SR1: The Light that will Light the Spark - The Michelson-Morley Experiment
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- Part 1 of the Special Relativity series
Here's Part 2: "The Light that will Lead the Way - Time Dilation"
• SR2: The Light that wi...
"Are You REALLY Standing Still?"
• SR0: Are You REALLY St...
Frame of Essence: Episode 6
Image credits:
Einstein
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ein...
Maxwell
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jam...
Hubble Deep Field
from Drbogdan on Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Con...
(Thank you NASA)
Michelson
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alb...
Morley
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edw...
Music in this video (downloaded from the UA-cam Audio Library):
Locally Sourced
Cancun
Retreat
Talk to Me
On the Bach
This experiment can also prove Earth does not move, and ether exists.
This was so helpful! You guys made the experiment super-clear. Especially loved the narration :)
I just realized that the Gravity wave detector experiment is basically a giant Michelson-Morley experiment. If the two beams of light ever go out of phase then Space-time must have compressed or expanded during the time the beams took to travel their respective distances.
Simple and clear esplaination, yet I enjoyed to watch it too. Thank you for this ^^
Was looking for a video that clearly explains this experiment. You did a very good job at that. Keep it up!
An important point related to a common misconception In the Michelson Morley experiment, the two reflecting mirrors were actually not exactly equidistant from the half silvered mirror. It would have been and still is impossible to get them equidistant on the scale of a fraction of the 600 nm wavelength used in one form of the experiment, or visible wavelengths in general. We would be talking about accuracy in distance on the scale of a virus. In actuality, they simply created a diffraction pattern, measured the band lengths, and then rotated the entire apparatus on a pool of mercury and saw that the band distances didn't change. The band distances would have been very sensitive to changes in the relative phase of the light.
This is technically a reply to Chris Jager's comment, but UA-cam's commenting system won't let me reply to it. You got my attention Chris, so here we go!
I don't have enough time to read the all material you linked to, but I believe I managed to get the general idea. Currently accepted Physics depends on the idea of the Universe being more or less uniform, and the 'other side of the story' depends on the idea of the Earth not moving. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
The success of modern physics is partly due to its ability to predict phenomena before anyone has even thought to observe them. To take one example, special relativity predicts time dilation, and time dilation has been observed in particle accelerators. The theory predicted something testable, and it passed the test. Therefore, we can have confidence that it accurately describes reality.
There will always be many competing models of reality, because there are always unanswered questions about the Universe, and there are always people who want to explain them the way they see fit. Rather than argue over the "right way" to interpret observations, I'll trust the theories that make testable predictions, so we can all move forward.
His idea of the rotating ether fails on numerous points as it is.
Firstly, the speed of light is the same for all observers, which couldn't be the case if there was an ether rotating with the Earth.
Secondly, his ether is invoked to allow the other bodies in the universe to orbit the Earth without breaking the speed of light, making it a viscous medium. Ask him to put a ping pong ball into a bowl of water and swirl the water around the ball. Any viscous medium rotating around a body will make that body itself rotate - that's physics 101.
Yep, even with his dipshit idea, the Earth still has to move.
But what else do we expect from a bunch a scientifically illiterate idiots like geocentrists?
And he obviously knows nothing of scientific history.
Relativity was NOT born out of a desire to interpret Michelson-Morley in anything but a geocentric way. Geocentrism wouldn't answer the problem that relativity was actually envisaged to sort out - namely the fact that the constancy of the speed of light in vacuo for all observers, and the principle of relativity (that all natural laws hold in all frames of reference), were both confirmed time and again by experiment and yet both appeared to contradict each other.
Just plonking the Earth at the center of the universe was not going to sort that problem out.
The conspiracy that this moron "Chirs Jager" (I know him well) is touting is nothing more than a bizarre fantasy born out of his desperate desire to be the center of attention and literally have the entire universe revolve around him.
Sorry, I find myself dealing with flat Earthers and geocentrists a lot, and their complete illiteracy when it comes to maths, science and history is nothing short of vexing.
Needless to say that their stories never match reality.
Nice video, by the way. Sorry - should have said that earlier.
