vacuodynamic Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Dear friends, In 1920, Einstein had made a quotation as; 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 standard of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. This is according to Frank Wilczek (a Nobel Prize winner in physics 2004) recent book - “The Lightness of Being (Mass, Ether, and the Unification of forces)”, in which he has talked about Einstein’s aether as – “Einstein’s relationship with the aether was complex and changed over time “! Now, is this a good news or bad news? It may be a bad news for mainstream physicists especially for positivisms (which seem to treat Einstein like God?), while it would be a good news for dissident physicists (who seem to thought Einstein is Satan?). For me, it is the most interesting news. I like Einstein and love his genius, but I am not so happy with (conventional) theory of relativity! And what that annoying me is about its philosophic problem, i.e. the increasing mass, length contraction and time dilation in STR, and empty space-time could be curved in GTR, how could it be? And what I have done is to improve STR to be “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity” and GTR to be “Completed Einstein general theory of relativity” by using what I called it as “vacuum medium” which is something like (but not the same as) the old ether! So the mentioned news makes me happy with Einstein and his (completed) theory of relativity, and this may be used to support that he is still a nice genius human being! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
ajb Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 The typical working physicist does not hold Einstein as "god-like". You must remember that Einstein died in 1955 and a lot of work has gone on since. There is no reason to take Einstein's point of view (which you have said changes) "word for word". Therefore, it is not good news or bad news that Einstein said what he said.
insane_alien Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 einstein said and did a lot of things that were just flat out wrong. he didn't believe in quantum mechanics and spent a lot of his latter years trying to get rid of it. just because he did some astounding work on GR and SR does not make him infallible. what you have to do is take the good stuff and bin the crap stuff as you'd do from the work of every scientist.
Sisyphus Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Thus the difference between an influential scientist and a prophet. See also: the widespread belief that there's something called "Darwinism."
Martin Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Dear friends, In 1920, Einstein had made a quotation as; 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 standard of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. ... Since you seem to know...please tell me: what did Einstein mean by "ether" when he said that? I've sometimes wondered. BTW I have Wilczek's book, Lightness of Being. It's a fascinating book, which introduced new ideas and ways of thinking to me. I like it. But it doesn't make clear to me the idea of "ether", either Einstein's or Wilczek's either. So you tell me what one or the other or both meant... Also BTW, the Wikipedia has a pretty good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory And there is a copy of Einstein's 1920 ether speech on line: http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html I think all it means is the existence of a universal time, which is not necessarily the time which someone experiences. Maybe the universe would experience it, if the universe were able to experience. In cosmology the existence of a universal time is not so controversial. It is built into the model which nearly ever cosmologist uses, because it works---the Friedman model. One should not get so excited about this. There have been a number of papers recently about Einstein aether theory. You can do a respectable PhD thesis about it, and get a good postdoc job to pursue more study of it. The theory has been improved since 2004. It's not a dumb thing to work on. Very smart people Ted Jacobson, David Mattingly, somebody at Utrecht in Renate Loll's group, I forget his name. Lee Smolin has just put out a paper with a new approach which gets a universal time as a byproduct and solves the cosmological constant problem as the main goal. These things have to be checked observationally. I don't think any of this would contradict what we already know about special and general relativity. The basic stuff about Lorentz transformations would still work as well as it always has. Special and general are known to be approximations---amazingly good approximations---but cannot possibly fundamental. Special can't be right because it's geometry is flat and doesn't expand---which is unrealistic---but it's a very good approximation because in our everyday world space is very nearly flat and expands only very very slowly on a human timescale. General can't be correct because it breaks down at black hole centers and at the Bang. It has singularities, which are by definition where a theory fails. So it would be expected for Gen Rel to be replaced by an improved theory for which Gen Rel was a good temporary stand in, and to which Gen Rel closely approximates except where it breaks down. Par for the course, as physics theories go. If the replacement happens to have a universal time, well, so what? Nothing to get worked up about. Answer to your question, neither good news or bad news. What Einstein said in 1920 probably doesn't matter. I would say what's more meaningful is what Jacobson, Mattingly, Smolin, Renate Loll, are saying now. Loll's triangulations quantum gravity has a universal time-ordering. There is a Scientific American article by her in my signature ("signallake.com") have a look her approach to quantum gravity is terrific, she and her collaborators are being invited to many of the major conferences to talk about it. Currently making a hit. We'll see how it goes. Edited July 30, 2009 by Martin
vacuodynamic Posted July 31, 2009 Author Posted July 31, 2009 The typical working physicist does not hold Einstein as "god-like". Dear agb, Thank you for your information, and I am glad to hear the idea from you – a professional. You must remember that Einstein died in 1955 and a lot of work has gone on since. I absolutely agree with you, that why I like him! There is no reason to take Einstein's point of view (which you have said changes) "word for word". Actually it is Frank Wilczek’s opinion (not mine), and I seem to agree with him. Therefore, it is not good news or bad news that Einstein said what he said. I acknowledge! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedeinstein said and did a lot of things that were just flat out wrong. he didn't believe in quantum mechanics and spent a lot of his latter years trying to get rid of it. Dear insane alien, I do not believe in quantum mechanics either! As Einstein said “quantum mechanics is not a complete theory”, and I agree with him. So I have tried to improve it in my paper “Completed quantum mechanical theory”. just because he did some astounding work on GR and SR does not make him infallible. what you have to do is take the good stuff and bin the crap stuff as you'd do from the work of every scientist. I agree with you! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
rockman Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Aether...Ether.... Tesla liked the idea of it too... Einstein..not so much... But to me, aether is anything a wave can travel through. Without it there is nothing. Waves travel through space, so space is full of something. Possibly aether??
