How do you measure stationary?, you devise a method to detect motion and if you detect no motion then it is stationary, a null result is a negative result, they looked for motion and the result was negative, NO MOTION. dont try to trick us, earth shows no axial rotation.
Thank you! While I’ve always had an interest in science, other activities took precedence when I was younger and I never knew about this experiment and when I did hear about it I had no idea of it’s true goal and how & why it was conducted. Your presentation made it easy to comprehend and now I know more than I did 18 minutes ago. Much thanks!
Yay! You're one of the few that explained that Maxwell expected the speed of light to be the same in any inertial frame! Thank you thank you thank you!
Very interesting. I would disagree, though, with the "orange time" (at apx. 19:40) being 2d/C, as if the speed of light wasn't affected by the "aether wind" when travelling perpendicular to it, as if its "vertical" component remained the same. Let's compare the light to a wave that would grow as a circle around a single source, like when you throw a rock into a pool. Here, the pool would be moving to the left at a speed of V (the "speed of the wind"). Let's say we "drop the rock" where the axis intersect (point O). Let's call I(t) the point on the x axis where the "source" is located after time t. The radius of the circle made by the wave is R(t)=C.t, because the light (the wave) moves away from its source at a speed of C. When the light hits point D (the upper mirror), the triangle OID will have a right angle in O, it's hypotenuse is DI (length = R(t)) and its sides are OD (length d) and OI (length I(t)), so: d^2 +(V.t)^2 = (C.t)^2, hence t=d/sqrt(C^2 - V^2) and the total time is twice that. So really, one should compare C/(C^2-V^2) with 1/sqrt(C^2-V^2). The former is sqrt(C) times the latter, so it is indeed larger. If I'm not wrong...
Please, tell us how Lorentz contraction proved that Ether exists, and then tell us how Einstein using the Lorentz contraction proved that Ether does not exist...
is If the light is faster in the positive x direction wouldn’t it be slower in the negative x direction and wouldn’t that cancel out and still be in phase with the light that moves along the y axis no matter what way the ether wind was oriented I’m not really understanding this
I have a question, and I consider myself not ignorant of physics. If there was an ether wind, would the speeds of both light beams NOT be equal when they reach the detector? My reasoning is thus: any velocity the light gains (or loses) due to the ether on the *outbound* leg would be lost (or regained) on the *inbound* leg, and therefore both beams would recombine at the same velocity on the final leg towards the detector. What am I missing? ty in advance.
I suffer from the same doubt. The point might be in the fact that the orange path wouldn't be perpendicular, but a diagonal due to ether drag. And thus the orange time would be greater than the yellow one and not viceversa. Still, it's difficult to me to take solid conclusions out of this experiments since it assumes too many things, like for instance that all ether is like a solid moving at the same speed relative to the earth and ether currents are not possible. It doesn't prove to me that it also doesn't exist. Maybe it's just independent to light. But that conclusion already appeared in Maxwell's equations. I don't know. Not very clear to me this subject either.
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
_"If there was an ether wind, would the speeds of both light beams NOT be equal when they reach the detector"_ - It is not the (end) speed of the light that is important, but the time it takes to travel the distances. Those times depend on the direction and magnitude of the aether wind. Think of the extreme case of the light speed equal to the aether wind speed, and work out how the results would be affected.
Yes the way you drew the line going with the either could be confusing. A new student might say the light souce gains speed with the aether before it is slowed down by the aether (net zero speed additive effect) before bouncing into the detective telescope.
@@2tehnik You can't, because light may propagate due to an eather, which means any speed the eather may have is additive to a light speed. This experiment is poorly conceived.
All the Michelson-Morley experiment proved is that either the speed of light is the same in all directions, or that if it varies, then length also varies such that differences in the speed of light in different directions are undetectable with an interferometer. The trouble is that people have leapt to the conclusion from this that there is no such thing as absolute rest, which leads to the twins paradox.
_"The trouble is that people have leapt to the conclusion from this that there is no such thing as absolute rest"_ - no experiment has ever shown that absolute speed or rest is detectable. So that is not a leap to a conclusion. _"...which leads to the twins paradox."_ - the resolution of the twin paradox does not require an absolute rest.
@renedekker9806 resolution of twin paradox doesn't exist. It's just "this one is stationary because I said so" with some math and magic spells, which should block your ability to mirror this math on 180 degrees.
Reality is that the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) that encapsulates and integrates the outcomes of the Michelson Morley experiment has been proven TRUE and extremely accurate in many experiments, and is even a part of the computations that a GPS system must make to be accurate. In other words the STR is proven by practical fact millions of times every day. Exit ether.
@@PhysicsHigh Yes but i think that Vihan Roy meant that possibly the aetherwind might not be able to penetrate the basement walls. That's not necessarily the same thing as aether existing in the basement.
MAJOR MISCONCEPTION. The two distances were not identical, and it would have been impossible to get distances for the 2 mirrors within a fraction of a 600 nm wavelength. They did not actually line them up and see no interference. They saw an interference pattern, and they saw that the interference pattern did not change when the apparatus was rotated.
Holy moly, you've helped me understand this so much better. I was trying to think, like "how the hell is the yellow line supposed to take longer than the orange one..?" But that doesn't matter because the lines were gonna be different anyways; it's a matter of how much the aether would change the light pattern at different angles. Rad. Thanks!
I agree with your point about the precision of the instrument but nonetheless by rotating the whole thing we should have seen a change in the phase shift and thus the pattern. Because we didn't see a change in the pattern the velocities did not change with the motion through the theoretical aether. I think the properties of the space medium are outside of what we know so what we observe is true but the assumption that mediums have the same properties is false. This leads to other assumptions like there is no absolute spacetime grid etc.
What about scalar waves and the hysteresis effect? Longitudinal magneto dielectric waves (LMD) have no mass and potentially travel billions of time the speed of light. Electrical theory has always held the notion that there must be a field that is undefined. Faraday ,Maxwell, Tesla, Eric Dollard, and even Einstein himself, postulated this must be the case. Relativity is a theory, not a fact. Longitudinal waves travel almost instantaneously over vast distances without breaking the law of conservation. Perhaps there is no light in free space. It only manifests itself when it is in contact with the Earths envelope.
14:34. You say if light get some speed traveling from halfsilver mirror to mirror down with aether on right side and then looses some speed going back against aether, doesent that actually cancel itself? Those two speeds *?
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
If the speed of light is constant because it is propagated by the eather, then when the eather is moving then the speed of light would be additive. Whether there is, or is not an eather, this experiment doesn’t demonstrate for me that there is no eather.
MM exp was a null result. It did not disprove aether but its results is consistent with there being no either. Einstein said aether was superfluous with his theories. The experiment also did not SHOW that c was constant but again the null result is consistent with that outcome.
The argument doesn't hold if Earth is the source of the aether, and it is being dragged along with it. Then the Earth is always stationary relative to the aether. The EM Zero-point field for example, is a field that is Lorentz invariant. You can't measure your velocity relative to it because the spectrum is complete and infinite. When it is doppler shifted, it still looks exactly the same to the detectors.
It's not correct to use the throwing of the ball. I think a better example should have been a sound source , since we know that Galilean relativity works in the case of sound. And it resembles more with Light from the wave perspective.
Maxwell knew light is a wave. All waves have constant speed, depended by the medium. c = constant for each medium, and for "luminoforus eather" or empty space is c=(μο*εο)^1/2. Please review this video since its used for educational purposes (high school).
mathematically: 1/(1-v²/c²)=1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c) 1/V(1-v²/c²).1/V(1-v²/c²)=(1/2)[1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c)] 2/V(1-v²/c²)=V(1-v²/c²)[1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c)] we multiply the equation by L/c 2(L/c)/V(1-v²/c²)=V(1-v²/c²)[(L/c)/(1-v/c)+(L/c)/1+v/c)] which explains the result of the Michelson -Morley experiment
"The earth is not moving" clearly it's not the case!!! Why ? Did they see NASA's photoshopped pictures? Why are they ignoring Sagnac's result who rotated the plan and got the expected interferences ?
Nice video and presentation. Is it fair to say that the prerequisites for light propagation are e0 and u0? Also that e0, u0 are attributes of light medium, Aether? Also that c is a constant, only if u0 and e0 are constants. Any particle or solar plasma wind intruded into the vacuum-Aether space will change e0, u0 and c. Also that solar wind increases the permittivity e0, u0 and caused a permittivity, permeability gradient around solar that is created a velocity gradient to a passing light and hence bends it? That gravity bends light is coincidence or correlation but proof?
