Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Ether

  1. #1 Ether 
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    to be honest i dont know where this belongs, but it seems pretty physics according to Waveman28 in the new hypothesis section.

    my question here is what on earth is this ether they are talking about??

    thank you in advance


    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Ether 
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    to be honest i dont know where this belongs, but it seems pretty physics according to Waveman28 in the new hypothesis section.

    my question here is what on earth is this ether they are talking about??

    thank you in advance
    There are many different ideas about an aether, some of them advanced by very much respected scientists, but at the moment it seems that any aether theories are inconsistent with Relativity as Relativity requires that no static and universal frame of reference can exist.

    For now it appears that Waveman is nothing more that yet another random internet guy who thinks he has discovered a new revolutionary theory. Believe me, there are many, many of them. Some have full blown websites and others even have published books. The thing is that their ideas have never been judged to meet the stringent conditions of the scientific method by people actually trained to do so, so they can't be taken seriously. Waveman is no different. He plans to publish later this year, but let's just say that I will be VERY surprised if he manages to do so in any reputable journal.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Ether 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    to be honest i dont know where this belongs, but it seems pretty physics according to Waveman28 in the new hypothesis section.

    my question here is what on earth is this ether they are talking about??

    thank you in advance
    It goes back to 19th century physics.

    In the 19th century Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism was one of the centerpieces of physics, and it described the propagation of electromagnetic waves very accurately. Sound waves and water waves were also well understood. It was thought that electromagnetic waves needed some medium through which to propagate in the manner of sound and water waves. This hypothetical medium was called the "aether" or in more moder spelling the "ether".

    It was one of the triumphs of Maxwell's theory that it predicted as wave speed equal to the known for light, and therefore it was concluded that light was electromagnetic in nature. Therefore it was believed that light propagated through the aether, which provided an absolute frame of rest.

    The search was then on to detect the aether, or at least the motion of the earth through the aether.

    The Michelson-Morley experiment is one of the more famous attempts. It failed to show any sign of the aether. Subsequently Einstein realized that light does not propagate through some medium at the speed c, but rather propagates at c in all inertial reference frames. With Einstein's special theory of relativity, the notion of the aether was permanently retired.

    In the modern theories of electrodynamics there is no place for an aether. It is well known that light, in the form of photons moves through the (quantum) vacuum without benefit of an aether, with a macroscopic speed of c in all inertial reference frames.

    Special relativity is a very successful physical theory, supported by a mountain of experimental evidence, with more added every day in particle accelerators. Some of the aspects of special relativity, such as time dilation, length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity, are counter-intuitive to those who cannot think beyond classical Newtonian mechanics. But special relativity has been shown experimentally to be quite correct. Nevertheless it offends the sensibilities of some people lacking in education and intellect, and there are many delusional wackos who prowl the internet purporting to show why standard physics in the form of special relativity is wrong. They typically think that they are genuises, and will publish a new and revolutionary theory that will supplant all of modern physics -- but they never do. This is not surprising since their "revolutionary ideas" are pure bunk, and have neither a theoretical nor an experimental basis.

    Wavman28 is apparently one of these nuts and he is advocating a nonsensical theory of physics . Ignore him if your interest is in learning real physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    The Michelson-Morley experiment seems to be one of the most often misunderstood experiments. Everyone knows it shows the ether doesn't exist, but too few people know why.

    Basically, if you have a wave travelling through a medium, the speed of the wave depends on the speed of the medium. Since the Earth is moving, it'd have to be moving through this medium. Therefore, the speed of light should be different in the direction Earth is moving versus perpendicular to that direction. By setting up two paths for a beam of light at right angles to each other and watching for changes in the interference pattern as the whole device is rotated, a difference in speed on the order of one wavelength could be detected, but no difference ever was.

    Some ether theorists claim that the Earth drags the ether around with it, so that on the surface of the Earth, you couldn't detect that kind of difference, but there are other problems with this, like why we don't see distortions in the light coming from the Sun, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    wow, thank you it was indeed alot of information, now i at least know what aether or ether actually is.
    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    The Ether is an absolute medium which supports the propagation of mechanical longitudinal waves.

    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    The Michelson-Morley experiment seems to be one of the most often misunderstood experiments. Everyone knows it shows the ether doesn't exist, but too few people know why.
    It is the most misunderstood experiment in history, and I am afraid you are another classic example of a person who does not understand it at all. It does not show that the Ether does not exist, it shows that absolute uniform motion cannot be detected.

    Firstly, lets look at the main fact: The Michelson-Morley interferometer did not detect any shift in the interference pattern. George Fitzgerald was the first person to propose an explanation for this phenomena. He proposed that as matter moves, it contracts in the direction of its motion and the faster it moves, the more severely it contracts. This could explain the result of the experiment. Hendrik Lorentz developed this idea mathematically to form the Lorentz Transformations, which could be used to determine how much an object contracted the faster it went. Henri Poincare was also involved in this. He was the first to postulate that matter could not reach the speed of light, which was the highest possible speed and that the laws of nature are the same for any observer in uniform motion.

