Essay Abstract

In this essay I ask whether the question of the aether is done and dusted, as mainstream physics has considered it so for over a century, or whether there is a chance for resurrection after the discovery of the Higgs boson, and hence indirectly, the Higgs field which can be interpreted as an aether of sorts. I pose the question "what if one of the postulates of special relativity has been misunderstood and misrepresented?" and try to answer it in light of modern understanding the motion of the Earth through space, with respect to aberration, relativity's time dilation and length contraction, and variability in the speed of light in various optical dielectric mediums relative to inertial frames of reference. I conclude the essay with notes on how Einstein himself thought about the aether throughout his life.

Author Bio

Amateur sleuth, self taught philosopher currently working on a new quantum theory of gravity involving aether.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Prof Marts Liena,

Thank you for giving a nice essay on Aether, your words.......... Space can be the Newtonian mathematical 3-D shoebox that holds the aether and material objects, or sometimes space is defined as the contents of the shoebox: the vacuum or the aether. ..................

Was it stated by Newton, that Aether is required?

Best Regards

=snp

    Thank you for a very interesting paper. Thank you for clearly explaining a concept that, as you note, 芦has a long history with many twists and turns聽禄!

    You also write 芦聽experiments ... have so far been interpreted that no experiment has been able to show the absolute motion of the observer聽禄. Here, you were probably referring to absolute translational motion. However, I wonder if you agree that the Michelson-Gale experiment showed the absolute rotational motion of an observer on the surface of the Earth? Michelson showed that his measured results in this experiment were consistent with the Earth rotating about its polar axis in a stationary aether. Yet, Relativity treats this as a Sagnac experiment, explaining the results as a time dilation effect experienced by light traveling in opposite directions around a rotating loop. This again apparently leaves the aether undecided, as you point out, yet absolute motion seems to be present in the sense that the observer is rotating, not the universe. Does this affect your arguments in any way?

      Dear SNP Gupta,

      Thank you for your comments.

      To quote Newton: "Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space ... Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another"

      These notions of Newton imply that absolute space and time do not depend upon physical events, but are a backdrop or stage setting within which physical phenomena occur. Thus, every object has an absolute state of motion relative to absolute space, so that an object must be either in a state of absolute rest, or moving at some absolute speed.

      Newton was most prescient when he said "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"

      Dear SNP,

      Thanks for your question, which appears to have been answered. I didn't realise that Newton also had discussed the aether, but as the quote above shows, the great man thought deeply on it. He almost grabs my essay idea of variable permittivity, and Einstein's VSL in this quote. (Thanks Lachlan)

      Warm regards

      Marts

      Dear Otis,

      Thank you for your insightful questions. I will answer your first question simply by agreeing with you, with a caveat on the meaning of absolute, a word which should be dropped from your question.

      The Sagnac effect, the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson loop interferometer are all examples of a class of phenomena that has been shown is based on the second postulate mentioned in my essay, namely that the speed of light c, is a constant, independent of the relative motion of the source or observer. When Sagnac conducted his experiment in 1913 he observed a shift of the interference fringes every time the angular rotation of his loop interferometer was changed. He believed that this showed the existence of the aether and he published two papers with the titles "The existence of the luminiferous ether demonstrated by means of the effect of a relative ether wind in an uniformly rotating interferometer" and "On the proof of reality of the luminiferous ether with the experiment of the rotating interferometer."

      Galilean transformations seem to be adequate in most low angular velocity cases, although relativistic transformations are most often used. An essential point that has not been well-understood until recent years, is that rotation is not required for the Sagnac effect to be manifest. What matters is that light moves along a closed circuit, and that an observer is in motion with respect to that circuit, as has been shown by Wang. This class of experiment leaves the aether undecided, but indicates that if there is an aether it is not an entrained one, as was thought by many of the early theorists. Thus it naturally supports the effect of aberration.

      The biggest sticking point with respect to special relativity is that rotating frames of reference are used in this class of experiment, not the inertial frames required by Einstein's 1905 theory.

      An interesting aside is the zero area Sagnac interferometer which is insensitive to rotation, but extremely sensitive to changes in optical path length, and hence has been considered for use in gravitational wave detectors.

      Dear Marts Liena,

      Thank you for a well written, well reasoned, informative essay. I agree with most of your observations/opinions and was unfamiliar with a number of recent papers and experiments that you referenced.

      You are clearly correct that Einstein, considered to have abolished ether with special relativity, restored the concept, in varying ways, but essentially viewing "fields as physical states of space", and more specifically "there is no space absent field".

      I have for several years considered ether as that which light propagates through. I fully agree with Einstein that

      "Space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light..."

