The experiment didnt "fail". It concluded no motion. Read the quotes of Michelson himself. Einstein created his theory of relativity which removed the existence of the ether to counter the conclusion of this experiment.
Oh it concluded motion, just not as much as Copernican dynamics predicts. Einstein's fantasy universe was created to eliminate the obvious conclusion: the earth is located at the preferred rest frame of the universe.
I've read the original paper, he considered the possibility of the earth being stationary and tried rotating the entire apparatus to ensure the device was definitely moving relative to the ether, but still got the same result. So he concluded the experiment didn't prove the earth being Stationary.
Read Einstein’s quote from a speech in 1920 at the university of Leiden “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”
This only concludes if the ether exist it had no velocity and is carried along statically with objects "within" it. Light can't be a wave. Waves aren't things. They are attributes of the ether. Water "waves". But the water isnt a wave. It's something the water is doing. It's a posterior attribute.
Dayton Miller spent 30 years proving the existence of the ether and got positive results on top of a mountain vs. a church basement. The Michelson-Morley experiment was "null", not failed.
Doesn't the ray that goes 'up', along with the ether wind, speeds up, but when it comes back 'down' it is slowed by the ether wind so in the end it evens out? As in - going from the central mirror to the top mirror and back to the central mirror takes the same amount of time whether there is an ether wind or not.
It doesnt even out because when examining time, it equals distance/velocity. So you're right that when the ray goes up, velocity is c+u, and when it goes down it's c-u, but these two don't cancel out because time equals distance/c+u + distance/c-u. The denominators of the two fractions don't add up.
As the Michelson Morley experiment successfully disproved the existence of the aether by not finding a wind caused by earths rotation, I decided to test if there was an air wind caused by the earth's rotation. Then I tested if there was a water wind caused by the earth's rotation. There wasn't one. I have now successfully disproved the existence of both air and water. Everybody knows that if there is no wind caused by the earth's rotation in a medium, that medium does not exist. Physics for the win!
It proved that there can't be an "unmoving" aether that you could compare the velocities of objects to to get an absolute velocity. I think it was already known that if it existed, the theoretical aether couldn't be moved around like air and water, which don't move much relative to the Earth, this being is the reason you don't see huge winds caused by the Earth's rotation (though it does have an affect). This was also more about the Earth moving relative to the Sun than rotating. With an absolute aether a moving Earth should be moving relative to it, since it would be the definition of still, which would cause these winds.
@@kaurapuuro9990 James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory never posited a static aether. His theory posited a dynamic aether that relied upon the principles of fluid dynamics. If a dynamic aether had been disproved, James Clerk Maxwell's entire electromagnetic theory would have been disproved in totality. We still use his equations today to engineer our electrical distribution grids, so his theory obviously has not been disproved in totality. I find it quite strange everyone knows the name of the experiment that disproved a static aether, but no one knows the name of the experiment that purportedly disproved the aether posited by James Clerk Maxwell.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 I guess it all just depends on what is meant by aether. You seem to know more than me, but do Maxwells theories need an aether? They may have been built from the idea of aether, but don't they still stand well on their, with aether today just seeming something like a god of the gaps?
@@kaurapuuro9990 Can you have a theory of fluid dynamics while simultaneously positing that there is no fluid anywhere in existence? Can you measure interactions of things that do not exist? Can things that do not exist act upon things that do exist? The notion that there is no aether is absurd.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 What do you mean by aether? I think aether was originally meant as an otherwise undetectable medium for light waves that exists everywhere, but don't Maxwells laws play on fields? Here you could say that an electromagnetic fields and aether are the same, but that would just make the existance of aether a completely irrelevant question since you could always define it to exist by changing what you mean by it. (Although the existence of basically anything in physics is really debetable since we're really just talking about models)
Imagine the existential panic you'd feel when you first learned light travels at the same speed regardless of whether you're moving with or against it, before understanding relativity. "How does that make sense, how does anything make sense."
Because light does not move through space. It only appears inside your mind when you observe something within the universal quantum field. Sort of what happens when you play a videogame. The characters and scenes do not exist, until that have to be computed depending on where you are and what you're doing in the game.
You got it all wrong. It was Einstein that tried to explain away that the earth’s rotation and movement in space isn’t detectable at all. It was he came up with the ridiculous explanation that the arms somehow were shortened in length. LOL. No, this experiment proves still today that we don’t move at all. The same can be studied today with gyros.
@Null Pointer Buddy, you can also refer to Stephen Bradley's comment. I'm an AE, i won't say where but work in the US. You clearly are not in the industry, NO COMPANY uses a rotating earth model in the field. You can't it doesn't work, we know this. As a civilian you can look at patents for AE models. None use rotating models. The Earth is stationary, you would know this if you ever worked as an AE. Government contracts cstv+ are important, they don't rely and scout out nimrods who are fresh out of university to design and execute. You sir need good Discernment my friend, discernment.
Apparently the US airforce retested this experiment. They published results in "1986 nature volume 322 special relativity". I'm not a genius on these things, which is why I'm here, but it would be cool to see khan academy look at the airforces results and make a new video to maybe help us average Joe's understand what it means. 🤣
Dear sir light is not a longitudinal wave? Shift in the interference fringes occur only if the entire apparatus rotated through 90 degrees, if ether is present.
Great video, hopefully you will come out with one that goes into the mathematics of the experiment. Minor detail correction, electromagnetic waves are transverse waves sound waves are longitudinal.
Suppose we make the following postulates 1. There is no ether. 2. Speed of light in vacuum is c relative to the source of light. 3. Speed of light in vacuum is NOT independent of frame of reference. Rather it obeys Galilean relativity. Then also we expect null result from Michelson Morley experiment.
funny how that works isnt it lol at every level of observance the ether is there they and come up with a new euphemism or several of them to explain the same thing the ether more accurately represents
Some MMX & aether info. (1) Google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 km/s min & 480 km/s max during a day (this was the horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is approx 500 km/s south to north blowing approx 15 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX was 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs. (2) The MMXs were never null. (3) The correct calibration needed to allow for length contraction caused by the aetherwind. (4) The correct calibration needed to allow for the Fresnel Drag of light by the air. Prof Reg Cahill explains. (5) All MMX's suffer a linear ever-growing fringe-shift that gets larger with each rotation. All MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs. Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect. Because at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn. University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing. Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy & suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right). (6) Secondly the Michelson Morley MMX, & the Morley Miller MMXs, suffered a spurious signal that was periodic in a full turn. This was because their mirrors were at two levels, hence some of their light beams had to angle up & later down. This then introduced a spurious signal (fringe shift) due to angle contraction of the mirrors in their apparatus, which changed the effective lengths of the angled beams. I call such angle contraction Esclangon angle contraction, as Esclangon is i think the first person to bring it to the attention of science (but he didn't mention that it must also happen in an MMX). EAC is due to Lorentzian Length Contraction of solids (which should be called FitzGerald LC as FitzGerald was the first to predict it) which is due to any change in the aetherwind blowing throo a solid (which changes the size/shape of solids)(because solids are held together by electric forces)(these forces being affected by the wind).
The other probability that has been omitted is the Superluminal prospects of an aether... We know that black holes and gravitational forces affect light. It would therefore be evident that potential forces are occurring at or beyond light speeds. Later performance of the Michelson Morley experiment did find almost imperceptible changes. These were consistent depending on the seasons. Additionally, the aether effects on the matter of the measuring equipment isn't known. It is my supposition that we don't currently have an equation yet formulated to account for faster than light effects. By all accounts and rational thought, an aether type interaction appears evident. Our current approach is incomplete or outdated. The answers are in front of us...
There is no such a thing as a "FAILED experiment" only a faulty expectation or a wrong belief of what is real. In other words, if an experiment was setup correctly but it didn't give you the results you expected to see, you should never blame the experiment.
It should be noted as well that experiments can never be considered failures because a result that is not hypothesized is then eliminated. When this is shared it streamlines science, allowing us to accelerate the pace at which new developments can occur
My statement maybe wrong. The MM experiment concluded the doesn't exist because they found no movement. Thats fine if your only wanting one result from one variable. They were looking for movement and you can only find movement when your comparing other variables because speed is relative. There is no way they will conclude that the ether exists. To conclude that the ether exists, but there was no movement. That means the earth doesn't move since the ether must move if it does exist. To deny the existence of the ether is only making way for the heliocentric model. Since Einstein said if it wasn't for this stupid MM theory, noone would have excepted his theory. The Classical Theory of Fields: Electromagnetism [2], "But they detected no motion of the earth in the aether. This is interpreted as the statement that there is no aether."
how to understand the M-M experiment. using this graffick and direction of motion, the light source lets call T, the splitting mirror in the middle call S, top mirror call A, on the right call B, the detector call D. it is great that wavelength is ruffly seen as a reference. say light from T is a particular wavelength we will call W(wavelength neutral), when it hits S the light going to A is now traveling into the direction of motion light can't travel faster than the speed of light so it slows relative to the apparatus in motion compressing the light and wavelength "red shifting"[doppler effect] to the W negative [blue wavelength], taking more time to hit A. after hitting A the return trip is away from [aft of] motion and shifts red past W neut to W positive going to D, the light going to B remands neutral till it hits S to D and shifts W+ equal with A, to S,-S, to D, and makes the interference pattern, (edit; the wave length is equal and in sink S to D). note that S to A, A to S, and S to B, B to S, is the same lap time. if you rotate it 90% of motion the A and B shifts [switches] the doppler effect but the interference pattern remains the same. even if you go 45%. this test is not measuring the speed of light, but is only looking at interference patterns. to accurately measure the speed of light all you need is T, and D in a straight line, nothing else. watch it again from 4:50 with the sound off and think about what I described above
Not only does matter appear all the more ethereal the more closely it is observed, but it also responds to observation (consciousness) itself. The latter is easily explained as a function of the primordial substrate (aether) within which both observer and object are hard wired to each other. Isaac Newton made it crystal clear when he said, "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into." You see, modern science has been led down a dead-end path, quite deliberately, and for very obvious reasons. Knowledge is power which is reserved solely for those in control.
The Sagnac and Michelson Morley experiments show the earth is not moving. If the earth is rotating and orbiting, then any test done on earth is a test done on a non inertial frame. Therefore, the Sagnac and Michelson Morley experiments should have produced the same results.
