Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 14:49:38 UTC No. 16428042

>>16427843
Sound traverses in a medium, so these transformations you described are only valid in a stationary medium. If the medium starts moving, the transformations change form. So they depend on that background medium. Relativity has no such thing, because as you have mentioned, aether isn’t a thing.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:00:08 UTC No. 16428122

>>16428042
If the medium suddenly started moving you'd probably notice it, but there's no way to detect already moving air with only sound waves and sound clocks

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:21:03 UTC No. 16428246

>>16427843
The problem with this theory possibly debunking relativity is that you are watching this sound world with an “outside” light world that can reconcile the position of matter, and tell you that a sound relativistic world is not necessary.

In a sound world, you cannot know the position of matter in space with light. If you had only a sound world, then you could not know a world that wasn’t sound relative, and you would have no story of simultaneity that wasn’t the simultaneity of the sound outside of the collisions of matter. Without this "outside" light world, you would build a world that had only time, and matter, but no light to be able to have some other reference for position in space.


There is no “outside” of light that can watch light, and there is no inside world of matter that can watch anything travel faster than light, hence the need for a Lorenz space, which then leads to the counterintuitive time dilation and mass increase.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 16:33:55 UTC No. 16428611

>>16428122
Ok. Doesn’t change what I said. I can detect it via other methods. Can’t detect aether. That’s the difference.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 16:40:49 UTC No. 16428643

>>16428611
You don't know that.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 16:42:39 UTC No. 16428648

>>16428643
I do. See all the stringent tests of Lorentz invariance we have.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 16:54:14 UTC No. 16428700

>>16428648
The predictions of the theory don't change if you assume movement relative to an aether. The math of special relativity can deal with an anisotropic speed of light.
That's the interesting part of this idea. Spacetime doesn't necessarily need to have the geometry we think it has. And all of this might solely be due to the fact that we have to use finite-speed signals to measure stuff.
This is more of a philosophical argument really

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 17:01:48 UTC No. 16428739

>>16428700
They do. I just told you how. If there is a medium, then the form of transformations changes depending on the relative movement of the medium. So “sound relativity” may have Lorentz transformations in a very specific frame, but it does not preserve them upon changing the frame of reference. That’s what Lorentz invariance means.

You can imagine performing the Michelson-Morley experiment in air pr water. What will it detect? That’s right, the medium in question. The same doesn’t happen with light precisely due to Lorentz invariance.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 17:11:24 UTC No. 16428775

>>16428739
Meaningless. Light changes speed in a number of mediums, c is defined in vacuum. You are just assuming nothing else is out there, who knows why.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 17:16:28 UTC No. 16428798

>>16428739
If that's true, shouldn't the people in that sound universe be able to detect their movement relative to the air?
However, they can't measure the speed of sound in one direction. They can only measure the two way speed of sound which doesn't tell you anything about you movement relative to the medium

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:13:25 UTC No. 16428978

>>16428775
Light doesn’t change speed in other media. There’s a thread dedicated to that. I am assuming vacuum to demonstrate that it holds in vacuum even without any medium.
>>16428798
They can. Which is why I mentioned the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 19:29:29 UTC No. 16429202

>>16428978
>Which is why I mentioned the Michelson-Morley experiment.
They need to know the lengths of the arms of the interferometer. How do they measure lengths? Probably by bouncing a sound wave off a wall and measuring how long it takes for the echo to return. How do they measure that time? With a sound clock. However, the sound clock ticks slower if they're moving relative to the medium, therefore they can't measure the actual distance.
They will unknowingly construct the interferometer with a wrong arm length in the direction of movement relative to the medium. If they do the experiment, they will find... nothing. No movement relative to the medium. The speed of sound appears to be isotropic for them.
Lorentz explained the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in our universe with length contraction and assuming an aether too. That explanation was discarded in favor of Einstein's interpretation later, but it's equivalent.
The difference is that we don't know if the light aether is real, but we know that the sound medium of our model universe is real. But it still leads to the same phenomenon.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 19:33:03 UTC No. 16429220

Indeed.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 19:38:49 UTC No. 16429236

>>16429202
>Lorentz explained the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in our universe with length contraction and assuming an aether too.
Also interesting:
>This hypothesis was partly motivated by Oliver Heaviside's discovery in 1888 that electrostatic fields are contracting in the line of motion. But since there was no reason at that time to assume that binding forces in matter are of electric origin, length contraction of matter in motion with respect to the aether was considered an ad hoc hypothesis.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 09:46:21 UTC No. 16430577

>>16428042
every wave has a medium, photons included

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:42:53 UTC No. 16430869

>>16427843
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.06870
>>We describe a thought experiment in which ‘acoustic observers’ possess devices called sound clocks that can be connected to form chains. Careful investigation shows that appropriately constructed chains of stationary and moving sound clocks are perceived by observers on the other chain as undergoing the relativistic phenomena of length contraction and time dilation by the Lorentz factor, γ, with c the speed of sound. Sound clocks within moving chains actually tick less frequently than stationary ones and must be separated by a shorter distance than when stationary to satisfy simultaneity conditions. Stationary sound clocks appear to be length contracted and time dilated to moving observers due to their misunderstanding of their own state of motion with respect to the laboratory. Observers restricted to using sound clocks describe a universe kinematically consistent with the theory of special relativity, despite the preferred frame of their universe in the laboratory
>>Video for popsci-enjoyers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKkH4IH-zmw
>So you can reproduce special relativity with sound waves and sound clocks. If you only rely on sound for measurements, you won't be able to detect with respect to the medium (air). As a consequence you discover Lorentz transformations and think you live in a Minkowsky space, even though that's not the case here.
>In the same way, we can't measure the speed of the light medium with lightspeed signals, so we constructed a weird ass geometry and think it's reality. What if that's an illusion too?
interesting
it will be useful
>I'm not an aether schizo but I think the idea is pretty neat. It's really just a different interpretation of special relativity that makes the same predictions but only requires a Newtonian universe. Maybe we should stop mystifying our explanations?
Einstein said "Aether" is not disproved by his model but that it is useless for calcs or something, didn't he?