Michaelson-Morley expt. problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rushikesh
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Michelson-Morley experiment (M-M expt.) and its implications regarding the speed of light. Participants explore the conclusions drawn from the experiment, comparing the behavior of light to that of ordinary objects, such as balls, in a moving frame. The conversation touches on the nature of light's speed and whether it is independent of the source or influenced by a medium.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the M-M experiment concluded the constancy of the speed of light, as light beams returned to the source simultaneously regardless of the direction of Earth's motion.
  • Others propose an analogy using balls to illustrate that if they were used instead of light, they would also return to the source at the same time, questioning the conclusion that light's speed is constant irrespective of the source.
  • A participant challenges the interpretation of the M-M experiment, stating it did not measure the speed of light or conclude it was constant, but rather that the round trip speed of light along two paths was equal.
  • Another participant suggests that the M-M experiment aimed to determine if the speed of light was relative to ether, and since no change was observed, it was concluded to be independent of the source.
  • Some participants mention that M&M believed in the independence of light's speed from its source based on their wave model of light.
  • A later reply introduces the idea that if the experiment were conducted with sound instead of light, a positive result would be obtained, indicating that balls do not have a constant speed relative to a medium.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiment, with no consensus on whether it definitively established the independence of light's speed from its source. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the experiment and the validity of the analogies presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the conclusions of the M-M experiment, including assumptions about the nature of light and the role of a medium. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of historical experiments and their implications for the constancy of light speed.

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: 390
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.
 

Similar threads

High School Speed of Light: Michelson-Morley Experiment Revisited
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Understanding Michelson Morley Experiment
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
High School How are 'fringe shifts' in the Michelson-Morley experiment calculated?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Undergrad What was the role of frequency in the Michelson-Morley experiment's null result?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad The Einstein Clock aka Light Clock
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
High School Einstein thought experiment confusion: “light clock in a moving frame”
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad A question about Relativity of Time using Time dilation experiment
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Undergrad Proof of Special Relativity w/ Michelson–Morley Experiment
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Undergrad Does the Speed of Light Change When Measured from the Sun?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K