Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: paul cotter on 24/10/2022 09:54:51
-
The luminiferous aether was originally proposed as the medium necessary for the propagation of light and other em waves with the analogy to sound waves and other mechanical wave phenomena. Since no proof or disproof of the existence has ever been demonstrated it has no place in real science. Yet it remains a core belief with many who hold what I would call scientific beliefs rather than scientific rationality. When will it be consigned to the dustbin?
-
It's too convenient and understandable to disappear. Compression waves in the aether look like ripples on a pond, with all the diffraction and interference stuff, and you can hear the effect of frequency change when the waves are in air.
The alternative approach requires an understanding of Maxwell's equations, which is maths and therefore beyond the capability of anyone to teach.
-
Since no proof or disproof of the existence has ever been demonstrated
It was pretty much disproved a hundred years ago by this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
But some people still keep on about it.
It's one of those things (like perpetual motion machines) which should lead to the instant closure of a thread and the banning of repeat offenders.
-
It was pretty much disproved a hundred years ago by this
M&M experiment disproved the Newtonian geometry, but it didn't disprove Lorentzian geometry or disprove an aether. The addition is merely a needless complication that adds nothing to predictions.
Since no proof or disproof of the existence has ever been demonstrated it has no place in real science.
Agree, but apparently BC does not.
Yet it remains a core belief with many who hold what I would call scientific beliefs rather than scientific rationality.
Well obviously the people that adhere to it have a purpose other than science. For instance, most religions are utterly incompatible with the block universe view that Einstein's theories imply. Time needs to flow and there needs to be a present, beyond which one has free will to choose. Presentism requires an absolute ordering of events, which in turn requires something like the aether theories.
If you look at all the primary sites pushing aether theories, they all heavily demonstrate that Einstein is false. It's pretty easy to see the fallacy in each 'proof', but the point is not that they're pushing an alternative interpretation, but rather filling a need to demonstrate the prevailing view to be wrong. Antisemitism may also be a factor driving these efforts.
-
most religions are utterly incompatible with the block universe view
I think that Christians who emphasise "predestination" are well-aligned with a block universe... (but I am sure they would deny it strongly!)
-
Agree, but apparently BC does not.
As far as I'm aware, my view tallies with that of Michelson and Morley.
It's true that "The ether" survived that upset by morphing into something else .
That something else was, I understand , discussed by Einstein who asked "What is the difference between something which can never be detected and something which does not exist?".
I think that's a fair point.
-
It's interesting that William of Ockham was a theologian, on the one hand advocating the principle of minimum assumption whilst on the other making a living from studying a hypothetical entity that fails his own test.
On that scale the persistence of aether is a lot less worrying, and has certainly caused a lot less human suffering, than belief in god. I put it in the same category as "wave/particle duality" - a mostly harmless misconception, equating a model with reality.
-
Why does "aether" still haunt alt science?
What is alt science?
-
Origin, it is better described by alternative "science", ie the loony brigade best typified by the late Harold Aspden or the late Myron Evans.
-
Science cares about making better predictions. They're really not interested in new ideas that make no different predictions, especially ones that are more complicated than the established views. That makes them alternative, and "science" only in scare quotes.
They hold conventions for the purpose of separating the zealots on that bandwagon from their money. To do that, you need pop articles with lots of flash, celebrities, etc. Fallacious arguments are fine since any argument that reinforces the view you know in your heart to be correct is not in need of scrutiny. You only criticize the ideas that conflict with your beliefs.
Absolutism is a far more intuitive/attractive belief and it scoops in hordes of the gullible, the same way that the attraction of promises of afterlife does for organized religion.
-
Thanks guys. So that answer to the question, "Why does "aether" still haunt alt science?" is because the aether isn't science.
-
yes Origin, quite correct. What puzzles me is the tenacious nature of the "aether". It was only ever a mistaken analogy with mechanical waves and with no evidence for it's existence. The phlogiston theory in chemistry could be argued to have had evidence for it's existence, certainly more so than the aether until chemistry advanced to a better understanding. No mention of phlogiston on crank web sites( i'm sure one could find it if looking hard enough-there's so much absolute nonsense on the net )
-
Aether makes intuitive sense because every other instance of energy propagation either requires a material missile or a material medium.
We are quite used to hypothesising something that makes intuitive sense, like the stars being fixed in a celestial sphere, or a universal sucking force between all objects, without having any rational explanation, proof of its existence, or explanation of its mechanism. (Go on, then, how does a planet know there is a rock that needs to be sucked inwards? Relativity gives us the equation, but not the mechanism.)
