Repeat the Michelson-Morley Experiment in Interplanetary Space
Many members of the CNPS are supporters of the aether paradigm. This is the concept that there is a physical substance that fills the universe that is the medium for transmitting electromagnetic radiation (e.g. light) and (for some) the force of gravity.
There are many different proposed models of the aether but they usually fall into 2 distinct categories:
- The universal aether concept: The aether forms a fixed absolute reference frame. Everything moves through it and relative to it – including the Earth.
- The local aether concept (also called entrained aether): The aether near astronomical bodies such as planets is bound to them and is carried with them in their orbits around the Sun. It can be visualized as a halo similar to the Earth’s atmosphere although not composed of molecules or atoms. It could extend as far as 1,000,000 km from the Earth’s surface. The Sun has its own halo of aether that could extend out to the edge of the solar system where it meets the aether entrained with the Milky Way galaxy. The planets orbit within the Sun’s aether halo along with the aether halos bound to them.
The universal aether concept was the mainstream model of the late 19th century. It was assumed that the aether was stationary with respect to the Sun and that the aether flowed through matter and the Earth as “the wind flows through trees”. It was thought that the Earth’s orbital motion (at ~30 km/sec) created a “wind” at the Earth’s surface that could be detected by an instrument called an interferometer.
The experiment to detect the Earth’s motion in the aether is called the Michelson-Morley experiment. It was originally performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. The original experiment and numerous repetitions by others have not produced clear positive results.
When Albert Michelson reported the negative results he said it could simply mean that the Earth carries aether with it so there is no aether wind at the Earth’s surface. He also hypothesized that the Earth might rotate within its aether halo as it spins on its axis at ~.35 km/sec (at 41 degrees latitude). The Michelson-Gale experiment was conducted to test this hypothesis in 1925 with positive results.
In recent years, there have been many experiments that are consistent with the hypothesis that the Earth rotates within an entrained aether. These include the one-way Sagnac effect that is programmed into GPS receivers. For details, I highly recommend “A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave,” by Ching-Chuan Su.
However, these phenomena, including Michelson-Gale, can also be explained by Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory (SRT) and/or his General Relativity Theory (GRT). In my opinion, these explanations are complex and convoluted and often assume a “preferred” reference frame in contradiction to their own postulates.
In my opinion the entrained aether model has never been properly tested. All interferometer type experiments to date have been performed at or near the Earth’s surface where the entrained aether model expects a “null” result. The crucial test would be perform the experiment outside the Earth’s hypothesized halo of entrained aether.
I therefore propose that we perform the Michelson-Morley experiment on a spacecraft launched into interplanetary space.
I believe the experiment would have a clear positive result providing strong evidence of the validity of the entrained aether model. An interesting question: what result would Einstein’s Relativity predict?
It is best to send it into interplanetary space because some entrained aether concepts hypothesize that the entrained aether halo could extend out to where the Earth’s gravity field meets the Sun’s. This could be as far as 1,000,000 km from the Earth’s surface. Beyond this distance, it is unlikely that the flow of aether past the craft as it orbits the Sun would affected by the Earth’s aether halo.
Repeating the Michelson-Morley experiment in interplanetary space would also have several advantages compared to terrestrial based experiments.
The arms of terrestrial experiments can be distorted by external vibrations, uneven temperature variations, and air currents. A space based interferometer would not be subject to these potential sources of systematic errors (assuming it is well shielded from sunlight).
Terrestrial based experiments are usually located in a lab where aether flow might be partially or fully blocked by the lab’s walls. However, the arms of the space based interferometer could (and should) be exposed to open space.
Another issue with a terrestrial based experiment is that the rotation axis of the interferometer has to be vertical to prevent distortions due to gravity. An interferometer in “free fall” orbit around the Sun could easily be pointed in any direction to determine the direction of maximum aether flow. It might not be parallel to the craft’s orbital motion. One possibility is that the peak fringe shift would coincide with the motion of the Earth with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (~ 370 km/sec toward the Leo constellation) as detected by the COBE, WMAP, and Planck spacecraft. There might be a component due to the orbit of the Solar System around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at ~220 km/sec.
