Luminiferous aether orether[1] (luminiferous meaning 'light-bearing') is the formerlypostulatedmedium for the propagation oflight.[2] It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparentlywave-based light to propagate through empty space (avacuum), something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum (space completely filled with matter) of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light.
The aether hypothesis was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of an aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 19th century, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.
The negative outcome of theMichelson–Morley experiment (1887) suggested that the aether did not exist, a finding that was confirmed in subsequent experiments through the 1920s. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether. A major breakthrough was thespecial theory of relativity, which could explain why the experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it was not needed. The Michelson–Morley experiment, along with theblackbody radiator andphotoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development ofmodern physics, which includes both relativity andquantum theory, the latter of which explains the particle-like nature of light.
In the 17th century,Robert Boyle was a proponent of an aether hypothesis. According to Boyle, the aether consists of subtle particles, one sort of which explains the absence of vacuum and the mechanical interactions between bodies, and the other sort of which explains phenomena such as magnetism (and possibly gravity) that are, otherwise, inexplicable on the basis of purely mechanical interactions of macroscopic bodies, "though in the ether of the ancients there was nothing taken notice of but a diffused and very subtle substance; yet we are at present content to allow that there is always in the air a swarm of streams moving in a determinate course between the north pole and the south".[3]
Christiaan Huygens'sTreatise on Light (1690) hypothesized that light is a wave propagating through an aether. He andIsaac Newton could only envision light waves as beinglongitudinal, propagating like sound and othermechanical waves influids. However, longitudinal waves necessarily have only one form for a given propagation direction, rather than twopolarizations like atransverse wave. Thus, longitudinal waves can not explainbirefringence, in which two polarizations of light are refracted differently by a crystal. In addition, Newton rejected light as waves in a medium because such a medium would have to extend everywhere in space, and would thereby "disturb and retard the Motions of those great Bodies" (the planets and comets) and thus "as it [light's medium] is of no use, and hinders the Operation of Nature, and makes her languish, so there is no evidence for its Existence, and therefore it ought to be rejected".[4]
Isaac Newton contended that light is made up of numerous small particles. This can explain such features as light's ability to travel in straight lines andreflect off surfaces. Newton imagined light particles as non-spherical "corpuscles", with different "sides" that give rise to birefringence. But the particle theory of light can not satisfactorily explainrefraction anddiffraction.[5] To explain refraction, Newton's Third Book ofOpticks (1st ed. 1704, 4th ed. 1730) postulated an "aethereal medium" transmitting vibrations faster than light, by which light, when overtaken, is put into "Fits of easy Reflexion and easy Transmission", which caused refraction and diffraction. Newton believed that these vibrations were related to heat radiation:
Is not the Heat of the warm Room convey'd through the vacuum by the Vibrations of a much subtiler Medium than Air, which after the Air was drawn out remained in the Vacuum? And is not this Medium the same with that Medium by which Light is refracted and reflected, and by whose Vibrations Light communicates Heat to Bodies, and is put into Fits of easy Reflexion and easy Transmission?[A 1]: 349
In contrast to the modern understanding that heat radiation and light are bothelectromagnetic radiation, Newton viewed heat and light as two different phenomena. He believed heat vibrations to be excited "when a Ray of Light falls upon the Surface of any pellucid Body".[A 1]: 348 He wrote, "I do not know what this Aether is", but that if it consists of particles then they must be
exceedingly smaller than those of Air, or even than those of Light: The exceeding smallness of its Particles may contribute to the greatness of the force by which those Particles may recede from one another, and thereby make that Medium exceedingly more rare and elastic than Air, and by consequence exceedingly less able to resist the motions of Projectiles, and exceedingly more able to press upon gross Bodies, by endeavoring to expand itself.[A 1]: 352
In 1720,James Bradley carried out a series of experiments attempting to measurestellar parallax by taking measurements of stars at different times of the year. As the Earth moves around the Sun, the apparent angle to a given distant spot changes. By measuring those angles the distance to the star can be calculated based on the known orbital circumference of the Earth around the Sun. He failed to detect any parallax, thereby placing a lower limit on the distance to stars.[citation needed]
