Experimental Detection of the aether

[LeoM]

I wonder what of this article about the experiments that were carried out by EW Silvertooth
Experimental detection of the aether
http://www.unusualresearch.com/silvertooth/silvertooth.htm


he COBE & WMAP anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background radiation is already one of strongest experimental evidences supporting Aether theory concept.


http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph?papernum=0604145

[crispy]

So what is aether?

[LeoM]

So what is aether?

Luminiferous aether, considered to be the medium through which light propagates.

[modernPrimitive]

Yeah dude.

Except when they finally empirically prove it's existence they'll call it dark matter instead of aether. Maybe in 100 years time they'll turn around and say "fuck, someone actually knew about this shit 2000 years ago. OMG it's a blueprint for the physical".

[Caine]

Luminiferous aether, considered to be the medium through which light propagates.

A few hundred years ago maybe. Now we know light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Described fairly completely by Quantum Electrodynamics.

[GenesisNemesis]

What are we, two hundred years backwards? Why are we reviving these old and depleted ideas?

[LeoM]

What are we, two hundred years backwards? Why are we reviving these old and depleted ideas?

The reason for discussing this is because their appears to be strong experimental evidence for the existence of aether.

[Abel]

A quote from the first link in Leo's post:

"This spacing is dependent upon the orientation of the apparatus relative to the Earth's motion, and this fact made the Earth's motion measurable.":huh:

Another quote:

"[We are heading toward the Constellation Leo.]"
They're coming for you, Leo. :D
Now you've got your own Constellation? :notworthy:

[Theophage]

So what is aether?

Luminiferous aether, considered to be the medium through which light propagates.

Light doesn't need a medium. That's remedial physics.

[robto]

I wonder what of this article about the experiments that were carried out by EW Silvertooth
Experimental detection of the aether
http://www.unusualresearch.com/silvertooth/silvertooth.htm

The Silvertooth experiments seem to have been done in the 1980s.

he COBE & WMAP anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background radiation is already one of strongest experimental evidences supporting Aether theory concept.


http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph?papernum=0604145

Microwave anisotropy reveals the motion of the earth relative to the rest frame of the total matter in our region of the universe. It in no way suggests the existence of the ether.

The paper you cite here was a preprint in 2006 and apparently has not been published. Hmm, I wonder why not. SPIRES can find no papers that cite this paper.

Apparently these ether experiments aren't being taken seriously by scientists. Are you suggesting some sort of grand conspiracy of silence? Or why bring this up?

[Martian Astronomer]

Just curious, but how, exactly, does this new theory of luminiferous aether dismiss the Michelson-Morley experiment? I thought that that pretty much put the nail in the coffin as far as aether theory is concerned.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

What are we, two hundred years backwards? Why are we reviving these old and depleted ideas?

Just a CPR for God &Co. :D

[seanc]

Just curious, but how, exactly, does this new theory of luminiferous aether dismiss the Michelson-Morley experiment? I thought that that pretty much put the nail in the coffin as far as aether theory is concerned.

I was going to mention that, but the first link mentions something about how the Michelson-Morley (go CWRU!) experiment was flawed and seemed to use that as the major basis for rejecting it. However, they seemed to disregard the other experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Experiments) which found the same result.

Reproducibility for the win!:jump:

[Lógos Sokratikós]

On the other hand, could a unified field (referring to a unified field theory) be called or likened to æther, or is it only an abbreviation of "luminiferous æther"?

I personally think that when one it talking about the space-time continuum one should say "space-time continuum", for unified field one should say "unified field", and when one talks about luminiferous æther you should also stick to exact terms. If not, we will get lost in analogical language use, and in effect lose precision which is precious to science.

[LeoM]

Just curious, but how, exactly, does this new theory of luminiferous aether dismiss the Michelson-Morley experiment? I thought that that pretty much put the nail in the coffin as far as aether theory is concerned.

I was going to mention that, but the first link mentions something about how the Michelson-Morley (go CWRU!) experiment was flawed and seemed to use that as the major basis for rejecting it. However, they seemed to disregard the other experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Experiments) which found the same result.

