-6

One of the key predecessors to Einstein's Relativity was another theory having to do with an "Aether" material. This substance was supposed to be the substrate that the universe is built upon. It was theorized to be nearly mass-less and occupy the entire volume of "empty" space.

So back in the 1800's before rocketry and space exploration were possible, why did they think they would be able to detect this substance? If the substance was supposed to have a lower density than that of hydrogen gas, wouldn't it immediately be buoyed up and out of the atmosphere the moment it was released? Is it even possible to detect a material like that while you are inside of a higher density medium...? From my perspective it seems like they were attempting the equivalent of measuring wind resistance while standing at the bottom of the ocean....so was this experiment ever valid in the first place?

If this experiment was not valid then does that put the Aether back on the table as a possible standard model theory?

david.cowan
  • 11
  • 2
    You seem to assume a very specific model for that luminiferous aether and its interactions with matter and gravitation, which, however, you have not detailed... – Cosmas Zachos Oct 19 '23 at 15:52
  • The density of the Aether isn't an assumption...that is what it was theorized to be when they originally were working on it... They just never considered the fact that it is lower density than the atmosphere from what I can tell... – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 15:54
  • What are you assuming said density has to do with matter and gravity? How do you think the SM Higgs field condensate behaves? – Cosmas Zachos Oct 19 '23 at 16:04
  • Buoyancy is a fairly simple concept...lower density materials float up, higher density materials sink down. Why do you think matter and gravity have to get involved in a simple density comparison? – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 16:15
  • Sigh... the hypothetical luminiferous aether was supposed to not interact with material objects, required to avoid your problems. You are talking about your own private mirage hypothesis. – Cosmas Zachos Oct 19 '23 at 16:26
  • No...I'm asking a question about the medium that was supposed to exist....Newton theorized about its affects on planets, calculated density values for it....you're avoiding the actual question by injecting your own values of an Aether theory of some sort. – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 16:32
  • 1
    The luminiferous aether involved in M&M does not involve my own injected values. That is the point of my comment: to specify which tree you are barking up on... *Now* it is clear. You were misinformed. – Cosmas Zachos Oct 19 '23 at 16:34
  • What tree...you apparently know more about Aether theories than I do. I'm asking a simple buoyancy question having to do with the density values. Newton writes about it in "Opticks" and Telsa writes about it fairly consistently... – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 16:37
  • So not only are you not answering the question, but you're demeaning me for asking it? Real mature. People like you should be banned from the internet in general, let alone places where people ask questions. – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 16:43
  • 1
    Voting to close. The questioner is using the question to promote non-mainstream theories and ideas. – gandalf61 Oct 19 '23 at 17:10
  • That's a pathetic response to a simple buoyancy question... – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 17:14
  • 1
    It certainly is not a "simple buoyancy question". WP states explicitly that the luminiferous ether they were contemplating and excluding is precisely the one not interacting with matter, so any and all buoyancy issues are summarily excluded, logically. You invent a straw man, name-dropping Newton and Tesla in dubious conceptual support, and inferring M&M did not exclude that. – Cosmas Zachos Oct 19 '23 at 18:38
  • Some very interesting work has been done more recently that you can take a look at: Ronald Hatch, Relativity and GPS; Abramowicz & Bajtlik, Adding to the Paradox, the Accelerated Twin is Older; and my own paper on Dilating Loop Relativity. These all look at a stationary background to discuss the Special Relativity concept that all motion is relative. My paper in particular looks at quantum fields as the background on which all things move (And I do discuss the MM experiment results) – foolishmuse Oct 19 '23 at 19:24
  • 1
    I think I agree with david.cowan on this one. He is asking a reasonable question. "Why did people think they could detect aether?" There is some confusion about it being less dense than everything else and this must mean it would be buoyant. But one might explain that in an answer. I talk a little about this here - In what medium are non-mechanical waves a disturbance? The aether? – mmesser314 Oct 20 '23 at 00:44

1 Answers1

3

Your intuition about the properties of the aether is flawed. In the luminiferous aether model the aether was not affected by gravity. It was simply hypothesised as a medium for the propagation of light and other electromagnetic waves. It was supposed to fill all of space, thus explaining how light can travel through a vacuum. If it had interacted with gravity then the images that we saw of the stars and the planets would have been displaced. And if it had been somehow ejected from the Earth's atmosphere then, without aether to carry light waves, the surface of the Earth would be totally dark.

gandalf61
  • 52,505
  • I don't see why something that has a mass would not be affected by gravity. What scientific principle allows something to exist but to not be affected by gravity? – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 16:17
  • For your edification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)

    Newton used the Aether to describe gravity...hypothesized about its density, etc.

     – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 16:22
  • @david.cowan Don't confuse Newton's aether with the 19th century luminiferous aether which Michelson and Morley tried and failed to detect. The 19th century aether had to be massless otherwise it would have affected the orbits of the planets - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether. – gandalf61 Oct 19 '23 at 16:38
  • When did I say "luminiferous aether" at all? I asked a density based question and used the word Aether only....

    If you are saying that Newton's Aether is not the same as M&M's Aether is it also different from Tesla's Aether? Why are there so many mediums with the same name?

     – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 16:40
  • Sites like this have values for Aether's mass and volume...implying it has a density: https://www.aqua-calc.com/page/density-table/substance/aether

    I am assuming those numbers come from....something?

     – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 16:47
  • 1
    @david.cowan The data page that you linked to relates to the organic compound diethyl ether which has nothing to do with Newton's aether or with the luminiferous aether. M&M were trying to detect the luminiferous aether which was the standard model for the propagation of light in the 19th century. By then Newton's ideas about the aether were discredited. Whatever Tesla thought about the aether is not relevant to M&M's experiments either. – gandalf61 Oct 19 '23 at 16:56
  • People need to quit using the same names to mean different things...

    My understanding of the Aether is that it is supposed to be a material substance of extremely low mass...I'm not sure if that is from Tesla's, Newton's, or M&M's Aether, but it is from one of them.... So if this medium is of lower density than Hydrogen then wouldn't it buoy out of the atmosphere as soon as it was released?

    Light can clearly change mediums as it traverses boundaries from air to water, from what I can tell Aether would be the medium outside of the atmosphere.

     – david.cowan Oct 19 '23 at 17:01