The biggest difficulty of performing this experiment is to convince an organization to do it. The mainstream physics community is so certain that Special Relativity and General Relativity are correct that this proposal would never be approved by them. Proposals to perform the experiment on a spacecraft launched into low Earth orbit were made when it became technically feasible but were ignored.
However, today there are more organizations (governmental and private) that are capable of launching a spacecraft to escape velocity than existed 20 years ago.
The project would be relatively inexpensive compared to other interplanetary missions. In addition to the interferometer, it would need a Sun shield, communications components, a control module, a power source, and thrusters or gyros to control its orientation and spin. It could use an Ion Engine to achieve escape velocity minimizing its mass. It could include other experiments to offset the cost of the primary mission.
I urge the members of the CNPS, the CNPS organization, and other readers of this post to promote this project. Maybe a wealthy person would be interested. Maybe a country like India or China would be open minded to the aether concept. Maybe a Kickstarter project could raise at least part of the money to fund it.
Regards,
Jim Marsen
Propagation of light (I say again)
Light is propagated in three ways (as follows)
1 In mediums, speed of light is c/n. MM experiment (done in air) is nonsense.
2. In outer space, star light is reflected by a mirror. Speed of incident light is constant relative to aether.
3 In outer space, star light is reflected by a mirror. Speed of reflected light is constant relative to the mirror.
In three pictures above each, speed of light relative to an observer follows Galilean transformation.
Aether
Speed of light relative to mediums (water or air) is constant. Speed of light relative to aether (physical substance) is constant also. Aberrations show this.
MM experiment
For over a hundred years, we are suffering from a picture of MM experiment. Now, imagine to replace light with beam of particles (speed is constant). And it will be real behavior of light. Time and space will be absolute. All will be Galilean transformation.
About MM experiment
In a moving passenger car, MM experiment is being done. On the ground, an observer stands. To this observer,are constancy of light speed and Lorentz contraction compatible ? And also, are light speed and time dilation compatible ?
In outer space, light will follow the emission theory (for a few seconds), I think. So, the result of MM experiment will be null also. But if the experiment is done in planet planet scale, the expected result will be found (light will follow the aether frame).
MM experiment (done in air)
I found a word “extinction” in a book Special Relativity by French, A.P. 1968. It’s written as follows (original text ; quoted from “Google book” ; in 5-2). “Thus, for example, with visible light, a thickness of about 10-5cm of glass or 0.1mm of air at atmospheric pressure is almost enough to erase any possible memory, as it were, of the motion of the original source” (10-5cm is 0.0001mm). What ?? If it is so (from frequency or from wavelength, “memory” is not erased), the result of MM experiment is only natural.
Also, I found a book Theory of Relativity by Pauli, W 1958. In it, it is written as follows (quoted from English version ; in 1-6). “Rather should one say that for an observer moving with medium, light is propagated as usual with velocity c/n in all directions”. Extinction will ensure it. Also it seems to be the “very and true explanation” for MM experiment !!
Then, how about the experiment done in vacuum ? The emission theory seems to be promising.
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html
Sorry, I cannot receive E-mail. I do not have PC.
Why not just do the experiment on a plain? If gravity’s an issue use the vomit comet
I already proposed a similar experiment that is pre-approved by NASA and will be performed after a peer-review process:
http://www.finitetheory.com/files/ft.pdf
It consists of sending a wavemeter aboard the International Space Station quite simply.
Regards,
-Phil
Gentlemen,
If you are “just” interested in testing Michelson’s results, start with his stated conclusions.
“When Albert Michelson reported the negative results he said it could simply mean that the Earth carries aether with it so there is no aether wind at the Earth’s surface. He also hypothesized that the Earth might rotate within its aether halo as it spins on its axis at ~.35 km/sec (at 41 degrees latitude). The Michelson-Gale experiment was conducted to test this hypothesis in 1925 with positive results.”
Now consider an option that he did not consider, there was NO aether wind at the surface because the aether flow was busy doing it’s job of producing gravity.
Each of you can test this hypotisis for about $250 and 4 hours of your time. Just set up an inferometer so that you can repeat Michelson’s test (in the horizontal plane) AND another set up (same machine) in the Vertical plane. Much less than a space launch.
Live Long and Prosper
Norm
Assume ether to be a medium through which light propagates, and assume it further to be entrained by Earth.
