Talk:Luminiferous aether/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The famous

Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 contradicted the aether hypothesis, and was one of the experiments that led to the formulation of the theory of relativity

in 1905. However, physicists did not fully abandon aether until the theory of relativity was fully accepted.

In fact, the failure of physicists to prove that the aether was real led to Albert Einstein developing his theory of relativity, which is part of the basis of quantum mechanics.

The widely-taught notion that Michelson-Morley or other aether experiments led Einstein to his theory is debunked by Michael Polanyi in Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, pp. 10-11. On page 10, Polanyi writes, "[The findings of Michelson-Morley] were, on the basis of pure speculation, rationally intuited by Einstein before he had ever heard about it. To make sure of this, I addressed an enquiry to the late Professor Einstein, who confirmed the fact that 'the Michelson-Morley experiment had a negligible effect on the discovery of relativity.'" <>< tbc

Fooey. Can anybody help with this?

I dunno... it seems to me the answer is fairly clear. It had a negligible effect. In fact, to state that physicists failed to prove that the aether was real is in and of itself a matter of interpretation.69.231.217.156 07:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several sources on Einstien which support the claim of the Polanyi quote. From a physics point of view it was the failure of the MM experement that paved the way for both Loreinz invariance, and Special relitivity. Physicists, ever so slowly began to accept relivity, because the expermental design was difficult (Despite the fact, that it added several orders of magnitude to the accuracy of the calculation of the orbit of Mercury ). Physicists were so reluctant, that Einstien was nominated for his Nobel prize, based on the work with **light**, and NOT General Relativity. The best sources of refrence for this bit of history is the stories sorrounding the physicis confrences. I would say 'cleared the way' rather than 'led' because the idea's of MM proved wrong do not clearly point to special relivity, but the absence of the result which MM were looking for cleared the field for something new. MM were expermentalists, and E was a theoriest. I read that at the turn of the century, physics was getting stale, for which E brought new light. --67.174.157.126 (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article:

Fluid medium transmission [like pressure from one immersed solid to another]

One vortex ring [related to the rotating magnetic field]

What do they mean? How is "fluid medium transmission" different to sound? What is "one vortex ring"? -- Tim Starling 00:49 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Pressure and sound are not the right words. Its simply vibration of one solid, produces pressure, and influnces another solid. If the vibration is high enough you may hear it, or not in the case of ultra-sonic cleaners. --67.174.157.126 (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A vortex ring is a rotating solid, NOT orthaginal that would be affected diffrently on one side than the other. ( i.e. in a magnetic field, the a spinning compass there is a momemt of inertia being conteracted by a moment of magnetic force, which causes the compass to move toward alignment of the magnetic poles in the field ). --67.174.157.126 (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Google searching for a line from the large text that was deleted finds http://72.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AE/AETHER_OR_ETHER.htm, which appears to be that 1911 britannica that I've heard rumours of, and seen mentioned in edit comments. The article is probably out of date by now, but the æther theory is out of date, anyway, as far as I know. Only read a tiny bit, not carefully, but didn't seem like complete "BS"... Just oddly written. (Not saying it belongs in the article here, just that it might not be "BS", just outdated.) כסיף Cyp 20:18 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps "BS" was too strong, but barely coherent by modern standards; it's utterly ridiculous to include it in a new article on the topic. It uses Maxwell's 1864 terminology and notation, for goodness sakes. (I've become very wary of any addition by Reddi, since he keeps posting garbled information on topics that he admits he doesn't understand.) Steven G. Johnson

barely coherent by modern standards? Isn't this an article over the whole history ofthe aether? or is it just the modern info?

Why is it utterly ridiculous to include it in a new article on the topic? This is information ... it's content and it's relevant and it can be NPOV.

It uses Maxwell's 1864 terminology and notation? Oh my ... imagine using terminology and notation on something that it's suppose to be used on and from where it came from? or should the modern obfusication of the subject be used only?

I keeps posting /garbled/ information on topics? I admit I don't understand everything ... that's better than believing I know everything like this user does.

reddi 06:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1) Relativity is not the basis of quantum mechanics.

2) It's actually rather easy to come up with ether theories that satisify MM. The problem is that there are dozens of other experiments you also have to satisify.

Roadrunner

=> the starting principle of quantum mechanics that energy is quantized or E=hf can be derived using special relativity. Another user.

I don't understand this paragraph.

Simple aether-based physical theories are easier to understand than quantum mechanical theories. But simple aether theories fail to explain certain phenomena, requiring layers of complication which may end up reformulating much of Quantum electrodynamics but can also be intellectually stimulating.

Example phenomena: Diffraction gratings. I would reword it like this: "But simple aether theories fail to explain certain phenomena, requiring layers of complication in order to patch the expermental holes." "A clear example of this is Hydrino theory" --67.174.157.126 (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

user:Roadrunner

Please sign your entries, Roadrunner. For a start, whoever wrote this article was obviously confused over the difference between relativity and QM. I guess what the author was trying to say is that aether theory is easier to understand than relativity, and that's why so many crackpots say "Einstein was wrong, here is my much easier theory". Such crackpot aether theories are simple conceptually, whereas relativity is not. Unfortunately, crackpot theories are generally either tremendously complicated or impossible to do real calculations with, since they tend to be inelegant and arbitrary. Your version is fine, no need to change the article. (posted via edit conflict) -- Tim Starling 06:44 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is just *wrong*

The modern

standard model of physics explains how light waves can travel through vacuum without needing an aether by describing light as both a wave (the field) and a particle (called a photon) [ed. This is known as duality

].

Absolutly Nothing. --67.174.157.126 (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Roadrunner

It's related ... all of physics is a buildup in the framework of thinking ... the current belief in the non-existance of the aether made science formulate ideas such as this [and others] ...

Keep up the good work. Thanks for your help with the Reddi-watching. -- Tim Starling 06:48 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

keep watchin ... while i add content and new articles =-| reddi 07:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Reddi: we're allowed to remove stuff if it makes no sense, or if it is irrelevant or idiosyncratic. Please do not mark edits which may be contentious as "minor". -- Tim Starling 06:55 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Tim: can you please tell me how the historical context and conceptual information over the subject that it's from make no sense to the article? or how the historical context and conceptual information over the subject is irrelevant? or how the the historical context and conceptual information over the subject is idiosyncratic? reddi 06:59 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've asked you to explain what you mean by "fluid medium transmission" and "vortex rings", but you just ignored me. Copying and pasting material from the 1911 Britannica, with the occasional incorrect comparsion to quantum theory added, is not history. Primary sources need to be edited, or quoted and explained, if they are used at all. In this case, your addition does not help the reader understand the history of aether theory, so therefore it should not be included. Your additions based on your personal understanding of aether theory further detract from its value. -- Tim Starling 07:32 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have not seen you question over "fluid medium transmission" and "vortex rings" ... any omission is not ignoring you. If I have ommited answering anything related directly to the article content, I am sorry ... if it's not concerning the article, I don't really have to answer you. Now .... Fluid medium transmission is an analogy that classical reasearch tried to use as a framework to understand the aether. Vortex rings are another exampel of this.

Copying and pasting material from the 1911 Britannica is not history? It's the original soucre .... as close as ppl can get today [primarly because most of the information has been disreguarded by modern research] ... historian call that a 'primary source'.

Primary sources need to be edited, or quoted and explained. I was going to do this ... and was hoping that others would help ... but apparently ppl are edditing away from something [taking content out] instead of editing towards something [and leaving content in] .... AND primary source should always be used if possible ... something any historian will tell you.

How can the actual history not help the reader understand the history of aether theory?

[snip personal attack]

reddi 07:44 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'll get back to this discussion later. Please answer my questions on Talk:Rotating magnetic field. -- Tim Starling 08:10 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Reading the article for the first time, it kind of leaves the reader hanging -- the idea of luminiferous aether as a medium for light waves has been rejected but what was it that replaced it? Would it be correct to add something like this: "nowadays scientists believe that light propagates as photon particles, without any medium as such". 62.78.197.148 17:45, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." From "Ether and the Theory of Relativity"

- Albert Einstein

From this quote, it appears that relativity served to confirm the aether theory...

