Einstein Method, Rand Misunderstanding

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm opening a separate thread to use as a reference source for several threads currently active: "The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics," "Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of Universe," and "Physics Question."

On the "Logical Leap" thread, the subject of Rand's views on the relationship between philosophy and science has come up. Looking for a particular passage pertaining to that issue in the Workshop Appendix to ITOE, I noticed a comment of Rand's which refers, though not by name, to Einstein's theory of special relativity. Rand misunderstands the method Einstein employed.

In the next three posts, I'll first quote the ITOE passage, then two translations of the Introduction to Einstein's 1905 "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" ("Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," Annalen der Physic 17 (1905)).

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The context is that Rand is responding to a question about induction. (The questioner, "Prof. M," was Larry Gould.)

The part which "struck my eye" glancing through last night was the reference to Einstein's postulates proposing what came to be called "special relativity."

NOTE:

1) See the translations in the next two posts: Einstein didn't deliver any ultimatums, and didn't deny the existence of ether, only dispensed with the need of the hypothesis.

2) She's mixed up special and general relativity. (Although you can get the idea that light will bend from special relativity, the postulates don't pertain to light bending.)

ALSO NOTE: Although Einstein refers to "empty space," at least according to the translators of the paper, "vacuum" in modern physics isn't actually considered to be "empty." (In another paper of the same year the translation given in the Collected Papers for whatever term Einstein used in German is "so-called empty space.")

ITOE

Expanded Second Edition

1990

pg. 302-03

AR [....]

What I would question is this part of the procedure: "if only that principle is known to give rise to those consequences"--that's the mistake of arrested knowledge, right there.

Prof. M: Even though it is relative to what you know at that time?

AR: Even though it's at that time and it's your full context of knowledge. Because you cannot conclude that something which is not fully known to you can be produced only by one hypothesized factor. On the basis of that same context of knowledge, any number of hypotheses could be constructed. Which is why we need hypotheses. If it were otherwise, then your hypothesis to begin with would almost have to be a certainty.

Historically, some dreadful errors have resulted from that method. One of them is the denial of the existence of ether. I don't mean that ether necessarily exists; I mean the process by which they denied it, was of this type. They predicted something with an artificial absolute or ultimatum delivered to nature--if light bends in a certain way (or something on that order), then it proves that space is a vacuum. It cerainly does not, and I am no physicist, I am just an epistemologist. You cannot arbitrarily restrict the facts of nature to your current level of knowledge. In other words, you cannot take the context of your knowledge, as if reality were confined only to that which you know, and deliver ultimatums, saying, "If my hypothesis predicts correctly, then it is only my hypothesis that can be true."

[Ellen Stuttle]

Notice:

1) Einstein was thoroughly steeped in the physics of the time, and brilliantly comprehending of problem areas.

2) He was not proposing his postulates by decree. He was saying that if this pair of postulates was true, then the problems limned in the opening paragraph could be resolved.

3) He doesn't assert that there's no "ether." Instead what he says is that by using his pair of postulates, he could resolve the indicated problems without need of the hypothesis of the "ether".

This version is from Dover Reprints.

Link to pdf of complete paper from Dover Reprints

Translation by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery first published in 1923

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS

OF MOVING BODIES

By A. Einstein

June 30, 1905

It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. 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.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein

Volume 2

The Swiss Years: Writings, 1900-1909

English Translation

Anna Beck, Translator

Peter Havas, Consultant

Copyright © 1989 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Published by Princeton University Press

Doc. 23

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES

by A. Einstein

[Annalen der Physik 17 (1905): 891-921]

It is well known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at present--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries that do not seem to attach to the phenomena. Let us recall, for example, the electrodynamic interaction between a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon depends here only on the relative motion of conductor and magnet, while according to the customary conception the two cases, in which, respectively, either the one or the other of the two bodies is the one in motion, are to be strictly differentiated from each other. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor is at rest, there arises in the surroundings of the magnet an electric field endowed with a certain energy value that produces a current in the places where parts of the conductor are located. But if the magnet is at rest and the conductor is in motion, no electric field arises in the surroundings of the magnet, while in the conductor an electromotive force will arise, to which in itself there does not correspond any energy, but which, provided that the relative motion in the two cases considered is the same, gives rise to electrical currents that have the same magnitude and the same course as those produced by the electric forces in the first-mentioned case.

Examples of a similar kind, and the failure of attempts to detect a motion of the earth relative to the "light medium," lead to the conjecture that not only in mechanics, but in electrodynamics as well, the phenomena do not have any properties corresponding to the concept of absolute rest, but that in all coordinate systems in which the mechanical equations are valid, also the same electrodynamic and optical laws are valid, as has already been shown for quantities of the first order. We shall raise this conjecture (whose content will be called "the principle of relativity" hereafter) to the status of a postulate and shall introduce, in addition, the postulate, only seemingly incompatible with the former one, that in empty space light is always propagated with a definite velocity F which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for arriving at a simple and consistent electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of Maxwell's theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "light ether" will prove superfluous, inasmuch as in accordance with the concept to be developed here, no "space at absolute rest" endowed with special properties will be introduced, nor will a velocity vector be assigned to a point of empty space at which electrodynamic processes are taking place.

Like every other electrodynamics, the theory to be developed is based on the kinematics of the rigid body, since assertions of each and any theory concern the relations between rigid bodies (coordinate systems), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient regard for this circumstance is at the root of the difficulties with which the electrodynamics of moving bodies must presently grapple.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[tjohnson]

The context is that Rand is responding to a question about induction. (The questioner, "Prof. M," was Larry Gould.)

The part which "struck my eye" glancing through last night was the reference to Einstein's postulates proposing what came to be called "special relativity."

NOTE:

1) See the translations in the next two posts: Einstein didn't deliver any ultimatums, and didn't deny the existence of ether, only dispensed with the need of the hypothesis.

2) She's mixed up special and general relativity. (Although you can get the idea that light will bend from special relativity, the postulates don't pertain to light bending.)

ALSO NOTE: Although Einstein refers to "empty space," at least according to the translators of the paper, "vacuum" in modern physics isn't actually considered to be "empty." (In another paper of the same year the translation given in the Collected Papers for whatever term Einstein used in German is "so-called empty space.")

ITOE

Expanded Second Edition

1990

pg. 302-03

AR [....]

What I would question is this part of the procedure: "if only that principle is known to give rise to those consequences"--that's the mistake of arrested knowledge, right there.

Prof. M: Even though it is relative to what you know at that time?

AR: Even though it's at that time and it's your full context of knowledge. Because you cannot conclude that something which is not fully known to you can be produced only by one hypothesized factor. On the basis of that same context of knowledge, any number of hypotheses could be constructed. Which is why we need hypotheses. If it were otherwise, then your hypothesis to begin with would almost have to be a certainty.

Historically, some dreadful errors have resulted from that method. One of them is the denial of the existence of ether. I don't mean that ether necessarily exists; I mean the process by which they denied it, was of this type. They predicted something with an artificial absolute or ultimatum delivered to nature--if light bends in a certain way (or something on that order), then it proves that space is a vacuum. It cerainly does not, and I am no physicist, I am just an epistemologist. You cannot arbitrarily restrict the facts of nature to your current level of knowledge. In other words, you cannot take the context of your knowledge, as if reality were confined only to that which you know, and deliver ultimatums, saying, "If my hypothesis predicts correctly, then it is only my hypothesis that can be true."

It is not clear to me what Rand means here. My understanding is that many attempts were made to discover the ether and all failed. So it was not some "epistemological" process that lead scientists to deny the existence of the ether - it was experiments. Then, faced with no medium for light waves to travel in, physicists had to come up with some other explanation that accounted for the facts, ie. special relativity.

[kiaer.ts]

Rand's complaint seems to be that physicists attributed certain properties to the ether a priori, and when they didn't find these properties, they denied the existence of the ether.

An example might be saying "If there are mice in the apartment they will necessarily eat this cheese, but since they have not eaten this cheese, there are no mice."

Edited August 4, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Greybird]

Thank you, Ellen, for providing this direct contrast between Rand's offhand animadverting and Einstein's actual words. (I can readily believe that he simply saw the use of sogenannte as being obviously implied, as to "empty space.")

It struck me that this misperception on her part may have extended to the root of what the Austrian economists were all about. She (or her minions) criticized the supposed influence upon them of Kantian epistemology. Their efforts in creating a viable foundation for economics actually had the same thrust as that shown here by Einstein — to bring down the needed postulates to the minimal and most functional set that was needed to start to explain "human action."