The special quality of aether, like phlogiston, is that we can prove it is unnecessary - the world makes perfect sense without it. Gravity is a bit more troublesome!
-
One of the latest theories claim space is pixelated.As all its just a theory don't freak out.
-
Well, I think the 'latest' mainstream definition is the one of a 'quantum field theory' in where both 'waves' and 'particles' becomes phenomena related to observer dependencies, 'time' or 'local clocks', ones measurements as well as experimental settings/devices and possibly also to what you want to see.
If that makes for an 'aether'?
Don't ask me
-
The luminiferous aether was originally proposed as the medium necessary for the propagation of light and other em waves with the analogy to sound waves and other mechanical wave phenomena. Since no proof or disproof of the existence has ever been demonstrated it has no place in real science. Yet it remains a core belief with many who hold what I would call scientific beliefs rather than scientific rationality. When will it be consigned to the dustbin?
If you really want to answer the question, you need to recognize that there are many schools of thought trying to describe the behavior of aether. They need to be addressed separately. They even argue with one another.
There's a hypothesis of universal static ether. Some think that it's entrained by the sun. Some others think that it's entrained by the earth. There's also difference thoughts whether the entrainment is total or partial.
Here's an article about it.
Is the aether entrained by the motion of celestial body?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1885
Einstein himself around 1916 changed his mind as regards the hypothesis of the aether. In a lecture
given at the University of Leiden he declared [13]:
According to the general theory of relativity, space without aether is unthinkable for, in such space,
there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of
space and time (measuring rods and clocks).
A proof of the undeniable existence of the aether was given in ref [14]. Thus, the question to be
answered today is not to verify its existence, but rather to specify its nature and its properties, and, in
the first place, to determine if it is entrained (or not) by the translational motion of celestial bodies due
to gravitation.
-
If you really want to answer the question, you need to recognize that there are many schools of thought trying to describe the behavior of aether.
There is no need to answer the question, since the question was settled long ago - no ether. You must remember these "schools of thought" are better described as "schools of fools".
-
If you really want to answer the question, you need to recognize that there are many schools of thought trying to describe the behavior of aether.
There is no need to answer the question, since the question was settled long ago - no ether. You must remember these "schools of thought" are better described as "schools of fools".
Perhaps you don't need answers. But by posting the question in a scientific forum, the OP clearly wanted an answer.
-
I'm reminded of the exchange
Q "do you know what they call alternative medicine that actually works?"
A "Medicine".
"Why does "aether" still haunt alt science?"
Because "alt science" isn't science and you can post any bull you like.
-
Is replacing "aether" with "fabric of space-time" solve the problem?
Is redefining "aether" to make it have the same meaning as "fabric of space-time" solve the problem?
-
Is replacing "aether" with "fabric of space-time" solve the problem?
Is redefining "aether" to make it have the same meaning as "fabric of space-time" solve the problem?
There's no problem, nothing needs to be redefined or replaced.
-
Is replacing "aether" with "fabric of space-time" solve the problem?
Is redefining "aether" to make it have the same meaning as "fabric of space-time" solve the problem?
There's no problem, nothing needs to be redefined or replaced.
So, we can ignore Einstein of 1916 without having to show his erroneous thought.
-
So, we can ignore Einstein of 1916 without having to show his erroneous thought.
Yes, ignore Einstein. You would be a fool however to ignore SR and GR, since they are extremely robust theories that give a great insight into our universe.
-
So, we can ignore Einstein of 1916 without having to show his erroneous thought.
Yes, ignore Einstein. You would be a fool however to ignore SR and GR, since they are extremely robust theories that give a great insight into our universe.
You can't call yourself a reasonable person if you can't explain the reasons for your decisions.
-
??
-
You can't call yourself a reasonable person if you can't explain the reasons for your decisions.
You failed to supply a reason for your decision to post that.
-
You can't call yourself a reasonable person if you can't explain the reasons for your decisions.
You failed to supply a reason for your decision to post that.
My reason is to stop someone from being unreasonable for long.
-
You can't call yourself a reasonable person if you can't explain the reasons for your decisions.
You failed to supply a reason for your decision to post that.
My reason is to stop someone from being unreasonable for long.
OK, Now you have posted a "reason".
But it makes no sense.
Origin's comment was perfectly sensible.
Your reply was... unreasonable.
-
OK, Now you have posted a "reason".
But it makes no sense.
Origin's comment was perfectly sensible.
Your reply was... unreasonable.
What's the reason for you to ignore Einstein on aether?
What makes me unreasonable, in your opinion?
-
Einstein wasn't right about everything. Evidence is more important than opinions.
