Can you explain "aether theory" to me? Is it just psuedoscience or is there any validity to it?
they got renamed to field theory
>>17073373i was just randomly googling it, it's hilarious how many books were titled "classical field theory" or something similar
>>17073373/thread
>>17073370It's pseudoscience yes. You can ask chatGPT to summarize the simple wiki article off it if you want to find out more.
>>17073370So there really isn't a unified "aether theory." The concept of aether would be evoked for two reasons:>explain the propogation of light in a vacuum>explain gravityThe luminiferous aether (light propagating substance) was a ubiquitous, intangible, crystalline solid which which served as a medium for electromagnetic radiation. The gravitational aether was a fluid substance that was always pulling into every massive particle with a force proportional to its mass. Both were, at the time, perfectly valid frameworks to pattern-match observed phenomena in a way that's mathematically consistent. General Relativity, however, rendered both concepts redundant as GR ends up being a simpler model. >>17073373The difference between aether and a "field" is that a field has no substance. It's just a mathematical tool to describe the propogation of forces. The reality is that some forces just don't need a medium to "propogate in" at all.
>>17073393>>17073389>fields just exist from nothing bronot scientific
idk I didn't learn about it in school so it probably doesn't exist
>>17073395They "exist" in the sense that we define them as such. The "field" is just the mathematization of propagation of force. It's not a medium the force propagates in.
>>17073419you didnt say anything different than before and its still not scientific.
>>17073435It should not be impossible to try and prove that the shift detected by the Michaelson and Morley experiment was not just a null result despite being way less than predicted. (0.02 fringes instead of the 0.4 predicted by the original aether theory)Do you have any design in mind?
It's validIt's a trackA physical grid track matrix latticeThe smallest, base, fundamental, foundational Planck point particles move on a grid track latticeA Pi quantity of themThis separates the infinity, provides a base starting foundation, maintains necessary alignment and uniformity and allows the three starting cardinal dimensions of travel, forward/backward, up/down, left/rightAs these tiny little pieces assemble into larger parts, the larger parts then move upon the smaller parts as a new track layer, and so on and so forth, the smaller layer affecting the larger, and the larger affecting the smallerThis would be the wave function collapse And thusly as the larger pieces are assembled, there exists more directions of travel upon the track other than the cardinal starting 3, more gimbal vectors to traverse more finely tuned angles of travel, growing larger ad larger up to atoms and even larger, life, planets and stars, galaxies and local groups Aether sounds flexible like a gas or a fog that comes apart, whereas I believe the track is rigid and unmoving When you close your eyes, we are essentially seeing the track that our eye and brain parts are attached to when no photons bounce around The color black is essentially the track at point blank range
>>17073439yeah use the gravity wave detectors that were designed recently
>>17073395One man's field is another man's statistical average of particle interactions.
>>17073373Bingo
>>17073435It's a framework to describe the scientifically verified data. Are you retarded or something.
Here's your Aether field bro
>>17073464statistics is unscientific
Planck scale would just be using the gravity of the universe in an inverse relation with the outsides constant. That's the field
There is a community of idiots online who push a ridiculous theory that denies relativity (both special and general, as well as the weak and strong nuclear forces) and claim that the 1800s aether is real and that michelson-morley was flawed and etc. etc. They refer to themselves as “Electric Universe” or “Thunderbolts” or something related to Velikovsky. They also have an undercurrent of antisemitism (presumably because Einstein is their boogeyman) Most of them are either in their 80s or dead by now, so they don’t crop up very often, but if they do you should ignore them or ridicule them. They have some followers in the woo-woo community and /x/ type people, as well as some hippie artfags/arthoes — you can look up Mear One as an example. His art is pretty good but his brain is fried from his hippie mom feeding him LSD his whole childhood (picrel)
>>17073527Einstein and Tesla were both promoters of the Aether so thus they were crackheads. Aether could never be defined, relativity is also gay and outdated
>>17073393there is no substance, its all the field or aether, its not a substance. Substance is an illusion just like matter
>>17073598Uh no, Einstein was the leader of debunking aether theory….
