4 ms·

So then the Aether was real for a while and stopped being real 200 years ago? If we discover a new model that makes better prediction than our current spacetim

So then the Aether was real for a while and stopped being real 200 years ago? If we discover a new model that makes better prediction than our current spacetime based model, just like relativity was to Newton's theory, will spacetime stop being real? The article was clearly using "real" with the definition we attach to it in our everyday language, not in deep philosphical sense.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> So then the Aether was real for a while and stopped being real 200 years ago? Yeah, pretty much. > If we discover a new model that makes better prediction than our current spacetime based model, just like relativity was to Newton's theory, will spacetime stop being real? In so far as Newtonian gravitation is also not-real. We still use that model for a lot of things of course. I don't know much about Aether theory or its predictions, so instead I'll use another long gone theory for my example: People used to model the motion of "heavenly bodies" using epicycles, complicated circles-within-circles patterns that assumed the Earth was the center of the universe and everything was taking a very complicated path around it. These epicycles were actually quite good at predicting the motion of planets and stars, so as far as anyone was concerned they were real. Some clever people eventually came around to the idea that all of that could be much more easily and more accurately modeled if we put the sun at the center. Of course we know today that that isn't quite right either. We don't, and possibly cannot, ever know if the models we use to describe the world around us are the most accurate or not. They are real when they work, because we have no better metric to determine their reality.
- Voloskaya 6y ago
  I do agree with your point, but I think we are seeing the limit of language: when we don't attach the exact same definition to words, we can misunderstand each others while trying to convey the same thing. The way you use "real" is the way I would use "valid": A theory is valid until proven otherwise. And the way I use "real" (and I think it is the same way the article used it), is whether something has any grounding in our universe (some pattern as you said before). For example, wormholes are possible following the theory of general relativity, but we don't know if they are "real", e.g. can there actually be a wormhole in our universe. If we do end up finding one, then they are real. If we however find conclusive evidence that they cannot exist in our universe, then they are not real, but only an artifact of our (incomplete) theory of general relativity.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > And the way I use "real" (and I think it is the same way the article used it), is whether something has any grounding in our universe (some pattern as you said before). Many of the things you described as "real" don't have grounding in our universe, i.e. things like "chair". It's possible I misunderstand your usage of the term "grounding". > For example, wormholes are possible following the theory of general relativity, but we don't know if they are "real", e.g. can there actually be a wormhole in our universe. If we do end up finding one, then they are real. If we however find conclusive evidence that they cannot exist in our universe, then they are not real, but only an artifact of our (incomplete) theory of general relativity. Sure, but how does that apply to spacetime? We know, so far as anything can be known, that space and time are two different perspectives of the same thing. Relativity described it, and we have measured and the effects it predicts with startling accuracy. Here's a question: It matters if wormholes can or cannot exist regardless of if the current model permits them or not. Does it matter if spacetime fits your definition of "real" or not?
  - 8note 6y ago
    Sabine's version of "real" - that the universe cannot exist without this is a better one imo Worm holes aren't real until we can't describe phenomenon without them. Same with the aether. Black holes and chairs are real because we can't make a theory that doesn't include them while still making accurate prediy
    - aeternum 6y ago
      but the universe can exist without chairs
drran 6y ago
Aether is real again as Higgs field. Speed of light in vacuum is variable again (gravitational waves). Vacuum is no longer an empty space.
- drdeca 6y ago
  > Speed of light in vacuum is variable again (gravitational waves). Hm? Can you elaborate on this?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> So then the Aether was real for a while and stopped being real 200 years ago? Yeah, pretty much. > If we discover a new model that makes better prediction than our current spacetime based model, just like relativity was to Newton's theory, will spacetime stop being real? In so far as Newtonian gravitation is also not-real. We still use that model for a lot of things of course. I don't know much about Aether theory or its predictions, so instead I'll use another long gone theory for my example: People used to model the motion of "heavenly bodies" using epicycles, complicated circles-within-circles patterns that assumed the Earth was the center of the universe and everything was taking a very complicated path around it. These epicycles were actually quite good at predicting the motion of planets and stars, so as far as anyone was concerned they were real. Some clever people eventually came around to the idea that all of that could be much more easily and more accurately modeled if we put the sun at the center. Of course we know today that that isn't quite right either. We don't, and possibly cannot, ever know if the models we use to describe the world around us are the most accurate or not. They are real when they work, because we have no better metric to determine their reality.

Voloskaya 6y ago
I do agree with your point, but I think we are seeing the limit of language: when we don't attach the exact same definition to words, we can misunderstand each others while trying to convey the same thing. The way you use "real" is the way I would use "valid": A theory is valid until proven otherwise. And the way I use "real" (and I think it is the same way the article used it), is whether something has any grounding in our universe (some pattern as you said before). For example, wormholes are possible following the theory of general relativity, but we don't know if they are "real", e.g. can there actually be a wormhole in our universe. If we do end up finding one, then they are real. If we however find conclusive evidence that they cannot exist in our universe, then they are not real, but only an artifact of our (incomplete) theory of general relativity.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > And the way I use "real" (and I think it is the same way the article used it), is whether something has any grounding in our universe (some pattern as you said before). Many of the things you described as "real" don't have grounding in our universe, i.e. things like "chair". It's possible I misunderstand your usage of the term "grounding". > For example, wormholes are possible following the theory of general relativity, but we don't know if they are "real", e.g. can there actually be a wormhole in our universe. If we do end up finding one, then they are real. If we however find conclusive evidence that they cannot exist in our universe, then they are not real, but only an artifact of our (incomplete) theory of general relativity. Sure, but how does that apply to spacetime? We know, so far as anything can be known, that space and time are two different perspectives of the same thing. Relativity described it, and we have measured and the effects it predicts with startling accuracy. Here's a question: It matters if wormholes can or cannot exist regardless of if the current model permits them or not. Does it matter if spacetime fits your definition of "real" or not?
- 8note 6y ago
  Sabine's version of "real" - that the universe cannot exist without this is a better one imo Worm holes aren't real until we can't describe phenomenon without them. Same with the aether. Black holes and chairs are real because we can't make a theory that doesn't include them while still making accurate prediy
  - aeternum 6y ago
    but the universe can exist without chairs

drran 6y ago

Aether is real again as Higgs field. Speed of light in vacuum is variable again (gravitational waves). Vacuum is no longer an empty space.

drdeca 6y ago
> Speed of light in vacuum is variable again (gravitational waves). Hm? Can you elaborate on this?