Frame of Essence because you were blocked
Awesome video. Just used this to solidify a reading assignment I was given. Explained very well and very clearly!
This is the best video I've seen that explains this phenomenon, thanks a lot!
The very best explanation I have heard ; and clearly and simply explained!!👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I am subscribed ✔️
I really like the music that is being played at the background! Nice explanation!
Coooooooongratulations dude. I was looking for a good way to explain to a friend of mine about this experiment about the ether, and you sir, have made my day. Thanks, and keep doing this awsome work. Subscribed. (:
Thank you kindly. Glad to be of help! :)
this conclusion reminds me of story I heard long time ago
one time there was a scientist who decided to do an experiment on how cats hear
So he brought a cat and called him, the cat came , then he cut one of his legs and called him back the cat came again
He cut the second the cat came again He cut the third the cat came again he cut the last the cat didn't came
So the brilliant scientist concluded that the cats hears with their legs!!
Yeah, I've been slowly realizing that the argument in this video isn't the best. If I remade it, I'd probably tackle it from a different angle.
Michelson/Morley is a bunk experiment. If there is aether, Earth would basically be a massive super magnet; so trying to test electromagnetic "aether wind", is like trying to use a compass attached to a large rare earth magnet (you'll barely get a signal, which is all they could see btw).
Very entertaining way of explaining. Thanks a lot for this video!
such an amazingly explained topic !
great video, thank you! was a great foundation for a philosophy of physics essay i'm about to write
Its a bit complicated but feels awesome to imagine
Thank you very much for this video!
Excellent video, explained in a very similar way to the relativity lectures at my university.
Nice explanation about the idea, thank you
Thank you for this. You explained it clearly.
thank you so very much, i finally understood a little bit more about special relativity!
Thanks for this great video!
thanks dude, really appreciate your effort. *thumbs up*
Thank you sir for explaining in detail ..
Well, your choice of words is really COOL!
great narrative and nice animation!
I have watched over 50 of these...explanations and this was the best.
It skipped over the constructive/deconstructive interference wave pattern breakdown (fine if they understand).
This has helped me so much with my physics work!! Thanks :))
***** Glad to be of help :)
I thought my biggest mystery is about to get resolved.. and boom.. we fell back to the same initial question..!! Light is indeed a troll, awesome video guys :)
Great explanation, thank you!
thnx a lot, a 9 minutes video yet extremly helpful
Really like the way of explaining..
Let's see part 2!
your explanation was clear thank you
Thanks for making the effort to explain the Michael Morley Experiment a better way could be by using the Praxinoscope (TAR10)
Michelson/Morley is a bunk experiment. If there is aether, Earth would basically be a massive super magnet; so trying to test electromagnetic "aether wind", is like trying to use a compass attached to a large rare earth magnet (you'll barely get a signal, which is all they could see btw).
you explained the experiment very clear. well done. also a good explanation about the synchronism. in the second part of this series i think there is a lottle to much math for a laymen to understand though. but good videos i really like them.
Awesome video!
it failed to detect an absolute frame of reference by not detecting changes in timing of the light waves, however it didn't disprove the existence of something for light to propogate through in a vacuum (we just call it something else now), the machine used is a small laser interferometer 4M in length on each path, LIGO on the other hand, is 4KM on each path, and detected the existence of gravitational waves, fluctuations in the fabric of space-time itself, caused by neutron stars or black holes merging together, causing distortions that changed the time it took for the light to go in one direction compared to another, aka exactly what the michelson-morley experiment tried to detect, they were wrong about an absolute reference frame/aether wind, but light still propogates via gravity
Has this kind of experiment been ever done using sound waves instead of light,if yes what was the result?if no is it possible to do such an experiment?
This is brilliant, thanks! :D
Was it absolutely crucial to use this music as the background? Whenever I hear this music I feel like 12 year old girl watching Zoellas videos
The video contains circular logic: first, we create a theory that says 'light travels at a specific speed for everyone', then we do an experiment which shows that light travels at a specific speed for those doing the experiment, then we say 'however, since light travels at a specific speed for everyone, then ether doesn't exist'.