Reproducibility for the win!:jump:

But it appears that the aether concept has also reproduce positive results so one is in the wrong both can't be right.

[LeoM]

Just curious, but how, exactly, does this new theory of luminiferous aether dismiss the Michelson-Morley experiment? I thought that that pretty much put the nail in the coffin as far as aether theory is concerned.


According to scientist E. W. Silvertooth, who claims that any laser interferometer experiment analogous to the M-M experiment would give a null result. His idea is that the frequencies of the interfering beams are themselves dependent upon velocity relative to a fixed frame. Therefore the frequency will adjust exactly to cancel any effect due to the motion through the light-reference frame, and a null result is an inevitable consequence.

[LeoM]

I wonder what of this article about the experiments that were carried out by EW Silvertooth
Experimental detection of the aether
http://www.unusualresearch.com/silvertooth/silvertooth.htm

The Silvertooth experiments seem to have been done in the 1980s.

he COBE & WMAP anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background radiation is already one of strongest experimental evidences supporting Aether theory concept.


http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph?papernum=0604145

Microwave anisotropy reveals the motion of the earth relative to the rest frame of the total matter in our region of the universe. It in no way suggests the existence of the ether.

The paper you cite here was a preprint in 2006 and apparently has not been published. Hmm, I wonder why not. SPIRES can find no papers that cite this paper.

Apparently these ether experiments aren't being taken seriously by scientists. Are you suggesting some sort of grand conspiracy of silence? Or why bring this up?

But there must an ether of some kind.

[Tim Thompson]

The reason for discussing this is because their appears to be strong experimental evidence for the existence of aether.

If we are ever to discover the laws of nature, we must do so by obtaining the most accurate acquaintance with the facts of nature, and not by dressing up in philosophical language the loose opinions of men who had no knowledge of the facts which throw most light on these laws.
James Clerk Maxwell, "On Action at a Distance"; from The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, volume II (http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Papers-Maxwell-Phoenix-Editions/dp/0486495612/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212082740&sr=1-1).

Neither Newton nor Maxwell were comfortable with the pure concept of action at a distance. Both of them thought that any action had to be transmitted by some intervening substance, which is the "aether" we speak here. However, both Newton & Maxwell were equally forthcoming about their inability to detect this "aether" by experiment or observation. Newton handled the problem by simply asserting that action at a distance was philosophically unacceptable, while simultaneously admitting openly that he could provide no scientific support for this position. Maxwell handled the problem primarily by appealing to Faraday's concept of "lines of force", and work by others including Oersted, Ampere & others. Maxwell essentially replaces the "aether", which remained & remains unobservable by direct means, with his own new concept of the electromagnetic field. Maxwell concludes his essay by saying ...


These are some of the already discovered properties of that which has often been called vacuum, or nothing at all. They enable us to resolve several kinds of action at a distance into actions between contiguous parts of a continuous substance. Whether this resolution is of the nature of explication or complication, I must leave to the metaphysicians.
James Clerk Maxwell, "On Action at a Distance"; from The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, volume II (http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Papers-Maxwell-Phoenix-Editions/dp/0486495612/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212082740&sr=1-1).


The idea of the "luminiferous aether" was always attractive because of its ability to solve the philosophical (not scientific) problem of action at a distance. But it also carries with it some rather difficult scientific (not philosophical) problems. The main problem that stumped Newton & Maxwell was the inability to detect the aether. Another is the significant problem of interpreting the light waves as mechanical waves in a mechanical medium. How does one reconcile the fact that the aether must be extremely stiff to support such high speed waves, yet simultaneously allow the planets to move through it with no apparent resistance? Despite its philosophical desirability, the scientific problems faced by the concept of a "luminiferous aether" are just as significant today as they were hundreds of years ago.

So, have things changed? LeoM tells us that there is strong evidence that the aether has at last been scientifically observed, solving one of the problems faced by Newton & Maxwell. Is that the case?

