" The space is endowed with physical properties, in this sense therefore there exists an ether( aether) . The space without ether is unthinkable " . - source : Lecture " Ether and theory of relativity" by Albert Einstein at leiden University (1920,publushed in 1922)
I agree! And I just posted my rebuttal to the M&M experiment. The Aether exists! Otherwise photons would not be able to travel through it as the medium that propagates the wave on which they travel.
@XY ZW The aether as a mental construct was proved unnecessary by th Michelson-Morley experiment, as light is observed to travel at the same speed regardless of the direction it travels.
@@PaulDormody The alternative explanation is stationary Earth relative to ether. Michelson-Morley and then Dayton Miller never got zero result, which itself abolishes relativity.
Correct *The Field is there: Moorley's expierment was rerun in 1986 and the Outcome was Journal Published: Nature; August, 1986; Vol 322; Page 590.* Read the Facts. Aether is part of Quantum Theory Studies and there have been at least 2 more proving the subject. It is a Mainstream Academic "attitude/belief" that it doesn't exist. All that doesn't fit their "19th Century Theory Based Paradigm" is shunned, ignored, and/or receives statements that are opinion based. Authentic Academics follow the "Standards of Science and Research", do not hold Theories as Facts, and are not threatened by new ideas/theories/findings. They also accept "Peer Reviewed, Journal Published" findings as Fact. This must be realized to discern what we give value to. Repeating an Opinion, Theory, Accusations, over and over, does not make them facts. Mainstream Academia seems to behave a great deal like Fox News and it just does not = accuracy. Higher Mind required. Good catch
@@PaulDormody Not proven, it is an opinion, a perspective. A most variable difference, although many promote it as if it were a fact. The subject of Aether remains as accepted, if not more so, than rejected. ...and Einstein never took the attitude suggested. Quantum Physics has made several finds that include it in their perspectives.
Just yesterday I learned that Faraday made a prophetic remark about the nature of vibrating electricity being accountable for all we see (light). And today I get to see it in text. I'm so happy to see these lectures. I love the history because I remember distinctly that Maxwell was the first the measure the speed of light. I remember he arranged spinning disks with mirrors around them. These were spaced by 1.5 km or just a crazy distance to aim mirrors so accuratly, by yourself, without a motorbike. He spun the one at home base, if you will, and the pulsing light would locknphase when it completed this circuit and then he did the math and came really close. Today, I see that so many people measured it long before. I'm astounded. I had assumed that the speed of light was suspected to be a constant for a long time but then with Maxwell doing all the math for everyone, there isn't a lot left for Einstein to do, right? e= mc^2. It's like I=mv^2. Einstein got way too much fame for so little. Oh well, he didn't stop there. Great lectures !!! I wish I had paid more attention to my high school calculus book. It had a biography of the mathematicians in the margin. Like Laplace and etc. I'd be so fascinated now but in high school, I just had too much to do as it was. I wish there was a thorough history of mathematics from geometry through calculus and beyond. I mentioned Laplace because Newton gets the credit for calculus but that's not true. Laplace came up with a solution to the very same problems independently and simultaneously. I used Laplace transforms and more in calculus. Laplace's method is very popular for many types of problems because it's easier. Newton's is just different. I think that alone is extraordinary. There should be a show on just that neck and neck between Newton and Laplace. I can't remember much because I wasn't interested in high school. When you get old, you really appreciate how much work these men did to advance something they really didn't know would become so useful in the distant future. There is a LOT of math that had no use at the time, but later became fundamental in describing electricity in capacitors and filter circuits and so many things the mathematicians couldn't dream of. That's fascinating to me. Why'd they work so hard? Like imaginary numbers. The sq rt of -1. It can't exist and yet it's used in electrical engineering constantly. Makes you wonder if ordinary electronics does employ a 5th dimension where the (sq rt -1) is an ordinary thing in that universe. You go there and someone picks up one and says "of course there's a sq rt of -1, here, catch." Anyway it's amazing that match and the external objective reality match up at all. Is there any reason why they have to? No. But we've come a long way with that assumption. That's the history I'd like to see. Plus Laplace getting the proper respect as one of 2 people who invented calculus. In the case of calculus, by the way, there was simply not a way to express something that describes the conditions at an instant of time, if it weren't infinitesimally small in duration. It was math to fix math. That's not so much a math with unknown uses in the future. The uses were what we needed to express. We knew the need for it before we had it. That's different than those that worked on math that had no practical application and wouldn't for centuries, which is mind blowing, in my opinion. These things seem, like Faradays' intuition, to have a prophetic note to it. "I know it's weird but I got to solve it, useful or not. I can't explain it." I can't find the drive to clear the floor I walk on. So... I'm in awe of their dedication to math, back then. And it'd make another interesting show to see the types of "useless" math people are working on today that may drive how we understand something we may not discover for yet another 200 years or more. right?
*The Field is there: Moorley's expierment was rerun in 1986 and the Outcome was Journal Published: Nature; August, 1986; Vol 322; Page 590.* Read the Facts.
@@bethbartlett5692 Please elaborate. If you have access to the facts, please pass them along. I, for one, would really appreciate it. Could you please copy that here? I don't have that reference to look at and I can't make it to the library. I only have a long list of health problems. I would LOVE to see this. Maybe just the abstract is enough to make your point or the author's point, I guess. Tell us what Morley's experiment was and what they did to verify it. What does the verification of his experiment mean?
na he abolished it on paper they removed the part of the aether from the equations and its actually the reason they persued quantum physics so much in trying to find the answer the answers were in the aether the whole time but heavyside removed the aether from the equation
@@Raging.Geekazoid wish he would have said how they knew the values in Hz of the notes on the piano at that time. I have a bit of research to do to learn that one. Hope that piano was really in-tune, lol!
If nothing is nothing, then nothing does not exist. Therefore there is always something in empty space, but it has no name yet if it is not called aether .
