The Michelson-Morley Experiment

Letter

 

Eugene Sittampalam


 

To:          Dr Hamish Johnston <editor@physicsweb.org>

Cc:          holgerm@stanford.edu, prl@aps.org 

Date:       Monday 2 July 2007

Subject:   The Michelson-Morley Experiment

 

Thus, however sophisticated the instrument and advanced the technique, any experiment can now be deemed wrong should it find a difference in light's travel time along a given length at different orientations in an inertial reference frame. p 67

 

In the absolute reality... it is light's travel time that remains the only invariant for a given distance in an inertial frame. That is, if two points A and B are at rest in an inertial frame moving at velocity v, then light's travel time between A and B will remain absolutely the same irrespective of the orientation of AB with respect to v. Under any change in this orientation, it is the distance AB and the velocity of light between A and B that change absolutely, and they both change by the very same factor. And since velocity is distance divided by time of travel, the factors of change cancel out in the equation to give us the illusion of the invariance of the velocity of light in moving inertial frames. p 68

 

Note: All these results may not necessarily be any different in non-inertial frames, where actual experiments are performed. This would only and simply mean that the effect of the change in the frame velocity (v) – in the fleeting time the photon takes to traverse the experimental distance (L) – is beyond detection. p 68

Eugene Sittampalam, And now, the long-awaited… "Theory of Everything", Vantage Press, New York (1999)

 

Dr Hamish Johnston

Editor, Physics Web

IOP Publishing

 

Dear Dr Johnston,       

However, there is one lingering doubt surrounding the Michelson-Morley experiment… For example, if both the speed of light and the length travelled by a light beam changed by the same factor, the changes would cancel each other out. … The research will be described in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.

Hamish Johnston, Two relativity tests are better than one (Jun 28),  http://physicsweb.org/article/news/11/6/17

 

It was indeed reassuring to read your above news article, though eight long years after the publication of my book propounding also, in Chapter 4: The Final Theory of Relativity. (I do not, however, expect to be cited by Dr Holger Mueller and colleagues in their upcoming Physical Review Letters paper!)

 

Please do access (1) for an outline of this proposed final concept. My recent submission of a short article (2) to Dr Martin Griffiths of your own esteemed Institute, too, may be of special interest here. You will also find in those pages the current theory (for "physicists to conclude that the speed of light is constant in all directions") to be plainly and fundamentally flawed, let alone being counterintuitive.

 

Finally, as you may agree, any new speculation on the Michelson-Morley findings should not be a contrived one, as at present. Instead, the explanation should be simple and straightforward as the experiment is. Moreover, it should be integral to a more elaborate theory – ideally, the ultimate and all-embracing final concept on the nature of things.

Any feedback would be gratefully received.

Thank you and best regards,

Eugene Sittampalam

www.sittampalam.net 

 

(1) www.sittampalam.net/Relativity.htm  

(2) www.sittampalam.net/LateralThoughts.pdf (preprint; limited circulation)

 

– End of Letter –

 


 

I was honored with a big-hearted response from Dr Mueller. The following is my reply that followed in clarifying some points.

 


 

To:          Dr Holger Mueller <holgerm@stanford.edu>

Cc:          Dr Hamish Johnston <editor@physicsweb.org>

Subject:   The Michelson-Morley Experiment

Date:       Monday 9 July 2007

 

Dear Dr Mueller,

Thank you very much for the response. …

 

As you may agree, all of today's physical theories are piecemeal concepts. That is, they have limitations and can hold somewhat well only within their own restricted domains. Also, your contention that "it is always the theory which is deemed wrong if contradicted by a carefully planned experiment," is a truism and beyond debate. Unfortunately, it is also the unpalatable fact besieging all these theories as observations become increasingly refined (though patchwork theories would abound in the literature for the science to carry on).

 

On the subject here, what is fatally wrong with special relativity (that is, even within its limited scope) is the non-recognition of the fact that bodies contract also transverse to motion. (With quantum mechanics, it is the non-recognition of the communion of atoms, with the atom as a breathing entity; and with general relativity, the non-recognition of the enormous effect of the Cosmic Background Radiation on matter.)   

 

On the other hand, what I have put forward in my work (1) is the all-embracing final theory. It has had nary an instance for your above statement to even seem applicable, despite my offer (2) to the academia. As such, I can say here with confidence that whether any M-M experiment is carried out, as Dr Johnston puts it, "in Berlin involving infrared light in optical cavities and the other in Perth, employing microwave radiation in a pair of resonating cavities," or even on the Moon or elsewhere in this universe – both the distance and the speed of light between two fixed points in inertial space will contract by the very same factor, that is, at any one location.

 

Further, quoting again Dr Johnston, "While the SME predicts that the speed of light in both experiments should change by the same factor, the theory says that changes in the physical properties of the two experiments will change by different factors." Regrettably, this will not be found so. Since the frame velocity, v, at any two locations will generally be different, the factors will also be different. However, the speed of light, too, would carry exactly the same difference between the two locations, making a mockery of the experiments.

 

Nevertheless, I wish you and colleagues the highest precision in all these experiments – since they would only go to buttress my concept even further!

 

Finally, a simpler pair of tests is detailed in (3), based on another famous experiment: The Two-Slit Experiment. In a nutshell: Test 1: To show that a dark fringe is where the energy becomes incident at twice source frequency. Test 2: To show that even single particles (of mass or energy) striking symmetrically between the slits, that is, totally avoiding both openings, will still produce the fringes downstream.

 

I shall be much grateful if you could kindly undertake to perform these two tests at any of your cutting-edge lab facilities, with all costs and fees paid by me in advance. Your response to this earnest request, too, would be very much appreciated.

Thank you and best regards.

Sincerely,

Eugene Sittampalam

www.sittampalam.net  

 

(1) www.sittampalam.net/Synopsis.htm

(2) See "A friendly yet serious Challenge to Readers" in www.sittampalam.net

(3) www.sittampalam.net/TwoSlitTests.htm

 

– End of Reply –


 

Return to homepage