1 The Discovery of the Ether
3
tions, we do not need to reckon with a breaking of the Lorentz symmetry. There are
however phenomena in solids that are characteristic for both the Lorentz symmetry
and the breaking of this symmetry. These phenomena therefore supply us with two
important models: A mechanical model describing the Special Theory of Relativity,
with which we can describe all relativistic effects, as well as a model of the ether,
with which we can realise all these effects (see the end of Chap. 6) and Chap. 13 for
the nomenclature of the terminus Lorentz transformation).
The thesis ‘The ether does not exist at all’, which Einstein expressively warned
against in 1920 and which can be found in many textbooks of this subject, can be
proved false inside a solid. In Einstein’s speech, ‘Ether and Relativity’ held on the
5 May 1920 in the Reichsuniversität of Leiden, cf. Einstein [12], he stated, ‘More
careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not
compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must
give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it,... To deny the ether is ultimately
to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental
facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view’. (Quoted from the translation
of Einstein’s speech in Einstein [13]).
We will show how this theoretical conclusion does in fact hit the nail on the head.
The thesis of the non-existence of the ether is of the same physical quality as the
statement ‘a solid does not exist’, when considering a certain class of mechanical
phenomena in a material atomic lattice. We therefore want to ignore and forget such
formulations.
We will be able to develop and show an astounding congruence between the
two terms describing the motion in our physical spacetime on the one hand and the
motion of certain structures in a space lattice on the other hand. This conformity was
probably only foreseen by E. Mach, and it is from this point of view that we will try
to understand the quotation found in front of the preface. This statement, if taken
literally, cannot be upheld or proven correct. Principally, there can be no Special
Relativity for sound (see at the end of Chap. 6). We will, however, be able to show
how the Machian vision is applicable, when observing a certain class of motions in
a crystal lattice. In Chap. 18, we will come to a conclusion concerning this question.
Due to the fact that Ernst Mach’s discourses in mechanics had an enormous influence
on Albert Einstein, it is said that Mach was one of the pioneers of the Special Theory
of Relativity. This, however, was a position that Mach himself could not accept, so
strong was his opposition in its later years to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.
Perhaps our discourse will be able to shed some light on Mach’s position.
With the quantum theory came the term ‘physical vacuum’. This meant, in the light
of the new discoveries made by the quantum structure of motion of matter, that the
classical vacuum had to be corrected. The classical vacuum is synonymous with the
questionable and suspicious term ‘ether’. The term physical vacuum has not answered
our question about the ether. Ether is just the old term for the ‘classical vacuum’.
Here, we will not include the quantum theoretical corrections, or the corrections
made by the General Theory of Relativity into our considerations. Nevertheless
when analysing the ether model resulting from our considerations of solids, we will
3
tions, we do not need to reckon with a breaking of the Lorentz symmetry. There are
however phenomena in solids that are characteristic for both the Lorentz symmetry
and the breaking of this symmetry. These phenomena therefore supply us with two
important models: A mechanical model describing the Special Theory of Relativity,
with which we can describe all relativistic effects, as well as a model of the ether,
with which we can realise all these effects (see the end of Chap. 6) and Chap. 13 for
the nomenclature of the terminus Lorentz transformation).
The thesis ‘The ether does not exist at all’, which Einstein expressively warned
against in 1920 and which can be found in many textbooks of this subject, can be
proved false inside a solid. In Einstein’s speech, ‘Ether and Relativity’ held on the
5 May 1920 in the Reichsuniversität of Leiden, cf. Einstein [12], he stated, ‘More
careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not
compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must
give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it,... To deny the ether is ultimately
to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental
facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view’. (Quoted from the translation
of Einstein’s speech in Einstein [13]).
We will show how this theoretical conclusion does in fact hit the nail on the head.
The thesis of the non-existence of the ether is of the same physical quality as the
statement ‘a solid does not exist’, when considering a certain class of mechanical
phenomena in a material atomic lattice. We therefore want to ignore and forget such
formulations.
We will be able to develop and show an astounding congruence between the
two terms describing the motion in our physical spacetime on the one hand and the
motion of certain structures in a space lattice on the other hand. This conformity was
probably only foreseen by E. Mach, and it is from this point of view that we will try
to understand the quotation found in front of the preface. This statement, if taken
literally, cannot be upheld or proven correct. Principally, there can be no Special
Relativity for sound (see at the end of Chap. 6). We will, however, be able to show
how the Machian vision is applicable, when observing a certain class of motions in
a crystal lattice. In Chap. 18, we will come to a conclusion concerning this question.
Due to the fact that Ernst Mach’s discourses in mechanics had an enormous influence
on Albert Einstein, it is said that Mach was one of the pioneers of the Special Theory
of Relativity. This, however, was a position that Mach himself could not accept, so
strong was his opposition in its later years to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.
Perhaps our discourse will be able to shed some light on Mach’s position.
With the quantum theory came the term ‘physical vacuum’. This meant, in the light
of the new discoveries made by the quantum structure of motion of matter, that the
classical vacuum had to be corrected. The classical vacuum is synonymous with the
questionable and suspicious term ‘ether’. The term physical vacuum has not answered
our question about the ether. Ether is just the old term for the ‘classical vacuum’.
Here, we will not include the quantum theoretical corrections, or the corrections
made by the General Theory of Relativity into our considerations. Nevertheless
when analysing the ether model resulting from our considerations of solids, we will