"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)
Thumbs up for explanation of the experiment, but unfortunately I can't (because of youtube) also give is thumbs-down for not mentioning that this whole experiment was botched. It's great when you have failed experiment, because failure disproves the initial assumptions. However the assumptions about the Ether were so many and so fuzzy that it's not clear what it has disproved ... at all! I'll skip listing all the assumptions (some of which I find very naive, even for the level of knowledge back then!), but I'll give you couple of examples which I hope will show how meaningless Michelson-Morley experiment actually was (regarding its claims! Ironically it was very meaningful in changing people's way of thinking about Light!) One is that now with the most modern theory of Electromagnetic forces we are perfectly comfortable to describe Light as traveling thru a EM-field, and the photons as excitations in the EM-field (and same thing for electrons ... just different types of excitations apparently). So EM-field being just a new name for Ether, there's also the Space (or more precisely the Space-Time), which we now know very well affect Light, and is actually capable of changing its (apparent) speed, and direction. For example repeat Michelson-Morley experiment with one of the mirrors as close to the Sun as technically possible (ie nowadays that could be the back of the Solar-Parker probe, or if you prefer something more stable use Mercury), and the other mirror put in direction as further away as possible from any big massive object (ie away from the Sun, Planets and Moons should suffice) at the same distance of course (which is a technical challenge of itself at these distances). But with out current theories we very well know that the photons traveling and reflected from the mirror close to the Sun will arrive later than the ones traveling away from the Sun and other massive objects. Note: the Sun-directed photons won't be slower, but will arrive later, because they'll have to cross longer path thru the warped Space (closer to the Sun). This is experimentally proven by the prediction of the 4th Supernova visuals in the place there the 4th image of a Einstein-cross , whose light arrived to us later enough than the other 3 images for scientist to process the data, and predict exactly when and where it was going to happen (which they did!). This whole story should serve scientists to be extremely careful with their biases and assumptions (which they keep being very reckless especially in Quantum theories - or at least their interpretations).
Also why do we assume that ether should help the light to travel? Why do we think of it about water flow? Why do we apply our very simplistic mechanical or fluid knowledge to concept of ether? People tend to simplify complex stuff in order to understand it but it might not work in this case
Because that's what humans do, simplify in order to be able to understand within their own limitations, mathematics is nothing more than a frame of understanding, a concept, a description with languages, quantification and words, but that is not how the universe is or manifests, just like how we cannot really encapsulate nor really fathom infinity.
We came to the conclusion that the negative result of the M-M experiment is due to the coupling of the mass density of light with the density field emanating from the mass of the planet. Coupling that imposes the same speed of light in all directions of the horizontal plane and makes the principle of relativity work, which prohibits the determination of the state of motion of a system, through experiments carried out inside the system. The coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium, through which the light passes, is proven by Fizeau's experiment, which precisely verifies Fresnel's formula for the composition of velocities. Fresnel's formula for the composition of velocities results from the summation of the photon density with the density of the transparent medium, without any relativistic metaphysics.
Better experiment would be to use a rotating hole in a card to make a light pulse, send this down opposite direction paths reflect it back and hit a rotating piece of photographic paper. Then view the photographic paper on a microscope after development.
I say this because the original experiment is actually testing whether coherent light remains coherent over possibly different length paths. It's essentially 2 variables.
Later, the experiment is redone at a larger scale, with regulated wavelength and with another purpose, at LIGO So, ain't pilot wave theory kinda right ?
That's the way I see it as well. The photons don't travel, they appear when observed as entangled particles. Quantum physics has shown beyond a doubt that the universe is all mind.
The beam returning from the top mirror should have returned to the source direction partially. Surely this isn't an accurate experiment due to the qualities of silver and glass etc and how it will affect the beam like resistance capacitance etc. I thought light slows down through a glass medium?
Doesn't the Sagnac effect contradict relativity? Light can't be faster and slower at the same time in the fiber-optic loop. Both are in the same frame of reference and not accelerating, they both are rotating at a constant speed. Both light travailing paths are the same length but the path that is moving in the direction of travel takes more time to reach the end. If relativity were real shouldn't the light travailing in the optic-fiber opposite the direction of motion slow down in time to cancel a difference in the speed of light through the same medium and length of travel?
so what's the medium conducting light? electricity and light all have the same limit, like sound is limited by the abillity for gasses to conduct it. what causes there to be a maximum speed for energetic particles/fields like photons, electrons
M&M didn’t understand light wave and Aether enough committed to design and ran experiments with a negative results, as expected. All electromagnetic and light wave requires a medium (dielectric) to propagate. It is e0 in Maxwell’s equation. The instance we let air infiltrate the experiment then air becomes the medium and not Aether. Aether exists in absolute empty space with a measurable dielectric constant e0 of 8.8541817128 pF/meter. At this point of writing, Aether’s properties are not fully understood. We can’t insert jars of low pressure vessel as part of M&M’s apparatus on earth to validate the apparatus for Aether compliance because Aether in it moves as much as the jar moves. Unless the whole experiment is space far from any galaxies, spiral arm, molecular clouds or cosmic plasma to make result conclusive.
I don't understand why people start discussion of Einstein's special relativity with this Experiment. This have nothing to do with Special relativity.Einstein was not even aware of the outcome of this Experiment. It just disproves the existence of this hypothetical ether medium. That's it. And of course that was represented in one way or other in the Einstein postulate of STR
Of this experiment, Einstein wrote, "If the Michelson-Morley experiment had not brought us into serious embarrassment, no one would have regarded the relativity theory as a (halfway) redemption.
This experiment proves that light travels at exactly THE SAME speed in all directions regardless of the fact the earth is rotating at 1500 mph, the earth is orbiting the sun at 45,000 mph, and the sun is orbiting the galaxy at 500,000 mph. So this Michelson Morley experiment does not disprove the aether, this experiment disproves Special Relativity.
They were correct back then about the existence of the ether, but wrong about the nature of it. The ether exists in a counter spatial or non cartesian locus outside of our frame of reference. We do not pass through it like we do air. The ether is only apparent to us as space which is an after effect of a divergent magnetic field. In short and roughly, light being an electromagnetic disturbance creates space in effect as it rips its way through the medium of the ether.
The Michelson-Morley should have a follow up experiment. They have to conduct it on Mars or at least on the Moon. Because there is still a chance that the earth is actually stationary relative to the 'aether' and the rest of celestial bodies are in motion.
It is necessary that luminiferous aether should be moving in a direction, can't it be still? Yes, it can move relative to us but it will be always be moving in direction opposite to us.
If the earth is traveling in one direction at a rate of more than 60,000+mph, then you don''t need a precise method to measure that light is traveling faster in one direction than the other. The experiment didn't fail, they just published that it failed
Why should we consider ether in the one direction.. Why not we consider it like as air medium ? If the light travel through air, is the velocity would affected by the direction (if we consider for same density and distance) pls reply sir..
The direction of the ether won't matter as we were firstly trying to prove the ether. Had we proven its existence, then we would've moved on in trying to figure out its direction. The point of the experiment was that does the wave of light change its speed when propagated in different directions? All they were trying to find was the relativistic property of the speed of light.
How about the difference in the speed of the earth or even the galaxy, for that matter versus the speed of light? Light is so much more enormously faster that it is no wonder that Michelson and Morley could not detect any variation between the light coming from either direction. This experiment did not disprove the existence of the ether. Instead, physics suddenly had to figure out some way to make electromagnetic waves propagate through space devoid of any medium for propagation to occur. And of course, we no longer have the ether, but we do have the quantum foam, which fills every cubic inch of space in the universe and can act as a medium to propagate the waves of electromagnetism through space. So the physicists have actually contradicted themselves and have therefore had to rename the ether with a different nomeclature.
Michelson/Morley test is a bunk idea, when it comes to measuring aether wind, it's essentially similar to measuring electromagnetic radiation near the surface of the sun (you're overloaded with the sun's magnetic energy). The Earth is also a giant magnet; trying to measure an "aether wind" would be near impossible. If there is actually aether (an electromagnetic field that fills and makes up the universe), then it would be like the turbulence in water, from a massive spinning sphere; the surface of the sphere would be even layers of pressure, extending outward from the surface (if not from the center mass, in the case of aether). This is what you're seeing in the later of this video (here: ua-cam.com/video/7T0d7o8X2-E/v-deo.html ); layers of electromagnetic pressure, extending outward from the surface. You would have to be outside the planet's turbulent field of aether, to actually measure aether wind.
@J. Buxter-Fleener Look into it. The Michelson/Morley test is flawed, the linked video proves it, but another form of proof is how laser interferometers are used in space (LIGO) to detect changes gravity (gravity being an electromagnetic field). Also, one weird bend in science about aether was the idea that alpha radiation can't be bent by electromagnetic fields, but now astronomers are finding alpha radiation bending around starts and black holes.
The point is gamma particles (supposedly not being able to be bent) can be bent by stars, which shows the level of magnetic field or dielectric pull needed to bend radiation. But what this also shows is that (if you take radiation being able to pass in a vacuum), these aren't particles (light being able to bend in glass and speed up), this is a dialectic field (like electromagnetic fluid). Electrons aren't particles, particles are charged in this field. It's the only theory that holds up across all different aspects of electromagnetics to electricity to how paricles move or radiate charge.
Earth is housed in its own ether sphere. Feynman called it the isopotential layer. Earth is in quarantine in its house of ether. So are sun, moon and all the stars and planets. So measuring external ether wind speed is like measuring outside wind speed while you are sheltering in place in your closed house. This is why M&M didnt measure any interference pattern change.
That's an interesting idea. A bumblebee has a similar protective 'shell' that allows it to 'defy the laws of physics' and fly in a straight line with heavy crosswinds.
@@ucanliv4ever This is little long but it will explain what the shell is. The only fabric of universe is the ether. The ether sits wholly as Electron Orbital Shells which surround everything in universe and beyond. Electron Valance Shells are more or less same as Electron Orbital Shells so they will be called EOSs too. EOSs are pressure gradients; 2 8 18 32 50..and so forth. These numbers are pressures of the EOS layers and are measured in Volts. Volts are ether pressure measurements. These pressure gradients generate force of buoyancy which then push things within from higher pressure towards the centers of EOSs where pressure is lowest. This is gravity. The Electron Orbital Shells are made of 2 things: ether pressure layers and magnetic field skins which separate the ether layers. MF Shells also keep the inside ether in and outside ether out. This is why Michelson and Morley couldnt find ether flowing over earth. Magnetic fields have the same shape except the MF Shells are moving unidirectionally where as regular EOSs move omnidirectionally. So the curvature of space time is the ether field which sits wholly as Electron Orbital Shells which surround everything in existence
Ether is not a frame of reference!!! It is the medium of propagation of EM wave! Michelson‒Morley experiment did NOT disprove the existence of aether/ether. It only proved that stationary ether relative to the earth movement and that was not affected by the magnetic field of the earth did not exist. 1. aether may not be stationary relative to the earth because aether like air (in the case of sound wave propagation) may be affected by the gravitational field of the earth just like light. 2. Being a medium of propagation of an electromagnetic wave, namely, light, ether is very likely to be affected by the magnetic field of the earth. In either case, ether is moving with the earth and not stationary with respect to the motion of the earth. More importantly, Michelson‒Morley experiment did NOT support Einstein's theory of relative either. Einstein simply never talked about how light was propagated. He only showed people a bunch of equations and assumed that light traveled at an invariant speed! But an invariant speed of light is nothing more than an assumption and not a conclusion of his theory.
The experiment was too small. The super sized interferometer that was recently built is not detecting gravitational waves but are detecting ether wind.
That's probably not the case because while the Earth orbits the sun and the sun orbits the center of the galaxy etc etc, there should be an accountable change between the two beams when the angle between them and the ether wind changed.
LIGO is a kind of Michelson MMX interferometer. The differences are as follows...... (1) LIGO uses a laser -- Michelson & Co used an acetylene flame. (2) LIGO uses an etalon (or 2), to fix the wavelength -- an MMX doesn't have any etalon. (3A) LIGO doesn't have any fringes -- an MMX has fringes & measures any shifting. (3B) LIGO is tuned for a zero signal, ie destructive interference, -- any change gives a signal. (4) LIGO is in vacuum -- an MMX needs air (or gas)(or water or glass). (5) LIGO's light reflects say 280 times in each 4 km arm -- MMXs had 1 to 4 reflexions per arm. (6) LIGO's main mirrors are hung -- an MMX's mirrors are fixed. (7) LIGO's arms are fixed -- an MMX's arms can rotate (but fixed can work). (8) LIGO is designed to be sensitive to GWs -- an MMX is designed to be sensitive to the aether-wind. LIGO cant perform as a good MMX because of (4) only (ie LIGO has vacuum). An MMX (with air) can detect a 2nd order signal. LIGO (with vacuum) can detect a 3rd order MMX signal (or it could if modified)(see (8))(not difficult). None of the other 7 differences preclude LIGO being an MMX. An MMX works because (a) light takes longer when the aetherwind is a tailwind/headwind compared to sidewind, & (b) an arm is length contracted (Lorentz LC) if the longitudinal horizontal component of the aetherwind increases, & (c) light is slowed by air, & (d) light is fasted or slowed by Fresnel Drag in the air depending on whether the aetherwind is a tailwind or headwind. LIGO is at present not greatly affected by (a)(b)(c)(d), because being fixed on Earth, & because LIGO rotates once per day, any such MMX signals would have a period of 12 hours, whereas LIGO is presently sensitive to signals near 100 Hz.
Right, so instead of each beam having to do a return leg (thus cancelling out any advantage it received on its way and then didn't receive on its return [and/or visa-versa] from the variance in the "ether's" assistance or resistance) have a detector / observer for each individual beam before its reflected? (no need for second set of mirrors essentially). Don't think I've ever written a sentence quite like that before!
Why tf are they assuming there has to be an ether wind and basing a whole experiment off of it? Just because the ether could be a medium, doesn’t mean it has to have a wind. This experiment is inconclusive from the start
As I understand it, the 2 light beams do NOT travel through the (theoretical) ether in the same direction. The direction difference should create some interference, even if the distance is equivalent, because the (theoretical) ether has substance and the substance should slow down light speed somewhat.
Don't understand wht u say.... If there is no eather then velocity of light in evry direction is constant Then if we take L1, L2 both same then why pattern formed..?? Plz details
@@Sumonlaly95 As I understand it, different people with different agendas report about the Michelson Morely experiment in favor of their own agenda. I believe you will find that the Khan Academy has it's own agenda - and so they report the Michelson experiment in favor of their agenda. But there are other agendas. For example, some people explain that Michelson DID find ether, but he found only small amount. Still - that is something. Apparently, a wide variety of physicists who followed Michelson also found ether. Not much, but some. Einstein's paper says - essentially - that any ether would invalidate his theory. So, why is Einstein's theory not publicly invalid? Because there is widespread public support against a stationary earth. L1 and L2 are same length, but different direction. L1 goes into the ether flow, L2 does not. So, small amount of ether would create some very small amount of wave interference. I understand that is what Michelson found. However, Michelson did NOT find enough ether to account for the rotation of the earth around the Sun. That implies there is empirical evidence for motionless, stationary earth, and there is also empirical evidence for ether. But, you read Khan Academy - and you are left with the impression there is no ether and experiment was a failure. I say that is wrong.
The 2 arms in an MMX do not have to be the same length or anywhere near the same length. There is always interference tween the waves in the 2 arms, no matter what the lengths. This interference makes a bright circular area on the target (or not so bright)(or dark). When the MMX is rotated the circular area changes brightness. This change can be measured easily/accurately/automatically with modern apparatus. Or instead of a bright circular area there are a few or a lot of annular rings of bright or dark. When the MMX is rotated the annular rings move inwards or outwards. The classic MMX has 1 end mirror turn in or out a little off square horizontally. This gives vertical fringes (bright stripes & dark stripes). According to aether theory when the MMX is rotated the fringes will move left or right on the target (or in the view in the telescope). Igor then sees/measures/records the amount of movement (in fringes)(eg 0.10 fringe width), perhaps measured from a fixed vertical line or a pointer. Measurements might be say 16 (or 17) times per rev. Either on the move (usually), or by stopping to measure (rare i think). If Einstein's STR is correct then there should be zero (aetheric) fringe shift during rotation of an MMX. In which case any fringe shift would be due to spurious (non-aetheric) effects, eg........ (1) Temperature change (giving a change in length of arms). (2) A strain (eg bending) in the arms (due to poor design)(or due to poor operation)(or due to not being exactly horizontal). (3) Some kind of non-symmetry in the design or construction (eg bent axle)(angled axle). (4) Some kind of sloppiness in the tightness of the axle. (5) Some kind of non-aetheric & non-Einsteinian non-known physics (photonic) effect (eg involving reflexion from a moving mirror)(eg a problem with coherence/stickiness of wave fronts)(eg an erratic laser)(etc).
Interference pattern is formed because they are two different coherent sources. It doesn't matter if the path difference is zero, as long as it is constant. As their crests and troughs will create constructive and destructive fringe respectively.
Why is Einstein given credit for physics that were around long before he was? Granted he took the next steps and was a true genius but seems like he was hyped up a lot more then others who made bigger contributions and developments.
This experiment is based entirely on the premise that the ether's movement is out of phase with the earth's movement. But what if the ether surrounding the earth moves along with the earth, like, you know, the entire atmosphere ? If ether has mass it will be gravitationally attracted to earth and spin along with the earth. There will be no relative motion between the proximal ether and the earth. Bet you didn't think at that, Einstein ! So this experiment needs to be done in outer space, outside of earths atmosphere and gravitational field, in a space shuttle named 'I am stupid', or 'Etherium', in order to be taken seriously. And the shuttle should move at a much higher speed than the earth to create any observable interference. Because if it moves at 30km/s, compared to the speed of light of 300000 km/s, thats 10000 times less. What kind of interference do you expect to see if the wave speeds are only 30km/s apart, that is only 0,0001% out of phase ? The waves will seem to overlap even if there was a 0.0001 nanometer gap between them.
Illumination is an attribute of aether. This experiment was failed on the basis of its premise that light is something other than a coaxial ether modality.
I don't understand, and I get very confused by the results of the double split and other similar experiments. There are forces around us that act upon protons in this experiment. Also, these forces are likely affected by the apparatuses used to observe them. Because of the fundamental law of physics, it's clear that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force, a principle articulated by Galileo. This easily correlates with quantum entanglement and its paradoxes, string theory, dark energy, Bell's Theorem, gravity, thermodynamics, Length contraction, Hawking Radiation, Casimir Effect, Compton Scattering, and other subjects. The eraser experiment is about these forces and their effects on the photon…It's very clear to me that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is not the reason that we can not know both the position and speed of particles; it is because of this dark force. Since Young presented a famous paper to the Royal Society entitled “On the theory of light and colors” in 1801 and his subsequent famous interference experiment in 1803, light was established to be a wave. About 100 years later, it was realized that light showed behavior characteristics of both wave and particle in the double slit experiment (and its variations) had become a classic for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. At that time, there was no concept of dark energy. The current concept of dark energy came about in the 1990s. I believe that dark energy is the reason for the wave characteristics of light (particles). What is one of the most fundamental laws of physics, established by Galileo, that a body in motion stays in motion unless acted by a force is the basis of my conclusion. Numerous, if not all, of the characteristics attributed to particles, I believe, are attributable to dark energy. This results in Einstein being correct; the moon is not visible simply because it’s being observed. It’s always present because these forces (dark energy) cannot affect its position in space. Just to be clear, double slit and similar experiments are proof of two things. First, it is proof of dark energy. Secondly, it’s proof of the existence of strings. Little, if anything, is known about dark energy. One of the things they know for sure about dark energy is that it’s not detectable; it cannot be observed. That’s why they call it dark. As for the proof of the existence of strings, the interference patterns left by double-slit type experiments are characterized as wave-like. Wave-like behaviors are foundational to the definition of string theory. Finally, is the fact that phenomena, wave-like behavior, disappear when apparatuses are used to observe (detect) those experiments. These assertions are further substantiated by the erasers' and similar experiments' results. Remember that the Michelson & Morley (1887) experiment was one of the most sensitive test of its time. Poignantly, it failed to detect any indication of ether wind stemming from “luminiferous ether.” It just wasn't there, completely undetectable. Not a hint. Dark energy is a universal uniformed negative Electric/Magnetic monopole structure. I think this accounts for its characteristics. Also, it’s interesting to note that when Einstein identified Brownian motion, string theory did not exist. I feel that if string theory existed at that time, Brownian motion could have been used to substantiate that theory, string theory. Newton, very cleverly, removed the consideration of curvature from his calculations. He did this by using points at the center of the masses. Einstein put curvature back into the calculations. He did this by cleverly introducing the concept of space-time. I do not believe that light bends around massive objects because of space-time. The light bends around massive objects because light is repelled by mass, as in Hawking Radiation. Additionally, I am confused about the concept of time. I believe time does not exist when there is only one point, a single point. This is due to how calculations are done within the framework of Cartesian geometry and not because of physics. There is no place in physics where there is only a single point. Again, and I know I’m repeating myself, particle physics must be transformed into dark energy physics. By identifying matter as having wave-particle characteristics, matter has been mischaracterized. Science needs to be re-focused on the waves observed in the double split and the like, as well as experiments, and the focus on particles needs to be deemphasized. The concept of wave-particle duality should be abandoned. Schrödinger equation, Probability density function, and, very importantly, Maxwell's equations emanate from dark energy. As a starter, science must focus on the waves observed in the double split and similar experiments to determine their minimum and maximum characteristics. This should be done by varying the parameters of the experiments as much as possible. The screen should always be as large as possible. The slit should be as small as possible. The slit should be as far away as possible from the screen. Particles of varying masses and charges should be systematically used. Then, all these factors, except fixed conditions, i.e., the results, should be systematically varied and their data recorded and then finally compared and analyzed. Outlier data should not be excluded. This should establish conclusively that a force is responsible for the particles' behavior and not the particles' inherent behavior.
