Michelson - Morley Experiment Revisited

AI Thread Summary
The Michelson-Morley Experiment is criticized for its technical and conceptual flaws, including outdated methods and assumptions about aether as an absolute reference frame. The expectation of interference fringes relied on the incorrect assumption that the speed of light varies, which contradicts established principles. Additionally, the experiment's mechanical limitations hindered accurate measurements, further questioning its validity. Despite the experiment's null result leading to Lorentz's length contraction and Poincaré's equations, some argue that the scientific community hastily dismissed aether in favor of Einstein's Special Relativity. The discussion emphasizes the need for continuous scrutiny of all theoretical models in physics, including the aether concept.
  • #51
energia said:
because they expected an aether cross current to have a phase delay effect on the reflected light, so that when the 2 beams of light met they would create an interferrence pattern - which they did not

because the split beams of light converged at the same time
i.e. propagated at the same rate

Check the experimental records Energia. There was a recorded wave shift of 1/20 expected by the "standard model" at the time (reproduced by Dayton Miller). Somehow the modern theorists, a very clever lot, mind you, have been able to determine that 1/20 = 0. Wow, and I thought I was smart.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
geistkiesel said:
Check the experimental records Energia. There was a recorded wave shift of 1/20 expected by the "standard model" at the time (reproduced by Dayton Miller). Somehow the modern theorists, a very clever lot, mind you, have been able to determine that 1/20 = 0. Wow, and I thought I was smart.
This is wrong, as addressed in the other thread.
 
  • #53
geistkiesel said:
The MM experiments later performed by Dayton Miller found a wave shift of approximately 1/20 of that expected, if affected by the aether at the time the experiments were conducted. Now in your frame of reference does the claimed "null" result of he MM/Miller experiments equate with the 1/20 wave length shift actually observed?

The hypothesized result was not observed. Pretty simple. And regardless of the subsequent refinements to this experiment, it still added substantially to the body of knowledge at the time - it was useful. Even if it had elements which were 'messy' to you in some respect.

After all, Einstein's SR matched the results of MM a lot more than prevailing ether theory did at the time. Certainly useful. Whether Einstein know about MM or not (I assume he did), he certainly knew that evidence for an ether was lacking.

At any rate, I challenge anyone to use an MM-type experiment to determine the velocity of the Earth through space. That was the original premise of such an experiment. I think a null result is a reasonable conclusion, but I could alternately accept that the actual results yield no useful information about our velocity.
 
  • #54
to me- the aether/relativity debate isn't really a debate at all because they are simply different subjects!- Relativity- as with all background independent field theories- simply operate and don't need to explain the field in folk-physical terms- tht is impose metaphores on their dynamics- but that superfluid/aether/plasmic dynamism DOES exist- but it isn't mathematically important [or even existent! it simply doesn't apply- purely memetic modeling for monkeys]-

this doesn't reduce the importance or insight of Aether- I use the term often [in my own perverse way] - it just properly defines the concept as something outside of physics and part of aesthetics and metaphysics-


___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
An experiment I hope to try this summer for my own sanity

If the aether is real then passing a negative charge through the middle of a large enough vacuum should cause a pocket of residual positive aether vacuum pressure to remain for a small amount of time and firing an electron near that area would result in a bending of it's path to account for the positive aether pocket, and degaussing the apparatus would result in no bending of the electron's flight path. Another similar one would be to degauss the Debroglie apparatus after each electron emission to see if they then acted like bullets instead of waves, but then the residual magnetism could be in the apparatus and not the aether, or it could be that they just act like waves which is most likely but for what cause?
Or maybe I'll just dismiss all the helpful comments of others and use my "thought laboratory".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Michelson-Morely Experiments : Misused/misquoted by Current SR Theorists

Integral said:
OK.

Since the MM experiment was performed about the time of Einstein's birth, and there are claims that Einstein did not even know of the MM result why do you even mention Einstein or SR. Neither have anything to do with how MM experiment was performed or the interpretation of the results. If you really want to discuss MM why don't you?

I do not get a feel from your posts, what the trouble with the MM was just what was wrong with it? Please be specific and, as you, yourself requested, stick to the topic.

First, the MM results were noit null as reported, rather a value of 1/20 of the expected wave shift value as determined by those predicting the 'speed' of the Earth through space [and the aether]. The MM results were duplicated by Daytom Miller in the 20s and 30s. Third, to say AE vever heard of MM before publishing any relativity papers is insginificant and only goes to the character of AE, if true or false, nothing else.

An added bonus: The famous 'eclipse" experiments of circa 1919-20 re Eddington, were a fraud. Telescopes with a resolutuon orders of magnitude greater than the necessay resolution to measure he affect of gravity v light bending were used.
 
