Why the attachment to the aether?

[Marakai]

Hello all,

I've been trying to google for this, but so many links will lead to crackpot sites with no concept of modern web design. They make my head hurt with their garrish colours. Never mind the coo-coo factor.

At any rate, lurking in sections like ATM, I'm struck with the recurrence of people trying to "bring back the aether".

My question: why?

Is there a special reason why so many of the fringe/ATM theories include an aether? Why the attachment to its existence?

What would be different if the aether existed that would make the laws of physics more... "palatable" for want of a better word?

Pointers (to mainstream sites, please) welcome.

Thanks
Mike

[Jens]

I think the very simple answer is that it is known that particles act like waves, and it is logical to presume that a medium is needed for the waves to propagate in. That's why it was commonly believe that the aether existed, and why it was such a surprise when it discovered not to exist. And for the same reason, people will generally assume it does exist until they are given reason to believe otherwise.

[Marakai]

I could understand if that were the reaction, if it were just a matter of a matter of being unintuitive (as if anything at the scales of the universe or the atomic nucleus wouldn't be outside of human perception anyway ).

But there near religious fervor displayed befuddles me. It seems as if some ATM constructs are put together just to produce a counter-theory to the "aether-less universe".

Just curious and was wondering if there's some form of in-depth explanation.

[Cobra1597]

There's also a perception of "there is stuff everywhere, I can feel it." However many times I cut an apple with my own hands and a regular knife, I generally still end up with apple (or apple juice, I suppose). I think the idea that we are mostly empty space, that what we experience as "solid" has more to do with electric field interactions than actual "stuff touching," is hard for many to wrap their heads around.

[Tensor]

There's also the "don't like Einstein" group. Pick your reason, antisemitism, thinking he stole relativity(whether it was special or general), his misogyny, his pacifism, etc. Then there's the group that thinks relativity is just a bunch of algebra and they can come up with something better, not realizing that special relativity has been recast into four-vectors by Minkowski (and why don't any of these people get mad at Minkowski for inventing spacetime? It wasn't Einstein, after all. Or, those who just don't understand relativity and think if they could just get rid of it, they could go back to warm, wonderful comforting classical physics, not realizing that relativity has been integrated into Quantum Field Theory for 85 years and all those computers they use to rant against Einstein and relativity wouldn't work, without relativity. Oh, and they don't understand that relativity means Lorentz Invariance, that throws them off, they think you're confusing Lorentz with Einstein. Jeeeeezzzzz.

[Van Rijn]

Yes, Tensor is saying pretty much what I was thinking. There are people I think of as "Absolutists" - these are folks that cannot seem to (or simply refuse to) understand basic relativity concepts and very often don't like Einstein for whatever reason. They consider aether an alternative, so support it.

[Strange]

That's why it was commonly believe that the aether existed, and why it was such a surprise when it discovered not to exist.

But that was, like, a century ago! We have all grown up with these ideas (and quantum physics) so I don't really know why they are not second nature to people. I know when I first read about relativity, my first reaction was, "wow! that's amazing". I guess some people just think, "no, that can't be right".

There seem to be an awful lot of people who fail to grasp one bit of the basic explanation of (special) relativity and leap to the conclusion that they have therefore spotted the "obvious" flaw that everyone else has missed. Some proportion of these will learn when better/alternative explanations are provided. Others seem so wedded to their mistake that nothing will change their mind. They then latch on to the aether as the obvious alternative (even though it doesn't work).

It is not clear if they started out with a natural aversion to the idea and so "found" a mistake to justify it or, having shown their brilliance by finding a mistake, just don't want to let it go.

I have, rather annoyingly perhaps, taken to asking aether proponents why they don't also support phlogiston or similar archaic theories. Although, on another forum there was someone arguing that the "four elements" were much better explanation of physics than modern theories. It may have been an elaborate hoax; surely no one can seriously believe such a thing ...

[Perikles]

Although, on another forum there was someone arguing that the "four elements" were much better explanation of physics than modern theories. ...

