
Luminiferous aether or ether (luminiferous meaning 'light-bearing') was the postulated medium for the propagation of light. It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space (a vacuum), 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 the Michelson–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 the special 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 the blackbody radiator and photoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development of modern physics, which includes both relativity and quantum theory, the latter of which explains the particle-like nature of light.
The history of light and aether
Particles vs. waves
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".
Christiaan Huygens's Treatise on Light (1690) hypothesized that light is a wave propagating through an aether. He and Isaac Newton could only envision light waves as being longitudinal, propagating like sound and other mechanical waves in fluids. However, longitudinal waves necessarily have only one form for a given propagation direction, rather than two polarizations like a transverse wave. Thus, longitudinal waves can not explain birefringence, 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".
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 and reflect 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 explain refraction and diffraction. To explain refraction, Newton's Third Book of Opticks (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?: 349
In contrast to the modern understanding that heat radiation and light are both electromagnetic 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".: 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.: 352
Bradley suggests particles
In 1720, James Bradley carried out a series of experiments attempting to measure stellar 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.
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 as stellar aberration.
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.
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.
Wave-theory triumphs
A century later, Thomas Young and Augustin-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 for propagation, 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, and Augustin-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 the absence 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, be dilatant (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.
Electromagnetism
In 1856, Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf 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 the electrostatic unit of charge and the electromagnetic unit of charge is the speed of light c. 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. These are the first recorded historical links between the speed of light and electromagnetic phenomena.
James Clerk Maxwell began working on Michael Faraday's lines of force. In his 1861 paper On 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 by Hippolyte Fizeau, Maxwell concluded that light consists in undulations of the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.
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. Although Maxwell did not explicitly mention the sea of molecular vortices, his derivation of Ampère'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 the Lorentz 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 and Ampère's circuital law. 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 the electric magnetic 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.
The apparent need for a propagation medium for such Hertzian waves (later called radio 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 of matter, 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 of electric fields without associated electric 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 in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c. As this can only occur in one reference frame in Newtonian physics (see Galilean 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, otherwise c 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, and George 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.
Problems
By this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid 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 without viscosity, 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. Maxwell wrote in Encyclopædia Britannica:
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 of increasingly 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 of Lorentz 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 new special theory of relativity (1905) could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. Aether fell to Occam's Razor.
Relative motion between the Earth and aether
Aether drag
The two most important models, which were aimed to describe the relative motion of the Earth and aether, were Augustin-Jean Fresnel's (1818) model of the (nearly) stationary aether including a partial aether drag determined by Fresnel's dragging coefficient, and George Gabriel Stokes' (1844) model of complete aether drag. The latter theory was not considered as correct, since it was not compatible with the aberration of light, and the auxiliary hypotheses developed to explain this problem were not convincing. Also, subsequent experiments as the Sagnac effect (1913) also showed that this model is untenable. However, the most important experiment supporting Fresnel's theory was Fizeau's 1851 experimental confirmation of Fresnel's 1818 prediction that a medium with refractive index n moving with a velocity v would increase the speed of light travelling through the medium in the same direction as v from c/n to:
That is, movement adds only a fraction of the medium's velocity to the light (predicted by Fresnel in order to make Snell'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 a portion of the medium's velocity, but that understanding became very problematic after demonstrated that the index n in Fresnel's formula depended upon the wavelength 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.
Negative aether-drift experiments
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 a Galilean transformation the equations of Newtonian dynamics are invariant, 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.
A simple example concerns the model on which aether was originally built: sound. The speed of propagation for mechanical waves, the speed 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 an airliner 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.
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, the permittivity and permeability of free space, that were assumed to be the same throughout the universe. If these numbers did change, there should be noticeable effects in the sky; stars in different directions would have different colours, for instance.[verification needed]
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.
First-order experiments
Although the aether is almost stationary according to Fresnel, his theory predicts a positive outcome of aether drift experiments only to second order in because Fresnel's dragging coefficient would cause a negative outcome of all optical experiments capable of measuring effects to first 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 of Wilhelm Wien (1898), with changes and additional experiments according to the descriptions of Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1910) and Jakob Laub (1910):
- The experiment of François Arago (1810), to confirm whether refraction, and thus the aberration of light, is influenced by Earth's motion. Similar experiments were conducted by George Biddell Airy (1871) by means of a telescope filled with water, and Éleuthère Mascart (1872).
- The experiment of Fizeau (1860), to find whether the rotation of the polarization plane through glass columns is changed by Earth's motion. He obtained a positive result, but Lorentz could show that the results have been contradictory. DeWitt Bristol Brace (1905) and Strasser (1907) repeated the experiment with improved accuracy, and obtained negative results.
- The experiment of Martin Hoek (1868). This experiment is a more precise variation of the Fizeau experiment (1851). Two light rays were sent in opposite directions – one of them traverses a path filled with resting water, the other one follows a path through air. In agreement with Fresnel's dragging coefficient, he obtained a negative result.
- The experiment of Wilhelm Klinkerfues (1870) investigated whether an influence of Earth's motion on the absorption line of sodium exists. He obtained a positive result, but this was shown to be an experimental error, because a repetition of the experiment by Haga (1901) gave a negative result.
- The experiment of Ketteler (1872), in which two rays of an interferometer were sent in opposite directions through two mutually inclined tubes filled with water. No change of the interference fringes occurred. Later, Mascart (1872) showed that the interference fringes of polarized light in calcite remained uninfluenced as well.
- The experiment of Éleuthère Mascart (1872) to find a change of rotation of the polarization plane in quartz. No change of rotation was found when the light rays had the direction of Earth's motion and then the opposite direction. Lord Rayleigh conducted similar experiments with improved accuracy, and obtained a negative result as well.
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:
- The experiment of Wilhelm Röntgen (1888), to find whether a charged capacitor produces magnetic forces due to Earth's motion.
- The experiment of Theodor des Coudres (1889), to find whether the inductive effect of two wire rolls upon a third one is influenced by the direction of Earth's motion. Lorentz showed that this effect is cancelled to first order by the electrostatic charge (produced by Earth's motion) upon the conductors.
- The experiment of Königsberger (1905). The plates of a capacitor are located in the field of a strong electromagnet. Due to Earth's motion, the plates should have become charged. No such effect was observed.
- The experiment of Frederick Thomas Trouton (1902). A capacitor was brought parallel to Earth's motion, and it was assumed that momentum is produced when the capacitor is charged. The negative result can be explained by Lorentz's theory, according to which the electromagnetic momentum compensates the momentum due to Earth's motion. Lorentz could also show, that the sensitivity of the apparatus was much too low to observe such an effect.