I wonder what of this article about the experiments that were carried out by EW Silvertooth
Experimental detection of the aether
http://www.unusualresearch.com/silvertooth/silvertooth.htm

I also wonder. After all, the link is just a discussion age with a couple of posts mentioning Silvertooth. I can find no description of what Silvertooth actually did anywhere on the web. His relevant papers (Silvertooth, 1976 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApOpt..15.1100S); Silvertooth & Jacobs, 1983 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApOpt..22.1274S)) are not available on the web, and have generated very few citations. So we cannot judge his work with the very limited information available to us.

the COBE & WMAP anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background radiation is already one of strongest experimental evidences supporting Aether theory concept.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph?papernum=0604145

So, just out of curiosity, did you actually read the paper, looking beyond the title or abstract? The first paragraph concludes with ... "or in other words, the SRT has not been refuted by any experiment." SRT = Special Relativity Theory in this paper. Such a statement from a source alleged to support the claim of "strong evidence" to the contrary does not inspire confidence in the fidelity of your claim.

The Navia & Augusto paper relies heavily on the validity of their reference #2: Indication of Anisotropy in Electromagnetic Propagation over Cosmological Distances (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvL..78.3043N); Nodland & Ralston, Physical Review Letters 78(16): 3043-3046, 21 April 1997. Nodland & Ralston actually measure differences in polarization, which is then interpreted as a difference in speed, and claim to have observed a new cosmological effect. However, the strength of their results depends heavily on their assertion that the effect is improbable. Several other authors have argued against their interpretation (Wardle, Perley & Cohen, 1997 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvL..79.1801W); Eisenstein & Bunn, 1997 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvL..79.1957E); Carroll & Field, 1997 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvL..79.2394C); Nodland & Ralston respond: Nodland & Ralston, 1997 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvL..79.1958N); Laredo, Flanagan & Wassserman, 1997 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvD..56.7507L)). Meanwhile, Nodland & Ralston seem to have changed the interpretation of their results. In Ralston, Jain & Nodland, 1998 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PhRvL..81...26R) the authors no longer interpret the observed difference in polarization as an effect of differences in speed, but rather an effect due to Faraday rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect), a well known phenomenon.

So where is all that "strong evidence"? Even your own sources seem to directly contradict your claims about them. This, once again, does not inspire confidence.

[modernPrimitive]

Quick question:

Is dark matter / energy limited to the "vaccum" of space or is it present throughout ie: is it present around me and my laptop for example?

[crispy]

But at least Silvertooth knew what journal to publish this to: Speculations in science and technology.

[Tim Thompson]

But there must an ether of some kind.
Why? See my previous post, which I made before seeing this one. This is a philosophical "must", and not a scientific "must". The difference is significant, I think.

[crispy]

But there must an ether of some kind.

Whats wrong with plain empty space?

Btw, what are you physicists take on empty space? I hear something about string theory suggesting these 'strings' constantly emerge and disappear.

[Abel]

But there must an ether of some kind.

Why must there be an ether? Because a vacuum is illogical to you? Doesn't the concept of the gravitational force being carried by gravitons make sense?

The central logic of pre-quantum mechanics thinking was that an ether was required for the heavenly bodies to float about. There needed to be something literally supporting them. That logic has been satisfied by knowledge of the interactions of the physical forces. Why do you reject it?

[skepticalbip]

But there must an ether of some kind.There MUST????
What do you base this MUST on? Is it only that you can't imagine there not being an aether? Perhaps you should think a little deeper and first define exactly what the nature of this aether is before deciding that it has to exist. Does it have any effect on the orbits of stars, planets, moons, etc. like water impedes anything moving through it? If so then they would be slowed and fall together.

Or have you found some reference to it in Genesis so take it on faith that it must exist?

[Abel]

A quote from the first link in Leo's post:

"This spacing is dependent upon the orientation of the apparatus relative to the Earth's motion, and this fact made the Earth's motion measurable."

To which of the earth's motions does the experiment refer?

