Ether evidence?

[Strange]

30 minutes ago, studiot said:

Some modern physicists identify an aether with modern presnetations of spacetime.

Indeed. Even Einstein did this. But this isn’t what the OP is talking about. 

40 minutes ago, interested said:

I will leave the luminefourous aether and other ancient theories to you and your obvious obsession, for those that dont know what the hell phlogiston is 

Phlogiston is nearly always taught in history of science courses because it is a classic example of how science works (and one the very few examples of theories that have been shown to be completely wrong).

I am slightly disappointed. I have asked several people to explain why they are so fascinated by the concept of the aether and they always just change the subject.

[Capiert]

Yes. I'm open for a connection of Newton's Ether with modern physics

 because I wish to identify the past (definitions).

A multi_dimensional (substance) connecting all things

 (as Interested hints)

 does sound phascinating

 to me.

The ether's structure as just a bunch of other (e.g. sub_atomic) molecules

 does seem possible to me,

 depending on how you look at it.

(Seeing the forest, for the trees.

The same (=similar) macroscopic behaviour,

 repeating at "some" microscopic levels (or scales).)

As above, so below; & visa versa.

Please don't let my previous preferences (which are not (explicitly) a must)

interfere with Interested's presentation, & questions, Strange.

I'll try to sit back & (enjoy) soak(ing) up the (other) info (that comes along too).

He's convinced me of other possibilities.

Thanks. Please continue, you're all doing fine & well.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Capiert

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

Yes. I'm open for a connection of Newton's Ether with modern physics

There is none. The aether has been disproven. It is inconsistent with modern physics.

If you think there is one, it's up to you to provide a model and evidence.

[Capiert]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Indeed. Even Einstein did this (presentation of ether with space_time). But this isn’t what the OP is talking about. 

Phlogiston is nearly always taught in history of science courses because it is a classic example of how science works (and one the very few examples of theories that have been shown to be completely wrong).

I am slightly disappointed. I have asked several people to explain why they are so fascinated by the concept of the aether and they always just change the subject.

To answer that,

 I suppose l have to compare,

 for & against,

 with & without (Ether assumed).

 

1st,

I suppose it's the mystery about what we don't know about it (=Ether),

 (the quintesscence, there's a sense of romanticism there, to it,

 chasing after something you can't (quite) get) 

 because it's so (super)fluent & evasive

 from our attempts to observe it (=Ether).

Perhaps that's why they gave it a similar name to an alcohol (or visa versa)?

 & why I avoid naming "it" (guess what, ?) with pronouns.

 

As water is a medium,

 it is something we can get into,

 eventually disappearing (swimming or diving).

(Going into something,

 with the ability to come out

 somewhere else, unknown.)

That analogy,

 leaves us expecting similar consequences,

 but with a twist for the unexpected (e.g. mystery, unknown).

Thus the time (spent) pondering

 on all the unusual possibilities.

E.g. It (=Ether) does NOT behave (completely) as we expect.

(Typical for physics electromagnetism, the proton's gyromagnetic ratio, was NOT an integer or fraction.)

In what way(s) is it (=the Ether) so unusual?

I think we hold onto the ether concept (for those that do)

 because it is the only tangible concept (framework) that we have

 (nearest to water, that we are made of).

To me Einstein's spacetime looks like the ether

(is) stripped of it's physic's.

In other words pure math,

 with only numbers

 that you could display (plotted, or plotting)

 on a computer screen

 (for the elasticity;

 but NOT admit

 that it is elasticity.

I.e. a denial=lie.)

Something that you could dream up in your head,

 or make a cartoon. Fantasy=pure imagination.

Space_time is simply a product (obtained from multiplication)

 (that inflates the (2) values);

 not a quotient like (average) velocity ((is), obtained from division)

 (which is compact).

 

I hope that helps.

Did it?