The different light sources have different signatures which can be recognized with, roughly speaking, the same technology used to record images on film. Don't lose your place in this material though! The point is that this experiment showed no motion. Sagnac in 1913 did roughly this experiment on a rotating plate and picked up an interference pattern. Thus, if the Earth were rotating like the plate, Michelson and Morley should have picked up an interference pattern. Einstein posited that IN THEORY, IF length, time, and mass were dilated in one particular way, the Michelson-Morley experiment could be reconciled with the heliocentric model. But when Sagnac showed that movement measured from the Earth's surface SHOULD cause a different interference pattern than if the surface of measurement weren't moving, that showed that indeed the ether (some medium on Earth, perhaps just the "atmosphere") did exist and thus that if the Earth were rotating and orbiting and hurtling around the center of gravity of the milky way galaxy AND shooting away from the Big Bang, then we would be able to detect it with these interferometry experiments. We do not, therefore the Earth is stationary. If you follow this so far, you may be wondering whether, indeed, the sun orbits the Earth. This is a reasonable leap from your perspective, but is not in hindsight, with evidence in hand. The Earth is flat and stationary. As many, many sources show, we can see too far. This is documented via photography, lasers, mirrors reflecting sunlight, and the identification of objects through long-range sights, esp. over long, straight canals. These observations are made at SUCH A DISTANCE at which the object of desired view should not be visible. The conclusion of these experiments is that sometimes you can see the desired object and sometimes you cannot. This means that the Earth is flat (or if spheroidal (but there are many more rebuttals against that), much larger than they say) and that the horizon is an optical, not physical object. The variable atmosplane (if you will) sometimes blocks your view of these objects, and you cannot see forever because of the compression of ever more field of view into a narrower and narrower visual band closer and closer to the horizon line (picture the floor and the ceiling meeting at the end of a long hotel hallway or the railroad tracks appearing to converge in the distance). The fact that you can EVER see some of the things that people have seen means that there is not a wall of water and/or earth (the "Earth" above the secant line connecting me and the object of my viewing) between me and the object of my viewing, and thus that the Earth is flat. With knowledge of a flat, stationary Earth and after consulting the truer map of the world, provided to you by the United Nations via their logo, you will begin to ask questions about why that map ends at the 60th Southern parallel, why the Antarctic Treaty won't let you go south of that 60th parallel, and how the UN knew that map would be accurate when the logo was designed a decade before the Antarctic Treaty was conceived! The answer is probably that other humanoids, probably those responsible for the old stories about gods/aliens, the inconceivably built ancient architectural sites, and part of the UFO phenomenon, live "South" (that is further from the North Pole) of South America, South Africa, and Oceania. This is probably related to what Admiral Byrd had to say about a land mass bigger than the US unexplored "South" of Antarctica. Happy travels.
Another take on the MM experiment from Captain Obvious. Captain Obvious may offer another reasoning it did prove, Geocentricity ( The Earth at Rest) In a prevailing wind sound carries a voice farther than a resistance wind and a still day would carry sound the same intensity at any direction. If the Earth is at rest, any direction would have the same light speed and therefore not really a test of Aether resistance as intended, but demonstrates Earth at Rest for the light waves always matched. This explanation seems to be ignored or missed because every one knows the Earth rotates (philosophy not science which questions all) Instead cosmologist and physicist came up with fanciful hypothesis and theories to avoid the above simple conclusion of Earth at rest.
Or perhaps having the light source moving with the earth rendered any attempt to show the earth's movement null? If they used sunlight, I wonder if the results would vary in the morning vs in the evening?
Can't believe what your saying..... I thought there was no one else. I have a design, a simple electrical gyro in gimballs... perhaps even using vacuum and magnetic locking to hold the the gyro disc suspended... I'd like to watch it and see the earth not move. If it moves and goes back to position, I'll believe the Earth moves, but I doubt we will see this. I kind believe... or think.... the Earth is at rest!
This experiment doesn't prove the constant speed of light irrespective of point of reference. Suppose there is a relative increase in speed of light parallel to the direction of motion of earth when reflected by the first mirror, but then when light bounces back by the second mirror there will be relative decrease of the speed of light because now it has to travel against the motion of earth. When increase in speed on the way to the second mirror is cancelled out by decrease in speed on the way back, then the result of the experiment will always be the same....but this does not mean that the speed of light has not changed during the experiment....this does not prove the special relativity theory of Einstein.
I am amazed to see that every exposition of special relativity and the M-M experiment assumes Newtonian rigidity of the sandstone block which supports the mirrors. This means that the M-M experiment and any similar search for asymmetry of light propagation must give a null result simply because the forces which hold solids in shape must travel like light (being electromagnetic in origin) within the solid. Think about it. Does a metre ruler begin to move as soon as you push one end? Of course not! I takes the same minimum time for a push on one end to get through to the other end - the same time as a light pulse in fact! Newtonian rigidity, in which forces travel at infinite speed in solids, went out of fashion not with Newton but should have done with Rutherford (1910) who showed that the spacing between atomic nuclei in solids is around 10^5 times their radii which gives plenty of room for contraction. So the Lorentz contraction was not ad hoc after all. Trust me, wrong assumptions like that utterly destroy the MMX. The whole point about special relativity (and general too ) is that light is the speed limit of the Universe. How else might atoms know how far to contract? Answers on a $ bill to your favourite charity. See my video from a few years back. Trevor Morris UK
@@CounterAttack1989 This experiment proves that light travels at exactly THE SAME speed in all directions regardless of the fact the earth is rotating at 1500 mph, the earth is orbiting the sun at 45,000 mph, and the sun is orbiting the galaxy at 500,000 mph. So this Michelson Morley experiment does not disprove the aether, this experiment disproves Special Relativity.
+Allan Nicol yeah, but there is still a medium (the water), so that's why people thought there had to be a medium for light to travel through. And they believed there had to be a flow because we are moving relative to the sun, and the sun is moving relative to the galaxy, and the galaxy is moving relative to the rest of the universe. So a flow of this medium that light would travel through had to be there. But now we know there is no such thing.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The experiment didnt "fail". It concluded no motion. Read the quotes of Michelson himself. Einstein created his theory of relativity which removed the existence of the ether to counter the conclusion of this experiment.
Oh it concluded motion, just not as much as Copernican dynamics predicts. Einstein's fantasy universe was created to eliminate the obvious conclusion: the earth is located at the preferred rest frame of the universe.
True
@@rexglan237 Exactly
I've read the original paper, he considered the possibility of the earth being stationary and tried rotating the entire apparatus to ensure the device was definitely moving relative to the ether, but still got the same result. So he concluded the experiment didn't prove the earth being Stationary.
@@dokichokei what about this?
ua-cam.com/video/NS6seALAxmg/v-deo.html
No matter what I want to learn about, I keep founding Khan Academy videos explained by Sal.
Sadly he's not taking English
Read Einstein’s quote from a speech in 1920 at the university of Leiden “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”
This only concludes if the ether exist it had no velocity and is carried along statically with objects "within" it. Light can't be a wave. Waves aren't things. They are attributes of the ether. Water "waves". But the water isnt a wave. It's something the water is doing. It's a posterior attribute.
Dayton Miller spent 30 years proving the existence of the ether and got positive results on top of a mountain vs. a church basement. The Michelson-Morley experiment was "null", not failed.
Doesn't the ray that goes 'up', along with the ether wind, speeds up, but when it comes back 'down' it is slowed by the ether wind so in the end it evens out? As in - going from the central mirror to the top mirror and back to the central mirror takes the same amount of time whether there is an ether wind or not.
It doesnt even out because when examining time, it equals distance/velocity. So you're right that when the ray goes up, velocity is c+u, and when it goes down it's c-u, but these two don't cancel out because time equals distance/c+u + distance/c-u. The denominators of the two fractions don't add up.
@@nikosv6731 Thanks mate. This needs to be pointed out in these lessons.
I just read about this addition of the time in regards to velocities hehe
That was so interesting, and relatively straight forward to understand!! ;D Thank you!!
I've been waiting 5 years for where this is going! Sal Khan on relativity :-)
how are you now?
As the Michelson Morley experiment successfully disproved the existence of the aether by not finding a wind caused by earths rotation, I decided to test if there was an air wind caused by the earth's rotation. Then I tested if there was a water wind caused by the earth's rotation. There wasn't one. I have now successfully disproved the existence of both air and water. Everybody knows that if there is no wind caused by the earth's rotation in a medium, that medium does not exist. Physics for the win!
It proved that there can't be an "unmoving" aether that you could compare the velocities of objects to to get an absolute velocity. I think it was already known that if it existed, the theoretical aether couldn't be moved around like air and water, which don't move much relative to the Earth, this being is the reason you don't see huge winds caused by the Earth's rotation (though it does have an affect). This was also more about the Earth moving relative to the Sun than rotating. With an absolute aether a moving Earth should be moving relative to it, since it would be the definition of still, which would cause these winds.
@@kaurapuuro9990 James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory never posited a static aether. His theory posited a dynamic aether that relied upon the principles of fluid dynamics. If a dynamic aether had been disproved, James Clerk Maxwell's entire electromagnetic theory would have been disproved in totality. We still use his equations today to engineer our electrical distribution grids, so his theory obviously has not been disproved in totality. I find it quite strange everyone knows the name of the experiment that disproved a static aether, but no one knows the name of the experiment that purportedly disproved the aether posited by James Clerk Maxwell.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 I guess it all just depends on what is meant by aether. You seem to know more than me, but do Maxwells theories need an aether? They may have been built from the idea of aether, but don't they still stand well on their, with aether today just seeming something like a god of the gaps?