Second-order experiments
While the first-order experiments could be explained by a modified stationary aether, more precise second-order experiments were expected to give positive results. However, no such results could be found.
The famous Michelson–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. The publication of their result in 1887, the null 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 a fringe, 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, the null 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.
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 the Trouton–Noble experiment (1903), whose objective was to detect torsion effects caused by electrostatic fields, and the experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902, 1904), to detect double 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, like Emil Cohn or Alfred 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 of Lodge (1893, 1897) and Ludwig Zehnder (1895), aimed to show whether the aether is dragged by various, rotating masses, showed no aether drag. A more precise measurement was made in the Hammar experiment (1935), which ran a complete MM experiment with one of the "legs" placed between two massive lead blocks. 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 the Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment, which detected the Sagnac effect due to Earth's rotation (see Aether drag hypothesis).
Another completely different attempt to save "absolute" aether was made in the Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis, which posited that everything 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 by Oliver Heaviside. Without referral to an aether, this physical interpretation of relativistic effects was shared 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.
Similarly, the Sagnac effect, observed by G. Sagnac in 1913, was immediately seen to be fully consistent with special relativity. In fact, the Michelson–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.
During the 1920s, the experiments pioneered by Michelson were repeated by Dayton 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.
Lorentz aether theory
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. 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 physical length contraction (1892) to explain the Michelson–Morley experiment, and the mathematical concept of local time (1895) to explain the aberration of light and the Fizeau experiment. This resulted in the formulation of the so-called Lorentz transformation by Joseph Larmor (1897, 1900) and Lorentz (1899, 1904), whereby (it was noted by Larmor) the complete formulation of local time is accompanied by some sort of time 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. 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.
The work of Lorentz was mathematically perfected by Henri Poincaré, who formulated on many occasions the Principle 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 useful postulate for making the laws of nature as simple as possible. In 1900 and 1904 he physically interpreted Lorentz's local time as the result of clock synchronization by light signals. In June and July 1905 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.
End of aether
Special relativity
Aether theory was dealt another blow when the Galilean transformation and Newtonian dynamics were both modified by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, giving the mathematics of Lorentzian electrodynamics a new, "non-aether" context. 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. Max Planck's early advocacy of the special theory, along with the elegant formulation given to it by Hermann 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 of inertial 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 universal frame 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, the photoelectric 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 of quantum mechanics, in which the wave-like nature and 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".
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".
Nevertheless, in 1920, Einstein gave an address at Leiden 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."
Other models
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 of Lorentz 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". However, Dirac never formulated a complete theory, and so his speculations found no acceptance by the scientific community.
Einstein's views on the aether
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. "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."
In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general 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).
In 1918, Einstein publicly alluded to that new definition for the first time. 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 with Lorentzian 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 within general 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).
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.
The only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space, which can be identified through geodesics. As historians such as John 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.
Aether concepts
- Aether theories
- Aether (classical element)
- Aether drag hypothesis
- Astral light
See also
- Dirac sea
- Etheric plane
- Galactic year
- History of special relativity
- Le Sage's theory of gravitation
- One-way speed of light
- Preferred frame
- Superseded scientific theories
- Virtual particle
- Welteislehre
References
Footnotes
- Young ascribed aether to caloric theory, pairing light and heat, and cited passages from Newton such as: "A luminiferous ether pervades the Universe, rare and elastic in a high degree," and:
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?
Citations
- See "Google Scholar 'luminiferous ether'".
- The 19th century science book A Guide to the Scientific Knowledge of Things Familiar provides a brief summary of scientific thinking in this field at the time.
- Robert Boyle, The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, ed. Thomas Birch, 2nd edn., 6 vols. (London, 1772), III, 316; quoted in E. A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1954), 191–192.
- Edwin Arthur Burtt (2003). The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (illustrated, unabridged, reprinted ed.). Courier Corporation. p. 270. ISBN 978-0-486-42551-1. Extract of page 270
- Cesar A. Sciammarella; Federico M. Sciammarella (2012). Experimental Mechanics of Solids. John Wiley & Sons. p. 146. ISBN 978-1-119-97009-5. Extract of page 146
- Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1960). The Edge of Objectivity: An Essay in the History of Scientific Ideas. Princeton University Press. p. 408. ISBN 0-691-02350-6.
- Schwartz, Melvin (1987). Principles of Electrodynamics (Revised ed.). Dover Publications, Inc. pp. 106–107. ISBN 978-0-486-65493-5.
- Nichols, Edward L. (November 1904). "The Fundamental Concepts of Physical Science". Popular Science Monthly. 66.
- Yousef, Mohamed Haj (2018-01-01). Duality of Time: Complex-Time Geometry and Perpetual Creation of Space. Mohamed Haj Yousef. ISBN 978-1-5395-7920-5.
- "Selected Papers of Great American Physicists" (PDF). www.aip.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 July 2015. Retrieved 30 April 2018.
- They commented in a footnote: "From [the Michelson–Morley] experiment it is not inferred that the velocity of the earth is but a few kilometers per second, but rather that the dimensions of the apparatus vary very nearly as required by relativity. From the present experiment we similarly infer that the frequency of light varies conformably to the theory."
- The confusion over this point can be seen in Sagnac's conclusion that "in the ambient space, light is propagated with a velocity V0, independent of the movement as a whole of the luminous source O and the optical system. That is a property of space which experimentally characterizes the luminiferous aether." The invariance of light speed, independent of the movement of the source, is also one of the two fundamental principles of special relativity.
- Roberts, Schleif (2006); Physics FAQ: Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR Archived 2009-10-15 at the Wayback Machine
- Lorentz wrote: "One cannot deny to the bearer of these properties a certain substantiality, and if so, then one may, in all modesty, call true time the time measured by clocks which are fixed in this medium, and consider simultaneity as a primary concept." However, he went on to say that this was based on his conception of "infinite velocity", which according to his own theory is not physically realizable. Lorentz also admitted that the postulate of an absolute but undetectable rest frame was purely metaphysical, and had no empirical consequences.
- "Einstein: Ether and Relativity". Maths History. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
- Dirac wrote about his theory: "We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether."
- Isaacson, Walter (2007). Einstein: His life and Universe. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 47–48.
- Albert Einstein's 'First' Paper (1894 or 1895), http://www.straco.ch/papers/Einstein%20First%20Paper.pdf Archived 2020-07-27 at the Wayback Machine
- Einstein 1920: We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether 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. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Primary sources
- Newton, Isaac: Opticks (1704). Fourth edition of 1730. (Republished 1952 (Dover: New York), with commentary by Bernard Cohen, Albert Einstein, and Edmund Whittaker).
