The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Code-Beta1234 on March 30, 2021, 07:35:33 AM

Title: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on March 30, 2021, 07:35:33 AM
I did some research on early aether experiments. Form what I learned, Michaelson Morley does not detect motion of Aether, while Michaelson Gale detects it (if you belive in aether). So how can aether be both stationaty and in motion? How do aether theorists here and elsewhere explain this paradox?
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on March 30, 2021, 08:24:46 AM
I did some research on early aether experiments. Form what I learned, Michaelson Morley does not detect motion of Aether, while Michaelson Gale detects it (if you belive in aether). So how can aether be both stationaty and in motion? How do aether theorists here and elsewhere explain this paradox?

There is no paradox.

There are plenty of experiments that have results that are compatible with both aether and Relativity theory.

There are also many experiments that show results that are compatible with Relativity, but not with aether.

There are no experiments that are compatible with earther but not Relativity.

This shows that aether is at the moment, a dead theory as it can't explain all the results of every experiment, while Relativity can.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Pezevenk on March 30, 2021, 10:40:36 AM
There is kind of a confusion around this because the ether is not one single thing. There have always been lots of different theories about its properties. The whole idea of an aether is simply that it is a medium with certain mechanical properties (which vary according to different theories), and which carries light and electromagnetic phenomena in general. Many models of aether predicted the Michelson-Morley experiment would detect aether, but it didn't, so they were ruled out. Not every conceivable ether theory was disproved by Michelson-Morley, for instance Lorentz ether theory and a bunch of other convoluted models. But eventually Einstein came and special relativity (based largely on Lorentz ether theory) which rendered ether theories more or less redundant. Not FALSE (although most of them were), but redundant. It is possible to rephrase relativity in terms of an ether theory but most physicists just don't see the point in that. An ether compatible with relativity and observations is more or less undetectable and without mechanical properties, so there is little point.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on March 30, 2021, 01:20:03 PM
Thank you for your answers.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: jack44556677 on April 02, 2021, 05:42:59 PM
How do aether theorists here and elsewhere explain this paradox?

In my view it isn't really a paradox at all (or, at least, may not be)

It isn't like they found no variance when altering the direction of the linear/box interferometer.  They just didn't find anything consistent with what would be expected if the earth was moving around the sun (a religious/philosophical belief).

The ring interferometer DID find variances expected if the earth were rotating OR (and this is the part left out of most science history) if the earth were stationary and the aether slowly rotated radially in regards to the earth's surface.

This rotation is pretty slow, 1 revolution per day.  It isn't surprising that it was more or less discarded as noise from the first linear/box interferometer.

More speculations abound if aether "dragging" is also conceived of.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: markjo on April 02, 2021, 06:09:49 PM
The ring interferometer DID find variances expected if the earth were rotating OR (and this is the part left out of most science history) if the earth were stationary and the aether slowly rotated radially in regards to the earth's surface.
How and why would the aether rotate? ???
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on April 02, 2021, 06:48:45 PM
The ring interferometer DID find variances expected if the earth were rotating OR (and this is the part left out of most science history) if the earth were stationary and the aether slowly rotated radially in regards to the earth's surface.

They also "left out" the idea that invisible dragons are using their wings to fan things to make it seem like the earth is spinning but it's not.

Theories that don't fit the evidence are thrown out, ones that match it are kept because you can use them to do stuff like land robots on Mars. Nothing wrong with leaving out old, discarded, incorrect theories that don't work. There are just too many of them, and where you you stop, do you teach ever single thing a crazy person ranted about?

We know the Sun orbits the Earth because at this point we've literally sent robots all over the solar system, several specifically to study the Sun.  Science has a pretty darn good idea of where the Sun is.  ::)
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: jack44556677 on April 03, 2021, 07:47:21 AM
@jja

The regrettable era of aether-mcarthyism continues today :(

It was excised from schools for this reason, not because it doesn't fit the data or because science works the way it was romanticized to us in school.

It turns out there are experiments to perform to determine whether it is (potentially)'the media moving or the distant light sources themselves. Airy's "failure" is a good example of one.

We don't have any more idea where or what the sun is than we ever did in human history.  The data you think is valid comes from a demonstrably untrustworthy MIC entity.  Without such abject appeal to (biased faith in) data you can't validate, we have no such certainty.

Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on April 03, 2021, 09:21:10 AM
@jja

The regrettable era of arther-mcarthyism continues today :(

You know, you can say these things and never provide any actual evidence or documentation, but it doesn't make it true.