This entrainnment, to be consistent with modern Michelson-Morley type experiments, must be very nearly complete, since upper bounds of a few centimeters per second on the relative velocity between ether and Earth have been obtained.
Ether near Earth must therefore be comoving, that is, it must move at bout 30 km/s with respect to
the Sun and at comparable speeds with respect to stars. If we assume that ether is also immobile with respect to
the star that emits it, the speed at which ether moves must vary as we approach Earth by at least 30 km/s,
that is c/10’000.
Under almost arbitrary hypotheses concerning wave propagation in moving media, such variations in speed
imply a variation in the direction of propagated light. It would altogether eliminate the yearly variation in
the star’s apparent positions known as aberration. Since aberration has been found by Bradley in the
18th century, and accurately confirmed ever since, it is not quite easy to see how a “local ether’’ theory
could account for this observation.
Francois
You have not observed the difference between REAL direction of light as the vector sum of ether wind and wave velocity (only detectable in focused light by means of amplitude), and OBSERVABLE direction of light (only detectable in coherent systems by means of phase). The later concept is the wave velocity plus only LONGITUDINAL component of the ether wind. Transverse ether wind is IRRELEVANT in the later concept, that is the WAVE direction (normal to the wave fronts).
In telescopes, interferometers and cavities it is ray (not real) direction that is valid. This means that ONLY observer motion (and not ether wind) produce stellar aberration, and NO effect in the transverse arm in MMX, NO effect in a light clock and NO time dilation. Therefore, a contraction of physical bodies that is 2 times the Lorentz contraction and no Lorentz factor. The larger contraction factor is great enough to compensate the change in 2-way light speed and thereby explain MMX to be a useless method. Stellar aberration is useless too. 1-way measurements are needed and we have that in GPS. This indicates that an ether wind falling in radial direction towards our planet can explain gravity and the high precision in GPS. We see this by regarding that ALL transmitters are on one sphere and ALL receivers on another sphere.
Stokes was correct about LOCAL ether, but this ether cannot be a frame; instead it must be a spherically symmetric FIELD or a falling ether. See PHYSICS WITHOUT PARADOXES at http://www.gsjournal.net
With the best regards from ___________________________ John-Erik
Stokes was correct about LOCAL ether.
But Stokes local ether is quite different then described by Jim.
The planets do not have the local ether.
The planets travel together with the Sun’s ether.
Maxwell and L. Lorents were opinion that in the space is enough matter to propagate the electric waves.
This matter now has name the rare plasma and is produced by the Sun.
The electric waves = radio waves = light = radiation =longitudinal waves.
The transverse waves = EM induction.
S*
Assume the ether is, in any sense, a medium through which light propagates. Assume further that the ether is entrained by the Earth motion. Since we can hardly assume that the ether’s entrainment by the Earth extends over thousands of light years, light from distant stars must traverse an ether having variable speed. FDrom all we know of wave propagation (for example sound), such a variation in the medium’s speed leads to a corresponding variation in the beam’s direction.
The apparent direction of stars would thus be affected by the ether’s local motion in the Earth’s vicinity. This would create a very significant aberration effect for stars, which could readily be observed: it is a much larger effect than Michelson-Morley, and can be observed here on Earth. I look forward to the result of this crucial test of your theory.
Francois
I guess that you were addressing me.
Sound is not of much help in relation to light. MMX cannot be done in a vertical direction due to gravity. In vertical direction we must detect 1-way light speed, and that is possible as described by C C Su. R Wang could detect changes in 1-way light speed.light speed. Detection of 1-way light speed has been done for many years in the GPS system.
Regards _________________ John-Erik
Jim,
This reply may seem out of order since I saw no reply link below your post of January 2, 2017 at 1:22 am.
I do not feel the experiment would yield positive results. In my view only acceleration or gradients in the gravitational field can cause differences in the behavior of light.
I am not inclined to agree with Harry and others that Einstein’s belief in the existence of ether was unclear. Given the many different qualities and properties assigned to the ether of the day it is certainly understandable why one would not want to use the term without clarifying his own personal interpretation.
Although I derived the property of the ether prior to reading the partial ether description in Einstein’s 1920 lecture at Leiden it matches well.