6:18 - Yep, this is what Quantized space looks like. With it being created by quanta at the sub-Planck scale, which are denser where mass is higher, and which behave like a superfluid, offering practically no resistance at solar system distances, but they have an effect on EM radiation as it travels between stars and galaxies. It also easily explains orbital mechanics without trying to bend space, and why there's no such thing as a graviton.
Yesterday, I was taking a stroll in a local library. Found a fascinating book The Odyssey by Homer in modern English. I previously had the Illiad, but in the old English, the king's english as one would speak. However, now as I watch this presentation, I am reminded that knowledge is massive and we cannot preserve it all if knowledge is stored in diverse forms. Surely, if put on paper and on some digital storage it must be preserved, but that is not what I mean. It is only truly preserved if commanded to memory. If only to keep the human element of experimentation for permanent recollection, that would give us the future generation a sense of continuity. The world we live in is a form of causality. Knowledge is a propagation of thought. The idea that we relinquish some of our previous knowledge from earlier innocent existence is foreboding. I will bookmark this video. It holds a sentimental value.
*The Field is there: Moorley's expierment was rerun in 1986 and the Outcome was Journal Published: Nature; August, 1986; Vol 322; Page 590.* Read the Facts.
Awesome lecture. I have a pretty solid understanding of the discussed math and theory, but also know how important it is to make this stuff approachable. This lecture has a huge amount of information, while never requiring an advanced understanding of the principles. The stories and history of the experimental procedures that went into providing evidence or proving these theories was fantastic, most of which I had never heard before. Math and physics stories were always my favorite part of school, when I had talented instructors.
His book Light Speed is super easy to understand. I bought the hard cover. I never buy books except for Feynman. Such a confusing puzzle this defunct business of the aether. A great story about Bradley and David Hughes. Fascinating read and what could be better than to see the author at RI. Mahalo again RI.
One challenge I have received is this: "Mass curves spacetime, manifesting gravity, right?" ME: "Yes." "So spacetime is curved, geodesic paths in General Relativity, etc. - true?" ME: "Yes." "And space is completely empty. Nothing in it. It's a widely-held belief - for example, it is said that *_electromagnetic waves do not need a medium to propagate_* - still correct?" ME: "Those are the commonly accepted beliefs." "How can 'emptiness' be curved?" It's tough to explain that. .
Right the aether is making a small comeback. J C H Spence mentions in this book that no one really understands what an electric field is. Guess it takes on a value unique to each spot. Pretty weird the great Prof. Spence would say we don't really understand electric fields. I appreciate his candor.
@@dimension2788 We create accelerations of the charged particles in a lamination of aluminum foil/insulator layers; we position eddy current coils adjacent the foils to induce radial eddy currents. With the foil/insulator lamination positioned horizontal on the workbench, and providing 16.28Mhz to the eddy current coils to induce (horizontal) currents, radially in the foil, we position an axial (centered), vertical magnetic field through the foil lamination. The vertical B field and horizontal eddy currents induce coherent accelerations of the charged particles in the foil at the 16.28Mhz rate due to the Lorentz force. That device was our first attempt at investigating the affects of coherent accelerations on the 'background field' Since the Cavendish gravity experiment from the year 1798 showed atoms and collections of atoms (aka matter objects) create gravity, we reasoned a single hydrogen atom produces a gravity field (however small) and with only one proton and one electron, we decided accelerations must play a role in gravity creation. The orbital and spin of the electron, the nuclear spin, etc. Artificial gravity one day will be a discipline, just like 'artificial magnetism' developed into one (magnetic fields created with a coil of wire).
7:30 "Maxwell got the *correct* equations..." no he didn't; that's a folklore myth that's bandied about in the Physics community, but it is totally wrong. His equations differed *substantially* from what we now call Maxwell's equations -- and one of the biggest differences is that they had a fixed frame for light propagation (called the "stationary frame"); and that *only* in this frame would the constitutive relations 𝗗 = κ 𝗘, 𝗕 = μ 𝗛 be isotropic. (So "stationary frame" is more properly denoted "frame of isotropy"). In addition, he also stated incorrect relations (and transformation laws) for 𝗕 because he failed to distinguish it from 𝗛, always writing it as μ𝗛 ... until he started calling it its own name 𝗕 by the time he wrote the Treatise. But even then he *still* got the transformation properties of 𝗕 wrong (it's a pseudo-vector & 2-form, while 𝗛 is a vector & 1-form) and consequently wrote down the wrong constitutive law for 𝗕, which Thomson had to correct. The equations, when made consistent with Relativity, are the Maxwell-Minkowski equations, which could be written as (1) {𝗕 = ∇×𝗔, 𝗘 = -∇φ - ∂𝗔/∂t}, {∇·𝗕 = 0, ∇×𝗘 + ∂𝗕/∂t = 0} for the magnetic potential 𝗔, electric potential φ, electric force 𝗘 and magnetic induction 𝗕, (2) {∇·𝗗 = ρ, ∇×𝗛 + ∂𝗗/∂t = 𝗝}, {∂ρ/∂t + ∇·𝗝 = 0} for the electric induction 𝗗, magnetic force 𝗛, current density 𝗝 and charge density ρ, (3) The constitutive relations {𝗗 + α 𝗚×𝗛 = κ (𝗘 + 𝗚×𝗕), 𝗕 - α 𝗚×𝗘 = μ (𝗛 - 𝗚×𝗗)}, with permeability μ, dielectric coefficient κ and a velocity 𝗚 that references the frame of isotropy. The equations Maxwell wrote correspond to the case α = 0, while for Relativity, one needs α > 0. In addition, he failed to include the - 𝗚×𝗗 term because he was still confusing 𝗕 and 𝗛 -- its inclusion was a correction made later by Thomson (and verified experimentally c. 1900 by a husband and wife team). The "stationary frame" referred to in late 1800's papers and in the opening part of Einstein's paper is 𝗚 = 0. Einstein's objection (stated therein) is that there would continue to be a 𝗚-dependence for (3) even in a vacuum, when there ought not to be; and that there should be nothing to single out any specific speed 𝗚 in a vacuum, so that the stationary case 𝗚 = 0 should hold for the vacuum in all inertial frames of reference. In contrast, the Maxwell-Minkowski equations (which are the ones required by Relativity) - have α > 0 and single out a unique speed c ≡ √(1/α) - which is the invariant speed postulated by Relativity. And it just so happens that in the case where κμ = α (i.e. the vacuum), equations (3) for *all* cases of 𝗚 become *almost* *equivalent* to the equations for the "stationary case"; i.e. the isotropic relations 𝗗 = κ 𝗘, 𝗕 = μ 𝗛. And that's where the comment he made in his 1905 paper that 𝗚 becomes "superfluous" comes from. Note the " *almost* " by the way. The equations are *not* equivalent to the isotropic relations if the medium is rarefied to a vacuum κμ > α → κμ = α and κμG² → 1 in such a way that (κμ-α)/(1-κμG²) approaches a finite non-zero limit; i.e. if the frame of isotropy is at light speed. The irony of this, of course, is that it corresponds to the very case alluded to in the very question (and the answer to it) that sparked Einstein's foray into relativity "what it is like to travel alongside a light beam?" A residual dependence on G² remains in the limit in that case. As a result, there continues to be a lingering vestige of an "aether frame" *even* in Relativity. An experiment to verify this, given the high speed of the medium required, would probably be something involving plasma physics.
