Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

The wikipedia page on Aether Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories cites Nobel Prize winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
Pretty much any realist theory about matter that doesn't invoke Ancient Greek atomos - uncuttable - atoms, is some version of an aether theory. Much better to call any such idea a quantum field theory for the reasons given above.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Cerveny »

Sorry for repeating, but here is just the right place for it - I can see aether (history - future does not exist yet) as a growing / condensing crystal of “stem” cells / molecules of our Universe... The presence is a “meristem / cambium” of it..
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Cerveny wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:46 am Sorry for repeating, but here is just the right place for it - I can see aether (history - future does not exist yet) as a growing / condensing crystal of “stem” cells / molecules of our Universe... The presence is a “meristem / cambium” of it..
You're not alone. The growing block universe is a perfectly respectable hypothesis - at least amongst philosophers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe I kinda get it, in that everything that has ever happened is literally part of the structure of the universe so, just as we can still see stars which died thousands, millions or even billions of years ago, so every wobble in the universe that gave rise to your consciousness is spreading out like a cosmic halo to wander the stars forever. That's right folks, in one sense at least you are immortal. Whether you are aware of it once you shuffle off this mortal coil is another question.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Paradigmer »

I agreed on space is more like a piece of window glass, but it is the all-pervasive aether in space such that it is more like a piece of window glass. This was an old idea speculated as far back during the ancient Greek era. Glad to hear from physicists like Robert B. Laughlin was in a way trying to revive that idea with the large particle accelerators studies, despite aether could be swapped as space in modern physics.

The scientific consensus on luminiferous aether does not exist, was based on a null hypothesis with the null result obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Neither Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that their experiment had disproved the aether hypothesis; it merely had proven that the postulated static aether does not exist.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” - Carl Sagan

Despite the null hypothesis can never assert positively with its hypothetical posit, its findings were speciously concluded as the proof for aether does not exist with the numbers of raise hands. Consequently, the once-popular aether-based cosmology models postulated by many renowned scientists around the twentieth century was thus officially falsified during the transition to modern physics, and this scientific consensus has hitherto remained.

The transition to modern physics with the scientific consensus was more like a politicized event of the authority on its needs to be politically correct than it was actually referring to reality.

There had been much scientific evidence on aether does exist, which were all politically dismissed as the consequence of that scientific consensus.

“The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.” - Lord Kelvin
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Paradigmer wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:01 pm... the once-popular aether-based cosmology models postulated by many renowned scientists around the twentieth century was thus officially falsified during the transition to modern physics, and this scientific consensus has hitherto remained.
This isn't true. For example; fundamentally the Higgs Field is an aether theory. Modern physicists are no different to their predecessors - what makes them physicists and not philosophers is that they primary objective is to make things work. To do that, you need to study how things behave, so that you can map that behaviour mathematically, which will give you the option of applying the weights and measures to achieve the result you want. You do not need to know why the universe behaves as it does, nor what it is made of. All sorts of cranks have come up with some story that is consistent with the scientific data. When they present this to the world, they are baffled that no one pays much attention and in some cases will attribute that disinterest to a conspiracy to suppress their 'truth'.
Paradigmer wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:01 pmThe transition to modern physics with the scientific consensus was more like a politicized event of the authority on its needs to be politically correct than it was actually referring to reality.
Well, anyone who tells you that physics is not corrupted by politics is an idiot, but the idea that physics is a coherent body that is united in its opposition to any particular idea is simply nonsense. If you can show how any of your ideas will make the job of a physicist easier, which basically means developing a mathematical treatment that is simpler or more accurate than what they currently deal with, they might be interested. Failing that you are stuck with trying to persuade philosophers that you have a good story.
Impenitent
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Impenitent »

is the purpose of the Aether similar to the square root of negative one?

-Imp
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Cerveny »

Impenitent wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:52 pm is the purpose of the Aether similar to the square root of negative one?
-Imp
Purpose of aether is to create physical space...:)
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Impenitent wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:52 pm is the purpose of the Aether similar to the square root of negative one?

-Imp
Blimey impenitent, I'm not enough of a mathematician to answer that, but being a loudmouth I'll do so anyway. As I understand it i is what you have to multiply by itself to get -1. Any number you multiply by i is somewhere above the number line, the string of 'real' numbers that stretches from -infinity to +infinity. Apparently such 'complex numbers' are useful for erm, things - it appears in calculations and helps make things work. Aether on the other hand is a conceptual tool. You could argue that the 'spacetime' of General Relativity is an 'aether', as Einstein actually did, and as I said above, you can make a case for the Higgs Field. Long story short: one is useful for getting your head around problems, the other is useful for actually solving them.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:20 pm
Paradigmer wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:01 pm... the once-popular aether-based cosmology models postulated by many renowned scientists around the twentieth century was thus officially falsified during the transition to modern physics, and this scientific consensus has hitherto remained.
This isn't true. For example; fundamentally the Higgs Field is an aether theory. Modern physicists are no different to their predecessors - what makes them physicists and not philosophers is that they primary objective is to make things work. To do that, you need to study how things behave, so that you can map that behaviour mathematically, which will give you the option of applying the weights and measures to achieve the result you want. You do not need to know why the universe behaves as it does, nor what it is made of. All sorts of cranks have come up with some story that is consistent with the scientific data. When they present this to the world, they are baffled that no one pays much attention and in some cases will attribute that disinterest to a conspiracy to suppress their 'truth'.
Paradigmer wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:01 pmThe transition to modern physics with the scientific consensus was more like a politicized event of the authority on its needs to be politically correct than it was actually referring to reality.
Well, anyone who tells you that physics is not corrupted by politics is an idiot, but the idea that physics is a coherent body that is united in its opposition to any particular idea is simply nonsense. If you can show how any of your ideas will make the job of a physicist easier, which basically means developing a mathematical treatment that is simpler or more accurate than what they currently deal with, they might be interested. Failing that you are stuck with trying to persuade philosophers that you have a good story.
"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin

If the existence of aether has attained its scientific consensus of modern physics, it would not be a taboo like how Robert B. Laughlin had put it. Knew any mainstream paper proposed aether-based principle to explain TOR and got accepted by the mainstream journals for peer review?

It is the Higgs field that transforms in space to render the effect of relativistic gravity; it is not space itself has transformed as claimed by the Einsteinain TOR. It is obvious that Higgs field exist in space, and space itself is not made of Higgs field. All the validated relativistist experiments proof were merely construed in the subjective reality of the Einsteinian TOR worldview with its postulation for the metric transformation of space itself.

It is envious the pragmatic theory of truth with modern physics has had made much accomplishment, so am conceded to be contended with agreed to disagree.

Nonetheless, I foresee the the very foundation of modern physics like how Einstein had put it, would eventually be superceded like what had happened to geocentrism.

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory." - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Paradigmer wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:18 amIf the existence of aether has attained its scientific consensus of modern physics, it would not be a taboo like how Robert B. Laughlin had put it.
Well like I said, any theory that attributes physical/mechanical properties to 'empty' space will get a much better reception from physicists by calling itself a quantum field theory. Generally physicists stick with the idea that a 'field' is an area where they can make a measurement, gravitational or magnetic fields being examples - they are places where things move. Since that movement can be measured and timed, physicists are comfortable with them. Since that movement can be explained in lots of different ways, physicists are generally reluctant to pin their colours to any one mast, but since luminiferous/static aether has been debunked, the name 'aether' has been tarred with the same brush. There are plenty of 'aether' theories in physics, they're just not called that.
And just in passing, almost no theory has complete 'scientific consensus of modern physics'.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Cerveny »

I probably express my opinion incorrectly (oh my english:) I wanted to say that aether is the most/only real thing at all. All other things are mere defects, disorders, tenses in it. Math (with their limities, empty space, imaginary world, infinities, continuities..) is, in the opposite, most idea. But the real world is not able to catch math ideas. Reality is much slow to exactly model them. Thus reality is condemned to graining...

The empire of reality/matter is the History and empire of ideas is the Future:)
Impenitent
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Impenitent »

uwot wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:05 am
Impenitent wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:52 pm is the purpose of the Aether similar to the square root of negative one?

-Imp
Blimey impenitent, I'm not enough of a mathematician to answer that, but being a loudmouth I'll do so anyway. As I understand it i is what you have to multiply by itself to get -1. Any number you multiply by i is somewhere above the number line, the string of 'real' numbers that stretches from -infinity to +infinity. Apparently such 'complex numbers' are useful for erm, things - it appears in calculations and helps make things work. Aether on the other hand is a conceptual tool. You could argue that the 'spacetime' of General Relativity is an 'aether', as Einstein actually did, and as I said above, you can make a case for the Higgs Field. Long story short: one is useful for getting your head around problems, the other is useful for actually solving them.
but the language of math is nothing but a conceptual tool (as is any language...)

lots of non-empirical entities seem to appear in explanations

-Imp
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Impenitent wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:32 pmbut the language of math is nothing but a conceptual tool (as is any language...)
Yep, can't argue with that. The point I was trying to make is that while some scientific models include ontological 'conceptual tools', some don't - at least as I think of them. So for instance, in Newton's treatment, 'the force of gravity' is a conceptual tool that explains why and how much massive bodies affect each other. The 'how much' is the maths and the empirical success of that maths; the 'why' is fully answered by 'because there is a force' - which is obviously true from the 'how much'. That's all epistemological - how do you know there is a force of gravity? Because the trajectories of massive objects are demonstrably affected by them. It's physics.
Einstein's General Relativity goes beyond the maths and the epistemological conceptual tool that is the force of gravity - beyond physics and into metaphysics. It claims there is a substance called 'spacetime', of which the presence of matter changes the topology, and this is the cause of gravity. 'Spacetime', in this instance, is ontological/metaphysical - it's not needed for the maths, but thinking about gravity in that way might give you insights that the bare Newtonian 'force of gravity' won't.
Gonna make an appeal to authority here. Anyone who has read this far and hasn't seen this clip of Richard Feynman make the same point should do theirselves a favour and watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k
Impenitent wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:32 pmlots of non-empirical entities seem to appear in explanations
They do, don't they?
Impenitent
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Impenitent »

thanks for the explanation...

competing truths are interesting...

