My Aether -- Curt Weinstein, 2nd May 2016, update 11th May 2016 (online version)
0. Postulates
1. There were two conceptions of the aether.
2. Why did scientists look for an aether?
3. Shouldn’t light in the wind of luminous aether be faster with than against it?
4. How to find the luminous aether.
5. A small digression…
6. I am not going to critically analyze Einstein’s Special Relativity
7. Let’s return to the concept of the entrained aether.
8. Where was the entrained aether?
9. Rejecting Einstein’s support of Beckmann and suggesting another model for entrained aether.
0. Postulates (What I want you to know without explaining it to you.)
Now, we postulate that there is no (absolute) vacuum. Outer space, while devoid of sufficient air to breathe, has gravitational fields, has electric and magnetic fields, and has “dirt” (unspecified mass, including dark matter).
1. There were two conceptions of the aether.
From history, we find two conceptions of the luminous aether. The aether was thought to be the general wind of the (local) Universe that enabled light to transverse it. Others thought that perhaps near Earth some of the aether would stick to the Earth (be entrained). To simplify matters, scientists thought they would look for the overall path of aether in the Universe, before they searched for the entrained aether. Conceptually, this was like looking for a stream’s overall flow before concerning yourself with the flow of eddies in the stream.
2. Why did scientists look for an aether?
We may find why scientists looked for an aether by considering the use of an aether. An aether keeps the speed a constant. When I throw a rock, its initial speed need not be constant. I can throw the rock faster or slower. There is no aether for rock throwing. An aether is sort of like a governor mechanism on a machine that is set to its maximum speed – it will go only so fast because the governor limits its maximum speed. So to speak, an “aether” is a mechanism (in space) that controls (the maximum) speed (for a species set). Thus, there is no need to look for an aether concerning rock throwing. I can throw fast or slow.
Nevertheless, consider an aether for sound. When we throw a sound, its speed is fixed, and this suggests an aether. For example, when the sound is loud, its speed is fixed to be S (about 330 m/s). When the sound is soft, its speed is S. If the sound is a high frequency, if the sound is a low frequency – no matter what – the speed of sound is S. Moreover, the reason the speed is fixed is that the aether for sound is air.
First digression: More or less, this is common knowledge, although you may have to correct for temperature and density. We know sound may travel through, e.g., water at a different speed. Further, we can play games with the air to change the speed of sound, or we can consider sound through other mediums, but then we’re changing the aether. One of the games is to use a wind – a moving air – as the aether; the speed of sound is influenced by wind. Sound seems to present a lousy model for a universal luminous aether, since sound is so malleable.
Therefore, an aether is something that “controls” the speed (of sound, of light). However, the term “aether” was used for light, not sound. Luminous aether (presumably) controls the speed of light. (Luminous means light, i.e., electromagnetic energy.) Therefore, by definition, luminous aether controls the speed of light. That is the “use” of an aether – it controls the speed of light.
3. How to find the luminous aether
Mach (and Einstein agreed) asked, “to what is the light's speed relative?” The pat answer (but not Einstein’s) was “to the luminous aether.” The sound’s speed is relative to the (local, often stationary) air. Therefore, if you talk “forward” in a train pulled by a locomotive, the sound (from an Earth point-of-view) travels at the speed of sound in stationary air plus the speed of the train forward. And we may form other similar analogies with moving air, using air as the aether for sound. Conceptually, the light’s speed was relative to the luminous aether. These research questions for light remained unanswered: (1) where was the train that held the luminous aether, and (2) where was the luminous aether?
Michelson (with Morley, later on – M&M) sought the find the luminous aether. Sound in wind is faster with the wind and slower against the wind (an example of a moving aether for sound). Thus, shouldn’t light in the wind of luminous aether be faster with than against it? M&M couldn’t control luminous aether as the experimenters of sound could control (air) wind. M&M hoped that they would find an aether wind. After all, they reasoned, the Earth’s location in the outer-space luminous aether was surely not fixed (for the Earth spins, revolves, and is dragged by the Sun).