>>17073370Basically Newton’s theory of physics requires an ‘absolute space’ which is to say it requires a three dimensional space which serves as the reference to everything in it. The Aether is the name of the hypothetical but undetectable substance that fills space and serves to provide the backdrop from which physics is measured. Basically planets and stuff is moving at speed but without either you can’t actually say what’s moving and what’s still and where it’s going. Newton knew this was a problem but sort of brushed over it with a mild and dismissive and not great argument. Einstein’s theory eliminates this and uses only relative reference points. So nothing can be described outside of an observers point of view.
>>17073653Aether theory wasn’t debunked the problem is that Einstein’s theory doesn’t need it to explain and predict stuff and so is more elegant with less assumption and is therefore the favored system. But in practice idk if this is actually true. People use Newton way more for calculations unless it’s astronomy.
>>17073834your history is wrong. Newton addressed something similar but different; he had trouble with the idea of gravity acting at a distance without any mechanical intermediary but his picture was more like a series of gears across space, and it is true, he basically dismissed it. The concept of the aether really kicked off around the time of Maxwell and Faraday settling the theory of electricity and magnetism and the discovery that light was an electromagnetic wave. Hence why people from the 1860s-1920s referred to aether as the “luminiferous aether” (light-bearing aether)>>17073835again a misinterpretation of history. The implication of the luminiferous aether that everyone appreciated at the time was that if the aether provides a fixed reference frame in which light travels, then one would be able to observe the effect of the earth traveling through space and hence the aether which would mean light waves would appear to have different velocities depending on the direction they are going relative to how the earth is traveling through the aether. Einstein’s theory of special relativity made the opposite prediction: measurements of light’s speed are invariant under however you are moving and no aether medium affects this invariance (i.e. aether doesn’t exist, basically) and Special Relativity was exhaustively proven over and over to be the correct theory
>>17073976I disagree but I admit my Maxwell knowledge is near zero. As for Newton I am very confident in my statement of his opinion and if I am bored I will even provide the first hand account and his argument in a letter he wrote himself. However I don’t /sci/ much so I may forget when I have the material in front of me. The other thing I believe I see, but I realize this is a causal conversation, is that you presume Einstein is ‘right’ about c. Newtons theory can still explain all of these phenomena however it requires some more complexity to do so and so Einstein is favored because of occams Razer / elegance. Which is not a principle Newton would have disagreed with. As for Speical relativity being ‘proven’, I don’t think it’s so cut and dry. Favored is the correct word, and it’s obviously incapable of scaling down and has many problems like Newton and Descartes vortices. It’s the current tool of choice of big astronomical phenomena and it’s not useful at all for atomic and molecular ideas. I think the main take away for OP, is that aether is a theoretical placeholder that found itself unneeded after Einstein’s equations.
>>17074067Disproven is the word you are looking for. It's predictions could not fit observations
>>17073370non-ironically one of the best is inside a minecraft video
Pass the Aether bro
The aether is how the flat earther bullshitters describe space. It is complete nonsense
>>17073653this post is very jewish
>>17074067> As for Speical relativity being ‘proven’, I don’t think it’s so cut and dry. Favored is the correct word, and it’s obviously incapable of scaling downOK, I admit that in science we don’t have “proof”, instead we accumulate evidence and once that evidence is overwhelming then the theory is overwhelmingly “favored” over alternative theories. Special Relativity is one such case. And it absolutely scale down. In fact one of the most robust sources of evidence for Special Relativity happens to be particle physics, where SR laws like E=mc^2 are tested literally billions of times per day at particle colliders like the LHC and SLAC and others. The scale of particle physics in these experiments is ridiculously small, well below the femtometer-attometer scale. The fact that particle accelerators even work at all proves that SR is correct (otherwise the accelerators might push those particles a little faster than the speed of light, or otherwise the timing of how the particle beams are being accelerated would get off and the beams would go out of alignment and go off target and dissipate due to hitting crap on the sides of the beam line.) The rules of SR are absolutely crucial to modeling the particle interactions in high-energy collider bunch-crossings, and without the rules of SR one can’t even imagine making predictions of things like Z-boson kinematics and making precise measurements of Z-boson properties like the Z mass or the kinematics of Z-boson decays. There would be basically no quantum field theory at all without SR. And yet quantum field theory gives precise predictions of things like Z-boson kinematics, and unprecedentedly accurate predictions like the corrections to the fine-structure constant (which is famously accurate to 11 digits, or maybe even more now)
