![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
... and later,
The widely-taught notion that Michelson-Morley or other aether experiments led Einstein to his theory is debunked by Michael Polanyi in Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, pp. 10-11. On page 10, Polanyi writes, "[The findings of Michelson-Morley] were, on the basis of pure speculation, rationally intuited by Einstein before he had ever heard about it. To make sure of this, I addressed an enquiry to the late Professor Einstein, who confirmed the fact that 'the Michelson-Morley experiment had a negligible effect on the discovery of relativity.'" <>< tbc
Fooey. Can anybody help with this?
Moved from article:
What do they mean? How is "fluid medium transmission" different to sound? What is "one vortex ring"? -- Tim Starling 00:49 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Google searching for a line from the large text that was deleted finds http://72.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AE/AETHER_OR_ETHER.htm, which appears to be that 1911 britannica that I've heard rumours of, and seen mentioned in edit comments. The article is probably out of date by now, but the æther theory is out of date, anyway, as far as I know. Only read a tiny bit, not carefully, but didn't seem like complete "BS"... Just oddly written. (Not saying it belongs in the article here, just that it might not be "BS", just outdated.) כסיף Cyp 20:18 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps "BS" was too strong, but barely coherent by modern standards; it's utterly ridiculous to include it in a new article on the topic. It uses Maxwell's 1864 terminology and notation, for goodness sakes. (I've become very wary of any addition by Reddi, since he keeps posting garbled information on topics that he admits he doesn't understand.) Steven G. Johnson
barely coherent by modern standards? Isn't this an article over the whole history ofthe aether? or is it just the modern info?
Why is it utterly ridiculous to include it in a new article on the topic? This is information ... it's content and it's relevant and it can be NPOV.
It uses Maxwell's 1864 terminology and notation? Oh my ... imagine using terminology and notation on something that it's suppose to be used on and from where it came from? or should the modern obfusication of the subject be used only?
I keeps posting /garbled/ information on topics? I admit I don't understand everything ... that's better than believing I know everything like this user does.
reddi 06:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
1) Relativity is not the basis of quantum mechanics.
2) It's actually rather easy to come up with ether theories that satisify MM. The problem is that there are dozens of other experiments you also have to satisify.
=> the starting principle of quantum mechanics that energy is quantized or E=hf can be derived using special relativity. Another user.
I don't understand this paragraph.
Please sign your entries, Roadrunner. For a start, whoever wrote this article was obviously confused over the difference between relativity and QM. I guess what the author was trying to say is that aether theory is easier to understand than relativity, and that's why so many crackpots say "Einstein was wrong, here is my much easier theory". Such crackpot aether theories are simple conceptually, whereas relativity is not. Unfortunately, crackpot theories are generally either tremendously complicated or impossible to do real calculations with, since they tend to be inelegant and arbitrary. Your version is fine, no need to change the article. (posted via edit conflict) -- Tim Starling 06:44 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
This is just *wrong*
Particle-wave duality has *nothing* to do with the non-existence of ether.
-- Roadrunner
Reddi: we're allowed to remove stuff if it makes no sense, or if it is irrelevant or idiosyncratic. Please do not mark edits which may be contentious as "minor". -- Tim Starling 06:55 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Tim: can you please tell me how the historical context and conceptual information over the subject that it's from make no sense to the article? or how the historical context and conceptual information over the subject is irrelevant? or how the the historical context and conceptual information over the subject is idiosyncratic? reddi 06:59 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Reading the article for the first time, it kind of leaves the reader hanging -- the idea of luminiferous aether as a medium for light waves has been rejected but what was it that replaced it? Would it be correct to add something like this: "nowadays scientists believe that light propagates as photon particles, without any medium as such". 62.78.197.148 17:45, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether 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), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." From "Ether and the Theory of Relativity"
From this quote, it appears that relativity served to confirm the aether theory...
I personally agree with Tesla, that the notion that waves exist in a 'vacuum' is very flawed... I personally do not think that 'space' or 'vacuums' actually exist in the literal sense. Rather, they are regions of space occupied by what is apparently a very low concentration of resonances occuring on this 3-dimensional space-time membrane. However, along all depths and dimensions of that 'space', there exists an incredible amount of energy. To say that proponents of the aether theory are somehow 'psuedoscientists' is ludicrous. Einstein and Tesla were no psuedoscientists, in my opinion.