  • #57
energia said:
I do not wish to discuss Einstein or SR

this topic was posted for the sole purpose of dicussing the shortcomings of the Michelson Morley Experiment, it's mechanical faults, it's faulty premise, how a better aether experiment might be designed and executed to prove or disprove the existence of aether

Einstein and SR were only mentioned briefly, in a relevant manner



the first statement is historical fact - the later is a question regarding the abandonment of aether theory on a faulty premise

both of which are relevant to the topic

most replies have focused on Einstein, SR, how horrible people are who criticize poor Einstein, or how aether theory doesn't deserve to be dicussed, and how only theories which have the stamp of approval from russ_watters should be discussed

so don't complain to me if this thread is diverging


Energia,
MM experiments were not null. The results were merely 1/20 of that predicted by those predicting the velocity of the Earth through space. What if the reality was the speed prediciton of the point of the MM experiments was off by a factor of 20? Then MM unambiguously predicts the correct wave shift through the aether doesn't it?
 
  • #58
russ_watters said:
Yes, I know: and that is its basic flaw. Mathematically, sure - but how many assumptions do you have to pile on top of each other before deciding you've built a house of cards? First you assume there is an ether, then you assume it moves in such a way that every experiment ever devised to find it (or that could be dependent on it) has failed to find it. You don't consider that absurd?

A great similar example is the epicycles of Ptolmey. By assuming enough epicycles (dozens), you can eventually build a model that fits reasonably well with the observed motion of the planets. However, like ether theory, you can't derive it from first principles and you can't use it to make any predictions. So what good is it? That's just it, energia - why does the MM experiment even need to be a part of this discussion? We know its old and we know it has limitations. Like I said: science has not stagnated since then (not even ether theory). Wouldn't it be better to examine the implications of GPS or lunar ranging experiments on ether theories? Its your thread - I've only responded to the things you mentioned: I focused in on your statements about Einstein because they are revealing about your purpose and particular bias (note: everyone has a bias). If you want to talk about ether "theories" and how they could/could not work and how to test them, do it! (looks like flash007 is getting it started...)

flash007, there are several misconceptions in that abstract. First is the same one that energia is operating on: evidence we have does not require an ether, it only doesn't absolutely rule it out. Fitting ether "theory" to the evidence we have requires assumptions and convoluted math, yeilding a "theory" of little theoretical value. To be specific: GPS has not detected any anisotropy in the speed of light despite the fact that at any given moment there are groups of satellites testing for it in at least 6 different referece frames simultaneously as well as ground stations. Making an ether "theory" that isn't killed by that is tough. The "indirect evidence" statement is a stretch - the best that can really be said is the evidence doesn't speccifically forbid it.

The CMB, though a useful frame of reference, is not the universal preferred frame that Relativity discarded: the laws of physics work the same in it and outside of it.

The most important part of the abstract though is this: Indeed. Has it? (hint: no). That, energia, is why at this point pursuit of ether "theory" is a waste of time. If at some point in the future evidence is found that conflicts with Relativity, then maybe it will be time to go back to it. Right now, ether "theorists" are pumping a dry well based on wishful thinking.


Sure, Russ_waters, just discard all the experimental evidence and theoretical discussions critical of SR. MM results were not null (as verified by Dayton Miller in the 20s - 30s), merely 1/20 of that suspected based on the suspected velocity of the planet through the cosmos. Assuming the predictions were off by a factor of 20, MM actually proves the aether, doesn't it?

Why do I get this nagging feeling that most, if not all of SR theorists are defending SR as they do out of a sense of a perceived threat to professional security considerations?
 
  • #59
geistkiesel said:
Sure, Russ_waters, just discard all the experimental evidence and theoretical discussions critical of SR. MM results were not null (as verified by Dayton Miller in the 20s - 30s), merely 1/20 of that suspected based on the suspected velocity of the planet through the cosmos. Assuming the predictions were off by a factor of 20, MM actually proves the aether, doesn't it?
You keep saying this and ignoring the response. Should I even bother explaining it to you again?
 
  • #60
how are you arriving at this 1/20 result?
i was under the impression the result was null

can you please post the source of the data?
 
  • #61
At the risk of injecting yet another towering out-of-control ego into a debate already over-run with them, I would like to directly address the concerns energia originally raised, while trying to avoid making unwarranted assumptions about why he raised them:

Quite frankly, energia, I am rather confused by your interpretation of what went on with MM. You complain that it was based on one idea without regard to others? Do you not understand the scientific process? Let's review it:

1) Make a bunch of observations.
2) Try to find a pattern in the observations. Call your pattern a "hypothesis".
3) Use your hypothesis to guess the outcome of future observations.
4) Perform the observations and compare the results with the guesses.
5) If the guesses were correct, go back to step 3.
6) If the guesses were slightly wrong, modify your hypothesis to correct them, then go back to step 3.
7) If your guesses were very wrong, reject your hypothesis & go back to steps 1 and 2.

