Question: Does a moving object displacing aether experience a change in locally experienced gravity, like it does time dilation and length contraction?
Firstly, there is a vast array of aether theories. The most acceptable one by the modern scientific community's standards would be "Lorentz Ether Theory" (LET) because it was the forerunner of special relativity and was considered mathematically indistinguishable.
Gravitation was not part of that theory so we can only assume that you wish to extend that theory into GR as though it was SR. In this case, all predictions of GR would remain the same.
The idea of mass change in relativity is poor wording for what is simply a representation of energy and is highly deprecated in modern discussions of the effect.
The only real speculation that can be done is to travel outside LET into one of the many newer aether theories. In Maxwell's Extended Theory of Aether (META) atoms are vortices that are interlocked with the surrounding aether like cogs and gears. The rotation is what govern's their mass/energy so motion through the aether would require faster rotation and therefore increase their energy and literally increase their mass. That is the simplistic view.
However because the entire system is interlocked, that motion would transfer to the surrounding aether as well and the individual atoms would travel are part of a field (or group or system) which would be carried along with that atom such that the atom itself would be affected very little. It would balance with the surrounding medium.
It is like saying that the helicopter effect could happen to a single atom. If we conceive of it more simply as a single two dimensional vortex, if that vortex travels through the medium at the same speed as the speed of the rotation then, on one side of the vortex the particles are stationary in the medium and on the other they are travelling twice as fast. This would obviously rip the vortex apart.
This does not happen because the vortex is not so local. It carries a field of rotation along with it (a vortex exists outside the funnel we look at) and to reach that speed, the entire field would have to reach it as well and therefore the vortex would be unaffected.
So the final answer is: According to old ether theories there is no answer. According to META the answer is that there are complex interactions with the surrounding medium that will affect a very large field including the matter travelling. This will affect light speed, time and gravitation. (but there is no contraction according to META)
Creation time: Oct 10, 2013 01:06 PM PDT
The Higgs field in particular is aether under a different name. While people will try to differentiate the two by saying it has different properties than the original aether this is an obvious absurdity.
The original aether was not a full theory but simply a field of which the properties were strange and unknown. Exploration of it was abandoned before any definitive properties were established.
So yes they are the same like Davinci's flying machine and a 747 are the same. One is only a concept and the other a more complex workable model but they are basically the same in their purpose and form.
The reason people take issue and split hairs with it is because they would rather drunkenly careen into a busload of children than to admit they were ever wrong about something as a community.
However, study of Maxwell's original papers instead of the more simplified equations provided by Oliver Heaviside lean much more toward something along the lines of string theory. One of the most telling facts is that he created his equations based upon a system of "gears and pulleys" in an aether he saw as a type of perfect fluid.
We will soon drop "light speed constancy" and empty space from our scientific knowledge base but they want to do it quietly so SHHHHHHHH! (there's plenty in those theories that are completely right so stop pointing at the goof!)
Creation time: Dec 06, 2013 06:34 PM PST
Firstly Luminiferous aether was a concept still in development and discovery phase so most assertions that it have very particular properties such as being massless are unfounded and misleading.
Secondly, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was not null. (<5% expectation) it instead detected a speed one-third (10 km/sec) of the expectation but because it is a second order effect, there is a non linear relationship between the reading and what the reading means. (the reading gets really tiny when the speed goes down only a little)
Regardless of this, the readings not only were significant, they showed a pattern that rules out a random noise effect. They were a dual sine wave which would be expected of an aether wind. Not just a single sine wave as would be expected of a mechanical error but a dual sine wave that would be expected of a wind.
...in the original paper.
Then Dayton Miller went on to block Einstein's nobel by receiving a prestigious prize from the AAAS by proving an aether wind via tens of thousands of double blind experiments. What was the difference between these older experiments and modern day ones? White light. Only Miller and Michelson used white light. I'll save the explanation for another time.
The thing people don't understand about aether theory is that it was killed before there was consensus. Maxwell devised his equations from a fluid dynamics model of aether that he described as "wheels and pulleys".
The basis for aether theory is an inside-out universe in which mass and matter are the ephemeral and space is the solid thing. Matter is a just a vortex induced cavitation of aether. IE matter is holes in the real substance. Gravity is basically like pressure gradients. (sort of)
The primary calculation and basis of Special Relativity, the Lorentz factor, was invented by Lorentz to describe the effects of a medium on light if that medium created an illusion. But the calculation is specifically to describe an -Illlusion- of light speed constancy created by a medium retarding or increasing light speed.
Einstein just continued to develop the theory based on the idea that the illusion was real. This is like planning to dive on a spear because you saw David Copperfield do it and live. And then planning a million other things after the dive on the spear based upon what you think happens to internal organs etc.
The thing you have to remember is that Dark matter is proof that General relativity doesn't work. It was "discovered" because when we looked out in the universe to see if our model of how gravity makes things rotate was correct (GR) we found out that it was wrong by a huge amount.
We calculated how much more matter would have to be there to make our failed theory work again and just assumed that fairy dust had to be there for 70 years while never detecting it.
The issue is that the effect is real and is much more like fluid dynamics. There is no dark matter there, there's just an unexpected effect of a swirling medium. Further "detection" (and wow do I use that term loosely because they are interpretations not detection) of this variable density medium are chalked up to "dark matter" when is obviously an effect of a pervasive medium.
There were various different ideas about what aether was still being thrown about around the time the cult of personality swirled around Einstein and halted progress. Now the whole physics community hints at it in a million little ways and then insists they aren't talking about aether by saying:
"Aether is [insert absurdly specific interpretation] which is why higgs field and dark matter can't be confused with aether"
Creation time: Jun 15, 2014 08:32 PM PDT
If you want to use modern accepted physics you can always go some of the tired old routes...
Modern interpretations of Quantum physics posits unlimited other universes (what we used to call "dimensions" but is actually a misnomer) and this is called the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics and just before that (like last decade popular) there was the "Copenhagen Interpretation" that intimated that the act of observation itself made reality decide what was real. You could mesh these two to have people somehow observe other worlds on occasion. (Other worlds where loved ones have not died)
People have been running that whole bit ragged though. How about something new?
