Michelson - Morley Experiment Revisited

[energia]

okay! now I would like to discuss the problems with the Michelson - Morley Experiment [link] (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html)

I believe the experiment was flawed, both technically and conceptually
due to crude (19th century) methods and ill conceived assumsions

for example: why should aether form an absolute reference frame to the rest of the universe? is there any reason to assume that aether cannot be in a state of flux along with all the matter in the universe? if aether was nothing more than a medium through which electromagnetic radiation propagated - would such a medium ramain static with so much wave propagation saturating the cosmos?

the experiment anticipated interference fringes between the light which had passed through the two perpendicular arms of the apparatus. these would occur since the light would travel faster along an arm if oriented in the "same" direction as the aether was moving

but this assumes that the speed of light is not constant
has the speed of light not been proven to be constant?
so there could be no interference fringes between perpendicular light sources

this is the biggest flaw of the experiment
but the problems don't end here

the same effect would be achieved if the arms of the interferometer were not of the same length - but constant realtime adjustment of the interferometer was not possible with the precision necessary to overcome the mechanical variables of a crude apparatus floating in a basin of mercury - this would have required a computer control system which was a century away

In 1895 Lorentz concluded that the "null" result obtained by Michelson and Morley was caused by an effect of contraction made by the aether on their apparatus and introduced the length contraction equation

a new sequence of equations were later developed by Poincaré
which lead to Einstein's outright rejection of aether and the acceptance of his Special Relativity as a new standard model

were the Physics community too quick to abandon the aether premise
and jump on the Special Relativity bandwagen?

playing devil's advocate: :devil:

what if aether propagates all matter?

what if in fact all matter itself is nothing more than vortices of aether?
with light waves being aether waves - in which case photons do not exist
with gravity waves being aether eddy currents

so, let's trash this theory once and for all!

however if there is no real argument against it's existence
then it may be time to reopen the case for aether :confused:

[russ_watters]

were the Physics community too quick to abandon the aether premise and jump on the Special Relativity bandwagen?

...1895 ... Contrary to the insistence of ether "theorists," physics has not stagnated for the past 100+ years.

[flash007]

I remember reading somewhere that the original Michelson - Morley Experiment was flawed as they had used a fixed mounted mirror instead of a free mounted mirror. This had something to do with the American Air Force's GPS Project and the "Sagnac Effect" http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm They proved I think that the Earth does move a "aether" of sorts

[energia]

Contrary to the insistence of ether "theorists," physics has not stagnated for the past 100+ years

physics has never stagnated

there is no problem advancing physics under a false or ad hoc model
as long as the model fits observations and calculated predictions

this is not to say that SR is a false model, but it is (in any case) a theory
and all theories should be subject to relentless scrutiny

all viable theoretical models deserve examination - popular or not

nuclear physics would have advanced with or without Special Relativity
E=MC2 was not Einstein's creation - it existed before SR

Non-Relativistic Quantum Theory would still have lead to nuclear fission
and all the advances of technology during the past century
those who believe that advances in physics owe their existence to Einstein
are delusional

the most dangerous attitude a Physicist can adopt is one of arrogant complacency, that Einstein has lit the way, and there is nothing more to do than follow his light of truth - this attitude is as close to stagnation as science can achieve

[russ_watters]

..."Sagnac Effect" http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm They proved I think that the Earth does move a "aether" of sorts The Sagnac Effect is perfectly well accounted for by Relativity. It des not require an aether. That it does is a common misunderstanding.there is no problem advancing physics under a false or ad hoc model
as long as the model fits observations and calculated predictions
If it fits observations, how is it false? Conversely...?all viable theoretical models deserve examination - popular or not Agreed. Therefore, aether "theories" should be discarded. nuclear physics would have advanced with or without Special Relativity
E=MC2 was not Einstein's creation - it existed before SR I'm not sure that's true (source?), and I don't see the relevance. Non-Relativistic Quantum Theory would still have lead to nuclear fission
and all the advances of technology during the past century
those who believe that advances in physics owe their existence to Einstein
are delusional There is certainly a lot of physics that does not depend on Einstein's work - the vast majority though, does.

In any case, you are displaying the usual ether theory slant: ether theory isn't about investigating a viable theory, it exists to attack Einstein himself and the work he contributed to for personal reasons. Thats the opposite of how science works: science isn't about knocking down someone else's theory to further yours, but rather scientifically proving yours independent of any competing theory.

[energia]

Agreed. Therefore, aether "theories" should be discarded.

on what basis? the Michelson-Morley fiasco?

have you personally gathered experimental evidence disproving aether theory?

or are you just so confident that everything you read regarding the standard model and all criticisms against aether theory are beyond reproach?

btw. I'm a big fan of Einstein, and I'm neither for nor against his theories

I keep an open mind, and in this topic I'm playing devil's advokate.. because 99% of the scientific community think they have all the answers, although they don't... (not even close) so they need to be reminded of the fact

There is certainly a lot of physics that does not depend on Einstein's work - the vast majority though, does.

I think it's more accurate to say that the majority of modern physics is based on Einstein's work, and would not get funding otherwise

the amount of funding that non-standard physics gets is a joke

[energia]

I'm not sure that's true (source?), and I don't see the relevance.

the relevance is that Einstein borrowed ideas from others
without listing their sources [link] (http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einx.htm)


Olinto De Pretto published the expression E = m_Mc^2 in the science magazine Atti (Atte) in 1903. His expression was a speculation that was not derived from more fundamental principles such as special relativity. There is considerable evidence that Einstein was aware of the De Pretto speculation and that this was an additional driving force behind his faulty attempt to derive this expression for radiation, at the least. There is also very strong evidence that Einstein never gave De Pretto any credit for his great insight. It is an absolute requirement that one must do a certain amount of literature "research" prior to publishing a claimed new disclosure

[russ_watters]

on what basis? the Michelson-Morley fiasco? Certainly not. Like I said (and you've now displayed why what I said is key): Contrary to the insistence of ether "theorists," physics has not stagnated for the past 100+ years. have you personally gathered experimental evidence disproving aether theory?

or are you just so confident that everything you read regarding the standard model and all criticisms against aether theory are beyond reproach? Again, you have the scientific process backwards: its not up to me or any physicist to disprove ether theories. The problem with them is simple: There is no experimental data that requires an ether to be satisfactorally explained, therefore ether "theorists" aren't really theorizing about ether, but rather assuming it to exist without evidence. Hence the quotes around the word "theory." I keep an open mind, and in this topic I'm playing devil's advokate.. because 99% of the scientific community think they have all the answers, although they don't... (not even close) so they need to be reminded of the fact. No one who believes they (or science) has all the answers becomes a scientist: if they (or science) already had all the answers, there would be nothing for scientists to do. Science is a search for answers. I think it's more accurate to say that the majority of modern physics is based on Einstein's work, and would not get funding otherwise the amount of funding that non-standard physics gets is a joke If it were worth researching, people would research it. btw. I'm a big fan of Einstein...

...Einstein gets far more credit and praise than he deserves. Riiiiiiight. the relevance is that Einstein borrowed many ideas from others and claimed them as his own [link] Still not seeing any relevance: your personal opinion of Einstein, even if your allegations are true, do not constitute a scientific arguement for ether theory.

Again, you are fixated on attacking Einstein (and not even his theories, just the man), when you should be making arguments for your theory.

[russ_watters]

Regarding your link, as a former student at the Naval Academy (not an alum), I am dismayed that it would have such a man teaching there and thankful I never had a class with him.

That link is an attack on Einstein for religious reasons.

[energia]

the main focus of this topic is that the MM experiment was flawed
this is the only issue which needs to be addressed here
anything else is off topic

Again, you have the scientific process backwards: its not up to me or any physicist to disprove ether theories. The problem with them is simple: There is no experimental data that requires an ether to be satisfactorally explained, therefore ether "theorists" aren't really theorizing about ether, but rather assuming it to exist without evidence. Hence the quotes around the word "theory."

aether was postulated as a medium through which light propagated
(this is not my theory, I'm simply stating historical fact)

in any case no theory has proved one way or another how light propagates
aether is just as viable a premise as any SR has provided, if you stop assuming that aether is a fixed reference frame

and this is the whole of my argument, not attacking Einstein
Einstein was a great theorist, so let's leave it at that

Regarding your link, as a former student at the Naval Academy (not an alum), I am dismayed that it would have such a man teaching there and thankful I never had a class with him.

I am dismayed as well, religion has no place in science

I am not supporting nor advokating any personal attacks on Einstein

here is another (non-religiously motivated) link (http://www.italian-american.com/depretreview.htm)

only the essential fact that, Olinto De Pretto is the author of E=MC2 and not Einstein, which is not an attack, but a fact

there are many other sources proving this fact, the most obvious being the original 1903 publication itself, but this is not so important as the original statement I made - which is that E=MC2 predated SR, that's the only point - that nuclear physics would have prevailed in the absence of SR

[Integral]

the main focus of this topic is that the MM experiment was flawed
this is the only issue which needs to be addressed here
anything else is off topic


OK.

Since the MM experiment was performed about the time of Einstein's birth, and there are claims that Einstein did not even know of the MM result why do you even mention Einstein or SR. Neither have anything to do with how MM experiment was performed or the interpretation of the results. If you really want to discuss MM why don't you?

I do not get a feel from your posts, what the trouble with the MM was just what was wrong with it? Please be specific and, as you, yourself requested, stick to the topic.