“But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”
Most “ponderable media” is considered to consist of parts however my description ether has none.
As long as the ether does not consist of parts which can be tracked through time we will not be able to detect motion relative to it. In my view not only is there no need for an ether wind, but no possibility for an ether wind to exist.
To me Prof. Su’s local aether model not being complete is not as significant as his suggestions of what path its completion might follow. The path of a fluid like particulate ether. An ether you and I both agree could not support light (transverse waves). The also leaves unanswered the greatest question ether was postulated to resolve (action at a distance).
Quantum Mechanics in my view offers a good idealized mathematical tool for calculating the outcome of atomic and neuclear level interactions. It should not however be interpreted from this idealized incremental behavior that the ether is fundamentally particulate.
Cornelis
Cornelis and Jim
Is the ether universal and autonomous or local and entrained? The question has been discussed for 100 years, but only frames have been assumed. Both ideas are impossible in relation to frames. Why has not anyone assumed an ether in the form of a field? GPS refutes autonomous ether but the local ether cannot entrain ether in the whole Universe. Far away the effect must approach zero, therefore we need a field. The statement ” There must be many frames” is not magic but just an indication that a field is needed here. The GPS system allows a field as we can see by regarding the fact that all transmitters are on one sphere, and all receivers are on another sphere, concentric ti the first one. Therefore, a spherically symmetric field will do.
The ether in itself is not entrained, but a property of it is entrained, namely the ether wind. It is remarkable that the discussion has been limited to frames, and no field has been discussed for many years. More about this on my blog.
Since stellar aberration and MMX are both useless we need measurements of 1-way light speed as we have in GPS.
With best regards and A HAPPY NEW YEAR
From _________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
“Why has not anyone assumed an ether in the form of a field?”
A field is a mathematical construct not a physical ether.
Non the less fields patterns in the ether have been used as reference frames. The most famous is Einstein’s theories of Relativity which uses the curved gravitational field as a frame of reference.
Cornelis
Cornelis
A field is a mathematical construct, and a velocity field is a physical concept that can define the ether wind, as i said. A frame is impossible, but a spherically symmetric field is possible to unite with GPS. A field has not been used to represent ether wind.
Do you have any comments to give regarding what is important in my blog post?
Best regards from _____________________ John-Erik
John-Erik,
I previously commented in your blog posts on the important incompatibilities of ether wind with observed physical behaviors.
Cornelis
Jim, This type of experiment was proposed many years ago to NASA by Dr Carl Zapffe. Here is a paper written by me that discusses the proposal and why it was ignored.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/877
There are a lot of misconceptions regarding experimental verification and refutation of special relativity. But first lets examine what the theory is based upon. The theory is really a claim that space is homogeneous and isotropic. The primary claim is that the laws of physics are identically the same in all relatively moving inertial frames of reference. The MMX experiment was designed to measure the velocity of the earth through the assumed aether, and not to test the homogeneity and isotropy of space. It is presently assumed that motion of the earth through the solar system based aether would have changed the isotropy of the space, but that was not detected. However, a lot of other experiments show that the earth is not located in isotropic and homogeneous space. They are discussed in the paper you mention. There is also the Wang FOC experiment in which a linear motion through space is shown to cause an asymmetry in the velocity of light. So it is clear that the proposed experiment is not needed. The experiments available already show that the velocity of light is not homogeneous and isotropic when the interferometer is in motion.
Hi Harry,
Thanks for your informative comments.
I’m not surprised that Dr. Zapffe’s proposal was summarily rejected by NASA. That’s why I suggest alternatives to NASA need to be pursued.
Also, I don’t agree that the experiment would not be worthwhile. You and I may be convinced that there is clear observational and experimental evidence that falsifies the second postulate of Special Relativity. However, the mainstream physics community clearly is not convinced.
I believe a positive result to the proposed experiment would have a much greater impact. This is the most well known of the experiments that led to the abandonment of the aether concept. It would clearly contradict the “null” result that Einstein’s Relativity would predict.
Also, please provide details of the experiments you mention that involve an interferometer in motion. Do you mean in motion with respect to the earth’s surface?