 

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Capiert said:

 I suppose it's the mystery about what we don't know about it (=Ether),

 (the quintesscence, there's a sense of romanticism there, to it,

 chasing after something you can't (quite) get) 

 because it's so (super)fluent & evasive

 from our attempts to observe it (=Ether).

Perhaps that's why they gave it a similar name to an alcohol (or visa versa)?

 & why I avoid naming "it" (guess what, ?) with pronouns.

We know what properties it must have. We've tested some, and found that it doesn't exist.

[Capiert]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

We know what properties it must have. We've tested some, and found that it doesn't exist.

Please continue,

 & summarize those properties & tests.

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Please continue,

 & summarize those properties & tests.

We have to be either at rest with respect to it, or moving. But we get both answers: we're moving (stellar aberration) and at rest (Michelson-Morley)

We should see an effect on light propagation. We don't. Not in linear propagation, not in rotation.

The hypothetically aether doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

[Capiert]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

We have to be either at rest with respect to it, or moving. But we get both answers: we're moving (stellar aberration) and at rest (Michelson-Morley)

Please explain (M&M at rest (a bit, & the other)).

 

(Maxwel said terrestrial measurements were NOT valid (decisively), =incapable,

 because they were bidirectional self_compensating, average( observation)s.

 Thus we could dismiss that method

 as NOT a serious (or useable) method

 (for the argument).)

But do we?

Quote

We should see an effect on light propagation.

 & we do. We see doppler red shift in the universe (expanding).

 

(& light falls (=bends from our (earth) perspective,

 similar to a Coreolis acceleration,

 or centifugal acceleration (false force, wrong perspective (for the explaination

 (sorry for the preference));

 but sound does not (fall).

& yet you wish to ignore those (falling light) propagation effects,

 in favour of preferred (gravity) interpretations

 (which have been varrying thru the centuries

 with new evidence).

 

Without that reference (the universe)

 we would not be able to predict those velocities

 (of matter moving away from us).

E.g. There would be no basis (=working theory;

 unless doppler shift is relativity,

 or (simply) visa versa).

 

I'm implying the (whole) universe is the ether (carry=transporting (both) matter as well as light) there.

Quote

We don't. Not in linear propagation, not in rotation.

Isn't seeing from "within" a medium

 a little different than looking at it (bird's_eye view)?

Quote

The hypothetically aether doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

Isn't it possible,

 what we expect,

 isn't always right=correct,

 considering science is continuing to improve?

E.g. Looking at the theory "changes"

 thru the centuries.

The interpretation has often made the difference.

 

Isn't doppler shift an affect on linear propagation

 that involves speed?

(E.g. frequency & wavelength (changes),

 for the (sound or light_) speed (that) we receive on earth).

& yet it is completely classical

 used in cosmology (I mean astronomy).

(That (doppler principle wrt v) sounds to me like a pretty sound (=stable) basis.)

 

Isn't there a (stable, reliable) stellar object out there

 that we can measure its (spectral) frequency

 & variation?

(Which brings up the question:)

How accurately (=to what precision) can we measure extra_terrestrial (light) frequencies (coming in at earth)?

After looking at some of the (large) planets

 thru a telescope

 I got the impression

 1 half (at the boarder, nearest its circumference, (particularly) equatorially) (left vs right)

 looked slightly blue_isher (than its other (half);

 & the other (half) reddish(er),

 (E.g. left versus right,

 or the other way around

 depending on which type of telescope

 whether image inverting,

 or not).

(I can't remember which.)

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Capiert

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Capiert said:

Please explain (M&M at rest (a bit, & the other)).

How about you go do your own homework. Google is your friend. There are a lot of explanations of the experiment. No need for me to re-hash it.

Quote

(Maxwel said terrestrial measurements were NOT valid (decisively), =incapable,

 because they were bidirectional self_compensating, average( observation)s.

You're going to have to provide a reference for that. Especially because Maxwell died 8 years before the experiment was performed.

Quote

 Thus we could dismiss that method

 as NOT a serious (or useable) method

 (for the argument).)

