Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
January 21, 2018

CATEGORY: The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008) [back]
TOPIC: A Practical Experiment to Observe the Direction of Time. by Kenneth M. Sasaki. [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Kenneth M. Sasaki. wrote on Nov. 28, 2008 @ 09:31 GMT
Essay Abstract

This work presents a practical experiment to observe the direction of time. The key insight is that translational frame dragging can only occur with respect to one state of motion, for a surrounding effectively asymptotically flat space, with observation and theory indicating this state of motion to be the state of rest, of the Lorentz-Poincaré Ether Theory. The Ether theory is briefly discussed, along with the observations and assumptions involved in the construction of inertial reference frames. The ether, of spherical universes, is then specifically discussed. The central results are then presented. Concluding remarks are then made, about time and energy.

Author Bio

Ken Sasaki is an ether theorist, in the tradition of Lorentz and Poincaré. His research focuses on the nature and observational consequences of the interaction between energy and the ether state of rest.

Download Essay PDF File




Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 6, 2008 @ 19:51 GMT
Dear Ken,

Although I consider myself relativist in the standard way, I am happy to see that the ether theory is still pursued. I believe that from time to time older theories that were rejected need to be reconsidered, especially when, as it seems to be the case of your research, they may provide predictions that can distinguish them from the mainstream theory. It is good to have different alternative interpretations of data, like in QM, to avoid the fixation in a paradigm.

Best wishes and good luck in your research,

Cristi Stoica

“Flowing with a Frozen River”,

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322




Ken Sasaki. wrote on Dec. 7, 2008 @ 06:52 GMT
Dear Cristi:

Thanks for the kind words. We ether theorists usually are treated as crackpots, so it is nice to encounter people with open minds. I plan on having a look at your essay soon.

To anyone who happens to read this:

A critical analysis of my work would be most welcome. My work is most falsifiable, at the level of discussion in the essay; so if there is a problem, a competent analysis will establish it beyond question. If anyone can find an error, I would be most grateful; and if you can't, tell some friends.

Take care,

Ken.




Chi Ming Hung wrote on Dec. 11, 2008 @ 20:37 GMT
Ken,

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you about your essay...

I think it's unfortunate that you chose to associate your theory with the word "ether", because that's sort of like a dirty word in physics, with most physicists dismissing it as either a dead and buried obsolete concept, or else as simply crackpot.

From a cursory look at your essay, it seems that you're interested in questions about "preferred frame" (or what you called "ether frame") in General Relativity (GR). This is actually not a trivial question in GR, as one can see from the discussions about Newton's rotating bucket, or the relationship between Mach's principle and GR (see e.g. Wheeler and Ciufolini's book " Gravitation and Inertia"). I tend to think that such a preferred frame can be defined relatively with respect to all other matter in the universe, so there should be no need to postulate an ether...

This said, I don't believe GR to be the final word for a satisfactory theory of space-time, if only because GR neither takes into account nor explains quantum phenomena...

In any case, good luck with your research!




Ken Sasaki. wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 11:15 GMT
Dear Chi Ming:

Ether – that darkest place, into which relativists dare not gaze; for if they did, they would no longer be relativists.

I would like to thank you for undertaking to understand as much of my essay as you have; but I know full well how the term “ether” is generally held, in the physics community; and I think that the prejudice, against ether theories and “rest frames”, is at the heart of why the biggest problems of theoretical physics had remained unsolved for so long.

You are right in that I do use the GR formalism, and that I recognize a "preferred frame"; but I hate the application of "preferred frame" to what is really a “rest frame”. It recognizes that there is a “special” frame, but suggests that this frame is not reeeeeally special; it is just preferrrrred. That way General *Relativity* can still be “right”; since there is still a sort of relativity of inertial frames, if only in words.

The name “Ether Theory”, for a theory that recognizes a rest frame, goes back over a hundred years, even beyond the Ether Theory of Lorentz and Poincaré, which is the flat-space theory I show to be correct. To not call the Ether Theory of Lorentz and Poincaré an Ether Theory is a capitulation to ignorance, and this I refuse.

I think that "preferred frame" is a euphemism that has come into fashion, because many physicists cannot bear the reality that we ether theorists have been right all along. If you call someone a crackpot, and it turns out that they are right and you are wrong; then you are really the crackpot. And that is a long fall, for people that have lived in as high esteem as have the relativists. But that is the danger of calling someone a crackpot; if you do, you had better be right. (Of course, not all relativists are guilty of calling ether theorists crackpots.)

But I take it, from your reply, that you found no error in my results. I submit to you that you should find this compelling. You say that your look at my paper was only “cursory”. Please, give it some more thought; and keep in mind the big picture. You have been looking at a result that would be, to say the least, quite significant. If you can’t find an error, you might be only the second person on the planet to fully realize something very worth your time.

And as I stated above, if you can find an error, I would be most grateful. If you can’t, tell some friends; maybe they can find an error. If no one can find an error,...maybe its right.

Finally, note that I do not “postulate” an ether, which, as you know, is simply a state of rest, only with respect to which light travels with the same speed, in all directions; I show that this must exist – relativity is not viable.

Take care,

Ken.




Ken Sasaki. wrote on Dec. 19, 2008 @ 10:59 GMT
Dear Chi Ming:

Having reread what I wrote, I realized that one thing sounds not as intended. I stated, "I would like to thank you for undertaking to understand as much of my essay as you have; but..." The "but" makes it sound like I am not thanking you, which I did not intend. Sorry about that. Thank you for reading the essay.

Take care,

Ken.




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.