- Maxwell, JC (1865). "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field (Part 1)" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-07-28.
- Maxwell, James Clerk (1878), Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 8 (9th ed.), New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 568–572 , in Baynes, T. S. (ed.),
- Fresnel, A. (1818), "Lettre de M. Fresnel à M. Arago sur l'influence du mouvement terrestre dans quelques phénomènes d'optique", Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 9: 57–66 (Sep. 1818), 286–7 (Nov. 1818); reprinted in H. de Senarmont, E. Verdet, and L. Fresnel (eds.), Oeuvres complètes d'Augustin Fresnel, vol. 2 (1868), pp. 627–36; translated as "Letter from Augustin Fresnel to François Arago, on the influence of the movement of the earth on some phenomena of optics" in K.F. Schaffner, Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories, Pergamon, 1972 (doi:10.1016/C2013-0-02335-3), pp. 125–35; also translated (with several errors) by R.R. Traill as "Letter from Augustin Fresnel to François Arago concerning the influence of terrestrial movement on several optical phenomena", General Science Journal, 23 January 2006 (PDF, 8 pp.).
- G. G. Stokes (1845). "On the Aberration of Light". Philosophical Magazine. 27 (177): 9–15. doi:10.1080/14786444508645215.
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1895), [Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies], Leiden: E.J. Brill
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1892), 74–79 [The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Aether], Zittingsverlag Akad. V. Wet., 1:
- Larmor, Joseph (1897), 205–300, Bibcode:1897RSPTA.190..205L, doi:10.1098/rsta.1897.0020 , Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 190:
- Larmor, Joseph (1900), , Cambridge University Press
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1899), 427–442 , Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1:
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1904), 809–831 , Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 6:
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1921), 293–308, doi:10.1007/BF02392073 [Two Papers of Henri Poincaré on Mathematical Physics], Acta Mathematica, 38 (1):
- Lorentz, H.A.; Lorentz, H. A.; Miller, D. C.; Kennedy, R. J.; Hedrick, E. R.; Epstein, P. S. (1928), "Conference on the Michelson-Morley Experiment", The Astrophysical Journal, 68: 345–351, Bibcode:1928ApJ....68..341M, doi:10.1086/143148
- Poincaré, Henri (1900), 252–278. See also the English translation Archived 2008-06-26 at the Wayback Machine. , Archives Néerlandaises des Sciences Exactes et Naturelles, 5:
- Poincaré, Henri (1904–1906), 604–622 , in Rogers, Howard J. (ed.), Congress of arts and science, universal exposition, St. Louis, 1904, vol. 1, Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, pp.
- Poincaré, Henri (1905b), 1504–1508 [On the Dynamics of the Electron], Comptes Rendus, 140:
- Poincaré, Henri (1906), "Sur la dynamique de l'électron" [On the Dynamics of the Electron], Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 21: 129–176, Bibcode:1906RCMP...21..129P, doi:10.1007/BF03013466, hdl:2027/uiug.30112063899089, S2CID 120211823
- Einstein, Albert (1905a), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", Annalen der Physik, 322 (10): 891–921, Bibcode:1905AnP...322..891E, doi:10.1002/andp.19053221004. See also: English translation Archived 2005-11-25 at the Wayback Machine.
- Einstein, Albert: (1909) The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation "The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation". Archived from the original on 2008-04-23. Retrieved 2024-01-14.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link), Phys. Z., 10, 817–825. (review of aether theories, among other topics) - Dirac, P. M. (1951). "Is there an Aether?" (PDF). Nature. 168 (4282): 906. Bibcode:1951Natur.168..906D. doi:10.1038/168906a0. S2CID 4288946. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 23 February 2017.
- A. Einstein (1918), 697–702, Bibcode:1918NW......6..697E, doi:10.1007/BF01495132, S2CID 28132355 , Naturwissenschaften, 6 (48):
- Einstein, Albert: "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" (1920), republished in Sidelights on Relativity (Methuen, London, 1922)
- A. Einstein (1924), "Über den Äther", Verhandlungen der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 105 (2): 85–93. See also an English translation: Concerning the Aether Archived 2010-11-04 at the Wayback Machine
- "Einstein Archives Online". Archived from the original on 16 June 2011.
Experiments
- Fizeau, H. (1851). 568–573. doi:10.1080/14786445108646934. . Philosophical Magazine. 2:
- Michelson, A. A. & Morley, E.W. (1886). 377–386. Bibcode:1886AmJS...31..377M. doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-31.185.377. S2CID 131116577. . Am. J. Sci. 31 (185):
- Arago, A. (1810–1853). "Mémoire sur la vitesse de la lumière, lu à la prémière classe de l'Institut, le 10 décembre 1810". Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences. 36: 38–49.
- Airy, G.B. (1871). "On the Supposed Alteration in the Amount of Astronomical Aberration of Light, Produced by the Passage of the Light through a Considerable Thickness of Refracting Medium". Proceedings of the Royal Society. 20 (130–138): 35–39. Bibcode:1871RSPS...20...35A. doi:10.1098/rspl.1871.0011. Archived from the original on 2012-05-15.
- Mascart, E. (1872). "Sur les modifications qu'éprouve la lumière par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse et du mouvement de l'observateur". Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure. Série 2. 1: 157–214. doi:10.24033/asens.81.
- Fizeau, H. (1861). "Ueber eine Methode, zu untersuchen, ob das Polarisationsazimut eines gebrochenen Strahls durch die Bewegung des brechenden Körpers geändert werde". Annalen der Physik. 190 (12): 554–587. Bibcode:1861AnP...190..554F. doi:10.1002/andp.18621901204. Archived from the original on 2012-05-15.
- Brace, D.B. (1905). "The Aether 'Drift' and Rotary Polarization". Philosophical Magazine. 10 (57): 383–396. doi:10.1080/14786440509463384.
- Strasser, B. (1907). "Der Fizeausche Versuch über die Änderung des Polarisationsazimuts eines gebrochenen Strahles durch die Bewegung der Erde". Annalen der Physik. 329 (11): 137–144. Bibcode:1907AnP...329..137S. doi:10.1002/andp.19073291109. Archived from the original on 2012-05-15.
- Hoek, M. (1868). "Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement". Verslagen en Mededeelingen. 2: 189–194.
- Klinkerfues, Ernst Friedrich Wilhelm (1870). "Versuche über die Bewegung der Erde und der Sonne im Aether". Astronomische Nachrichten. 76 (3): 33–38. Bibcode:1870AN.....76...33K. doi:10.1002/asna.18700760302.
- Haga, H. (1902). "Über den Klinkerfuesschen Versuch". Physikalische Zeitschrift. 3: 191.