4. Shouldn’t light in the wind of luminous aether be faster with than against this aether?
Before Einstein, the expected answer was “yes!” As is well known now, M&M failed to find an aether blowing by the Earth (while on the Earth). Cognizant of M&M’s initial outcome (a failure to detect the aether) and anticipating that they conducted their experiments correctly, Einstein constructed a new physics. Professor Dr. Albert Einstein, a great genius, constructed a physics where the speed of light was fixed, a constant (in empty space). Who else but Einstein could have constructed such a physics!?
5. A small digression from our main topic follows. In chess, the exclamation point (!) marks a great move. In contrast, the question mark (?) marks a mistaken move. Further, the expression “!?” is used to indicate a move that looks great, but upon further reflection there exists moves where it is shown to be mistaken.
6. I am not going to critically analyze Einstein’s Special Relativity. Instead I am going to lead you on a path that does not require Special Relativity. If I can find the aether, then there is no reason for Special Relativity. Once found, we can rely on Newton’s physics (up to a point) and ignore (the creation of) Special Relativity. It turns out that Einstein, even when somewhat wrong, is also somewhat right – so we cannot dismiss the great Professor Dr. Albert Einstein, and we will not.
7. Let’s return to the concept of the entrained aether. Even if the aether of outer space is different, if there is a strong entrained aether on Earth, then that is all we need to explain M&M’s experiments. Instead of Einstein’s “the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum,” we want to blame the aether. We want to be able to say, “Thus, M&M found the speed of light on Earth to be constant because of the entrained aether.” Easier said than done.
8. Where was the entrained aether? (We find Beckmann’s gravity hypothesis is supported by Einstein!)
First, the entrained aether must be highly correlated with the Earth, for that is where M&M performed their experiments. Maybe it is Earth!? Petr Beckmann took that route when he had said “light in gravity is like sound in air.” The Earth has gravity, and he referred to gravity as if it were the missing aether. It was a great guess. I have problems, however, linking gravity with light. Light doesn’t seem to emanate from gravity. In fact, what is the linkage between gravity and light?
Einstein to the rescue! (This is strange because Einstein predated Beckmann.)
Turns out, Einstein linked light and gravity. He thought that light would bend with gravity (as some star apparently eventually showed). The concept shown was that the light from a far star was bent by a “predictable degree” when passing by a near star (the Sun). Maybe he was right, for I do not have the particulars on the predictable degree for gravity or for star-matter. What’s star-matter? Stars, however, are not only sources of gravity but also sources of matter. Much matter, as in transparent gasses and the like, is emitted. This emitted matter is more dense near the star’s surface and less dense further from the star. Now think, what have I just described (more dense centrally and less dense distally and transparent)? That is right! I have described a common refractive lens. Does the light bend because of a lens of (a) gravity or of (b) refraction? Maybe the light from the far star bends when passing near a closer star because of refraction rather than gravity – maybe. Maybe the aether is not gravity – maybe. Given what we know about refraction (discovered first to bend light), I am hesitant to apply the bent light to (a newly found property of) gravity, for I have a perfectly good argument in the well known refraction. It’s like saying (in reverse) objects fall down because of refraction – why would I say that when I have gravity (unless gravity and refraction are the same phenomenon)?
9. I reject Einstein’s support of Beckmann, and I suggest another model for entrained aether.
I am going to offer an alternative to the gravity hypothesis. We know that people waves travel through people. We know that water waves travel though water. We know that sound (air waves) travels through air. It may be that electromagnetic waves travel through electromagnetic fields. Of course, there always seems to be a catch – now we must find the electromagnetic fields that light travels through. Where are these electromagnetic fields that light traverses?
You’re sitting on it. The atom provides an external electromagnetic field – any atom, all atoms (around here). External to the atom, the electron is closer (by the average of inverse squares) to any point in (external to the atom) space. Recall that an atom is mostly empty space and that the external part of an atom are its electrons. Thus, electro-negativity dominates our space. This electro-negative field provides an aether for light. Light (an electromagnetic wave or particle) travels through the aether (the electro-magnetic fields of space).
Here is some background information. The electromagnetic field drops off (per electron, or per proton) as the inverse square of the distance. I guess I should mention that the electromagnetic field of a line of charge drops off as the inverse of the distance (no squared term). Further, I should mention that the electromagnetic field (from charge) of a (geometric) plane is a constant (for all distance, for all space). We exist in a sea of electro-negativity. Because our universe is made from electronegative-faced atoms (and molecules and other local matter), we should expect an electronegative field (for all space).
What about regions in space that are positively charged? First, the “positive” charged space may be rather just somewhat less negatively charged. Second, maybe light just changes phase in a positive region. For example, Faraday reported that light changed phase in a strong magnetic field.
Therefore, M&M were transmitting light in a sea of aether, i.e., electronegativity. No wonder they found that the speed of light was a constant. They couldn’t do otherwise. This aether was entrained. It was stuck to the Earth.
Now I get to write this important conclusion. Thus, M&M found the speed of light on Earth to be constant because of the entrained aether.
Epilog
I have argued that scientists looked for an aether because light’s speed was fixed. Why should light’s speed be fixed except for (1) the aether or (2) the Special Relativity -- Special Relativity or (not both) aether. Consider that the aether doesn’t require an absence of acceleration. Further, we would expect light internal to glass to travel relative to the glass, much as sound in a train travels relative to the train. Thus, you can pick up a glass wire, which is transmitting light, and move its internal light with Newtonian accuracy (Sagnac Effect). So I ask, how fast must air travel for us to detect the drag of the air on light? The luminous aether is the field of electrical charge.
08/May/2017:
OK, above, I used "luminous" instead of the original word "luminiferous"; spelling is not my strong suit.
The trick is to ignore Special Relativity. If you get noise, then there is nothing there. But if you get descriptions of reality, then there might be something there.
Aether it is, or Aether it's not 2 May 2017, Curt Weinstein
Although Einstein had relaxed restrictions on Special Relativity to demonstrate certain phenomena that he wanted to discuss, I think that was not proper behavior. Either something is a restriction or it's not. I am talking, of course, about his falling elevator, but I talk about more things, too.
The various research studies in which Michelson either participated or influenced are in the same wallet as the falling elevator. That is, reflection implies an acceleration of the light – light changes direction. Thus, reflection is also not allowed to test Special Relativity. In fact, I don't think the theory is testable.
I argue that if falling elevators are allowed, then mirrors are allowed, then Sagnac's Spinning Mirrors are allowed, then the plastic-wire version of Sagnac's experimentation is allowed. And if not, then Special Relativity is simply a useless theory, for it is not testable. I opt for the latter. In which case, we can perform those experiments without worry to find out the true nature of light.
In case you didn't know, I vary from Beckmann's pronouncement slightly, believing that “Light in an electromagnetic field is like sound in air.” I also believe that we live in electromagnetic fields. (Beckmann had said that "light in gravity is like sound in air.")
Elsewhere I have argued that atoms can be modeled after spinning dipoles, where the hub is a proton and the distant branch is an electron. Thus, we have a small electromagnetic field everywhere on Earth. The electromagnetic field forms the aether that permits light to transverse.
Thus, Michelson's various experiments can be thought of testing the speed of light in a soup of aether. Whatever small changes he found in the speed of light are no more significant than a chunk of pea in pea soup. One application is as follows. The speed of light in pea soup depends on the speed of the light in the pea soup plus the speed of the speed soup. It's like the speed of your voice in a train. If you talk forward, then the speed of talk is the speed of talk in air plus the speed of the train (as seen by someone at the train station). Light is, thus, likened to an air wave, despite the fact that light is most definitely an electromagnetic phenomenon.
0. Postulates
1. There were two conceptions of the aether.
2. Why did scientists look for an aether?
3. Shouldn’t light in the wind of luminous aether be faster with than against it?
4. How to find the luminous aether.
5. A small digression…
6. I am not going to critically analyze Einstein’s Special Relativity
7. Let’s return to the concept of the entrained aether.
8. Where was the entrained aether?
9. Rejecting Einstein’s support of Beckmann and suggesting another model for entrained aether.
0. Postulates (What I want you to know without explaining it to you.)
Now, we postulate that there is no (absolute) vacuum. Outer space, while devoid of sufficient air to breathe, has gravitational fields, has electric and magnetic fields, and has “dirt” (unspecified mass, including dark matter).
1. There were two conceptions of the aether.
From history, we find two conceptions of the luminous aether. The aether was thought to be the general wind of the (local) Universe that enabled light to transverse it. Others thought that perhaps near Earth some of the aether would stick to the Earth (be entrained). To simplify matters, scientists thought they would look for the overall path of aether in the Universe, before they searched for the entrained aether. Conceptually, this was like looking for a stream’s overall flow before concerning yourself with the flow of eddies in the stream.
2. Why did scientists look for an aether?
We may find why scientists looked for an aether by considering the use of an aether. An aether keeps the speed a constant. When I throw a rock, its initial speed need not be constant. I can throw the rock faster or slower. There is no aether for rock throwing. An aether is sort of like a governor mechanism on a machine that is set to its maximum speed – it will go only so fast because the governor limits its maximum speed. So to speak, an “aether” is a mechanism (in space) that controls (the maximum) speed (for a species set). Thus, there is no need to look for an aether concerning rock throwing. I can throw fast or slow.
Nevertheless, consider an aether for sound. When we throw a sound, its speed is fixed, and this suggests an aether. For example, when the sound is loud, its speed is fixed to be S (about 330 m/s). When the sound is soft, its speed is S. If the sound is a high frequency, if the sound is a low frequency – no matter what – the speed of sound is S. Moreover, the reason the speed is fixed is that the aether for sound is air.
First digression: More or less, this is common knowledge, although you may have to correct for temperature and density. We know sound may travel through, e.g., water at a different speed. Further, we can play games with the air to change the speed of sound, or we can consider sound through other mediums, but then we’re changing the aether. One of the games is to use a wind – a moving air – as the aether; the speed of sound is influenced by wind. Sound seems to present a lousy model for a universal luminous aether, since sound is so malleable.
Therefore, an aether is something that “controls” the speed (of sound, of light). However, the term “aether” was used for light, not sound. Luminous aether (presumably) controls the speed of light. (Luminous means light, i.e., electromagnetic energy.) Therefore, by definition, luminous aether controls the speed of light. That is the “use” of an aether – it controls the speed of light.
3. How to find the luminous aether
Mach (and Einstein agreed) asked, “to what is the light's speed relative?” The pat answer (but not Einstein’s) was “to the luminous aether.” The sound’s speed is relative to the (local, often stationary) air. Therefore, if you talk “forward” in a train pulled by a locomotive, the sound (from an Earth point-of-view) travels at the speed of sound in stationary air plus the speed of the train forward. And we may form other similar analogies with moving air, using air as the aether for sound. Conceptually, the light’s speed was relative to the luminous aether. These research questions for light remained unanswered: (1) where was the train that held the luminous aether, and (2) where was the luminous aether?
Michelson (with Morley, later on – M&M) sought the find the luminous aether. Sound in wind is faster with the wind and slower against the wind (an example of a moving aether for sound). Thus, shouldn’t light in the wind of luminous aether be faster with than against it? M&M couldn’t control luminous aether as the experimenters of sound could control (air) wind. M&M hoped that they would find an aether wind. After all, they reasoned, the Earth’s location in the outer-space luminous aether was surely not fixed (for the Earth spins, revolves, and is dragged by the Sun).
