Einstein's 'Relativistic Aether' and his panic in the 1920s as he realises Relativity violates reality.
Einstein's pain, confusion, and contortions are all too obvious to see and hear during the 1920s. Contrary to 'modern' brainwashing, Relativity was very close to rejection.
In the 2 quotes above we have the great Einstotle contradicting himself, revealing his utter confusion and obfusactory intent regarding the aether. Real ‘science’ would need to prove that the aether does not exist. A philosophy just makes the claim, and uses maths to ‘confirm’ the belief. Einstein the Confusionist.
Theory of Confusion
Previous posts have discussed the very malleable and rhetorical description of the aether by Einstein and the Relativists. As proven by thousands of light-interference experiments the aether does exist and this was known by 1920. The General Theory of Relativity (GTR) therefore was ‘forced’ to propose a ‘gravitational aether’.
In GTR this aether is not ‘ponderable’ or reducible to matter or molecules. Einstein never proved such an aether, he just stated it. This irreducible aether must be amorphous or it contradicts his Special Theory of Relativity which expressly forbade an aether and which does not discuss gravity. None of this is ‘scientific’.
The entire point of the Relativity-twins is to explain away the thousands of light interferometer experiments which find no movement of this planet.
· In Relativity, either Special (STR) or General (GTR), cosmological bodies are in motion, then there is no absolute state of rest and no central point in the universe.
· Every object can act as its own inertial point (this violates Newtonian and classical physics),
· Each object will be subject to the same laws (law of equivalency), and we, the observers, can understand how one object relates to another object, only through the equations used by Relativity theory (Einstein now becomes the way, the truth, the light).
· Each frame of reference for every object is unique including its own space and time.
In such a theory there is no need for an aether of materiality, since that would assume an absolute. Accordingly, the abstract, unproven and confusing arrays of length contractions, time dilations, mass increases and gravitational warping; appeals to the ‘intellectual sophisticates’ of modern science far more than classical physics, including orthodox Copernicanism or Tychonism.
The apriori postulates are that the Earth must move, and it must rotate. But even using these philosophical dispositions you don’t need Relativity to explain the observed phenomena, or to align such phenomena with Copernicanism or even the Tychonic model.
Maxwell, Hertz
In the mid-19th century, the two men responsible for the creation of electro-magnetic theories of energy dispersion were Maxwell and Hertz. Both believed in the aether as the transformative medium and capacitator of electro-magnetism. Perforce this entails an absolute reference frame which does not explain the failures of the light interferometer experiments to determine the Earth’s translation. Einstein does not prove that Maxwell and Hertz were wrong, he just states they must be. Einstotle:
“…the ether indeed still had properties which were purely mechanical, although of a much more complicated kind than the mechanical properties of tangible solid bodies. But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a mechanical model for the ether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical interpretation of Maxwell’s laws of the electro-magnetic field….Thus the purely mechanical view of nature was gradually abandoned. But this change led to a fundamental dualism which in the long-run was insupportable
…. This dualism still confronts us in unextenuated form in the theory of Hertz, where matter appears not only as the bearer of velocities, kinetic energy and mechanical pressures, but also as the bearer of electromagnetic fields…. The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity…1
For Relativists as expressed in GTR, the aether has no velocity, no inertia, no material properties and is simply a ‘gravitational field’. Einstein rejects both Maxwell and Hertz without mechanical evidence.
Lorentz’s aether to Einstein’s vacuum
This leads back to Lorentz. All of Relativity comes from Hendrik Lorentz. The maths, the philosophy, the cosmological model, is from Lorentz. Einstein admits as much:
“Such was the state of things when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene….He [took] from ether its mechanical, and from matter its electromagnetic, qualities. As in empty space, so too in the interior of material dies, the ether, and not matter viewed atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electro-magnetic field. According to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the carrying of electrical charges.
Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell’s equations for free space. As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A. Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. 2 (Einstein, Leyden, 1920)
Einstein appropriated Lorentz’s maths and took away the aether, which Lorentz viewed as immobile. He then merges space and time as given in his thought experiments with the K and K’ models. As Einstein’s critics asked, if there is no aether what exactly are you curving? Einstein tries to explain the ‘logic’:
“The space-time and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field. …For if K be a system of coordinates relative to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new system of coordinates K’ which is moving in uniform translation relative to K. Now comes the anxious question: Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K’ systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relative to the K system?”3 (ibid, Leyden 1920)
What is the philosopher trying to say? He is saying that there is no difference within the reference frames of particular objects due to the principle of equivalency. More precisely, Einstein is assuming that STR is true given that STR promotes this principle!