Regards,
Jim Marsen
Harry and Jim
Yes, R Wang’s FOC test can prove more clearly what the Sagnac correction in GPS has demonstrated. Even more clearance can be found in A method by C C Su, where 2 HeNe lasers are connected over a couple of meters and then compared in an interferometer. However, GPS demonstrates that a spherically symmetric field will do, since transmitters are on one sphere and receivers on another one, concentric to the first.
Regards from ____________________ John-Erik
Jim, There are numerous difficulties in the experiment that you propose. The main one being how do you propose to conduct the experiment so that the mainstream NASA scientists do not fudge it to prove special relativity? Who is going to make sure they do it the right way?
There is also this problem which you are apparently unaware of. There is a debate regarding whether or not the MMX is actually the experimental basis of SR. For example see my paper here at GSJ: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/873
The obvious problem regarding doing an experiment as you propose is that since no one really knows what is meant by the second postulate, and because the theory of SR is ambiguous regarding whether it says there is or is not an aether, it seems that the experimental facts really don’t enter into whether SR is valid or not.
We already know that the second postulate is false from the experiments, so doing another experiment will not change anything. SR is defective because its mathematics is based upon a defective set of assumptions used to derive the Lorentz transformations. The resulting equations lead to contradictions that invalidate the claims the validity of SR, but that serious mathematical defect has not prevented the theory from being taught as valid by mainstream science.
The contradictions arise in an obvious way by producing two equations: t’=beta*t and t=beta*t’ that occur simultaneously. These can only have the solution t=t’ and that implies beta=1 and so the velocity v=0. In other words the SR theory is based upon mathematical solutions that are only valid for the case of velocity equal to zero.
It seems to me that this refutes SR right there. So if the scientific community can ignore this very serious defect for 100 years, I see no reason why an experiment as you propose would change their thinking in any way if it did indeed prove that the velocity of light is not constant.
Harry,
Are not the two equations: t’=beta*t and t=beta*t’ produced from opposite perspective? Each using their own local measuring rods and clocks as related to the speed of light to determine beta? Under these conditions the beta could be unequal if the measuring rod length differed between observation perspectives.
Cornelis
Dear Harry,
Do you agree that the proposed experiment would produce a positive result?
Do you also agree that no fringe shift would be the predicted result based on the assumption that Einstein’s Second Postulate of Special Relativity is true?
In my opinion this would be crucial experimental evidence that the Second Postulate is false.
Note that the Michelson Morley experiment is almost always cited in introductory physics textbooks as the primary proof of Einstein’s Relativity. The textbooks would have to be rewritten. A positive result could/should convince open minded people (especially the young) to reconsider the local aether paradigm.
I understand your pessimism that supporters of Einstein’s Relativity will never accept that it is false. Theoretical proofs that it is false are disputed or ignored. Experimental evidence falsifying the Second Postulate is either manipulated into being consistent with Einstein’s Relativity or ignored. However, the proposed experiment would be much harder to dispute or ignore.
You say that it is not clear that the Michelson Morley experiment was used as the basis of Einstein’s Relativity. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter now.
The key is Einstein’s Second Postulate of Special Relativity. Once one accepts this postulate, the paradigm of Special and General Relativity follows. But since is only a postulate, it can be proven false by experiment.
From the introduction to “Einstein Plus Two” by the (late) great Prof. Petr Beckmann:
Prof. Beckmann also discusses how the Second Postulate might be impossible to falsify theoretically.
His approach was to first show that there are alternative explanations to the phenomena that are used to prove Einstein’s Relativity. He does so using classical physics and the assumption that the electric and magnetic fields are tied to the Earth’s gravitational field (what I would call the local aether). He then derives Schrodinger’s Equation (essentially Quantum Mechanics) with classical physics using the same assumption.
He thus showed that the local aether paradigm is superior to Einstein’s Relativity paradigm. But, alas, he too was ignored.
Regards,
Jim Marsen
Jim,
You say: “Earth’s gravitational field (what I would call the local aether).”
This suggests that you consider aether to be the field and not the field carrier. Again, with no force carrier, we arrive at action at a distance, the very problem which aether was postulated to solve.
Is the quote above your view or is it part of Prof. Beckmann’s statements?
Cornelis
Jim
MMX has been tested by cavities at very low temperatures and always given the result zero. Apparently the decrease in 2-way light speed is compensated by an equal effect in a reduction of spacing between atoms in a solid. This is reasonable since spacing is controlled by 2-way forces between atoms propagating with the speed c.