- Ketteler, Ed. (1872). "Ueber den Einfluss der astronomischen Bewegungen auf die optischen Erscheinungen". Annalen der Physik. 220 (9): 109–127. Bibcode:1871AnP...220..109K. doi:10.1002/andp.18712200906. Archived from the original on 2012-05-15.
- Mascart, E. (1874). "Sur les modifications qu'éprouve la lumière par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse et du mouvement de l'observateur (deuxième partie)". Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure. Série 2. 3: 363–420. doi:10.24033/asens.118.
- Lord Rayleigh (1902). "Is Rotatory Polarization Influenced by the Earth's Motion?". Philosophical Magazine. 4 (20): 215–220. doi:10.1080/14786440209462836.
- Röntgen, W. (1888). "Über die durch Bewegung eines im homogenen elektrischen Felde befindlichen Dielektricums hervorgerufene elektrodynamische Kraft". Berliner Sitzungsberichte. 2. Halbband: 23–28. Archived from the original on 2016-02-26.
- Des Coudres, Th. (1889). "Ueber das Verhalten des Lichtäthers bei den Bewegungen der Erde". Annalen der Physik. 274 (9): 71–79. Bibcode:1889AnP...274...71D. doi:10.1002/andp.18892740908.
- Königsberger, J. (1905). "Induktionswirkung im Dielektrikum und Bewegung des Aethers". Berichte der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Freiburg I. Br. 13: 95–100.
- Trouton, F.T. (1902). "The results of an electrical experiment, involving the relative motion of the Earth and the Ether, Suggested by the Late Professor FitzGerald". Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society. 7: 379–384.
- Michelson, Albert Abraham (1881), 120–129, Bibcode:1881AmJS...22..120M, doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-22.128.120, S2CID 130423116 , American Journal of Science, 22 (128):
- Michelson, Albert Abraham & Morley, Edward Williams (1887), 333–345, Bibcode:1887AmJS...34..333M, doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-34.203.333, S2CID 124333204 , American Journal of Science, 34 (203):
- Trouton, F. T.; Noble, H. R. (1903). "The Mechanical Forces Acting on a Charged Electric Condenser Moving through Space". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 202 (346–358): 165–181. Bibcode:1904RSPTA.202..165T. doi:10.1098/rsta.1904.0005. Archived from the original on 2012-05-15.
- Lord Rayleigh (1902). 678–683. doi:10.1080/14786440209462891. . Philosophical Magazine. 4 (24):
- Brace, DeWitt Bristol (1904). 317–329. doi:10.1080/14786440409463122. . Philosophical Magazine. 7 (40):
- Lodge, Oliver J. (1893). "Aberration Problems". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 184: 727–804. Bibcode:1893RSPTA.184..727L. doi:10.1098/rsta.1893.0015. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24.
- Lodge, Oliver J. (1897). 149–166. Bibcode:1897RSPTA.189..149L. doi:10.1098/rsta.1897.0006. . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 189:
- Zehnder, L. (1895). "Ueber die Durchlässigkeit fester Körper für den Lichtäther". Annalen der Physik. 291 (5): 65–81. Bibcode:1895AnP...291...65Z. doi:10.1002/andp.18952910505.
- G. W. Hammar (1935). "The Velocity of Light Within a Massive Enclosure". Physical Review. 48 (5): 462–463. Bibcode:1935PhRv...48..462H. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.48.462.2.
- Kennedy, R. J.; Thorndike, E. M. (1932). "Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time". Physical Review. 42 (3): 400–418. Bibcode:1932PhRv...42..400K. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.42.400.
- Sagnac, Georges (1913), 708–710 [The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation], Comptes Rendus, 157:
- Sagnac, Georges (1913), 1410–1413 [On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer], Comptes Rendus, 157:
Secondary sources
- Whittaker, Edmund Taylor (1910), A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity (1 ed.), Dublin: Longman, Green and Co.
- Jannsen, Michel & Stachel, John (2008), The Optics and Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (PDF), archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-09-29
- Darrigol, Olivier (2000), Electrodynamics from Ampère to Einstein, Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 978-0-19-850594-5
- Schaffner, Kenneth F. (1972), Nineteenth-century aether theories, Oxford: Pergamon Press, ISBN 978-0-08-015674-3
- Wien, Wilhelm (1898). I–XVIII.. . Annalen der Physik. 301 (3):
- Laub, Jakob (1910). "Über die experimentellen Grundlagen des Relativitätsprinzips". Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik. 7: 405–463.
- Miller, Arthur I. (1981), Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity. Emergence (1905) and early interpretation (1905–1911), Reading: Addison–Wesley, ISBN 978-0-201-04679-3
- Janssen, Michel; Mecklenburg, Matthew (2007), V. F. Hendricks; et al. (eds.), "From classical to relativistic mechanics: Electromagnetic models of the electron", Interactions: Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy, Dordrecht: 65–134, archived from the original on 2008-07-04, retrieved 2004-04-16
- Pais, Abraham (1982), Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-520438-4
- Born, M. (1956), Physics in my generation, London & New York: Pergamon Press
- Kostro, L. (1992), "An outline of the history of Einstein's relativistic ether concept", in Jean Eisenstaedt; Anne J. Kox (eds.), Studies in the history of general relativity, vol. 3, Boston-Basel-Berlin: Birkhäuser, pp. 260–280, ISBN 978-0-8176-3479-7
- Stachel, J. (2001), "Why Einstein reinvented the ether", Physics World, 14 (6): 55–56, doi:10.1088/2058-7058/14/6/33.
- Kostro, L. (2001), "Albert Einstein's New Ether and his General Relativity" (PDF), Proceedings of the Conference of Applied Differential Geometry: 78–86, archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-04-11.
External links
- Harry Bateman (1915) The Structure of the Aether, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 21(6):299–309.
- Decaen, Christopher A. (2004), "Aristotle's Aether and Contemporary Science", The Thomist, 68 (3): 375–429, doi:10.1353/tho.2004.0015, S2CID 171374696, archived from the original on 2012-03-05, retrieved 2011-03-05.
