Re: [Phys-l] Does COBE data contradict relativty?

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Percy Bridgman was a Nobel Laureate (low temperature physics) whose book 
<The Logic of Modern Physics> is a mainstay of the literature of what 
philosophers call "logical positism".  The book is a favorite of mine, and 
I've quoted it in previous postings.

You're quite right, in that the implications are worth thinking about.  I 
doubt that they will affect our views of special relativity, but they 
might have cosmological implications. As a practical matter, our motion 
introduces a big dipole component into the WMAP measurements, which are 
corrected for in all the presentations.

It might be an amusing exercise (which I decline to think about) to see if 
one can invent an "aether" theory that explains the dipole distortion 
instead of just doppler shifting.  I think Dirac once fooled around with 
such models.
				Regards,
					Jack

On Tue, 1 May 2007, Folkerts, Timothy J wrote:

> > Some implications of there being a "preferred frame" were discussed by
> > Arons in his book <A Guide to the Teaching of Introductory Physics>.
> > 				Regards,
> > 					Jack
>
> Here is (part of) what Arons says.
>
> "A second aspect that merits slower discussion than is afforded in most
> texts is that of the passionate 19th century search for the "absolute"
> frame of reference ..."
>
> He then quotes someone named Bridgman:
> " ... It is curious that there is a uniquely definable velocity, namely
> the velocity with respect to the fixed stars, which his not felt to have
> the properties of absoluteness implicitly wanted..."
>
> This quote is immediately followed by Arons' parenthetical comment:
> "(It is interesting to speculate on what Bridgman might have said about
> the discovery of the 3K cosmic background radiation and our motion
> relative to it.)"
>
> So rather than shedding any light, Arons seems to have exactly the same
> concern that I do - that the cosmic background might indeed "have the
> properties of absoluteness implicitly wanted"!  So the "fixed stars" -
> or even the "fixed center of the Milky Way" is not an absolute frame of
> reference - but perhaps the CMBR is!
>
> Tim F
>
>
> P.S.  I'm still digesting what John D said ...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley