Michelson-Morley Experiment

[stevo247]

As a layman, I have a few questions about the Michelson-Morley experiment that proved the nonexistence of an ether.

 

In the experiment, what was the nature of the supposed ether? Was it assumed to be stationary or in motion? Was it considered to be a substance or an energy?

[Klaynos]

Probably best to take what Zephir says bearing in mind he has an agenda to push his own ether theory.

 

wikipedia can give a better description of the aether than I can...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

 

If you have questions feel free to ask...

[thedarkshade]

In the experiment, what was the nature of the supposed ether? Was it assumed to be stationary or in motion? Was it considered to be a substance or an energy?

It was considered as a medium through which EM waves would move, so it was considered as matter (AFAIK).

[Zephir]

..his own ether theory......

The Aether theory isn't mine at all and the original authors of this concept are always listed at the beginning of each forum (1, 2) dedicated the Aether concept. In particular, I'm strictly adhering on the concept of scientific priority, so I'm exclusively using the denominations, proposed by the scientists, who have introduced these concepts into physics first. The luminiferous Aether concept was proposed by Descartes and Huygens in 17th century. The concept of dense Aether comes from Oliver Lodge in 1904. The name of AWT comes from T.J. See, who spent a lotta time by development of Aether wave mediated concept of forces.

[swansont]

We were assumed to be moving through the ether, because Bradley's observation of stellar aberration in 1725 showed that we could not be at rest with respect to it.

 

 

 

The concept of dense Aether comes from Oliver Lodge in 1904.

 

And as that postdates the M-M experiment, it is decidedly off-topic for this thread.

[stevo247]

It was considered as a medium through which EM waves would move, so it was considered as matter (AFAIK).

 

We were assumed to be moving through the ether, because Bradley's observation of stellar aberration in 1725 showed that we could not be at rest with respect to it.

 

 

So the Michelson-Morley experiment tested for the existence of an ether-concept, whereby the ether was characterized as being matter, stationary, and that the earth passed through it. Is that accurate?

[HannonRJ]

The aether was immaterial. It was the electromagnetic medium that was considered necessary for the propagation of EM "waves", analogous to the necessity for a fluid as the medium for acoustic waves. While there were a few "variations" among physicists as to the exact nature of the aether, it was generally agreed that light (EM radiation) moved at c IN the aether, but if the source of that radiation was in motion relative to the aether, that radiation acquired the velocity of its source. The aether itself was assumed to be at absolute rest, but after the MM experiment it was proposed that the aether was "dragged" along with massive bodies as they moved. It is not generally recognized today that the Fitzgerald-Lorentz "contraction", which was developed to "explain the result of the MM experiment", was predicated on the aether as defined by Lorentz.

 

Oddly, the "null" result of the MM experiment really was in accord with the aether theory, but M+M made mistakes in calculating their prediction of its result. If light acquires the velocity of its source, the prediction agrees with the results.