- The Aether of Space Archived 2017-09-13 at the Wayback Machine – Lord Rayleigh's address
- ScienceWeek Theoretical Physics: On the Aether and Broken Symmetry
- The New Student's Reference Work/Ether
Luminiferous aether or ether luminiferous meaning light bearing was the postulated medium for the propagation of light It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave based light to propagate through empty space a vacuum 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 luminiferous aether it was hypothesised that the Earth moves through a medium of aether that carries 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 the Michelson 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 the special 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 the blackbody radiator and photoelectric effect was a key experiment in the development of modern physics which includes both relativity and quantum theory the latter of which explains the particle like nature of light The history of light and aetherParticles vs waves 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 Christiaan Huygens s Treatise on Light 1690 hypothesized that light is a wave propagating through an aether He and Isaac Newton could only envision light waves as being longitudinal propagating like sound and other mechanical waves in fluids However longitudinal waves necessarily have only one form for a given propagation direction rather than two polarizations like a transverse wave Thus longitudinal waves can not explain birefringence 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 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 and reflect 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 explain refraction and diffraction To explain refraction Newton s Third Book of Opticks 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 349 In contrast to the modern understanding that heat radiation and light are both electromagnetic 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 348 He wrote I do not know what this Aether is but that if it consists of particles then they must beexceedingly 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 352 Bradley suggests particles In 1720 James Bradley carried out a series of experiments attempting to measure stellar 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 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 as stellar aberration 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 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 Wave theory triumphs A century later Thomas Young and Augustin 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 for propagation 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 and Augustin 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 the absence 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 be dilatant 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 Electromagnetism In 1856 Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf 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 the electrostatic unit of charge and the electromagnetic unit of charge is the speed of light c 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 These are the first recorded historical links between the speed of light and electromagnetic phenomena James Clerk Maxwell began working on Michael Faraday s lines of force In his 1861 paper On 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 by Hippolyte Fizeau Maxwell concluded that light consists in undulations of the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena 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 Although Maxwell did not explicitly mention the sea of molecular vortices his derivation of Ampere 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 the Lorentz 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 and Ampere s circuital law 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 the electric magnetic 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 The apparent need for a propagation medium for such Hertzian waves later called radio 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 of matter 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 of electric fields without associated electric 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 in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed c As this can only occur in one reference frame in Newtonian physics see Galilean 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 otherwise c 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 and George 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 Problems By this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical it had to be a fluid 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 without viscosity 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 Maxwell wrote in Encyclopaedia Britannica 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 of increasingly 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 of Lorentz 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 new special theory of relativity 1905 could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all Aether fell to Occam s Razor Relative motion between the Earth and aetherAether drag The two most important models which were aimed to describe the relative motion of the Earth and aether were Augustin Jean Fresnel s 1818 model of the nearly stationary aether including a partial aether drag determined by Fresnel s dragging coefficient and George Gabriel Stokes 1844 model of complete aether drag The latter theory was not considered as correct since it was not compatible with the aberration of light and the auxiliary hypotheses developed to explain this problem were not convincing Also subsequent experiments as the Sagnac effect 1913 also showed that this model is untenable However the most important experiment supporting Fresnel s theory was Fizeau s 1851 experimental confirmation of Fresnel s 1818 prediction that a medium with refractive index n moving with a velocity v would increase the speed of light travelling through the medium in the same direction as v from c n to cn 1 1n2 v displaystyle frac c n left 1 frac 1 n 2 right v That is movement adds only a fraction of the medium s velocity to the light predicted by Fresnel in order to make Snell 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 a portion of the medium s velocity but that understanding became very problematic after demonstrated that the index n in Fresnel s formula depended upon the wavelength 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 Negative aether drift experiments 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 a Galilean transformation the equations of Newtonian dynamics are invariant 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 A simple example concerns the model on which aether was originally built sound The speed of propagation for mechanical waves the speed 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 an airliner 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 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 the permittivity and permeability of free space that were assumed to be the same throughout the universe If these numbers did change there should be noticeable effects in the sky stars in different directions would have different colours for instance verification needed 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 First order experiments Although the aether is almost stationary according to Fresnel his theory predicts a positive outcome of aether drift experiments only to second order in v c displaystyle v c because Fresnel s dragging coefficient would cause a negative outcome of all optical experiments capable of measuring effects to first order in v c displaystyle v c This was confirmed by the following first order experiments all of which gave negative results The following list is based on the description of Wilhelm Wien 1898 with changes and additional experiments according to the descriptions of Edmund Taylor Whittaker 1910 and Jakob Laub 1910 The experiment of Francois Arago 1810 to confirm whether refraction and thus the aberration of light is influenced by Earth s motion Similar experiments were conducted by George Biddell Airy 1871 by means of a telescope filled with water and Eleuthere Mascart 1872 The experiment of Fizeau 1860 to find whether the rotation of the polarization plane through glass columns is changed by Earth s motion He obtained a positive result but