Martin Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) Earlier I gave a link to Wikipedia "einstein aether theory". Anybody happen to check it out? Maybe this thread is not really about Einstein-Aether theory, which would mean I was mistaken in mentioning it. If it is, then here is a survey paper on the current status. http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1547 Here is the original 2001 paper that kicked off the current research activity in Einstein Aether. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007031 The 2001 paper on Einstein Aether has been cited by 181 other papers. It got a lot of interest from other researchers. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep?c=PHRVA,D64,024028 A lot of activity has been directed towards testing it observationally, trying to rule it out experimentally (which seems to be quite hard to do.) There have been variations on this theme---a general covariant theory that behaves outwardly like General Relativity, but has a global notion of time which somehow exists without being obtrusive or noticeable. New variants keep getting invented. If the thread is in fact not about Einstein Aether, and what I'm pointing to is not relevant to the topic, then please ignore. I tend to agree that what Einstein himself said about it back in 1920 is probably not too important and has likely been superseded. Edited July 31, 2009 by Martin
vacuodynamic Posted August 1, 2009 Author Posted August 1, 2009 Since you seem to know...please tell me: what did Einstein mean by "ether" when he said that? I've sometimes wondered. BTW I have Wilczek's book, Lightness of Being. It's a fascinating book, which introduced new ideas and ways of thinking to me. I like it. But it doesn't make clear to me the idea of "ether", either Einstein's or Wilczek's either. So you tell me what one or the other or both meant... Dear Martin, Thanks for your kindly respond as a professional physics expert, so I have to be cautiously in discussion! Actually I am not an ether expert, what I could get from them is only a naïve but crucial point that the ether is something which is physically existed in empty space! I think all it means is the existence of a universal time, which is not necessarily the time which someone experiences. Maybe the universe would experience it, if the universe were able to experience. In cosmology the existence of a universal time is not so controversial. It is built into the model which nearly ever cosmologist uses, because it works---the Friedman model. Your idea is quite interesting, but it seems too complicate for me starting from the simple question – what the time is! One should not get so excited about this. There have been a number of papers recently about Einstein aether theory. For me, it is very important; it will make sense for special and general relativity which was criticized by anti – Einstein. Very smart people Ted Jacobson, David Mattingly, somebody at Utrecht in Renate Loll's group, I forget his name. Lee Smolin has just put out a paper with a new approach which gets a universal time as a byproduct and solves the cosmological constant problem as the main goal. These things have to be checked observationally. All of them may be too complicate for me to catch up and follow! I don't think any of this would contradict what we already know about special and general relativity. I agree with you that it is not a contradiction! Instead it will improve them so anyone could understand how the theories work physically, such as for an example why and how a moving object could increase its mass, or how and why empty space could be curved! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
vacuodynamic Posted August 4, 2009 Author Posted August 4, 2009 Maybe this thread is not really about Einstein-Aether theory, which would mean I was mistaken in mentioning it. Dear Martin, It is about the impact which occurred follow from Einstein’s returning to the concept of the old aether! If it is, then here is a survey paper on the current status.http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1547 Here is the original 2001 paper that kicked off the current research activity in Einstein Aether. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007031 The 2001 paper on Einstein Aether has been cited by 181 other papers. It got a lot of interest from other researchers. I have tried to read them, but it seems too difficult for me which I am not a professional. A lot of activity has been directed towards testing it observationally, trying to rule it out experimentally (which seems to be quite hard to do.)There have been variations on this theme---a general covariant theory that behaves outwardly like General Relativity, but has a global notion of time which somehow exists without being obtrusive or noticeable. New variants keep getting invented. For me (who believe in the physically existing of something like the aether) I think may be it is no need to prove its existence by such a complicate and difficult means instead may be we could use a simple and obvious way for finding the answer as an example below. Let’s consider an experiment using two nearly identical solenoids, the smaller diameter one was inserted in the bigger one. When both solenoids are feed with the same amount (and same polarity) of direct currents, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is double. But when