You forgot to say maxwell got to his equations, which wasn't just the div and curl of the potentials as it is given today with assumed gaug invariance. By trying to reason about the ether, a medium, and he got the forces through pressure and rotation coupled in some funny way by physical arguments. Basically a toy model of the medium. What you might not know is that it's slightly fancier models of the same kind with non linear properties where the size of the vorticies can dissipate away depending on energy density, and a few other details, you get gravity as well, it is important to say that this shrinking of the vorticies must lead to a feedback mechanism that spins them up, such that there is a dynamical equilibrium established between dissipation causing shrinking, causing higher rotation, which in return creates higher pressure and stronger forces and more inertia and resistance to rotation of rhe medium in 3 d. Gravity comes out of the change in the mediums speed of induction as a function of energy density and rotation, so a mass causes a divergence in density creating a negative pressure and inflow of the medium towards the matter, this is half of the gravitational field, the other half is the gradient in the speed of mediation and induction that results from the gradient in the rotation, energy density in moment of inertia of the voticity of the medium and the pressures and other stresses in the medium around matter that is charged, matter than is not charged in some way does not really exist, exceot for with neutrinos, but even they have a type of charge but that is too detailed for this comment. And there are no electrons in a quark gluon plasma, but that is also a different story about the phases of matter in this type of model with a bit more realism in it. So gravity and electromagnitism in the ordinary vacuum igniring the weak force has a common origins, and are just the linear stresses and dynamics of rotation in the medium and gravity is about the strenght of the forces locally and the flow of the medium, mainly its divergence, but also its curl and detailed variation in space and time. Gravity is just a non linear part of the dynamics of a non linear medium for which forces like electromagnetism is the linear part of, the flat space dynamics if you like with the dependence on energy density for dissipation rate, rotational feedback and flow ignored. Would have been nice if maxwell lived to 90 i would say, i think the way we do physics today is ghastly and unproductive, mostly applied math and numerology.
I'm subbing just because of how well you presented everything. I was looking for a way to explain this experiment to a flat earth community who believe this experiment proves the earth is stationary. -_- thanks again!
I deduced that in the case of the interference experiment, with the interferometer in the horizontal plane, the light has exactly the same speed in all directions. This is because light (photons) is coupled with the mass density field of the earth. Field that leaves the substance of the earth and emanates in the space in the immediate vicinity. The coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium is proved by Fizeau's experiment. Experiment that accurately verifies Fresnel's formula, called partial ether entrainment. Fresnel's formula is easy to find, without any relativistic metaphysics, if the density of light and the density of the environment and the density of the earth are added together. And it is not about the entrainment of the ether, but it is about the variation of the refractive index of the transparent medium, when it is moving (in translation) compared to the situation when it is at rest. The negative term in Fresnel's formula is due to the coupling of light with the density field of the planet. Because he is in solidarity with the planet.
Surely if the horizontal beam is being effected by the aether in one direction, that effect will be equally and proportionally cancelled out when it goes in the exact opposite direction with the return. Unless the aether suddenly changes as it's on the way back... I'm saying that it seems logical to conclude that if there was an aether effecting the lights velocity, you still wouldn't be able to detect it that way. The same goes for the vertical beam in your diagram. Meaning that with or without an aether, the beams should still meet back again at the same time. There is a question maybe too about sensitivity. Because the light moves so fast, the, or any effect, may not be visible at such short distances.
@@PhysicsHigh Thank you for responding, and so quickly. You should know, I'm a wood machinist by trade, so not as capable of understanding this as say an accomplished student of physics, at least not with maths. I have watched that video you mentioned also. But to be honest with you, as soon as I see equations, I lose track of the logic chain. I understand that there could be differences when spinning the concrete block in that famous experiment, IF there was a moving aether. That it might vary in velocity between to and from the mirror. But because the speed of light is so fast, it seems possible and even likely, that the apparatus might not be sensitive enough to pick up these differences in velocity distortion anyway. That either way, it's likely to get a null result. That the speed of light appears constant and both beams should meet at the same time, to either cancel each other out, or both hit the sensor at the same time. I've seen two videos on this, one where both beams meet and hit the sensor, another video diagram/explanation, where they both meet together and nothing hits the sensor. Is there something in the maths video, which shows that the apparatus IS sensitive enough to pick up the speed of light if it was effected by a moving aether like medium? Doesn't the thickness or bandwidth of the light wave need to be smaller to get a more precise reading? Meaning that to the extent that the waves of said beams fluctuate, is at least the extent of your margin of error. Sorry if I write too much.. I'm doing a crash course in flat earth versus globe and hit a wall on this interferometer situation with the aether, or a moving planet Earth.
@14:26... something doesn't make sense. If light goes *with* the ether, shouldn't it go faster? It's assuming that the speed of light going *with* the ether is the same as the speed of light going perpendicular to the ether?
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
Both Michelson and Morley assumed that the speed of light is not altered upon reflection by a moving mirror. This critical error produced a small variation in the distance traveled by the light between mirrors in the rest frame of ether. sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/speed-of-light
To add to the ending about possible conclusions. Another hypothesis to account for the results was that the ether moved locally with the earth, but that was also proven to be incorrect.
@@zegonzales1 No, in fact light waves do not need a medium to propogate. Light waves are comprised of an electric field and a magnetic field neither of which need a medium to act on. Furthermore not one experiment has proven that ether exists or that it's even remotely necessary.
@@zegonzales1 _"The propagation of eletromagnetic waves say that"_ - the equations that describe the propagation of electromagnetic waves (the Maxwell equations), say that an aether does not exist.
High School Physics Explained got the experiment right. But might want to return to school to re-analyze the result in reference to the earths Motion or Non Motion.
i feel that when the light is moving at the direction ether is flowing, its belocity is greater than when ît moves against the ether. So when these two are added, we get a constant velocity..
Sample question :Lorenz factor: K²=1/a²=[1/(1-b)][1/(1+b)] with b=v/c,a=V(1-v²/c²) [V:square] k²=1/2[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)] 2k=a[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)] necessarily the multiplication of the mathematical equation by a constancy for example L / c must be respected, that is to say: 2L/ac=2kL/c=a.L/c.[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)] there is no need of any physical hypothesis to explain this mathematical equation which explains the M-M experience. it is not mathematically possible to find : k² =/= [1/(1-b)][1/(1+b)]
I don't understand if the light is going with the Aether and then back again, then its then going against the Aeither as well, and thereby pretty much destroys the experiment... I would think they would cancel each other out. I don't get it.... Or against the aeither and then with it - pretty much chancel itself out... Please someone explain why this would work.
I totally agree that the decrease in time taken when light moving in the direction of aether wind will cancel out with an increase in time taken when light moving against aether wind. No matter how many years you run this experiment it will always give a null result. Also, if anybody bases any assumption on this experiment that light always moves at a constant speed regardless of observer's speed, then that assumption also false. We know that Einstien used this experiment to make this assumption for Special Relativity (SR), which means SR is also wrong. Like that there are a couple of more flaws in SR.
I add some aether info as follows. (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).
They need to be doing the experiment in the Aether and not in their basement for it to be of any meaning. That's where Einstein's theory of relativity explains everything.