-
My (extremely basic) understanding of the aether as proposed was that people thought it was needed so things (waves probably) could propagate through space. I think that has been proven absolutely false - waves, etc. can propegate through empty space just fine.
But, to make sure I am not misunderstanding, even empty space has things, right? It in fact has a geometry no? It has fields no? I've read many times that even empty space has virtual particles popping into existence all the time, but annihilating themselves (or something) and popping back out of existence essentially immediately. EDIT - oh, and dark energy - doesn't space have a rest energy or something that is causing the universe to expand?
So, in one sense the aether was correct - there IS something there even in "empty space" - it is NOT just a complete absence of anything, correct? Is all that right?
Thanks!
Thanks!
-
So, in one sense the aether was correct - there IS something there even in "empty space" - it is NOT just a complete absence of anything, correct? Is all that right?
You can read this informative article about the aether from Academia.
https://www.academia.edu/42973878/The_Aether
Abstract
The existence of the electromagnetic aether is argued from two standpoints.Conceptual, based on the nature of physical waves. And practical: the variousexperiments that demonstrate it. Possible reasons for the strange nullificationof the positive 1887 Michelson-Morley aether-wind result are discussed.
-
So, in one sense the aether was correct - there IS something there even in "empty space" - it is NOT just a complete absence of anything, correct? Is all that right?
You can read this informative article about the aether from Academia.
https://www.academia.edu/42973878/The_Aether
Abstract
The existence of the electromagnetic aether is argued from two standpoints.Conceptual, based on the nature of physical waves. And practical: the variousexperiments that demonstrate it. Possible reasons for the strange nullificationof the positive 1887 Michelson-Morley aether-wind result are discussed.
The aether paper by Jeremy Fiennes (2019) can be downloaded freely here:
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mathematical%20Physics/Download/7950
It is one of the best paper I have read discussing the supposed null-result of the MM experiment - the result is not null!
"And notwithstanding Michelson-Morley's subsequent 1887 experimental confirmation of its (aether) existence, the 'no-aether' myth continued unscathed. ..."
In the end, physics is a matter of opinion. You are free to decide what is evidence and what is not evidence.
-
My opinion is that the aether must exist. The argument is fundamentally scientific and it still haunts contemporary physics.
Those who believe that space is empty is relying on the notion of "nothingness" that they acquire as they grow up from childhood, as having toys being taken away and the box of toys becoming empty. But this notion of emptiness and nothingness is a person's weakness, just bringing his daily experience in growing up into science. Science is beyond mere sensory experience from the past.
If space is "empty", then what comes after emptying space; either space still exist or space would fail to exist. So if there is "empty" space, then there should not be anything left after the "emptying" - including space. Without space, wherefore comes empty space. So the opinion that the aether exist is based on the utmost scientific argument. If Newton or Galileo be here, I doubt they could ingest emptiness of space.
On the philosophical side, the notion of emptiness cannot stand upright. As we all know, God created the heaven and the earth and all that's in between. Now God exist before all created things; in other words in nothingness. So God created our universe out of nothingness. Yes! nothingness and emptiness exist, but only God - being Almighty - could comprehend true emptiness. So when God initiated the Act of Creation, true emptiness disappeared. Creation is filled with space and everything in the universe, stars, galaxy and our earth.
After the universe is created, emptiness retreats and sentient being would never ever know emptiness. So space is not empty. It is filled with an essence of space - the aether.
-
Please list the physical properties of your aether. In particular its density and elastic modulus, since these determine the speed of light. Then explain why any solid object can travel through it without expending any energy.
-
In the end, physics is a matter of opinion. You are free to decide what is evidence and what is not evidence.
I don't think it's the end yet.
There are constraints to our opinions, either physically or socially.
Rational persons accept or reject evidence with reasons.
We can reject experimental results by declaring that they are generated by tricks or experimental errors, but it requires supporting evidence.
We can accept experimental results, but reject an interpretation of those results, also using supporting evidence.
-
Those who believe that space is empty is relying on the notion of "nothingness" that they acquire as they grow up from childhood, as having toys being taken away and the box of toys becoming empty. But this notion of emptiness and nothingness is a person's weakness, just bringing his daily experience in growing up into science. Science is beyond mere sensory experience from the past.
If space is "empty", then what comes after emptying space; either space still exist or space would fail to exist. So if there is "empty" space, then there should not be anything left after the "emptying" - including space. Without space, wherefore comes empty space. So the opinion that the aether exist is based on the utmost scientific argument. If Newton or Galileo be here, I doubt they could ingest emptiness of space.
It seems that children faced with an empty toy-box can understand teh concept of an empty space.
It also seems you can't.
So if there is "empty" space, then there should not be anything left after the "emptying" - including space.