[energia]

I do not wish to discuss Einstein or SR

this topic was posted for the sole purpose of dicussing the shortcomings of the Michelson Morley Experiment, it's mechanical faults, it's faulty premise, how a better aether experiment might be designed and executed to prove or disprove the existance of aether

Einstein and SR were only mentioned briefly, in a relevant manner

a new sequence of equations were later developed by Poincaré
which lead to Einstein's outright rejection of aether and the acceptance of his Special Relativity as a new standard model

were the Physics community too quick to abandon the aether premise
and jump on the Special Relativity bandwagen?

the first statement is historical fact - the later is a question regarding the abandonment of aether theory on a faulty premise

both of which are relevant to the topic

most replies have focused on Einstein, SR, how horrible people are who criticise poor Einstein, or how aether theory doesn't deserve to be dicussed, and how only theories which have the stamp of approval from russ_watters should be discussed

so don't complain to me if this thread is diverging

[Artman]

I personally believe that there is an undiscovered medium for the propagation of light. However, I thought that Einstein later did not reject aether theory, but contended that it was not necessary for the observations to fit with his theories.

"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities."
--Albert Einstein

"Recapitulating: we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity space is endowed with physical
qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists ether."
--Albert Einstein

Here he was speaking, I believe, about the curving of space-time as a form of ether "fabric".

[flash007]

Hey guys heres another link to muse over heres the abstract
Special relativity theory (SRT) claims equivalence of all inertial frames, but it is generally acknowledged that there exists a dipole temperature distribution in the cosmic background radiation (CBR), which indicates that the solar system is moving through this unique inertial frame at a speed of approximately one percent of the speed of light. This evidence for a unique frame conflicts with SRT, and so motivates a search for additional evidence. Presumably, any ether drift should be directly detectable via experiment in either an earth-centered frame, or a sun-centered frame, or both. Spinning Mossbauer experiments, the Global Positioning System (GPS), and Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) are here analyzed for any evidence of ether drift; i.e., for evidence that the speed of light is not isotropic in all inertial frames. Though none of the experiments provides any direct evidence for ether drift, they do provide substantial indirect evidence


http://www.egtphysics.net/Ron1/EtherDrift.htm
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Illusion/ Another link

[russ_watters]

aether was postulated as a medium through which light propagated
(this is not my theory, I'm simply stating historical fact) Yes, I know: and that is its basic flaw. in any case no theory has proved one way or another how light propagates aether is just as viable a premise as any SR has provided, if you stop assuming that aether is a fixed reference frame Mathematically, sure - but how many assumptions do you have to pile on top of each other before deciding you've built a house of cards? First you assume there is an ether, then you assume it moves in such a way that every experiment ever devised to find it (or that could be dependent on it) has failed to find it. You don't consider that absurd?

A great similar example is the epicycles of Ptolmey. By assuming enough epicycles (dozens), you can eventually build a model that fits reasonably well with the observed motion of the planets. However, like ether theory, you can't derive it from first principles and you can't use it to make any predictions. So what good is it? this topic was posted for the sole purpose of dicussing the shortcomings of the Michelson Morley Experiment, it's mechanical faults, it's faulty premise, how a better aether experiment might be designed and executed to prove or disprove the existance of aether That's just it, energia - why does the MM experiment even need to be a part of this discussion? We know its old and we know it has limitations. Like I said: science has not stagnated since then (not even ether theory). Wouldn't it be better to examine the implications of GPS or lunar ranging experiments on ether theories? most replies have focused on Einstein, SR, how horrible people are who criticise poor Einstein, or how aether theory doesn't deserve to be dicussed, and how only theories which have the stamp of approval from russ_watters should be discussed

so don't complain to me if this thread is diverging Its your thread - I've only responded to the things you mentioned: I focused in on your statements about Einstein because they are revealing about your purpose and particular bias (note: everyone has a bias). If you want to talk about ether "theories" and how they could/could not work and how to test them, do it! (looks like flash007 is getting it started...)

flash007, there are several misconceptions in that abstract. First is the same one that energia is operating on: evidence we have does not require an ether, it only doesn't absolutely rule it out. Fitting ether "theory" to the evidence we have requires assumptions and convoluted math, yeilding a "theory" of little theoretical value. To be specific: GPS has not detected any anisotropy in the speed of light despite the fact that at any given moment there are groups of satellites testing for it in at least 6 different referece frames simultaneously as well as ground stations. Making an ether "theory" that isn't killed by that is tough. The "indirect evidence" statement is a stretch - the best that can really be said is the evidence doesn't speccifically forbid it.

The CMB, though a useful frame of reference, is not the universal preferred frame that Relativity discarded: the laws of physics work the same in it and outside of it.

The most important part of the abstract though is this: Presumably, any ether drift should be directly detectable via experiment in either an earth-centered frame, or a sun-centered frame, or both. Indeed. Has it? (hint: no). That, energia, is why at this point pursuit of ether "theory" is a waste of time. If at some point in the future evidence is found that conflicts with Relativity, then maybe it will be time to go back to it. Right now, ether "theorists" are pumping a dry well based on wishful thinking.

[russ_watters]

Let me ask you this, energia: is there anything (any piece of evidence, explanation, etc) that if found that would cause you to abbandon ether theory?

[energia]

That's just it, energia - why does the MM experiment even need to be a part of this discussion? We know its old and we know it has limitations. Like I said: science has not stagnated since then (not even ether theory). Wouldn't it be better to examine the implications of GPS or lunar ranging experiments on ether theories?

I understand you now

and yes, it would be better to examine the implications of GPS or lunar ranging experiments on aether theories..

however we start with the MM experiment because history has created a stigma against aether - due to the success of SR

even in spite of the fact that Einstein himself did not object to the existence of aether

as far as bias, I am biased towards the truth, whatever it may be
I will agree to anything that is true

I did not open this topic to disprove SR - I believe SR predictions fit observations quite well - and with very few exceptions

as far as most statements you've made, I'm in agreement with you

however I disagree on the point that aether need not be discussed

Aether MUST be discussed as long as the true nature of light is unknown

as a physicist you must agree that physics does not exist for the sole purpose of launching satellites into orbit



as scientists we search for the true nature of all phenomena
there should be no limit to the search


Let me ask you this, energia: is there anything (any piece of evidence, explanation, etc) that if found that would cause you to abbandon ether theory?

absolutely! if an experiment could be designed and implemented that would conclusively disprove the existance of aether, I would concede that aether theory was dead

the problem of devising such an experiment is no simple task

[energia]

before continuing this discussion, I would like to state for the record that the existence or non-existence of Aether may not be of any consequence with regard to standard astrophysical models (disclaimer) in as far as the true nature of light propagation is not required for practical calculations and predicted results

the discussion of aether theory is (therefore) for the sole purpose of understanding the true nature of light propagation, and the subsequent revision of standard astrophysical models - in regards to the true nature of light propagation, and possibly other aspects as a consequence, depending on the final conclusion

[Hydr0matic]

for the sole purpose of understanding the true nature of light propagationWhy not start by resolving the whole wave-particle duality thing first ? :smile:
An aether model requires a wave-model of light doesn't it ?

[energia]

Why not start by resolving the whole wave-particle duality thing first ? An aether model requires a wave-model of light doesn't it ?

the most common opinion was that light travelled in the form of waves through an aether which was an absolute reference frame

Thomas Young's double-slit experiment (c1805) was an attempt to resolve the question of whether light was composed of particles (corpuscular theory), or consisted of waves travelling through some aether, just as sound waves travel in air

the interference patterns observed in the experiment seemed to discredit the corpuscular theory, and the wave theory of light remained well accepted until the early 20th century, when evidence began to accumulate which seemed to also confirm the particle theory of light

however what is the best argument against light quanta propagating through aether?

or... what if light is an energized state of aether, which propagates as waves
and is also corpuscular in nature?

[Hydr0matic]

however what is the best argument against light quanta propagating through aether?A particle theory including an aether is just as nonsensical as a wave theory without a medium, isn't it ? :smile:

what if light is an energized state of aether, which propagates as waves
and is also corpuscular in nature?That sounds just as vague as current descriptions :smile: ... Bottom line is, as you probably know, the only reason why they introduced the aether in the first place was because they were sure light was a wave. That condition still stands today - not 100% wave, no aether.

[Integral]

Once again. What was wrong with MM? Why was it that the Physicists of the day, who firmly believed in the existance of and ather, just as you do, were convinced of the necessity of abandoning it? You have not specifed what was wrong with it only that you disagree with the conclusions? PLease restirct this discussion to MM. I do not care what you believe, stick to the facts.

[energia]

i never stated what i believe, so don't presume

so far i have only stated facts, and raised questions


i have already stated what was wrong with the MM experiment

it was based on the premise that aether is a fixed reference frame
without concidering the possibility of it being otherwise

and according to SR - light speed is a constant, which would instantly invalidate the MM experiment, even assuming light speed were not a constant
the crude mirror assembly was too unstable, and floated in a basin of mercury
constantly changing it's orientation

furthermore the earth itself is flying through this so called reference frame at 30000 m/s which could only yeald a null result in any case - since if light propagated through aether and the aether were moving in relative motion to the earth at 30000 m/s all the light would be propagating with it in the same direction

the experiment and the reasoning behind it were not only flawed
but outright stupid, yet not suprising for a 2 dimensional 19th century mentality

also satellites in earth orbit measuring light in various orientations will always get the same result, since all earth orbiting satellites are travelling in the same direction around the sun at 30000 m/s with respect to fixed space

but no one ever takes this into account with these kindergarten experiments do they?

