M&M calc?

[Capiert]

Does anyone have a link or editable file (.docx, .pdf)

to the thorough calculation (comprehensible)

for the Michelson & Morley experiment 1887?

I noticed or suspect the 2nd mirror's 2nd coordinate

might be at rest, & I just wanted to check the official calculations

to be sure that is not the case.

A historical rundown (briefing) would also be helpful

as to what Lorentz did. E.g. Status report.

[Strange]

I wonder why people still so fascinated by such an old and relatively inaccurate experiment...

 

This page has one of the most detailed analyses I have seen: http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Albert_Michelson_Part_II.shtml

 

Or this one: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys150/lectures/mm_results/mm_results.html

(The author of this one is, I think, very active on another science forum.)

 

A copy of the original paper here: https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/gap/Michelson/Michelson.html#michelson1

[Velocity_Boy]

I wonder why people still so fascinated by such an old and relatively inaccurate experiment...

 

This page has one of the most detailed analyses I have seen: http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Albert_Michelson_Part_II.shtml

 

Or this one: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys150/lectures/mm_results/mm_results.html

(The author of this one is, I think, very active on another science forum.)

 

A copy of the original paper here: https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/gap/Michelson/Michelson.html#michelson1

 

 

So what if the experiment is "old?" Which is a very relative term anyway.

 

Copernicus' discovery of a heliocentric solar system and not a geo-centric one predates the M&M experiment by a good 300 years.

 

Newton; Kepler; Jennings; Curie; Rutherford. All old by your standards I guess?

 

Yet the M&M findings of there being no Aether ARE correct. So maybe instead of calling it old and inaccurate we should instead say they were ahead of their time? LOL

[ajb]

So what if the experiment is "old?" Which is a very relative term anyway.

 

We have other experiments that show special and general relativity to be good theories, moreover they have been conducted and analysed using modern science. The Michelson & Morley experiment is now of historical rather than current scientific interest.

 

The best report on the current understanding is

 

Clifford M. Will, The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, Living Rev. Relativity 17 (2014), 4. (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/)

 

However, the above does not report on the recent discovery of gravitational waves.

 

Strange, links to some good resources on the Michelson & Morley experiment, including the original paper. I can't beat that!

Edited June 17, 2016 by ajb

[Capiert]

Super!, Strange. Thank you!

I wonder why people are still so fascinated by such an old and relatively inaccurate experiment...

I don't know, maybe it's the nostalgia, & pioneer spirit of hands on experience.

We can relive those discovery moments, of history like a Jules Verne novel.

Everything had to "start" from somewhere, to get the ball rolling.

Maybe those past clues, awaken in us things, we recognize, for a specific time (frame).

I don't believe in time travel back into the past, because it has not been experimentally proven, to film a clock going backwards. So I've dropped that hypothesis til someone can. But maybe that grasp, or inkling, to ponder in the past (memories) will in someway

help us get a clue to how to do time travel, as some form of experience platform. Til then it's only speculation. I think its the spirit, that counts, that flavour.

Lovers of the future go in the opposite direction, towards maximum accuracy (quality), quantity (statistic) & variation.

 

Absolutely super! for the following:

 

This page has one of the most detailed analyses I have seen: http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Albert_Michelson_Part_II.shtml

 

Or this one: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys150/lectures/mm_results/mm_results.html

(The author of this one is, I think, very active on another science forum.)

 

A copy of the original paper here: https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/gap/Michelson/Michelson.html#michelson1

Historically, I get many tidbits from the side, it conjures up many impressions,

of how the people lived, & what went on back then, when following the style.

(It helps fill (in) & complete the (unique) picture.

See it maybe, as a data (number) check, each time incident has it's own unique style (signature),

that fits (the whole picture) or doesn't. A coding.)

A real fantasy ride. Something you probably, would prefer to exclude,

because you are interested in only the facts.

But historians & history lovers, do exist.

It's just another enjoyment, like the love for a modern fast motorcycle,

or any other advancement. We like, because it works for us.

 

The past errors, set (=confirm) the authenticity,

for the (past) time period;

& the accuracy (achievable) sets (=determines, the limits for) the future timestamp ((technological) capability).

Each time period is unique in its own way, displayed thru a (data) quality like that.

It's (=the amount of quality is) a continuum, of facts.

 

At least that's how I see it (could be), now.

 

P.S. The neat thing about modern,

is we can take an old or primitive idea,

& improve it,

to get the bugs out,

making that technology comfortable

for us.

Call it a revision, if you want.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Capiert

[Strange]

A real fantasy ride. Something you probably, would prefer to exclude,

because you are interested in only the facts.

 

Absolutely not; I loved studying History of Science (I probably did better in that than I did in my science studies!).

 

I just think it is fascinating that certain experiments capture the imagination far beyond there actual significance. But that's human nature, I guess.

[Capiert]

Absolutely not; I loved studying History of Science (I probably did better in that than I did in my science studies!).

Hey!, that's nice to hear!

 

I just think it is fascinating that certain experiments capture the imagination far beyond their actual significance.

Well we got stuck there, didn't we? Michelson & Lorentz found it difficult to accept. Everything that came later, depended on that experiment. It was a fork in the road. It's not a wonder that people will question its significance, & search for what caused our present situation. Maybe imagination, is the safety valve, for helping us to deal with our reason(ing). That experiment is a pivot point, it seems to be very significant.

 

But that's human nature, I guess.

It's obvious that some things become very significant to us.

You're right we cannot always follow the reason why.

Your rating "actual" significance,

does seem to indicate

there is another rating system being used by us,

which we are not all aware of.

Otherwise there would be no difference between the 2.

You've made a good observation.

The next challenge would be,

what (exactly) is that other natural rating system we use,

considering people are equipped with brains (computers)

& using them. What's causing the extremes?

Something is out of sync, or out of wack?

Edited June 17, 2016 by Capiert

[Strange]

Well we got stuck there, didn't we? Michelson & Lorentz found it difficult to accept. Everything that came later, depended on that experiment. It was a fork in the road.

 

No, it wasn't. Einstein, for example, wasn't aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and, if I recall correctly, later said that if he had been he wouldn't have paid it any attention).

 

If anything, Maxwell's equations were the fork in the road. So it all depended on Faraday playing around with wires and magnets.

 

Everything that Einstein, Poincare, Lorentz, et al. did was just derived from applying Maxwell's equations and reaching the obvious and inevitable conclusions.

 

At which point, anyone looking at the results of the M-M experiment would have said, "well, obviously."

[Capiert]

So what if the experiment is "old?" Which is a very relative term anyway.

 

Copernicus' discovery of a heliocentric solar system and not a geo-centric one predates the M&M experiment by a good 300 years.

 

Newton; Kepler; Jennings; Curie; Rutherford. All old by your standards I guess?

 

Yet the M&M findings of there being no Aether ARE correct. So maybe instead of calling it old and inaccurate we should instead say they were ahead of their time? LOL

Go out & look at this planet, even after a rainshower, the jungle, forests, cliffs & seas!

It's all ancient! Just because it sparkles & is clean, everybody thinks that's new.

No, it wasn't. Einstein, for example, wasn't aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and, if I recall correctly, later said that if he had been he wouldn't have paid it any attention).

I would have said, Einstein got it (the M&M ether dilemma) indirectly. Lorentz had 19 of the 20 GR terms, in 1904; 1 year befor Einstein published SR.

Lorentz was quite aware of the M&M experiment('s problem). Einstein, however, decided to solve ((the constant light_speed) controversy) differently.

He was probably aware of the relativity issue, because of the attention it was getting, that's why he joined in. Light's_speed was accused of being constant (that was a major consequence of the M&M experiment,

even if he didn't know who did the experiment.

If everybody was bickering about whether the ether existed, he decided he knew how to solve things (& kill the arguementation)

with a method without using the ether (at all). 1905 he said he will not use the ether.

He didn't say it did not exist, only that he was not going to use it, in SR. That certainly stopped a lot of fights.

