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


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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 Fund.
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

John-Erik Persson: on 5/22/20 at 19:10pm UTC, wrote Vladimir I have read your paper, and I found it very intersting. As you...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 5/17/20 at 13:19pm UTC, wrote Dear John-Erik Glad to read your work again. I greatly appreciated your...

Paul Schroeder: on 5/14/20 at 16:19pm UTC, wrote Dear John.erik, You and I had a few discussions when in NPA. At that time...

Eckard Blumschein: on 5/6/20 at 1:20am UTC, wrote Dear Erik Persson, You may read my new comment on Klingman's page. We...

Otis Frost: on 5/5/20 at 20:24pm UTC, wrote Thank you for your answer. I understand your statement that either motion...

John-Erik Persson: on 5/4/20 at 12:50pm UTC, wrote Otis You asked about my view on stellar aberration. I think that ether...

John-Erik Persson: on 5/2/20 at 11:11am UTC, wrote Michael Thanks for this contribution. I will read your article and...

Michael muteru: on 4/30/20 at 9:03am UTC, wrote dear John, I presume that questions always give rise to new ideas that May...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "So, in reply to the posts by Stefan Weckbach and Steve Dufourny above,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "If considering existence rather than appearances, the time dimension..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "That is about the 'anatomy"" of spacetime." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Lorraine Ford: "So what exactly is WRONG with physics, apart from the fact that physics..." in The Present State of...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello Jim, yes indeed in a sense we have these motions and we have invented..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "Hi Steve, Clearly we have motion in our Universe. It is not..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.


FQXi FORUM
September 17, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Is the ether wind decidable? by John-Erik Persson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 6, 2020 @ 12:53 GMT
Essay Abstract

An illusion of undecidability of an ether wind was the basis for establishing the theory of special relativity (SRT). The reason to that mistake was a wrong interpretation of light behavior in both arms in the Michelson and Morley’s tests (MMX), and also in the interpretation of stellar aberration. A deviation from the wave model gave us the illusion of particles in light, and also resulted in the absurd idea that the time concept is dilated, due to velocity.

Author Bio

The author is 85 years old and has a master in electrical engineering. Interests in physics are concentrated to the interpretations of RT and QM, and the paradoxes therein.

Download Essay PDF File
Note: This Essay PDF was replaced on 2020-03-20 17:35:08 UTC.

Bookmark and Share


Scott S Gordon wrote on Feb. 8, 2020 @ 04:02 GMT
I liked your essay - and I agree that MMX has been erroneously interpreted. I also agree with your statement that physicists have low regard to philosophers. I think your are saying spacetime is an ether and that its movement would be experimentally detectable. All interesting thoughts!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 8, 2020 @ 18:29 GMT
Scott

Thanks for interest, and for very good words about my article.

It is good that you agree to the idea that MMX has fooled us to need time dilation as a cover up for a mistake, and also caused the illusion of particles in light. This confused QM.

Yes, I think we need an ether, but instead of spacetime I think we need space AND time.

Another mistake is the idea that 2-way light is needed for detecting changes in light speed due to the ether wind. The answer is in GPS due to 1-way light speed.

I will point out that the scientific method demands that we analyze scientific history also. I did that back to 1882.

I will study your article and write my opinion there.

Regards from _______________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Otis Lamont Frost wrote on Feb. 12, 2020 @ 00:17 GMT
I appreciate and agree with your illuminating comments about misinterpretation of the delay in the transverse arm of a Michelson-Morley interferometer. Some sources say that Michelson made the same calculation in 1881 that you argue is correct in your essay ... but then Michelson's "incorrect" calculation was "corrected" by Potier (1882) and Lorentz (1886). Is it fair to say that the Michelson/Persson calculation is based on an Etherist's view and the generally accepted Potier/Lorentz calculation is based on a Relativist's view of light propagation?

If so, do you envision a practical experiment to decide between these two views? You mention an experiment based on GPS, but it seems that the Etherist and Relativist views of GPS are the same (in the vicinity of our planet) if the Relativist adopts the inertial reference frame of the non-spinning center of the Earth.

Thanks also for your observation that light does not necessarily move in a direction in space orthogonal to its wavefront if the ether is moving.

