Michaelson-Morley expt. problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter rushikesh
  • Start date Start date
rushikesh
Messages
20
Reaction score
1
The M-M expt. concluded the constancy of speed of light, by emitting a beam of light, one horizontally and other vertically to the direction of the motion of the earth. Since they returned from the mirror to the source at the same time (having no effect of Earth's motion on them) it was concluded that light speed is constant and independent of the source.

The problem:
My argument is, even if we replace the beam of light by two ordinary balls, the result is the same, i.e. they will return to the source at the same time (considering equal distance traveled and common speed). To explain in detail (refer to attachment):

If the two balls start at pt. A, one horizontally and second perpendicular to other and if they return from two reflectors R equidistant from A, they reach the source A, at the same time. This is true even if this set up is on a uniform moving train as shown.

Here we won't conclude that the speed of the balls is constant irrespective of the motion, as we have concluded for light. Kindly explain.
 

Attachments

  • MM expt.JPG
    MM expt.JPG
    2.5 KB · Views: 370
Physics news on Phys.org
rushikesh said:
The M-M expt. concluded the constancy of speed of light, by emitting a beam of light, one horizontally and other vertically to the direction of the motion of the earth. Since they returned from the mirror to the source at the same time (having no effect of Earth's motion on them) it was concluded that light speed is constant and independent of the source.

The problem:
My argument is, even if we replace the beam of light by two ordinary balls, the result is the same, i.e. they will return to the source at the same time (considering equal distance traveled and common speed). To explain in detail (refer to attachment):

If the two balls start at pt. A, one horizontally and second perpendicular to other and if they return from two reflectors R equidistant from A, they reach the source A, at the same time. This is true even if this set up is on a uniform moving train as shown.

Here we won't conclude that the speed of the balls is constant irrespective of the motion, as we have concluded for light. Kindly explain.
I think you have misunderstood the conclusions of MMX. It did not measure the speed of light or conclude that it was a constant. What it did was determine that the round trip speed of light along two perpendicular paths were equal to each other no matter when then did the experiment or in what orientation they did it and since they carried the light source with them, they drew no conclusion with regard to the speed of light being independent of the source.

So I think you have correctly figured out from your analogy with the balls that if they had come to those conclusions, they would have been illogical conclusions.

By the way, why did you think those were conclusions of MMX? Can you point to a link or reference that makes that claim?
 
ghwellsjr said:
I think you have misunderstood the conclusions of MMX. It did not measure the speed of light or conclude that it was a constant. What it did was determine that the round trip speed of light along two perpendicular paths were equal to each other no matter when then did the experiment or in what orientation they did it and since they carried the light source with them, they drew no conclusion with regard to the speed of light being independent of the source.

So I think you have correctly figured out from your analogy with the balls that if they had come to those conclusions, they would have been illogical conclusions.

By the way, why did you think those were conclusions of MMX? Can you point to a link or reference that makes that claim?

I think MMX tried to find if the speed of light C was relative to ether. Since it could not see any change in speed of light relative to ether, it concludes that it's speed is independent of source.
Correct? Or are there any other expts. proving constant speed of light?
 
rushikesh said:
I think MMX tried to find if the speed of light C was relative to ether. Since it could not see any change in speed of light relative to ether, it concludes that it's speed is independent of source.
Correct? Or are there any other expts. proving constant speed of light?
M&M believed that the speed of light was independent of its source because they believed light propagated relative to the ether. So I don't know why you would think that the null result of MMX would also conclude that the speed of light was independent of its source. Ether or not, MMX or not, M&M believed that light is independent of its source. And that's because they believed in a wave model for light.

But, yes, the definitive experiment that light is independent of its source is de Sitter's.
 
rushikesh said:
My argument is, even if we replace the beam of light by two ordinary balls, the result is the same, i.e. they will return to the source at the same time (considering equal distance traveled and common speed).
Balls don't have a constant speed relative to a medium. If you did the experiment with sound you'd get a positive result.
 
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
View full post »

Thread 'Describing the Big Bang'

I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
View full post »

Thread 'A sufficient condition for integrability of equation ##\nabla g=0##'

In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Speed of Light: Michelson-Morley Experiment Revisited
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Understanding Michelson Morley Experiment
Replies
14
Views
3K
B How are 'fringe shifts' in the Michelson-Morley experiment calculated?
Replies
9
Views
3K
I What was the role of frequency in the Michelson-Morley experiment's null result?
Replies
3
Views
1K
B Einstein thought experiment confusion: “light clock in a moving frame”
Replies
5
Views
2K
I A question about Relativity of Time using Time dilation experiment
Replies
12
Views
2K
I Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?
Replies
35
Views
462
I Proof of Special Relativity w/ Michelson–Morley Experiment
Replies
20
Views
2K
Does the Speed of Light Change When Measured from the Sun?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Understanding Einstein's second postulate of special relativity
2
Replies
57
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top