The Ether
Steven Kolins
MR JAMES WOOD wrote:
>
> ok. Says here, page 307 of Baha'i World Faith, this little number
> that, AGAIN, confuses me. Not an unusual condition by any standard.
> "If we wish to deny everything that is not sensible, then we must
> deny the realities which unquestionably exist. For example, ethereal
> matter is not sensible, THOUGH IT HAS AN UNDOUBTED EXISTENCE
> (emphasis my own). The power of attraction is not sensible, though it
> certainly exists. From what do we affirm these existences? From their
> signs. THUS THIS LIGHT IS THE VIBRATION OF THAT ETHEREAL MATTER, AND
> FROM THIS VIBRATION WE INFER THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER. (again, emphasis
> is mine)"
If i may be so bold.... in physics we speak of these vibrations in a
mathematical sense which isn't any "thing". It is a conceptual thing,
but not a physical thing.
Sometimes we call it Hilbert Space....
This is to counter the idea we get from thinking of the medium of water
being that which carries the waves of water. The water is a physically
existent thing. Light has no apparent medium and every effort to find a
material medium through which it propogates has failed - even leading to
general suppositions that there cannot be a material medium though which
light moves.
But since when are material things all that exist? Light itself isn't
"material".
Light is a relationship of space and electromagnetic properties and
energy.
At the time Abdu'l-Baha was speaking some supposed there to be a
material medium which carried or transmitted light. They called it
ether. In the above Abdu'l-Baha is asserting to my eyes that ether
exists but that it is not a material thing.
The use of the word "matter" can be crucial - is all matter physical?
After all is light "matter"? It sure exists.... perhaps the "medium"
that carries light is as insubstantial as light itself? <G>
--
Steven Kolins
Chatham County Schools Technology Assistant
mailtto: smko...@chatham.k12.nc.us
http://www.chatham.k12.nc.us/kolins
Possess a pure, kindly, and radiant heart!
Scott McKEE
Rick Boatright wrote:
> Well, as a Baha'i of 30 years, and as a physics teacher, I would say
> that it means, as I have come to accept, that Abdu'l-Baha was not
> infallable in matters of science. :-) Doesn't bother me much. I
> take his statement that there is an essential harmony between science
> and religion, and let science know what science knows, and let
> religion know what religion knows.
>
> Now, if I was feeling in an argumentative mood I would start with the
> extreme position that the universal magnetic and electric fields
> that the crossed waves of photons pass through themselves constitute
> the ether, and show how the Michalson/Morely experiments are not
> inconsistant with that.... But that's silly. Abdu'l-Baha was
> making a simple valid spiritual point, that just 'cause you can't
> SEE somthing is no reason to reject its existance. If he had used
> atoms, everyone would be going "WOW How cool!" Instead, he used
> solid 19th century physics, and got it wrong. So what? The
> spiritual point is valid, and he wasn't TALKING about science, he was
> talking about the need for Faith.
>
> The analogy between ether and spirit is simple and effective. From
> the light (and the Thompson double slit exeperiment) we infer the
> existance of the ether. True enough. Sometimes we're wrong. But
> from the light we infer the existence of SOMTHING that must be
> vibrating (EM fields instead of ether. Oops.) and from the light of
> the spirit, from our response to prayer, we infer the existance of
> the spirit, of the soul. We may have the details wrong there too,
> but the outline is clear enough. It's a spirtiual point, not a
> scientific one.
>
> Abdu'l-Baha would be amazed, astounded, flabergasted that people
> over a century later are trying to look for SCIENTIFIC meaning in
> his writings. He would have laughed at us.
>
> Rick Boatright
>
> > ok. Says here, page 307 of Baha'i World Faith, this little number
> > that, AGAIN, confuses me. Not an unusual condition by any standard.
> > "If we wish to deny everything that is not sensible, then we must
> > deny the realities which unquestionably exist. For example, ethereal
> > matter is not sensible, THOUGH IT HAS AN UNDOUBTED EXISTENCE
> > (emphasis my own). The power of attraction is not sensible, though it
> > certainly exists. From what do we affirm these existences? From their
> > signs. THUS THIS LIGHT IS THE VIBRATION OF THAT ETHEREAL MATTER, AND
> > FROM THIS VIBRATION WE INFER THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER. (again, emphasis
> > is mine)"
> > This is NOT a spiritual analogy. At least, not exclusively. I
> > know we have been over this before and some of you have very kind to
> > try and explain this to me. I knew I had read this somewhere and, lo,
> > here it be! Now, what does this mean in the face of 'scientific
> > opinion'?
> > love
> > jim
> > ____
> > Creation is the expression of motion. Motion is life.
> > Abdul-Baha
> > Since life is growth and motion, a fixed point of view kills anyone
> > who has one.
> > Brooks Atkinson
I got into this a bit late, having missed the earlier postings that were
referred to, however I am prompted to ask if science has conclusive
proof that the "ether" does not exist, or if this is mere 'scientific
opinion'? What would the 'scientific opinion' of Muhammad's day said in
response to: 'split the atom's heart, and lo, within it you will find a
sun'? Personally I doubt that Abdu'l Baha was limited in vision or
knowledge by the physics of His time. That aside, I think what Abdu'l
Baha was mainly saying was: 'where there's smoke there is fire'.
Regards;
Scott
Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)
Rick makes some neat points. He also raises, in my mind at least,
the point of timing. Abdul-Baha used the word ether - common
around 1900 but passe now. He might have used atom - not so
generally understood then (except by Physics teachers) but
common now. Perhaps he might have mentioned Quarks (charming
or otherwise) but the word wasn't invented yet. Perhaps he could
have mentioned whatever particles will be regarded as the most
fundamental building blocks of space and matter (and time?) in
the 22nd century and we would still be puzzled (perhaps he did
but we won't figure out the reference for another century, but
what would be the point?).
Religious messages need to be understood by the target audiences,
the ones who are intended to benefit from the message. So the
Manifestation (Jesus, Buddha, Baha'u'llah, ...) or enlighted
teacher must speak in language and concepts that will be at least
somewhat accessible to the people of the relevant time period.
Tom Hodges
On 6 Aug 1997, Rick Boatright wrote:
> Well, as a Baha'i of 30 years, and as a physics teacher, I would say
> that it means, as I have come to accept, that Abdu'l-Baha was not
> infallable in matters of science. :-) Doesn't bother me much. I
> take his statement that there is an essential harmony between science
> and religion, and let science know what science knows, and let
> religion know what religion knows.
>
[snip]
Heather and Colin Taylor
Dear Mr. Wood, I don't know the answer to your question directly, but I
have another question for you. What would "radio waves" or "am" and "fm"
have meant to us if we were scientists in 1850? My guess is that whoever
mentioned them would be considered a mad visionary to everybody else. Now
we believe them to be real, whether we really understand how they work or
not. Certainly we enjoy the music we hear that is carried across the
"ether" to our radio receivers. Are they INSENSIBLE, but with UNDOUBTED
EXISTENCE?
----------
> From: MR JAMES WOOD <GYZ...@prodigy.com>
> To: bahai...@bcca.org
> Subject: The Ether
> Date: Wednesday, August 06, 1997 10:17
Brent Poirier
On 7 Aug 1997, Tom Hodges wrote:
> In my opinion it means there is something about the structure of space
> and matter (and time?) that allows effects to travel across great
> distances even thru near absolute vacuum- effects like gravity, light,
> magnetism, ... That something is not well understood by modern science
> or perhaps we are just asking the wrong questions (or maybe it is fairly
> well understood by the physicists but not by the rest of us).
I recall a comparison by a scientist looking at the question of ether, who
said that just as a sound in the ocean is heard underwater before it is
heard above the water in the air due to the greater density of the water,
this illustrates the principle that greater density means that something
passes through it more quickly. The speed of travel is a way of
determining the medium's density. If this is applied to light and if one
assumes that light is passing through a medium even in space, then the
speed of light would indicate that its medium is much denser than the
earth itself; hence, the problem with saying that empty space is more
dense than the planets coursing through it.
I am aware that there are cases when the Authors of the Baha'i Writings
make statements in accordance with the understanding of the people of
their day. There are analogies in the Writings comparing contagious
spiritual diseases to leprosy and to cancer, comparing vicious traits to
the traits of wolves, and other comparisons that are no longer accepted
scientifically. In the Book of Certitude, Baha'u'llah says that Jesus
"ascended to the Fourth Heaven," and Shoghi Effendi wrote that Baha'u'llah
wrote this in accordance with the concepts of Shi'ih Muslims who had
accepted the views of early astronomers. Perhaps `Abdu'l-Baha's references
to "the waves of the ether" are of this character -- in accordance with
the views of the astronomers of the 19th Century.