You claim all the evidence from NASA is fake, and so is all the data from every other space agency and professional and amateur  astronomer. Right. Your evidence to support this? I certainly don't lie about my own observations, and guess what, they match what NASA says.

Aether is a dead theory because it doesn't work, simple as that.  Making up a conspiracy between the government and the military and shadowy organizations about it doesn't change that.

If aether theory worked, we would be using it.  If it could be used to produce some new technology or invention it would be, you don't think there are millions of eager, hungry investors and inventors and entrepreneurs all around the world out there who would be all over it?

It's just insane to think there is some kind of superior theory out there that nobody uses because everyone agrees to hush it up and everything is fake and lies.

People don't work that way. You can make unfounded, unsupported claims all day if you want. A strong faith in your beliefs doesn't make them right.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2021, 10:43:04 PM
If aether theory worked, we would be using it.

It is being used. Learn more.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Aether

Quote

Aether

The aether was a substance filling background space and thought to be required to explain how light waves could be propagated through space, as all wave transmission requires a medium. Its existence has been postulated in various forms and uses throughout the ages, from the Ancient Greeks, to Newton, to the scientists of the Victorian Era. Aristotle called aether the Fifth Element.

James Clerk Maxwell, the father of Electromagnetic Theory and a figure widely considered to be one of the greatest scientists to have lived, utilizes aether in his treatise:

  “ In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium. ”
                  —James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism/Part IV/Chapter XX

Aether in Modern Science

It is popularly believed that Einstein abolished the aether in science with his Theory of Relativity. However, the following quotes suggest a different story.

  “ Dirac in 1951 published a Letter to Nature titled "Is There an Aether?"(2) in which he showed that the objections to an aether posed by Relativity were removed by Quantum Mechanics, and that in his reformulation of electrodynamics the vector potential was a velocity.(3) He concludes the Letter with 'We have now the velocity(2) at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether'. ”
                  —An Aether Model of the Universe (Archive)

  “ It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise was that no such medium existed…. Einstein… utterly rejected the idea of ether and inferred from its nonexistence that the equations of electromagnetism had to be relative. But this same thought process led in the end to the very ether he had first rejected, albeit one with some special properties that ordinary elastic matter does not have. The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.

In the early days of relativity the conviction that light must be waves of something ran so strong that Einstein was widely dismissed. Even when Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the earth’s orbital motion through the ether could not be detected, opponents argued that the earth must be dragging an envelope of ether along with it because relativity was lunacy and could not possibly be right…. Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo. ”
                  —Robert B. Laughlin (1993 Nobel laureate in physics), "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down", 2005, pp. 120-121).

  “ According to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense ”
                  —Albert Einstein, “Geometry and Experience,” in Sidelights on Relativity, 1983, p. 30

  “ Everything becomes clear if the idea that particles always have a position in space through time is brought back…. According to my current thinking, the particle is always located within a physical wave….The movement of the particle is assumed to be the superposition of a regular movement… and of a Brownian movement due to random energy exchanges which take place between the wave and a hidden medium, which acts as a subquantum thermostat. The point of prime importance in this model is that at each moment the particle occupies a well-defined position in space, and this re-establishes the clear meaning which the configuration space had in classical mechanics. ”
                  —Louis de Broglie, “Waves and Particles,” Physics Bulletin, 22, February 1971

  “ …in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together. ”
                  —Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 2.

  “ Modern science has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy. This philosophy, as we know, used the word “ether” to designate the particular kind of matter that filled the universe. This term was used throughout the history of philosophy and science, and it was also current at the beginning of this century. A resumption of its use at the dawn of this new century is now a fact. Since, according to the General Theory of Relativity and other modern branches of physics, the space and time of the universe do not constitute a vacuum, but a structured material plenum characterized by different physical quantities, the historical and traditional word “ether” is the most appropriate to express these features of the universe. ”
                  —Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, pp. 186-187.

  “ A few words about the gravitational ether, and the ether concept in general may be in place here. The ether hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR [Cosmic Background Radiation]: experiments capable of finding the ether were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in the 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic ether has always been observed – as the heat of the Sun (since as pointed out, CBR is reprocessed photons)…. All the main cosmological, astrophysical and physical facts: the gravity and Olbers paradoxes, redshift effects and CBR, gravitation and radiation, and the existence of particles can be conceived in the framework of this ether concept. ”
                  —“Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation,” in Pushing Gravity, ed., Matthew Edwards, pp. 157-159. (Archive)

  “ Later in our treatise we will find that the very ether Louis de Broglie desired offers a solution to the wave/particle conundrum that has hampered modern science since de Broglie first discovered that electrons produce waves. Any particle that moves through a medium will, indeed, create waves. In fact, a return to ether will help solve one of the most mysterious and perplexing problems in Quantum Mechanics today, the phenomenon of “entanglement” – the spooky connection between pairs of photons, electrons or atoms even though they are separated by great distances. Perhaps this was why John Stewart Bell, the inventor of Bell’s Theorem to answer the phenomenon of entanglement, stated in a BBC radio interview: “Yes, the idea that there is an ether…that is a perfectly coherent point of view. ”
                  —Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, p. 154, citing M. Jammer’s, “John Stewart Bell and the Debate on Significance of his Contributions to the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” in Bell’s Theorem and the Foundations of Modern Physics, eds. A. Van der Merwe, F. Felleri, G. Tarozzi, Singapore, 1992, p. 5; also cited in P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown, eds., The Ghost in the Atom, 1986, pp. 49-50.

  “ Prior to the twentieth century, physics tried to explain how Nature works. Over the twentieth century, and especially in the last half, we got much more ambitious - now we’re uncovering what Nature is. The foundation is an entity I call the Grid. The Grid fills space, and is full of spontaneous activity. In some ways it resembles the old idea of “ether”. But the Grid is highly evolved ether, ether on steroids if you like, with many new features. We have some wonderful ideas waiting to be tested. There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics. ”
                  —Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008) in a Q&A regarding his book. (Archive)

  “Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. In the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by these equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space 'Ether'; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.

...It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity."
                  —Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.

  “ Einstein's new kind of ether was the metrical tensor field. He thus started to adhere to this new ether. He named it "Mach's ether" or simply "ether," and supplied the same reasons that Poincare had provided in his writings as to why we should adhere to the ether (we need the ether in order to remove absolute rotation and action-at-a-distance: see my papers "Poincare's ether"). Einstein thus returned to the 19th century concept of the ether, but stripped of it its most important characteristic: a medium being in absolute rest. One could still pose the perplexing question: Was Einstein's ether endowed with any properties independent of the masses in it? For if it did possess such properties then there was actually no difference between Einstein and Poincare's ether. Einstein did not give a definitive answer to the above question in his (1920) lecture. ”
                  —"Einstein's Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth," Galina Granek, Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Cannel, Haifa 31905, Israel, Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 64.

  “ A few words about the gravitational æther, and the æther concept in general may be in place here. The æther hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR: experiments capable of finding the æther were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic æther has always been observed... ”
                  —Toivo Jaakkola Tuorla Observatory University of Turku "Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation", APEIRON Vol. 3 Nr. 3-4 July-Oct. 1996, p 70.

  “ Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium....A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum "ether" once again. ”
                  —'The Philosophy of Vacuum' , 1991, Simon W. Saunders, Harvey R. Jr. Brown, p 251.

  “ According to accepted theory, free space is a vacuum. If this is so, how can it exhibit impedance? But it does. The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and what we call free space has structure. The impedance equals 376+ ohms. ”
                  —"Space Must Be Quantizied", Robert Moon, professor emeritus in physics at University of Chicago, 21st Century, 1988, p. 26
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Pezevenk on April 04, 2021, 01:33:32 AM
You brought up quotes from like a 100 years ago, and a few quotes which are either out of context, also slightly old and not reflecting consensus.

The only one of those which is sorta accurate is John Stewart Bell, who did advocate for a return to a Lorentzian perspective of ether. Lorentz ether has more or less the same predictions as special relativity, there would have to be some work however to make it also fit general relativity. I believe some people have done that but I am not sure. But again, same predictions. The main reasons why someone may chose to prefer one over the other are philosophical, and most physicists don't really see a point there as of yet.

I have no clue why so many non physicists are so hung up on ether. It is really bizarre. It is like being extremely hung up on whether or not viruses should be classified as alive. Like, whatever, maybe someone will eventually make a really good argument why the paradigm should shift back to ether for whatever reason. But it really doesn't matter at all to non specialists. Until then physicists will be permanently annoyed at ether cranks spamming them with bogus papers so they will respond accordingly. Seriously, why ether? Why does it matter so much? Is it the name?
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: markjo on April 04, 2021, 08:36:55 AM
If aether theory worked, we would be using it.

It is being used. Learn more.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Aether
Which modern theories use aether and how?
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on April 04, 2021, 03:30:59 PM
If aether theory worked, we would be using it.