Some of the interpretations of those theories are fraying at the edges. For instance there's an experiment called the "Silicon oil drop experiment" that proves that most of our magical interpretations of quantum physics are just fundamental misunderstandings. I could go on and on picking at the loose edges in modern theory...
If you're willing to do some real digging you'll find that aether theory is slowly but surely making it back into the edges of the conversation. First you have the "Cosmic Microwave Background" (CMB) that looks like a preferred frame, and then you have the Higg's field that sounds just like aehter. Combine this with the difficulties with dark matter and energy and it's staring you dead in the face. (we even recently had a headline doubting the speed of light)
People love Tesla more by the day and his entire philosophy and model of physics was based upon aether. Additionally there is the "SteamPunk" movement that is all about the aether as well.
I am the foremost authority on modern aether theory and how it intersects with modern physics and also a science fiction buff myself. I want to use fiction as a method of education so it just so happens that I have been attempting to create an open source sci-fi world and to that end am willing to freely share some ideas in return for nothing more than named credit for them.
I also happen to be very good at converting extremely difficult concepts into laymen's terms and I have quite a few videos and websites that can provide you with the information you need. If your project gets off the ground I would be willing to consult as well.
tl;dr I can provide a perfectly rational and mechanistic version of the soul based upon aether physics that will lead to the idea of ghosts/afterlife etc. The Data-based soul.
First you may want to start with at least the first two videos in this series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...
Then to get an idea of how this relates to the idea of a soul you'll want to watch this talk I gave:
If you're doing anything with ghosts you should know that the pineal gland is a light sensing organ in some animals still and everything is light at it's core so it's no overlarge leap to connect it as a way to communicate with spirit etc. (did you know the sinuses look somewhat like a transponder or directional antenna?)
And bear in mind I'm only giving you the tiniest tip of an enormous iceberg that utterly refutes modern interpretations of physics but fits with all the experimentation perfectly.
Feel free to read my recent quora blog and other recent posts. They are a bit confusing for laymen because I am well versed in three different theories and can ague well for any of them. These three competing theories are "Special Relativity" (SR), "Lorentz Ether Theory"(LET) and "Modern Aether Theory". So since I only actually believe one of them, it confuses people to hear me argue all the different perspectives. I argue for clarity and differentiation most of the time, not because I believe.
My system connects the ancient past and its beliefs and all the religions in a way that is a surprisingly seamless whole. From the akashic record and avatars to anti-gravity, I can specify in the minutest detail how it all connects. The system can fit in anything from a futuristic to steampunk world (and my favorite is a biotech world)
And if you like the conspiracy angle you can also ask the question "If they teach all the modern nuclear physics in school, how can we still have nuclear secrets?", and while I don't necessarily believe in a conspiracy to cover the truth about energy technology I can certainly construct a fun argument for one.
...and if you're not feeling quite so avant-guarde here's one of the coolest versions of the idea of afterlife I've seen recenlty. It fuses modern technology with that "Ghost in the shell" or "The Matrix" future with a slightly distorted view of modern scientific theory such that it breathes new life into overplayed concepts. (It also hints at the idea of a data based soul)
Creation time: Jul 08, 2014 12:54 AM PDT
First you need to understand what dark matter and energy are
We had a theory that predicted the rotation of celestial objects called general relativity. (GR) We later peered out to the stars and saw the rotation speeds of galaxies and they were extremely different from what GR predicted.
Instead of properly marking GR as falsified by observational evidence, we invented magical undetectable/invisible fairy dust in precisely the amount needed to make GR right again and called it... *WoooOOOOoooo*... Daaaark matter.
Then continuing to use this failed theory as a model of the universe we made other observations and "discovered" via interpretation of that data through the lens of our failed theory that the universe is not just expanding, it's accelerating. ...for no apparent reason.
To make our theory "correct" again we invented undetectable/invisible fairy sprinkle magic in just the right amount to explain this and called it.... *WoooOOOoooo* ... Daaaaark energy.
...then you can see how Aether does not really interact with these theories
Aether on the other hand was a superfluid mechanical medium for the wave of light to propagate in and it was the fluid dynamics model of Maxwell that led to our modern insights into electromagnetism.
Aether was primarily abandoned because of a combination of sociological events surrounding a rock-star-like figure which was fueled by major world events of the time. (war etc)
The secondary reason, the Michelson-Morley experiment, led to a great deal of confusion because of false expectations of the properties of the aether and improper interpretation of the results. (the experiment was not null and showed a pattern of readings only expected of the aether)
Aether theory, however, is perfectly compatible with "GR" if you strip away the theory and simply re-interpret the meaning of the experimental results which are most closely tied to GR. (IE semantics closely tie the effects of GR with the theory itself while those effects can be easily explained through totally different mechanisms which do agree with aether theory)
We must re-examine our methods of dealing with phenomena from a perspective of fluid dynamics in which case we lose all the magical woo found in modern physics and wind up with a perfectly deterministic clockwork universe.
For instance here is an excerpt from a favorite author at Cambridge:
Maxwell's fluid model of magnetism shows that a wavepacket travelling along a phase vortex in an Eulerian fluid obeys Maxwell's equations, is emitted and absorbed discretely, and can have linear or circular polarisation. What's more, the measured correlation between the polarisation of two cogenerated wavepackets is exactly the same as predicted by quantum mechanics, and observed in the Bell tests
Please do not hesitate to ask me questions about this broad topic and I highly recommend that you first understand the current theory and the exact transition point between classical and modern physics.
That razor fine point can be found on my blog here:
Creation time: May 26, 2015 05:43 PM PDT
There are numerous things that need to be addressed to answer this question.
First, you have to understand that the concept of aether from modern times is a bit blurry and ill defined because it started being deprecated after 1905.
As of 1904, if we presume that the best model of aether is the one that matches modern physics then we must take the model proposed by Lorentz and Poincare.
In modern terms this would be an inviscid fluid medium (a superfluid) in which the transmission of all light occurs. It permeates all material and is the most rigid substance in the universe, leaving matter to be something akin to bubbles in it.
It either alters the strength of the forces and bonds between atoms in motion through it or the very shape of the atoms traversing it.
It cannot be stationary like a grid, but must have currents and eddies like an ocean.
Here we have the connection to chaos. Processes like the positions of molecules in the ocean can be seen as semi-chaotic but chaos is a perception of scale and can be argued to be solely a human perception devoid of real physical meaning in reality.
Consider the surface of a perfectly smooth and white sheet of paper. When we actually zoom in near the atomic level on that same sheet, it is a lumpy chaotic multi-colored flailing mess.
Thus it is both perfectly orderly or utterly chaotic depending upon the scale one examines and if we also choose the superfluid vacuum or other quantum vacuum explanations, there is apparent chaos at the smallest levels.
What is key to understand, is that the assessment and the very idea of randomness and chaos are failures of human cognition.
We now have a concept called “deterministic chaos” to describe the fact that we know processes can become so mixed and intermingled as to look completely chaotic and be beyond our ability to calculate other than via educated guessing and use of probability.
They look chaotic and our maths cannot handle them in a perfect way without relying on probability and statistical analysis, but those processes are not actually chaotic. They have very perfect and orderly mechanics that are indeed deterministic even when we cannot probe that determinism.
This is found in the silicon “walker” experiments carried out by Yves Couder et al.
Information on the most current research done at MIT by John Bush, can be found here: Hydrodynamic quantum analogs
Secondly, information theory shows that apparent disorder is simply a “higher order” version of order.
In information theory there is a concept called shannon entropy. Basically the concept is that a uniform substance cannot store as much information as a more chaotic one.
All the electromagnetic interactions that are occurring are writing a history in the waves and subsequent interplay of all the other waves and forces nearby much like simply placing a stick in a running river alters the particle positions of most everything downstream. The history of all the bumps and curves and splashes that occur in a river are written out as the state of the river downstream. The downstream is a history of the upstream.
It is, however, so complex and interconnected with all of reality that every atom and every charge in the universe within range of the object of consideration for the period of consideration would have to be accounted for. EG: If attempting to perfectly map the deterministic interactions of a river for longer than 9 minutes, all the atoms and charges on the sun would have to be known to accurately predict the river on earth.
The historical information about everything that happened to the river exists to some extent in the eddies and flows and locations of the atoms of the river at the mouth where it flows into the ocean.
The storage of information on a DVD looks like a chaotic mess or worthless garbage but the right interpretive framework can use that apparent chaos return it to what appears to be a more orderly state.
The only question that remains is if there is some key (or set of recursive keys) for every arbitrary set of configurations which can cause it to unfurl into order of some kind.
IE: What appears to be chaos is higher dimensional order.
Furthermore, the same substrate that stores one set of information can actually hold multiple sets of information simultaneously and because of the fact that the substrate is evolving, the right “angle” of examination can reveal various diferent evolving “real” systems.
Putting this in terms of the aether: Multiple evolving versions of reality could be stacked one upon another simultaneously using the configuration of the same space.
I’ve written a paper on the topic of how the superfluid quantum vacuum could provide a substrate for information storage and how that could interact with the human brain to provide support for the possibility of a spiritual world, but it just as handily provides the idea of multiplicity of realities existing in the same space. (though personally I believe they would have to be inconceivably different from our own)
http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/...
It’s speculative but, for those interested in spirituality it is the first idea that utterly clears away any magical or non-mechanical idea of spirituality and thus provides a more scientifically plausible idea for a spiritual world than has ever been proposed before. (One that completely fits within the realm of scientific plausibility.)
Understanding Implicate and Explicate reality.
There is an explanation of reality proposed by one of the the primary contributors to pilot wave theory, David Bohm, that best explains this phenomena of an unfurling and overlapping reality.
It is best understood through the experiment below. The imagine below is never played in reverse. It is simply the fact that glycerine is an example of reversible laminar flow.
What is key to understand is that if they were to add a drop at the point of highest “mixed state” then when they reversed the mix to restore the first drops, the other would still exist in its mixed state and one could switch back and forth between one “reality” of particles (droplets) and the other simply by turning the crank from one to the other.
This view of determinism and mechanics allows us to understand that one moment ago is mixed into the current moment and still exists as part of it.
In optical phenomena this is called superposition of waves and in quantum mechanics, the same term is used to represent the state of particles which exist as waves.
In optics however, we know that this mixing is reversible and we use a process called a Fourier Transform to separate out the original components from the mixed state. (with arguably variable accuracy and perfection that is dependent upon sample resolution, but that’s a big digression)
The important thing to note is that multiple independent truths can exist in a mixed state atop one another and their interactions create various effects dependent upon the way in which they are viewed.
According to the information theory view of reality, entropy is simply a progressive mixing of reality in which ever more data is stored and more densely packed.
Therefore the perception of chaos can simply be an illusion created by the advancement and proliferation of more order of different kinds. (requiring various “keys”)
Modern scientists call this multi-dimensionality and require the use of tools like tensors, but these tools can separate us from the simpler truth of a mixed reality anyone can get their head around. Sometimes our tools and abstractions obfuscate and confuse us so badly they are self-defeating systems.
We often trade understanding for precision in science and this stands in the way of a proper path for inquiry.
Creation time: Nov 08, 2017 10:10 PM PST
Thanks for the A2A Jess, though I’m now curious about your motivation.
My answer is one that most trained people will dislike and untrained people will find highly satisfying. It’s that naughty thing now called “intuitive” that we used to just call rational.
We must first ask what is a wave and why it does what it does.
A wave is usually a phenomena in which particles which basically had equal forces between them before being disturbed, now have unequal forces between them. Each particle then moves toward the area of least resistance in response.
If a person enters an ice skating rink full of germophobes which are perfect at judging distances and they always attempt to maximize their distance from nearby people, what I described above will occur.