Relativistic physics are a bag of crickets. No real empirical value. Full of assumptions and open parameters. Most of the evidence for relativity is a matter of electric retardation, aether flux and light propagation rate. Even gravity is only a mix of buoyancy and incoherent magnetic fields. That's why relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Entanglement flushes relativity down the toilet of scienticism...
“Newton’s bucket “ remains an effective thought experiment to justify looking for an aether of some sort. Imagine observing a bucket in space with absolutely nothing except the bucket itself. You observe that water in the bucket is being drawn toward the walls uniformly. The force pushing the water remains a mystery until you realize you must be spinning in sync with the bucket. Centrifugal force causing the effect. Yet with rotation being a relative motion, how could you possibly ever know you were spinning since you can’t see anything around you? Because nothing else remains, we can conclude that something else must still exist. The rotation is relative to space itself.
Dirk Knight if the bucket is relative to itself, then rotation is not possible. This is akin to saying that you can have a battery with two positive poles. Something must be moving in a circular motion and something else must not. Measurement can only occur between the two extremes. The difference between the two is circular motion. If rotation is too complex, then linear motion could be easier to analyze. In the hypothetical empty universe, there is no way to discern whether an object is in linear motion whatsoever. Additionally, how could you even define “here” versus “there” without a reference? It’s impossible...
At min 46:22 Point 5 is correct: Aether is dragged by the Earth since the Earth carries its own gravitational field with it in space and the gravitational field is in the aether. Point 4 must be reconsidered: Aether is fixed to Bradley's remote star and you can have Bradley's effect of telecope titling even with aether being carried by the Earth in its own gravitational field. Point 3 Michelson's experiment proves that the aether is carried along by the Earth together with its own gravitational field. Conclusion: Michelson's experiment will yield a positive result with an interferometer moving at great speeds in regions of space away from gravitational fields.
In 1849 the hz value for the note "A" was not equal to 440hz. It was actually A= 432hz. If you tune your instruments to A=432 you tend to get better harmonics and depth because the instruments were designed with that frequency in mind. A=440 was not made the standard until sometime around WWII. Can not remember the exact date.
@Bob Trenwith He literally said "If you tune your instruments to A=432 you tend to get better harmonics and depth because the instruments were designed with that frequency in mind". I would say "If you tune SOME instruments to A=432 you tend to get better harmonics and depth because the instruments were designed with that frequency in mind". The concept is still the same (and correct). It doesn't apply to all instruments, but it is certainly true for some.
@Bob Trenwith Wtf are you talking about? What healing power?! Are you on drugs? We just said that some instruments work better if you tune them in a specific way. Period. Maybe you don't understand common language
Thank You Everyone who commented with this grade of commitment. The point is the discussion between people , wich a video cannot perform in these terms. I regret not having watched the video YET ,but it will stay there,while comments can be easily turned off . .
This guy and every scientist should take a look at Alfred Korzybski's "Science and Sanity". With reference to general semantics. No one has ever "abolished the Aether". The Aether is what we now know as The Field, The Quantum Field, etc. It's the medium of reality itself. Just call it what it is: The Aether. Post-materialist science continues to advance our understanding of reality where consciousness is primary...
A quantum field and a luminiferous aether are simply two different concepts. This is the difference: Similar to how air is the medium of propagation of sound waves, the aether was imagined to have some preferred reference frame in which it was motionless. Therefore, one could move relative to that frame and difference observers would measure different speeds of light. Experiments disproved that over a hundred years ago, even before Einstein's Special Relativity. The crucial difference between Quantum fields is that they have no preferred reference frame. No matter what speed you're travelling, it's as though the field is stationary with respect to you.
@@ASLUHLUHC3 Could you please provide some source, I'm not educated in the matter, and I can't know who's telling the objective truth here with so many conflicting opinions and so much alleged proof
Good historical overview about the nature of light, it’s speed determination and independence of frames of reference. Though I do think the Einstein portion was rushed. The title in the thumbnail isn’t quite correct as he did not really explore the quantum nature of light
@@grantperkins368 Not quite - it got more and more precise as it was done in the 19th century. (Did a video on it if you are interested) And 20th century more precise still. Michelson's results in 1931 was 0.006% off the value today. And then Essen in 1950's and Everson in '72 more precise still.
Important!, maybe it was already highlighted by someone down the comments but on the second 40 of the presentation it is a wrong link of the equator with LONGITUDE, I guess he intended to say meridian instead.
