Einstein and the Aether

Science > Physics > Einstein and the Aether

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Laurent"
Date:	28 Oct 2006 06:32:13 AM
Object:	Einstein and the Aether

Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't
bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios
determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very
small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide.
Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time
independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it
topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to
take place.
Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real
but non-material ratios which often help determine Lorentz invariant
geometrical properties of objects. Take the fine structure constant for
example, change its value and you get a totally different universe.
" Quantum phenomena are caused by fractal topological defects embedded
in and forming a growing three-dimensional fractal process-space, which
is essentially a quantum foam. " --- Reginald T. Cahill
"Topological space (aether) can be defined as a set with a collection
of subsets satisfying the conditions that both the empty set and the
set itself belong to the collection, the union of any number of the
subsets is also an element of the collection, and the intersection of
any finite number of the subsets is an element of the collection." --
Webster dictionary
Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to topological
quantum field theory.
" But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of
the ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The ether of
the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of
all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine
mechanical (and electromagnetic) events."
" 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. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. " ------
Albert Einstein
[This are excerpts from a John Baez essay "Higher-dimensional algebra
and Planck scale physics", published in the book "Physics Meets
Philosophy at the Planck Scale"]
***" ...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in
seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us
count the passage of time! We can only keep track of topological
change. "***
" The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background
metric. "
" Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving
mathematical physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a
moment, it should be perfectly obvious that differential topology and
quantum theory must merge if we are to understand background-free
quantum field theories. In physics that ignores general relativity, we
treat space as a background on which the process of change occurs. But
these are idealizations which we must overcome in a background-free
theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state' are two aspects of
a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of 'spacetime' and
'process'. It is a challenge, not just for mathematical physicists, but
also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply. " -------- John
Baez
"When theorizing about an all-inclusive reality, the first and most
important principle is containment, which simply tells us what we
should and should not be considering. Containment principles, already
well known in cosmology, generally take the form of tautologies; e.g.,
"The physical universe contains all and only that which is physical."
The predicate "physical", like all predicates, here corresponds to a
structured set, "the physical universe" (because the universe has
structure and contains objects, it is a structured set). But this usage
of tautology is somewhat loose, for it technically amounts to a
predicate-logical equivalent of propositional tautology called
autology, meaning self-description. Specifically, the predicate
physical is being defined on topological containment in the physical
universe, which is tacitly defined on and descriptively contained in
the predicate physical, so that the self-definition of "physical" is a
two-step operation involving both topological and descriptive
containment. While this principle, which we might regard as a statement
of "physicalism", is often confused with materialism on the grounds
that "physical" equals "material", the material may in fact be only a
part of what makes up the physical. Similarly, the physical may only be
a part of what makes up the real. Because the content of reality is a
matter of science as opposed to mere semantics, this issue can be
resolved only by rational or empirical evidence, not by assumption
alone." -------- Christopher Michael Langan
http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.html
---------------------------------------------------------
There isn't a change in the incoming flux of quantum matter (ZPR,
material space, Guth's 'false vacuum') as much as there is a change in
the information processing, or more simply said, a change in process
speed.
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be
proportianally the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to
keep up... to a point, once you go over the speed limit and fields
can't keep up, matter disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--------------------------------------------------------
Some say the aether concept was already discredited, but they are
wrong. Please read carefully:
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro
(Apeiron, Montreal, 2000)
"Whether gravitational, electrical, and nuclear interactions can be
encompassed within a unified theoretical structure, and whether such a
structure will be conceived as a plenary space with physical
properties, remains to be seen. But if the history of the successive
dynasties of aether is any guide, we can eventually proclaim:
The luminiferous aether is dead!
Long live the aether!" --- Owen Gingerich
Nowadays, nobody talks any longer about the ether in scientific
ortohodox books, in higher school or university classes, etc., yet this
concept has been one of the corner stones of many rational
interpretation of natural phenomena for a great long time - to such an
extent that a good physicist recently wrote to us that all XIXth
century physics tried to "prove the existence of the ether which was
later proved not to exist".
If we ask why the ether has disappeared from the major scenes of our
knowledge of Nature, everybody will answer that Einstein has proved,
with his celebrated theory of relativity, that the ether does not
exist. This was one of those concepts that old physicists were
accustomed to use in their "primitive" speculations, but today,
luckily, it has been completely overthrown, together with other similar
relics of "superstition", by XXth century scientists. It was in that
time that mankind has realized the greatest achievements of ever in
science and technology, which can be interpreted as the goal of a long
walk, that began thanks to such men like Copernic, Galilei, Descartes,
Newton,... just sprung out from the darkness of Middle Ages.
"common people", and even the "common scientist", would be surprised in
reading this book (about 240 pp.), written by the physicist and
philosopher Ludwik Kostro, and intended for physicists as well as for
historians of science, philosophers, or in general for any people
interested in the development of scientific culture. As a matter of
fact, it is entirely dedicated to the troublesome relationships between
the greatest scientist of all times - or at least many people think so!
- and the elusive ether.
Let us see the question with the author's own words (Introduction):
"In the eyes of most physicists and philosophers, Albert Einstein has
acquired a reputation for abolishing the concept of the ether as a
medium filling space (or identified with it), which was responsible for
carrying electromagnetic, gravitational and other interactions. Today,
this notion is echoed in textbooks, encyclopaedias, and scientific
reviews. However, it does not fully reflect the historical truth, and
in a sense even represents a distortion [...] Einstein denied the
existence of the ether for only 11 years - from 1905 to 1916.
Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too radical and even
regretted that his works published before 1916 had so definitely and
absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
The author proves this assertion directly referring to the opinions
which Einstein himself expressed during his life, in a book which is
therefore full of quotations and precise bibliographical references (up
to the point of quoting even the original Deutsch passages in a special
appendix). Here they are some examples of Einstein's thoughts:
"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier
publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether
velocity, instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I
can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space
has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities."
Moreover:
" [...] in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to
speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too
radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of
relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium
filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and
matter as well) are its states.
[...] once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical
properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the
case according to special relativity [...] ".
And again:
"This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development
if science [...] Its story, by no means finished, is continued by
relativity theory."
It seems interesting to quote even the following passages by Einstein,
where he somehow admits the rational necessity of the ether, that is to
say, the necessity of conceiving a space which cannot be thought of but
endowed with physical properties:
"There is an important argument in favour of the hypothesis of the
ether. To deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis,
denying all physical properties to empty space."
"The ether hypothesis was bound always to play a part even if it is
mostly a latent one at first in the thinking of physicists."
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------

From - ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)

" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. ---
*For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in
empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and
relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which
physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the
system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look uponthe rotation of
the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises
space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with real
things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute
space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable
objects, --- *another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked
upon as real,* --- to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon
as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something
which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a
mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the
universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space.
But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant
masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist
does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes
back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as
medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to
which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the
ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether
not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also
conditioned in its state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general
theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities
of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different
points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing
outside of the territory under consideration.
(Which means that all points in space are interconnected) -- Laurent
This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards
of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "
empty space " in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor
isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the
gravitation potentials g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think,
finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But
therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of
the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. --- *The ether
of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid
of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine
mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, ---
*that the state of the former is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring
places,* --- which are amenable to law in the form of differential
equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of
electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is
everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is
transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute
constants for the functions of space which describe the former,
disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the
outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "
[...]
" ...when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into
harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of
theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in
the theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its
mechanical, and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty
space, so too in the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not
matter viewed atomistically, was exclusively the seat of
electromagnetic fields. According to Lorentz the elementary particles
of matter alone are capable of carrying out movements; their
electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the carrying of
electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all
electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.
As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of
it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only
mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H, A. Lorentz.
It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility. " ---- Albert Einstein
----------------------------------------------------
Sir Edmund T. Whittaker in the preface to his scholarly and scientific
"A history of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" published in 1951
said:
"As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the physics of
the nineteenth century; but in the first decade of the twentieth,
chiefly as result of the failure of attempts to observe the earth's
motion relative to the aether, and the acceptance of the principle that
such attempts must always fail, the word "aether" fell out of favour,
and it became customary to refer to the interplanetary spaces as
"vacuous"; the vacuum being conceived as mere emptiness, having no
properties except that of propagating electromagnetic waves. But with
the development of quantum electrodynamics, the vacuum has come to be
regarded as the seat of the "zero-point" oscillations of the
electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point" fluctuations of electric
charge and current, and of a "polarisation" corresponding to a
dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the
name "vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the
historical word "aether" may fitly be retained." ----- Sir Edmund T.
Whittaker
-----------------------------------
In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said -
"The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of
its capabilities and we see in the aether a new hope for the future."
--- P. Dirac
-----------------------------------
The science popularizer Zukav writes -
"Quantum field theory resurrects a new kind of ether, e.g. particles
are excited states of the featureless ground state of the field (the
vacuum state). The vacuum state is so featureless and has such high
symmetry that we cannot assign a velocity to it experimentally." ----
G. Zukav
-----------------------------------
The very well known Tao of Physics by Capra states -
"This [quantum field] is indeed an entirely new concept which has been
extended to describe all subatomic particles and their interactions,
each type of particle corresponding to a different field. In these
'quantum field theories', the classical contrast between the solid
particles and the space surrounding them is completely overcome. The
quantum field is seen as the fundamental physical entity; a continuous
medium which is present everywhere in space. Particles are merely local
condensations of the field; concentrations of energy which come and go,
thereby losing their individual character and dissolving into the
underlying field. In the words of Albert Einstein:
" We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of
space in which the field is extremely intense ... There is no place in
this new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field
is the only reality. " (page 210)
--------------------------------------------------------
And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; ...and he asked them of
what they thought the cosmos was composed; but they replied:
"Of elements."
"Are there then four" he asked.
"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."
"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius, "alongside of water
and air and earth and fire?"
"There is the ether", replied the other, "which we must regard as the
stuff of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale
the air, so do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."
Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas
answered:
"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."
"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living creature?"
"Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it
engenders all living things."
- The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the
arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific
plausibility of aether] has again changed. If one examines the question
in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no
longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced
for postulating an aether. . . . We can now see that we may very well
have an aether, subject to quantum mechanics and conformable to
relativity, provided we are willing to consider a perfect vacuum as an
idealized state, not attainable in practice. From the experimental
point of view there does not seem to be any objection to this. We must
make some profound alterations to the theoretical idea of the vacuum. .
.. . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced
to have an aether."
---- P. A. M. Dirac, "Is There an Aether?"
Nature 168 (1951): 906-7.
----------------------------------------------------------
"...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their
action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great
an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be
caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but
whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the
consideration of my readers." --- Isaac Newton
--------------------------------------------
--
Laurent
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	28 Oct 2006 09:50:56 AM

"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162035133.540112.104630@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't
| bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios
| determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very
| small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide.
| Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time
| independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it
| topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
|
| Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to
| take place.
|
| Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real
<rant deleted>
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. - Sir Isaac Newton.
I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, that
freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. - Sir Isaac
Newton.
Since aether is your religion, say three Hail Aethers.
Hail Aether,
Full of Light,
Einstein is with thee.
Blessed art thou among absolute frames of reference,
and blessed is the fruit of thy tomb, Lorentz Transform.
Holy Aether,
Daughter of Lunacy,
prey on us morons now,
and at the dilated hour of death.
Androcles
.

User: "George"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	28 Oct 2006 01:03:21 PM

"Androcles" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_d> wrote in message
news:k7K0h.117488$3D1.88889@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162035133.540112.104630@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't
| bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios
| determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very
| small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide.
| Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time
| independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it
| topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
|
| Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to
| take place.
|
| Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real

<rant deleted>
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both
true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. - Sir Isaac Newton.

I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, that
freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. - Sir Isaac
Newton.

Since aether is your religion, say three Hail Aethers.

Hail Aether,
Full of Light,
Einstein is with thee.
Blessed art thou among absolute frames of reference,
and blessed is the fruit of thy tomb, Lorentz Transform.
Holy Aether,
Daughter of Lunacy,
prey on us morons now,
and at the dilated hour of death.

Androcles

Good one. I think that one deserves framing. Thanks.
George
.

User: "maxwell"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	31 Oct 2006 03:29:14 PM

Androcles wrote:

A pleasure to read some intelligent commentary from you. It is a pity
you often spoil the effect of your communications by resorting to
abuse. As you are obviously a student of history & parables, I am
surprised that you seem to often forget that "honey catches more
flies".

<rant deleted>
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. - Sir Isaac Newton.

I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, that
freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. - Sir Isaac
Newton.

Since aether is your religion, say three Hail Aethers.

Hail Aether,
Full of Light,
Einstein is with thee.
Blessed art thou among absolute frames of reference,
and blessed is the fruit of thy tomb, Lorentz Transform.
Holy Aether,
Daughter of Lunacy,
prey on us morons now,
and at the dilated hour of death.

Androcles

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	31 Oct 2006 04:32:08 PM

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	31 Oct 2006 04:58:47 PM

"maxwell" <spsi@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:1162330154.326485.229840@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Androcles wrote:

Hi Androcles:
A pleasure to read some intelligent commentary from you.

Whenever he says something intelligent, (1) he copied it from
somewhere without mentioning his source, in this case
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newton-princ.html ,
(2) he doesn't understand it, and (3) he thinks it's false and
his quoting it is a pathetic attempt at sarcasm.

It is a pity
you often spoil the effect of your communications by resorting to
abuse. As you are obviously a student of history & parables, I am
surprised that you seem to often forget that "honey catches more
flies".