@@kaurapuuro9990 Can you have a theory of fluid dynamics while simultaneously positing that there is no fluid anywhere in existence? Can you measure interactions of things that do not exist? Can things that do not exist act upon things that do exist? The notion that there is no aether is absurd.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 What do you mean by aether? I think aether was originally meant as an otherwise undetectable medium for light waves that exists everywhere, but don't Maxwells laws play on fields? Here you could say that an electromagnetic fields and aether are the same, but that would just make the existance of aether a completely irrelevant question since you could always define it to exist by changing what you mean by it. (Although the existence of basically anything in physics is really debetable since we're really just talking about models)
Imagine the existential panic you'd feel when you first learned light travels at the same speed regardless of whether you're moving with or against it, before understanding relativity. "How does that make sense, how does anything make sense."
Because light does not move through space. It only appears inside your mind when you observe something within the universal quantum field. Sort of what happens when you play a videogame. The characters and scenes do not exist, until that have to be computed depending on where you are and what you're doing in the game.
You got it all wrong. It was Einstein that tried to explain away that the earth’s rotation and movement in space isn’t detectable at all. It was he came up with the ridiculous explanation that the arms somehow were shortened in length. LOL.
No, this experiment proves still today that we don’t move at all. The same can be studied today with gyros.
@Null Pointer Don't use logic. He can't take it.
This Michelson Morley experiment does not disprove the aether, this experiment disproves Special Relativity.
@Null Pointer Buddy, you can also refer to Stephen Bradley's comment. I'm an AE, i won't say where but work in the US. You clearly are not in the industry, NO COMPANY uses a rotating earth model in the field. You can't it doesn't work, we know this. As a civilian you can look at patents for AE models. None use rotating models. The Earth is stationary, you would know this if you ever worked as an AE. Government contracts cstv+ are important, they don't rely and scout out nimrods who are fresh out of university to design and execute. You sir need good Discernment my friend, discernment.
What do you mean we don't move at all?
Great explanation thank you!
Apparently the US airforce retested this experiment. They published results in "1986 nature volume 322 special relativity". I'm not a genius on these things, which is why I'm here, but it would be cool to see khan academy look at the airforces results and make a new video to maybe help us average Joe's understand what it means. 🤣
perhaps the magnetic field of the earth creates a bubble in the ether and there's no wind in a bubble
Good point.
Dear sir light is not a longitudinal wave?
Shift in the interference fringes occur only if the entire apparatus rotated through 90 degrees, if ether is present.
they found a lag in speed of about 30% in the direction of travel. But still called it as not enough for a ether to be justifiable
yaa i know, and I don't get that really
@@nikhilsomvanshi9960 that's up to us to marinate on
Great video, hopefully you will come out with one that goes into the mathematics of the experiment. Minor detail correction, electromagnetic waves are transverse waves sound waves are longitudinal.
Your videos were so much helpful.
I'm from Bangladesh 🇧🇩.
Suppose we make the following postulates
1. There is no ether.
2. Speed of light in vacuum is c relative to the source of light.
3. Speed of light in vacuum is NOT independent of frame of reference. Rather it obeys Galilean relativity.
Then also we expect null result from Michelson Morley experiment.
2. is wrong
@@Blightbuster ...and how do we know that?
Hats off to Michelson and Morley for such an ingenious exp!
Yes quite simple and basic...but powerful
The speed of light being constant is so wild to try and wrap your brain around
you just called it longitudinal wave..
funny how that works isnt it lol at every level of observance the ether is there they and come up with a new euphemism or several of them to explain the same thing the ether more accurately represents
Quantum fields are just a new name for the aether lol
It should be Transverse wave 🙄
Some MMX & aether info.
(1) Google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 km/s min & 480 km/s max during a day (this was the horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is approx 500 km/s south to north blowing approx 15 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX was 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs.
(2) The MMXs were never null.
(3) The correct calibration needed to allow for length contraction caused by the aetherwind.
(4) The correct calibration needed to allow for the Fresnel Drag of light by the air. Prof Reg Cahill explains.
(5) All MMX's suffer a linear ever-growing fringe-shift that gets larger with each rotation.
All MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs.
Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect. Because at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn. University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing. Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy &
suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right).
(6) Secondly the Michelson Morley MMX, & the Morley Miller MMXs, suffered a spurious signal that was periodic in a full turn. This was because their mirrors were at two levels, hence some of their light beams had to angle up & later down. This then introduced a spurious signal (fringe shift) due to angle contraction of the mirrors in their apparatus, which changed the effective lengths of the angled beams. I call such angle contraction Esclangon angle contraction, as Esclangon is i think the first person to bring it to the attention of science (but he didn't mention that it must also happen in an MMX). EAC is due to Lorentzian Length Contraction of solids (which should be called FitzGerald LC as FitzGerald was the first to predict it) which is due to any change in the aetherwind blowing throo a solid (which changes the size/shape of solids)(because solids are held together by electric forces)(these forces being affected by the wind).
The other probability that has been omitted is the Superluminal prospects of an aether... We know that black holes and gravitational forces affect light. It would therefore be evident that potential forces are occurring at or beyond light speeds. Later performance of the Michelson Morley experiment did find almost imperceptible changes. These were consistent depending on the seasons. Additionally, the aether effects on the matter of the measuring equipment isn't known. It is my supposition that we don't currently have an equation yet formulated to account for faster than light effects. By all accounts and rational thought, an aether type interaction appears evident. Our current approach is incomplete or outdated. The answers are in front of us...
ok rod
You're sunspot pic is amazing. The sun is 80,000 times larger than the earth? So the wall of light hitting us should be ...
There is no such a thing as a "FAILED experiment" only a faulty expectation or a wrong belief of what is real.
In other words, if an experiment was setup correctly but it didn't give you the results you expected to see, you should never blame the experiment.
It should be noted as well that experiments can never be considered failures because a result that is not hypothesized is then eliminated. When this is shared it streamlines science, allowing us to accelerate the pace at which new developments can occur
My statement maybe wrong. The MM experiment concluded the doesn't exist because they found no movement. Thats fine if your only wanting one result from one variable. They were looking for movement and you can only find movement when your comparing other variables because speed is relative.
There is no way they will conclude that the ether exists. To conclude that the ether exists, but there was no movement. That means the earth doesn't move since the ether must move if it does exist. To deny the existence of the ether is only making way for the heliocentric model. Since Einstein said if it wasn't for this stupid MM theory, noone would have excepted his theory.
The Classical Theory of Fields: Electromagnetism [2], "But they detected no motion of the earth in the aether. This is interpreted as the statement that there is no aether."
how to understand the M-M experiment. using this graffick and direction of motion, the light source lets call T, the splitting mirror in the middle call S, top mirror call A, on the right call B, the detector call D. it is great that wavelength is ruffly seen as a reference. say light from T is a particular wavelength we will call W(wavelength neutral), when it hits S the light going to A is now traveling into the direction of motion light can't travel faster than the speed of light so it slows relative to the apparatus in motion compressing the light and wavelength "red shifting"[doppler effect] to the W negative [blue wavelength], taking more time to hit A. after hitting A the return trip is away from [aft of] motion and shifts red past W neut to W positive going to D, the light going to B remands neutral till it hits S to D and shifts W+ equal with A, to S,-S, to D, and makes the interference pattern, (edit; the wave length is equal and in sink S to D). note that S to A, A to S, and S to B, B to S, is the same lap time.
if you rotate it 90% of motion the A and B shifts [switches] the doppler effect but the interference pattern remains the same. even if you go 45%. this test is not measuring the speed of light, but is only looking at interference patterns. to accurately measure the speed of light all you need is T, and D in a straight line, nothing else. watch it again from 4:50 with the sound off and think about what I described above
Michelson - physical discoveries in the future are a matter of sixth decimal place
Einstein - I’m about to destroy this man’s whole career
Lmaooo facts
Not only does matter appear all the more ethereal the more closely it is observed, but it also responds to observation (consciousness) itself. The latter is easily explained as a function of the primordial substrate (aether) within which both observer and object are hard wired to each other.
Isaac Newton made it crystal clear when he said, "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into."
You see, modern science has been led down a dead-end path, quite deliberately, and for very obvious reasons. Knowledge is power which is reserved solely for those in control.
The Sagnac and Michelson Morley experiments show the earth is not moving. If the earth is rotating and orbiting, then any test done on earth is a test done on a non inertial frame. Therefore, the Sagnac and Michelson Morley experiments should have produced the same results.
"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
- Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)
What about Sagnac experiment?
Nice explanation, sensai Khan.
Thumbs up for explanation of the experiment, but unfortunately I can't (because of youtube) also give is thumbs-down for not mentioning that this whole experiment was botched.
It's great when you have failed experiment, because failure disproves the initial assumptions. However the assumptions about the Ether were so many and so fuzzy that it's not clear what it has disproved ... at all!
I'll skip listing all the assumptions (some of which I find very naive, even for the level of knowledge back then!), but I'll give you couple of examples which I hope will show how meaningless Michelson-Morley experiment actually was (regarding its claims! Ironically it was very meaningful in changing people's way of thinking about Light!)
One is that now with the most modern theory of Electromagnetic forces we are perfectly comfortable to describe Light as traveling thru a EM-field, and the photons as excitations in the EM-field (and same thing for electrons ... just different types of excitations apparently).
So EM-field being just a new name for Ether, there's also the Space (or more precisely the Space-Time), which we now know very well affect Light, and is actually capable of changing its (apparent) speed, and direction.
For example repeat Michelson-Morley experiment with one of the mirrors as close to the Sun as technically possible (ie nowadays that could be the back of the Solar-Parker probe, or if you prefer something more stable use Mercury), and the other mirror put in direction as further away as possible from any big massive object (ie away from the Sun, Planets and Moons should suffice) at the same distance of course (which is a technical challenge of itself at these distances).
But with out current theories we very well know that the photons traveling and reflected from the mirror close to the Sun will arrive later than the ones traveling away from the Sun and other massive objects.
Note: the Sun-directed photons won't be slower, but will arrive later, because they'll have to cross longer path thru the warped Space (closer to the Sun). This is experimentally proven by the prediction of the 4th Supernova visuals in the place there the 4th image of a Einstein-cross , whose light arrived to us later enough than the other 3 images for scientist to process the data, and predict exactly when and where it was going to happen (which they did!).