[energia]

A particle theory including an aether is just as nonsensical as a wave theory without a medium, isn't it ?

oh? is it?

aether is often compared to water - which propagates in waves, and water is composed of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and subparticles of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc... and yet it makes waves.. big waves, small waves
vortices...

how nonsensical is that

[Integral]

according to SR - light speed is a constant, which would instantly invalidate the MM experiment
There you go again, what has SR got to do with the results of MM? SR postulates a constant speed of light and mathematically develops the consequences of the postulate.

The speed of light is NOT CONSTANT due to SR, it is constant due to Maxwell. Contrary to your BELIEF MM was capable of producing the results it did. You claim different, please provide some basis for your claims, and why do modern experiments produce the same results?

[Hydr0matic]

furthermore the earth itself is flying through this so called reference frame at 30000 m/s which could only yeald a null result in any case - since if light propagated through aether and the aether were moving in relative motion to the earth at 30000 m/s all the light would be propagating with it in the same directioneeeh.. what??

The reasoning is not flawed, nor difficult to understand. If there's an aether, then light speed is constant with respect to this aether. So if the aether is moving relative the earth, a variation in light speed in different directions should be detectable. (i.e. if the aether had certain specific properties)

also satellites in earth orbit measuring light in various orientations will always get the same result, since all earth orbiting satellites are travelling in the same direction around the sun at 30000 m/s with respect to fixed spaceWhat are you saying, that the aether is stationary with respect to all satellites ? Or are you saying that they would get null result even if they travelled at constant speed and direction (which they obviously don't) with respect to the aether ?

aether is often compared to water - which propagates in waves, and water is composed of atoms ...This ain't an accurate comparison... Can't really figure what is though, sorry ..

[flash007]

flash007, there are several misconceptions in that abstract. First is the same one that energia is operating on: evidence we have does not require an ether, it only doesn't absolutely rule it out. Fitting ether "theory" to the evidence we have requires assumptions and convoluted math, yeilding a "theory" of little theoretical value. To be specific: GPS has not detected any anisotropy in the speed of light despite the fact that at any given moment there are groups of satellites testing for it in at least 6 different referece frames simultaneously as well as ground stations. Making an ether "theory" that isn't killed by that is tough. The "indirect evidence" statement is a stretch - the best that can really be said is the evidence doesn't speccifically forbid it.

The CMB, though a useful frame of reference, is not the universal preferred frame that Relativity discarded: the laws of physics work the same in it and outside of it.

The most important part of the abstract though is this: Indeed. Has it? (hint: no). That, energia, is why at this point pursuit of ether "theory" is a waste of time. If at some point in the future evidence is found that conflicts with Relativity, then maybe it will be time to go back to it. Right now, ether "theorists" are pumping a dry well based on wishful thinking.

Please read the links it explains it quite well
http://www.egtphysics.net/Ron1/EtherDrift.htm
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Illusion/

[russ_watters]

absolutely! if an experiment could be designed and implemented that would conclusively disprove the existance of aether, I would concede that aether theory was dead

the problem of devising such an experiment is no simple task Actually, according to the scientific method, that is an impossible task. Even setting aside the inherrent impossibility of proving a negative, it simply can't be done because like with epicycles, you can always add more convoluted mechanisms to allow it.

What you are saying reduces to: 'I believe there is an ether and nothing anyone says will ever convince m otherwise.' Not very scientific.

Hydro, good point on wave/particle duality. For some reason I tend to overlook that one..however what is the best argument against light quanta propagating through aether? If light were purely a wave phenomenon, it would not have momentum, nor could it be divided into discrete quanta. aether is often compared to water - which propagates in waves, and water is composed of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and subparticles of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc... and yet it makes waves.. big waves, small waves
vortices...

how nonsensical is thatYou're confusing the wave with the medium. Ether would be the water and the sound wave is the wave. Water doesn't propagate in waves (possibly just a grammar issue). Sound waves are sound waves regardless of if the medium is air, water, or steel. Sound is entirely a wave phenomenon. also satellites in earth orbit measuring light in various orientations will always get the same result, since all earth orbiting satellites are travelling in the same direction around the sun at 30000 m/s with respect to fixed space Orbital velocity is roughly 7,700m/s, so no, satelites are not always traveling at 30,000m/s around the sun. They travel at between 37,700m/s, and 22,300m/s around the sun depending on where they are in their orbit. That difference is enough that if there were a sun-centered ether it would be noticeable in the GPS system.

Here's the usual thing I hear about ether and the MM experiment: its flawed because its stationary on earth and the ether is earth centered (or is dragged with the earth), so an MM experiment needs to be done in space. The thing is, so many other similar experiments have/are being done. Would an MM eperiment done in space get the same result as one on earth? Yes. Do we really need to launch such a cumbersome apparatus to test it? No. Please read the links it explains it quite well Sorry, flash, this is a discussion forum. If you'd like to discuss, please do.

[flash007]

No. Sorry, flash, this is a discussion forum. If you'd like to discuss, please do.

Well if its a discussion group then discuss this conclusion from one of the links

"The only direct evidence for a unique isotropic light-speed frame arises from the dipole thermal distribution of the CBR. In most experiments the effects of ether drift are directly canceled by a corresponding clock-velocity effect. Specific analysis of spinning Mossbauer, GPS and VLBI experiments reveal the cancellation mechanisms. However, in each case, the evidence for an independent clock effect provides strong indirect evidence for the presence of an ether-drift velocity."

and from the other one
Absolute Frame of Reference.

One must conclude that the GPS and all the related experiments give a striking proof that the velocity of light is not constant with respect to an observer, contrary to Einstein's hypotheses. The measured velocity of light is c-v in one direction and c+v in the other. The velocity of light is equal to c with respect to an absolute frame in space. This is now an experimental fact. Finally, we have seen how it is apparently constant in all frames using proper values and a correct clock synchronization.
We can consider the velocity of light with respect to a group of stars around the Sun. However, there is nothing that says that that star cluster is at an absolute rest. It probably moves around our galaxy which itself moves around the local cluster of galaxies. From what we have seen here, we see that the star cluster mentioned above is just another moving frame, in which again, we have an "apparent" velocity of light equal to c in all directions, because we do not know yet, how to get an absolute synchronization of clocks from the absolute frame.
A simple way does not seem to exist, which would enable us to use light to determine the absolute velocity with respect to the fundamental frame in the universe. We have mentioned in a previous paper (9) that there seems to be an absolute frame of reference related to the 3K-radiation dipole in space. It exists, however, another solution than the 3K radiation. Light seems to be inadequate, to verify our absolute velocity with respect to an absolute frame. It exists however another solution to locate that absolute frame, but this is beyond the scope of this paper.
Most physicists believe that the velocity of light is constant with respect to all frames. As explained above, this is wrong. Let us go back to the question: The velocity of light is "c" with respect to what? The principle of mass-energy conservation requires that light moves at a constant velocity with respect to an absolute frame. Furthermore in all other frames, the velocity of light is always measured to be constant (equal to c) with respect to that moving frame, but it is an "illusion" due to Einstein's discordant clock synchronization.
Some scientists suggest the existence of an "aether" to carry light. A naive "aether" hypothesis leads to a prediction of the velocity of light that could be measured "directly" as c±v with respect to the observer. This is not that simple. One extremely important point is that there exists no observational justification(10, 11) to assume that an aether can possess its own energy that can be borrowed when needed. On the contrary, all the physical phenomena are explained naturally without having to borrow any energy or momentum from an assumed medium. For the moment, the sole property of that assumed aether is to establish an absolute origin to the velocity-frame of light and physical matter, because this frame of reference is absolutely needed to comply with the principle of energy and momentum conservation. That absolute frame might be simply determined by the average velocity of all matter in the universe.
One must conclude that there exists no space-time distortion of any kind. It is no longer necessary to fascinate people with the magic of relativity. Unless we accept the absurd solution that the distance between N.Y. to S.F. is smaller than the distance between S.F. and N.Y., we have to accept that in a moving frame, the velocity of light is different in each direction. As mentioned above, this difference is even programmed in the GPS computer in order to get the correct Global Positioning. This proves that the experimental velocity of light with respect to a moving observer is c±v.

Another thing is that this "aether" could explain alot of the quantum mysteries that are out there especially nonlocality and the fact that the arrow of time runs in both directions and therefore particles exchange or impart info on other particles that are from our perspective in the past.
HEre is link to another similar "aether" called Quintessence
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8/1

[DrChinese]

The measured velocity of light is c-v in one direction and c+v in the other. The velocity of light is equal to c with respect to an absolute frame in space. This is now an experimental fact.

...This proves that the experimental velocity of light with respect to a moving observer is c±v.

This is a joke, right?

Of course the measured velocity of light is NOT c±v, as has been tested any number of times. Regardless of which way you move, or which way your experimental apparatus is pointed, all measurements of the speed of light yield a value of c. Even if you don't like MM, this is still a fact and can be tested by anyone anytime.

[flash007]

This is a joke, right?

Of course the measured velocity of light is NOT c±v, as has been tested any number of times. Regardless of which way you move, or which way your experimental apparatus is pointed, all measurements of the speed of light yield a value of c. Even if you don't like MM, this is still a fact and can be tested by anyone anytime.


yes that has been explained already but then questions remains if the speed of light is not c±v then what determines the absolute speed of light so it is the same regardless of frame of reference and the velocity of light is "c" with respect to what?