But do we?

 & we do. We see doppler red shift in the universe (expanding).

 

(& light falls (=bends from our (earth) perspective,

 similar to a Coreolis acceleration,

Really? It's similar?  Explain how it's similar.

Quote

 or centifugal acceleration (false force, wrong perspective (for the explaination

 (sorry for the preference));

 but sound does not (fall).

& yet you wish to ignore those (falling light) propagation effects,

Where did "falling light" com from, and how is it related to the aether?

Quote

 in favour of preferred (gravity) interpretations

 (which have been varrying thru the centuries

 with new evidence).

What do we have other than Newton and Einstein?

Quote

Without that reference (the universe)

 we would not be able to predict those velocities

 (of matter moving away from us).

E.g. There would be no basis (=working theory;

 unless doppler shift is relativity,

 or (simply) visa versa).

Relevance to the aether?

Quote

I'm implying the (whole) universe is the ether (carry=transporting (both) matter as well as light) there.

Isn't seeing from "within" a medium

 a little different than looking at it (bird's_eye view)?

You need a model to say if this is so.

Quote

Isn't it possible,

 what we expect,

 isn't always right=correct,

 considering science is continuing to improve?

It's when the results are unexpected that science improves. Science expected an aether, but nobody could find evidence for it. So it was discarded. A new theory came along that didn't require it. That was the improvement.

Quote

E.g. Looking at the theory "changes"

 thru the centuries.

The interpretation has often made the difference.

That's why you want quantitative predictions.

Quote

Isn't doppler shift an affect on linear propagation

 that involves speed?

(E.g. frequency & wavelength (changes),

 for the (sound or light_) speed (that) we receive on earth).

& yet it is completely classical

 used in cosmology (I mean astronomy).

(That (doppler principle wrt v) sounds to me like a pretty sound (=stable) basis.)

Show me how to predict the change in speed of propagation from the doppler shift equation.

Quote

Isn't there a (stable, reliable) stellar object out there

 that we can measure its (spectral) frequency

 & variation?

Yes. It's a fairly common measurement.

Quote

(Which brings up the question:)

How accurately (=to what precision) can we measure extra_terrestrial (light) frequencies (coming in at earth)?

Atomic and molecular spectroscopy.

 

[interested]

On 2/17/2018 at 4:22 PM, Strange said:

I am slightly disappointed. I have asked several people to explain why they are so fascinated by the concept of the aether and they always just change the subject.

You may be trying to get me to go off thread. The thread is aether/space/ with maybe extra dimensions

My limited understanding for what it is worth is that all the theories from the beginning of time are attempts to explain the known universe. I never heard of Phlogiston before, but since it has been proven wrong I am glad I never waisted time reading about it. The concept of aether seems to persist, it means many things to many people, my second post on this thread gave a link. 

Perhaps if instead of using the word aether, someone had used the TLA word TOE, the concept TOE would keep coming up instead instead of aether. Would the word TOE be more acceptable to you. 

I wonder if string theory is the modern equivalent of aether theory. As you are no doubt aware there are many aether theories and many string theories. Many of to days more modern theories incorporate extra dimensions. Using 5 dimensions of space time rather than 4 I understand dark matter is not needed any more. There are many professional(ie paid) physicists that have this idea. Immergent gravity based on GR uses 5 dimensions not 4 and gives almost all the same answers. All the string theories incorporate more dimensions. In Newtons day the aether was accepted as fact until michelson morley tried to detect the flow of the aether.

It seems modern theories today are pointing to extra dimensions that are not obvious to folk in flatland.

My basic understanding of aether is that the aether represents space, but am aware it means a lot more for other folk. 

In some string theories the Membrane of space is connected at both ends of an open string. This is more easily visualized as a vibration in the multidimensional membrane of space.

Mordred stated "remember the mantra all things are quantum fluctuations or excitations" in space, these are equivalent to vibrating strings in string theory. All the different theories are all trying to explain the observed world, and have some overlap or insight that other theories do not provide. 