I personally agree with Tesla, that the notion that waves exist in a 'vacuum' is very flawed... I personally do not think that 'space' or 'vacuums' actually exist in the literal sense. Rather, they are regions of space occupied by what is apparently a very low concentration of resonances occuring on this 3-dimensional space-time membrane. However, along all depths and dimensions of that 'space', there exists an incredible amount of energy. To say that proponents of the aether theory are somehow 'psuedoscientists' is ludicrous. Einstein and Tesla were no psuedoscientists, in my opinion.

Khranus

The Timeline appears to be POV. If you took this list as a reasonably representative sample of experiments concerning the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, then you might believe that the question of how to describe that propagation was still wide open. But the list is highly partial: no mention of the millions of experiments which confirm the special relativity equations. (For example, every time someone does an experiment in a particle accelerator, or takes a GPS fix, that's a confirmation of special relativity.) So I think there's a need for a little more balance here, or at least an explanation about the principles used to select the events in the timeline. Gdr 13:41, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

I agree that it needs revision. I'm afraid that this article has been a magnet for fans of theories that are not widely accepted in the scientific community, and it shows. Unfortunately, it will take some work to research an accurate history of this. (The "external links" are similarly tilted.) —Steven G. Johnson 18:59, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Do not remove factual information that is verifiable. Just becasue your POV cannot accept that the information on the experimants and the timeline are what occured. Sincerel,y JDR [research an accurate history? All this is timeline is verifiable, do some checking before you remove the information DO NOT remove it because you don't uinderstand it (or are ignorant of it).]

You misunderstand me. I didn't remove it because I challenge the accuracy of any item. I removed it because, as Gdr correctly pointed out, it is not representative—there were thousands of papers that did support, both experimentally and theoretically, the theory of relativity and the absence of an ether, so to give mainly references where people expressed doubts is highly misleading. To come up with a representative timeline would be much more work, an would probably be impractical (possibly requiring hundreds of references). (Besides, it's not really clear that a timeline is useful compared to a simple narrative description.) —Steven G. Johnson 18:38, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand you.

Your removal of it is because you do not understant that accuracy exists. LOOK IT UP.

As to being "representative" ... add them in but DO NOT remove the other factual information ... it seem like vandalism to me.

List the "big ones" of papers that did support, both experimentally and theoretically, the theory of relativity and the absence of an ether ... BUT do not remove the ones that oppose this.

Where are the references where people expressed doubts to go If not here?!?! this is the article that need it ... sheesh

[snip "remove the info on the historical account"] DO not remove the history that is true.

JDR 18:51, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:14, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)) Weighing in on Stevens side. Material has to be not just true, it has to be vaguely representative of the state of the literature.

IF you loiok up ALL the information. this is what it say ... not just the information that concluded that it does not exist, but BOTH pro and con ... and this is suppose to be NPOV isn't it?

Material has to be just true ... and this is representative of the state of the literature about it. look it up.

JDR 19:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the problematic material from the article to here, for editing as necessary. —Steven G. Johnson 23:00, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Reinserted JDR 02:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

Augustin Fresnel

's Wave Theory of Light.

Siméon Poisson

's "Bright Spot", supporting the Wave Theory.

1873 - James Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.

1878 to 1880 - Maxwell suggests absolute velocity of Earth in aether may be optically detectable.

Albert Abraham Michelson

publishes first interferometer experiment.

1881 -

Hendrik Antoon Lorentz

finds Michelson's calculation have errors (i.e., doubling of the expected fringe shift error).

1882 - Michelson acknowledges his interpretation errors.

Edward Williams Morley

experiment produces the famous null results.

1887 to 1888 - Heinrich Hertz verifies the existence of electromagnetic waves.

1889 - George Francis FitzGerald proposes the Contraction Hypothesis.

1895 - Lorentz proposes independently another Contraction Hypothesis.

1905 - Miller and Morley's experiment data is published. Test of the Contraction Hypothesis has negative results. Test for aether dragging effects produces null result. Albert Einstein introduces the special theory of relativity.

1919 - Arthur Eddington's Africa eclipse expedition is conducted and appears to confirm the general theory of relativity.

1921 - Dayton Miller conducts aether drift experiments at Mount Wilson. Miller performs tests with insulated and non-magnetic interferometers and obtains positive results.

Case University

.

1924 - Miller's Mount Wilson repeats experiments and yields a positive result.

Pearson experiment

producing a null result while attempting to detect the effect of Earth's rotation on the velocity of light. Null result predicted by both relativity and aether theory.

1925 April - Meeting of the National Academy of Sciences.

Arthur Compton explains the Stokes aether drag problems.

Miller Presents his positive results of the aether drag.

1925 December - American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.

Miller proposes two theories to account for the positive result. It consists of a modified aether theory and a slight departure from the Contraction Hypothesis.

1926 - Roy J. Kennedy produces a null result. Auguste Piccard and Ernest Stahel at Mont Rigi produce a null result.

1927 - K. K. Illingworth produces a null result.

1927 - Mount Wilson conference.

Miller talks of partial entrainment

Michelson talks about aether drag and altitude differential effects

Pearson experiment

and produce a null result.

1930 - Von Georg Joos produces a null result.

1934 - Joos publishes on the Michelson-Gale Results, stating that it is improbable that aether would be entrained by translational motion and not by rotational motion.

R. S. Shankland, S. W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone, and G. Kuerti

perform a debated analysis of Miller's positive results. Shankland, who led the study, reports statistical fluctuations in the readings and systematic temperature disturbances (both allegations have been later disproven).

R. S. Shankland

Shankland admits he would not likely have given the effort to question Dayton Miller's work had it not been for Albert Einstein's "interest and encouragement." Albert Einstein was adamant that no uncertainty be allowed to exist in experiments touching Special Relativity Theory. One wonders whether the same order of exactness is applied to Special Relativity Theory.Robert S. Shankland (1972). "Experiments Touching on Relativity: The Ethereal Aether. A History of the Michelson-Morley-Miller Aether-Drift Experiments, 1880-1930". Science, New Series. 176 (4035): 652–653.

1984 - Torr and Kolen find a cyclic phase shift between two atomic clocks, but the distance between is relatively short (0.5 km) and their clocks of the less-precise rubidium type

sidereal day[1][2]

• Harold Aspden's crystalline theory of the aether -- originally appeared in the late 1950s and is relatively well thought out.
• OCR scan of the aether listing in the 1911 edition encyclopedia page 1 page 2
• Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift experiments
• Evaluation of Brane World Mach Principles
• The Hidden Ether of General Relativity
• Process Physics - this group at Flinders University believe enough data favouring Lorentz over Einstein exist to develop a new theory
• Emergent Modern Theories of the Ancient Aether -- links to pages that entertain and develop the hypothesis of the existence of the aether.

The "classical references" (several of which are incomplete) were apparently copied from the 1911 Brittanica (probably left over from previous attempts to uncritically paste in this material, see above). It's not a good idea to simply paste in references from other sources, because (a) very old references are hard to look up and harder to read...better to reference a modern textbook or review, and (b) it's not a good idea to reference sources you haven't read and you don't know what they say. I'll remove them. —Steven G. Johnson 22:56, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Reinserted JDR 02:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

THe references are a mix of old source asd new references. JDR

I've personally spoken to Harold Aspden on the phone. Does that count as 'alive enough?' The page does not have to endorse his work. I don't see simply being 'old' as a valid reason to ignore something. Newton's work is 'old' - does not mean we should stop referencing it? If you know what you are doing, most 'old' references can be dug out eventually. Most of the material on the aether is 'old,' and should be referenced as a matter of historical interest. The luminiferous aether is a historical term, and it seems to me far too many bored Physics undergraduates, and trying to turn the page into a modern reach topic, which is not what it is about. This is history folks. Stop trying to turn a history page, into a Ph.D proposal. Timharwoodx 16:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused by this paragraph:

As of 2004, Jean-Louis Naudin and Patrick Cornille carried out experiments which, properly controlled, obtained positive results. Confirmation by having the experiments repeated by an third-party independent group have not proceeded.

Who? What experiment? What results? When? -- Tarquin 19:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look up the

Looking over the histories, I see this started out as an attempt to write about the luminiferous aether, and the historical claims made. This is kinda logical, because that is the title of the page. But since then, the 'rational' folks have arrived, and the page has become a jutification of Einstein's work and modern physics in general. While I'm sure thats very interesting, why does the luminiferous aether page, have to be a justification for relativity? Why can't it just cover the historical claims made. I'm not going to bother editing anything, because it will just get switched back. But its absurd that writers on the subject of the aether such as Harold Aspden have been deleted, while Eintein who apparently does not accept the aether, is given space. Surely the aether page should have aether writers, and the relativity page relativity writers. Or am I being too simplistic? Timharwoodx 16:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This page used to explain what people believed (and in some cases still believe) to be true about the aether. It is disturbing to see how it has gradually minimised all reference to those who have tried to produce modern theories of the aether. In particular the removal of any reference to Aspden, one of the longest standing and credible modern proponents of an aether theory, is unacceptable. It is as if we had an article on Bank Robberies which stated that they used to happen and that they were a bad thing, listing all the moral reasons for that conclusion, but neglected to mention that they still happen although they are less common than they were, and only named historical bank robbers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)) The page was suffering from an attack of Reddi, who was an exponent of all that is wacky. This made things heated. I would suggest that, if you want more history to the page, you try adding it in. A quick note though: I can't see what HA has to do with the historical claims (anyone who writes In it you will discover some of the truths of physical science that have eluded mention in standard textbooks on physics. I believe there are two intermeshing worlds, both having three space dimensions, the material world that we can see and the unseen ghost-like underworld that we can sense by phenomena which the orthodox physicist cannot explain, notably gravitation sets my alarm bells ringing). I also don't understand why you felt the need to put "rational" in quotes.

There is no doubt that pseudo-scientists love the aether in much the same way that they love the four humours, quintessence, etc. and it is a good thing that you have been fighting them off. It's just that it's important to be sure that you're not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are a few people who approach it from a scientific angle. HA's scientific qualifications are pretty good. He's a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical Engineers. His reasons for thinking that the aether has a physical existence are basically scientific too. The original reason being an obscure electrical effect in transformer cores which he claims, can easily be explained assuming the existence of an aether but cannot be explained otherwise. The fact that his theory gives experimentally testable predictions also separates it from the average half-baked nonsense. I think that his choice of words in the quoted passage can be excused on the grounds that this is a popular exposition of his theory. After all the unseen ghost-like underworld could be as much a description of the quantum microworld as it might be of the aetheric microworld. Writers of popular works on quantum mechanics have used very similar metaphors. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

HA has been writing since the 1950s on the aether. To me the 1950s would qualify as 'history.' Its hardly Harold's problem he has lived long and healthy, whereas most of his peers are now dead. And yes, I have spoken to him on the phone. I think we just have to accept the 'aether' has been erased from history. It was once the prevailing view of the cosmos, but it is now a 'heresy' to be eradicated from the minds of students - at all costs. Some folks like me might observe physics has stalled somewhat since Einstein supposedly explained how stuff works, but the lack of progress in so many areas, never seems to dent the confidence that space only has meaning in the presence of physical matter. Its a pity the Wiki can't find a page to explain the history of the aether. This was supposed to be it - but now its just an exposition of Einstein physics. I think the trouble is there are just too many bored physics undergraduates around, any attempt to write a meaningful history of the aether, will ALWAYS get taken over and turned into a justification of Einstein. The only content that is acceptable on ‘aether’ pages, is work from people who argue the aether dopes not exist. If you say the Aether exists, you automatically disqualify yourself from ‘rational’ discussion of the topic. This is one of the few areas where Wiki falls down as an encyclopaedia. Additional comment: actually, I think the trouble thay all have with HA, is that there is no easy way to debunk his work. Only easily debunkable aether theories are allowed on the page. Timharwoodx 22:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually the origins of aether go back (at least) to

Realize that Newton's concept of the aether is somewhat different from Huygens', as described in the article. He saw it as a medium for a kind of "heat vibration" distinct from light — even in the Opticks he maintained that light per se did not require a medium, and he argued that a material filling the interplanetary void was hard to reconcile with planetary motion. That said, I'd be interested to learn of earlier contributions on the subject. —Steven G. Johnson 20:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Cartesian notions of aether are easy to trace back from the references in the Principia article in Wiki. It would be interesting to know more about older notions. It seems that one of the medieval names for the Aristotelean fifth element was aether, but I've not been able to pin down a reliable reference, nor find more on this. Can one trace it back to Islamic sciences? What conceptual role did the aether play in pre-modern physics? --Bambaiah 09:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please keep the article focused on the luminiferous aether — that is, on concepts of a medium related to propagation of light, and not just on general concepts of a material filling the vacuum (which might be the subject of another article). —Steven G. Johnson 14:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

For example

Quintessence (alchemy)., both of which are a bit esoterical. Aether (classical element) has some general historical info that I didn't have a better place to put. Art Carlson

16:27, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

Thank you for the cautionary remark, but I had it in mind already. Thanks for the references to the alchemy section. I rephrase the question. Descartes came to aether through alchemy but modified the concept to fit his theory of mechanics. Newton came to aether through Descartes (and presumably also through alchemy, which interested him) and modified it further to suit his needs which included both gravity and light. Is there any material that anyone knows of about pre-Cartesian modifications of the aether to solve what we would call today problems in physics (although the physics may no longer be relevant today). --Bambaiah 10:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've done some minor editing. Mostly making things more specific, "relativity"->"special relativity", "the aether theory"->"dragged aether theory", that sort of thing. I took the liberty of snipping the "explanation" about what null result means, I felt that the author's example about blue and orange light wasn't necessary, was confusing, and was possibly wrong. It confused me, anyway!

I also changed the last paragraph in the history section, and added a further short paragraph on Einstein describing GR as an aether theory. I'm not so happy with this paragraph, perhaps someone else might like to rewrite it. I toned down the repeated references to the aether theory being disproven, finally disproven, etc., if SR is at least roughly equivalent to LET, and GR can be counted as aether theory, then these seem a little overstated.

I'm not sure what do do about the part about Kennedy-Thorndike disproving LET. If it disproves LET, shouldn't we expect it to also disprove SR? Or are we saying that LET has to apply to gravitational and accelerational situations without help, but SR when SR fails in these situations, that's okay? Einstein's 1905 "electrodynamics" paper did say that equatorial clocks should tick slower than those at the poles (apparently they don't), if we are prepared to be generous to SR in this way, and distinguish between "core predictions" and extensions (which are allowed to fail without invalidating the theory) perhaps we should be similarly generous to other competing theories. Hmmm. ErkDemon 06:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have the KT paper and it phrases SRT as Lorentz did, not as Einstein did! I corrected that part consequently. Maybe if I find time I'll rewrite the K-T article (it was me who put the warning there and rewrote as primer a not-so-smooth first paragraph), but to do it well requires time...

-> Note also that the last claim about Lorentz for a dense gas is likely wrong, apparently he already predicted *no effect* in case of time dilation in 1899. Does anyone have that paper? I'll try to get it. Harald88 20:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a troublesome paragraph in the "continuing adherents" section, which seems to imply that people who still like aether theory do so because they have something wrong with them that makes them incapable of appreciating SR. While that might be right in some cases, it's unnecessarily inflammatory, one might as well argue that people who continue to be "SR adherents" have some mental shortcoming that stops them appreciating Einstein's later explanations of why special relativity's definitions and concepts are unsatisfactory. I don't really know what to do with this paragraph, I can't work out how to edit it without completely changing the tone, and deleting it would probably upset the author. Ideas? ErkDemon 06:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about upsetting the author. The article did originally mention at least one (now fairly elderly) scientist who still supports the aether for scientific reasons. All mention of him has now been removed, presumably in order to ensure that the "all aether supporters are crackpots" tone prevails. The author who did this was not worried about upsetting people so I see no reason why you should be. If you change the tone while editing the paragraph, I would suggest that the result would very likely be an improvement over the distinctly partisan tone which currently prevails. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree; and on top of that, I have in mind to add a few references to peer reviewed articles by highly estimed authors in quality journals that argued scientifically in favour of Lorentz' POV against that of Einstein - just to show that this subject is often misrepresented. Harald88 20:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

PS About "The need for a single universal frame disappeared -- and aether along with it.": that is contested and even apparently disproved by one of those papers, and that disproof has not been invalidated. IOW, it's a contested POV. Maybe that claim needs to be softened accordingly, as being another POV. Harald88 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it turns out that a number of highly capable physicists disagreed then and later, including Einstein. It's therefore misinformation, so I corrected that. And I now notice that someone reverted it to the erroneous statement (violating both the accuracy rule and the NPOV rule), so I revert it back. Harald88 11:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

(continuation of above discussion) From the recent revert action on my correction, it appears that a paragraph about defense of the ether and even the need for ether according to a number of famous as well as high quality physicists (and philosophers maybe) is indicated to have a place in the article. I encourage to insert a paragrah on the perceived advantages / necessity of an ether concept according to for example Lorentz, Einstein, Ives and Builder, with references. I'm willing to help with that, and hI ave articles about that of all except Ives in electronic form available (I can scan one or two by Ives, if requested). Cheers, Harald88 12:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (don't comment here, the discussion is continued below)

One item I've never seen mentioned as pointing to the "necessity" of ether is the implied charges and fluxes necessary to propagate the oscillating E fields of an electromagnetic wave. As currently understood, the electric fields of a wave in vacuum exist in the absence of charged matter to create and sustain them. Am I missing something, or was the concept of a chargeless electric field a revolution in such thinking? - [email protected] 8/15/05

Hello, an anon has now twice inserted the following to the article:

Foamy Ether – A Theory Of Everything - A revolutionary new theory that proposes the entire universe is made of foamy ether (2005).

I believe that the theory mentioned is not notable. The phrase "foamy ether" receives only 28 google hits [3], no google scholar hits [4]. To the author: please understand that wikipedia simply cannot be a collection of links. I suggest that you submit your theory to a reputable physics journal, and if its accepted then it may warrant discussion here. But for the time being, it is not notable enough to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As a literal string (eg., quoted), it's 28 ... but unquoted it's 25,000. (Try not to cherry pick the result you like.)

'Foamy aether' is 2,300 (non-quoted); 'Foamy aether' literal string is 1.

In google scholar (god scholar?) ... foamy aether gets better results (... older spelling for the more knowledgeable).

I'm not the one that put that in ... just thought that I would chime in. Sincerely, JDR 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (PS., just to inform you "reputable journals" have ignored valid papers ... Hannes Alfven had some noteworthy experiences concerning the "academic publishing" world. AND, content in wikipedia does not need to be accepted by "academia" to get accepted (it's a bonus ... but not a condition).)

JDR - thanks for looking into this. I certainly wasn't trying to rig the results, I'm sorry it appears this way. I also checked for "foamy aether" on both google [5] and google scholar [6] (quoted) before posting and found 1 and 0 results respectively. Since the name of the theory is "foamy ether" I would expect any website that references it to include the name as a literal string. Those other results may just be accidental (I haven't looked and may well be wrong).

With respect to your comments about academic journals, I agree wholeheartedly. Just last week I had a "valid" paper rejected.  :) But, wikipedia is not a judge of valid papers, it is a judge of notability. I'm game to accept something that isn't published in an academic journal, but I see no other claims to notability for this theory either. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The point is that there are many other aether theories around, some, such as Harold Aspden's, for over 50 years. Since we don't have any direct links to any of them, we shouldn't have a link to this one either. If we are going to link to a modern aether theory we should link to the one with the most widespread support. And this theory isn't it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As the following is obviously not NPOV and even suggests nonsense, I deleted the tendentious phrase: "Many non-scientists consider relativity to be "disturbing". There have been continued efforts to re-introduce a consistent aether theory in order to be able to abandon relativity." (See also comments above). Harald88 20:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Harald88 and I seem to be having a minor revert war over:

The need for a single universal frame seemed to disappear -- and aether along with it

(thats his version) whereas I would prefer disappeared. I prefer my version (no!) but others are invited to comment. seemed to disappear appears to suggest that it didn't really - but I don't know why that should be viewed as scientifically valid. William M. Connolley 20:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC).

Oops - you did not look higher up on the page, the discussion is there already plus a suggestion to make a paragraph about the different POV's of physicists... Should I copy it again here, or rearrange?

Anyway, "seems" means, according to my dictionary, that it's open if it's so or not (thus POV), while "disappeared" means, IMO, that Wikipedia claims that this was truly so or that there is full concensus about that POV. ALternative words to "seemed" would be "appeared" or "this suggested", and I'm OK with any of these - and it's hardly important now that you convinced me of the necessity to include a clarifying paragraph on the historical disagreements about these points in the physics community. Harald88 20:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed, "disappeared" is consistent with the dominant paradigm - ie, SR. Thats the line wiki should be using. "seemed" suggests non-existent doubt, which is POV in itself. William M. Connolley 20:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC).

Doubt may be non-existent in religion, but should always exist in science. Otherwise it's faith -- not science. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it is now clear that you still did not read all that is written above by others and by with comments by me, otherwise you'd not have replied with a factually wrong claim. I'll thus reinsert part of it here below. Apart of that, SR is supposed not to be philosophy but a theory of physics, and Wikipedia is not about imposing dominance, but about informing on verifiable opinions in order to guarantee a NPOV. It is verifiable and the subject of a future paragraph that the dominant opinion was and remains disputed by top rank physicists starting with Lorentz, Poincare and later even Einstein:

[the below paragraphs and subject item reinserted here for William M. Connolley]:

Agree; and on top of that, I have in mind to add a few references to peer reviewed articles by highly estimed authors in quality journals that argued scientifically in favour of Lorentz' POV against that of Einstein - just to show that this subject is often misrepresented. Harald88 20:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC) PS About "The need for a single universal frame disappeared -- and aether along with it.": that is contested and even apparently disproved by one of those papers, and that disproof has not been invalidated. IOW, it's a contested POV. Maybe that claim needs to be softened accordingly, as being another POV. Harald88 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it turns out that a number of highly capable physicists disagreed then and later, including Einstein. It's therefore misinformation, so I corrected that. And I now notice that someone reverted it to the erroneous statement (violating both the accuracy rule and the NPOV rule), so I revert it back. Harald88 11:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

In any case Special Relativity is not the dominant paradigm and hasn't been for at least 70 years. It is too limited in its scope to take that position. The dominant paradigms at the moment are General Relativity at the large scale and Quantum Mechanics at the small scale, both of which contain some form of aether substitute. For GR think of the source of the Cosmological Constant factor. For QM think of the quantum vacuum. The need for a single universal frame may have disappeared but that is rather a different thing from the need for an aether which keeps on creeping back under different names. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the POV of Einstein, incl. the physical control of "space" on light speed (causing Huygens light bending around the sun). Apart of that, the POV of a small but significant minority (Lorentz, Ives, Builder and nowadays still a number of physicists) that is worth mentioning is that SRT implies the existence of an underlying universal frame -- as published over the years in a significant number of papers in high quality peer reviewed journals. I think that needs to be mentioned in this article about aether concepts. Harald88 00:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't believe a word of it guv. SR implies an underlyin frame sounds like gumpf to me. All you've done is threatened refs but not provided them. William M. Connolley 09:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC).

What's guv? As your indicate that your reply is motivated a by lack of information, I'll provide a few refs later today if I have the time. No threat intended nor any non-Wikipeadian claim of "truth", instead you may regard it as a promise - of several of such papers I actually have copies.

Meanwhile, anyone here please tell me if you consider any of the above physicists or the following journals as below standard, and if so, please motify: JOSA, Aus.J.Ph., Science. Harald88 12:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

ok, see below.

(continuation of above discussion) From the recent revert action on my correction, it appears that a paragraph about defense of the ether and even the need for ether according to a number of famous as well as high quality physicists (and philosophers maybe) is indicated to have a place in the article. I encourage to insert a paragrah on the perceived advantages / necessity of an ether concept according to for example Lorentz, Einstein, Ives and Builder, with references. I'm willing to help with that, and I have articles about that of all except Ives in electronic form available (I can scan one or two by Ives, if requested). Cheers, Harald88 12:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

See the continued discussion just above: there can be no doubt anymore that such a summary will be instructive to quite a number of scientists. Harald88 12:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

OK here's a first draft outline, to be worked out; we can use this as notepad, improving it until it'good enough to copy to the article page - contributions of others are welcome of course:

- Lorentz POV, we may all know it but we can cite it. Sometime around 1911, in "The Principle of Relativity for uniform translations (1910-1912)", Lectures on Theoretical Physics Vol.III, 1931 (authorised translation of the Dutch version of 1922):

"Of course, the description of natural phenomena and the testing of what the theory of relativity has to say about them can be carried out independently of what one thinks of the aether and the time. From a physical point of view these questions can be left on one side, and especially the question of the true time can be handed over to the theory of knowledge. The modern physicists, as Einstein and Minkowski, speak no longer about aether at all [footnote: See, however, Einstein's address "Aether und Relativitaetstheorie", Univ. Leiden, 1920"]. This, however, is a question of taste and words. For, whether there is an aether or not, electromagnetic fields certainly exist, and so also does the energy of the electrical oscillations. If we do not like the name of "aether", we must use another word as a peg to hang all these things upon. It is not certain whether "space" can be extended so as to take care not only of the geometrical properties but also of the electric ones. One cannot deny to the bearer of these properties a certain substantiality, and if so, then one may, in all modesty, call true time the time measured by clocks which are fixed in this medium, and consider simultaneity as a primary concept." Harald88 12:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

- Einstein's POV after developing GRT and after the above arguments of Lorentz:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." From "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" Harald88 07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

From "Ideas and Opinions"

> [...]"Today his discovery maybe expressed as follows: physical space and > the ether are only different terms for the same thing; fields are > physical states of space. For if no particular state of motion can be > ascribed to the ether, there does not seem to be any ground for > introducing it as an entity of a special sort alongside of space. But > the physicists were still far removed form such a way of thinking; space > was still, for them, a rigid, homogenous something, incapable of > changing or assuming various states." > [...]"But it must now be remembered that there is and infinite number of > spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other. The concept of > space as something existing objectively and independent of things > belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence > of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This > latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having > played a considerable role even in scientific thought." Harald88 07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

- Of course Sagnac should be mentioned, in view of the importance of his experiment. "The Luminiferous Ether Demonstrated by the Effect of the Relative Motion of the Ether in an Interferometer in Uniform Rotation"(in French), G. Sagnac, E. Bouty, Comptes Rendus (Paris) 157 (1913): 708-710:

"The result of the measurements demonstrates that, in the ambient space, light is propagated with a velocity V0, independent of the movement as a whole of the luminous source O and the optical system. That is a property of space which experimentally characterizes the luminiferous ether."

- Maybe cite Dirac's POV in Nature 168 (1951), p.906 "Is there an ether?": We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an ether.

- H. Ives in Science Vol.91 (1940), p.65,"The measurement of velocity with atomic clocks" [interesting, I had not yet read this one!]: I have considered the popular claim that the ether has been "abolished," [...] Reverting to experimental findings I have reviewed the experiment of Sagnac, having in mind the claim that the ether can not be detected experimentally. I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect the ether

- G. Builder, "Ether and Relativity", Australian Journal of Physics 11 (1958), p.279:

The observable effects of absolute accelerations and of absolute velocites must be described to iteraction of bodies and phyiscal systems with some absolute inertial system. [...]Interaction of bodies and physical systems with the universe cannot be described in terms of Mach's hypothesis, since this is untenable. There is therefore no alternative to the ether hypothesis. [...] It is shown that the hypothesis provides a satisfactory and sufficient causal explanation of the predicted relative retardation of clocks, and attention is drawn to its striking pedagogical and heuristic advantages." Harald88 23:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

- Also: C. Sherwin, "Some recent Experimental Tests of the "Clock Paradox", Physical Review 120 no.1 (1960), p.17-21:

"One is led therefore to the conclusion that clocks having a velocity in an inertial frame are literally slowed down by the speed itself. It is this very deduction which makes the generally accepted prediction regarding the "clock paradox"u nacceptable to Dingle, but which has led both Ives and Builder to consider interpretations of special relativity in which an ether plays an important role, at least from the philosophical point of view." Harald88 12:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I think that this suffices, but it's too much to cite all. Next time I'll try to make a condensed version of the above that I'll add to the article. Harald88 12:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that "ether" is preferable: most scientific journal articles (even of more than one century ago) that I have about it spell it as "ether" and not "aether", and a Google search seems to favour ether as well (eliminating the chemical one). Aether is even not in my pocket dictionary(of 1977), but ether (the non-chemical one) is mentioned. Harald88 19:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

We chose chose the "Aether" spelling in order to differentiate between physical

Ether (chemistry) are not so easy to use as links. -- Derek Ross | Talk

21:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That's OK for the title - but does it make a difference to use consistently the more standard "ether" for the text, instead of the archaic spelling? ANd does "luminiferous ether" really cause confusion with chemical ether, are you sure? Harald88 23:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Luminiferous ether wouldn't cause confusion but it doesn't make for a very good link either. It's too long and too easily misspelt by comparison with the status quo. Also ether always makes me think of the chemical even when it's inappropriate to do so. Lastly I don't see why you think the aether spelling is archaic. It may well be less common but there are plenty of people who still use it (including myself). So best leave things as they are. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. Aether makes me more think of mythology than the scientific concept here under discussion. Luminiferous Aether sounds like double distinguishing, and I think that the title Luminiferous Ether would not cause confusion. At least the title should correspond to a commonly used spelling - can you provide some references to peer reviewed articles where instead "luminiferous aether" is used? Thanks in advance! Harald88 07:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure why I need to. After all it's pretty hard to find any modern peer-reviewed articles on aether (however spelled) in "prestigious" journals. And I take it you want modern references rather than nineteenth century ones. However I know that whenever an article in Nature mentions aether, as some do, the "aether" spelling is used. So I would suggest you look there first. Of course if you're happy to accept nineteenth or early twentieth century articles, there is a wealth that use the "aether" spelling. Again Nature and the Philosophical Magazine both provide an abundance of examples. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a number of peer reviewed articles that mention it (although indeed few are modern), and most spell it "ether", both 19th and 20th century articles. OK I now checked and the two in Nature that I have do spell it as you state, although for example one in Science spells it as ether. So you do have a point. Apart of that, I have the impression that for disambiguation it doen't matter at all - is here any expert on this technical Wikipedia matter present, who could we ask? Harald88 12:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Both Nature and Philosophical Magazine are British publications, and "æther" (or "aether") is how the British spell ether. Unless we're gonna start calling this "encylopedia" (and I use the quotes advisedly) Wikipædia, we should stick with American spellings. Webbbbbbber (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an aetherometry.com American website. Apparently "aether" is how Americans spell it too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you been to that website? It redirects to something called "Anti-Wikipedia 2", and consists of nothing but polemics against Wikipedia; nothing about ether at all, no matter how you spell it. On the other hand, Scientic American refers to "the ether" in this article: [7], which is probably a more reliable source than the website you cite. In addition, you may wish to have a look at this article by Albert Einstein: www.alberteinstein.info/PDFs/CP7Doc38_pp305-309_321.pdf Webbbbbbber (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, highly entertaining anti-Wikipedia rant. He really doesn't like us. But that's beside the point. I refer to him only to show that some Americans use the "aether" spelling. And while most probably use the "ether" spelling, that wasn't in dispute, was it? Not sure how you missed the aether theory stuff though. There's reams of it on that website. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an Englishman, I also see "aether" as looking somewhat archaic, and modern fringe theorists I have seen referring to it from England have used "ether" (like Ronald Pearson). Also adding on the term "luminiferous" seems to make it sound even more quaint and Victorian and I am not sure how commonly used it was/is. I don't see why the fact it is a homograph of a chemical should be such a difficulty for Wikipedia. Orlando098 (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a conspicuous gap of several decades, between ca. 1960 and perhaps ca. 1990 in which there apparently were very few known aether adherents such as Harold Aspden (shouldn't he be mentioned?). I think an analysis is at its place in this article, if only as a side note. Was the "dip" real, or caused by the physics establishment's publishing policies? Or a bit of both? Is there a reliable publication about it? Harald88 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To avoid reinsertion ofthe date error: "The document is the printed version of Albert Einstein's inaugural lecture held on 27 October 1920 as Extraordinary Professor at the University of Leyden. The manuscript was completed before 7 April 1920. Published 1920 by Julius Springer (Berlin)." Harald88 10:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) PS I found the source back: www.alberteinstein.info/PDFs/CP7Doc38_pp305-309_321.pdf Harald88 10:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The edits made to the introduction on January 21 2006 were semantical, not relating to facts. If there is anything that is either factual or historically incorrect then let's discuss these. However, the only intent here is to put a more neutral, objective tone in the very same content.