7/1) This is exactly what happened with the MM experiment: According to Maxwell's (experimentally confirmed) equations, light is predicted to have a certain speed - without any mention of the speed of the observer. This is made the fact that Maxwell's equations do not conform to Galilean Relativity abundantly clear.
2) The hypothesis was made that some odd substance, called aether, was acting as a carrier for electromagnetism, just as water acts as a carrier of water waves, and that Maxwell's Equations are exactly true only within in reference frames at rest with respect to this aether. Since the planets did not seem to be losing any appreciable amount of energy while traveling, it was also hypothesized that ordinary matter does not interact appreciably with this aether, and as such, the Earth should be traveling with respect to it.
3) If you were to compare the speed of light in various directions, by these hypotheses, you would expect different values. By enough measurements you could eventually determine the velocity of that point on Earth through the aether.
4) M & M designed an apparatus to compare the speed of light in perpendicular directions. (I will not discuss the ability of this apparatus to do this - I am not sufficiently aware of its design and limitations to do so. I will say though that I am sure that the Physics community at the time was quite well aware of those limitations and were satisfied that the results were reasonably accurate.) Because the orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun, and the spinning of the Earth, it was predicted that the speed of the Earth through the aether would be well within the apparatus' ability to measure. The experiment was performed, and no speed anywhere near that predicted was discovered.

** This represents the end of the MM experiment, so any flaw in it was already there - what follows is interpretation, and even if flawed, is NOT a flaw in the MM experiment. But I also argue that the interpretation was not flawed:

7) Because the result was greatly different from what was expected, both hypotheses, that Maxwell's equations are only true with respect to aether, and that the Earth travels through the aether, could not together be true.

Following MM, many different hypotheses were put forward, including the idea that the Earth dragged the local aether along with it as it traveled its orbit (MM was performed at different times to ensure the result was not just a fluke of chance - the experiment being performed just when the Earth was matching the aether movement in its orbit). Lorentz's transformation was another attempted modification of the hypothesis. None of them were particularly satisfactory to the community at the time. Not until that crazy German suggested that the speed of light actually was constant with respect to observer did a suggestion come forward that appeared to adequately explain all the observations at the time.

MM was not flawed. It did exactly what it was supposed to do: Test a theory to see if it was true. The theory it tested was not the whole idea of aether, but rather that the Earth was moving through it. It tested that theory, and gave evidence against it. The idea of aether in its entirety slowly passed out of popular opinion not because of MM, but because it was found to be unnecessary to explain observations. This does not say it is false - science fundamentally cannot ever prove anything to be true, and it can only prove things false if they directly contradict observation (so only specific predictions can be disproved). Since aether is a theory and can be adjusted, it will never directly contradict observation, and cannot be disproved. What it does say is that so far, aether has shown itself to be useless.
 
  • #62
MM link to non null result

Energia the link to MM

http://www.orgonelab.org/xphysicshttp://www.orgonelab.org/xphysics.htm.htm

This should get you started

geistkiesel
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
1/20 of the predicted number.

russ_watters said:
You keep saying this and ignoring the response. Should I even bother explaining it to you again?

Whatever you say, or whatever i say, assuming the 1/20 number isn'y nopise, anmd neither you or i can provide a legitimate scientific model to explain the significance the fact of the reality of the expewrimental results whether significant in the support structure of SR, or not, the 1/20 ought not be used as the cannon ball of inormation exchange between dogmatists and their attackers.

Why, russ_watters are you so conistently in a defensive/attack mode when this kind of information is put before you. All of your analysis had no scienitific worth in determining what, if anything, the 1/20 number means. It sounds like that you would not want the 1/20 number to reflect a real ether state 5% of what the dogmatists predicted over 100 years ago, even if the aether has absolutely no relativity significance whatsoever. Just 'what if' russ'? Even if your curiosity factors are null on this subject is negating continued exploration by others any of your concern?, or for that matter, any of your business? If the aether is as inconsequential as you make it to be it sure appears some one has has pushed your 'defense of the standard model' button.
http://www.orgonelab.org/xphysicsht...physics.htm.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #64
geistkiesel said:
Whatever you say, or whatever i say, assuming the 1/20 number isn'y nopise, anmd neither you or i can provide a legitimate scientific model to explain the significance the fact of the reality of the expewrimental results whether significant in the support structure of SR, or not, the 1/20 ought not be used as the cannon ball of inormation exchange between dogmatists and their attackers.
Why on Earth would I want to assume that? That's the whole problem we mentors have with your ideas: in the absence of logic, evidence, and indeed, science itself, you assume whatever you want.