    So the reason that absolute uniform motion cannot be determined is in fact a property of matter, as it moves through the Ether, it contracts in the direction of its motion such that it cancels any differences in the round trip of light.

    This is much more logical and sensible than an absurd "Space-time" contraction concept offered by Einstein. Let me be clear: the equations of Special Relativity do indeed yield correct results, but it does not identify the cause of the phenomena or explain what is really going on in reality. That is why the Ether theory should be greatly preferred.

    In addition, please try telling me why we can detect absolute rotation. What is this rotation relative to? Absolute rotation is powerful, unavoidable evidence that a universal "Frame of reference" exists.

    For now it appears that Waveman is nothing more that yet another random internet guy who thinks he has discovered a new revolutionary theory. Believe me, there are many, many of them. Some have full blown websites and others even have published books. The thing is that their ideas have never been judged to meet the stringent conditions of the scientific method by people actually trained to do so, so they can't be taken seriously. Waveman is no different. He plans to publish later this year, but let's just say that I will be VERY surprised if he manages to do so in any reputable journal.
    Whoever the person is who is proposing the theory has no bearing at all on the validity of the theory. Thus, you should not worry about who I am, but rather my theory. Name one thing that you think is incorrect about my theory, and I will be able to answer to it.

    So in conclusion Heinsbergrelatz, the Ether exists. Thankyou ladies and gentlemen.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Magimaster : Everyone knows it shows the ether doesn't exist
    Two sounds at similar distance from a station. One coming from a train the other from beside the railroad. Both sounds will be heard at the same time at the station. If there would be a short timedistance between the sounds it won,t be heard different at the station in relation to the distance from the station or how fast the train goes.

    The logic conclusion would be that sound travels through vaccuum ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    The Ether is an absolute medium which supports the propagation of mechanical longitudinal waves.


    It is the most misunderstood experiment in history, and I am afraid you are another classic example of a person who does not understand it at all. It does not show that the Ether does not exist, it shows that absolute uniform motion cannot be detected.

    Firstly, lets look at the main fact: The Michelson-Morley interferometer did not detect any shift in the interference pattern. George Fitzgerald was the first person to propose an explanation for this phenomena. He proposed that as matter moves, it contracts in the direction of its motion and the faster it moves, the more severely it contracts. This could explain the result of the experiment. Hendrik Lorentz developed this idea mathematically to form the Lorentz Transformations, which could be used to determine how much an object contracted the faster it went. Henri Poincare was also involved in this. He was the first to postulate that matter could not reach the speed of light, which was the highest possible speed and that the laws of nature are the same for any observer in uniform motion.

    So the reason that absolute uniform motion cannot be determined is in fact a property of matter, as it moves through the Ether, it contracts in the direction of its motion such that it cancels any differences in the round trip of light.

    This is much more logical and sensible than an absurd "Space-time" contraction concept offered by Einstein. Let me be clear: the equations of Special Relativity do indeed yield correct results, but it does not identify the cause of the phenomena or explain what is really going on in reality. That is why the Ether theory should be greatly preferred.

    In addition, please try telling me why we can detect absolute rotation. What is this rotation relative to? Absolute rotation is powerful, unavoidable evidence that a universal "Frame of reference" exists.

    For now it appears that Waveman is nothing more that yet another random internet guy who thinks he has discovered a new revolutionary theory. Believe me, there are many, many of them. Some have full blown websites and others even have published books. The thing is that their ideas have never been judged to meet the stringent conditions of the scientific method by people actually trained to do so, so they can't be taken seriously. Waveman is no different. He plans to publish later this year, but let's just say that I will be VERY surprised if he manages to do so in any reputable journal.
    Whoever the person is who is proposing the theory has no bearing at all on the validity of the theory. Thus, you should not worry about who I am, but rather my theory. Name one thing that you think is incorrect about my theory, and I will be able to answer to it.

    So in conclusion Heinsbergrelatz, the Ether exists. Thankyou ladies and gentlemen.
    Waveman, You have already been informed to restrict the discussion of your personal theory on this subject to the New Hypothesis and Ideas forum. Further failure to do so will be seen as a disregard for forum policies, Which could lead to a temporary or permanent suspension of your account.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    What is the plural for ether actually ? I was thinking for every colour it,s own ether why always one ether ?

    Everyone knows it shows the ether doesn't exist
    Suppose a similar discussion about sound. Some people stating sound travels through vacuum others argueing with it that it travels thorugh or develops in ether.