4. Shouldn’t light in the wind of luminous aether be faster with than against this aether?
Before Einstein, the expected answer was “yes!” As is well known now, M&M failed to find an aether blowing by the Earth (while on the Earth). Cognizant of M&M’s initial outcome (a failure to detect the aether) and anticipating that they conducted their experiments correctly, Einstein constructed a new physics. Professor Dr. Albert Einstein, a great genius, constructed a physics where the speed of light was fixed, a constant (in empty space). Who else but Einstein could have constructed such a physics!?
5. A small digression from our main topic follows. In chess, the exclamation point (!) marks a great move. In contrast, the question mark (?) marks a mistaken move. Further, the expression “!?” is used to indicate a move that looks great, but upon further reflection there exists moves where it is shown to be mistaken.
6. I am not going to critically analyze Einstein’s Special Relativity. Instead I am going to lead you on a path that does not require Special Relativity. If I can find the aether, then there is no reason for Special Relativity. Once found, we can rely on Newton’s physics (up to a point) and ignore (the creation of) Special Relativity. It turns out that Einstein, even when somewhat wrong, is also somewhat right – so we cannot dismiss the great Professor Dr. Albert Einstein, and we will not.
7. Let’s return to the concept of the entrained aether. Even if the aether of outer space is different, if there is a strong entrained aether on Earth, then that is all we need to explain M&M’s experiments. Instead of Einstein’s “the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum,” we want to blame the aether. We want to be able to say, “Thus, M&M found the speed of light on Earth to be constant because of the entrained aether.” Easier said than done.
8. Where was the entrained aether? (We find Beckmann’s gravity hypothesis is supported by Einstein!)
First, the entrained aether must be highly correlated with the Earth, for that is where M&M performed their experiments. Maybe it is Earth!? Petr Beckmann took that route when he had said “light in gravity is like sound in air.” The Earth has gravity, and he referred to gravity as if it were the missing aether. It was a great guess. I have problems, however, linking gravity with light. Light doesn’t seem to emanate from gravity. In fact, what is the linkage between gravity and light?
Einstein to the rescue! (This is strange because Einstein predated Beckmann.)
Turns out, Einstein linked light and gravity. He thought that light would bend with gravity (as some star apparently eventually showed). The concept shown was that the light from a far star was bent by a “predictable degree” when passing by a near star (the Sun). Maybe he was right, for I do not have the particulars on the predictable degree for gravity or for star-matter. What’s star-matter? Stars, however, are not only sources of gravity but also sources of matter. Much matter, as in transparent gasses and the like, is emitted. This emitted matter is more dense near the star’s surface and less dense further from the star. Now think, what have I just described (more dense centrally and less dense distally and transparent)? That is right! I have described a common refractive lens. Does the light bend because of a lens of (a) gravity or of (b) refraction? Maybe the light from the far star bends when passing near a closer star because of refraction rather than gravity – maybe. Maybe the aether is not gravity – maybe. Given what we know about refraction (discovered first to bend light), I am hesitant to apply the bent light to (a newly found property of) gravity, for I have a perfectly good argument in the well known refraction. It’s like saying (in reverse) objects fall down because of refraction – why would I say that when I have gravity (unless gravity and refraction are the same phenomenon)?
9. I reject Einstein’s support of Beckmann, and I suggest another model for entrained aether.
I am going to offer an alternative to the gravity hypothesis. We know that people waves travel through people. We know that water waves travel though water. We know that sound (air waves) travels through air. It may be that electromagnetic waves travel through electromagnetic fields. Of course, there always seems to be a catch – now we must find the electromagnetic fields that light travels through. Where are these electromagnetic fields that light traverses?
