Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  This portion below reminds me of people who cling to things in general, when none is needed. Great article, RP. "Historians wonder whether Lorentz would have been Einstein had he been able to surrender his attachment to aether, which he kept as a silent partner in every area where he made breakthroughs. Indeed, no one had done more to renovate views about aether. Lorentz seemed ready to abandon any of the pillars of physics, bar that “world-spirit”. By 1892, he had declared that the aether-ion was outside Newtonian mechanics. Three years later, he let go of Newton’s law of action and reaction because aether had to be immobile. "In 1902, Lorentz suggested that aether was not just in between the atoms and electrons but inside them. Going further, he imagined matter as a local modification of aether. Shortly afterwards, he considered that aether could “be the seat of an electro-magnetic field with its energy and its vibrations”. Nonetheless, he still regarded aether “as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter”. "Lorentz appreciated that Einstein would never have reached either of his Theories of Relativity had he clung to aether, remarking, with typical grace, how we were lucky that Einstein had given it up." http://home.alphalink.com.au/~loge27...r_einstein.htm |
The aether debate may or not ever be resolved. It seems ancillary to the controversy of finiteness and infinity - all which is familiar to the human experience has a beginning and ending; ergo, that quality - limitation, if you will - is frequently projected on the universe at large; accompanied by proferred reasoning for a universal beginning and ending.
The same rationale is applied to conductors for propagated signals of various description. Sound waves, for example, require a conductor, as water waves likewise require.
In accordance with the known mechanics of propagation, a conductor for EM continues as a consideration.
Whereas, the alternative scenario suggests that light may be 'self propagating'.
(Thanks for the compliment on my cache of urls, dipayankar & Nobody - I located the one we're relating to here <Which is exceptionally stellar?>, while on a search for 'Lorentz'.)
Just as this thread has a beginning, so too will it end, but not necessarily ending the enigmatic controversy it addresses.