Lorentz could show that the results have been contradictory DeWitt Bristol Brace 1905 and Strasser 1907 repeated the experiment with improved accuracy and obtained negative results The experiment of Martin Hoek 1868 This experiment is a more precise variation of the Fizeau experiment 1851 Two light rays were sent in opposite directions one of them traverses a path filled with resting water the other one follows a path through air In agreement with Fresnel s dragging coefficient he obtained a negative result The experiment of Wilhelm Klinkerfues 1870 investigated whether an influence of Earth s motion on the absorption line of sodium exists He obtained a positive result but this was shown to be an experimental error because a repetition of the experiment by Haga 1901 gave a negative result The experiment of Ketteler 1872 in which two rays of an interferometer were sent in opposite directions through two mutually inclined tubes filled with water No change of the interference fringes occurred Later Mascart 1872 showed that the interference fringes of polarized light in calcite remained uninfluenced as well The experiment of Eleuthere Mascart 1872 to find a change of rotation of the polarization plane in quartz No change of rotation was found when the light rays had the direction of Earth s motion and then the opposite direction Lord Rayleigh conducted similar experiments with improved accuracy and obtained a negative result as well 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 The experiment of Wilhelm Rontgen 1888 to find whether a charged capacitor produces magnetic forces due to Earth s motion The experiment of Theodor des Coudres 1889 to find whether the inductive effect of two wire rolls upon a third one is influenced by the direction of Earth s motion Lorentz showed that this effect is cancelled to first order by the electrostatic charge produced by Earth s motion upon the conductors The experiment of Konigsberger 1905 The plates of a capacitor are located in the field of a strong electromagnet Due to Earth s motion the plates should have become charged No such effect was observed The experiment of Frederick Thomas Trouton 1902 A capacitor was brought parallel to Earth s motion and it was assumed that momentum is produced when the capacitor is charged The negative result can be explained by Lorentz s theory according to which the electromagnetic momentum compensates the momentum due to Earth s motion Lorentz could also show that the sensitivity of the apparatus was much too low to observe such an effect Second order experiments The Michelson Morley experiment compared the time for light to reflect from mirrors in two orthogonal directions While the first order experiments could be explained by a modified stationary aether more precise second order experiments were expected to give positive results However no such results could be found The famous Michelson 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 The publication of their result in 1887 the null 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 a fringe 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 the null 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 AEther Philosophical Magazine S 5 Vol 24 No 151 December 1887 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 the Trouton Noble experiment 1903 whose objective was to detect torsion effects caused by electrostatic fields and the experiments of Rayleigh and Brace 1902 1904 to detect double 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 like Emil Cohn or Alfred 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 of Lodge 1893 1897 and Ludwig Zehnder 1895 aimed to show whether the aether is dragged by various rotating masses showed no aether drag A more precise measurement was made in the Hammar experiment 1935 which ran a complete MM experiment with one of the legs placed between two massive lead blocks 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 the Michelson Gale Pearson experiment which detected the Sagnac effect due to Earth s rotation see Aether drag hypothesis Another completely different attempt to save absolute aether was made in the Lorentz FitzGerald contraction hypothesis which posited that everything 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 by Oliver Heaviside Without referral to an aether this physical interpretation of relativistic effects was shared 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 Similarly the Sagnac effect observed by G Sagnac in 1913 was immediately seen to be fully consistent with special relativity In fact the Michelson 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 During the 1920s the experiments pioneered by Michelson were repeated by Dayton 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 Lorentz aether theoryBetween 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 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 physical length contraction 1892 to explain the Michelson Morley experiment and the mathematical concept of local time 1895 to explain the aberration of light and the Fizeau experiment This resulted in the formulation of the so called Lorentz transformation by Joseph Larmor 1897 1900 and Lorentz 1899 1904 whereby it was noted by Larmor the complete formulation of local time is accompanied by some sort of time 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 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 The work of Lorentz was mathematically perfected by Henri Poincare who formulated on many occasions the Principle 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 useful postulate for making the laws of nature as simple as possible In 1900 and 1904 he physically interpreted Lorentz s local time as the result of clock synchronization by light signals In June and July 1905 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 End of aetherSpecial relativity Aether theory was dealt another blow when the Galilean transformation and Newtonian dynamics were both modified by Albert Einstein s special theory of relativity giving the mathematics of Lorentzian electrodynamics a new non aether context 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 Max Planck s early advocacy of the special theory along with the elegant formulation given to it by Hermann 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 of inertial 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 universal frame 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 the photoelectric 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 of quantum mechanics in which the wave like nature and 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 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 Nevertheless in 1920 Einstein gave an address at Leiden 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 Other models 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 of Lorentz 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 However Dirac never formulated a complete theory and so his speculations found no acceptance by the scientific community Einstein s views on the aether 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 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 In 1916 after Einstein completed his foundational work on general 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 In 1918 Einstein publicly alluded to that new definition for the first time 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 with Lorentzian 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 within general 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 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 The only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space which can be identified through geodesics As historians such as John 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 Aether conceptsAether theories Aether classical element Aether drag hypothesis Astral lightSee alsoDirac sea Etheric plane Galactic year History of special relativity Le Sage s theory of gravitation One way speed of light Preferred frame Superseded scientific theories Virtual particle WelteislehreReferencesFootnotes Young ascribed aether to caloric theory pairing light and heat and cited passages from Newton such as A luminiferous ether pervades the Universe rare and elastic in a high degree and 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 Citations See Google Scholar luminiferous ether The 19th century science book A Guide to the Scientific Knowledge of Things