This is the tautological basis of rejecting the Lorentzian aether, upon which Lorentz’s equations were developed! His ‘proof’ of STR is the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, in which Einstein and ‘The Science’ maintained that the aether was disproven! Nothing of the sort was concluded. In fact, the small net positive fringe results disproved the Earth’s mobility but confirmed the aether with drift measurements of 5-8 km per second.
With these incorrect apriori foundations, Einstein now jumps to why STR is correct. Specifically, he believes that we cannot make a distinction between one object and another by saying that one object is at rest in the aether and the other is moving in the aether. If both objects experience the same ‘space-time’ effects regardless of their relationship to the aether, then the aether is irrelevant for what the objects experience.
By space-time, Einstein means the integration of time with space in a curved universe. For Einstein, the aether not only becomes superfluous, it is also mathematically illogical and cannot be tolerated. Logic requires that if a substance such as an aether exists, then it must produce different effects on an object at rest versus an object in motion. Since there is no difference between objects and their inertia, at least in STR, using Einstein’s ‘logic’, one can then dispense with the aether.
If you can understand the philosophical gibberish behind Relativity, congratulations. You have a beautiful mind.
Discontents
The above is the background to German physicist Lenard who was one of Einstein’s many (literally hundreds) of vocal opponents at this time. In a 1917 speech titled “Relativity Principle, Ether, Gravitation” he correctly remarked that Einstein had merely renamed the aether as ‘space’, and concluded that General Relativity theory could not exist without aether.4 He was hardly alone.
Ernst Gehrcke had already introduced a critique of Einstein with the article “On Critics and History of the New Theories of Gravitation” in 1916, and Paul Weyland followed with a 1920 paper titled “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity as Scientific Mass Suggestion,” concluding that “Einstein eliminated the ether by decree, [but] he re-introduced it via a different concept with the same functions.”
By ‘mass suggestion’ Weyland meant mass propaganda and brain-washing. This is a good point. Without the support of the ‘media’ Relativity would have died in its cradle.
Einstein responded to these criticisms with the “Dialogue Concerning Accusations against Relativity Theory” in 1918. In this rebuttal we find Einstein basing his ideas on the aforementioned misinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, saying such things as: “According to the special theory of relativity a privileged state of motion did not exist anymore; this meant the negation of ether in the sense of earlier theories,” but he agreed with Lenard that the space of General Relativity had “physical properties.” Here Einstein restates his unproven apriori assumption that all motion is relative (contrary to propaganda he never proved this) and he never bothered to clarify what he meant by ‘physical properties’. Again, the fudge factor at work.
Losing a grip on reality
Einstein was losing the debate. He gave his Leyden address, which was a history lesson on the fabrication of Relativity, in 1920. It did not answer any of the criticisms of course. After this failure he penned the 1924 article Über den Äther. Einstein was on a quest to eliminate Lorentz’s immobile ether and replace it with a ‘pliable’ aether. He needed aether, in some form, to answer Newton’s biggest problem and one pointed out by noisy criticasters: ‘action-at-a-distance’, or gravity acting over long distances. As he says in Über den Äether:
“We are going to call this physical reality, which enters into Newton’s law of motion alongside the observable ponderable bodies, the ‘ether of mechanics.’”5
Einstein knew that there could be no such ‘spooky action at a distance’ unless there existed a continuous medium to carry the ‘action’ (or light, or gravity, or radiation, or energy etc) from one place to another. As he says in the same work: “But every contiguous action theory presumes continuous fields, and therefore also the existence of an ‘ether.’”6
Einstein was convinced he could not have any object or place in the universe serve as an immobile point, therefore this medium had to move. In Einstein’s theory, it would move because matter moved it, yet it would be ‘continuous’ because matter permeates the universe. This means that an aether must exist. Einstein admits his absolute confusion about the aether:
“….According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space, not only would there 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”.7
Einstein admits that the aether is a fact. This destroys his own theory and completely nullifies STR. Relativity cannot abide a material-rich aether.
Desperation begets confusion
By the 1920s Einstein needed an aether to allow him ‘standards of space and time’, but he would never develop or explain how his ‘Relativistic aether’ can possess such ‘standards’ if both the matter and the aether it bends are constantly moving. What then is the standard? There isn’t any within Relativity.
Even though Einstein would write other papers on the aether, such as “The New Field Theory” in 1929; “The Problem of Space, Ether and Field as a Problem of Physics” in 1934, he never provided experimental or logical proof of how the aether fit into his Relativity theories. This was not unnoticed even by his followers.
