Scott Mayers Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) Example Problem of Perception in Science Theory: Case of Ether by Scott Mayers From Wikipedia: "Aether theories in physics propose the existence of a medium, the aether (also spelled ether, from the Greek word (αἰθήρ), meaning "upper air" or "pure, fresh air"[1]), a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic or gravitational forces. The assorted aether theories embody the various conceptions of this "medium" and "substance". This early modern aether has little in common with the aether of classical elements from which the name was borrowed. Since the development of special relativity, theories using a substantial aether fell out of use in modern physics, and were replaced by more abstract models." [from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories] To me, the intension of any 'theory' of aether is about questioning whether space itself is what 'matters'. Of course, we predefined what 'matters' originally to the things which occupy such spaces in a way that simply ignores or diminishes any significance to things that we cannot "make sense" of. Often this is more about 'which' senses we are actually referring to only, not all of them. For instance, from our ancient past, the idea of what matters was often only granted to strictly certain solid things. The hints of this can be found in our now-religious scriptures as how we interpret them looking back to the days in which they were written. For the Ancient Egyptians and what evolved into Judaism, the interpretation of water and air were both irresolvable to their understanding and so they presumed that though they had some meaning, they were not actually 'matter'. To them, they thought of water and air as we would now refer to as "fluids". This is why the bible speaks of these things existing as "the waters of below" and the "waters above" when their originator separated the two. The air was granted an even more special status of confusion as they defined this as "spirit". The Greeks called their "fluidity" (= water and air), "chaos" to reference it as being unable to fully grasp in some confused state to becoming what "matters". But just as we got confused at thinking of air as a component of actual "matter", we continued this cycle with regards to discovering the apparent vacuity of space. And just as we learned of our mistake of thinking of the air as some transcendent non-existing concept when we discovered that it really IS composed of substance, the same was inferred rationally to what was initially called, "aether". Another key in considering this discussion is to how in the times of Newton, the idea of a sincere vacuum was understood also to what one might experience when removing all, not simply most, of the substantial air between two cups. If we connect two open cups together with their open side facing one another, when we pump out everything we can, realistically, there still is some substance remaining because the actual pump operates only by relying on the innate movement of particles in the cups to which their internal pressure actually forces out those particles when the space (as a vacuum) is added and provides a place to relieve the energetic particles to go to. Therefore, in reality, the cups being vacuumed are not sincerely absolute vacuums. In essence, a sincere vacuum would not even allow for space itself and would collapse the cups altogether. This arose the question of whether space itself could actually truly be absolutely vacuous outside of Earth (outer space). And it is THIS to which Newton was questioning with regards to how light could go through material like solid glass unless there were a difference in density between kinds of matter that would have to be like space but still substantially meaningful or 'real'. The Michelson-Morley Experiment was intended to try to dismiss that even actual space itself could not be substantial in meaning because we should somehow be able to measure it as Earth itself moved with respect to it. And their absence of finding it was deemed as sufficient qualifying proof that this did not exist. Yet, on a logical grounds, this kind of thinking is similar to the "God-of-the-gaps" or what was known as a fallacy with a different name in philosophy: an "argument from ignorance". Can you see how we tend to cycle between the secular to the religious-type thinking all the time in our approaches to rationalizing reality? This, by most scientists, was labeled as a "confirmatory" form of support and is sufficient unless one could disprove it. But if we are actually unable to remove this as a theory simply for the lack of anything novel to test, it acts as if the authors who suggested it must remain accepted upon their interpretations while ignoring similar interpretations that have equal valence. Often the excuse granted then is about "Occam's Razor". But this too is even a rationale that religions of all times have argued for their simplicity of assuming God without questioning things further. Isn't it a 'simpler' explanation, after all, to assume the whole venture of science itself by default is a result of some "god" to have created what we are without the depths to which science has evolved to with such complexity? So this doesn't fly with me. While we should try to find a sufficiently short path the explains something, we may be blind to resolving other issues if we don't respect expansion in some explanations as a necessary feature to overcome certain problems. For instance, in computer logic, we learn that we need expansion rules so that we can design real material to maintain consistency in sync as a whole. For instance, a simple "buff(er)" gate is technically a gate that does nothing more logically with respect to state. Yet because we have a "not" gate which requires components, we have to use a "buff" gate to make sure that the delay being used for each option remains in sync dynamically. Without this, the computer would get out of sync with respect to different options it takes. This proves how thinking in terms of mere minimizing isn't sufficient. Moving on The next problem with what occurred in science with respect to the Michelson-Morley conclusion is how it made Einstein design his own theory to be independent of this interpretation to lay its hands off of questioning whether the aether existed. But he did this by creating another problem without intending. He assumed that time itself was a 'thing' that altered in different frames rather than the objects themselves. While it works in either interpretation locally with respect to the Relativity as a proof, with respect to a large system of various theories, the acceptance of this forces any following theory to base their own within the confined of the conclusions of Relativity. Valid as it is, it buries the underlying loss of the aether as a precondition AND adds another assumption ('time' as essence) into future evolving theories. I can argue Relativity in the same exact logical form of Einstein's but only reasserting that matter is what alters, not time, as it moves through space and to reinstate ther reality of the aether. Modern science now has revalued space as more than what it was assumed before as being non-existent. But the way that the whole collection of theories based on the institutional processes of evolving, it doesn't like to 'reinvent' the wheel of such early assumptions as it requires a redress to all the multitude of theories based on this and similar other misconceptions of these early assumptions in error. And this is precisely why there is a confused contradiction between quantum mechanics and relativity. This could have been addressed from Einstein then too if they would have only realized that once Einstein's theory was justified, they could have gone back to questioning everything with respect to old theories based on assumptions that depended on a matter preference over space as a factor that changes. Some of this had been done as you could check for yourself on the Wikipedia page or your own potential educational sources elsewhere. [see Ether Dragging Theory for example.] Example in Relativity that fostered further evolution to new errors base on interpretation In this example I will focus on Special Relativity. Although the tests for this often use General Relativity, this is inevitable to change the reference or frame of intertia to a different one with respect to our local Earth experience through time. So I'll use the clock example to which one clock is timed in sync with another and then the other is taken flight in some air or space craft. When the planes land, they check the clocks and notice that the one in transit with respect to the Earth clock has slowed down. Interpretation according to Einstein: that time itself in that frame (inertial & acceleration) made time with respect to the clock in a 'faster' frame slow down. My interpretation: that the very atomic matter of everything within that frame is slowed down with respect to transiting through a real background. This is the supposed argument of the Aether-dragging. But I'm not sufficiently familiar with that historical venture and it appeared to be aroused prior to Einstein's decision to present his theory as it was. On a atomic level, even the electrons that normally travel in their limits of mass due to the speed of light prevents them from cycling around their orbits in the same time as they would in our own frame. As such, the very nature of such atoms is what is slowing down the clock, not some transcendent nature of time that alters it from some magical ability to 'know' that it is a thing and is distinctly traveling in the space of the vehicle transferring the clock. Note that this also respects that if light is 'created' from a light bulb in that moving frame, the very light that gets created from the matter is also 'slowed' in sync with that moving frame and so any measure of it with respect to it within that frame will appear by observers in it that same frame also 'slow' down due to their own atomic matter slowing and makes the measure of light remain constant there. And to add force to this, the actual light being made outside of the moving craft and the 'light' within the moving frame, are actually DIFFERENT phenomena with respect to any one of these frames. This will be represented as a shift in Doppler. Summary/Conclusion I think I've made my point with respect to my point here although I can expand upon this and have on my own elsewhere. For the intent of this site, I wanted to show why we have to take a step back on how we address theories on the extremes by redressing older theories and assumptions even if it may be a great effort to accomplish. If we don't, the bar to how we require becoming scientists becomes ever more so burdening as we may have to go through a more intensive education simply to build upon new theory. In this sense, the institutions maintaining our present paradigm unnecessarily lengthens our means to progress educationally and acts as a serious discouragement in a real way that prevents new students from even desiring to expend such energy in these fields. Also, the complexity has grown so much that it has become necessary to continue to divide what people are even able to learn and so they lose out on the means for each area of study relates to one another as a rational whole. Thank you. Scott Mayers October 10, 2015. © [Need crediting only if you want to speak on this for my own valued input to this topic OR contact me if wanting to publish or quote of this formally elsewhere than this site, especially if being used for some benefit or profit.] Edited October 11, 2015 by Scott Mayers
John Cuthber Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 No experiment has shown the ether to exist; so it doesn't. Score one nil to the scientific method. October 11, 2015. © [Need crediting only if you don't understand copyright, which exists whether declared or not; mind you I don't see anyone bothering] 2
swansont Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 ! Moderator Note You should not have chosen an example from a closed thread. You had your bite at this particular apple; we aren't going to re-hash this discussion (which, BTW, you opted out of, when asked to defend it). If you can come up with another example, you can try again.
Recommended Posts