Effectively, all Einstein did was say (virtually), "if that's what the experiments says, then we'll use that status". The average (back & forth) speed of light was then declared to be used for c, but he didn't call it an average. Nobody did.

 

If anything, Maxwell's equations were the fork in the road. So it all depended on Faraday "playing" around with "wires" and "magnets".

Good description, it really brings it to the point.

 

Everything that Einstein, Poincare, Lorentz, et al. did was just derived from applying Maxwell's equations and reaching the obvious and inevitable conclusions.

Wasn't SR originally, without Maxwell? I mean Maxwell's 20 equations, were the basis for Heaviside's 4 equations, which everybody calls Maxwell's, but they are not. Didn't Maxwell propose the experiment, that Michelson decided to do in 1887? Didn't application of Heaviside's 4 equations come later (after SR), into GR?

 

At which point, anyone looking at the results of the M-M experiment would have said, "well, obviously."

At that point, looking back, obviously. Who could avoid, the connection?

But I think Maxwell's proposal for the M&M experiment, was the indirect inscentive for Einstein's SR theory, trying to end the feuds?

Einstein wanted to end the constant c controversy,

something that came out from the M&M experiment.

You might say Maxwell used his equations, to propose the M&M experiment (setup)?

Edited June 17, 2016 by Capiert

[Strange]

It is complicated: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.1545.pdf

 

It's fascinating that we have so little accurate information about something that happened just over a century ago.

[Capiert]

It is complicated: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.1545.pdf

 

It's fascinating that we have so little accurate information about something that happened just over a century ago.

It's interesting, that we are getting different stories, even from Einstein.

But I think, he couldn't have avoided the M&M experiment, & eventually was trying to, .. work on the next level, distracted by the optimistic solution. In other words he tackled the (same) problem (completely) differently.

The mind has a tendancy to complete things (errors happen too). No sense staying in a rut.

(That's only my (meager) opinion, so I'll have to drop it. Otherwise I'll never get a chance to read all the goodies, you sent me.)

Edited June 17, 2016 by Capiert

[Bignose]

There are recent papers that perform very similar experiments with modern measuring devices and techniques.

 

Herrmann, S.; Senger, A.; Möhle, K.; Nagel, M.; Kovalchuk, E. V.; Peters, A. (2009). "Rotating optical cavity experiment testing Lorentz invariance at the 10−17 level". Physical Review D 80 (100): 105011. arXiv:1002.1284. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80j5011H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.105011.

 

No aether influence detected down to 1 part in 10^17. Awfully little wiggle room left, there.

[ajb]

Wasn't SR originally, without Maxwell?

The amazing thing is that there is so much in Maxwell's equations that were not understood or appreciated at the time. One of them is that the theory is not invariant under the Galilean transformations (the symmetry of classical mechanics). Later it was realised that it is the Lorentz group that is important here.

 

Other things that are written into Maxwell's equations include gauge symmetry and conformal symmetry (an extension of the Poincare symmetries). All these things are at the forefront of field theory today.

[Capiert]

Hi ajb!

The amazing thing is that there is so much in Maxwell's equations that were not understood or appreciated at the time. One of them is that the theory is not invariant under the Galilean transformations (the symmetry of classical mechanics).

Nice point.

Does that also mean they stay non invariant for SR? Yes.

Anti_Thesis: How is it they suddenly become invariant near light speed?

Somewhere there must be a gray zone from yes to no. ?

Or at what particular speed do things magically happen?

Later it was realised that it is the Lorentz group* that is important here. Other things that are written into Maxwell's equations include gauge symmetry and conformal symmetry (an extension of the Poincare symmetries). All these things are at the forefront of field theory today.

