A collection of scientific evidence for aether

You're free to post! Share your evidences!



[note: I hope this topic won't be empty as I predict]

As I thought.

As I thought.

Whoa, hold on, I only just saw this!

As I thought.

This was up for just over an hour. I'd suggest waiting at least a day before you claim victory. There are two or three people who defend aether over these entire forums, who alternate between not being online, or being busy elsewhere, and at least one of them has you blocked.
You're taking this site way too seriously. Head over to tfes.org if you want actual discussion.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 18, 2015, 03:21:32 PM

As I thought.

This was up for just over an hour. I'd suggest waiting at least a day before you claim victory. There are two or three people who defend aether over these entire forums, who alternate between not being online, or being busy elsewhere, and at least one of them has you blocked.
You're taking this site way too seriously. Head over to tfes.org if you want actual discussion.

People are posting here quickly, so I reposted after over 1 hour.

Well, JRowe talks to it. That's got to be evidence for something?

Ether detection experiments.

Einstein certainly believed in aether.  In fact, he stated that the General Relativity proves that it exists.  Here is a quote from an address he gave back in 1920.  Note that ether is another spelling for aether. 

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

Einstein certainly believed in aether.  In fact, he stated that the General Relativity proves that it exists.  Here is a quote from an address he gave back in 1920.  Note that ether is another spelling for aether. 

Quote from: Albert Einstein

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

He also believed the world was round.

Quoting someone else, regardless of who they are will never be considered proof, you may however use their proof that they used to come to that conclusion. Hawking's theorys on Hawkings radiation would have been meaningless if it did not result in actual black holes being detected as proposed by his model. No one would just take his word for it.
Same goes for anyone, regardless of how well known they are.

"Do not believe everything you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

Einstein certainly believed in aether.  In fact, he stated that the General Relativity proves that it exists.  Here is a quote from an address he gave back in 1920.  Note that ether is another spelling for aether. 

Quote from: Albert Einstein

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

What Einstein meant by that: space must be a physical entity, not just a frame of reference, for it has physical properties, that is the property to bend. Einsteins aether is space itself. Einstein loved Classical Physics and did not easily abandon its main terms and forms of thinking, that's why he had such difficulties to accept quantum physics. Actually "aether"is just a word. It is important to understand, how a writer who uses this term defines it.

Quote from: jroa on March 18, 2015, 11:21:29 PM

Einstein certainly believed in aether.  In fact, he stated that the General Relativity proves that it exists.  Here is a quote from an address he gave back in 1920.  Note that ether is another spelling for aether. 

Quote from: Albert Einstein

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

What Einstein meant by that: space must be a physical entity, not just a frame of reference, for it has physical properties, that is the property to bend. Einsteins aether is space itself. Einstein loved Classical Physics and did not easily abandon its main terms and forms of thinking, that's why he had such difficulties to accept quantum physics. Actually "aether"is just a word. It is important to understand, how a writer who uses this term defines it.

Were you good friends with Einstein, or... ?

Einsteins aether is space itself.

He clearly used both the word space and the word ether in the same sentence, meaning that he knew they were two different things. 

you may however use their proof that they used to come to that conclusion.

There are books filled with proof of special and general relativity by Einstein.  Einstein said this proves that the ether exists.  Are you calling him a liar?  Perhaps you think you are smarter than he was? 

Were you good friends with Einstein, or... ?

I have intimate contact with his ghost. I will not tell you any details other than he teaches me German and Halakha.

He clearly used both the word space and the word ether in the same sentence, meaning that he knew they were two different things. 

So present us a quote please, but provide us also the date, because his view of aether changed during his life time.

EDIT: What is important: Einstein DID see the aether as a prefered frame of reference, so his point of view is in variance with modern mainstream physics.

There are books filled with proof of special and general relativity by Einstein.  Einstein said this proves that the ether exists.

I am not disputing what Einstein said at all. I am disputing what you believe his theories lead to proof. There are many real proofs of general relativity, however he did not earn his keep in the history books due to any evidence in Aether/ether. If he did I missed that Nobel Prize.

Are you calling him a liar?

Did I? If I did please correct me because I dont think he is.

Perhaps you think you are smarter than he was?

I most certainly dont, but even if I did, it will not validate or invalidate any of my claims. Same applies to everyone else. I am not sure why you are asking me this question?

But Einstein's thoughts about the aether certainly deserve a place in this collection:

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"...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."

But Einstein's thoughts about the aether certainly deserve a place in this collection:

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"...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."