If that "extreme apriorism," that being a misleading term, avoided epistemological arrogance, well, perhaps Rand saw that attitude as somehow not becoming or productive for scientists. One of excessive humility, perhaps. I've long suspected that she misunderstood what is, in fact, among the greatest glories of science: an attitude that hews closely to integrating the greatest number of facts under the least necessary number of assumptions or hypotheses.

Whether that comes from Occam's Razor, an affection for elegant precision, or simply being "lazy" enough to juggle the fewest possible assumptions at once, it's an attitude that helped create the modern scientific mindset, as such.

[merjet]

Ellen, isn't it more plausible that Ayn Rand got the idea of the denial of the aether second-hand or higher?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, isn't it more plausible that Ayn Rand got the idea of the denial of the aether second-hand or higher?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't think she read direct scientific sources, if that's what you mean. Possibly you mean via report from Peikoff or others she knew.

I know that Leonard Peikoff tried to glean some understanding of special relativity from Larry, but didn't follow Larry's attempts to explain to him. I was there at the time -- lunch at Brooklyn Poly, where LP was teaching and Larry was working as programmer for the Registrar while taking some course work preparing to go to graduate school. It was because of Larry's and Leonard's knowing each other at Brooklyn Poly that Larry was permitted to attend the Workshops. He wasn't there for the first one; he started attending at the second. He was originally supposed to just listen, but then he was allowed to pose questions. Noticing the passage I quoted, I now wonder, did Larry object to AR's interpretation of the method used? I'll have to ask if he still has any recall for what he thought at the time about what she said. I remember that we talked a great deal about induction issues following the session, but I'm not remembering anything specifically about that supposed historical example she gave.

Ellen

[Dragonfly]

It is not clear to me what Rand means here. My understanding is that many attempts were made to discover the ether and all failed. So it was not some "epistemological" process that lead scientists to deny the existence of the ether - it was experiments. Then, faced with no medium for light waves to travel in, physicists had to come up with some other explanation that accounted for the facts, ie. special relativity.

Indeed, Rand's remark doesn't make any sense, she doesn't understand what she's talking about. From the definition of the ether (as a medium for the transmission of light) you can derive certain properties, for example the movement of the Earth with respect to the ether. Experiments (notably the Michelson-Morley experiment) couldn't detect any movement however, and attempts to save the ether notion (like the dragging theory) were also falsified. Only Lorentz came up with a rather contrived solution, including length contraction and time dilation, where he in fact discovered the equations of special relativity (which therefore also bear his name as Lorentz transformations). Einstein however then came up with the simple solution of the principle of relativity and the constance of the speed of light, which solved in one stroke all the problems and which didn't need the ether hypothesis.

This was sufficient reason to conclude that the ether didn't exist. Compare the argument with the argument against the existence of a personal God who interferes with the lives of people:

1. There hasn't been any empirical evidence for the existence of the ether, all the experiments for detecting the ether led to contradictions with the definition of that ether.

2. Phenomena for which the concept of a luminiferous ether was hypothesized to explain them, can be explained by a simple and elegant theory, without any reference to an ether.

Conclusion: the ether doesn't exist.

The same argument can be used mutatis mutandis against the existence of a personal God, and in that case Rand didn't say "You cannot arbitrarily restrict the facts of nature to your current level of knowledge", implying that you cannot rule out the possibility that God in fact does exist. She was definitely not an agnostic in that regard. Peikoff didn't improve her reputation by publishing that passage.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: the nature of light and whether or not it (might) require a medium

> Einstein however then came up with the simple solution of the principle of relativity and the constance of the speed of light, which solved in one stroke all the problems and which didn't need the ether hypothesis. This was sufficient reason to conclude that the ether didn't exist.

DF, you are making -exactly- the mistake Rand referred to and Ted restates. You can't conclude with certainty an ether *doesn't* and *can't* exist because it's not 'necessary' to explain something.

> Compare the argument with the argument against the existence of a personal God who interferes with the lives of people

The difference is that the concept of God is contradictory. That is not true of the -metaphysical possibility- of a substance that is so tenuous that it is hard to detect and has very little effect on what passes through it.

> There hasn't been any empirical evidence for the existence of the ether

Well, physics has been discovering new phenomena, that there are smaller things than the atom for a long time now. Particles with half-lves less than a nanosecond, things that can only be detected at the bottom of deep wells or caves.