But I'm holding that door open, until science advances to a clearer
understanding of the nature of light. To me, Einstein's theories and
attempts to unify the knowledge of all physical realities have fallen
short. In some places they stretch in ways that don't accord with the
soundness of other scientific principles, and I think that they will in
time be viewed as a stepping-stone to a truer understanding of reality.
This Day is the age of light and the age of gold, spiritually and
physically. The physical realm reflects the spiritual condition of
humanity. Just as this corrupt age is replete with all manner of
illnesses and plagues, the Golden Age will be, first of all, an age of
golden people, people with refined and exalted characters. As Baha'u'llah
says, it will even be discovered how to make gold from other elements, so
gold will become plentiful; a Golden Age physically, as well as
spiritually. On page 116 of Gleanings, in a passage that may be more than
hyperbole, Baha'u'llah speaks of buildings made entirely of gold.
In the realm of science and invention, things are moving more towards
light: Light-based computers and telephones, for example, will probably
be standard in the beginning of the next century. And I believe that
advancement in the knowledge and use of physical light and the other parts
of the electromagnic spectrum will advance apace with humanity's spiritual
illumination. "As above, so below."
All of this is to say that I believe that just as the Baha'i Writings
indicate that the science of medicine is in its infancy, and that the
Baha'i System is in its embryonic stage, likewise the science of light is
in its infancy. I think that the knowledge of the reality of nature,
particularly as related to the greater use of light and magnetism and
gravitational forces, are in their earliest stages. It may be centuries
before the value of `Abdu'l-Baha's statements on ether, as applied to
physical reality, are fully appreciated.
It took science how many centuries to understand that the sun doesn't pass
through the sky, we're turning? And how long for the greatest medical
advancement of all -- the washing of one's hands -- to become standard
practice among physicians?
After we're long gone, science may advance to the knowledge that what we
view as empty space is indeed filled with a medium, and that as
`Abdu'l-Baha says, light and magnetism are the waves that travel in that
medium. The key may well be hidden in a passage of Baha'u'llah's Writings
that is applied by a scientist. But I think that for the present, we lack
the data to back that up. So let's be patient with one another.
Following are three quotes from letters written on behalf of Shoghi
Effendi that may bear on this.
Brent Poirier
gpoi...@acca.nmsu.edu
"These investigations you have so painstakingly pursued in the
field of medical science, and on a subject which is still
puzzling the minds of all the leading scientists in the world,
cannot but be of a captivating interest and of a great value to
all medical research workers.
"It is significant that you as a believer should have
undertaken a work of this nature, as we all know that the powers
released by the Manifestation of Baha'u'llah in this day are
destined, in the course of time, to reveal themselves through the
instrumentality of His followers, and in every conceivable field
of human endeavour.
"That you should increasingly prove, through your confirmed
researches in the domain of medicine, to be one of those
instruments, is the fervent hope of our beloved Guardian."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to
an individual believer, dated November 29, 1938; Lights
of Guidance, 2nd edition, p. 287, #969, "Powers
Released by Baha'u'llah Destined to Reveal Themselves
Through Instrumentality of His Followers")
He thinks the less time spend on such topics as "Current Events
in the Light of the Baha'i Faith", and "The Baha'i
Faith and Modern Science", the better. There is no harm in
having an evening lecture by a qualified speaker once on
each of these subjects, but he certainly does not feel that much
time should be spent on them, for the very simple
reason that there is so little that can be said on the
subject. The Baha'is are not scientists, and cannot very
well go into details of the relation of the Baha'i Faith to
modern science; and "Current Events in the Light of the
Baha'i Faith" is also a topic which can be
dealt with briefly. . . .
(Extract from a letter dated 23 May 1954 written on
behalf of the Shoghi Effendi to the Green Acre Program
Committee of the National Spiritual Assembly of the
United States; Compilation on Centres of Baha'i
Learning, Compilation of Compilations, Volume I, p. 36, #94)
"If you read the utterances of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha with
selflessness and care and concentrate upon them, you will
discover truths unknown to you before and will obtain an insight
into the problems that have baffled the great thinkers of the
world."
(From a letter dated 30 January 1925 written on behalf
of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer; from the
Compilation on Living the Baha'i Life, Compilation of
Compilations, Volume II, p. 3, #1270)
-------
Scott McKEE
I agree that Abdu'l Baha was not talking about science in the quote that
has been recently discussed. For example He writes:
"With regard to that which hath been mentioned concerning the seven
spheres and the seven heavens referred to in the Books revealed by those
Dawning-places of Light and Repositories of Secrets in previous ages,
such references were dictated by the conventional wisdom prevailing in
those times, for every cycle hath its own characteristics which are
determined by the capacities of the people and their readiness to accept
the fresh revelations of truth from behind the veil." The
Tablet of the Universe (LAWH-I-AFLAK)
I believe that this is what He was doing in the quote that was cited.