-Imp
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1706
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Scott Mayers »

uwot wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:43 am
Paradigmer wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:18 amIf the existence of aether has attained its scientific consensus of modern physics, it would not be a taboo like how Robert B. Laughlin had put it.
Well like I said, any theory that attributes physical/mechanical properties to 'empty' space will get a much better reception from physicists by calling itself a quantum field theory. Generally physicists stick with the idea that a 'field' is an area where they can make a measurement, gravitational or magnetic fields being examples - they are places where things move. Since that movement can be measured and timed, physicists are comfortable with them. Since that movement can be explained in lots of different ways, physicists are generally reluctant to pin their colours to any one mast, but since luminiferous/static aether has been debunked, the name 'aether' has been tarred with the same brush. There are plenty of 'aether' theories in physics, they're just not called that.
And just in passing, almost no theory has complete 'scientific consensus of modern physics'.
I agree with Paradigmer on this. I've also experienced the 'taboo' of daring to even speak of any difference of opinion on this matter. The aether theory is as 'debunked' as is supposedly the Steady State theories (wholesale of all versions). These are errors in logic and interpretation to me, not of the pragmatic methods used within science. To me, this is political, as I've mentioned to you before personally.

Credit is given to the FIRST person's interpretations when they map to the evidence regardless of whether some better explaination might come along because the reputation of institutes who sponsored the 'heroes' of science become entrenched such that it is taboo to disagree. Instead, we are expected to redefine terms as though 'new' rather than demonstrate why past science was in error.

The 'aether', as understood originally derived out of the question of whether light was a wave or a particle and where those who presumed that waves should only flow THROUGH something else matter-like AND fluid simultaneously. After Einstein's General relativity, the error was to NOT go back to the prior Michelson-Morley experiment for REINTERPRETATION, rather than accept the issue as 'closed' as it was by many then.

I think that this issue about interpretation is NOT properly the domain of Science unless is accepted it as a function of philosophy as well. Theoretical physics is more philosophy that happens to use science or initiates scientific endeavors following initial philosophical dialect. The problems politically involved are like that between employers and employees. The vast majority of people in any industry are the labor. But the labor-minded don't think of the logical function of the entity they are working for with respect to the larger picture. Rather, they see the entity as devised to employ them. This is where 'union' mentality interprets something they do as essential because it employs them and not whether the product or service is significant or relevant to the consumer. That is, the practitioners tend to rob the intentional meaning of the function of their employment in a way that biases them toward their particular labor and not the overall logic. Thus, the vast majority of scientists are the worker bees who tend to dominate how the philosophy of science gets run rather than the other way around.

Space IS the 'aether'. It is REAL and not merely virtual as the anti-aether interpretation leads to logically. As such it is still a medium of substantial meaning. The Copenhagen interpretation made the science discussing this appear mystical and religious and why it should be challenged. But that vast majority of worker bees would prefer the esoteric interpretation and why it is hard to overthrow bad interpretations. The interpretation may not matter by many as long as it works. But it does disservice to those who might be able to correct the logical paradoxes being accepted as 'weird' as though this was appropriate.

The main problem originates with the foundations of what came to us today through religious texts. In particular, Genesis description of 'spirit of God' as hovering above the 'waters below' referred to this OTHER reality that cannot be understood: the air itself at that time. This was magical and so people tend to prefer to keep it mystical. "Scientifically", you could not measure the meaning of air in early human history. You see through it, and so, to them, this was their version of the Michelson Morely experiment and the weirdness of the interpretation of air as an 'OTHER' that has power to magically provide life was accepted in mystical interpretations as the Copenhagen one has done.

Related to this is that the ancients thought that the division between things was as solids versus fluids. Thus, the 'waters' in the bible is actually 'fluid' by meaning. That is, they thought that the nature of fluidity of water was the normal human means of understanding how the waves moved. Wind, as the 'waves' of this OTHER 'water' became the "Spirit of God" that hovered. This to me is the better example of how I see the Copenhagen interpretation evolved to be accepted as it is by many today.

The Michealson-Morley experiment SHOULD NOT be able to sense anything because of General Relativity's type of explanation afterthefact. So why did they not redress this?....because they already committed to asserting the aether as disproven or 'debunked' via that experment in principle, regardless of whether it is still valid or not. And this is a problem of institutes' demand to conserve their credibility in light of errors. Going back to repair the problem tends to require a lot more work and threatens prior reputations even if only superficial. So we evolve with a lot of 'junk DNA' in science that tends to expand what might be more simply understood if we could remove it. And instead of getting easier to understand, it becomes harder to because you are expected to learn all that junk. It raises the standard of qualification to a priestly-like class of experts that come with further expectations of faith in their authority without question ....unless you join the church and move through the ranks with such great investment that you would be troubled to go against it once you've achieved that superior rank of authority.
Post Reply