During these experiments, Bradley also discovered a related effect; the apparent positions of the stars did change over the year, but not as expected. Instead of the apparent angle being maximized when the Earth was at either end of its orbit with respect to the star, the angle was maximized when the Earth was at its fastest sideways velocity with respect to the star. This effect is now known asstellar aberration.[citation needed]
Bradley explained this effect in the context of Newton's corpuscular theory of light, by showing that the aberration angle was given by simple vector addition of the Earth's orbital velocity and the velocity of the corpuscles of light, just as vertically falling raindrops strike a moving object at an angle. Knowing the Earth's velocity and the aberration angle enabled him to estimate the speed of light.[citation needed]
Explaining stellar aberration in the context of an aether-based theory of light was regarded as more problematic. As the aberration relied on relative velocities, and the measured velocity was dependent on the motion of the Earth, the aether had to be remaining stationary with respect to the star as the Earth moved through it. This meant that the Earth could travel through the aether, a physical medium, with no apparent effect – precisely the problem that led Newton to reject a wave model in the first place.[citation needed]
A century later,Thomas Young[a] andAugustin-Jean Fresnel revived the wave theory of light when they pointed out that light could be a transverse wave rather than a longitudinal wave; the polarization of a transverse wave (like Newton's "sides" of light) could explain birefringence, and in the wake of a series of experiments on diffraction the particle model of Newton was finally abandoned.Physicists assumed, moreover, that, like mechanical waves, light waves required a medium forpropagation, and thus required Huygens's idea of an aether "gas" permeating all space.
However, a transverse wave apparently required the propagating medium to behave as a solid, as opposed to a fluid. The idea of a solid that did not interact with other matter seemed a bit odd, andAugustin-Louis Cauchy suggested that perhaps there was some sort of "dragging", or "entrainment", but this made the aberration measurements difficult to understand. He also suggested that theabsence of longitudinal waves suggested that the aether had negative compressibility.George Green pointed out that such a fluid would be unstable.George Gabriel Stokes became a champion of the entrainment interpretation, developing a model in which the aether might, like pine pitch, bedilatant (fluid at slow speeds and rigid at fast speeds). Thus the Earth could move through it fairly freely, but it would be rigid enough to support light.
In 1856,Wilhelm Eduard Weber andRudolf Kohlrausch measured the numerical value of the ratio of the electrostatic unit of charge to the electromagnetic unit of charge. They found that the ratio between theelectrostatic unit of charge and theelectromagnetic unit of charge is the speed of lightc.[7] The following year,Gustav Kirchhoff wrote a paper in which he showed that the speed of a signal along an electric wire was equal to the speed of light.[8] These are the first recorded historical links between the speed of light and electromagnetic phenomena.
James Clerk Maxwell began working onMichael Faraday'slines of force. In his 1861 paperOn Physical Lines of Force he modelled these magnetic lines of force using a sea of molecular vortices that he considered to be partly made of aether and partly made of ordinary matter. He derived expressions for the dielectric constant and the magnetic permeability in terms of the transverse elasticity and the density of this elastic medium. He then equated the ratio of the dielectric constant to the magnetic permeability with a suitably adapted version of Weber and Kohlrausch's result of 1856, and he substituted this result into Newton's equation for the speed of sound. On obtaining a value that was close to the speed of light as measured byHippolyte Fizeau, Maxwell concluded that light consists in undulations of the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.[B 1][B 2][B 3][B 4]
Maxwell had, however, expressed some uncertainties surrounding the precise nature of his molecular vortices and so he began to embark on a purely dynamical approach to the problem. He wrote another paper in 1864, entitled "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field", in which the details of the luminiferous medium were less explicit.[A 2] Although Maxwell did not explicitly mention the sea of molecular vortices, his derivation ofAmpère's circuital law was carried over from the 1861 paper and he used a dynamical approach involving rotational motion within the electromagnetic field which he likened to the action of flywheels. Using this approach to justify the electromotive force equation (the precursor of theLorentz force equation), he derived a wave equation from a set of eight equations which appeared in the paper and which included the electromotive force equation andAmpère's circuital law.[A 2] Maxwell once again used the experimental results of Weber and Kohlrausch to show that this wave equation represented an electromagnetic wave that propagates at the speed of light, hence supporting the view that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation.
