Peter Ammon writes:
<<
When people in this discussion list talk about the aether, are they using
the historical definition; i.e. a unique rest frame through which light
moves? Or do they mean something else entirely?
If they do mean the historical definition, how do they explain the fact
that no aether is observed; i.e. light always moves at the same speed no
matter how fast you move?
>>
Most modern use of the term "aether" is used to describe the substrate or
matrix underlying and pervading our 3D universe. It does not likely have the
simple properties that the earlier definition ascribed to it.
As pointed out in the other reply, prior to this one, Michelson did find a
difference in light speed, and subsequently I have read of other accounts of
this as well.
And as Jerry pointed out in a recent post, a laser ring gyro, which is
commonly used for navigation, has differing speeds of the light beams in
various relative directions, and can be used to indicate the direction change
of the vehicle in which it resides. (conventional empty space has a hard time
explaining this)
There is a phenomenon called Fresnel Drag, in which the speed of light
passing through a liquid is altered if the liquid is moving. If the light
direction is the same or opposite to the fluid flow, the fluid speed is added
to or subtracted from the light speed. (again empty space/conventional
theory cannot account for this)
The list of unexplained anomalies goes on, if you dig a little.
Even that pillar of modern EM theory, Maxwell, held that there is an aether,
and he used this assumption when formulating his famous equations. (I
understand)
And last, Einstein himself DID NOT DISMISS a substrate to the universe, or
aether and he refers to this in at least one address:
<<
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein
An address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden
HOW does it come about that alongside of the idea of ponderable matter, which
is derived by abstraction from everyday life, the physicists set the idea of
the existence of another kind of matter, the ether? The explanation is
probably to be sought in those phenomena which have given rise to the theory
of action at a distance, and in the properties of light which have led to the
undulatory theory. Let us devote a little while to the consideration of these
two subjects.
......More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of
relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of
an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it,
i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic
which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view,
the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible
by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general
theory of relativity.
......Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the
ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. 1n the equations
of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the
electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of
electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by
tliese equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The
electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at
first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic
ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this
medium.
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of
the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is nltimately to assuine 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, inust be looked
upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as
something real.
......As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the
future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical
relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities
of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know
whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical
elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only
in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially
from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic
extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the
relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from
Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there
exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the
universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded
and of finite magnitude, its inagnitude being determined by the value of that
inean density.
If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the
standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between
the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational
potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which
it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is
inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of
space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in
contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be
only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the
electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of
gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the
electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an
entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed
the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with
fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.
>>
The full text of this address is found at:
http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether_0.html
And many interesting correlations and papers are also at the location where
the above resides:
http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html
So you see, there may indeed have been a great blunder in modern physics
abandoning an "aether" or "substance" to space/vacuum/everywhere in our
universe.
But it does not have the simple properties that were originally ascribed to
it.
It is not likely particulate, and seems to act as a fluid, with similar
characteristics to fluid dynamics - indeed much of the conventionally
accepted EM theory and equations, are remarkably similar to those for fluid
dynamics. (if there is no medium, than what is the "flow direction" that is
commonly given to a magnetic field, or magnetic lines of flux; indeed is not
the word flux used to describe a flow of some kind?)
And finally, if you would like to see a very odd little theory that uses the
Aether, and is very compelling, and if true, might lead towards a simple
unified theory of everything, see my site:
http://hometown.aol.com/dmboss1021/NEWPH/Index.html
I don't pretend to have orginiated this theory, nor is it the only
explanation - but I find that study of other perspectives share much in
common - different terms are used - but the same basic concepts seem to recur
in many theories, old and new.
And using this admittedly simple mechanical model of the aether, and Primary
Energy, has allowed some prediction of observed, and new phenomenon, as well
as providing explanation for a wide variety of known phenomenon, and possible
resolution to many paradoxes left in "conventional physics" - like
wave/particle duality.
(but the properties of the aether are seriously different from ordinary
matter - it is non particulate; it has similar properties to a fluid/gas -
viscosity, density, and compressibility, at the least)
Sincerely,
DMBoss1021
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------