[russ_watters]

Well if its a discussion group then discuss this conclusion from one of the links Ok, go ahead... yes that has been explained already but then questions remains if the speed of light is not c±v then what determines the absolute speed of light so it is the same regardless of frame of reference and the velocity of light is "c" with respect to what?[emphasis added] Good, see - that's discussion (run-on sentence, but its a start anyway). Copying and pasting is not.

C is measured to be C with respect to the observer who made the measurement. That's the fundamental postulate of SR.

[DrChinese]

C is measured to be C with respect to the observer who made the measurement. That's the fundamental postulate of SR.

Russ,

I quoted you hoping that if your statement is repeated, perhaps it will sink in to flash007.

Flash007,

I hope you will understand that Special Relativity also provides a description of how observers in uniform motion with respect to each other will describe what they measure. By understanding that, I believe you will have the answer to what I perceive is your question ("...so it is the same regardless of frame of reference...").

-DrC

[flash007]

Ok, go ahead... Good, see - that's discussion (run-on sentence, but its a start anyway). Copying and pasting is not.

C is measured to be C with respect to the observer who made the measurement. That's the fundamental postulate of SR.

Yes I am aware of this as I am also aware of the quantum world and the efforts to unify both SR and quantum mechanics
And as far as I can tell they all have at the heart of the different theories lies an "aether" though called by other names. I am not saying this aether is the same as maxwells just that there is a base energy call it whatever you like Zero point energy, Substratum (Quantum field theory ), stringed energy (string theory)and membrane (M theory)

[energia]

What you are saying reduces to: 'I believe there is an ether and nothing anyone says will ever convince m otherwise.' Not very scientific.

i never stated what I believe

however: 'I believe there is NOT an aether and nothing anyone says will ever convince m otherwise. is Not very scientific either... is it

[geistkiesel]

i never stated what I believe

however: 'I believe there is NOT an aether and nothing anyone says will ever convince m otherwise. is Not very scientific either... is it

energia- The MM experiments were not a "null" finding, merely 1/20 (or so) of waht the "standard nodel" pedicted at the time. Likewise, Dayton Miller performed a series of MM experiments coming to basically the same conmcluison, with muvh more. So the claim earlier that the measurement of the speed of lighy will be the same regardless of the frame from which measured is not supported by scientific data, in fact the opposite was determined.

"Simultaneity" as a derivation of fundamental postulates of SR are shown to be fatally and unambiguously flawed as demonstrated in the 1/2 page link below.

The loss of simultaneity of events in different reference frames found after long absence. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/)

[flash007]

This is my analogy of SR and its relation to the "aether" (AS posted above there are many names so i call it aether in quotes)
Imagine a large body of water this is the "aether" or base energy. Now imgine tht ice crystals are forming in the middle creating a ball of ice and call these ice crystals Matter/particles. Both are made up of the same substance but one has a differing energy level. All matter in the universe is ultimatly energy.

Now imagine that water has ripples long ripples for long wave radio waves and short ripples for x rays and the waves can vary in height. Now we all know that the electromagnetic wave is constant so all waves will travel at the same speed.
Now imagine a ship in the water as it sails through the ripples. The ripples are still coming to the ship as a fixed constant rate it dosent change no matter how fast or slow the ship goes. No matter what direction the ship sails the ripples are coming towards the ship at the same rate.
Now imagine another ship traveling at a different speed. If you was on board this ship the waves hitting the ship is still travelling at the same speed as you would observe as you would on the other ship.

Now using this analogy the existence of such an "aether" can be demonstrated and does not interfere with SR

[GRQC]

and according to SR - light speed is a constant, which would instantly invalidate the MM experiment,

Why does the constancy of the speed of light invalidate MM?

[energia]

because they expected an aether cross current to have a phase delay effect on the reflected light, so that when the 2 beams of light met they would create an interferrence pattern - which they did not

because the split beams of light converged at the same time
i.e. propagated at the same rate

[GRQC]

because they expected an aether cross current to have a phase delay effect on the reflected light, so that when the 2 beams of light met they would create an interferrence pattern - which they did not

because the split beams of light converged at the same time
i.e. propagated at the same rate

I know the answer to my question -- I wanted to see if you understood it as well, but I don't think you do.

You should go back and read up on how interference patterns are created, and in fact on the MM experiment in general. There is a difference between no interference pattern, and a shifted interference pattern.

Yes, they saw a null result, but not as you describe it. In any event, the constancy of c does not *invalidate* the MM experiment -- it simply places severe constraints on what you will see. That's the way physics works. In most cases, theories place constraints on experiments, rather than invalidate them, be it Michelson Morley, advance of perihelion, Lorentz / Equivalence Principle violation, deviations from Newtonian gravity due to large extra dimensions, etc...

[energia]

I promise you, I am aware of how light interference patterns are created

Thomas Young set the tone for the wave theory of light with his double slit experiment - which clearly showed interference patterns caused by angular shifted light waves

I'm also aware of the premise behind the Michelson - Morley experiemnt
since I clearly and concisely posted the premise at the heading of this topic

I'm not making a strawman argument

I understand the principles very well

[russ_watters]

however: 'I believe there is NOT an aether and nothing anyone says will ever convince m otherwise. is Not very scientific either... is it Who said that? If I see an experiment that requires an ether to explain, I'll accept that there is an ether. You're the only one here who is saying you'll not even consider evidence to be relevant unless it proves or absolutely disproves (an impossibility) your belief in the existence of an ether and in the absence of evidence choose to believe there is one.

Energia, only one of us is operating on belief here. The other is operating on science. Now imagine a ship in the water as it sails through the ripples. The ripples are still coming to the ship as a fixed constant rate it dosent change no matter how fast or slow the ship goes. No matter what direction the ship sails the ripples are coming towards the ship at the same rate.
Now imagine another ship traveling at a different speed. If you was on board this ship the waves hitting the ship is still travelling at the same speed as you would observe as you would on the other ship.

Now using this analogy the existence of such an "aether" can be demonstrated and does not interfere with SR. The analogy you suggest doesn't fit with reality! In reality, the speed of waves on water relative to a ship depends on the speed of the ship! Ironic, but I guess then the analogy really does work fine, lol.

energia, GRQC's point was that even with a constant C, they were still expecting to find an ether - in fact, their experiment required a constant C in order to accurately measure the speed of the ether wind (if C wasn't constant, they still could have detected it, but maybe not quantified its speed).

[energia]

no russ - I am not operating on belief - I'm operating scientifically

I never stated that I believe in the existance of aether

in fact I don't believe in the existance aether

however, I don't disbelieve in the existance aether

it doesn't matter to me whether aether exists or not

what matters to me is knowing the true nature of light propagation
my only interest is knowing the truth - nothing more

what would the implications be for science if a supreme alien intellegence simply gave us the complete absolute truth of the nature and physics of the universe

theoretical physicists would be out of a job for one
students of physics would simply have to memorize the facts

on one hand it would be the ultimate gift to humanity

on the other hand all scientific research would grind to a halt
and that would be very boring

but I want to know anyway

[russ_watters]

no russ - I am not operating on belief - I'm operating scientifically

I never stated that I believe in the existance of aether

in fact I don't believe in the existance aether

however, I don't disbelieve in the existance aether

it doesn't matter to me whether aether exists or not

what matters to me is knowing the true nature of light propagation
my only interest is knowing the truth - nothing more Well that's just it - the vast majority of physicists long ago abandoned the idea of an ether, but you're putting quite a bit of effort into it. Clearly, the way you are approaching the problem is different than the way most physicists do.

[energia]

clearly the way you are approaching the problem is different than the way most physicists do.

yes, I agree, especially since most physicists don't approach the problem at all
but instead ignore or rather dismiss the existence of the problem

since The Special Theory works just fine without any mention of an aether

there are 3 possibilities:

1. no aether exists and EM radiation propagates through the interaction of electric and magnetic fields alone

2. aether exists as a medium through which lightwaves propagate

3. aether exists as the fabric of spacetime and has little or nothing to do with light propagation, but possibly gravity propagation

[GRQC]

3. aether exists as the fabric of spacetime and has little or nothing to do with light propagation, but possibly gravity propagation

But wait -- now you want the aether to have nothing to do with propagation of light, but instead gravity? Note, by the way, that this idea is vaguely similar to the ghost condensate idea formed recently by Arkani-Hamed et al. -- i.e. a non/weakly-interacting fluid which fills the universe and serves as a modification to gravitational interactions at large distances or long time eras. However, the ghost condensate doesn't dictate how gravity propagates, only how it evolves at a function of "epoch" in the universe.

The problem people have with these posts is that the discipline is plagued by non-physicists trying to reshape turn-of-the-century physics -- except that they're working with 19/20th century, instead of 20/21st century. Believe it or not, a lot of people have probably thought about these issues before.

May I asked if you are versed in the more modern theories of relativity, or are you only concerned with what happened 90 years ago? I guess you still haven't explained *why* you have a problem with the existence (or rather, non-existence) of the aether? Although judging by your last post you just seem to want there to be something called the "aether", irrespective of what it is (which thus is unrelated to the MM experiment in the first place).

[DrChinese]

yes, I agree, especially since most physicists don't approach the problem at all
but instead ignore or rather dismiss the existence of the problem


There is no problem to ignore. As you mention, SR operates fine without any assumption regarding the existence of the ether. No experiment has indicated there is an ether to explain. Everything works fine without an ether as well. So why should anyone pay attention to something which merits no attention?

