Why Morley Experiment Could Not Find Ether

Recommended Posts

A vehicle drives on the road being covering with water. Does it indicate that surface water is necessary for vehicle driving? I believe that everyone would give the answer “no”, for vehicles would drive smoothly without surface water on road. Vehicle driving does not need water as the medium. In the contrary, water would affect the driving speed of vehicle. If we assume the driving speed of vehicle is v0 when the water is static against the ground and the relative velocity of water against ground is x in the direction v0, then the driving speed of vehicle parallel to the flow direction is v0+x and the driving speed of vehicle against the flow direction is v0-x. Water flow affects the vehicle speed and the vehicle is seized by water.

A beam of light transmits in the air. Does it indicate that air is necessary for light? The answer is no. The transmission of light does not need the medium of air. In the same way, the existence of air would affect the velocity of light transmission. The velocity of light moving along the air is faster than that of light moving against the air. Light is seized by air. Compare the two scenarios above:

Vehicle……counterpart……light

Water……counterpart……air

Water moves against road……counterpart……air moves against ether

Now let’s focus on light: (The velocity of light in the vacuum is C. Assuming air and ground are relatively static. x is the velocity component of ground against ether in the direction of light)

When the ground is static against ether, the velocity of light in the air is C0. Then it finds that the duration for light moving from A to B and from B to A is L/C0. When the velocity component of ground moving against ether is x, the duration moving from A to B is L/(C0+x-x) =L/C0 and the duration from B to A is L/(C0-x+x) =L/C0. Therefore, no matter what the x (the velocity component of ground against ether) it is, it would not affect the duration that light moves from A to B or from B to A. Therefore, such is the fundamental reason that Morley could not obverse the light interference fringe movement.

We improved Morley experiment and place the experiment in the vacuum environment completely. At this moment, light is not seized by air any more. The duration moving from A to B is L/(C-x) and the duration moving from B to A is L/(C+x). Such indicates that time needed varies with x.

Then let’s check the movement of the earth. The earth rotates around sun and also makes autorotation. Therefore, the velocity direction of earth revolution changes continuously against the velocity direction of light. That is, the component of velocity of earth revolution in the light direction keeps changing, which leads to the change of duration from A to B and from B to A. As a result, we could observe the movement of interference stripe through this improved Morley experiment. If it could find the movement, then it demonstrates that ether exists

Edited by TonyWang
Share on other sites

I think they didn't find the aether because it doesn't exist.

Edited by Bufofrog
Share on other sites

It must also be remembered that Michelson-Morley is only one amongst a substantial number of classical experiments that attempted to detect luminiferous aether. Other examples include Trouton-Noble, Rayleigh-Brace, Lodge-Zehnder, Hammar, Michelson-Gale-Pearson, and many others. Needless to say they all obtained null results. Nowadays we can do experiments of this kind at much higher precision, and still the results are all null.

Given all available data, it is safe to assume that no such thing as a luminiferous aether exists. There is also no need for it, since standard physics explains the propagation of light and gravity extremely well without any reference to this ancient concept.

Share on other sites

Yes, the existence of the ether does not affect the spread of light. But we can't draw the conclusion that the speed of light is constant from the Murray experiment。

Share on other sites

The constancy of c is extremely well tested by the experiments above. There is a swath of two way light speed tests that were performed to incredibly high accuracy. They didn't just test for the eather they also tested the constancy of c.

Edited by Mordred
Share on other sites

Morey's experiment, that is, it can't prove that the propagation of light needs the ether. It must be said that the existence of the ether is equivalent to space. Morey's experiment also cannot prove that the speed of light is constant.

It will be more convincing to build a vacuum environment for the Morey experiment and remove the interference of air.

Share on other sites

Isn't LIGO just a giant sized Michelson-Morley interferometer, where the 'arms' are 4 km long, and the beam is cycled 400 times ?
Further, two detectors are located 3000 km apart, signals compared to remove any spurious signals, and triple checked against the VIRGO detector in Italy.

You'd think, with such accuracy, they would have detected an aether shift.
Yet people still complain that Michelson-Morley wasn't accurate enough to detect it.

Share on other sites

Let a laser beam parallel to the optical axis, refract and form a spot on the wall 10 meters away. This spot will not move no matter in the morning, noon or night.
But add a vacuum tube to the laser beam, and you will find that the spot is moving slowly.

We have done this experiment, which is very easy to do. This phenomenon shows the effect of air on light.

Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, TonyWang said:

Let a laser beam parallel to the optical axis, refract and form a spot on the wall 10 meters away. This spot will not move no matter in the morning, noon or night.
But add a vacuum tube to the laser beam, and you will find that the spot is moving slowly.