The Timeline appears to be POV. If you took this list as a reasonably representative sample of experiments concerning the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, then you might believe that the question of how to describe that propagation was still wide open. But the list is highly partial: no mention of the millions of experiments which confirm the special relativity equations. (For example, every time someone does an experiment in a particle accelerator, or takes a GPS fix, that's a confirmation of special relativity.) So I think there's a need for a little more balance here, or at least an explanation about the principles used to select the events in the timeline. Gdr 13:41, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)
I've moved the problematic material from the article to here, for editing as necessary. —Steven G. Johnson 23:00, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
The "classical references" (several of which are incomplete) were apparently copied from the 1911 Brittanica (probably left over from previous attempts to uncritically paste in this material, see above). It's not a good idea to simply paste in references from other sources, because (a) very old references are hard to look up and harder to read...better to reference a modern textbook or review, and (b) it's not a good idea to reference sources you haven't read and you don't know what they say. I'll remove them. —Steven G. Johnson 22:56, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused by this paragraph:
Who? What experiment? What results? When? -- Tarquin 19:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Look up the Trouton-Noble experiment JDR 19:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
LQG potentially disagrees with the Michaelson-Morley result? Um... the Michaelson-Morley experiment was nowhere near the planck scales that would be required to observe any Lorentz breaking in LQG... so.. how does one justify this claim?
Looking over the histories, I see this started out as an attempt to write about the luminiferous aether, and the historical claims made. This is kinda logical, because that is the title of the page. But since then, the 'rational' folks have arrived, and the page has become a jutification of Einstein's work and modern physics in general. While I'm sure thats very interesting, why does the luminiferous aether page, have to be a justification for relativity? Why can't it just cover the historical claims made. I'm not going to bother editing anything, because it will just get switched back. But its absurd that writers on the subject of the aether such as Harold Aspden have been deleted, while Eintein who apparently does not accept the aether, is given space. Surely the aether page should have aether writers, and the relativity page relativity writers. Or am I being too simplistic? Timharwoodx 16:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)) The page was suffering from an attack of Reddi, who was an exponent of all that is wacky. This made things heated. I would suggest that, if you want more history to the page, you try adding it in. A quick note though: I can't see what HA has to do with the historical claims (anyone who writes In it you will discover some of the truths of physical science that have eluded mention in standard textbooks on physics. I believe there are two intermeshing worlds, both having three space dimensions, the material world that we can see and the unseen ghost-like underworld that we can sense by phenomena which the orthodox physicist cannot explain, notably gravitation sets my alarm bells ringing). I also don't understand why you felt the need to put "rational" in quotes.
HA has been writing since the 1950s on the aether. To me the 1950s would qualify as 'history.' Its hardly Harold's problem he has lived long and healthy, whereas most of his peers are now dead. And yes, I have spoken to him on the phone. I think we just have to accept the 'aether' has been erased from history. It was once the prevailing view of the cosmos, but it is now a 'heresy' to be eradicated from the minds of students - at all costs. Some folks like me might observe physics has stalled somewhat since Einstein supposedly explained how stuff works, but the lack of progress in so many areas, never seems to dent the confidence that space only has meaning in the presence of physical matter. Its a pity the Wiki can't find a page to explain the history of the aether. This was supposed to be it - but now its just an exposition of Einstein physics. I think the trouble is there are just too many bored physics undergraduates around, any attempt to write a meaningful history of the aether, will ALWAYS get taken over and turned into a justification of Einstein. The only content that is acceptable on ‘aether’ pages, is work from people who argue the aether dopes not exist. If you say the Aether exists, you automatically disqualify yourself from ‘rational’ discussion of the topic. This is one of the few areas where Wiki falls down as an encyclopaedia. Additional comment: actually, I think the trouble thay all have with HA, is that there is no easy way to debunk his work. Only easily debunkable aether theories are allowed on the page. Timharwoodx 22:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually the origins of aether go back (at least) to Descartes, and there were important contributions from Hooke and Huygens. Newton tried to disprove the concept (he had to: in order to formulate his action at a distance theory of gravitation in Principia Mathematica), but later, when confronted with the proto-experiments on static electricity performed in the Royal Society (and Huygens' treatment of diffraction), modified his stance into a very subtle theory (which he wrote into the final edition of his book Opticks). I'm eventually going to add this material to the main article, but that will not happen till the middle of August. So, in the meanwhile, if anyone has any other information: especially on any even earlier history of the aether, I would love to know. --Bambaiah 10:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Cartesian notions of aether are easy to trace back from the references in the Principia article in Wiki. It would be interesting to know more about older notions. It seems that one of the medieval names for the Aristotelean fifth element was aether, but I've not been able to pin down a reliable reference, nor find more on this. Can one trace it back to Islamic sciences? What conceptual role did the aether play in pre-modern physics? --Bambaiah 09:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the cautionary remark, but I had it in mind already. Thanks for the references to the alchemy section. I rephrase the question. Descartes came to aether through alchemy but modified the concept to fit his theory of mechanics. Newton came to aether through Descartes (and presumably also through alchemy, which interested him) and modified it further to suit his needs which included both gravity and light. Is there any material that anyone knows of about pre-Cartesian modifications of the aether to solve what we would call today problems in physics (although the physics may no longer be relevant today). --Bambaiah 10:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I've done some minor editing. Mostly making things more specific, "relativity"->"special relativity", "the aether theory"->"dragged aether theory", that sort of thing. I took the liberty of snipping the "explanation" about what null result means, I felt that the author's example about blue and orange light wasn't necessary, was confusing, and was possibly wrong. It confused me, anyway!