It is being used. Learn more.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Aether

"Your Wiki has no power here! Begone, before somebody drops a house on you, too!"

Nobody here is forced to worship your Wiki/Bible/Manifesto.

Classic Tom, another drive by quote spamming.

I'm sure you could calculate some useful predictions with your detailed and perfected ether theory math you have hidden somewhere... you just don't want to. Cause reasons.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 10:19:08 PM
You brought up quotes from like a 100 years ago, and a few quotes which are either out of context, also slightly old and not reflecting consensus.

Are you talking about Einstein's 100 year old quote where he reintroduces the ether after saying it doesn't exist? Yeah, that's still cannon.

The modern ether theories are the consensus. Fermilab says so right on their website:

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/ether.html

"The concept of ether surfaced decades before scientists knew of quantum mechanics and some very fundamental symmetry principles of the microscopic world. Because of the huge change in knowledge, the historic word ether is not used anymore since it is a historical concept based on classical, not quantum physics.

Today's equivalent of the ether is the vacuum!

Physicists have come to realize that vacuum is not just empty space and the absence of things. The laws of quantum physics and experimental observations clearly show that many physical phenomena are explained by the fact that the vacuum has certain physical properties, including vacuum energy and quantum fluctuations: particles and antiparticles can appear and then disappear after a short period of time."

Many theories use it:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-004-1630-5

"In this paper we review the evolution of the concept of “vacuum” according to different theories formulated in the last century, like Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electrodynamics, Quantum Chromodynamics in Particle Physics and Cosmology. In all these theories a metastable vacuum state is considered which transforms from one state to another according to the energy taken into consideration. It is a “fluid” made up by matter and radiation present in the whole Universe, which may be identified with a modern definition of ether."
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on April 06, 2021, 07:54:22 AM
Are you talking about Einstein's 100 year old quote where he reintroduces the ether after saying it doesn't exist? Yeah, that's still cannon.

When your entire argument rests on hundred year old out of context quotes maybe you should take a hard look at your beliefs.

Come back when you have a bottle of aether and a scientific paper describing it's qualities and detailing your experiments with it. ::)
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: markjo on April 06, 2021, 07:56:55 AM
You brought up quotes from like a 100 years ago, and a few quotes which are either out of context, also slightly old and not reflecting consensus.

Are you talking about Einstein's 100 year old quote where he reintroduces the ether after saying it doesn't exist?
That depends.  Does Einstein's aether make FET any more plausible?
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Heiwa on April 07, 2021, 10:14:16 AM
I call it ether. It is the empty part of the Universe where photons and similar particles fly around in all directions at the speed of light. Where they come from and end up is not clear. Some of the photons hit my eyes so I can watch the solid parts of the Universe, i.e. solar systems and galaxies. Quite interesting. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm#MU
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Pezevenk on April 07, 2021, 04:30:56 PM
You brought up quotes from like a 100 years ago, and a few quotes which are either out of context, also slightly old and not reflecting consensus.

Are you talking about Einstein's 100 year old quote where he reintroduces the ether after saying it doesn't exist? Yeah, that's still cannon.

What? What do you mean "cannon"? Also do you think he said ether did not exist? Because he did not, it's more complicated than that and it doesn't matter anyways.

Quote
The modern ether theories are the consensus. Fermilab says so right on their website:

It literally says it is not used. The very quote you brought up. It says that.

I have no clue why you are trying to reframe QFT vacuum as an ether theory which has something to do with pre-Einstein ether. It is not the case and no amount of cherry picked quotes will change that.

I still don't understand why you are so obsessed with ether. If you are trying to say that consensus modern physics has anything to do with pre-einsteinian conceptions of mechanical luminiferous aether, then that is simply wrong. If you just want to call it QFT vacuum "ether" for some reason, then yeah, you can do that I guess, and a few other people have, but I don't understand the point. It is simply a word.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: jack44556677 on April 08, 2021, 08:17:02 AM
How and why would the aether rotate? ???

Good question!

Tornadoes/vortices are typically caused by imbalance/disequilibrium (thermal/pressure/etc.)

