I would like to ask the physics community here for a small favor, please critique my interpretation of the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment. One of my hobbies is physics and I just recently finished writing a manuscript that deals with my theories (interpretations) of the Young double-slit and the MM experiments. My other theories deal with the concept of a photonic aether (ether) and the propagation of energy.
For example, in the case of the MM experiment, I provided the following analysis (this is a quote from my book now available on Amazon): “Considering the stunning success of the Michelson-Morley experiment, how can my hypothesis of photonic ether hold up? I am not equipped to test or criticize that groundbreaking experiment itself, luckily I don’t have to. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with the experiment itself, what is wrong (and in my opinion, a dramatic failure of imagination by physicists in the last 100 years) is the initial assumption of the so called “ether wind." The ether wind does not exist but the ether DOES! The ether (photonic ether) exists not as an all-point medium that fills the entire universe. The photonic ether exists as an “atmospheric layer" that surrounds all planets and stars in the universe (Figure 10).
The photonic ether exists as a layer surrounding celestial objects from their surface, where I postulate it is the densest and up where it is beginning to lose density. Essentially, the photonic ether is an all-encompassing atmospheric coat. As I will discuss in more detail later, the earth’s photonic ether layer is composed of independent photons [and] atoms and molecules surrounded by orbiting photons … If this is the case, then the Michelson-Morley experiment will not nullify my hypothesis since there is no ether wind drag involved in my assumption. It also means that in regions of space where there is no detectable matter, the photonic density should be very low. Furthermore, it also means that light travels in space either as independent photonic density packs or as pulse waves within photonic ether. By photonic density packs I mean an ejected last pulse that the leaves a photonic ether layer. This can be best described by a Newton’s pendulum where the last ball is ejected into space (Figure 11)."
What do you think?
Tal
… Essentially, the photonic ether is an all-encompassing atmospheric coat. ...Sounds impressive, but makes no sense to me. I thought the ether was supposed to permeate all of space, if not actually be the "space". "Atmospheric coat" makes it sound like "its" influenced and held in place by gravity, which makes it a local phenomena.
tallevy43,
Don’t waste your time on reinterpreting or challenging special relativity. It is one of the best proven fundamental theories of physics, that is in daily use (GPS], particle accelerators). The MM-experiment is only interesting from a historical point of view. Many more experiments have been done, and proven SR to be right: see e.g. here].
Along the lines of GdB…bless your heart for being interested in the topic. But you have to be careful…it’s very easy for an intelligent person to learn how to use the words of physics without the underlying understanding. Focus your talents on learning the underlying math and physics. If you have something interesting, eventually you’ll be able to express it in the correct language (math) to the correct audience (actual physicists).
and another one bits the dust.
I would like to ask the physics community here for a small favor, please critique my interpretation of the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment. One of my hobbies is physics and I just recently finished writing a manuscript that deals with my theories (interpretations) of the Young double-slit and the MM experiments. My other theories deal with the concept of a photonic aether (ether) and the propagation of energy. For example, in the case of the MM experiment, I provided the following analysis (this is a quote from my book now available on Amazon): “Considering the stunning success of the Michelson-Morley experiment, how can my hypothesis of photonic ether hold up? I am not equipped to test or criticize that groundbreaking experiment itself, luckily I don’t have to. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with the experiment itself, what is wrong (and in my opinion, a dramatic failure of imagination by physicists in the last 100 years) is the initial assumption of the so called “ether wind." The ether wind does not exist but the ether DOES! The ether (photonic ether) exists not as an all-point medium that fills the entire universe. The photonic ether exists as an “atmospheric layer" that surrounds all planets and stars in the universe (Figure 10). The photonic ether exists as a layer surrounding celestial objects from their surface, where I postulate it is the densest and up where it is beginning to lose density. Essentially, the photonic ether is an all-encompassing atmospheric coat. As I will discuss in more detail later, the earth’s photonic ether layer is composed of independent photons [and] atoms and molecules surrounded by orbiting photons ... If this is the case, then the Michelson-Morley experiment will not nullify my hypothesis since there is no ether wind drag involved in my assumption. It also means that in regions of space where there is no detectable matter, the photonic density should be very low. Furthermore, it also means that light travels in space either as independent photonic density packs or as pulse waves within photonic ether. By photonic density packs I mean an ejected last pulse that the leaves a photonic ether layer. This can be best described by a Newton’s pendulum where the last ball is ejected into space (Figure 11)." What do you think? TalI think you should present it for peer review. If a peer reviewed publication accepts it you will have taken the first step but only a small percentage are accepted. Scientific ideas are a dime a dozen. Top scientists don't have time for amateurs. If you are serious get yourself involved in the scientific community even if you have to start out by sweeping floors. Incidentally, we on this discussion group in no way represent the scientific community. What we think will in no way advance your theory. Lois
Just a small addition:
Take this Wikipedia article as start for evaluation of your ideas: Criticism of the theory of relativity]. I think you will find your idea too: and also why it was already dismissed.
Just a small addition: Take this Wikipedia article as start for evaluation of your ideas: Criticism of the theory of relativity]. I think you will find your idea too: and also why it was already dismissed.
In 1902–1906, Dayton Miller repeated the Michelson–Morley experiment together with Edward W. Morley. They confirmed the null result of the initial experiment. However between 1921–1926, Miller conducted new experiments which apparently gave positive results.[C 3] Those experiments initially attracted some attention in the media and in the scientific community[A 13] but have been considered refuted for the following reasons:[A 14][A 15] Einstein, Max Born, and Robert S. Shankland pointed out that Miller hadn't appropriately considered the influence of temperature. A modern analysis by Roberts shows that Miller's experiment gives a null result, when the technical shortcomings of the apparatus and the error bars are properly considered.[B 7] Additionally, Miller's result is in disagreement with all other experiments, which were conducted before and after. For example, Georg Joos (1930) used an apparatus of similar dimensions to Miller's, but he obtained null results. In recent experiments of Michelson–Morley type where the coherence length is increased considerably by using lasers and masers the results are still negative.Well that's another reason I like saying
So a photon walks into a bar:
Bartender: What’ll you have?
Photon: Light beer.
Photon to Bartender: You have rooms for rent here?
Bartender: We do. Can I take your bag for you?
Photon: No. I am traveling light.
More photons come in and begin to get on the Bartender’s nerves. So he turns out the lights,… and they were gone.