In 1887–1889,Heinrich Hertz experimentally demonstrated that electromagnetic waves are identical to light waves. This unification of electromagnetic wave and optics indicated that there was a single luminiferous aether instead of many different kinds of aether media.[9]
The apparent need for a propagation medium for suchHertzian waves (later calledradio waves) can be seen by the fact that they consist of orthogonal electric (E) and magnetic (B or H) waves. The E waves consist of undulating dipolar electric fields, and all such dipoles appeared to require separated and opposite electric charges. Electric charge is an inextricable property ofmatter, so it appeared that some form of matter was required to provide the alternating current that would seem to have to exist at any point along the propagation path of the wave. Propagation of waves in a true vacuum would imply the existence ofelectric fields without associatedelectric charge, or of electric charge without associated matter. Albeit compatible with Maxwell's equations,electromagnetic induction of electric fields could not be demonstrated in vacuum, because all methods of detecting electric fields required electrically charged matter.
In addition, Maxwell's equations required that all electromagnetic waves invacuum propagate at a fixed speed,c. As this can only occur in onereference frame in Newtonian physics (seeGalilean relativity), the aether was hypothesized as the absolute and unique frame of reference in which Maxwell's equations hold. That is, the aether must be "still" universally, otherwisec would vary along with any variations that might occur in its supportive medium. Maxwell himself proposed several mechanical models of aether based on wheels and gears, andGeorge Francis FitzGerald even constructed a working model of one of them. These models had to agree with the fact that the electromagnetic waves are transverse but never longitudinal.
By this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be afluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and withoutviscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive,incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale.[10] Maxwell wrote inEncyclopædia Britannica:[A 3]
Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic effluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, until all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers. ... The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light.
By the early 20th century, aether theory was in trouble. A series ofincreasingly complex experiments had been carried out in the late 19th century to try to detect the motion of the Earth through the aether, and had failed to do so. A range of proposed aether-dragging theories could explain the null result but these were more complex, and tended to use arbitrary-looking coefficients and physical assumptions. Lorentz and FitzGerald offered within the framework ofLorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, the newspecial theory of relativity (1905) could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. Aether fell toOccam's Razor.[B 1][B 2][B 3][B 4]
The two most important models, which were aimed to describe the relative motion of the Earth and aether, wereAugustin-Jean Fresnel's (1818) model of the (nearly) stationary aether including a partial aether drag determined by Fresnel's dragging coefficient,[A 4] andGeorge Gabriel Stokes' (1844)[A 5]model of complete aether drag. The latter theory was not considered as correct, since it was not compatible with theaberration of light, and the auxiliary hypotheses developed to explain this problem were not convincing. Also, subsequent experiments as theSagnac effect (1913) also showed that this model is untenable. However, the most important experiment supporting Fresnel's theory wasFizeau's 1851experimental confirmation ofFresnel's 1818 prediction that a medium withrefractive indexn moving with a velocityv would increase the speed of light travelling through the medium in the same direction asv fromc/n to:[E 1][E 2]
That is, movement adds only a fraction of the medium's velocity to the light (predicted by Fresnel in order to makeSnell's law work in all frames of reference, consistent with stellar aberration). This was initially interpreted to mean that the medium drags the aether along, with aportion of the medium's velocity, but that understanding became very problematic afterWilhelm Veltmann demonstrated that the indexn in Fresnel's formula depended upon thewavelength of light, so that the aether could not be moving at a wavelength-independent speed. This implied that there must be a separate aether for each of the infinitely many frequencies.