No. You can't assume that it wasn't noise.

PROVE IT.
It sounds like that you would not want the 1/20 number to reflect a real ether state 5% of what the dogmatists predicted over 100 years ago...

Just 'what if' russ'? Even if your curiosity factors are null on this subject is negating continued exploration by others any of your concern?[emphasis added]
Well that's just it: MM was over 100 years ago. has exploration continued since then? Which one of us keeps bringing up a 100 year old experiment and ignoring 100 years of newer (better) ones? Which one of us is clinging to 100+ year old dogma in the absence of evidence (indeed - in the face of a vast quantity of contradictory evidence)?

geistkiesel, turn your mirror around: you're looking at it backwards.
 
  • #65
energia said:
how are you arriving at this 1/20 result?
i was under the impression the result was null

can you please post the source of the data?
Yes, I would very much like to see it as well. I'm not optimistic that geistkiesel will ever post it.
 
  • #66
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
russ_watters said:
Near as I can tell, none of those links contain the data for the MM experiment.


OK the papers don't have the original data, then on what scientific grounds do you insist that the MM results were null? What scientific data do you use russ_watters? scorn, derision, cynicism, scoffing, sniveling tantrum school yard crap is what you appear to use, but this is just my observation.

But you do have sufficient information to get the data don't you? Miller's paper is referenced. I would focus on the original paper of Dayton Miller, if you really want to know. Or you can keep up with your egotistic self-centered smugness, the easy way out for the mental sloth..
 
  • #69
russ_watters said:
Near as I can tell, none of those links contain the data for the MM experiment.
Here is a hypothetical: Assume the 1/20 shist was real with an experimental error ~.0001. What would it mean in terms of the measure ment of the SOL, the aether, SR?
 
  • #70
geistkiesel said:
Here is a hypothetical: Assume the 1/20 shist was real with an experimental error ~.0001. What would it mean in terms of the measure ment of the SOL, the aether, SR?
Yet again - why would I want to assume that? You're saying: 'assuming I'm right, am I right?' Uh...duh?
OK the papers don't have the original data, then on what scientific grounds do you insist that the MM results were null? What scientific data do you use russ_watters? scorn, derision, cynicism, scoffing, sniveling tantrum school yard crap is what you appear to use, but this is just my observation.
M&M THEMSELVES viewed their experiment as a failure. You're the one second-guessing their experiment and you must prove why.

C'mon, do you have the data or not? Are you just saying it because you heard it somewhere and liked what you heard? Do you even know where the idea of a 1/20th result came from? Or is this just a fun game? Out with it: put up or shut up.
 
  • #71
russ_watters said:
Yet again - why would I want to assume that? You're saying: 'assuming I'm right, am I right?' Uh...duh?
M&M THEMSELVES viewed their experiment as a failure. You're the one second-guessing their experiment and you must prove why.

C'mon, do you have the data or not? Are you just saying it because you heard it somewhere and liked what you heard? Do you even know where the idea of a 1/20th result came from? Or is this just a fun game? Out with it: put up or shut up.

M&M's opinions are no more valuable than any other. Opinions of those conducting experiments do not enjoy elvated states of scieitific truth over the rest of humanity. Have you looked for the 1/20 of the truth russ_wattes, yeahright, "guffaw" I gave you the references, enough rope, so do it to yourself russ_watters.
 
  • #72
I think you miss the point geistkiesel, everyone wants to see some revolutionary new discoveries, the problem is nobody wants to go out of their way to find them or more likely spend a great deal of time and effort wasted on futile experiments, reason alone is worse than worthless here, who ever said the aether has to be moving anyway, there are too many what if's, and each of them have the overwhelming potential for being a monumental waste of time and effort.
 
  • #73
jammieg said:
I think you miss the point geistkiesel, everyone wants to see some revolutionary new discoveries, the problem is nobody wants to go out of their way to find them or more likely spend a great deal of time and effort wasted on futile experiments, reason alone is worse than worthless here, who ever said the aether has to be moving anyway, there are too many what if's, and each of them have the overwhelming potential for being a monumental waste of time and effort.

You are correct of course. I just wanted to make the point that MM did not claim a null result. As stated by Dayton Miller the published MM results stated that "the observed relative motion of the Earth did not exceed one forurth of the Earth's oribital velocity". Miller also found that his experiments agreed with MM in their finding of an average of approximately 8,5 km/sec relative aether/earth velociy, which is geater than 1/4 the Earth's orbital velocity of 30km/sec. Miller narrowed the matter down to determining the realtive direction of the solar system generally to the constllation Hercules at approximately 20 km/sec, but Hercules was heading to the south pole apex direction in the constellation Dorado, the Sword-Fish, about 20 degeree south of Canopus, with a velocity of 208 km/sec. Canopus is the second brightest star in the Great Magellan Cloud. Miller did a lot more than experiment with relativity problems, though it is all related.