He then reaccepted it 15 years later cuz it made more realistic sense, at the theory of relativity was introduced in 1905. "In 1920 Einstein accepting the ether theory Albert Einstein said: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether." I mean, Einstein and Tesla were smart enough to realize there is a difference between space and a substance. Space is just distance/absence, such a thing has no properties as it's not a form of existence, it's a fancy word for nothing ! Also, if we see the behavior of a substance in all cosmic space, then it's not space it's a substance.
Aether is all around. This is what Cathédrales are, you see. Tech for the gathering and distribution of energy. Einstein helped usher in a period of brutality by dismissing what everyone already knew.....afterall, they built these stations. Now, we pay.
"History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) spaceandmotion
All what Einstein did is to replace the term "Aether" with the term "fabric of spacetime" both meaning "not nothing" and can be treated as a medium. The only difference is that although Aether can be bend and stretched also with Electromagnetism besides gravity, the Einstein's fabric of spacetime can be bend and stretched only by large gravitational masses. So no, he did not abolished the Aether but just renamed it to vacuum space and changed its properties.
It is nowadays called "informational ether". And stationary earth embedded into mechanical ether solves all the problems from Faraday trough Maxwell to Airy, Michelson-Morley, Sagnac and Michelson-Gale.
@@maciejnajlepszy Yes but that's 'mathiness': transfering the regression of mathematics into mathematical platonism by Cantor, Einstein and Bohr. The continuous roil of the quantum background at zero point energy exists, is polarizable and megnetizable, permeable and permittable and it at least appears that electromagnetic information travels faster than the speed of light. So 'informational ether' is a (pseudoscientific) means of evading a classical (operational, mechanical, classical, intuitionistic, 'mechanical') theory. Why? Einstien Borh legitimized mathematical platonism (fictionalism) and we've lost a century because of 'mathiness'.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute Agree. Have you read Robert Sungenis' "Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right"? Every experiment from Airy's failure, Michelson-Morley, Sagnac etc. has an explanation in the ether theory and stationary Earth (and it has nothing to do with flat earth).
@@maciejnajlepszy (I just work with one traditional model: the quantum background and quantum electrodynamics, on one hand, but on the other my primary competency is in the formal means by which humans engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, obscuring, fictions, fictionalisms, deceits, denial, undermining, and baiting into hazard. In other words ... lying. Part of that competency is understeanding the limits of mathematics (analogy) vs computation (causality). So I'm extremely attuned to fictionalism by innumeracy pseudoscience and sophistry.)
Title is a bit misleading watched whole video and havent seen 1 believable fact of why Einstein ''abolished'' the Aether. Why speak so much about Light. Gravity, magnetism and energy space and time are also affected by concept the Aether.
@@Diogenes_ofSinope ''Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.'' Einstein himself wrote this.
@@utcsjakie so what if he did? You just made me read a way to long appeal to authority. Einstein could have believed in santa claus for all I care; but it wouldn't have changed the fact of matter.
@@Diogenes_ofSinope so what if he did? Maybe the title of the vid claims that Einstein Abolished the aether, while the facts tell he didnt? + i didnt force you to read my answers. you did that yourself.
I recently heard something similar to Mark Twain's quot. The Jame Webb telescope had actually diminished mankind's knowledge by acquiring so much good data conflicting with accepted theories of the universe.
Mrs Richards: "I paid for a room with a view !" Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam ." Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!" Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically past?..." Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea !" Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky." Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction." Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment ?"
i was very happy when i saw that the tilted angle calculated by bradley (12.46) .... that is velocity of earth / c .. because just 2 days ago one of my frnd gave me the same problem.. and i calculated the angle also.. ovio by STR ...
48:10 Okay, let's assume that all motion is relative. Relative to any frame of reference, light is measured to be approx. 300,000 km/s. Now since it is said that all motion is relative, that means that relative to the photons of light, all objects, in all possible frames of reference, are travelling at the speed of light. Hmmmm??? On top of that, we can be in motion through space, but we also are in motion across the dimension of time. So George says to Frank, my spaceship is at rest, and it is your spaceship that is in motion. The Frank says, no no no. It is my spaceship that is at rest and it is your spaceship that is in motion. But what about George and Frank and motion across the dimension of time ? George says, it is my clock that is at rest and thus is not ticking, and it is your clock that is ticking. But then Frank says, no no no. It is my clock that is at rest and thus is not ticking, and it is your clock that is ticking. Hmmmm??? But of course this is not what would occur.
The light do not travels at the same speed in all frames of reference, there is not experiment to prof this. Einstein took constant speed of light so theory of relativity will work.
The lecture is great and very interesting, however, Einstein did not abolish the aether, on the contrary, Einstein thought that the aether must exist according to general relativity! In 1920 he gave a lecture about the ether and the relativity theory and for example here is how he summarized his lecture: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.“
The qualities of the physical vacuum follow directly from the fact that space is empty. If there was something in there, then relativity would not hold. ;-)
It occurs to me that the idea of a textured universal substrate covers all those postulated Aetheric properties nicely. Nature abhors a vacuum, and all that. That energy substrate/potential aids some propagation of phenomena and hinders that of others.
The problem is that aether postulated to be a solid material and was given a compressive strength and density based on the materials science of the day, and that is fundamentally not what spacetime is.
Invalid rubbish. If the Earth's magnetic field blocks/interferes with an aether wind, then that would explain why the M/M experiment couldn't detect the aether wind. This should be obvious by now, since the LIGO telescope (which uses an interferometer) can detect gravitational waves within/outside Earth's orbit, whereas a horizontally spun interferometer shows no phasing. Now, realign the interferometer vertically and spin its axis up/down, you will see phasing (detecting the lower pressure bands of the Earth's magnetic field). Why people buy into the exclusion of the aether, at this stage in our understanding, is absurd.
i came here into comments to see is there anyone going to talk about LIGO experiment? and finally found one. without aether wind Ligo experiment dont work how could someone abolish concept of aether ?
@@sudheerthalakoti9096 I came here for the same but sadly I just see ether morons. You both lose sight of a bigger picture. The canvas itself. The field. Everything is fields. The Aether, particles, is maintained within the field. At least the first half whip had an inkling when he mentioned the magnetic fields.
Physicist Robert B. Laughlin wrote: It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo. Main articles: Pilot wave and De Broglie-Bohm theory Louis de Broglie stated, "Any particle, ever isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium." However, as de Broglie pointed out, this medium "could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."
I have never met a working physicist who thinks about the ether. The spectral structure of the vacuum is not caused by there being some sort of quantum fluid. It's being caused by there NOT being such a thing. ;-)
@@ready1fire1aim1 I am an experimental high energy physicist, kid. The only thing that matters to me is relativistic field theory. You need to stop drinking. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477Robert Lauglin is a nobel laureate ,who won nobel for his " Quantum hall effect " , that quote what that guy has taken from us Robert Laughlin's book " A different Universe " . And by the way the so called vacuum space is not a field but a medium cause it has physical properties such as density , very low viscosity and vaccum space is an superfluid ( Quantum fluid ) which Robert Laughlin's was talking about . By the way nowadays physicists think vaccum or Quantum vaccum is a relativistic ether ,having properties of Superfluid Bose Einstein Condensate . The " Superfluid vacuum theory " even has a ether( aether) . So Ether exists albeit with Quantum properties not what Lorentz ether said .
Just to mention here that Lorentz’s Aether Theory that is as powerful as the special relativity in terms of the predictions it makes has completely been ignored on this lecture not sure why. Also the only thing we know is constant is the two way speed of light! We always forget this important detail which seems to change everything
The aether pushes the planets around the sun. Same old mistakes as Michelson and Morley of thinking that the aether is a non-moving static medium. lol. Head wind indeed! lol.
If Space and the Aether are in some way the same thing, then the1919 Eddington eclipse expedition performed for Einstein proved that a large enough mass curves Space. And if a "total void" is in some way is meant to mean "nothing," then curving a void/Space is not possible. It has been shown many times, and in many ways that Space is not a nothing or void. The reason it takes light about 8 minutes to reach the Earth is that it has to traverse a distance. If that distance is not an attribute of Space, then why is the time needed to traverse it different when the Earth is at different distances to the Sun? If anything, Einstein proved that Space can have a shape, and dimensionality/location is a property of Space.
Light doesn't have a fixed speed... It slows down and accelerates when passing through water and back into air, which tends to indicate that it's not a particle, but rather, a field perturbation traversing , or being conducted through, the Aether
All what Einstein did is to replace the term "Aether" with the term "fabric of spacetime" both meaning "not nothing" and can be treated as a medium. The only difference is that although Aether can be bend and stretched also with Electromagnetism besides gravity, the Einstein's fabric of spacetime can be bend and stretched only by large gravitational masses. So no, he did not abolished the Aether but just renamed it to vacuum space and changed its properties.
@Darth Quantum I do think there is a purpose to religion. It wouldn't exist otherwise. For example, some turn to religion/spirituality during a dark time in their lives as a crutch. I see no problem with this, because human beings are complicated creatures.
I do too. Science can be very political and those with political power, namely funds for research grants, can dictate which theory is to be presented and which theory is to be discounted all on the whim of the person doling out the money. In Einstein's case it was a matter of celebrity. Part of Einstein being a celebrity was to quash any competing theories.
FYI: Aether-drag has been detected, so.......... -Michelson/Morely failed to consider the Lorentz contraction of the instrument -Lorentz used the same calculations as 'Relativity' including the gamma factor... -Einstein hated his professor Herr Hertz, who later kept him from getting a job/ assistantship at a University -Thus The M/M xpmt reveals that the speed of light appears (remember, it's all 'relative' now) the same for all - a 'postulate' of Poincare's Relativity, (later plagiarized)
His first and grossest mistake. Laughably the same arguments people make against Aether are the same arguments that can be applied to ‘Dark Matter’. The cognitive bias in modern ‘physics’ (ne ‘Unicorn Economics’) is ripe for Douglas Adams levels of parody some day.
@@sourjyod Aether can't be measured (they say), therefore it doesn't exist. Dark matter/energy/force can't be measured, but our theories tell us they exist, so it definitely does (they say). That's the contradiction he's pointing out.
ERIC DOLLARD is the present engineering authority on the electrical aspects of all this, not the fuddy-duddies in TRS, a group which actively subdues all independent thought.
Nice work on summary in video. Comment on summary in Page 46:00 1. Aether speed is an averaged value defined by 1/r speed wrt all matter in the universe (which it isn’t) may be regarded as a rest frame. 2. Galician transform accounts for mechanical but wave speed. 3. Aether adheres to all mater moves in equal speed in the near field and lag in the far field by a factor of 1/r apart from the nearest object. Michelson mistaken that Aether is solid and not fluid. 4. Bradley mistaken that Aether is solid and not fluid. Actually Aether fluid adhere to the atmosphere (near field effect) and not in space (far field effect) these effect does not contradicts aberration effect. 5. Fresnel is the only one I am aware who is brilliant out think the rest. 6. We need open minded researcher on Newtonian physics, remember that wave is energy but matter. Why should energy propagation be governed or relate to by Galilean speed of matter? Fixing? There is nothing we need to fix besides the quality of our education and the hidden agenda lies underneath. Once that is fixed the subject conflicts will be resolved on its own.
At min 46:34 Analogy with beltway at the airport in flawed because we are discussing waves. Sound produced by a traveller on a beltway will travel with the speed of sound in air no matter how fast the beltway or the traveller move. In the same way, the light from the headlights of a car will travel at the speed of light no matter how fast the car moves towards or away from you and no matter how fast you move towards or away from the car - what changes is the frequency of the wave you detect.