What is being discussed from my knowledge, is the understanding that "empty space" has properties. This heads right into modern quantum physics where strange things such as quantum teleportation, quantum tunneling, quantum pairs, not excluding how gravity and even light propagates through the universe. If you have been "trying" (its a tough thing to do) to keep track in quantum theory over the years, many properties are applied to space, including multitudes of dimensions well under plank lengths. These theories all try to link back to general relativity to help understand why there are clashes when you try to combine quantum and general relativity maths together.
Einstein was trying to build onto quantum theories to get them to work with his theories.

However, you can not ignore all the work that has been done since him, he was a man, and other men just as smart have come after him.

I ask that aether as believed  here be defined so that we know what you are describing. A "word" is not proof of anything, it is only what we attach meaning to.

Please, attach meaning to "aether" as you understand it for me.

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 19, 2015, 12:56:14 AM

But Einstein's thoughts about the aether certainly deserve a place in this collection:

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"...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."

What is being discussed from my knowledge, is the understanding that "empty space" has properties. This heads right into modern quantum physics where strange things such as quantum teleportation, quantum tunneling, quantum pairs, not excluding how gravity and even light propagates through the universe.

Yes exactly. What is called "vacuum" in modern physics could well be called "aether", but it isn't, out of historical reasons.

Modern Einstein based aether theories use Einstein's concept of aether=spacetime. But they differ from common theoretical physics, because , as I said, it also implies a "prefered frame of reference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

EDIT: I initially claimed that Einstein's own Aether theory also implied a preferred frame of reference. Now I think that was wrong.

Concerning Ether
If we talk about ether here, then of course we don't talk about the bodily ether of the mechanical theory of undulation, which obeys the law of Newton's mechanics, and whose single points have velocities assigned to them. This theoretical construct has, in my opinion, found its definite end in the special theory of relativity. Instead, we talk about those things considered as physically-real, which, apart from ponderable matter consisting of electrical elementary particles, play a role in the causal nexus of physics. Instead of 'ether', we could as well talk about 'physical qualities of space'.

Einstein, letters

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/did-einstein-accept-the-ether.4021/

Yes exactly. What is called "vacuum" in modern physics could well be called "aether", but it isn't, out of historical reasons.

Modern Einstein based aether theories use Einstein's concept of aether=spacetime. But they differ from common theoretical physics, because , as I said, it also implies a "prefered frame of reference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

Does Einsteins theory of aether describe the theories of aether described here? If not then we are not talking about the same thing. His theory of aether does not in anyway describe a flat world, or a world where teleportation of matter happens at will. There are no aether winds in his theories. What is being described is much closer to modern quantum theory than a flat earth theory.

Surely you can see that?

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 19, 2015, 01:20:57 AM

Yes exactly. What is called "vacuum" in modern physics could well be called "aether", but it isn't, out of historical reasons.

Modern Einstein based aether theories use Einstein's concept of aether=spacetime. But they differ from common theoretical physics, because , as I said, it also implies a "prefered frame of reference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

Does Einsteins theory of aether describe the theories of aether described here? If not then we are not talking about the same thing. His theory of aether does not in anyway describe a flat world, or a world where teleportation of matter happens at will. There are no aether winds in his theories. What is being described is much closer to modern quantum theory than a flat earth theory.

Surely you can see that?

Nah, Einstein used the word ether. Thats good enough for Jroa and he'll continue to trot it out as "evidence".

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 19, 2015, 01:20:57 AM

Yes exactly. What is called "vacuum" in modern physics could well be called "aether", but it isn't, out of historical reasons.

Modern Einstein based aether theories use Einstein's concept of aether=spacetime. But they differ from common theoretical physics, because , as I said, it also implies a "prefered frame of reference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

Does Einsteins theory of aether describe the theories of aether described here? If not then we are not talking about the same thing. His theory of aether does not in anyway describe a flat world, or a world where teleportation of matter happens at will. There are no aether winds in his theories. What is being described is much closer to modern quantum theory than a flat earth theory.

Surely you can see that?

In my first posts I thought indeed, that Einstein's aether theory and Einstein based aether theories of contemporary physicists are one and the same. I was wrong with that, so I have to apologize. Neither of them implies that teleportation or a flat earth is possible. Also they do not make use of aether winds. Where did I claim that?

Also they do not make use of aether winds. Where did I claim that?

Apologies, I did not infer you to use the term. It is just a term very frequently used here to describe certain affect, that I do not see a connection to with Einstein theories.

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 19, 2015, 01:43:58 AM

Also they do not make use of aether winds. Where did I claim that?

