[rwjefferson (OP)]

I asked this question as a new theory;   http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=33609.0
and got the response I expected.

 

The currently known elementary states of matter are bose (einstein condensation), earth (solid), water (liquid), wind (gas), fire (plasma), and aether (dark matter). 
How exactly is quantum aether disproved?
peace
~jefferson

...ether wasn't exactly disproved –

How does your own observation differ?  Exactly how is aether disproved?  Were m&m looking in the wrong direction?

ItS
peace
rwjefferson

[Geezer]

Er, I don't think it's possible to disprove anything.

[JP]

You missed the other part of the response:

. . . btw it's difficult to show something doesnt exist when the thing posited is universal and non-interacting

[JP]

Additionally, the definition you're using for aether (dark matter) is different from the usual definition (the medium in which light propagates).  If you want answers to the evidence for/against a kind of aether, you'll need to tell us what its properties are. 

[CPT ArkAngel]

Luminiferous aether was disproved.

Einstein's views on the aether
In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether. This was further elaborated by Einstein in some semi-popular articles (1918, 1920, 1924, 1930).[A 20][A 21][A 22][A 23][B 9][B 10][B 11]

In 1918 Einstein publicly alluded to that new definition for the first time.[A 20] Then, in the early 1920s, in a lecture which he was invited to give at Lorentz's university in Leiden, Einstein sought to reconcile the theory of relativity with his mentor's cherished concept of the aether. In this lecture Einstein stressed that, in general relativity, space is "endowed with physical quantities". He pointed out that the aether had been relativized, and thereby lost the last mechanical property that Lorentz had left it, namely, its state of motion. Thus he held that general relativity attributed physical properties to space, but no substance or state of motion can attributed to that "aether".[A 21][8]

In 1924, Einstein argued that Newton's absolute space is the "Aether of Mechanics". And within the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell and Lorentz one can speak of the "Aether of Electrodynamics", in which the aether possesses an absolute state of motion. After arguing that in special relativity motion is relative and acceleration is absolute, he said that even the "aether of special relativity" (aether = the four-dimensional space-time) is still "absolute", because matter is affected by the properties of the aether, but the aether is not affected by the presence of matter. This asymmetry was solved within general relativity. Einstein explained that the "aether of general relativity" is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether (aether = gravitational field), as well as matter influences the structure of the aether.[A 22]

So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians like John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein's use of the word "aether" found no support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

[Geezer]

Luminiferous aether was disproved.

It's existence has not been proven, but I don't think that's quite the same as saying it has been disproved.

Just because I have not been able to prove there is a tooth fairy, that does not mean she does not exist.

Personally, I think we will eventually determine that "the vacuum" actually is "something", but I can't prove it  []

[CPT ArkAngel]

Luminiferous aether was defined as a kind of ethereal matter surrounding us in which light has an absolute speed, meaning the speed of light is relative to the ether. So, if you are in a fixed referential frame relative to the ether you will measure a light speed of C, if you move at a speed of v relative to the ether, you will measure a light speed of C +/- V. Relativity disproved this kind of aether. You have to change its definition in order not to disproved it...

I can disproved i have blue eyes. It is important to have the same  precise definition of what we are talking about...

[Geezer]

I can disproved i don't have blue eyes. It is important to have the same  precise definition of what we are talking about...

You can only disprove you don't have blue eyes by proving your eyes are blue.

"It is important to have the same  precise definition of what we are talking about..."

[Farsight]

Good post, ArkAngel.

rwjefferson, aether hasn't actually been disproved, it's just morphed away from the original concept, and the word has become rather taboo. Now we talk of "the vacuum" or "the Higgs field", or my personal favourite, plain old space. Empty space sustains fields and waves, it isn't nothing. Have a read of Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address and note this section:

"Mach’s idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty".

That's Einstein talking about the aether of general relativity. So next time somebody tells you that Einstein did away with the aether, take it with a pinch of salt.

[imatfaal]

"But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events."