One thing is for sure, *you* are not going to catch dog
***** with your honey... don't count on it ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?="
Title: Time_Space_Energy ( 5-D ) is the ground state ( a.k.a. the ether, the sea ).	03 Nov 2006 03:37:22 PM

Hi Laurent, Speaking of Einstein's ether ( a.k.a. spacetime )...
Time_Space_Energy ( 5-D ) is the ground state ( a.k.a. the ether, the sea ).
How many spatial dimensions you can observe depends on how far you zoom out.
For example, cosmological time is the best way to see the energy dimension.
Yet, in theory, X oscillations of a laser could define the kilogram.
It's a _Hard_Ass_ fact that time is the first spatial dimension because
nothing could ever be truly random.
Therefore, all changes ( including so-called " choices " ) are _Virtual_.
Where are the _Real_ choices ? To Live/Die faster or slower ? no.
Each is imprisoned in a virtual casino... in then end, the house takes all.
The cosmic _God_ ( infinite in power and knoweldge ) is infinitely remote.
A God/Devil is whatever has Life/Death control over something.
.

User: "T Wake"
Title: Re: Time_Space_Energy ( 5-D ) is the ground state ( a.k.a. the ether, the sea ).	03 Nov 2006 05:09:13 PM

"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_3_3_@Cotse.NET...

Hi Laurent, Speaking of Einstein's ether ( a.k.a. spacetime )...

Time_Space_Energy ( 5-D ) is the ground state ( a.k.a. the ether, the
sea ).

Nope.

How many spatial dimensions you can observe depends on how far you zoom
out.

Incorrect. Please spend some time learning what spatial dimensions *are* and
what evidence we[tinw] have as to how many of them there are.

For example, cosmological time is the best way to see the energy
dimension.
Yet, in theory, X oscillations of a laser could define the kilogram.

Word Salad.

It's a _Hard_Ass_ fact that time is the first spatial dimension because
nothing could ever be truly random.

Nonsense based on false reasoning stemming from a total lack of
understanding.
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Time_Space_Energy ( 5-D ) is the ground state ( a.k.a. the ether, the sea ).	03 Nov 2006 04:35:33 PM

Jeff...Relf wrote:
[...snip idiotic word salad...]
You are too stupid. Go back to harassing comp.os.linux.advocacy with
your idiocy.
.

User: "Surfer"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	28 Oct 2006 12:10:06 PM

Hi Laurent,
Thank you for these excellent and referenced quotes.
I particularly liked:
"Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from
1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too
radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro
as that put into perspective the following quotes from:
ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)
" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. ---
*For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in
empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and
relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which
physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the
system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look uponthe rotation of
the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises
space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with real
things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute
space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable
objects, --- *another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked
upon as real,* --- to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked
upon as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something
which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a
mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the
universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space.
But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant
masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist
does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he
comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to
serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the
ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs
essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by
Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert
masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general
theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities
of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different
points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter
existing outside of the territory under consideration.
This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the
standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact
that " empty space " in its physical relation is neither homogeneous
nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions
(the gravitation potentials g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think,
finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But
therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that
of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. --- *The
ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to
determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, ---
*that the state of the former is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring
places,* --- which are amenable to law in the form of differential
equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of
electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and
is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity
is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute
constants for the functions of space which describe the former,
disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is
the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	28 Oct 2006 03:45:48 PM

"Surfer" <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote in message news:hi37k21nnqr123ede6vbb7o4bakrqpqohr@4ax.com...

[snip]
| As to the ether (to return to it once more), though the
| conception of it has certain advantages, it must be
| admitted that if Einstein had maintained it he certainly
| would not have given us his theory, and so we are very
| grateful to him for not having gone along the
| old-fashioned roads.
Lorentz, 1927
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	28 Oct 2006 07:45:48 PM

Surfer wrote:

Hi Laurent,

Thank you for these excellent and referenced quotes.

I particularly liked:

"Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from
1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too
radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro

as that put into perspective the following quotes from:
ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)

" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. ---
*For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in
empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and
relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which
physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the
system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look uponthe rotation of
the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises
space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with real
things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute
space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable
objects, --- *another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked
upon as real,* --- to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked
upon as something real.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something
which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a
mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the
universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space.
But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant
masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist
does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he
comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to
serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the
ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs
essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by
Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert
masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general
theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities
of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different
points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter
existing outside of the territory under consideration.

This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the
standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact
that " empty space " in its physical relation is neither homogeneous
nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions
(the gravitation potentials g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think,
finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But
therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that
of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. --- *The
ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to
determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, ---
*that the state of the former is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring
places,* --- which are amenable to law in the form of differential
equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of
electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and
is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity
is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute
constants for the functions of space which describe the former,
disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is
the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "

Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	30 Oct 2006 10:11:13 AM

Sam Wormley wrote:

Surfer wrote:

Hi Laurent,

Thank you for these excellent and referenced quotes.