Assuming the validity of Miller's work (and MM) what does this have to say regarding Special Relativity? What it generates is the kind of responses seen by russ_watters i.e "go away".
 
  • #74
russ_watters said:
Yet again - why would I want to assume that? You're saying: 'assuming I'm right, am I right?' Uh...duh?
M&M THEMSELVES viewed their experiment as a failure. You're the one second-guessing their experiment and you must prove why.

C'mon, do you have the data or not? Are you just saying it because you heard it somewhere and liked what you heard? Do you even know where the idea of a 1/20th result came from? Or is this just a fun game? Out with it: put up or shut up.

Actually I did misquite the 1/20 number. The average relative velocity of Earth and aether found by both MM and Dayron Miller was 8.5 km/sec which is considerable miore than 1/20 of the expected. The Earth's orbital velocity being 30 km/sec. You can belittle all you want, I suppose that is your job, but Miller found what MM found. Miller also makes the point with emphasis that contrary to popular writing the MM results were not null. Likewise MM experiments were conducted over a few days. MM had no opportunity to go into a detailed experimental mode as did Miller later. Millers experiments were into a cuple of hundred thousand when he finally finished.
 
  • #75
geistkiesel said:
Actually I did misquite the 1/20 number. The average relative velocity of Earth and aether found by both MM and Dayron Miller was 8.5 km/sec which is considerable miore than 1/20 of the expected. The Earth's orbital velocity being 30 km/sec. You can belittle all you want, I suppose that is your job, but Miller found what MM found. Miller also makes the point with emphasis that contrary to popular writing the MM results were not null. Likewise MM experiments were conducted over a few days. MM had no opportunity to go into a detailed experimental mode as did Miller later. Millers experiments were into a cuple of hundred thousand when he finally finished.

Geistkiesel,

If it was possible to detect Earth's velocity through aether, sure, special relativity would be invalid. You talk about 30 km/sec orbital speed. But, with all the velocities of earth, sun, galaxy etc. combined, why only 8,5 km/sec speed was detected? Don't you think it is more probable that 8,5 km/sec was experimental error?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
 
  • #76
wespe said:
Geistkiesel,

If it was possible to detect Earth's velocity through aether, sure, special relativity would be invalid. You talk about 30 km/sec orbital speed. But, with all the velocities of earth, sun, galaxy etc. combined, why only 8,5 km/sec speed was detected? Don't you think it is more probable that 8,5 km/sec was experimental error?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Not at all Read Dayton Miller's story. A measurement of relative velocities between the solar system and The constellation hurcules is about 20 km/s toward the constellation, but Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec. The numbers of the average is taken at choice spots diurinally using sideral time. The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec, while the revolution speed is on the order of .4 km/s. I can only steer you to Miller's paper Reviews of Modern Physics July 1933 vol 5 203-242. The paper is readable.

Miller also emphcised that MM results were not zero, but as stated by MM, "less than 1/4 of the orbital velocity."

Shankland, once a grad student under Miller trashed the expeimebnt in 1955 when Miller was no longe around. I saw an internet paper analyzing th ebias of Shankland, and Enistein.
 
  • #77
geistkiesel said:
Not at all Read Dayton Miller's story. A measurement of relative velocities between the solar system and The constellation hurcules is about 20 km/s toward the constellation, but Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec. The numbers of the average is taken at choice spots diurinally using sideral time. The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec, while the revolution speed is on the order of .4 km/s. I can only steer you to Miller's paper Reviews of Modern Physics July 1933 vol 5 203-242. The paper is readable.

Well I don't have it. Maybe you can tell me, why "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", despite "Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec"? Why not add these velocities? And what can be considered stationary wrt aether as a reference to earth, to have any estimate at all?

Also see (maybe not a very credible source, but seems okay)
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/earthmotion.htm

If you followed my link, there's an article (very much in favor of Miller):
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

There it says:
"Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec" ... "but Earth-entrained ether in that particular direction, which lowered the velocity of the ether from around 200 to 10 km/sec"

So basically it is a "dragged aether" explanation. Not because "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", as far as I can tell.

Once again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

"One possible explanation of the Michelson-Morley result was that the Earth "dragged" the ether along with it, so that it is fixed for an Earthbound observer. However, this was contradicted by the observations of stellar abberation (a change in angle of light from a star due to the Earth's motion) by James Bradley in 1725 and again by George Airy 1871, which were not consistent with an ether that moved with the Earth."
 
