Aberration in Michelson Morley Experiment

[Professional Strawman]

Hi. I just made an animation of Aberration (aka tilting of the telescope) in the Michelson Morley experiment. The aim of the animation is to illustrate these quotes:

"It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;"

-- Michelson, 1887 paper.

The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab₁ being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba₁, (aba₁ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca₁, and is reflected at a₁, making ca₁e equal 90—a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba₁ and ca₁, do not now meet exactly in the same point a₁

Any comments?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

And what is the point of discussion here? Posting just to show videos that you made is a violation of rule 2.7.

[Professional Strawman]

And what is the point of discussion here? Posting just to show videos that you made is a violation of rule 2.7.

 

 

I was hoping someone would comment on this: ""It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;"" The animation I made shows that the transverse ray does not meet at the same point on the splitter when it returns due to aberration. This is not in accordance with relativity. I thought someone would notice that. Also the telescope tilt, tan(q)=v/c gives a velocity potential.

 

"If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is at rest with regard to the earth's surface, according to Lorentz there could not be a velocity potential, and his own theory also fails." - Michelson, 1887 paper.

 

Prof. Strawman

 

PS. 1. Velocity potential = The ability to discern one's own velocity.

PS. 2. I wasn't trying to advertise my video. I am looking for feedback.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Professional Strawman

[Professional Strawman]

Anyone?

"The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab₁ being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba₁, (aba₁ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca₁, and is reflected at a₁, making ca₁e equal 90—a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba₁ and ca₁, do not now meet exactly in the same point a₁It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;"

 

 

-- Michelson, 1887

 

Anyone disagrees that these angles were not observed by, Michelson?

[Endy0816]

Older experiment. Has been repeated since then. Do you wish to discuss experiment setup issues or something else?

[Professional Strawman]

English is my third language. I can't seem to figure out what Michelson means there.

 

Older experiment. Has been repeated since then. Do you wish to discuss experiment setup issues or something else?

 

No.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Professional Strawman

[Daecon]

Considering your attitude on at least two other forums when given feedback that you didn't like, I have to wonder about what sort of feedback you are looking for.

[Professional Strawman]

Read post # 4.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Either make a post with a sensible question for the membership or move on to another topic please. The minutiae of an experiment carried out many years ago and - more importantly - repeated with significant improvements to the methodology and metrology do not immediately make for an interesting discussion, they are not easily accessible, nor do they seem to be controversial.

 

Please try to spell out an argument which flows from your perceived inaccuracies in MM, goes through the hypothesis which explains the contrary results, and then try to formulate a model and thence experiment to bolster idea. The argument should not rely on youtube videos

 

No need to respond to this moderation within the thread

 

[Professional Strawman]

"The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab₁ being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba₁, (aba₁ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca₁, and is reflected at a₁, making ca₁e equal 90—a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba₁ and ca₁, do not now meet exactly in the same point a₁It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;""

-- Michelson, 1887

 

 

Question: The aberration angles that Michelson referred to, in the quote above, were they "fictitious" or were they "second order observations"?

[Endy0816]

None of the above.

 

Orders of approximation:

 

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

Edited July 17, 2016 by Endy0816

[Professional Strawman]

Hi all, I put a link to the Animation in my signature.

 

None of the above.

 

So Michelson did not observe any aberration, in his apparatus, yes?

[Professional Strawman]

.Can someone list out relativistic aberration angles at various mirrors in the MME? For eg, at the top mirror, Michelson wrote he observed, an angle, "2q". Given that the splitter is no longer at 45 degrees, what is the Relativity equivalent of this angle at the top mirror?

 

In the link below, page 3, formula (9). Can anyone confirm if this is a correct reflection formula?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.0998.pdf

Edited July 24, 2016 by Professional Strawman