100 years after it may have been prematurely rejected as of 16 June, 2004 serious scientist are reconsidering the issue of aether and a preferred reference frame. As I have said in other threads the MM experiment, Miller and others were not actually "Null" results and the data may have been miss judged. It in fact shows a consistant cyclic trend.

This paper clarifies historical data and how it may have been misconstrued and suggests an actual test to determine once and for all if Relativity is a spoof.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0406/0406065.pdf

interesting...........

Interesting, yes. I'll put my money on no ether drift.

Interesting, yes. I'll put my money on no ether drift.

:D No surprise there. How much are we willing to lose?

For what it is worth (?) :D My view has always been that space is a medium created by some form of energy. We don't detect it simply because it is omni-directional and dynamic.

Just as pushing a ball with equal force from opposite directions the ball experiences absence of any net force. The flow of a dynamic spatial medium could also appear "Null".

My concern is that efforts to detect a substrate reference frame do not anticipate a dynamic medium but is looking for a static fabric. The fact is our motion in such a dynamic fabric could well be the very cause of the invariance of light and be the cause of relavistic findings.

While I would agree that such "Null" result because of that would also mean its existance could be considered irrelavant as is done in Relativity, it really shouldn't be discarded as non-existant but understood and made the basis for our observations.

Put in a slightly different context, what we do see in the form of historical aether testing as trends, could simply be the entrophy of motion in such a medium.

Would you accept that James R.?

What's entrophy? You don't mean "entropy", do you? Because if you do, your statement makes no sense.

What's entrophy? You don't mean "entropy", do you? Because if you do, your statement makes no sense.

Yes, "entropy". That is a typo. The thought was that perhaps what we observe is only that portion of a dynamic energy aether which is the energy lost from available energy of space.

Something like leakage from the vacuum foam. This is not being asserted but tossed on the table in a very general way for thoughts.

Put in a slightly different context, what we do see in the form of historical aether testing as trends, could simply be the entrophy of motion in such a medium.

Mac, before you make this kind of statements, first think about what entropy is, and be humble enough to acknowledge that some long ago course in (equilibrium) thermodynamics (if you ever took one) will simply not do to explain the (nonequilibrium) effects you talk about. But since you misspelled "entrophy" over 5 or 6 posts ... (it's better not to conclude here).

This is a polite way of saying that it makes no sense what you just said.

BTW it is interesting to note that in common language ( here in Oz any way) when a person uses the word entropy it normally means decline, or degradation, or decomposition, like leaves turning to mulch and then on to compost type entropy.
After checking the dictionary it is obviously not the case.....this use of the word entropy took me by surprise when first I posted on this forum.

Are there better words to use to describe, depletion, degradation, etc in physics?

Mac, before you make this kind of statements, first think about what entropy is, and be humble enough to acknowledge that some long ago course in (equilibrium) thermodynamics (if you ever took one) will simply not do to explain the (nonequilibrium) effects you talk about. But since you misspelled "entrophy" over 5 or 6 posts ... (it's better not to conclude here).

This is a polite way of saying that it makes no sense what you just said.


I can except that. It was a bizzar thought, trying to put into a niche.

Although I don't know the history of the Ether Theory in detail, it's my understanding that its existence was postulated, because light had been observed to be a wave phenomenon, and it was considered impossible to have waves without a medium. I have read that a long series of experments designed to detect the ether all failed, and so eventually the physical properties that the ether would have to have to be undetectable by any known means, made it begin to seem like a fairy tale, and that the MM experiment was just the last nail in the coffin.

Special Relativity works fine pretty much everywhere we apply it. I will not be very excited about trying to disprove it until it begins to be unsatisfactory in some respect.

Although I don't know the history of the Ether Theory in detail, it's my understanding that its existence was postulated, because light had been observed to be a wave phenomenon, and it was considered impossible to have waves without a medium. I have read that a long series of experments designed to detect the ether all failed, and so eventually the physical properties that the ether would have to have to be undetectable by any known means, made it begin to seem like a fairy tale, and that the MM experiment was just the last nail in the coffin.