I also changed the last paragraph in the history section, and added a further short paragraph on Einstein describing GR as an aether theory. I'm not so happy with this paragraph, perhaps someone else might like to rewrite it. I toned down the repeated references to the aether theory being disproven, finally disproven, etc., if SR is at least roughly equivalent to LET, and GR can be counted as aether theory, then these seem a little overstated.
I'm not sure what do do about the part about Kennedy-Thorndike disproving LET. If it disproves LET, shouldn't we expect it to also disprove SR? Or are we saying that LET has to apply to gravitational and accelerational situations without help, but SR when SR fails in these situations, that's okay? Einstein's 1905 "electrodynamics" paper did say that equatorial clocks should tick slower than those at the poles (apparently they don't), if we are prepared to be generous to SR in this way, and distinguish between "core predictions" and extensions (which are allowed to fail without invalidating the theory) perhaps we should be similarly generous to other competing theories. Hmmm. ErkDemon 06:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
There's a troublesome paragraph in the "continuing adherents" section, which seems to imply that people who still like aether theory do so because they have something wrong with them that makes them incapable of appreciating SR. While that might be right in some cases, it's unnecessarily inflammatory, one might as well argue that people who continue to be "SR adherents" have some mental shortcoming that stops them appreciating Einstein's later explanations of why special relativity's definitions and concepts are unsatisfactory. I don't really know what to do with this paragraph, I can't work out how to edit it without completely changing the tone, and deleting it would probably upset the author. Ideas? ErkDemon 06:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
PS About "The need for a single universal frame disappeared -- and aether along with it.": that is contested and even apparently disproved by one of those papers, and that disproof has not been invalidated. IOW, it's a contested POV. Maybe that claim needs to be softened accordingly, as being another POV. Harald88 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
In fact, it turns out that a number of highly capable physicists disagreed then and later, including Einstein. It's therefore misinformation, so I corrected that. And I now notice that someone reverted it to the erroneous statement (violating both the accuracy rule and the NPOV rule), so I revert it back. Harald88 11:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
(continuation of above discussion) From the recent revert action on my correction, it appears that a paragraph about defense of the ether and even the need for ether according to a number of famous as well as high quality physicists (and philosophers maybe) is indicated to have a place in the article. I encourage to insert a paragrah on the perceived advantages / necessity of an ether concept according to for example Lorentz, Einstein, Ives and Builder, with references. I'm willing to help with that, and hI ave articles about that of all except Ives in electronic form available (I can scan one or two by Ives, if requested). Cheers, Harald88 12:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (don't comment here, the discussion is continued below)
One item I've never seen mentioned as pointing to the "necessity" of ether is the implied charges and fluxes necessary to propagate the oscillating E fields of an electromagnetic wave. As currently understood, the electric fields of a wave in vacuum exist in the absence of charged matter to create and sustain them. Am I missing something, or was the concept of a chargeless electric field a revolution in such thinking? - robgood@bestweb.net 8/15/05
Hello, an anon has now twice inserted the following to the article:
I believe that the theory mentioned is not notable. The phrase "foamy ether" receives only 28 google hits [3], no google scholar hits [4]. To the author: please understand that wikipedia simply cannot be a collection of links. I suggest that you submit your theory to a reputable physics journal, and if its accepted then it may warrant discussion here. But for the time being, it is not notable enough to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
As the following is obviously not NPOV and even suggests nonsense, I deleted the tendentious phrase: "Many non-scientists consider relativity to be "disturbing". There have been continued efforts to re-introduce a consistent aether theory in order to be able to abandon relativity." (See also comments above). Harald88 20:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Harald88 and I seem to be having a minor revert war over:
(thats his version) whereas I would prefer disappeared. I prefer my version (no!) but others are invited to comment. seemed to disappear appears to suggest that it didn't really - but I don't know why that should be viewed as scientifically valid. William M. Connolley 20:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC).