Now that is just stupid. Aristotle's introduction of a fifth element αἰθήρ aether (med. L. quinta essentia) makes far more sense. But seriously, this element had (has?) the mysterious property of being above and beyond the Earth, and breathed by the gods. Hardly surprizing that it has retained its popularity.

[WayneFrancis]

To many people want an answer they can relate to easier but ignore that said answers don't match observation.
There is also a group of people that love conspiracies and like to believe anything that goes against the mainstream explanation even when they contradict each other. I know one such person. Moon landing, Twin towers, big bang, GR, SR, big brother...I avoid talking about anything like that with him.

[Cougar]

I'm struck with the recurrence of people trying to "bring back the aether". My question: why?

Well, one answer is that there apparently IS an aether. But this is not your grandfather's aether. Nevertheless, we are told that ~70% of the mass/energy of the universe is dark energy, which is a scalar field permeating all of space. This sounds kind of aether-ish. Then we have independent Nobel prize winners like Frank Wilczek¹ and Robert B. Laughlin² who, as I understand it, view the universe we live in sort of like a superconductor, out of which mass and energy condense. And of course, there's the background Higgs field hypothesized to be everywhere so as to give mass to things with mass. But as I said, these are not the old aether, which was the luminiferous aether -- hypothesized so that light could propagate through it. These new "aethers" are invoked for different reasons.


__________________
¹ The Lightness of Being, Mass, ether, and the unification of forces [2008]
² A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down [2005]

[George]

Einstein did not kill the aether but stated it was superfluous. The powerful experiments that demonstrated there is no apparent aether wind contributed much to the demise of the aether itself.

The Hubble Flow, however, intrigues me and suggests there may be a better view of all this, but such a view should not undermine SR or GR.

[peteshimmon]

Well there is sound that does need a medium.
When the sound source moves towards you there
is a doppler shift. When you move towards the
sound source at the same speed there is a
slightly different doppler shift. Weird!!

Light is more logical, same doppler whether
you or the source is moving.

Photons move presumably with the oscillating
electric and magnetic fields described by
Maxwell. Then there is Zero Point Energy.
What the dickens is that! And the Cosmic
Background Radiation which is a nice place
to stand.

In other words I do not understand much
either

[Marakai]

I think Tensor's breathless explanation was the best. Though it's somewhat worrisome if there were still people who had a problem with relativity due to antisemitism. Didn't the Nazis call it "twisted Jewish science" or some such?

Otherwise I'm with Strange, the reality is cool enough. I dimly remember doing the math for the Lorentz transformation on my own as a teenager. Well, with some textbook and physics teacher help, but still it was a huge "oh wow" effect for me. I felt brilliant as Albert!

[Copernicus]

Some of us just think fields are good models, but something has to carry the field. We don't have a gripe with Einstein at all or Jewish people. We just believe that it is a mechanical universe we can't detect except through its affects. We think relativity has to do with the mechanics of light travel. And we believe there is a reason everything is quantized, except time.

[WayneFrancis]

why does something "carry the field"? What carries the thing that carries the field?

One thing for readers to remember is that our models are just that ... models that help describe something we observe and more importantly make accurate predictions. The universe doesn't care about our models and how we think of things. If you want to think of something that you can't detect then more power to you but I can't detect invisible pink winged unicorns except by their effect of making things orbit other things. Is my idea scientific? Completely mechanical because they use their invisible ropes to pull things around so no nasty "action at a distance" and I'll say that they are in complete agreement with all known observations. Problem is that my theory doesn't make any new testable predictions that the current theories don't.

[George]

Now that I'm reading Isaacson's lengthy Einstein book, I see that "superfluous" -- the word Einstein used in 1916 that is in accord with Mach's view -- does not describe his early 20's view when he wrote:

"To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualites whatever... The conception of the ether has again aquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical wave theroy of lght..."

He reversed his view that inertia was a result of interacting with the rest of the mass in the universe (Mach's Principle), and argues that the ether is responsible for the effects of inertia. But his view does not allow the ether to be a medium required for light propgation.