This whole story should serve scientists to be extremely careful with their biases and assumptions (which they keep being very reckless especially in Quantum theories - or at least their interpretations).
Thanks for the explanation sir.
Also why do we assume that ether should help the light to travel? Why do we think of it about water flow? Why do we apply our very simplistic mechanical or fluid knowledge to concept of ether? People tend to simplify complex stuff in order to understand it but it might not work in this case
Because that's what humans do, simplify in order to be able to understand within their own limitations, mathematics is nothing more than a frame of understanding, a concept, a description with languages, quantification and words, but that is not how the universe is or manifests, just like how we cannot really encapsulate nor really fathom infinity.
This changes my perspective. Thank you! :) So clear. Btw a suggestion; Do add derivations in another too :D it would help in theory notes alot.
People research the sagnac experiment 1913
Sagnac experiment proved the existence of Aether.
Didn't.
what playlist is this from?
We came to the conclusion that the negative result of the M-M experiment is due to the coupling of the mass density of light with the density field emanating from the mass of the planet. Coupling that imposes the same speed of light in all directions of the horizontal plane and makes the principle of relativity work, which prohibits the determination of the state of motion of a system, through experiments carried out inside the system. The coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium, through which the light passes, is proven by Fizeau's experiment, which precisely verifies Fresnel's formula for the composition of velocities. Fresnel's formula for the composition of velocities results from the summation of the photon density with the density of the transparent medium, without any relativistic metaphysics.
Better experiment would be to use a rotating hole in a card to make a light pulse, send this down opposite direction paths reflect it back and hit a rotating piece of photographic paper. Then view the photographic paper on a microscope after development.
I say this because the original experiment is actually testing whether coherent light remains coherent over possibly different length paths. It's essentially 2 variables.
This lesson helpedme 😎
There is a simple way to prove the Aether once and for all : do the Michelsen and Morley experiment inside of an airplane in fast motion ...
Nice that you thought of earths speed to be unsufficient for the effect to show.
@@zoranivanic3543 Earth doesn´t have ANY speed at all ...
@@zegonzales1 How so?
@@zegonzales1 ???
Later, the experiment is redone at a larger scale, with regulated wavelength and with another purpose, at LIGO
So, ain't pilot wave theory kinda right ?
The ether has been replaced by a quantum field. Thats how communications happens with entangled particles for example
@J. Buxter-Fleener true, sounds like a crackpot lol.
That's the way I see it as well. The photons don't travel, they appear when observed as entangled particles. Quantum physics has shown beyond a doubt that the universe is all mind.
The beam returning from the top mirror should have returned to the source direction partially. Surely this isn't an accurate experiment due to the qualities of silver and glass etc and how it will affect the beam like resistance capacitance etc. I thought light slows down through a glass medium?
it doesn't slow down, the amount decreases
Doesn't the Sagnac effect contradict relativity? Light can't be faster and slower at the same time in the fiber-optic loop. Both are in the same frame of reference and not accelerating, they both are rotating at a constant speed. Both light travailing paths are the same length but the path that is moving in the direction of travel takes more time to reach the end. If relativity were real shouldn't the light travailing in the optic-fiber opposite the direction of motion slow down in time to cancel a difference in the speed of light through the same medium and length of travel?
I missed a lot I wish you could take the time and repeat yourself
Well I guess I can watch it again
so what's the medium conducting light? electricity and light all have the same limit, like sound is limited by the abillity for gasses to conduct it. what causes there to be a maximum speed for energetic particles/fields like photons, electrons
M&M didn’t understand light wave and Aether enough committed to design and ran experiments with a negative results, as expected.
All electromagnetic and light wave requires a medium (dielectric) to propagate. It is e0 in Maxwell’s equation. The instance we let air infiltrate the experiment then air becomes the medium and not Aether.
Aether exists in absolute empty space with a measurable dielectric constant e0 of 8.8541817128 pF/meter. At this point of writing, Aether’s properties are not fully understood.
We can’t insert jars of low pressure vessel as part of M&M’s apparatus on earth to validate the apparatus for Aether compliance because Aether in it moves as much as the jar moves. Unless the whole experiment is space far from any galaxies, spiral arm, molecular clouds or cosmic plasma to make result conclusive.
Shouldn't they be in sync even if the Ether exists because the two way speed of light would be the same regardless of your direction?
Really a wonderful explanation: straight, clear with no useless math.
You really got to the point, thank you!
Useless math?
How is math useless?
I don't understand why people start discussion of Einstein's special relativity with this Experiment.
This have nothing to do with Special relativity.Einstein was not even aware of the outcome of this Experiment.
It just disproves the existence of this hypothetical ether medium.
That's it.
And of course that was represented in one way or other in the Einstein postulate of STR
Of this experiment, Einstein wrote, "If the Michelson-Morley experiment had not brought us into serious embarrassment, no one would have regarded the relativity theory as a (halfway) redemption.
This experiment proves that light travels at exactly THE SAME speed in all directions regardless of the fact the earth is rotating at 1500 mph, the earth is orbiting the sun at 45,000 mph, and the sun is orbiting the galaxy at 500,000 mph. So this Michelson Morley experiment does not disprove the aether, this experiment disproves Special Relativity.
The Higgs field gives particles mass. So there is some ether. Also dark energy expanding the medium of space-time
They were correct back then about the existence of the ether, but wrong about the nature of it. The ether exists in a counter spatial or non cartesian locus outside of our frame of reference. We do not pass through it like we do air. The ether is only apparent to us as space which is an after effect of a divergent magnetic field. In short and roughly, light being an electromagnetic disturbance creates space in effect as it rips its way through the medium of the ether.
Thanks alot😄
The Michelson-Morley should have a follow up experiment. They have to conduct it on Mars or at least on the Moon. Because there is still a chance that the earth is actually stationary relative to the 'aether' and the rest of celestial bodies are in motion.
There was a follow up test called the Sagnac experiment. You aren't told about it for a reason.
It is necessary that luminiferous aether should be moving in a direction, can't it be still?
Yes, it can move relative to us but it will be always be moving in direction opposite to us.
If the earth is traveling in one direction at a rate of more than 60,000+mph, then you don''t need a precise method to measure that light is traveling faster in one direction than the other. The experiment didn't fail, they just published that it failed
The experiment disproves Special Relativity.
And what about the assumption of the light source position? There are a quite a few "lets assume" in it...
Why should we consider ether in the one direction..
Why not we consider it like as air medium ?
If the light travel through air, is the velocity would affected by the direction (if we consider for same density and distance)
pls reply sir..
The direction of the ether won't matter as we were firstly trying to prove the ether. Had we proven its existence, then we would've moved on in trying to figure out its direction. The point of the experiment was that does the wave of light change its speed when propagated in different directions? All they were trying to find was the relativistic property of the speed of light.
Why doesn't anyone consider, “maybe we weren't actually moving”
How about the difference in the speed of the earth or even the galaxy, for that matter versus the speed of light? Light is so much more enormously faster that it is no wonder that Michelson and Morley could not detect any variation between the light coming from either direction. This experiment did not disprove the existence of the ether. Instead, physics suddenly had to figure out some way to make electromagnetic waves propagate through space devoid of any medium for propagation to occur. And of course, we no longer have the ether, but we do have the quantum foam, which fills every cubic inch of space in the universe and can act as a medium to propagate the waves of electromagnetism through space. So the physicists have actually contradicted themselves and have therefore had to rename the ether with a different nomeclature.
This was very interesting experiment.
Isn’t LIGO an exam of the experiment being true?
**facepalm**
@@blzKrg Teach me!
The light is not only begin speed up it is then slow down by the same amount, this does not disprove anything , it is just a flaud experient
watching this, because.. i was a minute… late, to work. 😂😂😂😂😂
what if the either goes at 45 degrees?
PLEASE CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE SAGNAC EFFECT.
Yes, please!
ua-cam.com/video/NS6seALAxmg/v-deo.html
@@julieformby9020 also taken down. Real interpretations are censored
Michelson/Morley test is a bunk idea, when it comes to measuring aether wind, it's essentially similar to measuring electromagnetic radiation near the surface of the sun (you're overloaded with the sun's magnetic energy). The Earth is also a giant magnet; trying to measure an "aether wind" would be near impossible. If there is actually aether (an electromagnetic field that fills and makes up the universe), then it would be like the turbulence in water, from a massive spinning sphere; the surface of the sphere would be even layers of pressure, extending outward from the surface (if not from the center mass, in the case of aether).
This is what you're seeing in the later of this video (here: ua-cam.com/video/7T0d7o8X2-E/v-deo.html ); layers of electromagnetic pressure, extending outward from the surface.
You would have to be outside the planet's turbulent field of aether, to actually measure aether wind.
@J. Buxter-Fleener
Look into it. The Michelson/Morley test is flawed, the linked video proves it, but another form of proof is how laser interferometers are used in space (LIGO) to detect changes gravity (gravity being an electromagnetic field).
Also, one weird bend in science about aether was the idea that alpha radiation can't be bent by electromagnetic fields, but now astronomers are finding alpha radiation bending around starts and black holes.
The point is gamma particles (supposedly not being able to be bent) can be bent by stars, which shows the level of magnetic field or dielectric pull needed to bend radiation. But what this also shows is that (if you take radiation being able to pass in a vacuum), these aren't particles (light being able to bend in glass and speed up), this is a dialectic field (like electromagnetic fluid). Electrons aren't particles, particles are charged in this field.
It's the only theory that holds up across all different aspects of electromagnetics to electricity to how paricles move or radiate charge.
Earth is housed in its own ether sphere. Feynman called it the isopotential layer. Earth is in quarantine in its house of ether. So are sun, moon and all the stars and planets. So measuring external ether wind speed is like measuring outside wind speed while you are sheltering in place in your closed house. This is why M&M didnt measure any interference pattern change.
May I suggest an 'If' before " Earth"
That's an interesting idea. A bumblebee has a similar protective 'shell' that allows it to 'defy the laws of physics' and fly in a straight line with heavy crosswinds.
@@ucanliv4ever This is little long but it will explain what the shell is.
The only fabric of universe is the ether. The ether sits wholly as Electron Orbital Shells which surround everything in universe and beyond. Electron Valance Shells are more or less same as Electron Orbital Shells so they will be called EOSs too. EOSs are pressure gradients; 2 8 18 32 50..and so forth. These numbers are pressures of the EOS layers and are measured in Volts. Volts are ether pressure measurements. These pressure gradients generate force of buoyancy which then push things within from higher pressure towards the centers of EOSs where pressure is lowest. This is gravity.
