, who happens to have related info will kindly contact me?

thanks and kind regards,

Jose

Dear All

I like this discussion and emerging ideas. For my own record I summarise what I believe is certain about the absolute inertial reference frame: 

Notwithstanding the above

There is emerging evidence there exists an absolute frame currently linked to CBR.

Although intuitively obvious it seems to be necessary to always define what is meant by reference frame under what curcumstancies and what is time and how it is measured as highlighted by Sergey

One thing gets me is that Miller’s Experiment in 19 twenties published in JULY. 1933

REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS VOLUME 5: “The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth”, which was a variation of the MM experiment with obvious different result is rarely mentioned.

Back then there was no concept of CBR, but Miller's experiment and the CBR must be connected. Should I consider MM experimen t a failed experiment or this is the Miller’s failed? if MM is failed how does it reflect on Special relativity? Every relativity chapter starts with MM experiment.

Finally I quite appreciate the answer to the question of the absolute frame:

“The question is more interesting if we consider  the non-absolute privileged reference frame.”

From my own angle I see the progress can be made in the quest to explain the absolute frame if we erase from our mind the concept of relative simultaneity and realise that this is an apparent effect similar in appearance to observation delay effect. I think I am on the right track but more has to be done to adequately prove it.

Andrew,

About to leave on a 10 day trip. Just a quick answer: It is not a matter of proving. It would be a matter of showing that there appears to be a better alternative. But it would take an enormous amount of work to convince the community. When i return, remind me of posting a quotation from Machiavelli.

Jose

"The postulate of constant speed of light irrespective of system speed does not contradict the concept of the absolute frame "

Poincarè  was the best mathematician of the 1900 died in 1908 convinced that there should have been in any case an absolute reference frame in order to make the symmetries and conservations work and he maintained the Conception of Aether. He was the main founder of the special relativity as pointed out by Lougounov, who found his several papers very similar to Einstein's. At the beginning of 1900 Einstein was nobody so the one who took inspiration for his SR  was Einstein.

In any case in the absence of the ARF there would be no possibility for the light to maintain its speed irrespective of the RF. The relativistic doppler effect would not be possible in the way it is now, it would violate the conservation of energy.

Dear Andrew,

from your summary, point 1, I can simply conclude that you did not understand the meaning of my contribution !  Luckily the Jose's answer it appears to underline my same impression. (I am interested to read the Machiavelli's sentence that Jose aims to quote ... )

However, from above posts it appears clear that many of these interpret the concept of 'absolute frame' like a physical entity to discover in our universe. In other words, the approach followed by these people is not scientific but philosophical one. It appears that they are asking whether God exists ... To these people it is not yet arrived the message that in order to do science we must follow a different approach, that I resume in the following steps:

1) To observe. 2) To formulate a mathematical model. 3) Torepresent this mathematical model with respect to an observer. 4) To experimentally test whether the observed mathematical model fits experimental data.

Those who talk of 'absolute frame' without to have a mathematical model where this is defined, talk about a non-sense.

Therefore, your sentence at the point 1.

'1. It cannot be physically disproved because you can only physically prove things'

must be chnaged in the following:

It cannot be disproved because you forgotten to formulate a mathematical model where the concept of 'absolute frame' is defined.

Dear friends,

It seems to me that the question of an absolute frame is closely connected to the question of a medium that fills the space (call it aether if you like).

This medium is not necessary for the e.m. waves to propagate, as the microscructure of the e.m. waves are the photons which are the carriers of their own energies, to the difference from sound waves which needs the molecules of a medium for propagating.

However, let's recall that an electric charge feels another charge at a distance. How so? Without a polarized medium in between? Let's recall that the vacuum has a dielectric constant. What possesses this constant, this electric property, if there is NOTING there? Similarly with the magnetostatic field - a magnet feels another magnet at a distance, and with the gravitostatic field - a mass feels another mass at a distance.

In short, I don't know whether an absolute frame exists, but for an absolute frame to exist it has to be the frame in which some sort of matter is at rest, even if that type of matter is not yet known to us at present.

Hi all,

We always resort to a mentally erected reference frame while solving a problem. And then mentally analyze motion of objects in question and write equations to solve. The imaginator of the frame does not change with respect to anything. While moving in a vehicle we say it is moving and I am moving because I am attached to it. Similarly when running we say I am running because the "I" in us is attached to the physical body, the vehicle for the "I". 

we imagine about the evolution of the universe post-bigbang (which may or may not be right, but is well accepted now, anyway). Even if everything is changing the change is imagined by us not as co-changing personalities but as unchanging imaginators at absolute rest. Unless we go beyond the universe we cannot imagine the evolution of the post-bigbang universe. everyday every moment we are talking from such a mental absolute reference frame that is the judge of all change and all motion.

The absolute frame can thus be  a psychic one and not a physical one although it may be a fibration on the physical space and  that remains unaffected by all kinds of physical interactions.

this is an alternative viewpoint based on Indian (vedanta) philosophy.

It seems necessary again to point out here that without a defining of the critical for any discussion about anything relating to the spacetime notions – i.e., of the notions “space”, “time”, “spacetime”, any such discussions, including about the absolute reference frame(s) are senseless;

if participants of such discussions don’t understand this evident fact, then the discussions are  also endless and useless.

Again - all the notions above are Meta-physical  and so can be properly defined only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception. In the SS posts in this thread there are enough of URL links relating to the conception, see also SS-Alan posting in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_relative_simultaneity_a_misinterpretation_of_Special_Relativity/49  pages 49-50.

Besides – a couple remarks else. Firstly – the realization of the utmost fundamental grammar Rules/ possibilities “Space” and “Time” at regulating of the concrete informational system “Matter”  is the 4D Euclidean (“Cartesian”) spacetime [“empty container”], which is absolute, i.e. doesn’t depend on the container’s content; since they are “Rules/possibilities” and so are “virtual”.

It is impossible in the “virtual” container to select some concrete 4D point. For example, on the realization of the Rule/possibility “Space” in “usual grammar” as, say, an empty sheet of paper, in this sheet all its points are equitable. But if the somebody writes the first letter, the position of the rest text and other possible texts on the sheet becomes be certain. Just that one observers in the Matter’s spacetime, at least in a local region with radius at least a number of hundreds of millions of light years.

The next point, which fixes, in certain sense, the positions of material objects in the 4D virtual spacetime is that all material objects constantly change their states – internal and/or the spatial positions; this changings [in depth – logical transitions]  run with the constant operational rate, what is observed as the fact that all objects move in the spacetime with identical (in absolute value that is equal to the speed of light) 4D speeds.

The objects, which move along the t-axis with the speed of light, are so at rest relating to the 3D space and so any of such objects can be “a point of reference” in an absolute reference frame. If the object is a clock, the clocks tick rates in the absolute reference frames are always faster then the rate for any clock having non-zero speed in the absolute space; all material objects in Matter move and “tick” with their concrete rates, objectively and independently on – what rate what observer observes in his reference frame and what any theory claims.

And – next time – the observation of the absolute motion is possible yet now; see links in the earlier SS posts.

Cheers

Dear Sofia,

you talk of 'absolute frame' but you forget to specify to which mathematical model you refer. From your last post it appears that you are thinking to our universe, but you do not specify which mathematical model you consider. By the way whether you consider our universe as a solution of the Einstein's GR, then an absolute observer can be recognized in this universe. In fact you can refer to the flow that propagates an initial condition in the Einstein's equation. (According to my previous posts in this thread,  the absolute frame is just the flow that generates this solution.)  But please note that this does not necessitate to imagine the existence of some matter at rest with respect to the absolute frame. In fact this is a pure geometric concept. Sorry, but it is scourging to see that after more a century there are scientists that try to invent aether. 

Dear Agostino

Your contribution has not been unnoticed. On the contrary - it is appreciated. It was you who said:

"...what a frame is with respect to a mathematical model encoding some physical reality. To be more precise let us assume as mathematical model the Einstein General Relativity..."

Your position is to take the physical reality as a given and call "theories" "mathematical models". I appreciate this point of view. Theories and models may be seen as equivalent but they are not. Using the word "models" allows unemotionally pick and chose them and compare it with reality. Reality is often hard to define as it may be it is another model originally held in the brain. Never the less this is my preferred attitude because I am predominantly a mathematical modeller for the most of my professional life. Theories somehow function in the community as forms of religion with dogmas which people prepare to defend to death despite contradictions.

My observation 1 you refer to, may not be formulated clear hence the confusion. When I said "It cannot be physically disproved" I meant experimentally without mathematical model. I explained it in response to Paul who rightly stated you cannot disprove ghosts, which is a good analogy. Further down in my post I emphasize the necessity of having the absolute frame properly defined attributing it to Sergey who I think was the first in the thread to bring this up. I should have given you a credit too- my bad.

For the issue whether my original question was formulated correctly I say the proverbial: "there is no stupid questions - only answers". I mean the answers given to students in relativity lectures in many universities:"There is no  absolute reference frame."

What gives rights to these lecturers to make such unqualified statements?

Why Wikipedia says:"Since there is no absolute reference frame in relativity theory, a concept of 'moving' doesn't strictly exist"

So if people publicly say and educate others with "there is no absolute reference frame" I say - prove it. Hence my question.

As malformed as it may appear, my question has triggered an extremely enlightened discussion and I appreciate every contribution to this thread.

I would like to give emphasys to the thing that NO new AETHER is being trying to be found.