The fact that they are hard to detect does not mean they are impossible or that we have discovered everything.

> Phenomena for which the concept of a luminiferous ether was hypothesized to explain them, can be explained by a simple and elegant theory, without any reference to an ether.

1. The idea that other kinds of waves (or wavicles - things with wave-like and particle-like properties) require a -medium- to carry them which moves compressively (sound waves don't travel in space) or up and down (water waves) suggests that light might. Michelson-Morley suggests that it is hard to detect not that it cannot exist, just like those subatomic particles I mentioned went undetected fro most of human history. We already know that how electromagnetic waves travel (the right angles stuff) is more complex than the way water and sound waves travel.

2. What modern physicists often persist in doing (and it looks like I'm going to have to include you in this) is being satisfied once "the equations are satisfied."

3. Too often they are quite happy with not being able to -- or not attempting to -- understand the underlying *metaphysical* phenomenon:

What IS light? Is it a wave or a particle? Or a new kind of phenomenon? What is it exactly? And don't tell me what its properties are. We already know that.

4. Referring back to point one: the fact that light can be bent by everyday media (the phenomenon of refraction...as when you look at a 'bent' stick in water) is suggestive that light might interact with even a very tenuous medium, at least to the extent of needing to be carried by it.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Guyau]

For the straight dope on Einstein’s Special Relativity and why it carried the day, see

Part 4 – Invariance, Electrodynamics, and the Special Theory of my Space, Rotation, Relativity (1998).

Sorry, Ellen and all, but due to other study and writing, I continue to be unable to engage in these discussions on which I know quite a lot. However, I thought the careful work I did in this area, linked above, might be educational to some. In connection with my account, and its References, there is now the fine book Kinematics – The Lost Origins of Einstein’s Relativity by Alberto. A. Martínez (Johns Hopkins 2009)

Edited August 5, 2010 by Stephen Boydstun

[Ellen Stuttle]

> [Phil is quoting Dragonfly's post #10.] Einstein however then came up with the simple solution of the principle of relativity and the constance of the speed of light, which solved in one stroke all the problems and which didn't need the ether hypothesis. This was sufficient reason to conclude that the ether didn't exist.

DF, you are making -exactly- the mistake Rand referred to and Ted restates. You can't conclude with certainty an ether *doesn't* and *can't* exist because it's not 'necessary' to explain something.

I agree with Phil there. I've had disputes before with Dragonfly over the epistemology of negative assertions.

Re the God parallel DF uses, we can conclude that no being with nonsensical attributes (omniscience, omnipotence) exists. (Omniscience and omnipotence, in addition to each respectively not making full sense upon examination, contradict each other to the extent they're comprehensible.) However, we can't justifiably claim to know that no kind of "personal God" whatsoever exists (DF specifically referred to a "personal God") or that no kind of intelligent being was involved in creating the universe we live in (maybe it's part of some larger universes, plural, system) or aspects of that universe. We can only say that we've been shown no evidence of such a being's or beings' activities -- and, thus far, with Laplace, who reputedly replied to Napoleon when asked where God fitted in, "I have no need of that hypothesis." See.

My point about the Rand answer *was not* -- in case anyone thinks it was -- that she was epistemologically incorrect, given what she thought the historical development to have been. Instead I was pointing out that she was in error about how Einstein in fact proceeded, assuming that she meant to include Einstein himself in her critique. Impossible to be sure if she did mean to include Einstein, since she didn't name him; instead she used the plural "they." *Some* physicists do make the mistake of asserting the negative, claiming that the non-existence of the ether has been demonstrated. Einstein himself never made that mistake, not in 1905, age 26, not later.

There are some cases in science where it's epistemologically warranted to assert a definite disproof -- e.g., today our knowledge of combustion is sufficient to assert that there isn't phlogiston. Phlogiston theory was a localized hypothesis about a particular substance released in combustion. We now have an account of combustion which well rules out phlogiston. But we don't have the basis for definitively ruling out some form of ether. What we can validly say at this time is what Einstein said in the 1905 paper, that we "have no need of [the] hypothesis" of a specifically luminiferous ether for explaining the propagation of light.

