Michelson-Morley ether experiment

Thread Starter

reerer

Joined Apr 1, 2016
71
"Michelson did not conclude that the Earth travels at zero speed through the aether; he concluded, rather, that despite the care and precautions taken the device was too susceptible to extraneous facts, such as temperature and vibration, and was not suitable for measuring that speed. His exploration failed, he thought, to yield the interesting data he had hoped for. He could have sought an explanation for his 'null' outcome other than the inadequacy of his interferometer. If he had had sufficient confidence in the non-existence of the effect he tried to measure, he might have looked for a theoretical explanation. As it was, within a few years Albert Einstein had developed a theory from which it followed that the looked-for effect does not exist. Not that his theory ended the exploration. For perhaps, despite Einstein's theory, Michelson's effect does exist and it really was the inadequacies of his device which prevented him from detecting it. There have been enough surprise in the history of physics to make us cautious in ruling out the possibility of such a result (Collins and Pinch 1993: ch 2). "(Gower, p. 241).



Michelson's experiment, Lorentz's transformation and Einstein's special and general relativity theory are unnecessary since light propagating in vacuum is experimental proof Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist, and the electromagnetic ether cannot represent the formation of light wave since Maxwell theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous, nor is induction an ionization effect.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,356
After reading a description of that interferometer I wonder who (and how/with what) will position every mirror of the lasers involved. How precise is all that? Can a human do that?
It's done with magic smoke, mirrors, lasers and feedback.

Most of the Ion beam systems I work with are tiny when compared to the size of LIGO. We normally use a simple 3600 digital level, a laser, and various sets of tiny target apertures to do a rough mechanical alignment to a fraction of a degree from source to target, the machines usually have a XYZ electrostatic beam manipulator to fine-tune the beam while under operation with a 2D energy profile.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/look-deeper
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
13,931
ACHTUNG!
ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENPEEPERS!
DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FÜR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN! ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKEN.
IST NICHT FÜR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HÄNDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS.
ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,146
Swearing at machines does not work, they are very sensitive.
Going to another machine doesn't work either, they belong to the same union.
 

DickCappels

Joined Aug 21, 2008
6,459
An alternative interpretation of Michaelson-Morley's experiments is that the earth travels in an aether bubble, so that the aether is static with respect to the earth, especially at low altitudes. The experiment failed to rule out that possibility.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,356
An alternative interpretation of Michaelson-Morley's experiments is that the earth travels in an aether bubble, so that the aether is static with respect to the earth, especially at low altitudes. The experiment failed to rule out that possibility.
Not really, the experiment failed to rule out that unlikely possibility but other factors do.
http://www.faithfulscience.com/relativity/aether-drag.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis#Problems_of_complete_aether_dragging
However, the accumulation of hypotheses to rescue the stationary aether concept was considered to be very artificial. So it was Albert Einstein (1905), who recognized that it is only required to assume the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference, in order to develop the theory of special relativity and to derive the complete Lorentz transformation. All this was done without using the stationary aether concept.[18]
...
In modern physics (which is based on the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics), the aether as a "material substance" with a "state of motion" plays no role anymore. So questions concerning a possible "aether drag" are not considered meaningful anymore by the scientific community. What in fact exists, is frame-dragging as predicted by general relativity, that is, rotating masses distort the spacetime metric, causing a precession of the orbit of nearby particles. But this effect is orders of magnitude weaker than any "aether drag" discussed in this article.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties
 
Last edited:

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
13,931
The ether composed of matter or the electromagnetic ether does not physically exist, right.
That is correct. Electro-magnetic radiation, including visible light, does not require a medium to propagate. It will propagate just fine through the near perfect vacuum of interstellar space. This is approximately 1e-13 atmospheres or one tenth of a nanoatmosphere.
 

Thread Starter

reerer

Joined Apr 1, 2016
71
So, why is Huygens' principle that is used to represent the propagation of light and Fresnel's diffraction mechanism still used in college physics text books?
 