[the below paragraphs and subject item reinserted here for William M. Connolley]:
Agree; and on top of that, I have in mind to add a few references to peer reviewed articles by highly estimed authors in quality journals that argued scientifically in favour of Lorentz' POV against that of Einstein - just to show that this subject is often misrepresented. Harald88 20:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC) PS About "The need for a single universal frame disappeared -- and aether along with it.": that is contested and even apparently disproved by one of those papers, and that disproof has not been invalidated. IOW, it's a contested POV. Maybe that claim needs to be softened accordingly, as being another POV. Harald88 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
In fact, it turns out that a number of highly capable physicists disagreed then and later, including Einstein. It's therefore misinformation, so I corrected that. And I now notice that someone reverted it to the erroneous statement (violating both the accuracy rule and the NPOV rule), so I revert it back. Harald88 11:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
In any case Special Relativity is not the dominant paradigm and hasn't been for at least 70 years. It is too limited in its scope to take that position. The dominant paradigms at the moment are General Relativity at the large scale and Quantum Mechanics at the small scale, both of which contain some form of aether substitute. For GR think of the source of the Cosmological Constant factor. For QM think of the quantum vacuum. The need for a single universal frame may have disappeared but that is rather a different thing from the need for an aether which keeps on creeping back under different names. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
ok, see below.
(continuation of above discussion) From the recent revert action on my correction, it appears that a paragraph about defense of the ether and even the need for ether according to a number of famous as well as high quality physicists (and philosophers maybe) is indicated to have a place in the article. I encourage to insert a paragrah on the perceived advantages / necessity of an ether concept according to for example Lorentz, Einstein, Ives and Builder, with references. I'm willing to help with that, and I have articles about that of all except Ives in electronic form available (I can scan one or two by Ives, if requested). Cheers, Harald88 12:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
See the continued discussion just above: there can be no doubt anymore that such a summary will be instructive to quite a number of scientists. Harald88 12:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
OK here's a first draft outline, to be worked out; we can use this as notepad, improving it until it'good enough to copy to the article page - contributions of others are welcome of course:
- Lorentz POV, we may all know it but we can cite it. Sometime around 1911, in "The Principle of Relativity for uniform translations (1910-1912)", Lectures on Theoretical Physics Vol.III, 1931 (authorised translation of the Dutch version of 1922):
"Of course, the description of natural phenomena and the testing of what the theory of relativity has to say about them can be carried out independently of what one thinks of the aether and the time. From a physical point of view these questions can be left on one side, and especially the question of the true time can be handed over to the theory of knowledge. The modern physicists, as Einstein and Minkowski, speak no longer about aether at all [footnote: See, however, Einstein's address "Aether und Relativitaetstheorie", Univ. Leiden, 1920"]. This, however, is a question of taste and words. For, whether there is an aether or not, electromagnetic fields certainly exist, and so also does the energy of the electrical oscillations. If we do not like the name of "aether", we must use another word as a peg to hang all these things upon. It is not certain whether "space" can be extended so as to take care not only of the geometrical properties but also of the electric ones. One cannot deny to the bearer of these properties a certain substantiality, and if so, then one may, in all modesty, call true time the time measured by clocks which are fixed in this medium, and consider simultaneity as a primary concept." Harald88 12:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Einstein's POV after developing GRT and after the above arguments of Lorentz:
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether 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), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." From "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" Harald88 07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
From "Ideas and Opinions" ISBN 0-517-88440-2, pp.281,362, respectively:
> [...]"Today his discovery maybe expressed as follows: physical space and > the ether are only different terms for the same thing; fields are > physical states of space. For if no particular state of motion can be > ascribed to the ether, there does not seem to be any ground for > introducing it as an entity of a special sort alongside of space. But > the physicists were still far removed form such a way of thinking; space > was still, for them, a rigid, homogenous something, incapable of > changing or assuming various states." > [...]"But it must now be remembered that there is and infinite number of > spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other. The concept of > space as something existing objectively and independent of things > belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence > of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This > latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having > played a considerable role even in scientific thought." Harald88 07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Of course Sagnac should be mentioned, in view of the importance of his experiment. "The Luminiferous Ether Demonstrated by the Effect of the Relative Motion of the Ether in an Interferometer in Uniform Rotation"(in French), G. Sagnac, E. Bouty, Comptes Rendus (Paris) 157 (1913): 708-710:
"The result of the measurements demonstrates that, in the ambient space, light is propagated with a velocity V0, independent of the movement as a whole of the luminous source O and the optical system. That is a property of space which experimentally characterizes the luminiferous ether."
- Maybe cite Dirac's POV in Nature 168 (1951), p.906 "Is there an ether?": We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an ether.
- H. Ives in Science Vol.91 (1940), p.65,"The measurement of velocity with atomic clocks" [interesting, I had not yet read this one!]: I have considered the popular claim that the ether has been "abolished," [...] Reverting to experimental findings I have reviewed the experiment of Sagnac, having in mind the claim that the ether can not be detected experimentally. I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect the ether
- G. Builder, "Ether and Relativity", Australian Journal of Physics 11 (1958), p.279:
The observable effects of absolute accelerations and of absolute velocites must be described to iteraction of bodies and phyiscal systems with some absolute inertial system. [...]Interaction of bodies and physical systems with the universe cannot be described in terms of Mach's hypothesis, since this is untenable. There is therefore no alternative to the ether hypothesis. [...] It is shown that the hypothesis provides a satisfactory and sufficient causal explanation of the predicted relative retardation of clocks, and attention is drawn to its striking pedagogical and heuristic advantages." Harald88 23:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also: C. Sherwin, "Some recent Experimental Tests of the "Clock Paradox", Physical Review 120 no.1 (1960), p.17-21:
Now I think that this suffices, but it's too much to cite all. Next time I'll try to make a condensed version of the above that I'll add to the article. Harald88 12:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that "ether" is preferable: most scientific journal articles (even of more than one century ago) that I have about it spell it as "ether" and not "aether", and a Google search seems to favour ether as well (eliminating the chemical one). Aether is even not in my pocket dictionary(of 1977), but ether (the non-chemical one) is mentioned. Harald88 19:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Speaking as an Englishman, I also see "aether" as looking somewhat archaic, and modern fringe theorists I have seen referring to it from England have used "ether" (like Ronald Pearson). Also adding on the term "luminiferous" seems to make it sound even more quaint and Victorian and I am not sure how commonly used it was/is. I don't see why the fact it is a homograph of a chemical should be such a difficulty for Wikipedia. Orlando098 (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a conspicuous gap of several decades, between ca. 1960 and perhaps ca. 1990 in which there apparently were very few known aether adherents such as Harold Aspden (shouldn't he be mentioned?). I think an analysis is at its place in this article, if only as a side note. Was the "dip" real, or caused by the physics establishment's publishing policies? Or a bit of both? Is there a reliable publication about it? Harald88 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
To avoid reinsertion ofthe date error: "The document is the printed version of Albert Einstein's inaugural lecture held on 27 October 1920 as Extraordinary Professor at the University of Leyden. The manuscript was completed before 7 April 1920. Published 1920 by Julius Springer (Berlin)." Harald88 10:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) PS I found the source back: www.alberteinstein.info/PDFs/CP7Doc38_pp305-309_321.pdf Harald88 10:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The edits made to the introduction on January 21 2006 were semantical, not relating to facts. If there is anything that is either factual or historically incorrect then let's discuss these. However, the only intent here is to put a more neutral, objective tone in the very same content.
I wonder, is substance the right word? IMO it would be appropriate if it is also an appropriate word to describe for example things like plasma's and neutrino's, but I never heard that term used for such items. (Compare also Dictionary.com) Harald88 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"This would fit with predictions by Lorentz whose theory for light predict equivalent results to those of the special theory of relativity only in a vacuum."
-> That statement is contradicted by the facts that not only Lorentz taught SRT, but according to"A note on relativity before Einstein", Lorentz discussed already in 1899 that according to his electron theory a null result would be found in case of time dilation by the later established amount. Harald88 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following text from the "intro" area of the document. They are interesting in their own right, but fail to mention the context, and I believe they would be confusing to the average reader. The context is that the ether (no a in any of these mentions, which suggests a single author for all of it) discussed below is in now ways like the aether in the article – critically the assumption that light needs a medium is not assumed by later authors. Instead the idea of there being a locally measurable "rest frame", in the form of the tensor, is being compared to that of the aether. Consider the Einstein quote for instance, who's grammar clearly suggests he is talking about something different than "classical" aether.
Regardless, they should not be included in the intro section. They might be useful at the end of the article, however, which is why I post them here. Frankly though, I'm not sure a selection of confusing quotes really helps here. Maury 21:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
In his lectures of around 1911, Lorentz explained his continued use of his aether concept by pointing out that what "the theory of relativity has to say", "can be carried out independently of what one thinks of the aether and the time". He reminded his audience of the fact that "whether there is an aether or not, electromagnetic fields certainly exist, and so also does the energy of the electrical oscillations" so that, "if we do not like the name of "aether", we must use another word as a peg to hang all these things upon." He concluded that "One cannot deny to the bearer of these properties a certain substantiality, and if so, then one may, in all modesty, call true time the time measured by clocks which are fixed in this medium, and consider simultaneity as a primary concept."