The mistake which was initially made by Maxwell, Lorentz and Poincarè imagining that there should have been  a conventional material medium which allowed the EM fields and waves to be present and propagate in the same way as sound does, was a great assist to Einstein who easily disproved it.

But an Hypermedium was actually reinstated by NOETHER with the symmetries and conservation laws in the least action principle. The concept of the stress tensor which is at the base of GRT is stricly tied to the presence of an Hypermedium which gets distorted according to the mass-energy in a certain volume.

Regardless of these facts the theorist of GRT insisted in this absence of an absolute reference frame, ignoring  the notorious fact that it is the space-time hypermedium itself being absolute instead of the Time and Space separately and it is the absolute reference frame.  Tough this very particular RF does not fit in the definition of RFs in physics which are not made of space-time but made of matter.

Andrew, you said a very true thing, theories transform sometimes into religions, and the fathers of those theories ignore things which don't conform the theories, be those things some conclusions of those theories, or even experimental facts.

Now, let me though say something in favor of the statement in Wikipedia. The theory of relativity says that all the laws of physics are correct in any frame of reference. They get different forms in different frames, but, bottom line, you won't find a frame in which the laws of physics are violated (a non-preferred frame).

Nicolas Gisin performed at Grand Sasso many experiments for finding a NON-preferred frame, i.e. his experiments sought a frame in which the wave-function of the polarization singlet would be violated. He didn't find such  a frame. But, he made certain assumptions about the non-preferred frame. Maybe those assumptions were wrong. So, we can't take his results as an absolute disconfirmation of non-preferred frames.

Dear Sophia,

"Let's recall that the vacuum has a dielectric constant. What possesses this constant, this electric property, if there is NOTING there?"

It certainly appears that vacuum has properties but whether the vacuum permittivity ε0 = 8.854 187 817... × 10−12 F/m is a property of anything it is debatable.

In my opinion it is a conversion factor to make electric an mechanical units balance in a similar but not identical manner as the conversion of Farenheit to Kelvin.

It can be shown that it is possible to have the system of units in which there is no mass unit M (e.g. kg) but only LT (e.g. meters and second) In such system the ε0 simply vanishes, that is it becomes the non dimensional 1 (one) such it does not appear in any equation. But in such case one property of vacuum still remains and this is the vacuum permeability currently known to be exactly µ0 = 4π×10−7 [N / A2]

In the described system of units this one simplifies to : µ0 = 1/c2  [s2/m2]

So instead two properties, vacuum has only one and its meaning is quite stunning.

Even more interesting is that in this system of units the gravitational constant currently G=6.674×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2  becomes non dimensional 1, that is it vanishes altogether. 

Even more interesting is that in this system of units Planck Mass equals 

Planck_Length3/Planck_Time2  exactly.

I am not sure if this has any significance in the absolute frame investigation as in the end physics does not depend on the choice of units of measurement.

Dear Andrew,

unfortunately there is often a lack of precision in the literature that aims represent physical phenomena. I underline some examples that you reported.

1) It is a stupidity to simply state in relativity lectures that ''there is no absolute reference frame". In fact often it is not defined what is a frame there, and what is a mathematical model in a relativistic theory.

2) 'Why Wikipedia says: "Since there is no absolute reference frame in relativity theory, a concept of 'moving' doesn't strictly exist".'

This is another macroscopic stupidity ! In fact the definition of motion in a relativistic space-time M is a time-like (or light-like) curve in M. Therefore it does not necessitate of any concept of frame there.

But you know, nowadays on the Web it is possible to find anything ... also trash ...

Let me close this my post by underling that no mathematical model encoding some physical phenomena can never become a religion. In fact a mathematical model can be eliminated by comparison it with experimental data. A religion instead does not admit similar tests. Therefore, in the Science the risk is not to use mathematical models, but to believe that it is possible to go on without some mathematical model and without some precise mathematical definition ...

Dear Andrew,

You are wrong, I am sorry. The fact that you can play with the systems of units is irrelevant, it is as if you would say some physical law in French, or in Italian, etc. instead of in English. Let me explain:

The fact that the dielectric constant may be made 1, doesn't mean that it disappears. It would disappear if it would become INFINITE. Look at the Coulomb law

F = Q1Q2/(4πε0r2).

If the vacuum would not transmit the electrostatic field, the force at whatever distance r, should vanish, for which one should have ε0 --> ∞. Then, for the light velocity to remain bounded, the magnetic permeability should be zero. 

Now, look at the e.m. energy formula,

uem = (1/2)(ε0E2 + B2/μ0) .

For ε0 --> ∞ and μ0 --> 0, uem becomes infinite (non-physical), unless E = B = 0.

The strange conclusion is that if the vacuum wouldn't transmit the static electric and magnetic field, it would STOP even the e.m. waves.