    You can think of thousends of experiments more or less similar to the michelson Morley experiment that would all show that the speed of a cource relative to the listener does not influence the time it takes to hear the sound.

    For isntance this one : a child is in a train hanging out the window. The child suddenly sees a cow at a view meter from her and vice versa. The cow goes "Mooh" and the child immediately replies immitating the sound : That,s two Mooh's at similar distance from the nearby station. One the source is driving with trainspeed. The other, the cow, just standing next to the railroad.

    Now inversing the way of drawing conclusions from Michelson Morley experiment : as both sounds will be heard at same time at the next or past station the conclusion would be that sound travels through vacuum ? If not then why draw that conclusion for light out of the MM experiment.
    We can now add the Michelson Morley experiment to the long list of things that you completely fail to understand. It apparently includes all of physics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

    Your example illustrates nothing more that total ignorance of the relevant physics. Of course the sounds from the child and the cow reach the station at the same time. The station is stationary relative to the air, the medium through which the sound is propagating. What you do get is a Doppler effect on the sound emitted by the child, which will be either an increase in frequency or a decrease depending on whether the child is approaching the station or receding from it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Waveman, You have already been informed to restrict the discussion of your personal theory on this subject to the New Hypothesis and Ideas forum. Further failure to do so will be seen as a disregard for forum policies, Which could lead to a temporary or permanent suspension of your account.
    I can explain. The first part of my post was simply answering the OP's question regarding the Ether (not to mention that the OP made a direct reference to my personal thread on the Ether) so this response was certainly warranted. The rest was not a personal theory of mine, but rather a historical fact in relation to the history of relativity and explaining why absolute uniform motion through the Ether could not be determined. With your permission, can further posts I make in this thread regarding the Ether be pardoned?
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    The station is stationary relative to the air, the medium through which the sound is propagating.
    The instrumentary of the MM experiment is static to the air/atmosphere, no difference in that aspect. You are assuming that there it doesn,t have influence as light goes through vacuum. So first jump to a conclusion and confronted with the lack of logic use the conclusion allready made (or read somewhere) for argumentation ?

    "If the cirkle is round it prooves to be true" ? That's just circular reasoning ; you think you made an argument but you didn,t. It,s the same logic that people who cling to (any particular) dogmatic religious system use.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    The station is stationary relative to the air, the medium through which the sound is propagating.
    The instrumentary of the MM experiment is static to the air also, no difference. You are assuming that there it doesn,t have influence as light goes through vacuum. So you take a conclusion and confronted with the lack of logic you use the conclusion you allready made (or read somewhere) for argumentation ? "A fine logic Mr rocket".

    "If the cirkle is round it must be true" : there is a term for that : circular reasoning, you think you made an argument but you didn,t.
    I hate to say it, but Doc Rock is right. Just let this one go Ghrasp.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Is there a plural form for ether ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Is there a plural form for ether ?
    It is simply: Ethers. Google chrome recognises it as a proper word, so it must be right lol. Still, I cant really see the need for the word anyway, because there is only one Ether!
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I mean it as an ether for helium, oxygen, people even and not without being connected, without relations. It could work less dogmatic that way.
    Because if you say there is no need for the plural form that,s an answer one might also get from someone who is a believer for a specific religious system. Even if it would just be the odds against you being suspicious in that matter. The pluralform, multiplicity implied (but with connections, relations) could help to avoid that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Is there a plural form for ether ?
    It is simply: Ethers. Google chrome recognises it as a proper word, so it must be right lol. Still, I cant really see the need for the word anyway, because there is only one Ether!
    Of course it is a proper word.

    It is a broad class or organic compounds.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether

    This has nothing to do with the aether (sometimes called ether in recent times) which was once hypothesized as the medium through which electromagnetic waves propagate.

    The chemicals exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    With your permission, can further posts I make in this thread regarding the Ether be pardoned?
    Since it is quite obvious that your only interest in this thread is to promote your belief in the ether( an opinion not shared by modern science) and by extension, your theory... Permission denied.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Sometimes a word is used with more then one meaning no problem. But for the pluralform it could still be different using ethers as pluralform for aether might get confusing.

    just Aethers then ?

    A pluralform wouldn,t imply there are no inter-relations and dynamics like with different universes or something. With a pluralform the word aether could be specified more specific as with the word media as the plural form for medium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Magimaster : Everyone knows it shows the ether doesn't exist
    Two sounds at similar distance from a station. One coming from a train the other from beside the railroad. Both sounds will be heard at the same time at the station. If there would be a short timedistance between the sounds it won,t be heard different at the station in relation to the distance from the station or how fast the train goes.

    The logic conclusion would be that sound travels through vaccuum ?
    The analogy to the MM experiment would be this situation:

    Imagine a loud thunderclap very near a listening post. A mile to the south is a smooth cliff wall, and a mile to the east is another. There will be an echo from both cliffs but there may or may not be a time differential between them. We would conclude that there should be no difference if everything was the same, since it's two miles total in either direction.