@@funnycatvideos5490 Making such an enormous confusion at this level (The Royal Institution) is embarassing. The law of addition of velocities applies to bodies in motion and it was never meant to apply to waves. The speed of waves is the same in all frames since the waves move through the same medium no matter what frame you are in. And you cannot change the speed of the wave just by moving the emitter or the receiver. As you correctly say, the medium controls the speed of the wave. The Doppler effect is a proof that this reasoning is correct.
So they replaced the medium aether within which thought could be contained and flow, with a medium called a field within which an energy/force could be contained and flow. Both of which fundamentally controlled by a process called harmonic resonance or wave function if you prefer Uhu. Tell us more about smoke, mirrors and relabeling everything, to describe the same thing, while pretending to be different. I guess its difficult to claim narcissistic adulation, by claiming a new concept is disguised as the original concept in all but name. They would be better of studying the relationship between the acoustic morphic fields of water and atomic structure. Failing that, they might find the octaves of the speed of light and its relationship to refraction/reflection useful. Even more useful might be the octave relationship between the speed of sound, speed of light and thermal control of it.
@@johnnywrither128 same here ! I didn't understand an iota of it ! I read it anyway , because ' It' sounds nice . Now , I ended up with what I would call "INTELLECTUAL VIRTIGO ". You know , I am going back to reading the Bible ! ( It is safer , and simple ) In the beginning , G.D created the Heav.n& Earth ! No explanation needed and I rest in peace .
A deliberate complication of a simple idea so as to keep the plebs from figuring out anything of value. By doing so it keeps the rich wealthy and poor in destitute.
Nice video and presentation. For a wave to be transmitted and received, we need a wave medium which is not the only thing that matters but most importantly a condition that medium to adhere with the surface of the emitter and or the receiver. Air molecules must adhere to the loudspeaker surface in order to sustain “push and pull” action in the process of sound wave transmission. We also know that wind (around the loudspeaker) and speaker sound coexists. The first boundary layer of air (fluid) on wing are attached to wing surface (near field) by electric force, while the ambient air (far field) is free flow around it, in order to support lift. That brings us to the property of Aether. Michelson and Morley were educated that - Aether wind blows through (and not around) all matter at a speed differ from earth in orbit. Subsequently Michelson went ahead and designed his interferometer n thinking of that. We all know the result by now. There were no appreciable velocity difference in all directions. Why? Not because of - light need no medium - light exists in absence of Aether But because of - light need a medium, Aether - light emitter/receivers must adhere with Aether for light. - interferometer only work in presence of Aether. Caveat? - Aether drag in the near field is responsible for no fringe activities. - Aether drag diminishing by 1/r at the nearest object. - by near and far field effect that Aether and star aberration coexist. - Aether speed in deep space diminishes to a total average of all planets, galaxies by specific 1/r, which may be taken as a rest frame. TSR is unnecessary. It only add convolutions and obstructions in our understanding of this universe.
Just because light has the same speed in all directions doesn't prove there are no ether. Empty space is filled with all kinds of quantum fields and speed of light isn't impeded by any of these, that doesn't prove the quantum fields doesn't exist. Wigner's '"unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics' is matched by Penrose's 'mathematics is based of faith', makes a deeper METAPHYSICAL impression.
Nikola Tesla quote: "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."
@@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 I said what I said, hard of reading? Find some Stienmetz and Heaviside, they were the Math guys that proved it and everyone ignores it. I have another one for you since you can only handle the physical realm; is magnetism a transient? Electricity? Non physical right... I even have a better one for you; Gravity. Non physical phenomenon. You know, like a Gravity generator
The problem with the theories of aether is that the researchers assumed the properties of atomic matter for the characteristics of aether. If you use the properties of, for example, the neutrino flux as aether, there is no headwind, nor any of the other characteristics that are disproven. In the absence of a neutrino or some other particle flux, electromagnetic waves probably do not propagate. This explains how the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Thereafter, the neutrino flux (or the axion flux or another flux ) allowed the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves slow in more dense media, slowest in dense metals, where electromagnetic radiation continues to propagate, though with greatt attenuation.
We got rid of the ether in 1905. Technically we got rid of it when Galileo wrote his "Two New Sciences", but people didn't have the ether delusion, yet, so there was nothing to get rid of in the first place at that time. :-)
The Shoulders of Giants. I am in awe of the intellects of these people. I do not have a grasp of mathematics so even though I am fascinated I can never fully understand. Still, it is wonderful stuff. Well done human brains.
It's not a stationary field and it does travel from point A to point B at the universal speed limit. Look at simulations of the electromagnetic wave - that should help you to understand.
@@ZigSputnik You can only measure the speed of the waves. Waves are perturbations they are not traveling from point A to point B. Light is not physical therefore is not quantifiable. they tell you lies in modern science.
@@jnanacaksusa3932 Then present your mathematical and/or empirical proofs. Oh, sorry, I forgot that made up gobbledegook doesn't need proofs; mathematical or empirical.
@@ZigSputnik math deals with things that can be counted/ quantifiable... not everything can be counted... you can just use logic to understand. Everything is a vibration.. electron, light, magnetic fields... is all vibration and perturbations of the 'Ether'. You can see this with a magnet and a old T.V.
@@jnanacaksusa3932 You are a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your knowledge of the subject is very elementary but you have convinced yourself that your intuition is the true reality. The problem with physics at this level is that it's very unintuitive. Yes, we all love the idea of an 'ether' as an elegant explanation of all things. Many of the early physicists had trouble letting go of the concept, but as they understood more about discoveries that were being made by physicists such as Einstein they realised that they just had to let go. And you must do so also, if you want to make any progress with the subject. Don't forget that many of the great things that we have now depend on our understanding of this physics. If it was wrong then our technology just wouldn't work.
Could we get an answer from "john spence" - since he likes Hertz - what is his thought of the fact that Nikola Tesla came to visit him personally to explain that EM waves are not transversal but longitudinal? And how they both agreed radio is not usefull for radio-comunication?
