I Michelson-Morley Experiment: Objection Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sonuz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on objections to the ether-drag hypothesis regarding the Michelson-Morley experiment's negative results. A key point raised is that a transparent object, like glass, does not fully drag light waves at the same velocity as the moving matter, contradicting the ether-drag theory. It is noted that Fizeau's experiments demonstrated this partial drag, aligning with current electromagnetic theory. Participants emphasize the need for clarity on the source of the objection and the specific aspects that are unclear. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities surrounding the ether concept in light of experimental evidence.
Sonuz
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Could you please elucidate the below statement which is given as an objection to one of the possible explanation(earth drags the ether surrounding to it) for the negative result of Michelson-morely inferometer experiment?

A second objection arises from the fact that a transparent object of laboratory size does not drag the light waves with the full velocity of the moving matter, as it necessarily would do if it completely dragged the ether along with it; and the observed partial drag is fully accounted for by current electromagnetic theory

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You will get more helpful answers if you provide the source of that quotation and tell us what you’re finding unclear
 
The usual objection to ether dragging is that if the air can drag ether 100% (necessary for a null Michelson-Morley) then glass or water ought to, but Fizeau's experiments showed that it doesn't.

As Nugatory says, more detail on what you are reading and what you don't understand would help.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, FactChecker and Dale
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K