Dear Sophie

Non - dimensional 1 is implicit in front of any variable or function used in physical equation e.g. x=1*x and it does not mean that each implicit 1 (one) is a physical constant.

And what's wrong with the following formula for energy density:

uem = (1/2)(E2 + B2c2)  when:

E is in [m/s2]

B in [1/s]

energy in [m5 /s4 ]

volume in [m3]

and finally the energy density in [m2 /s4 ]

For more then a hundred years of space time physics it is still dragging the superfluous  and heterogeneous kilogram as the unit of mass.

Kilogram reflects the amount of matter but that matter has inertial and gravitational property entirely described by dynamics of motions. This property is additive in the same way as the amount of matter, hence it is nothing terribly wrong using the kilogram, but this is just unnecessary  mess to mix apple with oranges. They are still fruits though.

Dear Andrew and all,

I think have found a way to resolve SR problems [WRONG IDEA]:

We should consider only time dilation and speed acceleration by a factor (gamma^2).

There is no lengths contractions.

It is like scoping greater the moving observer by a gamma factor.

Then I think it resolves the problem of twin paradox and Andrew's rod problem.

Sincerely.

It might be worthwhile to remember that initially, JC Maxwell introduced 20 equations based on quaternions aka SU(2) topology. For some reason these equations have been simplified to provide a linear model so only 4 equations remain.

It has been a proven fact with specific laboratory experiments the 4 equations cannot explain all EM effects but the 20 equations provide the proper description of these effects.

Not sure if this was done by any scientist involved in special relativity, namely playing with the 20 equations to check any invariance of frame or light velocity instead of classic 4 equations, Lorentz's invariance. Since some real experiment cannot be described with 4 simple EM equations, why SR still focus on 4 equations as correct model to make complete theory.

Now about quantum physics not properly merging with relativity or the unified theory quest, again most equations in quantum physics seem to be way too linear. In other words, quantum physics has been also way too much linearized as well as electromagnetism.

Things start to become even more interesting with Emmy Noether theorems: symmetry breaking can release energy. This could imply that quaternionic EM equations or SU(2) equations plus dynamical nonlinear quantum physics could exhibit interesting conclusions not violating any thermodynamical law.

Dear Albert,

I know that the Quaternion form of the Maxwell equations were put in vectorial form by Heaviside. The maxwell equations are still many scalar equations, because any of the equations corresponds to many scalar equations.

I've heard in any case that something in the porting from Quaternion to vectorial form was missing.

What is sure is that Maxwell thought about the presence of the Aether in order to preserve the Galilean invariance. The Lorentz transformations themselves were conceived assuming the presence of a "medium". Before  thinking to make the LT work without the medium they were initiallly conceived to work with, and base all the XX centuries physics on it, was a bit hazardous.

Dear Sofia and Andrew,

I am afraid that you are going stiff in an empty discussion. In fact, the actual e.m. equations in the vacuum, namely on a relativistic space-time, M, are simply dF=0, where F is the e.m. tensor, or more precisely a differential 2-form on M. The e.m. equations say that F is a closed 2-form, not more. Therefore in the 'Maxwell equations' in the vacuum do not appear parameters and neither electric and magnetic fields,. Furthermore, it does not necessitate to introduce some frame on M in order to write  'Maxwell equations'  in vacuum.

Let me underline that this is a good occasion to understand the necessity to refer the correct mathematical model in order to avoid non-sense discussions.

My best regards,

Agostino

Dear Agostino,

If there is no privileged frame, how do you explain Hafele-Keating experiment (one observer measures a time shorter/longer than the other)?

Dear Ni,

Hafele-Keating experiment has nothing to do with the existence of an absolute frame. You refer to a classic experiment (1971) that compares results with respect to two different relativistic frames ...

Sorry, but you should read more carefully what I posted in this thread.

All the best,

Agostino

Dear Ni Ge,

What you ask Agostino has nothing to do with a preferred frame. The laws of physics and the physical quantities are not always INVARIANT under moving from one frame to another (Lorentz transformation), they may be COVARIANT, see explanations in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_covariance.

Under the Lorentz transformation the time interval is not invariant, neither the length.

I disagree with both of you. If one observer sees a time different than another one, it means one is moving relative to another one who is more static (which one is explained by the theory commonly accepted). So, by determining that one is more static reveals that his frame is closer to the ARF.

By experimenting different time dilations we could determine (where time dilation is 0) an approched ARF which suggests that there is a theoretical ARF.

Nothing new, it is just deductive theory.

Dear Ni Ge

I think the solution to the paradoxes of Special Relativity cannot be solved easily by proposing another theory. Removing paradoxes require rational interpretation and this is not that found in handbooks. The key is wrong understanding of relative simultaneity as I maintain. 

