Hi Sabine. This crossed my feed, perhaps not surprisingly. When you said 20 years ago, I definitely felt, well, old. And when you mentioned Brilliant at the end I started laughing, as I was their physics lead for a little while, also many, many years ago (when they were just starting out and a LOT smaller). This 8 minute video wound up having a peculiar intersection of portions of my life! Best, Dave
It is always amazing to see and hear/read about the "intersections" that are sort of exposed by rapid mass communication nowadays. Kudos for "Brilliant" and for Khan Academy and MOOC courses (before they became so commercialized) and tools like Wolfram Alpha, SAS_On_Demand, Visual Studio, etc. If I were still young and had seemingly infinite time on my hands, along with ordinary curiosity, these would have been (and still are) marvelous sandboxes and educational technologies for learning.
@@WarrenLacefield Khan Academy gave me a 15 minute introduction to enthalpy which told me what I wanted to know, but only at the end: a 5-second definition. They could do a lot to make things simpler. Any introduction to a topic should start with what it is and its scope, and then get into the weeds as to what goes on with that topic that warrants why it should have a name and definition. I will grant that there are topics, such as entropy, that have as many definition-proponents as there are youTubers, each explaining why everyone is getting it wrong, Derek Muller claiming to own the high ground.
@@-danR Well, if hurried, maybe should have just Googled it (e.g., enthalpy=H=E+PV; the total energy in a system). But as a lesson, with maybe a bit of history, some explanation, and maybe an interactive graph, that ending 5-second definition ... most of what I've seen on Khan Academy is pretty good for the age and understanding levels targeted. On the other hand, you are right in that the simplest and perhaps most direct way to present/communicate something is using "set, demonstration, and closure."
I have been researching the aether for about 30 years, I have found that it exists and can be affected, I also can explain why it doesn't contradict any evidence but I guess Sabine is going to explain that.... Ok, so watching and ugh, there are errors. The Speed of light has NOT been shown to be the same in each direction! Rather the round trip of light has found not to be affected by motion when it would be expected to be. Lorentz proposed that matter was shrinking and hey presto the results make sense but one little catch, if matter must be shrunk then the speed of light can't be C in each direction! The very fact that this shrinking or time dilation is required means that the speed CANNOT be the same, Einstein just said it's space shrinking which was closer to being a semantic difference! Rather it is challenging and Einstein argued that it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light so "let's just assume" it is C in each direction and be done with it, but that is FALSE! Actually you can measure the one way speed of light but it's not easy and requires you don't accept relativity. The fact is that Lorentz Relativity (Lorentz Ether Theory or LET) has an aether and fits 100% of the evidence and has nothing illogical and it is accepted that this is true by mainstream, but mainstream prefers to ignore the theory despite it's 100% compatibility with 100% of the evidence that supports Einstein's Relativity. If you are confused, consider that length contraction and time dilation might harmonize the round trip speed of light but a shorter ruler or slower clock makes light in both directions (fore and aft) seem to be move faster (it doesn't have to move as far in an absolute sense and your clock records less time as it's slow) making the light seem faster to head-on light which your velocity added to is made even faster by motion! This is the point for the Veritasium video on this subject and Einstein's 1905 paper doesn't even mention the one way speed of light being C. How can you measure it you ask? Well if the one way speed of light isn't C and if Einstein's theory is wrong and Lorentz's model is closer to the truth then time dilation and length contraction are not relative but due to absolute motion through and aether and as such time dilation does affect some frames of motion more and as such you can learn the frame of fastest time and so then it does become possible to measure the one way speed of light but more to the point it becomes moot, there are however much easier ways to detect, prove and make use of the aether.
My understanding is that the famous experiment was repeated years later by Miller at high altitude and the interferometer did show a shift ... but the world was well into Relativity and it got swept under the carpet, same thing that happened when Wilhelm Reich met Einstein and performed the To-T experiment. Interesting read Title: The Michelson-Morley-Miller Experiments before and after 1905 Authors: Swenson, L. S. Journal: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 1, p.56
The same happen when Edwin Hubble wrote a letter to US Astronomical Society and denounce the assumption that Light Red Shift indicate star retrieval. They hide his letter. The same situation is now. They are pretending that nobody understand what Space is and is hiding the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
And now, science will get even more controversial, as d tRump will dictate what is real and what isn't. (Sorry USA (Un Safe Area) and sorry world). Masks will be back soon, due to the amount of carbon (and verbal pollution), that tRump will emit.
You must be joking, right? No-one who claims science is dead or that they cannot trust scientists is fair and balanced, at least in the non-foxian way.
An "Aether-like" interpretation is conceivable, but it would need to be reconceived as a fabric-like spacetime structure. To clarify, the original concept of the aether was akin to a fluid medium composed of tiny, round particles through which other particles could travel. A modern alternative could interpret spacetime itself as exhibiting wave-like properties at quantum scales. In this view, particles would not merely exist within spacetime but would be fundamentally composed of it-similar to how a hurricane forms as part of the atmosphere, with no displacement occurring ahead of or behind it. Implementing this model would require a slight modification to the Lorentz Contraction, an adjustment that remains both testable and falsifiable. However, a comprehensive explanation would exceed typical formats, such as a UA-cam comments section.
You have very good understanding of this subject and what qualities Space must posses to be able to do the "Job". I believe will be of interest of yours to learn how exactly the structure of Space is formed. This information is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
And anything we consider 'matter' is just an expression of the interaction of different waves within this space-time ether. This space time ether flows towards masses, which means that we, as expressions of space-time wave interaction, flow 'on top / inside' of this flow. This is what we experience as gravity. It's not a 'force', we're just at the bottom of an space-time etherfall.
Viewing space-time as a fabric would also explain 'spooky action' at a distance, as the observer doesn't manipulate a particle, as much as the space-time fabric, everything part of the space-time fabric will move if it's pulled in one direction.
@johnohare9419 For me, "spooky action at a distance" is quite easily understood. When everything was in such an extreme state of compression, particles might have been merged so closely that they behaved as a single, unified entity. As decompression occurred, they separated spatially but retained certain "memory" of their original unified state, maintaining correlations even over vast distances.
Traditionally, the vacuum state is thought of as “empty” space. But a deeper look reveals that it is far from void; it’s teeming with quantum fluctuations and interactions between entropy and gravity. This balanced state forms the basis for all observable phenomena, acting as the fundamental “ground” upon which reality rests. Within this framework, a redefined aether could describe the energy and forces that permeate even the “emptiest” parts of space.
My thoughts entirely. There really is no such thing as "empty" space, or spacetime, for that matter. Space is replete with actual and virtual particles and the waves they create. I think it's mostly explained by quantum field theory.
My cents to it space has many properties which the purposed aether has . I also would add that when you don't believe in hidden variables most of the solution for quantum entanglement then needs extra space. I'm not sure about it and its vague but for me a possibility is that dark energy is the result more space causes more possible timelines. Time-lines collapse into 1 => extra space .. the result is a non consisted infinit loop
Layman's perspective: It seems our choices are either that the aether exists and gives light a medium to propagate through (requiring us to believe that the aether is a medium that doesn't behave like other mediums), or that the aether doesn't exist and light propagates without a medium (requiring us to believe that light is a wave that doesn't behave like other waves). The Michaelson Morley experiment seems to have disproven just one assumed property of the aether. Syllogistically, it's something like this: Premise 1a: The aether must have property-X in common with other mediums, otherwise continuing to believe in the aether is a special pleading fallacy. Premise 2a: Property-X is not observed. Premise 3a: Therfore, the aether doesn't exist. But then they turn around and say "Unlike all other waves, light is a wave that doesnt require a medium to propagate." So they've just traded one speacial pleading fallacy for another. Here's a similar syllogism for determining whether or not light is a wave: Premise 1b: Light must have property-Y (require a medium in order to propagate) in common with other waves, otherwise continuing to believe that light is a wave is a special pleading fallacy. Premise 2b: Property-Y is not observed (Light can propagate without a medium.) Premise 3b: Therefore, light is not a wave. In both syllogisms, it's premise 1 that has the problem. If you don't like premise 1b then you can't have premise 1a. If you accept premise 1a, then you have to accept premise 1b. I, for one, I'm okay with saying that light is a wave that doesn't behave like any other waves we've observed, and the aether could be a medium that doesn't behave like any other medium we've observed. We just have more experiments showing light behaving like a wave, and not enough showing the existence of an aether.
At least you are open minded & see the contradictions that are there. Too many won't even entertain it, yet believe in the Higgs field. How they can't see that too is entirely analogous to a medium is beyond me.
Light is simply radiation of pure energy. The concept of a photon of energy is not something peculiar to light, the photon applies to all radiation on the electromagnetic energy spectrum, for example radiowaves also have photons of energy. Energy travels in/on/through the fabric of space, and our current understanding of the universe involves stretching of this fabric of space. It is this fabric of space that is being considered like an aether in the video.
We have never found any signs of Lorentz Violations. In addition, we have shown mathematically that any structures that are not Lorentz Invariant must show signs of Lorentz Violation. So, this means that, at least up to the scales that are currently measurable, there cannot be any structures that explicitly break Lorentz Invariance. The Luminiferous Aether explicitly breaks Lorentz Invariance, and so cannot exist. On that same track, the difference between Premise 1a and Premise 1b is that 1a was proven mathematically true (for the Luminiferous Aether), but 1b has been proven mathematically false (We have found ways to express waves mathematically without reference to any medium).
@@codetoil Mathematics has practically nothing to do with it. All math as it is used in physics is based on certain assumptions about our physical universe. The same math model may have different interpretations, and that math model is still an accurate description of every one of them.
I'm one of those slow people who get hung up on things that most everyone else just whizzes past with a nod. This happened when I was learning about electromagnetism and came across the little equation that bound the speed of light with the two constants: the permittivity and permeability of space. A very simple equation. Just c, mu-sub-zero, and epsilon-sub-zero. Okay, I thought. Now I've got three related values. We measure the speed of light pretty well, from what I've seen, but it looks as if these other two constants represent determining constraints. Now the magnetic permeability has been derived from the fine-structure constant, so there is ground to stand on with that, so to speak. But then a look at the electric permittivity's explanation loops it back to depend upon the other two constants. This baffled me at first. There three constants aren't like the Three Stooges. Something else is going on here. And that's where notions of aether started creeping into the arena like little baby cockroaches. After all, science pulled back the curtain with the Michelson-Morley experiment, and showed there was no aether doing what people had thought it might be doing. That's part of the problem: what we think. We ask ourselves what makes the speed of light what it is, and we end up with two other constants that relate the speed of light to spacetime itself. We measure, and measurement gives us values, and what do the values tell us about what we call spacetime? Spacetime isn't empty, or nothingness; as others have said here, spacetime is replete with quantum fluctuations, and maybe the word 'aether' is better used to refer to that idea. Being the slow person that I seem to be, I realize too late that I should have continued my physics education so that the lies I learned in my early physics classes can be let go, and the much-better lies we get told as we move on through quantum field theory can make me feel better. And then I can watch the physics fun from the bleacher seats. With neutrino popcorn. 🙂
Yes, I've been thinking along similar lines. This 'fabric of space-time' that we refer to so vaguely, this churning foam of quantum fluctuations, strikes me as a good candidate for 'aether' -- at least, a mystery in need of further exploration and explication. There is certainly some underlying unity that connects everything to produce that baffling 'action at a distance' revealed by Bell's theorem.
THe problem with the permittivity and permeability of free space is that the electromagnetic wave/phenomenon is going into "space", more precisely the Einstein-compatible Aether and comes back out. Those 2 constants are giving you a measurement of the properties of this Aether. At this level through, it is in fact absolute regardless of your velocity, you will not find a "static" aether looking at these numbers. The time dilation of "space" as your travel through it will make all measurements of these constants look the same. All up until you start using the correct reference frame, the CMB, then you see that "space" is giving rise to these constants and "c" by extension, space being an Einstein-compatible aether, just to play unnecessary word games. One must realize that space is SOMETHING that is giving rise to these 3 constants (permittivity, permeability and "c" by extension). Call it what you will.
Yeah, there's more to the story... specifically, FitzGerald Contraction or as it's usually called these days: length contraction... ok, this is kinda a long story, and I don't have time to write a long comment here right now. The entire reason why Einstein started with a postulate about the speed of light being constant for all *_inertial_* observers (having inertia is critically important for this) is because of this exact part of Maxwell's Equations. Lorentz and Larmor... and Poincarè basically figured out the same stuff Einstein figured out, but in a much more complicated way and ultimately requiring that the aether be completely undetectable in principle. Poincaré came to this conclusion himself, but refused to believe in his own theoretical result. Also.... while both Special Relativity and Lorentz-Larmor aether theory make the same predictions (because they're both based on the same math), Lorentz-Larmor aether theory does *not* work with any theory of gravity, but Special Relativity works perfectly with General Relativity.
@jok2000 The CMB is just as arbitrary a reference frame as using the surface of the Earth, or the center of the Sun, or my butt. There is no inertial reference frame that is different from any other inertial reference frame. There is no mechanical experiment you can perform, which will give you a different result when performed in one specific direction at one specific velocity. There's no speed and direction that is different from any other speed and direction.
Relativity doesn't, and it never did, "disprove" the luminiferous aether. Both SR and GR are aether-agnostic. It was a mathematical elegance argument that led physicists to adopt drop the idea. Even Einstein was deeply reticent about this. Big fan of your work. Lost in Math is wonderful. As a physicist myself, I've been deeply troubled by the over-mathematisation of physics, but to me, this began with Minkowski... GR is wonderful, but it's surely where we took a wrong turn in the maths maze... I blame Minkowski.
@kylelochlann5053 All Minkowski did was reframe the mathematical model with Riemannian geometry. Spacetime curvature is a purely mathematical concept, and contrary to the way it's taught, it's not a physically-motivated one, nor is it testable. It's actually unfalsifiable and unnecessary. Is it mathematically elegant? Undeniably so. Is it physics? No. To be clear, I'm not saying this invalidates GR, I'm just pointing out that the physics and maths are not the same thing, and often it's the maths leading us astray. GR and its predictions are not dependent on Minkowski, in fact, but they're taught as if there's only one way to model things. When we confuse maths for physics, it's like thinking the voodoo doll is somehow the person. I call it voodoo physics. It's our biggest problem. it's ubiquitous.
tek-nic-ally any form of problem with a lagrangian can be converted into an equivalent problem of geometry, as they both use calculus of variations, so i can always say that it is not the potential, the configurations space is curved
As a physicist, you probably understand that is impossible to create a credible theory without knowing what exactly Space is, Time, Gravity, Electromagnetism, Polarity, Energy, Physical Attraction.... If you are interested, explanation of these fundamental elements can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@gruffdavies Wrong. Minkowski did nothing with differential geometry, that was Einstein. No one is saying math and physics are the same. Since you haven't studied physics, if measurements are consistent with WEP, LLI, and LPI then the theory is necessarily a metric field theory.
Oliver Heaviside showed in his series the electrician that a charged particle traveling in aether will behave differently, it's Electric field will get squished, which was communicated to Fitzgerald using this Lorentz proposed the idea of Lorentz contraction, and the Michelson Morley did not take in account the effect by Oliver Heaviside, Hence the null results can't actually be taken as disproving aether, what really happened was at the same time Einstein proposed his own theory of relativity, similar to gallilean relativity where you don't need to consider ground, Einstein theory of relativity made aether ad-hoc, Einstein did assume things, like the speed of light in both directions are equal, but this need not be the case, and someone with (asynchronous convention) showed that relativity can work in such convention where speed of light is different in different direction, (it was first pointed out by Reichenbach), This makes more sense, rather than an arbitrary assumption about speed of light. Well CMBR are traveling one way and that is actually a test of one way speed of light assuming they are at same temp. When we shed away the dogma of fixed speed of light there's also one thing interesting happens, suppose such medium has a temporal graded refractive index i.e. speed of light is changing with time, this means that any light that is traveling will have its frequency shifted, the more it travels in time, more shift will be there, and thus farther the source more the shift, this explains red-shift without artificially inflating the universe, and with more faster speed of light the universe would have communicated with each other faster at longer distances in early era, even gravity can be understood in terms of spatially varying speed of light, actually that is how we create analogue gravity by spatially varying the speed of sound, For all we know the universe might be filled with some fluid, with its sound being light for us, and quasi-particles being fundamental particles for us. I would suggest a reading "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" by Grigory Volovik,
I ran across this interesting quote from a Nobel Laureate named Robert Laughlin in a Wikipedia article. Not the same topic at all of course. But it's an interesting kind of statement to make. "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."