The next sentences of the speech  - something that has been so changed and re-defined could I think be well claimed to have been done away with.  I realise you mentioned this, but I think the above section shows why the name ether is as you say 'taboo'; it leads to confusion and adds little.  these are such difficult concepts that using contradictory terms doesn't help.

[Farsight]

True, imatfaal. Space is a difficult concept. There's nothing there, it isn't "something", and yet it does sustain fields and waves, so it isn't "nothing" either. But IMHO the aether taboo thing is something else. It's kind of faddy, and rather hypocritical when it comes from people who talk about the Higgs field / quintessence / quantum foam or whatever.

[imatfaal]

and its use is not causing half as much trouble as the use of the term dark energy (dark matter brought enough nutters out of their mystical cupboards) but dark energy is a dream for the esoteric knowledge brigade.

[Farsight]

That's not the half of it, imatfaal. Think about the word "quantum". It actually means "how much", but people bandy it around is if it means "weird" and "surpasseth all human understanding". There's a lot of that kind of stuff hanging around physics. Even some people inside physics rather enjoy making it all mystical and mysterious rather than clear and understandable.

By the way, talking of space and dark energy and difficult concepts, here's something interesting: space is dark, it has its innate vacuum energy, and it expands all on its own. So what would happen if you could somehow remove some of that dark energy out of the space? Let's say that space would contract. Then you've got less space. Think about it.

[yor_on]

Hope it won't disturb all to much, me cherishing the idea that Einstein actually said "Thus he held that general relativity attributed physical properties to space, but no substance or state of motion can attributed to that "aether". " Seems both him and me attribute 'properties' to space, even though it primary being an absence of 'stuff'. Nice one CPT.

And on the matter of Aether. The idea was that there should be a 'medium' needed right? For all things to propagate in. And there isn't But that is also a description of our shortcomings in defining where we live I think. We look on spaceTime from a certain point of view, one of them being, as we are of matter, so shall matter be our platform of definition. But the 'matter universe' seems a very small part of SpaceTime. Most of the mass is made up of other strange things, as I understands it. So maybe the idea of a 'medium' isn't as wrong as we now think. Maybe it's our definitions that needs a overhaul. We do have a tendency to believe ourselves the crown of evolution

[Farsight]

Maybe "cherish" is a bit much, yor-on. But I too pay attention to what Einstein actually said. And in that Leyden Address, I pay close attention to what he said about Weyl. I'm pretty sure I know how it works, to do with gauge change and displacement current, but I guess this isn't the place for it:

SPACE EXPLAINED
 
What the heck is space? We often think of it as nothing, but actually it’s impossible to imagine nothing. Nothing is a tricky concept that people take for granted. Close your eyes and try to imagine nothing. What colour is it? Blue? No. It can’t be nothing if it’s got a colour. How heavy is it? A kilogram? No, it can’t be nothing if it’s got a mass. How big is it? A metre across? No, it can’t be nothing if it’s got a size. Here’s a picture of it: Did you get that? Here it is again: Got the picture? There isn’t any picture. When you dig down to what nothing is, you find it has no properties at all, and you can’t hold it in your mind. It slips between your fingers. You can’t imagine nothing because it’s just not there. Nothing doesn't exist.

Space isn’t nothing. Space has got a size, so space definitely isn’t nothing. But that’s all it’s got. It’s a one-trick pony, and the only trick is distance. Yet just like Google, it’s pretty darn brilliant...

 

[yor_on]

Well there are some more things too it, like that vacuum energy and those virtual photons but on the whole I agree Farsight. Distances is the really remarkable thing for a 'nothing' to contain. As for what he 'really said' there seems to be a lot of interpretations of what he 'really meant' by what he 'really said'

You choose yours and I'll choose mine )
It's a pity he isn't around.

