Talk:Einstein-aether theory

Okay, what is up with the "consistency" section? I don't see how those claims are possible. Would someone mind giving a citation for this? I've looked in the literature myself, and I can find nothing that states that this could or is true. I'm going to remove this section in a week or so if this is not given proper citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.152.248 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

All right, it's been a week. I haven't seen anything in the literature for the second time, and I can find absolutely no justification for this claim. As such, I'm removing it until a proper citation is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.152.248 (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Aether Nikola Tesla
This article is factually wrong and poorly written using supported theories proven false. It should be removed Fulely (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Misleading content
The paper "Effective Field Theory for Massive Gravitons and Gravity in Theory Space by Nima Arkani-Hamed, Howard Georgi and Matthew Schwartz" does not mention aether theory at all, and thus not Einstein aether theory. Placing this highly cited paper in the context of the article is misleading. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The History section is also misleading. Did Maurizio Gasperini really use the term "Einstein aether"? He mentions neither in the abstract. The article says "Einstein aether theories returned to prominence at the turn of the century with the paper Gravity and a Preferred Frame ..." but that paper does not mention aether theories either. And "returned to prominence" is not correct: Gasperini was the only one working on this stuff until Jacobson comes along AFAICT.  To me the correct history is that Jacobson and Mattingly invented this name in 2004:
 * We refer to the system of the metric coupled to the aether as “Einstein-aether theory”. Jacobson, T., and D. Mattingly. "Einstein-aether waves." Physical Review D 70.2 (2004): 024003.
 * The entire article reads like a puff job for an obscure theory of gravity with a fancy name. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the History, added a section to put the work in context, and reduced the puff. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)