Dear Andrew,

I don't propose another theory. Keep SR theory and add a (unitary matrix with factor gamma) SCALE FACTOR (which is unable to be measured, except by time dilation measurement) to the moving observer and everything works fine. Except that we should measure a different speed from one frame to the other.

Dear Agostino,

Independently of what I told you about the problems with the wave-function, I refer now to classical physics. You say that

"Furthermore, it does not necessitate to introduce some frame on M in order to write  'Maxwell equations'  in vacuum."

I don't underestimate the importance of good mathematical models. But, you see, the feeling is that there are things for which the models offer no explanation. So is with the wave-function, in QM, as I told you in my letter, and so is with some static fields in classical physics. My narrative below doesn't target directly a preferred frame, it asks first of all what is the vacuum. Please see:

Here is a simple situation, consider two charges separated by vacuum. As well known, the electrostatic field between them contains ENERGY. Energy implies MASS, E = mc2. WHERE is this mass? There is vacuum between the charges. WHAT is the vacuum, is it some form of matter? Is this matter polarized in presence of charges? (By the way, what I told you about the wave-function - and I regret that I didn't tell you enough details - leads me to the same question.)

My kindest regards,

Sofia

Dear Ni,

I insist... please read more carefully my previous posts.

Really you aim to find an absolute frame in a given space-time. This can be done, when you consider this space-time a solution of the Einstein's equation.

Dear Agostino,

I understand you. But sometimes experimentation gives a theoretical proof, it means the solution of the Einstein equation explains the hypothesis of an ARF.

Hello Stefano,

What I was trying to express earlier, take for example the famous lab experiment Aharonov-Bohm effect, it can not be explained or described by linearized Maxwell 4 equations.

Now if you use the legacy 20 equations of Maxwell based on quaternions or SU(2) topology, the Aharonov-Bohm effect is easily explained, verified.

In my opinion, one should be very practical and grounded, if the simplified Maxwell 4 equations cannot compute some real laboratory effects, one needs then to systematically use their advanced form (20 equations) applied to relativity wether special or generalized.

Hello Sofia,

You've written earlier "Here is a simple situation, consider two charges separated by vacuum. As well known, the electrostatic field between them contains ENERGY. Energy implies MASS, E = mc2. WHERE is this mass? There is vacuum between the charges. WHAT is the vacuum, is it some form of matter? Is this matter polarized in presence of charges?"

I have no idea if vacuum is empty or not but how can you be sure there is mass here in your example ?

After all, there is energy between the 2 electrostatic charges but it could be stored or flowing through another non-mass or non-matter medium.

Dear Ni,

YES ! But it is necessary to add ... in that solution ...

Dear Sofia,

you have written:

'As well known, the electrostatic field between them contains ENERGY. Energy implies MASS, E = mc2. WHERE is this mass? There is vacuum between the charges. WHAT is the vacuum, is it some form of matter?'

Let me underline that your problems arise from the fact that you mentally refuse to proceed in a systematic way. I mean, when you talk about something you must before define it.

1) For example you state that between two electric charge there exists energy. It is possible to calculate this energy, but you must before choose which mathematical model you have adopted, otherwise the above statement could be the same like the following: 'Between two people in love there is strange energy.' Well. Whether you adopt a classic point of view, then the energy can be calculated with the classic Maxwell equations.

2) The other your question is really very amusing. In fact you use the Einstein's equation of equivalence between mass and energy, to ask  'WHERE is this mass?'.

Why?  If to transfer energy should be equivalent to transfer mass, any time that we receive a called-phone we could receive also some material thing ...

3) In classic models the vacuum is a space-time. This is a pure geometric object (without mass). As you know, in classical mechanics the mass is a parameter attached to particles....

All the best,

Agostino

Dear Agostino,

I see. Can I ask you what other solutions do you expect? If there is only one then we can generalize. If not I ask myself what kind of world can you describe with these equations.

Dear Ni,

it depends from which Cauchy data you fix and which class of solution you want obtain. For example for an analytic Cauchy data and an analytic solution one can expect only one solution. Instead whether you are interested to singular solution, then the uniqueness is not more guaranteed. By means of integral bordism groups it is also possible to characterize global solutions.

Dear Albert,

"What I was trying to express earlier, take for example the famous lab experiment Aharonov-Bohm effect, it can not be explained or described by linearized Maxwell 4 equations."

Sounds interesting that the neglected part is able to account for the Ahranov-Bohm effect, such effect is of Paramount importance.

 I don't know why Aharanov didn't get the Nobel prize for having discovered such an incredible effect.

Dear Agostino,

each time you receive a phone-call you receive electrons on the wires, or some e.m. field. These are MATTER, formatted into logic bits.

About "Between two people in love there is strange energy" I suggest that our talk remain SERIOUS, Maxwell eqs. are not for calculating love.

Also, "your problems arise from the fact that you mentally refuse . . ."