Another reason against your suggestion is that it is very difficult to do the complex MMX in a space station. It is therefore much better to measure the 1-way speed of light. You can do that by means of 2 HeNe lasers connected over a couple of meters by means of an optical fiber and then compared in an interferometer. However, 1-way measurements have already been done in the GPS system.
The article by C C Su that you attached is very good and proves that the ether is LOCAL, but it does NOT prove that the reference is a frame. It can be a VECTOR FIELD instead. From the GPS experience we can conclude that a spherically symmetric field can explain GPS precision. We can conclude that by regarding the fact that ALL transmitters are positioned on a sphere with radius 26,600 km and ALL receivers are on a concentric sphere with radius 6,400 km. This means that the ether wind can have the same direction as the gravitational field. This is very plausible since the ether must explain gravity.
See my latest post on my blog http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson
With the best regards from ______________________ John-Erik
We already have satellites in polar orbits that would show signs of differential ether entrainment as they cross the polar regions. No existence of an ether wind has ever been demonstrated. The only observed effect that have been the verified is the relative change in the speed clocks due to differences in gravitational field intensity. In my view with the lack of evidence for the ether wind and the internal conflicts in its theory funding research for such an experiment makes little more sense than the search for dark matter. No mecanical model can explain the conflicts in ether flow that must occur at the Lagrangen points in space. A third scenario which you do not mention is that of an ether that is ridgid and non particulate. Such an ether is similar to that proposed by Einstein that is an energy carrier but because it has no distinguisable parts can not be detected as a reference frame. This definition of ether is fully compatible with the Michelson-Morley Experiment and supports all forms of matter/energy as various geometic tension wave patterns.
Cornelis
Hi Cornelis,
I agree that my proposal would probably be a futile effort based on the aether concept you describe. Please note that my proposal is intended to test the entrained aether concept which does not assume a rigid aether.
Can you be more specific about the “internal conflicts” you mention? Are you referring to Bradley Aberration? I believe the paper I cited by Dr. Su addresses many of the objections to the entrained ether concept. Also, I’d be interested in more details about the polar satellites you mention.
Regards,
Jim Marsen
Jim,
I am not referring to the Bradley Aberration. I and others have refered to the impossibility of a transverse wave (light) propagating through a fluid like ether. Also the incompatibility of fluid flowing in two or more direction in the same location at the same time. These issues and many more have never been logically resolved by those who claim an ether based on fluid dynamics.
From the paper you refer to for example it is dealt with as if the exclusionary principle did not apply to ether.
”
Instead,
there exist numerous local ethers. Each individual local
ether is finite in extent and may be wholly immersed in
another local ether of larger extent. Each local ether as
a whole may move at a velocity with respect to another
local ether. Thus the local ethers may form a multiple-
level hierarchy. At a given position, it is the lowest-level
local ether that determines the wave propagation locally.
”
In my view this is magic not physics.
The polar orbiting satellites are not specifically put in orbit to test the possibility of frame dragging. If however beyond all reason such an fenomenon did exist you would have expected these satellites along with those at Lagrange points to have exibited some otherwise unexplainable behavior.
Cornelis
Cornelis,
I agree that aether concepts that assign it properties that mimic the properties of the physical fluids we are familiar with cannot give rise to electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields, or support transverse electromagnetic waves.
Many attempts to define the aether are based on analogies to known physical substances which result in some pretty absurd models: it is an elastic solid or a substance like pine tar.
We need to think outside the box and imagine that the aether may have unique but real properties that have not yet been discovered.
I like Prof C.-C. Su’s local ether model because it fits with observations. I don’t agree that it is magic. The local ethers are simply the 3D map of the scalar gravitational potential fields that surround astronomical bodies.
Regards,
Jim Marsen
Jim,
Briefly looking over Prof C.-C. Su’s local ether model, it appears to offer a mathematically simplified approach to observed behavior of local field interactions. He however declares having yet to explore the physical nature of the local ether. At some point suggesting models that are analogous to particulate physical substances, leaving the connection between particles unexplained. Although declaring local ethers frames he also acknowledges no understanding of the interface mechanism between them. This appears to leave many more disconnects and questions than it does answers. This model leaves unanswered the very argument for the existence of ether in the first place. (Action at a distance?)
