[paul cotter (OP)]

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? 

[alancalverd]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Halc]

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.

[evan_au]

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!)

[Bored chemist]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Origin]

Why does "aether" still haunt alt science?

What is alt science?

[paul cotter (OP)]

Origin, it is better described by alternative "science", ie the loony brigade best typified by the late Harold Aspden or the late Myron Evans.

[Halc]

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.

[Origin]

Thanks guys.  So that answer to the question, "Why does "aether" still haunt alt science?" is because the aether isn't science.

[paul cotter (OP)]

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 )

[alancalverd]

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!

[Peter11]

One of the latest theories claim space is pixelated.As all its just a theory don't freak out.

[yor_on]

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

[hamdani yusuf]

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.

[Origin]

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".

[hamdani yusuf]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[hamdani yusuf]

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?