4

I am not asking about the Michelson-Morley experiment in any way. I am specifically asking, if space (including the fields that QFT describes) itself can be thought of as any kind of aether that propagates energy (in the form of waves) somehow. I am asking in what way this famous quote could be interpreted as space itself having the characteristics of an aether.

I have read this:

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; for in such space there not only would 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.

And this one:

Specifically, the notion of medium that one can in principle detect one's motion relative to is what has been ruled out by experiment. So, although one must be careful with the word aether to exclude anything that violates Galileo's principle and yields Lorentz-invariant predictions as being in conflict with experiment, I personally kind of like the word as a metaphor for empty space to emphasize the 20th century achievements of general relativity and quantum field theory. We can describe how empty space takes different geometry through the Einstein field equations. The quest for quantum gravity can be thought of as seeking to understand the mechanisms and that machinery of empty space that lead to the EFE description: quantum gravity can be thought of as the quest to find out how the Lorentz-invariant "aether" works.

Isn't the aether existent?

The last answer says, that today we know that space itself if not some kind of medium that we can detect motion relative to. But today we know that space itself (and the fields it includes) is somehow able to propagate energy in the form of waves of all kinds (EM, gravitational, gluons). Space itself can stretch, squeeze, expand (and probably contract inside a black hole), curve. Thus, can we say that in any way space itself acts as an aether, we just cannot detect any motion relative to it? So basically, there is no aether in space, no medium (in the vacuum of space), but can we say that space itself acts in any way as some kind of aether?

Question:

  1. Can we think of space as any kind of aether in any way?
  • This question seems to be the same as the one you linked to: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/196905/ – Dale Sep 30 '21 at 22:42
  • 1
    When Alan Shepard drove a golf ball on the Moon, would you say that "space itself" was "somehow able to propagate" the golf ball? If not, then why do you need "space itself" to propagate smaller things? – Solomon Slow Sep 30 '21 at 22:46
  • 7
    To make the question meaningful, you need to define "aether." What exactly does you mean by that word, in observable or mathematical terms? – Chiral Anomaly Sep 30 '21 at 22:51
  • if you go by the traditional notion behind aethyr, it was a subtle material-like substrate that supported a mechanical analogy for non-mechanical fields. So the question is what can one recover from this analogy that is meaningful on a theory with no conceptual distinction between trajectory frames.. even despite this frame democracy is broken on the distribution of matter and radiation within our actual cosmological observable universe – lurscher Sep 30 '21 at 23:37
  • "I am asking in what

    way this famous quote could be interpreted as space itself having the characteristics of an aether." Space or spacetime? It seems contradictory with the previous sentence.

    – Claudio Saspinski Oct 01 '21 at 00:07
  • @SolomonSlow thank you, I believe the golf ball is made up of electrons and quarks, being excitations of fields, which propagate these particles (excitations), and these fields are embedded in space itself. – Árpád Szendrei Oct 01 '21 at 04:07
  • 2
    @ChiralAnomaly that is a good question, I was actually trying to figure out from the famous quote what it could have meant there, space being the aether itself. – Árpád Szendrei Oct 01 '21 at 04:09
  • @ClaudioSaspinski thank you, I edited to say space everywhere, consistent with the famous quote. – Árpád Szendrei Oct 01 '21 at 04:11
  • Why the downvote? – Árpád Szendrei Oct 01 '21 at 04:12
  • I have to admit to being confused by this question, because the question itself is yes-or-no, and the preamble to the question kind of trivially answers it. "Can we think of space as an aether?" Well, Bob Laughlin clearly does think of it that way, so sure we can. If the question is more like "In what sense can we think of space as an aether?" then I think Laughlin does a pretty good job of answering that too. I am left wondering where the question is. – d_b Oct 01 '21 at 04:43
  • @d_b thank you, the question is rather "In what sense can we think of space as an aether?", can you please direct me to Bob Laughlin's work on this one? – Árpád Szendrei Oct 01 '21 at 05:02
  • Please give attribution for those quotes. – PM 2Ring Oct 01 '21 at 07:32

3 Answers3

2

What did the Michelson Morley experiment exclude?

The experiment compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles. This result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory,

This experiment cannot exclude an ether that respects Lorentz invariance . Thus , as far as I understand, the quantum field theory fields that cover all spacetime and are Lorentz invariant could be a model of a "medium" since interactions propagate on these fields. The same would be true for models that propose a Lorenz invariant substrate on which interactions happen . Those "aethers" are not excluded by the experiment.

anna v
  • 233,453
  • Thank you so much! Can you please elaborate on why the quantum fields are Lorentz invariant? – Árpád Szendrei Oct 01 '21 at 05:00
  • Their mathematical representations are plane wave solutions of the corresponding Lorentz invariant equations, Dirac, Klein Gordon, Maxwell,... By construction. – anna v Oct 01 '21 at 05:45
  • @anna v do the quantum fields have a unique rest frame? If not, then in what way are they be the Lorentz aether? One defining property of the Lorentz aether is that it has a unique rest frame. – Dale Oct 01 '21 at 10:38
  • @Dale I am not calling it a "Lorentz" ether, I am saying that the MM experiment allows to accept a medium for interactions that is Lorentz transformation invariant. From what I see in wikipidia about Lorentz ether is a specific model – anna v Oct 01 '21 at 11:12
  • @anna v ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification. You may want to clarify your answer. To me in the context of the question it reads as though you are proposing the QM fields as the Lorentz aether even though the former have no unique rest frame and the latter does. – Dale Oct 01 '21 at 11:26
  • 1
    @Dale thanks, I edited – anna v Oct 01 '21 at 13:25
1

It sounds to me that you are asking about the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity. This is the theory that space itself is particulate, made up of extremely small particles or loops. This theory is based on relativity, but it does not imply an aether. Rather, space is described as the stage on which other things occur, like the waves that you are describing. I'll note that LQG is considered as an alternative to string theory.

Physicist Carlo Rovelli, (in his book Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity) described them shaped as tetrahedra (a 3 dimensional triangle), noted, “The physics of quantum gravity is the physics of the quantum fields that build up spacetime… A region of space can be described by a set of interconnected grains of space… The length of these links is determined by the field itself, because geometry is determined by gravity.”

Dr. Don Lincoln from Fermilab said “When you add mass and energy, you can distort the shape of the little volumes of quantum space… Bending space and time has a property that you can distort the local definition of space.” So this would mean that an energy wave traveling through space would in fact be a wave of changing shapes of these loops.

And in my own speculative theory, I would say that it is this addition of energy distorting the shape of the little volumes that becomes a clear definition of the warping of spacetime that is the basis of gravitational theory.

foolishmuse
  • 4,551
1

Whether space can be thought of as a substance, in any way, is an interesting question.

When the Michelson Morley experiment ruled out motion of the earth relative to the aether, there were scientists who wanted to keep it as a concept and wondered if the aether moved with moving objects aether drag hypothesis

...but there were various problems with that idea.

So the aether went out of fashion, although there are some modern aether theories.

As you say there are various 'properties of space' electromagnetic fields etc. and scientists talk of the 'expansion of space'.

So perhaps there is role for the aether as an aid to our imagination, although most scientists would use Occam's razor and claim that until there is definite experimental evidence for it's existence, then we should presume it doesn't exist.

John Hunter
  • 13,700