Is the premise of the Michelson–Morley argument still valid?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Killtech
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of the Michelson–Morley experiment's premise regarding the detection of a "luminiferous ether" affecting light speed. Participants argue that the assumption of fixed distances between mirrors in the interferometer is flawed, as atomic interactions governed by Maxwell's equations could influence these distances. The conversation highlights how Lorentz's interpretation of the null result led to the development of Special Relativity, emphasizing the importance of frame-dependent versus frame-independent lengths in modern physics. The discussion also touches on the historical context and implications of ether theories in light of contemporary physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Michelson–Morley experiment
  • Familiarity with Maxwell's equations
  • Knowledge of Lorentz transformations
  • Basic concepts of Special Relativity
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Lorentz ether theory
  • Study the historical context of the Michelson–Morley experiment
  • Explore the differences between frame-dependent and frame-independent lengths
  • Investigate the mathematical foundations of Special Relativity and tensor calculus
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the historical and theoretical aspects of light propagation and ether theories.

  • #31
Killtech said:
the effect they have is to create a new model with different postulates in a new geometry

Yes, a new model. But there's no actual physical device you can build that will make an actual new geometry according to such a transformation. And the different geometry in the model has nothing whatever to do with the actual geometry of the actual world. So it's irrelevant for the discussion we are having here, which is about analyzing data from the actual world.

Killtech said:
employing this powerful mathematical tool is something that can be made use to help various physical problems for example to removing singularities

You can't remove an actual, physical singularity in the actual world (supposing one were to exist) by changing your mathematical model. You are very confused.

Killtech said:
i actually even have a very particular use case where i need to do such a transformation due to a practical scenario

Personal research is off limits for PF discussion; that is not what PF is for.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Closing thread as the questions posed by the OP have been exhaustively answered and there's nothing more that can be said except thank you for participating here.

Jedi
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K