This phenomenal, material manifestation is composed of space, time (or, to be more accurate, space-time), energy, and matter, the latter of which comprises eight elemental groups - the five GROSS elements (“mahābhūta”, in Sanskrit), which are perceivable by at least one of the five senses, and the three SUBTLE elements (“tanmātra” or “atisūkṣma mātra”, in Sanskrit), which are symptomatic of localized consciousness. N.B. Dark matter and black holes are not included in this system, as cosmological science has yet to determine their structural composition. The five gross material elements (or states of matter) and three subtle material elements are (from most palpable to most intangible): SOLIDS (AKA earth - “bhūmiḥ” or “pṛthivī”, in Sanskrit) are made of densely-packed molecules, and is of a steady shape at room temperature. LIQUIDS (AKA water - “jala” or “āpaḥ”, in Sanskrit) are composed of moderately-dense molecules conforming to the shape of its environment or container (and in nature, often including at least some water molecules). GASES (AKA air - “vāyuḥ” or “marut”, in Sanskrit) consist of rarefied molecular particles, and so, is of no fixed (that is, persistent) shape. HEAT (AKA fire - “analaḥ” or “tejas”, in Sanskrit) is made of kinetic energy (which may appear visibly as fire, or at least heat waves). ETHER (AKA space - “ākāśa” or “khaṃ”, in Sanskrit) is a vacuum consisting of three-dimensional space (length, breadth, and width). However, recent investigation has confirmed that empty space is actually filled with virtual particles (matter and antimatter). Thus, the explanation for the material universe being created from “nothing” (anti-matter) is plausible, according to quantum field theory. MIND (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is composed of sensual perceptions, instinctual thoughts, abstract images (including memories and fantasies), and emotions. Not all animal species have a mind, but function purely on base nervous reflexes, generated from their specific genetic sequence. In modern philosophy and in the field of neuroscience, the term “qualia” is often used to describe such mental images, thoughts, and feelings. INTELLECT (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit) consists of conceptual thoughts. Only the very higher species of animal life possess an intellectual capacity. PSEUDO-EGO (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit) is comprised of the “I” thought (specifically, the illusory, ephemeral self-identity). Only humans possess the self-awareness necessary to question their own existence and assume a sense of self. Read Ch. 10 for a full disquisition of egoity. Each of the FIVE perceptible material elements (or, to be more precise, the five elemental states) corresponds to one (or more) of the FIVE bodily senses. E.g. In outer space, where there is a vacuum (ether), one can detect light with the eyes, yet space is not tactile, and cannot be smelled or tasted, nor can sound waves travel via space, so cannot be heard. At the opposite extreme, solid matter can be seen with the eyes, felt with the sense of touch, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose, and heard with the ear (when the solid matter is physically vibrated).
@@cefcephatus It's more accurately something of a material or energy nature that would have to pervade all of space. Space itself is just measured distance plus direction.
Aether was not opposing Relativity, rather Relativity was created to oppose the default interpretation of Michelson-Morley which is that there is no revolution around the sun. So Einstein just got rid of Aether, and then had to put it back again in general relativity, and people have the balls to say that MM gave null result. But the subsequent Michelson-Gale (Gale not Morley) detected 98% of Aether drag on rotation (not revolution), confirming that Aether is real, since they found 98% the speed of relative rotation.
Physicists routinely butcher our language, relying on mathematics to save them, then getting confused by said mathematics inventing new nonsense language 🙂
POLECTRON FIELD: cell: a + & a - particle split by Full Split Energy as a positron+ & electron-. Bonds to 12 neighbours MATTER: p+ / e- = 1.5 cells, +֊+ / ֊+֊. Splits field as + & - shells. core types: +, ֊, +֊. +֊+, ֊+֊ SPIN: centre polarisation axis LECKY: absolute charge. MASS: particle lecky. INERTIA: rebalancing field kicks mass. STRONG GRAVITY: field repels mass MOND: lecky density slows acceleration/TIME and shrinks cells, loss to gravity gradients grows voids, aids acceleration BIG BANG: more proton-antiproton pairs malformed as proton-muon than antiproton-antimuon so hydrogen beat antihydrogen POSITRONIUM: e_p. Muon: ep_e. Proton: pep. Neutron: pep_e. Tau: epep_e. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau ANTIMATTER: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate. 3: proton+anti proton or muon+anti muon. 4: neutron+anti neutron. 5: tau+anti tau WEAK FORCE: unstable atoms form and annihilate e_p pairs. BETA- DECAY: pep_e => pep e. BETA+: pep + new e_p => pep_e p NUCLEAR FORCE: neutron electrons bond to protons. ENTANGLEMENT: correlation broken by interaction? Physical link? BLACK HOLE: atoms cut into neutrons fused as higher mass tau cores (epep). Field rotates. Core annihilates: ep => cell? PHOTON: cell polarisation/lateral shift wave. LONGITUDINAL WAVE: gravitational wave, neutrino: 1 to 3 cell wave DOUBLE SLIT: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides COMPLEXITY: Closed system complexity reduces over time. Uniformly (dis)ordered (hot)/cold field is simplest
@@ausgoogtube01 Humor lightens the soul, so very apropos. I will steal this one from you. (One of my old writing teachers often claimed the only ideas worth having, are those worth stealing.)
Once physicists started talking about Quantum (Vacuum) Fluctuation and field theories it started to *look* like a kind of Aether Theory to the rest of the world, at least from a descriptive standpoint. Whenever people look up the topic, the first thing they're going to see is that famous blue bubbly animation, which is depicted as being fixed in a static coordinate space, so if that's NOT supposed to be an Aether Theory, it's kind of getting off on the wrong foot descriptively. For my part, I honestly have no idea how a 'virtual' particle pair is supposed to determine its relative velocity compared to the rest of the universe if its popping into and out of no-where. What stops them from appearing with nigh-infinite velocity relative to the universe at large? If they really are just mathematical figments whipped up to help define or constrain the behavior of real particles then that's not a problem - though at that point I really have issues with how/why physicists have chosen to describe them that way.
Albert Einstein on aether (Leiden Lecture 1920): '......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....' Nothing has changed since. Spacetime as a real physical grid is the alfa and omega of physics. Its denial the cause of 100 years of our stagnation...carry on pls.
Everyone keeps repeating this one quotation of Einstein mentioning the aether... What *_else_* did Einstein say about the aether? Do you think that he only said the word a single time in the 200 papers and books that he wrote during his life?
@@juliavixen176 google the essay "Concerning the Ether" from 1924. "we will not be able to do without the aether in theoretical physics, that is, a continuum endowed with physical properties"
Humour is totally relative to the observer! 😂😂 This observer is smiling and chuckling. This video actually achieved something truly meaningful without any math or scientific papers to support the true value it holds. Thank you Sabine
The aether and an absolute frame of reference implies that there is a distance - a real distance between the number one and two. ... A very popular argument is "It just is". I have to say... not a very compelling argument. But when a physicist uses that same argument ... then it's ok. Right? To resolve the conflict you need an experiment or an argument that doesn't rely on "It just is".
Yeah, but the idea that light doesn't need a medium never meant anything other than newtons lack of framing an hypothesis the ether would have to also account for fields. Aberration was never in conflict with the ether, And neither was the MM experiment. So what reason was there to discard the ether? None as far as i can tell other than that it is hard to model what it would have to be like. In GR we still have ether drag like effects in frame dragging, if you pick a velocity for the ether everywhere in GR, you are forced into some curl and div for it, but not necessarily a specific velocity everywhere, so what to make of that? Why does light take longer one way around a spinning black hole than the other way, seems a bit strange, but if you just put it back in, all these effects are obvious, it is just the velocity of the medium. The aversion to doing things in that way escapes me tbh, it seems just utterly bizarre to not think of it that way.
MM was not the only experiment that tried to find evidence of the eather, actually dozen have been done testing different type of aether and no one resulted in a positive testing
We don't actually have a way to measure the speed of light in one direction, only in two directions (there and back). Observers moving at different velocities would claim the other observer's speed of light in one direction is different than in the return direction. This inability to measure the speed of light in one direction means we have no way to measure our velocity as an absolute, thus resulting in the principle of relativity.
@@drbuckley1that was one of the points, the aether was hypothesised to be an “absolute reference frame”, so they would be determining the Earths motion relative to the Aether. As far as I know anyway.
"We don't actually have a way to measure the speed of light in one direction, only in two directions (there and back)." That is wrong. One can measure any one-way velocity, including that of light, as soon as one has set up a frame of reference, i.e. a coordinate system. You would then determine the one-way velocity of light in the same way as you would do it for any other object like a sprinter or a car. You determine a startpoint A at position coordinate x_A and an endpoint at position coordinate x_B. You also determine the start time t_A by taking the corresponding reading of one clock located at x_A and you determine the end time t_B by taking the corresponding reading of another clock located at x_B. You then get your one-way velocity v by calculating v = (x_B - x_A)/(t_B - t_A). The value for the one-way velocity v determined this way is - of course - relative, i.e. it depends on the chosen frame of reference, i.e. the chosen coordinate system. This generally applies for any velocity, be it that of a sprinter, a car or even light. However, for light specificly, you will get c if you choose particular frames in which the clocks are synchronized according to the Einstein convention. You will automatically get a frame that is synchronized to good approximation according to the Einstein convention, if you synchronize the clocks next to each other first and then move them apart slowly. For instance, you could take two clocks, A and B, and synchronize them in your laboratory. Then, you send one of these clocks, lets say B, together with a light detector and a sender to the moon with a regular space rocket. Such a rocket is still slow enough. Then, you position that clock B with the detector and the sender on the moon. Finally, you send a signal from the earth to the moon and take the corresponding reading t_A of the clock A that remained on earth. The signal will then be detected by the clock B at some local time reading t_B. The numerical value of that reading will then be send back to earth where you could calculate the one way velocity of light by dividing the earth-moon distance D by the difference of the different clock readings. To good precision, you will get D/(t_B - t_A) = c. The determined value will actually be a little bit larger than c, namely by about half the average velocity of the rocket which brought the clock B to the moon.
I'm having trouble understanding the conceptual difference between an 'aether' and a quantum field. I'm no physicist, but having read so many science vulgarization, my understanding of photons are that they are fluctuations in the electromagnetic quantum field. Isn't this quantum field then a sort of 'medium' through which light travels.
There were several dozen "aether" theories before the twentieth century, and they all have major problems, except for the Lorentz-Larmor aether theory... which is basically just Special Relativity with an undetectable aether which does nothing. Mostly... to generalize... the aether theories are like having an aquarium full of water. There's a coordinate system defined relative to the tank, and a coordinate system relative to the water, and the two coordinate systems are separate and can move relative to each other. That's not how Einstein's Relativity (and QFT) work. You only have one coordinate system (I guess the water in this analogy). There's not some "other space" that "space" is embedded within. Because.... ...and here's the big secret that is printed in every college physics textbook, yet never mentioned in pop-sci infotainment videos on UA-cam.. Because atoms are held together with light (electromagnetic forces)... every material object is a box full of confined light. And parts of every material object are always moving at the speed of light all the time. There are only two absolute velocities in Special Relativity: 1. The speed of light and 2. The speed of _zero_ for anything with inertia (material objects with mass). The speed of light is the speed of light _relative to zero_ This is why it's the same for all inertial observers (observers who are standing still relative to themselves (at zero velocity)). This is also why nothing with mass can "go the speed of light", because the forces holding atoms together is always "going the speed of light", and you can't go faster than yourself. Anyway... you, as a material object, will *always* measure time ticking at one hour per hour, one minute per minute and one second per second. Time dilation is everyone else's problem. I'm going to accidentally explain all of Special Relativity if I'm not careful. I need to actually be doing something other than writing UA-cam comments right now... So... George FitzGerald explained the null result of the second Michelson-Morley experiment as an "aether wind" that was pushing the electric charges in the atoms of material objects closer together, so that an object shrinks in the direction that it's traveling into the aether. This is usually called "length contraction" in most modern texts. FitzGerald had the right idea, but Einstein had a *much* better explanation which only relies upon the distance light (electromagnetic forces) will travel through "space" in a certain amount of "time" between each atom... and that's it! That's the only thing that actually matters, nothing like an aether is required. Just the amount of time it takes for light to propagate from point A to point B. In fact, ultimately in Relativity, the very definition of "distance" between points A and B is the amount of time that light takes to travel between points A and B. Time and space are the *_EXACT_* same thing, and the "speed of light" is just a unit conversion. Because.... everything we could possibly use to measure the speed of light is made from atoms... which are scaled automatically to the speed of light. There isn't anything else that we could possibly use. (The other forces propagate at the speed of light, too.) So... in the analogy I was making above... it's like all of our meter sticks and clocks are made out of water, and we're trying to measure the water with water relative to the water.
After learning about "Abnormal Gravity," and that the Universe is not only expanding, but also accelerating in rate of expansion, it seems some other force or interaction is waiting to be proven, perhaps some form of aether is concentrated in one vast area and increasing the force of gravity to the amount we observe, "supercharging" it's effect where the aether is present, having an equally distributed presence that degrades in some kind of exponential gradation towards its edges. It seems impossible that objects in the universe could bond together and fall into orbit based on the force of gravity, but then accelerate away at increasing rate (based on the acceleration from the big bang?)
@@hubbeli1074 Dark energy itself is evidence of the ether. Empty space can't curve, assuming this energy is mathematically represented by General Relativity. Some physicists are using the terms quintessence or the Fifth Element to explain it.
@@robertsutherland7378 Right, and Earth is flat and gravity does not exists? Those beliefs usually go hand in hand with people who require that there is aether filling the space. No serious scientist in the last century era has studied "the Fifth Element", outside of film studies of course.
@@hubbeli1074 Einstein thought there was an ether, so did Tesla and neither were flat earthers. Empty space curving is only slightly less absurd than saying the earth's flat. Sean Carroll has written papers on the aether and quintessence.
The Aether might indeed move directionally, but at scales that are far too small to be of any consequence to our scale. Any motion would certainly be cancelled by an overall randomness that is topologically smooth over even distances as small as a millimeter. Defining anything so small would certainly be folly at our technological levels, and any measure for the Aether would need to be determined over vast scale of distance to begin to test the concept of the Aether at present- for anything so tiny as to have no effect other than acting as a resonance for a photon is quite imperceptible indeed.
Not coniferous... but monocotyledonous... the universal aether is a giant flower expanding out in all directions... damn hippies were right all along... mmm drugs
It's basically perpetual motion, or a loop. An EM wave creates a field of electricity and magnetism, through which the wave travels. It's like that scene in The Wrong Trousers, where Gromit is on the speeding model train, placing the track ahead of him at lightning speed.
The aether drag is well known, we call it gravity. The CMB was formed when the aether passed through a state change boundary. The speed of light varies with the density of the aether it is passing through, as does the rate of time.
Hi Sabine, when you spoke about the CMB dipole and that earth moves “relative to the CMB”, I thought that light doesn’t have an inertial frame of reference? So I suppose you’re speaking about “relative to the surface of last scattering”? Thanks.
Wouldn't you love to have had a physics teacher like Sabine in high school? She would have changed my life. I never had a teacher like that until grad school.
Have you read Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Oliver Heaviside, Nikola Tesla, JJ Thomson and James Clark Maxwell? They really explained the phenomena very well with aether. To me the magnetic and dielectric field makes the most sense. I really do not think that electrons moving is the flow of electricity, rather a secondary effect of electric power flowing around a conductor.
Wherever there is an electrical charge, there is an electrostatic field. Electrostatic fields cause the motion of charged particles. That's what causes electrons to flow. But current by definition is the flow of charged particles - not electrical or magnetic fields.
I'm a strong believer in this medium we call aether. If light or electromagnetic radiation is waving as it propagates what is it waving if not the aether. Yeah you can abstract and call that "Space time" but it is a medium. Ever wonder why speed of light is constant? The medium does not allow it to propagate faster the the medium properties.
Maxwell designed all his equations by assuming an aether. He was an ardent proponent of the aether, notably arguing that light is not a substance, but a process going on in a substance and that the mere existence of light interferences were conclusive proof of an aether.
