Talk:Luminiferous aether

message: I recently discovered that Lorentz and Eddington had roughly similar ideas as Einstein about the ether. And the list is much longer than those two. Who claims that they were not part of the scientific community?? Harald88 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read any standard relativity-textbook written in the last 70 years, then you will know that the word "aether" for the "properties" of relativistic space was not accepted by the scientific community. But if you have reputable and modern secondary sources (per WP:Secondary, not primary sources as the semi-popular lectures by Langevin or Einstein), which show that the word aether has gained wide-spread acceptance, then present them. PS: I re-introduced the clarification (aether = curved space-time) as per Kostro (see his 2001 paper), who is a well-known expert on "Einstein's Aether". --D.H (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to what source are the scientific discourses by Einstein and Langevin "semi-popular"? And they were certainly part of the scientific community (does anyone need a source to verify that fact?). It's perfectly fine to state that according to <so-and-so>  <a certain claim>; that's the way Wikipedia functions. However, one opinion about Einstein's opinion isn't a source for a referendum among scientists. I'll therefore modify it into "little" - the equivalent of agreeing with you that there was no "widespread acceptance". 128.178.153.55 (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, all we want are secondary sources, which backup the primary sources ;-) --D.H (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous, misleading last sentence 

message: A series of negative first-order experiments (19th century) are now included. Also the order of some sections, the wording in the introduction etc., have been changed.--D.H (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiments 

message: Why does Plenum redirect here?
This article doesn't contain the word Plenum once.
(Redirected from Plenum (physics))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your talk page messages by adding four tildes at the end of the message. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the OP.  There seems little justification for the redirect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  This gets into archaic historical stuff. From what I remember from many, many years ago in History of Science class, certain of the ancient Greek philosophers didn't believe in such a thing as totally empty space. Descartes considered "action at a distance" to be inconceivable, so considered the universe to be a plenum. (See scienceworld.wolfram.com  and Stanford History of Philosophy) Descartes is very low on my list of favorite philosophers, so I'm not exactly eager to contribute a section justifying the redirect. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I suggest that you change or remove the redirect.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I have added the word "plenum" to the article. The reason that the redirect comes here is that the physical plenum was supposed to be a plenum of aether. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Plenum redirect here? 

message: The word "cherished" in "[Lorentz's] cherished concept of the aether" doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia.  I removed the word cherished, but someone put it back.  This should be a completely non-controversial edit. Jrheller1 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: agree.  cherished doesn't belong unless there is a specific citation. Constant314 (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. See  Google Scholar,  &tbm=bks Google Books,   Google Scholar,  &tbm=bks Google Books. Please note that "cherished" and "Lorentz" are independent in our sentence. "Lorent'z aether" has a specific meaning—see  Google Scholar,  &tbm=bks Google Books,  Google Scholar,  &tbm=bks Google Books. If a quote is needed, we can pick one. I'll check back in later. - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no dispute with Lorent'z aether Constant314 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is about "luminiferous aether", a concept invented primarily by people before Lorentz.  I don't like "Lorentz's aether" because it associates Lorentz too strongly with aether.  He developed a theory that used the concept of aether, but in his theory there was only one mechanical property of aether (immobility).  So there was a progression of aether concepts: from having multiple mechanical properties, to only immobility (in Lorentz's theory), to complete elimination of aether after 1905. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, sure, this article is about "luminiferous aether", but the specific passage in that section is about Einstein's view of ether, in relation to Lorentz' preferred (aka cherished) view. So the qualifications are essential and relevant to the content. Removing Lorentz would simply destroy the meaning of the passage, and removing "cherished" would not be necessary. You can check the abundant sources that you find in the above given books and scholar searches. - DVdm (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lorentz got rid of some of the mechanical properties of aether to make his theory fit new scientific data, not because he "preferred" this concept of aether.  Later, the modern form of the Lorentz transformation was derived by Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincare and used by Einstein.  The modern form of the Lorentz transformation is true whether aether exists or not, so by this point, aether could be completely eliminated.  What is going on here is an evolution of the concept of aether, not an evolution of "Lorentz's aether", let alone "Lorentz's cherished aether". Jrheller1 (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, an evolution of the concept of aether, and/but in this context we're talking about and referring to Lorentz's cherished version. I don't see any problem - DVdm (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

text:  I did not see a quote for cherished.  I think cherished should be removed as it connotes a particular emotional response to a theory.  It doesn’t add anything to the article’s subject which is luminiferous aether.  On the other hand “Lorentz's aether” informally identifies an aether with a particular set of properties and I’m OK with that.  However, it could be reworded as “aether as Lorentz understood it.” Constant314 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I have done this, as you suggested, and replaced the seemingly problematic "cherished" with "preferred". As for the sources, see for instance , but I have no problem replacing the cheries with preferences . - DVdm (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That looks satisfactory to me.Constant314 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Despite that, meanwhile this happened. I have added another wikilink: . - DVdm (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit removing unencyclopedic words 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Luminiferous aether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Dirac/Dirac1951b.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104022846/http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/aether.htm to http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/aether.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Luminiferous aether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616123244/http://www.alberteinstein.info/db/ViewImage.do?DocumentID=34095&Page=1 to http://www.alberteinstein.info/db/ViewImage.do?DocumentID=34095&Page=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: With this, and later again this edit, user  removed the spelling "ether". Clearly the literature disagrees:
:
Google               	Scholar	Books          	Web
"luminiferous aether"	1,630  	&tbm=bks 6,010 	42,400
"luminiferous ether" 	4,770  	&tbm=bks 31,300	37,600
I have restored the spelling and added the sources (). - DVdm (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aether and ether 

message: I do not know if I'm editing this page in the right way, but I feel you guys should read this historical review, specially parts I and II. It shines a lot of light in this subject, specially in the 'null results' mentions about some of the experiments described in this page. This is a suggestion only. I'm sure acquiring more information won't hurt anyone here and seeing the world from different views only makes us, humans, stronger.
https://smile.amazon.com/Dynamic-Ether-Cosmic-Space-Correcting/dp/0997405716/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=demeo+ether&qid=1578440531&sr=8-1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enhering (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New historical review 

message: Quoted from the article... "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."
I must point out that neutrinos, discovered I believe some time after Einstein's death and after the Aether Theory was discarded, are under certain circumstances, an invisible material (subatomic particles) with no interaction with physical objects.
Thibeinn (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Neutrinos do interact with matter, just not as often as other particles do. Independent of that, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to do WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrinos Could Be Aether Particles 

message: A modern, expensive and sophisticated experiment along many more, that clearly prove Michelson - Morley were wrong... There are many experiments after 1990’s with better equipment that tell the story differently... completely the opposite way ... please expand this article to its full view and equally present the experiments and their results that prove ether existence.
Thank you... Panos Kordatzis (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silvertooth’s experiment (and other that prove ether exist) is not mentioned 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Aether theory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11#Aether theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  SpinningSpark 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aether theory" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]