The ~100,000 year axis wobble?
The spin of the earth on its axis?
The orbit of the earth around the sun?
The orbit of the sun around the galactic black hole?
The movement of the galaxy in the Local Group?
The movement of the Local Group in the Virgo Cluster?
The movement of the Virgo Cluster in the stream of galactic clusters around the local void?
The expansion of the universe?

That's some apparatus!

Oh, BTW, there is no gravitationally bound body known as the Constellation Leo. That's an astrological term for the connect-the-dot pattern of stars seen in the sky during the current time. 1,000 years or so from now it may be unrecognizable as the Lion because the stars that make it up are moving.

Sorry, Leo, but the aether theory was shot full of holes a long time ago.

[Abel]

Quick question:
Is dark matter / energy limited to the "vaccum" of space or is it present throughout ie: is it present around me and my laptop for example?

From Wikipedia: In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe. The observed phenomena consistent with dark matter observations include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation: the remainder is called the "dark matter component."

The only conclusive evidence for dark matter is the effect it has on detectable matter as illustrated above.

[LeoM]

But there must an ether of some kind.

Whats wrong with plain empty space?

Btw, what are you physicists take on empty space? I hear something about string theory suggesting these 'strings' constantly emerge and disappear.

Because the universe is no dead is very much alive but he can keep believing that it's empty.

[modernPrimitive]

Hello? Anyone?


Is dark matter / energy limited to the "vaccum" of space or is it present throughout ie: is it present around me and my laptop for example?

[LeoM]

But there must an ether of some kind.

Why must there be an ether? Because a vacuum is illogical to you? Doesn't the concept of the gravitational force being carried by gravitons make sense?

The central logic of pre-quantum mechanics thinking was that an ether was required for the heavenly bodies to float about. There needed to be something literally supporting them. That logic has been satisfied by knowledge of the interactions of the physical forces. Why do you reject it?

It all boils down to reality the physical doesn't just come out of nowhere like the big bang says. The evidence for survival and psi i mentioned before in other threads also demands an ether to exist.

[skepticalbip]

Hello? Anyone?


Is dark matter / energy limited to the "vaccum" of space or is it present throughout ie: is it present around me and my laptop for example?For now, there is not even agreement as to what they are. The only thing we know is that there has to be more mass than we can see because of the orbital characteristics and motion of galaxies etc. What constitutes that mass is for now just guesses. So I guess the answer to your question if, "maybe so, maybe not". We first gotta figure out what the causes of what we observe are.

[modernPrimitive]

Quick question:
Is dark matter / energy limited to the "vaccum" of space or is it present throughout ie: is it present around me and my laptop for example?

From Wikipedia: In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe. The observed phenomena consistent with dark matter observations include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation: the remainder is called the "dark matter component."

The only conclusive evidence for dark matter is the effect it has on detectable matter as illustrated above.

Ya, thanks I know what dark matter is in general terms.

I know that historically dark matter was thought to be space dust, old dead stars (mundane dark matter) etc which is why the traditional view was that it was a phenomenon in space (the vaccum type beyond the atmosphere). I know that that is no longer considered to be true - does that mean that dark matter surrounds us inside of the planets atmosphere?

Or is no-one speculating?

[modernPrimitive]

Hello? Anyone?


Is dark matter / energy limited to the "vaccum" of space or is it present throughout ie: is it present around me and my laptop for example?For now, there is not even agreement as to what they are. The only thing we know is that there has to be more mass than we can see because of the orbital characteristics and motion of galaxies etc. What constitutes that mass is for now just guesses. So I guess the answer to your question if, "maybe so, maybe not". We first gotta figure out what the causes of what we observate are.

Ah. Ta - yes I know there is little known about it.


Based on computer models of how dark matter would move under the force of gravity, Ma said that dark matter is not a uniform mist enveloping clusters of galaxies. Instead, dark matter forms smaller clumps that look superficially like the galaxies and globular clusters we see in our luminous universe. The dark matter has a dynamic life independent of luminous matter, she said.

Does this mean that it might permeate the entire structure of space-time - like a supposed aether?

Not quite sure what to read into it because all references to dark matter / energy are on a sort of cosmological scale which makes one think of vast open empty space - but is that correct?

[modernPrimitive]

Hello? Anyone?


Is dark matter / energy limited to the "vaccum" of space or is it present throughout ie: is it present around me and my laptop for example?For now, there is not even agreement as to what they are. The only thing we know is that there has to be more mass than we can see because of the orbital characteristics and motion of galaxies etc. What constitutes that mass is for now just guesses. So I guess the answer to your question if, "maybe so, maybe not". We first gotta figure out what the causes of what we observate are.

Ah. Ta - yes I know there is little known about it.


Sorry for repeating myself in two different posts

Based on computer models of how dark matter would move under the force of gravity, Ma said that dark matter is not a uniform mist enveloping clusters of galaxies. Instead, dark matter forms smaller clumps that look superficially like the galaxies and globular clusters we see in our luminous universe. The dark matter has a dynamic life independent of luminous matter, she said.

Does this mean that it might permeate the entire structure of space-time - like a supposed aether?

Not quite sure what to read into it because all references to dark matter / energy are on a sort of cosmological scale which makes one think of the vast open vacuum of space - but is that correct?

[skepticalbip]

Ah. Ta - yes I know there is little known about it.


Based on computer models of how dark matter would move under the force of gravity, Ma said that dark matter is not a uniform mist enveloping clusters of galaxies. Instead, dark matter forms smaller clumps that look superficially like the galaxies and globular clusters we see in our luminous universe. The dark matter has a dynamic life independent of luminous matter, she said.

Does this mean that it might permeate the entire structure of space-time - like a supposed aether?

Not quite sure what to read into it because all references to dark matter / energy are on a sort of cosmological scale which makes one think of vast open empty space - but is that correct?You are asking for an answer to a question that is, for now, unknown. You quoted one scientist's ideas on the subject but other scientists have other ideas - none of them settled. Ideas range from mini black holes to brown dwarfs to dust to machos to many other ideas, even to a rethinking of the laws of gravitation at large scales. For now the best answer is "we just don't know, yet". This is the answer that justifies scientific investigation because if we knew everything then science would be redundant. It is the unknown that drives science.

[Abel]

Or is no-one speculating?

Speculations are like rumors in that the more they're repeated the more "real" they become to some people. Therefore, one must speculate with extreme caution. The best route to go, IMO, is to continue to look for dark matter's effects. For example, does it affect the small in the same way it appears to affect the enormous may be a question to ponder.

[robto]

Does this mean that it might permeate the entire structure of space-time - like a supposed aether?

Not quite sure what to read into it because all references to dark matter / energy are on a sort of cosmological scale which makes one think of vast open empty space - but is that correct?

Dark matter is found clumped near galaxies, for the most part. If it is made of some as-yet-undiscovered particle, then it is likely streaming continuously through the earth at this very moment. (Just as billions of neutrinos are streaming through you every minute.) Some attempts have been made to observe these "wild" dark matter particles, but so far no success. Probably we will have to wait until we have an accelerator powerful enough to create "tame" ones in the lab.

[Abel]

[QUOTE=modernPrimitive;5363440]
Dark matter is found clumped near galaxies, for the most part.

Well, no. It isn't found anywhere yet. Its effects are detectable, however. There isn't enough visible matter to explain the gravitational interactions within and without galaxies, for example.

[figuer]

Is the concept of the Ether a response to Horror Vacui?

[Apostate1970]

the aether hypothesis is in no way relevant to nor bears upon the issue of dark matter, its nature, its distribution, or any such thing.

the aether had one and only one reason for being, and that was to give a prefered reference frame for the transmission of light. once you realize that the nature of light's motion renders such a concept meaningless then the aether disappears in a puff of smoke. the aether hypothesis was, on any reasonable accounting whatsoever, put to rest almost exactly 80 years ago. for 40 years prior to that people had been trying to hold onto it by adjusting the hypothesis to include things like "aether contracture", but none of this worked. finally it had to be abandoned.

the aether hypothesis keeps being resurrected by people who want to once again put the sun or our galaxy (or whatever) at the center of the universe and make light obey galilean transformations (which it simply doesn't) as opposed to lorentzian transformations (which it does). this is precisely the same mentality at work that placed the earth at the center of the universe despite galileo's work, and that has placed humanity at the center of the universe at all times and places. there is nothing more to it than that.

the claims of the aether exponents have been refuted time and again in multiple ways. if their claims were true then light would behave in dramatically different ways than the standard theory (special and general relativity) says it does. the standard theory helps us make astronomical calculations of all sorts, has explained observational anomalies, and has actually predicted that multiple observations could be made which we then went on to make. the aether hypothesis fails on every one of these counts.

in addition, the standard theory of light behavior provides the explanation for why energy and matter are interconvertible at the rate they are. this helps us calculate the rate at which elements are created in stars and the age of those stars, helps us build atomic bombs, and much, much more. i want to repeat this for emphasis: it would not have been possible to have built the a-bomb if the aether hypothesis were true. the instantaneous incineration of scores of thousands of japanese children gives witness to the falsehood of the aether hypothesis.

nothing in biology makes sense without evolution

nothing in geology makes sense without plate tectonics

nothing in physics makes sense without relativity

this is why the "work" of the aether exponents is ignored by physicists... because it is to physics what ID is to biology. it is crackpot conspiracy theory of the ignorant. simple.

http://www.re-discovery.org/

p.s. - yes, of course i know that's a spoof, just thought it was appropriate

[figuer]

the aether hypothesis keeps being resurrected by people who want to once again put the sun or our galaxy (or whatever) at the center of the universe and make light obey galilean transformations (which it simply doesn't) as opposed to lorentzian transformations (which it does). this is precisely the same mentality at work that placed the earth at the center of the universe despite galileo's work, and that has placed humanity at the center of the universe at all times and places. there is nothing more to it than that.I have no interest in the 'Aether hypothesis', pro or con, but I don't see the connection between it and putting the Sun, or Earth or Humans at the center of the Universe. Where does that come from? Seems like some kind of sophistic intellectual terrorism.

[modernPrimitive]

Does this mean that it might permeate the entire structure of space-time - like a supposed aether?

Not quite sure what to read into it because all references to dark matter / energy are on a sort of cosmological scale which makes one think of vast open empty space - but is that correct?

Dark matter is found clumped near galaxies, for the most part. If it is made of some as-yet-undiscovered particle, then it is likely streaming continuously through the earth at this very moment. (Just as billions of neutrinos are streaming through you every minute.) Some attempts have been made to observe these "wild" dark matter particles, but so far no success. Probably we will have to wait until we have an accelerator powerful enough to create "tame" ones in the lab.

Ah, you mean like WIMPS and superWIMPS? Hoping the LHC might discover these - well superWIMPS anyway.

[WCH]

Quick question:

Is dark matter / energy limited to the "vaccum" of space or is it present throughout ie: is it present around me and my laptop for example?Only if you use Vista.

[modernPrimitive]

the aether hypothesis is in no way relevant to nor bears upon the issue of dark matter, its nature, its distribution, or any such thing.

the aether had one and only one reason for being, and that was to give a prefered reference frame for the transmission of light. once you realize that the nature of light's motion renders such a concept meaningless then the aether disappears in a puff of smoke. the aether hypothesis was, on any reasonable accounting whatsoever, put to rest almost exactly 80 years ago. for 40 years prior to that people had been trying to hold onto it by adjusting the hypothesis to include things like "aether contracture", but none of this worked. finally it had to be abandoned.

the aether hypothesis keeps being resurrected by people who want to once again put the sun or our galaxy (or whatever) at the center of the universe and make light obey galilean transformations (which it simply doesn't) as opposed to lorentzian transformations (which it does). this is precisely the same mentality at work that placed the earth at the center of the universe despite galileo's work, and that has placed humanity at the center of the universe at all times and places. there is nothing more to it than that.

the claims of the aether exponents have been refuted time and again in multiple ways. if their claims were true then light would behave in dramatically different ways than the standard theory (special and general relativity) says it does. the standard theory helps us make astronomical calculations of all sorts, has explained observational anomalies, and has actually predicted that multiple observations could be made which we then went on to make. the aether hypothesis fails on every one of these counts.


Ah. Do you mean for example the theory of Quintessence?

[Underseer]

I wonder what of this article about the experiments that were carried out by EW Silvertooth
Experimental detection of the aether
http://www.unusualresearch.com/silvertooth/silvertooth.htm

The Silvertooth experiments seem to have been done in the 1980s.

he COBE & WMAP anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background radiation is already one of strongest experimental evidences supporting Aether theory concept.


http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph?papernum=0604145

Microwave anisotropy reveals the motion of the earth relative to the rest frame of the total matter in our region of the universe. It in no way suggests the existence of the ether.

The paper you cite here was a preprint in 2006 and apparently has not been published. Hmm, I wonder why not. SPIRES can find no papers that cite this paper.

Apparently these ether experiments aren't being taken seriously by scientists. Are you suggesting some sort of grand conspiracy of silence? Or why bring this up?

Good point! This could be the same atheist conspiracy that is keeping evolution, geocentrism, and platygaeanism out of our classrooms!

[Abel]

Quick question:

Is dark matter / energy limited to the "vaccum" of space or is it present throughout ie: is it present around me and my laptop for example?Only if you use Vista.

:rolling: Response of the month! Good one!

[Apostate1970]

the aether hypothesis keeps being resurrected by people who want to once again put the sun or our galaxy (or whatever) at the center of the universe and make light obey galilean transformations (which it simply doesn't) as opposed to lorentzian transformations (which it does). this is precisely the same mentality at work that placed the earth at the center of the universe despite galileo's work, and that has placed humanity at the center of the universe at all times and places. there is nothing more to it than that.I have no interest in the 'Aether hypothesis', pro or con, but I don't see the connection between it and putting the Sun, or Earth or Humans at the center of the Universe. Where does that come from? Seems like some kind of sophistic intellectual terrorism.

the purpose of the aether hypothesis was, as i said, to provide a preferred reference frame for measuring light's motion. what this means is that the motion state of the aether would be the "universal zero speed". everything else moves in relation to it. if, say, our sun were moving at 1.5 million miles per hour (or whatever) in a certain direction with reference to the ether, then that would be that. you could then perform some simple mathematical calculations (galilean) to "reset" the sun (or any other point you wished) as the priveleged reference frame.

so this whole thing is just the idea that there has to be such a thing as "absolute rest", just as the sun used to be thought of for hundreds of years as "absolute center", and just as the earth was the "absolute center" for tens of thousands of years before that.

moreover, some of the aether whackos out there actually do say that the aether just so happens to be at rest with respect to the sun. how remarkable!!! that means that the rest of the galaxy is rotating around us!!!

so, to reiterate, my point was twofold...

firstly, that the aether hypothesis is part and parcel of the anthropocentric mindset... it's the last remnant of it in physics. people want the aether for the same reason they wanted the earth to be the center of everything, and later the sun... because it gave them their bearing in the world, made them feel safe, important, etc. in retrospect we see that the aether performed exactly this function and no other.

my second point was that some of its proponents actually do go so far as to privelege the sun's motion state. and that extra bit of craziness isn't something that should surprise us about them.

what is wrong with all of this? it is utterly meaningless to talk about "absolute rest". if you really understand the MM experiment, understand how the lorentzian transformations are a generalization of the galilean ones, and understand how einstein's work can be seen as the culmination of lorentz' (an aether advocate!!!), then there can be no shadow of a doubt in your mind.

listen, i'm all for whacko theories. i'm a total nut about max tegmark for example. but the basic concepts of relativity are something that everyone should come to grips with and the aether whackos just haven't.

