Prove Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction w/ Michelson-Morley Experiment at Any Angle

In summary, the conversation discusses the Lorentz-contraction hypothesis and the difficulty in proving that the time difference before and after rotation is the same. It also mentions the effect of length contraction on the arms of the apparatus when it is moving through the ether, and suggests calculating the time interval from the point of view of the ether frame.
  • #1
Happiness
679
30
Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 9.13.25 AM.png


I find this question rather difficult!

Q1. I take Fig 1-11 to be the laboratory frame and ##v## to be the velocity of the ether wind. Since Lorentz length contraction occurs only horizontally, the right mirror should be further to the right horizontally in the ether frame. This makes the angle the light beam makes with the horizontal smaller than ##\phi## when in the ether frame (fact 1). Similarly, the top mirror should be further to the left horizontally in the ether frame. This makes the angle the light beam makes with the vertical bigger than ##\phi## when in the ether frame (fact 2). But facts 1 and 2 means the angle between the two "perpendicular" light beams is larger than 90##^\circ## when in the ether frame. But does or doesn't the angle need to be perpendicular too in the ether frame?

Q2. By resolving the ether wind into 2 components: ##v\cos\phi## and ##v\sin\phi##, I got the time difference before rotation as ##\Delta t=\frac{l_1\sqrt{c^2-v^2\sin^2\phi}-l_2\sqrt{c^2-v^2\cos^2\phi}}{c^2-v^2}##, and that after rotation as ##\Delta t'=\frac{l_1'\sqrt{c^2-v^2\cos^2\phi}-l_2'\sqrt{c^2-v^2\sin^2\phi}}{c^2-v^2}##, where ##l_1## is the length between the center and the right mirrors in the laboratory frame, ##l_2## is the length between the center and the top mirrors in the laboratory frame, ##l_1'## is the length between the center and the "then top" mirrors in the laboratory frame (after rotation), ##l_2'## is the length between the center and the "then left" mirrors in the laboratory frame (after rotation; the source is now at the bottom). We know the rest length ##l_1^\circ## (at rest in the ether frame) is the same after rotation (simlarly true for ##l_2^\circ##). But since the angle between the two "perpendicular" light beams is not perpendicular in the ether frame, I find it very difficult to solve the problem! I still can't prove ##\Delta t=\Delta t'##, as the relation between ##l_1## and ##l_1'## is rather complicated!

IMG_7938.JPG


Lorentz-contraction hypothesis:
Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 9.34.54 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 9.35.39 AM.png

Note that ##\phi=0## in (1.9), and ##l_1## is the length from the center mirror to the reflecting mirror in the direction along the ether wind before rotation, and it will be perpendicular to the ether wind after rotation. ##l_2## is always perpendicular to ##l_1##.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Happiness said:
Q1. I take Fig 1-11 to be the laboratory frame and ##v## to be the velocity of the ether wind. Since Lorentz length contraction occurs only horizontally, the right mirror should be further to the right horizontally in the ether frame. This makes the angle the light beam makes with the horizontal smaller than ##\phi## when in the ether frame (fact 1). Similarly, the top mirror should be further to the left horizontally in the ether frame. This makes the angle the light beam makes with the vertical bigger than ##\phi## when in the ether frame (fact 2). But facts 1 and 2 means the angle between the two "perpendicular" light beams is larger than 90##^\circ## when in the ether frame. But does or doesn't the angle need to be perpendicular too in the ether frame?
I'm not sure I quite follow your description here. But I agree that when the apparatus is "tilted" and moving through the ether, then the arms will not be perpendicular according to measurements made in the ether frame.
upload_2017-8-3_17-33-38.png

The figure above is for the ether frame. We imagine the apparatus initially at rest in the ether and then set into motion to the right. The dotted lines labeled ##l_1^0## and ##l_2^0## represent the arms when the apparatus is at rest. The solid lines marked ##l_1## and ##l_2## represent the arms when the apparatus is moving through the ether to the right with speed v. ##\phi## is the angle of tilt before the apparatus is set into motion. When at rest in the ether, the angle between the arms is a right angle. But, in motion, the angle between the arms according to the ether frame is less than a right angle due to the effect of length contraction parallel to the motion.

In the frame of the apparatus (when it is moving through the ether), the lengths of the arms as measured by meter sticks would still be ##l_1^0## and ##l_2^0## since the meter sticks also suffer contraction effects. So, in the apparatus frame, it would still appear as though the arms are perpendicular.

Q2. By resolving the ether wind into 2 components: ##v\cos\phi## and ##v\sin\phi##, I got the time difference before rotation as ##\Delta t=\frac{l_1\sqrt{c^2-v^2\sin^2\phi}-l_2\sqrt{c^2-v^2\cos^2\phi}}{c^2-v^2}##.
I don't think this is correct. There are different ways to to do the calculation. You could try to calculate the travel times of the light from the point of view of the ether frame or from the point of view of the apparatus. You should get the same result using either reference frame since time is absolute in the Fitzgerald-contraction theory. I think it's easier to do the calculation in the ether frame. First, try to find the time interval for a light pulse to leave the origin 0 and arrive at mirror M1 using the ether as the frame of reference.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
hope this help,
this is pratically the same of the one in french special relativity 3.1.
is not a super perfecly formal solution but is samething
 

Attachments

  • french solution 3.1.png
    french solution 3.1.png
    32.9 KB · Views: 154

1. How is the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction related to the Michelson-Morley Experiment?

The Michelson-Morley Experiment was designed to detect the existence of a hypothetical medium called the "ether", which was believed to be the medium through which light waves traveled. The experiment showed that the speed of light was constant in all directions, regardless of the Earth's motion through the ether. This directly contradicted the predictions of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction, which stated that objects moving through the ether should experience a contraction in the direction of motion.

2. How does the Michelson-Morley Experiment prove the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction?

The Michelson-Morley Experiment showed that the speed of light was constant in all directions, which meant that there was no medium through which light waves traveled. This directly contradicted the predictions of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction, which was based on the assumption of an ether. The fact that the speed of light was constant in all directions provided evidence for the theory of special relativity, which explains the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction as a result of the curvature of space-time.

3. Can the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction be proven with the Michelson-Morley Experiment at any angle?

Yes, the Michelson-Morley Experiment can be performed at any angle, and the results will always show that the speed of light is constant in all directions. This provides evidence for the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction, as it shows that the speed of light is not affected by the direction of motion. However, the experiment alone cannot prove the contraction, as it is only one piece of evidence in support of the theory of special relativity.

4. What other evidence supports the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction?

In addition to the Michelson-Morley Experiment, there are many other experiments and observations that support the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction. These include the time dilation and length contraction observed in particle accelerators, the behavior of cosmic rays, and the precision of GPS technology. The theory of special relativity has been extensively tested and has consistently been found to accurately predict the behavior of objects moving at high speeds.

5. Are there any criticisms or limitations of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction?

While the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction has been supported by numerous experiments and observations, there are still some limitations and criticisms of the theory. One major limitation is that it only applies to objects moving at constant velocities, and does not account for acceleration. Additionally, some critics argue that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction is a mathematical abstraction that does not have a physical explanation. However, the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of the theory has solidified its place in modern physics.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
452
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
757
Replies
3
Views
437
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
2K
Back
Top