The key difficulty with Fresnel's aether hypothesis arose from the juxtaposition of the two well-established theories of Newtonian dynamics and Maxwell's electromagnetism. Under aGalilean transformation the equations of Newtonian dynamics areinvariant, whereas those of electromagnetism are not. Basically this means that while physics should remain the same in non-accelerated experiments, light would not follow the same rules because it is travelling in the universal "aether frame". Some effect caused by this difference should be detectable.[citation needed]
A simple example concerns the model on which aether was originally built: sound. The speed of propagation for mechanical waves, thespeed of sound, is defined by the mechanical properties of the medium. Sound travels 4.3 times faster in water than in air. This explains why a person hearing an explosion underwater and quickly surfacing can hear it again as the slower travelling sound arrives through the air. Similarly, a traveller on anairliner can still carry on a conversation with another traveller because the sound of words is travelling along with the air inside the aircraft. This effect is basic to all Newtonian dynamics, which says that everything from sound to the trajectory of a thrown baseball should all remain the same in the aircraft flying (at least at a constant speed) as if still sitting on the ground. This is the basis of the Galilean transformation, and the concept of frame of reference.[citation needed]
But the same was not supposed to be true for light, since Maxwell's mathematics demanded a single universal speed for the propagation of light, based, not on local conditions, but on two measured properties, thepermittivity andpermeability of free space, that were assumed to be the same throughout the universe.[11]
Thus at any point there should be one special coordinate system, "at rest relative to the aether". Maxwell noted in the late 1870s that detecting motion relative to this aether should be easy enough—light travelling along with the motion of the Earth would have a different speed than light travelling backward, as they would both be moving against the unmoving aether. Even if the aether had an overall universal flow, changes in position during the day/night cycle, or over the span of seasons, should allow the drift to be detected.
Although the aether is almost stationary according to Fresnel, his theory predicts a positive outcome of aether drift experiments only tosecond order in because Fresnel's dragging coefficient would cause a negative outcome of all optical experiments capable of measuring effects tofirst order in. This was confirmed by the following first-order experiments, all of which gave negative results. The following list is based on the description ofWilhelm Wien (1898), with changes and additional experiments according to the descriptions ofEdmund Taylor Whittaker (1910) andJakob Laub (1910):[B 5][B 1][B 6]
Besides those optical experiments, also electrodynamic first-order experiments were conducted, which should have led to positive results according to Fresnel. However,Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1895) modified Fresnel's theory and showed that those experiments can be explained by a stationary aether as well:[A 6]
While thefirst-order experiments could be explained by a modified stationary aether, more precisesecond-order experiments were expected to give positive results. However, no such results could be found.
The famousMichelson–Morley experiment compared the source light with itself after being sent in different directions and looked for changes in phase in a manner that could be measured with extremely high accuracy. In this experiment, their goal was to determine the velocity of the Earth through the aether.[E 19][E 20] The publication of their result in 1887, thenull result, was the first clear demonstration that something was seriously wrong with the aether hypothesis (Michelson's first experiment in 1881 was not entirely conclusive). In this case the MM experiment yielded a shift of the fringing pattern of about 0.01 of afringe, corresponding to a small velocity. However, it was incompatible with the expected aether wind effect due to the Earth's (seasonally varying) velocity which would have required a shift of 0.4 of a fringe, and the error was small enough that the value may have indeed been zero. Therefore, thenull hypothesis, the hypothesis that there was no aether wind, could not be rejected. More modern experiments have since reduced the possible value to a number very close to zero, about 10−17.