Bookmark and Share
post approved
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 12, 2020 @ 11:19 GMT
Thanks for answer. We agree completely.

A agree that we can say that my/Michelson interpretation is based on ether and Potier/Lorentz relativity. But in my paper I said I follow the wave model and Potier was infecting the wave model by particle reasoning. Producing confusion.

Correcting Potier's error means that relativity is refuted. If we accept existence of the ether than its state of motion is given by the symmetric GPS system- Gravity is explained also. However, the reference cannot be a frame but a falling ether.

You have realized the important fact that motion of light can deviate 10^-6 radians in relation to wave front normal. This can be ignored in almost all cases but not in MMX.

Bookmark and Share

Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 4, 2020 @ 12:50 GMT
Otis

You asked about my view on stellar aberration.

I think that ether wind cannot tilt a wave front, since the ether wind adds the same velocity to all points on the wave front. To change orientation needs different ether wind in different points. This means that only a GRADIENT in ether wind can change a wave front. No wave front tilting in transverse arm in MMX either. MMX was misunderstood in transverse arm by a particle thinking.

Observer motion is different and has the same effect on a wave front as on a particle. So, when we observe a fix star there is no REAL bending only an illusion.

You mentioned Ed Klingman. I think I read an article by Ed a couple pf years ago.

Perhaps I am more clear in my latest paper. I send a copy, and if you want you can send it to Ed.

Regards ___________________ John-Erik

attachments: The_Michelson_Question_in_PDF.pdf

Bookmark and Share

Otis Lamont Frost replied on May. 5, 2020 @ 20:24 GMT
Thank you for your answer. I understand your statement that either motion or a gradient of ether wind can cause a wavefront to bend. But is it possible to show that the bending causes the wavefront to align perpendicular to the direction of propagation by the time it arrives at the surface of the Earth? It would seem that this condition is necessary for a telescope on the surface of the earth to focus the star correctly and to explain stellar aberration.

Best Regards, Otis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2020 @ 18:54 GMT
Hi JE, (I hope I may call you JE?)

Good essay, nicely set out, easy to read and covering most relevant bases. I also agree with a number of your conclusions; The MMX analysis is flawed, as are 'time dilation' (though wavelengths/ periods DO change), traveling 'light particles' (so except at requantization), so stellar aberration, and the 'tilting' of wholesale areas of wavefronts. (You may recall I proved that causally in my 2012 essay Fig.3).

I also liked your 'decidability' approach, giving at least a 'nod' to the topic, though I fear the judges may see it as 'pushing a theory' more than addressing the question, and question how 'rigorously argued' it was. It's perhaps a shame you only used 5 pages as some of your sections were only superficially covered, leaving out many related topics and apparent contradictory findings to explain. But that did make for easy reading & understanding of how your conclusions were reached.

I do disagree with some of your analysis and proposed solution, but most all hypotheses are valid and of interest, and we can discuss that later if you wish. It's also not one of the scoring criteria so is no reason not to give the essay a high score.

I hope you do better than previous years where I feel you finished far lower than deserved.

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 25, 2020 @ 18:24 GMT
Peter

I am glad we can agree regarding MMX, Stellar aberration and time dilation. These are central and important foundations for present confusion in physics. Yes, 5 pages is very short, since these ideas have great importance for many areas in modern physics. However, I made the article short in order to focus on how confusion started in 1882.

Yes, the judge may give me low points and the did in 2018, as you said. But, in my opinion, the number of points is not important. Important is to let the world know about the bad state of physics. Therefore, I produced a very IMPORTANT EXAMPLICATION of undecidability instead of the desired ANALYSIS of the concept decidability.

As you say, there are some small differences in our ideas, so i wellcome your suggestion that we must continue this debate.

In your own article you point out a very important issue, namely the binary thinking in the western world. Black and white. Friend or foe. This is bad for politics and creates polarization and bad decisions.

Thanks for article.

With best regards from ____________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 25, 2020 @ 18:29 GMT
Peter

Yes, you my call me JE. Many persons spell my name with 'c' in stead of 'k'.