Perhaps it is entrainment to the moving lights above... The speculations abound (of which the presumed rotation of the world is only one)
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: markjo on April 08, 2021, 08:39:05 AM
The speculations abound...
Indeed.  How about less speculation and more research?
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Ski on April 08, 2021, 11:33:58 AM
"Aether" is simply out of fashion.  Calling it something else is much more "modern", and thus currently en vogue. It has never truly disappeared from science. It's simply a game of changing definitions and introducing new buzz words to the lexcicon.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: markjo on April 08, 2021, 11:38:33 AM
Pray tell, what is the "modern" term for aether these days?
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2021, 11:50:39 AM
The purpose of classical ether was to explain the propagation of light, since all wave transmission require a medium for those waves to exist in. Fermilab mentions it on the ether page I linked:

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/ether.html

"Understanding the properties of the vacuum is the basics for physics topics like superconductivity, the origin of mass, creation of antimatter, and many more. Past, present and future research has been and will be devoted to understand more about the vacuum and its implications to matter, space and time.

The properties of the vacuum are not immediately apparent in our daily life. They, however, become important when studying the microcosm, also called the quantum world.

Physicists have developed quantum theories that can explain many interactions of matter and antimatter, including the creation and exchange of light."

Another quote, from Essential Quantum Optics:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Re6Ph5rk2hkC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189

"At the beginning of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein replaced the aether theory by relativity, but a twenty-first century aether is still puzzling physicists today. This modern aether is the quantum vacuum. The aether was thought to be an all-penetrating mysterious substance that carries light through space like air carries sound. Take away all light, and the aether would still be there, defining a universal frame of reference. Now, according to quantum field theory, the state of absolute darkness, the vacuum state, is still a physical state filling space throughout, similar to the aether. There is an important difference though: one does not notice motion at uniform speed relative to the quantum vacuum, but, as we describe in this chapter, during acceleration the vacuum glows, although slightly, causing friction. Furthermore, as Stephen Hawking predicted in 1974 (Hawking, 1974), the quantum vacuum should also cause black holes to evaporate, because at the event horizon particles are created from nothing, at the expense of the black hole's mass."
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on April 08, 2021, 12:07:06 PM
"At the beginning of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein replaced the aether theory by relativity, but a twenty-first century aether is still puzzling physicists today. This modern aether is the quantum vacuum. The aether was thought to be an all-penetrating mysterious substance that carries light through space like air carries sound. Take away all light, and the aether would still be there, defining a universal frame of reference. Now, according to quantum field theory, the state of absolute darkness, the vacuum state, is still a physical state filling space throughout, similar to the aether. There is an important difference though: one does not notice motion at uniform speed relative to the quantum vacuum, but, as we describe in this chapter, during acceleration the vacuum glows, although slightly, causing friction. Furthermore, as Stephen Hawking predicted in 1974 (Hawking, 1974), the quantum vacuum should also cause black holes to evaporate, because at the event horizon particles are created from nothing, at the expense of the black hole's mass."

So you found a quote which states that quantum vacuum is nothing like ether, it has completely different properties and is not at all the same, having important differences.

What exactly is your point?  That someone wrote a book comparing physicists puzzling over aether then and quantum vacuum now?  Yes... that's how science works. Physicists find things they don't know and try and figure them out. Sometimes they are abandoned when they don't work, like aether.

Why quote all this stuff? It's just spamming links and quotes again. Are you trying to say something here? 
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Ski on April 08, 2021, 12:08:49 PM
Pray tell, what is the "modern" term for aether these days?

There are seemingly an endless number of aetheric names today. One popular such is "quantum foam". A rose by any other name, as the bard once said.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2021, 12:12:54 PM
So you found a quote which states that quantum vacuum is nothing like ether, it has completely different properties and is not at all the same, having important differences.

The quote says that it's almost exactly like classical ether, except that they changed it to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Your assertions regarding the non-existence of ether are pretty ignorant. I would suggest that you learn more physics. The consensus is that there is a substance filling background space which mitigates the propagation of light among other features.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Ski on April 08, 2021, 12:23:29 PM
They have been taught (incorrectly) that aether was abandoned and disproven, and they have no other option than to mindlessly parrot it, Tom.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Stash on April 08, 2021, 12:23:38 PM
So you found a quote which states that quantum vacuum is nothing like ether, it has completely different properties and is not at all the same, having important differences.

The quote says that it's almost exactly like classical ether, except that they changed it to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Your assertions regarding the non-existence of ether are pretty ignorant. I would suggest that you learn more physics. The consensus is that there is a substance filling background space which mitigates the propagation of light among other features.

What "consensus" might that be? As an aside, if you are appealing to a "consensus" you might want to be careful - "Consensus" is that your entire world/celestial view is wrong.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on April 08, 2021, 12:31:23 PM
So you found a quote which states that quantum vacuum is nothing like ether, it has completely different properties and is not at all the same, having important differences.