I thought your changes were at best fiddling for no gain, and at worst, worse. Take [8]. Why is "immersed in" needed? You've just made it longer for no gain. But you're right about "term"; after all, the thing itself hasn't changed. I also objected to Later theories including special relativity assumes that such an aether is unnecessary because SR doesn't so much assume the aether is unnecessary as ignore it. However the existing wording wasn't much better so I've tried to fix that.

It's getting worse as half of the journal articles that are referred to here argue that SRT does imply a stationary ether (Lorentz, Ives, Builder, Sherwin, and I see that a reference to Langevin's is lacking) and as even Einstein claimed that some kind of an ether is necessary. Thus: partial revert to neutral phrasing! Harald88 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, is substance the right word? IMO it would be appropriate if it is also an appropriate word to describe for example things like plasma's and neutrino's, but I never heard that term used for such items. (Compare also Dictionary.com) Harald88 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 71.131.243.124, that's better. Harald88 13:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"This would fit with predictions by Lorentz whose theory for light predict equivalent results to those of the special theory of relativity only in a vacuum."

-> That statement is contradicted by the facts that not only Lorentz taught SRT, but according to"A note on relativity before Einstein", Lorentz discussed already in 1899 that according to his electron theory a null result would be found in case of time dilation by the later established amount. Harald88 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I now have Lorentz's paper and indeed his theory already predicted in 1899 Lorentz invariance in a gas filled interferometer in case of time dilation. Harald88 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following text from the "intro" area of the document. They are interesting in their own right, but fail to mention the context, and I believe they would be confusing to the average reader. The context is that the ether (no a in any of these mentions, which suggests a single author for all of it) discussed below is in now ways like the aether in the article – critically the assumption that light needs a medium is not assumed by later authors. Instead the idea of there being a locally measurable "rest frame", in the form of the tensor, is being compared to that of the aether. Consider the Einstein quote for instance, who's grammar clearly suggests he is talking about something different than "classical" aether.

Regardless, they should not be included in the intro section. They might be useful at the end of the article, however, which is why I post them here. Frankly though, I'm not sure a selection of confusing quotes really helps here. Maury 21:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that later ideas are better discussed in the last section, the article "flow" has now improved. But what do you find confusing about them? There never was a single "the aether" theory or concept; even Newton rejected the aether model of his day but came up with another one; and Lorentz's aether concept was close to Newton's absolute space. The article would certainly benefit from a short discussion of different aether models. Harald88 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that nothing has been done to process the information here, so that for example the reference to Dirac is without comment in the main text. In view of the below comments about quantum vacuum and inline citations I'll do an attempt to reinclude the below citations in a more appropriate way. Harald88 19:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Harald. You have done a great deal to beat this article in shape and keep it that way. It may seem like a thankless task sometimes but I for one appreciate your efforts. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In his lectures of around 1911, Lorentz explained his continued use of his aether concept by pointing out that what "the theory of relativity has to say", "can be carried out independently of what one thinks of the aether and the time". He reminded his audience of the fact that "whether there is an aether or not, electromagnetic fields certainly exist, and so also does the energy of the electrical oscillations" so that, "if we do not like the name of "aether", we must use another word as a peg to hang all these things upon." He concluded that "One cannot deny to the bearer of these properties a certain substantiality, and if so, then one may, in all modesty, call true time the time measured by clocks which are fixed in this medium, and consider simultaneity as a primary concept."

Paul Langevin argued in 1911 that absolute effects from velocity change or acceleration (such as radiation) demonstrate the existence of an aether, and as additional illustration he mentioned the absolute effect of velocity change on time dilation with his twins example. This example would later lead to the twin paradox.

Fixaller 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am basically of the same opinion as yourself. However to be fair I would point out that the opposing opinion is that since the aether has not been experimentally detected and since current theory works well enough by assigning all the attributes that you mentioned to space itself instead of to a substance existing separately from space, we might as well cut out the middleman, aether and deal directly with space itself whether we call it the vacuum, or just plain space. It's a reasonable way of looking at things in the absence of some way of separating the aether from space itself. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That argument is besides the point as "ether" is roughly synonym with physical "space" and "pure vacuum". Mathematical "Space" is first of all nothingness, but that is not what physicists mean with it. Newton apparently invented the word "space" to distinguish it from other ether concepts of that time. Harald88 07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Members of the

I now started with inline citations; some references still have to be transfered from the reference section to the corresponding footnotes. Harald88 17:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Agnes, I saw your comment on the Talk page and I think that inline citations is a good idea as it enables readers to see both a full reference list at the bottom of the article as well as which references were used for which statements.

I have two questions:

- First of all, a section was put on the Talk page because it was too much a collection of quotes. Thus I intend to reinsert it with some quotes in the main article, and others in footnotes. And somehow the references should be included too. Can you give me a link to the "How to" of the right formatting?

- Secondly, for verifiability one should sometimes link to a verifiable source without necessarily wanting to include that fact verification in the list of presumably reliable sources for the subject. For example we could include in the Holocaust article a link to a statement that according to Holocaust deniers people's hair was cut for health reasons, but we would not want to include a reference to such an unreliable and in some places unlawful publication in the Holocaust references section. In my sandbox I thus ended up with (on another subject), Such criticisms and research activities have also been coined "anti-relativity"^[1][9]

Obviously that will work, with both purely inline verifiers as well as references to notable published articles, but it looks ugly. Your advice (or of someone else of your crowd) would be helpful. Harald88 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference is for quotes to be styled in accordance to

Hi Agne, thanks for the effort. Indeed I intend to select a few quotations for direct citation, and the rest in footnotes. About the second issue: the point of

WP:V is that a source must be reliable for the intended use. Thus a claim of Holocaust deniers about their denial is generally reliable for a claim in an article about the existence of such deniers, but could be deemed to be inappropriate as reference at the bottom of an article about the Holocaust - as a reader I would expect to exclusively see reliable references concerning the main subject matter there. Thus I'm afraid you missed the point. I now see two possibilities: either use my ugly formatting example, or split references up into specific footnotes and general references. I would prefer the last, but I don't know if that's possible with the auto numbering... Harald88

22:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

According to EMS, not all aether concepts of physics belong under the descriptor of this article. If someone can show that the article's title actually does not cover the scope of this article, it should be changed to for example Aether (physics). Harald88 06:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Luminferous aether is an appropriate title for this article. If you wish to bring in Einstein's 1920 aether concept (which was inspired by the luminferous aether), you will need at the least to quote somewhat less and elaborate more. As-is, it acts as an endorsement of the luminferous aether (especially with the bolded "there exists an aether"), and that is totally inappropriate and misleading. For that reason, I feel that this article is much better off without that quote. --EMS | Talk 13:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read and understood his full discourse, and it's my intention to slightly reduce the length of the quote while paraphrasing more of the substance of his discourse - which obviously increases the risk that either ether-lovers or ether-haters could claim that it doesn't do justice of their personal interpretation of what he meant. Apart of that, I agree that it's unappropriate to put a part in bold. Einstein's 1920 ether concept is undeniably both notable and of interest for this article, and it has been part of this article for a long time. You're of course very welcome to add a verified precision. Harald88 18:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I will look at what you come up with. You have a point that this is of interest to readers of the article, but I repeat that it needs appropriate presentation if it is to be included. In any case, I am happy to work out a reasonable compromise with you on this so that we can focus on keeping the anti-relativists from making inappropriate changes. --EMS | Talk 18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to make a few improvements this weekend, but note that this article is edited by many editors. Also, your last remark sounds non-neutral to me. Trying to make articles more fair in their reporting implies to be consistently strict against inappropriate changes by any faction - just as we do in the Bell's spaceship paradox article. Harald88 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To just voice my preference: The luminiferous aether (in the narrower sense, if you insist) is topic of huge importance in the history of science. This notion has a beginning and an end. The use of of the word aether for something untouchable and allpresent is much older and will always spring up a fresh, when people draw analogies. But it is a different topic and I'd prefer an article focussed on luminiferous aether, i.e. on the attempt to use a mechanical model as a heuristic to reason about about light. --Pjacobi 08:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter, I'm not sure that the idea of something untouchable&omnipresent and mechanical models to refine such concepts are entirely different topics, and "mechanical" may be ambiguous as well.

Still, I think that your proposal is a good idea.

As this article includes the "mechanical" luminiferous aether of the 19th century, it may be useful and less confusing to split it up in one article about aether concepts in physics and another one that specifically discusses that 19th century model (or were there not three models? - in a separate article there will be more space for such details). The main article could be called "Aether (physics)" and keep the current descriptor; the historical aether article could be called "Luminiferous Aether" with a descriptor that explains that it limits itself to the mechanical 19th century aether models. What do people think? Harald88 20:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been more than one scientific model of the aether over the years -- even of the luminiferous aether. I would be quite happy to see separate articles on some of them. However I can foresee arguments over which can be considered notable or scientific enough and even of which can even be considered as aether theories. For instance the Dirac sea which is arguably an aether theory. At the moment I'd rather we stuck to one aether article although it may be a good idea to retitle it to expand its scope. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for coming too late. The consensus seems to move this article to Aether (Physics) but do not split it.Biophys (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Moroder and 24.7.125.29 (presumably the same) added unreferenced claims of negative opinion (see

Harald - I agree that Moroder's edits were POV and inapprorpriate. However, I do not see Unnikrishnan's viewpoint as being either relevant or notable. At the least, you need to find more prople who think the CMB is either the aether or identifies the aether frame before such a claim can be included here. Otherwise, Unnikrishnan comprises a "significantly limited minority" such that

WP:V. --EMS | Talk

20:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

EMS, you are of course quite right to demand that it must be shown to be a notable point of view for the topic at hand. However, that idea is rather common among aether proponents.

Thus it will be no problem to "find more people" who think so. If I stumble on one or two more then I will add them together with Unnikrishnan -- and I expect you to do the same.

Thanks, Harald88 13:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

harry, please don't. Unnikrishnan's "paper" is not only in error, it is antiscientific. What do you need to get it? Moroder 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Moroder - In this case, I am willing to cut Harald some slack. You need to consider the fact that any continuing adherence to luminiferous aether theory is by anti-relativists, and it is therefore easy to dismiss all such articles as "antiscientific". This is not to say that I will look at Unnikrishnan's article with anything other than a jaundiced eye. However, if Harald can show that the idea of the CMB frame being the aether frame is indeed common anongst extant supporters of luminferous aetehr theory and that Unnikrishnan has made a significant contribution to this viewpoint, then I will support the reintroduction of a reference to Unnikrishnan's article. Personally, I doubt that Harald can show that Unnikrishnan's article has made any such contribution, but it would be inappropriate to exclude Unnikrishnan's article solely becuase we don't like it. --EMS | Talk 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I also changed my mind, this is a real border case: I don't insist on including his paper in this context, as you could be right that his paper will not have much impact. I verified today that sofar his paper has not been cited by anyone else (that was a good suggestion by Pjacobi). If that changes and there is some indication of impact, then it may become interesting again to consider citing him.

Regards, Harald88 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, Cahill happens to be one of those CMBR frame proponents, so that we can simply add that precision to his example. Indeed no need to add more. Harald88 20:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The paper has nothing to do with LUMINIFEROUS aether (my underlying). It is simply a gratuitous hack to promote Unnikrishnan well known antirelativistic stance. The reference to CMBR as a "universal reference frame" at the end of his paper is hacked in , has nothing to do with the rest of the paper. "harry" has swalowed it line,hook and sinker because it conforms with his hopes of refuting Einstein's relativity in favor of Lorentz's. I asked "harry" if he read the Unnikrishnan paper and, if he did, if he understood the errors in it. He never answered. Here are a few of them (the grossest ones):

1. Unnikrishnan starts with a less known didactical paper on the GR explanation of the accelerated twins paradox. His initial declared intent is to show that Einstein's proof is incorrect.
2. He proceeds with a disproof that does NOT use any GR (Unnikrishnan clearly doesn't understand SR, let alone GR). His equations (2) (3) make an attempt to use accelerated motion in SR (nothing to do with GR) and are plain wrong, for example he uses the Newtonian formula for uniformly accelerated speed (v=a*t) instead of the correct one I showed as a hint earlier in the thread.
3. In addition, the author uses the incorrect formula for computing the time elapsed for the travelling twin. Any grad student knows that this is d_tau=Integral(sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)*dt. Unnikrishan does NOT know that so he uses junk and gets GIGO.
4. As a result of his errors at points 2-3 above he ends up with : wrong explanation of the accelerated twins paradox in SR, nothing to do with the original Einstein paper
5. Unnikrishnan "forgets" the initial purpose of the paper (prove Einstein's didactical paper wrong) and then makes an illogical leap by affirming that his incorrect proof "shows" that CMBR can be used as a "universal reference frame", a model of non-sequitur.
6. That is, a thought experiment that has nothing to do with CMBR proves that CMBR is the "universal reference frame" and that one could calculate "absolute velocities" wrt it. Duh

Moroder 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall this article being quite damning of the aether and looking rather down on any aetherial concepts. Why have we softened up? What happened to references to spin foam, etc? -- wrote someone from IP address 128.252.173.101 without bothering to sign it with ~~~~

Who asked this? Why does he/she request for "looking down" on a concept (certainly against

WP:NPOV

)?

Apart of that, I don't know about references to "spin foam". Are they published in respected sources? This may be the problem, see above. Harald88 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to praise or to damn the aether. The only thing that it should be doing is reporting what other sources have to say about it, both for and against. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not about "for" and "against". It is about the evolution of ideas, and documenting same. Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. Of course. Thanks for restating my comment. It's good to know that we agree. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it exist a source tu support the statement

The large majority of scientists disagreed with such views

???

I think w hardly will find it... maybe it's time to delete the statement?--Pokipsy76 07:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the vast majority of publication about optic don't use aether, do they? Everyone seaks about speed of light in vacuum, not aether. Barraki 11:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But the views of the notable physicists (includimg Lorenz, Einstein, Dirac) that have been presented before that phrase are more sophisticated than just "there is aether and not vacuum".--Pokipsy76 16:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the current models in physic have not used these views. Barraki 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You are still misinterpreting. Those views are not necessarily intended to "change the models" but rather to assert a philosophical interpretations about them. As an example consider the quote from Einstein. Einstein surely didn't want to assert that General Relativity (a current model) is false, he just explained his phylosophical view about it.--Pokipsy76 07:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, in this case, I think we can remove the sentence. Few physicist today go as further in philosophical interpretations as Einstein did. Barraki 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following phrase which I suspect to be erroneous:

"Lorentz was not very happy with this suggestion, although it did neatly solve the problem and it was a first step towards relativity theory."