Ellen

Edited August 5, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[tjohnson]

It isn't just the medium for light transmission, it's also about a "static space" that is an absolute frame of reference for all to use. If this was the case, then the velocities would be additive and it would show up in experiments like M&M did. So we know space and time are not absolute regardless of whether or not there is "an ether".

[tjohnson]

For the straight dope on Einstein’s Special Relativity and why it carried the day, see

Part 4 – Invariance, Electrodynamics, and the Special Theory of my Space, Rotation, Relativity (1998).

Sorry, Ellen and all, but due to other study and writing, I continue to be unable to engage in these discussions on which I know quite a lot. However, I thought the careful work I did in this area, linked above, might be educational to some. In connection with my account, and its References, there is now the fine book Kinematics – The Lost Origins of Einstein’s Relativity by Alberto. A. Martínez (Johns Hopkins 2009)

Very good article Stephen, showing the historical development of SR.

[Dragonfly]

Subject: the nature of light and whether or not it (might) require a medium

> Einstein however then came up with the simple solution of the principle of relativity and the constance of the speed of light, which solved in one stroke all the problems and which didn't need the ether hypothesis. This was sufficient reason to conclude that the ether didn't exist.

DF, you are making -exactly- the mistake Rand referred to and Ted restates. You can't conclude with certainty an ether *doesn't* and *can't* exist because it's not 'necessary' to explain something.

Now you're smuggling a new term into the argument, namely "certainty". There is no certainty in science, even Rand admitted that, only did she use the weasel term "contextual certainty". Further you conveniently omit the other part of the argument, namely that there has never been any empirical evidence for the existence of the ether.

> Compare the argument with the argument against the existence of a personal God who interferes with the lives of people

The difference is that the concept of God is contradictory. That is not true of the -metaphysical possibility- of a substance that is so tenuous that it is hard to detect and has very little effect on what passes through it.

That is a straw god argument. There are many different versions of the concept God (BTW, when I use the term "personal God", I mean a God as some intelligent being who can and does interfere with the world and the people within it, not some vague concept that is more or less equivalent with "nature"), and many of them are not contradictory. That some people for example assign the contradictory property of "omnipotence" to him is not relevant. You can imagine a God that is not literally "omnipotent", but nevertheless very powerful. Other examples are: Zeus, pixies, little invisible demons, some "intelligence" that steers evolution in a particular direction, etc. We don't hesitate to state that those entities don't exist, because 1) there has never been any empirical evidence for them and 2) we have better explanations for the phenomena that are claimed to be caused by those entities.

> There hasn't been any empirical evidence for the existence of the ether

Well, physics has been discovering new phenomena, that there are smaller things than the atom for a long time now. Particles with half-lves less than a nanosecond, things that can only be detected at the bottom of deep wells or caves.

The fact that they are hard to detect does not mean they are impossible or that we have discovered everything.

So you mean that you can't say that gnomes and fairies don't exist, because they might be only detected at the bottom of deep wells or caves?

> Phenomena for which the concept of a luminiferous ether was hypothesized to explain them, can be explained by a simple and elegant theory, without any reference to an ether.

1. The idea that other kinds of waves (or wavicles - things with wave-like and particle-like properties) require a -medium- to carry them which moves compressively (sound waves don't travel in space) or up and down (water waves) suggests that light might. Michelson-Morley suggests that it is hard to detect not that it cannot exist, just like those subatomic particles I mentioned went undetected fro most of human history. We already know that how electromagnetic waves travel (the right angles stuff) is more complex than the way water and sound waves travel.

You don't understand the essence of the MM-experiment. If the ether is a medium that carries light rays, we can measure the movement of that medium by measuring what the light rays do, how thin or tenuous the ether is doesn't matter at all, by definition light should follow the movement of the ether, so we can measure that movement of the ether by measuring what the light rays do. Because of the movement of the Earth around the sun the speed of light would be different when light moves parallel to the movement of the Earth and when it moves parallel, this difference should have a certain value that can be measured. However, in the experiment there was found no difference at all. Of course the precision of the experiment was limited, but it was high enough to conclude that the speed difference was at least much less than the difference based on calculations with the speed of the Earth around the sun. Recently this experiment has been repeated with lasers, resulting in a null result with extremely high accuracy.

2. What modern physicists often persist in doing (and it looks like I'm going to have to include you in this) is being satisfied once "the equations are satisfied."