Fact: MM places limits on the nature of the ether (as pointed out previously).
Fact: Inside those limits, there still does not appear to be evidence of an ether.
Fact: There is no evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny either, and I see no reason to chide physicists for ignoring or dismissing that subject.

If you can conceive of a measurable effect which the ether would predict - and current theory cannot account for - then by all means share with us.

[russ_watters]

yes, I agree, especially since most physicists don't approach the problem at all but instead ignore or rather dismiss the existence of the problem But that's just it- there is no problem and you know why: since The Special Theory works just fine without any mention of an aether So that again brings me back to wondering why you put so much effort into a non-issue when there are lots of actual problems that physics needs to deal with (like unification).

[energia]

But wait -- now you want the aether to have nothing to do with propagation of light

I never stated what I want or believe aether to be
in fact I've already stated that I neither believe nor disbelieve in aether

I simply stated the 3 options that are possible

the last being an aether which consitutes the fabric of spacetime
and has nothing to do with light propagation
yet propagates gravity - which I will point out does not violate GR

in fact aether in any form does not violate Relativity Theory

I will repeat my objective once again
which is simply to get at the truth

[geistkiesel]

There is no problem to ignore. As you mention, SR operates fine without any assumption regarding the existence of the ether. No experiment has indicated there is an ether to explain. Everything works fine without an ether as well. So why should anyone pay attention to something which merits no attention?

Fact: MM places limits on the nature of the ether (as pointed out previously).
Fact: Inside those limits, there still does not appear to be evidence of an ether.
Fact: There is no evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny either, and I see no reason to chide physicists for ignoring or dismissing that subject.

If you can conceive of a measurable effect which the ether would predict - and current theory cannot account for - then by all means share with us.

The MM experiments later performed by Dayton Miller found a wave shift of approximately 1/20 of that expected, if affected by the aether at the time the experiments were conducted. Now in your frame of reference does the claimed "null" result of he MM/Miller experiments equate with the 1/20 wave length shift actually observed?

[geistkiesel]

because they expected an aether cross current to have a phase delay effect on the reflected light, so that when the 2 beams of light met they would create an interferrence pattern - which they did not

because the split beams of light converged at the same time
i.e. propagated at the same rate

Check the experimental records Energia. There was a recorded wave shift of 1/20 expected by the "standard model" at the time (reproduced by Dayton Miller). Somehow the modern theorists, a very clever lot, mind you, have been able to determine that 1/20 = 0. Wow, and I thought I was smart.

[russ_watters]

Check the experimental records Energia. There was a recorded wave shift of 1/20 expected by the "standard model" at the time (reproduced by Dayton Miller). Somehow the modern theorists, a very clever lot, mind you, have been able to determine that 1/20 = 0. Wow, and I thought I was smart. This is wrong, as addressed in the other thread.

[DrChinese]

The MM experiments later performed by Dayton Miller found a wave shift of approximately 1/20 of that expected, if affected by the aether at the time the experiments were conducted. Now in your frame of reference does the claimed "null" result of he MM/Miller experiments equate with the 1/20 wave length shift actually observed?

The hypothesized result was not observed. Pretty simple. And regardless of the subsequent refinements to this experiment, it still added substantially to the body of knowledge at the time - it was useful. Even if it had elements which were 'messy' to you in some respect.

After all, Einstein's SR matched the results of MM a lot more than prevailing ether theory did at the time. Certainly useful. Whether Einstein know about MM or not (I assume he did), he certainly knew that evidence for an ether was lacking.

At any rate, I challenge anyone to use an MM-type experiment to determine the velocity of the earth through space. That was the original premise of such an experiment. I think a null result is a reasonable conclusion, but I could alternately accept that the actual results yield no useful information about our velocity.

[setAI]

to me- the aether/relativity debate isn't really a debate at all because they are simply different subjects!- Relativity- as with all background independent field theories- simply operate and don't need to explain the field in folk-physical terms- tht is impose metaphores on their dynamics- but that superfluid/aether/plasmic dynamism DOES exist- but it isn't mathematically important [or even existent! it simply doesn't apply- purely memetic modeling for monkeys]-

this doesn't reduce the importance or insight of Aether- I use the term often [in my own perverse way] - it just properly defines the concept as something outside of physics and part of aesthetics and metaphysics-


___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

[jammieg]

An experiment I hope to try this summer for my own sanity

If the aether is real then passing a negative charge through the middle of a large enough vacuum should cause a pocket of residual positive aether vacuum pressure to remain for a small amount of time and firing an electron near that area would result in a bending of it's path to account for the positive aether pocket, and degaussing the apparatus would result in no bending of the electron's flight path. Another similiar one would be to degauss the Debroglie apparatus after each electron emission to see if they then acted like bullets instead of waves, but then the residual magnetism could be in the apparatus and not the aether, or it could be that they just act like waves which is most likely but for what cause?
Or maybe I'll just dismiss all the helpful comments of others and use my "thought laboratory".

[geistkiesel]

OK.

Since the MM experiment was performed about the time of Einstein's birth, and there are claims that Einstein did not even know of the MM result why do you even mention Einstein or SR. Neither have anything to do with how MM experiment was performed or the interpretation of the results. If you really want to discuss MM why don't you?

I do not get a feel from your posts, what the trouble with the MM was just what was wrong with it? Please be specific and, as you, yourself requested, stick to the topic.

First, the MM results were noit null as reported, rather a value of 1/20 of the expected wave shift value as determined by those predicting the 'speed' of the earth through space [and the aether]. The MM results were duplicated by Daytom Miller in the 20s and 30s. Third, to say AE vever heard of MM before publishing any relativity papers is insginificant and only goes to the character of AE, if true or false, nothing else.

An added bonus: The famous 'eclipse" experiments of circa 1919-20 re Eddington, were a fraud. Telescopes with a resolutuon orders of magnitude greater than the necessay resolution to measure he affect of gravity v light bending were used.

[geistkiesel]

I do not wish to discuss Einstein or SR

this topic was posted for the sole purpose of dicussing the shortcomings of the Michelson Morley Experiment, it's mechanical faults, it's faulty premise, how a better aether experiment might be designed and executed to prove or disprove the existance of aether

Einstein and SR were only mentioned briefly, in a relevant manner



the first statement is historical fact - the later is a question regarding the abandonment of aether theory on a faulty premise

both of which are relevant to the topic

most replies have focused on Einstein, SR, how horrible people are who criticise poor Einstein, or how aether theory doesn't deserve to be dicussed, and how only theories which have the stamp of approval from russ_watters should be discussed

so don't complain to me if this thread is diverging


Energia,
MM experiments were not null. The results were merely 1/20 of that predicted by those predicting the velocity of the earth through space. What if the reality was the speed prediciton of the point of the MM experiments was off by a factor of 20? Then MM unambiguously predicts the correct wave shift through the aether doesn't it?

[geistkiesel]

Yes, I know: and that is its basic flaw. Mathematically, sure - but how many assumptions do you have to pile on top of each other before deciding you've built a house of cards? First you assume there is an ether, then you assume it moves in such a way that every experiment ever devised to find it (or that could be dependent on it) has failed to find it. You don't consider that absurd?

A great similar example is the epicycles of Ptolmey. By assuming enough epicycles (dozens), you can eventually build a model that fits reasonably well with the observed motion of the planets. However, like ether theory, you can't derive it from first principles and you can't use it to make any predictions. So what good is it? That's just it, energia - why does the MM experiment even need to be a part of this discussion? We know its old and we know it has limitations. Like I said: science has not stagnated since then (not even ether theory). Wouldn't it be better to examine the implications of GPS or lunar ranging experiments on ether theories? Its your thread - I've only responded to the things you mentioned: I focused in on your statements about Einstein because they are revealing about your purpose and particular bias (note: everyone has a bias). If you want to talk about ether "theories" and how they could/could not work and how to test them, do it! (looks like flash007 is getting it started...)

flash007, there are several misconceptions in that abstract. First is the same one that energia is operating on: evidence we have does not require an ether, it only doesn't absolutely rule it out. Fitting ether "theory" to the evidence we have requires assumptions and convoluted math, yeilding a "theory" of little theoretical value. To be specific: GPS has not detected any anisotropy in the speed of light despite the fact that at any given moment there are groups of satellites testing for it in at least 6 different referece frames simultaneously as well as ground stations. Making an ether "theory" that isn't killed by that is tough. The "indirect evidence" statement is a stretch - the best that can really be said is the evidence doesn't speccifically forbid it.

The CMB, though a useful frame of reference, is not the universal preferred frame that Relativity discarded: the laws of physics work the same in it and outside of it.

The most important part of the abstract though is this: Indeed. Has it? (hint: no). That, energia, is why at this point pursuit of ether "theory" is a waste of time. If at some point in the future evidence is found that conflicts with Relativity, then maybe it will be time to go back to it. Right now, ether "theorists" are pumping a dry well based on wishful thinking.


Sure, Russ_waters, just discard all the experimental evidence and theoretical discussions critical of SR. MM results were not null (as verified by Dayton Miller in the 20s - 30s), merely 1/20 of that suspected based on the suspected velocity of the planet through the cosmos. Assuming the predictions were off by a factor of 20, MM actually proves the aether, doesn't it?

Why do I get this nagging feeling that most, if not all of SR theorists are defending SR as they do out of a sense of a perceived threat to professional security considerations?

