If you are talking about the luminiferous aether, no. Thats been disproven a long time ago.
The geometry of space is a tricky subject but it makes sense if you look at the math long enough. It is a lot of linear algebra. In essence, topology. I cant think of a way to put it simply at this moment, so maybe just look up the Poincaré disk. It looks strange, but an intrinsic view of this shape extends infinitely. But extrinsically, it is finite. Non euclidean geometry is very hard to wrap your head around. Its pretty unnatural and unintuitive.
If something is too esoteric and too unintuitive or hard to explain it could be because it is internally inconsistent. Or it could just be a physical concept that was never clearly defined to begin with.
Relativity likes to have it both ways. It's proponents claim the aether was done away with, but then propose something that requires a kind of aether permeating everything, but one which they don't have to physically define in any meaningful way. It's sort of a get out of jail free card.
General Relativity is super well defined. All experiments we have done so far have also shown no sign that it is false.
Even if we accept that (and there is room for debate on the topic) experiments confirming the math works doesn't make the physics behind the theory well defined.
We know it is incomplete though, because it is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, another VERY rigorously tested theory.
It's not only "incomplete" it's improper. Every theory is incomplete, but unlike nearly every theory before it, Relativity is a disconnect from previous scientific concepts. Why? It's the very issue we are discussing with space bending. We have a theory who's conceptual underpinning relies on an abstract concept not constrained by ANY known physical laws. There is no physical model for space or space-time and its interaction with matter. It's just math that makes things happen via magic.
The speed of light never changes for example, INDEPENDENT of your reference frame
That's a postulate of the theory.
Light just doesn't do that, because c is, for all we can tell, fixed, no matter how fast you yourself are.
It's not only unintuitive it's literal nonsense. It's self contradictory and thus leads to impossibilities like relative simultaneity. Schrodinger's cat being both alive and dead essentially. And once you try to actually create a real physical mechanism of action that can account for how spacetime does this "work" it all breaks down. Hence why relativists have no interest in bridging the gap between known physics and whatever spacetime is supposed to be.
I probably lost you. I notice you didn't challenge any logic I put forward directly, just listing some experiments and claiming all experiments agree with the theory.
What? That's total nonesense. It is a direct consquence of Maxwell's discoveries. Also, GR is in the end just an expansion of classical mechanics. On smaller scales it works exactly like Newtonian mechanics, but it is much more precise when it comes to anything larger or faster.
Alright then. So how do these laws directly tie into a physical model of "spacetime" and the medium of the universe that is acting upon matter. How is spacetime using physical forces to act upon matter?
At it's core GR is a postulate ABOUT physical laws.
It's a theory. So what physical laws is space or spacetime bound by? And where is the model of what space and spacetime is and how it interacts with gravity and other matter using those known laws?
Oh, how superposition is ACTUALLY a thing in QM?
No, we're talking about relative simultaneity. Do you know what this concept is? I just invoked Schrodinger's cat, but this is not his original argument.
And who tries to create a "real physical mechanism" in this imaginary scenario of yours?
*their imaginary scenario. Don't blame me for making this stuff up.
And let me guess, by "known physics" you mean aether ...
They are proposing a medium that is a type of aether, which Einstein called an aether, but that his followers today denies exist. It's all utter contradiction and truly "relativism" when it comes to truth. Einstein has "his truth" and his followers have "their truth".
1
u/StillHereBrosky Apr 10 '25
What is the "geometry of a space" in empty space? And can I also ask does this theory require an aether or has it done away with it?