@@GravideckMotionSystems Faraday and Maxwell both expressed their doubts about an electric and magnetic aether. Maxwell was *NOT* actually a strong supporter of any kind of aether, and his original two dozen or so equations did *NOT* require an aether. Oliver Heaviside *WAS* a strong believer that there was a luminiferous aether, and when he rewrote Maxwell's equations and published that popular book including them, Heaviside made the claims about a luminiferous aether, *NOT* Maxwell.
An aether is not only permitted by Einstein's relativity but is perhaps the most important missing piece. By making a slight modification to SR, which in turn produces a slightly modified but mathematically equivalent GR we can yield several directly observed quantities that are completely unaccounted for by existing models of relativity. Take a look at the link on my channel.
I have been researching the aether for about 30 years, I have found that it exists and can be affected, I also can explain why it doesn't contradict any evidence but I guess Sabine is going to explain that.... Ok, so watching and ugh, there are errors. The Speed of light has NOT been shown to be the same in each direction! Rather the round trip of light has found not to be affected by motion when it would be expected to be. Lorentz proposed that matter was shrinking and hey presto the results make sense but one little catch, if matter must be shrunk then the speed of light can't be C in each direction! The very fact that this shrinking or time dilation is required means that the speed CANNOT be the same, Einstein just said it's space shrinking which was closer to being a semantic difference! Rather it is challenging and Einstein argued that it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light so "let's just assume" it is C in each direction and be done with it, but that is FALSE! Actually you can measure the one way speed of light but it's not easy and requires you don't accept relativity. The fact is that Lorentz Relativity (Lorentz Ether Theory or LET) has an aether and fits 100% of the evidence and has nothing illogical and it is accepted that this is true by mainstream, but mainstream prefers to ignore the theory despite it's 100% compatibility with 100% of the evidence that supports Einstein's Relativity. If you are confused, consider that length contraction and time dilation might harmonize the round trip speed of light but a shorter ruler or slower clock makes light in both directions (fore and aft) seem to be move faster (it doesn't have to move as far in an absolute sense and your clock records less time as it's slow) making the light seem faster to head-on light which your velocity added to is made even faster by motion! This is the point for the Verulamium video on this subject and Einstein's 1905 paper doesn't even mention the one way speed of light being C. How can you measure it you ask? Well if the one way speed of light isn't C and if Einstein's theory is wrong and Lorentz's model is closer to the truth then time dilation and length contraction are not relative but due to absolute motion through and aether and as such time dilation does affect some frames of motion more and as such you can learn the frame of fastest time and so then it does become possible to measure the one way speed of light but more to the point it becomes moot, there are however much easier ways to detect, prove and make use of the aether.
The ether has never been disproved. The MMX (Michelson Morley Experiment) disproved the rigid ether, but not the Lorentz Ether. Lorentzian relativity, or LET (Lorentz Ether Theory), passess all of the tests that Einstein's rellativity does, and it has an ether/aether.
@@blucat4 I remember using LET in high school because the math was easier and because it was part of Relativity's history. But, did it predict gravitational warping of space? I don't remember.
It all is so fascinating, thanks a lot. On my list of favorite experiments, my favorite things, like paper bags, are : Cavendish, Brownian, Foucault, Double slit, Photoelectric, ..and certainly this awesome Michelson-Morley..experiment, I.e. sitting in a room with a lot of Mercury, a candle and some mirrors, we can ascertain " we are not moving"😂
At 2:24 I hear someone clearing his throat, proving that Sabine is not a puppet. She may be like Queen Scheherazade who had to tell a new story every night to avoid being executed.
Hi Carl, this is true. Some natural phenomens are magical, so they attract our attention. I would add: looking through a prism and remember Goethes obssesion with Newtons theory of light. Have a nice weekend and Greetings from Frankfurt am Main - Andreas
@andywe7524 Thank you. This makes my day. light, I will view through a prism, thinking about Goethe, Huygens, and of course our good old Newton, it is so basic but spectecular! We can see clearly now the fog is gone!
Funny just a few days ago I was lost in my toughts ( infantile at best) about gravity and I was trying to imagine how a body of a certain mass moving through space affects the space time curvature. If you imagine a perfactly smooth surface sphere of large mass moving in space and me traveling on an intercept course such that my trajectory, curved by gravity, makes me fall towards the mass…if the mass moves a minute amount, what/how does the gravity « curve gradients » changes instantly in strenght and direction to follow that movement of the mass and how does my trajectory adjust itself instantly accordingly? In what does the gravity curves move? If the mass starts to accelerate does the gravity curve adjust at the same acceleration? I guess because of inertia my trajectory would change and I would relocate on a different gravity curve but by what process? I kept imagining some substance in which all this was happening but I remembered that ether doesn’t exist, then I must have been hit by a gravitational wave because I lost my train of tought and Rick and Morty started back on TV.
Space surely have properties: electromagnetic permittivity and permeability. Nothingness can't have properties. So, it up to us to call it as: vacuum, space-time fabric, quantum medium, bla-bla yada-yada, or (refined theory of) *aether.*
They soonest or later must come to the reality, because already 100 years they standing on one spot and cannot define even a single fundamental element - As - Space, Time, Gravity, Electromagnetism, Energy.....All these elements are explained in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
I'm not a physicist, just a standard issue science nerd. I have always believed that the aether exists, experiments that claimed to have disproven it be damned. Was I right all along? We shall see, hopefully in my lifetime.
With the discovery (or proof...) of gravitational waves, does it not follow that all space is constantly entertaining fluctuations of constructive and destructive interference of said waves thereof? The waves in question detected, though "tiny", related only to the specific effects measurable of 2 black holes colliding/orbiting. In theory there are many such contemporaneous sources/events in the universe all creating such waves, many (or most) of which create them on a level too small for us to ever detect in isolation. And yet they must surely have ubiquitous, summative effects.
Spectral lines match Randall Mills Hydrino but it and patents on functional processes and devices are not allowed to exist because US government uses QM as more then theory. I'm not suggesting it is the aether. The closest individual to working out the aether is Robert Distinti.
For a long time I've imagined gravity and dark energy as sourced from the same thing; a flow of Space. Space that flows into our universe where there's low density of matter, pushing them away(dark energy symptoms), and flows out of our universe at the points of high mass, dragging matter with it( gravity symptoms). Space in this scenario would perhaps be the aether mentioned. The "in" and "out" of out universe in my headcanon would be a fourth spacial dimension where Space is contained, and would flow between that fourth and our three special dimensions, appearing as if it came from nothing, and into nothing at the singularities of black holes and other mass focii. Don't take me too seriously tho, it just fits with my limited intuition of how things work :)
I've had a similar intuition for a while! I have a feeling that someone versed in cosmology would blink in astonishment and find it hard to begin telling us where and how we were wrong... 😅
That's the evidence based on the Doppler effect,i.e., it is proof of the absolute background called aether: we, the Milky Way Galaxy, are speeding 600 km/s into the centre of the Universe ( a dozen clusters: Virgo, Hydra, Centaurus, etc.). Contrary to ...textbooks, the MM 1887 experiment result is positive, and not negative! There is a scandalous mistake in calculating the wave number (@then, frequency and length of the perpendicular direction of the light wave in MM interferometer!!! Take a mirror and count the values for the mirror at rest and a ...moving one! Physicists are...methodological idiots!
Is it just the temp difference that we are referencing? Yes (it start out the same, so should be all even if we are not moving) . We are at the observational center of that spherical shell (our relative velocity changes the redshift of the photons redshift). So if all photons from the last scattering reach us at the same time they will all have the same redshift (CMBR frequency). Our motion will add or subtract from redshift of all those photons so we can know if we are moving, but just can't tell where we are globally or what a direction is globaly :)
@@festerallday "so she's referencing us moving towards or away from a specific warm or cold patch?" No :) At the last scattering all photons emitted in infra red heat were essentially the same temperature. So as those photons have traveled through the expanding space they have all stretched equally longer into the microwave band. If we are not moving, those photons coming from any direction will have exactly the same redshift. > redshift, dopier effect is "also" altered by the objects they eventual hit (Us here in earth), so if earth is moving toward them as well they will impact us harder so less redshifted and hotter energy release, if earth is moving away the impact from the photon is colder, more redshifted. > So if earth is moving in some direction, the photos in the direction of travel will appear hotter, and photons hitting from behind will appear colder. . We can measure if we as observers (earth) are moving. The change in impact temperature on earth is only because of earths velocity :)
@axle.student but it's a reference to a specific point across many measurements right? The graphic shown is not showing earths general relationship between all points, but rather once specific measurement in one specific direction?
You said light speed does not depend on direction but you mean the two-way speed. One-way speed can differ, Lorentz aether theory is compatible with observations like General Relativity.
As all the processes are defined through the speed of light why does it matter? If light moves at 0,75 c in one direction and at 1,5 c in another the related processes like movement of atoms etc would adjust accordingly as they are also electromagnetic in nature. So, the very speed of processes would be x 0,75 and x 1,5 accordingly. Therefore even if we could register one way speed of light we would still measure it the same in any direction. The time itself passes differently in different directions in such a case.
@@dmitriy9053You could measure your own speed relative to the “whole universe”, whatever that frame may be. The really important thing here is that we should remember that the speed of light being the same in all frames and directions is a convention, not actual truth.
@@CanIHasThisName it is an experimental fact. So, what are you talking about? We registered it in different frames as being the same. Firstly we measured it, secondly developed theories to explain it.
I thought Aether was replaced by "fields", whatever that means. As for Aether, it's supposed to be a medium of matter. We didn't know what, but that doesn't work either. So "fields", even though we or i don't know what's made of what "medium" or maybe it's mediumless. Whatever it is made of, the waves that propage through it don't act like waves ... like the speed of light is a constant to all observers. That don't make no sense. Is spacetime same as firlds? Or those fields in spacetime dimension? Or spacetime is the fields? is one and the same? What does that mean?
Could explain neutrinos changing attributes. Light decreasing in frequency with time. Perhaps a hook that conveys a portion the nucleus strong force causing gravity.
This phenomenal, material manifestation is composed of space, time (or, to be more accurate, space-time), energy, and matter, the latter of which comprises eight elemental groups - the five GROSS elements (“mahābhūta”, in Sanskrit), which are perceivable by at least one of the five senses, and the three SUBTLE elements (“tanmātra” or “atisūkṣma mātra”, in Sanskrit), which are symptomatic of localized consciousness. N.B. Dark matter and black holes are not included in this system, as cosmological science has yet to determine their structural composition. The five gross material elements (or states of matter) and three subtle material elements are (from most palpable to most intangible): SOLIDS (AKA earth - “bhūmiḥ” or “pṛthivī”, in Sanskrit) are made of densely-packed molecules, and is of a steady shape at room temperature. LIQUIDS (AKA water - “jala” or “āpaḥ”, in Sanskrit) are composed of moderately-dense molecules conforming to the shape of its environment or container (and in nature, often including at least some water molecules). GASES (AKA air - “vāyuḥ” or “marut”, in Sanskrit) consist of rarefied molecular particles, and so, is of no fixed (that is, persistent) shape. HEAT (AKA fire - “analaḥ” or “tejas”, in Sanskrit) is made of kinetic energy (which may appear visibly as fire, or at least heat waves). ETHER (AKA space - “ākāśa” or “khaṃ”, in Sanskrit) is a vacuum consisting of three-dimensional space (length, breadth, and width). However, recent investigation has confirmed that empty space is actually filled with virtual particles (matter and antimatter). Thus, the explanation for the material universe being created from “nothing” (anti-matter) is plausible, according to quantum field theory. MIND (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is composed of sensual perceptions, instinctual thoughts, abstract images (including memories and fantasies), and emotions. Not all animal species have a mind, but function purely on base nervous reflexes, generated from their specific genetic sequence. In modern philosophy and in the field of neuroscience, the term “qualia” is often used to describe such mental images, thoughts, and feelings. INTELLECT (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit) consists of conceptual thoughts. Only the very higher species of animal life possess an intellectual capacity. PSEUDO-EGO (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit) is comprised of the “I” thought (specifically, the illusory, ephemeral self-identity). Only humans possess the self-awareness necessary to question their own existence and assume a sense of self. Read Ch. 10 for a full disquisition of egoity. Each of the FIVE perceptible material elements (or, to be more precise, the five elemental states) corresponds to one (or more) of the FIVE bodily senses. E.g. In outer space, where there is a vacuum (ether), one can detect light with the eyes, yet space is not tactile, and cannot be smelled or tasted, nor can sound waves travel via space, so cannot be heard. At the opposite extreme, solid matter can be seen with the eyes, felt with the sense of touch, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose, and heard with the ear (when the solid matter is physically vibrated).
@@Cedric_Ironwoodquantum field theory is literally, we want an aether, but cannot call it an aether because academia will laugh and point their fingers at us.
Physicist 1: Dark matter is so unsatisfying, but without it, I don’t know how to explain the rotation of the Milky Way. Physicist 2: I don’t know… aether
Certainly no Physicist but it seems that Space-Time just logically can be classified as a "medium" or aether. Yes, bending or Warping of space-time is just a way of describing a phenomenon, but viewing space-time as medium that can compress and expand locally and interact with itself like air or water seems an intuitive model of what we are seeing. Gravitational waves can be viewed as perturbations of space-time. I would think the whole idea of Dark Matter or Dark Energy disappears if space-time itself is dragged, to some degree, along with the matter around the center of galaxies.
Have you seen a spinning athlete on ace? Does he carry in his job any dark matter? No. But when he gathers his arms near his body, remarkable, he began to spin faster. That means that the mass isn't the only reason for the behavior under gravity conditions, but it is also a matter of mass' consistency and density. Somehow we could be able to know the consistency from spectrographs, but we are unable to know the density. The spinning phenomenon has been proved and inside the ISS under no gravity conditions. With the same mechanism, we can understand and the paradox of the Mercury's trajectory. Now from the data of probes, we know that the surface of the planet is shrinking over time, this phenomenon is changes the planet's mass density and this is increasing its spinning speed over time and that then changes and the trajectory and creates its paradox that the Newton's law can't explain, and now we don't need the GR theory. Newton's law takes the mass all in a point and this creates the problem with all planets' trajectories but mostly for Mercury.
I dont see any connection between the aether that Michaslson and Moreley were looking for and the stuff anaesthetists use. Regarding photons as a wave, we know that it is alternating magnetic and electric fields which are waving, but in the case of neutrinos, which have some photon-like properties and may well travel at the same speed, nobody knows what is waving. If somebody out there does, let me know, because I have often wondered.
Perhaps someone can explain in terms so simple even I can understand. If space is emptiness, and gravity is the bending of space by objects with mass, what is being bent? If the universe, i.e., space is expanding/has expanded, how can emptiness be forced to expand (or contract) ?
Spacetime is now just another name for Aether. Speed of light doesn't change, but Spacetime undergoes "frame-dragging" when the planet/star moves or rotates. What's the difference then between Aether and spacetime? Very little: one gives a definition of space, while the other includes effects of time.
Spacetime / aether / quantum fields / non-Newtonian hyper-fluid (space custard), all the same! Anyway, didn't Einstein later say GR doesn't work without aether? (I've always just assumed Michelson-Morley was nullified by frame-dragging).
Hello Sabine i have a question (in the traditional ways of the internet - state something wrong and you will be corrected): The experiment to prove the Aether doesn't work, but the experiment for gravitiational waves was exactly the same, just a lot bigger. So Aether was there all along.
Nikola Tesla stimulated the aether to palpably manifest itself in the laboratory as what he called 'radiant energy.' His experiments involved 'impulse' DC electricity: huge electrical potentials discharged at huge frequencies. Kilovolts discharged at kilocycles. Tesla's work involved actual laboratory experiments rather than thought experiments. Statically conceived, the aether was easily associated with Newton's absolute space and time, which prompted Einstein to discard it. The Michelson Morley experiment ruled out a static aether, not an aether in motion.
"The Michelson Morley experiment ruled out a static aether, not an aether in motion." WRONG, the Michelson Morley proved the Earth is STATIONARY, it did not prove anything to do with the Aether. Star Aberration experiment proves the stars move, not the Earth.
@@nbooth Technically, a stationary Earth is compatible with the results. And a stationary Earth from Earth pov makes sense both in Galileo's relativity and in GR.
Although there can be no detection of this, it still explains a lot: ether isn't in space. It is space. It is continuously solid and has harmonic properties. Earth, being a waveform propagating through solid space cannot create an ether drag.