the feeding currents are opposite, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is zero! Someone may say that it is what it should be, yes it is, but where is the generated energy gone (in the second case)? It is not possible to be something like that, because we still feed the same amount of energy into both solenoids. Is this means that we can violate the law of conservation of energy? Of course not, we can not do something like that! The only one sensible explanation is that there is a cancellation of the opposite phase of internal rotational stress in the physical medium (of something) in empty space. So this indirect experiment could be used to prove the existing of something in vacuum space, isn’t it? I tend to agree that what Einstein himself said about it back in 1920 is probably not too important and has likely been superseded. For my opinion, I thing that after the invention of his theory of relativity which had ignored the aether, and after his second thought he seem that it is absurd (as in his words) so he come back to fulfill his theory! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2009 Posted August 4, 2009 Saying something is not complete is not an argument against. Relativity is not complete, and yet Einstein had no issue with that. The observational evidence for QM is unbelievably strong. The predictions and how they match experimentation are simply fantastic.
vacuodynamic Posted August 5, 2009 Author Posted August 5, 2009 Saying something is not complete is not an argument against. The observational evidence for QM is unbelievably strong. The predictions and how they match experimentation are simply fantastic. Dear Klaynos, Thanks for your comment, anyway, even I am not quite fully understand your point, but I will try to answer it, and if I misunderstood then please forgive me! How about Einstein’s criticized on QM that it is not complete theory? Relativity is not complete, and yet Einstein had no issue with that. For me, when he return to the aether, it implied that he accept the incomplete of relativity! We have to accept that relativity is a great theory and it is no problem for using it alone. Anyway, if we try to link it to QM, such as it was trying to do in quantum gravity then serious problem has arisen. To solve the problem, people have to look back to both QM and relativity and asking what wrong with them, are both of them complete? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
vacuodynamic Posted August 13, 2009 Author Posted August 13, 2009 Aether...Ether.... Tesla liked the idea of it too... Einstein..not so much... But to me, aether is anything a wave can travel through. Without it there is nothing. Waves travel through space, so space is full of something. Possibly aether?? Dear rockman, Thank for your comment, I used to wonder why mainstream (positivism) physicists try to insist that light is a magic thing which could be propagate by itself, but now I seems to understand why it is so! Let us talk a little more about this issue. Richard P. Feynman (a well known Nobel Prize physicist) had tried to explain (in his famous lecture on physics) how light wave could propagate by its mutual creation between electric and magnetic field! Anyway, for someone who familiar and work with Maxwell equations would found that technically the propagation of any kind of electromagnetic wave deny the “mutual creation between electric and magnetic field”, but why? Reference to electromagnetic radiation field equations which was derived from Maxwell equations (and we could also found it in Feynman lecture mentioned) we can see that both electric and magnetic radiation fields are simultaneously rise and fall at the same time! So if the light wave could be propagate by mutual creation between electric and magnetic field, then principle of causality will be violated, so the mentioned method of propagation should not correct! By the way, Feynman is my favorite and respect person for his genius, and what I like him most is that he is an open-minded one! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .
Klaynos Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Dear Klaynos, Thanks for your comment, anyway, even I am not quite fully understand your point, but I will try to answer it, and if I misunderstood then please forgive me! How about Einstein’s criticized on QM that it is not complete theory? For me, when he return to the aether, it implied that he accept the incomplete of relativity! We have to accept that relativity is a great theory and it is no problem for using it alone. Anyway, if we try to link it to QM, such as it was trying to do in quantum gravity then serious problem has arisen. To solve the problem, people have to look back to both QM and relativity and asking what wrong with them, are both of them complete? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com I did not see this reply until now. No current physical theory is complete. There was a time when people believed that we were close to completeness in classical mechanics and then SR and QM both threw that idea out of the window. Science is a constantly changing thing, we are aware of the bounds that our current theories work in and are trying to increase these bounds. In the same way that QM does not disprove classical mechanics, what comes next will not disprove quantum mechanics, it will only add an extra layer of understanding.