Paul Langevin argued in 1911 that absolute effects from velocity change or acceleration (such as radiation) demonstrate the existence of an aether, and as additional illustration he mentioned the absolute effect of velocity change on time dilation with his twins example. This example would later lead to the twin paradox.
Einstein's later general theory of relativity (1916) also attributed tangible physical properties to space in order to agree with Ernst Mach's idea that all forms of motion should be "relative", and the general theory arguably implemented its gravitational field as an updated, relativistic, nonparticulate aether (i.e. "the aether of general relativity" - Einstein, 1920). But by this time, people were increasingly associating the term "aether theory" with discredited and superseded theories predating special relativity, and modern theorists now tend to prefer talking about their work in terms of the expected properties of "the metric", "space" or "vacuum", rather than those of "the aether" or "the medium".
It must be noted that Einstein disagreed with Lorentz about his stationary ether hypothesis, for after agreeing with Lorentz in his 1920 Leiden speech about the ether that "according to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there [...] would be no propagation of light", he concluded his speech with the words: "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it", and later Einstein clarified his ether concept by stating that "it must now be remembered that there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other".
Meanwhile, from his 1913 experiment with an interferometer in uniform rotation, Georges Sagnac concluded that "in the ambient space, light is propagated with a velocity V0, independent of the movement as a whole of the luminous source O and the optical system. That is a property of space which experimentally characterizes the luminiferous ether."
In agreement with Sagnac, Herbert Ives -- the first one to positively measure the effect of speed on clock rates -- wrote in 1940 in a paper in Science: "I have considered the popular claim that the ether has been "abolished" [...]. Reverting to experimental findings I have reviewed the experiment of Sagnac, having in mind the claim that the ether can not be detected experimentally. I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect the ether."
Similarly, Dirac concluded in 1951 in an article in Nature, titled "Is there an ether?": "We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an ether."
I'm not an expert on this subject, and I haven't really read the discussion as much as I could have, but I dont have the time that is required to learn what is being said here. Let me just say this - The M&M experiment did not prove that the Aether does not exist, it only proved they were not able to detect it, contrary to what is commonly taught. Einstien didn't use it because he was working in a different category. So maybe the Aether has become "old hat." But you know what, nowadays, they have stuff like Dirac's Sea, Hyperspace, ZPE, quantum vacuum, false vacuum, Quantum ground even dark energy. All of these are about the same stuff, but only specialized for particular applications. So when I hear someone say "The Aether doesn't exist" I can only smile.
Words play with us, but they have no real meaning. We give the words the meaning we want them to mean. So we change the name, but the game remains the same. And saying the Aether does not exist is not saying that therefore there is nothing there. There is something there, otherwise how could atominc particles dance forever? Magic? Those who say there is nothing there are saying that in effect. But I don't fall for that trick.
- Albert Einstein
The Aether, or whatever name you wish to call it, cannot be detected physically because it does not exist, like everything exists, in space, it exists inside space and serves as the canvass that everything is painted on. Westerners say that space is empty, a void. But the Chinese say that space is FULL, and the void should be in our mind when we try to think about it. I read here somewhere above, that Maxwell is old hat, well, we still use his four equations. But his four equations are a simplification, and guess what was simplified out? What was simplified out was the sustaining source of all matter and energy. Matter is energy you know. Matter is not a substance but form, said Schroedinger. Matter is energy doing something, and energy not doing anything is what Maxwell formulated his quaternions around. But they were too mystical, they said, and too complicated and not needed anyhow. Well, now we need it.
Regretably, the real story is not told here, but then it isn't tld elsewhere either. So they make up a new kind of stuff, and attribute what they discovered to this new stuff, and they call it by a new name. And they think they have discovered something new. It doesn't matter and I just smile...
Fixaller 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Agnes, I saw your comment on the Talk page and I think that inline citations is a good idea as it enables readers to see both a full reference list at the bottom of the article as well as which references were used for which statements.
I have two questions:
- First of all, a section was put on the Talk page because it was too much a collection of quotes. Thus I intend to reinsert it with some quotes in the main article, and others in footnotes. And somehow the references should be included too. Can you give me a link to the "How to" of the right formatting?
