sci.physics.electromag

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, FrediFizzx wrote:

> "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:
>
>> Yes, one could construct an ether with whatever special properties are
>> required to match experiment (expect perhaps a local ether matching quantum
>> mechanics, but one might manage a non-local ether). It's not that one needs
>> "nonphysical" properties, but that one needs properties even stranger than
>> conventional theory. Surely, there are an infinitude of theories that can
>> explain things, but multiplication of theories that cannot be
>> experimentally tested is not science.
>
> There is quite a bit of evidence that nature is in fact stranger than we
> think. ;-) Just because some theories can't be tested now doesn't mean they
> won't be testable in the future. The LHC will certainly rule out some
> current theories and support others.

Sure, but that's because some theories have the decency to predict
potentially (even if not possible to measure yet) differences from
other theories. One can construct an infinity of theories that cannot ever
be experimentally distinguished from each other. What is the point? Alas,
many ether theories strive for this as their ultimate goal. Of course, the
point is to produce classical EM as the end result, without any other
observable effect, so this is a natural consequence.

>> All one needs to do to retain an ether is to construct a theory of ether
>> that deliver electromagnetism and quantum mechanics and relativity. Assume
>> A, B, C in order to get X, Y, Z. Why not just assume the experimentally
>> accessible X, Y, Z to start with? Perhaps this is merely the opinion
>> resulting from working in applied physics, but I think that Ockham's razor
>> is a useful tool (not infallible, not universal, but certainly useful).
>
> Wouldn't Ockham's razor be applicable to the case if we had a multitude of
> one basic entity and their interactions that could explain all physics?

Very much. But, "if".

If it works, and if it is no more complicated than alternative working
explanations of the same phenomena, and it makes at least no less sense,
then why not?

If simpler and more sensible, well ...

Although "sensible" is a concept that the universe does not necessarilt
care very much about.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www. /people/nieminen/
E-prints: /view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: /timo_nieminen/