[Tensor]

But his view does not allow the ether to be a medium required for light propgation.

Which is precisely what the aether proponents require. So although Copernicus states "We think relativity has to do with the mechanics of light travel." Relativity has no use for and, indeed, does not need a propagation mechanism. Even Maxwell's waves didn't require one. Aether proponents continually misrepresent Einstein's early '20s statements about an aether as proof that he somehow recanted his earlier statements about relativity not needing an aether. His statements concerning an aether, after completing and publishing General Relativity, are all tied into the fact that empty space has non-mechanical properties, such as permitivity, permeability, and can be warped. But no mechanical properties for light travel. Another big difference between the aether Einstein described and classical aether is that most of the properties of classical aether, can't be measured.

[George]

Relativity has no use for and, indeed, does not need a propagation mechanism.

That is a better way to state it, and I can see that there is some confusion about this because of how Einstein's statments, at least the few found in this book, regarding light propagation are not clear with the distinctions. The biggest thing that struck me was a statement Max Born made in his Relativity book regarding the amount of tensile strength that would be necessary for space to have to allow lightspeed propagation. This shows the absurdity in imagining how space could have such an exotic property.

It would be nice if we could make "aether" the old stuff and "ether" the stuff of GR. I assume this is not the case.

[Copernicus]

why does something "carry the field"? What carries the thing that carries the field?

One thing for readers to remember is that our models are just that ... models that help describe something we observe and more importantly make accurate predictions. The universe doesn't care about our models and how we think of things. If you want to think of something that you can't detect then more power to you but I can't detect invisible pink winged unicorns except by their effect of making things orbit other things. Is my idea scientific? Completely mechanical because they use their invisible ropes to pull things around so no nasty "action at a distance" and I'll say that they are in complete agreement with all known observations. Problem is that my theory doesn't make any new testable predictions that the current theories don't.

I'm just saying, general relativity is a good model, that makes awesome predictions, but no one knows what makes it work. It just makes sense that space is superfluid with some type of aether that makes it very difficult to detect. There are many theories that are looking for graniness in space. Apparently the graininess is very tiny, smaller than the Planck length for sure, otherwise we would have seen its affects already. Some people are looking at string theory, call it what you want, but it and Higgs particles, quantum foam, are modified aether theories

[Tensor]

The biggest thing that struck me was a statement Max Born made in his Relativity book regarding the amount of tensile strength that would be necessary for space to have to allow lightspeed propagation. This shows the absurdity in imagining how space could have such an exotic property.

Yeah, then on the flip side of the that, in addition to having such an absurd tensile strength, it has to be vacuous enough to not impede material objects such as planets, satellites, asteroids, comets, gas, dust, etc. That is some amazing stuff and the mechanical light movement people never seem to get around to explaining how those two properties can exist together, never mind how to measure them.

[Tensor]

I'm just saying, general relativity is a good model, that makes awesome predictions, but no one knows what makes it work.

No one knows what makes Quantum Field Theory(QFT) work either, do you object to that also? Why is it that those aether theory proponents object to relativity because no one knows what makes it work, but not QFT yet no one knows what makes it work? Yeah, and what about that point where QFT works without an aether?

It just makes sense that space is superfluid with some type of aether that makes it very difficult to detect.

And this sentence makes sense, how? A superfluid has properties that are measurable and detectable. Some type of aether? (what type? is there more than one? what are the differences? why would it make it more difficult to detect? ). Lots of words, not so much on the matching of observations. And you're complaining about not knowing about how General Relativity works?

Some people are looking at string theory, call it what you want, but it and Higgs particles, quantum foam, are modified aether theories

None of those that you mentioned require MECHANICAL properties that the aether theories of classical physics require. You can say they are modified aether theories all you want, until you show how they have mechanical properties as the aether of classical theories, it's just your assertion.

[Nereid]

I too have been struck by the, at times, intensity of dislike of relativity and the apparent obsession with (desperately?) trying to find an aether.