Mechanism of action between particles? (Unexplained action at a distance) Mechanism of action between frames? (Unexplained action at a distance) l see this as one of the internal conflicts that exists in all particle or object (fluid dynamics) based ethers.
Without an explanation of how the transition mechanism between local frames occurs, how and at what location specifically should we expect to sense the transition between frames?
Cornelis
Dear Cornelis,
One step at a time.
First: Do you think the proposed experiment would produce a positive result?
If so, do you think it would disprove Einstein’s Relativity and prove the existence of an aether.
If so, a fully defined model of the aether – its geometry and dynamic properties – is not vital at this point. In the best case, a positive result would lead to other experiments that might further clarify the nature of the medium.
I agree Prof. Su’s local aether model is not completely defined but neither was Quantum Mechanics at its inception; it evolved.
Regards,
Jim Marsen
You wrote: am not referring to the Bradley Aberration. I and others have refered to the impossibility of a transverse wave (light) propagating through a fluid like ether. ”
Light is not the transverse waves. Light is the lateral waves. See:
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfarad1846.html
“if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass (neither of these cases being difficult to realise if A and B be either electric or magnetic bodies), then an effect equivalent to a lateral disturbance will take place in the resultant upon which we are fixing our attention”
The transverse oscilations take place in the EM induction.
The light is the form of radiation. The electric waves is the proper name for light.
S*
Szczepan,
This was an enjoyable article on Faraday’s impromptude lecture. Thank you for sharing it.
The destination between light as a lateral wave or as a transverse was is matter of symantics, as may even be seen by the authors comments at the end.
“He felt such “transverse” waves, oscillating sideways like waves in molded gelatin (“jello”), explained the way light could be polarized.”
Most importance is that they can only be propagated by a tensionable carrier. This eliminates an ether media that can support a wind.
The view expressed by Faraday are much like my own as I derive all matter and forces from an evolving sequence of wave geometries in a single unified field. Wether you consider space to be inherently endowed with the properties to support such propagation, or succome to the pressures of giving the wave carrier a the name ether is also a matter of symantics. The stigma given to ether by descriptions such as that shared, and rejected, by Faraday in the article is I believe one of the reasons many hesitate to use the term.
Cornelis
Jim,
I have several times now spent time typing and submitted my replies into this web page only to have my work disappear. You will need to look for my response in some other for as I grow weary of time lost.
Cornelis
Cornelis,
The reason your replies don’t appear immediately on the site is that the blog post author is responsible for reviewing them first. I believe this is to prevent spam and abuse. It’s not like many forums where posts are automatically published.
Jim,
Thank you for clarifying the mecanisum by which the blogs are managed. That does seem reasonable and clarifies my concern.
Sincerely,
Cornelis
The aether being a medium uniformly filling infinite space is untenable as nature is not so extravagant.
Consider space as consisting of isolated regions of matter and crisscrossed by electric fields emanating from electric charges that constitute matter. The electric fields, balancing out exactly everywhere in space and vanishing to zero at infinite distances from the respective sources, may be considered as the aether.
Gravitation may be considered as a result of deflection of the electric field from an electric charge on encountering another charge in space such that force of repulsion is slightly reduced and force of attraction similarly increased. While electrostatic forces between bodies cancel out gravitational forces of attraction add up.
Musa D. Abdullahi
Jim and Cornelis
C C Su’s ideas are sound and consistent. We should not abolish them, even if they are not totally complete. I have also read somewhere that C C Su has suggested how 1-way light speed can be measured by 2 HeNe lasers connected over a couple of meters and connected to an interferometer. This gives ABSOLUTE ether wind. Ruyong Wang could only measure CHANGES in the motion of the test equipment.
I think that the ether ‘s existence is confirmed and we only have to measure motion of ether. The GPS experience, based on 1-way light speed, that a FALLING ether is possible. That is an ether blowing in the same direction as the force of gravity. The ether wind cannot be represented by an autonomous FRAME, and not by a local FRAME. The ether wind must be represented by a FIELD.
Best regards _______________________ John-Erik
HAPPY NEW YEAR