Even among Einstein’s supporters the understanding that space is filled with substance was assumed. Louis de Broglie (d. 1987), the Nobel laureate famous for his discovery of the electron’s wave in the 1920s, wrote in 1971 that the concept of aether, or as he calls it ‘the hidden medium’, needed to be revived. Critiquing the model of space proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1926, de Broglie reclaimed fixed points reminiscent of Descartes’ Cartesian axes and Newton’s absolute space:
“Everything becomes clear if the idea that particles always have a position in space through time is brought back…. According to my current thinking, the particle is always located within a physical wave….The movement of the particle is assumed to be the superposition of a regular movement…and of a Brownian movement due to random energy exchanges which take place between the wave and a hidden medium, which acts as a subquantum thermostat. The point of prime importance in this model is that at each moment the particle occupies a well-defined position in space, and this re- establishes the clear meaning which the configuration space had in classical mechanics.”7
de Broglie’s analysis is entirely sensible and comports to the subjective nature of time, and the objective and absolute nature of space (‘…clear meaning…in classical mechanics’). Einstein had inserted mathematics in place of matter, to remove the aether. In other words, as with most of Einstotle’s work, geometric equations replaced reality. As one physicist described it:
“Einstein’s new kind of ether was the metrical tensor field. He thus started to adhere to this new ether. He named it “Mach’s ether” or simply “ether,” and supplied the same reasons that Poincaré had provided in his writings as to why we should adhere to the ether….
Einstein thus returned to the 19th century concept of the ether, but stripped of it its most important characteristic: a medium being in absolute rest. One could still pose the perplexing question: Was Einstein’s ether endowed with any properties independent of the masses in it? For if it did possess such properties then there was actually no difference between Einstein and Poincaré’s ether. Einstein did not give a definitive answer to the above question in his (1920) lecture.”8
Einstein never answered the many questions about his ‘aether’. In Relativity the aether is both real and unreal. It has some properties but no material mass. It is necessary to conduct gravitation but it does not affect light.
Bottom Line
The aether chaos within the two-Relativity’s accentuates the incorrect apriori postulates and the tautological philosophical and mathematical abstractions at its fetid heart. Today the aether hypothesis is back and aether-denialism is slowly being displaced. CBR [Cosmic Background Radiation] experiments for example, capable of finding the aether, were not possible in the 1880s but have been possible since the 1960s and confirm the obvious.
Light transmission, stellar aberration, gravity, gravitation, planetary epicycles, gamma rays, de Broglie waves, Olbers paradoxes, redshift effects, CBR [cosmic background radiation], and the existence of positron and neutrino particles, to name just a few examples, can all be conceived and described in the framework of an aether concept. The electromagnetic aether has always been observed, one can observe the heat of the Sun as indicative proof [CBR is reprocessed photons]. Einstein’s vacuum has never existed.
It would surprise many to know that by the end of the 1920s, Einstein was close to admitting the failure of his Relativity concept. Thousands of experiments had proven the aether and disproven the Earth’s translation in space. This is never taught. Students are issued the propaganda that a great divine beam of rationality emanated from Saint Einstein of Relativity, pouring out of his body and mind, removing darkness and blindness, creating ‘science’ and redeeming our souls.
Relativity is of course completely unnecessary and it is to the eternal shame of ‘The Science’ that such abstraction has been made canonical gospel. Relativity retards science.
All hail.
===
1Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity for an in- depth explanation of Hertz’s contribution to the electromagnetic/ether issue, pp. 11-14
2 Einstein’s Lecture at the University of Leyden, Germany, May 5, 1920
3 Einstein’s Lecture at the University of Leyden, Germany, May 5, 1920
4 “Über Relativitätsprinzip, Äther, Gravitation,” Leipzig, S. Hirzel, 1918, cited in Kostro.
5 Über den Äether, p. 85, as cited in Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, p. 103.
6 Über den Äether, p. 93, as cited in Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, p. 106, see also Äther und Relativitätstheorie, Berlin, J. Springer, 1920, pp. 13-14, Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, pp. 97-98.
7 Ibid.
8Louis de Broglie, “Waves and Particles,” Physics Bulletin, 22, February 1971
9 “Einstein’s Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth,” Galina Granek, Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel, Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 64
Excellent and most informstive article Ferdinand. I have heard Plasma is a 4th state of matter, and Aether was considered a 5th element or Quintesescience (Air, Water, Fire, and Earth being thr 1st four). How do you compare and contrast Aether with plasma? Here's an interesting clip to help put into context https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hJCTOMyY0NI
If the aether exists, how do we make a motorboat to putter about in it?
That's the question I wonder about.