*I'm sorry, I can't really see the connection (yet) why we construct a 4x4 tensor matrix, with an unrelated variable time, as 1 of the 4 properties. A balanced equation of L^2=, (c*t)^2=x^2 + y^2 + z^2, seems more reasonable, & symmetric to me, (than a Lorentz group, e.g. distortion?). Minkowski shamed the physicists into hanging on an extra variable, time, that didn't belong. He indirectly accused you of being lazy if you didn't (do what he recommended. But I see no advantage to the method, instead disadvantageous, mixup, & non_reversability. To say it worst, screwball method. Time is NOT a vector, it's not a dimension like x,y,z are. Time does not belong there in that type of construction. Maybe in a different construct, but not so; as far as I can see, the basis is wrong (or could be?). Am I wrong? Edited June 18, 2016 by Capiert

[Mordred]

Time is needed as a vector coordinate in order to model the combination of time dilation and length contraction on a given coordinate system.

 

The 4 *4 matrix are necessary when you fully understand GR.

 

The fact is we know time isnt the same for all observers so you need to account for this

Edited June 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Capiert]

There are recent papers that perform very similar experiments with modern measuring devices and techniques.Herrmann, S.; Senger, A.; Möhle, K.; Nagel, M.; Kovalchuk, E. V.; Peters, A. (2009). "Rotating optical cavity experiment testing Lorentz invariance at the 10−17 level". Physical Review D 80 (100): 105011. arXiv:1002.1284. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80j5011H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.105011.No aether influence detected down to 1 part in 10^17. Awfully little wiggle room left, there.

Yes, quite astounding(ly little). I noticed Michelson said less than 1% so I gave up hoping to find anything significant, yesterday.

You've confirmed that. Thanks.

Time is needed as a vector coordinate in order to model the combination of time dilation and length contraction on a given coordinate system.

Aren't you skipping the point?

What you need, & what things (really) are, are 2 different things?

I can't make a male into a female, I'm not a surgeon

& it won't change all the chromosones in their body

to hide the fake.

I can't make time (into) a dimension.

Time never was a dimension, never is a dimension, & never will be a dimension.

The 4 *4 matrix are necessary when you fully understand GR.

I never questioned (=never doubted) that you need them.

You need of them is your justification,

(because) you can't do without them

if you did not have them.

But that's the back door,

=the end of the story.

The first of the story also has to be true too.

Is it?

The fact is we know time isn't the same for all observers so you need to account for this

It's fine that you can start with (virtually) what you need. I wish I could (do that), but can't.

The closest account I can offer for time would be derived from that Pythagorean equation, meantioned above, not a Lorentz group.

 

The Lorentz group does not look like it demonstrates the equality;

instead (it looks to me) like it scatters that.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Capiert

[ajb]

Anti_Thesis: How is it they suddenly become invariant near light speed?

The Lorentz transformations have one parameter - the relative velocity. So the transformations hold for all relative velocities, not just those near the speed of light. What is true is that when v<<c then the Galilian transformations are a good approximation, but this cannot be the case for the full set of Maxwell's equations.

[Capiert]

Review: SR was (originally) done

without Heaviside's (not Maxwell's) 4 equations.

Y/N?

 

So I can conclude:

SR (1905) (originally) did NOT use Heaviside's 4 equations (1884).

 

 

Sun 2016 06 19 12:31 PS Wi, 14 C drizzle, ..23:59

 

No getting around it,

a bit of a grammatical inconsistency

led me to (distracting) ambiguity,

 

("much" infinitive vs plural;

& singular "1 of them" belonging from the plural, not infinitive)

 

I needed to exclude, by rewriting.

Such sentences are too tricky for me,

as my brain starts dancing off

in 2 directions.

(It's like SSB single side band transmission to me,

that's exclusive (high tech).)

 

You're obviously staying on track,

but (for me) as a newcomer

I'm too easily sidetracked

by other possibilities

if some words are not well defined enough.

The sentence becomes too vague, or abstract

for me too follow, &/or I get lost (in the sauce).

E.g. I've never heard anybody say Maxwell's "theory"

when discussing Heaviside's 4 formulas (equations).

Usually I hear about (Heaviside's) "Maxwell's equations", instead of (Maxwell's) "theory";

& I hear about SR's "theory".

(That's a real sidewinder, for me.)