There's nothing particularly strange, I feel, about this; what makes it strange is - as Tensor has noted - that QFT (or QM or ...) does not have a similar level of dislike (etc) ... even though it's far, far more radical a break with 'the physics of old'.

To add to what's already been written, relativity (well, SR) is relatively (ha!) easily grasped, you can - or think you can - develop an intuitive understanding of it. You can't do with this with QFT. Yet relativity feels wrong, it seems to defy 'common sense', at a level you can grok without math. And you have a deep urge to understand, for the universe to work according to common sense. So relativity is deeply frustrating, almost a challenge to your personal sense of worth (not to mention intelligence). So it MUST BE WRONG!

QFT does not present this kind of challenge because it's impossible to intuit; just as computers and the internet do wonderful things, reliably and persistently, in ways and according to rules you have no interest in ever learning (or even knowing about), so QFT just works (a bit like magic).

(that SR is built in to QED, and so is essential for an understanding of how your PC works - as Tensor has also already pointed out - can be ignored: it's either a falsehood or something an aether-based alternative will deal with, when it's fully developed).

Which is precisely what the aether proponents require. So although Copernicus states "We think relativity has to do with the mechanics of light travel." Relativity has no use for and, indeed, does not need a propagation mechanism. Even Maxwell's waves didn't require one. Aether proponents continually misrepresent Einstein's early '20s statements about an aether as proof that he somehow recanted his earlier statements about relativity not needing an aether. His statements concerning an aether, after completing and publishing General Relativity, are all tied into the fact that empty space has non-mechanical properties, such as permitivity, permeability, and can be warped. But no mechanical properties for light travel. Another big difference between the aether Einstein described and classical aether is that most of the properties of classical aether, can't be measured.

(bold added)

This is a particularly puzzling aspect of the 'all you need is aether' approach, especially as many of those so intent of bringing back the aether have no quarrel with Maxwell (et al.). Myself I've sometimes used it as a test of the level of understanding of the topic and/or the extent to which deep inconsistencies are accepted.

[Marakai]

I too have been struck by the, at times, intensity of dislike of relativity and the apparent obsession with (desperately?) trying to find an aether.

There's nothing particularly strange, I feel, about this; what makes it strange is - as Tensor has noted - that QFT (or QM or ...) does not have a similar level of dislike (etc) ... even though it's far, far more radical a break with 'the physics of old'.

What makes this mildly amusing is that I had been know to exclaim, mostly after yet another bout of exasperation when discussing with creationists, "What is it about the theory of evolution? Nobody has a problem with the theory of relativity!"

Then I started lurking on BAUT, especially on ATM and was flabbergasted just how wrong I was: on the contrary, there are people as adamantly, even viciously, opposed to relativity as creationists are to evolution.

How naive I was!

[Jens]

To add to what's already been written, relativity (well, SR) is relatively (ha!) easily grasped, you can - or think you can - develop an intuitive understanding of it. You can't do with this with QFT. Yet relativity feels wrong, it seems to defy 'common sense', at a level you can grok without math. And you have a deep urge to understand, for the universe to work according to common sense.

I really think that's a lot of it, and I don't think that Einstein's ethnic background really has anything to do with it, with perhaps a few exceptions (not to mention the fact that it was really Michelson and Morley who demonstrated it, one being Jewish and the other Anglo-Saxon). Also, there may be people who are against Einstein just because they want to be the new genius who made the new theory, or something like that.

But I think that probably for most people, what Nereid write above is the key. Certainly for me it is. Although I recognize what observations seem to say, the honest truth is that I've never been happy with "spooky action at a distance," and find it uncomfortable to believe that waves could possibly be propagated without a medium to carry them. And I recognize, this is just a personal position based on what I feel to be commonsense, and is apparently wrong. But that doesn't mean I find it easy to overcome that presumption.

[George]

Yeah, then on the flip side of the that, in addition to having such an absurd tensile strength, it has to be vacuous enough to not impede material objects such as planets, satellites, asteroids, comets, gas, dust, etc.

Right, having essentially a zero viscosity for non-accelerating objects is the space we all recognize, but to also have elastic properties necessary to propogate anything at fantastic speeds is simply imposible to imagine.

As for how Maxwell fits into the argument, my little reading of his work leads me to think that he never had considered the problem of how lightspeed could be seen in different inertial frames. Perhaps a longer life for him would have produced such debate. Einstein did, however, consider this issue since it fit beautifully with his invariance view that was consistent with Galileo's -- where physics works the same in any inertial frame. Einstein, of course, took this further when he shook-off absolute time (and space).

[George]

What makes this mildly amusing is that I had been know to exclaim, mostly after yet another bout of exasperation when discussing with creationists, "What is it about the theory of evolution? Nobody has a problem with the theory of relativity!"

Then I started lurking on BAUT, especially on ATM and was flabbergasted just how wrong I was: on the contrary, there are people as adamantly, even viciously, opposed to relativity as creationists are to evolution.

How naive I was!

Evolution is much greater in conflict toward YEC than relativity. Relativity does not directly oppose a 6k year universe, evolution does so with brovado. I don't think, however, that Ken Ham has any dvd's arguing against relativity, or am I wrong? And there problem is no museum, yet, to demonstrate Newton's superiority over Einstein.

[Tensor]

Evolution is much greater in conflict toward YEC than relativity. Relativity does not directly oppose a 6k year universe, evolution does so with brovado. I don't think, however, that Ken Ham has any dvd's arguing against relativity, or am I wrong? And there problem is no museum, yet, to demonstrate Newton's superiority over Einstein.

No, there is no museum. But there are quite a few websites I can point you to that demonstrate the gyrations the YECs will go through to try to explain some things that relativity causes problems with. For instance, several sites grasp at any kind of report of a changing c to explain the 6000 year old universe. Their contention is that the speed of light was much faster in the past, which allows the appearance of a ~14 billion year old universe. Nevermind that changes that science is talking about are on the order of parts per billion, not thousands of times. They will go so far as to try to refute refutations of a changing c, just so there is a chance of c changing.

[George]

No, there is no museum. But there are quite a few websites I can point you to that demonstrate the gyrations the YECs will go through to try to explain some things that relativity causes problems with. For instance, several sites grasp at any kind of report of a changing c to explain the 6000 year old universe. Their contention is that the speed of light was much faster in the past, which allows the appearance of a ~14 billion year old universe. Nevermind that changes that science is talking about are on the order of parts per billion, not thousands of times. They will go so far as to try to refute refutations of a changing c, just so there is a chance of c changing.

Yes, that is problematic, but there are some alternative (though miraculous) views that soften this area of conflilct compared to the greater slap that evolution brings. If you want to irritate the most YEC folks with one shot, always choose evolution. A few YEC scientists who will argue endlessly on spacetime issues do not represent the majority view of YEC folks, compared to those who argue about evolution. Perhaps this specific issue (which theory is more opposed by YEC) would make an interessting thread.

[George]

There is something puzzling me regarding Einstein's view of the ether. He said, as he explained his turn from Mach's view, "...Besides the modern physicist does not accept such a thing as [instant?] action at a distance, he comes bact to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia."
[I assume he meant instant action at a distance, and he had said "instant action" at an earlier point regarding Mach's view.]

I don't see that instant action from millions or billions of lightyears away is required since gravitational effects already exist at any given point. Am I missing something? Mach may have argued for instant action, but must it be interpreted that way? Perhaps Einstein is using this erroneous faster than light effect to support his turn from Mach, without addressing the view that instaneous action is not the only way to see things.

[Copernicus]

For the record, I think QED, QCD, Standard Model, General relativity are awesome. They just don't explain why everything is so uniform, nor do they explain why they are right. I just want to know why. For over a thousand years, virtually everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth. Then some smart person, or she told her son, brother or husband, how to figure out that the planets went around the earth and it all became very much simpler.
Something, very small, and uniform, everywhere, to me, seems to explain why things are so uniform. Whatever its called, surely it is not exactly like, maybe not even close to like, what the 19th century scientists had in mind, but I just can't believe in action at a distance with nothing in between.