Why Did the Michelson-Morley Experiment Assume Aether Has a Constant Velocity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwineFromHELL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Aether Doubt
SwineFromHELL
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
can sm1 tell me why in the michelson morley experiment aeteher is assumed to have a unidorectional constant velocity ??

thankyou so much
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For simplicity. That means that the MM experiment doesn't prove that aether theory is wrong, just that it needs to be modified. I've read that a viable aether theory exists that explains all experiments up to around 1920, but that it was very complicated, and not worth using since relativity was much simpler in comparison. Since 1920 we've had lots of other experiments that can be explained using relativity. Eg. the QED calculation of the electron moment, which relies on special relativity, matches the experimental result to 1 part in 109 (or whatever the limit of experimental precision is). It suspect aether theory probably could not match that no matter how it's modified.
 
There's a second reason. The Galilean transform was already known from experiments to be applicable to Newton's laws. Assuming the aether to have a unidirectional constant velocity was the simplest way of using the Galilean transform to analyse the Michelson-Morley experiment.
 
because the aether must be a solid.
 
The aether notion was rooted in classical physics [circa 19th century]. Scientists noted that sound required a media through which to propogate. They attempted to apply this logic to EM wave propogation. They deduced the speed of light, as is the case with sound, would be affected by motion through the media. The MM experiment assumed the speed of light would be seasonally affected if it propogated through a media [due to Earth's motion through the 'aether']. No such affect was observed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment for further details.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top