*I know this sounds crazy,* but I believe space itself is the "Aether"...and it can account for both dark energy and dark matter... Sure, you'd have to *slightly* modify Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to solve for this, but isn't that literally a Physicist's job?... Space squishes into the black holes (dark matter) and stretches out between black holes (dark energy), in other words. When we measure "gravitational waves", we're really measuring *space itself* getting shorter and longer, right? Dontcha think that's like a pretty huge clue right there?...
It seems incredible that science can accept particle/wave duality, but not seriously consider aether. Particle physics is equally bonkers with the invention of bosons to transmit force. The maths is just a model to explain what we observe, not what is really going on.
@@jeremycmsmith The double slit experiment can be replicated by bouncing bubbles. Check Veritasium video on that subject. All the Quantum "voodoo" effects replicated by macroscopic objects. Time to touch grass for many physicists.
Thank you very much, Sabine. For quite a few years I've done direct observations that made me believe the relativity was incomplete. I just couldn't pin what it was that made me uneasy. Last night, while sleeping, everything connected. What a wonderful coincidence that today I watched you explaining it and making it even more clear... See, I'm just a generalist, and not the brigthest of the lot. Your videos are like fresh water to a parched throat.Thanks again.
I always thought of the idea of an "electromagnetic field" or "Higgs field" or whatever field to be fascinating, since there is no preferred reference frame for these, it's strange how these things just physically exist, or do they? Are they just models? Who knows anymore
Gravity can be modeled is if it is bending something. That is not the same thing as saying that gravity IS bending something. It may be, or it may be that something else is going on and that spacetime curvature is the best way we have found to model it mathematically. (Just as springs and pendulums can be modeled with the same math, but that doesn't mean they are doing the same thing).
@@pgiando Again, gravity is mathematically modeled as gravity bending something. We still don't understand how gravity works well enough to know if that is actually what is happening.
Does aether have mass? Does energy passing through aether heat it? If so, does the temperature of aether affect the speed of light? If not, why not? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
I believe light can be affected by immense gravitational pulls, can it not? By saying light is constant and then saying gravity has an effect. It makes me ask, where does the light go in a singularity? It can't escape, so it can't continue.
Not really. It's more like the quantum vacuum (which Einstein didn't know of, when he invented special relativity (SR)). The nice thing of having an absolut frame is that we would also have an absolute time again! Local time would still depend on relative movement, but with absolute time we can get rid of multiple problems with relativity. Like close time-like curves for example which always appear in the moment we have wormholes which would create the usual time travel paradoxes. Also it would be nice for QM, because with absolute time it may be possible to solve the measurement problem because a measurement can globally bring the wave function into an eigenstate. This would be impossible with SR because there is no global simultaneity in SR. So maybe SR is a nice simplification to make calculation easier - but not true on a global scale.
@Kah7654 something that always bothered me about relativity was the twin paradox. If we think about it at lower speeds, like stellar orbital speeds, one twin could step off of the earth and move in a straight line to the point where earth will be a year later in its orbit. In theory, the twin on earth should have aged slower because he moved farther in the same amount of time. (Negating the gravitational effect of relativity) If this is the case, time dilation depends on the direction and path through space as if there is a universal coordinates system. A strict interpretation of relativity would claim that there is no difference if the twin races away and back towards the earth or the earth races away and back towards the twin. How does relativity determine which twin is going to age more?
@@Kah7654 “Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.” ― Nikola Tesla Einstein put technology and free energy behind centuries. He was one of the most evil people to exist, top 3 easily.
@@michaellowe3665 don't waste your brain matter on that garbage. Relativity is occultism, it is 100% based on Kabbalah, you should not be messing with occultism.
To be fair aether theory can't be ruled out since it is unfalsifiable. It is just an outdated metaphysics. 02:15 That light moves at the same speed in every direction is a convention. One can only measure round-trip velocity for light, because every measurement is local, so a space measurement always reduces to a time measurement done with your clock. Unfortunately in academia it is never stressed enough what is a convention and what is a measurement, and many physicists who don't do specific research take spacetime models too literally, and still wonder why light has this strange property. It's not a property, it's a convention. If we could measure the one-way speed of light it would mean that there really is an aether and given spatial distances 'out there'.
It's demonstrable using an oscilloscope and a magnet. Even when you go so far away that the oscilloscope can no longer detect the magnetic field, shaking and rotating the magnet will allow the oscilloscope to detect it. That could ONLY happen of the magnetic field existed within a medium.
@@denofpigs2575 That is not a demonstration of the presence of a medium, that is an interpretation. You can't measure the speed of light even with that, because the oscilloscope relies on his own clock, so it is a local measurement.
@@pierfrancescopeperoni Without a medium to disturb, how do you measure a perturbation? When I flap my hand in water I get waves, a perturbation/disturbance in a medium. When I flap my hand in air I get wind, a perturbation/disturbance in a medium. When I flap my hand in a vacuum I get massive inflammation and my blood boils (but no wind, no perturbation/disturbance in a medium because there is no medium)
Funny. I was one of the few who would ridicule physicists for looking down their noes and calling anybody who would dare breathe the word aether a crackpot. Then Dark energy and dark matter elbowed it's way into the conversation. The tap dancing and double talk justifying the latter two and lambasting the former was and still is hilarious. Contemporary physicists have painted themselves into a corner. Getting out is simple but a whole lot of crow is going to have be eaten.
I'm not a physicist and have a question. Why would spontaneous particles (or better, wherever they come from) not be a kind of ether? It seems convincing and right that absolute location is impossible. Even the CMB is an arbitrary frame of reference. If we take away the frame of reference or locality requirement for ether, then don't spontaneous particles or their source give radiation something to wave? They don't rise out of math.
The axis of evil in the CMB seems like more evidence against the cosmological principle than evidence for the aether. To me, it seems that if space’s expansion was not the same everywhere that might explain a lot. But I’m an idiot.
Axis of Evil proves geocentrism. All the monopole planes align with the earth's axes. So does the pre relativity 19th "velocity of the earth against the aether experiments": Arago 1818, Fresnel 1826, Fizeau 1851, Hoek 1868, Airy 1871, Michelson and Morley 1887, Trouton and Noble 1903, among others. It was never about the existance of the aether but the motion of the earth, this is why Einstein "space-time" curvature in GR behaves as some kind of aether (according to Einstein 1916 and 1920 words) without mechanical charasteristics, but effects them, and most importantly, is symmetric in opposite to absolute rest frame aether.
Space's expansion is not the same everywhere. The expansion is dependent upon the ratio of dark energy to regular matter. In other words, the expansion is between galaxies and not within them. Thusly, the speed of causality is finite. The entire universe cannot universally expand as one at the exact same point in time. Having a cosmological constant makes for easy math, but observations of the Hubble tension suggest otherwise. Personally I think the Aether is actually virtual particles. But that's my opinion and for a different time.
Don't you just love it, the way the woke universities have reclassified "the axis of evil," from the noncing death cult in the middle east, that are legions of terrorists, rapists, nonces & murderers.... to protect their pro Philistine socialist scumbag funders! To something completely innocuous, in space!
More people realize, that Einsteins theories make no sence. Einstein just took Lorentz factor and absurdly applied it to variable time flow, leading to absurd results. The existence of time (i.e. past and future) is actually impossible to prove, as it would require to observe other times from your current time, or from outside (beyond) time. A simple experiment of measuring the relative speed of 2 photons leads to absurd results in Special relativity theory: - For 2 photons moving in the exact same direction, it gives relative speed = C. As if 1 photon is stationary, and 1 is moving (while in practice it would be = 0). - For 2 photons moving in the opposite directions, it gives their relative speed = 0/0, while in practice it would be = 2C
Why does the EM wave have a maximum and a minimum of expansion as it travels (2:36) if there isn't an ether? Also EM switches back and forth between electricity and magnetism because of the ether in which it travels. Ok, your turn....
3:09 Is there a map that isn't S-shaped? Either red at north and blue at south, with yellow at the Equator, or the eastern hemisphere being one with yellow at the prime meridian?
In Mysticism and the Esoteric/Occult world, Aether is the highest vibrational state of the physical realm. It's between the waking physical plane and the Astral plane. In ceremonial magic, spirits manifest in this Aetheral realm as it's preferred over a full manifestation into the physical plane, which is very energy-intensive for them to do. You can reach this Aetheral realm in a dream state, a lower state of astral projection, via remote viewing, or by certain meditation techniques.
When talking about heat-ether ("warmth-ether" or "fire"), then this "gigantic furnace" comes to mind: Revelation 9:1-2 & 11 The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. ... They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).
What if the Mouns (under pressure) are the Aether, think about it, can that kind of space bend a light (at lightspeed) into the vortex, the light can be turned into the black hole? And then the black hole into the sun? Does this make the primordial black holes possible and the earth hollow?
As a philosopher, all I can tell anyone on this issue is that EVERYTHING that EXISTS to be interacted with or observed, is composed of SOMETHING that exists TO BE interacted with or observed. Absolute nothingness, by its very definition, does not, and never can, exist to be observed or interacted with. Ergo, the assumption that ANYTHING, including space, can be composed of nothing, and yet still exist to be observed or interacted with, is a paradoxical impossibility and therefore can be safely rejected as a plausible hypothesis. Space, which obviously exists to be observed and interacted with, is most definitely composed of something very subtle. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not disprove the existence of the subtle substance that composes space. What it proved is that this subtle substance is undetectable via that particular method. I have a feeling that the reason the Michelson-Morley experiment failed was due to the incorrect assumption that we are moving through a relatively motionless substance like a bullet moving through air… this is not the way of it. Earth is more like a cork moving with a current. As such, if you were trying to detect the aether that you believe to be motionless but actually has the same relative velocity… well, you’ll get the results of Michelson-Morley experiment which did not disprove anything except the existence of a static medium. Have a great day everyone! 😎👍
you assumptions only would work if emptiness would be total. but then there also would be nothing to observe the nothingness. Yet, from tht it can not be concluded that there is no empty space within non empty space. your mistake. idealising over-generalisation
@@monnoo8221 I don’t understand what your point is. I’m not saying that space is absolutely empty. I am saying that what we see as “empty space” is physically composed of a very subtle substance.
When I was at uni I was taught that the waves move through nothing which was ridiculous then as now. I later learned that it's a wave in a field, not in nothing.
A field is just math. It’s the mathematical tool used to describe something that varies across space. Pressure waves propagate through air for instance, but pressure is a field. Saying that something is propagated through fields is a truism. It’s a fancy way of saying “what changes, changes”.
Then you are trapped in an unscientific mindset. You should only have confidence in beliefs that are supported by observational evidence. In the absence of such evidence you should decline to have any confidence - you should not believe.
If we live in a 4 dimensional space (x,y,z,time) and Aether is in a 3 dimentional space(x,y,z) it might not be visible to us, and ripples across our time would appear to happen instantly in Aether. I'm wondering if it might explain some of the quantum effects we see.
Hello, Sabine. Thanks for a great explainer video about the Aether. We all need to make up our minds. Einstein said that the aether was superfluous. He did not falsify it, nor did he completely abandon the idea. Physics works just fine without an aether. Philosophy needs the aether in its explanation of reality. Whatever is real is what is real, and the labels are not one of the moving parts. I can prove the Quintescent Aether is real. It is not your grandfather's aether.
The aether permeates physics. James Clerk Maxwell was an ardent aether proponent. All his equations were established by assuming an aether mechanical model. Maxwell concluded his magisterial treatise on EM on advising future generations of physicists to keep inquiring about the aether.
Hi Sabine. This crossed my feed, perhaps not surprisingly. When you said 20 years ago, I definitely felt, well, old. And when you mentioned Brilliant at the end I started laughing, as I was their physics lead for a little while, also many, many years ago (when they were just starting out and a LOT smaller). This 8 minute video wound up having a peculiar intersection of portions of my life! Best, Dave
It is always amazing to see and hear/read about the "intersections" that are sort of exposed by rapid mass communication nowadays. Kudos for "Brilliant" and for Khan Academy and MOOC courses (before they became so commercialized) and tools like Wolfram Alpha, SAS_On_Demand, Visual Studio, etc. If I were still young and had seemingly infinite time on my hands, along with ordinary curiosity, these would have been (and still are) marvelous sandboxes and educational technologies for learning.
@@WarrenLacefield
Khan Academy gave me a 15 minute introduction to enthalpy which told me what I wanted to know, but only at the end: a 5-second definition. They could do a lot to make things simpler. Any introduction to a topic should start with what it is and its scope, and then get into the weeds as to what goes on with that topic that warrants why it should have a name and definition.
I will grant that there are topics, such as entropy, that have as many definition-proponents as there are youTubers, each explaining why everyone is getting it wrong, Derek Muller claiming to own the high ground.
@@-danR Well, if hurried, maybe should have just Googled it (e.g., enthalpy=H=E+PV; the total energy in a system). But as a lesson, with maybe a bit of history, some explanation, and maybe an interactive graph, that ending 5-second definition ... most of what I've seen on Khan Academy is pretty good for the age and understanding levels targeted.
On the other hand, you are right in that the simplest and perhaps most direct way to present/communicate something is using "set, demonstration, and closure."
Ah, serendipity.
I have been researching the aether for about 30 years, I have found that it exists and can be affected, I also can explain why it doesn't contradict any evidence but I guess Sabine is going to explain that.... Ok, so watching and ugh, there are errors. The Speed of light has NOT been shown to be the same in each direction! Rather the round trip of light has found not to be affected by motion when it would be expected to be. Lorentz proposed that matter was shrinking and hey presto the results make sense but one little catch, if matter must be shrunk then the speed of light can't be C in each direction! The very fact that this shrinking or time dilation is required means that the speed CANNOT be the same, Einstein just said it's space shrinking which was closer to being a semantic difference! Rather it is challenging and Einstein argued that it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light so "let's just assume" it is C in each direction and be done with it, but that is FALSE! Actually you can measure the one way speed of light but it's not easy and requires you don't accept relativity. The fact is that Lorentz Relativity (Lorentz Ether Theory or LET) has an aether and fits 100% of the evidence and has nothing illogical and it is accepted that this is true by mainstream, but mainstream prefers to ignore the theory despite it's 100% compatibility with 100% of the evidence that supports Einstein's Relativity. If you are confused, consider that length contraction and time dilation might harmonize the round trip speed of light but a shorter ruler or slower clock makes light in both directions (fore and aft) seem to be move faster (it doesn't have to move as far in an absolute sense and your clock records less time as it's slow) making the light seem faster to head-on light which your velocity added to is made even faster by motion! This is the point for the Veritasium video on this subject and Einstein's 1905 paper doesn't even mention the one way speed of light being C. How can you measure it you ask? Well if the one way speed of light isn't C and if Einstein's theory is wrong and Lorentz's model is closer to the truth then time dilation and length contraction are not relative but due to absolute motion through and aether and as such time dilation does affect some frames of motion more and as such you can learn the frame of fastest time and so then it does become possible to measure the one way speed of light but more to the point it becomes moot, there are however much easier ways to detect, prove and make use of the aether.
My understanding is that the famous experiment was repeated years later by Miller at high altitude and the interferometer did show a shift ... but the world was well into Relativity and it got swept under the carpet, same thing that happened when Wilhelm Reich met Einstein and performed the To-T experiment. Interesting read Title: The Michelson-Morley-Miller Experiments before and after 1905
Authors: Swenson, L. S.
Journal: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 1, p.56
The same happen when Edwin Hubble wrote a letter to US Astronomical Society and denounce the assumption that Light Red Shift indicate star retrieval. They hide his letter. The same situation is now. They are pretending that nobody understand what Space is and is hiding the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
the Tychos our Geoaxial Binary System. fixes the concept
Absolutely love your content Sabine. There's so few UA-camrs teaching the controversies in science in such a balanced way.
And now, science will get even more controversial, as d tRump will dictate what is real and what isn't. (Sorry USA (Un Safe Area) and sorry world). Masks will be back soon, due to the amount of carbon (and verbal pollution), that tRump will emit.
You must be joking, right? No-one who claims science is dead or that they cannot trust scientists is fair and balanced, at least in the non-foxian way.
Aether restoring Sabine trust in science would be a beautiful thing.
An "Aether-like" interpretation is conceivable, but it would need to be reconceived as a fabric-like spacetime structure. To clarify, the original concept of the aether was akin to a fluid medium composed of tiny, round particles through which other particles could travel. A modern alternative could interpret spacetime itself as exhibiting wave-like properties at quantum scales. In this view, particles would not merely exist within spacetime but would be fundamentally composed of it-similar to how a hurricane forms as part of the atmosphere, with no displacement occurring ahead of or behind it. Implementing this model would require a slight modification to the Lorentz Contraction, an adjustment that remains both testable and falsifiable. However, a comprehensive explanation would exceed typical formats, such as a UA-cam comments section.