Btw the ether never failed. If you are decent at math. What shape dies a cavity have to have, for the pressure on its walls is to he equal, when traveling through the ether and not dragging it, such that the light inside has an anisotropic speed indise the cavity, the answer is equal times logitudinally and transversly, which means any shape formed by pressure mediation, whether it is a potential from a charge mediated by pressure andnother stresses of a spin glass or something like that, or a balloon that is simply elastically deformed or whatever, should take on the shape necessary to satisfy the lengt contraction assumed in relativity. Please take your time to pause and to think about what this means for matter. If matter is held together by potentials and pressure and stress gradients in a medium, and it is basically a soliton like entity or something like self confined radiation, moving through the medium, then it automatically has to lenght contract in such a way as to produce a null result in experiments like michaelson morley. Only spatial gradients in the speed of light, or flow of the medium, or being accelerated causes a non null result, like in the detection of gravitational waves, which is basically the same experiment. And remember this sort of derivation is common to all solitons and models of emergent matter like confined radiation which is just another form of soliton with internal degrees of freedom, must lenght contract if it is built out if stresses in a medium, or waves in a medium or even inertial matter in a medium of the same type of constitution. Pretty much every mechanism you can think of, has lenght contraction as a dynical consequence derived from the way matter arises in elastic an elastic medium. It is very hard to avoid it in ether theory without basically not being able to deal with the concept of inertial matter at all, you basically have to have numerically defined point particles with no structure just assumed mathematical properties to make sense of non relativistic matter in an ether theory, and then you are just making a mathematical fiction with no internal logic that can be just shifted around anyway, like relativity. Making everything out of mathematical definitions of parameters brings a sort of freedom an engineer can use well but that is terribly flexible and tgerefore unwanted in fundamental physics. Imo. You want something well grown, something rigid, where as much as possible comes out of as littke as possible, and that means inertia has to be derived, and along with it comes lenght contraction and the good parts of relativity for free. And that all relies on detailed models of the medium. This idea that you can make easier mathematical progress, and write papers and be impressive socially by throwing out the medium works for a while, and then nothing, basically no proven progress has been made on theory development since 1930 or so, that didn't last very long for relativity did it? Because it is just a mathematical shell built on assumption, instead of structure and marerial science where the effects are derivable from dynamics instead of assumed principles which provide conditions to be met for parameters, that kind of mathematical sophistry is mostky empty of content, you get what you assumed, and nothing more and basically everything einstein assumed was known and people were working on deriving it dynamically at the time he more or less plagurized it. General relativity was nice, it was progress however i'm not sure whether it was original either. People say different things and the original cast is all dead so i can't tell. It is however peculiarity that a lot of the progress made on solving the equations, and building cosmology out of it was done by others, and einstein seemed kind of confused about it in many papers i have read, so that why i'm not that dissimive of the claims of plagurizing hilbert. I do not think he just stole things, i think he understood it decently, at least probably developed most of it or all of it independently or sort of, but i'm not sure. But what i'm more impressed by is his opposition to nonsense in quantum mechanics, and his later work, general relativity is provisional, itnis impressive, but when he opposes nonsense in the quantum mechanical world later on i feel right there with him, and he stands out there in a way i'm much more sure of if you know what i mean, i don't know what to think about 1905 einstein, but old fart einstein i'm sure i would get along with, maybe all i have heard about plagurism is just nonsense as well, i'm not going to call him a fraud, but the first relativity paper was super sketchy to me in light of poincare's publications and earkier work by Lorentz and Fitzgerald and maxwell and a bunch of others. I very much doubt it was all independent as he claimed. The photo electric effect paper as basic but good, although the corpuscular hypothesis is childish and incorrect. His last publications are interesting where he says he has no idea how to realize a local theory in light of entanglement and quantum field theory in general, but i have his back there, so if he is sitting up there shaking his head wondering why i think he plagurized it, then at least i know how to realize his dream of local sensible fully markovian physics.
I was under the understanding that they were trying to detect the motion of the Earth that was their experiment and they could not and in their failure to detect the motion of the Earth they approved the Aether am I wrong I really believe not
_"Isn't the speed of light limit just a basic premise of the STR?"_ - it a basic premise of SR, because the experimental evidence (like this M-M experiment) had shown that it was constant.
If there is an ether the light would speed up with the ether when traveling to the first mirror and then slow down against the ether when traveling back resulting in the same speed at the detector whether there is an ether or not. Doesn't anyone else see the fundemental flaw in this experiment or am I missing something?
Sagnac experiment! Proved the aether existed! MM above thus proves the earth is stationary! So much for Helio-centrism! ...and this throws out Einstein's Relativity also, because it's built on the premise that the aether does not exist!
Actually, no it didn't... in fact the Sagnac experiment did not line up with the experimental predictions of the aether hypothesis.... that is the interference should vary depending upon direction, not just motion itself.... It along with the many other experiments which did not align with aether hypothesis predictions is what brought about special relativity. In fact the Sagnac effect can be derived from special relativity.
What if the aether was replaced by the air medium & the air medium is stationary .. so that the light can travel at constant speed in any direction ? (if we pour water into a glass that filled with air, the water replaces the air. Similerly in earth what if the aether was replaced by the air ?) Was that experiment done in vacuum or in space ?
M&M experiment "failed" because the aether in close to the earth is dense and not permeable. It also moves along with the earth. No aether wind to "see". The experiment should be performed far from earth where the aether is not as dense and compressed. The aether is pushed aside by matter but retains its position like a girdle on your body. The dense aether also is instrumental in causing the gravity that pushes us towards the center of mass of the earth. It also causes the casimir effect, but on a smaller scale.
The science society at the time mistaken about Aether is wind can drift through and not attaches to matter or molecules. Armed with this mistake Michelson set out to design his interferometer expecting to measure Aether wind velocity to be equal or close to earth’s orbital velocity. However what Michelson & Morley get was a residual but orbital speed as I expected. That is because Aether attaches to matter, the interferometer including earth and move at equal speed, as if Aether didn’t exists but it exist. A mentally weak person can easily latched on some theory that is highly praised, celebrated and well branded without much scrutiny. Like wearing a $10,000 Rolex. One may think that “If I understand theories offered by one of 200-IQ I’m not far from 200-IQ”.
To me, all this LIGO project is the repetition of M-M experiment, only with the new equipment. This means, that if they've found gravitational waves there, Ether is also proven. But I would be very glad to be corrected...
I'm sorry to say that you failed to explain how the MM experiment failed... I don't encourage people explaining something they don't really understand because that could make other people more confused, especially in physics.
Can you explain to me why the light going with the eather and against the eather in the returning is slower than the other light in the experiment? Does not the eather variation in the light cancels itself?
@@brenosantana1458_"Does not the eather variation in the light cancels itself?"_ - it doesn't. Do the calculations and you'll find out. Or intuitively, think of the extreme case and suppose light has the same speed as the aether wind. Then the light travels very fast with the aether, but will never manage to come back against the aether.
All the questions about the precision and velocities are irrelevant because the experiment should have seen a phase shift differential and therefore a change in the pattern but it didn't.
The m.m. experiment disproves an assumption of a static ether. Yet countless youtube videos talk about "dark matter"... There is no way around metaphysics.
I’m no scientist but doesn’t this experiment only indicate that there is no detectable aether on earth? Would like to know if this experiment was conducted in space or even could be. Absolutely fascinating nonetheless. 👍
Dr Bob the science guy lead me here and I'm so glad he did. It has always got me so frustrated when pseudo science fools take the MM experiment and mangle the meaning the way they do so thank you, thank you and thank you for making this great video! New sub right here. Keep up the great works and keep up the fight! (I'm also Canadian Thomas, Just posting from my new channel)
The michelson-morley experiment was only one of very many that proved the Earth was stationary ,in fact no experiment has ever proven motion,,,,, let that sink in
I'm not on any side, tbh I'm just diving into the field and learning as I go. But this doesn't cover the sagnac experiment results, and the fact that laser gyros in every single plane work. As for why this experiment failed, anyone who has studied black holes knows why - in aether based physics they believe that the sun "pull" the aether around itself in a "whirlpool", similar to the egosphere of a relativistic black hole. I have a lot more to learn on both sides, but they seem to think that gravity is the incompressible aether being "pulled" into the earth and speeding up as the volume decreases as you approach earth, explaining the behaviour of gravity decreasing with distance as expected. If you want to really disprove aether you need to do what nobody else seems to want to do and tackle sagnac.
This is really lousy science... -Ether could move with the Earth like air. You don't get different speeds for sound because of earth orbit/rotation because air travels with earth... -The experiment wasn't even done in a vacuum... it was done in AIR!!! So it's not even clear if you're testing light in air + ether, or just air. They could have at least done it in a vacuum, that technology existed at this time. -Air has refractive incidence, and light speed is not invariant in a medium. Which is why relativity is also lousy science. To the guy who made the video, great video! Very well explained. Maybe could have included better explanation for why it would slow down though along yellow line. Intuitively most people would assume the negative speed moving against wind would balance out with positive boost moving with wind. As a cyclist I definitely wouldn't expect them to balance out hahaha, riding with and then against wind is overall slower than having side-wind, I would expect yellow to be slower as they predict, I believe it's because wind resistance is exponential, not linear. Higher speed takes more energy to accelerate so smaller boost from wind supporting you, than resistance added from wind opposing. Does the math indicate something similar?
I don't understand the statement at 15:48 that in six months the ether wind would be going in the other direction. If this was believed to be a relative wind experienced due to the earth's movement through the stationary ether, it would never blow in the other direction.
Why there hasn't been offered a third assumption. Aether is moving together with the Earth? Because there is some shifting. It is a really small shift. Which shows daly rotation of the Earth itself. And this kind of shifting depends on the latitude location. On the equator it is maximum along on the poles it shows absolutely no shift at all. Would you explain this "strange" behaviour of the light? I could. There is an aether and it goes along the gravitational field of the massive objects like planets, suns, black holes ext. otherwise no one can explain the existence of a black hole because nothing can exist below the event horizon according to non aether theories.