Best regards ______________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 12:35 GMT
Dear John-Erik Persson,

At previous contests Edwin Eugene Klingman made precise comments on many essays. I am still hoping that he will present his own opinion this time, too. I agree with your argument that light propagates one way. You and Klingman believe in an ether for light and gravity. Admittedly I have problems to understand.your arguments. Given there is no ether then there is no ether wind.

The attached files are unfinished. They may merely provide food for thought.

Sincerely,

Eckard

attachments: 2_Cusanus.docx, 2_Cusanus_vs_SR.docx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 19:15 GMT
Eckard

Thank you very much for this.

Finite or infinite is a mathematical question. In physics we can only operate with approximations. Apparently the Universe is much larger than we can observe. To me this means that an infinite Universe most probably is the best approximation.

When Einstein really knew physics he said that "physics without an ether is unthinkable" and also that "the most basic postulate may be in error".

When the ether was abolished all development in physics was stopped.

I have a memory of reading an interesting article by Klingman, but I cannot remember the title. I will take a look.

With the best regards from __________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Mar. 20, 2020 @ 17:35 GMT
John-Erik Persson re-uploaded the file Persson_Is_the_Ether_Wind_D.pdf for the essay entitled "Is the ether wind decidable?" on 2020-03-20 17:35:08 UTC.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 04:15 GMT
Dear John Erik Persson!

You are one of the most staunch defenders of the ether! Your essay is wonderful and commendable! It consistently, on the basis of modern technologies, shows the reason why the ethereal wind was not detected in the Michelson – Morley experiments. Namely, instead of the wave concept of light, these experiments considered its corpuscular nature. In this I totally...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 18:46 GMT
Thanks for good words. I am very glad to find so good agreement.

I find it remarkable that scientists introduce black matter and black energy and still refuse black ether!!!!

I will read your article.

Regards from ________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Marts Liena wrote on Mar. 31, 2020 @ 13:19 GMT
Dear John-Erik Persson,

My humble apologies for almost stealing your essay title, but I had written three quarters before I found your essay on the same topic. We agree on a lot and disagree on a little, from my perspective. I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I enjoyed yours. I will look forward to further correspondence about our favorite topic!

Best wishes

Marts

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Apr. 2, 2020 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Marts

You do not have to apologize. The titles are not exactly the same.

Yes, we agree completely on the main issue, the ether concept. Einstein, in my opinion, created confusion by not differentiate between ether and space.

The discussion between existence and nonexistence of a reference frame has been binary and excluded the middle. I think there is a third option.

The third option

Take a look1

Best regards from ________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 05:15 GMT
Dear John-Erik Perrson,

As Eckard noted above, I too strongly believe that ether is necessary. It perfectly explains the Michelson-Gale experiments. As you note, Einstein too came to realize this, after managing to effectively kill the idea!

I thank you for your wonderful essay, almost all of which I agree with, and invite you to read and comment on my essay: Deciding on the nature of time and space

My best regards and best wishes for you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 10:05 GMT
Edwin

Thank you for good words.

We are both convinced about the importance of the ether concept, and this is important and the reason to the fact that we have not been able to explain gravity. My idea is that we need an ether as a reference, but this ether must not be a frame.

Regards from _________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 15:49 GMT
Edwin

Perhaps this article would interest you?

Regards from ______________ John-Erik

How Science Became Fiction

Bookmark and Share


Israel Perez wrote on Apr. 10, 2020 @ 21:33 GMT
Dear John

The aether never contradicted relativity theory and special relativity is not wrong. You just have to understand two aspects. In 1904 Hendrik Lorentz developed a theory of the aether that explained the MMX. In this theory, he found the so called Lorentz transformations that relate events in two inertial systems of reference. Later, in 1905 Einstein found the same Lorentz transformations following a different approach. Same math but different physics. So, the problem is not mathematical but physical. Since it is the same math both explain the same phenomena, e.g., the MMX. The problem is that Lorentz theory assumes an absolute frame of reference and Einstein's denies its existence. The aether was removed just for its opposition to relativity and because the general theory of relativity was able to explain the propagation of light without resorting to the aether. Since general relativity is superior to the special and Newtonian gravitation theory, physicists forgot about the aether, they thought that the aether concept was no longer useful to explain gravitational and light phenomena.