Thread Starter

reerer

Joined Apr 1, 2016
71
In modern physics (which is based on the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics), the aether as a "material substance" with a "state of motion" plays no role anymore. So questions concerning a possible "aether drag" are not considered meaningful anymore by the scientific community. What in fact exists, is frame-dragging as predicted by general relativity, that is, rotating masses distort the spacetime metric, causing a precession of the orbit of nearby particles. But this effect is orders of magnitude weaker than any "aether drag" discussed in this article.

_________________________________



In Einstein paper, "Relativity: Special and General Theory" (1917), Einstein uses Lorentz's theory to justify Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter, described in Michelson-Morley paper (Michelson-Morley, p. 334).

"On the other hand, all coordinate systems moving relatively were to be regarded as in motion with respect to the æther. To this motion against the æther ("æther-drift") were attributed more complicated laws which were supposed to hold relative to. Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at the earth's surface....Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above." (Einstein6, § 16).
 

Thread Starter

reerer

Joined Apr 1, 2016
71
When I reach 750 views, in one day, then someone will buy out this forum, for 50,000$ or more depending how good of a horse trader you are. AOL brought out aboutphysics for 1 million dollars, just for me!! But aboutphysics was much bigger and was based on Harvard or was it Stanford Grads. I don't think you could best Harvard Grads, maybe Stanford thou. Also, I will always love Washington for beating the buts of them, Great job ladies. Also, OSU Ducks...you're the greatest. You could buy a




Maserati




.



.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

reerer

Joined Apr 1, 2016
71
In an experiment, two laser beams are combined. No interference effect is observed which proves Michelson-Morley experiment is a hoax. In Michelson-Morley the optical reviewer (telescope) is used to record an interference effect. I predict that the telescope is viewing the an interference effect on the surface of the beam splitter, not by the interfering light rays. The interference effect that is used in Michelson-Morley experiment is the beam splitter since to form the diffraction effect requires a diffraction object. What is the diffraction object in Michelson-Morley experiment?
 

Thread Starter

reerer

Joined Apr 1, 2016
71
In Michelson's paper, "The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Lumiferous Ether" (1881), Michelson tests for Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter (Fresnel, § 43).


"The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether, whose vibrations produce the phenomena of heat and light, and which is supposed to fill all space. According to Fresnel, the ether, which is enclosed in optical media, partakes of the motion of these media, to an extent depending on their indices of refraction. For air, this motion would be but a small fraction of that of the air itself and will be neglected." (Michelson, p. 120).

"Assuming then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, would depend on the direction in which it travels." (Michelson, p. 120).

The incident light beam, of Michelson's experiment, is split into two light rays. One light ray propagates parallel to the direction of the ether wind (drift). The second light ray propagates perpendicular to the ether drift. Both light rays propagate towards two separate mirrors then are reflected back and recombined to form an interference pattern. Rotating Michelson's experimental apparatus does not affect the diffraction pattern which represents the negative result of Michelson's experiment. Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) is also testing for Fresnel's optical ether (Michelson-Morley, p. 334) but both Michelson and Michelson-Morley experiments are unnecessary since light propagating in vacuum is definitive and irreversible experimental proof Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist. Also, in Michelson's experiment, the parallel light ray is propagating in the direction of the ether wind (drift) then is reflected, by the mirror, and propagates in the opposite direction, which cancels the test of the ether drift. Not only is Michelson, and Michelson-Morley experiments unnecessary, both experiments are not testing for the ether. Furthermore, Michelson's experiment is unnecessary since light propagating in vacuum is experimental proof Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist. The predominate issues is that fact that light propagates in vacuum that is void of Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter, which has precedence over Lorentz's transformation since light propagating in vacuum contradicts Lorentz's reversal of Michelson-Morley ether experiment which is used to justify the existence of Fresnel's ether.
 
Top