NOBODY has antennas in my mind. I suggest to restrict our talk to physical arguments. The energy stored in the space between two charges can transform into kinetic energy, if the charges are free to move, and is even radiated if the charges get highly accelerated.

Now, let me remind a saying from the old times of Lomonosov and Lavoisier: "matter doesn't disappear, it only transforms". Thus, before transforming into radiation = MATTER, the energy between the two charges was MATTER. And the question here is, where was stored that MATTER if between the two charges is vacuum = geometric object as says Agostino.

But, since you say "choose which mathematical model . . .", I invite YOU to choose a mathematical model, acknowledged by physics, that tells how to store matter under form of vacuum. Matter is matter, vacuum is no matter. So, what would mathematics help?

Kind regards,

Sofia

Also this discussion confirms the existence in present physics of three directions of research: 1. "neoclassical physics", that is in continuity with the Newtonian-Lorentzian model of ether and of absolute reference frame, 2. "postmodern physics"  that is in continuity with Einstenian models of total equivalence of all reference frames, 3. "contemporary physics" that in concordance with the Theory of Reference Frames proves the existence of a non-absolute preferred reference frame and the validity of new transformation equations for different reference frames.

Stiil today there are different viewpoints about the experiment of the Tower of Pisa, the Michelson-Morley experiment, the experiment on the Higgs boson, etc.... It would be useful and wonderful if physicists could reach a common viewpoint on those experiments but everyone supports contrariwise his own model of reference and the discussion becomes sterile. To that end I think the experiment Aharonov-Bohm, and other experiments, requires further elaborations because for instance the claim that magnetic field is null outside solenoid is arguable.

I began my paper " Physico-Mathematical Fundamentals of the Theory of Reference Frames"  with the following statement:

                   "Not nature but observers need reference frames"

It is true, all reference frames are a necessary creation of human mind in order to understand and to explain the nature behavior. Only the absolute reference frame would not be a human invention but it would be a physical reality. In classical physics it coincided with the Aristotelian ether, a mysterious medium whose we know no physical property unless it would be the necessary medium for propagation of wave radiant energy, by analogy with all other types of waves that need a medium for propagation. I have appreciated much the discussion on vacuum because a vacuum is a physical entity, unlike ether, whose we know with precision important physical properties of mechanical, electrical and magnetic type. Vacuum therefore is certainly a physical medium but it isn't an absolute reference frame, or rather it isn't a reference frame. What is then a reference frame? It needs before to identify a physical definition of reference frame and then to choose an adequate mathematical model. Yes, reference frames are a necessary choise of observer, they aren't a choise of nature or of God.

Dear All,

It seems as worthwhile again to repeat here a passage from the SS post on the 6-the page:

“…it seems necessary again to point out here that without a defining of the critical for any discussion about anything relating to the spacetime notions – i.e., of the notions “space”, “time”, “spacetime”, any such discussions, including about the absolute reference frame(s) are senseless..”

And that, after understanding – what are those notions? – it becomes be quite clear that there is no problem with the absolute reference frame existence – that is the frame which uses as the point of reference any material body, which moves along the 4D Euclidian spacetime t-axis with the speed of light. If this body is a clock (say, an atomic clock), this clock ticks faster relating to any other clock, which has non-zero absolute speed in the 3D space.

That is evident without any experiments (besides, of course, existent already experimental data that all material objects move in the 4D spacetime with speeds that are equal [by absolute value] to the speed of light),

what is necessary else? An experimental possibility of an observation of absolute motion? – that is possible yet now – see the corresponding link in the SS posts earlier.

Though here is a discussion about a possible “Aether”, first of all – as to some “material base” for the absolute frames. As that is pointed above (and earlier SS posts) the absolute frame problem doesn’t depend on an existence of some material “fixed in the spacetime” base. The existence of the absolute frame directly follows from two points – from principal possibility of the frame (see above) and from the fact that opposite statement that all reference frames are totally equivalent (the SR postulate) is evidently wrong. So an “material base” formally isn’t  necessary for the frame to exist. But on the other hand a suggestion about the existence of some Aether seems as rather reasonable; this Aether should be at least 4D – in contrast to the 3D Aether in 1800-th – early 1900-th.

First of all – such Aether could  on the one hand be some medium where material particles move as some specially formed disturbances, as something like to sound waves in a medium; on other hand – in this case we obtain some reasonable suggestion how such disturbances can be created, including – what are mediators of physical forces, etc.

(More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics )

But, again, the Aether problem doesn’t relate directly to the absolute frame problem.

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Dear Daniele,

I follow the discussion about possible reference frame. You attribute physical properties to the vacuum. If I understand you it is a position not far from the ether. Since a long time I suppose that vacuum is the absence of all matter. I wish to focus your attention on the interferences produce with the young holes. Such experiments can be produced with a very low flux of photons. The notion of simultaneity suppose that two photons can arrive at the same point and the same time and interfere. This approach come of the wave hypothesis to describe the light.

It is possible to propose a different interpretation. The photons arrive successively on the interference plane, are absorbed by the electrons of the plane, wait up to be reemitted after a more or less sort time. In such conception we do not need anything in the vacuum to understand the interferences.  

You can find more information in: Quantum State and Periodicity, Ann. Fondation Louis de Broglie, 135-157, volume 36, 2011.

I expect that it will be useful for you and your colleagues.

Cordially,

Again Sergey, I have to observe you talk about aether (or ether) like " material base" but after  2400 years we know nothing about that material. You say justly it is necessary to define also notions of space and time, and in fact I defined space and time in "Physico-Mathematical Fundamentals of the Theory of Reference Frames".

Yes Xavier, I think vacuum is the best (not the only one) medium for propagation of light, of photons, of energy quanta, of electromagnetic nanowaves and waves. From electromagnetic viewpoint vacuum is the best insulating medium and we know e.m. waves propagate largely in insulating media. Vacuum is absence of matter and of energy and from my viewpoint physical vacuum exists as opposed to ether that is an abstract concept, but as I said in my preceding comment vacuum isn' t a reference frame relative to an observer. I agree, photons can interfere because they are nanowaves.

@D Sasso

"vacuum is the best (not the only one) medium for propagation"

Respectfully disagreed. In QFT, vacuum is not medium (= matter), but one of possible quantum states of matter. Worse still, it an unobservable abstraction, because the presence of an observer means it is not vacuum. So I would be VERY careful thinking about vacuum as actual medium.

I didn't write vacuum is matter, but I wrote vacuum is a medium. You achieve the equality medium=matter according to models that you use, but I make use of other models. Anyway I have appreciated your statement.

Dear Sofia,

in many occasions I tried to focus your attention on my quantum-gravity theory that should solve all your troubles about vacuum, energy, matter and the mechanism that allows to quantum particles without mass to acquire it and vice versa. This is a pure new geometric mathematical model that extends to the quantum world the Einstein's philosophy.  I see that you did not read yet my papers ...  But you ask again how it is possible that .... Then I am obliged to repeat ... please read my quoted work.

By the way, I can again underline that interaction between quantum particles is obtained by means of nonlinear quantum propagators. These are geometric objects, solutions of the quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs, say (YM). For simplicity let consider the situation described with respect to an observer. Then we must consider the corresponding observed quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs, say (YM)[i]. Therefore, when you talk about two electric charges that interact between them, you are talking about of a solution V of (YM)[i] such that \partial V= N_0\bigcup P\bigcup N_1, such that \partial P=\partial N_0\bigcup\partial N_1, where N_0 and N_1 are respectively the observed 'electric charges' of two particles identified with two compact 3-dimensional integral space-like chains of (YM)[i]. All the possible quantum characterizations, energy, mass, spin ... are contained in V ... but this is a pure geometric object.

Therefore, answering to your question  'WHERE is this mass?' .... the mass of V is encoded by its quantum Hamiltonian. Whether this has a mass-gap then V contains a 'mass'.

To be serious I cannot sketch more than these short remarks ...

My best regards,

Agostino

What do we really mean by an absolute reference frame? Let me consider that particular frame in which the tip of my nose was at rest on Sept. 30 2000 at 11.59 pm. This is a well defined reference frame, which I am free to prefer, conceivably to the extent of calling it ``absolute’’. In fact, the CBR frame is related in spirit: while I do admit that the tip of my nose has less cosmic significance than the CBR, I would nevertheless claim that neither corresponds to anything one would reasonably call a ``law of nature’’. (to some extent, I agree that this is a personal opinion, and will not spend time arguing it with anybody who disagrees.)

For this reason, I prefer to ask: is rectilinear uniform motion observable. The limitation to motion both rectilinear and uniform follows from the fact that an accelerated reference frame is clearly distinguishable from an inertial one (forgetting GTR for a while and remaining at a quite elementary level): if a car crashes and someone looks at it as a bystander, the two observers are not symmetrically situated: the driver in the car will see the bystander suffering a large acceleration, just as the bystander sees the driver suffering a large acceleration. Yet only the driver needs to go to the hospital.

Now empirically, rectilinear uniform motion is not observable. That is, no experiment so far has detected fundamental differences in two physical systems, physically similarly constructed, with ll the pieces of the one being in rectilinear uniformm motion with those of the other.

Mathematically, it can be shown that, if we assume this principle, then the transformation laws must be either of the Lorentz or the Galilean form (Mermin, cited in earlier posts). If they are of the Lorentz form, the velocity involved remains as a parameter, since we have made no assumptions concerning light. A large amount of experimental evidence, however, argues in favour of the identification of the velocity parameteer in the Lorentz transformation with the speed of light (or speed of propagation of em fields, as defined in Maxwell’s equations.)

Finally, if we assume Lorentz transformations with the speed of light as speed parameter, this leads to a large number of empirical predictions (such as the well-known, though ill named ``time dilation’’ and ``length contraction’’) which have been amply verified experimentally.

In fact, we may parametrize the transformation law from a hypothesized absolute reference frame to an arbitrary reference frame moving with velocity v with respect to the hypothetical absolute reference frame. This is the so-called Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl (RMS) parametrization, which allows to interpret experiments concerning SRT in terms of bounds on certain parameters. In this approach, we start from the assumption that there is an absolute reference frame, and that the transformation law from this absolute reference frame is linear, but otherwise largely arbitrary. This can be parametrized by three functions, a(v), b(v) and d(v), which depend on velocity. All are always equal to one in the limit of low velocities and have corrections alpha v^2/c^2, beta v^2/c^2 and delta v^2/c^2. For a Galilean transformation all should be zero, whereas for a Lorentz transformation alpha=-1/2, beta=1/2 and delta=0. Michelson-Morkey gives an upper bound on alpha-delta+1/2, Kennedy-Thorndyke on alpha-beta+1 and several other experiments (Ives-Stilwell, but also various Moessbauer experiments) yield a sharp upper bound on beta-1/2. For details see Mansouri, R., & Sexl, R. U. (1977). A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization. General relativity and Gravitation, 8(7), 497-513.Mansouri, R., & Sexl, R. U. (1977). A test theory of special relativity: II. First order tests. General Relativity and Gravitation, 8(7), 515-524. Mansouri, R., & Sexl, R. U. (1977). A test theory of special relativity: III. Second-order tests. General relativity and Gravitation, 8(10), 809-814.

François

It is a nice summary. It however also includes material about proving the Special Relativity. But i see no obvious  need to question it. In fact the Galilan model is not adequate to consider absolute frame with a hope for success.  

In the estimated 1081  particles in the universe each could be an inertial system and be it's own clock. The question is that one or more clocks rates are faster than the rest so can it be made even faster?

Can than some subsequent change of velocity  make it slower again to return to the initial state?  How it got maximum clock rate in the first place?

Proper time irreversibly accumulates in clocks growing monotonically and cannot go back. Is it not enough to see that the absolute frame is the one where clocks have the fastest possible rate?

No such questions make sense in Galilan model but they do in the context of special relativity.

@Andrew ``Is it not enough to see that the absolute frame is the one where clocks have the fastest possible rate?''

Not really. Due to relativity, all clocks go *at the same rate* in all reference frames. That is, if you measure the time taken by any process in a given reference frame A, with the clocks of that reference frame, you will obtain the same result as if you look at the same process but transferred to reference frame B with a clock at rest wrt to reference frame B. Thus, a muon decaying at rest with respect to a given clock will decay at the same rate whenever muon and clock are at rest wrt one another, independently of whether both muons and clock are at rest wrt the Earth, or both are moving with the same velocity, say 99% of the speed of light wrt Earth.

Time dilation, which is clearly what you are referring to, pertains to the  measurement of the rate of a clock in reference frame B as measured by clocks of reference frame A. In that case, there are several ways of measuring such a rate, the most common being the following: we can have a fixed B clock going past several A clocks. Then we see that, say, if the B clock takes a minute between passing two A clocks, the (correctly synchronized) A clocks will show gamma minutes, where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)>1. This is standard time dilation.

So A sees the B clocks going slower, in that sense. What does B see? He sees two distant A clocks, and in the time in which he observes a minute on his clock, he sees the two A clocks separated by 1/gamma minutes. This is a different way of measuring moving clocks. The crucial point is that, if a clock B is moving wrt A, it is impossible to measure its rate at one single point in A, since measuring the rate involves measuring two times, and in two times, the B clock is at two different positions.

Is this a contradiction? By no means: the A clocks were synchronized wrt the A reference frame, and in the B reference frame they are desynchronised, which exactly compensates for the gamma^2 discrepancy observed. Performing the calculation in detail using Lorentz transformations is actually useful. There are 2 events: one is the passing of clock A1 by clock B, the other is the passing of clock A2 by clock B. Let the first one be at x=0, t=0 where x, t a re A coordinates. Similarly we can assume it to be at x'=0, t'=0. Let the second event be at x=L, t=T0. By the definition of v, L=vT0. Using the Lorentz transform you obtain x'=0 (evident, since the origin was set at the B clock, and the B clock is not moving in the B reference frame) and t'=gamma(T0-Lv/c^2)=T0/gamma

Summarising, the rate at which a clock goes in its own frame is always the same. Observations of clocks from one inertial frame to the other, on the other hand, are always symmetrical and do not allow to decide which reference frame is in motion.