Michelson and Morley experiment - analysis of possible mistakes

[Masanov]

The article proves that MM experiment has nothing to do with checking the Newton's view on absolute space and time. To analize whether light spreads relatively to the moving source of light with relative speed one can reconstruct the experiment and redo it.

 

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Michelson and Morley.htm

Though it is quite possible that light spreads relatively to the moving source of light with absolute speed, but nevertheless it is useful to check it.

As I see it, the concept of "the ether wind" is not the "Newton's wind", that is the shift of light due to the movement of the source to the direction, from which this source moves. An the MM experiment was not oriented to check this Newton wind possible phenomenon.

[swansont]

Can't view your pictures.

 

The source code gives this as your first one:

MMEXP1.WMF

 

So you're using windows media format for pictures. How about using a cross-platform compatible format like jpeg or gif?

[Masanov]

I changed, naming png alike. Why can't you download wmf separately?

I would not like to violate dates my article was first issued on.

 

-------

Anybody, who knows a good publishing house, or journalists, eager to bite the news?

[swansont]

I changed' date=' naming png alike. Why can't you download wmf separately?

[/quote']

 

I don't use windows.

[swansont]

"For simplicity, MM experiment will be presented schematically as the Young experiment."

 

No. Either you analyze the Michelson-Morley experiment, or you don't.

 

Once you introduce other changes like this, it makes it harder to follow and to make valid comparisons.

[Masanov]

Short preview before the big fight.

http:\\http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/8

 

MM experiment resembles the Young experiment. Change is possible, analysis is analysis, why you pose strict rules? Later on I will make it more clear in pictures, but the Young experiment is a good simple scheme.

 

So, you think that any comparison is pseudo science?

[swansont]

Short preview before the big fight.

http:\\http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/8

 

MM experiment resembles the Young experiment. Change is possible' date=' analysis is analysis, why you pose strict rules? Later on I will make it more clear in pictures, but the Young experiment is a good simple scheme.

 

So, you think that any comparison is pseudo science?[/quote']

 

No, I think that you risk comparing apples to oranges. Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but they aren't worth any equations. Rigor is needed here.

[Masanov]

Answer simple question, you studied The Young experiment, or not?

How many resembling features are there? Let's check your ... before we go further.

As MM experiment and the Young experiment do resemble each other, I have to mention it. And this is very helping, as I think.

[Masanov]

Guys, who looked the picture 8.png.

Who has questions?

There are 4 ideas fixed by pictures: Newton's views on light relatively to the moving source (blinkung lamp) and Maxwell and Lorenz views on Ether. The main idea is that MM experiment refuted only one case with Ether, the fourth case. The third one remains to be checked. MM experiment do not refute Newton views on space and time. To check Newton, MM experiment should be reconstructed.

[swansont]

I am familiar with the Young double-slit experiment. If Michelson and Morley had thought it was the best way to measure speed through the ether, why did they use a different apparatus?

 

If you want to analyze a different experiment, by all means do so. Come up with a prediction of what you should observe.

[Masanov]

See above, Ether was not disapproved. The third idea, light spreads in the ether around some point in it. For the fourth idea [it is MM experiment] Ether wind works like a river: when you are in a boat and put a hand on the water, the water carries your hand away from the boat. It is not so from the point of the third idea: the hand would not be carried away. To check all the ideas [see 8.png] MM experiment should be remade, with two sources of light [e.g. laser interferometre I saw the proposal of two sources, but I was the first to propose 2 sources of light in this experiment].

[swansont]

What do you predict you will observe, specifically, and why? i.e. we need some equations. M-M had a phase shift prediction that was speed dependent. What have you got?

[MetaFrizzics]

Okay, I looked at your picture, but now what? What exactly is the claim here?

Usually one has to do a model of the earth moving around the sun and mark some angles showing predicted bending of light rays through the aether from some North-Pole star.

 

Or do you have some other light source in mind for the experiment?