However, if the reaction times are the same for all the people then what you’ll observe from a top down view is an expanding ring of people adjusting their position away from the entrance point of the new person where he squeezed in and disturbed their even distribution.
The wave itself is just the bulk collection of actions. While there are different types of mechanical waves, the basic principle is the same in that it’s a seeking of equilibrium mediated by unequal forces in a collection of objects.
A wave is an action, not a thing.
Just like you can go for a run and call the word “run” a noun, it’s not a thing that can exist without a runner. We can arbitrarily quantify an action but it has no actual existence of its own without a thing taking the action. When you look out to waves in the ocean, you can count them but they are not separate from the water. They are something the water is doing.
A sound wave can occur in the air or it can occur in liquids or solids as well because it is a mechanical interaction of particles usually called a mechanical wave to differentiate it from EM waves.
So, if space does not have air to transmit waves of air particle interactions we call “sound waves” then no sound can be transmitted can it?
“Hey wait, if a wave is only an action then how can light (EM) travel in the vacuum!”
…and here is where I will part ways with my “learned” compatriots and agree with everyone in the 19th century that developed all that basis for science we use today… I’ll even agree with Einstein in saying that there must be an aether for light to be transmitted. Any other assertion is pure irrational faith-based nonsense.
"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), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." -Albert Einstein 1920, University of Leiden
It was understood by everyone prior to special relativity that space must be filled with something that mediates the transmission of light waves. Something must be waving. Throughout the 19th century greats like Maxwell described inviscid fluid mechanics and the actions of vortices in the aether in the form of Maxwell’s equations that are the basis for electromagnetism today.
All of modern physics has a basis in the developments of fluid dynamics spawned by investigations of the aether.
[1804.01846] History of the NeoClassical Interpretation of Quantum and Relativistic Physics
Even Einstein tried over and over to get across to people that there has to be an aether but people stopped listening to him while still singing his praises. It’s a strange and complex social phenomena of becoming a figurehead.
“Uhh wait, so how does light travel in both at the same time?”
In much the same way as the Hot chocolate effect in that there are transitions between the mediums being traversed. The difficulty most people have is in understanding that aether is the “real” solid while matter is the ephemeral foam at the edges of the aether.
Creation time: May 07, 2018 05:25 AM PDT
I’m very disappointed to see so many people saying the Michelson-Morley experiment falsifies aether. That’s patently false.
Let’s talk about it for a moment. First of all Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) is what special relativity is based on. Poincare and Einstein were in a race to fill in the electromagnetic portion of the kinematics Lorentz created. When it comes down to it, the beating heart of relativity is the factor of change.
The change factor is Lorentz’s description of light, as a mechanical wave, propagating in a medium in motion …but is hidden in a two way experiment like the MM.
Furthermore, the experiment itself detected a wind speed of ~10 km/sec which is roughly one-third of the expected speed. (a bunch of people’s heads just exploded with outrage) Go bring up the paper and do the calculations yourself. The data is still available…
It was not only not random noise but instead showed exactly the special pattern expected of an aether wind: A dual sine wave of readings. Obviously you need to add a simple temperature correction to the raw data so that the device ends where it began after 360 degrees but it’s right there.
Thankfully Dayton Miller already did that work for you and I added a little visual aid:
Doesn’t look very good? Well it was the first try and only 3 days of data. Dayton Miller replicated these results with much better reliability and did it tens of thousands of times over 30 years and won the Newcomb Cleveland prize for proving the aether and directly personally blocked Einstein’s nobel consideration for relativity.
Oh, you looked at the Dayton Miller wiki entry and there’s some modern refutation? Well it’s being cyber-squatted by a relativity proponent who keeps restoring a self-publish (against wiki rules) which takes a tiny subsection of data and subjects it to FFT which automatically falsely recognizes extra “signals” in the data because he neither understands the mechanism of FFT nor the fact that this is not wave data but random errors at sample points. Using less data and ignoring this crucial error type he amplifies error and then, in using the FFT he removes amplitude of the actual signal via his faulty methodology and claims that averaging massive amounts of data (the only way to reliably find small signals) is a faulty methodology. Sorry, but I refuse to place this nobody/hack’s self-publish faulty methods in a single paper above a long established scientist’s 30 years of careful consideration and life’s work and a the Nobel committee and AAAS scientists appraisal of that work.
"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
"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)
“Wait, hold on! I know Michelson said it was something like 1/40th and so you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about!!! One-third is a ridiculous and preposterous ignorant claim!”
Wrong. Michelson made his claims based upon specific biased interpretation of expectations. Michelson was flabbergasted that it wasn’t a huge effect like he expected and this threw him off. (Did I mention that Michelson, the first American Nobel prize winner continued to believe in the aether till his death and provided numerous other experiments he felt still indicated an aether?)
First of all, it’s a second order effect so there is a non-linear relationship between the reading size and the actual speed it means. Therefore he would have been looking for a reading much larger than three times a 10 km/sec speed for it to indicate the 30 km/sec wind he was looking for.
Secondly he expected the wind to be directly east-west and to change phase every 12 hours. He didn’t simply look at the data to discover the wind’s direction. Instead he presumed the direction and then looked at the reading for that direction in that initial paper. This leads to a very skewed report of the data.
“Wait wait WAIT! NO! If the Michelson isn’t null then nothing about relativity works and that means even your pet Lorentz stuff breaks too! HAH!”
Except that those experiments were performed in a air media. According to Fresnel’s coefficient of aether drag (AKA the velocity addition formula) the speed detected could be as high as 300 km/sec if it’s only an aether drag effect and that would account for the smallness of the signal. Therefore Michelson and Miller would constitute a crucial one-way speed of light test that forces us to prefer Lorentz/Poincare over Einstein. (one of many)
Then again the smallness of the signal could be as simple as numerous local currents in the aether that coincide with the magnetosphere for example. (Magneto-optic rotation would be another example of the observable motion of the medium. It was this concept of rotating aether that Tesla used in the rotating magnetic field concept)
“So is space empty or filled?”