It is obvious from what has gone before that it would be hopeless to attempt to solve the question of the motion of the solar system by observations of optical phenomena at the surface of the earth.
— A. Michelson and E. Morley. "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Æther".Philosophical Magazine S. 5. Vol. 24. No. 151. December 1887.[12]
A series of experiments using similar but increasingly sophisticated apparatuses all returned the null result as well. Conceptually different experiments that also attempted to detect the motion of the aether were theTrouton–Noble experiment (1903),[E 21] whose objective was to detecttorsion effects caused by electrostatic fields, andthe experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902, 1904),[E 22][E 23] to detectdouble refraction in various media. However, all of them obtained a null result, like Michelson–Morley (MM) previously did.
These "aether-wind" experiments led to a flurry of efforts to "save" aether by assigning to it ever more complex properties, and only a few scientists, likeEmil Cohn orAlfred Bucherer, considered the possibility of the abandonment of the aether hypothesis. Of particular interest was the possibility of "aether entrainment" or "aether drag", which would lower the magnitude of the measurement, perhaps enough to explain the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment. However, as noted earlier, aether dragging already had problems of its own, notably aberration. In addition, the interference experiments ofLodge (1893, 1897) andLudwig Zehnder (1895), aimed to show whether the aether is dragged by various, rotating masses, showed no aether drag.[E 24][E 25][E 26] A more precise measurement was made in theHammar experiment (1935), which ran a complete MM experiment with one of the "legs" placed between two massive lead blocks.[E 27] If the aether was dragged by mass then this experiment would have been able to detect the drag caused by the lead, but again the null result was achieved. The theory was again modified, this time to suggest that the entrainment only worked for very large masses or those masses with large magnetic fields. This too was shown to be incorrect by theMichelson–Gale–Pearson experiment, which detected the Sagnac effect due to Earth's rotation (seeAether drag hypothesis).
Another completely different attempt to save "absolute" aether was made in theLorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis, which posited thateverything was affected by travel through the aether. In this theory, the reason that the Michelson–Morley experiment "failed" was that the apparatus contracted in length in the direction of travel. That is, the light was being affected in the "natural" manner by its travel through the aether as predicted, but so was the apparatus itself, cancelling out any difference when measured. FitzGerald had inferred this hypothesis from a paper byOliver Heaviside. Without referral to an aether, this physical interpretation of relativistic effects wasshared by Kennedy and Thorndike in 1932 as they concluded that the interferometer's arm contracts and also the frequency of its light source "very nearly" varies in the way required by relativity.[E 28][13]
Similarly, theSagnac effect, observed by G. Sagnac in 1913, was immediately seen to be fully consistent with special relativity.[E 29][E 30] In fact, theMichelson–Gale–Pearson experiment in 1925 was proposed specifically as a test to confirm the relativity theory, although it was also recognized that such tests, which merely measure absolute rotation, are also consistent with non-relativistic theories.[14]
During the 1920s, the experiments pioneered by Michelson were repeated byDayton Miller, who publicly proclaimed positive results on several occasions, although they were not large enough to be consistent with any known aether theory. However, other researchers were unable to duplicate Miller's claimed results. Over the years the experimental accuracy of such measurements has been raised by many orders of magnitude, and no trace of any violations of Lorentz invariance has been seen. (A later re-analysis of Miller's results concluded that he had underestimated the variations due to temperature.)
Since the Miller experiment and its unclear results there have been many more experimental attempts to detect the aether. Many experimenters have claimed positive results. These results have not gained much attention from mainstream science, since they contradict a large quantity of high-precision measurements, all the results of which were consistent with special relativity.[15]
Between 1892 and 1904,Hendrik Lorentz developed an electron–aether theory, in which he avoided making assumptions about the aether. In his model the aether is completely motionless, and by that he meant that it could not be set in motion in the neighborhood of ponderable matter. Contrary to earlier electron models, the electromagnetic field of the aether appears as a mediator between the electrons, and changes in this field cannot propagate faster than the speed of light. A fundamental concept of Lorentz's theory in 1895 was the "theorem of corresponding states" for terms of order v/c.[A 6] This theorem states that an observer moving relative to the aether makes the same observations as a resting observer, after a suitable change of variables. Lorentz noticed that it was necessary to change the space-time variables when changing frames and introduced concepts like physicallength contraction (1892)[A 7] to explain the Michelson–Morley experiment, and the mathematical concept oflocal time (1895) to explain theaberration of light and theFizeau experiment. This resulted in the formulation of the so-calledLorentz transformation byJoseph Larmor (1897, 1900)[A 8][A 9] and Lorentz (1899, 1904),[A 10][A 11] whereby (it was noted by Larmor) the complete formulation of local time is accompanied by some sort oftime dilation of electrons moving in the aether. As Lorentz later noted (1921, 1928), he considered the time indicated by clocks resting in the aether as "true" time, while local time was seen by him as a heuristic working hypothesis and a mathematical artifice.[A 12][A 13] Therefore, Lorentz's theorem is seen by modern authors as being a mathematical transformation from a "real" system resting in the aether into a "fictitious" system in motion.[B 7][B 3][B 8]
The work of Lorentz was mathematically perfected byHenri Poincaré, who formulated on many occasions thePrinciple of Relativity and tried to harmonize it with electrodynamics. He declared simultaneity only a convenient convention which depends on the speed of light, whereby the constancy of the speed of light would be a usefulpostulate for making the laws of nature as simple as possible. In 1900 and 1904[A 14][A 15] he physically interpreted Lorentz's local time as the result of clock synchronization by light signals. In June and July 1905[A 16][A 17] he declared the relativity principle a general law of nature, including gravitation. He corrected some mistakes of Lorentz and proved the Lorentz covariance of the electromagnetic equations. However, he used the notion of an aether as a perfectly undetectable medium and distinguished between apparent and real time, so most historians of science argue that he failed to invent special relativity.[B 7][B 9][B 3]
Aether theory was dealt another blow when the Galilean transformation and Newtonian dynamics were both modified byAlbert Einstein'sspecial theory of relativity, giving the mathematics ofLorentzian electrodynamics a new, "non-aether" context.[A 18] Unlike most major shifts in scientific thought, special relativity was adopted by the scientific community remarkably quickly, consistent with Einstein's later comment that the laws of physics described by the Special Theory were "ripe for discovery" in 1905.[B 10] Max Planck's early advocacy of the special theory, along with the elegant formulation given to it byHermann Minkowski, contributed much to the rapid acceptance of special relativity among working scientists.
Einstein based his theory on Lorentz's earlier work. Instead of suggesting that the mechanical properties of objects changed with their constant-velocity motion through an undetectable aether, Einstein proposed to deduce the characteristics that any successful theory must possess in order to be consistent with the most basic and firmly established principles, independent of the existence of a hypothetical aether. He found that the Lorentz transformation must transcend its connection with Maxwell's equations, and must represent the fundamental relations between the space and time coordinates ofinertial frames of reference. In this way he demonstrated that the laws of physics remained invariant as they had with the Galilean transformation, but that light was now invariant as well.
With the development of the special theory of relativity, the need to account for a single universalframe of reference had disappeared – and acceptance of the 19th-century theory of a luminiferous aether disappeared with it. For Einstein, the Lorentz transformation implied a conceptual change: that the concept of position in space or time was not absolute, but could differ depending on the observer's location and velocity.