I.e. the whole theory stands because we take c as granted. If we didn't, and we considered the speed of light to be relative to the reference frame, just like the speed of a ball is, then we wouldn't have such problems.
what if we are measuring the velocity of light in another inertial frame ( like in space or speed of light in the atmosphere of another planet) will it undergo velocity addition?
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).
Best explanation ever!
Hi, Is it just me or the triangle-like path of the light that goes upwards after the split should actually be moving "downstream" compared to ether's flow? Its like a swimmer in a river to me: if a swimmer just swims perpendicular to the bank, the river flow will make her arrive below her intended end point ie. to the left... To me the shape this way would mean that some additional force makes the light stay in-line of its original path.. Maybe I'm completely wrong of course.. Thx
What is the sensitivity of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of velocity (m/s)? Is it sensitive enough to detect the velocity of earth and our galaxy traveling towards the Great Attractor? Also, didn't they conduct this experiment in the atmosphere, not in a vacuum?
What would be the speed of light according to my frame of ref if im movin with the speed of light too
06:50 why light can't follow the rules of the ball. We can dismiss the idea of eather and Take the light as particle nature.
hi! amazing video by the way. I have one question, what if I'm on the bus and the bus is coming towards my friend(instead of away as shown in the video) on the ground... would my time be appearing to move faster relative to him on the ground since I'm coming towards him? but my perception of time would still be slowed down
+Ali Parahoo Yes, but that's just from the doppler effect. If your friend accounts for the doppler effect in his measurements, then time appears slow. And thank you :)
Hey guys! Great video! Just wondering. I have seen that light's medium is spelled 'Aether' and 'Ether'. Which one is correct or are they both excepted?
Thanks! I think the 'aether' spelling is "more correct", but either spelling is probably fine.
I get it now, so that the reason why i hear higher pitch on a moving vehicle when someones shouting while the people inside hear normal pitch. Doppler fx is good example of relativity
Michelson-Morley experiment did not actually differentiate between the existence and non-existence of the static aether. The Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis can explain the michelson-morely result even in the presence of a static aether.
Thank you for the video. I have a couple questions about the evidence of Special Relativity: How does the Michelson-Morley experiment prove any other kind of relativity other than Galilean? (If both light beams were emitted, reflected and measured from equidistant and stationary points on Earth, i.e., "moving" uniformly with the Earth, why then would one need to travel a greater distance than the other?) I know there's also an experiment in which atomic clocks display different times after moving at different velocities. Why don't both clocks change in the same manner relative to each other? (Wouldn't the clocks show the same time again once they were at rest relative to each other?) Sorry if these questions sound more ignorant than thoughtful. I'm not a scientist, just someone with a nagging curiosity that causes me to sometimes nag others.
Don't feel like you're nagging. These are honest questions, and I'm more than happy to try helping you to find the answers to them! :)
First, your Michelson-Morley experiment question. Try to think about it like this. Assuming the experiment would detect the ether, after the beam of light splits, one beam travels diagonally and bounces back diagonally, while the other continues in the same direction and bounces back in the opposite direction. The diagonal path is the shorter one through the ether. This is like how it takes less time to to travel in a diagonal line from one corner of a square corn field to another, than walking around two of its edges. I'll be honest: this point is one that I have trouble with explaining intuitively, but I assure you that the geometry works. You may need to think this one through very carefully though.
Second, your question about atomic clocks. Things are getting more complicated now, since these clocks started at rest, went into motion, and later returned to rest. They accelerated, and therefore were not in inertial frames of reference. For this reason, it's difficult to talk about the perspectives of the clocks. Once the clocks return to rest, they count seconds going by at the same speed again. However, one of them displays an earlier time than the other because it accelerated more. It went through more drastic changes in speed, which ends up causing it to loose time. (I plan to go further in to this in a future video.)
So to summarize:
1. Assuming an ether detection, one light beam travels a shorter path because of the geometry.
2. Atomic clocks lag more behind if they accelerate more.
I hope this helps.
