Aether as merely an interpretation of Modern physics
Hello, I introduced myself in the Relativity forum but wanted to specifically put a fine point on something.
Aether theory does not need to be thought of as an alternative thing altogether and so I see no reason to have a [mynamehere] theory. It’s already been developed adequately in a variety of ways (by our betters) circa 1910. It is only the adequate maintenance of the analogy throughout the 20th century that is important. (via fluid dynamics, Madelung, etc)
I saw a strange comment from the group originator, David, about aether being all about collisions. Is there some supposed consensus in modern aether physics about particles?
Aether theory posits a mechanical medium for wave transmission. A proper advancement of aether theory, in the vein of Kelvin who is most responsible for its advancement, (with some credit to Fitzgerald and his students) …would be to conceive of particles as epiphenomena.
I’ve explained this thousands of times over the past two decades with the analogy that a tornado isn’t a real independent thing even though we easily think of it as such. It is simply a phase transition along a border that grants some aspects of what we think of as independently real objects. (we see a border because relative humidity is altered by pressure changes from rotation)
The same is true of particles in any aether theory that actually descends from the general consensus of 19th century and can can continue to be analogous with 20th century physics.
Was David thinking of corpuscular and ballistic theories? I don’t know, but it makes no sense to me. Kelvin’s most difficult task that he finished in 1889 was to solve the problem of ring vortex elasticity and collisions along borders, but that’s a layer above the aether itself.
If there is some consensus in modern times around aether theory that deviates from Kelvin’s developments then it just won’t fit with modern experimentation and theory as an alternative interpretation. That idea of “modern aether” would be defunct at the outset.
The one thing I do personally add to aether physics is specifically to re-state Fresnel’s use of wave speed equation in refraction to use reduced rigidity instead of increased density and the end result remains unchanged. Thus the entire mathematical structure is perfectly the same but we conceive of reality in an inverted fashion such that only aether is truly “real” and matter is the ephemeral.
I’ve been conveying this for almost two decades now so some people are repeating it, but not enough people yet.
Regardless, this is mathematically equivalent at every critical point, thus it is an interpretation, not a “theory.” and it’s called the Neoclassical Interpretation.
Log in to reply.