[russ_watters]

Sure, Russ_waters, just discard all the experimental evidence and theoretical discussions critical of SR. MM results were not null (as verified by Dayton Miller in the 20s - 30s), merely 1/20 of that suspected based on the suspected velocity of the planet through the cosmos. Assuming the predictions were off by a factor of 20, MM actually proves the aether, doesn't it? You keep saying this and ignoring the response. Should I even bother explaining it to you again?

[energia]

how are you arriving at this 1/20 result?
i was under the impression the result was null

can you please post the source of the data?

[Icarus]

At the risk of injecting yet another towering out-of-control ego into a debate already over-run with them, I would like to directly address the concerns energia originally raised, while trying to avoid making unwarranted assumptions about why he raised them:

Quite frankly, energia, I am rather confused by your interpretation of what went on with MM. You complain that it was based on one idea with out regard to others? Do you not understand the scientific process? Let's review it:

1) Make a bunch of observations.
2) Try to find a pattern in the observations. Call your pattern a "hypothesis".
3) Use your hypothesis to guess the outcome of future observations.
4) Perform the observations and compare the results with the guesses.
5) If the guesses were correct, go back to step 3.
6) If the guesses were slightly wrong, modify your hypothesis to correct them, then go back to step 3.
7) If your guesses were very wrong, reject your hypothesis & go back to steps 1 and 2.

7/1) This is exactly what happened with the MM experiment: According to Maxwell's (experimentally confirmed) equations, light is predicted to have a certain speed - without any mention of the speed of the observer. This is made the fact that Maxwell's equations do not conform to Galilean Relativity abundantly clear.
2) The hypothesis was made that some odd substance, called aether, was acting as a carrier for electromagnetism, just as water acts as a carrier of water waves, and that Maxwell's Equations are exactly true only within in reference frames at rest with respect to this aether. Since the planets did not seem to be losing any appreciable amount of energy while traveling, it was also hypothesized that ordinary matter does not interact appreciably with this aether, and as such, the Earth should be traveling with respect to it.
3) If you were to compare the speed of light in various directions, by these hypotheses, you would expect different values. By enough measurements you could eventually determine the velocity of that point on Earth through the aether.
4) M & M designed an apparatus to compare the speed of light in perpendicular directions. (I will not discuss the ability of this apparatus to do this - I am not sufficiently aware of its design and limitations to do so. I will say though that I am sure that the Physics community at the time was quite well aware of those limitations and were satisfied that the results were reasonably accurate.) Because the orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun, and the spinning of the Earth, it was predicted that the speed of the Earth through the aether would be well within the apparatus' ability to measure. The experiment was performed, and no speed anywhere near that predicted was discovered.

** This represents the end of the MM experiment, so any flaw in it was already there - what follows is interpretation, and even if flawed, is NOT a flaw in the MM experiment. But I also argue that the interpretation was not flawed:

7) Because the result was greatly different from what was expected, both hypotheses, that Maxwell's equations are only true with respect to aether, and that the Earth travels through the aether, could not together be true.

Following MM, many different hypotheses were put forward, including the idea that the Earth dragged the local aether along with it as it traveled its orbit (MM was performed at different times to ensure the result was not just a fluke of chance - the experiment being performed just when the earth was matching the aether movement in its orbit). Lorentz's transformation was another attempted modification of the hypothesis. None of them were particularly satisfactory to the community at the time. Not until that crazy German suggested that the speed of light actually was constant with respect to observer did a suggestion come forward that appeared to adequately explain all the observations at the time.

MM was not flawed. It did exactly what it was supposed to do: Test a theory to see if it was true. The theory it tested was not the whole idea of aether, but rather that the Earth was moving through it. It tested that theory, and gave evidence against it. The idea of aether in its entirety slowly passed out of popular opinion not because of MM, but because it was found to be unnecessary to explain observations. This does not say it is false - science fundamentally cannot ever prove anything to be true, and it can only prove things false if they directly contradict observation (so only specific predictions can be disproved). Since aether is a theory and can be adjusted, it will never directly contradict observation, and cannot be disproved. What it does say is that so far, aether has shown itself to be useless.

[geistkiesel]

Energia the link to MM

http://www.orgonelab.org/xphysicshttp://www.orgonelab.org/xphysics.htm.htm

This should get you started

geistkiesel

[geistkiesel]

You keep saying this and ignoring the response. Should I even bother explaining it to you again?

Whatever you say, or whatever i say, assuming the 1/20 number isn'y nopise, anmd neither you or i can provide a legitimate scientific model to explain the significance the fact of the reality of the expewrimental results whether significant in the support structure of SR, or not, the 1/20 ought not be used as the cannon ball of inormation exchange between dogmatists and their attackers.

Why, russ_watters are you so conistently in a defensive/attack mode when this kind of information is put before you. All of your analysis had no scienitific worth in determining what, if anything, the 1/20 number means. It sounds like that you would not want the 1/20 number to reflect a real ether state 5% of what the dogmatists predicted over 100 years ago, even if the aether has absolutely no relativity significance whatsoever. Just 'what if' russ'? Even if your curiosity factors are null on this subject is negating continued exploration by others any of your concern?, or for that matter, any of your business? If the aether is as inconsequential as you make it to be it sure appears some one has has pushed your 'defense of the standard model' button.
http://www.orgonelab.org/xphysicsht...physics.htm.htm

[russ_watters]

Whatever you say, or whatever i say, assuming the 1/20 number isn'y nopise, anmd neither you or i can provide a legitimate scientific model to explain the significance the fact of the reality of the expewrimental results whether significant in the support structure of SR, or not, the 1/20 ought not be used as the cannon ball of inormation exchange between dogmatists and their attackers. Why on earth would I want to assume that? That's the whole problem we mentors have with your ideas: in the absence of logic, evidence, and indeed, science itself, you assume whatever you want.

No. You can't assume that it wasn't noise.

PROVE IT. It sounds like that you would not want the 1/20 number to reflect a real ether state 5% of what the dogmatists predicted over 100 years ago...

Just 'what if' russ'? Even if your curiosity factors are null on this subject is negating continued exploration by others any of your concern?[emphasis added] Well that's just it: MM was over 100 years ago. has exploration continued since then? Which one of us keeps bringing up a 100 year old experiment and ignoring 100 years of newer (better) ones? Which one of us is clinging to 100+ year old dogma in the absence of evidence (indeed - in the face of a vast quantity of contradictory evidence)?

geistkiesel, turn your mirror around: you're looking at it backwards.

[russ_watters]

how are you arriving at this 1/20 result?
i was under the impression the result was null

can you please post the source of the data? Yes, I would very much like to see it as well. I'm not optimistic that geistkiesel will ever post it.

[geistkiesel]

Yes, I would very much like to see it as well. I'm not optimistic that geistkiesel will ever post it.

This should get you started russ_watters.

Ye, of little faith.

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/m-morley.htm
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/Michelson-Morley.html
http://www.fact-index.com/d/da/dayton_miller.html
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/oneway/oneway.html
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm pre


Geistkiesel

[russ_watters]

This should get you started russ_watters.

Ye, of little faith.

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/m-morley.htm
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/Michelson-Morley.html
http://www.fact-index.com/d/da/dayton_miller.html
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/oneway/oneway.html
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm pre


Geistkiesel Near as I can tell, none of those links contain the data for the MM experiment.

[geistkiesel]

Near as I can tell, none of those links contain the data for the MM experiment.


OK the papers don't have the original data, then on what scientific grounds do you insist that the MM results were null? What scientific data do you use russ_watters? scorn, derision, cynicism, scoffing, sniveling tantrum school yard crap is what you appear to use, but this is just my observation.

But you do have sufficient information to get the data don't you? Miller's paper is referenced. I would focus on the original paper of Dayton Miller, if you really want to know. Or you can keep up with your egotistic self-centered smugness, the easy way out for the mental sloth..

[geistkiesel]

Near as I can tell, none of those links contain the data for the MM experiment.
Here is a hypothetical: Assume the 1/20 shist was real with an experimental error ~.0001. What would it mean in terms of the measure ment of the SOL, the aether, SR?

[russ_watters]

Here is a hypothetical: Assume the 1/20 shist was real with an experimental error ~.0001. What would it mean in terms of the measure ment of the SOL, the aether, SR? Yet again - why would I want to assume that? You're saying: 'assuming I'm right, am I right?' Uh....duh?
OK the papers don't have the original data, then on what scientific grounds do you insist that the MM results were null? What scientific data do you use russ_watters? scorn, derision, cynicism, scoffing, sniveling tantrum school yard crap is what you appear to use, but this is just my observation. M&M THEMSELVES viewed their experiment as a failure. You're the one second-guessing their experiment and you must prove why.

C'mon, do you have the data or not? Are you just saying it because you heard it somewhere and liked what you heard? Do you even know where the idea of a 1/20th result came from? Or is this just a fun game? Out with it: put up or shut up.

[geistkiesel]

Yet again - why would I want to assume that? You're saying: 'assuming I'm right, am I right?' Uh....duh?
M&M THEMSELVES viewed their experiment as a failure. You're the one second-guessing their experiment and you must prove why.

C'mon, do you have the data or not? Are you just saying it because you heard it somewhere and liked what you heard? Do you even know where the idea of a 1/20th result came from? Or is this just a fun game? Out with it: put up or shut up.