- Secondly, for verifiability one should sometimes link to a verifiable source without necessarily wanting to include that fact verification in the list of presumably reliable sources for the subject. For example we could include in the Holocaust article a link to a statement that according to Holocaust deniers people's hair was cut for health reasons, but we would not want to include a reference to such an unreliable and in some places unlawful publication in the Holocaust references section. In my sandbox I thus ended up with (on another subject), Such criticisms and research activities have also been coined "anti-relativity"[1][9]
Obviously that will work, with both purely inline verifiers as well as references to notable published articles, but it looks ugly. Your advice (or of someone else of your crowd) would be helpful. Harald88 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
My personal preference is for quotes to be styled in accordance to WP:MOS#Direct_quotations with a footnote attribution at the end of the quote. However, in general direction quotations should be used sparingly as they can be visually unappealing. A "collection of quotes" can also become a tempting target for growing into a quote farm.
As for the second question, I think in the interest of WP:V it should still be linked. This is even more important for something controversial like "holocaust deniers". However, if the source is unreliable enough to list then it's too unreliable to use as a source to pass WP:RS. Hope this helps. Agne 08:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
According to EMS, not all aether concepts of physics belong under the descriptor of this article. If someone can show that the article's title actually does not cover the scope of this article, it should be changed to for example Aether (physics). Harald88 06:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
To just voice my preference: The luminiferous aether (in the narrower sense, if you insist) is topic of huge importance in the history of science. This notion has a beginning and an end. The use of of the word aether for something untouchable and allpresent is much older and will always spring up a fresh, when people draw analogies. But it is a different topic and I'd prefer an article focussed on luminiferous aether, i.e. on the attempt to use a mechanical model as a heuristic to reason about about light. --Pjacobi 08:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Moroder and 24.7.125.29 (presumably the same) added unreferenced claims of negative opinion (see WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOR and even deleted the reference (see WP:V). I reverted. Please stop. Harald88 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I recall this article being quite damning of the aether and looking rather down on any aetherial concepts. Why have we softened up? What happened to references to spin foam, etc? -- wrote someone from IP address 128.252.173.101 without bothering to sign it with ~~~~
Does it exist a source tu support the statement
???
I think w hardly will find it... maybe it's time to delete the statement?--Pokipsy76 07:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following phrase which I suspect to be erroneous:
"Lorentz was not very happy with this suggestion, although it did neatly solve the problem and it was a first step towards relativity theory."
To the contrary, Lorentz later regretted that he had not stressed that the hypothesis was not "ad-hoc".
Harald88 12:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand the second sentence here: "Any new theory of aether must be consistent with all of the experiments testing phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, relativistic quantum mechanics, and so on. As outlined earlier, these conditions are often contradictory, making such a task inherently difficult." What are the conditions and where were they outlined? -Wikianon (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
How are all so sure that a theory can be proved! The only way is to do the opposite; prove that it is wrong! Nobody has it done for the aether theory.(Michelson an Moorly showed only that there no speed difference between earth and aether). Also it doesn't matter weather aether is necessary for light emission. It does not say anything about the existence. Simply an experiment which prove that the aether does not exist could smash the theory. Related literature is written by Karl Popper et. al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.54.8 (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The recent approach to Luminiferous Aether concept is based on idea of inertial environment composed of scale invariant particles (so called unparticles), which are of infinite high matter and energy density. Such idea comes from Oliver Lodge and his Electric Theory of Matter from 1904. The AWT is currently subject of private research.
The AWT concept is consistent with idea, the Universe is formed by interior of black hole and it's surprisingly effective in explanation of nature of strings, protosimplex and spin foam, considered by string, Heim's and LQG theories, which can be considered as a density fluctuations of Aether. The vacuum foam is considered as a scaled down version of dark matter structure. Because in such environment most of energy spreads in transversal waves, it's consistent with Lorentz invariance approach of relativity theory. Because the foam gets more dense under vibrations, the mass density of foam is proportional to energy density, from this the quantization of energy density follows.
By such way, the AWT appears to be conceptually capable to reconcile most existing physical theories together with unparticle, constructal and process physics.
I have delisted this article because it fails criteria 1b (insufficient lead) and 2. There are only a few in-line citations, but most of them are just notes. The article needs to incorporate references from reliable sources and meet criterion 1 in order to meet the GA criteria. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"according to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"
Albert Einstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29
What does he mean by this? AThousandYoung (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The article contained a list of experiments with "Successful" results. However, all of those experiments (by Miller, Marinov, etc..) were never repeated and are not accepted by the scientific community, Also the link to Smoot et al. has nothing to do with the luminiferous aether, as explained by Smoot himself. So I deleted that section. --D.H (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reinserted what D.H deleted. There are a lot of scientists with university educations who believe in the aether. There is nothing wrong with providing a list of experiments which claim and I underline claim successful results so that they can check them out and decide for themselves and not have D.H decide for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.8.28 (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
D.H no one appreciates you going through and changing everything to suit your beliefs. I have restored the part about Dayton Miller's experiment to. Fringe science it may be but the experiments still took place and the people still claimed positive results.