    If there was a strong wind blowing south though, we would expect there to be a difference, since a moving medium effects the speed of waves in that medium.

    In the MM experiment, no difference was detected. If the aether is supposed to be an absolute rest frame, then the Earth must be moving relative to it (and very quickly) so there should be some difference if it existed. (Without having done the math, I'm confident that this would remain true even taking some Lorentz tranformation into accound, though I'm not sure you can actually make rigorous sense of that.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    The analogy to the MM experiment would be this situation:

    Imagine a loud thunderclap very near a listening post. A mile to the south is a smooth cliff wall, and a mile to the east is another. There will be an echo from both cliffs but there may or may not be a time differential between them. We would conclude that there should be no difference if everything was the same, since it's two miles total in either direction.

    If there was a strong wind blowing south though, we would expect there to be a difference, since a moving medium effects the speed of waves in that medium.

    In the MM experiment, no difference was detected. If the aether is supposed to be an absolute rest frame, then the Earth must be moving relative to it (and very quickly) so there should be some difference if it existed. (Without having done the math, I'm confident that this would remain true even taking some Lorentz tranformation into accound, though I'm not sure you can actually make rigorous sense of that.)
    You clearly didn't read my post. I explained the result of the MM experiment and how it does not negate the importance or existence of the Ether. Unfortunately the content of my posts in this section of the forum has to be watered down due to fact that Janus is on strict patrol. I can almost feel Janus breathing down the back of my neck as I type.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    You clearly didn't read my post. I explained the result of the MM experiment and how it does not negate the importance or existence of the Ether. Unfortunately the content of my posts in this section of the forum has to be watered down due to fact that Janus is on strict patrol. I can almost feel Janus breathing down the back of my neck as I type.
    You shouldn't expect anything different. These sections are for discussing accepted science, which might include why alternate theories/hypothesis aren't accepted. The Pseudoscience and New Hypothesis and Ideas sections are for you to actively explain and promote your hypothesis.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    You clearly didn't read my post. I explained the result of the MM experiment and how it does not negate the importance or existence of the Ether. Unfortunately the content of my posts in this section of the forum has to be watered down due to fact that Janus is on strict patrol. I can almost feel Janus breathing down the back of my neck as I type.
    Actually, I did read your post. See the parenthetical comment at the end of my last post. Also, I consider it an interesting mathematical exercise, so I'll post the results once I work it out. (Edit: Actually, I may not be able to, since applying the Lorentz transformation to this scenario is nonsensical so far as I can tell.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    If there was a strong wind blowing south though, we would expect there to be a difference, since a moving medium effects the speed of waves in that medium.
    (you could even do it more simple walk along a canal opposite to the waves and along with them you experience different wavespeed. But that wavespeed doesn,t need particles, it can be seen as completely abstract as the waves don,t swim the water like fish do, they are the water.
    That classical type of aether was prooven not to exist with the mm experiment I agree to that with no doubt. But the conclusion drawn then is that as the classical aether doesn,t exist thus the waves would move in vacuum. The question is could that be a jumping to conclusions that is too easy. That would explain at least why the discussion hasn,t stopped (this is obvious allthough those who don,t want this discussion will always declare that in science (meaning there idea of what science is or should be) there is no discussion about it.

    The classical aether was also supposed to be motionless in itself (or lets motion completely out) media have motion in them. Distances between molecules can vary immensely with different density. Air drags to an airplane (laminar effect) and you're skin at the same time you move relative to the airplane and thus the medium in between is not at all motionless in itself and has a viscosity at the same time. Viscosity means cohesion (look at smoke coming up from something smoldering you can directly recognize the - slight - viscosity of gasses. Move a sigaret slowly and it will move the smoke that had allready left the sigaret with it as with syrup or water.

    That conclusion to vacuum (made relatively quick if you take it historical) forgets and neglects an important difference between water/air and the classic aether as well as the vacuum idea. Both idea's have a similarity and a similar difference to sound and water and that lies in the disconnection of aether as well as vacuum to the media at hand locally. With sound you haven't got that disconnection and therefor no need for seperate particles that are just as methafsic.

    Aether has no laminary effect, no cohesion just like vacuum hasn,t got that. The vacuum idea is more or less the same idea just clothed a little different.

    The "aether" for the sound waves is connected with the air as substantial. For water with the water. Plants in the water also show the waves and a boat as an observer of waves is also medium (there is no sharp distinction between the mediumidea and the observer idea (typically after a day at sea you can still feel the waves once in bed or feel strange when you step on solid ground ground again)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If you want to relabel vacuum or spacetime as ether, that's just words. The important point, in plain English, is that there is no absolute rest frame. The even more important point is the math behind it all. All this English discussion is really just about us understanding the math, which stands on its own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    The aether was a concept where the frame was connected as without motion to the sun. At least that,s what I get from the ideas leading to the experiment and how it was setup and believed to proove soething.