Einstein, after many years of consideration believed preferred frame mechanics were an absolute necessity: He believed in a preferred frame that Mach proposed. That it was mediated by a sort of average of the gravitation of the universe.
He knew that space was a fabric being twisted and bent so the idea of removing aether was “unthinkable” to him. (I bet that seems weird to you since we’ve been taught for half a century that he removed it)
“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.” - Einstein at Leiden 1920
Einstein: Ether and Relativity
So when it comes down to it I haven’t even chipped enough off the top of the iceburg for you to cool my drink. There’s thousands of examples of reasons to believe that some fluid dynamical view of space is not just valuable but superior.
It’s not even really heretical to propose such things because there are so many examples of fluid like behaviors in space-time everywhere you look. Frame dragging is one of my favorite.
Quantum mechanics has space filled with fields and particles and what-have-you.
People just really hate the word aether because it makes them feel like physics was wrong all this time. Call it something else and they won’t have their feelings hurt as much.
I’m going to keep calling it aether though, because if the truth hurts your feelings in science... Well, you’re not in science, you’re in a temple or place of worship. Feelings are for dogma, not science.
[1804.01846] History of the NeoClassical Interpretation of Quantum and Relativistic Physics
Creation time: May 10, 2018 04:24 PM PDT
Maxwell wasn’t establishing the existence of aether, it was already well established.
What Maxwell was doing was describing how electromagnetism would work based upon inviscid fluid mechanics. (aether) This led to some mathematical insights which were then simplified by Oliver Heaviside to what we now know as “Maxwell’s Equations.” They are a step removed from the language Maxwell used because simplification is a process by which math becomes more compact but that same process makes it more abstracted.
It’s easier to keep your eye on the ball, with more voluminous equations but it’s more time consuming and easy to lose your place. So if you simplify things you can shortcut a bunch of steps that are equivelent to one cooler trick, but being able to understand the connections between the cool little tricks what they are doing to the “apples you are counting” (what they represent) gets lost quickly.
His “theory” wasn’t amended, it was applied.
Maxwell’s equations were used by Einstein in a particular way. He presumed that Lorentz was right about the kinematics that explain how the Michelson-Morley worked, and then wanted to apply electromagnetism in that weird environment created by Lorentz.
He did this successfully but because he wasn’t the originator of the kinematics, we can speculate that he didn’t understand what Lorentz was describing with his math nor what the causal mechanics of the effects were. He just noticed that he didn’t have to think about the aether if he just used Lorentz's math faithfully.
The fact that Lorentz’s math was a description of a perspective illusion caused by aether got lost along the way. The illusion was that certain behaviors of the aether make it look like it’s not there at all.
Einstein took math describing an illusion and used it while believing the illusion described by the math was real.
This is what happens when people thing math is real and exists “out there in the universe” instead of recognizing it’s just a language to describe events, quantities, and behaviors.
You can’t just use math without also using what the math describes. Lorentz’s kinematics describe aether impacting objects and light in a particular way that make it seem like there is no aether. You can’t just go using the math and believe the illusion it creates. That’s inane.
So no, Mawell’s theory was not amended, it was misconstrued while being applied correctly. (a very confusing situation)
Einstein followed the forms and applied the math correctly, much like a robot can create a car without understanding anything about what it is doing. You can follow rules and create something valuable without having a clue what you are doing in a larger sense.
He applied -correctly- it on top of another theory that was also correct and then made false assertions about what reality was simply because the math is workable. This created a chain reaction of separating math from what it describes.
We now grope around in highly abstracted equations with almost no understanding of what those equations really mean, we just know they fit and predict reality. We basically use superstition with useful tools to create real and valuable things without really knowing the parts in the middle.
It’s a very sticky situation.
“How can anyone use technology superstitiously?”
You do it all the time. you’ve got no clue how a remote control’s circuits work, but you feel like you do and you just go on using the device. You don’t know exactly how a microwave works but you feel like you do and you successfully use the device.
You can even watch TV and cook at the same time effortlessly and create new combinations of things with existing technology all the while you’re actually clueless about how it really works.
If society failed, you couldn’t recreate those technologies, nor are you truly extending them by using them in novel ways.
The same is somewhat true in physics and of theoretical physicists and it’s starting to show. It’s just on a much more complex and difficult level than I’ve described so it seems like all the effort required just to “switch on a TV” (solve partial differential equations) must also be understanding how it works in an even stronger way than you thinking you understand a remote control just because you know there’s an infrared light in there with some circuits and batteries.
The illusion of understanding is much stronger when we have to work much harder to use things that we only understand superstitiously.
The difference between understanding and just following memory and instructions is the “meta.”
Metaphysics are required to understand physics. Metamath is the about how where and why you apply it. There’s been about a half a century of people scoffing at “mataphysics” as though it’s something lesser, when it’s obviously the superior thought process.
A computer can do calculations, follow instructions and store and retrieve information but it is a lesser intellect. It is the meta that makes understanding and physics lost that after 1905 when people started “Ooohing and Ahhhing” over the inexplicable features of relativity instead of digging in and trying to figure out the confusion.
Creation time: Oct 21, 2018 07:51 PM PDT
The concepts of particle physics and their associated fields are starkly different from aether.
The mass is granted to massive particles via the Higgs field is something that can be seen as very “separate” from other aspects of the whole picture of physics. It’s very particular and limited in scope and mechanism. The way it grants mass via interaction with Higgs bosons is a very singular effect. Think of it as one part of many parts to an engine.
The aether on the other hand is equivalent to a unified field theory. It encompasses every possible interaction and effect in physics from electromagnetism to gravity. It is all-encompassing, all-pervasive and responsible for far more than simply mass. It’s more like the metal the engine is made out of.
So, while aether in aether theory is responsible for mass, the more comprehensive treatments such as those of the Cosserats circa 1909 describe a system underlying every aspect of reality. The major difference is in that most physicists would say that all these various “vague” mechanisms are poorly defined or not defined at all. This is not really accurate to history but the early abandonment of aether has left teaching of its details abandoned too so the understanding of it is very muddled, even to professionals who work with modern theory.