swansont Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Dear rockman, Thank for your comment, I used to wonder why mainstream (positivism) physicists try to insist that light is a magic thing which could be propagate by itself, but now I seems to understand why it is so! Let us talk a little more about this issue. This is a strawman representation of the situation, as well as an appeal to ridicule. Please refrain from arguments based on logical fallacies. ——— The basic notion of space being a propagation medium raises the questions about the original aether. There are implications of the hypothesis, and if you purport to do science, you have to go out and test them. So if space is full of "something," through which light propagates, are we at rest with respect to it or moving?
vacuodynamic Posted August 14, 2009 Author Posted August 14, 2009 This is a strawman representation of the situation, as well as an appeal to ridicule. Please refrain from arguments based on logical fallacies. Dear swansont, Thanks for your comment, and sorry if my words is inappropriate used! The basic notion of space being a propagation medium raises the questions about the original aether. There are implications of the hypothesis, and if you purport to do science, you have to go out and test them. So if space is full of "something," through which light propagates, are we at rest with respect to it or moving? It seems that you want to mention about Michelson-Morley experiment test for the relative motion between the earth and ether, isn’t it? Actually, while mainstream physicists have claimed that the experiment support their idea, bur for dissident physicists it is opposite. For my opinion, it is not a clear cut prove, and I have proposed a simple final judgment by an additional experiment test on other moving frame (besides the moving earth) such as in the space shuttle or space station! (Please see detail explanation in my scientific paper “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity” now presenting in my website.) Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .
Klaynos Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 Why would conducting the experiment in free fall help?
vacuodynamic Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Can you describe it here? Dear swansont, In summary, according to conventional interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment which point out that the null result of the experiment means there is no relative motion between the earth and the ether, while ether-based relativity interpret it as the effect of the ether dragged. Any way, the weak point of the conventional interpretation is that it was based on the concept of length contraction of the equipment’s arm which was not obvious be proved so far! So, in order to settle the conflict, an additional simple experiment test on other moving frame (besides the moving earth) such as in the space shuttle or space station, was proposed! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .
Klaynos Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Any way, the weak point of the conventional interpretation is that it was based on the concept of length contraction of the equipment’s arm which was not obvious be proved so far! So, in order to settle the conflict, an additional simple experiment test on other moving frame (besides the moving earth) such as in the space shuttle or space station, was proposed! How would that help? It was done in different movement frames, different parts of the earths orbits...
swansont Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 And what of the implications for stellar aberration? Shouldn't that change with the seasons as well, if ether-dragging is correct?
vacuodynamic Posted August 21, 2009 Author Posted August 21, 2009 And what of the implications for stellar aberration? Shouldn't that change with the seasons as well, if ether-dragging is correct? Dear swansont, We could explain the reason of the appearance of stars aberration, that is, it is because of the large distance between stars and the earth while the dragged along of vacuum medium is a small portion as noted by Michelson himself [“A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity” Vol.1, p.391 by Sir Edmund Whittaker F. R. S.]. Also the earth rotational velocity is small compare to light, so the dragged effect is so small and could be neglected. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .
mooeypoo Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 The general consensus about the Aether is that it's just not needed in the observations, as far as I could understand. That is, you can explain and predict everything we see either with or without the consideration of Aether, which makes it irrelevant. That is, I can also predict everything exactly the same if I include an invisible pink elephant that is unaffected by gravitational forces and is invisible to our instruments. There would be no difference in my results between including it into the calculations (it would have no effect) and not including it into the calculation. So, that said, in order to "return" to the idea of the Aether, there's a need to show that the Aether is relevant.. Do you have any mathematical models that include the Aether and can explain phenomena better than the current theory that does not consider the Aether? ~moo
swansont Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 Dear swansont, We could explain the reason of the appearance of stars aberration, that is, it is because of the large distance between stars and the earth while the dragged along of vacuum medium is a small portion as noted by Michelson himself [“A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity” Vol.1, p.391 by Sir Edmund Whittaker F. R. S.]. Also the earth rotational velocity is small compare to light, so the dragged effect is so small and could be neglected. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com . Well which is it then? Saying there is an aether, it's dragged (to account for the M-M null result) but the effect is so small it can be ignored (and thus not seen in aberration) doesn't seem very much like there's an aether at all. It sounds very ad-hoc.
vacuodynamic Posted August 23, 2009 Author Posted August 23, 2009 Well which is it then? Saying there is an aether, it's dragged (to account for the M-M null result) but the effect is so small it can be ignored (and thus not seen in aberration) doesn't seem very much like there's an aether at all. It sounds very ad-hoc. Dear swansont, What is then which you expected it to be? How about the solution with length contraction, is it so a sound one? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .
Recommended Posts