A new physics forum: Hidden Variables

I have decided to try an own forum http://ilja-schmelzer.de/forum/ which I have named Hidden Variables.

The name already indicates the main topic: Hidden Variable theories or interpretations of the theories of modern physics.

That means, even if it is open to theories which are not mainstream, and therefore not appropriate in this forum, it is also not open to arbitrary non-mainstream nonsense. A first restriction is that it is about physics, so no 9/11, moon landing, intelligent design. Then, the theories should be viable, compatible with existing empirical evidence.

The personal reason to open a forum to discuss such theories is an obvious one: I propose such hidden variable theories myself. These theories are not mainstream, but sufficiently close to it - they have been published in peer-reviewed mainstream papers, and give the theories of modern physics - general relativity, the standard model of particle physics - as their limits. And this is what those who propose alternative theories have to reach too, if they want to survive in the forum. So, this forum will be open, but in no way supportive for cranks simply because the admin favors some non-mainstream theories.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I congratulate you on having a go.
I am not sure that it is nice to announce it here.
I may join to keep an eye on things.
I hope we are not going to lose you from participating here.
Best of luck
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can't be worse than what Sciforums has become lately...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I joined which I hope does not upset you given I am a non scientist.
Alex

 

No ghosts ufo etc. that's ok.
Alex

 

Lately?

 

Looks interesting Schmelzer.

 

The Forum has four main subforums dedicated to Ethers' theories. Clearly is a pro Ether forum. Does not worth for me. Waste of time.

 

It is open for discussions about various ether theories. Which makes it different from most forums of mainstream physics.

It does in no way follow that there will be some support for ether cranks. The whole "support" is that they are allowed to participate. Even if I propose some ether theories, what I propose are very special ones - publishable and published in mainstream journals, because compatible with modern physics.

 

I was about to write a P.HD thesis on the gravitational attraction of Bigfoot. You know, not a singularity, but a couple times I have seen he is a pretty massive guy.

Would this be allowed?

 

Bigfoot is biology, not physics. So it would be off-topic.

 

What's "ether"?

 

Ether theories are theories which explain the speed of light in vacuum as the speed of sound of some fundamental medium, the ether.

 

Okay, but why does there need to be an ether?

And what is the ether supposed to be made of?

 

But don't you risk getting distracted from Hidden Variables theories if you allow aether theories to be discussed? My understanding is that Hidden Variable theories are quite respectable and serious science - even if they are have rather fallen from fashion lately. Whereas the internet is chock full of aether cranks, as those of us to belong to science forums know to our cost. You will be overwhelmed with nutcases, surely?

 

The preferred frame, which is the main difference between the Lorentz ether and special relativity, is a classical example of a hidden variable. And there is a connection: The hidden variable theories are realistic theories. But realistic theories have to be "nonlocal" (a bad word for it, better would be non-Einstein-causal), and would need a preferred frame. So, hidden variables without the Lorentz ether are a dead end. And the Lorentz ether without generalization to gravity would be a dead end too.

The danger of too much nutcases exists. But I'm not afraid.

 

Daecon, the ether seems necessary to understand the Standard Model. Why are there three generations of fermions? Why is the SM gauge group a strange SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)? Why do the fermions have the charges they have?

 

Because Einstein said so. See this:

"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether."

Also see aether papers on the arXiv. And see Wikipedia where you can read this:

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum..."

You should ignore ignorant popscience quacks who denigrate aether.

The same thing as everything else. Energy. That's why Einstein said the contrast between ether and matter would fade away.

 

how do i receive the original and not this, which appears to only be some guy's " interpretation?" --since the quote you used clearly says this beforehand: "Recapitulating "
also, " Sidelights of Relativity at Methuen, London.
what else is not made clear by farsight is that his reference is only a chapter in the book of The Genesis of General Relativity.. also one should look at the editors.
the actual book's ISBN is 9781402039997-- i would actually read the chapter of the actual book rather than farsight referencing some guy's " interpretation" of. the book is also under:
Series Title
Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science

 

My local copy of the Leiden lecture also contains the "Recapitulating". This guy who is recapitulating is Einstein himself.