Moreover, in another paper published the same month in 1905, Einstein made several observations on a then-thorny problem, thephotoelectric effect. In this work he demonstrated that light can be considered as particles that have a "wave-like nature". Particles obviously do not need a medium to travel, and thus, neither did light. This was the first step that would lead to the full development ofquantum mechanics, in which the wave-like natureand the particle-like nature of light are both considered as valid descriptions of light. A summary of Einstein's thinking about the aether hypothesis, relativity and light quanta may be found in his 1909 (originally German) lecture "The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation".[A 19]
Lorentz on his side continued to use the aether hypothesis. In his lectures of around 1911, he pointed out that what "the theory of relativity has to say ... can be carried out independently of what one thinks of the aether and the time". He commented that "whether there is an aether or not, electromagnetic fields certainly exist, and so also does the energy of the electrical oscillations" so that, "if we do not like the name of 'aether', we must use another word as a peg to hang all these things upon". He concluded that "one cannot deny the bearer of these concepts a certain substantiality".[16][B 7]
Nevertheless, in 1920, Einstein gave an address atLeiden University in which he commented "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity". He concluded his address by saying that "according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable."[17]
In later years there have been a few individuals who advocated a neo-Lorentzian approach to physics, which is Lorentzian in the sense of positing an absolute true state of rest that is undetectable and which plays no role in the predictions of the theory. (No violations ofLorentz covariance have ever been detected, despite strenuous efforts.) Hence these theories resemble the 19th century aether theories in name only. For example, the founder of quantum field theory,Paul Dirac, stated in 1951 in an article in Nature, titled "Is there an Aether?" that "we are rather forced to have an aether".[18][A 20] However, Dirac never formulated a complete theory, and so his speculations found no acceptance by the scientific community.
When Einstein was still a student in the Zurich Polytechnic in 1900, he was very interested in the idea of aether. His initial proposal of research thesis was to do an experiment to measure how fast the Earth was moving through the aether.[19] "The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."[20]
In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work ongeneral relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether. This was further elaborated by Einstein in some semi-popular articles (1918, 1920, 1924, 1930).[A 21][A 22][A 23][A 24][B 11][B 12][B 13]
In 1918, Einstein publicly alluded to that new definition for the first time.[A 21] Then, in the early 1920s, in a lecture which he was invited to give at Lorentz's university in Leiden, Einstein sought to reconcile the theory of relativity withLorentzian aether. In this lecture Einstein stressed that special relativity took away the last mechanical property of the aether: immobility. However, he continued that special relativity does not necessarily rule out the aether, because the latter can be used to give physical reality to acceleration and rotation. This concept was fully elaborated withingeneral relativity, in which physical properties (which are partially determined by matter) are attributed to space, but no substance or state of motion can be attributed to that "aether" (by which he meant curved space-time).[B 13][A 22][21]
In another paper of 1924, named "Concerning the Aether", Einstein argued that Newton's absolute space, in which acceleration is absolute, is the "Aether of Mechanics". And within the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell and Lorentz one can speak of the "Aether of Electrodynamics", in which the aether possesses an absolute state of motion. As regards special relativity, also in this theory acceleration is absolute as in Newton's mechanics. However, the difference from the electromagnetic aether of Maxwell and Lorentz lies in the fact that "because it was no longer possible to speak, in any absolute sense, of simultaneous states at different locations in the aether, the aether became, as it were, four-dimensional since there was no objective way of ordering its states by time alone". Now the "aether of special relativity" is still "absolute", because matter is affected by the properties of the aether, but the aether is not affected by the presence of matter. This asymmetry was solved within general relativity. Einstein explained that the "aether of general relativity" is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether, just as matter influences the structure of the aether.[A 23]
The only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with theclassical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space, which can be identified throughgeodesics. As historians such asJohn Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. As Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. Einstein's use of the word "aether" found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics.[B 11][B 12][B 13]
Footnotes
Is not the heat conveyed through the vacuum by the vibration of a much subtiler medium than air? And is not this medium the same with that medium by which light is refracted and reflected, and by whose vibration light communicates heat to bodies, and is put into fits of easy reflection, and easy transmission?[6]
Citations
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link),Phys. Z.,10, 817–825. (review of aether theories, among other topics)
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
