• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,037 questions , 2,191 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,706 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Does my interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment make sense?

+ 0 like - 2 dislike

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?


Closed as per community consensus as the post is not a real question and unclear
asked Jun 29, 2015 in Closed Questions by tallevy43 (-10 points) [ no revision ]
recategorized Jun 30, 2015 by Dilaton

Voting to close. Not a real question. Also, unclear.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights