what about Ether?

[Cerveny]

• Every space (even mathematical) but (trivial) empty set contains points (elements)

Points are not "things" though, they are a mathematical abstraction. They are a reference to a location within the space.

• Empty space has several very physical (elastic) properties (permeability, permittivity, gravitational susceptibility) so it cannot be empty

Why can't it be empty? Space can have properties without having "stuff" in it. Space-time is its own thing, it does not need an extra thing inside of it to make it what it is.

Vacuum, physical spaces is not any abstraction. Its particular places have particular properties (polarisation). Its particular places must being referenced, must be physicaly determined. Physical space can not be composed from nothing. It has clear additive properties (twice surface has twice electrostatic capacity). Nothing can hardly have any physical properties. There must be something, some elements in the physical space...

• Today physics is in a sad point - it does not understand nearly any basic phenomena, it does not know where to go, it stands for eighty years at more and more unstable point, it is choked by TR

Not true, there have been a lot of advances in physics in the last eighty years. Particle accelerators, Higgs bosons, string theory, dark matter, dark energy... there's some interesting stuff going on.

Nobody has seen Higs bosons; strings theories go twenty year to nowhere, they do not explain anything, they are useless....
dark matter, dark energy strongly clash present physics....

• I do not know any convincing prove of TR but two: the first (Mercury’s trace bending) had been exactly calculated before Einstein and the second (bending of light beam) that follows from aether theory (its changeable optical properties)

There are some here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... relativity

You may be confusing Special Relativity and General Relativity. Special Relativity deals only with velocity and time, while General Relativity adds gravity into it as well. The luminiferous aether was disproved by Special Relativity. Niether the Aether nor GR really dealt with gravity.

But for GR tests specifically, there is a list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_g ... relativity

Sorry,
Every such test (but mentioned) is about many orders less expressive then for example dark matter problem that is going against it. There was too strong will to find it, there was a physics' "order" to find it...
It is not possible to quantize Einstein's gravity. Physics has become a belief. BTW Einstein's Universe does not have a reasonable sense :(

[converge]

Do either of you have your own personal particle accelerators in your back yards? Or at least a giant interferometer in the kitchen? I don't see how you can be so sure that the whole world except for these few discredited pseudoscientists is lying. No offense, but I don't think either of you understands relativistic physics more than the people who actually work with it. I also think it's ridiculous to classify it as a "belief" as if it were blind faith. Back when we started to discover the relativistic and quantum properties of the universe, most other scientists were exactly like you guys, calling it "unreasonable" and too weird, and refusing to budge from the medieval belief system. It took lots and lots and LOTS of convincing to finally get them all on board. But eventually all the skeptics who had the skills did the experiments themselves and reviewed the data, and saw that it was true. Relativistic and quantum physics are real.

Doubting the entire last century of progress and clinging to a belief in a magic substance that was proposed back in ancient Greece despite the direct proof of its nonexistence sounds much more like religion to me. The relativistic universe does make sense once you understand it, it's just very unintuitive. But science can't rely on intuition alone; if it did, it would be no different than religion.

[Cerveny]

Do either of you have your own personal particle accelerators in your back yards? Or at least a giant interferometer in the kitchen? I don't see how you can be so sure that the whole world except for these few discredited pseudoscientists is lying. No offense, but I don't think either of you understands relativistic physics more than the people who actually work with it. I also think it's ridiculous to classify it as a "belief" as if it were blind faith. Back when we started to discover the relativistic and quantum properties of the universe, most other scientists were exactly like you guys, calling it "unreasonable" and too weird, and refusing to budge from the medieval belief system. It took lots and lots and LOTS of convincing to finally get them all on board. But eventually all the skeptics who had the skills did the experiments themselves and reviewed the data, and saw that it was true. Relativistic and quantum physics are real.

Do not confuse quantum theory with theory of relativity, please. I personally do not have problem with QT :)
They say the best criteria of true are praxis. You are probably satisfied by present results. I am not. There are more questions then satisfying answers in todays physics. There was time enough to quantize TR. Something must be wrong. It is not QT.
I am afraid if something is repeated long enough people believe into it :( The future will show ):

[converge]

Do not confuse quantum theory with theory of relativity, please. I personally do not have problem with QT
They say the best criteria of true are praxis. You are probably satisfied by present results. I am not. There are more questions then satisfying answers in todays physics. There was time enough to quantize TR. Something must be wrong. It is not QT.
I am afraid if something is repeated long enough people believe into it The future will show ):

I'm running into a common theme in all of my posts here, I see.

Are you saying that you think all the experiments proving special relativity are fake? And that all the data was falsified? What about all the original proponents of aether, whose experiments all failed, and who all admitted they were wrong and that relativity was correct? Do you believe that actually happened, or that it is a cover up? If you think that the people with proofs against your belief are all lying, then it doesn't make sense to ask for someone to "quantize TR" because it seems you would not believe it anyway; you would assume it was a lie. So what possible evidence could you be presented with to change your mind? If you will only change your mind with direct first-hand experience, then you're going to need to construct your own interferometer or something. If you're not willing to do that, then how can you know?

I also can't comprehend how you accept QT but not SR when QT is so much more unintuitive. Your main objection to SR seems to be that you don't like the idea of empty space, but QT is all about empty space, PLUS this idea that particles themselves don't even exist at particular points in space, that they exist as a probability cloud over a volume of spacetime. To me, that seems much "weirder" than the idea that a beam of light can travel through empty space.

[Cerveny]

I'm running into a common theme in all of my posts here, I see.

Are you saying that you think all the experiments proving special relativity are fake? And that all the data was falsified? What about all the original proponents of aether, whose experiments all failed, and who all admitted they were wrong and that relativity was correct? Do you believe that actually happened, or that it is a cover up? If you think that the people with proofs against your belief are all lying, then it doesn't make sense to ask for someone to "quantize TR" because it seems you would not believe it anyway; you would assume it was a lie. So what possible evidence could you be presented with to change your mind? If you will only change your mind with direct first-hand experience, then you're going to need to construct your own interferometer or something. If you're not willing to do that, then how can you know?

I also can't comprehend how you accept QT but not SR when QT is so much more unintuitive. Your main objection to SR seems to be that you don't like the idea of empty space, but QT is all about empty space, PLUS this idea that particles themselves don't even exist at particular points in space, that they exist as a probability cloud over a volume of spacetime. To me, that seems much "weirder" than the idea that a beam of light can travel through empty space.

I know only two "proves" that need measurement with the less precision then 0,0001%. My notes to this two "proves" was already written here. As for the others proves, I personally believe that in case there was the same strong demand and the same strong budget and the same strong motivation to disapprove TR as was for its approving then someone would find out any other measurement, other interpretation, other experiment. I certainly do not claim the data was falsified. It is perhaps matter of interpretation. These data is certaily terrible weak in comparation with a "dark matter problem"... BTW Do you believe the sound from a going car has the other velocity then sound from a standing car? MM claims it, by its way ...

There is one thing that is stronger then math - it is the logic. When i use logic I have a big problem with TR. As I am able to watch web pages I can see I am not alone at all...

It is not difficult to find it: http://www.google.cz/search?q=mm+experi ... rpretation

[converge]

I know only two "proves" that need measurement with the less precision then 0,0001%. My notes to this two "proves" was already written here.

The two you mentioned were about General Relativity, not Special Relativity. Here's a list of some SR experiment references: http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/phy ... ments.html

If you look at the Michelson Morley chart in that link, or the one I posted earlier, you can see that it was replicated many times, and that every time, it was well below the necessary value for Luminiferous Aether to be real.

As for the others proves, I personally believe that in case there was the same strong demand and the same strong budget and the same strong motivation to disapprove TR as was for its approving then someone would find out any other measurement, other interpretation, other experiment.

Well, your personal belief does not match history. People did not automatically jump onboard with Einstein's ideas as soon as he said them. Most people thought he was crazy. They did spend years and thousands of dollars trying to disprove relativity, and they failed. All of the scientists who tried to disprove it gave up in the end and agreed it was real because the evidence was overwhelming. Einstein didn't just make up the rules out of nothing; he figured them out because they explained actual experimental results, which the aether did not. That's how science progresses.

I certainly do not claim the data was falsified. It is perhaps matter of interpretation. These data is certaily terrible weak in comparation with a "dark matter problem"

How is it "weak"? It basically proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the speed of light is a constant in any frame. There's no other way to interpret it. Every single aether experiment that was peer reviewed failed. How is that "weak"?

... BTW Do you believe the sound from a going car has the other velocity then sound from a standing car? MM claims it, by its way ...

MM doesn't have anything to do with sound waves; in fact it's kind of the exact opposite. Sound waves only travel through a medium; the medium is air. In space, there is no sound. The "luminiferous aether" was the imaginary medium that they thought light waves traveled through, but when they went to test for it, it wasn't there. MM disproved that there was a medium. I'm also not sure what you mean... a car that is moving will have its sound waves "squished" in the direction it's moving, causing the frequency but not the velocity to change; this is called the Doppler Effect. But the actual speed of the sound waves is not a solid constant, it varies depending on pressure, temperature, wind, etc, so I imagine it's slightly different in the moving car due to the aerodynamics.

There is one thing that is stronger then math - it is the logic. When i use logic I have a big problem with TR. As I am able to watch web pages I can see I am not alone at all...

Actually logic is math, and math is logic. What logic problem do you see with TR? It appears perfectly logical to me. It is self-consistent, and matches the experimental data closer than any other theory I've heard of.

[converge]

Personally, I think the reason there are so many conspiracy sites about relativity being a myth is because Einstein has such a reputation as being the "genius" of his time. Einstein is used as the stereotypical brilliant scientist. So lots of students who begin their way into science, full of big ideas, set their goal as debunking Einstein, and proving to the world that they're smarter than the world's most famous genius. In time, they see that unfortunately, relativity is a pretty solid foundation, and that they can't see any way to disprove it. So, in bitterness, they decide to say that the entire scientific world is a vast conspiracy against them, and that you can't trust anything that anyone in the scientific community says. This way they can hold onto their dream that they are smarter than Einstein, because even if no one in the scientific community takes them seriously, they can at least get a lot of conspiracy theorists to jump on board and support them on their web forums. Some people love a good conspiracy, especially one that "proves" that all the folks tooling around on the conspiracy web site forums are actually smarter than all of the scientists in the entire world. Plus it means you can be a better scientist than all the scientists in the world without even needing to study, because all the books are fake!

[converge]

It is not difficult to find it: http://www.google.cz/search?q=mm+experi ... rpretation

I think that got added after I posted, but... apparently it is difficult for me to find it. All the links that come up with that search are either about tuberculosis, chemistry, or physics articles explaining what MM is and agreeing with it, except for one, which is a forum post by some guy making fun of another guy for believing that MM was a conspiracy. Is that the one I was supposed to read? It doesn't seem to have anything particularly worth noting in it.

[Arising_uk]

...
Actually logic is math, and math is logic. ...

Sorry to chip in but in philosophy I think we now think this not true, we think of them as examples of formal axiomatic systems having many shared properties I guess.

[converge]

...
Actually logic is math, and math is logic. ...

Sorry to chip in but in philosophy I think we now think this not true, we think of them as examples of formal axiomatic systems having many shared properties I guess.

That's true... I was more thinking that formal logic is considered a branch of mathematics, and that mathematics can be translated into binary logic. I guess just because you can represent one with the other they're not necessarily the same. I think Godel would yell at me as well

[Cerveny]

It is just about the logic: How can MM disprove aether on the supposing the ateher does not exist? ("MM doesn't have anything to do with sound waves; in fact it's kind of the exact opposite. Sound waves only travel through a medium; the medium is air. In space, there is no sound. The "luminiferous aether" was the imaginary medium that they thought light waves traveled through, but when they went to test for it, it wasn't there...")

As for the other (but two mentioned beside) proves: The more precise measurement you need the more aspects you are to consider. In case of such great needed precision it is necessary to objectivize such many facts, that is possible to misinterpret some influence, over/underestimate some influence, forget some influence... Perhaps you attended some tom physical measurement (: you write by such insisted way :) Simply saying: more precision of measurement you claim the less credibility of results is to await. It is not any skepticism, it is just a fact. There are any unbelievable demands put at precision and reliability of technical equipment yet. Reproducibility of such ambitious, expensive experiments are controversy. A strong will, strong motivation is necessary...

I believe there was written enough from my side (I have touch this problems in others treats too) so everyone is able to do its own result:)

[converge]

It is just about the logic: How can MM disprove aether on the supposing the ateher does not exist? ("MM doesn't have anything to do with sound waves; in fact it's kind of the exact opposite. Sound waves only travel through a medium; the medium is air. In space, there is no sound. The "luminiferous aether" was the imaginary medium that they thought light waves traveled through, but when they went to test for it, it wasn't there...")