The Electron Orbital Shells are made of 2 things: ether pressure layers and magnetic field skins which separate the ether layers. MF Shells also keep the inside ether in and outside ether out. This is why Michelson and Morley couldnt find ether flowing over earth. Magnetic fields have the same shape except the MF Shells are moving unidirectionally where as regular EOSs move omnidirectionally.
So the curvature of space time is the ether field which sits wholly as Electron Orbital Shells which surround everything in existence
@@tajiroller so do you think the earth is flat?
@@ucanliv4ever Electron Orbital Shells are not flat. So earth can't be flat.
What a clear explanation, Thank you!!
What about Michelson-Gale-Pearson 1925 experiment? Can you do a video explaining it?
It is toughest way to find the playlist of anything
Ken wheeler explain the ether
Ether is not a frame of reference!!! It is the medium of propagation of EM wave!
Michelson‒Morley experiment did NOT disprove the existence of aether/ether. It only proved that stationary ether relative to the earth movement and that was not affected by the magnetic field of the earth did not exist. 1. aether may not be stationary relative to the earth because aether like air (in the case of sound wave propagation) may be affected by the gravitational field of the earth just like light. 2. Being a medium of propagation of an electromagnetic wave, namely, light, ether is very likely to be affected by the magnetic field of the earth. In either case, ether is moving with the earth and not stationary with respect to the motion of the earth.
More importantly, Michelson‒Morley experiment did NOT support Einstein's theory of relative either. Einstein simply never talked about how light was propagated. He only showed people a bunch of equations and assumed that light traveled at an invariant speed! But an invariant speed of light is nothing more than an assumption and not a conclusion of his theory.
Your dumb
@@sourabhsaha5773 *You're :D
Omg Thankyou finally someone with some critical thinking!
I have a question. Why would the 'ether' need be in motion? Why didn't they speculate it to be static?
Because that would mean the Earth is not moving...
Shh. They might be watching...
Well it could be static. But they assumed it must be moving relative to earth.
The experiment was too small. The super sized interferometer that was recently built is not detecting gravitational waves but are detecting ether wind.
That's probably not the case because while the Earth orbits the sun and the sun orbits the center of the galaxy etc etc, there should be an accountable change between the two beams when the angle between them and the ether wind changed.
LIGO is a kind of Michelson MMX interferometer. The differences are as follows......
(1) LIGO uses a laser -- Michelson & Co used an acetylene flame.
(2) LIGO uses an etalon (or 2), to fix the wavelength -- an MMX doesn't have any etalon.
(3A) LIGO doesn't have any fringes -- an MMX has fringes & measures any shifting.
(3B) LIGO is tuned for a zero signal, ie destructive interference, -- any change gives a signal.
(4) LIGO is in vacuum -- an MMX needs air (or gas)(or water or glass).
(5) LIGO's light reflects say 280 times in each 4 km arm -- MMXs had 1 to 4 reflexions per arm.
(6) LIGO's main mirrors are hung -- an MMX's mirrors are fixed.
(7) LIGO's arms are fixed -- an MMX's arms can rotate (but fixed can work).
(8) LIGO is designed to be sensitive to GWs -- an MMX is designed to be sensitive to the aether-wind.
LIGO cant perform as a good MMX because of (4) only (ie LIGO has vacuum). An MMX (with air) can detect a 2nd order signal. LIGO (with vacuum) can detect a 3rd order MMX signal (or it could if modified)(see (8))(not difficult). None of the other 7 differences preclude LIGO being an MMX.
An MMX works because (a) light takes longer when the aetherwind is a tailwind/headwind compared to sidewind, & (b) an arm is length contracted (Lorentz LC) if the longitudinal horizontal component of the aetherwind increases, & (c) light is slowed by air, & (d) light is fasted or slowed by Fresnel Drag in the air depending on whether the aetherwind is a tailwind or headwind.
LIGO is at present not greatly affected by (a)(b)(c)(d), because being fixed on Earth, & because LIGO rotates once per day, any such MMX signals would have a period of 12 hours, whereas LIGO is presently sensitive to signals near 100 Hz.
Maybe it is detecting the winds of your ignorance.
@@blzKrg no, only the wind between your ears
@@atheistaetherist2747 LIGO is LIE GO.
5 min in. The vertical leg of the interferometer runs in both directions and equals out any effect of the ether. Bad analogy.
alex tworkowski I know right
Right, so instead of each beam having to do a return leg (thus cancelling out any advantage it received on its way and then didn't receive on its return [and/or visa-versa] from the variance in the "ether's" assistance or resistance) have a detector / observer for each individual beam before its reflected? (no need for second set of mirrors essentially). Don't think I've ever written a sentence quite like that before!
Do you also figure that swimming back and forth across a river would "equal out' and appear equivalent to another swim upstream and downstream?
Why many people use 'sec' as the unit of time in lieu of the single letter 's' which is the correct SI unit..??!!
And it accelerate the wave idea of light as well.
It is based on wave idea which may be wrong that is why they failed.
Why tf are they assuming there has to be an ether wind and basing a whole experiment off of it? Just because the ether could be a medium, doesn’t mean it has to have a wind. This experiment is inconclusive from the start
If two mirror distance is same then path difference between two light wave is zero
Then how interference pattern formed..?
Plz ans me
As I understand it, the 2 light beams do NOT travel through the (theoretical) ether in the same direction. The direction difference should create some interference, even if the distance is equivalent, because the (theoretical) ether has substance and the substance should slow down light speed somewhat.
Don't understand wht u say....
If there is no eather then velocity of light in evry direction is constant
Then if we take L1, L2 both same then why pattern formed..??
Plz details
@@Sumonlaly95 As I understand it, different people with different agendas report about the Michelson Morely experiment in favor of their own agenda. I believe you will find that the Khan Academy has it's own agenda - and so they report the Michelson experiment in favor of their agenda. But there are other agendas.
For example, some people explain that Michelson DID find ether, but he found only small amount. Still - that is something. Apparently, a wide variety of physicists who followed Michelson also found ether. Not much, but some.
Einstein's paper says - essentially - that any ether would invalidate his theory. So, why is Einstein's theory not publicly invalid?
Because there is widespread public support against a stationary earth.
L1 and L2 are same length, but different direction. L1 goes into the ether flow, L2 does not. So, small amount of ether would create some very small amount of wave interference. I understand that is what Michelson found.
However, Michelson did NOT find enough ether to account for the rotation of the earth around the Sun. That implies there is empirical evidence for motionless, stationary earth, and there is also empirical evidence for ether.
But, you read Khan Academy - and you are left with the impression there is no ether and experiment was a failure.
I say that is wrong.
The 2 arms in an MMX do not have to be the same length or anywhere near the same length.
There is always interference tween the waves in the 2 arms, no matter what the lengths.
This interference makes a bright circular area on the target (or not so bright)(or dark).
When the MMX is rotated the circular area changes brightness.
This change can be measured easily/accurately/automatically with modern apparatus.
Or instead of a bright circular area there are a few or a lot of annular rings of bright or dark.
When the MMX is rotated the annular rings move inwards or outwards.
The classic MMX has 1 end mirror turn in or out a little off square horizontally.
This gives vertical fringes (bright stripes & dark stripes).
According to aether theory when the MMX is rotated the fringes will move left or right on the target (or in the view in the telescope).
Igor then sees/measures/records the amount of movement (in fringes)(eg 0.10 fringe width), perhaps measured from a fixed vertical line or a pointer.
Measurements might be say 16 (or 17) times per rev. Either on the move (usually), or by stopping to measure (rare i think).
If Einstein's STR is correct then there should be zero (aetheric) fringe shift during rotation of an MMX.
In which case any fringe shift would be due to spurious (non-aetheric) effects, eg........
(1) Temperature change (giving a change in length of arms).
(2) A strain (eg bending) in the arms (due to poor design)(or due to poor operation)(or due to not being exactly horizontal).
(3) Some kind of non-symmetry in the design or construction (eg bent axle)(angled axle).
(4) Some kind of sloppiness in the tightness of the axle.
(5) Some kind of non-aetheric & non-Einsteinian non-known physics (photonic) effect (eg involving reflexion from a moving mirror)(eg a problem with coherence/stickiness of wave fronts)(eg an erratic laser)(etc).
Interference pattern is formed because they are two different coherent sources. It doesn't matter if the path difference is zero, as long as it is constant. As their crests and troughs will create constructive and destructive fringe respectively.
Why is Einstein given credit for physics that were around long before he was? Granted he took the next steps and was a true genius but seems like he was hyped up a lot more then others who made bigger contributions and developments.
like tesla, you dont hear of that guy in school. Tells you a lot right there.
The Michelson Morley Experiment disproved Special Relativity before Einstein claimed he discovered it.
How do you know about all the things you post, like that's a lot of different thing to know
+ninja turtle Read your high school textbooks...
Reading.
what about red shift
This experiment is based entirely on the premise that the ether's movement is out of phase with the earth's movement. But what if the ether surrounding the earth moves along with the earth, like, you know, the entire atmosphere ?
If ether has mass it will be gravitationally attracted to earth and spin along with the earth. There will be no relative motion between the proximal ether and the earth. Bet you didn't think at that, Einstein !
So this experiment needs to be done in outer space, outside of earths atmosphere and gravitational field, in a space shuttle named 'I am stupid', or 'Etherium', in order to be taken seriously. And the shuttle should move at a much higher speed than the earth to create any observable interference. Because if it moves at 30km/s, compared to the speed of light of 300000 km/s, thats 10000 times less. What kind of interference do you expect to see if the wave speeds are only 30km/s apart, that is only 0,0001% out of phase ? The waves will seem to overlap even if there was a 0.0001 nanometer gap between them.
Illumination is an attribute of aether. This experiment was failed on the basis of its premise that light is something other than a coaxial ether modality.
Also aether wind doesn’t exist
I don't understand, and I get very confused by the results of the double split and other similar experiments. There are forces around us that act upon protons in this experiment. Also, these forces are likely affected by the apparatuses used to observe them. Because of the fundamental law of physics, it's clear that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force, a principle articulated by Galileo. This easily correlates with quantum entanglement and its paradoxes, string theory, dark energy, Bell's Theorem, gravity, thermodynamics, Length contraction, Hawking Radiation, Casimir Effect, Compton Scattering, and other subjects. The eraser experiment is about these forces and their effects on the photon…It's very clear to me that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is not the reason that we can not know both the position and speed of particles; it is because of this dark force.
