ravell Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) I have a question about the analysis of the MM experiment presented earlier in this forum at the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/InterpretationMichelsonExperiment.pdf Has anyone ever done this experiment again, but with the use of glass arms of the interferometer instead of the air? If so, what were the results of this experiment? Edited May 18, 2012 by ravell
pmb Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 I have a question about the analysis of the MM experiment presented earlier in this forum at the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/InterpretationMichelsonExperiment.pdf Has anyone ever done this experiment again, but with the use of glass arms of the interferometer instead of the air? If so, what were the results of this experiment? I recall reading references to that kind of experiment but I can't recall the reference itself.
swansont Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Fiber-optic Michelson interferometers exist. A null result from re-doing the M-M experiment might not get published because it's not a very interesting result.
pmb Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Fiber-optic Michelson interferometers exist. A null result from re-doing the M-M experiment might not get published because it's not a very interesting result. Ah ha!!! Now I recall the experiment. It's quite famous. It's the Kennedy-Thorndyke Experiment It's much more precise thanthe Michelson-Morely experiment of which it is a modified version of. See http://en.wikipedia....dike_experiment
sigurdV Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Ah ha!!! Now I recall the experiment. It's quite famous. It's the Kennedy-Thorndyke Experiment It's much more precise thanthe Michelson-Morely experiment of which it is a modified version of. See http://en.wikipedia....dike_experiment Hi whats the most elementary thread in here on the MM experiment? I never understood why the experiment was expected not to have a null result. (And dont expect ever to understand why...My immediate reaction was that what was lost in the travel to the mirror would be gained on the way back.)
Mike-from-the-Bronx Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Hi whats the most elementary thread in here on the MM experiment? I never understood why the experiment was expected not to have a null result. (And dont expect ever to understand why...My immediate reaction was that what was lost in the travel to the mirror would be gained on the way back.) May I suggest the following short analogy: http://www.relativit...relyAnalogy.htm
pmb Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Hi whats the most elementary thread in here on the MM experiment? I never understood why the experiment was expected not to have a null result. (And dont expect ever to understand why...My immediate reaction was that what was lost in the travel to the mirror would be gained on the way back.) You can also check out http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mmx.htm
sigurdV Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Thank you guys! The boats and the current made it clear...damned how stupid I can be out of my proper surrounding. So I guess I no longer expect a null result unless the current is very weak... How strong must the ether wind be to be detected? Might it be so weak that very long distances are needed for the effect to be noticeable? Where do I get my next obstacle cleared? Its the definition of simultanity, isnt it circular? "Two events a and b are simultaneous if and only if the arrival of light emitted from a and b at the midpoint of ab is simultaneous."
Greg H. Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 It's not circular, just mathematically precise. All it's really saying is that if you have two visible events (in our case we'll use flashing lights) set some distance apart (called ab) then the lights can be said to flash simultaneously if and only if the light from A and the light from B reach the exact mid point of the distance between them (midpoint of ab) at exactly the same moment in time.
Delta1212 Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Thank you guys! The boats and the current made it clear...damned how stupid I can be out of my proper surrounding. So I guess I no longer expect a null result unless the current is very weak... How strong must the ether wind be to be detected? Might it be so weak that very long distances are needed for the effect to be noticeable? Where do I get my next obstacle cleared? Its the definition of simultanity, isnt it circular? "Two events a and b are simultaneous if and only if the arrival of light emitted from a and b at the midpoint of ab is simultaneous." Using the word in its own definition is a bad practice from a dictionary perspective, but that serves as a good practical definition of simultaneity for distant events. If you consider the meaning of the words and how they are used, it's not really problematic.
sigurdV Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 It's not circular, just mathematically precise. All it's really saying is that if you have two visible events (in our case we'll use flashing lights) set some distance apart (called ab) then the lights can be said to flash simultaneously if and only if the light from A and the light from B reach the exact mid point of the distance between them (midpoint of ab) at exactly the same moment in time. I just dont get it: Why then cant we simplify things by saying that a and b are simultaneous if they happen at exactly the same moment in time? I mean Im not saying that there is anything wrong when you calculate things by the methods of Special Relativity... Its just that the original definition looks circular to me and I wondered if the concepts on the different sides of the definition perhaps were different concepts... that would make the definition non circular but then there would be TWO concepts of simultanity and...Well Ill be happy when the matter clears up If there is a better thread for clearing my possible misunderstandings of relativity then tell me and Ill move, but seriously: Im more interested in the people Im discussing with than the thread itself One problem of mine was solved to my satisfaction in here ( Eh... the matter of the strength of the interference from an eventual ether isnt yet settled but I have confidence that it will be.) Perhaps I might tell it all now instead of taking one piece at the time? It started when the age of the universe was...Measured? Estimated? Guessed at? I wondered: Will this affect the theory of relativity in any way? Suppose we could measure the age wherever we are, as fast as convenient and as exact as convenient. Wouldnt we then have access to a measure of simultanity? Something equivalent to absolute time as concieved by Newton? Take the two ships passing each other with constant speed in intergalactic space...it is said that it cant be decided if one ship is resting and the other moves... Would not a comparisation betwen local time and the age of the universe tell? If a ship moves relative to the universe then local time should pass slower than the aging of the universe. If the ship is at rest the speeds would be the same. So I felt I should do some reading...and lol! I got stuck already on the MM experiment and again stuck on the definition of simultanity and gave up the idea! Still my question irritated me and here I am to get the matter explained.