[SuperPrincipia]

The Aether has been resurrected with the works of Steven Rado - Aethro-Kinematics; in 1994. There Rado returns to the first real model of the Aether proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier. Fatio was a friend of Isaac Newton, and presented an Aether Gas Theory as the cause for gravitation. Newton encouraged Fatio to present his work to the Royal Society. Which Fatio did! Fatio promised that someday he would write his own Principia. However this did not happen until 300 years later in 2010; when Robert Louis Kemp writes the Super Principia.

Newton decided that he would not propose a cause for Gravity, and left that job up to Fatio and others; with his "Non-Fingo hypothesis" for Gravitation. However, Newton stated that if there was a cause for Gravity it could possibly be described by Fatio's Aether Theory.

The various concepts of the Aether were described over the centuries by great scientist and physicist such as: Nicolas Copernicus (c. 1500), Johannes Kepler (c. 1600), Rene Descartes (c. 1600), Isaac Newton (c. 1700), Fatio de Duillier (c. 1700), Georges-Louis Le Sage (c. 1700), Michael Faraday (c. 1800), James Clerk Maxwell (c. 1800), Albert Einstein (c. 1900), Hendrik Antoon Lorentz  (c. 1900), Alexander Friedmann (c. 1900), and Steven Rado (c. 2000).

[Joe L. Ogan]

Maybe "cherish" is a bit much, yor-on. But I too pay attention to what Einstein actually said. And in that Leyden Address, I pay close attention to what he said about Weyl. I'm pretty sure I know how it works, to do with gauge change and displacement current, but I guess this isn't the place for it:

SPACE EXPLAINED
 
What the heck is space? We often think of it as nothing, but actually it’s impossible to imagine nothing. Nothing is a tricky concept that people take for granted. Close your eyes and try to imagine nothing. What colour is it? Blue? No. It can’t be nothing if it’s got a colour. How heavy is it? A kilogram? No, it can’t be nothing if it’s got a mass. How big is it? A metre across? No, it can’t be nothing if it’s got a size. Here’s a picture of it: Did you get that? Here it is again: Got the picture? There isn’t any picture. When you dig down to what nothing is, you find it has no properties at all, and you can’t hold it in your mind. It slips between your fingers. You can’t imagine nothing because it’s just not there. Nothing doesn't exist.

Space isn’t nothing. Space has got a size, so space definitely isn’t nothing. But that’s all it’s got. It’s a one-trick pony, and the only trick is distance. Yet just like Google, it’s pretty darn

If Space has size, it must have dimensions.  What are its dimensions?  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan
 

[Farsight]

Height width and depth, Joe. But waves move through it, and they're waves in space. So there's another "dimension" too. We call it time. But we can't really move through this dimension because it's derived from motion through space.

Yor-on: it sure is. The one-trick pony thing comes down to what's "waving" in a wave in space. Ever heard about displacement current? There was a good article on this in last month's PhysicsWorld magazine, but sadly it isn't online. The thing is, a light wave involves an electromagnetic field variation, but there's no charged particle there. But the field is varying, so there has to be a current of sorts. It can't be the usual "conduction" current because there's no charged particle. So it has to be displacement current. Think about what's waving in a wave in space, and take that displacement current at face value. Have a read about gravitational waves to catch the drift of this gauge change thing.

[yor_on]

Well, I agree Joe. Distance is a dimension, and as it contain all those other properties, height, width and length it cover it all Well, except time. But without time you can't prove any distance, can you? So we might say that time is a precursor assumed in all discussion of a distance.

There are several way to look at distances. We split them in so called dimensions, getting three and then time the precursor of course. That way we can treat them as divisible and build new theories including and allowing new 'dimensions' like string theory does. But SpaceTime don't treat 'dimensions' that way, to SpaceTime there is only one 'dimension' and time, if you accept my reasoning around distance. That 'distance' is the one existing and contain the three properties we like to split.

That universe is 'undivided', not allowing us to split it into just one property, like length f. ex. All three 'glued' together into one as i see it, making it a jello-like substance in where we moves by the help of times arrow.

So what are 'dimensions' and what are that 'distance' you can break it/them down too?