Familiar provides a brief summary of scientific thinking in this field at the time Robert Boyle The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle ed Thomas Birch 2nd edn 6 vols London 1772 III 316 quoted in E A Burtt The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science Garden City New York Doubleday amp Company 1954 191 192 Edwin Arthur Burtt 2003 The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science illustrated unabridged reprinted ed Courier Corporation p 270 ISBN 978 0 486 42551 1 Extract of page 270 Cesar A Sciammarella Federico M Sciammarella 2012 Experimental Mechanics of Solids John Wiley amp Sons p 146 ISBN 978 1 119 97009 5 Extract of page 146 Gillispie Charles Coulston 1960 The Edge of Objectivity An Essay in the History of Scientific Ideas Princeton University Press p 408 ISBN 0 691 02350 6 Schwartz Melvin 1987 Principles of Electrodynamics Revised ed Dover Publications Inc pp 106 107 ISBN 978 0 486 65493 5 Nichols Edward L November 1904 The Fundamental Concepts of Physical Science Popular Science Monthly 66 Yousef Mohamed Haj 2018 01 01 Duality of Time Complex Time Geometry and Perpetual Creation of Space Mohamed Haj Yousef ISBN 978 1 5395 7920 5 Selected Papers of Great American Physicists PDF www aip org Archived PDF from the original on 15 July 2015 Retrieved 30 April 2018 They commented in a footnote From the Michelson Morley experiment it is not inferred that the velocity of the earth is but a few kilometers per second but rather that the dimensions of the apparatus vary very nearly as required by relativity From the present experiment we similarly infer that the frequency of light varies conformably to the theory The confusion over this point can be seen in Sagnac s conclusion that in the ambient space light is propagated with a velocity V0 independent of the movement as a whole of the luminous source O and the optical system That is a property of space which experimentally characterizes the luminiferous aether The invariance of light speed independent of the movement of the source is also one of the two fundamental principles of special relativity Roberts Schleif 2006 Physics FAQ Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR GR Archived 2009 10 15 at the Wayback Machine Lorentz wrote One cannot deny to the bearer of these properties a certain substantiality and if so then one may in all modesty call true time the time measured by clocks which are fixed in this medium and consider simultaneity as a primary concept However he went on to say that this was based on his conception of infinite velocity which according to his own theory is not physically realizable Lorentz also admitted that the postulate of an absolute but undetectable rest frame was purely metaphysical and had no empirical consequences Einstein Ether and Relativity Maths History Retrieved 7 August 2023 Dirac wrote about his theory We have now the velocity at all points of space time playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether Isaacson Walter 2007 Einstein His life and Universe New York Simon amp Schuster pp 47 48 Albert Einstein s First Paper 1894 or 1895 http www straco ch papers Einstein 20First 20Paper pdf Archived 2020 07 27 at the Wayback Machine Einstein 1920 We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities in this sense therefore there exists an aether According to the general theory of relativity space without aether 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 But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time The idea of motion may not be applied to it Primary sources Newton Isaac Opticks 1704 Fourth edition of 1730 Republished 1952 Dover New York with commentary by Bernard Cohen Albert Einstein and Edmund Whittaker Maxwell JC 1865 A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field Part 1 PDF Archived PDF from the original on 2011 07 28 Maxwell James Clerk 1878 Ether in Baynes T S ed Encyclopaedia Britannica vol 8 9th ed New York Charles Scribner s Sons pp 568 572 Fresnel A 1818 Lettre de M Fresnel a M Arago sur l influence du mouvement terrestre dans quelques phenomenes d optique Annales de Chimie et de Physique 9 57 66 Sep 1818 286 7 Nov 1818 reprinted in H de Senarmont E Verdet and L Fresnel eds Oeuvres completes d Augustin Fresnel vol 2 1868 pp 627 36 translated as Letter from Augustin Fresnel to Francois Arago on the influence of the movement of the earth on some phenomena of optics in K F Schaffner Nineteenth Century Aether Theories Pergamon 1972 doi 10 1016 C2013 0 02335 3 pp 125 35 also translated with several errors by R R Traill as Letter from Augustin Fresnel to Francois Arago concerning the influence of terrestrial movement on several optical phenomena General Science Journal 23 January 2006 PDF 8 pp G G Stokes 1845 On the Aberration of Light Philosophical Magazine 27 177 9 15 doi 10 1080 14786444508645215 Lorentz Hendrik Antoon 1895 Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Korpern Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies Leiden E J Brill Lorentz Hendrik Antoon 1892 De relatieve beweging van de aarde en den aether The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Aether Zittingsverlag Akad V Wet 1 74 79 Larmor Joseph 1897 On a Dynamical Theory of the Electric and Luminiferous Medium Part 3 Relations with material media Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 190 205 300 Bibcode 1897RSPTA 190 205L doi 10 1098 rsta 1897 0020 Larmor Joseph 1900 Aether and Matter Cambridge University Press Lorentz Hendrik Antoon 1899 Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 1 427 442 Lorentz Hendrik Antoon 1904 Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 6 809 831 Lorentz Hendrik Antoon 1921 Deux Memoires de Henri Poincare sur la Physique Mathematique Two Papers of Henri Poincare on Mathematical Physics Acta Mathematica 38 1 293 308 doi 10 1007 BF02392073 Lorentz H A Lorentz H A Miller D C Kennedy R J Hedrick E R Epstein P S 1928 Conference on the Michelson Morley Experiment The Astrophysical Journal 68 345 351 Bibcode 1928ApJ 68 341M doi 10 1086 143148 Poincare Henri 1900 La theorie de Lorentz et le principe de reaction Archives Neerlandaises des Sciences Exactes et Naturelles 5 252 278 See also the English translation Archived 2008 06 26 at the Wayback Machine Poincare Henri 1904 1906 The Principles of Mathematical Physics in Rogers Howard J ed Congress of arts and science universal exposition St Louis 1904 vol 1 Boston and New York Houghton Mifflin and Company pp 604 622 Poincare Henri 1905b Sur la dynamique de l electron On the Dynamics of the Electron Comptes Rendus 140 1504 1508 Poincare Henri 1906 Sur la dynamique de l electron On the Dynamics of the Electron Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo 21 129 176 Bibcode 1906RCMP 21 129P doi 10 1007 BF03013466 hdl 2027 uiug 30112063899089 S2CID 120211823 Einstein Albert 1905a Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper Annalen der Physik 322 10 891 921 Bibcode 1905AnP 322 891E doi 10 1002 andp 19053221004 See also English translation Archived 2005 11 25 at the Wayback Machine Einstein Albert 1909 The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation Archived from the original on 2008 04 23 Retrieved 2024 01 14 a href wiki Template Cite web title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint bot original URL status unknown link Phys Z 10 817 825 review of aether theories among other topics Dirac P M 1951 Is there an Aether PDF Nature 168 4282 906 Bibcode 1951Natur 168 906D doi 10 1038 168906a0 S2CID 4288946 Archived from the original PDF on 17 December 2008 Retrieved 23 February 2017 A Einstein 1918 Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity Naturwissenschaften 6 48 697 702 Bibcode 1918NW 6 697E doi 10 1007 BF01495132 S2CID 28132355 Einstein Albert Ether and the Theory of Relativity 1920 republished in Sidelights on Relativity Methuen London 1922 A Einstein 1924 Uber den Ather Verhandlungen der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 105 2 85 93 See also an English translation Concerning the Aether Archived 2010 11 04 at the Wayback Machine Einstein Archives Online Archived from the original on 16 June 2011 Experiments Fizeau H 1851 The Hypotheses Relating to the Luminous Aether and an Experiment which Appears to Demonstrate that the Motion of Bodies Alters the Velocity with which Light Propagates itself in their Interior Philosophical Magazine 2 568 573 doi 10 1080 14786445108646934 Michelson A A amp Morley E W 1886 Influence of Motion of the Medium