That assumption was made, in addition to stationary aether, partial aether drag and Earth fixed aether were also postulated....... the problem being that no experiments gave results consistent with whatever assumptions (moving, fixed or partially fixed).
Speed of light in vacuum is dependent only on the electric and magnetic properties of vacuum - one of the really weird results of Maxwell's Equations that got people a little shook.
The vertical paths would travel a greater distance if the aether existed, not the other way around since the light would have traveled a greater distance on a diagonal. The horizontal distances cancel each other. Teachers like this is why I dropped out in the 11th grade of high school. Please read my book, Infinity, Time, Death and Thought. Another tidbit - why do they still call it the "theory" of relativity?
_"The horizontal distances cancel each other."_ - it's not the distance that counts, but the time to travel that distance. And those don't "cancel each other". _"Teachers like this is why I dropped out in the 11th grade of high school"_ - you should have stayed in, then you would have learned how to calculate this properly. _"why do they still call it the "theory" of relativity?"_ - because it is a scientific theory (look up the definition of a scientific theory).
Eu am dedus ca in cazul experimentului interferential, cu interferometrul in plan orizontal, lumina are in toate directiile exact aceeasi viteza. Asta deoarece lumina (fotonii) se cupleaza cu campul de densitate masica al pamantului. Camp ce pleaca din substanta pamantului si emana in spatiul din imediata vecinatate. Cuplajul luminii cu campul de densitate al mediului transparent este dovedit de experimentul lui Fizeau. Experimet care verifica cu precizie formula lui Fresnel, zisa de antrenare partiala a eterului. Formula lui Fresnel se gaseste usor, fara nicio metafizica relativista, daca se aduna densitate luminii si densitatea mediului si densitatea pamantului. Si nu este vorba de antrenarea eterului, ci este vorba de variatia indicelui de refractie al mediului transaparent, cand este in miscare (in translatie) fata de situatia cand este in repaus. Termenul negativ din formula lui Fresnel este datorat cuplajului luminii cu campul de densitate al planetei. Deoarece este solidar cu planeta.
You cannot conclude that the aether doesn't exist based on that experiment. What you can conclude is that the "aether wind" doesn't have the same effect on light as atmospheric wind has on a baseball. Plus everyone knows that the aether is compose up as Planck size energy bubbles.duh✌️❤️😀👍
The big difference is is that there is experimental evidence for dark matter. It has gravity. Other matter is affected by it. We just can’t “see” it yet. Aether does not seem to exist as there is no direct nor indirect evidence for it.
This is the biggest farce of an experiment I have ever seen. Where are the other controls? Did they test to see what happened if the distances to the 2 mirrors were NOT the same? What were the results of that? There are many more possibilities for the results other than a binary choice of conclusions. Here's one off the top of my head: The ether does not function as a fluid or gas. Perhaps it has qualities or properties which are not affected by direction. Perhaps it is chaotic and therefore random in it's movement so that things move through it without creating any disturbance. Who came up with this silly idea that an ether HAS to have a wind? What if it moves FASTER than light? I'm just amazed at the silliness of this experiment. All that can be said is this: IF there is an ether AND IF that ether is subject to laws which other states of matter are subject to AND IF one can create a FLOW against it (i.e. WIND), then THAT particular type of ether appears to be disproven. But it does IN NO WAY disprove a heretofore unknown state of matter. The only thing they disproved was a specific set of assumptions regarding ETHER WIND. Very disappointing.
This is yet another video misconstruing the matter. The experiment did not prove there was no aether, and Einstein himself said so. Indeed, Einstein said there must be an aether in order for space to have properties. The ball throwing example atop a moving train is not a proper analogy. A ball is not a wave. Why not do it with sound? If you did, you’d discover that the speed of sound is also independent of the speed of its source. The speed of the sound of a train whistle at a given location is the same regardless of whether the train is moving. The only difference is that the pitch become higher if the train is approaching and lower if it is going away. That’s the Doppler shift. The same goes for light. Speed remains the same, but the wavelength is shifted either towards the blue or the red. With sound, it is because the speed of sound is only a property of the medium that is disturbed and has nothing to do with its source. Take also the example of a Jet fighter. I once saw one pass overhead, and there was no sound at all, but a second after it passed, I heard the roar of its engines and a small sonic boom. The plane had outrun the sound of its own engines. If you measured the speed of the sound along the direction of the plane and perpendicular to it, it would be the same, notwithstanding that the sound in the jet’s direction of movement would be facing a “headwind” of like 1000mph. I’m baffled over the logic of the MM experiment. One more thing: modern physicists quietly acknowledge the aether; they just call it the quantum fields. We know, for example, that electricity and magnetism propagate along fields that exist. But does anyone know what an electric field or a magnetic field in a vacuum is made of? No one. It’s a vacuum. Nothing is there, or so it seems. If you consider that QF theory posits that matter and energy particles are vibrations, disturbances, in the underlying fluidic fields that permeate the universe, you can then start to say: wait a minute, maybe there is an aether, as Einstein himself said there must be. It’s just irrelevant to calculating the “absolute” speed of light, since there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame.
The experiment failed to follow the "science narrative", it proved stationary earthy!
You got it!
How do you measure stationary?, you devise a method to detect motion and if you detect no motion then it is stationary, a null result is a negative result, they looked for motion and the result was negative, NO MOTION. dont try to trick us, earth shows no axial rotation.
yes it was as I had an error in it. I plan to fix, its on the to do list
Error is fixed - See ua-cam.com/video/JKoz28zSzqw/v-deo.html
Helped me quite much with a presentation i was doing on special relativity. You have my gratitude.
The Globe is a theory and a physical impossibility.
How can something actual be impossible, that’s a dumb statement
@@Roadrunners13 You failed to account for your assumption being false. It's not an actuality at all.
Thank you!
While I’ve always had an interest in science, other activities took precedence when I was younger and I never knew about this experiment and when I did hear about it I had no idea of it’s true goal and how & why it was conducted. Your presentation made it easy to comprehend and now I know more than I did 18 minutes ago.
Much thanks!
Yay! You're one of the few that explained that Maxwell expected the speed of light to be the same in any inertial frame! Thank you thank you thank you!
Thank you so much for the video! I think I do get something about the experiment finally.
Very interesting.
I would disagree, though, with the "orange time" (at apx. 19:40) being 2d/C, as if the speed of light wasn't affected by the "aether wind" when travelling perpendicular to it, as if its "vertical" component remained the same.
Let's compare the light to a wave that would grow as a circle around a single source, like when you throw a rock into a pool. Here, the pool would be moving to the left at a speed of V (the "speed of the wind"). Let's say we "drop the rock" where the axis intersect (point O). Let's call I(t) the point on the x axis where the "source" is located after time t. The radius of the circle made by the wave is R(t)=C.t, because the light (the wave) moves away from its source at a speed of C.
When the light hits point D (the upper mirror), the triangle OID will have a right angle in O, it's hypotenuse is DI (length = R(t)) and its sides are OD (length d) and OI (length I(t)), so: d^2 +(V.t)^2 = (C.t)^2, hence t=d/sqrt(C^2 - V^2) and the total time is twice that.
So really, one should compare C/(C^2-V^2) with 1/sqrt(C^2-V^2). The former is sqrt(C) times the latter, so it is indeed larger.
If I'm not wrong...
thanks for the reply - I will have to look at this closely
- sorry for the late reply - you are right and I will need to fix
You're welcome :) I did my own calculations because your video is so interesting and captivated me.
Error is now fixed - See ua-cam.com/video/JKoz28zSzqw/v-deo.html
Please, tell us how Lorentz contraction proved that Ether exists, and then tell us how Einstein using the Lorentz contraction proved that Ether does not exist...
Easier to disprove the presence of eather that disprove the there was no detectable movement of the earth..
is If the light is faster in the positive x direction wouldn’t it be slower in the negative x direction and wouldn’t that cancel out and still be in phase with the light that moves along the y axis no matter what way the ether wind was oriented I’m not really understanding this
I have a question, and I consider myself not ignorant of physics.
If there was an ether wind, would the speeds of both light beams NOT be equal when they reach the detector?
My reasoning is thus: any velocity the light gains (or loses) due to the ether on the *outbound* leg would be lost (or regained) on the *inbound* leg, and therefore both beams would recombine at the same velocity on the final leg towards the detector. What am I missing? ty in advance.
Exactly my thought.
There must be another angle to this.
If you'll excuse the pun.