However, further on in the same Tablet He writes:
"Know then that, as hath been clearly handed down in the accounts of
old, these great orbits and circuits fall within subtle, fluid, clear,
liquid, undulating and vibrating bodies, and that the heavens are a
restrained wave because a void is impossible and inconceivable. All
that may be said is that the celestial bodies and the ethereal bodies
differ in respect of some of the substances and elements from which they
are constituted, the quantities and proportions of these that go into
their composition, the peculiar characteristics that give rise to the
difference in the outward effects of these bodies, and the properties
that emanate from them in rich abundance. The celestial bodies that
surround the material bodies also differ one from another in respect of
subtlety, fluidity and weight. It cannot be otherwise for a void is
impossible."
"...These views they followed and imitated without careful scrutiny and
investigation and without fully comprehending the meanings of some of
the Divine verses. For He hath said, and His word is the truth, "And all
swim in a celestial sphere".
In the above quotes, as opposed to the one cited in the posting, it
appears to be clear that Abdu'l Baha was talking about properties of the
creation, and again refers to ehtereal substance.
It is my view that a Revelation 'releases' new knowledge and inspires
the arts and sciences. Abdu'l Baha the Mystery of God, as centre of the
Covenant and Interpreter of Baha'u'llah's revelation; was able to know
whatever he wanted to know. He also made statements about what would be
done with science and technology that refer to as yet unknown
developments. His knowledge in these respects was clearly inspired, and
not conditioned by the science of His time. In the above quotes he
speaks more directly about ethereal substance. This is in conflict with
some of what is currently understood by physicists, and with what they
have apparently demonstrated. Perhaps the 'ether' they do not believe in
- Abdu'l Baha did not believe in either. I am not convinced that there
is not something more that Abdu'l Baha was referring to (and He cites
Divine authority in so doing), that scientists are not yet aware of. My
point is that to conclude Abdu'l Baha was 'fooled' by the science of his
day, runs the risk of diminishing His station, and of 'measuring the
Book of God with the ruler of science' in so doing.
With the exception of quotes that are clearly metaphorical and intended
to illustrate a spiritual truth, I am inclined to read the writings for
their literal AND spiritual truth, and not just for the latter. Apparent
conflicts with current scientific knowledge are in no way a barrier to
'accepting the word'. More often than not it is simply an indication
that there is much we do not yet understand. Apparent conflicts between
statements made by central Figures of the faith and statements or
discoveries made by scientists are not in my view, sufficient reason to
doubt the Divine Source, or for that matter, to doubt science either.
Rather, I tend to view them as 'yet unsolved mysteries'.
On the separate but related subject of science per se, I have done some
exploration of a new direction that is referred to as "hyperdimensional
physics". According to these sources, much of the atomic testing that
has been done in the past decade or so, has had nothing to do with
learning how to build a better bomb. Rather, it has been for the purpose
of releasing large amounts of energy in order to study the movement of
energy through 'grids', which appear to exist outside the normal
confines of time and space as we presently understand them. These people
- some of whom are quite prominent - are not uninformed as regards
current science. They refer to "ether" as an intangible substance which
appears to act as a medium for the transfer of energy in a manner - and
at a speed, that is not comprehended by traditional approaches to
physics. A scientist who was asked about the possible future military
implications of this line of investigation explained it this way: "Why
send an airplane half way around the world to drop a bomb, when you
could do something right here in a laboratory that would cause the atoms
and molecules that make up a foreign city to lose interest in one
another, and vaporize?"
This brings to mind a statement made by one of the members of the House
of Justice to the effect that we are "surrounded by dangers beyond
anything we can conceive of". One of my main interests as a Baha'i has
been the harmony of science and religion. Both are progressive and
unfolding, and as human beings we are limited by our capacity to
understand them at any given point in time. The Baha'i revelation, while
dealing with revealed rather than discovered truth, offers me something
that science does not provide. That is: authoritative interpretation. As
such, it is the Standard by which I judge my understanding of science,
and which I adhere to when apparent conflicts arise.
This is not blind adherence, nor is it conditioned by what is said by
men of science. It is predicated on having accepted the station of its'
Author. On occasion, it is the standard by which I assess science's
present understanding of phenomenal realities. Science on the other
hand, often challenges, and expands my understanding of the revelation.
