The Michelson-Morley Experiment
To: Dr Hamish Johnston <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Monday 2 July 2007
Subject: The Michelson-Morley Experiment
Dr Hamish Johnston
Editor, Physics Web
Dear Dr Johnston,
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,
– 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 <email@example.com>
Cc: Dr Hamish Johnston <firstname.lastname@example.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.
(2) See "A friendly yet serious Challenge to Readers" in www.sittampalam.net
– End of Reply –