Since Young presented a famous paper to the Royal Society entitled “On the theory of light and colors” in 1801 and his subsequent famous interference experiment in 1803, light was established to be a wave. About 100 years later, it was realized that light showed behavior characteristics of both wave and particle in the double slit experiment (and its variations) had become a classic for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. At that time, there was no concept of dark energy. The current concept of dark energy came about in the 1990s. I believe that dark energy is the reason for the wave characteristics of light (particles). What is one of the most fundamental laws of physics, established by Galileo, that a body in motion stays in motion unless acted by a force is the basis of my conclusion. Numerous, if not all, of the characteristics attributed to particles, I believe, are attributable to dark energy. This results in Einstein being correct; the moon is not visible simply because it’s being observed. It’s always present because these forces (dark energy) cannot affect its position in space.
Just to be clear, double slit and similar experiments are proof of two things. First, it is proof of dark energy. Secondly, it’s proof of the existence of strings. Little, if anything, is known about dark energy. One of the things they know for sure about dark energy is that it’s not detectable; it cannot be observed. That’s why they call it dark. As for the proof of the existence of strings, the interference patterns left by double-slit type experiments are characterized as wave-like. Wave-like behaviors are foundational to the definition of string theory. Finally, is the fact that phenomena, wave-like behavior, disappear when apparatuses are used to observe (detect) those experiments. These assertions are further substantiated by the erasers' and similar experiments' results. Remember that the Michelson & Morley (1887) experiment was one of the most sensitive test of its time. Poignantly, it failed to detect any indication of ether wind stemming from “luminiferous ether.” It just wasn't there, completely undetectable. Not a hint. Dark energy is a universal uniformed negative Electric/Magnetic monopole structure. I think this accounts for its characteristics. Also, it’s interesting to note that when Einstein identified Brownian motion, string theory did not exist. I feel that if string theory existed at that time, Brownian motion could have been used to substantiate that theory, string theory.
Newton, very cleverly, removed the consideration of curvature from his calculations. He did this by using points at the center of the masses. Einstein put curvature back into the calculations. He did this by cleverly introducing the concept of space-time. I do not believe that light bends around massive objects because of space-time. The light bends around massive objects because light is repelled by mass, as in Hawking Radiation. Additionally, I am confused about the concept of time. I believe time does not exist when there is only one point, a single point. This is due to how calculations are done within the framework of Cartesian geometry and not because of physics. There is no place in physics where there is only a single point.
Again, and I know I’m repeating myself, particle physics must be transformed into dark energy physics. By identifying matter as having wave-particle characteristics, matter has been mischaracterized. Science needs to be re-focused on the waves observed in the double split and the like, as well as experiments, and the focus on particles needs to be deemphasized. The concept of wave-particle duality should be abandoned. Schrödinger equation, Probability density function, and, very importantly, Maxwell's equations emanate from dark energy.
As a starter, science must focus on the waves observed in the double split and similar experiments to determine their minimum and maximum characteristics. This should be done by varying the parameters of the experiments as much as possible. The screen should always be as large as possible. The slit should be as small as possible. The slit should be as far away as possible from the screen. Particles of varying masses and charges should be systematically used. Then, all these factors, except fixed conditions, i.e., the results, should be systematically varied and their data recorded and then finally compared and analyzed. Outlier data should not be excluded. This should establish conclusively that a force is responsible for the particles' behavior and not the particles' inherent behavior.
Good buddy
How can we detect the light's waves? What's the principle?
Anyone give me the answer.
The different light sources have different signatures which can be recognized with, roughly speaking, the same technology used to record images on film.
Don't lose your place in this material though! The point is that this experiment showed no motion. Sagnac in 1913 did roughly this experiment on a rotating plate and picked up an interference pattern. Thus, if the Earth were rotating like the plate, Michelson and Morley should have picked up an interference pattern. Einstein posited that IN THEORY, IF length, time, and mass were dilated in one particular way, the Michelson-Morley experiment could be reconciled with the heliocentric model. But when Sagnac showed that movement measured from the Earth's surface SHOULD cause a different interference pattern than if the surface of measurement weren't moving, that showed that indeed the ether (some medium on Earth, perhaps just the "atmosphere") did exist and thus that if the Earth were rotating and orbiting and hurtling around the center of gravity of the milky way galaxy AND shooting away from the Big Bang, then we would be able to detect it with these interferometry experiments. We do not, therefore the Earth is stationary.
If you follow this so far, you may be wondering whether, indeed, the sun orbits the Earth. This is a reasonable leap from your perspective, but is not in hindsight, with evidence in hand. The Earth is flat and stationary. As many, many sources show, we can see too far. This is documented via photography, lasers, mirrors reflecting sunlight, and the identification of objects through long-range sights, esp. over long, straight canals. These observations are made at SUCH A DISTANCE at which the object of desired view should not be visible. The conclusion of these experiments is that sometimes you can see the desired object and sometimes you cannot. This means that the Earth is flat (or if spheroidal (but there are many more rebuttals against that), much larger than they say) and that the horizon is an optical, not physical object. The variable atmosplane (if you will) sometimes blocks your view of these objects, and you cannot see forever because of the compression of ever more field of view into a narrower and narrower visual band closer and closer to the horizon line (picture the floor and the ceiling meeting at the end of a long hotel hallway or the railroad tracks appearing to converge in the distance). The fact that you can EVER see some of the things that people have seen means that there is not a wall of water and/or earth (the "Earth" above the secant line connecting me and the object of my viewing) between me and the object of my viewing, and thus that the Earth is flat.
With knowledge of a flat, stationary Earth and after consulting the truer map of the world, provided to you by the United Nations via their logo, you will begin to ask questions about why that map ends at the 60th Southern parallel, why the Antarctic Treaty won't let you go south of that 60th parallel, and how the UN knew that map would be accurate when the logo was designed a decade before the Antarctic Treaty was conceived! The answer is probably that other humanoids, probably those responsible for the old stories about gods/aliens, the inconceivably built ancient architectural sites, and part of the UFO phenomenon, live "South" (that is further from the North Pole) of South America, South Africa, and Oceania. This is probably related to what Admiral Byrd had to say about a land mass bigger than the US unexplored "South" of Antarctica.
Happy travels.
@@stephenbradley445 well thought and articulated. 🤝
Another take on the MM experiment from Captain Obvious.
Captain Obvious may offer another reasoning it did prove, Geocentricity
( The Earth at Rest) In a prevailing wind sound carries a
voice farther than a resistance wind and a still day would carry sound
the same intensity at any direction.
If the Earth is at rest, any direction would have the same light speed
and therefore not really a test of Aether resistance as intended, but
demonstrates Earth at Rest for the light waves always matched.
This explanation seems to be ignored or missed because every one knows
the Earth rotates (philosophy not science which questions all) Instead cosmologist and physicist came up with fanciful hypothesis and theories to avoid the above simple conclusion of Earth at rest.
Or perhaps having the light source moving with the earth rendered any attempt to show the earth's movement null? If they used sunlight, I wonder if the results would vary in the morning vs in the evening?
Can't believe what your saying.....
I thought there was no one else.
I have a design, a simple electrical gyro in gimballs... perhaps even using vacuum and magnetic locking to hold the the gyro disc suspended... I'd like to watch it and see the earth not move. If it moves and goes back to position, I'll believe the Earth moves, but I doubt we will see this. I kind believe... or think.... the Earth is at rest!
hAirMoto's FPV: look up what a “Marine Gyrocompass” is and how it operates.
@@masumoto007 did you do this? Do you have a video? I would love to see please!
@@GrahamStw i would basically be making a gyro compass🤓
Im sure mine would be not as good for sure🤦♂️
This experiment doesn't prove the constant speed of light irrespective of point of reference. Suppose there is a relative increase in speed of light parallel to the direction of motion of earth when reflected by the first mirror, but then when light bounces back by the second mirror there will be relative decrease of the speed of light because now it has to travel against the motion of earth. When increase in speed on the way to the second mirror is cancelled out by decrease in speed on the way back, then the result of the experiment will always be the same....but this does not mean that the speed of light has not changed during the experiment....this does not prove the special relativity theory of Einstein.
does wave length depend on wave length? please answer me.
Yes, sometimes, but only if you take away the number you first thought of.
I am amazed to see that every exposition of special relativity and the M-M experiment assumes Newtonian rigidity of the sandstone block which supports the mirrors. This means that the M-M experiment and any similar search for asymmetry of light propagation must give a null result simply because the forces which hold solids in shape must travel like light (being electromagnetic in origin) within the solid. Think about it. Does a metre ruler begin to move as soon as you push one end? Of course not! I takes the same minimum time for a push on one end to get through to the other end - the same time as a light pulse in fact! Newtonian rigidity, in which forces travel at infinite speed in solids, went out of fashion not with Newton but should have done with Rutherford (1910) who showed that the spacing between atomic nuclei in solids is around 10^5 times their radii which gives plenty of room for contraction. So the Lorentz contraction was not ad hoc after all. Trust me, wrong assumptions like that utterly destroy the MMX. The whole point about special relativity (and general too ) is that light is the speed limit of the Universe. How else might atoms know how far to contract? Answers on a $ bill to your favourite charity. See my video from a few years back. Trevor Morris UK
the speed of light is not a limit, it's a constant...Also it's speed varies depending on the medium that the light is "traveling" through....
@@CounterAttack1989 Makes sense.
@@CounterAttack1989 This experiment proves that light travels at exactly THE SAME speed in all directions regardless of the fact the earth is rotating at 1500 mph, the earth is orbiting the sun at 45,000 mph, and the sun is orbiting the galaxy at 500,000 mph. So this Michelson Morley experiment does not disprove the aether, this experiment disproves Special Relativity.
wow video
what if light travels in some higher dimensions but not in 3D or our world becoz why it only bends when the space time fabric changes only
has anyone ever dropped a rock in water, it seems to make waves meaning you don't need a flow to make waves you just need a disturbance.
+Allan Nicol yeah, but there is still a medium (the water), so that's why people thought there had to be a medium for light to travel through. And they believed there had to be a flow because we are moving relative to the sun, and the sun is moving relative to the galaxy, and the galaxy is moving relative to the rest of the universe. So a flow of this medium that light would travel through had to be there. But now we know there is no such thing.