I often ask questions and do not get answers. I do not let it bother me. I got banned for a couple of weeks for trying to extract from someone that more dimensions might exist, clearly my evil plan failed.  But it did give me the insentive to join another forum.

One thing that intrigues me ref the aether/Membrane of space concept is why does everyone assume space/aether is fixed and we flow through it. If it assumed to be like a liquid it could be dragged around by rotating galaxies and be absorbed by masses. Space/aether expands in open space between galaxies why not contract towards matter and swirl around, and if a graviton is assumed to exist how does it get out of a black hole. Space/gravitons/chocolate unicorns etc must flow into the black hole not vice versa(except hawking radiation). If mass is the source of gravity where do the gravitons come from, and how do they get out of blackholes? 

A flowing space/aether/Membrane type thingy etc strikes me as being more plausible than a graviton particle, unless of course the graviton is assumed to be space itself in which case it flows towards matter and black holes.

Understanding space I think is intriguing. You have clearly indicated you believe space is 4 dimensional space time and dark matter exists. I do not agree and will go for 5 dimensional space time as an absolute minimum and dont need dark matter. 

For me the aether/space is a multidimensional membrane that explains wave particle duality, quantum entanglement, fluctuations and excitations and perhaps even what goes on inside a black hole. Perhaps M theory is pretty close to a TOE, which might put the boot into other older theories.  The membrane concept of space connecting strings does look to me like another version of aether theory. 

Aether is just a word why are you so hung up on it, it has many meanings for many people, from scientists to hippies

Religious types might state god is everywhere and made everything, this could perhaps be equated to the aether concept maybe? or maybe M theory is everywhere and explains all things perhaps?

You did ask for an answer I hope the above suffices.

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, interested said:

Would the word TOE be more acceptable to you. 

That is not what the OP was asking about. 

18 minutes ago, interested said:

Using 5 dimensions of space time rather than 4 I understand dark matter is not needed any more.

Reference?

19 minutes ago, interested said:

My basic understanding of aether is that the aether represents space,

Nope. It was the medium that it was thought that light required. We now know light doesn’t need a medium. 

[interested]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Nope. It was the medium that it was thought that light required. We now know light doesn’t need a medium. 

F F sake what does light travel through, how is it polarized, how does a particle produce a wave,what restricts its speed. Get with the program add dimensions!

Focus on the wilderness of your unsupportable flat land beliefs. 

This is supposed to be a science forum not a religious forum.

Boa Noite 

 

[Capiert]

15 hours ago, interested said:

Religious types might state god is everywhere and made everything, this could perhaps be equated to the aether concept maybe? or maybe M theory is everywhere and explains all things perhaps?

Yes that is her, mother nature (our good (go()d)).

European languages inflect (gramatic) gender, not sex,

 for the attitude (mentality)

 of (trying to help) how to think,

 style (a method),

 I suspect

 female: is "inclusive" (completing) the whole "picture",

 seeing the forest (for the trees);

 male: "exclusive" "details", only 1 (not the others),

 "that" tree from the forest;

 neutral: either, or neither (is dominant), "both" are/could_be valid (together).

-(That's what "I" got out of) Plato's Symposium.).

 

I suspect Strange doesn't get an answer,

 (from people)

 about their (concept of) ether

 because he intrudes

 on their privacy.

For some, ether is (spiritual, e.g. atmosphere, ageo pneumatos

 non_(physical=)earthly air,

 the "it",

 from the 3 (person(al) perspectives:

 "I" Al(l_)I'm, all that I am (ego);

 "you", is_so_you, the (is)real you (=jew);

 & "it", romantic atmosphere, or (spir)it.

(Tip: it's how you pronounce; NOT how it was spelled (in todays standards) that counts (for then).)

The catholic church never understood (that) they were dealing with grammar

 because they (had) admitted they could NOT understand, the trinity:

 stating It was not to be understood.)

 the closest thing to god (a dialog: between (their) reasonable (thinking); & (their) emotional (feeling(s)))

 they have no defenses (psychologically).

It's very personal. (=Belief).

In other words

 they are not prepared to defend themselves

 for something(s)

 they have constantly observed (as obvious).

Quote

You did ask for an answer I hope the above suffices.

You're doing well. dido.

Just trying to explain why they might react so.

It's a normal (natural) "reaction". (Newton 3rd (psychology?))

TOE etc?

Edited February 20, 2018 by Capiert

[interested]

16 hours ago, Strange said:

Nope. It was the medium that it was thought that light required. We now know light doesn’t need a medium. 

According to you then string theory is bollocks, and I should believe what you write, because you know more than actual physicists. 

I take the view your views are outdated and there are additional dimensions. 

You really do misuse that down vote, which as you stated does make it worthless.

[Silvestru]

10 minutes ago, interested said:

According to you then string theory is bollocks, and I should believe what you write, because you know more than actual physicists. 

I take the view your views are outdated and there are additional dimensions. 

You really do misuse that down vote, which as you stated does make it worthless.

Can you please explain to me how you got from "light doesn’t need a medium" to him saying that String theory is BS? Where's the connection here?

What's Aether have to do with String Theory.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, interested said:

According to you then string theory is bollocks

I don't know why you would think that. 

But it is an extension of quantum theory, which does not require an aether (in the sense that the OP meant it).

If you want to use "aether" to mean spacetime (as others have) with any number of dimensions, then yes, string theory includes that aether. But that is not the luminiferous aether that has waves which are light waves. Which is what the OP was asking about (as he has confirmed).

We know, from experiment, from Maxwell's equations, from quantum field theory and, yes, from string theory that there is no mechanical medium needed to carry the waves that make up light. The nearest thing to that medium, in classical theory, is the electromagnetic field. (But one could argue about whether such fields actually exist or not, or are just a mathematical convenience!)

In string theory, as in quantum theory, light is not a wave; it is made up of photons, which are a particular configuration of a string. So there seems to be even less need of a medium (in the luminiferous aether sense). But, of course, those strings/quanta/whatever exist in N-dimensional space-time. And so, again, you can call that "aether" but it is not what the OP was asking about.

Sorry to be so repetitive, but you seem to be misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Maybe I wasn't clear.

2 minutes ago, interested said:

You really do misuse that down vote

I don't think I have given you any downvotes recently (not in this thread, anyway; and not for a long time).

[interested]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

I don't think I have given you any downvotes recently (not in this thread, anyway; and not for a long time).

I got you wrong I had the clear impression you were fixated with 4 dimensional space time. Do you now accept that might not be the full picture?

I must have another admirer who down votes at almost the same time as you post, hey ho. Perhaps some one is following you (spooky)

As I pointed out above the term aether appears to have multiple definitions for different people. 

The OP does not appear to be clear on the aether definition and might be using the term in a spiritual or metaphysics sense rather than a physical sense.

Could the OP please clarify what version of aether is being discussed here? A static aether was proven not to exist by Michelson Morley experiment, it did not however disprove an aether that moves with us or flows towards the planet like gravity perhaps.

Ligo is a bigger more modern version of the  MM experiment it detects gravitational waves from black hole mergers and the like. 

[Strange]

Just now, interested said:

I got you wrong I had the clear impression you were fixated with 4 dimensional space time. Do you now accept that might not be the full picture?

Of course. This is SCIENCE. It is never the full picture. (But anything beyond 4 dimensions is, currently, purely hypothetical.)

3 minutes ago, interested said:

it did not however disprove an aether that moves with us or flows towards the planet like gravity perhaps.

But other experiments did.

 

[swansont]

17 hours ago, interested said:

 Aether is just a word why are you so hung up on it, it has many meanings for many people, from scientists to hippies

This being science, we like it when folks are more precise with their definitions. 