Greg H. Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I just dont get it: Why then cant we simplify things by saying that a and b are simultaneous if they happen at exactly the same moment in time? I mean Im not saying that there is anything wrong when you calculate things by the methods of Special Relativity... Its just that the original definition looks circular to me and I wondered if the concepts on the different sides of the definition perhaps were different concepts... that would make the definition non circular but then there would be TWO concepts of simultanity and... Actually, what you have is a very precise way of measuring simultaneous happenings in a scientific setting - that's the only difference between the two versions of the definition. For normal conversation your shortened definition is fine - scientists need precise definitions because they are dealing with very precise equipment and concepts.
swansont Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I just dont get it: Why then cant we simplify things by saying that a and b are simultaneous if they happen at exactly the same moment in time? "Moment in time" is not well-defined. Time is not invariant; when you change reference frames it changes, so events that are simultaneous in one frame need not be simultaneous in another.
sigurdV Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) "Moment in time" is not well-defined. Time is not invariant; when you change reference frames it changes, so events that are simultaneous in one frame need not be simultaneous in another. But isnt the age of the universe a well defined concept in both frames? This was just messaged to me on my question...Ill think it over: Consider a set of observers in different locations in the universe, all of whom are at rest with respect to the matter in their vicinity (these characters are usually termed fundamental observers). We can envisage them as each sitting on a different galaxy, and so receding from each other with the general expansion of the universe. We can define a global time coordinate t, which is the time measured by these observers - i.e. t is the proper time measured by an observer at rest with respect to the local matter distribution. This time, t, is called the Cosmological Time. This is the time for which the age of the universe is defined by. Edited July 13, 2012 by sigurdV
bay Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 MM, they forget about one prediction, maybe ether not moving to the earth.
ajb Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 MM, they forget about one prediction, maybe ether not moving to the earth. That sounds a very strange possibility. In particular it would break the cosmological principle that we do not occupy a special position in the Universe. This would mean that, for example, the MM experiment would detect a difference in the speed of light on Mars, but not on Earth.
swansont Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 MM, they forget about one prediction, maybe ether not moving to the earth. No, they didn't forget it. It was already shown to be false by Bradley's observation of stellar aberration ca 1725. That showed we can't be stationary with respect to the ether. 2
ravell Posted December 10, 2016 Author Posted December 10, 2016 “The negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment is generally considered to be the strong evidence against the aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution". Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity and confirmed the absence of any aether wind .“Michelson–Morley type experiments form one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory.” In connection with the foregoing, and in light of the calculations presented in the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx clearly proving that the negative results of the Michelson- Morley experiment are due to the Doppler effect, and not from the Lorentz contraction, the question arises where the truth lies? Does the stationary aether in fact exist, contrary to current views, or whether it does not exist?
Strange Posted December 10, 2016 Posted December 10, 2016 1. You should provide a reference/link to where you copy text from. 2. I strongly recommend no one downloads a spreadsheet or or word document from an unknown source. So please provide your argument here. 3. Why do so many people insist on criticising a 100 year old experiment? 4. What about all the different experiments since then that conform Lorentz invariance? Some of which show no violation to stupid level of accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation Does your spreadsheet show all of them to be wrong as well?
Mike-from-the-Bronx Posted December 10, 2016 Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) “The negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment is generally considered to be the strong evidence against the aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution". Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity and confirmed the absence of any aether wind .“Michelson–Morley type experiments form one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory.” "In connection with the foregoing, and in light of the calculations presented in the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx clearly proving that the negative results of the Michelson- Morley experiment are due to the Doppler effect, and not from the Lorentz contraction, the question arises where the truth lies? Does the stationary aether in fact exist, contrary to current views, or whether it does not exist?" ?????????? EDIT: Following is not part of the quote but my comments on the quote. In the original experiment, the Source of light, the Apparatus and the Observer were all at rest with respect to each other. Furthermore, the results were consistent no matter the angle at which the apparatus was oriented in space. Those conditions eliminate the possibility of either the Lorentz contraction OR the Doppler effect contributing to the results. What have you been reading? Edited December 10, 2016 by Mike-from-the-Bronx 1
swansont Posted December 10, 2016 Posted December 10, 2016 ! Moderator Note Similar threads merged “The negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment is generally considered to be the strong evidence against the aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution". Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity and confirmed the absence of any aether wind .“Michelson–Morley type experiments form one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory.” In connection with the foregoing, and in light of the calculations presented in the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx clearly proving that the negative results of the Michelson- Morley experiment are due to the Doppler effect, and not from the Lorentz contraction, the question arises where the truth lies? Does the stationary aether in fact exist, contrary to current views, or whether it does not exist? Bradley's observation of stellar aberration confirmed that we are not stationary with respect to an aether ~150 years before the M-M experiment. So the answer is no.
zztop Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) “The negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment is generally considered to be the strong evidence against the aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution". Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity and confirmed the absence of any aether wind .“Michelson–Morley type experiments form one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory.” In connection with the foregoing, and in light of the calculations presented in the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx clearly proving that the negative results of the Michelson- Morley experiment are due to the Doppler effect, and not from the Lorentz contraction, the question arises where the truth lies? Does the stationary aether in fact exist, contrary to current views, or whether it does not exist? There is no Doppler effect in Michelson-Morley. The source of light and the receiver move as one single body, so , there is no relative motion between them. Hence, no Doppler. Edited December 23, 2016 by zztop
swansont Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 ! Moderator Note Tangential discussion about the experiment has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102752-michelson-morley-doppler-split/
ravell Posted March 10, 2017 Author Posted March 10, 2017 In connection with the foregoing, and in light of the calculations presented in the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx clearly proving that the negative results of the Michelson- Morley experiment are due to the Doppler effect, and not from the Lorentz contraction, the question arises where the truth lies? Does the stationary aether in fact exist, contrary to current views, or whether it does not exist? Dropbox changed the above address http on a new secure https: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26262175/VerificationTheoryRelativity.xlsx -1
Recommended Posts