on the Velocity of Light Am J Sci 31 185 377 386 Bibcode 1886AmJS 31 377M doi 10 2475 ajs s3 31 185 377 S2CID 131116577 Arago A 1810 1853 Memoire sur la vitesse de la lumiere lu a la premiere classe de l Institut le 10 decembre 1810 Comptes Rendus de l Academie des Sciences 36 38 49 Airy G B 1871 On the Supposed Alteration in the Amount of Astronomical Aberration of Light Produced by the Passage of the Light through a Considerable Thickness of Refracting Medium Proceedings of the Royal Society 20 130 138 35 39 Bibcode 1871RSPS 20 35A doi 10 1098 rspl 1871 0011 Archived from the original on 2012 05 15 Mascart E 1872 Sur les modifications qu eprouve la lumiere par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse et du mouvement de l observateur Annales Scientifiques de l Ecole Normale Superieure Serie 2 1 157 214 doi 10 24033 asens 81 Fizeau H 1861 Ueber eine Methode zu untersuchen ob das Polarisationsazimut eines gebrochenen Strahls durch die Bewegung des brechenden Korpers geandert werde Annalen der Physik 190 12 554 587 Bibcode 1861AnP 190 554F doi 10 1002 andp 18621901204 Archived from the original on 2012 05 15 Brace D B 1905 The Aether Drift and Rotary Polarization Philosophical Magazine 10 57 383 396 doi 10 1080 14786440509463384 Strasser B 1907 Der Fizeausche Versuch uber die Anderung des Polarisationsazimuts eines gebrochenen Strahles durch die Bewegung der Erde Annalen der Physik 329 11 137 144 Bibcode 1907AnP 329 137S doi 10 1002 andp 19073291109 Archived from the original on 2012 05 15 Hoek M 1868 Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainee une onde lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement Verslagen en Mededeelingen 2 189 194 Klinkerfues Ernst Friedrich Wilhelm 1870 Versuche uber die Bewegung der Erde und der Sonne im Aether Astronomische Nachrichten 76 3 33 38 Bibcode 1870AN 76 33K doi 10 1002 asna 18700760302 Haga H 1902 Uber den Klinkerfuesschen Versuch Physikalische Zeitschrift 3 191 Ketteler Ed 1872 Ueber den Einfluss der astronomischen Bewegungen auf die optischen Erscheinungen Annalen der Physik 220 9 109 127 Bibcode 1871AnP 220 109K doi 10 1002 andp 18712200906 Archived from the original on 2012 05 15 Mascart E 1874 Sur les modifications qu eprouve la lumiere par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse et du mouvement de l observateur deuxieme partie Annales Scientifiques de l Ecole Normale Superieure Serie 2 3 363 420 doi 10 24033 asens 118 Lord Rayleigh 1902 Is Rotatory Polarization Influenced by the Earth s Motion Philosophical Magazine 4 20 215 220 doi 10 1080 14786440209462836 Rontgen W 1888 Uber die durch Bewegung eines im homogenen elektrischen Felde befindlichen Dielektricums hervorgerufene elektrodynamische Kraft Berliner Sitzungsberichte 2 Halbband 23 28 Archived from the original on 2016 02 26 Des Coudres Th 1889 Ueber das Verhalten des Lichtathers bei den Bewegungen der Erde Annalen der Physik 274 9 71 79 Bibcode 1889AnP 274 71D doi 10 1002 andp 18892740908 Konigsberger J 1905 Induktionswirkung im Dielektrikum und Bewegung des Aethers Berichte der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Freiburg I Br 13 95 100 Trouton F T 1902 The results of an electrical experiment involving the relative motion of the Earth and the Ether Suggested by the Late Professor FitzGerald Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society 7 379 384 Michelson Albert Abraham 1881 The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether American Journal of Science 22 128 120 129 Bibcode 1881AmJS 22 120M doi 10 2475 ajs s3 22 128 120 S2CID 130423116 Michelson Albert Abraham amp Morley Edward Williams 1887 On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether American Journal of Science 34 203 333 345 Bibcode 1887AmJS 34 333M doi 10 2475 ajs s3 34 203 333 S2CID 124333204 Trouton F T Noble H R 1903 The Mechanical Forces Acting on a Charged Electric Condenser Moving through Space Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 202 346 358 165 181 Bibcode 1904RSPTA 202 165T doi 10 1098 rsta 1904 0005 Archived from the original on 2012 05 15 Lord Rayleigh 1902 Does Motion through the Aether cause Double Refraction Philosophical Magazine 4 24 678 683 doi 10 1080 14786440209462891 Brace DeWitt Bristol 1904 On Double Refraction in Matter moving through the Aether Philosophical Magazine 7 40 317 329 doi 10 1080 14786440409463122 Lodge Oliver J 1893 Aberration Problems Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 184 727 804 Bibcode 1893RSPTA 184 727L doi 10 1098 rsta 1893 0015 Archived from the original on 2016 01 24 Lodge Oliver J 1897 Experiments on the Absence of Mechanical Connexion between Ether and Matter Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 189 149 166 Bibcode 1897RSPTA 189 149L doi 10 1098 rsta 1897 0006 Zehnder L 1895 Ueber die Durchlassigkeit fester Korper fur den Lichtather Annalen der Physik 291 5 65 81 Bibcode 1895AnP 291 65Z doi 10 1002 andp 18952910505 G W Hammar 1935 The Velocity of Light Within a Massive Enclosure Physical Review 48 5 462 463 Bibcode 1935PhRv 48 462H doi 10 1103 PhysRev 48 462 2 Kennedy R J Thorndike E M 1932 Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time Physical Review 42 3 400 418 Bibcode 1932PhRv 42 400K doi 10 1103 PhysRev 42 400 Sagnac Georges 1913 L ether lumineux demontre par l effet du vent relatif d ether dans un interferometre en rotation uniforme The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation Comptes Rendus 157 708 710 Sagnac Georges 1913 Sur la preuve de la realite de l ether lumineux par l experience de l interferographe tournant On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer Comptes Rendus 157 1410 1413 Secondary sources Whittaker Edmund Taylor 1910 A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity 1 ed Dublin Longman Green and Co Jannsen Michel amp Stachel John 2008 The Optics and Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies PDF archived PDF from the original on 2015 09 29 Darrigol Olivier 2000 Electrodynamics from Ampere to Einstein Oxford Clarendon Press ISBN 978 0 19 850594 5 Schaffner Kenneth F 1972 Nineteenth century aether theories Oxford Pergamon Press ISBN 978 0 08 015674 3 Wien Wilhelm 1898 Uber die Fragen welche die translatorische Bewegung des Lichtathers betreffen Referat fur die 70 Versammlung deutsche Naturforscher und Aerzte in Dusseldorf 1898 Annalen der Physik 301 3 I XVIII Laub Jakob 1910 Uber die experimentellen Grundlagen des Relativitatsprinzips Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitat und Elektronik 7 405 463 Miller Arthur I 1981 Albert Einstein s special theory of relativity Emergence 1905 and early interpretation 1905 1911 Reading Addison Wesley ISBN 978 0 201 04679 3 Janssen Michel Mecklenburg Matthew 2007 V F Hendricks et al eds From classical to relativistic mechanics Electromagnetic models of the electron Interactions Mathematics Physics and Philosophy Dordrecht 65 134 archived from the original on 2008 07 04 retrieved 2004 04 16 Pais Abraham 1982 Subtle is the Lord The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein New York Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 19 520438 4 Born M 1956 Physics in my generation London amp New York Pergamon Press Kostro L 1992 An outline of the history of Einstein s relativistic ether concept in Jean Eisenstaedt Anne J Kox eds Studies in the history of general relativity vol 3 Boston Basel Berlin Birkhauser pp 260 280 ISBN 978 0 8176 3479 7 Stachel J 2001 Why Einstein reinvented the ether Physics World 14 6 55 56 doi 10 1088 2058 7058 14 6 33 Kostro L 2001 Albert Einstein s New Ether and his General Relativity PDF Proceedings of the Conference of Applied Differential Geometry 78 86 archived PDF from the original on 2018 04 11 External linksWikiquote has quotations related to Luminiferous aether Wikimedia Commons has media related to Luminiferous aether Wikisource has original text related to this article 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica Aether Harry Bateman 1915 The Structure of the Aether Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 21 6 299 309 Decaen Christopher A 2004 Aristotle s Aether and Contemporary Science The Thomist 68 3 375 429 doi 10 1353 tho 2004 0015 S2CID 171374696 archived from the original on 2012 03 05 retrieved 2011 03 05 The Aether of Space Archived 2017 09 13 at the Wayback Machine Lord Rayleigh s address ScienceWeek Theoretical Physics On the Aether and Broken Symmetry The New Student s Reference Work Ether Portals PhysicsHistory of scienceMathematics