[Masanov]

Moving around the sun is not necessary to pay attention to. Pay attention to 4 ideas:

1) blinks of light around moving source of light (Newton view of absolute space without inertia laws: blinks of light shift to the direction from which the source moves);

2) blinks of light around moving source of light (Newton views on absolute space + inertia laws): according to laws of inertia the speed of light around moving source of light is absolute - the picture in the right hand corner, above;

3) Lorenz and Maxwel thought light spreads in EATHER, a special "substance", that can convey light: EATHER is immovable to absolute space, as in the 1st idea, blinks spread around the point, where the blink was initiated; shifts of light OCCUR, but "substance" do not shift and cannot make shifts of light;

4) Michelson and Morley tried to verify the 3rd idea, but by some reasons did not do that: by their views EATHER does not convey light; their view is the 2nd idea + Eather as substance that can distroy inertia harmony of light around the moving source. "Substance" can and should make shifts of light!!!

The 3rd and the 4th ideas are different, Michelson and Morley did not checked ideas 1,2 and 3. To check these ideas, you have to have 2 sources of light as shown in the first message, not 1 source.

Without even checking the 3rd idea they made the conclusion: no shifts of light - no "substance".

...one has to do a model of the earth moving around the sun and mark some angles showing predicted bending of light rays through the aether...Or do you have some other light source in mind for the experiment?

The bending of light DRAWN is possible in 3 different cases accept for the 2nd where light can spread according to inertia laws.

The main prediction is to pay attention that the 3rd idea was not checked at all. It means that Aether or Eather was not refuted!!!!

Do you differ ideas or not? 3 from 4????

[Masanov]

 

I will discuss this mirror tube in Michelson and Morley thread.

 

MAIN POINT: inside this mirror tube one can have light pulses zigzag movements 12 cm per second and even less. One can check both Michelson and Morley experiment and the Theory of Relativity using this tube.

 

As for MM experiment, this tube is good, and very good, because it is very quickly reacts to changes in its velocities. E.g. if with one tube's speed the light reflection occurs on one wall, with another speed it could occur on the opposite wall, which seems very convincing.

 

Any opinions?

[Masanov]

ANIMATION OF MICHELSON AND MORLEY POSSIBLE FAILURE!!!

Eye of Michelson and Morley experiment sees incoming waves, in two cases of the table turn. The "ether wind" could exist and change the length of waves, contract or stretch them, but the wave length is proportionate to the speed of the wave in the eye: the speed of waves also changed. So, because of such proportion, though the speeds of the waves before the turn of the table and after could be different, the change cannot be noticed. BECAUSE ALL INCOMING WAVES SEEM COHERENT!!!

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/MMExpEye(1).htm

So, I repeat the already said, it is better to use a mirror tube for checking the "wind". This mirror tube can be used also as a Light Time Clock with a ruler for time passed (see separate thread).

[mezarashi]

In anycase, there was nothing wrong with the experimental setup. The optical interferometer did what we would want it to do. However, people still refused to believe that the ether was non-existent. In fact, decades after the experiment various schemes were devised in an effort to explain why the light travelled at the same speed and to defend the ether theory. Here are some:

 

1. "ether drag" - the Earth takes along with it a local supply of its own ether. Like a shield against the universal ether wind.

2. "emmision theories" - where the speed light would be governed also by the motion of the source.

This one goes as far as saying:

3. Ether wind physically compressed all matter (including the MM apparatus) in just the right amount to conceal the variation in speed.

 

All of these have been proven wrong from experiment or observation. The main death blow to the ether theory was probably Einstein's postulate in which he derived his theory of relativity. That the laws of physics are the same regardless of the inertial reference system chosen.

[Masanov]

Pls read everything. Ether like the mean of waves transer should be immobile to space (3 case). Michelson and Morley decided to separate waves from Ether: in their case light should be taken by Ether wind away, as if a hand is taken by rapid waters (4 case). To verify the 3rd case, one ought to have two sources of light in Michelson and Morley experiment, not one. Better to use Light Time Clock, because with it it is better to prove the Ether existence or non-existence.

Let's agree that MM exp proved there's no "wind" blowing light away off the source of light, but it does not mean that Ether cannot exist as no wind, just simply a mean of light transfer, immobile to space. In this case light could spread relatively to space, not to a mobile source. Then why did not you analize animation, which shows that in MM experiment there could be misleading proportions?

I see, there's still a long way to wait, until I read 10000 visitor approval.

[Severian]

Even if you could show that the MM experiment had flaws, you do nothing to explain why every application of special relativity could work if special relativity were wrong.

 

The entirety of particle physics is built apon specail relativity and particle physics is being tested to incredible precision.