[LeoM]

I have no interest in the 'Aether hypothesis', pro or con, but I don't see the connection between it and putting the Sun, or Earth or Humans at the center of the Universe. Where does that come from? Seems like some kind of sophistic intellectual terrorism.

the purpose of the aether hypothesis was, as i said, to provide a preferred reference frame for measuring light's motion. what this means is that the motion state of the aether would be the "universal zero speed". everything else moves in relation to it. if, say, our sun were moving at 1.5 million miles per hour (or whatever) in a certain direction with reference to the ether, then that would be that. you could then perform some simple mathematical calculations (galilean) to "reset" the sun (or any other point you wished) as the priveleged reference frame.

so this whole thing is just the idea that there has to be such a thing as "absolute rest", just as the sun used to be thought of for hundreds of years as "absolute center", and just as the earth was the "absolute center" for tens of thousands of years before that.

moreover, some of the aether whackos out there actually do say that the aether just so happens to be at rest with respect to the sun. how remarkable!!! that means that the rest of the galaxy is rotating around us!!!

so, to reiterate, my point was twofold...

firstly, that the aether hypothesis is part and parcel of the anthropocentric mindset... it's the last remnant of it in physics. people want the aether for the same reason they wanted the earth to be the center of everything, and later the sun... because it gave them their bearing in the world, made them feel safe, important, etc. in retrospect we see that the aether performed exactly this function and no other.

my second point was that some of its proponents actually do go so far as to privelege the sun's motion state. and that extra bit of craziness isn't something that should surprise us about them.

what is wrong with all of this? it is utterly meaningless to talk about "absolute rest". if you really understand the MM experiment, understand how the lorentzian transformations are a generalization of the galilean ones, and understand how einstein's work can be seen as the culmination of lorentz' (an aether advocate!!!), then there can be no shadow of a doubt in your mind.

listen, i'm all for whacko theories. i'm a total nut about max tegmark for example. but the basic concepts of relativity are something that everyone should come to grips with and the aether whackos just haven't.

But why is there a big problem in physics trying to unite the general theory of relavity with quantum mechanics it's sounds like to me one of these is wrong.

[WCH]

But why is there a big problem in physics trying to unite the general theory of relavity with quantum mechanics it's sounds like to me one of these is wrong.Not quite. In actuality, they're both wrong, but they're both good as theoretical models to explain certain things, and depending on what you're trying to explain, one is better than the other.

Don't try to think of scientific theories as "right" or "wrong." Nothing's right, it's simply either "useful" or "not useful." And it happens that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are both very useful.

[Abel]

But why is there a big problem in physics trying to unite the general theory of relavity with quantum mechanics it's sounds like to me one of these is wrong.Not quite. In actuality, they're both wrong, but they're both good as theoretical models to explain certain things, and depending on what you're trying to explain, one is better than the other.

Don't try to think of scientific theories as "right" or "wrong." Nothing's right, it's simply either "useful" or "not useful." And it happens that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are both very useful.

It's more accurate, IMO, to say that the two theories are incomplete rather than wrong. They are stepping stones to a more complete theory that describes everything, hence the TOE. That's why they're useful.

[ughaibu]

Whats wrong with plain empty space?I think empty space is interesting. Empty space is nothing, with nothing between things there are no distances and the problem of action at a distance is removed.

[premjan]

Empty space doesn't imply no distances in English.

[skepticalbip]

Whats wrong with plain empty space?I think empty space is interesting. Empty space is nothing, with nothing between things there are no distances and the problem of action at a distance is removed.A quick solid geometry course will give you a different perspective.

[robto]

Well, no. It isn't found anywhere yet. Its effects are detectable, however. There isn't enough visible matter to explain the gravitational interactions within and without galaxies, for example.

Dark matter distribution has been mapped using gravitational lensing of light (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/01/07/aas-report-2-dark-matter-and-large-scale-structure/). That's what I meant by "found".

[Abel]

That's a good site for reference, robto. Dark matter is obviously plentiful and I'm confident we'll find a way to observe it more directly. Gravity waves and gravitons, too. It's just a matter of time. :D

[WCH]

It's more accurate, IMO, to say that the two theories are incomplete rather than wrong. They are stepping stones to a more complete theory that describes everything, hence the TOE. That's why they're useful.Yeah, "wrong" isn't really the perfect word for it. But I think it gets the point across.