Aether. The medium through which light propagates.

[Strange]

Just now, swansont said:

This being science, we like it when folks are more precise with their definitions. 

Aether. The medium through which light propagates.

And, just to clarify, this doesn't mean space "because light travels through space". Waves in water travel through space, but space is not the medium. Water is the medium; the waves cannot exist without water. Light exists without an equivalent to water.

[interested]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Aether. The medium through which light propagates.

Light propagates through space and is absorbed by matter are you saying the aether is space. In string theory strings representing bosons are connected at both ends to a membrane (D Brain)analogous to space  

The track of Light can be bent by gravity which is caused by a gradient or stretching of space, a potential can cause a substance to flow this could be analogous to space being absorbed by mass.

I think the OP should define how the aether is defined on this thread, the above posts leave some doubt as to what is being talked about here.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

And, just to clarify, this doesn't mean space "because light travels through space". Waves in water travel through space, but space is not the medium. Water is the medium; the waves cannot exist without water. Light exists without an equivalent to water.

cross posted, but you guessed what I might be thinking

 

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, interested said:

Light propagates through space and is absorbed by matter are you saying the aether is space.

Oh, good grief. If you are going to post, read the damn thread. 

No, the aether is not space. The view of mainstream physics is that there is no aether. Light does not need a medium. This has been said several times in the thread.

6 minutes ago, interested said:

I think the OP should define how the aether is defined on this thread, the above posts leave some doubt as to what is being talked about here.

I summarized it. The purported medium through which light travels. (and disproven by experiment)

What doubt exists about the topic?

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, interested said:

I think the OP should define how the aether is defined on this thread

In a rare moment of clarity, the OP confirmed that he was thinking of the luminiferous aether, as defined by swansont.

Posted on Friday (his first post here since he started the thread, I think). And having gone back to check, I withdraw the "moment of clarity" comment.  (However, he also muddies the water by introducing Einstein's Leiden speech where he used aether as an analogy for space-time.)

[interested]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Light does not need a medium. This has been said several times in the thread.

I c  

But in string theory the end of strings are connected to membranes which consist of undetectable unfolded dimensions of space. These dimensions as in the aether are undetectable. Whilst string theory is not aether theory, why is one concept of space valid and the other not. Strings representing photons travel through space connected to the multidimensional membrane of space as does light in aether theory according to what you have written above. 

If space is assumed to be multidimensional and light waves pass through it operating in more than 4 dimensional space time, then wave particle duality is easier to understand as is polarization, and a whole load of other effects.

3 hours ago, Silvestru said:

What's Aether have to do with String Theory.

Does the above clarify my line of thought. 

PS I am just trying to help the OP out a little, perhaps I might learn something new and have some fun at the same time.

 

 

 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, interested said:

These dimensions as in the aether are undetectable. Whilst string theory is not aether theory, why is one concept of space valid and the other not.

There is a difference: it is what has [not] been detected vs what we are (currently) capable of detecting.

The aether is detectable in principle but was not detected, consistent with it not existing.

The extra dimensions in string theory are detectable in principle but not with any technology we currently have. If/when we are able to test such things, then it can be used as a test of string theory.

12 minutes ago, interested said:

Strings representing photons travel through space connected to the multidimensional membrane of space as does light in aether theory according to what you have written above.

Again, you seem to be confusing the space that light travels through (whether it has 3 or 11 dimensions and contains strings or not) with "the medium that waves" (which there is still no need for in string theory).

14 minutes ago, interested said:

If space is assumed to be multidimensional and light waves pass through it operating in more than 4 dimensional space time, then wave particle duality is easier to understand as is polarization, and a whole load of other effects.

You keep saying extra dimensions would make various things easier to understand, but never provide any explanation or justification for this. I don't see how the wavy-particly nature of fundamental particles is made clearer by extra dimensions. Even less so polarisation, which is easily explained using classical theory.