Angle independence of Michelson-Morley type experiments

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the angle independence of Michelson-Morley type experiments, specifically questioning whether the interferometer's arms can be oriented at angles other than right angles. Participants explore the implications of different angles on the results and the necessity of testing these configurations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that all known descriptions of the Michelson-Morley experiment utilize right angles and inquires about any experiments testing other angles or references that justify their exclusion.
  • Another participant explains that right angles facilitate the interchange of directions when the apparatus is rotated, suggesting that using other angles would complicate the setup.
  • A different viewpoint discusses the assumption of aether providing an absolute rest frame, proposing that light's velocity would depend on the angle relative to a privileged direction, and that measuring this could theoretically be done for any angles.
  • One participant elaborates on the mathematical relationships involved in measuring light's velocity in different directions, emphasizing that in three dimensions, it is possible to compare velocities along non-perpendicular directions using cross products.
  • Another participant reiterates the point about right angles being advantageous for direction interchange and suggests that the directions of the arms can be interchanged without flipping the apparatus, regardless of the angles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and feasibility of testing angles other than right angles, with some arguing for the practicality of right angles while others suggest that other angles could also be valid for testing the aether theory. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the need for experiments at non-right angles.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the aether theory and the implications of using different angles in the experiments. The discussion highlights the complexity of measuring light's velocity in various directions and the potential mathematical challenges involved.

birulami
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
In all descriptions of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley" I know of, the two arms of the interferometer are at right angles to each other.

Does anyone know of an experiment which, just for completeness, tried other angles? If not, does anyone know of a reference with clear argumentation why it can be ruled out that other angles need to be tested?

Not that I expect a different result for non-right angles, but (mathematical) proof is all the while better than guesstimation.

Harald.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Right angles are used so that when the apparatus is turned through 90 degrees, the two directions are interchanged. To interchange the directions for any other angle than right angle, would require flipping the apparatus. This would be a tricky procedure for such a sensitive apparatus.
 
The assumption is that the aether provides an absolute rest frame, so that if the Earth is moving through the aether, its velocity determines a priveleged direction in our reference frame. Then if the speed of light was only isotropic in the aether frame, it would have a velocity depending on the angle [itex]\theta[/itex] between the direction the light is traveling in our frame and the priveleged direction mentioned above. What Michelson and Morely attempted to do was measure [itex]v(\theta)[/itex].

Since we don't initially know the special direction, we actually need to measure the velocity in any direction [itex]\hat n[/itex], and if the aether theory is correct, there should be a direction [itex]\hat m[/itex] such that [itex]v(\hat n) = f( \hat m \cdot \hat n)[/itex].

So let the two directions of the arms of the appartus be directed along [itex]\hat n_1[/itex] and [itex]\hat n_2[/itex]. They then observed that the time it takes a light beam to travel the length of the arm and back is the same for both arms. Assuming the arms are the same length, this amounts to the equation:

[tex]\frac{1}{v(\hat n_1)} + \frac{1}{v(-\hat n_1)} = \frac{1}{v(\hat n_2)} + \frac{1}{v(-\hat n_2)}[/tex]

In theory, this could be verified for any directions [itex]\hat n_1,\hat n_2[/itex], in which case we would arrive at:

[tex]\frac{1}{v(\hat n)} + \frac{1}{v(-\hat n)} = C[/tex] (*)

To compare the velocity of light along antiparellel directions you need to agree on a timing convention at distant points. Usually the convention is taken by assuming the two velocities are the same. Another way is to assume that if a clock is moved sufficiently slowly to a new point, it still measures time accurately, and it can be shown this convention agrees with the first. Thus

[tex]\frac{1}{v(\hat n)} + \frac{1}{v(-\hat n)} = \frac{2}{v(\hat n)} = C[/tex]

And the speed of light is independent of direction.

You point out that in practice, only directions [itex]\hat n_1,\hat n_2[/itex] which are perpendicular are compared. In 2 dimensions, it would be impossible to make the step (*) above, since if a is not perpendicular to b, then there is no vector c that is perpendicular to both, which would need to be used to compare them.

However in 3 dimensions, there is such a vector c for any a and b, namely their cross product. I'm not sure if Michelson and morley actually used this technique, as they weren't so much concerned with measuring the isotropy of light as verifying the aether theory, which could be proved/disproved more simply (eg, by comparing the results at two different points along Earth's orbit, so that the priveleged direction would necessarily change).
 
Last edited:
Meir Achuz said:
Right angles are used so that when the apparatus is turned through 90 degrees, the two directions are interchanged. To interchange the directions for any other angle than right angle, would require flipping the apparatus. This would be a tricky procedure for such a sensitive apparatus.

Actually, what you want to do is interchange the directions of the arms as measured from the direction of motion. You can always do that, no matter what the angles. Say the arms are at angles A and B measured clockwise with respect to the direction of motion. Now rotate through -(A+B), keeping track of +/- clockwise rotations. You can see that A --> -B and B --> -A. So the angles of the arms with respect to the direction of motion are interchanged. The directions orthogonal to the motion have changed sign, but that happens with right angles too.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K