Evidence against entraining the aether

Joseph Levy of France has just posted Is the aether entrained by the motion of celestial bodies? What do the experiments tell us?. He revisits the issue of whether the Michelson–Morley experiment rules out luminiferous aether drift from the motion of the Earth.

Since the publication of Einstein’s basic article “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies” in 1905, the aether has been excluded from the area of physics, being regarded as inexistent or at least inactive. Such an attitude signified that the laws of physics could be formulated in the same way, that the aether exists or not,...

This approach appeared quite revolutionary in 1905, since it called into question the ideas developed by a number of classical physicists such as Hooke, Lavoisier, Young, Huygens, Laplace, Fresnel, and Lorentz among others.

I do not agree with this. I say that Einstein did not refute Lorentz, and what Lorentz meant by the aether was what he said in 1895:

It is not my intention to ... express assumptions about the nature of the aether.

Levy does explain how the aether concept (if not the name) is universally accepted today:

In fact, despite its properties that seem so different from ordinary matter, a number of arguments speak in favour of a substratum [9] and these arguments have multiplied in the early twentieth century with the development of quantum mechanics. It is difficult, indeed, to accept that a “vacuum”, endowed with physical properties such as permittivity and permeability may be empty. The ability of such an empty vacuum to transmit electromagnetic waves is also doubtful.

Quantum mechanics, on its part, regards the vacuum as an ocean of pairs of fluctuating virtual particles-antiparticles of very small life-time, a ppearing and disappearing spontaneously, which can be interpreted as a gushing of the aether, although the aether is not officially recognized by quantum mechanics. The interaction of the electrons and the vacuum, in particular, is regarded as the cause of the shifting of the alpha ray of the hydrogen atom spectrum, referred to as lamb shift [10]. The fluctuations of the vacuum are also assumed to expl ain the Casimir effect [11], and the Davies Fulling, Unruh, effect [12].

Einstein himself around 1916 changed his mind as regards the hypothesis of the aether. ...

A proof of the undeniable existence of the aether was given in ref [14]. Thus, the question to be answered today is not to verify its existence, but rather to specify its nature and its properties, and, in the first place, to determine if it is entrained (or not) by the translational motion of celestial bodies due to gravitation.

You will be reassured to learn that the conclusions of Lorentz and Poincare about relativity in 1900 are still good today, and evidence is against the aether drag hypothesis.

Definitions of science

Maria Popova has posted some definitions of science, quoting Einstein, Feynman, Sagan, and others. Here are some definitions that I have posted on my blog. Kansas, pre-2005

Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.

Kansas, 2005

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena

Kansas, 2007

Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes.

Lee Smolin, 2011

Science is not about what's true, or what might be true. Science is about what people with originally diverse viewpoints can be forced to believe by the weight of public evidence.

Pinker, 2011

(p. 181) Though we cannot logically prove anything about the physical world, we are entitled to have confidence in certain beliefs about it. The application of reason and observation to discover tentative generalizations about the world is what we call science. The progress of science with its dazzling success at explaining and manipulating the world, shows that knowledge of the universe is possible, albeit always probabilistic and subject to revision. Science is thus a paradigm for how we ought to gain knowledge — not the particular methods or institutions of science but its value system, namely to seek to explain the world, to evaluate candidate explanations objectively, and to be cognizant of the tentativeness and uncertainty of our understanding at any time.

Of these, I like the 2005 Kansas definition the best, even tho it was widely attacked by the AAAS (the world's largest science society) and others. I like it because of the emphasis on observing and testing, and not beliefs, prejudices, paradigms, and supernatural distinctions.

How Einstein promoted Zionism

Einstein biographer (and idolizer) Walter Isaacson wrote a 2009 Atlantic Monthly magazine article on How Einstein Divided America's Jews. He makes it clear that being a Jew was extremely important to Einstein, and how he was politically dedicated to the Zionist cause.

So when he arrived in New York in April, he was greeted by adoring throngs as the world’s first scientific celebrity, one who also happened to be a gentle icon of humanist values and a living patron saint for Jews. ...

“In your letter,” he responded, “I notice that the word Jew is ambiguous in that it refers (1) to nationality and origin, (2) to the faith. I am a Jew in the first sense, not in the second.”

I think of Judaism as a religion, but Einstein was not religious in the way that Christians use the word. He did not believe in a personal God, or attend religious services, or pray, or have faith in a spiritual world. To him, being a Jew meant that he was born a Jew and that he was a believer in Jewish identity politics.

There is often controversy on the Albert Einstein Wikipedia article about whether to prominently identify him as a Jew. Some argue that Judaism is a religion and Einstein was not religious, or that Einstein is famous for his physics and that his Jewishness is only of interest to prejudiced people. However it seems obvious that Einstein's Jewishness is essential to any biography. His Jewishness was extremely important to him, even more important than being German or being a naturalized American. He is mainly famous for being a physicist, but he is also frequently quoted for his opinions on God, religion, and peace. He was an active Zionist and a Nazi refugee. People are fascinated with the details of Einstein's life, and his Jewishness is one of the first things they learn.