You have very good understanding of this subject and what qualities Space must posses to be able to do the "Job". I believe will be of interest of yours to learn how exactly the structure of Space is formed. This information is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
And anything we consider 'matter' is just an expression of the interaction of different waves within this space-time ether. This space time ether flows towards masses, which means that we, as expressions of space-time wave interaction, flow 'on top / inside' of this flow. This is what we experience as gravity. It's not a 'force', we're just at the bottom of an space-time etherfall.
Viewing space-time as a fabric would also explain 'spooky action' at a distance, as the observer doesn't manipulate a particle, as much as the space-time fabric, everything part of the space-time fabric will move if it's pulled in one direction.
Wave structure of matter anyone?
@johnohare9419 For me, "spooky action at a distance" is quite easily understood.
When everything was in such an extreme state of compression, particles might have been merged so closely that they behaved as a single, unified entity. As decompression occurred, they separated spatially but retained certain "memory" of their original unified state, maintaining correlations even over vast distances.
Traditionally, the vacuum state is thought of as “empty” space. But a deeper look reveals that it is far from void; it’s teeming with quantum fluctuations and interactions between entropy and gravity. This balanced state forms the basis for all observable phenomena, acting as the fundamental “ground” upon which reality rests. Within this framework, a redefined aether could describe the energy and forces that permeate even the “emptiest” parts of space.
My thoughts entirely. There really is no such thing as "empty" space, or spacetime, for that matter. Space is replete with actual and virtual particles and the waves they create. I think it's mostly explained by quantum field theory.
Yeesh
@@drbuckley1not within our bounds of time there are not, but beyond the bounds of our time there is essentially a space less realm too.
Aether could well be the fluctuation of fields and particles that takes place at the Planck Scale.
My cents to it space has many properties which the purposed aether has . I also would add that when you don't believe in hidden variables most of the solution for quantum entanglement then needs extra space. I'm not sure about it and its vague but for me a possibility is that dark energy is the result more space causes more possible timelines. Time-lines collapse into 1 => extra space .. the result is a non consisted infinit loop
Layman's perspective: It seems our choices are either that the aether exists and gives light a medium to propagate through (requiring us to believe that the aether is a medium that doesn't behave like other mediums), or that the aether doesn't exist and light propagates without a medium (requiring us to believe that light is a wave that doesn't behave like other waves).
The Michaelson Morley experiment seems to have disproven just one assumed property of the aether. Syllogistically, it's something like this:
Premise 1a: The aether must have property-X in common with other mediums, otherwise continuing to believe in the aether is a special pleading fallacy.
Premise 2a: Property-X is not observed.
Premise 3a: Therfore, the aether doesn't exist.
But then they turn around and say "Unlike all other waves, light is a wave that doesnt require a medium to propagate." So they've just traded one speacial pleading fallacy for another. Here's a similar syllogism for determining whether or not light is a wave:
Premise 1b: Light must have property-Y (require a medium in order to propagate) in common with other waves, otherwise continuing to believe that light is a wave is a special pleading fallacy.
Premise 2b: Property-Y is not observed (Light can propagate without a medium.)
Premise 3b: Therefore, light is not a wave.
In both syllogisms, it's premise 1 that has the problem. If you don't like premise 1b then you can't have premise 1a. If you accept premise 1a, then you have to accept premise 1b.
I, for one, I'm okay with saying that light is a wave that doesn't behave like any other waves we've observed, and the aether could be a medium that doesn't behave like any other medium we've observed. We just have more experiments showing light behaving like a wave, and not enough showing the existence of an aether.
excellent post
At least you are open minded & see the contradictions that are there. Too many won't even entertain it, yet believe in the Higgs field.
How they can't see that too is entirely analogous to a medium is beyond me.
Light is simply radiation of pure energy. The concept of a photon of energy is not something peculiar to light, the photon applies to all radiation on the electromagnetic energy spectrum, for example radiowaves also have photons of energy. Energy travels in/on/through the fabric of space, and our current understanding of the universe involves stretching of this fabric of space. It is this fabric of space that is being considered like an aether in the video.
We have never found any signs of Lorentz Violations. In addition, we have shown mathematically that any structures that are not Lorentz Invariant must show signs of Lorentz Violation. So, this means that, at least up to the scales that are currently measurable, there cannot be any structures that explicitly break Lorentz Invariance. The Luminiferous Aether explicitly breaks Lorentz Invariance, and so cannot exist.
On that same track, the difference between Premise 1a and Premise 1b is that 1a was proven mathematically true (for the Luminiferous Aether), but 1b has been proven mathematically false (We have found ways to express waves mathematically without reference to any medium).
@@codetoil Mathematics has practically nothing to do with it. All math as it is used in physics is based on certain assumptions about our physical universe. The same math model may have different interpretations, and that math model is still an accurate description of every one of them.
I'm one of those slow people who get hung up on things that most everyone else just whizzes past with a nod. This happened when I was learning about electromagnetism and came across the little equation that bound the speed of light with the two constants: the permittivity and permeability of space. A very simple equation. Just c, mu-sub-zero, and epsilon-sub-zero.
Okay, I thought. Now I've got three related values. We measure the speed of light pretty well, from what I've seen, but it looks as if these other two constants represent determining constraints. Now the magnetic permeability has been derived from the fine-structure constant, so there is ground to stand on with that, so to speak. But then a look at the electric permittivity's explanation loops it back to depend upon the other two constants.
This baffled me at first. There three constants aren't like the Three Stooges. Something else is going on here. And that's where notions of aether started creeping into the arena like little baby cockroaches. After all, science pulled back the curtain with the Michelson-Morley experiment, and showed there was no aether doing what people had thought it might be doing.
That's part of the problem: what we think. We ask ourselves what makes the speed of light what it is, and we end up with two other constants that relate the speed of light to spacetime itself. We measure, and measurement gives us values, and what do the values tell us about what we call spacetime? Spacetime isn't empty, or nothingness; as others have said here, spacetime is replete with quantum fluctuations, and maybe the word 'aether' is better used to refer to that idea.
Being the slow person that I seem to be, I realize too late that I should have continued my physics education so that the lies I learned in my early physics classes can be let go, and the much-better lies we get told as we move on through quantum field theory can make me feel better. And then I can watch the physics fun from the bleacher seats. With neutrino popcorn. 🙂
Yes, I've been thinking along similar lines. This 'fabric of space-time' that we refer to so vaguely, this churning foam of quantum fluctuations, strikes me as a good candidate for 'aether' -- at least, a mystery in need of further exploration and explication. There is certainly some underlying unity that connects everything to produce that baffling 'action at a distance' revealed by Bell's theorem.
THe problem with the permittivity and permeability of free space is that the electromagnetic wave/phenomenon is going into "space", more precisely the Einstein-compatible Aether and comes back out. Those 2 constants are giving you a measurement of the properties of this Aether. At this level through, it is in fact absolute regardless of your velocity, you will not find a "static" aether looking at these numbers. The time dilation of "space" as your travel through it will make all measurements of these constants look the same. All up until you start using the correct reference frame, the CMB, then you see that "space" is giving rise to these constants and "c" by extension, space being an Einstein-compatible aether, just to play unnecessary word games. One must realize that space is SOMETHING that is giving rise to these 3 constants (permittivity, permeability and "c" by extension). Call it what you will.
Yeah, there's more to the story... specifically, FitzGerald Contraction or as it's usually called these days: length contraction...
ok, this is kinda a long story, and I don't have time to write a long comment here right now. The entire reason why Einstein started with a postulate about the speed of light being constant for all *_inertial_* observers (having inertia is critically important for this) is because of this exact part of Maxwell's Equations.
Lorentz and Larmor... and Poincarè basically figured out the same stuff Einstein figured out, but in a much more complicated way and ultimately requiring that the aether be completely undetectable in principle. Poincaré came to this conclusion himself, but refused to believe in his own theoretical result.
Also.... while both Special Relativity and Lorentz-Larmor aether theory make the same predictions (because they're both based on the same math), Lorentz-Larmor aether theory does *not* work with any theory of gravity, but Special Relativity works perfectly with General Relativity.
@jok2000 The CMB is just as arbitrary a reference frame as using the surface of the Earth, or the center of the Sun, or my butt. There is no inertial reference frame that is different from any other inertial reference frame. There is no mechanical experiment you can perform, which will give you a different result when performed in one specific direction at one specific velocity. There's no speed and direction that is different from any other speed and direction.
@@juliavixen176 Let me guess, you got that "butt" part from a quality textbook?
Relativity doesn't, and it never did, "disprove" the luminiferous aether. Both SR and GR are aether-agnostic. It was a mathematical elegance argument that led physicists to adopt drop the idea. Even Einstein was deeply reticent about this. Big fan of your work. Lost in Math is wonderful. As a physicist myself, I've been deeply troubled by the over-mathematisation of physics, but to me, this began with Minkowski... GR is wonderful, but it's surely where we took a wrong turn in the maths maze... I blame Minkowski.
Minkowski was right and GR works perfectly (so far).
@kylelochlann5053 All Minkowski did was reframe the mathematical model with Riemannian geometry. Spacetime curvature is a purely mathematical concept, and contrary to the way it's taught, it's not a physically-motivated one, nor is it testable. It's actually unfalsifiable and unnecessary. Is it mathematically elegant? Undeniably so. Is it physics? No. To be clear, I'm not saying this invalidates GR, I'm just pointing out that the physics and maths are not the same thing, and often it's the maths leading us astray. GR and its predictions are not dependent on Minkowski, in fact, but they're taught as if there's only one way to model things. When we confuse maths for physics, it's like thinking the voodoo doll is somehow the person. I call it voodoo physics. It's our biggest problem. it's ubiquitous.
tek-nic-ally any form of problem with a lagrangian can be converted into an equivalent problem of geometry, as they both use calculus of variations, so i can always say that it is not the potential, the configurations space is curved
As a physicist, you probably understand that is impossible to create a credible theory without knowing what exactly Space is, Time, Gravity, Electromagnetism, Polarity, Energy, Physical Attraction.... If you are interested, explanation of these fundamental elements can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@gruffdavies Wrong. Minkowski did nothing with differential geometry, that was Einstein.
No one is saying math and physics are the same.
Since you haven't studied physics, if measurements are consistent with WEP, LLI, and LPI then the theory is necessarily a metric field theory.
Oliver Heaviside showed in his series the electrician that a charged particle traveling in aether will behave differently, it's Electric field will get squished, which was communicated to Fitzgerald using this Lorentz proposed the idea of Lorentz contraction, and the Michelson Morley did not take in account the effect by Oliver Heaviside, Hence the null results can't actually be taken as disproving aether, what really happened was at the same time Einstein proposed his own theory of relativity, similar to gallilean relativity where you don't need to consider ground, Einstein theory of relativity made aether ad-hoc, Einstein did assume things, like the speed of light in both directions are equal, but this need not be the case, and someone with (asynchronous convention) showed that relativity can work in such convention where speed of light is different in different direction, (it was first pointed out by Reichenbach),
This makes more sense, rather than an arbitrary assumption about speed of light.
Well CMBR are traveling one way and that is actually a test of one way speed of light assuming they are at same temp. When we shed away the dogma of fixed speed of light there's also one thing interesting happens, suppose such medium has a temporal graded refractive index i.e. speed of light is changing with time, this means that any light that is traveling will have its frequency shifted, the more it travels in time, more shift will be there, and thus farther the source more the shift, this explains red-shift without artificially inflating the universe, and with more faster speed of light the universe would have communicated with each other faster at longer distances in early era, even gravity can be understood in terms of spatially varying speed of light, actually that is how we create analogue gravity by spatially varying the speed of sound,
For all we know the universe might be filled with some fluid, with its sound being light for us, and quasi-particles being fundamental particles for us.
I would suggest a reading "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" by Grigory Volovik,
I ran across this interesting quote from a Nobel Laureate named Robert Laughlin in a Wikipedia article.
Not the same topic at all of course. But it's an interesting kind of statement to make.
"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."
This phenomenal, material manifestation is composed of space, time (or, to be more accurate, space-time), energy, and matter, the latter of which comprises eight elemental groups - the five GROSS elements (“mahābhūta”, in Sanskrit), which are perceivable by at least one of the five senses, and the three SUBTLE elements (“tanmātra” or “atisūkṣma mātra”, in Sanskrit), which are symptomatic of localized consciousness.
N.B. Dark matter and black holes are not included in this system, as cosmological science has yet to determine their structural composition.
The five gross material elements (or states of matter) and three subtle material elements are (from most palpable to most intangible):
SOLIDS (AKA earth - “bhūmiḥ” or “pṛthivī”, in Sanskrit) are made of densely-packed molecules, and is of a steady shape at room temperature.
LIQUIDS (AKA water - “jala” or “āpaḥ”, in Sanskrit) are composed of moderately-dense molecules conforming to the shape of its environment or container (and in nature, often including at least some water molecules).
GASES (AKA air - “vāyuḥ” or “marut”, in Sanskrit) consist of rarefied molecular particles, and so, is of no fixed (that is, persistent) shape.
HEAT (AKA fire - “analaḥ” or “tejas”, in Sanskrit) is made of kinetic energy (which may appear visibly as fire, or at least heat waves).
ETHER (AKA space - “ākāśa” or “khaṃ”, in Sanskrit) is a vacuum consisting of three-dimensional space (length, breadth, and width). However, recent investigation has confirmed that empty space is actually filled with virtual particles (matter and antimatter). Thus, the explanation for the material universe being created from “nothing” (anti-matter) is plausible, according to quantum field theory.
MIND (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is composed of sensual perceptions, instinctual thoughts, abstract images (including memories and fantasies), and emotions. Not all animal species have a mind, but function purely on base nervous reflexes, generated from their specific genetic sequence. In modern philosophy and in the field of neuroscience, the term “qualia” is often used to describe such mental images, thoughts, and feelings.
INTELLECT (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit) consists of conceptual thoughts. Only the very higher species of animal life possess an intellectual capacity.
PSEUDO-EGO (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit) is comprised of the “I” thought (specifically, the illusory, ephemeral self-identity). Only humans possess the self-awareness necessary to question their own existence and assume a sense of self. Read Ch. 10 for a full disquisition of egoity.
Each of the FIVE perceptible material elements (or, to be more precise, the five elemental states) corresponds to one (or more) of the FIVE bodily senses. E.g. In outer space, where there is a vacuum (ether), one can detect light with the eyes, yet space is not tactile, and cannot be smelled or tasted, nor can sound waves travel via space, so cannot be heard. At the opposite extreme, solid matter can be seen with the eyes, felt with the sense of touch, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose, and heard with the ear (when the solid matter is physically vibrated).
Aether is fresh pure air that gods breath. But, we often use it out of science as a fancy word for space. So, it's literally a word for space.
This vacuum is most notably found between their ears.
@@cefcephatus It's more accurately something of a material or energy nature that would have to pervade all of space.
Space itself is just measured distance plus direction.
Aether was not opposing Relativity, rather Relativity was created to oppose the default interpretation of Michelson-Morley which is that there is no revolution around the sun. So Einstein just got rid of Aether, and then had to put it back again in general relativity, and people have the balls to say that MM gave null result.
But the subsequent Michelson-Gale (Gale not Morley) detected 98% of Aether drag on rotation (not revolution), confirming that Aether is real, since they found 98% the speed of relative rotation.
When I was a kid, this is the concept of aether that introduced me to astrophysics.
Back when everyone knew the world was made of 99.99% plasma,
But now we live in what some call…
the twilight zone.
A 19th century kid?
@@p-j-y-d almost yes lol. No, actually it was old books in my home during the 80's and me always staying at home because I was sick.
Physicists routinely suggest there is no aether and that the vacuum is filled with quantum fluctuations - its somewhat oxymoronic is it not?
But these vacuum fluctuation are not connected. they look the same from any inertial frame.
@@dullyvampir83it’s only because we are looking at quantum fluctuations. It’s like when kids are doing something bad until you walk into the room.
Physicists routinely butcher our language, relying on mathematics to save them, then getting confused by said mathematics inventing new nonsense language 🙂
To a StarTrek fan the latter sounds a lot more familiar than the former.