I particularly liked:

"Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from
1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too
radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro

as that put into perspective the following quotes from:
ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)

" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. ---
*For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in
empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and
relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which
physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the
system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look uponthe rotation of
the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises
space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with real
things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute
space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable
objects, --- *another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked
upon as real,* --- to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked
upon as something real.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something
which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a
mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the
universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space.
But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant
masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist
does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he
comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to
serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the
ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs
essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by
Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert
masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general
theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities
of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different
points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter
existing outside of the territory under consideration.

This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the
standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact
that " empty space " in its physical relation is neither homogeneous
nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions
(the gravitation potentials g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think,
finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But
therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that
of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. --- *The
ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to
determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, ---
*that the state of the former is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring
places,* --- which are amenable to law in the form of differential
equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of
electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and
is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity
is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute
constants for the functions of space which describe the former,
disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is
the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "

Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".

I see you like that quote.
Could you tell us more as to how GTR is not an aether theory?
Bear in mind that every point in space, even in vacuum, is ascribed by
GTR quantitative physical characterstics via a metric tensor or
Christoffel connection.
Also bear in mind that these fields (as all fields) can be described as
moments of a statistical distribution of microscopic constituents.
I agree with Einstein that the working definition of "aether" is broad
enough to include such characteristics. The use of the indefinite
article makes it very difficult to refute that "GTR is an aether
theory".
- shevek
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	30 Oct 2006 11:07:00 AM

wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Surfer wrote:

Hi Laurent,

Thank you for these excellent and referenced quotes.

I particularly liked:

"Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from
1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too
radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro

as that put into perspective the following quotes from:
ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)

" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. ---
*For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in
empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and
relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which
physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the
system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look uponthe rotation of
the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises
space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with real
things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute
space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable
objects, --- *another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked
upon as real,* --- to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked
upon as something real.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something
which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a
mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the
universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space.
But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant
masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist
does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he
comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to
serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the
ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs
essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by
Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert
masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general
theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities
of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different
points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter
existing outside of the territory under consideration.

This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the
standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact
that " empty space " in its physical relation is neither homogeneous
nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions
(the gravitation potentials g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think,
finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But
therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that
of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. --- *The
ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to
determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, ---
*that the state of the former is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring
places,* --- which are amenable to law in the form of differential
equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of
electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and
is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity
is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute
constants for the functions of space which describe the former,
disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is
the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "

Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".

I see you like that quote.

Could you tell us more as to how GTR is not an aether theory?

Bear in mind that every point in space, even in vacuum, is ascribed by
GTR quantitative physical characterstics via a metric tensor or
Christoffel connection.

Also bear in mind that these fields (as all fields) can be described as
moments of a statistical distribution of microscopic constituents.

I agree with Einstein that the working definition of "aether" is broad
enough to include such characteristics. The use of the indefinite
article makes it very difficult to refute that "GTR is an aether
theory".

- shevek

Pretty much boils down to what different people mean by the word "ether"
doesn't it?
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
"What Einstein really meant was that the aether which had been
overthrown by str (and thus was incompatible with gtr, which
incorporates str) involved a a specific "preferred frame of
reference" in the classical field theory, whereas the field equation
of gtr involves no "prior geometry" (such as the euclidean geometry
of "space" which has assumed by Maxwell and his contemporaries), much
less any "preferred frame". Nonetheless, gtr does not quite say there
is "nothing" in "empty space"; in general there will be gravitational
waves running about, and these carry (very tiny) amounts of energy,
which gravitate. So in this sense, a very different kind of "aether"
in the very weak sense of there being "something there" in a vacuum
(namely nonlocalizable gravitational field energy, metric properties
of "space" in a 3+1 decomposition, etc.), could be said to enter into
gtr. In modern quantum field theories, of course, there are still
more "things which are there" in a vacuum, but again these do not
constitute an "aether" in the nineteenth century sense in which this
word was used as a technical term".
.

User: "FrediFizzx"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	30 Oct 2006 11:27:24 AM

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Uiq1h.216310$FQ1.43308@attbi_s71...

shevek4@yahoo.com wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and
Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory
could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in
that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the
kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in
the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon
ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence
that
"gtr is an aether theory".

I see you like that quote.

Could you tell us more as to how GTR is not an aether theory?

Bear in mind that every point in space, even in vacuum, is ascribed
by
GTR quantitative physical characterstics via a metric tensor or
Christoffel connection.

Also bear in mind that these fields (as all fields) can be described
as
moments of a statistical distribution of microscopic constituents.

