What really LORENTZ INVARIANCE is!

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear friends,

All of us seem to know well about CERN LHC, but may be only some that familiar with standard model particle physics (SM) which is the theory behind the LHC project! And for ones who familiar with SM would found that it was based on Lorentz invariance concept; i.e. it is non aether-based theory.

Anyway, nowadays SM seems to face with Lorentz invariance violation; i.e. it is likely to be an aether-based theory. For people such as Frank Wilczek(a Nobel Prize winner in physics 2004) has explained SMP as anaether-based (which he called Grid) theory in his recent book - “The Lightness of Being (Mass, Ether, and the Unification of forces)”, while he did not said that it is Lorentz invariance violation!

By the way, it seems that today TOE candidates such as quantum gravity, string theory or SUSY (supersymmetry, proposed by Frank Wilczek), all are aether-based theories. So it is good news for us (Toe Quest members) who are mainly aetherists (?), but the main problem is that aether-based TOE is not Lorentz invariance. Then how could we solve the paradox? To clear the problem we first have to reconsider whatreally the correct concept of Lorentz invariance is! Here, let us tries to find it out together in the next post.

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com

[Graybeard]

Hi Nimit ...... I'm listening

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

Also see here:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post134108

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear friends,

First let us start with the conventional meaning of Lorentz invariance (according to the concept of special theory of relativity, STR), all physical laws is the same under Lorentz transformation. And following from this new concept, we got a new mechanics called Einstein relativistic mechanics which give us one interesting consequence i.e. the increasing mass of the moving object!

In contrast to Newton classical mechanics (according to the principle of relativity) laws of physics must be independent of the velocity under Galilean transformation. And what we got is that mass of any moving object in empty space is constant!

Now, what is the difference betweenGalilean transformation and Lorentz transformation? It seems that intuitively any moving object should have constant mass, how could we understand the increasing of mass inrelativistic mechanics? There is no explanation why and how it is be so, and even worse it violates the conservation principle of mass! Then the problem is how could we understand it?

By comparing the concept of Galilean transformation and Lorentz transformation, we will see what the increasing mass is! And then we will get some hint about the problem of Lorentz invariance, so please keep follow in next post.

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

[Graybeard]

so please keep follow in next post.

I am following your next post ....... lol

sincerely greg

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear friends,

To solve the increasing mass problem, let us see an analogy in our daily life in which most of us are familiar with driving car and found that at low speed the fuel consumption rate is less than at high speed, the faster car - the higher consumption rate. The reason is because of air’s resistance, the faster speed - the higher resistance. In another view, we can equally say that the faster moving car means the increasing of the mass of the car!

Now, let us suppose that we are driving in an air free tunnel without air’s resistance, then we would found that the fuel consumption rate is constant at any speed and which also means that the moving car’s mass is constant too! This is the concept of Galilean transformation which works under the concept of Newton absolute (free) space!

Next, let us return to thecase that the moving car increases its mass which caused by the existing of air space, and this looks likewhat which happened withLorentz transformation case. But we know that Einstein has derived Lorentz transformation based on empty space concept in which there is no reference rest frame in STR! Anyway, if we can prove that there is something like aether existed, then we may able solve the increasing mass problem.

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear friends,

To solve the increasing mass problem, let us see an analogy in our daily life in which most of us are familiar with driving car and found that at low speed the fuel consumption rate is less than at high speed, the faster car - the higher consumption rate. The reason is because of air’s resistance, the faster speed - the higher resistance. In another view, we can equally say that the faster moving car means the increasing of the mass of the car!

Now, let us suppose that we are driving in an air free tunnel without air’s resistance, then we would found that the fuel consumption rate is constant at any speed and which also means that the moving car’s mass is constant too! This is the concept of Galilean transformation which works under the concept of Newton absolute (free) space!

Next, let us return to thecase that the moving car increases its mass which caused by the existing of air space, and this looks likewhat which happened withLorentz transformation case. But we know that Einstein has derived Lorentz transformation based on empty space concept in which there is no reference rest frame in STR! Anyway, if we can prove that there is something like aether existed, then we may able solve the increasing mass problem.

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com

[smith john]

Dear Smith John.

Spamming and personal advertisements are not allowed

Graybeard (mod)

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear friends,

Nowadays, unlike Einstein’s time, we can obviously prove the existence of the aether by using a simple scientific experiment with magnetic field created from two-solenoid experiment (please see detail in the article VMTE in my website)!

Up to now, someone may think that this means Einstein STR is wrong, and then how could we get Lorentz transformation? Actually it is not quite right to say that Einstein STR is wrong because it was derived from the principle of relativity (which was based on the concept of empty space). Indeed we could also derive Lorentz transformation from the aether rest frame which could be found in “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity (CSTR)” in my website.

Based on aether-based STR (i.e. CSTR), then it is easy to understand how the moving object increases its mass. Analogy to the increasing of car mass that move through air space, the moving object increases its mass by the resistance of aether space! This gives us more confidence in aether –based than non aether-based theory.

Next we have to reconsider the principle of relativity which is related to our main problem of Lorentz invariance which will be done in the next post.

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear friends,

Now, let us consider the principle of relativity which Einstein used it as one of his two postulates in deriving STR. Its important point is that general laws of physics for the description of phenomena must be independent of the velocity of the particular system. And when we combine it with another postulate (light velocity is the same for any observers), then what Einstein got is the Lorentz transformation.

After we have found that aether is existed, the meaning of the principle of relativity mentioned above is no longer valid; it has to reinterpret as – law of physics is the same referenced to aether rest frame! And when working underLorentz transformation, what we got is a new concept of Lorentz invariance - law of physics is the same referenced to aether rest frame via Lorentz transformation!

By comparing conventional non aether-based STR with CSTR - aether-based STR we would found that the latter choice (improved theory) is more rational than the first choice (conventional theory). The reason is because there is no side effect (philosophic problem), i.e. length contraction, time dilation and increasing mass, in the theory!

In conclusion, Lorentz invariance can also be used with both non aether-based and aether-based theory! In other word, there is no Lorentz violation in aether-based theory. While the conventional Lorentz invariance is an imaginary concept because it works with an imaginary empty space, the new concept of Lorentz invariance is a realistic concept because it works within our real physical (the aether) space!

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com