I suffer from the same doubt. The point might be in the fact that the orange path wouldn't be perpendicular, but a diagonal due to ether drag. And thus the orange time would be greater than the yellow one and not viceversa. Still, it's difficult to me to take solid conclusions out of this experiments since it assumes too many things, like for instance that all ether is like a solid moving at the same speed relative to the earth and ether currents are not possible. It doesn't prove to me that it also doesn't exist. Maybe it's just independent to light. But that conclusion already appeared in Maxwell's equations. I don't know. Not very clear to me this subject either.
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
_"If there was an ether wind, would the speeds of both light beams NOT be equal when they reach the detector"_ - It is not the (end) speed of the light that is important, but the time it takes to travel the distances. Those times depend on the direction and magnitude of the aether wind. Think of the extreme case of the light speed equal to the aether wind speed, and work out how the results would be affected.
Now, you've got to prove the earth is spinning.
Which experiment concludes the earth is moving? I mean, you discard the first hipothesys with a simple ``obviously``
They asked which experiments prove the earth is moving, not what you think may be evidence it's moving.
Yes the way you drew the line going with the either could be confusing. A new student might say the light souce gains speed with the aether before it is slowed down by the aether (net zero speed additive effect) before bouncing into the detective telescope.
So how do we know that there's no such effect?
@@2tehnik You can't, because light may propagate due to an eather, which means any speed the eather may have is additive to a light speed. This experiment is poorly conceived.
All the Michelson-Morley experiment proved is that either the speed of light is the same in all directions, or that if it varies, then length also varies such that differences in the speed of light in different directions are undetectable with an interferometer. The trouble is that people have leapt to the conclusion from this that there is no such thing as absolute rest, which leads to the twins paradox.
_"The trouble is that people have leapt to the conclusion from this that there is no such thing as absolute rest"_ - no experiment has ever shown that absolute speed or rest is detectable. So that is not a leap to a conclusion.
_"...which leads to the twins paradox."_ - the resolution of the twin paradox does not require an absolute rest.
@renedekker9806 resolution of twin paradox doesn't exist. It's just "this one is stationary because I said so" with some math and magic spells, which should block your ability to mirror this math on 180 degrees.
Reality is that the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) that encapsulates and integrates the outcomes of the Michelson Morley experiment has been proven TRUE and extremely accurate in many experiments, and is even a part of the computations that a GPS system must make to be accurate. In other words the STR is proven by practical fact millions of times every day. Exit ether.
If the experiment was done in a basement how can they be sure that an aether wind could even penetrate the walls?
Thanks again sir.
Aether is the supposed medium for light. So if you can see in a basement then the aether would be there
@@PhysicsHigh Yes but i think that Vihan Roy meant that possibly the aetherwind might not be able to penetrate the basement walls. That's not necessarily the same thing as aether existing in the basement.
MAJOR MISCONCEPTION. The two distances were not identical, and it would have been impossible to get distances for the 2 mirrors within a fraction of a 600 nm wavelength. They did not actually line them up and see no interference. They saw an interference pattern, and they saw that the interference pattern did not change when the apparatus was rotated.
Holy moly, you've helped me understand this so much better. I was trying to think, like "how the hell is the yellow line supposed to take longer than the orange one..?" But that doesn't matter because the lines were gonna be different anyways; it's a matter of how much the aether would change the light pattern at different angles. Rad. Thanks!
I agree with your point about the precision of the instrument but nonetheless by rotating the whole thing we should have seen a change in the phase shift and thus the pattern. Because we didn't see a change in the pattern the velocities did not change with the motion through the theoretical aether. I think the properties of the space medium are outside of what we know so what we observe is true but the assumption that mediums have the same properties is false. This leads to other assumptions like there is no absolute spacetime grid etc.
the earth doesn't revolve around the sun
What about scalar waves and the hysteresis effect? Longitudinal magneto dielectric waves (LMD) have no mass and potentially travel billions of time the speed of light. Electrical theory has always held the notion that there must be a field that is undefined. Faraday ,Maxwell, Tesla, Eric Dollard, and even Einstein himself, postulated this must be the case. Relativity is a theory, not a fact. Longitudinal waves travel almost instantaneously over vast distances without breaking the law of conservation. Perhaps there is no light in free space. It only manifests itself when it is in contact with the Earths envelope.
14:34. You say if light get some speed traveling from halfsilver mirror to mirror down with aether on right side and then looses some speed going back against aether, doesent that actually cancel itself? Those two speeds *?
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
1887: Zero Drifts
1905 Invokes No
Medium Of Light
1913: Whirl wind
Displace Fringes
Waves: Indicates
A Medium, Exists
Wait, you skipped the explanation you promised at the end.
If the speed of light is constant because it is propagated by the eather, then when the eather is moving then the speed of light would be additive. Whether there is, or is not an eather, this experiment doesn’t demonstrate for me that there is no eather.
So any time you can’t explain something in physics you just state “theory of special relativity”?
Kids use that line in classrooms
If you don´t understand what you are saying...
Michelson Morley experiment shows there is no aether. Does it also show that speed of light is a constant? How?
MM exp was a null result. It did not disprove aether but its results is consistent with there being no either. Einstein said aether was superfluous with his theories. The experiment also did not SHOW that c was constant but again the null result is consistent with that outcome.
This experiment was performed at Case Western University and you seemed to imply it was done in the basement of their home.
Interesting. So does that mean that the aether in fact would have a refractive index assuming it existed?
The fairies at the bottom of my garden said yes.
The argument doesn't hold if Earth is the source of the aether, and it is being dragged along with it. Then the Earth is always stationary relative to the aether. The EM Zero-point field for example, is a field that is Lorentz invariant. You can't measure your velocity relative to it because the spectrum is complete and infinite. When it is doppler shifted, it still looks exactly the same to the detectors.
It's not correct to use the throwing of the ball. I think a better example should have been a sound source , since we know that Galilean relativity works in the case of sound. And it resembles more with Light from the wave perspective.
Maxwell knew light is a wave. All waves have constant speed, depended by the medium. c = constant for each medium, and for "luminoforus eather" or empty space is c=(μο*εο)^1/2. Please review this video since its used for educational purposes (high school).
what are you trying to say? nothing he said was wrong regarding about maxwell's equation for the speed of light and how scientists interpreted it.
mathematically:
1/(1-v²/c²)=1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c)
1/V(1-v²/c²).1/V(1-v²/c²)=(1/2)[1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c)]
2/V(1-v²/c²)=V(1-v²/c²)[1/(1-v/c)+1/1+v/c)]
we multiply the equation by L/c
2(L/c)/V(1-v²/c²)=V(1-v²/c²)[(L/c)/(1-v/c)+(L/c)/1+v/c)]
which explains the result of the Michelson -Morley experiment
Wouldn't this simply prove that no drag force can be generated by a pressureless vacuum of space?
"The earth is not moving" clearly it's not the case!!! Why ? Did they see NASA's photoshopped pictures?
Why are they ignoring Sagnac's result who rotated the plan and got the expected interferences ?
Uhm, the experiment was done in 1887.
@14:20, shouldn't the orange time be greater than the yellow time? Because yellow moves in the same direction as the ether.
No. Check my other video on the topic. I go through the maths
Nice video and presentation.
Is it fair to say that the prerequisites for light propagation are e0 and u0?
Also that e0, u0 are attributes of light medium, Aether?
Also that c is a constant, only if u0 and e0 are constants. Any particle or solar plasma wind intruded into the vacuum-Aether space will change e0, u0 and c.
Also that solar wind increases the permittivity e0, u0 and caused a permittivity, permeability gradient around solar that is created a velocity gradient to a passing light and hence bends it? That gravity bends light is coincidence or correlation but proof?
You forgot to say maxwell got to his equations, which wasn't just the div and curl of the potentials as it is given today with assumed gaug invariance. By trying to reason about the ether, a medium, and he got the forces through pressure and rotation coupled in some funny way by physical arguments. Basically a toy model of the medium. What you might not know is that it's slightly fancier models of the same kind with non linear properties where the size of the vorticies can dissipate away depending on energy density, and a few other details, you get gravity as well, it is important to say that this shrinking of the vorticies must lead to a feedback mechanism that spins them up, such that there is a dynamical equilibrium established between dissipation causing shrinking, causing higher rotation, which in return creates higher pressure and stronger forces and more inertia and resistance to rotation of rhe medium in 3 d. Gravity comes out of the change in the mediums speed of induction as a function of energy density and rotation, so a mass causes a divergence in density creating a negative pressure and inflow of the medium towards the matter, this is half of the gravitational field, the other half is the gradient in the speed of mediation and induction that results from the gradient in the rotation, energy density in moment of inertia of the voticity of the medium and the pressures and other stresses in the medium around matter that is charged, matter than is not charged in some way does not really exist, exceot for with neutrinos, but even they have a type of charge but that is too detailed for this comment. And there are no electrons in a quark gluon plasma, but that is also a different story about the phases of matter in this type of model with a bit more realism in it.