A reader supplies Einstein's 1921 interview/essay on How I Became a Zionist.

Darkness threatens mankind

AP reports:

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI, carrying a tall, lit candle, ushered in Christianity's most joyous celebration with an Easter vigil service Saturday night, but voiced fears that mankind is groping in darkness, unable to distinguish good from evil. ...

Still, Benedict worried in his homily: "The darkness that poses a real threat to mankind, after all, is the fact that he can see and investigate tangible material things, but cannot see where the world is going or whence it comes, where our own life is going, what is good and what is evil."

This sounds like dark matter! Or maybe the undetectability of motion thru the aether.

The service began dramatically. Except for the twinkle of camera flashes, the basilica was almost pitch-black as the thousands of faithful in pews awaited Benedict's arrival through the rear entrance. ... "Today we can illuminate our cities so brightly that the stars in the sky are no longer visible," he said. "Is this not an image of the problems caused by our version of enlightenment?"

He is complaining about light pollution. He should be happy that the Arizona governor vetoed the billboard bill. The Vatican does have a long history of supporting astronomy.

Happy Easter. Whether these analogies make any sense or not.

The Incorrigible Plagiarist

A review of my book about Albert Einstein on another web site has provoked discussion of some Jewish issues. See here and here. In the process, I discovered some other sites interested in these issues.

Christopher Jon Bjerknes wrote a 2002 book, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist. You can also find all of his material free. It has some over-the-top Einstein attacks, and some arguments that I found unpersuasive. But the book largely consists of (accurate) quotes from original sources, and you can decide for yourself whether Einstein was a plagiarist. It is a useful resource on Einstein.

I did get fooled by one misquote. He mistranslates the physicist Thirring:

Die Klärung des Zeitproblemes war schon mehrere Jahre vor dem Erscheinen von Einsteins grundlegender Arbeit (1905) durch H. Poincaré weitgehend vorbereitet worden.

H. Poincaré had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearance of Einstein's first work (1905).

The word "completely" should be "mostly".

Professor John Stachel is an Einstein idolizer and editor, and wrote the leading review of the book, and trashed it. But his actual specific criticisms are fairly trivial, and Bjerknes responds with much more serious criticism of Stachel.

Bjerknes's attacks on "Saint Einstein" are just part of larger Jewish issues. He wrote on his blog last year:

Because we failed to disarm 15 million Jews in the 20th Century, the Jews genocided 100 million human beings. On the scales of justice, life would have been more balanced had Jewry disappeared. ... It is time for total war on the Jews. Let America be the first nation to declare this war on behalf of the entire human race.

This is crazy stuff. He hasn't posted anything in over a year.

James Laffrey writes

The author, Bjerknes, is identified as a jew ...

Bjerknes’ most obvious error is in his automatic, without question, acceptance of the jew version of the supposed Holocaust. Now, any of us who can read and analyze have concluded that the jew Holocaust is a hoax. ...

Here’s another reason why Bjerknes can’t claim ignorance. On page 1044, Bjerknes says the jew-created myth that jews were made into soap during the Holohoax “is today known to have been a myth”. Yet, in the same sentence, he mentions “gas chambers and blood-poisoning stations” as if these are true.

Thus, I must think that Bjerknes chose to be in favor of the jew Holocaust story. He chose to try to prop up that monumental, crumbling lie. He chose to do that just as all the major media continue even now to try to prop up that monumental, crumbling lie.

Knowing that Bjerknes is flat wrong on the Holocaust, we can approach his claims about Hitler with proper skepticism.

I want to be clear that I do not endorse any of this nonsense. I would rather stick to the science. I also wonder why Einstein's reputation is so far in excess of him accomplishments, and there is no scientific answer to that question. Some people liked him because he was Jewish, and some people disliked him for it.

Bjerknes claims:

“Einstein wrote in the Judische Rundschau, on 21 June 1921, on pages 351-352,

‘This phenomenon [i.e. Anti-Semitism] in Germany is due to several causes. Partly it originates in the fact that the Jews there exercise an influence over the intellectual life of the German people altogether out of proportion to their number. While, in my opinion, the economic position of the German Jews is very much overrated, the influence of Jews on the Press, in literature, and in science in Germany is very marked, as must be apparent to even the most superficial observer.’ “

I didn't know Einstein said that. I thought that it was considered anti-semitic to say stuff like that.

Again, I don't know what to make of this. My book sticks to the physics.

No technology uses curved spacetime

An Amazon review gives my book a low rating because "General Relativity ... sprang full-blown from the mind of Albert Einstein", and "curved, multidimensional space ... underlies much of modern technology, including GPS satellites." He points to this site to show that GPS satellites use relativistic time corrections.

I wish that were true, but it is not. GPS uses some relativity formulas to correct its clocks based on velocity and gravity, but does not require anything about curved spacetime. No other technology does either, as far as I know, except for experiments designed to test general relativity.

