Re: The most ridiculous science mistake in history.

Aether Regained:> Volney:

On 3/27/2024 8:36 AM, Aether Regained wrote:

>
@Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and
Aether?", which is cited below too:
>
The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein
that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in

motion.

>
Any "motion" of the purported aether doesn't show up anywhere. Even LET
while calling for an aether can use any speed you want for the aether
and it still works. Does that mean aether has all speeds simultaneously?
>
Also motion of the aether violates the Principle of Relativity. The rest
frame of the aether is a special frame while the PoR states there are no
special frames.
>
(In LET since the aether can have any speed, there is no special aether
rest frame)

>
Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?"
https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
########################################
>
In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
was abandoned.

>
It was not "soon found". Einstein stated his SR works wouldn't involve
any aether at the beginning of the 1905 paper. He didn't claim the
aether was false, just that he wasn't using it.

>
Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.

>
Quantum theories have no need for an aether, and are incompatible with
an aether.

>
Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz sense—all
directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
velocity of light.

>
Relative to what? All motion is relative.
>

This velocity provides a preferred direction within
the light-cone in space-time,

>
Making it incompatible with the PoR.
>

which direction should show itself up in
suitable experiments.

>
This has been looked for, without success. The best example is the MMX
itself.
>

Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

>
Which rules out an aether, or at least an aether with the property of
motion. As Einstein said.

>
This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
mechanics to the aether.

>
QM has no need for an aether and is incompatible with one.
>
[snip bla bla bla]

>
[snip bla bla bla]!!!
>
I wonder whether you realize that you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.
Go check out who that is on wikipedia.
>
Everything within the line of hashes ### is a full reproduction of
Dirac's 1951 Note/Letter to the Nature Journal, titled:
>
"Is there an Aether?"
>
https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
>
and here is Schrödinger's commentary on Dirac's aether electrodynamics.
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/169538a0.pdf
>
I hope you don't need an introduction to who Schrödinger is.
>

Rereading this, I realize that I was unnecessarily rude. But, in my
defense, I was more than a little put off by your response to P. A. M.
Dirac's "Is there an Aether?", like he was some run-of-the-mill crank.

Dirac was a man of few words, and when he did talk, people listened
carefully.