I don't understand the question. Michelson and Morley thought that the aether DID exist. If it existed, it would have had properties that could be observed that would prove its existence, the aetheric wind and aetheric drift. The "point" of the aether was that they beleived there must be some kind of fluid that light "waves" traveled through. Their test did not suppose that aether didn't exist. They supposed it DID exist, and wanted to prove that the actual numbers for aetheric drift matched what the calculations said they should. But they didn't. The observations showed that there was no aether there at all. If the aether existed, the experiment should have yielded one result. Instead, it yielded a different result, which meant the aether didn't exist. That's logical to me. Saying "Well the experiment does not match up at all with what aether is supposed to do. Oh well, let's ignore it and say that aether is real anyway" is most definitely not logic; that is faith.

As for the other (but two mentioned beside) proves: The more precise measurement you need the more aspects you are to consider. In case of such great needed precision it is necessary to objectivize such many facts, that is possible to misinterpret some influence, over/underestimate some influence, forget some influence... Perhaps you attended some tom physical measurement (: you write by such insisted way Simply saying: more precision of measurement you claim the less credibility of results is to await. It is not any skepticism, it is just a fact. There are any unbelievable demands put at precision and reliability of technical equipment yet. Reproducibility of such ambitious, expensive experiments are controversy. A strong will, strong motivation is necessary...

I believe there was written enough from my side (I have touch this problems in others treats too) so everyone is able to do its own result:)

I'm trying to translate that... you're saying that if you need precise measurments for your experiment, that the experiment is probably corrupt and you can't trust the results, because being precise is "too hard"? If that's the case, then all of physics in the last hundred years or so is completely untrustable. Everything we do these days uses precise instruments to take precise measurements. You say you have faith in QM, but how could you, when the measurements there are literally as small and precise as possible in the physical universe? They're literally searching for trace trails of individual particles in a spray of billions in an accelerator. You can't get any more precise than that! By contrast, the MM really doesn't require much precision at all; it's been replicated over and over on all sorts of precision scales and it's never, ever, even come close to the values necessary for aether to exist.

If you refuse to trust any experiments that use precise measurements, how do you expect physics to do anything anymore? The "normal, obvious" scale of Newtonian Mechanics has been tapped out; we already know how that works. We're now dealing with the incredibly tiny (quantum) and the incredibly large (relativistic), and that requires precision.

[Aetixintro]

I'll jump in here too.
I've written about (a)ether too, over in "Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort...".
I just like to say that I support the aether theory, if not exactly for a fluid, but I guess most theorists hold that the "fluid" is not a fluid as such. Rather, it's more about undetected phenomena connected to gravity yet not being any graviton.

An alternative view to aether can be this: in a unified picture of physics where the strong and weak magnetic forces are combined, one may achieve a calculated picture that equals what we perceive as gravity, but without adding any new particles and only asserting properties to mass in general, that is, "monades", the most basic constituents have a gravity/magnetic property to them and that is all. Job's done! This is all there is to describe because we have simply reached the bottom level there is to describe whatsoever!

Let me point out again that magnetism has north and south poles and thus reflect earth gravity, but on a micro scale. So this post is now also an update on my view on aether!

Cheers!

[Aetixintro]

I've decided to include this:
So let me be clear: I'm open to both of these views and that I intend to investigate these magnetic calculations first. I'm not sure on the approach for (new) aether, MM-compatible, other than for the fact that I see it logical in the extension of Einstein's RT. But I must point out that the aether research program now looks weak as one is yet to determine any property of it (apart from pure physical space).
I've been in the hope one can find or identify a kind of new ocean, one that is "plastic" in nature, has some kind of an unknown physical property and is subtle and that matter just represents a function opposite to it by making gravity definite. Further than this is hard to describe other than the fact that I think it is an aesthetic property of the Universe.

Cheers!

[Izzywizzy]

Converge wrote

Back when we started to discover the relativistic and quantum properties of the universe, most other scientists were exactly like you guys, calling it "unreasonable" and too weird, and refusing to budge from the medieval belief system.

Exactly and that is the problem when there is talk about reviewing Aether today.