Yes, general relativity is a theory that models all gravity with curved spacetime. So if I drop an apple to the ground, then its fall can be explained by curved spacetime. So in that sense, everything using gravity is also using curved spacetime. But you do not need general relativity or curved spacetime to predict when that apple hits the ground, and you do not need it for apples, cars, GPS, or other technologies.

It is a historical fact that the formulas for the relativistic time corrections needed for GPS were discovered without any use of curved spacetime. The velocity clock corrections were published by Lorentz (1904), Poincare (1905), and Einstein (1905). Einstein says that he discovered the gravity correction in 1907 with the happiest thought of his life, and published it in 1908. It is a simple application of special relativity. Neither Einstein nor anyone else had said anything about curved spacetime by 1908.

Yes, you could say that the GPS formulas could be re-derived using curved spacetime. You can also re-derive them using string theory. But it is a mistake to say that curved spacetime or string theory underlies much of modern technology.

Explaining gravity with curved spacetime was not a wholly original idea of Einstein's either. As far as I can determine, it was Marcel Grossmann's idea. Grossmann proposed it in 1913, but Einstein refused to believe that it could really be a geometric spacetime curvature until Levi-Civita and Hilbert convinced him a couple of years later.

Einstein did not refute Lorentz

A reader comments that Einstein could have had some "imaginative leap" that allowed a better interpretation of the aether.

If Einstein had some disagreement with Lorentz, he had plenty of opportunities to say so. Einstein's famous 1905 relativity paper makes three references to Lorentz's work:

They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. ...

If we imagine the electric charges to be invariably coupled to small rigid bodies (ions, electrons), these equations are the electromagnetic basis of the Lorentzian electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies. ...

Since ..., we have the proof that, on the basis of our kinematical principles, the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity.

The first sentence does not mention Lorentz's name, but Einstein always explained it as referring to Lorentz's 1895 paper.

As you can see, Einstein agrees with Lorentz on all points. The 1905 paper has two postulates, the relativity principle and the constant speed of light. The first is explicitly taken from Lorentz, as quoted above. The second was also borrowed from Lorentz, as Einstein later explained.

Einstein had another chance to clarify his relationship to Lorentz's theory in 1907, when he was invited to write a relativity review paper, published in 1908 (also here), regurgitating his 1905 paper along with some other work. It said:

In what follows it is endeavored to present an integrated survey of the investigations which have arisen to date from combining the theory of H.A. Lorentz with the theory of relativity.

In the first two parts of this work are treated the kinematic foundations of the theory of relativity and their application to the basic equations of teh Maxwell-Lorentz theory; I am following here the investigations of of H.A. Lorentz (Versl. Kon. Akad. v. Wet., Amsterdam 1904), and A. Einstein (Ann. d. Phy. 16, 1905). [translation by H.M. Schwartz, 1976.]

Einstein always denied that he had read that 1904 Lorentz paper before 1905, in spite of the similarity of ideas, and of evidence that he had access to Lorentz's results. But regardless, Einstein acknowledges Lorentz's 1904 paper in 1907, and acknowledges the similarity with his own work. Einstein does not express any disagreement with Lorentz.

Einstein does not express any disagreement with Poincare either, as Poincare had also published a version of relativity theory.

Lorentz published his 1906 Columbia U. lectures on relativity, where he described Einstein's work without expressing any disagreement with it. That is where Lorentz says, "Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced". After praising Einstein's simplicity, he says, "Yet, I think, something may also be claimed in favor of the form in which I have presented the theory." Lorentz was saying that he and Einstein had different ways of presenting the same theory, with advantages and disadvantages to each approach.

Minkowski's 1908 paper says how he goes farther than Lorentz and Einstein:

This hypothesis sounds rather fantastical. For the contraction is not to be thought of as a consequence of resistances in the ether, but purely as a gift from above, as a condition accompanying the state of motion.

I shall show in our figure, that Lorentz's hypothesis is fully equivalent to the new conceptions about time and space, by which it becomes more intelligible. ...

But the concept of space was not altered, either by Einstein or Lorentz, ...

That's right. Lorentz and Einstein had the formulas that are equivalent to special relativity, but it was Poincare and Minkowski who formulated the geometric interpretation that altered the concept of space.

Poincare praises Lorentz, but is not afraid to express disagreement. Poincare's 1900 paper says:

It would no doubt seem strange that in a monument raised to the glory of Lorentz I would review the considerations which I presented previously as an objection to his theory. I could say that the pages which follow are rather in the nature of an attenuation rather than a magnification of that objection.

Poincare's long 1905 paper says:

The importance of the question determined me to take it up again; the results which I obtained are in agreement with those of Lorentz on all important points; I was only led to modify and supplement them in some points of detail; one will further see the differences which are of secondary importance.

Einstein fans like to say that he somehow reversed some faulty view of Lorentz and/or Poincare, but they are never able to explain why Einstein himself was never able to articulate such an opinion. Was he too stupid to realize what he had done? Was he too cowardly to say that someone else was wrong? Were his communication skill insufficient to say what he wanted to say? No, it is much more likely that he simply had no disagreement with Lorentz or Poincare. He did not even understand Poincare.