The quote says that it's almost exactly like classical ether, except that they changed it to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Your assertions regarding the non-existence of ether are pretty ignorant. I would suggest that you learn more physics. The consensus is that there is a substance filling background space which mitigates the propagation of light among other features.

Again, what exactly is your point?

You seem to be trying to claim that quantum foam is exactly the same as the old theories of aether, when your own quotes state there are major differences.

You want to call "quantum foam" aether you go right ahead.  But you're not actually making any kind of argument here, just calling one thing by another name.

The old aether theory is dead, in fact your own quote mentions that. The main property of aether is that it is a fixed reference medium that light travels through. The quote YOU found clearly states that quantum foam does NOT have this property. Read more carefully, Tom.

    "There is an important difference though: one does not notice motion at uniform speed relative to the quantum vacuum"

You are getting confused because you seem to only do keyword searches and just copy-paste without understanding what you read or the context. Put some effort into understanding these sources.

Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: markjo on April 08, 2021, 01:08:25 PM
Some aether supporters like to trot out Einstein's quote about GR without aether being unthinkable.  However, they seem to ignore the part where he also says: "But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."  Therefore, the idea of aether currents or eddies are not applicable.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2021, 02:01:27 PM
They have been taught (incorrectly) that aether was abandoned and disproven, and they have no other option than to mindlessly parrot it, Tom.

Clearly. Now they have abandoned that and are arguing that only one kind of ether can be ether.  ::)

The main property of aether is that it is a fixed reference medium that light travels through. The quote YOU found clearly states that quantum foam does NOT have this property. Read more carefully, Tom.

    "There is an important difference though: one does not notice motion at uniform speed relative to the quantum vacuum"

You are getting confused because you seem to only do keyword searches and just copy-paste without understanding what you read or the context. Put some effort into understanding these sources.

Incorrect. That is not the "main property of aether". The main property of classical aether was a medium which allows for the propagation of light and magnetism. It was necessary that there was a medium filling the void through which electromagnetic waves could propagate, much like how sound waves travel through the air or ripples through water.

That still exists. The modern vacuum version of ether takes on that responsibility, and is deemed to be a relativistic ether. Professor Laughlin already told us that in the previous quote we looked at:

  “ It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise was that no such medium existed…. Einstein… utterly rejected the idea of ether and inferred from its nonexistence that the equations of electromagnetism had to be relative. But this same thought process led in the end to the very ether he had first rejected, albeit one with some special properties that ordinary elastic matter does not have. The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.

In the early days of relativity the conviction that light must be waves of something ran so strong that Einstein was widely dismissed. Even when Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the earth’s orbital motion through the ether could not be detected, opponents argued that the earth must be dragging an envelope of ether along with it because relativity was lunacy and could not possibly be right…. Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
                  —Robert B. Laughlin (1993 Nobel laureate in physics), "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down", 2005, pp. 120-121).
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on April 08, 2021, 03:18:44 PM
They have been taught (incorrectly) that aether was abandoned and disproven, and they have no other option than to mindlessly parrot it, Tom.

Clearly. Now they have abandoned that and are arguing that only one kind of ether can be ether.  ::)

The main property of aether is that it is a fixed reference medium that light travels through. The quote YOU found clearly states that quantum foam does NOT have this property. Read more carefully, Tom.

    "There is an important difference though: one does not notice motion at uniform speed relative to the quantum vacuum"

You are getting confused because you seem to only do keyword searches and just copy-paste without understanding what you read or the context. Put some effort into understanding these sources.

Incorrect. That is not the "main property of aether". The main property of classical aether was a medium which allows for the propagation of light and magnetism. It was necessary that there was a medium filling the void through which electromagnetic waves could propagate, much like how sound waves travel through the air or ripples through water.

That still exists. The modern vacuum version of ether takes on that responsibility, and is deemed to be a relativistic ether. Professor Laughlin already told us that in the previous quote we looked at:

No, it does not exist. You are getting confused because the same words are being used in different contexts that you are not reading carefully enough.

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that light does not move at different speeds in different directions, which killed aether theory. 

The quantum foam and related theories do NOT have this property either, therefore they are unrelated to ether theory. Aether was a theory because it was assumed light had to move through some fixed medium. Experiments showed there was no fixed medium, so it's dead. Sorry to break it to you.

You really need to pay attention and try discussing things in your own words instead of spamming quotes that you clearly don't understand.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Ski on April 08, 2021, 03:42:19 PM
I see..

