how does aether contradict the theory of relativity assuming aether exists? thnx in advance

Quite simple really.

If Aether exists then there is a preferred frame of refence. So Loretnz and Fitzgerald where wrong. Which in turn means Maxwell was wrong, as the equations do not transform under Galileo.

This all means the theory of how light works is wrong. So lasers, CD's and modern computer comms do not work. Ergo, this message never got to you.

But then you asked the question to give me the answer, didn't you.

ok, that helps, cheers but what do you mean by a 'preferred' frame of reference?

Originally posted by god-of-course
ok, that helps, cheers but what do you mean by a 'preferred' frame of reference?

As in a special observor, one who can observe the laws of physics as they really are. One in which the laws of physics are just so. Such that another observor one metre or a quintiillion meters away will measure things differently.

oh right, ive done a little research on the things you mentioned and im getting it, so whats an inertial reference frame?

wai scrap that question i understand all the lorentz stuff, the maxwell stuff and the galilean and the aether things but why must aether's existence mean a prefered frame of reference? am i missing something about the methods used by lerentz to observe it?

because the conventional aether theories assume that aether is a static medium. If everything moves with respect to aether, then it is easiest to describe everything from the point of view of the aether (unless you like doing extra work by adding and subtracting relative velocities).

Of course, not all Aether theories are Static Aether theories.

However, the majority of the dynamic Aether theories seem to make the concept and the math even more complicated than Relativity, so they are not deemed to be useful, since functionally they are inferior to Relativity.

OK, so Galilean eqautions describe the transformation of coordinates in a 2 dimensional system in constant relative motion, these rules are newtonian in nature however, and break down at speeds aproaching that of light so the relativistic eqautions formulated by lorentz were designed to transform the 4 dimensions of space and time in any inertial referance frame (a frame of reference in which the observers move without the influence of any accelerating or decelerating force). The lorentx set gave birth to relativity, though it derives itself in attempting to solve a problem with maxwell's eqautions, which in particular describe the electro-magnetic properties and behavours of light, but it was thought that his eqautions only did this in the rest frame of the earlier hypothesized aether. So that when einstein's relativity was formed it abandoned the existence of aether and assumed the invariance of Maxwell's equations in all frames of reference.

Have i got this right?

Originally posted by god-of-course
oh right, ive done a little research on the things you mentioned and im getting it, so whats an inertial reference frame?

Very simply, one that is at rest or at a constant velocity. If the velocity is not constant, it is accelerating. SR does not hold in accelerating frames, that is what General Relativity is all about.

I think a few words on Aether may be necessary, it perhaps may explain what you are missing.

Newton realised that light had wavelike properties. Before Michelson-Morley, it was widely held that all waves needed some medium to travel in. This was the Lumineferous Aether. If you think about this the the Aether requires some wierd properties. It must exist everywhere (it is all around you). It must be absolutely rigid, otherwise light will alter as the medium get's 'rubbery'. Imagine a wave on a material made of differing substances, the wave alters based on elasticity. But if it is all around us it must also have zero density, else you would feel it. So the Ether is infinitely rigid but yet has zero density. Wierd. If the Aether moves then so does the light upon it, you would be able to detect that, the Aether therefore is stationary.

Along came Michelson and morley. They built an Fabry-Perot interferometer to measure our motion with respect to the Aether. This splits the beam into two right angle components then recombines the beam. Any difference in the paths taken shows up as an interference pattern. The argument goes that at any time (Today say) one beam is at right angles to the 'Aether' the other in line. The one in line will have it's path altered by lightspeed+our speed around the Sun. 6 months later it is lightspeed-our speed around the sun. What you see is a periodically altering interference pattern repeating every 12 months. In short, after 3 years or so and later repeating the experiment with more accurate equipment, no variance in the interference pattern was seen. Ergo, no Aether.

Then along came Maxwell, he combined theories of electricity and magnetism to show they where special cases of Electromagnetism. Light is simple an electromagnetic wave. For one, the equations show the EM wave has a maximum speed in a vacuum. It does not need a medium to travel in. For two, the classical Galilean transform fails when applied to EM waves. This was a major problem in fact.

What Lorentz and Fitzgerald done was found a mathematical fudge that made the Galilean transfrorm work with Maxwell's equations. The importance of this was not initially realised. It was Einstein, later, who postulated that light speed was invariant netween inertial frames. From this postulate the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform follows. It also has no need for an Ether.

Classically in science you adopt the theory that works with the minimum number of axioms, Occams Razor applies. Einsteins theory explained Michelson-Morley, fixed Maxwell's equations and made a number of other predictions all later verified. To retain an Ether requires a complete re-write of basic physics and accepting there is wierd substance out there. On this basis Einstein is taken as the better and more accurate description of how things work.

An awfull lot of people do not like Eisnteins Relativity, they simply can not accept the underlying premise that lightspeed is a constant and all things are relative. Unfortunately the evidence contradicts them.

Let me just say that aether does not have to be a "medium of travel" and a "medium of propulsion" at the same time.

For example, aether can be a "medium of travel" so that matter is only allowed to travel where aether is present.

However, gravity can be the "medium of propulsion" for electromagnetic radiation. This would mean that even though electromagnetic radiation is travelling through aether, the speed of the electromagnetic radiation is independent of the aether. The speed of electromagnetic radiation could be dependent on gravitational fields, which could be the "mediums of propulsion" for light.

If this is the case, then the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't prove that aether doesn't exist, it only proved that aether is not the "medium of propulsion" for electromagnetic radiation.

I missed you, really I did. My life was empty without your wild attempts at disproving Einstein. I see that despite numerous people telling you Aether is non starter you still persist in clinging onto 100 year old misconceptions. Some people wouldn't get a clue if you dipped them in clue musk then dropped them into a clue field full of large hairy clues on clue prom night during clue happy hour.[1]

FWIW, you may as well substitute 'electromagnetic radiation' in the above statement with 'small hairy trolls at the plack scale' and 'gravity' by 'blue fairies carrying electrons', it makes as much sense. [2]

[1] With apologies to the Monks of The Scary Devil Monastery.
[2] You will never convince me and I you, leave it at that.

thed,

Welcome back.

Since you've been gone, I've devised a new theory that explains the Michelson-Morley inferometer results without the need for length contraction or time dilation.

My theory simply states:

The speed of light is always equal to c relative to the local gravitational field in which the light is travelling through at any given moment.

My theory states that even though light may be travelling through aether (or not), it's the local gravitational fields that influence its speed. In other words, a gravitational field will push, or pull, photons until their speed is equal to c relative to the field (and relative to the mass that is generating the field).

Since the Michelson-Morley experiment was done on a stationairy location on the surface of the Earth, the actual experiment was stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field. Because of this, the speed of light was measured to be c. If, on the other hand, an observer was moving through a gravitational field, the observer would then measure a change in the speed of light.

As you can see, if you link the speed of light with local gravitational fields, there is no need to introduce length contraction or time dilation. After all, wouldn't it be foolish to claim that the speed of light for all inertial observers, everywhere in the universe, is equal to c when the only place where the speed of light was ever measured was on the surface of the Earth (stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field)? I guess that's why it's still called an "assumption". :)

Tom,

If you have a mathematical formulation of your theory, please post it.

James,

If you have a mathematical formulation of your theory, please post it.

Gee, I thought that my theory was so simple, I wouldn't need a mathematical formulation. :)

What would be the mathematical formulation for Newton's third law of motion? (rhetorical question)

Tom

One Raven,

Of course, not all Aether theories are Static Aether theories.

However, the majority of the dynamic Aether theories seem to make the concept and the math even more complicated than Relativity, so they are not deemed to be useful, since functionally they are inferior to Relativity.

ANS: I would have to generally agree with your statement, with one caveat.

Since I view things as a "dynamic" ether, your view holds it as being inferior to Relativity.

My caveat is this:

Being more complex does not equate to being inferior if it is the correct view.

The simple fact is a dynamic ether may be the answer but knowing that might not require changing the mathematics of Relativity for most applications. In such a case the concept becomes superior in that it provides a physical understanding and underpinning to Relativity. It doesn't necessairly void Relativity but adds understanding to a purely mathematical view of reality.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Hi MacM,

So, you've come to a point where you admit that relativity could be correct. Great progress. Next step is to use Occam's razor to dismiss the more complex aether (10 postulates or so) and accept one simple postulate.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

Next step is to use Occam's razor to dismiss the more complex aether (10 postulates or so) and accept one simple postulate.

That magic fairies are responsible for keeping the speed of light constant for all observers?? :)

While we're at it, why not reduce human behavior to one postulate. Instead of explaining it using complex genetics and life experience, let's just say that a divine entity is responsible (God or the Devil).

When you think about it, religion is the most efficient science of all. It reduces everything to one postulate: "God did it". However, just because something can be explained away with one postulate, doesn't make it true.

Better make that postulate "most people are evil" then.

But we're not going to have another "postulate" vs. the philosophical "truth" discussion once again, now are we...

Crisp,

But we're not going to have another "postulate" vs. the philosophical "truth" discussion once again, now are we.

I was thinking more in the line of "postulate vs physical reality". Oops, I forgot, there is no "physical reality" in relativity. :)

Crisp,

Other than my ill advised introductory statement on this MSB (Relativity Sucks), my position hasn't really changed. I do think I have learned a bit on how to present it more coherently.

I have always maintained that the mathematics (generally) produce suitable and apparently correct results but it is the interpretation of those results and the extrapolatd consequence that I disagree with.

Infinite Relavistic Mass being one of those. The mathematical relationlship between energy required to accelerate an object is the same in either view but my view yields a cause and the underlying reasons for the relationship are different.

The consequence of those differences are important in that they limit the application of the mathematical concept called relativity.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.