Lorentz vs Einstein: Who is winning?
On Feb 4, 2005, at 6:33 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The data do, at this moment in the stream of the collective WEB
consciousness, SEEM to point to a preferred frame. To really know would
be very difficult. Basically, we have to trust the competence & honesty
of these experimental authors. Lorentzian absolute speed v(Earth) ~ 204
+- 36 km/sec, rather than Einsteinian relative speed is definitely in
the running in terms of the actual evidence. Notice however, that even
accepting that will not make much of a quantitative difference in terms
of classic tests of both special and general relativity. Also, as I
have shown, the way to understand the preferred frame is as spontaneous
breakdown of O(1,3) symmetry in the physical vacuum in finite "domains"
analogous to those in a ferromagnet. The preferred orientation of the
ferromagnetism in the ground state violation of O(3) is formally
isomorphic to the preferred "rapidity" (i.e. the Wick-rotated
orientation from Euclidean metric to hyperbolic metric) in the
breakdown of O(1,3) in the physical vacuum. In ALL cases there is no
violation of the dynamical symmetries. The action and the equations of
motion are still tensor/spinor covariant under ALL the symmetries both
spacetime and internal. This distinction between dynamical symmetry
breakdown and spontaneous ground state breakdown was a struggle as P.W.
Anderson chronicles in "A Career in Theoretical Physics" - even the
great Eugene Wigner made his greatest blunder there back in the 60's I
think on "electric charge superselection rules" violated in the BCS
superconductor that is a macro-quantum coherent superposition of
different numbers of bound electron pairs. This breaking of U(1) gauge
symmetry is a "preferred frame" in the internal space, just as Cahill's
et-al's absolute velocities give a "preferred frame" in ordinary space.
The covariance of the fundamental laws of nature under all symmetry
groups are NOT affected by this!
Cliff Will must discuss these ether drift allegations?
On Feb 4, 2005, at 5:53 PM, email@example.com wrote: