Talk:Luminiferous aether
|
|
Snipped from the article:
- 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.
... and later,
- 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 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?
Moved from article:
- Fluid medium transmission [like pressure from one immersed solid to another]
- One vortex ring [related to the ]
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)
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 The article is probably out of date by now, but the æther theory is out of date, anyway, as far as I know.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 (Not saying it belongs in the article here, just that it might not be "BS", just outdated.)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.
=> 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.
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 ].
Particle-wave duality has *nothing* to do with the non-existence of ether.
-- 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"
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.
| Contents |
POV problems
The Timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#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
- 1818 - Augustin Fresnel's Wave Theory of Light.
- 1820 - Discovery of 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.
- 1881 - 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.
- 1887 - Michelson and 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.
- 1921 to 1924 - Miller conducts extensive tests under controlled conditions at Case University.
- 1924 - Miller's Mount Wilson repeats experiments and yields a positive result.
- 1925 - Michelson and Gale perform the 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
- 1929 - Michelson and F. G. Pease perform the 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.
- 1955 - 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).
- 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
- 1991 - Over a six-month period, Roland DeWitte finds, over a 1.5-km underground coaxial cable, a cyclic component in the phase drift between higher-precision cesium-beam clocks on more-or-less the same meridian; the period equals the sidereal day[1] (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1998-12/msg0013719.html)[2] (http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS16.pdf)
External links
- Harold Aspden's crystalline theory of the aether (http://www.aspden.org) -- 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 (http://68.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AE/AETHER.htm) page 2 (http://72.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AE/AETHER_OR_ETHER.htm)
- Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift experiments (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)
- Evaluation of Brane World Mach Principles (http://www.mathpreprints.com/math/Preprint/paultrr/20040119/1/Evaluation_of_Brane_World_Mach_Principles.pdf)
- The Hidden Ether of General Relativity (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/5-6/h.pdf)
- Process Physics (http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html) - 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 (http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm) -- links to pages that entertain and develop the hypothesis of the existence of the aether.
"Classical references"
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)
Jean-Louis Naudin and Patrick Cornille ?
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 Trouton-Noble experiment JDR 19:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
LQG?
LQG potentially disagrees with the Michaelson-Morley result? Um... the Michaelson-Morley experiment was nowhere near the planck scales that would be required to observe any Lorentz breaking in LQG... so.. how does one justify this claim?
- That's why it says "Michaelson-Morley-like". Some hypothetical future Michaelson-Morley experiment with accuracy at the Planck level might yield a positive result, if LQG is correct. But I do think that sentence is worded in a somewhat misleading way. Maybe we can improve it a bit? -Lethe | Talk 01:02, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Why are aether authors being deleted from the aether page?
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)