Something like the Higgs field, with its far more limited scope of effects is not only well defined, it’s also far more well known because of its relationship to particle physics.
It is important however, to understand that the very term “particle” in particle physics isn’t exactly what you might think of from a laymen’s perspective. It’s more of a mixture of behavior and existence than the commonplace word intimates.
The overly commonplace idea of the word “particle” is what contributes to this association between the two concepts.
The similarity between Higgs field and aether, however, starts and ends with being everywhere and granting mass. This is a very small similarity in the wider scope of how much is different.
If you’d like to know more about the history of aether theory and how it intersects with modern theory, (and how an aether revolution is brewing right now in the background of major institutions) check out my paper below:
History of the NeoClassical Interpretation of Quantum and Relativistic Physics
Creation time: Nov 09, 2018 10:25 PM PST
The concept of the Aether is not “Void,” it’s the opposite.
Contrary to the historically ignorant views typically espoused in modern physics circles, 19th century Luminiferous Aether is directly and unequivocally, the basis for all modern physics. So it cannot be stated simply without also having a defense of aether and a digression which demonstrates the above simple statements of fact. Both of these will be given below after this paper is provided for a basis.
Put simply:
Aether is the substance all things are made from. When a wave exists in the ocean it can only exist because there is water there. When light waves, it can only wave because aether is there.
When we think of space as nothing, it’s completely the opposite. It’s the true and real hard substance of the universe whereas when it spins up into vortices that rip holes in that substance, the voids left are what we think of as atoms and other particles. We view the universe from an inside out perspective. Like fish deep in the ocean, the apparent nothingness of the void is a crucial “something.”
The size, complexity, and configuration of the vortex filaments which Faraday called “lines of force” account for all the various particles with think of as matter (as well as energetic particles)
The most direct and oldest description is a quote from Nikola Tesla in his description of Vedic concepts of the aether where “Akasha and Prana” are simply aether and configuration/motion we call energy.
Long ago… [mankind] recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance. - Nikola Tesla, “Man’s Greatest Acheivement,” 1907
…but more importantly than these simplifications…
It was the basis for Maxwell’s equations:
"All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy" -James Clerk Maxwell
“The electromagnetic field behaves as if it were a collection of wheels, pulleys and fluids.” - James Clerk Maxwell
It was the basis of the Lorentz Transform:
"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), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." -Albert Einstein 1920
It lies at the heart of various interpretations of Quantum Mechanics:
" I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space." - Louis De Broglie
“Well, you see, I don't really know. For me it's not something where I have a solution to sell! For me it's a dilemma. I think it's a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things. But I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether - a preferred frame of reference - but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light. But then in other frames of reference when they seem to go not only faster than light but backwards in time, that is an optical illusion.” - John S Bell, on the bell inequalities The Ghost in the Atom, P.C.W. Davies and J. Brown, ch.3, p.48-9
…and it spawned all the various methods of using advanced maths to investigate physics as shown in the paper linked above.
The aether is not some magical concept but a well-established rational system of mechanics that describe space, it’s characteristics, behaviors, properties, and existence in very particular ways that are utterly compatible with modern views.
The problem is that many people in science are so good with specifics that they are very bad at translating analogies. They often just cannot grasp subjects like hydrodynamic analogs and how continuum physics could possibly be used in place of particle physics. It just seems impossible to them through a mindset of “that’s different” even though many of the greats in science directly showed it was not just possible but a preferable route. Understanding how aether still underpins modern science requires a mindset uncommon to scientists.
Differentiation is usually the strength of a scientific mindset but that strength is simultaneously a fundamental weakness for understanding broadly connected complex topics with thousands of interdependent moving parts. (They are so good with individual trees they have a hard time recognizing forests)
The only way to help them with this cognitive vulnerability and how it applies in this context, is to give them a well established way in which physics directly uses analogy: The Phonon.
A phonon is a discretized treatment of the continuous phenomena of mechanical waves. There is no real particle existing in reality corresponding to the phonon but we can still count phonons and use them in calculations that are very useful. There are no real particles moving around except those in the lattice being studied but phonons still have all the characteristic “behaviors” of quantum mechanical particles.
A phonon is an abstraction. It’s a representation of certain behaviors, transitions, and border conditions occurring in the crystalline lattice as it waves but the waves are not simultaneously made of some real particles called phonons.
They exist in the math and in our imaginations as collections of properties that are real and functional, but it’s nothing more than a misleading abstraction in any case other than very specific uses where the strange collections of actions and properties, arranged in that way, can be useful for computations of other systems being treated with that abstraction method.
This is the same as treating a corporation like an animal and saying it” attacked and took a big bite out of” another corporations profits. I’m using analogies that are useful because of the collections of behaviors you know “attacking” and “biting” refer to many other things to my listeners, including consumption and use of food for energy.
The usefulness of analogy means that sometimes we can get something completely wrong in a certain way but if the analogy holds data relationship structures that are very similar to the real picture, then it can still have limited uses.
If we are wrong that photons really exist and they are instead, like phonons, they have still been a useful analogy and retain some truth simultaneously with “falseness” in our abstraction.
If you’d like to know more about the fluid dynamical concepts of space and researchers working on these ideas, visit John Bush’s lab at MIT:
Creation time: Nov 29, 2018 11:50 PM PST
Aether theory is not only alive and well, it inundates every part of modern theoretical physics.
“The electromagnetic field behaves as if it were a collection of wheels, pullleys and fluids.” - James Clerk Maxwell
Maxwell’s equations were a description of the motions of an inviscid fluid which today we call a superfluid. Superfluid models of spacetime are a very prolific field today.
How superfluid vortex knots untie
Knot theory and topology comes from Kelvin’s development of ring vortex atoms that are a crucial part of aether theory.
String theory is closely related to JJ Thomson’s explanation of a mechanism for valence which is also related to Kelvin’s work on what are called “vortex filaments” which are something that spontaneously arise because of the motions of superfluids. I’d show pictures of Kelvin’s vortex atoms but they look the same as the more recent pictures above so I’ll just show some pictures of strings instead.
Special relativity directly descended from Fresnel’s aether drag prediction that was held up by the Fizeau experiment. Furthermore Kelvin’s work with MacCullagh’s aether eventually solved issues of elasticity in Maxwell’s equations which eventually, through Mie, led Hilbert to greatly contribute to completion of general relativity working with Einstein. (in fact General relativity can be loosely thought of as describing rotational motions of spacetime but don’t quote me on that)
The field of topology owes a great deal to the decades of hard work on hydrodynamics done by Kelvin and Tait. In 1924 on the anniversary of Kelvin’s birth Einstein called out the genesis of topology through Kelvin’s “circulation theorem.”
Further, it is hydrodynamic quantum analogs that are leading he way in showing a better model for quantum mechanics.
Unfortunately people in relativity theory are much more stuffy about analogies than those in quantum science so don’t even try to mention the many ways in which all the various new models are just hydrodynamic analogs under the covers. You might make one of them have a heart attack. (or they will want to burn you at the stake for heresy)
Let’s mention dark matter and dark energy quickly. It’s something throughout all space that we’ve never detected except by its effects and makes up 95% of reality….
(Shhh! @#$%^& Don’t say aether!!!)
"I remember quite well standing there transfixed as though stunned by the colossal import of the thing and blurted out - or so it seemed at the time: "Rutherford, this is transmutation: the thorium is disintegrating and transmuting itself into an argon gas." The words seemed to flash through me as if from some outside source. Rutherford shouted to me, in his breezy manner, "For Mike's sake Soddy, don't call it transmutation. They'll have our heads off as alchemists." - Frederick Soddy recounting the conversation with Rutherford at the time of the discovery of transmutation of elements.
History of the NeoClassical Interpretation of Quantum and Relativistic Physics(PDF)
Creation time: Sep 08, 2019 08:39 PM PDT
Question: Does anti-aether exist?
Anti-anything is just a conceptualization much like virtual particles.
What is a virtual particle then you ask? My favorite example is Phonons because they are a very workable part of physics with a lot of inventions based upon their use.
…but nobody thinks they really exist on their own.
Think about how “Electron holes” are still sometimes used as a teaching method of electrical engineering but nobody actually thinks of them as physically real in any way. Now think about the fact that gallons are also a useful measurement of water in a swimming pool but do not exist.
The thing is that virtual particles and related concepts are usually linked to some sort of transition state. It’s an abstraction of something real.
If I were to name the amount of “cold energy” (something I’ve just made up as anti-heat) required for one mole of water to transition from boiling to freezing, a “shrew”, I could add a “single shrew” for every mole of water in a container and something very exact would occur in a very reliable way because I’ve linked my a wierd little analogy and terminology to very real aspects of transition states in reality.
If I worked with “shrews” all the time and saw how effective they were I might eventually think of them as real, but they simply are not real. Not even close.
This is true of Phonons; they are useful and linked to real behaviors, but they don’t exist.
So, inasmuch as there might be a portion of space devoid of aether (the centers of particles are this in modern aether theory) there might therefore also be anti-aether but it would just be another confusion of terminology and conception.
Unfortunately most people are completely unaware that there always has been a valid aether-based interpretation of relativity and even though that veil of ignorance is slowly being lifted in the bast decade, most laymen are still in the dark about it so you’ll have to put up with snarky uninformed answers about aether for another decade or so, yet.
Be happy physics takes a long time for revolutions. We’d be bogged down in complete nonsense otherwise.
That depends on your interpretation of Relativity.
Because I find the Lorentz-Poincare hydrodynamic view to be superior, (relativistic aether) my answer would be quite different from those who use current theory to fail spectacularly.
The issue is a question of how one manipulates the vacuum and what exactly the mechanics underlying gravity actually are. It’s not simply a question of associative cause. We know the answer to that: matter. Even the idea of “bent” space can be provisionally accepted but the question is how and why does it bend space and what exactly is a bend, really?
So the basic idea of the Alcubierre drive is fine, but until those questions are answered it’s just a desire or wish, not really an idea that can currently lead to anything.
In my upcoming paper introducing all the various required aspects of a modern aether theory, I present some of the mechanics that could possibly be used to manipulate the quantum vacuum to alter gravity and extract zero point energy, because there is something below the level of “it just does” available in a hydrodynamic interpretation of gravity and what exactly Einstein’s bending might mean. (what mechanics mediate the effect)
I’ll tell you now I don’t even yet hint at how to convert ZPE into something useful because it’s like attempting to use the ambient pressure gradient deep in the ocean to do useful work. It’s not a trivial design requirement even with reasonable underlying mechanical causes to gravity available as design principles. However, I do suppose I just gave a very mild hint.
A rough fist draft was put on Academia.edu - Share research and accidentally made public, but it’s a bit of a mess if you happen to run into it before I finish it.
My point is you need a starting point to be able to design and modern INTERPRETATION does not have that.
It cannot be repeated enough that spacetime (conjoining space with time) is only opinion and interpretation NOT empirical science. Minkowksi proposed it and then suddenly died leaving his friends like Hilbert and students like Einstein (it was a tiny community back then) with the choice to honor him or publicly denounce his work.
So remember that there is no experiment EVER done that shows a preference of spacetime over Lorent-Poincare aether. It’s 100 year old fashion, fad, and popularity that gives us this idea that there’s a single choice, not science.
So when it comes to design, all that we currently have is “bottom-level” associations. (a faith-based pronouncement) We have descriptions not explanations. Matter bends space and that is gravity. It just does. Any attempt to ask why will get most scientists to attack you like a self-conscious parent getting mad at their child for asking a “why” question they can’t answer and thereby publicly revealing their ignorance.
The difference between science and superstition is the arrogant declaration that you’ve found the bottom.
These sorts of assertions without mechanical underpinning are literally a cognitive dead end. When you have “bottom level” beliefs like Spontaneous generation, there’s just nowhere to go. There’s just nothing to manipulate to be able to engineer. You can perfectly and accurately measure the worms-produced per pound of meat consumed and perhaps even invent things forward of that declaration of spontaneous generation. You could come up with complex time-to-worms produced calculations and yet never actually explain the “why” behind the generation of worms from meat.
Imagine claiming to be an old TV repair man that believed TVs just produce images or don’t. When one breaks there’s literally nothing to do because there’s nothing to manipulate. TVs just do or don’t. All you can do is pronounce it working or not because you do not believe in underlying mechanics that can be manipulated to repair it or otherwise alter its function. (you’d never open the case to look for a burnt circuit etc)
That’s physics today. Light, as a wave, just cuts through the 4D universe in this never-before-seen trick. It performs the collective action of waving without having anything to wave because it just does. It exhibits the doppler effect, just because it does. We claim the vacuum just does things like magically make particles pop in and out of existence but because we believe there’s nothing underneath, it’s a pronouncement with zero applicability to engineering. We have many such pronouncements about fields and energy that are bottom-level pronouncements of association. Simultaneously accurate and useless.
Physics is at a dead end because we abandoned the hydrodynamics perspective but the Neoclassical revolution is at hand and hydrodynamics is slaying every one of the “here there be dragons.” (Famously use by Enrico Fermi in his lectures to refer to what we now describe with a zoo of particles and silly imagination fit for any medieval map)
History of the NeoClassical Interpretation of Quantum and Relativistic Physics (PDF)
Creation time: Jan 29, 2020 01:51 AM PST
Very incisive!
While I did not study the paper in great detail, after a quick review I see he brings up a lot of the major points of the highest importance such as the east-west bias in the speed of light known via numerous experiments such as the round-the-world Sagnac experiment. He also covers important topics like stellar aberration and the CMB as a universal reference frame. (impossible under naive constancy concepts)
The Sagnac effect, the most important issue in interpretation of relativity, is utterly incompatible with the modern idea of constancy. (isotropic)
Any greater-than-cursory focus upon the Sagnac effect reveals the error of commonplace modern concepts of light speed isotropy which Einstein did not support after 1912.
There is one simple thought experiment that can easily slay the modern misconception of light speed constancy:
Since the Sagnac effect is not dependent upon radians per second (total percentage of rotation per time) but instead is dependent upon edge speed, we can easily project that if some hypothetical “ancient advanced civilization” created a round the galaxy sagnac experiment in which the light is compared inside a ship traversing the circle,
the result would be that we would observe a difference in light’s speed, based upon direction, that directly correlates with the ship’s speed with respect to the center of the galaxy even at very low speeds. We could just board the ship as it passes by and read the interference pattern to see this truth.
Additionally, the ship would appear to be traveling in a straight line (since the curvature required to go round the circle of the galaxy is minuscule locally) and the light would also appear to be coming straight in from each side of our little ship.
This is an inescapable conclusion of the behavior of the Sagnac effect and shows the absurdity of constancy (light speed isotropy) quite clearly. Unfortunately most modern people are not aware of the gargantuan difference between the appearance of light constancy in a two way experiment which allows anisotropy and real constancy in a one-way experiment which requires isotropy.
The first is an optical illusion in aether and the second breaks the universe regardless how Minkowksi tried to fix it with conjoining space with time…
Why so few people know this is because these two vastly different situations are mathematically indistinguishable according to well established consensus. (however, years ago I showed a simple method of separating the metaphysical views numerically under specific circumstances here: Relativity Demystified)
The use of a semi-local aether is really the only rational route for an aether theory in a modern context.
The gravitational correspondence of this locality aligns well with the modern understandings we have achieved through general relativity as well. As I said, the basic conclusions are absolutely inescapable when one considers the whole body of evidence.
Unfortunately, however, the author appears to be unaware of a few issues with the original Michelson-Morley experiment which makes the paper inaccurate in a few important respects.
A more thorough explanation can be found here: Shiva Meucci's answer to Have any modern experiments refuted, or at least brought doubt upon, the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment?
However, my main point of contention is that there is a local vortex of aether motion (around the earth and other gravitational bodies) that gives a northerly bias to the Michelson and Miller experiments and may be a circulation effect that is dependent upon the magnetism component of the aether’s configuration. (IE the bias might not be as detectable on gravitational bodies without strong magnetic fields)
Said in another way, the Michelson was NOT NULL, and this is a very important fact that requires a lot of explanation and understanding of the experiment’s setup. This confusion continues to be a major problem today.
Finally his paper intimates a deprecation of Lorentzian mechanics and this is NOT warranted.
From the perspective of a person working at this problem he is tackling from first principles without a great deal of historical diving, the Lorentz transform seems a mistake that comes from a misunderstanding of an experiment. Upon very close examination however, the future will reveal it to be serendipity that the Michelson was interpreted to be null when it factually was not.
The continued experimental bias created by the faux replications (covered in the answer linked above) actually helped shove us down the right path for the wrong reasons.
The extension from Fresnel’s work (Fresnel’s coefficient of ether drag empirically proven by Fizeau is now known as the velocity addition formula) would have eventually led to Lorentzian mechanics and indeed it is the basis of the work of FitzGerald and Larmor that Lorentz worked from, but without the Michelson “null” pronouncement it would likely have taken much longer to arrive at.
Unfortunately the author of this paper above is not familiar enough with classical physics to know the transition from Fresnel to Larmor and may not be aware of the other various points in modern physics that the Lorentz transform shows itself.
In the Neoclassical revolution that is currently underway at MIT and Cambridge, however, the Lorentz transform will show itself necessary in the mechanics of particle trajectories in the emergent model of particle formation that is developed from the chaotic determinism we see in the “walker” experiments.
It’s been a special joy to me to be able to watch our next steps into the future happening before wider audiences are aware of how it all fits together.
Creation time: Feb 28, 2020 11:58 PM PST