Eddington 1927: Velocity through the Aether

Reference: The Book of Physics

Note: The original text is provided below.
Previous / Next

Summary

.

Comments

.

Original Text

The theory of relativity is evidently bound up with the impossibility of detecting absolute velocity; if in our quarrel with the nebular physicists one of us had been able to claim to be absolutely at rest, that would be sufficient reason for preferring the corresponding frame. This has something in common with the well-known philosophic belief that motion must necessarily be relative. Motion is change of position relative to something-, if we try to think of change of position relative to nothing the whole conception fades away. But this does not completely settle the physical problem. In physics we should not be quite so scrupulous as to the use of the word absolute. Motion with respect to aether or to any universally significant frame would be called absolute.

No aethereal frame has been found. We can only discover motion relative to the material landmarks scattered casually about the world; motion with respect to the universal ocean of aether eludes us. We say, “Let V be the velocity of a body through the aether”, and form the various electromagnetic equations in which V is scattered liberally. Then we insert the observed values, and try to eliminate everything that is unknown except V. The solution goes on famously; but just as we have got rid of the other unknowns, behold! V disappears as well, and we are left with the indisputable but irritating conclusion: 0 = 0.

This is a favourite device that mathematical equations resort to, when we propound stupid questions. If we tried to find the latitude and longitude of a point north-east from the north pole we should probably receive the same mathematical answer. “Velocity through aether” is as meaningless as “north-east from the north pole”.

This does not mean that the aether is abolished. We need an aether. The physical world is not to be analyzed into isolated particles of matter or electricity with featureless interspace. We have to attribute as much character to the interspace as to the particles, and in present-day physics quite an army of symbols is required to describe what is going on in the interspace. We postulate aether to bear the characters of the interspace as we postulate matter or electricity to bear the characters of the particles. Perhaps a philosopher might question whether it is not possible to admit the characters alone without picturing anything to support them—thus doing away with aether and matter at one stroke. But that is rather beside the point.

In the last century it was widely believed that aether was a kind of matter, having properties such as mass, rigidity, motion, like ordinary matter. It would be difficult to say when this view died out. It probably lingered longer in England than on the continent, but I think that even here it had ceased to be the orthodox view some years before the advent of the relativity theory. Logically it was abandoned by the numerous nineteenth-century investigators who regarded matter as vortices, knots, squirts, etc., in the aether; for clearly they could not have supposed that aether consisted of vortices in the aether. But it may not be safe to assume that the authorities in question were logical.

Nowadays it is agreed that aether is not a kind of matter. Being non-material, its properties are sui generis. We must determine them by experiment; and since we have no ground for any preconception, the experimental conclusions can be accepted without surprise or misgiving. Characters such as mass and rigidity which we meet with in matter will naturally be absent in aether; but the aether will have new and definite characters of its own. In a material ocean we can say that a particular particle of water which was here a few moments ago is now over there; there is no corresponding assertion that can be made about the aether. If you have been thinking of the aether in a way which takes for granted this property of permanent identification of its particles, you must revise your conception in accordance with the modern evidence. We cannot find our velocity through the aether; we cannot say whether the aether now in this room is flowing out through the north wall or the south wall. The question would have a meaning for a material ocean, but there is no reason to expect it to have a meaning for the non-material ocean of aether.

The aether itself is as much to the fore as ever it was, in our present scheme of the world. But velocity through aether has been found to resemble that elusive lady Mrs. Harris; and Einstein has inspired us with the daring skepticism—”I don’t believe there’s no sich a person”.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Chris Thompson's avatar Chris Thompson  On October 8, 2024 at 2:14 AM

    Vinaire: “At the theoretical value of zero consistency, the speed shall be infinite.”

    Chris: This comment seems to include a quality of entanglement. Would you want to organize it there?

    Does a quality of omnipresence represent infinite speed? And does infinite speed seem to belong together with entanglement?

  • vinaire's avatar vinaire  On October 8, 2024 at 7:14 AM

    To me, as the substance de-condenses from matter to energy its space increases. A point-like “matter particle” becomes a voluminous “energy-quanta”.

    In the entanglement phenomenon, we have energy-space being superimposed over matter-space. Electrons are erroneously being perceived as separate matter particles, when they are a single energy quanta.

    Omnipresence should be conceived in the context of “substance-awareness” dichotomy. From matter-particle to energy-quanta to thought-postulate the space is expanding by leaps and bounds. A thought-postulate has immense volume which appears as omnipresence when it is superimposed over matter-particles.

  • Chris Thompson's avatar Chris Thompson  On October 18, 2024 at 8:42 AM

    I am hung-up on the character of MEST substances.
    This is because I am firmly entrenched in my senses.
    I must do what I can to cut my thought senses loose to think non-intuitively.
    Therefore, I must turn my thought senses upside down.

    I like the inverse proportionality that you use to understand inertia. I find this helpful.
    Therefore, as I have previously been thinking of gravity as I would a liquid river, now I shall work with spacetime as the liquid river metaphor and with gravity as its resulting characteristic.

  • Chris Thompson's avatar Chris Thompson  On October 18, 2024 at 8:48 AM

    I need to practice with time.
    The photon has no mass, therefore it doesn’t age, and from its frame of reference, it doesn’t travel.
    I am yawning from the onslaught of misunderstood words.

    • vinaire's avatar vinaire  On October 18, 2024 at 10:47 AM

      A photon has no mass because the concepts of mass and inertia are reserved for matter only. It is just 100 years ago that Einstein equated energy with matter, bringing energy into the category of substance; but science has not quite caught up with that idea yet.

      Photon has consistency, which may be compared to “extremely diluted mass.”

      Nothing travels from its own frame of reference.

      I hope the following will help you clear up some words.

      The Book of Universe

  • Chris Thompson's avatar Chris Thompson  On October 18, 2024 at 1:03 PM

    I am trying to think about time, not as an abstraction or mental substance, but rather as physical substance, maybe as the heretofore hard-to-pin-down Aether.

    • vinaire's avatar vinaire  On October 18, 2024 at 1:15 PM

      I am currently looking at Time through Eddington’s book. It is very interesting.

Leave a comment