      I hope you will read and comment on my essay which is related to yours:

      Deciding on the nature of time and space

      In your response to Otis, above, on the Michelson-Gale experiments you say:

      "The biggest sticking point with respect to special relativity is that rotating frames of reference are used in this class of experiment, not the inertial frames required by Einstein's 1905 theory."

      That is an extremely important point. I am becoming convinced that 'ontology is all.' Einstein clearly formulated a 4D-ontology based on inertial frames. It is not at all clear that rotation and gravitation fit in 4D, despite that special relativity is freely extended into these non-inertial frames whenever it is deemed necessary.

      Anyway, I fully agree with you about the issue of ether "it definitely is not undecidable!"

      Thanks again for your essay and good luck.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Marts

      Many thanks for this interesting paper.

      It seems as we both agree with Einstein when he said that:

      physics without an ether is unthinkable

      Einstein's abolishing of the ether was the greatest sin in physics. Einstein himself realized this. So, this must be very painful for Einstein.

      With best regards from _______________ John-Erik

        Dear Edwin,

        Thank you for you kind comments on my essay.

        I have read your essays with enthusiasm over the years since I first entered the competition in the 'Trick or Truth' year. I will comment on your latest essay on your page, but suffice it to say it made my spine tingle! (a good tingle)

        As for rotating frames, well, there is much to say. I took a lot out of the essay for reasons of length. However I am interested in Mach and the aether, why Iw is conserved, Lense-Thirring, homopolar generators, etc.

        The great Feynman noted that with respect to aether wind "... that a complete conspiracy is itself a law of nature! Poincare then proposed that there is such a law of nature, that it is not possible to discover an ether wind by any experiment; that is, there is no way to determine an absolute velocity."

        Let us hope we are now entering an era where that 'law of nature' is broken!

        Regards,

        Marts

        Dear John-Erik,

        Thank you for your comments. I am glad we both agree on the necessity of an aether. A colleague of mine has formulated an aether theory that provides a new theory of gravity that is different from all the others. I notice you commented on Fatio, a genius who was well ahead of his time. Tom van Flandern got me interested in gravity some decades ago, and I am well versed in most gravitation theories, except for QLG. Here I have only read Carlo Rovelli's book which I enjoyed very much, although I do not always agree with him.

        I will read "How Science became fiction" and then maybe we can talk about it.

        Regards,

        Marts

        Dear Marts,

        Thanks for your gracious comment. If, as I believe, the local gravity field serves as the medium of propagation for light, then the ether is detectable. As Otis remarks above, the Michelson-Gale experiments support this interpretation perfectly. I'm working on new papers but a year old paper:

        Everything's relative, or is it?

        supports several of these points, starting at page 40 and going to page 55.

        Quite a number of us are starting to converge, hopefully toward the truth.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Marts

        Interesting essay you have written, I enjoyed it very much. It is interesting that I also cite Robert Laughlin in my essay. I was not aware of Wilcek's. In my essay and a couple of references related to this topic: The preferred reference frame reloaded and On the experimental determination of the one-way speed of light I deal with these issues. The paper on the preferred frame was a forth prize winner in the 2012 FQXi contest. I would be glad to hear some feedback from you.

        Best Regards

        Israel

          8 days later

          Dear Israel,

          Thank you for your kind comments on my essay. I very much enjoyed reading both your FQXI essays as they philosophically resonate with the way I think. I also enjoyed an analysis of MMX that you wrote years ago.

          In your paper "On the experimental determination of the one-way speed of light" you conclude ..."we have justified with some examples why the two methods, independently of their spatial orientations, yield the measured speed equal to c provided that u~ u-~ c."

          In Demjanov's experiment, that I quote in my essay, he purposely makes u different to u- to allow first order effects. He concludes "Thus the reality of the first order with respect to (v/c) Michelson interferometer is experimentally demonstrated. Experiments show that the shift of the interference fringe occurs in optical media and is absent in vacuum. The first order interferometer is (v/c)-1 ~1000 times more sensitive to aether wind than the second order Michelson interferometer. The first order interferometer shows the ratio signal/noise ~ 100 all round the clock. Such the resolving power and stability of measurements at any time of day and night and any season attests confidently the presence of the absolute reference frame with the Earth moving relative to it with the velocity that is above 480 km/s."

          You also noted "However, since in most experiments the paths followed by the PEs are closed, one is really impeded to determine its one-way value". In addition I noted Stephen Gift uses one way paths in his GPS timed measurements, and retrieves the motion of the Earth's rotation.

          Your concluding sentence "In this respect, the present investigation was intended to boost and encourage the experimental and theoretical investigations to overcome these technical conundrums.", which I support and thus I hope budding experimentalists take up the challenge of further demonstrating that the aether is alive and well.

          Regards

          Marts

          6 days later

          Dear Marts Liena, Your very thorough investigation of Aether undecidable has greatly interested me, since I usually highly appreciate an essay that talks about ether, which is close to my topic about the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes' space and matter. According to this identity, space is matter, and matter is space that moves relative to itself, since it is matter. Ether in this convention is a synonym for matter and, conversely, matter is a synonym for ether. The ether, which is matter, creates infinite space and time. That's right, I suppose, we should think.

          聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes' space and matter: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ".

          聽聽聽聽聽聽At the very beginning of the essay, I repeat twice the idea that rectilinear motion, in essence, is a circular motion of an infinitely large radius and, if this radius is reduced, the laws of motion of the theory of relativity will go over to the laws of quantum mechanics.

          Further, mathematical formulas follow that only spoil my essay, but without them in any way. I will be pleased if you catch their main meaning and bless me for the further generalization of modern physics. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if they did not agree.

          Visit my essay:

          FQXi Boris Dzhechko

          Regards, Dizhechko Boris

            Dear Dizhechko Boris,

            Thanks for your comments. I haven't read your essay yet but I will schedule it soon. Re your comment "According to this identity, space is matter, and matter is space that moves relative to itself, since it is matter. Ether in this convention is a synonym for matter and, conversely, matter is a synonym for ether. The ether, which is matter, creates infinite space and time."

            I would generally agree.In my picture of the Universe there is only aether and matter (two different kinds of particles) and together they make up all of space (no voids larger than the scale of the aether particle). Being forms of energy they also "create" time. (Well technically humans create time, particles only respond to forces by way of motion and some neat tricks of energy transference by Maxwellian waves). However I do not believe in infinite space as I think the Universe is bounded. I am old school and do not believe in more than 3 spatial dimensions (like Descartes).

            I'll look forward to reading your essay and posting some more on your page

            Regards

            Marts

            17 days later

            Marts,

            Great essay, flagged up by a co-author as we closely agree. (from my 2011 essay onwards). I've long worked on this but you still found pertinent quotes etc. I'd missed. Well done, & thanks! More recently I've studied the bright light it shines on ALL other Physics; last years essay shockingly deriving a classical mechanism for QM, and a recent publication deriving a Higgs Condensate gravity, and even a cyclic cosmology! (see this yrs essay).

            I'd expected discussion of Stokes, MGP, Hatch & Wang. I see you note MGP & Wang above and assume you're familiar with the others. You note no 'magic bullet' flawless solution emerges. I agree won't as long as the aether has to magically 'change' light speed to maintain local c between different moving systems. However Johm Minkowski and I DID finally find a 'magic' solution matching ALL experiments! I hope you'll study it, viz;

            We know free electrons absorb and re-emit all light. We also know they condense at high densities at the boundaries of moving systems, so moving lens surfaces (fine structure), and ionospheric bow shocks (2-fluid plasmas with MHD turbulance between) between the suns Barycentric and Earth orbiting ECI frame. Then ALSO our rotating ECRF! Each is equivalent to Maxwells NEAR/FAR FIELD transition zone (TZ), position known to all antenna engineers.

            Of course we find re-emitted light propagates at c in the ELECTRON rest frame. Now if we hypothesisze that all electrons re-emit at the same speed in their rest frame, we've derived local CSL AND Birefringence, as found by Miller at different heights UP Mount Wilson. Whats more Einstein actually FOUND this model in his 1952 paper (appdx.V p.139) as 'bounded spaces in motion within spaces'. but was ignored, then died.

            That model overcomes the issues with Stokes 'aether drag' but is otherwise equivalent, and explains ALL experimental inconsistencies. There is no one 'absolute' frame, just always local backgrounds. Most can't easily rationalise it but I perceive you can. Do let me know, or ask any questions. I hope you'll also comment on mine.

            But very well done for your essay. It deserves a boost which my well earned top score will give. The Aether is indeed 'decidable' by intelligent minds, if not suffering cognitive dissonance'!

            Very Best, and Thanks

            Peter

              Dear Marts, indeed, Descartes introduced ether into consideration to fill the voids remaining between the large particles. However, when he claims that nature is afraid of emptiness and, if it is formed somewhere according to the will of God, then its walls are instantly closed - this means that everything, including ether, is matter. The point here is different, as neocartesian physics draws attention to, in his era it was not assumed that the speed of any movement is limited by the speed of light and therefore the walls of the resulting void do not close together instantly, but exist for a short period of time sufficient to be real - these are and can be attributed to the ether, which moves matter. I appreciate your essay and wish you success.

              Regards, Boris Dzhechko

              Dear Marts,

              Thanks for the discussion (and quotes) of Einstein's changing views of the aether.

              Best wishes,

              Vesselin