Frame of Essence
Thanks a lot for your detailed reply; it does help. I think I was trying to understand all of this with intuition alone. But you can't always rely on intuition for understanding new ideas, especially when intuition is developed from old ideas and experiences. That's why experiments are so import--their results give people new experiences and in turn new ideas. In order to learn something new, you have to try something new.
My pleasure. :)
I agree. Intuition is an extremely useful tool, but the real world and the mathematics behind it are really what can bring us places.
This is CGA's project SR1 2017
if a plane travels at a 1000 mph at the equator in the opposite direction of the earths rotation at what point does the plane start traveling in the opposite direction of the earths rotation?
Hello! My question may sound silly, but why can't we think that light that generated from the Earth will have velocity equal c (the velocity of light if generated from something stand still relative to Ether) plus velocity of the Earth? In that case, light will have same velocity relative to the moving earth and all the experiment equipments, and therefore leading to the experiment results.
The same experiment, type M-M, carried out with the interferometer rotated in the vertical plane, highlights the displacement of the interference fringes, when the interferometer is rotated. This fact indicates, without any doubt, the centripetal circulation, towards the mass of the earth, of weightless matter and explains, very simply, without any relativistic metaphysics, the result of the M-M experiment. So the theory of relativity, specially imagined to mathematically demonstrate the result of the M-M experiment, is only a metaphysical theory, which supports the idea of physical movement without material support.
Nice video can you tell me which software you used for this video
I used Vectorian Giotto for this one. It's SUPER buggy so you'll need a lot of patience.
6:44 If the horizontal beam is traveling the opposite way, wouldn't it mvoe faster and catch up?
excellent!!!
You're friend are not experiencing that light that you do in the buss. The light your friend sees is not the light traveling in the buss. So it can still come to him at different points in time.
nice video sir
Good video 🤩
Great way to “muddy the waters”. The experiment simply attempted to measure how fast the earth was moving. It failed to detect ANY motion. Do we really live on a spinning ball?
Great video! I have to ask a thing though. how does the presence of ether indicate that we would receive the beams of light at the same time when tilted at particular angles?
+soumer karki Thanks! As for the ether, if light travels at speed c relative to it, and our experiment is moving relative to it, then the light might need to travel a longer distance through the ether depending on which path it took. At some angles, the paths are symmetric and the light takes the same amount of time for each one. At other angles, one path is longer than the other, since parts of it move away from the light beams and they need to catch up.
ah I see, thanks for the reply! and keep up with the good work! its really fun to watch your videos and then sit brooding over it like a baby
Thank you!
how can they measure the speed of light? maybe they did arrive at different times but to fast to see or capture. Do you think you could see a difference from 300 million to 200 million?
You don't necessarily need to time each pulse individually. You can instead take advantage of the fact that light is a wave. When two light pulses arrive at exactly the same time, they amplify each other (constructive interference). But when they arrive at slightly different times, the crests and troughs start to cancel each other, making the light dimmer. If you can anticipate an specific time difference, then you can set up the experiment to make the beams completely cancel each other if they arrive at that time difference (destructive interference), making a dark spot where the light should be. So if you see a dark spot, you know that the beams arrived at slightly different times.
I watched the last part several times. If c is constant which is a constant, then how the person on the ground would see light hit bus side at different time? It seems contradictory...
Try looking at the small star marking the location where the light beam originated, while trying to avoid tracking the motion of the bus with your eyes. That spot is always at the centre of the light-circle because light travels away at the same speed from that spot in all directions. But the back of the bus is moving toward that spot, so it gets hit by the light first, and the front of the bus is moving away from the spot, so it gets hit later. Does this help?
Yeah it does. Thanks :)
carl max
No problem :)
just one question . doesn't matter what orientation you keep the apparatus in , both the waves(or group of them) are gonna travel the same distance in the direction of supposed ether's motion and opposite to it , so the effect of ether's motion is going to be zero, then how does this experiment indicate the absence of ether ?
+as g The apparatus itself is also moving through the ether, so a wave going in one direction might have to catch up to it, but not in the other direction.
love this old riddle. But, if M/M exp shows that light isnt effected by relative velocity, why would the street obverver see the light hit the back of the bus first? Wouldnt it hit both the front and back simultaniously for both observers according to M/M, because the light is moving with the bus?
Also what about the differences in light velocity, I read that there was a differential in the speed of light when calculated from different locations on Earth, and it was averaged to get 300mil mps. Wouldnt this cancel it from being a constant?
There actually are explanations for the experiment other than special relativity, including the one you mentioned. If we lived in a world where the light hist back and front of the bus at the same time in every frame, then that world would obey something called emission theory. (Light just travels at speed c relative to the thing that made it, and some other speed in other frames.) Emission theory was overshadowed by special relativity based on other experiments and observations.
I haven't heard of differential speeds of light around the world specifically, but it might be due to effects from gravity or the material the light is traveling through. Special relativity assumes that everything is in a vacuum and gravity doesn't exist, so it alone couldn't explain these affects.
Frame of Essence yes ill have to check out emission theory next, thanks. The speed differential i had no clue about until one scientist brought it up to the public, questioning the method we used. He had a problem that we averaged it and then teach that its always a specific constant, wanting it re-evaluated as one. I havent looked at that recorded data myself but he said its available, although highly controversial. Apparently other physicists were angry with him for mentioning it and dismissed it. So if it is a constant... is it fair to say that the electromagnetic force is the only thing we know to oppose what we normally observe about relativity?
The way some people talk about this stuff is strange sometimes. I love Dyson, but he was mocking the aether as magical bs, and thats a bit confusing. I thought (at minimum) we were simply talking about a name we gave a concept, a body or field for our minds to use to grasp light's movment through a vacuum. Thats at least how i understood it, so its wierd when i heard the m-word used like its some fantastical nonsense. If its just a medium we imagine to understand lights movment, seems like a strange thing to pick on. Light being exclusively different from the rest of reality seems a little more fantastical than a medium we dont know about lol.
I think the double split is my favorite so far. Made me wonder if we are again disregarding that our consciousness is apart of physical reality, that its a factor. If string theory proves true and everything is connected somehow, that would include our minds to some extent wouldnt it? Then theres Virtual particles and superpositioning, all seems like it IS going in that direction of extra dimensional physics we are currently clueless of. I love the strides these scientist make but man it must be frustrating, the more we discover seems like the less we know.
Yeah, scientists can be arrogant sometimes. But that's what the scientific method is for, right? Research is done this way to minimize the truth-dismissing things that human brains do. Though, when talking about a theory that's a hundred years out of date, it can't do too much harm to poke fun at it.
If light does behave in ways we don't expect, it wouldn't really be some special part of reality that defies physical theory. It's just that our theory turned out to be an approximation, and we need to do more investigating so we can figure out the rules in a bigger scope. The previous rules are necessarily wrong though. When describe the motion of a projectile or build machines for factories, we don't use quantum field theory or general relativity. Newton's laws are easier and get you close enough, and our actual measurements would have a big enough error that it really wouldn't matter.
Quantum mechanics is weird. I tend to shy away from the 'consciousness' interpretations of it though. The Pilot Wave and Many Worlds interpretations make more sense to me. I guess having a constantly splitting reality sounds less weird to me than brains being special objects that collapse wave functions. They all make the same predictions, so pick your favourite one I guess. Just don't let the interpretation give you any misconceptions. The math is only thing that we know is more or less true.
Pedagogically, I think it would have been better if the friend outside of the bus had been standing in the right side of the screen / the bus were driving towards him, rather than away. That would have stopped my brain from thinking that the light from the back of the bus comes to him first because it travels the shortest distance to him.
I am waiting for this experiment to be done on the moon or mars.
Can you guess what are the implications if they find interference patterns outside the Earth? It would mean not only that ether exists, but that Earth is not moving w.r.t to the ether (hence the null result on Earth), and that everything else is revolving around the Earth. It will lead to a retraction of most theories we have had since Copernicus. Even the theory of relativity will require massive modifications.
The matter that the experiment is made of, is "made" of waves of motion (energy) on real material (aether), measuring photons which is also "made" of waves of motion on the aether, and the experiment is on the Earth that is moving, is trying to detect if the aether itself is moving. It's like nailing jello to a wall using a rubber hammer and nail.