So the word "theory" was ambiguous (Heaviside (not Maxwell) or SR's?),

for obviously Heaviside's (not Maxwell's), intuitively (=guessed, assumption).

 

The amazing thing is that there is so much (=so many "things") in Heaviside's [not Maxwell's] 4 equations of 1884 that were not understood or appreciated at the time (of SR development 1905). "One of them" is that the Heaviside's (not Maxwell's, [not SR?]) theory varies (=is [not in]variant) under the Galilean transformations (the symmetry of classical mechanics).

(That's an obvious sign something has gone wrong, when consistent results don't happen.)

Later it was recognized that it is the Lorentz group ((c*t )^2 -x^2 -y^2 -z^2) that is important there (with only the relative velocity (as) parameter).

(That experimental particle physicists use opposite polarity (away) from the theoretical relativists, already indicates a break in the branches of physics, as a discontinuity, that something is wrong, theory doesn't agree with experiment, but (that difference=disagreement) is talked away as (opposite (polarity)) "preferences".

 

Now that's cool! There is no mistake, & nobody is wrong, by being an egoist (if the facts are straight). I.e. "Subjective" (view) relativity frame. E.g. "Your point of view is just as valid as mine", because there is no preferred perspective (=frame). The challenge is setting up the convers(at)ion (table, equations, setup e.g. communication) so each can see the others viewpoint (=frame).)

 

Other things that are written into Heaviside's' (not Maxwell's) (4) equations include

(I have to put a few word in to keep a eye on this, complex stuff)

 

gauge symmetry

(non_measurable particle's force fields, in equilibrium)

and

conformal symmetry

(15 degrees of freedom: 10 for the Poincaré group, 4 for special conformal transformations, and 1 for a dilation),

(an extension of the Poincare symmetries

(same duration interval,

e.g. counting in seconds).

 

(Oliver Heaviside had an incredible overview (for (producing) his 4 equations, now (wrongly) called Maxwell's) & he (=the dumb Heaviside, he couldn't hear right, &) wasn't even a physicist (nor mathematician), just a telegrapher. It seems his 4 equations are 1 of the most stablest & dependable, throughout physics & mathematics, without (enough) recognition. You need & depend on his stuff (to the core of sub_atomic nuclear physics, & beyond (.. (even) our capability)), but who he was?, hmm, give it to Maxwell instead (to maintain the (questionably accurate) tradition). Heaviside wasn't (even) a Ph.D, so his fame doesn't interest us (much). He's insignificant*.)

All these things are at the forefront of field theory today.

Yes it's amazing, what ya can build (=program) into (compact) equations,

for others (not as advanced) to find years later.

 

Pink finger nails, half deaf, stone furniture,

"sarcastic humor, anti_quarterionist, scandal" lover.

 

A (brutal) editor of Maxwell.

e.g. He shortened Maxwell's formulas to a minimum.

 

Bizarre? Hm, More eccentric (=decided),

he knew what he (himself) liked,

& what fascinated him(self).

 

But at least Maxwell recognized Heaviside,

& so Oliver rewarded him with those 4 equations,

for that (recognition).

 

A real "crack"(er) on formulas. Oliver Heaviside.

(Nephew of Kirchhoff.)

(Or should I say Kirchhoff is his uncle.)

 

Formula: condenser, compacter, editor.

=revisor. Reformulator.

& author.

He even meddled with (operational) calculus, successfully,

against everybody's understanding,

(using algebra,

causing great controversy).

[self taught electrical engineer!,

dare we (also) say mathematician?]

 

*Sarcasm. It seems:

Maxwell's stomach (tummy) aches are more interesting for us,

than Heaviside's humor.

 

People probably hated (life ruining) quarterions

because they dealt with angle,

& that nobody knew that,

a ("partial") polarity problem.

 

Although against the scientific establishment for most of his life, Heaviside changed the face of telecommunications, mathematics, and science for years to come.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

Probably because ya can't get much [accomplished or] changed,

by agreeing all the time.

---

 

Heaviside's (not Maxwell's, 4 equations) theory varies (is [not in]variant)

under Galilean transformations

(which are classical mechanics' symmetry).

