Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

From: Natksi (dmk33_at_cam.ac.uk)
Date: 08/12/04 

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:56:25 +0000 (UTC)

"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10hhtffogl8o837@corp.supernews.com...
> "Natksi" <dave.kipping@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:cf8k1s$2d6$2@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> Is this another pseudonym for David (aka Bilge, Bob Zombiewoof, etc)?
>

No sorry, don't know who Bilge is??

> > "Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> > news:nhqah05elr80h3k53ike1b078b4bnthvq8@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 23:38:20 +0000 (UTC), "Davey"
> > <dave.kipping@btinternet.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can't understand why there is a continuing debate into the aether
> > > > theory? This is a theory that was disproved in the 19th century by
> > > > several experiments.
> > >
> > > Other than the Michelson-Morley (MMX) name these.
> > >
> > > > The most important of which was probably the Michelson-Morley
> > > > experiment, ...
> > >
> > > The MMX did not disprove aether theory. It did disprove the idea
that
> > > matter was something rigid & independent of aether moving through it.
> > >
> > > > ... also the classic experiment to support special relativity.
> > >
> > > And that would be? Would it suprise you to know that the
mathematical
> > > formulation of SR was completed and published BEFORE Einstein's 1905
> > > paper? And further, the formulation was in the form OF aether
theory.
> > >
> > > History records that Lorentz in 1904, and Poincare' in early 1905,
> > > both published works relating to both the form and group nature of
> > > what is now known as SR.
> >
> > Lorentz work may have mathematically sound but theory is not. It was
> > Einstein who derived the Lorentz transformations whereas Lorentz simply
> > wrote down the experimental results.
>
> Lorentz was the first to derive the equations that are now called the
> "Lorentz transformation", in 1904 (although they were not mathematical
> transformations in Lorentz' work). That's why they are called the Lorentz
> transformations.
>

I realise you think that the lectures I attend are spewing out rubbish but I
disagree considering the establishment and the professors. My professor for
special relativity course was Professor S. R. Julian
(http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/ugprospectus/colleges/trinity_staff.html
under Natural Sciences). To quote the lectures notes:

"The early years of the twentieth century brought revolutionary changes to
our understanding of the physical world. These advances wer intimately
related to the question: what is light?"

"Newton believed that light is 'corpuscular' in nature, that is, the effect
created in our eyes is the result of the impact of particles. Huygens, in
contract, believed that light is a wave. Throughout the 18th century
Newton's picture was favoured, but the discovery of diffraction and
interference led to the adoption of the wave theory in the 19th century. "

"One of the difficulties with the wave theory was that physicists did not
know of any waves that travelled without a medium to travel through. Thus
physicists in the late 19th century believed that space is permeated by an
invisible lumineferous aether, which means 'light-bearing-medium'. The
search for the aether was one of the great pursuits of the 19th century."

"Einstein himself, while an undergraduate at ETH, Zurich, recognised this is
as one of the key questions in physics and tried to convince his teachers to
allow him to set up an experiment to detect the aether, but they (quite
sensibly, thus pointing out the limitations of conventional university
education) felt that this was beyond what an undergraduate physicist should
do, and so they declined."

[important paragraph below]

"There were a number of important experiments, but the classic result which
cast the aether theory int disarray was that of Michelson-Morley. The idea
was that is light propogated through a stationery aether, then the speed of
light c should depend on the observer's velocity v. As a simple example of
this phenomenon think of the ripples that spread out when a stone is thrown
into a moving river: according to an observer standing on the riverbank, the
waves that travel upstream are slower than those that travel downstream."

"Michelson and Morley used a Michelson interferometer to compare the
difference in travel times for light parallel and perpendicular to the
direction of motion of the Earth." ...

"But there are two ways that the optical path length can vary:
a) if the speed of light changes (as in aether theory) or,
b) if the physical length of the paths depends on v (as in the theories of
Einstein and Lorentz)." ...

"There are number of ways that one can escape the consequences of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. For example, one can construct an elaborate
theory in which the aether interacts with matter in such a way that is
dragged around with the Earth, so that is c is always constant on Earth."

"Lorentz pointed out that the Michelson-Morley experiment resut is obtained
if, instead of the Galilean transformation for distances we use what has
come to be called the Lorentz Transformation. But why should this be so?"
... leading to SR theory.

                                                * * *

Unless my lecturer was outright lying to me, it seems that aether theory was
pretty much 'thrown into disarray' by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

> > I can't see how SR can exist in harmony with an aether theory.
>
> Apparently, you've been well "motivated" (in the Carlipian sense) by your
> instructors.
>
> > I remember from my first year lectures being
> > told that the aether theory could not exist given a constant c which is
> > one of the postulates of SR.
>
> Don't believe everything you are told. Even minimal thought could have
let
> you figure out that all material media have (approximately) constant
speeds
> of waves. (In fact, that was mentioned in Paul's post.)
>
> > Also, aether was first suggested to explain the medium in which light
> > propogates.
>
> Also historically false. But if you limit your claim to the
light-carrying
> (luminiferous) aether, then you've merely worded things poorly.
>
> > They couldn't accept that no medium was required. I think the
> > understanding of the electric and magnetic components self-propogating
> > each other explains why an aether is not required.
>
> That is a non sequiteur. (It does not logically follow.) If I assume
that
> the sound field components are self-propagating, it still does not explain
> why an atmosphere is not required.
>
> > Personally I don't think there is any hard evidence *against* an aether
> > but by Ocomb's Razor the simplest explanation of no aether is much
better
> > than creating a whole new field in physics where none is required.
>
> Your ignorance about Ockham's razor is matched only by your ignorance
about
> 'whole new fields of physics.' No new fields of physics are required at
> all. Only a theological change.
>
> Did your teachers tell you -- for example -- that Maxwell's equations were
> derived from a physical, fluid aether?
>
> If you want to do science, you must learn to think for yourself. On the
> other hand, if you want to feed at the public trough, you are on the right
> track.
>
> --
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
> {remove planet for e-mail}
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... >> Lorentz work may have mathematically sound but theory is not. ... invisible lumineferous aether, which means 'light-bearing-medium'. ... "Lorentz pointed out that the Michelson-Morley experiment resut is obtained ... >> than creating a whole new field in physics where none is required. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued
    ... >> the aether becomes redundant it is logical to dispense with it. ... starting of course with the Lorentz ... Physics exam, ... philosophy of what constitutes a good 'explanation'. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... What I want to see is relevant to give an honest and balanced view of physics as a subject not merely "train" people to be physicists. ... It may be irrelevant and counter productive if all you want is to sell the product to students and churn out students familiar with orthodoxy and unlikely to question it. ... 1/ the origin of the second postulate is that it is simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience and that that was simply the generally accepted view of the MMX at the time. ... Part of the educators approach is to play down Lorentz's contribution as you have to sell Einstein not Lorentz. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
    ... > Lorentz Invariance -follows- from the assumptions of Special Relativity. ... Aether and that there could not be a fixed reference frame. ... No one has ever perceived an atom. ... You can change popular opinion in physics, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: success Now possible where Einstein failed
    ... unique IFoR stationary w.r.t the aether without which his theory makes ... Unfortunately his attempt was a failure, physics decided to ... Lorentz) which eluded Einstein is now possible. ... Kennaugh's Parallel Universe Theory of Special Relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading