The new Ether.

[sophie]

Ah, from the old cometh the new. It was touted that the modern scientists dispensed with the ether. Ether was a common term up to and around the turn of the twentieth century. Einstein did his best to dispel the scientific validity of the term, until recently I realised that ether was replaced by the new ether - graviton.

So a new name for an old untiring concept. When in doubt call it ether or some such like - how about graviton !

[liquid]

Assuming that you aren't just hit and run trolling, I'll suppose I'll bite and ask you to elaborate on the parallels that you see between the concept of the ether and the concept of the graviton.

On the other hand, if that's all the argument you have, I'll spend my time better elsewhere.

[variant 13]

Why is the graviton the new ether?

Ether was the stuff the thought was between all the stars (ie space) while the graviton is where the mass is, right?

[liquid]

hold up jmebob, let's not get carried away when we still have no idea what is being put forward! Let sophie explain herself and if she doesn't ignore the post...

[sophie]

Ether was the stuff which caused propogation of waves through space, the invisible material.

Graviton is the stuff which must pervade space and cause action at a spooky distance.


Right or wrong?

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Jmebob
Why is the graviton the new ether?

Ether was the stuff the thought was between all the stars (ie space) while the graviton is where the mass is, right?
Actually, the graviton is a hypothesized massless particle that travels at the speed of light and mediates the gravitational force. Since gravity is so weak you need really massive things to do experiements with there's no experimental evidence that the graviton it exists.

I don't really see how it could be the "new" aether, though.

[sophie]

ex-xian : (1) Since gravity is so weak you need really massive things to do experiements Taken from your theory of gravity I presume !

(2) Actually, the graviton is a hypothesized massless particle that travels at the speed of light and mediates the gravitational force. So was the aether, my friend, so was the aether.

(3) I don't really see how it could be the "new" aether, though. By trying to comprehend the connotations of (2), it was you who wrote it, not me !

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by sophie
Ether was the stuff which caused propogation of waves through space, the invisible material.

Graviton is the stuff which must pervade space and cause action at a spooky distance.


Right or wrong?
Just being picky, but the aether was the medium through which waves traveled. It wasn't exactly the cause.

Also, the aether was thought to be continuous throughout space. Gravitons, if they exist, are discreet or dual natured, like photons.

Taken from your theory of gravity I presume !
No, it's just that gravity is the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces. I could do an order of magnitute calculation of gravity vs. electromagnetism if you like....actually, I think I'll do it anyway, it'll be fun excersice for a nerd such as myself. :D

Originally posted by ex-xian
Actually, the graviton is a hypothesized massless particle that travels at the speed of light and mediates the gravitational force.

Originally posted by sophie
So was the aether, my friend, so was the aether.
Actually, the aether was pretty much like space water. Gravitons would be more like bullets. Also, the biggest difference, aether allowed motion. Gravitons actually would be the cause.

[sophie]

ex-xian : Actually, the aether was pretty much like space water. Gravitons would be more like bullets. Also, the biggest difference, aether allowed motion. Gravitons actually would be the cause. Well one would hope that the concept would have evolved and been refined over so many centuries :D. This is probably why it has reappeared with a new name :p .

[sophie]

Also, the aether was thought to be continuous throughout space. Gravitons, if they exist, are discreet or dual natured, like photons. Forgive me for stepping out of line, but I thought waves are continuous in nature. Photon = particle & wave. I may be wrong, but I may be right.

[sophie]

liquid : I'll suppose I'll bite and ask you to elaborate on the parallels that you see between the concept of the ether and the concept of the graviton. Were my points clear enough?

Sophie : Ether was the stuff which caused\allowed propogation of waves through space, the invisible material.

Graviton is the stuff which must pervade space and cause action at a spooky distance.

[Oxymoron]

Originally posted by sophie
Ah, from the old cometh the new. It was touted that the modern scientists dispensed with the ether. Ether was a common term up to and around the turn of the twentieth century. Einstein did his best to dispel the scientific validity of the term, until recently I realised that ether was replaced by the new ether - graviton.

So a new name for an old untiring concept. When in doubt call it ether or some such like - how about graviton !
Fallacious reasoning, dear lady. Perhaps you use the word "ether" as a slightly derogatory term, to mean something that was eventually discredited by the Michelson-Morley experiment?

We can not discredit gravitons in the same way - though I suspect you are having a dig at the (alleged and quite misleadingly untrue) ephemeral nature of scence. Philosophically speaking, the ether and gravitons bear little relation to each other.


Forgive me for stepping out of line, but I thought waves are continuous in nature. Photon = particle & wave. I may be wrong, but I may be right.
You are not wrong, but not right either :D. First and foremost, the duality says "do a wave experiment on a photon and it behaves like a wave; do a particle experiment and it acts like a particle." This does not make a photon a particle or a wave. It is simply convenient to model them in one of these ways, depending on what you want to know.

Secondly: photons modelled as wave pulses have the characteristics of a wave (spread out) and a particle (localised). This means that a photon's wave function has vanishingly small amplitude past +/-the pulse width, which equates to it having little or no influence on the universe past a certain distance. This distance is computed by applying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to the wave packet.

[variant 13]

Originally posted by sophie
Forgive me for stepping out of line, but I thought waves are continuous in nature. Photon = particle & wave. I may be wrong, but I may be right.

Yes you are:D .

Sorry kidding, photons behave in one or the other way (or both somethings) depending on how you are looking at them

The whole quanta business (little packets of energy) would be the particle side of it.

Well one would hope that the concept would have evolved and been refined over so many centuries . This is probably why it has reappeared with a new name

They are completely unrelated, or only related in the fact that they are from the same area of science.

As Ex-xian said ether/aether was thought to be continious (thanks for the info by the way).

edited to add: Shjt oxymoron explained thing much better :o

[sophie]

Oxymoron : I realise you are trying to prop up the new science of which I presume you have a vested interest. You have failed to show where I have used fallacy in place of reason, you merely claimed I did it. Here is why. Ether or the archaic spelling aether was the thing which allowed action in the (t)(x,y,z) continuum.

Now bending our mind ever so slightly to the proposed graviton, we find gravitons spread out througout space whereever gravity acts. If I can quote the equation G times m1 times m2 upon r squared ; in order to refute that the graviton is not another disguised form of ether, then you, the scientist, or science buff, must prove that these graviton particles do not exist between m1 and m2 over the area bounded by r as invisible as the ether had cometh.


This does not make a photon a particle or a wave. It is simply convenient to model them in one of these ways, depending on what you want to know. I have no convenient way of saying this is irrelevant to the discussion.

[sophie]

Jmebob : edited to add: Shjt oxymoron explained thing much better Then you should hasten to read my last post !

[Mageth]

Am I the only one that thinks that, even if the graviton (which has been proposed but not observed/proven) can be thought of as roughly analogous to the old, disproven concept of "the aehter", so what?

[sophie]

Mageth : Am I the only one that thinks that, even if the graviton (which has been proposed but not observed/proven) can be thought of as roughly analogous to the old, disproven concept of "the aehter", so what? and thus tumbleth the ego !

and I guess the math wasn't there to illuminate that point ether !

[Oxymoron]

Originally posted by sophie
Ether or the archaic spelling aether was the thing which allowed action in the (t)(x,y,z) continuum.
No; aether was a "material" in a preferred reference frame that facilitated the propogation of what we now refer to as electromagnetic radiation.


Now bending our mind ever so slightly to the proposed graviton, we find gravitons spread out througout space whereever gravity acts. If I can quote the equation G times m1 times m2 upon r squared ; in order to refute that the graviton is not another disguised form of ether, then you, the scientist, or science buff, must prove that these graviton particles do not exist between m1 and m2 over the area bounded by r as invisible as the ether had cometh.

Fine; how's your quantum field theory these days? Tensor calculus? Lie group algebra? Excellent! basic graviton theory (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2002-5/node11.html)

I look forward to your thoughts!

[sophie]

Oxymoron : I look forward to your thoughts! Are you asking for my thoughts or my help ? In either case I am no expert on ether theories.

I am working on bringing simultaneity into the foreground of thoughts.

[variant 13]

Sodomy non sapiens is my thought.

I can deal with general ideas about things, but I stop maths at GCSE so I'll leave it to the big boys (I refrained from big girls coz women are usually sensitive about that sort of thing.)

[cpickett]

Also as I understand it, Einstein added in the "ether" as a way to keep his calculations from determining that the universe was expanding, an addition that he would later call a huge mistake. So they play completely different roles, the ether was added to change the theory into something that Einstein found more acceptable, and a graviton is in place to explain the fact of gravity.

[liquid]

Sophie : Ether was the stuff which caused\allowed propogation of waves through space, the invisible material.

Graviton is the stuff which must pervade space and cause action at a spooky distance.

OK sophie, I see now why you make the statement you did.

Unfortunately, it seems to rest on some incorrect knowledge you have picked up, and so the statement is incorrect.

Ether was a postulated substrate through which waves were thought be transmitted. You seem to have a very basic idea of what the concept of the ether represented.

However, you don't seem to have a clear idea of what a graviton is.

1)Gravitons are not postulated to pervade space.
2)They are postulated to cause action at a distance.
3)They are not postulated to cause 'spooky' quantum mechanics effects.

You seem to be combining aspects of ether (1), gravity (2) and EPR entanglement (3) into a somewhat muddled concept. That concept is quite some way off the model of a graviton, so I would advise you to try and sort out your confusion before making bold claims.

[Jesse]

Current quantum field theory models the other forces of nature (electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force) in terms of exchanges of "virtual particles" which carry the force, like virtual photons for electromagnetism and virtual gluons for the strong force. However, most physicists would not be very confident at all that a quantum theory of gravity would look much like other quantum field theories, and in fact there are reasons to think it won't. Look at this summary from an FAQ on virtual particles (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html): I hear physicists saying that the "quantum of the gravitational force" is something called a graviton. Doesn't general relativity say that gravity isn't a force at all?

You don't have to accept that gravity is a "force" in order to believe that gravitons might exist. According to QM, anything that behaves like a harmonic oscillator has discrete energy levels, as I said in part 1. General relativity allows gravitational waves, ripples in the geometry of spacetime which travel at the speed of light. Under a certain definition of gravitational energy (a tricky subject), the wave can be said to carry energy. If QM is ever successfully applied to GR, it seems sensible to expect that these oscillations will also possess discrete "gravitational energies," corresponding to different numbers of gravitons.

Quantum gravity is not yet a complete, established theory, so gravitons are still speculative. It is also unlikely that individual gravitons will be detected anytime in the near future.

Furthermore, it is not at all clear that it will be useful to think of gravitational "forces," such as the one that sticks you to the earth's surface, as mediated by virtual gravitons. The notion of virtual particles mediating static forces comes from perturbation theory, and if there is one thing we know about quantum gravity, it's that the usual way of doing perturbation theory doesn't work.

Quantum field theory is plagued with infinities, which show up in diagrams in which virtual particles go in closed loops. Normally these infinities can be gotten rid of by "renormalization," in which infinite "counterterms" cancel the infinite parts of the diagrams, leaving finite results for experimentally observable quantities. Renormalization works for QED and the other field theories used to describe particle interactions, but it fails when applied to gravity. Graviton loops generate an infinite family of counterterms. The theory ends up with an infinite number of free parameters, and it's no theory at all. Other approaches to quantum gravity are needed, and they might not describe static fields with virtual gravitons. I think most physicists would think it's very likely that gravitational waves will have quantized energy levels, so in this limited sense they'd say "gravitons" probably exist, but more detailed analogies with force-carrying particles in quantum field theory may not hold up. If you're saying that physicists are assuming our final theory of gravity will look just like our current quantum theories of the other forces, you're wrong.

[Oxymoron]

Originally posted by sophie
Are you asking for my thoughts or my help ? In either case I am no expert on ether theories.
Well I think it's a bit like this: by all means ask a question; yours was perfectly fair and valid. Bear in mind that modern physics is really pretty hard; only a small percentage of the population will be able to do the math required to understand it in depth.

You asked me to "prove" a conjecture. Without meaning insult in any way, I doubt your ability to understand a proof if I did provide one.


I am working on bringing simultaneity into the foreground of thoughts.
Say what now?

[liquid]

Also as I understand it, Einstein added in the "ether" as a way to keep his calculations from determining that the universe was expanding, an addition that he would later call a huge mistake.

No, you are thinking of the cosmological constant. Einstein actually was one of the main proponents of abandoning the ether theory because of his studies in relativity.

[premjan]

isn't this stuff just book-balancing, inasmuch as noone proposed that the "ether" could be directly touched or otherwise experienced (nor could "space-time"). I mean the truth of theories lies in their ability to correct the decimals. In general, should any slightly more complex theory Y do this better than a slightly less complex theory X regardless of whether it is more complex due to the addition of "particle X" or "wave Y" or "string Z"? I'm sure an algorithmic complexity theorist could shed light on this one.

[cpickett]

Ooops, you're right liquid, sorry, just ignore me. :)

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by premjan
isn't this stuff just book-balancing, inasmuch as noone proposed that the "ether" could be directly touched or otherwise experienced (nor could "space-time").

No.

Look up some information on the Michelson-Morley experiment. This experiment was an attempt to measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the ether that was believed to fill all of space and allowed for the propagation of light waves. According to ether theory, this should have been measurable.

The experiment produced a null result, which was eventually interpreted by Einstein and others to imply that there was no ether and that the velocity of light appeared to be the same in all directions, regardless of the speed of the source.

[premjan]

I guess there could still be an ether, just a little more subtle than that proposed initially.

but ... I get your point. there were specific expectations of the ether to make it a meaningful assumption and these were not then met.

[the_quark]

And, bottom line, if we figure out an experiment to rule out the graviton, and it turns out not to be correct, we'll gain information that will lead us closer to what the truth is. That's how science works; the repudiation of the "ether theory" was one of the real clues that led to Einstein's work.

If you're trying to argue that both "ether theory" and "graviton theory" had scientests working on thoses theories before an experiment could be crafted to test them...well, yeah. That's how science works. Eventually, when we develop the theory and our technology enough, we will test the theory and discard it if it's incorrect. It certainly doesn't seem right to say, early in the development of a theory, "Wow, I don't think our current technology can test this theory, I'd better not think about it for a decade."

If you're trying to argue that "ether theory" was the medium through which particles propagated, and was wrong, and that "graviton theory" involves things propagating, too, and that therefore "graviton theory" will probably be disproven, too...well, I think neither you nor I understand graviton theory to make any kind of critical claim on it. Frankly any more than I suspect you or I would've been able to construct the Michelson-Morely experiment (the problem, as I recall, with late 1800s technology was getting the precision necessary to measure a wave's travel through the supposed ether).

If you're trying to make fun of science as recycling one disproven theory as a new one that frankly don't bear much resemblence the old one...well, whatever causes you pleasure, I guess. What have you done lately to explain the fundamental workings of the universe? :rolleyes:

TQ

[sophie]

Oxymoron : You asked me to "prove" a conjecture. Without meaning insult in any way, I doubt your ability to understand a proof if I did provide one. Well, we all seem to posess our own personal idiosyncrasies. I believe I have heard that science buffs are big on collecting data to prove their points ! Are you?

[sophie]

the_quark : What have you done lately to explain the fundamental workings of the universe? I am working on techniques to help scientists formulate complete thoughts !

[sophie]

Some points about the ether.

1638 - Rene Descartes theorizes that light is a pressure wave through the second of his three types of matter of which the universe is made. He invents properties of this fluid that make it possible to calculate the reflection and refraction of light. The modern" notion of the aether is born.


1881 - Albert Michelson and Edwin Morley attempt to measure the motion of the earth through the aether by using interferometry. They find no relative velocity. Michelson interprets this result as supporting Stokes hypothesis in which the aether in the neighborhood of the earth moves at the earth's velocity.

1892 - Oliver Lodge performs experiments on the propagation of light near rapidly moving steel disks to test Stokes hypothesis that moving matter drags the aether with it. No such effect is observed.

1892 - Hendrik Anton Lorentz presents his electron theory of electrified matter and the aether. This theory combines Maxwell's equations, with the source terms p and J, with the Lorentz force law for the acceleration of charged particles:
ma = qE + qv X B : Lorentz's aether is simply space endowed with certain dynamical properties. Lorentz gives the modern theory of dielectrics involving D and P, and also includes the effect of magnetized matter. He also gives what we now call the Drude-Lorentz harmonic oscillator model of the index of refraction. But Lorentz's theory has a stationary aether", which conflicts with the negative Michelson-Morley result.

1901 - R. Blondlot performs experiments that show that Lorentz's theory in which there is no moving aether gives the correct result in cases where the hypothesis of a moving aether gives the wrong result.



Source: http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node4.html


Mod reminder: when copying and pasting material, please be sure to give a source or link.

Thank you,

Roland98
S&S Moderator

Edited to add link--Roland98

[sophie]

as I said in part 1. General relativity allows gravitational waves, ripples in the geometry of spacetime which travel at the speed of light. This reeks to me of the new aether. In this case the ripples in the geometry (which should also help cement the geometry) of space-time seems to port the old notion of ether like phenomena.


In the case of the graviton, the potential of the system and the kinetic moments are propogated by this graviton (a means for explaining the unexplained), Again the aether comes to mind.


What I couldn't help noting was, it may be impossible to construct a thought experiment where a particle is introduced into the system to observe the effect off the potentials on the kinetic energies. Why I say this is because all the matter and energy in the universe has already been assigned its potential and kinetic moments. The energies and subsequent masses are already present within the (t,x,y,x) space time continuum.

Furthermore if I were a scientist, I would propose that the gravitational field is a localised field contained within the potential of the masses which exhibit kinetic gravitational forces and they were previously embedded because of the distribution and interaction of quanta throughout the universe. FInally, how would we find this localised phenomena? I guess I would have to leave that up to the real scientists !

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally posted by ex-xian

No, it's just that gravity is the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces. I could do an order of magnitute calculation of gravity vs. electromagnetism if you like....actually, I think I'll do it anyway, it'll be fun excersice for a nerd such as myself. :D


Just remember, if you choose to jump off a building, it takes the gravitational field generated by the entire planet to accelerate you downward at 9.8 meters/second/second. It takes only the electromagnetic field generated by the atoms of the sidewalk to bring you to a more or less instantaneous halt.

Cheers,

Michael

[Shadowy Man]

Sophie:

I'm not exactly sure what your problem is with the graviton. There are definitely successful theories that require particles to mediate the other fundamental forces.

Is it just that no one has discovered a graviton yet?

You also seem to have a problem with general relativity.

What exactly does

localised field contained within the potential of the masses which exhibit kinetic gravitational forces and they were previously embedded because of the distribution and interaction of quanta throughout the universe

mean?

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by The Lone Ranger
Just remember, if you choose to jump off a building, it takes the gravitational field generated by the entire planet to accelerate you downward at 9.8 meters/second/second. It takes only the electromagnetic field generated by the atoms of the sidewalk to bring you to a more or less instantaneous halt.

Cheers,

Michael
.....





I'll try to keep that in mind....






<wanders off and crosses out "jump off Empire State Building" from list of "things to do before I'm 40>

[sophie]

Shadowy Man : You also seem to have a problem with general relativity. Sure, mabye it's because I'm allergic to Universities. I can see Einstein's point though, about the variation in the gravitational constant, and wasn't there somethign about the effects on different types of mass. Other than that I guess : A = A the same way that B = B.




What exactly does

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
localised field contained within the potential of the masses which exhibit kinetic gravitational forces and they were previously embedded because of the distribution and interaction of quanta throughout the universe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mean?
I was thinking about this. It means that all matter has its own built in attractivness which makes its appearance as gravity when matter is combined or grouped in a meaningful way. This must be traced back to the origins of time. When can we say that gravity first made a meaningful appearance? It couldn't be that gravitational forces were in equilibrium so as to not cause the early expansion of the universe as we imagine it. It couldn't be that gravitational forces were so strong that everything was squished into a speck and no amount of energy could cause the expansion as we think it did. Gravity must then have been an emergent force which allowed a form of equilibrium to exist as we witness what we call gravity at this point in time.

I guess the basic question is how does gravity act? A question to the more learned : is gravity only present in the presence of rotating or moving bodies?

On another note, whenever I see a theory that acts and is mediated through space and it is invisible and is not a catalyst, I usually think of the aether based theories.

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by sophie
I can see Einstein's point though, about the variation in the gravitational constant, and wasn't there somethign about the effects on different types of mass. Other than that I guess : A = A the same way that B = B.


I don't know what you mean here. Einstein didn't suggest that the gravitational constant varies.


I guess the basic question is how does gravity act? A question to the more learned : is gravity only present in the presence of rotating or moving bodies?


How gravity acts is a very interesting question indeed. General relativity suggests that mass affects the curvature of space-time, and then the movement of particles through that curved space-time looks like they are attracted to other masses. How does mass curve space-time you might ask? That's another good question.