You can't remove space from space any more than you can remove the box from a box.
-
Please list the physical properties of your aether. In particular its density and elastic modulus, since these determine the speed of light. Then explain why any solid object can travel through it without expending any energy.
Please give me some time. It is never a simple matter to win the Nobel prize.
A physics theory may be able to explain some physical phenomena and may fail to explain others that may even be related.
Take Maxwell's equation, it says nothing about how EM waves are generated. Our theory about EM waves generation require other hypothesis which are not derivable from Maxwell's equation.
Now about the topic of light refraction brought up by Hamdani. I myself have tried to google about the cause of refraction. The best I could get is about Huygen's principle. There is no deeper explanation, the very physical mechanism of how light changes in direction and other details.
When Newton talk about "I feign no hypothesis", he was referring to his gravitational law. He could state the law but cannot know the cause of the law. As for how come a solid body could obey Newton's first law of motion, Newton himself had no idea. It is a principle (strictly an axiom) which he formulated based on his intuition about motion in the natural world. His laws of motion works - that's the importance. No one may insist with absolute certainty that the existence of the aether should be accompanied by an object needing to expend energy to maintain its motion.
-
In the end, physics is a matter of opinion. You are free to decide what is evidence and what is not evidence.
I don't think it's the end yet.
There are constraints to our opinions, either physically or socially.
Rational persons accept or reject evidence with reasons.
We can reject experimental results by declaring that they are generated by tricks or experimental errors, but it requires supporting evidence.
We can accept experimental results, but reject an interpretation of those results, also using supporting evidence.
Of course, what you brought up is correct. I just use one word, "opinion" instead of boring the readers.
Ultimately, science means application of the scientific method, but people do dispute about such things. It all comes down to good science and bad science, good scientists and bad scientists, con-scientists, pseudoscience, etc. It is here that we can have great quarrels, i.e. it comes down to which side we take - or our opinions.
-
As we all know, God created the heaven and the earth and all that's in between.
We all don't know that. You make these kinds of unsupported assumptions throughout your posts. A decidedly unscientific approach, which is why your opinion is not worth much.
-
Please give me some time. It is never a simple matter to win the Nobel prize.
Come off it. The equations governing wave motion in a medium are well established. All you need to state is the parameters of your aether, and why objects can fly through it with no resistance. All the maths you need to know is in any A level mechanics textbook.
-
As for how come a solid body could obey Newton's first law of motion, Newton himself had no idea.
And we still don't. It's probably the greatest mystery of physics. But the law seems entirely robust.
-
Please give me some time. It is never a simple matter to win the Nobel prize.
Come off it. The equations governing wave motion in a medium are well established. All you need to state is the parameters of your aether, and why objects can fly through it with no resistance. All the maths you need to know is in any A level mechanics textbook.
Your science seems to be founded on your believe that solid may move in space without expending energy only if space is "empty". I don't know how "empty"" is your empty. Such a notion comes from association with our experience in our daily life. I'm not sure it may be taken to be scientifically irrefutable.
-
Such a notion comes from association with our experience in our daily life. I'm not sure it may be taken to be scientifically irrefutable.
It can, provisionally, until someone refutes it.
-
Your science seems to be founded on your believe that solid may move in space without expending energy only if space is "empty".
No. I have no beliefs. We all observe that a solid object can move in space without expending energy. Your job is to tell me what substance is filling that space.You say "aether". So I'm asking you to calculate the density and compressibility of that medium, given what we know about it. That is very simple mechanics.
-
Your science seems to be founded on your believe that solid may move in space without expending energy only if space is "empty".
No. I have no beliefs. We all observe that a solid object can move in space without expending energy. Your job is to tell me what substance is filling that space.You say "aether". So I'm asking you to calculate the density and compressibility of that medium, given what we know about it. That is very simple mechanics.
You are making assumptions that are not scientifically acceptable. Your argument is that if aether is the medium of transmission of light, then we should be able to show some properties of the aether similar to waves in medium in general. But the medium you are familiar with are solid, liquid and gas which are material medium made of atoms. You cannot assume the aether medium has to be made of your familiar matter.
Let's talk about EM radiations. Those below x-ray/gamma frequencies come from energies of the orbital electrons of atoms. Gamma rays, on the other hand, are not generated from the energy change of orbital electrons of atoms, but from the strong forces within the nucleus of atoms. So you cannot make sweeping generalization of EM waves and assume it applies to all EM waves.
So to have a full aether theory, we may need new breakthrough in physics. It is for this reason no one has yet found a full aether theory. We cannot yet say "The aether is dead".