You’re sitting on it. The atom provides an external electromagnetic field – any atom, all atoms (around here). External to the atom, the electron is closer (by the average of inverse squares) to any point in (external to the atom) space. Recall that an atom is mostly empty space and that the external part of an atom are its electrons. Thus, electro-negativity dominates our space. This electro-negative field provides an aether for light. Light (an electromagnetic wave or particle) travels through the aether (the electro-magnetic fields of space).
Here is some background information. The electromagnetic field drops off (per electron, or per proton) as the inverse square of the distance. I guess I should mention that the electromagnetic field of a line of charge drops off as the inverse of the distance (no squared term). Further, I should mention that the electromagnetic field (from charge) of a (geometric) plane is a constant (for all distance, for all space). We exist in a sea of electro-negativity. Because our universe is made from electronegative-faced atoms (and molecules and other local matter), we should expect an electronegative field (for all space).
What about regions in space that are positively charged? First, the “positive” charged space may be rather just somewhat less negatively charged. Second, maybe light just changes phase in a positive region. For example, Faraday reported that light changed phase in a strong magnetic field.
Therefore, M&M were transmitting light in a sea of aether, i.e., electronegativity. No wonder they found that the speed of light was a constant. They couldn’t do otherwise. This aether was entrained. It was stuck to the Earth.
Now I get to write this important conclusion. Thus, M&M found the speed of light on Earth to be constant because of the entrained aether.
Epilog
I have argued that scientists looked for an aether because light’s speed was fixed. Why should light’s speed be fixed except for (1) the aether or (2) the Special Relativity -- Special Relativity or (not both) aether. Consider that the aether doesn’t require an absence of acceleration. Further, we would expect light internal to glass to travel relative to the glass, much as sound in a train travels relative to the train. Thus, you can pick up a glass wire, which is transmitting light, and move its internal light with Newtonian accuracy (Sagnac Effect). So I ask, how fast must air travel for us to detect the drag of the air on light? The luminous aether is the field of electrical charge.
08/May/2017:
OK, above, I used "luminous" instead of the original word "luminiferous"; spelling is not my strong suit.
The trick is to ignore Special Relativity. If you get noise, then there is nothing there. But if you get descriptions of reality, then there might be something there.
Aether it is, or Aether it's not 2 May 2017, Curt Weinstein
Although Einstein had relaxed restrictions on Special Relativity to demonstrate certain phenomena that he wanted to discuss, I think that was not proper behavior. Either something is a restriction or it's not. I am talking, of course, about his falling elevator, but I talk about more things, too.
The various research studies in which Michelson either participated or influenced are in the same wallet as the falling elevator. That is, reflection implies an acceleration of the light – light changes direction. Thus, reflection is also not allowed to test Special Relativity. In fact, I don't think the theory is testable.
I argue that if falling elevators are allowed, then mirrors are allowed, then Sagnac's Spinning Mirrors are allowed, then the plastic-wire version of Sagnac's experimentation is allowed. And if not, then Special Relativity is simply a useless theory, for it is not testable. I opt for the latter. In which case, we can perform those experiments without worry to find out the true nature of light.
In case you didn't know, I vary from Beckmann's pronouncement slightly, believing that “Light in an electromagnetic field is like sound in air.” I also believe that we live in electromagnetic fields. (Beckmann had said that "light in gravity is like sound in air.")
Elsewhere I have argued that atoms can be modeled after spinning dipoles, where the hub is a proton and the distant branch is an electron. Thus, we have a small electromagnetic field everywhere on Earth. The electromagnetic field forms the aether that permits light to transverse.
Thus, Michelson's various experiments can be thought of testing the speed of light in a soup of aether. Whatever small changes he found in the speed of light are no more significant than a chunk of pea in pea soup. One application is as follows. The speed of light in pea soup depends on the speed of the light in the pea soup plus the speed of the speed soup. It's like the speed of your voice in a train. If you talk forward, then the speed of talk is the speed of talk in air plus the speed of the train (as seen by someone at the train station). Light is, thus, likened to an air wave, despite the fact that light is most definitely an electromagnetic phenomenon.