3. Too often they are quite happy with not being able to -- or not attempting to -- understand the underlying *metaphysical* phenomenon:

What IS light? Is it a wave or a particle? Or a new kind of phenomenon? What is it exactly? And don't tell me what its properties are. We already know that.

This is a good example how philosophers today misunderstand the essence of science. An explanation of a phenomenon is its properties, there is no other explanation. What scientists do is to find regularities in those properties, physical laws, and if possible to find more general, more encompassing laws that in their turn explain those laws, etc. We don't know whether this chain will ever end, or that we finally will find an all-encompassing theory, a "theory of everything". Questions like "what is a photon or an electron really?" are meaningless, metaphysical nonsense, we can only describe their properties and try to find laws that describe their behavior.

4. Referring back to point one: the fact that light can be bent by everyday media (the phenomenon of refraction...as when you look at a 'bent' stick in water) is suggestive that light might interact with even a very tenuous medium, at least to the extent of needing to be carried by it.

Unbridled fantasies that are not supported by any empirical evidence are not science. That light can be bent by material media can be explained by the interaction of light with the atoms and molecules of those media, for which there exists abundant empirical evidence. There doesn't exist any evidence for the existence of the ether, let alone for "interactions" of light with it (how would those interactions be effectuated?). We could as well imagine that little demons are bending light rays, that theory has the same scientific status.

[BaalChatzaf]

Notice:

1) Einstein was thoroughly steeped in the physics of the time, and brilliantly comprehending of problem areas.

2) He was not proposing his postulates by decree. He was saying that if this pair of postulates was true, then the problems limned in the opening paragraph could be resolved.

3) He doesn't assert that there's no "ether." Instead what he says is that by using his pair of postulates, he could resolve the indicated problems without need of the hypothesis of the "ether".

One of the reasons Einstein disposed of the luminferous aether was that it never was observed. To this day no one by any means has observed a visco-elastic substance filling all of space that carries light waves. In short there is no counterpart to water in space that carries the waves or at least no as ever been observed.

On top of that if aether exists then it has no mechanical properties. For if it did, then planets would slow down as they plowed through the stuff and spiral into their suns. So how seriously should we take the existence of a substance that has no mechanical properties, no electrical properties, has never been observed and whose "effects" can be adequately explained without assuming this wonderful marvelous stuff exists at all. Think of it - a substance that is stiffer than steel and so rare it can not be detected nor does it slow down bodies moving through it. Do you believe any such wonder stuff exists? I don't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

> There is no certainty in science [DF]

Yikes!! And you're the one who claimed the ether does not exist. In post #10. Sounded like you were pretty certain of that.

> An explanation of a phenomenon is its properties, there is no other explanation.

No, it's the properties and how its nature results in those properties. The causal link between them. That's why we need to understand better the nature of light.

What is it and what wider genus does it fall in (matter? energy? etc.), not just how does it perform.

DF, no offense, but I can't take the time to try to teach you Objectivist epistemology. Especially if you can't see the above two basic Epistemology 101 points, I don't see how I can reason with you. [i've already given up on Baal].

Edited August 6, 2010 by Philip Coates

[BaalChatzaf]

DF, no offense, but I can't take the time to try to teach you Objectivist epistemology. Especially if you can't see the above two basic Epistemology 101 points, I don't see how I can reason with you. [i've already given up on Baal].

I have no particular use of Objectivist Epistemology. I make do with the kind of epistemology that physicists and mathematicians use. You know, the kind of epistemology that delivers useful results.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

> An explanation of a phenomenon is its properties, there is no other explanation.

No, it's the properties and how its nature results in those properties. The causal link between them. That's why we need to understand better the nature of light.

This is incoherent. Properties do not result from "its nature." Properties and nature of a phenomenon are one and the same. "Nature" is just a blanket term for them. Your implicit assumption seems to be that "nature" is static and "properties" are dynamic, but that's wrong for there is no static anywhere unless defined into a delimited proposition.

Understanding light better is basically part of the quest for knowledge for its own sake. The consequences of new knowledge can reveal themselves in unexpected ways. Your need to know is either mistaken or purely epistemological.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Notice:

1) Einstein was thoroughly steeped in the physics of the time, and brilliantly comprehending of problem areas.

2) He was not proposing his postulates by decree. He was saying that if this pair of postulates was true, then the problems limned in the opening paragraph could be resolved.

