Aether Question (1 Viewer)

[micuzzo]

Hi I wanted to know what exactly the faetures of the Aether model are??? I think the feature are:
-fill all of space and be stationary in space
-be perfectly transparent
-permeate all matter
-have a low density
-have great elasticity in order to propagate the light waves.

however, ive been told that these are the properties and the properties and features must not be taken as the same thing... can someone please clear this up???

 

[Mind-Revolution]

Hi I wanted to know what exactly the faetures of the Aether model are??? I think the feature are:
-fill all of space and be stationary in space
-be perfectly transparent
-permeate all matter
-have a low density
-have great elasticity in order to propagate the light waves.

however, ive been told that these are the properties and the properties and features must not be taken as the same thing... can someone please clear this up???

Trust me, features / properties / characteristics, they all basically mean the same thing.

You've basically got all the features of the aether too;

- Filled all of space.
- Low density.
- Perfectly transparent.
- Permeate all matter (goes through matter).
- Permeable to objects (objects go through it)
- Elasticity to transmit light / other electromagnetic waves.

 

[alcalder]

Just as an aside and to get you thinking...

That is the definition of the aether, and we all "know" (because scientists always work in absolutes when they are dealing with theories) that is was proven to be "wrong". BUT what if the definition was slightly altered? What if they were looking for the aether in the wrong way because their definition, their hypothesis was not quite right? What if light does need a medium to travel through and, for argument's sake, we called it the aether? What if this medium were some other, fourth dimensional, time based, gravity based or something medium??

Something to ponder. Just because one theory was proven wrong, does not mean the absolute opposite is always true. Let's be scientists and leave the doors open. It would be fuinny if, in 100 years, they looked back on us and laughed; "Oh, how naiive they were in the 20th and 21st century. How could they not know about the gravity aether. HAHAHA." Just like we look back on heliocentric believing scientists.

 

[micuzzo]

Trust me, features / properties / characteristics, they all basically mean the same thing.

You've basically got all the features of the aether too;

- Filled all of space.
- Low density.
- Perfectly transparent.
- Permeate all matter (goes through matter).
- Permeable to objects (objects go through it)
- Elasticity to transmit light / other electromagnetic waves.

Are you sure...????

ok thank you

 

[youngminii]

Wasn't proven wrong.
The model was just in need of revision or it needed to be abandoned. Just 'cause they couldn't detect Aether wind doesn't mean it didn't exist?
The fact that light is constant (as we know now) screws up the Michelson-Morley experiment anyway, since light wouldn't be affected by the Aether Wind at all.
So we haven't actually disproved the Aether model as of yet. It's just.. Irrelevant.

 

[cutemouse]

Yeah if you look in the 2003 marking guidelines for Q16, (a) or (b) you'll see that they said that many people listed properties of the aether, and not of the aether model, which is what was required.

I think SuccessOne described it pretty well, CBA looking there atm though.

 

[micuzzo]

Yeah if you look in the 2003 marking guidelines for Q16, (a) or (b) you'll see that they said that many people listed properties of the aether, and not of the aether model, which is what was required.

I think SuccessOne described it pretty well, CBA looking there atm though.

now im confused... so what exacty are the features of the aether and what are the features of the aether model>>>?

 

[cutemouse]

I think a feature of the aether model is that all electromagnetic waves travelled/propagated through it.

A feature of the aether would be that it cannot be detected and that it's elastic (?)

But I may be wrong, so someone please correct me. I'll lookup SuccessOne tomorrow.

 

[Mind-Revolution]

Yeah if you look in the 2003 marking guidelines for Q16, (a) or (b) you'll see that they said that many people listed properties of the aether, and not of the aether model, which is what was required.

I think SuccessOne described it pretty well, CBA looking there atm though.

2003 HSC Physics

Question 18

a) Outline 2 features of the aether model for the transmission of light.

Answers include;

- Aether considered to be rigid, highly elastic, very low density.
- Aether at complete rest + so provided reference frame for all other motion (universal reference frame).

Answers which included these features / properties still were inclined to get the marks.

I don't think it is really overly important, they're basically the same.

 

[Mind-Revolution]

I think a feature of the aether model is that all electromagnetic waves travelled/propagated through it.

A feature of the aether would be that it cannot be detected and that it's elastic (?)

But I may be wrong, so someone please correct me. I'll lookup SuccessOne tomorrow.

Yeah, that the aether was the medium for all EMR to propogate through in space (many people I know didn't really see this as a feature, but it is).

I don't think the can't be detected part was a feature, more it was invisible etc., and that was the point of the M-M experiment (to indicate it was there - to a null result).

Elastic part is right I'm quite sure.

 

[cutemouse]

- Aether considered to be rigid, highly elastic, very low density.
- Aether at complete rest + so provided reference frame for all other motion (universal reference frame).

Yep those are the ones that SuccessOne has IIRC.

 

[hollyy.]

dunno if been said. but key phrase is "null result"

 

[cutemouse]

Yeah because now we know that 'c' is constant, so it wouldn't have worked anyway.

 

[Mind-Revolution]

Yeah because now we know that 'c' is constant, so it wouldn't have worked anyway.

I never looked it up, and it was probably more of an effect or something within w/e experiment it was.

Though, wasn't c surpassed in the last few years?

 

[alcalder]

Wasn't proven wrong.
The fact that light is constant (as we know now) screws up the Michelson-Morley experiment anyway, since light wouldn't be affected by the Aether Wind at all.
So we haven't actually disproved the Aether model as of yet. It's just.. Irrelevant.

HAHAHAHAH "As we know now". Thanks for proving my point. But do we know that? Or is that what we seem to observe because the changes in it now are so minute? Could it be that light travelled faster in the past and now we are on the hyperbolic tangent where the change is undetectable??

Open mind... We really "know" nothing. We can theorise and test and change theories and make new ones, but we "know" nothing.

 

[micuzzo]

HAHAHAHAH "As we know now". Thanks for proving my point. But do we know that? Or is that what we seem to observe because the changes in it now are so minute? Could it be that light travelled faster in the past and now we are on the hyperbolic tangent where the change is undetectable??

Open mind... We really "know" nothing. We can theorise and test and change theories and make new ones, but we "know" nothing.

Well we knew nothing from the beggining... they're all just theories... c is a theory (too hard to actually 100 % prove atm) same with relativity

 

[youngminii]

HAHAHAHAH "As we know now". Thanks for proving my point. But do we know that? Or is that what we seem to observe because the changes in it now are so minute? Could it be that light travelled faster in the past and now we are on the hyperbolic tangent where the change is undetectable??

Open mind... We really "know" nothing. We can theorise and test and change theories and make new ones, but we "know" nothing.

I know what you mean Ms. alcalder but you should know what I mean as well

 

[cutemouse]

But doesn't the aether exist?