We have done this experiment, which is very easy to do. This phenomenon shows the effect of air on light.

You seem to have built a very complicated barometer.

Share on other sites

@John Cuthber and other experts

For this experiment, I confirmed again. My guy said that he could observe the movement of the spot without adding the vacuum tube. He didn't make a very careful comparison. So sorry.

Now I prefer to believe that Einstein's idea that the speed of light is constant is believable. Thank you very much for your attention and suggestions on this topic.

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TonyWang said:

It will be more convincing to build a vacuum environment for the Morey experiment and remove the interference of air.

Quote

Designing instruments like LIGO's interferometers, capable of measuring a distance on the order of 10-19 meters required inventing and refining innovative technology. Most of LIGO’s most impressive technology resides in its seismic isolation systems (which remove unwanted vibrations), vacuum systems (to make sure the laser light is kept pure), optics components (to preserve laser light and laser power), and computing infrastructure (to handle the mindboggling amount of data that LIGO collects).

Quote

At their cores, LIGO's interferometers are Michelson Interferometers, the same sort of device that was invented in the 1880's:
They are L-shaped (not all interferometers are this shape)
Mirrors at the ends of the arms reflect light in order to create an interference pattern called 'fringes'
A device called a photodetector measures these fringes, revealing minute details of the objects or phenomenon being studied

LIGO has excellent precision. I have seen no claims that there is any luminous luminiferous aether required to explain their measurements.

Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations

Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TonyWang said:

For this experiment, I confirmed again. My guy said that he could observe the movement of the spot without adding the vacuum tube. He didn't make a very careful comparison. So sorry.

Is your experiment performed in open space on e.g. desk, or everything is inside of sealed hermetic container? 10 meters away distance suggests everything is just on desk and in open air..

Mirage is moving as well. Air molecules move with speed 340 meters per second. It depends on temperature and pressure. There is convection and winds even inside of your room. Regions with higher and lower temperatures. Even your body is causing it. It can be seen on precise expensive IR cameras.

Light matches and look at region slightly above fire. You will see disturbances of image because light has to enter region of air with different index of refraction and it is bending its path.

ps. Use Full HD or UHD camera on tripod and make time lapse video. Point camera at screen where is visible laser spot. Use screen with grid with well known precise values (make in painting app and print it). Then load image sequence of photos to image processing application and you will be able to tell in pixels how long spot vobbled or moved during couple hours recording.

Edited by Sensei
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Isn't LIGO just a giant sized Michelson-Morley interferometer, where the 'arms' are 4 km long, and the beam is cycled 400 times ?
Further, two detectors are located 3000 km apart, signals compared to remove any spurious signals, and triple checked against the VIRGO detector in Italy.

You'd think, with such accuracy, they would have detected an aether shift.
Yet people still complain that Michelson-Morley wasn't accurate enough to detect it.

Can't resist....

It's arguably more significant that LIGO with VIRGO provide strong evidence that there's no such thing as gravitiferous aether.

Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TonyWang said:

The velocity of light moving along the air is faster than that of light moving against the air.

I think it only fair and proper that we not only simply say the OP is wrong because of experimental measurement.

We should also analyse his argument and point out its flaws (if any).

The above part of the OP statement is incorrect, as shown by Fizeau's experiment (not Morely), in addition to being fundamentally contrary to SR.

Edited by studiot
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TonyWang said:

Let a laser beam parallel to the optical axis, refract and form a spot on the wall 10 meters away. This spot will not move no matter in the morning, noon or night.
But add a vacuum tube to the laser beam, and you will find that the spot is moving slowly.

We have done this experiment, which is very easy to do. This phenomenon shows the effect of air on light.

Air is not aether

Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TonyWang said:

Now I prefer to believe that Einstein's idea that the speed of light is constant is believable. Thank you very much for your attention and suggestions on this topic.

It's a good man who can admit he was mistaken.

Share on other sites

On 2/17/2020 at 10:56 AM, TonyWang said:

A vehicle drives on the road being covering with water. Does it indicate that surface water is necessary for vehicle driving? I believe that everyone would give the answer “no”, for vehicles would drive smoothly without surface water on road. Vehicle driving does not need water as the medium. In the contrary, water would affect the driving speed of vehicle. If we assume the driving speed of vehicle is v0 when the water is static against the ground and the relative velocity of water against ground is x in the direction v0, then the driving speed of vehicle parallel to the flow direction is v0+x and the driving speed of vehicle against the flow direction is v0-x. Water flow affects the vehicle speed and the vehicle is seized by water.

