Ask A Scientist© Physics Archive

Question:  Did the theory of relativity require dropping the concept
of Aether, or was Aether simply dismissed as irrelevant because
relativity principles do not need an Aether to work? I ask the
question because it appears to me that some authors are
attempting to re-introduce some kind of Aether concept to
explain Quantum "non-local" effects.  Is this consistent or
compatible with either special or general relativity?
------------------------------------------------
Answer:  Well, the "Aether" that may be reintroduced to explain quantum
non-locality is not at all the same "Aether" as that used
to explain the propagation of light.  The reason the original
"Aether" was introduced was because of the wave nature of light,
which suggested it was vibrating in some medium (just as sound
cannot travel in a vacuum, it was assumed that light could not
and would require some medium to travel in).  That turned out to
be simply wrong - light does not behave like sound, and the
vacuum already contains the possibilities of electric and
magnetic fields required to propagate light.  In fact, the vacuum
of quantum mechanics is very far from empty, since anything
described by a "field" has constant zero-point fluctuations going
on everywhere, including in a vacuum.  But quantum mechanics
and general relativity have not been completely reconciled, so
this "aether-like" nature of the vacuum (even without non-locality)
is somewhat hard to reconcile with GR.  Basically, general
relativity is not that important on the length-scales and energy-scales
of interest, and so can be and is being ignored in this kind
of theory-making.  So, no, the original ether was not compatible
with relativity, and nor is the new ether, and nor is quantum
mechanics as normally developed...
Arthur Smith
=========================================================