Question about "aether" theories

  • 49 Replies
  • 3723 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #30 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).
« Last Edit: April 08, 2021, 02:37:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

JJA

  • 5123
  • Math is math!
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #31 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.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #32 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.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Pezevenk

  • 15048
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #33 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.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Heiwa

  • 9245
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #34 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41922
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2021, 06:19:16 AM »
Whatever ether is...
Ether is a highly flammable anesthetic.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JJA

  • 5123
  • Math is math!
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #36 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41922
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #37 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #38 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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2021, 11:14:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Stash

  • 7961
  • I am car!
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #39 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
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

JJA

  • 5123
  • Math is math!
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #40 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.

*

Heiwa

  • 9245
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #41 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.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15048
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #42 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.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2021, 06:14:52 AM by Pezevenk »
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #43 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.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Pezevenk

  • 15048
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #44 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?
« Last Edit: April 13, 2021, 02:46:36 AM by Pezevenk »
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41922
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #45 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #46 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?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2021, 02:59:08 AM by Code-Beta1234 »

Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #47 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?

*

Heiwa

  • 9245
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #48 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.

*

JJA

  • 5123
  • Math is math!
Re: Question about "aether" theories
« Reply #49 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.