3) He doesn't assert that there's no "ether." Instead what he says is that by using his pair of postulates, he could resolve the indicated problems without need of the hypothesis of the "ether".

One of the reasons Einstein disposed of the luminferous aether was that it never was observed. To this day no one by any means has observed a visco-elastic substance filling all of space that carries light waves. In short there is no counterpart to water in space that carries the waves or at least no as ever been observed.

On top of that if aether exists then it has no mechanical properties. For if it did, then planets would slow down as they plowed through the stuff and spiral into their suns. So how seriously should we take the existence of a substance that has no mechanical properties, no electrical properties, has never been observed and whose "effects" can be adequately explained without assuming this wonderful marvelous stuff exists at all. Think of it - a substance that is stiffer than steel and so rare it can not be detected nor does it slow down bodies moving through it. Do you believe any such wonder stuff exists? I don't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In his 1905 paper (that incredible work) Einstein simply said that he found the "luminiferous ether" "superfluous" to what he proposed. Later he "disposed" of the idea of a mechanical ether because this conjecture led to impossible results re observed motion. But he didn't make the negative claim that there couldn't exist *some* form of ether. Instead, if Larry is remembering right -- I haven't read the sources -- there are statements of Einstein's that he thought there might be some form of ether. It's necessary to distinguish between the mechanical ether which had been posited as the medium for light waves and any form whatsoever of ether.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

Notice:

1) Einstein was thoroughly steeped in the physics of the time, and brilliantly comprehending of problem areas.

2) He was not proposing his postulates by decree. He was saying that if this pair of postulates was true, then the problems limned in the opening paragraph could be resolved.

3) He doesn't assert that there's no "ether." Instead what he says is that by using his pair of postulates, he could resolve the indicated problems without need of the hypothesis of the "ether".

One of the reasons Einstein disposed of the luminferous aether was that it never was observed. To this day no one by any means has observed a visco-elastic substance filling all of space that carries light waves. In short there is no counterpart to water in space that carries the waves or at least no as ever been observed.

On top of that if aether exists then it has no mechanical properties. For if it did, then planets would slow down as they plowed through the stuff and spiral into their suns. So how seriously should we take the existence of a substance that has no mechanical properties, no electrical properties, has never been observed and whose "effects" can be adequately explained without assuming this wonderful marvelous stuff exists at all. Think of it - a substance that is stiffer than steel and so rare it can not be detected nor does it slow down bodies moving through it. Do you believe any such wonder stuff exists? I don't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In his 1905 paper (that incredible work) Einstein simply said that he found the "luminiferous ether" "superfluous" to what he proposed. Later he "disposed" of the idea of a mechanical ether because this conjecture led to impossible results re observed motion. But he didn't make the negative claim that there couldn't exist *some* form of ether. Instead, if Larry is remembering right -- I haven't read the sources -- there are statements of Einstein's that he thought there might be some form of ether. It's necessary to distinguish between the mechanical ether which had been posited as the medium for light waves and any form whatsoever of ether.

Ellen

I was referring Maxwell and other's aether. A visco-elastic substance that fills all of space. In short space-goo that is stiffer than steel and so rare as to defy detection of any sort. It isn't detected (by any means thus far), it does not slow down the planets as they plow through it, it has no measurable or detectable physical properties. In order for aether to carry light as a visco-eleastic wave carrier it would have to be so stiff as to be solid. Otherwise it could not carry a transverse wave at the speed of light.

Here is the riddle: What is solid, undetectable, invisible, has no measurable or detectable mechanical properties and does not produce the interference effects predicted by the Michelso-Morely (and ALL other subsequent ) interferometer experiment? It is rather like the loving machine: There was a young man from racine, who invented a loving machine. It was concave and convex, it could serve either sex and kept itself clean in between! Do you have an answer to the riddle? Can such a substance exist? If so, what is it made of? Surely not atoms of baryonic matter.

Now you see why Einstein dumped the hypothesis of the existence of such a thing as aether. One does not have to assert it does not exist. One merely notes there is no reason to believe it exists. Sort of like God, but God makes more sense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

> Properties and nature of a phenomenon are one and the same. [brant]

Nature - web definition of the sense in which I was using the word: "the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized".

Property: "A characteristic attribute possessed by all members of a class."

Nature of ice is that it is frozen water. But it has many other properties. Nature of man is a certain kind of animal with certain distinguishing and defining properties. But he has many other properties.

,,,,

Brant and others, please don't waste time with word quibbles. Try to read posts for their underlying point. It should have been clear to you the distinction I was making and you were just being an "ankle biter" in trying to find a flaw in it.

Do I need to point you to Webster's for the dictionary meaning of: "grow the fuck up"?

[Brant Gaede]

> Properties and nature of a phenomenon are one and the same. [brant]

Nature - web definition of the sense in which I was using the word: "the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized".

Property: "A characteristic attribute possessed by all members of a class."

Nature of ice is that it is frozen water. But it has many other properties. Nature of man is a certain kind of animal with certain distinguishing and defining properties. But he has many other properties.

,,,,

Brant and others, please don't waste time with word quibbles. Try to read posts for their underlying point. It should have been clear to you the distinction I was making and you were just being an "ankle biter" in trying to find a flaw in it.

Do I need to point you to Webster's for the dictionary meaning of: "grow the fuck up"?

Then nature is a few properties of something and DF is correct. Nature has to be metaphysically reducible to, but you are insisting epistemology-land is primary. Properties that cause other properties only confirms what he said.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

It is not clear to me what Rand means here. My understanding is that many attempts were made to discover the ether and all failed. So it was not some "epistemological" process that lead scientists to deny the existence of the ether - it was experiments. Then, faced with no medium for light waves to travel in, physicists had to come up with some other explanation that accounted for the facts, ie. special relativity.

Indeed, Rand's remark doesn't make any sense, she doesn't understand what she's talking about. From the definition of the ether (as a medium for the transmission of light) you can derive certain properties, for example the movement of the Earth with respect to the ether. Experiments (notably the Michelson-Morley experiment) couldn't detect any movement however, and attempts to save the ether notion (like the dragging theory) were also falsified. Only Lorentz came up with a rather contrived solution, including length contraction and time dilation, where he in fact discovered the equations of special relativity (which therefore also bear his name as Lorentz transformations). Einstein however then came up with the simple solution of the principle of relativity and the constance of the speed of light, which solved in one stroke all the problems and which didn't need the ether hypothesis.

This was sufficient reason to conclude that the ether didn't exist. Compare the argument with the argument against the existence of a personal God who interferes with the lives of people:

1. There hasn't been any empirical evidence for the existence of the ether, all the experiments for detecting the ether led to contradictions with the definition of that ether.

2. Phenomena for which the concept of a luminiferous ether was hypothesized to explain them, can be explained by a simple and elegant theory, without any reference to an ether.

Conclusion: the ether doesn't exist.

The same argument can be used mutatis mutandis against the existence of a personal God, and in that case Rand didn't say "You cannot arbitrarily restrict the facts of nature to your current level of knowledge", implying that you cannot rule out the possibility that God in fact does exist. She was definitely not an agnostic in that regard. Peikoff didn't improve her reputation by publishing that passage.

Ignorant speculation:

What is the relationship of light and energy (or heat)? Call the source of light "X." It can be the sun. The further you get from X the less energy you experience, not because the energy is dissipated but because the energy is stretched so you are exposed to less of it. I differentiate between dissipated and stretched because the former is only commonsensical for energy isn't destroyed--right?--only transformed. The 14 billion year-old light our astronomers see with their instruments is a tremendously stretched expression of energy. (If we assume 14-15 billion years represents the beginning of time--i.e., of the universe--but we can see this no matter which direction we look, then could we actually be looking at the center of the universe ripped apart by the curvature of space and that the complete universe is twice that distance in the opposite direction--the other side--but unobservable? This would mean twice as big as what can be observed and we are at the center only of the observable universe as are all other beings therein?) Now, when we talk about the speed of light we are talking about the speed of energy expressed by light. Through nothing the speed of light must be instantaneous for there is nothing to resist it. What is there in the known universe that might resist the natural speed of light? Background radiation.

Now, if this is correct--!!!???--the radiation must not only resist the propagation of energy as light it must over incomprehensible distances slow it down too. If so, the observable universe in terms of actual distance as opposed to a time expression is smaller than we think it is.

Background radiation isn't going to slow planet rotation enough to make any difference in that.

--Brant

boy genius

Edited February 22, 2011 by Brant Gaede