Another idea is that the force of gravity is similar to the other fundamental forces in that it is mediated by a particle. In the case of gravity, this theoretical particle is called the graviton.

Whether or not these two ideas are contrary to each other or can be brought together is outside of my expertise.

As for your second question, there is no theory of gravity that suggests that gravity is absent in the presence of nonrotating or nonmoving bodies, so I am confused why you would ask that. Neither Newton nor Einstein required a rotating or moving body to generate the force of gravity - only mass. In GR, rotating masses can have strange effects on space-time, however. I believe this effect, called "frame dragging", has recently been measured by some satellite systems around the Earth (though I don't have the reference off hand).

On another note, whenever I see a theory that acts and is mediated through space and it is invisible and is not a catalyst, I usually think of the aether based theories.

Well then you should have a problem with electromagnetism, right? The idea is that EM forces are mediated by virtual photons.

[sophie]

Well then you should have a problem with electromagnetism, right? The idea is that EM forces are mediated by virtual photons. Actually for some strange reason I don't have a problem with EM forces using the virtual exchange frequencies over infinitesimal distances to describe their bonding practice. For my purposes this technique mirrors what I believe is their formation principles, near T=0. For the magnetic force over larger distances I accept the ramping of the infinitesimals to form a field which becomes a thing-in-itself with the ability to act and effect, as shown by magnets. (Am I being ambivalent?)

I don't know what you mean here. Einstein didn't suggest that the gravitational constant varies. I thought there was some departure from Newtonian gravitation which GR predicts and the science buffs are on the verge of testing out in space ! (mabye I was dreaming I was reading that book).

As for your second question, there is no theory of gravity that suggests that gravity is absent in the presence of nonrotating or nonmoving bodies, so I am confused why you would ask that. I was only trying to obtain as much auxillary information as possible !

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by sophie
I thought there was some departure from Newtonian gravitation which GR predicts and the science buffs are on the verge of testing out in space ! (mabye I was dreaming I was reading that book).


GR is consistent with Newtonian gravity. In the same way that SR is consistent with Galilean relativity. There are regimes in which GR makes predictions that Newtonian gravity doesn't, such as the amount of bending of light around massive objects, the precession of Mercury's perihelion, frame dragging (as I mentioned earlier), and gravitational redshift and time dilation to name a few. But in "everyday" experience, Newtonian gravity works just fine.

What you may be thinking of is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), which is a theory that states that gravity acts different at really low acceleration. This theory is an alternate theory to dark matter for explaining galactic rotation curves. However, there is currently no MOND theory that is fully consistent with GR.

[eh]

Originally posted by sophie
This reeks to me of the new aether. In this case the ripples in the geometry (which should also help cement the geometry) of space-time seems to port the old notion of ether like phenomena.
If you want to claim the word "aether" to merely mean that space is never empty, then you might be able to get away with that. In the vast voids between galaxies, there is always something there, ie. the metric, gravitational waves, etc. which contrasts to the Newtonian view of empty space being a boring, static background of the universe. However, you'll find that the old aether of Maxwell is quite different than the gravitational field of GR. John Baez posted this in response to claims that GR is an aether theory: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

As well, there is another kind of aether that gets mentioned these days. It's called the quantum aether. Paul Davies wrote an article about it here: http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/quantum.jsp?id=23154400

However, it is also only an appropriate name if by aether you mean there is "something there" in empty space. From the bottom of the article:

This is not the ether of Maxwell. Rather than being the medium that transmits light, it is made of light-virtual photons-and other virtual particles. Nor is it the plenum.

[RUmike]

Originally posted by ex-xian
Actually, the graviton is a hypothesized massless particle that travels at the speed of light and mediates the gravitational force.

Originally posted by sophie
So was the aether, my friend, so was the aether.
I wouldn't consider this the same at all, since under classical Newtonian mechanics, gravity was thought to act instantly upon everything else, but Einstein realized this could not be so. The graviton, if it exists, moves only at the speed of light. So if the Sun were to explode right now, the Earth wouldn't feel a difference in gravity for about 8 minutes. Don't know if this was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I didn't thoroughly read the rest of it.

[AdamWho]

I think a better candidate for "the new ether" is the new age concept of universal consciousness; which is based on the wildly misinterpreted role of "observer" in QM.