-
So you cannot make sweeping generalization of EM waves and assume it applies to all EM waves.
In principle, I can doppler shift a gamma ray and make it into a radio wave or vice versa.
So the difference is just a matter of point of view.
Since observed reality must be consistent, the behaviour of all EM radiation must be consistent.
Why did you not already know that?
-
So you cannot make sweeping generalization of EM waves and assume it applies to all EM waves.
In principle, I can doppler shift a gamma ray and make it into a radio wave or vice versa.
So the difference is just a matter of point of view.
Since observed reality must be consistent, the behaviour of all EM radiation must be consistent.
Why did you not already know that?
Thanks. "point of views" meaning opinion.
By the way, Doppler shift is advanced physics for me; e.g. In Somalia, they don't usually get involve with such advanced topics. They don't study physics and make guns. They buy them.
-
You are making assumptions that are not scientifically acceptable.
I have made no assumptions. You have assumes the presence of an aether but are unable to state what it does, which is beyond unscientific and verging on the fraudulent, like religion. I do not deal with frauds and conmen, so tread carefully.
Those below x-ray/gamma frequencies come from energies of the orbital electrons of atoms.
Sloppy and untrue.
Since physics underpins the curriculum in at least two Somali universities I think you owe the entire nation an apology for your blatant untruth. Begone, liar.
-
From the contents of posts made by some members here, I do understand that they have worked as qualified scientists - physicists, engineers - and they do possess good knowledge in their respective fields, knowledge acquired through years of studies.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)
With the 18th century physics developments, physical models known as "aether theories" made use of a similar concept for the explanation of the propagation of electromagnetic and gravitational forces. As early as the 1670s, Newton used the idea of aether to help match observations to strict mechanical rules of his physics.[18][a] The early modern aether had little in common with the aether of classical elements from which the name was borrowed. These aether theories are considered to be scientifically obsolete, as the development of special relativity showed that Maxwell's equations do not require the aether for the transmission of these forces. Einstein noted that his own model which replaced these theories could itself be thought of as an aether, as it implied that the empty space between objects had its own physical properties.[20]
Despite the early modern aether models being superseded by general relativity, occasionally some physicists have attempted to reintroduce the concept of aether in an attempt to address perceived deficiencies in current physical models.[21] One proposed model of dark energy has been named "quintessence" by its proponents, in honor of the classical element.[22] This idea relates to the hypothetical form of dark energy postulated as an explanation of observations of an accelerating universe. It has also been called a fifth fundamental force.
Aether and light
Edit
Main article: Luminiferous aether
The motion of light was a long-standing investigation in physics for hundreds of years before the 20th century. The use of aether to describe this motion was popular during the 17th and 18th centuries, including a theory proposed by Johann II Bernoulli, who was recognized in 1736 with the prize of the French Academy. In his theory, all space is permeated by aether containing "excessively small whirlpools". These whirlpools allow for aether to have a certain elasticity, transmitting vibrations from the corpuscular packets of light as they travel through.[23]
This theory of luminiferous aether would influence the wave theory of light proposed by Christiaan Huygens, in which light traveled in the form of longitudinal waves via an "omnipresent, perfectly elastic medium having zero density, called aether". At the time, it was thought that in order for light to travel through a vacuum, there must have been a medium filling the void through which it could propagate, as sound through air or ripples in a pool. Later, when it was proved that the nature of light wave is transverse instead of longitudinal, Huygens' theory was replaced by subsequent theories proposed by Maxwell, Einstein and de Broglie, which rejected the existence and necessity of aether to explain the various optical phenomena. These theories were supported by the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment in which evidence for the motion of aether was conclusively absent.[24] The results of the experiment influenced many physicists of the time and contributed to the eventual development of Einstein's theory of special relativity.[25]
To answer the OP question, we need to understand why the concept of aether was introduced/needed in the first place. What problem was it purported to solve? What prevented earlier scientists from explaining light without aether?
As the saying goes, we don't know what we've got till it's gone.
-
Thanks. "point of views" meaning opinion.
That's not what Bored Chemist meant. He's talking about different reference frames. Whether one detects a radio wave or a gamma ray depends on one's velocity relative to the source that emitted the photon.
-
By the way, Doppler shift is advanced physics for me;
I’m surprised. Doppler shift is secondary school physics here, basic science.
-
Thanks. "point of views" meaning opinion.
No, and misrepresenting it doesn't help.By the way, Doppler shift is advanced physics for me
Then start by learning the basics before you try to tell the experts that they are wrong.
https://www.khanacademy.org/
-
Doppler shift is common observation, not advanced physics. AFAIK there are noisy, moving objects in Somalia.