The speed boost isn't from the van moving. The guy in the van is holding the ball and they both are the same speed as the van and the boost comes from the throw from the guy and his muscles. Theres no boost from the van because its already going that speed because the van and the guy is the thing that changes it.
That was just a really fancy way of saying it got a boost from the van
so, guys... time goes at different speed ahead and behind moving object???
Nice video. Don't know if you are still monitoring, but what if the direction of the ether is toward the center of the Planet? What would the MM experiment show then?
+Kevin Reardon It would have the same results I suppose. We need other experiments to find out for sure.
It would have the same result as light red/blue shifts in a gravity field. We can only detect the red shift as we would have to be behind the photon to "see" its blue shift. Unfortunately you can't see a photon if you are behind it.
Do you mean that there would be redshift because the light is traveling "diagonally" through the ether? I suppose it would do that. The instruments would probably not detect it though, since they are only measuring the relative phase between the two beams.
There would be no orientation of the instrument that would produce a diffraction if the "ether" only travels to the center of the gravity well. Light blue shifts as it heads toward the center of gravity and red shifts as it leaves. So, being confined in the instrument, there would be no orientation that would produce a change. Unfortunately the experiment does not prove the ether exists, or is gravity, because it never shows a change. I wonder what would happen if you placed the experiment outside the solar system? I guess it would just be a LIGO.
The MMX proof that Aether is a fluid drag and move with local matter, planets, stars and galaxies. The remaining and majority portion of Aether within the outer space move and drag in average with the total mass of the universe, is regarded as a universal reference and the only frame of reference.
Suppose we make the following postulates
1. There is no ether.
2. Speed of light in vacuum is c relative to the source of light.
3. Speed of light in vacuum is NOT independent of frame of reference. Rather it obeys Galilean relativity.
Then also we expect null result from Michelson Morley experiment.
+Avinash S Yep, that's emission theory and it was competing with special relativity for a while. It eventually fell out of favour since it couldn't explain some astronomical observations.
can someone please explain to me why in 7:23 he says "this would prove that the ether really exists"? Why? wouldn't that just demonstrate that "c" changes depending on the direction and movement of the earth? whta does the ether has to do with anything?
By "ether existing", I meant "light always traveling at speed c in a vacuum, relative to a specific frame of reference". This assumes that the ether itself would define that universal frame of reference.
"Do you 'c' the problem?" props to the genius that thought of the pun
Maybe the ether moves with mass. Maybe the ether is the same everywhere so movement through it is not measurable. Maybe it has no x y or z coordinates. I say these things because the quantum field theory that replaces the ether is basically magic fields that take on magical traits just to make the math work. How does the QM photon field account for the experiment results?
i have a question..are lights deflected by strong wind? or some of the strongest force except electromagnetic force? it will still be at constant straight line or it will change or curve its direction? Its hard to answer that question without experimentation i guess because i just want to proved how stable and constant light is for me to proved if it is a particle or a universal stability in space in which it never travel but occupy a distance of space of 299,292,450 meters if it gains an amount of energy to its initial standing point.
I'm not sure if light is effected by wind specifically, but it is affected by the air for sure. Light travels slower than c through the air, and even slower than that through water or glass. Light will also change direction when traveling between these substances, which is called Refraction. Light also bends due to gravity, which is called Gravitational Lensing.
Light only travels at c in a straight line if it is in a vacuum and is free from gravitational influence. If you want to see a convincing experiment confirming that light actually has a speed, I suggest watching this: ua-cam.com/video/F8UFGu2M2gM/v-deo.htmlm25s
Frame of Essence
ok thanks but i'm still not satisfied to the experiment conducted i guess in the video because he only conceptualized and confirm the experimentation through the use of laser lights or a path wherein to the point A to B that shows that a lacking in terms of dimensions & analyzing the whole concept of light traveling...I know the fact that as normal light travels, expand and loses energy and thus its concept along the ether but still asking differently its different nature upon others..do you have video of experimentation wherein it shows on a 3 dimensional frame that considers that light travels free from point A to B to -A..