  • #78
wespe said:
Well I don't have it. Maybe you can tell me, why "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", despite "Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec"? Why not add these velocities? And what can be considered stationary wrt aether as a reference to earth, to have any estimate at all?

Because the relative velocity of Earth (the solar system) wrt Hecules was measured ~ 20km/sec: Earth - Hercules 20km/s. Hercules wrt Dorado 226km/sec. we are subject to Hercuoles dragging us along.

You are on a ship that is moving south at 225km/s, you are r7unning at an angle across the ship at a telative velocity of 20km/s against the ship's velocity (but 3-km/sec in your straight line) ergo you are heading south to Dorado.

wespe said:
Also see (maybe not a very credible source, but seems okay)
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/earthmotion.htm

If you followed my link, there's an article (very much in favor of Miller):
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

There it says:
"Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec" ... "but Earth-entrained ether in that particular direction, which lowered the velocity of the ether from around 200 to 10 km/sec"

We are moving to hercules at ~ 20km/sec as measured by Miller. However, Hecules is moving in as outhernly direction at 220km/s or so. In the larger picture the solar system is tied to hecules even though we may be moving positivelely toward hercules.

wespe said:
So basically it is a "dragged aether" explanation. Not because "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", as far as I can tell.

Once again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Correct the 30km/sec velocity is the calculated orbital velocity which was assumed by the powers that were at the time and still is as far as i can tell. MM found that the aether relative velocity was maybe ~ 1/6 the orbital velocity 'but certainly not more than 1/4 the orbital velocity'

wespe said:
"One possible explanation of the Michelson-Morley result was that the Earth "dragged" the ether along with it, so that it is fixed for an Earthbound observer. However, this was contradicted by the observations of stellar abberation (a change in angle of light from a star due to the Earth's motion) by James Bradley in 1725 and again by George Airy 1871, which were not consistent with an ether that moved with the Earth."

Miller confirmed MM at ~8.5 km/s. the MM experiments were completed in a few short days, days some 30+ "runs". Miller had over 200,000 experimental runs over a few years time. (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 5 p202-243 (1933)). You seem stuck in the popular hole that MM rsults were "null". Not so read MM and/or Miller in the reference I gave.

To quote Miller:
"However, and this fact must be emphacized, the indicated effect was not zeo; the sensitivity of the apparatus was such that the conclusion, published in 1887 stated that the observed relative motion and aether did not exceed one-fourth of the Earth's orbital velocity.This is quite different from the null effect now so frequently imputed to this experiment by writers on Relativity. . . . MM made only one series of observations in July 1887, and never repeated the aether-drift experiment at any other time, notwithstanding many printed statements to the contrary." This Miller wrote in 1933.
 
  • #79
wespe said:
Well I don't have it. Maybe you can tell me, why "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", despite "Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec"? Why not add these velocities? And what can be considered stationary wrt aether as a reference to earth, to have any estimate at all?

geistkiesel said:
Because the relative velocity of Earth (the solar system) wrt Hecules was measured ~ 20km/sec: Earth - Hercules 20km/s. Hercules wrt Dorado 226km/sec. we are subject to Hercuoles dragging us along.

You are on a ship that is moving south at 225km/s, you are r7unning at an angle across the ship at a telative velocity of 20km/s against the ship's velocity (but 3-km/sec in your straight line) ergo you are heading south to Dorado.

That doesn't answer my quesion. I'm not sure you have even read it.

Let me try again:

Consider: An experiment will be carried out to detect Earth's speed in aether. An estimated value is needed to compare with the experiment results. We know Earth's orbital speed around sun: 30 km/sec. If we assume sun is at rest wrt aether, we could use this 30 km/sec value. But we assume sun is not at rest wrt aether, we know its relative speed wrt Hercules. But also we assume Hercules is not at rest wrt aether. We know its relative is speed wrt Dorado is 226km/sec. So what do these speeds amount to? 200 something, or still 30? Why do you compare 8.5 with 30 and not 200 figure? Actually, Miller's estimate was 208 km/sec (as I quoted). So how did Miller explain 8.5? He explained it with aether drag (see previous post or read the Miller article, apparently you didn't understand Miller's view).

wespe said:
So basically it is a "dragged aether" explanation. Not because "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", as far as I can tell.

Once again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

geistkiesel said:
Correct the 30km/sec velocity is the calculated orbital velocity which was assumed by the powers that were at the time and still is as far as i can tell. MM found that the aether relative velocity was maybe ~ 1/6 the orbital velocity 'but certainly not more than 1/4 the orbital velocity'
What are you babbling about? I'm saying there is a problem with "aether drag explanation". What is your answer to that?

wespe said:
"One possible explanation of the Michelson-Morley result was that the Earth "dragged" the ether along with it, so that it is fixed for an Earthbound observer. However, this was contradicted by the observations of stellar abberation (a change in angle of light from a star due to the Earth's motion) by James Bradley in 1725 and again by George Airy 1871, which were not consistent with an ether that moved with the Earth."

geistkiesel said:
Miller confirmed MM at ~8.5 km/s. the MM experiments were completed in a few short days, days some 30+ "runs". Miller had over 200,000 experimental runs over a few years time. (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 5 p202-243 (1933)). You seem stuck in the popular hole that MM rsults were "null". Not so read MM and/or Miller in the reference I gave.

That was the quote from the link. Why are you answering it separately? Did you read anything I wrote?

Also see:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=248717&postcount=241
 
  • #80
wespe said:
That doesn't answer my quesion. I'm not sure you have even read it.

Let me try again:

Consider: An experiment will be carried out to detect Earth's speed in aether. An estimated value is needed to compare with the experiment results. We know Earth's orbital speed around sun: 30 km/sec. If we assume sun is at rest wrt aether, we could use this 30 km/sec value. But we assume sun is not at rest wrt aether, we know its relative speed wrt Hercules. But also we assume Hercules is not at rest wrt aether. We know its relative is speed wrt Dorado is 226km/sec. So what do these speeds amount to? 200 something, or still 30? Why do you compare 8.5 with 30 and not 200 figure? Actually, Miller's estimate was 208 km/sec (as I quoted). So how did Miller explain 8.5? He explained it with aether drag (see previous post or read the Miller article, apparently you didn't understand Miller's view).

Quoting Miller;
The direction of the Earth's motion in space has been determined by assuming the that the motion is projected onto the plane of the interferometer and by observing the the variations produced in the projected component by the rotation of the Earth on its axis and by the erevolution around the sun. ...The evaluation of the observed effect i s based on the presumpotion that it is a second order effect and that the aether is wholly stagnant and undisturbed by the motion of the Earth through it. There are fiound to be two facts of observation that are whollty unexplained on this simple theory.

Miller says
The sun is mioving to the southern apex at v = 208 km/s
and in the opposite direction to Hecules at 19 km/s
the group of stars as a whole ar e heading to the southern apex at 227 km/sec.

The real answer is probably buried in the rhetoric someplace. Which numbers get mistated consistenly: The MM null effect and then all the theory following including SR, among others. Why don't you solve it? You aren't going to get there from here if you set your theoretical mind in some sr concrete or any theory for that matter.

But get miller first if you haven't 'Also, get Shankland's tyrashing of Miller anda miller's defense in the intenet, you can find it.

Dayton Miller The Ether Drift Experiments and Dxetermination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth.
Reviews iof Modern Ohysics july 1933 vol 5 203 -242

Aha, I see the conundrum. Miller could not measure the aether drag of anything but the earth, as far as I am able to determine. Firsat miller two facts which are unexplained by the Earth through eher theory. The displacement of the fringes is less than expected as if the aeher is carried along by the Earth is niot wholly at rest. There is reduction that is inexplicable. the reduction factor is k in the table whic h shiow the maximum values for maximum velocity of Earth twice per year.. If Miller isn't on th eintwernet and I haven't found it which is why i ordeed a copy from my local library.
  1. Epoch--- Velocity-Obs. ---Velocity-Calc.---- k
  2. _________________________________________
  3. Feb 8 ----- 9,3km/s ----- 195.2 km/s-----0.048
  4. Apr 1 -----10.2--------- 198.2 ----------- .051
  5. Aug 1 -----11.2--------- 211.5------------.053
  6. Sep 15 ---- 9.6 --------- 207.5 -----------.046
  7. values adopted for calculations k = .0514
Miller found an aether drag velocity of ~8.5 km/sec, the same as the Michelson Morely experiments . I am sure you have looked at the MM setup. It is the same basic model used by miller with improved resoluiton mainly in the extended lengths of the various legs the photons traveled. Alsol, MM only experimented fot 4 days and evenings in July 1887 and never again after that, according to Miller and contrary to some reports that siad MM did it again.Miller did 200,00 or ao runs.

This is different than the relative velocities you referred to. I admit my numbers were crudely stated, but the thrust of my statement was as I stated. Wespe and geistkiesel are moving 1 m/s wrt each other due east. G is heading north W is heading SE such that their combined velocity is 1m/s east. The ship they are on is heading due west at 10 m/sec. Therefore G and w are heading west at 9 m/sec. Now the ship is in an ocean current moving north at 5 m/sec, ergo the G and W velocity are (9x9 + 5x5)^1/2 = 10.29m/sec.West by North West, OK? The main difference is the W and G veloicities do not have any unexplained values associated with aether which is becoming more and more like something completely different than simple aether effects. The answer will bubble up be patient. Get Miller.