So gravity and electromagnitism in the ordinary vacuum igniring the weak force has a common origins, and are just the linear stresses and dynamics of rotation in the medium and gravity is about the strenght of the forces locally and the flow of the medium, mainly its divergence, but also its curl and detailed variation in space and time. Gravity is just a non linear part of the dynamics of a non linear medium for which forces like electromagnetism is the linear part of, the flat space dynamics if you like with the dependence on energy density for dissipation rate, rotational feedback and flow ignored.
Would have been nice if maxwell lived to 90 i would say, i think the way we do physics today is ghastly and unproductive, mostly applied math and numerology.
What's the difference between ether and dark energy?
I'm subbing just because of how well you presented everything. I was looking for a way to explain this experiment to a flat earth community who believe this experiment proves the earth is stationary. -_- thanks again!
+I Am Thankyou.
+I Am Thankyou
@@nexen1041 what do you mean?
@GRAPHENE IS IN THE MASKS, SWABS and PCR TESTS!!! no, it is.. what makes you think it isn’t?
nice to see a flat earth fella here
Excellent explanation and diagrams.
Did they think the transverse beams would be "blown off course" sideways by the weather wind?
I deduced that in the case of the interference experiment, with the interferometer in the horizontal plane, the light has exactly the same speed in all directions. This is because light (photons) is coupled with the mass density field of the earth. Field that leaves the substance of the earth and emanates in the space in the immediate vicinity. The coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium is proved by Fizeau's experiment. Experiment that accurately verifies Fresnel's formula, called partial ether entrainment. Fresnel's formula is easy to find, without any relativistic metaphysics, if the density of light and the density of the environment and the density of the earth are added together. And it is not about the entrainment of the ether, but it is about the variation of the refractive index of the transparent medium, when it is moving (in translation) compared to the situation when it is at rest. The negative term in Fresnel's formula is due to the coupling of light with the density field of the planet. Because he is in solidarity with the planet.
Do a video just on what is constructive and destructive interference and related.
Surely if the horizontal beam is being effected by the aether in one direction, that effect will be equally and proportionally cancelled out when it goes in the exact opposite direction with the return. Unless the aether suddenly changes as it's on the way back...
I'm saying that it seems logical to conclude that if there was an aether effecting the lights velocity, you still wouldn't be able to detect it that way. The same goes for the vertical beam in your diagram.
Meaning that with or without an aether, the beams should still meet back again at the same time.
There is a question maybe too about sensitivity.
Because the light moves so fast, the, or any effect, may not be visible at such short distances.
You nee to watch my mathematical analysis video.
@@PhysicsHigh Thank you for responding, and so quickly. You should know, I'm a wood machinist by trade, so not as capable of understanding this as say an accomplished student of physics, at least not with maths.
I have watched that video you mentioned also. But to be honest with you, as soon as I see equations, I lose track of the logic chain.
I understand that there could be differences when spinning the concrete block in that famous experiment, IF there was a moving aether. That it might vary in velocity between to and from the mirror. But because the speed of light is so fast, it seems possible and even likely, that the apparatus might not be sensitive enough to pick up these differences in velocity distortion anyway. That either way, it's likely to get a null result. That the speed of light appears constant and both beams should meet at the same time, to either cancel each other out, or both hit the sensor at the same time.
I've seen two videos on this, one where both beams meet and hit the sensor, another video diagram/explanation, where they both meet together and nothing hits the sensor.
Is there something in the maths video, which shows that the apparatus IS sensitive enough to pick up the speed of light if it was effected by a moving aether like medium?
Doesn't the thickness or bandwidth of the light wave need to be smaller to get a more precise reading? Meaning that to the extent that the waves of said beams fluctuate, is at least the extent of your margin of error.
Sorry if I write too much.. I'm doing a crash course in flat earth versus globe and hit a wall on this interferometer situation with the aether, or a moving planet Earth.
thank you so much
@14:26... something doesn't make sense. If light goes *with* the ether, shouldn't it go faster? It's assuming that the speed of light going *with* the ether is the same as the speed of light going perpendicular to the ether?
The speed of light in the yellow light cancels itself, but the other one is affected by the eather in both instances, so it's slower. Of course, in the theory that the earth is moving. The earth is not moving.
The Earth is flat with Firmament.
Like your brain?
Yellow line on the way to the mirror should speed up and on the way back to the half mirror should slow down. On avg equaling orange avg speed.
Both Michelson and Morley assumed that the speed of light is not altered upon reflection by a moving mirror. This critical error produced a small variation in the distance traveled by the light between mirrors in the rest frame of ether.
sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/speed-of-light
To add to the ending about possible conclusions. Another hypothesis to account for the results was that the ether moved locally with the earth, but that was also proven to be incorrect.
The most "incorrect" is to say the Aether does not exist . Any wave needs a medium to propagate , thus , no medium , no waves .
@@zegonzales1 Wait are you saying that ether does exist??
@@blakeshepherd7576 I'm not saying that . The propagation of eletromagnetic waves say that .
@@zegonzales1 No, in fact light waves do not need a medium to propogate. Light waves are comprised of an electric field and a magnetic field neither of which need a medium to act on. Furthermore not one experiment has proven that ether exists or that it's even remotely necessary.
@@zegonzales1 _"The propagation of eletromagnetic waves say that"_ - the equations that describe the propagation of electromagnetic waves (the Maxwell equations), say that an aether does not exist.
So the earth is not moving . Obviously
I'm wondering how the pool of mercury was able to float a concrete block on top of it without being displaced by its weight?
A concrete block isn't very dense at all.
Mercury is over 5.6 times as heavy, per volume.
But there could have been aether which is static, and hence doesn't influence the speed of light!
It is not static, search lunar wave and crow777
superbly explained! hats off! The intuition that you provided was really nice professor .
High School Physics Explained got the experiment right. But might want to return to school to re-analyze the result in reference to the earths Motion or Non Motion.
THANK YOU SIR...............
Correction: The speed of the train relative to the air is HALF the magnitude of the difference between the 2 measured speeds of the ball.
i feel that when the light is moving at the direction ether is flowing, its belocity is greater than when ît moves against the ether. So when these two are added, we get a constant velocity..
You need to see my follow up video that explains the maths.
1:00 I won't let these equations scare me.. I've taken and completed 6th grade math.
Sample question :Lorenz factor: K²=1/a²=[1/(1-b)][1/(1+b)] with b=v/c,a=V(1-v²/c²) [V:square]
k²=1/2[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)]
2k=a[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)]
necessarily the multiplication of the mathematical equation by a constancy for example L / c must be respected, that is to say:
2L/ac=2kL/c=a.L/c.[1/(1-b)+1/(1+b)]
there is no need of any physical hypothesis to explain this mathematical equation which explains the M-M experience.
it is not mathematically possible to find :
k² =/= [1/(1-b)][1/(1+b)]
Is it just me or does the video have no sound from 4:49 to 5:58
You right. Didn’t realise. My bad. Though it only lasts till 5:11 or there abouts.
Great explanation. Thanks.
Train background had that optical illusion where you can flip the rotation/direction of a repeating image. Thought that was cool.
I don't understand if the light is going with the Aether and then back again, then its then going against the Aeither as well, and thereby pretty much destroys the experiment... I would think they would cancel each other out.
I don't get it.... Or against the aeither and then with it - pretty much chancel itself out... Please someone explain why this would work.
I totally agree that the decrease in time taken when light moving in the direction of aether wind will cancel out with an increase in time taken when light moving against aether wind. No matter how many years you run this experiment it will always give a null result.
Also, if anybody bases any assumption on this experiment that light always moves at a constant speed regardless of observer's speed, then that assumption also false.
We know that Einstien used this experiment to make this assumption for Special Relativity (SR), which means SR is also wrong.
Like that there are a couple of more flaws in SR.
I add some aether info as follows.
(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).
They need to be doing the experiment in the Aether and not in their basement for it to be of any meaning. That's where Einstein's theory of relativity explains everything.
Btw the ether never failed. If you are decent at math. What shape dies a cavity have to have, for the pressure on its walls is to he equal, when traveling through the ether and not dragging it, such that the light inside has an anisotropic speed indise the cavity, the answer is equal times logitudinally and transversly, which means any shape formed by pressure mediation, whether it is a potential from a charge mediated by pressure andnother stresses of a spin glass or something like that, or a balloon that is simply elastically deformed or whatever, should take on the shape necessary to satisfy the lengt contraction assumed in relativity.
Please take your time to pause and to think about what this means for matter. If matter is held together by potentials and pressure and stress gradients in a medium, and it is basically a soliton like entity or something like self confined radiation, moving through the medium, then it automatically has to lenght contract in such a way as to produce a null result in experiments like michaelson morley. Only spatial gradients in the speed of light, or flow of the medium, or being accelerated causes a non null result, like in the detection of gravitational waves, which is basically the same experiment.
And remember this sort of derivation is common to all solitons and models of emergent matter like confined radiation which is just another form of soliton with internal degrees of freedom, must lenght contract if it is built out if stresses in a medium, or waves in a medium or even inertial matter in a medium of the same type of constitution. Pretty much every mechanism you can think of, has lenght contraction as a dynical consequence derived from the way matter arises in elastic an elastic medium. It is very hard to avoid it in ether theory without basically not being able to deal with the concept of inertial matter at all, you basically have to have numerically defined point particles with no structure just assumed mathematical properties to make sense of non relativistic matter in an ether theory, and then you are just making a mathematical fiction with no internal logic that can be just shifted around anyway, like relativity. Making everything out of mathematical definitions of parameters brings a sort of freedom an engineer can use well but that is terribly flexible and tgerefore unwanted in fundamental physics. Imo. You want something well grown, something rigid, where as much as possible comes out of as littke as possible, and that means inertia has to be derived, and along with it comes lenght contraction and the good parts of relativity for free. And that all relies on detailed models of the medium. This idea that you can make easier mathematical progress, and write papers and be impressive socially by throwing out the medium works for a while, and then nothing, basically no proven progress has been made on theory development since 1930 or so, that didn't last very long for relativity did it? Because it is just a mathematical shell built on assumption, instead of structure and marerial science where the effects are derivable from dynamics instead of assumed principles which provide conditions to be met for parameters, that kind of mathematical sophistry is mostky empty of content, you get what you assumed, and nothing more and basically everything einstein assumed was known and people were working on deriving it dynamically at the time he more or less plagurized it. General relativity was nice, it was progress however i'm not sure whether it was original either. People say different things and the original cast is all dead so i can't tell. It is however peculiarity that a lot of the progress made on solving the equations, and building cosmology out of it was done by others, and einstein seemed kind of confused about it in many papers i have read, so that why i'm not that dissimive of the claims of plagurizing hilbert. I do not think he just stole things, i think he understood it decently, at least probably developed most of it or all of it independently or sort of, but i'm not sure. But what i'm more impressed by is his opposition to nonsense in quantum mechanics, and his later work, general relativity is provisional, itnis impressive, but when he opposes nonsense in the quantum mechanical world later on i feel right there with him, and he stands out there in a way i'm much more sure of if you know what i mean, i don't know what to think about 1905 einstein, but old fart einstein i'm sure i would get along with, maybe all i have heard about plagurism is just nonsense as well, i'm not going to call him a fraud, but the first relativity paper was super sketchy to me in light of poincare's publications and earkier work by Lorentz and Fitzgerald and maxwell and a bunch of others. I very much doubt it was all independent as he claimed. The photo electric effect paper as basic but good, although the corpuscular hypothesis is childish and incorrect. His last publications are interesting where he says he has no idea how to realize a local theory in light of entanglement and quantum field theory in general, but i have his back there, so if he is sitting up there shaking his head wondering why i think he plagurized it, then at least i know how to realize his dream of local sensible fully markovian physics.
There is an ether. It's in the order of 10^-34 so this experiment is invalid for EMR aether detection. BOOM!
I was under the understanding that they were trying to detect the motion of the Earth that was their experiment and they could not and in their failure to detect the motion of the Earth they approved the Aether am I wrong I really believe not
Best explained....
Isn't the speed of light limit just a basic premise of the STR?
_"Isn't the speed of light limit just a basic premise of the STR?"_ - it a basic premise of SR, because the experimental evidence (like this M-M experiment) had shown that it was constant.
why did they wait that long (6 month) instead of rotating their apparatus to 180 degree???
Both arms have the same dimensions and the same geometry, so rotating the apparatus wouldnt change the previous result.
@@charleslyell3748 could you elaborate, please?
@@charleslyell3748 An MMX to work must be rotating/rotated.
If there is an ether the light would speed up with the ether when traveling to the first mirror and then slow down against the ether when traveling back resulting in the same speed at the detector whether there is an ether or not.
Doesn't anyone else see the fundemental flaw in this experiment or am I missing something?
I do
Sagnac experiment! Proved the aether existed!
MM above thus proves the earth is stationary!
So much for Helio-centrism!
...and this throws out Einstein's Relativity also, because it's built on the premise that the aether does not exist!
Actually, no it didn't... in fact the Sagnac experiment did not line up with the experimental predictions of the aether hypothesis.... that is the interference should vary depending upon direction, not just motion itself.... It along with the many other experiments which did not align with aether hypothesis predictions is what brought about special relativity. In fact the Sagnac effect can be derived from special relativity.
I'm sick of the lies of Aether fanboys.
Lets just risk one possible answer just because we don't like it and lets all dive into a theory instead.
What if the aether was replaced by the air medium & the air medium is stationary .. so that the light can travel at constant speed in any direction ?
(if we pour water into a glass that filled with air, the water replaces the air. Similerly in earth what if the aether was replaced by the air ?)
Was that experiment done in vacuum or in space ?
There is eather in space in the theory. I don't believe in "space".
M&M experiment "failed" because the aether in close to the earth is dense and not permeable. It also moves along with the earth. No aether wind to "see". The experiment should be performed far from earth where the aether is not as dense and compressed. The aether is pushed aside by matter but retains its position like a girdle on your body. The dense aether also is instrumental in causing the gravity that pushes us towards the center of mass of the earth. It also causes the casimir effect, but on a smaller scale.
Was the appendix video removed? I'd love to see it!
Here it is - See ua-cam.com/video/JKoz28zSzqw/v-deo.html
@@PhysicsHigh , Please watch on the Rob Skiba UA-cam channel: Do official government documents confirm Flat Earth and the Firmament?
The science society at the time mistaken about Aether is wind can drift through and not attaches to matter or molecules.
Armed with this mistake Michelson set out to design his interferometer expecting to measure Aether wind velocity to be equal or close to earth’s orbital velocity.
However what Michelson & Morley get was a residual but orbital speed as I expected.
That is because Aether attaches to matter, the interferometer including earth and move at equal speed, as if Aether didn’t exists but it exist.
A mentally weak person can easily latched on some theory that is highly praised, celebrated and well branded without much scrutiny. Like wearing a $10,000 Rolex. One may think that “If I understand theories offered by one of 200-IQ I’m not far from 200-IQ”.
To me, all this LIGO project is the repetition of M-M experiment, only with the new equipment.
This means, that if they've found gravitational waves there, Ether is also proven.
But I would be very glad to be corrected...
I'm sorry to say that you failed to explain how the MM experiment failed... I don't encourage people explaining something they don't really understand because that could make other people more confused, especially in physics.
Can you explain to me why the light going with the eather and against the eather in the returning is slower than the other light in the experiment? Does not the eather variation in the light cancels itself?
@@brenosantana1458_"Does not the eather variation in the light cancels itself?"_ - it doesn't. Do the calculations and you'll find out. Or intuitively, think of the extreme case and suppose light has the same speed as the aether wind. Then the light travels very fast with the aether, but will never manage to come back against the aether.
Haha
But the “haha” resounds like an echo - as you laugh into the void of your own thoughts…
All the questions about the precision and velocities are irrelevant because the experiment should have seen a phase shift differential and therefore a change in the pattern but it didn't.
The m.m. experiment disproves an assumption of a static ether. Yet countless youtube videos talk about "dark matter"... There is no way around metaphysics.
I’m no scientist but doesn’t this experiment only indicate that there is no detectable aether on earth?
Would like to know if this experiment was conducted in space or even could be. Absolutely fascinating nonetheless. 👍
wasn’t experimented in space, ether is def in the sky. einstein created the theory of general relativity to counter the results
Dr Bob the science guy lead me here and I'm so glad he did. It has always got me so frustrated when pseudo science fools take the MM experiment and mangle the meaning the way they do so thank you, thank you and thank you for making this great video! New sub right here. Keep up the great works and keep up the fight! (I'm also Canadian Thomas, Just posting from my new channel)
The michelson-morley experiment was only one of very many that proved the Earth was stationary ,in fact no experiment has ever proven motion,,,,, let that sink in
@@twentytwenty1968 no, you poor uneducated fool, the M&M exp proved no such thing. hahahahaha
Agreed. I'm sick of geocentrists and FE'ERS pushing this narrative.