Fynx Factora
I don't know what kind of video you're referring to, but I think I understand now. You want to figure out if light travels (like a ball travels when you throw it), or if light just exists as a property of every point in space where nothing "moves" (like water waves "travel" but the water itself stays in roughly the same place.) Please correct me if I'm wrong. The weird thing is that there is no answer to this question, because light will behave like a particle sometimes, and like a wave other times.
This probably isn't the video you asked for, but it might answer your question. It shows how electrons seem to behave like both a wave and a particle. It turns out light does the same thing too. Quantum mechanics is weird. Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment
ahm ok thnx again i already watch the video you gave..but what if they will try to perform again the double slit experiment using pure transparent glass wherein light can easily pass through and thus behave in a different outcome..in the sense that the ball and the wave still have the same outcome using transparent glass i guess??
Fynx Factora
No problem. With glass, if we ignore refraction, there would be no interference pattern. So yes, we would get the same outcome assuming light is a particle or a wave. But this would defeat the purpose of the experiment.
Shouldnt the other light beam be the one that reached the interferometer last? because the liight beam that goes horizontally will speed up again once it is reflected by the mirror. Gaining back velocity that it lost when it was travelling to the mirror, against the aether.
It does gain back some time, but it's still not as fast as the beam that took the diagonal route through the ether. It's like how it would be faster to cross a square from one corner to the opposite one by going diagonally straight to it, instead of across a horizontal and then vertical edge.
Thanks.
np
I have the same feeling - probably wrong - but, both ways are the same distance by me.. the "shorter way" is on a curve, arch against aether flow (if you want to receive back to beginning, mirror must askew). The "longer way" partly compensates the delay during return, and the rest difference is exactly same as the curve of "shorter way". But I must be wrong, because it is unbeievable, that nobody discovered that mistake.
I feel that this experiment was flawed due to the velocity increase with the aether wind being cancelled out out by the velocity decrease against the aether wind. My explanation for the result of a constructive inference is that the vertical light beam is affected by the aether wind so that it takes a diagonal path away from the mirror before it reaches it. This will therefore give the result of the single light beam arriving by itself demonstrating no interference showing a bright spot as the results support. A reply would be much appreciated Thankyou.
Even today, there are non-scientists who desperatly seek to revive this 19th century ether concept. Why? The idea seems so "right" to them. They cannot imagine light moving through "nothing". They are a classic case of people who have an emotional commitment to an appealing naive concept, and will bend physics and logic in order to justify that idea.
Cyber bullying
Cyberbullying- the use of electronic communication to bully a person, typically by sending messages of an intimidating or threatening nature.
Bro check the physics chat
I'm pretty sure that figure was 186,282 miles/second. (The imposition of metric came later.)
isn't it because there is no additive effect of the momentum of the ether?
If the mirror moving forward increases the distance that the light which goes perpendicular to the light source has to travel, then shouldn't that factor, the mirror's forward motion, decrease the distance that the light which remains parallel has to travel, given that the mirror is moving toward it?
I am not familiar with proportions and multiplicities of things, but that would seemingly be very important in the outcome of the experiment, as it would actually further exacerbate the discrepancy if there were any motion occurring.
The light beam moving parallel has a greater distance to travel when traveling left-to-right (since the right mirror is moving away from it), and has a smaller distance to travel when travelling right-to-left (since the beam splitter is moving toward it). But these two effects do not exactly cancel each other out.
If we go though the math (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Light_path_analysis_and_consequences), then we can calculatea precise time difference, assuming the light beams are effected by the ether wind.
Frame of Essence
"The light beam moving parallel has a greater distance to travel when traveling left-to-right (since the right mirror is moving away from it), and has a smaller distance to travel when travelling right-to-left (since the beam splitter is moving toward it)."
Right. Of course. That's totally obvious, and yet, something that was occurring at the time of the comment prevented my realization of that. Thank you.
Frame of Essence
"But these two effects do not exactly cancel each other out."
Right, because for one thing, the perpendicular light travels the same way as the parallel light until reaching the half-silvered mirror, so it has the distance it has to travel reduced for half the distance as the other does for the entire distance.