Special Relativity works fine pretty much everywhere we apply it. I will not be very excited about trying to disprove it until it begins to be unsatisfactory in some respect.

Actually I think you have adapted an incorrect view of this. Just a historical note:

**************************************************
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einsteinan address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leiden

************* Extracts from Einstein's Speech *******************

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existance of an ether................

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.
************************************************** **

The current attitude about ether is actually inconsistant with Einstein's own views. Further the cited paper at the start of this thread indicates that in fact ALL experiments have produced simular non-null data and show a consistant cyclic response in concert with known planetary motion.

The problem is that the data is also consistantly only a fraction of what we think such data should be for static ether. The point comes down to unbiased observation suggests an ether but with "not understood qualities and functions". It does not suggest the "No ether" policy.

I believe that I have presented the conventional story of the history of the Ether Theory. Note that in that same speech you refer to, Einstein also said:

"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."

Could you please cite any one experiment that did not fail to detect the presence of the Ether?

I believe that I have presented the conventional story of the history of the Ether Theory. Note that in that same speech you refer to, Einstein also said:

"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."

Could you please cite any one experiment that did not fail to detect the presence of the Ether?

Actually your question is poisted on an invalid statement and I can't answer yes or no. The fact is (and that is the subject of the article underlying this thread.

All such testing has indicated an either.!!!! The problem is the indication is only a fraction of what is anticipated. The cyclic motion in data has shown up in ever attempt, just that the magnitude is far to small; which is more a statement about our measurment techniques than it is an absence of an ether.

And yes Einstein said "We have only proven that we don't need an ether." But he was rightfully convinced that there must be one.

Actually your question is poisted on an invalid statement and I can't answer yes or no....All such testing has indicated an either.!!!!
That paper would be a heck of a lot of reading to do to get an answer. Take pity on me. Can you give a reference to any experiment ever performed which looked for the ether and seemed to find it?

That paper would be a heck of a lot of reading to do to get an answer. Take pity on me. Can you give a reference to any experiment ever performed which looked for the ether and seemed to find it?


Well, I certainly don't intend to do your research for you but you can go find for yourself or take it from my statement. The following is typical results of every ether experiment done since M&M, including some as recent as this past decade.:

From Millers work:

************************************************** *******
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Miller's observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced "...a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics...for azimuth and magnitude... as though they were related to a common cause... The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and...is a cosmical phenomenon." (Miller 1933, p.231)

(Cut and Paste graph doesn't show) See Link provided.

A typical data sheet recording 20 turns of the interferometer, in this case, on 23 September 1925, 3:09 to 3:17 AM at Mount Wilson. Over 300 of these data sheets were recorded by Miller at Mt. Wilson alone, covering more than 6000 turns of the interferometer.
************************************************** ******

The cyclic data is very much consistant in ALL such experiments and simply cannot be ignored. The only thing missing is the right magnitude of signal. You can very much tell the time of day from these motion signals of earths rotation in its orbital path.

This paper suggest a reason the magnitude appears as it does and a test to determine if it is true or not. These are not "NULL" results. They are results that yield an incorrect velocity calculation but are linked cyclically to earth's motion.

If not then relativity stands. If it does then Relativity falls. It is that simple.

MacM, check out my quantum correlation time dialation thing.. i updated it with the article i was talking about. if that experiment checks out, then absolute rest can be deteremined using the QELC. don't know if that helps aether or not, but absolute rest would seem to make the aether idea more plausible.

MacM, check out my quantum correlation time dialation thing.. i updated it with the article i was talking about. if that experiment checks out, then absolute rest can be deteremined using the QELC. don't know if that helps aether or not, but absolute rest would seem to make the aether idea more plausible.


I have been following that thread. Thanks.