HISTORY OF "AETHER"
Essay by: Mark Creek-water Dorazio
Reads: 1579 | Likes: 2 | Shelves: 1 | Comments: 0
Nobel-prize winner Robert B. Laughlin of Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed ... The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum ... Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry ... It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo" [Ref.#2].
While Newton was then and still is considered one of the greatest scientific geniuses of all time, Huygens was not nearly as famous, and his proposal was largely ignored and/or forgotten until the work of Thomas Young in 1801, 106 years after he died.
In other words, because of his great prestige, Newton's "corpuscular" theory of light prevailed during most of the 1700s, while the "wave" theory of a less-famous contemporary (Huygens) was not accepted until the early 1800s.
"A basic principle of Huygens is that the speed of light is finite, a point which had been the subject of an experimental demonstration by Olaus Roemer (1679 at the Paris Observatory), but which Huygens is presumed to have believed already ... It deals with wave fronts and their normal rays, with propagation conceived by means of spherical waves emitted along the wave front (see also Huygens–Fresnel principle). It was justified as an ether theory, involving transmission via perfectly elastic particles ... The nature of light was therefore a longitudinal wave of 1704 proposed instead a corpuscular theory of light. The theory of Huygens was not accepted, by some, because longitudinal waves cannot show birefringence. {I don't know what this is, but one can easily "google" it to find out}. The interference experiments of Thomas Young vindicated a wave theory in 1801: the results could not be explained [by Newton's "corpuscular" theory of light]. The solution to the problem Huygens had faced was then resolved by a transverse {my emphasis} wave theory" [Ref.#5].
Following is a long quote from Wikipedia:
"By [the late 1800s] the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets ...
Maxwell wrote in Encyclopædia Britannica (1878):
'Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic effluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, until all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers ... The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light' " [Ref.#9].
NOTE1: As detailed in Part 6 of this essay, in Dr. Simhony's theory of light there is an aether-like substance, (called "EPOLA"), which is, indeed, "millions of times more rigid than steel", as well as "massless and without viscosity"; but it's NOT FLUID, consisting instead of very tiny elements which are tightly bound into a crystal structure. This structure does, indeed, "fill space", very tightly, as the little rascals which compose the epola are very near to each other.
A full reading of Maxwell's 1878 contribution to The Encyclopedia Brittanica reveals that, while it seems very probable that he believed that aether actually exists, he was very unsure of the details, such as whether or not it's carried along with or dragged along behind moons and planets as they move thru it:
"we have next to inquire whether, when these dense bodies [i.e., moons + planets] are in motion through the great ocean of aether, they carry along with them the aether they contain, or whether the aether passes through them as the water of the sea passes through the meshes of a net when it is towed along by a boat" [Ref.#11].
Note that in Simhony's model, the aether-like substance ["epola"] is NOT carried along with or dragged along behind moons and planets as they move thru it. Instead, ordinary matter filters thru the epola like a school of small fish filter thru a fish-net with large holes.
Note also that some of the Ph.D-holders who are aware of Simhony's model just simply do not "get" this important fact about Simhony's model, even after one tries to explain it to them. This verifies what Einstein is supposed to have said: that many very intelligent and highly educated scientists just simply are not able to recognize a good theory when it comes along.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
essay: HISTORY of AETHER --- Part 5:
Some Ways in Which Simhony's "epola" Is Different from "ether"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1) It's much finer than most 19th-century scientists dared to think: like the difference between coarse gravel and finely-ground cement or talcum powder. Note that 19th-century scientists had absolutely no evidence to suspect this important fact, because they did not know how small an atom's nucleus is compared to the atom itself.
(2) This means that the tiny distance between the elements which compose the epola is just right for the nucleus of an atom to go between them. Not only did 19th-century scientists not know that every atom has a very tiny nucleus at its center, but some did not even acknowledge the existence of atoms themselves.
A standard textbook illustration of this is the football-field analogy: if an atom's nucleus were the size of a marble on the center-line of a football field, then the size of the atom itself would be approximately that of the entire stadium !! In Europe, book-writers often use the cathedral analogy: if the atom were the size of a magnificent cathedral, then the atom's nucleus would be approximately the size of a single rosary-bead in the hands of a devout Christian sitting in the front row.
If one thinks deeply re this for many years, as I assure you that Simhony has done, then one realizes that this is the ONLY way in which his theory can make sense, and also that it's logical + clear + reasonable to visualize the "space" in our universe in this way.
(3) Each and every one of the elements which compose Simhony's EPOLA is strongly bound to its place in the lattice, if indeed it's a lattice. Note that it's difficult to imagine a structure in which the elements which compose it are not bound to their places in the structure. The very word "structure" implies some kind of binding. Air does not have any kind of structure, while a salt crystal does.
Simhony mentions that, under special conditions of high energy, such as if an object moves at almost the speed of light, it might be possible to break the structure of a small portion of the lattice. This is analogous to an airplane "breaking the sound barrier" if it moves at the speed of sound in air. But under normal conditions the EPOLA's structure is un-broken, so that the elements which compose it are normally not free to swirl in any way, or to follow along behind moving planets and stars, as some 19th-century scientists speculated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HISTORY OF AETHER --- Part 6
Simhony's Electron-Positron Lattice Model of Space
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
During the 1970s Dr. Menahem Simhony was doing "solid state" research with large salt-crystals, measuring the speed of sound thru them. There are several different kinds of simple salts, in which two kinds of atoms, (such as sodium + chlorine), form a "face-centered cubic" crystal structure. The speed of sound thru each of these different kinds of salt is slightly different from the speed of sound thru each of the others. A simple equation describes the speed of sound in the case of face-centered cubic lattices: v = the square root of (E/m), where "v" is the speed, "E" is the binding energy of a pair of the atoms which form the crystal, and "m" is the mass of the pair.
At some point during this research Simhony realized that this simple equation is equivalent to Einstein's famous E = m x c.squared, as one can verify with a bit of simple algebra. Note that "c" (the speed of light) is analogous to the "v" in the equation for speed of sound. So he asked himself,
" What if our universe is filled with a lattice, with a structure similar to the structure of salt-crystals, whose elements carry light, by vibrating, just like the nuclei of the atoms in a salt-crystal carry sound thru the crystal by vibrating ?? "
The essence of Simhony's model is to postulate the existence of this kind of ether-like substance, which is supposed to permeate our universe and inter-penetrate all the ordinary matter, like water molecules inter-penetrate a fish-net. Simhony visualizes this stuff as quite different from the aether of 19th-century scientists like Maxwell and Faraday. He says that it is NOT thin and wispy and ghost-like, but very dense and "stiffer than a diamond", because (1) the elements which compose it are very near to each other, and (2) each is tightly bound to its place in the lattice, which prevents it from swirling in any way; it can only vibrate harmonically around its place in the lattice.
How can we even move, if the stuff is everywhere, and stiffer than a diamond ?? Easy. It's because the elements which compose the lattice are just far enough apart from each other to allow the nucleus of an atom to go between them.
This means that each and every nucleus of each and every atom in our physical bodies is able to easily pass between the elements which compose the lattice. So that, even tho the lattice is stiffer than a diamond, we are not normally aware of its presence. However, when anything moves at almost the speed of light, then there are interesting and mysterious "relativistic" effects, which physicists have studied, very intensely, during the past 100 years. Obviously, if Simhony's model is essentially correct, then these relativistic effects are the result of the fact that it's more difficult for epola-elements to get out of the way of anything which is moving at near light-speed. So that, at high speed, a moving object experiences a kind of "drag" which it does not experience when moving more slowly.
Because the elements which compose the epola [electron-positron lattice] are very strongly bound to the lattice, (i.e., because the binding energy is very great), and because they are very light, (i.e., not massive), the little rascals can vibrate very rapidly, which enables them to carry any kind of electromagnetic radiation thru the lattice at the fabulously-fabled speed of light. Note that the simple speed-equation in the first paragraph of this part of the essay shows that the combination of a large binding energy and a small mass implies a great speed.
Please refer to the Introduction, above, for Einstein's opinion re the existence of an ether-like substance in our universe. Please also note that there is much more to Simhony's model, and that one can read details at his several internet-sites: www.EPOLA.org, www.EPOLA.co.uk.
CONCLUSION
Based on ideas presented in this essay, it seems very probable that there is in our universe some kind of ether-like substance which permeates all of the ordinary matter and helps enable one to understand how and why it behaves as it does.
Although for almost 100 years physics professors have taught their students that aether does not exist, some theorists are presently re-examining the converse (and controversial !!) idea that there might, in fact, be an aether-like substance which permeates our universe. If it exists, then this substance would be responsible for the fact that light and other kinds of radiation are able to travel through space. Dr. Menahem Simhony spent many years developing a coherent and reasonable theory which presumes the existence of an aether-like substance which he calls "epola", short for "electron-positron lattice".
The basic ideas in Simhony's model are so simple that one does not need any maths to understand it or to explain it. Essentially, Simhony's epola model (the electron-positron lattice model of space) says that the "fields" (e.g., electrical and gravitational fields) which scientists study are due to the presence of the epola (electron-positron lattice) throughout our universe.
If it exists, the epola is quite different from the aether in which many 19th-century scientists believed, as detailed above. Simhony says that it's not thin and wispy, but very dense, and very stiff, yet also elastic. Note that there is no conflict between the words "stiff" and "elastic" --- an object can be both. For example, billiard balls. The epola's elasticity enables it to conduct all the different kinds of electromagnetic radiation through space, while its stiffness explains why the radiations all travel at the same very great speed, the speed of light.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
essay: HISTORY of AETHER ----- AFTER-WORDs:
Some Comments re How Difficult It Is to Overcome the Effects of "Brainwashing"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because the vast majority of professors in physics departments world-wide have since the 1930s taught their students that ether does not exist, it's very difficult to persuade a Ph.D-holder that a theory like Simhony's might have some merit. It's especially difficult for a mere amateur physics enthusiast such as myself to persuade a Ph.D-holder that I might actually know what I'm talking about. Despite the fact that some respected Ph.D-holders, such as Nobel-prize winners Frank Wilczek and Robert B. Laughlin (see the Introduction, above), have suggested that some kind of ether-like substance might in fact actually exist.
As students, most Ph.D-holders learned the so-called "standard model", and most automatically assume that if a theory does not agree with the standard model, then it must be wrong. While the standard model is obviously the best thing we have to explain most of the mysteries in physics, it's not perfect, as some Ph.D-holders have noted. Following is from Chapter 13 in my book (a series of essays) [Ref.#12] re the work of Dr. Simhony and another almost unknown theorist, Dr. Ernest Sternglass.
“The standard model is like an aging movie star, whose best work is decades old, whose flaws once seemed slight, but are now becoming glaring”. That’s from Dr. Chris Impey, on page 298 of his book How It Began (2012).
In his book The Quantum Zoo (2006), Marcus Chown notes that: “Eighty-odd years after the birth of quantum theory, physicists are still waiting for the fog to lift so that they can see what it is trying to tell us about fundamental reality … Feynman himself said: 'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics'”.
Jim Baggott, who wrote the book Farewell to Reality (2013), says on p.131: “We … are … immensely proud of [standard-model theories] … but these theories are riddled with problems, paradoxes, conundrums, contradictions, and incompatibilities … in one sense, they don’t make sense at all”.
PLUS: on p.137 in this same book: “What kind of fundamental theory … can’t predict the masses of its constituent elementary particles ? Answer: one that is not very satisfying”.
In his book Facts and Mysteries In Elementary Particle Physics (2003), Martin Veltman did not even wish to acknowledge “supersymmetry”: "The fact is … this is a book about physics, and this implies that the theoretical ideas discussed must be supported by experimental facts … neither supersymmetry nor string theory satisfy this criterion … they’re figments of the theoretical mind."
Robert Laughlin, who won a Nobel prize in physics in 1998, wrote in his book: “A large portion of the accepted knowledge-base of modern science is untrue … obligating us to look at it more skeptically … and to value consensus less”[p.213, A Different Universe (2005)].
PLUS: on p.50, Laughlin says that “Scientists have ideological positions just like everyone else … sometimes the consequences are bizarre … the Schroedinger cat has … become a symbol of transcendence, a meaning exactly opposite to the one Schroedinger himself intended … often viewed by students as a step on the path to enlightenment … It is not … In science one becomes enlightened not by discovering ways to believe things that make no sense but by identifying things that one does not understand and doing experiments to clarify them.”
And on p.216: “Large experimental laboratories cannot get the continuous funding they need without defending their work … which they typically do by forming self-refereeing monopolies that define certain ideas and bodies of thought to be important, whether they actually are or not … in extreme cases, one gets a complex web of sophisticated measurements that serve no purpose other than to expand journals and fatten frequent-flyer accounts.”
And from RICHARD FEYNMAN, one of the heaviest of 20th century “heavy-hitters” in physics. In a letter to his wife, he wrote that: “I am not getting anything out of this meeting … There are hosts (126) of dopes here — such inane things are said and seriously discussed — and I get into arguments outside of the formal sessions … Whenever anyone asks me a question, or starts to tell me about his ‘work’ … it is always either — (1) completely un-understandable, or (2) vague and indefinite, or (3) something correct that is obvious and self-evident worked out by a long and difficult analysis and presented as an important discovery, or (4) a claim, based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct thing accepted and checked for years is, in fact, false (those are the worst — no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which, it is finally revealed, at the end, fails, or (6) just plain wrong … Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences”. That’s on page 245 in a book titled Quantum Man (2011) by Lawrence Krauss.
=======================================================================
REFERENCES
(0) Simhony, Menahem, internet-sites:www.EPOLA.org www.EPOLA.co.uk
(1) Wisczek, Frank, "The Persistence of Ether," Physics Today, Jan 1999, p.11.
(2) Laughlin, Robert B., A Different Universe (2005), pp. 120–121, ISBN 978-0-465-03828-2.[ from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories ].
(3) internet-site: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm
(4) internet-site:http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/Wave%20properties/Wave%20properties/text/Theories_of_light/index.htm
(5) internet-site:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens
(6) Forbes, Nancy, and Mahon Basil, book: Faraday, Maxwell, and the Electromagnetic Field (2014).
(7) internet-site:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
(8) internet-site:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Encyclopædia_Britannica,_Ninth_Edition/Ether
(9) internet-site:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
(10) internet-site: http://www.epola.co.uk/faq/FAQ.htm#faq8
(11) internet-site: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Encyclopædia_Britannica,_Ninth_Edition/Ether
(12) internet-site:https://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/a-new-proton-model-2/
########### << END OF ESSAY >> ###########
Submitted: July 25, 2017
© Copyright 2023 Mark Creek-water Dorazio. All rights reserved.
Facebook Comments
More Non-Fiction Essays
Discover New Books
Boosted Content from Other Authors
Book / Romance
Book / Non-Fiction
Short Story / Mystery and Crime
Book / Thrillers
Boosted Content from Premium Members
Book / Literary Fiction
Book / Gay and Lesbian
Short Story / Thrillers
Short Story / Science Fiction
Other Content by Mark Creek-water Dorazio
Essay / Non-Fiction
Essay / Non-Fiction
Essay / Non-Fiction