To the contrary, Lorentz later regretted that he had not stressed that the hypothesis was not "ad-hoc".

Harald88 12:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the second sentence here: "Any new theory of aether must be consistent with all of the experiments testing phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, relativistic quantum mechanics, and so on. As outlined earlier, these conditions are often contradictory, making such a task inherently difficult." What are the conditions and where were they outlined? -

How are all so sure that a theory can be proved! The only way is to do the opposite; prove that it is wrong! Nobody has it done for the aether theory.(Michelson an Moorly showed only that there no speed difference between earth and aether). Also it doesn't matter weather aether is necessary for light emission. It does not say anything about the existence. Simply an experiment which prove that the aether does not exist could smash the theory. Related literature is written by Karl Popper et. al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.54.8 (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent approach to Luminiferous Aether concept is based on idea of inertial environment composed of scale invariant particles (so called unparticles), which are of infinite high matter and energy density. Such idea comes from Oliver Lodge and his Electric Theory of Matter from 1904. The AWT is currently subject of private research.

The AWT concept is consistent with idea, the Universe is formed by interior of black hole and it's surprisingly effective in explanation of nature of strings, protosimplex and spin foam, considered by string, Heim's and LQG theories, which can be considered as a density fluctuations of Aether. The vacuum foam is considered as a scaled down version of dark matter structure. Because in such environment most of energy spreads in transversal waves, it's consistent with Lorentz invariance approach of relativity theory. Because the foam gets more dense under vibrations, the mass density of foam is proportional to energy density, from this the quantization of energy density follows.

By such way, the AWT appears to be conceptually capable to reconcile most existing physical theories together with unparticle, constructal and process physics.

I have delisted this article because it fails criteria 1b (insufficient lead) and 2. There are only a few in-line citations, but most of them are just notes. The article needs to incorporate references from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29

What does he mean by this? AThousandYoung (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article contained a list of experiments with "Successful" results. However, all of those experiments (by Miller, Marinov, etc..) were never repeated and are not accepted by the scientific community, Also the link to Smoot et al. has nothing to do with the luminiferous aether, as explained by Smoot himself. So I deleted that section. --D.H (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since these experiments have not been repeated or are not accepted, it would be better to add that rather significant information to the list. People will come across these experiments outside Wikipedia and perhaps try to find out more about them here. It would be more useful for us to have information on the true status of these experiments than to just ignore them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reinserted what D.H deleted. There are a lot of scientists with university educations who believe in the aether. There is nothing wrong with providing a list of experiments which claim and I underline claim successful results so that they can check them out and decide for themselves and not have D.H decide for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.8.28 (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

D.H no one appreciates you going through and changing everything to suit your beliefs. I have restored the part about Dayton Miller's experiment to. Fringe science it may be but the experiments still took place and the people still claimed positive results.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore has to use notable secondary sources. A section by its own would give

undue weight to those results. However, I at least included a link to a discussion to some experiments at the end of the Experiments-section. See also Physics FAQ: Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR. However, this is the only source.... --D.H (talk

) 09:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What about including the Dayton Miller experiments? These were well known at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.8.28 (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose a merge with the Aether article. Faro0485 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea. That article is a disambiguator for other aethers such as the metaphysical aether, whereas this one covers just the scientific aether. The word "aether", is used for several disparate topics with little in common. Merging would merely confuse them. It would about as sensible as merging this article with Ether. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The disabiguation splits aether in three parts. One regarding the ancient history of the concept of aether classical element, the second the theory proposed by Descartes in his Principia Philosophiae which was written to replace Aristotlian theories. There's a clear link between the greek classical element, to the luminiferous theory which Newton rebuttaled Descartes version of aether. Surely these aether topics are related? Of course I'm not refering to the chemical ether. Faro0485 (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, they're related. So is the chemical ether. That doesn't mean to say that there should be one article. After all there's a clear link between the atomic theory of Democritus and the atomic theory of Dalton. That doesn't mean that one article should cover both. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss something, did I overlook Lorentz and Larmor in this article? -- It features to great lenghts why the aether is impossible. However, all those seem to go away when particles don't move through the aether but they are aether vortices. For a start take a planet rotating a sun and consider that the rotation works by exchanging gravitons at c. If you move the arrangement, they will fly at speeds varying from c+v to c-v thereby distorting the circle to a (Doppler) ellipsis. This is a simple model for relativistic dilation effects and it should work with any force that uses lightlike exchange waves. I heard Larmor predicted that in 1904 and mentioned that an atom bound by electric forces would have to experience time dilation. (I'd like to read that up but his papers are in extremly inconvenient formats on the web.) - Modern physics is ART, where the "spacetime" is not just a set of coordinates but a physical entity, but you must not call it aether; and QFT vacuum, where you have fluctuations and virtual particles of .. nothing, but you must not call it aether. --88.74.178.249 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add something about Lorentz and Larmor, feel free. Just make sure that the material is historical and well referenced, since there are editors who will remove any material that they deem contradictory to mainstream theory, citing insufficient referencing or original research as their motivation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've included a section on Lorentz, Larmor, and Poincaré in Luminiferous aether#Lorentz ether theory. --D.H (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This pea brain is confused. How is aether any different than strings, branes, et. al.?? Haven't we come full circle? Or is it just that I need a better understanding of the two concepts? AMPbd (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The article appears to argue (incorrectly) that relativity theory excludes aether: Quote: "Later theories including special relativity were formulated without the concept of aether.".

However Dr. Einstein (author of special and later general relativity theories) in 1920 clearly stated "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" [1]

[1] Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden. http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

Jtankers (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the recently proposed

You could look on it that way. Mind you the entire quantum mechanical vacuum (including Higgs bosons if they exist) can be regarded as a modern form of aether, as Dirac pointed out in 1951. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I questions DH's edit saying that "so most historians of science argue that he failed to invent special relativity." First, there is a whole article on the relativity priority dispute, and there is no need to get into the dispute here. Second, the first reference is to Darrigol, and he does not say that. Third, the statement does not add anything useful, even if it were true. It is better to just say that Poincare and the others said about the aether, and not try to explain their alleged failures on related subjects. Roger (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Elementary particle theory postulates the existence of particles which act as carriers of forces. The tubes of force associated with fluxes have been replaced by amplitudes, path integrals and matrices. Empty space has physical properties. We speak of a vacuum energy. So we could say that the ether still exists but has grown in complexity. --Jbergquist (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Einstein used light to define the frames of reference for Special Relativity. It was assumed that observers could exchange signals and synchonize their clocks. Using the same value for the speed of light in all reference frames defined the unit of length. The Doppler Effect could determine relative velocities.

General Relativity showed that the path of light rays could be affected by gravitation. Recent experiments indicate "frame dragging" is an observable effect. So we may have not yet heard the last word on the ether. --Jbergquist (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several common phrases -- e.g. "into the ether" implying "into nothingness" -- and an early science fiction work; see the article on Ralph_124C41+ -- Craig Goodrich 206.39.12.245 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't virtual particles count? They fill space, they transmit forces, they even exert force on their own via the Casimir effect. Is it just a matter of semantics or is there a definable difference? Wnt (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just the same thing under a different name. Roger (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Einstein,

To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the

system, at least formally, as something real,

Newton objectivises space

. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real.

Newton might no less well have called his absolute space “Ether”; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real [10]

Hence, Einstein regards the ether as a privileged entity from which accelerations, but not velocities should be counted, and which remains undetectable only as long as everything moves by inertia. I am not sure where this belongs. He obviously does not tell about the "Luminiferous" aether, but rather about

This statement in the intro is not very clear. Can someone not improve on it?Orlando098 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)