Just another example of how badly wrong Tesla managed to get things. Radio is apparently "not useful for communications" and yet it is now ubiquitous. We use it to communicate with space probes millions of miles away, for broadcast entertainment and news, for personal communication, for global positioning, for radar and numerous other applications. Tesla should have stuck to the one thing he was competent in; AC power distribution.
@@ferrumignis No, he said that radio is useless as his system transmitted energy and not a mere signal. his-story is written by money holders edit: in space radio is ok as there are no loses
@@ferrumignis And i must add: Truth is objective, logic is subjective. EGO is subjective, gut feeling is objective. Brain and thought is digital, emotions are analogue. Everything can be made logical, but the truth is only 1. For example, we can not live without Nature - but we would thrive without christianity. We are washed up for hundreds of generations with many resets and indocrination in schools make sure we never see the truth. To read akaša you must meditate... to believe in money you must work, to have true technology is impossible as knowledge is power and "they" dont like us having power. They want workers not thinkers.
You are measuring the dielectric constant of the ether when you measure the dielectric constant of vacuum/space which is 1. Besides, there is Michelson-Gale experiment you likely never heard about which detected the ether. Magnetic field is basically a form of ether vortex. Entire electromagnetic spectrum is transverse and longitudinal waves/disturbance of the ether medium. Gravity is also caused by ether due to a difference of pressure in the ether. Einstein broke physics by abolishing the ether.
I've noticed that there is a large number of science denialists in the comments. Please, do not let this make you believe as if your videos are majorly watched by these people. I found it to be an excellent video on the history of the experimental science that eventually led us to Einstein's work. Stay safe and continue with the great work.
Or... not regurgitating what you're fed in school even when it contradicts evidence, the laws of physics, and logic. Trust and believe have no place in real science.
The speed of light will play a huge role in the future because as we all probably know, the Hubble telescope can pick up light that has travelled far further than our "constant" predicts. So the question is which is wrong? The answer is neither because all the relativistic effects of fantastic amounts of matter and gravitation and perhaps some unknown or unrecognized-as-yet relativistic effects must be taken into account. I'd say the size of the universe is no longer expanding. The proof is that the universe is much smaller than we realized until we got a telescope to prove this. I am only suggesting this as our first hypothesis unless it's already been thoroughly picked over and I'm sure I'm out of the loop. But I would like to point out that since the universe is much smaller than we thought, it's not expanding. How could the universe expand? It seems ridiculous. If everything looks red, then I've learned that the cause is probably local to my own eyes. Check to see is I'm wearing red lenses. So what could cause the deceleration of time in our neighborhood? The rapid approach of Andromeda? Does gravitational, Higgs? fields travel instantly or do they travel at light speed? What is the nature of gravitation? Did Higgs add anything answer at all? Set that aside Many, I think most, say the universe is accelerating outward as if everything has rocket engines strapped to them and they accelerate stars and galaxies for us just so some people's theories work out. I'd suggest we see the obvious and accept that it is we who are decelerating in terms of our rate or the pace of time in our neighborhood. I saw a 2 hour show on the Hubble telescope that was fantastic but not once did I hear that their calculations in supercomputers were also taking into effect the rates of time as time changes in tempo as we point our laser pointers around this amazing map. However, the consequences and causes of changes in tempo are or should be present in every single iteration of the calculations of each and every spot in the universe, at whatever the resolution had been chosen for the simulated evolution of the universe starting from the big bang. Now that the universe is not accelerating, we ask why? The universe began expanding and so it probably still does but it must be proven. Given how wrong we were about the size of the universe, it may not be doing much of either but I've always had this idea nagging me. It's the sprinter misperception. We go to the couch to watch the TV and as we turn it on, we see a foot race in progress. We missed the start but we see 10 racers at 10 different places relative to the starting line. We measure the speed of each and by golly, we notice a coincidence. The further the sprinter is from the starting bang, oops, the starting line, the faster he/she is traveling. This must mean that these racers are accelerating faster, the further from the start line they are. We make a mathematical model, publish it and we are ridiculed by those who saw the entire race because obviously, the racer furthest from the starting line is going faster is further from the starting line precisely because he's faster. He'd been running faster since the race began. Why do people assume that in the universe, everything had the same velocity and equal disbursement and so many assumptions? Perhaps we have a way to determine the instantaneous speed of galaxies on the edge of our current vision and maybe they seem faster still. Well of course they are. They beat racer #10 off the big bang. That's why they are out there. Another question I have. I introduced some ideas as hypotheses but if the answers are already known, then by all means. I may have misunderstood this consequence of relativity. I'll just plow forward. The closer an object gets to the speed of light, it's apparent mass approaches infinity. Well, I'm not a physicist but infinity is rather large. I'd expect the gravitational field, oh sorry, the Higgs field (is there a difference?), would get extremely high. What objects am I going on about? Well, our Galaxy and most of them have a black hole at it's center. We've taken those into account in our computer universe building computer program, but what if the matter caught in orbit? It not only is caught in the effects of the black hole but it is contributing time slowing and gravitation adding effects. My question is if an atom is torn apart and nuclei are mingling and producing gamma rays, and the strong nucleic forces come into play toward the creation of larger nuclei and fender mass, but it's all slow relative to us. Do the nucleic forces have relativistic consequences that are similar or identical maybe to and in a month they dismantled the generator. It's on this side of the event horizon, traveling so fast under so much gravitational or Higgs field, the atoms are being torn apart except that time is near standstill. Now my question. If an atom like those...this will require a description. I read somewhere that someone wanted to open a science museum and feature a $2 million Van De Graff generator. These are the most efficient way to produce high voltages. It's an electron conveyor and all you need to is take static electrons. Anyway, it stripped atoms if it's electrons after testing apart molecules. Nuclei mingle at high nucleic forces and this creates gamma waves. A month later that cold fusion producing Generator was disassembled and it was gone. So there's much to take note and I'm sure it'd make a book. is that the closer to the speed of light an object gets, an object is brought to very near the speed of light. Do nucleic forces have side effects like relativistic ones due to the steeply increasing and decreasing from gravitational or Higgs fields? How fast does this field travel? Does it affect time? I'm out if time. I was heading toward making a big deal about being more careful about the various changes to time at every data point in the evolving universe simulation video program. How could we represent the effects of the consequences of time speeding up or slowing down as a photon travels across the universe? Answer all before next week. I'll add more and assimilate the proper answers if anyone responds. thank you.