So in closing, while Abdu'l Baha did speak to the people of his day
metaphorically and in terms of the 'conventional wisdom' that was
prevailing in those times; He has elsewhere apparently spoken directly
on the subject of "ethereal" substance. Personally I am not prepared to
measure those statements with the ruler of contemporary science. This
would seem to be an as-yet unsolved mystery, and as such; approached
with humility. No doubt in time it will be resolved.
*NOTE: The above quotes are from a "provisional translation" of the
"Tablet of the Universe" - Makitib-i-'Abdu'l-Baha, Vol. I, pp.13 - 32
Regards;
Scott McKEE
Frank
[Moderator's note: Follow-ups should relate to the Baha'i Faith-T.R.]
From the book of 'The Fourth Dimension' by Rudy Rucker page 76, an
excellent physic professor an example to some.
"Most of us smile when we hear of the nineteenth century aether
concept. But it is important to realize that insofar as we believe in
space as something existing in its own right, we too have an aether
concept. Empty space is aether, aether is empty space. But what , then
is the meaning of Einstein's second assumption vis-a-vis aether? Here is
what Einstein wrote on this question in his 1920 essay Ether and
Relativity.
More careful reflection teaches us 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. Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can
describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how
the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air
alters in the course of time; or else--with the help of small floats,
for instance--we can observe how the position of the separate
particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of
such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid
were a fundamental impossibility in physics--if, in fact, nothing
else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by
the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the
assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same
we could characterize it as a medium.
Generalizing we must say this: -- There may be supposed to be
extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be
applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which
allow themselves to be separately tracked through time.. The special
theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether too consists of
particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in
itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity."
The reader may wonder why Einstein bothers to go through such
intellectual contortions. If the aether isn't made up of distinct
trackable parts, then why bother with it? Why not just go ahead and say
that empty space is pure nothingness? Why pretend that space is some
continuous substance called aether?
F.K.
pr...@snet.net
Frank wrote:
>
> [Moderator's note: Follow-ups should relate to the Baha'i Faith-T.R.]
>
> The reader may wonder why Einstein bothers to go through such
> intellectual contortions. If the aether isn't made up of distinct
> trackable parts, then why bother with it? Why not just go ahead and say
> that empty space is pure nothingness? Why pretend that space is some
> continuous substance called aether?
>
> F.K.
This quote comes to mind: "As to thy question whether the physical world
is subject to limitations, know thou that the comprehension of this
matter dependeth upon the observer himself. In one sense it is limited;
in another it is exalted beyond all limitations." - Baha'u'llah.
Sincerely,
Providencia
pr...@snet.net
Robert J. Pease
A..Depends on what you mean by "limitations"
I somehow don't find qoutes like this very enlightening.
Frank
>
> Frank wrote:
> >
> The reader may wonder why Einstein bothers to go through such
> intellectual contortions. If the aether isn't made up of distinct
> trackable parts, then why bother with it? Why not just go ahead and
> say that empty space is pure nothingness? Why pretend that space is
> some continuous substance called aether?
>
> F.K.
>This quote comes to mind: "As to thy question whether the physical
>world is subject to limitations, know thou that the comprehension of
>this matter dependeth upon the observer himself. In one sense it is
>limited; in another it is exalted beyond all limitations." -
>Baha'u'llah.
>Sincerely,
>Providencia
>pr...@snet.net
The above quote by Baha'u'llah does not relate to ether or unknown
matters in general, but rather limit of physical univers from stand
point of an observer. I might add this confers with current findings
with what is considered observable universe It is worth drawing a
distinction between the universe that is and the portion of the
univers that we can see from Earth, even with the most powerful
instruments. The distinction srises because there is a fundamental
limit to the distance at which an object is observable in the
universe. This limitation arises because of the existence, in most of
the plausible cosmological models, of a so-called particle horizon .
Partical horizons occur because of the finite speed of light. When we
look out into space we see objects not as they are today but as they
were when the light left them. So when it is said that know thou
that the comprehension of this matter dependeth upon the observer
himself saying that there is a limit to the total number of galaxies
that we can see, even in principle, at the present epoch. Even if the
universe is spatially infinite, and contains an infinity of galaxies,
we can only ever see a finite subset of them . Baha'u'llah. says
again; In one sense it is limited; in another it is exalted beyond
all limitations If it takes 100 light years for a star that goes
supernova to be seen from earth I may not be around to see it. This is
the limit of observation.
Frank K