Please read my essay and my previous references: the preferred frame reloaded and On the experimental determination of the one-way speed of light. There I deal with the issues you discuss in your essay, perhaps you may find it interesting.

Good luck in the contest!

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 07:51 GMT
Israel

As you said:

Einstein and Lorentz had different opinions regarding the existence of the ether. However, this is not the most important problem. Instead i described in my article that the most important problem is that:

Einstein and Lorentz both misunderstood the Michelson Morley experiments. So, instead of GAMMA for space and time we need GAMMA SQUARED for matter and nothing for time. The error was created in 1882 by a false effect in the transverse arm of MMX. FitzGerald contraction must be doubled.

Regards _________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share

Israel Perez replied on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear John

In that case the whole theory may be wrong. I have reservations.

Good luck in the contest!

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 16:42 GMT
Israel

Tell me about your reservations.

Regards ________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share

Israel Perez replied on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 17:40 GMT
Besides MMX, there are dozens of different experiments that confirm Lorentz symmetry (The Sagnac experiment is a non-inertial experiment, so using an inertial theory is not correct). One experiment is not enough to invalidate a theory. In the references I cited, you can find some important papers that may be illustrative on this matter.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 09:44 GMT
Israel

I have described how, in 1882, the effect in transverse arm was introduced in error. In the law of reflection in a mirror we must use wave vector c and only longitudinal component of the ether wind, since mirrors are transparent to the ether wind. Therefore in advanced optical systems we only can detect wave front normal with very high precision by means of phase. The vector sum can only be roughly estimated based on amplitude.

Sagnac effect is physically described by a translating line (not by a rotating area). That line can be straight and not closed, as seen in the Sagnac correction in GPS).

Crystals must be built by positioning of atoms based on the ether. So, positioning forces move force and back between atoms with speeds c+v and c-v in the same way as light between mirrors in MMX. So, real and compensated effect in longitudinal arm.

So, with correct interpretation all tests you assume to confirm Lorentz invariance are in fact demonstrating Galilean invariance.

I suggest that you read IS THE ETHER WIN DECIDABLE? again.

Regards _________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 09:54 GMT
Israel

This link may also be interesting. There are many articles by me on different databases.

How Science Became Fiction

Regards _________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share

Israel Perez replied on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 20:32 GMT
Dear John

Thanks for the reply, it is not necessary that you post it in my entry to call my attention; I check my posts. Thanks for the reference. In my previous post I gave you an advice: If you think you are right try to publish your results in a well recognized journal. I think, that's the best you can do.

Good luck in the contest!

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 21:02 GMT
Israel

Thank you very much.

I will read your article.

Good luck.

Regards ______________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Michael muteru wrote on Apr. 30, 2020 @ 09:03 GMT
dear John, I presume that questions always give rise to new ideas that May rewrite physics in this age. old read/review my take on how anthropic bias is the basis of science here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks in advance,all the best.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 2, 2020 @ 11:11 GMT
Michael

Thanks for this contribution.

I will read your article and comment on your page.

Perhaps you are interested in this article.

The Michelson-Morley question

Regards ______________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 01:20 GMT
Dear Erik Persson,

You may read my new comment on Klingman's page. We answer the question why SRT is successful and fundamentally wrong at a time.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Schroeder wrote on May. 14, 2020 @ 16:19 GMT
Dear John.erik,

You and I had a few discussions when in NPA. At that time you were promoting the aether and I was suggesting that the background of space being gravity itself provides your aether. In your new paper you suggest ‘a unification between ether wind and force of gravity’ . This is exactly what I have promoted.

We have also agreed about a pushing type of gravity. You mention here about Fatio and his connection with Newton while I took on the LeSage similar view and solved the mistaken errors that killed the ‘Proper “ view of gravity for both Le Sage and Fatio.

You have also done some nice graphs that take on the fixed speed of light.

I am printing out your paper to support my ideas. I Rate your paper very good! Perhaps mine will sound good to you.

I wish you the very best

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 13:19 GMT
Dear John-Erik

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on May. 22, 2020 @ 19:10 GMT
Vladimir

I have read your paper, and I found it very intersting. As you said, it really contains food for thought.

Many thanks for that paper, and good luck for you.

Regards ________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


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.