Einstein never gave up on the ether and Neutron Decay Cosmology will bring it back. Space itself is the ether. The density of space can be measured by it's energy density. Most space near large objects is dense enough with energy (gravity) that it acts just like a typical material refractive medium; and bends light. One could easily model photons as spherical low pressure percussion waves in such a fluid medium. negative charge would be assoociated with inflow/divergence (arbitrary convention notwithstanding) and positive with outflow/convergence. wait! the future is more dense and our fundamental mass particle is postive charge. i guess because both are convergence.
Great talk, a bit of marketing though. And dissappointed about not hearing Tesla's name in all of these great scientist, especially when the title contains aether.
@@carrynoweight I have looked at this very thing (if it is the same thing you are talking about). And using relativity one can generate the same mathematical equations without the need for referring to an aether at all.
@@wishusknight3009 Thought experiments? All of those are real phenomenons, unexplained by Relativity. How is it possible that magnetic field does not roatate with magnet? Magnetic field is stationary, but relative to what, if there isn't any absolute reference point? And Sagnac? "Rotation is absolute in special relativity", that's your wikipedia answer? So Special Relativity is defeated here. Or maybe something from GR, "acceleration mass is indistinguishable from gravitational mass"? Not knowing nature of gravity this is an empty statement. Light near stars can bend due to multiple reasons, not to mention that original 1919 photo is bogus, out of several divergent only one was picked, the one that "confirmed Relativity" (I'm sure you know that). Dayton Miller results? Compelling life-time work to prove ether wind? Michelson-Gale experiment that measures Earth rotation at first attempt with 1% accuracy, opposite to no translational motion of Earth ever found? Barnett effect? Relative to what is body rotating that causes spontanenous magnetisation? Aspden effect? It is totally beyond the laws of physics, yet no one relativist is even trying to explain it, because it needs ether to work. Casimir effect? DePalma spinning ball drop - bodies falling slower in vacuum than non-rotating ones? Binary Star precession? Want to know more, or is it enough "thought experiments" to explain us basing on the theory of Relativity?
@Najawin "quantum fields" loool a field is NOT A PARTICLE a field can only exist in an aether. A fields and particles can logically never be reconciled. Tesla was right Einstein was wrong.
@Najawin A field is a set of values in space? Well that's an interesting way of saying you don't know what a field is.. There cannot be a field without a medium.
@Najawin "I know exactly what a field is"- umm something tells me you don't, fields are mysterious to anyone seriously seeking the truth. You are not defining a field, you are describing attributes of a field in specific locations. Anything could be described as "a discreet lattice of points", this is not a definition nor does it explain what a field is, it merely describes certain features of said field.
@Najawin yes that's the problem, you are trying to define something with its "rigorously defined" mathematical attributes and characteristics. But failing to realize this falls short of understanding what it actually is, or coming to any real definition that does not rely on attributes.
@Najawin To a certain extent. However the point still remains, you haven't explained to me what a field is. Calling it a collection of mathematical attributes is a copout.
I have a simple way to show we move faster than the speed of light. Go outside at night look up at the stars look at one star and then look at the one next to it. How many miles do you think is in between each star? Your eyesight just move faster than the speed of light by doing that.
E = mc2 is absolutely one of the greatest pranks ever pulled. The utter nonsense of it almost makes it funny if it werent for all the harm its done to real, actual science.
@@philtanics1082 Naw dude, joke is on you. Not understanding something isn't proof against it. Considering you have an entire playlists of bible stories and "proofs" of god. It is not hard to tell who is living in a fairy tale.
LOL what are you some kind of parrot? The Ether was never disproved by michelson-morley experiment. You better go back and look at the findings. Better yet find someone else who has and have them explain it to you.
Absolute motion was detected by Sagnac, and rotation of the Earth was detected by Michelson-Gale. COmbining those with Michelson-Morley we get stationary Earth wih ether rotating around it with stars and sun once a day.
In Truth General Relativistic Physics is an alternative reconceptualisation of Aether, or Superconduction related communication. Depending on POV, Einsteinian Relativity or Bergson time duration timing in Maldecena AdS/CFT Holographic Principle Imagery projection-drawing.
@@traininggrounds9450 Yes Galileo got the idea from Hans Lippershey. The invention of the lens is Dutch. The first microscope was also invented in my country. However, Galileo improved the design quit a lot increasing magnification from 5 to 20 times. Because of the great improvement and the military advantage Italy gained from Galileo's telescope, history remembers him better.
@@UtraVioletDreams the first microscope was definitely not invented "first" by your country, maybe the most recent reinvention, but certainly not the first in history.
My observation is that thought rarely enters the equation in these comments: anti-evolutionists, Tesla worshippers, conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, and wannabe physicists "proving" the existence of "aether" by way of juvenile thought experiments. Where such thoughtlessness abounds, the fabric of human aspiration is reduced to aggression and greed.
@@DavidHHermanson I do not believe in the existence of the aether as some (understatement) comments state it exists, but I can't help but be skeptical here with the lack of proof on both sides when pitted against each other; "I'm right because X and X", "no I'm right because Y and Y", "obviously not, you're uneducated, Z proved it here and here", "this isn't proof, it was disproven by R and Q a century earlier" and so on and so forth, no conclusions are made with uncontested proof and, since your stance is so bold, you'd probably have something