@GRAPHENE IS IN THE MASKS, SWABS and PCR TESTS!!! HAHAHAHAHA. OK then...
I'm not on any side, tbh I'm just diving into the field and learning as I go.
But this doesn't cover the sagnac experiment results, and the fact that laser gyros in every single plane work.
As for why this experiment failed, anyone who has studied black holes knows why - in aether based physics they believe that the sun "pull" the aether around itself in a "whirlpool", similar to the egosphere of a relativistic black hole.
I have a lot more to learn on both sides, but they seem to think that gravity is the incompressible aether being "pulled" into the earth and speeding up as the volume decreases as you approach earth, explaining the behaviour of gravity decreasing with distance as expected.
If you want to really disprove aether you need to do what nobody else seems to want to do and tackle sagnac.
This is really lousy science...
-Ether could move with the Earth like air. You don't get different speeds for sound because of earth orbit/rotation because air travels with earth...
-The experiment wasn't even done in a vacuum... it was done in AIR!!! So it's not even clear if you're testing light in air + ether, or just air. They could have at least done it in a vacuum, that technology existed at this time.
-Air has refractive incidence, and light speed is not invariant in a medium.
Which is why relativity is also lousy science. To the guy who made the video, great video! Very well explained. Maybe could have included better explanation for why it would slow down though along yellow line. Intuitively most people would assume the negative speed moving against wind would balance out with positive boost moving with wind. As a cyclist I definitely wouldn't expect them to balance out hahaha, riding with and then against wind is overall slower than having side-wind, I would expect yellow to be slower as they predict, I believe it's because wind resistance is exponential, not linear. Higher speed takes more energy to accelerate so smaller boost from wind supporting you, than resistance added from wind opposing. Does the math indicate something similar?
Thank you very much! It helped me understand the concept of this experiment.
Curoiusly if the earth is stationary , what does that mean for the whole theory ? doesn`t prove anything then ?
@@dianau4944 wow cool! Can you also measure its speed ?
I don't understand the statement at 15:48 that in six months the ether wind would be going in the other direction. If this was believed to be a relative wind experienced due to the earth's movement through the stationary ether, it would never blow in the other direction.
You are correct. My bad. Thanks
Why there hasn't been offered a third assumption. Aether is moving together with the Earth? Because there is some shifting. It is a really small shift. Which shows daly rotation of the Earth itself. And this kind of shifting depends on the latitude location. On the equator it is maximum along on the poles it shows absolutely no shift at all. Would you explain this "strange" behaviour of the light? I could. There is an aether and it goes along the gravitational field of the massive objects like planets, suns, black holes ext. otherwise no one can explain the existence of a black hole because nothing can exist below the event horizon according to non aether theories.
That assumption was made, in addition to stationary aether, partial aether drag and Earth fixed aether were also postulated....... the problem being that no experiments gave results consistent with whatever assumptions (moving, fixed or partially fixed).
Please explain why speed of light is an universal constant?
Debabrata Mondal speed of light is not universal constant. It is slower in a denser medium.
Speed of light in vacuum is dependent only on the electric and magnetic properties of vacuum - one of the really weird results of Maxwell's Equations that got people a little shook.
The vertical paths would travel a greater distance if the aether existed, not the other way around since the light would have traveled a greater distance on a diagonal. The horizontal distances cancel each other.
Teachers like this is why I dropped out in the 11th grade of high school. Please read my book, Infinity, Time, Death and Thought.
Another tidbit - why do they still call it the "theory" of relativity?
_"The horizontal distances cancel each other."_ - it's not the distance that counts, but the time to travel that distance. And those don't "cancel each other".
_"Teachers like this is why I dropped out in the 11th grade of high school"_ - you should have stayed in, then you would have learned how to calculate this properly.
_"why do they still call it the "theory" of relativity?"_ - because it is a scientific theory (look up the definition of a scientific theory).
Eu am dedus ca in cazul experimentului interferential, cu interferometrul in plan orizontal, lumina are in toate directiile exact aceeasi viteza. Asta deoarece lumina (fotonii) se cupleaza cu campul de densitate masica al pamantului. Camp ce pleaca din substanta pamantului si emana in spatiul din imediata vecinatate. Cuplajul luminii cu campul de densitate al mediului transparent este dovedit de experimentul lui Fizeau. Experimet care verifica cu precizie formula lui Fresnel, zisa de antrenare partiala a eterului. Formula lui Fresnel se gaseste usor, fara nicio metafizica relativista, daca se aduna densitate luminii si densitatea mediului si densitatea pamantului. Si nu este vorba de antrenarea eterului, ci este vorba de variatia indicelui de refractie al mediului transaparent, cand este in miscare (in translatie) fata de situatia cand este in repaus. Termenul negativ din formula lui Fresnel este datorat cuplajului luminii cu campul de densitate al planetei. Deoarece este solidar cu planeta.
You cannot conclude that the aether doesn't exist based on that experiment. What you can conclude is that the "aether wind" doesn't have the same effect on light as atmospheric wind has on a baseball.
Plus everyone knows that the aether is compose up as Planck size energy bubbles.duh✌️❤️😀👍
They say aether isn't real because its undetectable yet they believe in dark matter which is also undetectable.
The big difference is is that there is experimental evidence for dark matter. It has gravity. Other matter is affected by it. We just can’t “see” it yet. Aether does not seem to exist as there is no direct nor indirect evidence for it.
This is the biggest farce of an experiment I have ever seen. Where are the other controls? Did they test to see what happened if the distances to the 2 mirrors were NOT the same? What were the results of that? There are many more possibilities for the results other than a binary choice of conclusions. Here's one off the top of my head: The ether does not function as a fluid or gas. Perhaps it has qualities or properties which are not affected by direction. Perhaps it is chaotic and therefore random in it's movement so that things move through it without creating any disturbance. Who came up with this silly idea that an ether HAS to have a wind? What if it moves FASTER than light? I'm just amazed at the silliness of this experiment. All that can be said is this: IF there is an ether AND IF that ether is subject to laws which other states of matter are subject to AND IF one can create a FLOW against it (i.e. WIND), then THAT particular type of ether appears to be disproven. But it does IN NO WAY disprove a heretofore unknown state of matter. The only thing they disproved was a specific set of assumptions regarding ETHER WIND. Very disappointing.
do the experiment yourself dufus it isn't that difficult
This is yet another video misconstruing the matter. The experiment did not prove there was no aether, and Einstein himself said so. Indeed, Einstein said there must be an aether in order for space to have properties. The ball throwing example atop a moving train is not a proper analogy. A ball is not a wave. Why not do it with sound? If you did, you’d discover that the speed of sound is also independent of the speed of its source. The speed of the sound of a train whistle at a given location is the same regardless of whether the train is moving. The only difference is that the pitch become higher if the train is approaching and lower if it is going away. That’s the Doppler shift. The same goes for light. Speed remains the same, but the wavelength is shifted either towards the blue or the red. With sound, it is because the speed of sound is only a property of the medium that is disturbed and has nothing to do with its source. Take also the example of a Jet fighter. I once saw one pass overhead, and there was no sound at all, but a second after it passed, I heard the roar of its engines and a small sonic boom. The plane had outrun the sound of its own engines. If you measured the speed of the sound along the direction of the plane and perpendicular to it, it would be the same, notwithstanding that the sound in the jet’s direction of movement would be facing a “headwind” of like 1000mph. I’m baffled over the logic of the MM experiment. One more thing: modern physicists quietly acknowledge the aether; they just call it the quantum fields. We know, for example, that electricity and magnetism propagate along fields that exist. But does anyone know what an electric field or a magnetic field in a vacuum is made of? No one. It’s a vacuum. Nothing is there, or so it seems. If you consider that QF theory posits that matter and energy particles are vibrations, disturbances, in the underlying fluidic fields that permeate the universe, you can then start to say: wait a minute, maybe there is an aether, as Einstein himself said there must be. It’s just irrelevant to calculating the “absolute” speed of light, since there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame.
Michelson Morley experiment failed? i would not want you as my physics teacher.
@Harry M id engage but not with a courageous - and obviously more intelligent than myself - man like yourself, hiding behind anonymity.
Because you can't face the Truth.
Kind of sounds like undetected "unneeded" gravitons for Miss Gravity, love Science meanings...