No problem. Glad to help. :)
what if Ether has same speed of light..?
How would anything gain mass just because it was traveling faster..it would surely be the same but just moving faster..
You say at 7:38 that rotating the experiment did not significantly change the results of the experiment. So did it affect the results to some extent? Was a change measured?
There was a slight amount of change that was likely due to measurement error. However, these changes came nowhere near to where they should have been for an ether detection.
If you're interested, there's an interesting figure on page 340 of the original paper: www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
(The dotted lines represent 1/8th of where the measurements should have been!)
Frame of Essence
Thanks for the link. So he says on p.341 to the effect that one fourth to one sixth of the expected velocity of earth thru ether was measured. So that is significant, and would be enough for rotation, but not for orbit, right? I can't see where he say that all those measurements are due to error. Did the same "errors" come up in subsequent repetitions of the experiment?
courageousdose
No problem. I'm glad that it's so easy to find and share scientific papers written more than 100 years ago.
Yeah, I suppose that it could initially be explained by the earth's rotation, which I think is around one tenth of its orbital speed. But keep in mind that the experiment was repeated every 3 months, so that explanation wouldn't work in the end.
Also, I confess: it was me talking when I mentioned measurement error, not the paper. Thanks for catching me. :3
Though, it does say something else on p.341:
"It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must small ; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel's explanation of aberration."
Afterward, it goes on explaining that no existing theory is able to explain the experiment results.
So I'll try to correct myself. Instead of saying "It was measurement error," it would be better to say "No theory has been able to explain this" (until Special Relativity came along.)
Frame of Essence
I see also in your reply to Mr Apophasis below you reiterate that the experiment failed to detect the ether. But the findings show that it DID detect the ether (ie a relative velocity), just not enough to substantiate the Copernican hypothesis. And if this is so, would it not mean that Einstein's special relativity solution claiming the ether doesn't exist must be false, as it relied on a misinterpretation of "null result"?
courageousdose
I did simplify things a lot for the sake of timing and trying to avoid an information overload. I should probably add an annotation in the video to clarify that point.
Fun fact: the idea of the ether not existing is not absolutely necessary to explain the experiment. Hendrik Lorentz actually came up with the equations for time dilation and length contraction ten years before Einstein's Special Relativity (hence the name "Lorentz Transformation"). However, Lorentz did not give up on the idea of the ether.
In my opinion, the ether not existing is more a conceptual tool to understand what the precise equations of Special Relativity describe. This is largely influenced by something David Goodstein says in "The Mechanical Universe". He talks about the electric field and quarks, but I think the idea applies here too.
It starts in episode 29 at the 24:55 mark.
www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=586
ı got a question. I think, the distance between the mirrors are same. So ı got the point but ı didnt understand that how they put the mirros precisely at the same distance. The waves are microscobic so the smallest change in the distance should effect the distance. Eventhough they thought that they put the mirrors in the same distance, there should be difference in the distance between the mirrors. Moreover, the movement of ether should affect the direction of the light which means they can not be recombined provided that, the existince of ether is true. Consequently ı didnt understand that how they managed to set up an impeccable experiment.
I got your point. It is a tricky experiment and hard to be understood completely. Now it doesnt matter whether they put the mirrors in the same distance or not. The main purpose here is the table which is able to be turned by the person. Althought they may not have put the mirrors precisely in the same distance, there would have been differences about behaviour of light as the table turns if ether had existed.
@@erenerden1107 well what if ether does not exist in our surface level but in the atmosphere, in space...
If speed of light is constant for all sources & observers we wouldn't get red shift & blue shift like sound Doppler effect.
Which is caused by slower or faster relative speed given wavelength is constant hence frequency=speed/wavelength changes
The experiment can also prove that the ether spins with the Earth...
Nyc visualization
Isnt the bus also contracted such that light touches both ends at the same time
+aajjeee It's true that the bus is contracted, but since it happens uniformly, the light still hits back and front at different times.
Look into it
at 5:54 "finally" yea amen to that
Neat, thanks Google recommendations