"Aether" is simply out of fashion.  Calling it something else is much more "modern", and thus currently en vogue. It has never truly disappeared from science. It's simply a game of changing definitions and introducing new buzz words to the lexcicon.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Pezevenk on April 08, 2021, 04:22:47 PM
Nobody has answered yet why you are so obsessed with aether lol.

If you think classical aether is similar to QFT vacuum, that is just wrong. Mainstream modern physics generally does not assign mechanical properties to vacuum, and definitely not the kind of mechanical properties that classical aether theories did.

If you don't think it is the same and you just really want to use a different name, then alright but I don't understand why it is such a big deal for you.

The quote mining is incredibly boring.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Heiwa on April 09, 2021, 03:48:01 AM
Whatever ether is, anything landing on our planet Earth later must have passed it, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/ergchech2.htm . This thing passed the ether for 4.5 billion years and it survived landing on Earth without melting.  Quite good.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: markjo on April 09, 2021, 06:19:16 AM
Whatever ether is...
Ether is a highly flammable anesthetic.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on April 09, 2021, 08:21:23 AM
Whatever ether is...
Ether is a highly flammable anesthetic.
It's also awful to inhale. Would not recommend it.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: markjo on April 09, 2021, 12:17:12 PM
Whatever ether is...
Ether is a highly flammable anesthetic.
It's also awful to inhale. Would not recommend it.
Even so, I've heard that it can give you a pretty good high.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2021, 12:44:34 PM
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that light does not move at different speeds in different directions, which killed aether theory. 

Incorrect. Einstein admitted that he was wrong about arguing for the total non-existence of ether when he came up with his theory.

“ It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the non-existence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total non-existence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities. ”
                  —Einstein in a 1919 letter to Lorentz

Einstein himself admits the existence of ether, and admits that he was wrong about it. Clearly, the main definition of ether is 'carrier of physical qualities' there. Einstein still calls it ether. You are just uneducated or misinformed about what Einstein actually did with his theories. Maybe you need to post less and spend more time learning things.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Stash on April 09, 2021, 02:02:36 PM
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that light does not move at different speeds in different directions, which killed aether theory. 

Incorrect. Einstein admitted that he was wrong about arguing for the total non-existence of either when he came up with his theory.

“ It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the non-existence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total non-existence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities. ”
                  —Einstein in a 1919 letter to Lorentz

Einstein himself admits the existence of ether, and admits that he was wrong about it. Clearly, the main definition of ether is 'carrier of physical qualities' there. Einstein still calls it ether. You are just uneducated or misinformed about what Einstein actually did with his theories. Maybe you need to post less and spend more time learning things.

I think it's far more nuanced than how you portray it. Einstein's "ether" is Relativistic and fundamentally different than the older luminiferous aether of the prior centuries:

"In the following lines, Einstein defines his original view of a field:   
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as op-posed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same… Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. (Einstein, 1952: p. 147)

The kernel of Einstein’s theory of gravitational waves can thus be formulated: gravitational waves are wave-like without being substantive waves, thus confirming the conceptual irrelevance of the earlier similarity theories of substantial ether, and affirming the new formal role of the ether properties."
Equivalence Principle and Ether: Two Revolutionary Kernels of Einstein’s General Relativity
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312250096_Equivalence_Principle_and_Ether_Two_Revolutionary_Kernels_of_Einstein's_General_Relativity
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on April 09, 2021, 02:14:00 PM
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that light does not move at different speeds in different directions, which killed aether theory. 

Incorrect. Einstein admitted that he was wrong about arguing for the total non-existence of either when he came up with his theory.

Uh, you really need to start thinking and speaking for yourself instead of just quote mining.

All Einstein is saying is that there has to be a name for whatever carries particles and information, and aether is as good as any for it.

Come on Tom, you are arguing nothing here. What is your POINT?

Please tell us what PROPERTIES this aether of yours has that Einstein agreed to. How does that relate to a Flat Earth?

So far your entire argument seems to be... "stuff moves though space and I call it aether".  Which is saying nothing of substance at all.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Heiwa on April 09, 2021, 08:49:38 PM
I am still impressed by this newly found Erg Chech 002 thing being ejected from a volcano somewhere and then flying around in the Universe ether (or aether) for 4.5 billion years before landing on Earth two years ago. Pity it didn't happen 102 years ago for Einstein to explain.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Pezevenk on April 10, 2021, 07:27:06 AM
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that light does not move at different speeds in different directions, which killed aether theory. 

Incorrect. Einstein admitted that he was wrong about arguing for the total non-existence of either when he came up with his theory.

