I Michelson-Morley Experiment: Objection Explained

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sonuz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
Sonuz
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Could you please elucidate the below statement which is given as an objection to one of the possible explanation(earth drags the ether surrounding to it) for the negative result of Michelson-morely inferometer experiment?

A second objection arises from the fact that a transparent object of laboratory size does not drag the light waves with the full velocity of the moving matter, as it necessarily would do if it completely dragged the ether along with it; and the observed partial drag is fully accounted for by current electromagnetic theory

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You will get more helpful answers if you provide the source of that quotation and tell us what you’re finding unclear
 
The usual objection to ether dragging is that if the air can drag ether 100% (necessary for a null Michelson-Morley) then glass or water ought to, but Fizeau's experiments showed that it doesn't.

As Nugatory says, more detail on what you are reading and what you don't understand would help.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, FactChecker and Dale
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top