M&M's opinions are no more valuable than any other. Opinions of those conducting experiments do not enjoy elvated states of scieitific truth over the rest of humanity. Have you looked for the 1/20 of the truth russ_wattes, yeahright, "guffaw" I gave you the references, enough rope, so do it to yourself russ_watters.

[jammieg]

I think you miss the point geistkiesel, everyone wants to see some revolutionary new discoveries, the problem is nobody wants to go out of their way to find them or more likely spend a great deal of time and effort wasted on futile experiments, reason alone is worse than worthless here, who ever said the aether has to be moving anyway, there are too many what if's, and each of them have the overwhelming potential for being a monumental waste of time and effort.

[geistkiesel]

I think you miss the point geistkiesel, everyone wants to see some revolutionary new discoveries, the problem is nobody wants to go out of their way to find them or more likely spend a great deal of time and effort wasted on futile experiments, reason alone is worse than worthless here, who ever said the aether has to be moving anyway, there are too many what if's, and each of them have the overwhelming potential for being a monumental waste of time and effort.

You are correct of course. I just wanted to make the point that MM did not claim a null result. As stated by Dayton Miller the published MM results stated that "the observed relative motion of the earth did not exceed one forurth of the earth's oribital velocity". Miller also found that his experiments agreed with MM in their finding of an average of approximately 8,5 km/sec relative aether/earth velociy, which is geater than 1/4 the earths orbital velocity of 30km/sec. Miller narrowed the matter down to determining the realtive direction of the solar system generally to the constllation Hercules at approximately 20 km/sec, but Hercules was heading to the south pole apex direction in the constellation Dorado, the Sword-Fish, about 20 degeree south of Canopus, with a velocity of 208 km/sec. Canopus is the second brightest star in the Great Magellan Cloud. Miller did a lot more than experiment with relativity problems, though it is all related.

Assuming the validity of Miller's work (and MM) what does this have to say regarding Special Relativity? What it generates is the kind of responses seen by russ_watters i.e "go away".

[geistkiesel]

Yet again - why would I want to assume that? You're saying: 'assuming I'm right, am I right?' Uh....duh?
M&M THEMSELVES viewed their experiment as a failure. You're the one second-guessing their experiment and you must prove why.

C'mon, do you have the data or not? Are you just saying it because you heard it somewhere and liked what you heard? Do you even know where the idea of a 1/20th result came from? Or is this just a fun game? Out with it: put up or shut up.

Actually I did misquite the 1/20 number. The average relative velocity of earth and aether found by both MM and Dayron Miller was 8.5 km/sec which is considerable miore than 1/20 of the expected. The earth's orbital velocity being 30 km/sec. You can belittle all you want, I suppose that is your job, but Miller found what MM found. Miller also makes the point with emphasis that contrary to popular writing the MM results were not null. Likewise MM experiments were conducted over a few days. MM had no opportunity to go into a detailed experimental mode as did Miller later. Millers experiments were into a cuple of hundred thousand when he finally finished.

[wespe]

Actually I did misquite the 1/20 number. The average relative velocity of earth and aether found by both MM and Dayron Miller was 8.5 km/sec which is considerable miore than 1/20 of the expected. The earth's orbital velocity being 30 km/sec. You can belittle all you want, I suppose that is your job, but Miller found what MM found. Miller also makes the point with emphasis that contrary to popular writing the MM results were not null. Likewise MM experiments were conducted over a few days. MM had no opportunity to go into a detailed experimental mode as did Miller later. Millers experiments were into a cuple of hundred thousand when he finally finished.

Geistkiesel,

If it was possible to detect Earth's velocity through aether, sure, special relativity would be invalid. You talk about 30 km/sec orbital speed. But, with all the velocities of earth, sun, galaxy etc. combined, why only 8,5 km/sec speed was detected? Don't you think it is more probable that 8,5 km/sec was experimental error?

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

[geistkiesel]

Geistkiesel,

If it was possible to detect Earth's velocity through aether, sure, special relativity would be invalid. You talk about 30 km/sec orbital speed. But, with all the velocities of earth, sun, galaxy etc. combined, why only 8,5 km/sec speed was detected? Don't you think it is more probable that 8,5 km/sec was experimental error?

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

Not at all Read Dayton Miller's story. A measurement of relative velocities between the solar system and The constellation hurcules is about 20 km/s toward the constellation, but Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec. The numbers of the average is taken at choice spots diurinally using sideral time. The largest velocity component attributable to the earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec, while the revolution speed is on the order of .4 km/s. I can only steer you to Miller's paper Reviews of Modern Physics July 1933 vol 5 203-242. The paper is readable.

Miller also emphcised that MM results were not zero, but as stated by MM, "less than 1/4 of the orbital velocity."

Shankland, once a grad student under Miller trashed the expeimebnt in 1955 when Miller was no longe around. I saw an internet paper analyzing th ebias of Shankland, and Enistein.

[wespe]

Not at all Read Dayton Miller's story. A measurement of relative velocities between the solar system and The constellation hurcules is about 20 km/s toward the constellation, but Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec. The numbers of the average is taken at choice spots diurinally using sideral time. The largest velocity component attributable to the earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec, while the revolution speed is on the order of .4 km/s. I can only steer you to Miller's paper Reviews of Modern Physics July 1933 vol 5 203-242. The paper is readable.


Well I don't have it. Maybe you can tell me, why "The largest velocity component attributable to the earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", despite "Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec"? Why not add these velocities? And what can be considered stationary wrt aether as a reference to earth, to have any estimate at all?

Also see (maybe not a very credible source, but seems okay)
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/earthmotion.htm

If you followed my link, there's an article (very much in favor of Miller):
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

There it says:
"Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec" ... "but Earth-entrained ether in that particular direction, which lowered the velocity of the ether from around 200 to 10 km/sec"

So basically it is a "dragged aether" explanation. Not because "The largest velocity component attributable to the earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", as far as I can tell.

Once again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

"One possible explanation of the Michelson-Morley result was that the Earth "dragged" the ether along with it, so that it is fixed for an Earthbound observer. However, this was contradicted by the observations of stellar abberation (a change in angle of light from a star due to the Earth's motion) by James Bradley in 1725 and again by George Airy 1871, which were not consistent with an ether that moved with the Earth."

[geistkiesel]

Well I don't have it. Maybe you can tell me, why "The largest velocity component attributable to the earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", despite "Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec"? Why not add these velocities? And what can be considered stationary wrt aether as a reference to earth, to have any estimate at all?

Because the relative velocity of earth (the solar system) wrt Hecules was measured ~ 20km/sec: Earth - Hercules 20km/s. Hercules wrt Dorado 226km/sec. we are subject to Hercuoles dragging us along.

You are on a ship that is moving south at 225km/s, you are r7unning at an angle accross the ship at a telative velocity of 20km/s against the ship's velocity (but 3-km/sec in your straight line) ergo you are heading south to Dorado.

Also see (maybe not a very credible source, but seems okay)
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/earthmotion.htm

If you followed my link, there's an article (very much in favor of Miller):
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

There it says:
"Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec" ... "but Earth-entrained ether in that particular direction, which lowered the velocity of the ether from around 200 to 10 km/sec"

We are moving to hercules at ~ 20km/sec as measured by Miller. However, Hecules is moving in as outhernly direction at 220km/s or so. In the larger picture the solar sytem is tied to hecules even though we may be moving positivelely toward hercules.

So basically it is a "dragged aether" explanation. Not because "The largest velocity component attributable to the earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", as far as I can tell.

Once again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Correct the 30km/sec velocity is the calculated orbital velocity which was assumed by the powers that were at the time and still is as far as i can tell. MM found that the aether relative velocity was maybe ~ 1/6 the orbital velocity 'but certainly not more than 1/4 the orbital velocity'

"One possible explanation of the Michelson-Morley result was that the Earth "dragged" the ether along with it, so that it is fixed for an Earthbound observer. However, this was contradicted by the observations of stellar abberation (a change in angle of light from a star due to the Earth's motion) by James Bradley in 1725 and again by George Airy 1871, which were not consistent with an ether that moved with the Earth."

Miller confirmed MM at ~8.5 km/s. the MM experiments were completed in a few short days, days some 30+ "runs". Miller had over 200,000 experimental runs over a few years time. (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 5 p202-243 (1933)). You seem stuck in the popular hole that MM rsults were "null". Not so read MM and/or Miller in the reference I gave.

To quote Miller:
"However, and this fact must be emphacized, the indicated effect was not zeo; the sensitivity of the apparatus was such that the conclusion, published in 1887 stated that the observed relative motion and aether did not exceed one-fourth of the earth's orbital velocity.This is quite different from the null effect now so frequently imputed to this experiment by writers on Relativity. . . . MM made only one series of observations in July 1887, and never repeated the aether-drift experiment at any other time, notwithstanding many printed statements to the contrary." This Miller wrote in 1933.

[wespe]

Well I don't have it. Maybe you can tell me, why "The largest velocity component attributable to the earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", despite "Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec"? Why not add these velocities? And what can be considered stationary wrt aether as a reference to earth, to have any estimate at all?

Because the relative velocity of earth (the solar system) wrt Hecules was measured ~ 20km/sec: Earth - Hercules 20km/s. Hercules wrt Dorado 226km/sec. we are subject to Hercuoles dragging us along.

You are on a ship that is moving south at 225km/s, you are r7unning at an angle accross the ship at a telative velocity of 20km/s against the ship's velocity (but 3-km/sec in your straight line) ergo you are heading south to Dorado.