    Because if the day and night cycle (rotation speed of the earth is related with that automatically) is used to determine a speed of the instrumentarium then autoamtically the sun itself would not move relative to the aether. the speed is relative to earth. But for any other source the rotational speed of the earth can be different off course. Some satellites hang above our head twenty four hours.

    To do the michelson morley experiment with the same intention for em radiation from a satellite the day and nightcycle has no meaning at all. So if only for that one aether wouldn,t have been enough.

    Someone predicting the outcome of such an experiment would have to take a different rotational cycle for the earth according to the source.

    that would mean that everything would have different speeds to one aether if assumed only one aether to exist. So the assumption and the basics of the experiment is allready a bit strange.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    ... What?

    The aether ws assumed to be at rest relative to everything. Since the Earth is obviously moving, it's obviously moving relative to the aerther. The sun too. Everything. And there was only ever one aether. And the day-night cycle never mattered. They rotated the whole apparatus around during the experiment and still saw nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    The aether was a concept where the frame was connected as without motion to the sun. At least that,s what I get from the ideas leading to the experiment and how it was setup and believed to proove soething.
    No. The Ether was the absolute rest frame for the whole universe. It was not known what the Sun's or Earth's relative motion was with respect to it. That what was the point of the experiment.

    Because if the day and night cycle (rotation speed of the earth is related with that automatically) is used to determine a speed of the instrumentarium then autoamtically the sun itself would not move relative to the aether. the speed is relative to earth. But for any other source the rotational speed of the earth can be different off course. Some satellites hang above our head twenty four hours.

    To do the michelson morley experiment with the same intention for em radiation from a satellite the day and nightcycle has no meaning at all. So if only for that one aether wouldn,t have been enough.

    Someone predicting the outcome of such an experiment would have to take a different rotational cycle for the earth according to the source.

    that would mean that everything would have different speeds to one aether if assumed only one aether to exist. So the assumption and the basics of the experiment is allready a bit strange.
    The rotation of the Earth doesn't come into this at all. It was an attempted measurement of the Earth's movement through the aether in its trip around the Sun.

    Since The Earth travels in a circle around the Sun, even in the unlikely event that at some point of its orbit it was at rest with the aether, it couldn't be so at all points. To guard against this possible false negative, the experiment was repeated at different parts of the year.

    The other possibility was that the Earth dragged a "bubble" of aether along with it (or that the light near the surface traveled relative to the Atmosphere. ) This possibility was dismissed by the measurement of Stellar aberration. (an effect where the light from a distant star appears displaced by the relative motion of the Earth around the Sun) Such light would be deflected upon entering the region near the Earth, reducing or eliminating the aberration. But since we did measure aberration and by the correct amount, the "Aether Drag" hypothesis failed.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Ok but this :

    The aether ws assumed to be at rest relative to everything. Since the Earth is obviously moving, it's obviously moving relative to the aerther.
    Isn,t that a little strange : something at rest relative to everything but the earth moving relative to it (so obviously the Aether would be not at rest then relative to earth).

    Reading about the experiment I often came across the cycle of day and night and never the possible motion of the sun relative to the aether (if the earth would move through "a big something" as a hypothesis then the sun would or could also if only as possibility. Or it doesn,t and then the sun would have a special place between other stars.

    With a hypothesis what you start with first is seeking what the consecquences would be in different varying situations (at least I would do that).

    For example in this case what would be the consecquence of this hypothesis, idea regarded to the light from a streetlamp or a fire ?

    Then the source and the observer would both have a speed relative to the aether.

    That speed could be in different direction relative to how the lamp and an observer are oriented. There orientation could be inline with the motion of the aether or perpendicular to it. (that way you wouldn,t even meed the sun and the hassle. Just rotate the instrument inclucing the lamp and different orientation would give different lightspeed.

    But then I would also realize that if light would really travel relative to an aether it would have the consecquence that a beam of light between source and observer would bend if both source and observer also travel relative to that same aether. Like pushing a boat from on side of a streaming river to the other side : the boat makes a curves if the light wouldn,t curve it would at least not go straight but

    A wave generated at the same place doesn,t curve. Simply because waves don,t travel like a boat does.

    So obviously the whole idea of what a medium is for a wave was mistaken then ? An aether that funktions as a medium doesn,t need the travel idea for the waves and still can show wavespeed without a problem as water shows at a daily basis. The medium is the wave ( inextricably connected) so per definition a wave can,t have speed relative to the water (the wave is the water). It can but then when some water is in an acquarium that floats in a river. The fish in the acquarium would have another frame of reference then the fish in the river then.

