Is there any experiment or observation disproving preferred frame of reference?

Currently Im working on new theory, which includes preferred reference frame, kind of new absolute time and space adjusted by Lorentz contractions and Im wondering if there are some experiments or observations which disprove preferred reference frame. I have studied this topic quite extensively, but I didnt find any. But if somebody would know some good arguments against it, I would be interested.

I know, that many people believe, that classical Michelson-Morley experiment is disproving preferred reference frame, but this is not true, preferred reference frame combined with Lorentz contractions is also in line with the experiment. What I know, Einsteins interepretation of non existence of preferred reference frame in Special relativity was chosen over Lorentz preferred reference frame mostly because Einstein was more popular and had bigger influence, not because there was some specific evidence favoring Einsteins interpretation.

Suggested reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example). Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. However, in LET the existence of an undetectable aether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People who do not believe in a preferred frame of reference do so on the basis of the argument that this preferred frame of reference would make no physical difference in any physical interaction. A theory that relies on a hidden variable has a lot more work to do to support itself than a theory without that hidden variable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To fully develop a theory in physics I would recommend that at an absolute minimum you get a masters degree in Physics. If you do not want to do that then I would recommend that you just post your conjectures (since they won't be actual theories) on web forums and have fun discussing them, but don't expect your ideas to go further than that.

Have fun.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like the hidden variable (non local) theory and I think I can make a reasonable theory combining preferred frame and non local hidden variable. Actually it is kind of naturally complementing itself.

 

There are already many non local hidden variable theories.

 

So, my question is; does your "theory" do anything useful or is it mathematically indistinguishable from what we already have?

 

One way to show this is to apply the principles of energy conservation, which is a law of science. A law of science trumps a theory of science, which is why there are so few laws of science but plenty of theories.

If you had two objects, one with mass M and the other with mass 2M, with relative velocity V, there will be two different amounts of kinetic energy, based on which reference you choose to be moving. Both are not the same in terms of an energy balance. Energy conservation requires a preferred reference hierarchy.

When Einstein developed special relativity he included a term for mass; relativistic mass. Unlike energy which will red shift or blue shift if the source goes or comes; changes in space-time, relativistic mass stays the same going in either direction. Mass is not dependent on changes in space-time. But rather mass leads space-time via GR.

In terms of simultaneity, mass does not change with reference, so one can know the mass of two references, simultaneously.

 

And once again you bring pseudoscience into the science section. You just cannot seem to help yourself can you?
I have asked you several times to show that your beliefs are true with mathematics. I have even offered to help to do the math to allow you to see that you are wrong about this mythical preferred frame. You have not pursued it and have instead ignored these requests and/or offers, so the heck with you [goll darn it].

Reported.

 

There is nothing observable which is in contradiction with a preferred frame.

Before developing an own theory, I would suggest you to learn already existing theories. And then to see how you can improve them - or find weak points of them. Such things may be discussed in my forum http://ilja-schmelzer.de/forum/

 

origin:

Wellwisher:

@ origin in particular:

I just read wellwisher's point made regarding energy conservation law and combined analysis of both frames to include both relative energy calculations for the further determination of the complete event energy involved regardless of which frame is which.

From that point by wellwisher, I see that he makes the distinction:

1) A theory for calculating some frame-dependent energy impacts and effects from the perspective of one frame or the other, and converting (transforms) the perspectives accordingly.

2) Actually understanding the whole energy balance involved in an event, taking into account both contributory frames' energy impacts and effects to reflect the total energy involved in said event.

As I read him, as per 1), he agrees that frame dependent views and techniques are a valid means of identifying the respective frame perspectives which may be transformed into each others perspective as per usual. However, as per 2), he is conveying the observation that just because one can transform between said frame-dependent perspectives without changing the physics, it is still basic observational technique to understand the more fundamental insights which a joint analysis of both frames can bring to an observation above and beyond what mere utilitarian calculation and transform maths tools can provide.

For example, in the Twin Paradox (I know it is no such thing except as a teaching device), one will not understand the whole picture of the real physical energy impact and effects in either twin's frame unless one resorts to the acceleration history (and hence of the energy content and variation) of whichever twin's frame did the actual physical moving away from initial joint (co-moving) frame (in absolute acceleration or deceleration terms) which effectively and absolutely allows us to distinguish the real effects in their new respective frames as they differ in energy impacts and effects from their previously identical (co-moving) frames.

Given all that, I feel that Wellwisher has made both a scientific and logical point which is valid both in theory and in practice beyond the understandings which mere theory can provide without taking the whole real physical picture of both frames together in a joint analysis overlaid on the usual one or other frame dependent takes. I then must observe that your "report" of him (in this instance at least) seems both premature and unfair from both the scientific discussion view and the validity of analysis and understandings view.

Wellwisher appears to already agree regarding the relativity and frame dependent perspectives and theory etc; but he then argues for a further overlay of understanding which treats both frames in analysis to determine the whole picture irrespective of frame dependence.

You, sir, are speaking on the former case, as per 1) and on which he agrees; while Wellwisher is further speaking on the case as per 2). This may be the cause of misunderstandings leading to your "report" of his post. So, if you wish to withdraw your "report" in light of what I just pointed out which (in this instance) seems to justify Wellwisher's post as per the rules of valid scientific and logical argument, then it may avoid further personal misunderstandings and animosities building up which the hard working moderators can best do without lately. That is my personal objective observation only, not in any way a demand or instruction to anyone concerned. Thankyou.

 

Yes it does, but this is not the topic here. When I finish the first version, I will post it in the alternative theories forum, but it can take some time until I finish it.

 

Well, sorry, but that means it has probably already been proven wrong, since SR matches all current experiments just fine. If it doesn't do anything useful, then it might be ok: the only aether theories that still work are those that are mathematically indistinguishable from SR. Also:

Well that's obviously wrong, since prior to his publication of SR nobody had ever heard of Einstein, so nothing he published could have been influenced by his popularity. The specific reason why his idea was favored is because it is simpler and therefore works better than any aether theory.

 

Without going into the science, fundamentally it seems to me that "frame of reference" basically means "point of observation".

As to "preferred frame of reference", it seems to me that explains the "point of observation which allows for a specific measurement".

Once you have chosen your preferred observation point, it then becomes merely a "frame of reference".

Perhaps this seems simplistic, but IMO, it will be true for all relativistic measurements.

 

No, there was a serious scientific reason: With general relativity, there was a theory of gravity in agreement with the relativistic spacetime interpretation, but no corresponding ether interpretation.

If the ether interpretation of the GR equations would have been known at that time, it would have easily won against the spacetime, over the discussion of the Goedel solution. The ether interpretation would have excluded it in an easy way, in the spacetime interpretation one cannot get rid of it. But it was not known, so, no viable ether theory of gravity was there.

 

Special Relativity was published 10 years before General Relativity.

 

So, what you're saying is that if we ignore the actual proper way that the phrase is used, we can come up with some alternative, incorrect way to use the phrase that will likely just confuse the issue?

Because that seems like a really unwise and unhelpful thing to do.

 

Between around 1900 and 1904, the most influential direction in relativity was the approach of Lorentz and Poincare, which was focusing on relativity with preferred frame of reference. Then came Einstein in 1905 with SR, and in 1908 Minkowsky presented his geometrical approach which boosted popularity of SR. By 1928 Lorentz was still believing in preferred frame of reference interpretation, but when he died in that year, with his death died the last big supporter of this interpretation. Einstein became science popstar with enormous influence and his interpretation prevailed.