POLECTRON FIELD: cell: a + & a - particle split by Full Split Energy as a positron+ & electron-. Bonds to 12 neighbours
MATTER: p+ / e- = 1.5 cells, +֊+ / ֊+֊. Splits field as + & - shells. core types: +, ֊, +֊. +֊+, ֊+֊
SPIN: centre polarisation axis
LECKY: absolute charge.
MASS: particle lecky.
INERTIA: rebalancing field kicks mass.
STRONG GRAVITY: field repels mass
MOND: lecky density slows acceleration/TIME and shrinks cells, loss to gravity gradients grows voids, aids acceleration
BIG BANG: more proton-antiproton pairs malformed as proton-muon than antiproton-antimuon so hydrogen beat antihydrogen
POSITRONIUM: e_p. Muon: ep_e. Proton: pep. Neutron: pep_e. Tau: epep_e. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau
ANTIMATTER: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate. 3: proton+anti proton or muon+anti muon. 4: neutron+anti neutron. 5: tau+anti tau
WEAK FORCE: unstable atoms form and annihilate e_p pairs.
BETA- DECAY: pep_e => pep e.
BETA+: pep + new e_p => pep_e p
NUCLEAR FORCE: neutron electrons bond to protons.
ENTANGLEMENT: correlation broken by interaction? Physical link?
BLACK HOLE: atoms cut into neutrons fused as higher mass tau cores (epep). Field rotates. Core annihilates: ep => cell?
PHOTON: cell polarisation/lateral shift wave.
LONGITUDINAL WAVE: gravitational wave, neutrino: 1 to 3 cell wave
DOUBLE SLIT: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides
COMPLEXITY: Closed system complexity reduces over time. Uniformly (dis)ordered (hot)/cold field is simplest
Love how understandable you make this content for the lay person.
Thank you Sabine, your good words are reaching many through the aether
"Humor is always relative to the observer."
Came for the physics, left with the greatest social insight.
H=mc^2
@@ausgoogtube01 Humor lightens the soul, so very apropos. I will steal this one from you.
(One of my old writing teachers often claimed the only ideas worth having, are those worth stealing.)
Omg, I love that you used Laura Bailey's "Tek-nik-ally...!"
🤣🤣
Came here to say the same thing. I doubt Sabine is a critter, but loved hearing that gif in Jester's voice.
Ether is a chemical and Aethea is the topic. I get she isn't a native speaker but it sounds crazy
You should not use God's name in vain.
@user-xf2oz6gr2o your imaginary sky villain is irrelevant to me, as it isn't real and never was. Grow up.
@@richardlanglois172 you are talking to a bot btw
Quantum vacuum is the new Ether of XXI century.
Ideas don't die, they evolve.
the casimir effect was predicted in 1948.
This.
Once physicists started talking about Quantum (Vacuum) Fluctuation and field theories it started to *look* like a kind of Aether Theory to the rest of the world, at least from a descriptive standpoint. Whenever people look up the topic, the first thing they're going to see is that famous blue bubbly animation, which is depicted as being fixed in a static coordinate space, so if that's NOT supposed to be an Aether Theory, it's kind of getting off on the wrong foot descriptively.
For my part, I honestly have no idea how a 'virtual' particle pair is supposed to determine its relative velocity compared to the rest of the universe if its popping into and out of no-where. What stops them from appearing with nigh-infinite velocity relative to the universe at large?
If they really are just mathematical figments whipped up to help define or constrain the behavior of real particles then that's not a problem - though at that point I really have issues with how/why physicists have chosen to describe them that way.
@@frun, Spectrum of charge is hiding from us, but it can exist in vacuum space like Dark Matter. The earth is in Maha-Meru.
Albert Einstein on aether (Leiden Lecture 1920):
'......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....' Nothing has changed since. Spacetime as a real physical grid is the alfa and omega of physics. Its denial the cause of 100 years of our stagnation...carry on pls.
Everyone keeps repeating this one quotation of Einstein mentioning the aether... What *_else_* did Einstein say about the aether? Do you think that he only said the word a single time in the 200 papers and books that he wrote during his life?
@@juliavixen176 google the essay "Concerning the Ether" from 1924. "we will not be able to do without the aether in theoretical physics, that is, a continuum endowed with physical properties"
Humour is totally relative to the observer! 😂😂
This observer is smiling and chuckling.
This video actually achieved something truly meaningful without any math or scientific papers to support the true value it holds.
Thank you Sabine
The aether and an absolute frame of reference implies that there is a distance - a real distance between the number one and two. ... A very popular argument is "It just is". I have to say... not a very compelling argument. But when a physicist uses that same argument ... then it's ok. Right?
To resolve the conflict you need an experiment or an argument that doesn't rely on "It just is".
Yeah, but the idea that light doesn't need a medium never meant anything other than newtons lack of framing an hypothesis the ether would have to also account for fields. Aberration was never in conflict with the ether, And neither was the MM experiment. So what reason was there to discard the ether? None as far as i can tell other than that it is hard to model what it would have to be like. In GR we still have ether drag like effects in frame dragging, if you pick a velocity for the ether everywhere in GR, you are forced into some curl and div for it, but not necessarily a specific velocity everywhere, so what to make of that? Why does light take longer one way around a spinning black hole than the other way, seems a bit strange, but if you just put it back in, all these effects are obvious, it is just the velocity of the medium. The aversion to doing things in that way escapes me tbh, it seems just utterly bizarre to not think of it that way.
MM was not the only experiment that tried to find evidence of the eather, actually dozen have been done testing different type of aether and no one resulted in a positive testing
We don't actually have a way to measure the speed of light in one direction, only in two directions (there and back). Observers moving at different velocities would claim the other observer's speed of light in one direction is different than in the return direction. This inability to measure the speed of light in one direction means we have no way to measure our velocity as an absolute, thus resulting in the principle of relativity.
I always wondered how M-M figured out the "direction" of Earth. Direction relative to what?
@@drbuckley1 prolly the big bang?
@@drbuckley1that was one of the points, the aether was hypothesised to be an “absolute reference frame”, so they would be determining the Earths motion relative to the Aether. As far as I know anyway.
"We don't actually have a way to measure the speed of light in one direction, only in two directions (there and back)." That is wrong. One can measure any one-way velocity, including that of light, as soon as one has set up a frame of reference, i.e. a coordinate system. You would then determine the one-way velocity of light in the same way as you would do it for any other object like a sprinter or a car. You determine a startpoint A at position coordinate x_A and an endpoint at position coordinate x_B. You also determine the start time t_A by taking the corresponding reading of one clock located at x_A and you determine the end time t_B by taking the corresponding reading of another clock located at x_B. You then get your one-way velocity v by calculating v = (x_B - x_A)/(t_B - t_A).
The value for the one-way velocity v determined this way is - of course - relative, i.e. it depends on the chosen frame of reference, i.e. the chosen coordinate system. This generally applies for any velocity, be it that of a sprinter, a car or even light. However, for light specificly, you will get c if you choose particular frames in which the clocks are synchronized according to the Einstein convention.
You will automatically get a frame that is synchronized to good approximation according to the Einstein convention, if you synchronize the clocks next to each other first and then move them apart slowly. For instance, you could take two clocks, A and B, and synchronize them in your laboratory. Then, you send one of these clocks, lets say B, together with a light detector and a sender to the moon with a regular space rocket. Such a rocket is still slow enough. Then, you position that clock B with the detector and the sender on the moon. Finally, you send a signal from the earth to the moon and take the corresponding reading t_A of the clock A that remained on earth. The signal will then be detected by the clock B at some local time reading t_B. The numerical value of that reading will then be send back to earth where you could calculate the one way velocity of light by dividing the earth-moon distance D by the difference of the different clock readings. To good precision, you will get D/(t_B - t_A) = c. The determined value will actually be a little bit larger than c, namely by about half the average velocity of the rocket which brought the clock B to the moon.
Wasn't it the inability the check that that shot down Simultaneity? Or something of the like.
I'm having trouble understanding the conceptual difference between an 'aether' and a quantum field. I'm no physicist, but having read so many science vulgarization, my understanding of photons are that they are fluctuations in the electromagnetic quantum field. Isn't this quantum field then a sort of 'medium' through which light travels.
There were several dozen "aether" theories before the twentieth century, and they all have major problems, except for the Lorentz-Larmor aether theory... which is basically just Special Relativity with an undetectable aether which does nothing.
Mostly... to generalize... the aether theories are like having an aquarium full of water.
There's a coordinate system defined relative to the tank, and a coordinate system relative to the water, and the two coordinate systems are separate and can move relative to each other.
That's not how Einstein's Relativity (and QFT) work. You only have one coordinate system (I guess the water in this analogy). There's not some "other space" that "space" is embedded within.
Because....
...and here's the big secret that is printed in every college physics textbook, yet never mentioned in pop-sci infotainment videos on UA-cam..
Because atoms are held together with light (electromagnetic forces)... every material object is a box full of confined light. And parts of every material object are always moving at the speed of light all the time.
There are only two absolute velocities in Special Relativity:
1. The speed of light and
2. The speed of _zero_ for anything with inertia (material objects with mass).
The speed of light is the speed of light _relative to zero_ This is why it's the same for all inertial observers (observers who are standing still relative to themselves (at zero velocity)).
This is also why nothing with mass can "go the speed of light", because the forces holding atoms together is always "going the speed of light", and you can't go faster than yourself.
Anyway... you, as a material object, will *always* measure time ticking at one hour per hour, one minute per minute and one second per second. Time dilation is everyone else's problem.
I'm going to accidentally explain all of Special Relativity if I'm not careful. I need to actually be doing something other than writing UA-cam comments right now...
So... George FitzGerald explained the null result of the second Michelson-Morley experiment as an "aether wind" that was pushing the electric charges in the atoms of material objects closer together, so that an object shrinks in the direction that it's traveling into the aether.
This is usually called "length contraction" in most modern texts.
FitzGerald had the right idea, but Einstein had a *much* better explanation which only relies upon the distance light (electromagnetic forces) will travel through "space" in a certain amount of "time" between each atom... and that's it!
That's the only thing that actually matters, nothing like an aether is required. Just the amount of time it takes for light to propagate from point A to point B.
In fact, ultimately in Relativity, the very definition of "distance" between points A and B is the amount of time that light takes to travel between points A and B. Time and space are the *_EXACT_* same thing, and the "speed of light" is just a unit conversion.
Because.... everything we could possibly use to measure the speed of light is made from atoms... which are scaled automatically to the speed of light.
There isn't anything else that we could possibly use. (The other forces propagate at the speed of light, too.)
So... in the analogy I was making above... it's like all of our meter sticks and clocks are made out of water, and we're trying to measure the water with water relative to the water.
@@juliavixen176 thank you for the explanation, this clears things up somewhat.
Thank you Sabine. Exploring an appropriate model of aether is superior than continuing with the myth of dark matter/energy, imho.
After learning about "Abnormal Gravity," and that the Universe is not only expanding, but also accelerating in rate of expansion, it seems some other force or interaction is waiting to be proven, perhaps some form of aether is concentrated in one vast area and increasing the force of gravity to the amount we observe, "supercharging" it's effect where the aether is present, having an equally distributed presence that degrades in some kind of exponential gradation towards its edges. It seems impossible that objects in the universe could bond together and fall into orbit based on the force of gravity, but then accelerate away at increasing rate (based on the acceleration from the big bang?)
We have plenty of observations pointing to dark energy, even if we have no clue what it is. We have no data pointing that aether exists.
@@hubbeli1074 Dark energy itself is evidence of the ether. Empty space can't curve, assuming this energy is mathematically represented by General Relativity. Some physicists are using the terms quintessence or the Fifth Element to explain it.
@@robertsutherland7378 Right, and Earth is flat and gravity does not exists? Those beliefs usually go hand in hand with people who require that there is aether filling the space. No serious scientist in the last century era has studied "the Fifth Element", outside of film studies of course.
@@hubbeli1074 Einstein thought there was an ether, so did Tesla and neither were flat earthers. Empty space curving is only slightly less absurd than saying the earth's flat. Sean Carroll has written papers on the aether and quintessence.
The elections are extremely distracting. The aether is losing.
Hehe, the US is not the globe though.
@Thomas-gk42 true!
The aether might make a good break from reality...
@SabineHossenfelder thanks
@SabineHossenfelder right now, true.
The Aether might indeed move directionally, but at scales that are far too small to be of any consequence to our scale. Any motion would certainly be cancelled by an overall randomness that is topologically smooth over even distances as small as a millimeter. Defining anything so small would certainly be folly at our technological levels, and any measure for the Aether would need to be determined over vast scale of distance to begin to test the concept of the Aether at present- for anything so tiny as to have no effect other than acting as a resonance for a photon is quite imperceptible indeed.
I'm sad that the new aether isn't luminferous, but I'm hopeful that someone will come up with a way to make it coniferous
😁
graviferous, i gather.
How about making the aether omniverous?
I propose that it's consciferous! That would make it compatible with Quantum Theory.
Not coniferous... but monocotyledonous... the universal aether is a giant flower expanding out in all directions... damn hippies were right all along... mmm drugs
You’re on the right track. This is the way forward. Please continue calling out the B.S. in science. Thank you dear.
actually it was introduced before 20 years. the aether that had Poincares conjunctures + Loretnz was fully compatible with GR/SR
Aether bunny🐇
Imagine Mike Tyson saying “Easter bunny”
Lmao
🤣
Chris Eubank more than Mike Tyson I’d say 🤔
Thas Aethee for you to thay.
I absolutely love your snarky humor! I still can’t wrap my head around waves in a virtual vacuum.
A vacuum is still something. Today's competition is to find nothing... (does nothing exist?)
She has to upgrade the sounds though. Gets old and lame very quick.
It's basically perpetual motion, or a loop. An EM wave creates a field of electricity and magnetism, through which the wave travels. It's like that scene in The Wrong Trousers, where Gromit is on the speeding model train, placing the track ahead of him at lightning speed.
@@Guy-z6oa vacuum is full of space for one thing! Also fields.
@@Guy-z6o Differentiating between an empty void and a vacuum that has potential energy is difficult for the human mind.
The aether drag is well known, we call it gravity. The CMB was formed when the aether passed through a state change boundary. The speed of light varies with the density of the aether it is passing through, as does the rate of time.
Frame-dragging.
@@robertsutherland7378 Yes, it's elastic too.
Hi Sabine, when you spoke about the CMB dipole and that earth moves “relative to the CMB”, I thought that light doesn’t have an inertial frame of reference? So I suppose you’re speaking about “relative to the surface of last scattering”? Thanks.
Isn't the frame-dragging demonstrated by Gravity Probe B a type of aether?
I would have listened more in school with your videos on the screen! 😂 I learn, AND laugh!
Wouldn't you love to have had a physics teacher like Sabine in high school? She would have changed my life. I never had a teacher like that until grad school.
Have you read Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Oliver Heaviside, Nikola Tesla, JJ Thomson and James Clark Maxwell?
They really explained the phenomena very well with aether. To me the magnetic and dielectric field makes the most sense. I really do not think that electrons moving is the flow of electricity, rather a secondary effect of electric power flowing around a conductor.
Wherever there is an electrical charge, there is an electrostatic field. Electrostatic fields cause the motion of charged particles. That's what causes electrons to flow. But current by definition is the flow of charged particles - not electrical or magnetic fields.
@@JosephLMcCordthey don’t flow they oscillate. But yes an electrostatic field exists in parallel to magnetism.
James CLERK Maxwell.
Theoria Apophasis described it in terms of a dialectrical field and induction rate. So it might be the case you are unto something.
@@JosephLMcCord Charles Steinmetz RADIATION, LIGHT, AND ILLUMINATION.LECTURE 1 ua-cam.com/video/Qmdo8_-_YiQ/v-deo.html
I'm a strong believer in this medium we call aether. If light or electromagnetic radiation is waving as it propagates what is it waving if not the aether. Yeah you can abstract and call that "Space time" but it is a medium. Ever wonder why speed of light is constant? The medium does not allow it to propagate faster the the medium properties.
Maxwell designed all his equations by assuming an aether. He was an ardent proponent of the aether, notably arguing that light is not a substance, but a process going on in a substance and that the mere existence of light interferences were conclusive proof of an aether.
@@GravideckMotionSystems Yep
@@GravideckMotionSystems Faraday and Maxwell both expressed their doubts about an electric and magnetic aether. Maxwell was *NOT* actually a strong supporter of any kind of aether, and his original two dozen or so equations did *NOT* require an aether. Oliver Heaviside *WAS* a strong believer that there was a luminiferous aether, and when he rewrote Maxwell's equations and published that popular book including them, Heaviside made the claims about a luminiferous aether, *NOT* Maxwell.
An aether is not only permitted by Einstein's relativity but is perhaps the most important missing piece. By making a slight modification to SR, which in turn produces a slightly modified but mathematically equivalent GR we can yield several directly observed quantities that are completely unaccounted for by existing models of relativity.
Take a look at the link on my channel.
I have been researching the aether for about 30 years, I have found that it exists and can be affected, I also can explain why it doesn't contradict any evidence but I guess Sabine is going to explain that.... Ok, so watching and ugh, there are errors. The Speed of light has NOT been shown to be the same in each direction! Rather the round trip of light has found not to be affected by motion when it would be expected to be. Lorentz proposed that matter was shrinking and hey presto the results make sense but one little catch, if matter must be shrunk then the speed of light can't be C in each direction! The very fact that this shrinking or time dilation is required means that the speed CANNOT be the same, Einstein just said it's space shrinking which was closer to being a semantic difference! Rather it is challenging and Einstein argued that it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light so "let's just assume" it is C in each direction and be done with it, but that is FALSE! Actually you can measure the one way speed of light but it's not easy and requires you don't accept relativity. The fact is that Lorentz Relativity (Lorentz Ether Theory or LET) has an aether and fits 100% of the evidence and has nothing illogical and it is accepted that this is true by mainstream, but mainstream prefers to ignore the theory despite it's 100% compatibility with 100% of the evidence that supports Einstein's Relativity. If you are confused, consider that length contraction and time dilation might harmonize the round trip speed of light but a shorter ruler or slower clock makes light in both directions (fore and aft) seem to be move faster (it doesn't have to move as far in an absolute sense and your clock records less time as it's slow) making the light seem faster to head-on light which your velocity added to is made even faster by motion! This is the point for the Verulamium video on this subject and Einstein's 1905 paper doesn't even mention the one way speed of light being C. How can you measure it you ask? Well if the one way speed of light isn't C and if Einstein's theory is wrong and Lorentz's model is closer to the truth then time dilation and length contraction are not relative but due to absolute motion through and aether and as such time dilation does affect some frames of motion more and as such you can learn the frame of fastest time and so then it does become possible to measure the one way speed of light but more to the point it becomes moot, there are however much easier ways to detect, prove and make use of the aether.
All of those wonderful Sci Fi stories relying on The Ether just had fresh life breathed into them. Thank you, Sabine.
I was thinking about EE Doc Smith's Lensmen series while watching the video.
Whenever Prof. Challenger needs to explain something: _"The ether, Malone, the ether!"_
The ether has never been disproved. The MMX (Michelson Morley Experiment) disproved the rigid ether, but not the Lorentz Ether. Lorentzian relativity, or LET (Lorentz Ether Theory), passess all of the tests that Einstein's rellativity does, and it has an ether/aether.
@@blucat4 I remember using LET in high school because the math was easier and because it was part of Relativity's history. But, did it predict gravitational warping of space? I don't remember.
It all is so fascinating, thanks a lot. On my list of favorite experiments, my favorite things, like paper bags, are : Cavendish, Brownian, Foucault, Double slit, Photoelectric, ..and certainly this awesome Michelson-Morley..experiment, I.e. sitting in a room with a lot of Mercury, a candle and some mirrors, we can ascertain " we are not moving"😂
At 2:24 I hear someone clearing his throat, proving that Sabine is not a puppet. She may be like Queen Scheherazade who had to tell a new story every night to avoid being executed.
Hi Carl, this is true. Some natural phenomens are magical, so they attract our attention. I would add: looking through a prism and remember Goethes obssesion with Newtons theory of light. Have a nice weekend and Greetings from Frankfurt am Main - Andreas
@andywe7524 Thank you. This makes my day. light, I will view through a prism, thinking about Goethe, Huygens, and of course our good old Newton, it is so basic but spectecular! We can see clearly now the fog is gone!
May I also add Sabine, along with waving goodbye to social life, that for many a physicist, the only dating that happens is carbon dating!
So far, all my dates have been carbon based, so I must be doing it right.
Carbon Dating is the new dating app for over 50. (I’m in!)
Don't rule out the possibility of some silicone in there, too@@SuperChaoticus
I'm so old my dating is uranium dating
Yup and you will never be disappointed with carbon dating. (Ever stuck your dick in a toaster, I advise against it).
Funny just a few days ago I was lost in my toughts ( infantile at best) about gravity and I was trying to imagine how a body of a certain mass moving through space affects the space time curvature. If you imagine a perfactly smooth surface sphere of large mass moving in space and me traveling on an intercept course such that my trajectory, curved by gravity, makes me fall towards the mass…if the mass moves a minute amount, what/how does the gravity « curve gradients » changes instantly in strenght and direction to follow that movement of the mass and how does my trajectory adjust itself instantly accordingly? In what does the gravity curves move? If the mass starts to accelerate does the gravity curve adjust at the same acceleration? I guess because of inertia my trajectory would change and I would relocate on a different gravity curve but by what process? I kept imagining some substance in which all this was happening but I remembered that ether doesn’t exist, then I must have been hit by a gravitational wave because I lost my train of tought and Rick and Morty started back on TV.
The ending "...humor is relative to the ovserver" ❤
Space surely have properties: electromagnetic permittivity and permeability. Nothingness can't have properties. So, it up to us to call it as: vacuum, space-time fabric, quantum medium, bla-bla yada-yada, or (refined theory of) *aether.*
They soonest or later must come to the reality, because already 100 years they standing on one spot and cannot define even a single fundamental element - As - Space, Time, Gravity, Electromagnetism, Energy.....All these elements are explained in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
It seems that the Technocracy is unable to fight the concil of the traditions. The aether is back baby
Ah yes, the Society of Ether, replacing "science" with "SCIENCE!"
I wanted to make the same comment. Czar Vargo gets the last laugh after all!
WE'RE BRINGING THE AETHER BACK INTO THE CONSENSUS, BABY!!!
I'm not a physicist, just a standard issue science nerd. I have always believed that the aether exists, experiments that claimed to have disproven it be damned. Was I right all along? We shall see, hopefully in my lifetime.
It was never disproved. As it appeared to have no observable properties, it was just superfluous as a concept.
With the discovery (or proof...) of gravitational waves, does it not follow that all space is constantly entertaining fluctuations of constructive and destructive interference of said waves thereof?
The waves in question detected, though "tiny", related only to the specific effects measurable of 2 black holes colliding/orbiting. In theory there are many such contemporaneous sources/events in the universe all creating such waves, many (or most) of which create them on a level too small for us to ever detect in isolation. And yet they must surely have ubiquitous, summative effects.
Spectral lines match Randall Mills Hydrino but it and patents on functional processes and devices are not allowed to exist because US government uses QM as more then theory.
I'm not suggesting it is the aether. The closest individual to working out the aether is Robert Distinti.
Love you Sabi ❤️
For a long time I've imagined gravity and dark energy as sourced from the same thing; a flow of Space.
Space that flows into our universe where there's low density of matter, pushing them away(dark energy symptoms), and flows out of our universe at the points of high mass, dragging matter with it( gravity symptoms).
Space in this scenario would perhaps be the aether mentioned.
The "in" and "out" of out universe in my headcanon would be a fourth spacial dimension where Space is contained, and would flow between that fourth and our three special dimensions, appearing as if it came from nothing, and into nothing at the singularities of black holes and other mass focii.
Don't take me too seriously tho, it just fits with my limited intuition of how things work :)
I've had a similar intuition for a while! I have a feeling that someone versed in cosmology would blink in astonishment and find it hard to begin telling us where and how we were wrong... 😅
@@bluustreak6578 toroidal flow ?
@@ssatva hehe yes. It may sound interesting to us, but is the equivalent of answering "purple" to a physicist
How can we be moving towards or away from something that is everywhere? Is it just the temp difference that we are referencing?
That's the evidence based on the Doppler effect,i.e., it is proof of the absolute background called aether: we, the Milky Way Galaxy, are speeding 600 km/s into the centre of the Universe ( a dozen clusters: Virgo, Hydra, Centaurus, etc.). Contrary to ...textbooks, the MM 1887 experiment result is positive, and not negative! There is a scandalous mistake in calculating the wave number (@then, frequency and length of the perpendicular direction of the light wave in MM interferometer!!! Take a mirror and count the values for the mirror at rest and a ...moving one! Physicists are...methodological idiots!
Is it just the temp difference that we are referencing? Yes (it start out the same, so should be all even if we are not moving)
.
We are at the observational center of that spherical shell (our relative velocity changes the redshift of the photons redshift).
So if all photons from the last scattering reach us at the same time they will all have the same redshift (CMBR frequency). Our motion will add or subtract from redshift of all those photons so we can know if we are moving, but just can't tell where we are globally or what a direction is globaly :)
@@axle.student so she's referencing us moving towards or away from a specific warm or cold patch?
@@festerallday "so she's referencing us moving towards or away from a specific warm or cold patch?" No :)
At the last scattering all photons emitted in infra red heat were essentially the same temperature.
So as those photons have traveled through the expanding space they have all stretched equally longer into the microwave band.
If we are not moving, those photons coming from any direction will have exactly the same redshift.
>
redshift, dopier effect is "also" altered by the objects they eventual hit (Us here in earth), so if earth is moving toward them as well they will impact us harder so less redshifted and hotter energy release, if earth is moving away the impact from the photon is colder, more redshifted.
>
So if earth is moving in some direction, the photos in the direction of travel will appear hotter, and photons hitting from behind will appear colder.
.
We can measure if we as observers (earth) are moving.
The change in impact temperature on earth is only because of earths velocity :)
@axle.student but it's a reference to a specific point across many measurements right? The graphic shown is not showing earths general relationship between all points, but rather once specific measurement in one specific direction?
You said light speed does not depend on direction but you mean the two-way speed. One-way speed can differ, Lorentz aether theory is compatible with observations like General Relativity.
As all the processes are defined through the speed of light why does it matter? If light moves at 0,75 c in one direction and at 1,5 c in another the related processes like movement of atoms etc would adjust accordingly as they are also electromagnetic in nature. So, the very speed of processes would be x 0,75 and x 1,5 accordingly. Therefore even if we could register one way speed of light we would still measure it the same in any direction. The time itself passes differently in different directions in such a case.
@@dmitriy9053 It does not matter to do physics, it is just a fun fact for philosophy like the interpretations of QM.
@@dmitriy9053You could measure your own speed relative to the “whole universe”, whatever that frame may be.
The really important thing here is that we should remember that the speed of light being the same in all frames and directions is a convention, not actual truth.
@@CanIHasThisName it is an experimental fact. So, what are you talking about? We registered it in different frames as being the same. Firstly we measured it, secondly developed theories to explain it.
The speed of light was fixed in 1972.
I thought Aether was replaced by "fields", whatever that means. As for Aether, it's supposed to be a medium of matter. We didn't know what, but that doesn't work either. So "fields", even though we or i don't know what's made of what "medium" or maybe it's mediumless. Whatever it is made of, the waves that propage through it don't act like waves ... like the speed of light is a constant to all observers. That don't make no sense.
Is spacetime same as firlds? Or those fields in spacetime dimension? Or spacetime is the fields? is one and the same? What does that mean?
Could explain neutrinos changing attributes. Light decreasing in frequency with time. Perhaps a hook that conveys a portion the nucleus strong force causing gravity.
Um, Einstein himself, later in life, remarked that space-time was the same as the existence of an aether.
Aether come, aether go...
This was my understanding, as well. That "aether" had come to be understood as ubiquitous with the framework of spacetime itself.🤷♀️
This phenomenal, material manifestation is composed of space, time (or, to be more accurate, space-time), energy, and matter, the latter of which comprises eight elemental groups - the five GROSS elements (“mahābhūta”, in Sanskrit), which are perceivable by at least one of the five senses, and the three SUBTLE elements (“tanmātra” or “atisūkṣma mātra”, in Sanskrit), which are symptomatic of localized consciousness.
N.B. Dark matter and black holes are not included in this system, as cosmological science has yet to determine their structural composition.
The five gross material elements (or states of matter) and three subtle material elements are (from most palpable to most intangible):
SOLIDS (AKA earth - “bhūmiḥ” or “pṛthivī”, in Sanskrit) are made of densely-packed molecules, and is of a steady shape at room temperature.
LIQUIDS (AKA water - “jala” or “āpaḥ”, in Sanskrit) are composed of moderately-dense molecules conforming to the shape of its environment or container (and in nature, often including at least some water molecules).
GASES (AKA air - “vāyuḥ” or “marut”, in Sanskrit) consist of rarefied molecular particles, and so, is of no fixed (that is, persistent) shape.
HEAT (AKA fire - “analaḥ” or “tejas”, in Sanskrit) is made of kinetic energy (which may appear visibly as fire, or at least heat waves).
ETHER (AKA space - “ākāśa” or “khaṃ”, in Sanskrit) is a vacuum consisting of three-dimensional space (length, breadth, and width). However, recent investigation has confirmed that empty space is actually filled with virtual particles (matter and antimatter). Thus, the explanation for the material universe being created from “nothing” (anti-matter) is plausible, according to quantum field theory.
MIND (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is composed of sensual perceptions, instinctual thoughts, abstract images (including memories and fantasies), and emotions. Not all animal species have a mind, but function purely on base nervous reflexes, generated from their specific genetic sequence. In modern philosophy and in the field of neuroscience, the term “qualia” is often used to describe such mental images, thoughts, and feelings.
INTELLECT (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit) consists of conceptual thoughts. Only the very higher species of animal life possess an intellectual capacity.
PSEUDO-EGO (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit) is comprised of the “I” thought (specifically, the illusory, ephemeral self-identity). Only humans possess the self-awareness necessary to question their own existence and assume a sense of self. Read Ch. 10 for a full disquisition of egoity.
Each of the FIVE perceptible material elements (or, to be more precise, the five elemental states) corresponds to one (or more) of the FIVE bodily senses. E.g. In outer space, where there is a vacuum (ether), one can detect light with the eyes, yet space is not tactile, and cannot be smelled or tasted, nor can sound waves travel via space, so cannot be heard. At the opposite extreme, solid matter can be seen with the eyes, felt with the sense of touch, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose, and heard with the ear (when the solid matter is physically vibrated).
I had the same thought as this while watching this video , however i think that the quantum fields could also be viewed in such a way.
@@Cedric_Ironwoodquantum field theory is literally, we want an aether, but cannot call it an aether because academia will laugh and point their fingers at us.
Um, read the paper Einstein wrote called relativity and aether
Physicist 1: Dark matter is so unsatisfying, but without it, I don’t know how to explain the rotation of the Milky Way.
Physicist 2: I don’t know… aether
Physicist 3. The rotation can be explained by plasma electrodynamics without aether or dark matter.
Certainly no Physicist but it seems that Space-Time just logically can be classified as a "medium" or aether. Yes, bending or Warping of space-time is just a way of describing a phenomenon, but viewing space-time as medium that can compress and expand locally and interact with itself like air or water seems an intuitive model of what we are seeing. Gravitational waves can be viewed as perturbations of space-time. I would think the whole idea of Dark Matter or Dark Energy disappears if space-time itself is dragged, to some degree, along with the matter around the center of galaxies.
🤣🤣🤣 ...and they say physicists lack a sense of humor.
That's exactly how this went. What's how I came to this idea
Have you seen a spinning athlete on ace? Does he carry in his job any dark matter? No. But when he gathers his arms near his body, remarkable, he began to spin faster. That means that the mass isn't the only reason for the behavior under gravity conditions, but it is also a matter of mass' consistency and density. Somehow we could be able to know the consistency from spectrographs, but we are unable to know the density. The spinning phenomenon has been proved and inside the ISS under no gravity conditions. With the same mechanism, we can understand and the paradox of the Mercury's trajectory. Now from the data of probes, we know that the surface of the planet is shrinking over time, this phenomenon is changes the planet's mass density and this is increasing its spinning speed over time and that then changes and the trajectory and creates its paradox that the Newton's law can't explain, and now we don't need the GR theory. Newton's law takes the mass all in a point and this creates the problem with all planets' trajectories but mostly for Mercury.
ALL HAIL THE LUMINIFEROUS AETHER.
I dont see any connection between the aether that Michaslson and Moreley were looking for and the stuff anaesthetists use. Regarding photons as a wave, we know that it is alternating magnetic and electric fields which are waving, but in the case of neutrinos, which have some photon-like properties and may well travel at the same speed, nobody knows what is waving. If somebody out there does, let me know, because I have often wondered.
Perhaps someone can explain in terms so simple even I can understand. If space is emptiness, and gravity is the bending of space by objects with mass, what is being bent? If the universe, i.e., space is expanding/has expanded, how can emptiness be forced to expand (or contract) ?
the aether has always been there. yall just never wanted to acknowledge it as so
Spacetime is now just another name for Aether. Speed of light doesn't change, but Spacetime undergoes "frame-dragging" when the planet/star moves or rotates. What's the difference then between Aether and spacetime? Very little: one gives a definition of space, while the other includes effects of time.
I knew an Ethyl Ether 👱♀️She had an organic personality .
Die Ethel Ether!
I knew an Esther. She was a bit fruity.
Spacetime / aether / quantum fields / non-Newtonian hyper-fluid (space custard), all the same!
Anyway, didn't Einstein later say GR doesn't work without aether?
(I've always just assumed Michelson-Morley was nullified by frame-dragging).
Hello Sabine i have a question (in the traditional ways of the internet - state something wrong and you will be corrected):
The experiment to prove the Aether doesn't work, but the experiment for gravitiational waves was exactly the same, just a lot bigger. So Aether was there all along.
Nikola Tesla stimulated the aether to palpably manifest itself in the laboratory as what he called 'radiant energy.' His experiments involved 'impulse' DC electricity: huge electrical potentials discharged at huge frequencies. Kilovolts discharged at kilocycles. Tesla's work involved actual laboratory experiments rather than thought experiments. Statically conceived, the aether was easily associated with Newton's absolute space and time, which prompted Einstein to discard it. The Michelson Morley experiment ruled out a static aether, not an aether in motion.
"The Michelson Morley experiment ruled out a static aether, not an aether in motion."
WRONG, the Michelson Morley proved the Earth is STATIONARY, it did not prove anything to do with the Aether.
Star Aberration experiment proves the stars move, not the Earth.
@@lucasljs1545Is this a joke? Some kind of flat earth thing? Just trolling? What?!
A null answer doesn't throw out the concept fully. The aether is such a thing. Tesla's scalar aether field was just renamed as the Higgs Field.
@@nbooth Technically, a stationary Earth is compatible with the results. And a stationary Earth from Earth pov makes sense both in Galileo's relativity and in GR.
@@lucasljs1545 Do you also think that the Earth is flat?
Although there can be no detection of this, it still explains a lot: ether isn't in space. It is space. It is continuously solid and has harmonic properties. Earth, being a waveform propagating through solid space cannot create an ether drag.
Bad news for you: Michelson-Morley's results are incompatible with undraggable aether.
What about the AetherNet?
what is wrong with ethernet?
or is this some kind of wireless, like a wave ethernet you are talking about
What is "empty space"? Is it nothing? How can it bend near a massive object if it is nothing?
It's all a scam, space is fake. A distraction and a ploy to keep you from discovering the Creator, God Almighty.
Fascinating! Thanks a bunch for all the info, Sabine! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
*I know this sounds crazy,* but I believe space itself is the "Aether"...and it can account for both dark energy and dark matter...
Sure, you'd have to *slightly* modify Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to solve for this, but isn't that literally a Physicist's job?...
Space squishes into the black holes (dark matter) and stretches out between black holes (dark energy), in other words.
When we measure "gravitational waves", we're really measuring *space itself* getting shorter and longer, right? Dontcha think that's like a pretty huge clue right there?...
It seems incredible that science can accept particle/wave duality, but not seriously consider aether. Particle physics is equally bonkers with the invention of bosons to transmit force. The maths is just a model to explain what we observe, not what is really going on.
If you doubt particle/wave duality, the double slit experiment is quite easy to do yourself
@@jeremycmsmith The double slit experiment can be replicated by bouncing bubbles. Check Veritasium video on that subject. All the Quantum "voodoo" effects replicated by macroscopic objects. Time to touch grass for many physicists.
The fact that neutrinos are ubiquitous and "dense" through out the cosmos seems to validate the notion "the aether " .
Thank you very much, Sabine. For quite a few years I've done direct observations that made me believe the relativity was incomplete. I just couldn't pin what it was that made me uneasy. Last night, while sleeping, everything connected. What a wonderful coincidence that today I watched you explaining it and making it even more clear... See, I'm just a generalist, and not the brigthest of the lot. Your videos are like fresh water to a parched throat.Thanks again.
I always thought of the idea of an "electromagnetic field" or "Higgs field" or whatever field to be fascinating, since there is no preferred reference frame for these, it's strange how these things just physically exist, or do they? Are they just models? Who knows anymore
I've been mocked for saying that dark matter idea was so ridiculous, it resembled aether, yet here we are...
Gravity is bending something. Gravitational waves are transmitted through something. Light is transmitted as well.
Gravity can be modeled is if it is bending something. That is not the same thing as saying that gravity IS bending something. It may be, or it may be that something else is going on and that spacetime curvature is the best way we have found to model it mathematically. (Just as springs and pendulums can be modeled with the same math, but that doesn't mean they are doing the same thing).
@erinm9445 correction...gravity is the phenomen of matter bending something.
@@pgiando Again, gravity is mathematically modeled as gravity bending something. We still don't understand how gravity works well enough to know if that is actually what is happening.
You cannot have a certain electromagnetic permeability trough "nothing". This fact itself proves that there's no such thing as a "vacuum of space".
@@maciejnajlepszy you can have whatever you want.
I love to come here for both the honest view of modern physics AND the dry German humor.
Does aether have mass? Does energy passing through aether heat it? If so, does the temperature of aether affect the speed of light? If not, why not? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
I believe light can be affected by immense gravitational pulls, can it not? By saying light is constant and then saying gravity has an effect. It makes me ask, where does the light go in a singularity? It can't escape, so it can't continue.
Space Aether. the final frontier ! To seek out new Aether and new Aetherizations; to boldly go where no Aether has gone before!
Aether sounds a lot like spacetime.
Or quantum fields.
Not really. It's more like the quantum vacuum (which Einstein didn't know of, when he invented special relativity (SR)).
The nice thing of having an absolut frame is that we would also have an absolute time again!
Local time would still depend on relative movement, but with absolute time we can get rid of multiple problems with relativity. Like close time-like curves for example which always appear in the moment we have wormholes which would create the usual time travel paradoxes.
Also it would be nice for QM, because with absolute time it may be possible to solve the measurement problem because a measurement can globally bring the wave function into an eigenstate. This would be impossible with SR because there is no global simultaneity in SR.
So maybe SR is a nice simplification to make calculation easier - but not true on a global scale.
@Kah7654 something that always bothered me about relativity was the twin paradox. If we think about it at lower speeds, like stellar orbital speeds, one twin could step off of the earth and move in a straight line to the point where earth will be a year later in its orbit. In theory, the twin on earth should have aged slower because he moved farther in the same amount of time. (Negating the gravitational effect of relativity) If this is the case, time dilation depends on the direction and path through space as if there is a universal coordinates system. A strict interpretation of relativity would claim that there is no difference if the twin races away and back towards the earth or the earth races away and back towards the twin. How does relativity determine which twin is going to age more?
@@Kah7654 “Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”
― Nikola Tesla
Einstein put technology and free energy behind centuries. He was one of the most evil people to exist, top 3 easily.
@@michaellowe3665 don't waste your brain matter on that garbage. Relativity is occultism, it is 100% based on Kabbalah, you should not be messing with occultism.
To be fair aether theory can't be ruled out since it is unfalsifiable. It is just an outdated metaphysics.
02:15 That light moves at the same speed in every direction is a convention. One can only measure round-trip velocity for light, because every measurement is local, so a space measurement always reduces to a time measurement done with your clock.
Unfortunately in academia it is never stressed enough what is a convention and what is a measurement, and many physicists who don't do specific research take spacetime models too literally, and still wonder why light has this strange property. It's not a property, it's a convention. If we could measure the one-way speed of light it would mean that there really is an aether and given spatial distances 'out there'.
* Curt Jaimungal voice * Explain.
It's demonstrable using an oscilloscope and a magnet. Even when you go so far away that the oscilloscope can no longer detect the magnetic field, shaking and rotating the magnet will allow the oscilloscope to detect it.
That could ONLY happen of the magnetic field existed within a medium.
@@denofpigs2575 That is not a demonstration of the presence of a medium, that is an interpretation. You can't measure the speed of light even with that, because the oscilloscope relies on his own clock, so it is a local measurement.
@@notanemoprog Hi Curt, what is exactly that you didn't get?
@@pierfrancescopeperoni Without a medium to disturb, how do you measure a perturbation?
When I flap my hand in water I get waves, a perturbation/disturbance in a medium.
When I flap my hand in air I get wind, a perturbation/disturbance in a medium.
When I flap my hand in a vacuum I get massive inflammation and my blood boils (but no wind, no perturbation/disturbance in a medium because there is no medium)
Funny. I was one of the few who would ridicule physicists for looking down their noes and calling anybody who would dare breathe the word aether a crackpot. Then Dark energy and dark matter elbowed it's way into the conversation. The tap dancing and double talk justifying the latter two and lambasting the former was and still is hilarious. Contemporary physicists have painted themselves into a corner. Getting out is simple but a whole lot of crow is going to have be eaten.
I'm not a physicist and have a question. Why would spontaneous particles (or better, wherever they come from) not be a kind of ether?
It seems convincing and right that absolute location is impossible. Even the CMB is an arbitrary frame of reference.
If we take away the frame of reference or locality requirement for ether, then don't spontaneous particles or their source give radiation something to wave? They don't rise out of math.
fluidic space is where Species 8472 lives
It's the Subspace
The axis of evil in the CMB seems like more evidence against the cosmological principle than evidence for the aether. To me, it seems that if space’s expansion was not the same everywhere that might explain a lot. But I’m an idiot.
You´re surely not an idiot if you watch this channel.😉
Axis of Evil proves geocentrism. All the monopole planes align with the earth's axes. So does the pre relativity 19th "velocity of the earth against the aether experiments": Arago 1818, Fresnel 1826, Fizeau 1851, Hoek 1868, Airy 1871, Michelson and Morley 1887, Trouton and Noble 1903, among others. It was never about the existance of the aether but the motion of the earth, this is why Einstein "space-time" curvature in GR behaves as some kind of aether (according to Einstein 1916 and 1920 words) without mechanical charasteristics, but effects them, and most importantly, is symmetric in opposite to absolute rest frame aether.
Space's expansion is not the same everywhere. The expansion is dependent upon the ratio of dark energy to regular matter. In other words, the expansion is between galaxies and not within them. Thusly, the speed of causality is finite. The entire universe cannot universally expand as one at the exact same point in time. Having a cosmological constant makes for easy math, but observations of the Hubble tension suggest otherwise.
Personally I think the Aether is actually virtual particles. But that's my opinion and for a different time.
@@MatrixVectorPSIprove it....
Don't you just love it, the way the woke universities have reclassified "the axis of evil," from the noncing death cult in the middle east, that are legions of terrorists, rapists, nonces & murderers.... to protect their pro Philistine socialist scumbag funders!
To something completely innocuous, in space!
More people realize, that Einsteins theories make no sence. Einstein just took Lorentz factor and absurdly applied it to variable time flow, leading to absurd results. The existence of time (i.e. past and future) is actually impossible to prove, as it would require to observe other times from your current time, or from outside (beyond) time.
A simple experiment of measuring the relative speed of 2 photons leads to absurd results in Special relativity theory:
- For 2 photons moving in the exact same direction, it gives relative speed = C. As if 1 photon is stationary, and 1 is moving (while in practice it would be = 0).
- For 2 photons moving in the opposite directions, it gives their relative speed = 0/0, while in practice it would be = 2C
Why does the EM wave have a maximum and a minimum of expansion as it travels (2:36) if there isn't an ether? Also EM switches back and forth between electricity and magnetism because of the ether in which it travels. Ok, your turn....
3:09 Is there a map that isn't S-shaped? Either red at north and blue at south, with yellow at the Equator, or the eastern hemisphere being one with yellow at the prime meridian?
Wonderful video. Thank you very much, Sabine!
In Mysticism and the Esoteric/Occult world, Aether is the highest vibrational state of the physical realm. It's between the waking physical plane and the Astral plane. In ceremonial magic, spirits manifest in this Aetheral realm as it's preferred over a full manifestation into the physical plane, which is very energy-intensive for them to do. You can reach this Aetheral realm in a dream state, a lower state of astral projection, via remote viewing, or by certain meditation techniques.
When talking about heat-ether ("warmth-ether" or "fire"), then this "gigantic furnace" comes to mind:
Revelation 9:1-2 & 11
The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss.
When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.
...
They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).
Sabines upload schedule is impressive.
Now I understand that there is really a crisis in theoretical physics... and it happens at very low levels
What if the Mouns (under pressure) are the Aether, think about it, can that kind of space bend a light (at lightspeed) into the vortex, the light can be turned into the black hole? And then the black hole into the sun? Does this make the primordial black holes possible and the earth hollow?
As a philosopher, all I can tell anyone on this issue is that EVERYTHING that EXISTS to be interacted with or observed, is composed of SOMETHING that exists TO BE interacted with or observed.
Absolute nothingness, by its very definition, does not, and never can, exist to be observed or interacted with.
Ergo, the assumption that ANYTHING, including space, can be composed of nothing, and yet still exist to be observed or interacted with, is a paradoxical impossibility and therefore can be safely rejected as a plausible hypothesis.
Space, which obviously exists to be observed and interacted with, is most definitely composed of something very subtle.
The Michelson-Morley experiment did not disprove the existence of the subtle substance that composes space. What it proved is that this subtle substance is undetectable via that particular method.
I have a feeling that the reason the Michelson-Morley experiment failed was due to the incorrect assumption that we are moving through a relatively motionless substance like a bullet moving through air… this is not the way of it. Earth is more like a cork moving with a current. As such, if you were trying to detect the aether that you believe to be motionless but actually has the same relative velocity… well, you’ll get the results of Michelson-Morley experiment which did not disprove anything except the existence of a static medium.
Have a great day everyone! 😎👍
It's probably worth considering Weber's theories on change in acceleration inside a charged shell.
you assumptions only would work if emptiness would be total. but then there also would be nothing to observe the nothingness. Yet, from tht it can not be concluded that there is no empty space within non empty space. your mistake. idealising over-generalisation
Nice thoughts you got, but they are not connected to reality.
@@kordless I’ll look into that.👍
@@monnoo8221 I don’t understand what your point is. I’m not saying that space is absolutely empty. I am saying that what we see as “empty space” is physically composed of a very subtle substance.
When I was at uni I was taught that the waves move through nothing which was ridiculous then as now. I later learned that it's a wave in a field, not in nothing.
Turns out aether = fields
A field is just math. It’s the mathematical tool used to describe something that varies across space. Pressure waves propagate through air for instance, but pressure is a field.
Saying that something is propagated through fields is a truism. It’s a fancy way of saying “what changes, changes”.
@@azmah1999 Quantum fields in particular. The electromagnetic field. The electron field, the quark fields etc.
I never stopped believing in the ether.
Sorry sir, Ill get a fresh bottle
This is a different aether.
Read "Galileo was wrong, the Church was right"
Nobody who’s ever breathed it will.
Then you are trapped in an unscientific mindset.
You should only have confidence in beliefs that are supported by observational evidence.
In the absence of such evidence you should decline to have any confidence - you should not believe.
If we live in a 4 dimensional space (x,y,z,time) and Aether is in a 3 dimentional space(x,y,z) it might not be visible to us, and ripples across our time would appear to happen instantly in Aether. I'm wondering if it might explain some of the quantum effects we see.
Hello, Sabine. Thanks for a great explainer video about the Aether. We all need to make up our minds. Einstein said that the aether was superfluous. He did not falsify it, nor did he completely abandon the idea. Physics works just fine without an aether. Philosophy needs the aether in its explanation of reality. Whatever is real is what is real, and the labels are not one of the moving parts.
I can prove the Quintescent Aether is real. It is not your grandfather's aether.
The aether permeates physics. James Clerk Maxwell was an ardent aether proponent. All his equations were established by assuming an aether mechanical model. Maxwell concluded his magisterial treatise on EM on advising future generations of physicists to keep inquiring about the aether.
@@GravideckMotionSystems Yes, sir! Lorentz gamma formula is written for the aether.