    In the water you can see geometrical lines and point also determined by the wave.

    These points, lines move also. That you could name the speed of these points. But that is not the wave.

    I think that,s the problem I have when the term lightspeed is used. Photonspeed (a photon being a geometrical point, or line thus not "a particle" as a particle is a strange word to use then) I wouldn,t have this problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Ghrasp, you seem to be getting further and further from understanding the answers to the questions you're asking.

    And yes, waves in moving water are affected by the speed of the water. (Especially in water, since in still water, waves don't move any one molecule very far.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Ghrasp, you seem to be getting further and further from understanding the answers to the questions you're asking.

    And yes, waves in moving water are affected by the speed of the water. (Especially in water, since in still water, waves don't move any one molecule very far.)
    You could have stopped with the part that I marked with bold typeface.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    If you make a film of the snare of a guitar you see waves running to one side or the other. Which side they runs says nothing about the direction of the wave. Adapt the speed of the camera or recoreder a little and you can make the wave go everyway you want. It is as illusionary as a wheel with spokes that can seem to run backward as it goes forward.

    Your idea of waves would also lead to the idea that the snare wave for the guitar made visible on a screen runs in one direction (and someone changes camera and you sea it runs the other direction while nothing really changed, just the camera speed.

    The guitar body makes the guitar inclucing the snare a closed system in itself.
    The wave doesn,t stop with the end of the snare or the beginning. Being attached to the body at both ends it is an endless wave but closed in itself therefor "standing waves".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    If you make a film of the snare of a guitar you see waves running to one side or the other. Which side they runs says nothing about the direction of the wave. Adapt the speed of the camera or recoreder a little and you can make the wave go everyway you want. It is as illusionary as a wheel with spokes that can seem to run backward as it goes forward.

    Your idea of waves would also lead to the idea that the snare wave for the guitar made visible on a screen runs in one direction (and someone changes camera and you sea it runs the other direction while nothing really changed, just the camera speed.

    The guitar body makes the guitar inclucing the snare a closed system in itself.
    The wave doesn,t stop with the end of the snare or the beginning. Being attached to the body at both ends it is an endless wave but closed in itself therefor "standing waves".
    You really do need to go learn some physics.

    Of course, the waves in a guitar striing, or a drum head are standing waves. Any little kid knows that.

    The term "wave" does not mean much. There are traveling waves, standing waves. plane wave fronts, spherical wave fronts, transverse waves, longitudinal waves, elastic waves, elecromagnetic waves, and state functions that are described as waves.

    It is the physics behind the specific type of wave that is important, and that physics varies quite a bit with the specific problem.

    Your post has no content and no point.

    Wave goodbye and go read a physics book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I propose an experiment where 100 students in fysics get a look at a screen where they see a film of a standing wave (which tells it is inside a closed system offcourse) but the film showing it in a way that it looks as if there is "a wavespeed" to the left. Just by tuning the recorder to the camera a little different.

    The question they would have to answer is in which direction the wavespeed it. I could bet that most would answer to the left. Maybe a few would answer it depends on how the recoreder is synchronized to the camera.

    And maybe one (or none) would answer it is a standing wave which can be seen by the lack of a pulsation. Wavespeed (not meant as "speed of a wave" ) is never a constant for a medium except when the system is a closed system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    I propose an experiment where 100 students in fysics get a look at a screen where they see a film of a standing wave (which tells it is inside a closed system offcourse) but the film showing it in a way that it looks as if there is "a wavespeed" to the left. Just by tuning the recorder to the camera a little different.

    The question they would have to answer is in which direction the wavespeed it. I could bet that most would answer to the left. Maybe a few would answer it depends on how the recoreder is synchronized to the camera.

    And maybe one (or none) would answer it is a standing wave which can be seen by the lack of a pulsation. Wavespeed (not meant as "speed of a wave" ) is never a constant for a medium except when the system is a closed system.
    This post has caused irreconcilable damage to your reputation as a physicist.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    This post has caused irreconcilable damage to your reputation as a physicist.
    That would be hard to do.

    His contryman, Gerard 'tHooft, who is one of the best physcists on the planet, must have had Ghrasp in mind (maybe he knows him) when he wrote this

    http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html

    You might want to read this one youself and think about your own "revolutionary" theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I have a joke for you mr rocket (if you do have a sense of humor) :

    Take a thermometer and try meassure the temperature of the air halfway the thermometer and a wall....I can tell you in front you won,t manage to do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    I have a joke for you mr rocket (if you do have a sense of humor) :

    Take a thermometer and try meassure the temperature of the air halfway the thermometer and a wall....I can tell you in front you won,t manage to do it.
    Where is the joke ?

    This doesn't make any sense.