Apologies, I did not infer you to use the term. It is just a term very frequently used here to describe certain affect, that I do not see a connection to with Einstein theories.

"aether wind" I know as a concept of 19th century physics and means the postulated relative motion between earth and the aether surrounding her, thus influencing the speed of light messured on earth. It was never detected experimentally. How the term is used on this forum I do not know.

As someone who has a BA in physics and some graduate work in physics a few clarifications.

Einstein was a genius and was the father of SR and GR and played an integral role on quantum mechanics. In fact his Noble prize was for his work in QM, not relativity. Having said that, GR has moved so far beyond its beginnings he would barely recognize it. He also loathed QM, but that theory also has grown and as much as he hated it, it is one of the most successful scientific theories.

It is almost a century from 1920. If Albert were to be here now, read up on all physics since 1920, he would certainly not be a proponent of ether, or aether, or whatever. Even in the 30's he and others has dropped the idea. The evidence had become overwhelming.

The ether was proposed as the medium through which light was theorized to propagate, as light was thought to be a wave and waves need a medium to oscillate in and move through. There were no other reasons for the ether to exist. Einstein in fact (remember that Nobel?) proved via the Compton Effect and Photoelectric Effect that light has to be made of particles, what are now called photons. Although in the aggregate they demonstrate wave properties, light is made of these photons and particles do not need a medium for travel. Experiments to find it had failed, and then the entire edifice was no longer required so it fell away, as it rightly should have.

Flat earthers have hijacked the ancient, mythological word "aether" and redefined it as their very own god of the gaps.  End of story.

     

As someone who has a BA in physics and some graduate work in physics a few clarifications.

Einstein was a genius and was the father of SR and GR and played an integral role on quantum mechanics. In fact his Noble prize was for his work in QM, not relativity. Having said that, GR has moved so far beyond its beginnings he would barely recognize it. He also loathed QM, but that theory also has grown and as much as he hated it, it is one of the most successful scientific theories.

It is almost a century from 1920. If Albert were to be here now, read up on all physics since 1920, he would certainly not be a proponent of ether, or aether, or whatever. Even in the 30's he and others has dropped the idea. The evidence had become overwhelming.

The ether was proposed as the medium through which light was theorized to propagate, as light was thought to be a wave and waves need a medium to oscillate in and move through. There were no other reasons for the ether to exist. Einstein in fact (remember that Nobel?) proved via the Compton Effect and Photoelectric Effect that light has to be made of particles, what are now called photons. Although in the aggregate they demonstrate wave properties, light is made of these photons and particles do not need a medium for travel. Experiments to find it had failed, and then the entire edifice was no longer required so it fell away, as it rightly should have.

Thank you DonaldC for that

I just want to add - for that's not clear from his post - that the Luminiferous Aether as a medium of light (Classical Physics) and the Aether as a name meaning the Spacetime as an entity with physical properties (Einstein, Dirac and others) is not the same. In the letter sense the term was employed until after the war, then it came out of use, but the concept didn't change. At least that's how I understand it now.

As I thought 2.0. Topic has now 2 pages and only jroa posted here, including nothing interesting.

BTW, jroa, Einstein thought of aether as of a substance filling up the universe, not a thing that makes light bend, planes fly and makes whirlpools. And also - still no evidence.

As someone who has a BA in physics and some graduate work in physics a few clarifications.

Einstein was a genius and was the father of SR and GR and played an integral role on quantum mechanics. In fact his Noble prize was for his work in QM, not relativity. Having said that, GR has moved so far beyond its beginnings he would barely recognize it. He also loathed QM, but that theory also has grown and as much as he hated it, it is one of the most successful scientific theories.

It is almost a century from 1920. If Albert were to be here now, read up on all physics since 1920, he would certainly not be a proponent of ether, or aether, or whatever. Even in the 30's he and others has dropped the idea. The evidence had become overwhelming.

The ether was proposed as the medium through which light was theorized to propagate, as light was thought to be a wave and waves need a medium to oscillate in and move through. There were no other reasons for the ether to exist. Einstein in fact (remember that Nobel?) proved via the Compton Effect and Photoelectric Effect that light has to be made of particles, what are now called photons. Although in the aggregate they demonstrate wave properties, light is made of these photons and particles do not need a medium for travel. Experiments to find it had failed, and then the entire edifice was no longer required so it fell away, as it rightly should have.

When you are speaking to someone in person, you do start every conversion by first giving your academic qualifications?  I find it very odd that you do it here.  It almost makes me think that your might be lying or are narcissistic.