Dark Matter v The Eather

In summary, the difference between the 19th century Eather concept and Dark Matter is that dark matter is an ad hoc postulation to explain how galaxies and galaxy clusters stay together, while the luminiferous aether was a real concept that was successfully explained by scientists.
  • #1
ComfortNumb
3
0
Hi All,

First question so please go easy on me.

I'm currently reading 'Why Does E=mc2? at the moment and in an early chapter, Brian Cox referers to The Eather and how daft the concept was because it would cause drag in the universe and planets would lose orbital momentum etc, etc.

Now Eather was an unknown to explain a gap in a theory (as I understand it). So, what's the difference between the 19th century Eather concept and Dark Matter?

Will physicists in a 100 years time be looking back and thinking how quaint our 'belief' in dark matter was?

Happy Eather to you all!

ComfortablyNumb
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would say that the luminiferous (light-carrying) aether of Kelvin and Maxwell was much less of an ad hoc creation than dark matter. Light clearly expresses wave properties, so it was natural to assume it was a wave in some material substance. No one was able to work out any consistent properties for it, but they were quite certain of its reality.

Dark matter, on the other hand, is proposed to exist in order to explain how galaxies and galaxy clusters stay together despite not having enough matter for the usual formulations of gravity to hold together. That's a purely ad hoc postulation.
 
  • #3
Thanks for that. Made things a bit clearer in the murky waters of Dark Matter!
 
  • #4
hkyriazi said:
I would say that the luminiferous (light-carrying) aether of Kelvin and Maxwell was much less of an ad hoc creation than dark matter. Light clearly expresses wave properties, so it was natural to assume it was a wave in some material substance. No one was able to work out any consistent properties for it, but they were quite certain of its reality.

Dark matter, on the other hand, is proposed to exist in order to explain how galaxies and galaxy clusters stay together despite not having enough matter for the usual formulations of gravity to hold together. That's a purely ad hoc postulation.
No, I'm sorry, but I can't understate how just wrong and misleading this post is (and, by the way, I am tempted to use much stronger language than this). We know dark matter exists, because dark matter is the simplest, most reasonable explanation for a wide body of observational phenomena. Perhaps the most stunning example is the Bullet Cluster, one explanation of what this means for dark matter can be found here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/

Dark matter, in short, is evidenced by a wide variety of experimental evidence, and is thus in an entirely different class than the luminiferous aether.
 
  • #5
I have a question related to this post: How exactly do cosmologists quantify the amount of kinetic energy in the universe? Or potential energy? Surely the equation E=mc2 implies that energy and mass are correlated, and that energy itself has a mass (and therefore a gravitational effect). So how do you measure the total potential energy or kinetic energy in the universe?

I suppose a talented mathematician could estimate the total thermal energy in the universe, but none of these energies can be visually observed and so is it possible that these energies are being overseen?? Could these be dark energy??
 
  • #6
orange31 said:
I have a question related to this post: How exactly do cosmologists quantify the amount of kinetic energy in the universe? Or potential energy? Surely the equation E=mc2 implies that energy and mass are correlated, and that energy itself has a mass (and therefore a gravitational effect). So how do you measure the total potential energy or kinetic energy in the universe?
Well, kinetic energy is largely a function of temperature. With the current average temperature of the universe at 2.725K, the average kinetic energy of particles is effectively zero in a cosmological sense. Now, in the very early universe, when temperatures were higher than the rest masses of many particles, the precise opposite was the case, and it was the kinetic energy that was the most significant energy density in the universe.

As far as potential energy is concerned, the potential energy of an object in a gravitational potential well is negative, such that the negative gravitational potential energy largely offsets any gain in kinetic energy it might obtain from falling into said potential well.

orange31 said:
I suppose a talented mathematician could estimate the total thermal energy in the universe, but none of these energies can be visually observed and so is it possible that these energies are being overseen?? Could these be dark energy??
It's actually quite easy to observe: it's the energy of cosmic microwave background. And no, kinetic energy acts extremely differently from dark energy.
 
  • #7
Thank you for your explanation. I was trying to get my head around the scenario that if you had 2 planets and placed them side by side, they would perhaps crumble and merge together, but if you had the same 2 planets and put them 1,000,000 km apart, they would fall together and crash together with huge force. The same amount of matter, but more potential energy in the system, and as E=mc2, wouldn't that suggest more mass?

So from this I concluded that if 2 objects move away from each other, the mass of the collective objects would increase. If the universe is expanding, then isn't the mass of the universe also increasing?
 
  • #8
orange31 said:
Thank you for your explanation. I was trying to get my head around the scenario that if you had 2 planets and placed them side by side, they would perhaps crumble and merge together, but if you had the same 2 planets and put them 1,000,000 km apart, they would fall together and crash together with huge force. The same amount of matter, but more potential energy in the system, and as E=mc2, wouldn't that suggest more mass?

So from this I concluded that if 2 objects move away from each other, the mass of the collective objects would increase. If the universe is expanding, then isn't the mass of the universe also increasing?
Well, if you want to take the situation where the only energy in question is rest mass energy, then the situation you're describing is two planets very far away at rest with respect to one another. As the two objects get closer to one another, they pick up kinetic energy as the gravitational potential energy gets more and more negative.

For the two planets to start out at rest closer to one another, they would actually have to have less total energy than their respective rest mass energy.
 

1. What is the difference between Dark Matter and The Aether?

Dark Matter and The Aether are two different concepts in the field of physics. Dark Matter refers to a hypothetical type of matter that does not emit or absorb light, making it invisible to telescopes. It is believed to make up a significant portion of the universe's mass and is thought to be responsible for the gravitational effects observed in the universe. On the other hand, The Aether is a concept that was proposed in the 19th century to explain how light travels through space. It was believed to be a medium that permeated the universe and allowed light to propagate. However, this idea has been largely disproven by modern physics.

2. How do we know that Dark Matter exists?

Scientists have observed the effects of Dark Matter through its gravitational influence on visible matter in the universe. For example, the rotational speeds of galaxies cannot be explained by the amount of visible matter present, indicating the presence of an invisible mass like Dark Matter. Additionally, the bending of light from distant galaxies also suggests the presence of Dark Matter's gravitational pull.

3. Can Dark Matter and The Aether coexist?

No, Dark Matter and The Aether are incompatible concepts. The Aether was proposed to be a medium that light could travel through, while Dark Matter is thought to be a type of matter that does not interact with light at all. The existence of Dark Matter would also negate the need for The Aether, as it can explain the observed gravitational effects without the need for a medium.

4. Is Dark Matter the same as Black Matter?

No, Dark Matter and Black Matter are not the same. Black Matter is a term sometimes used to refer to Black Holes, which are objects with such strong gravitational pull that nothing, including light, can escape from them. Dark Matter, on the other hand, is a type of matter that does not emit or absorb light, making it invisible to telescopes.

5. What is the current research on Dark Matter and The Aether?

Scientists are constantly studying Dark Matter and The Aether to better understand their properties and how they may affect the universe. Some current research includes using powerful telescopes and particle accelerators to search for evidence of Dark Matter and studying the cosmic microwave background radiation for clues about The Aether. However, both concepts remain elusive and continue to be a subject of ongoing research and debate in the scientific community.

Similar threads

Replies
73
Views
6K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
2
Replies
44
Views
12K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Back
Top