What about including the Dayton Miller experiments? These were well known at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.8.28 (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I propose a merge with the Aether article. Faro0485 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Did I miss something, did I overlook Lorentz and Larmor in this article? -- It features to great lenghts why the aether is impossible. However, all those seem to go away when particles don't move through the aether but they are aether vortices. For a start take a planet rotating a sun and consider that the rotation works by exchanging gravitons at c. If you move the arrangement, they will fly at speeds varying from c+v to c-v thereby distorting the circle to a (Doppler) ellipsis. This is a simple model for relativistic dilation effects and it should work with any force that uses lightlike exchange waves. I heard Larmor predicted that in 1904 and mentioned that an atom bound by electric forces would have to experience time dilation. (I'd like to read that up but his papers are in extremly inconvenient formats on the web.) - Modern physics is ART, where the "spacetime" is not just a set of coordinates but a physical entity, but you must not call it aether; and QFT vacuum, where you have fluctuations and virtual particles of .. nothing, but you must not call it aether. --88.74.178.249 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've included a section on Lorentz, Larmor, and Poincaré in Luminiferous aether#Lorentz ether theory. --D.H (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This pea brain is confused. How is aether any different than strings, branes, et. al.?? Haven't we come full circle? Or is it just that I need a better understanding of the two concepts? AMPbd (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The article appears to argue (incorrectly) that relativity theory excludes aether: Quote: "Later theories including special relativity were formulated without the concept of aether.".
However Dr. Einstein (author of special and later general relativity theories) in 1920 clearly stated "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" [1]
[1] Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden. http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"
Jtankers (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the recently proposed Higgs Boson, a type of aether? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I questions DH's edit saying that "so most historians of science argue that he failed to invent special relativity." First, there is a whole article on the relativity priority dispute, and there is no need to get into the dispute here. Second, the first reference is to Darrigol, and he does not say that. Third, the statement does not add anything useful, even if it were true. It is better to just say that Poincare and the others said about the aether, and not try to explain their alleged failures on related subjects. Roger (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Field theory was introduced to meet objections to action at a distance by forces. Something was needed to act as an intermediator for the forces between particles. The result was the field and this suggested the existence of an ether for electric and magnetic fields. Fluxes became a tool of Physics and led to the discovery of electromagnetic induction and Maxwell's Equations. The Michelson-Morley did not prove the nonexistence of an ether. It merely showed that an effect could not be measured. Do fields of force have an existence of their own? Energy is stored in both the Electric and Magnetic field. The field is necessary to explain the transport of energy.
Elementary particle theory postulates the existence of particles which act as carriers of forces. The tubes of force associated with fluxes have been replaced by amplitudes, path integrals and matrices. Empty space has physical properties. We speak of a vacuum energy. So we could say that the ether still exists but has grown in complexity. --Jbergquist (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Einstein used light to define the frames of reference for Special Relativity. It was assumed that observers could exchange signals and synchonize their clocks. Using the same value for the speed of light in all reference frames defined the unit of length. The Doppler Effect could determine relative velocities.
General Relativity showed that the path of light rays could be affected by gravitation. Recent experiments indicate "frame dragging" is an observable effect. So we may have not yet heard the last word on the ether. --Jbergquist (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
There are several common phrases -- e.g. "into the ether" implying "into nothingness" -- and an early science fiction work; see the article on Ralph_124C41+ -- Craig Goodrich 206.39.12.245 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Why don't virtual particles count? They fill space, they transmit forces, they even exert force on their own via the Casimir effect. Is it just a matter of semantics or is there a definable difference? Wnt (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
According to Einstein,
To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the
system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real.
Newton might no less well have called his absolute space “Ether”; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real [10]
Hence, Einstein regards the ether as a privileged entity from which accelerations, but not velocities should be counted, and which remains undetectable only as long as everything moves by inertia. I am not sure where this belongs. He obviously does not tell about the "Luminiferous" aether, but rather about space of Newton and vacuum which are essentially the same as the "ether" described here, according to Einstein.01:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"It signifies the substance which was thought in ancient times to contain the manipulative forces beyond control"
This statement in the intro is not very clear. Can someone not improve on it?Orlando098 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)