“ It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the non-existence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total non-existence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities. ”
                  —Einstein in a 1919 letter to Lorentz

Einstein himself admits the existence of ether, and admits that he was wrong about it. Clearly, the main definition of ether is 'carrier of physical qualities' there. Einstein still calls it ether. You are just uneducated or misinformed about what Einstein actually did with his theories. Maybe you need to post less and spend more time learning things.

Stop quote mining and follow your advice to learn yourself. Please.

"Carrier of physical qualities" is a generalization of the idea of ether. Einstein did argue for a while that perhaps he shouldn't have argued for the total nonexistence of ether because ether could be thought of as such, but this didn't become very popular and he himself dropped it afterwards, since it was seen as more fruitful to have the idea of ether refer to the old theory alone so as to make a distinction. Why you are obsessed with it is beyond me, but beyond bothering and confusing people, this line of argument has no meaningful physical content and it is just hand wringing about words.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Ski on April 12, 2021, 04:58:36 PM
You are all still pretending that "space-time" is incongruous with aether? Interesting. Not at all surprising to me, but interesting.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Pezevenk on April 13, 2021, 02:44:47 AM
You are all still pretending that "space-time" is incongruous with aether? Interesting. Not at all surprising to me, but interesting.

What are you trying to say? Did you read the post?
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: markjo on April 13, 2021, 07:01:11 AM
You are all still pretending that "space-time" is incongruous with aether?
That depends on which version of aether you're referring to.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on April 27, 2021, 02:47:53 AM
You brought up quotes from like a 100 years ago, and a few quotes which are either out of context, also slightly old and not reflecting consensus.

The only one of those which is sorta accurate is John Stewart Bell, who did advocate for a return to a Lorentzian perspective of ether. Lorentz ether has more or less the same predictions as special relativity, there would have to be some work however to make it also fit general relativity. I believe some people have done that but I am not sure. But again, same predictions. The main reasons why someone may chose to prefer one over the other are philosophical, and most physicists don't really see a point there as of yet.

I have no clue why so many non physicists are so hung up on ether. It is really bizarre. It is like being extremely hung up on whether or not viruses should be classified as alive. Like, whatever, maybe someone will eventually make a really good argument why the paradigm should shift back to ether for whatever reason. But it really doesn't matter at all to non specialists. Until then physicists will be permanently annoyed at ether cranks spamming them with bogus papers so they will respond accordingly. Seriously, why ether? Why does it matter so much? Is it the name?

Sorry for my inactivity. My internet was shit and i didnt see point in waiting minutes to do literaly anyhing. I hope i didnt miss anything important in my month of inactivity.

This is my opinion. Lorentz (or any other ether theory similar to rel.) is similar to relativity, so there isnt single experiment which refutes it. So, if were to find any issue with relativity, and we will, prehaps we even did, lorentz wil become good alternative

Also, i dont have slighterst idea why i like pseudoscience. I got space book at my 3/4 birthday. I watched History channels space documentaries. I watched star wars.I play stellaris. It whoud make sense for me to be radicaly aganist Flat Earth or geocentrism. like how hardcore christians hade atheists. But somehow i like thiese things. I always come here with thought "Prehaps it is true after all".

I read it somewhere that religious persions raised by hardcore religious parents tend to become atheists more often than ones raised by moderate ones. Prehaps same thing happend to me with space? Why do i like things which make my worldview shake?
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on April 27, 2021, 02:52:36 AM
The ring interferometer DID find variances expected if the earth were rotating OR (and this is the part left out of most science history) if the earth were stationary and the aether slowly rotated radially in regards to the earth's surface.
How and why would the aether rotate? ???
Prehaps in geocentric model it is focused on sun, which orbits earth in 24 hour period?
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: Heiwa on April 27, 2021, 03:17:21 AM
It seems both our planet Earth and the Sun rotate and orbit around themselves and  something in our Solar system in Universe that is also moving all the time. I watch the show from my roof every night. It is great! The Moon, Venus and Mars move around in all directions. No doubt about it. But then there are some clowns selling tourist trips from Earth to the Moon. Who are they? The worlds richest clowns. Then I go back to bed.
Title: Re: Question about "aether" theories
Post by: JJA on May 02, 2021, 08:15:06 AM
It seems both our planet Earth and the Sun rotate and orbit around themselves and  something in our Solar system in Universe that is also moving all the time.

That would be called the center of gravity. 

I watched an ant last night. Then I ate pancakes.