That doesn't answer my quesion. I'm not sure you have even read it.

Let me try again:

Consider: An experiment will be carried out to detect Earth's speed in aether. An estimated value is needed to compare with the experiment results. We know Earth's orbital speed around sun: 30 km/sec. If we assume sun is at rest wrt aether, we could use this 30 km/sec value. But we assume sun is not at rest wrt aether, we know its relative speed wrt Hercules. But also we assume Hercules is not at rest wrt aether. We know its relative is speed wrt Dorado is 226km/sec. So what do these speeds amount to? 200 something, or still 30? Why do you compare 8.5 with 30 and not 200 figure? Actually, Miller's estimate was 208 km/sec (as I quoted). So how did Miller explain 8.5? He explained it with aether drag (see previous post or read the Miller article, apparently you didn't understand Miller's view).

So basically it is a "dragged aether" explanation. Not because "The largest velocity component attributable to the earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", as far as I can tell.

Once again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Correct the 30km/sec velocity is the calculated orbital velocity which was assumed by the powers that were at the time and still is as far as i can tell. MM found that the aether relative velocity was maybe ~ 1/6 the orbital velocity 'but certainly not more than 1/4 the orbital velocity'

What are you babbling about? I'm saying there is a problem with "aether drag explanation". What is your answer to that?

"One possible explanation of the Michelson-Morley result was that the Earth "dragged" the ether along with it, so that it is fixed for an Earthbound observer. However, this was contradicted by the observations of stellar abberation (a change in angle of light from a star due to the Earth's motion) by James Bradley in 1725 and again by George Airy 1871, which were not consistent with an ether that moved with the Earth."

Miller confirmed MM at ~8.5 km/s. the MM experiments were completed in a few short days, days some 30+ "runs". Miller had over 200,000 experimental runs over a few years time. (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 5 p202-243 (1933)). You seem stuck in the popular hole that MM rsults were "null". Not so read MM and/or Miller in the reference I gave.


That was the quote from the link. Why are you answering it separately? Did you read anything I wrote?

Also see:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=248717&postcount=241

[geistkiesel]

That doesn't answer my quesion. I'm not sure you have even read it.

Let me try again:

Consider: An experiment will be carried out to detect Earth's speed in aether. An estimated value is needed to compare with the experiment results. We know Earth's orbital speed around sun: 30 km/sec. If we assume sun is at rest wrt aether, we could use this 30 km/sec value. But we assume sun is not at rest wrt aether, we know its relative speed wrt Hercules. But also we assume Hercules is not at rest wrt aether. We know its relative is speed wrt Dorado is 226km/sec. So what do these speeds amount to? 200 something, or still 30? Why do you compare 8.5 with 30 and not 200 figure? Actually, Miller's estimate was 208 km/sec (as I quoted). So how did Miller explain 8.5? He explained it with aether drag (see previous post or read the Miller article, apparently you didn't understand Miller's view).

Quoting Miller;
The direction of the earth's motion in space has been determined by assuming the that the motion is projected onto the plane of the interferometer and by observing the the variations produced in the projected component by the rotation of the earth on its axis and by the erevolution around the sun. ...The evaluation of the observed effect i s based on the presumpotion that it is a second order effect and that the aether is wholly stagnant and undisturbed by the motion of the earth through it. There are fiound to be two facts of observation that are whollty unexplained on this simple theory.

Miller says
The sun is mioving to the southern apex at v = 208 km/s
and in the opposite direction to Hecules at 19 km/s
the group of stars as a whole ar e heading to the southern apex at 227 km/sec.

The real answer is probably buried in the rhetoric someplace. Which numbers get mistated consistenly: The MM null effect and then all the theory following including SR, among others. Why don't you solve it? You aren't going to get there from here if you set your theoretical mind in some sr concrete or any theory for that matter.

But get miller first if you haven't 'Also, get Shankland's tyrashing of Miller anda miller's defense in the intenet, you can find it.

Dayton Miller The Ether Drift Experiments and Dxetermination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth.
Reviews iof Modern Ohysics july 1933 vol 5 203 -242

Aha, I see the conundrum. Miller could not measure the aether drag of anything but the earth, as far as I am able to determine. Firsat miller two facts which are unexplained by the earth through eher theory. The displacement of the fringes is less than expected as if the aeher is carried along by the earth is niot wholly at rest. There is reduction that is inexplicable. the reduction factor is k in the table whic h shiow the maximum values for maximum velocity of earth twice per year.. If Miller isn't on th eintwernet and I haven't found it which is why i ordeed a copy from my local library.

Epoch--- Velocity-Obs. ---Velocity-Calc.---- k
_________________________________________
Feb 8 ----- 9,3km/s ----- 195.2 km/s-----0.048
Apr 1 -----10.2--------- 198.2 ----------- .051
Aug 1 -----11.2--------- 211.5------------.053
Sep 15 ---- 9.6 --------- 207.5 -----------.046

values adopted for calculations k = .0514

Miller found an aether drag velocity of ~8.5 km/sec, the same as the Michelson Morely experiments . I am sure you have looked at the MM setup. It is the same basic model used by miller with improved resoluiton mainly in the extended lengths of the various legs the photons traveled. Alsol, MM only experimented fot 4 days and evenings in July 1887 and never again after that, according to Miller and contrary to some reports that siad MM did it again.Miller did 200,00 or ao runs.

This is different than the relative velocities you referred to. I admit my numbers were crudely stated, but the thrust of my statement was as I stated. Wespe and geistkiesel are moving 1 m/s wrt each other due east. G is heading north W is heading SE such that their combined velocity is 1m/s east. The ship they are on is heading due west at 10 m/sec. Therefore G and w are heading west at 9 m/sec. Now the ship is in an ocean current moving north at 5 m/sec, ergo the G and W velocity are (9x9 + 5x5)^1/2 = 10.29m/sec.West by North West, OK? The main difference is the W and G veloicities do not have any unexplained values associated with aether which is becoming more and more like something completely different than simple aether effects. The answer will bubble up be patient. Get Miller.

One possible source, that I haven't looked at in detail is the use of the reflected beam from the transverse leg if the interferieter which should be a straight line instead of the triangle so popularly expressed in the literature, even Miller.




e you babbling about? I'm saying there is a problem with "aether drag explanation". What is your answer to that?
Mill;3er had a problemtoo, ask him!

i don't kniow what the inexplicable values found by Miller, except that there is some intrinsic characteristic ovf light propagation that is not explained by SR or geistkiesel/grounded/ram1024 et al.

That was the quote from the link. Why are you answering it separately? Did you read anything I wrote?

Sometimes I get busy and overlook detail. Is the current post more to your liking?

Also see:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=248717&postcount=241

[russ_watters]

This needs to be pointed out again: geistkiesel has yet to provide a source for his data. In light of all of his other issues in this matter, I'm not inclinded to take his word for it.

Show me the data.

edit: from the wikipedia link, I find this statement interesting: Computer analysis after Miller's death on the little available data has proven that the shifts were statistically significant.[emphasis added] This implies to me that very little actual data of Miller's exists. But that's ok - since this all happened more than half a century ago, someone else surely must have confirmed his results by now....right?

A good quote from that second wikipedia link: A few physicists (like Dayton Miller and Edward Morley) continued research on the aether for some time, and occasionally researchers still explore these concepts. While it is not difficult to create aether theories consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is much harder to remain consistent with all of the related experiments of modern physics. Any new theory of aether must be consistent with all of the experiments testing phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, relativistic quantum mechanics, and so on.

Although the vast majority of modern scientists reject all aether-based theories, the aether's mystic appeal continues to draw pseudoscientific proponents and protoscientific aspirants.

[russ_watters]

Since I'm curious about Miller (and not too optomistice I'll ever be provided with info I asked for), I'm doing a little of my own research. Some interesting stuff I've found:

http://www.aetherometry.com/miller.html

...And ever since then, those who seek to re-establish the old notion of a static Aether that would be detected by its supposed drift, have taken recourse to Miller's results, pushing them to the forefront as if they were a repressed of Physics that betrayed the "truth of an electromagnetic Aether". However, Miller never fully achieved a demonstration that the borderline periodic displacements he observed could not be related to sensible and latent heat lag effects derived from solar ambipolar radiation....

... Miller himself eventually acknowledged that there were thermal effects at work. Since he wanted his apparatus to be as exposed to the elements as possible, it would invariably detect a diurnal variation in the start-up calibration (to say that sunlight might have caused spurious peaks is of little use if complete diurnal atmospheric records were not being kept; for instance, he should have taken control temperatures of the room, walls and roof, which apparently he did not). Nowhere does Miller seem to have controlled for this in a systematic fashion. But it is not just the heating effect of the sun upon the atmosphere that one should consider (even if it happened only once, which is rather unlikely...), but equally the cooling effect of nighttime. We have seen these effects in ORACs and therefore can easily suppose that they would affect such a sensitive interferometer as Miller's.

More disturbing still is that the data Miller obtained - with his final and improved interferometer - yielded two very different reports of the direction of the aether drift...

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2

[Miller] reported this result to a meeting of the American Physical Society (APS), and interpreted it as a refutation of Einstein's theory.

But was it? The APS's members did not think so. Hundreds of other experiments agreed with Michelson and Morley's work, and relativity was already tightly woven into contemporary science.[emphasis added]

So far, I'm rather unimpressed with Miller's work. But if you have any info of your own, geist...