[Masanov]

I am not going to discuss here pseudoscience. You can visit my thread Light Time Clock and see that it cannot show times derived from relative speeds from the formula T'/T= C'/C. Light Time Clock Time can exist along with relative times.

More over LTC can be used to check Michelson and Morely experiment.

 

In the following short animation

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/MMexp(wind).htm

I presented MM experiment MAIN idea very shortly.

4th idea) The scientists imagined that light is not conveyed by EATHER,

the light moves in the same inertial system as the MOVING SOURCE, not with EATHER.

Eather wind is trying to shift the light.

3rd idea) But from the first steps of the experiment EATHER WAS imagined as a light conveyer, and the light did not move with the source.

So, there's a BIG miscomprehension: having not found Eather wind, MM stated that there's no EATHER and all the scientists surported the idea. BUT the third idea, when light shifts off the moving source, because it spreads [conveyed] in EATHER was not checked by MM at all. To check this third idea, one ought to introduce the second light source [into MM exp], or use LTC.

[Masanov]

Here is the mobile source of light, blinking.

It is the 3rd idea explained and historical.

Light spreads not in the inertial system of the mobile source!!!!!...

It spreads in the Eather. That is why when striken against the mirrors in MM experiment LIGHT was not influenced by EATHER WIND. In main direction of MM exp we had identical waves of light and identical speeds.

 

In this situation EYE before the turn of the table will see two beams with identical waves, and after the turn of the table, though waves before and after the table turn should be different [soon animation to this].

Also wait for general animation of MM experiment and summarizing animation of mistakes.

 

So, MM exp mistakes are:

1) light in MM exp was not in the EATHER inertial system, though it was originally thought that EATHER is a conveyer of light. Having stated that there's no EATHER WIND is not enough to state that there's no EATHER.

2) the case, when light spreads in the inertial system of EATHER was not checked, and for this we need 2 sources of light, not one [which was the case]; as EATHER was not checked profoundly, then MM exp should be remade.

3) So-o-o-o-o!!! I think One cannot use MM exp to check movement in space, because in all 4 cases waves of light enter EYE in proportions of their speeds to their lengths.

[swansont]

Here is the mobile source of light' date=' blinking.

It is the [b']3rd idea explained[/b] and historical.

Light spreads not in the inertial system of the mobile source!!!!!...

It spreads in the Eather. That is why when striken against the mirrors in MM experiment LIGHT was not influenced by EATHER WIND. In main direction of MM exp we had identical waves of light and identical speeds.

 

In this situation EYE before the turn of the table will see two beams with identical waves, and after the turn of the table, though waves before and after the table turn should be different [soon animation to this].

Also wait for general animation of MM experiment and summarizing animation of mistakes.

 

So, MM exp mistakes are:

1) light in MM exp was not in the EATHER inertial system, though it was originally thought that EATHER is a conveyer of light. Having stated that there's no EATHER WIND is not enough to state that there's no EATHER.

2) the case, when light spreads in the inertial system of EATHER was not checked, and for this we need 2 sources of light, not one [which was the case]; as EATHER was not checked profoundly, then MM exp should be remade.

3) So-o-o-o-o!!! I think One cannot use MM exp to check movement in space, because in all 4 cases waves of light enter EYE in proportions of their speeds to their lengths.

 

There is no "main direction" if the MM experiment; the light went in orthogonal directions. Stellar aberration already tells us we can't be stationary with respect to some medium.

[Masanov]

directions: to the plate, from the plate and from reflectors

 

No need to quote so much.

Or main direction to the EYE.

[Masanov]

If this idea is true [3rd idea of space] then in MM experiment the EYE before the turn of the table and the EYE after the turn of the table will see identical waves and their identical speeds.

Though the difference is there in waves [lengths, speeds], but it cannot be noticed because of PROPORTIONS between lengths and speeds of the waves.

 

In the picture

1st EYE) "BLACK" wave and "RED" wave big and with fast speed (before the turn of the table)

2nd EYE) "BLACK" wave and "RED" wave short and with slow speed (after the turn of the table)

 

Compare this case with the fourth idea

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/MMExpEye(1).htm

[Masanov]

Soon to come animations of Michelson and Morley experiment. The table will rotate, the eye will look, the "wind will blow" but will not be seen, because of a mistaken proportions, shown above. First animation will be very simple: rotation of the table and explaination of the experiment.