    I will ignore your very weak attempt at a slur.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    In general you seem to be able to determine things very well and I can foretell that you (or anybody in general) can,t even determine the temperature of the air halfway a wall (or anything) and a thermometer. The same for airpressure with a barometer you won,t succeed and demonstrate it experimentally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    It,s not just a joke.
    In general you seem to be able to determine things very well and I can foretell that you (or anybody else) can,t even determine the temperature of the air halfway a wall and a thermometer. Indirektly it is even on topic.
    What in the hell is "the temperature of the air halfway a wall and a thermometer" "?

    Do you mean "halfway between a wall and thermometer" ?

    If so, just use a second thermometer halfway between the first one and the wall.

    Or, if you know the boundary conditions (including initial conditions if things are not in equilibrium) pertaining to the wall and the contents of the room you can calculate the temperature distribution.

    The heat equation is well understood and one of the more easily solved partial differential equations. You just need accurate boundary conditions.

    Are you off your medication ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    If so, just use a second thermometer halfway between the first one and the wall.
    Then you could just as well put something else to mark the distance where you had the thermometer first and spare on bying a second thermometer.

    Off course it works for "twice the distance" as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41 Re: Ether 
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The Michelson-Morley experiment is one of the more famous attempts. It failed to show any sign of the aether. Subsequently Einstein realized that light does not propagate through some medium at the speed c, but rather propagates at c in all inertial reference frames. With Einstein's special theory of relativity, the notion of the aether was permanently retired.

    In the modern theories of electrodynamics there is no place for an aether. It is well known that light, in the form of photons moves through the (quantum) vacuum without benefit of an aether, with a macroscopic speed of c in all inertial reference frames.
    Forgive me in advance for whatever criticisms will be thrown at me.

    I am interested in the evidence that proves that the ether does not exist. Isn't it true that Einstein based his special theory of relativity on the work of Lorentz, by taking equations directly from Lorentz' personal Ether theory that predicted an undetectable ether?

    Also, shouldn't it be obvious that it is possible to have an absolute frame of reference for the entire universe, assuming a finite amount of energy in the universe? If you as an observer were somehow aware of all events of energy in relation to all others, would you not then be able to find an absolute frame of reference?

    I don't think that our inability to observe the entire universe at once should be considered conclusive evidence as to the truth or non-truth of any proposed theory. Gravitational waves, personally, seem like they could act as proof to the existence of some kind of ether, considering that the basis of their existence comes from wave propagations in empty space (nothing) which to me only seems like proof that empty space is in fact not empty and is instead something. Especially since the energy of gravity waves would apparently be acting upon nothing, which seems to me like a violation of the law of energy conservation. If you were to say that the gravitational waves are not acting on 'nothing' and instead are acting upon the vacuum energy of the universe, then is it possible that the vacuum energy is actually related to an ether, or in some way an absolute reference point? Also, I've been wondering recently about which fundamental interaction vacuum energy is related to, if anyone could enlighten me. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the facts I am basing this on here.

    Do you believe in the possibility of an Ether such as Lorentz described, or do you simply reject the Ether altogether on the basis of Einstein's beliefs?

    P.S. Remember that I requested information on the proof behind the ether's non-existence before you flame me for my last paragraph. If you provide such evidence, then I will eat my words.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42 Re: Ether 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Forgive me in advance for whatever criticisms will be thrown at me.

    I am interested in the evidence that proves that the ether does not exist. Isn't it true that Einstein based his special theory of relativity on the work of Lorentz, by taking equations directly from Lorentz' personal Ether theory that predicted an undetectable ether? [/quote]


    It is not so much that the aether has been shown not to exist as it that Einstein's theory of relativity shows that there is no purpose to an aether and its existence or non-existence is irrelevant. Since it is undetectable, it may as well not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    Also, shouldn't it be obvious that it is possible to have an absolute frame of reference for the entire universe, assuming a finite amount of energy in the universe? If you as an observer were somehow aware of all events of energy in relation to all others, would you not then be able to find an absolute frame of reference?
    It is not only not obvious, it is not true.

    The energy content of the universe is irrelevant to the question of an absolute reference frame.

    There is no meaning to "events of energy".

    What has been shown theoretically and empirically by Einstein's theory of relativity is that there is no special reference frame. All reference frames are basically equal and the description of physics in each inertial reference frame is the same as in all others.

    General relativity goes even further. There is no such thing as any global reference frame. Reference frames are only local.