One possible source, that I haven't looked at in detail is the use of the reflected beam from the transverse leg if the interferieter which should be a straight line instead of the triangle so popularly expressed in the literature, even Miller.




e you babbling about? I'm saying there is a problem with "aether drag explanation". What is your answer to that?
Mill;3er had a problemtoo, ask him!

i don't kniow what the inexplicable values found by Miller, except that there is some intrinsic characteristic ovf light propagation that is not explained by SR or geistkiesel/grounded/ram1024 et al.

wespe said:
That was the quote from the link. Why are you answering it separately? Did you read anything I wrote?

Sometimes I get busy and overlook detail. Is the current post more to your liking?

wespe said:
Also see:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=248717&postcount=241
 
  • #81
This needs to be pointed out again: geistkiesel has yet to provide a source for his data. In light of all of his other issues in this matter, I'm not inclinded to take his word for it.

Show me the data.

edit: from the wikipedia link, I find this statement interesting:
Computer analysis after Miller's death on the little available data has proven that the shifts were statistically significant.[emphasis added]
This implies to me that very little actual data of Miller's exists. But that's ok - since this all happened more than half a century ago, someone else surely must have confirmed his results by now...right?

A good quote from that second wikipedia link:
A few physicists (like Dayton Miller and Edward Morley) continued research on the aether for some time, and occasionally researchers still explore these concepts. While it is not difficult to create aether theories consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is much harder to remain consistent with all of the related experiments of modern physics. Any new theory of aether must be consistent with all of the experiments testing phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, relativistic quantum mechanics, and so on.

Although the vast majority of modern scientists reject all aether-based theories, the aether's mystic appeal continues to draw pseudoscientific proponents and protoscientific aspirants.
 
Last edited:
  • #82
Since I'm curious about Miller (and not too optomistice I'll ever be provided with info I asked for), I'm doing a little of my own research. Some interesting stuff I've found:

http://www.aetherometry.com/miller.html

...And ever since then, those who seek to re-establish the old notion of a static Aether that would be detected by its supposed drift, have taken recourse to Miller's results, pushing them to the forefront as if they were a repressed of Physics that betrayed the "truth of an electromagnetic Aether". However, Miller never fully achieved a demonstration that the borderline periodic displacements he observed could not be related to sensible and latent heat lag effects derived from solar ambipolar radiation...

... Miller himself eventually acknowledged that there were thermal effects at work. Since he wanted his apparatus to be as exposed to the elements as possible, it would invariably detect a diurnal variation in the start-up calibration (to say that sunlight might have caused spurious peaks is of little use if complete diurnal atmospheric records were not being kept; for instance, he should have taken control temperatures of the room, walls and roof, which apparently he did not). Nowhere does Miller seem to have controlled for this in a systematic fashion. But it is not just the heating effect of the sun upon the atmosphere that one should consider (even if it happened only once, which is rather unlikely...), but equally the cooling effect of nighttime. We have seen these effects in ORACs and therefore can easily suppose that they would affect such a sensitive interferometer as Miller's.

More disturbing still is that the data Miller obtained - with his final and improved interferometer - yielded two very different reports of the direction of the aether drift...

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2

[Miller] reported this result to a meeting of the American Physical Society (APS), and interpreted it as a refutation of Einstein's theory.

But was it? The APS's members did not think so. Hundreds of other experiments agreed with Michelson and Morley's work, and relativity was already tightly woven into contemporary science.[emphasis added]

So far, I'm rather unimpressed with Miller's work. But if you have any info of your own, geist...
 

Similar threads

I Is the Sagnac Effect a Relativistic Phenomenon?
Replies
5
Views
10K
I Michelson-Morley: Errors in Calculations?
Replies
6
Views
3K
B How are 'fringe shifts' in the Michelson-Morley experiment calculated?
Replies
9
Views
3K
I Femto-photography Michelson Morley Interferometer thought experiment
Replies
2
Views
1K
B Michelson Morley experiment and the Doppler effect
Replies
21
Views
1K
Puzzle of negative result of Michelson Morley experiment
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Ether and Michelson-Morley experiment
Replies
15
Views
3K
I A short attenuated laser pulse, LIGO, and a fast detector
Replies
1
Views
729
I Why is the medium in the Michelson Morley experiment ignored
Replies
19
Views
3K
B Questions on the Michelson Morley Experiment
Replies
47
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top