Instead of outlining precisely what aether theory was I think it is better to highlight what they were trying to do with it. The michelson morely experiment set out to measure the speed of light at different directions and different points of orbit around the sun so the differences in velocity could be compared to measure the drift of the earth against the universe. The wavelike properties of light were known but scientists were really only familiar with waves carried against a medium, like a vibrating string, or a rolling ocean. Due to simple wave mechanics there should inevitably be some stateionary reference frame which other velocities could be measured against. Or at least that was the thinking at the time. Michelson set up an impressive interferometer to measure light more precisely than should be possible 1887. I still think it qualifies as one of the first proto-lasers but there are important differences. Anyways, the test instead of finding a difference they discovered that the earth was moving at most 1/6th the speed as would be expected or more likely 0 times the speed. In other words the difference in the speed of light from one place to the next was zero. This really killed aether as a functional theory but it took some time for science to pick up the pieces and replication would not be arranged for some time either. michelson himself was not sure what to make of it. "Aether drag" was an idea for awhile but relativity answered the new concerns better and relied on fewer assumptions.In the modern day, there are a few things you could call "aether" but only really in the sense that waves still exist even without physical medium made of matter. The term started popping up again in pop science like 15 years ago when people were trying to explain what the higgs boson does and it hasn't really gone away since. You could call it that but the old theory, the one that simple wave mechanics could explain light is dead.
>>17074327I like your post. Thanks. But one thing to be careful about is how you mention the Higgs field. The higgs field could be thought of as a field that permeates all space but 1) it obeys the rules of Lorentz (or Poincaré) invariance just like all the other fields in QFT (the “electron field”, the “photon field” etc) which is a standard thing in QFT for understanding how even though these fields permeate space they are still relativistically invariant and 2) the Higgs field is actually simpler than those since it is a scalar field and not a vector (or spinor) field which means that the Higgs vacuum expectation value doesn’t even care about relative motions or speeds. it is just a scalar constant everywhere and that scalar constant doesn’t have any tricky symmetry group under Lorentz (or Poincaré) boosts. In fact it is a lot simpler to understand than trying to understand the photon field or electron field in terms of invariance under changes in reference frames (boosts)
>>17074292>our curve-fitting is getting more accurateI don't give a fuckcome up with a theory without magic numbers or fuck off
>>17074354Do you have an actual argument or are you just going full Chimp mode and continuing your f-bomb emotional episode?
>>17074369yes I do except you're using a LLM, not even bothering to read my answers
here, I've used an LLM tooATLAS and CMS do not observe the Higgs boson directly: it decays too quickly to leave a track. They observe the particles produced in its decays after high-energy proton–proton collisions at the LHC, then reconstruct the parent particle from those “decay products.” Key signatures included two photons (\(H\to\gamma\gamma\)) and four charged leptons from \(H\to ZZ^*\to4\ell\). Researchers looked for a narrow excess of events over the expected background, near the same mass in independent decay channels and in both detectors. The combined evidence made the new particle’s existence compelling; later measurements tested whether its properties match the Standard Model Higgs boson. **How energies are measured:** Calorimeters absorb particles and measure the energy they deposit. The electromagnetic calorimeter measures electrons and photons; the hadronic calorimeter measures hadrons such as particles inside jets. Charged particles’ paths curve in the detector’s magnetic field, allowing their momentum to be measured from the curvature; muons are measured with tracking detectors outside the calorimeters. The detectors calibrate these signals and combine them to reconstruct particles’ energies and momenta.For a Higgs candidate decaying to two photons or four leptons, the measured energies and momenta are used to calculate the **invariant mass** of the decay products. A peak around 125GeV in that reconstructed mass indicates a parent particle with that mass. Here, GeV is a unit of energy; particle physicists commonly express mass in GeV/\(c^2\), or use natural units where \(c=1\) and quote it in GeV. The LHC’s collision energy—measured in TeV—is a separate quantity from the Higgs candidate’s reconstructed mass.**How spin was determined:** Spin is inferred statistically from the *patterns* of the decay products, not by directly measuring a particle spinning.
>>17074397I mean, I know a p-hacked paper when I see one; discarding vast amounts of data and performing the analysis on the remainder ONLY is a hallmark of such manipulations
can antimatter even be explained without special relativity?