    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    I don't think that our inability to observe the entire universe at once should be considered conclusive evidence as to the truth or non-truth of any proposed theory. Gravitational waves, personally, seem like they could act as proof to the existence of some kind of ether, considering that the basis of their existence comes from wave propagations in empty space (nothing) which to me only seems like proof that empty space is in fact not empty and is instead something.
    Your argument is that which was prevalent in the 19th century as a result of the success of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the wave description of light that came with it. In analogy to water waves and sound waves people believed that some medium was necessary for the propagation of light waves. This has been shown to be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    Especially since the energy of gravity waves would apparently be acting upon nothing, which seems to me like a violation of the law of energy conservation. If you were to say that the gravitational waves are not acting on 'nothing' and instead are acting upon the vacuum energy of the universe, then is it possible that the vacuum energy is actually related to an ether, or in some way an absolute reference point? Also, I've been wondering recently about which fundamental interaction vacuum energy is related to, if anyone could enlighten me. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the facts I am basing this on here.
    Gravity waves are prediction of general relativity.

    The vacuum energy is a prediction of quantum field theory.

    Nobody knows how to describe both simultaneously. That would probably require a valid theory of quantum gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    Do you believe in the possibility of an Ether such as Lorentz described, or do you simply reject the Ether altogether on the basis of Einstein's beliefs?
    Relativity accurately describes physical phenomena without any need for an aether. From just two assumptions -- 1) that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames and 2) that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames -- one can derive the entire theory of special relativity and the Lorentz transformations that describe how space and time are related between observers in reference frames in motion with respect to one another. An alternate approach is to start with Minkowski spacetime and base the theory on the transformations that preserve the Minkowski metric. It turns out that those transformations, with a couple of minor restrictions are just the Lorentz transformations.

    There is a way to formulate relativity using an aether. It called the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). LET simply selects a single reference frame arbitrarily, calls it the "aether frame" and relates all other frames to it through Lorentz transformations, which are imposed by fiat, rather than through simple principles as in the case of special relativity. Since special relativity follows from the invariance of the Minkowski metric under Lorentz transformations, it is fairly easy to see that LET results in the same mathematics, hence the same physics as does special relativity. It is simply a clumsy way to formulate the theory and introduces an "aether frame" that is arbitrary and unnecessary. LET is simply a result of the prejudices of 19th century physics that adds nothing to Einstein's theory of relativity and in fact obscures the essence.



    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    P.S. Remember that I requested information on the proof behind the ether's non-existence before you flame me for my last paragraph. If you provide such evidence, then I will eat my words.
    It is not so much that one can prove that the aether does not exist, as that one can show that it doesn't make any difference and doesn't do anything.

    What is absolutely clear is that there is no aether frame that could be adopted that would allow one to have a theory of physics based on the Galilean transformations of Newtonian mechanics rather than the Lorentz transformations of special relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    I am inclined to say that the author of this posting has a very inquisitive, creative mind.

    Let me further: , aether of old and spacetime are one and same banana. Stripped of the erroneous concept that aether is “luminiferous”, it is one and the same with the revived aether of Einstein in a speech in 1920. If we can read between the lines, he was referring, impliedly, to his spacetime.

    Jsaldea12
    3.28.10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    I am inclined to say that the author of this posting has a very inquisitive, creative mind.

    Let me further: , aether of old and spacetime are one and same banana. Stripped of the erroneous concept that aether is “luminiferous”, it is one and the same with the revived aether of Einstein in a speech in 1920. If we can read between the lines, he was referring, impliedly, to his spacetime.

    Jsaldea12
    3.28.10
    Nonsense

    You misunderstand the notion of the "aether" as thoroughly as you misunderstand "spacetime".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    I have posted under "New hypothesis and ideas," entitled, "The gravity of newton and the gravity of Einstein"".just good material to read, eye-opener, could have the answers of some of your doubts, as well as leave more questions.


    jsaldea12

    3,31,10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    I have posted under "New hypothesis and ideas," entitled, "The gravity of newton and the gravity of Einstein"".just good material to read, eye-opener, could have the answers of some of your doubts, as well as leave more questions.


    jsaldea12

    3,31,10
    an excellent place for this junk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Without wanting to cause more arguing, i felt this was important as the post does not look good to someone reading as an observer:

    Should the whole post not have been moved to the "new hypothesis and ideas" section?
    rather than allow someone to post a topic about the ether and mention waveman specifically, then ban him from responding while everyone else debunks it?
    To be fair he did only respond to other posters comments about why he thought their understanding of experiments was incorrect.

    I dont think the idea has any credibility whatsoever, but it seemed ridiculous to me that a post about ether is allowed, provided that its main proponent is banned from speaking.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    Dr. Einstein, in 1920, delivered a speech which ended as follows: " 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."

    When Dr. Einstein said..."..space wthout ether is unthinkable.." he was, inpliedly referring to his concept of spacetime. Both have one and same concept of entirely occupying all outer space. But Dr. Einstein forsight has improved with clarity his spacetime. Now there is even higgs field concept, a further advancement?, that like aether and spacetime, occupies entirely all outer space. Science is progressing, ever evolving.


    jsaldea12


    4.2.10
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •