Definition of "Field" and "Aether": the Functional Difference between these two is..?

Hi everyone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like the OP title asks: What is the functional difference between a field and an aether. You know, like in:

- "Electromagnetic Field" and "Luminiferous Aether";

- "Higgs Field" and "Higgs Aether";

- and the various other 'fields' and 'aether' pairings also requiring explanation as to functional differences when it comes to their respective definitions.



Is there a definitive physical difference between the two concept 'pairings' that would produce effective differences in observable physical properties/phenomena between the 'fields' and their respective 'aether' counterparts?


Any and all constructive input on this OP/question will be most welcome.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers all!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An "aether" is a ponderable mechanical medium and thus has a preferred, possibly local, frame of rest.
A "field" in quantum field theory is a geometric object (modeled by a complex number or other tensor) at every point in space-time such that it is Lorentz-covariant and doesn't have an expressible local frame of rest. It cannot be modeled by a ponderable medium because such a medium would always have a state of motion and thus a frame of rest associated with it.


//added in edit:
As they are mechanistic models, aethers cannot be a fundamental theory of matter since they immediately beg the question of what they are made out of -- just one of the many unanswered questions that plagued the "lumiferous aether" models of the nineteenth century. As today, the electron and other atomic constituents are modeled as excitations of a quantum field, it is readily appearant that one cannot turn to intuitive concepts of matter as known by existing phenomena to build a mechanical medium and have that medium be more fundamental than its own excitations.

Quantum fields however handle matter and electromagnetism equally well, however.

While a field has no state of motion associated with it, excitations of a field can indeed have a state of motion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no lum...whatever aether or Higg's aether. So there can't be a difference between something that does exist and something that doesn't exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Generally speaking, a field is some kind of non-uniformity of an "aether". For example if you look at Einstein's Leyden Address, he says this:

Mach’s idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

I think this makes it clear enough that Einstein considered a gravitational field to be a region where space is not homogeneous. If it was homoegeneous, things wouldn't fall down and there would be no gravitational field present. Noting the comment above, check out arXiv for papers with aether in the title. People tend to sneer at the word aether, but IMHO they shouldn't because it's just a another word for space. There are some issues with quantum fields in that they don't address say pair production, they beg the question of what they are made out of, and it would seem, their excitations are more fundamental than they are!

 

Einstein appears to be engaged in a bit of double-speak describing an "aether" without any properties of an "aether."

Specifically, he is saying it doesn't have a mechanical nature so Newtonian intuitions are useless analogies, and similarly doesn't have the property of being in a state of motion. Also, it doesn't even propagate light. So why reuse a word with such a mangling of the definition? One idea is that Einstein was trying to spare the feelings of a mentor who was strongly committed to the hypothesis of a luminiferous aether.

 

do you really want to go down this road again? To head off a long and messy thread where farsight shows repeatedly that he doesn't understand GR, here is version 1.

 

The VOLUME of space is an infinite field in which the motion of objects occurs. All motion is relative to the field, because the field has 3 dimensions of distance and a dimension of time. The volume of space (the field) is not capable of motion because it is not an object, it is only distance and time.

An "aether" would be nothing more than an object in that field, which would be capable of motion in that field.

 

Motor Daddy,
You misunderstand what sense of "Field" was being asked for by RealityCheck and your definition of "aether" is not distinguished from "thingy" or "object" so neither definition helps.

 

I think my definition is quite clear. The field in which all objects (and an aether) exist in, is comprised not of components, but of merely distance and time. It is simply volume. An aether would be comprised of components, and would simply be an object. The universe is an object, the volume it resides in is a field of distance and time.

 

It is a huge difference !
You can talk about fields but about ...

Spoiler

 

A field is a property of space-time at every point of space-time. Aether was a hypothetical substance in Medieval physics and philosophy that was supposed to fill space. It didn't pan out but it did evolve alongside normal science every step of the way. It's current form is a psychological phenomena amongst "fans" who simply like the notion of aether or even it's name. Some aether fans are trying hard to put it outside the scope of science so it cannot be scrutinized.

 

Thank you for your input, brucep.

However, I suggest you read the thread title and the OP post before going off on your own argumentative tangent.

No-one is arguing existence or non-existence of whatever.

The subject asked about is the field and aether DEFINITIONS; and any functional differences which the definitions respectively may imply/manifest given the definitions presented. OK?

Others have tried to CONSTRUCTIVELY address the questions posed. Can you? If not then please stay out of this thread, as we don't need yet another cross-purpose argumentative mess in the forum.

Thanks for your co-operation either way, brucep.

 

prometheus, mate. I like you, BUT....

You seem to be getting more carelessly arrogant/drunk with 'mod' power the more you go on in that role. I would appreciate it if you KEPT OUT of my thread because you are trying to INTRODUCE OLD ANTAGONISMS and SCORES between you and certain other posters.


I DON'T WANT ANY OF THAT IN MY THREAD/DISCUSSION, thank you very much.

Farsight was replying TO ME, NOT to YOU. OK? When I want your 'opinion', I'll ask for it.

Until then, either post YOUR reply to the thread title/OP question etc AS PUT......OR ELSE just butt out; as the forum does NOT need yet another 'personal baggage' argumentative mess....ESPECIALLY not one INTRODUCED BY YOU.....A SUPPOSED 'MOD' who should KNOW BETTER than to start something like that after you have CLOSED threads for less.

Clear enough, prometheus?

Thanks.

.

 

Everyone.

I will wait for a couple more days to allow as much further CONSTRUCTIVE input as possible addressing the thread/OP title/questions/requirements AS PUT. I will then have a fuller idea of the scope of 'takes' on the definitions/implications etc such that I will be more able to discuss the various implications properly and in fuller context.

Anyone who has yet to make any constructive input as requested is most welcome to do so on that basis at any time.

Thanks.

 

This seems to be another thread where RealityCheck asks for opinions while evading offering any of his own to the discussion, nor engaging anyone but those who offend his sensibilities. He is also preaching to the moderator and playing at moderator in this thread himself.

 

Your post has been reported. Have a nice day.

 

Why do you ask?

If you were really interested, you should have replied to rpenner further and ignored the background noise.

 

The aether doesn't imply anything because it doesn't exist as real natural phenomena. Spacetime geometry does exist as real natural phenomena as proofed by the Gravity Probe B confirmation of the geodetic effect. So there you are. One is real and one is fake. That's the difference. BTW it's really difficult to understand what you're saying. Surely it MusT/bE/KiNdA/My/fault/problem/difficulty/?.

 

You posted this in a public forum, which means you won't necessarily have control over the direction that this thread takes. Your "When I want your 'opinion', I'll ask for it." is just comical because, by posting your thread here you have implicitly asked for the opinion of every member of the forum including me.

Let me be completely clear - if you continue to behave like a spoilt child then I will close this thread and consider whether your behaviour is worth additional action. That's hardly suppressing discussion because if someone else wants to start a thread on this topic they are more than welcome to do so (I feel it's actually quite important to clarify what the difference is between an aether and a quantum field - it's not a matter of opinion mind you. Aether and field are words with specific meanings in physics).

 

Fields are a property of matter. They exist together and you cannot separate them.
You cannot separate the gravitational field from the matter.
You cannot separate the magnetic field from the magnet.

Medium in which light propagates, are independent. They are different materials (substances), which satisfy the basic properties of matter. For example, two material objects can not occupy the same space at the same time, which is not true for fields.