I agree with Einstein that the working definition of "aether" is
broad
enough to include such characteristics. The use of the indefinite
article makes it very difficult to refute that "GTR is an aether
theory". - shevek

Pretty much boils down to what different people mean by the word
"ether"
doesn't it?

Sure. ;-)
Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."
I think perhaps that it is pretty silly to think that anything at all
"couples" to space or spacetime. Space is merely the stage for the
quantum "actors" to play on. Quantum objects couple to each other. The
left hand side of the EFE, Guv = Tuv, is describing the interactional
geometry of quantum objects. And there are probably some quantum
objects involved that we don't know about yet.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.

User: "Laurent"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	10 Nov 2006 11:17:37 AM

FrediFizzx wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Uiq1h.216310$FQ1.43308@attbi_s71...

shevek4@yahoo.com wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and
Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory
could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in
that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the
kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in
the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon
ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence
that
"gtr is an aether theory".

I see you like that quote.

Could you tell us more as to how GTR is not an aether theory?

Bear in mind that every point in space, even in vacuum, is ascribed
by
GTR quantitative physical characterstics via a metric tensor or
Christoffel connection.

Also bear in mind that these fields (as all fields) can be described
as
moments of a statistical distribution of microscopic constituents.

I agree with Einstein that the working definition of "aether" is
broad
enough to include such characteristics. The use of the indefinite
article makes it very difficult to refute that "GTR is an aether
theory". - shevek

Pretty much boils down to what different people mean by the word
"ether"
doesn't it?

Sure. ;-)

Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

I think perhaps that it is pretty silly to think that anything at all
"couples" to space or spacetime. Space is merely the stage for the
quantum "actors" to play on. Quantum objects couple to each other. The
left hand side of the EFE, Guv = Tuv, is describing the interactional
geometry of quantum objects. And there are probably some quantum
objects involved that we don't know about yet.

And these quantum actors come from where? Or do you believe in creation
ex nihilo?
Empty space is like a point, dimensionless, yet, it contains the
universe.
--
Laurent

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

User: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	28 Oct 2006 01:51:05 PM

The point in a fact, is that, somewhere among his exploration of a
philosophy, as along his immersion in a thermodynamics at ETH, as also along
his independant post-ETH research, Einstein, has had already began to forge
an approach to physics along a detailed model building.
However, ETH is the Eidgen�ssische Technische Hochschule, which it has had
frustrated Einstein by not paying an adequate attention to the relativity
along the theories of electricity and a magnetism, as it has had been, a
just, more important a name electricity and a name magnetism, which it a
just has to correspond to anything substantial along its own way.
Therefore, along that moment has had been an introduction of the name "
ether " into the theories of electricity, which it has been made to attain a
fastidious conception of a medium whose motion would be a described without
any special way to ascribe any physical meaning.
Finally, along that moment, has had, Sir William Thomson, said, along that
matter, that it was a just a business arrangement, nothing at all a
scientific, and this is, what it is all about, a definitely as a matter a
fact.
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Surfer" <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:hi37k21nnqr123ede6vbb7o4bakrqpqohr@4ax.com...

Hi Laurent,

Thank you for these excellent and referenced quotes.

I particularly liked:

"Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from
1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too
radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro

as that put into perspective the following quotes from:
ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)

" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. ---
*For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in
empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and
relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which
physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the
system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look uponthe rotation of
the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises
space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with real
things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute
space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable
objects, --- *another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked
upon as real,* --- to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked
upon as something real.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something
which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a
mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the
universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space.
But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant
masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist
does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he
comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to
serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the
ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs
essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by
Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert
masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general
theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities
of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different
points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter
existing outside of the territory under consideration.

This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the
standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact
that " empty space " in its physical relation is neither homogeneous
nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions
(the gravitation potentials g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think,
finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But
therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that
of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. --- *The
ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to
determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, ---
*that the state of the former is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring
places,* --- which are amenable to law in the form of differential
equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of
electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and
is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity
is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute
constants for the functions of space which describe the former,
disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is
the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "

User: "RP"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	28 Oct 2006 08:50:55 PM

Laurent wrote:

Einstein's aether

Then the task left is to define action-at-no-distance, if you can.
At most the aether, if it is to be retained, is just a set of
conditions, one set for each point within space per each inertial frame
of reference, defining the influence on charges that might happen to
pass through them. If there are any mediators of that influence, of any
sort, then they are not detectable by any means other than their
influence on those passing charges. But that influence is tracable
directly to other charges in the universe, meaning that any mediators
are superflous additions to the interactions between those charges.
Whether we regard action-at-a-distance as magical, or impossible, this
is of no consequence, since this is nonetheless what we observe. An
electron jiggles on the Sun, and eight minutes later an electron
jiggles on the Earth.
So rather than attempting to alter reality in order to conform it to
our preconception of some sort of material contact between colliding
particles, of which we do not know the origin or even whether that
sentiment might be trustoworthy, it might be a more scientific approach
to stick with the observables, and accordingly change our
preconceptions to fit the observed reality. If charges interact over a
distance, then what real objection can you formulate other than a
distaste for that process? And when you examine the roots of that
dissatisfaction, then you might realize that it is a perfectly baseless
argument. One must first define space-like displacement before even
beginning to argue the point. This is what Minkowski did, and as it
turns out particles interact through a null geodesic in space-time, so
that what you regard as a separation of interacting particles
(space-like displacement) is not at all a complete separation of them
in reality, but just an illusion impressed upon you by the Galilean
viewpoint of space and time.
Richard Perry
.

User: "maxwell"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	31 Oct 2006 03:47:03 PM

I preferred your earlier view - don't invent concepts for things that
can't be measured: a very sound basis for developing science (thank
you, Occam). There has long been a psychological preference for
causation = touching, hence the aether. The original Maxwell also
started out (1864) with analyzing asynchronous action-at-a-distance
(AAAD) but his religious motivations drove him to focus on all the
points in space where there was nothing, except his Sandemanian god .
Since he did not know about the particulate existence of electricity
(electrons) this was a valid mistake. I agree that we need to refocus
on AAAD.
RP wrote:

Laurent wrote:

Einstein's aether

Then the task left is to define action-at-no-distance, if you can.

At most the aether, if it is to be retained, is just a set of
conditions, one set for each point within space per each inertial frame
of reference, defining the influence on charges that might happen to
pass through them. If there are any mediators of that influence, of any
sort, then they are not detectable by any means other than their
influence on those passing charges. But that influence is tracable
directly to other charges in the universe, meaning that any mediators
are superflous additions to the interactions between those charges.
Whether we regard action-at-a-distance as magical, or impossible, this
is of no consequence, since this is nonetheless what we observe. An
electron jiggles on the Sun, and eight minutes later an electron
jiggles on the Earth.

So rather than attempting to alter reality in order to conform it to
our preconception of some sort of material contact between colliding
particles, of which we do not know the origin or even whether that
sentiment might be trustoworthy, it might be a more scientific approach
to stick with the observables, and accordingly change our
preconceptions to fit the observed reality. If charges interact over a
distance, then what real objection can you formulate other than a
distaste for that process? And when you examine the roots of that
dissatisfaction, then you might realize that it is a perfectly baseless
argument. One must first define space-like displacement before even
beginning to argue the point. This is what Minkowski did, and as it
turns out particles interact through a null geodesic in space-time, so
that what you regard as a separation of interacting particles
(space-like displacement) is not at all a complete separation of them
in reality, but just an illusion impressed upon you by the Galilean
viewpoint of space and time.

Richard Perry

User: "RP"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	31 Oct 2006 09:38:15 PM

maxwell wrote:

Actually Maxwell was aware of the particle nature of electricity,
having gone over Weber's work with a fine-toothed comb. It was Weber
who postulated the particulate nature of charge in order to account for
the observed effects. What Maxwell disliked about Weber's theory was
the supposed non-conservation of energy inherent in it. In response he
(Maxwell) assumed that the energy lost by the conductors was
transferred to an electrical medium of some sort, which he modeled as a
dense collection of infinitesimally small vortices. What Maxwell, as
well as a large number of others keep overlooking is the fact that such
a medium does not resolve action at a distance, since it's particles or
substance must have some means to interact with the electrons and with
its own parts. While Maxwell assumed a hydrodynamic model, it escaped
his notice that in hydrodynamic processes the molecules interact via
their em fields rather than by direct mechanical contact. The problem
of action at a distance still remains--the distance has simply been
reduced but not eliminated.
There is no possible physical medium that can resolve the problem of
action at a distance, because "it's turtles all the way down" is not
exactly a scientific sort of statement. Bohm's conception of fields
rigidly attached to the particles of charge resolves the issue, that
is, when taken in conjunction with Minkowski's space-time. A
furtherance of the idea is that the field of the charged particle
extends not only through space, but through time as well, or through
"space-time". When looked at from a Galilean perspective (3D plus
time), the field seems to distort, but from the 4D perspective it
remains perfectly inverse square. In other words, if you map the field
onto a Cartesian plane under the instructions that t is not the same
everywhere in the plane, but varies as r/c, then the 3D distortion that
was observed disappears, and the field will be inverse square in this
Minkowskian coordinate space. The field and the light cone are then
essentially one and the same entity, i.e. the field only "exists" along
the light cone, which is why causality in the form of interaction of
charges occur with the light speed delay. The speed of light is thus
just r divided by the difference in time between the instantaneous
(Galilean) position and its retarded (Minkowskian) position, and is
thus an observational effect generated by an incorrect assumption that
t is the same everywhere wrt an inertial frame of reference, i.e. the
Galilean perspective. Our present is actually composed entirely of
past events, thus it is the latter that are real or in another sense
"simultaneous" to us. When viewed from this perspective causality
occurs essentially at infinite speed rather than at c, which
corresponds to the statement that "in our theory c plays the role of an
infinite speed."
In summary, action at a distance is explained in the Bohm model by
allowing the particles to always be in contact with one another, and to
actually be completely superposed over one another. In this view, the
fields of the particles would be real, being the particles themselves,
but in another sense, they are superfluous, since the interactions can
be quantified without reference to them. Still, from a philosophical
PoV, the fields must exist, else we would have to conclude that
light-like events are not causally related, but are rather only
perceived to be. Without cause and effect we will have lost all of our
foundation for theorizing about anything, and we would be limited to
simply making a record of observations and hoping that in the patterns
that we see, and will see, that repeatability is favored by the Big
Serendipitous Accident called the universe.
These fields are not however like those of Maxwell, since as explained,
they are the particles themselves, and thus cannot obviously exist
independently of them. In a sense they are also the aether, that is,
when superposed over each other, since space, as noted by Einstein, is
actually just a reference to coordinate systems, which are a
construction of pure imagination, while the field is that which
separates. Space, field and matter are all one and the same thing.
But then it is still possible that the alternate view that there is no
cause and effect has not been ruled out, and in that view the fields
aren't necessary, though the particles are.
Richard Perry

RP wrote:

Laurent wrote:

Einstein's aether

Then the task left is to define action-at-no-distance, if you can.

At most the aether, if it is to be retained, is just a set of
conditions, one set for each point within space per each inertial frame
of reference, defining the influence on charges that might happen to
pass through them. If there are any mediators of that influence, of any
sort, then they are not detectable by any means other than their
influence on those passing charges. But that influence is tracable
directly to other charges in the universe, meaning that any mediators
are superflous additions to the interactions between those charges.
Whether we regard action-at-a-distance as magical, or impossible, this
is of no consequence, since this is nonetheless what we observe. An
electron jiggles on the Sun, and eight minutes later an electron
jiggles on the Earth.

So rather than attempting to alter reality in order to conform it to
our preconception of some sort of material contact between colliding
particles, of which we do not know the origin or even whether that
sentiment might be trustoworthy, it might be a more scientific approach
to stick with the observables, and accordingly change our
preconceptions to fit the observed reality. If charges interact over a
distance, then what real objection can you formulate other than a
distaste for that process? And when you examine the roots of that
dissatisfaction, then you might realize that it is a perfectly baseless
argument. One must first define space-like displacement before even
beginning to argue the point. This is what Minkowski did, and as it
turns out particles interact through a null geodesic in space-time, so
that what you regard as a separation of interacting particles
(space-like displacement) is not at all a complete separation of them
in reality, but just an illusion impressed upon you by the Galilean
viewpoint of space and time.

Richard Perry

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	31 Oct 2006 10:33:41 PM

"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162352295.190373.208430@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| There is no possible physical medium that can resolve the problem of
| action at a distance, because "it's turtles all the way down" is not
| exactly a scientific sort of statement.
Ok, then we are compelled to accept that there is no possible physical
medium that can resolve the axiom of action at a distance.
Ranting won't help and Maxwell was dead before J.J. Thompson
announced the electron which blows a hole in your fantasy theories.
Androcles
.

User: "RP"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	01 Nov 2006 07:36:26 AM

Androcles wrote:

"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162352295.190373.208430@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

| There is no possible physical medium that can resolve the problem of
| action at a distance, because "it's turtles all the way down" is not
| exactly a scientific sort of statement.

Ok, then we are compelled to accept that there is no possible physical
medium that can resolve the axiom of action at a distance.
Ranting won't help and Maxwell was dead before J.J. Thompson
announced the electron which blows a hole in your fantasy theories.

Weber didn't need confirmation by Thompson before postulating its
existence. It's also a matter of historical record, so sorry, no holes
in the theory as you call it. It wasn't a theory, it was simply a
statement of the historical record, one that you are free to verify.
The atom was also postulated long before it was confirmed. But actually
there are still those who dispute both, despite the arguments in favor.
I'm not however one of those. The original logic was fairly sound--the
smallest particle possible that retains the properties of the
substance.
Richard Perry
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Einstein and the Aether	01 Nov 2006 09:58:16 AM