Later, the Lorentz group was recognized to be stable (& important)

there;

it had only 1 parameter, relative speed (vector).

(Heaviside's 4 equations had too many parameters,

so that linear (consistent) results could not be expected

when using Galilean transformations.)

 

PS:

Does that also mean they (=Heaviside's' 4 equations, not Maxwell's)

vary (=stay [non in]variant)

for SR? Yes.

 

(I suspect your answer will be NO,

although you will state neither yes nor no,

(indirect y/n, avoids arguements)

but tend to a no (to make the point that we didn't understand

completely back then (which I almost missed)),

with the correct following consequence of the)

 

Anti_Thesis: How is it they (=Heaviside's 4 equations, not Maxwell's)

suddenly become constant=reliable (=invariant)

near light speed?

(SR has the advantage of working right for "slow" & fast speeds

thus correctness is guaranteed at slow speed too.

A sudden change does not exist, at 1 particular speed, near c.)

Somewhere there must be a gray zone from yes to no. ?

Or at what particular speed do things magically happen (=stabilize, to become reliable)?

 

Anti_Thesis: How is it they (=the 4 Heaviside equations)

suddenly become invariant near light speed?

 

ajb:

The Lorentz transformations have only 1 parameter - the relative velocity.

So th(os)e transformations hold for all relative velocities,

not just those near the speed of light.

Galilian transformations (=approximations) are (only) ok for slow speeds

(non_near light speeds).

Edited June 19, 2016 by Capiert

[Strange]

Review: SR was (originally) done

without Heaviside's (not Maxwell's) 4 equations.

 

 

ThIs page has a brief history and then an explanation of how SR was derived: https://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Writings/relativity.pdf

 

The main relevance of Maxwell's equations is that they show that the speed of light is constant and invariant.

 

 

 

(That experimental particle physicists use opposite polarity (away) from the theoretical relativists, already indicates a break in the branches of physics, as a discontinuity, that something is wrong, theory doesn't agree with experiment, but (that difference=disagreement) is talked away as (opposite (polarity)) "preferences".

 

I am not aware of any such disagreement. Can you explain and/or provide a reference?

 

 

 

How is it they (=Heaviside's 4 equations, not Maxwell's)

suddenly become constant=reliable (=invariant)

near light speed?

 

They are always invariant (under Lorentz transformation) at any speed.

 

 

 

Somewhere there must be a gray zone from yes to no. ?

Or at what particular speed do things magically happen (=stabilize, to become reliable)?

 

There is no such grey zone or transition. Lorentz transforms apply at all velocities.

[ajb]

Review: SR was (originally) done

without Heaviside's (not Maxwell's) 4 equations.

Y/N?

 

So I can conclude:

SR (1905) (originally) did NOT use Heaviside's 4 equations (1884).

In Einstein's paper from 1905 he states quite explcitly that Maxwell's theory when applied to moving bodies produces some 'asymmetries'. So, Einstein knew from the begining that Maxwell's equations are not well behaved with respect to the classical symmetries of mechanics.

 

You can simply google the paper and find a English version.

[John Cuthber]

Am I the only one who thought that a thread called "M&M calc?" was going to be about the probability of pulling multi coloured sweets out of a bag?

[imatfaal]

Am I the only one who thought that a thread called "M&M calc?" was going to be about the probability of pulling multi coloured sweets out of a bag?

 

We would be getting more out of it if it were. I think at the least it could stick to the topic of the OP and not branch off at every opportunity

 

PopQuiz - what is the probability of getting a brown M&M in the Van Halen dressing room?

[Strange]

PopQuiz - what is the probability of getting a brown M&M in the Van Halen dressing room?

 

 

Oh, very good. I guessed 0 (because why else would you ask...)

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp

[John Cuthber]

 

We would be getting more out of it if it were.

We would be getting more out of it if it were was.

Edited June 22, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

We would be getting more out of it if it were was.

 

 

I disagree. I think the subjunctive / irrealis mode is appropriate here.