A beam of light transmits in the air. Does it indicate that air is necessary for light? The answer is no. The transmission of light does not need the medium of air. In the same way, the existence of air would affect the velocity of light transmission. The velocity of light moving along the air is faster than that of light moving against the air. Light is seized by air. Compare the two scenarios above:

Vehicle……counterpart……light

Water……counterpart……air

Water moves against road……counterpart……air moves against ether

Now let’s focus on light: (The velocity of light in the vacuum is C. Assuming air and ground are relatively static. x is the velocity component of ground against ether in the direction of light)

When the ground is static against ether, the velocity of light in the air is C0. Then it finds that the duration for light moving from A to B and from B to A is L/C0. When the velocity component of ground moving against ether is x, the duration moving from A to B is L/(C0+x-x) =L/C0 and the duration from B to A is L/(C0-x+x) =L/C0. Therefore, no matter what the x (the velocity component of ground against ether) it is, it would not affect the duration that light moves from A to B or from B to A. Therefore, such is the fundamental reason that Morley could not obverse the light interference fringe movement.

We improved Morley experiment and place the experiment in the vacuum environment completely. At this moment, light is not seized by air any more. The duration moving from A to B is L/(C-x) and the duration moving from B to A is L/(C+x). Such indicates that time needed varies with x.

Then let’s check the movement of the earth. The earth rotates around sun and also makes autorotation. Therefore, the velocity direction of earth revolution changes continuously against the velocity direction of light. That is, the component of velocity of earth revolution in the light direction keeps changing, which leads to the change of duration from A to B and from B to A. As a result, we could observe the movement of interference stripe through this improved Morley experiment. If it could find the movement, then it demonstrates that ether exists

supplement：

1. We give up the concept of ether. It would be more appropriate to replace the ether with space.

2. My partner's experiment can only prove that the movement of air relative to a reference point in space will affect the velocity of light in the air. His experiment doesn't affect the topic of discussion, so let's continue.

3. I'd still like to know if Michelson interferomers has been tested in vacuum. Does anyone know？

4. Because of the influence of air, the movement of interference fringes can not be measured in Morrie Michelson experiment.

Because the time required for A to B and B to A all is L / C0, where C0 is the velocity of light in a static air relative to a reference point in space.

However, in the vacuum environment, allow me to speculate that the time required for light is L / (C - x) and L / (C + x), and the time will change with x, here x is the velocity component of air against space in          the direction of light.  so the movement of interference fringes can be easily observed.

So, if we can't observe the movement of interference fringes in vacuum, we firmly believe that the speed of light is constant. On the contrary, the speed of light does not hold.

Share on other sites

Morey believes that light is transmitted through the medium of ether.The reason for his failure is that he didn't notice that the light was held by the air, just like a car running in the water, and the car was held by the water.

For example,there are two floats A and B on the water surface. The distance is L. There's a car going from A  to B. the speed of the car and the flow of water is based on the ground.

Let's assume that the speed of the car in the still water is V0, then the time required to drive from A to B is L / V0, and the time required to drive from B to A also is L / V0.

Now if the speed of water flow is VX, the speed of driving along the water is V0 + VX, but the float is also moving along the water, so the time needed from A to B is L / (V0 + VX - VX) = L / V0. If it is driving against the water, the speed of the car is V0 - VX, so the time needed from B to A is L / (V0 - VX + VX) = L / V0.

You can see whether the water flow is static or has the speed VX, it will not affect the driving time from A to B.

Light is like the car.

The air on the earth is like water.

We have to do the Murray experiment in a vacuum to uncover the truth.

Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TonyWang said:

We have to do the Murray experiment in a vacuum to uncover the truth.

Edit: There are several different ways to obtain high precision results. Here is one example where results were obtained making use of the high dimensional stability of cryogenic optical resonators (COREs), constructed from crystalline sapphire: https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305117.pdf
Quote

report on a new test of Lorentz invariance performed by comparing the resonance frequencies of two orthogonal cryogenic optical resonators subject to Earth’s rotation over ∼ 1 year.

Did you check the material I linked to above? Is LIGO applicable to your question?
Quote

Designing instruments like LIGO's interferometers, capable of measuring a distance on the order of 10-19 meters required inventing and refining innovative technology. Most of LIGO’s most impressive technology resides in its seismic isolation systems (which remove unwanted vibrations), vacuum systems (to make sure the laser light is kept pure), optics components (to preserve laser light and laser power), and computing infrastructure (to handle the mindboggling amount of data that LIGO collects).

Quote

At their cores, LIGO's interferometers are Michelson Interferometers, the same sort of device that was invented in the 1880's:
-They are L-shaped (not all interferometers are this shape)
-Mirrors at the ends of the arms reflect light in order to create an interference pattern called 'fringes'
-A device called a photodetector measures these fringes, revealing minute details of the objects or phenomenon being studied

Edited by Ghideon
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TonyWang said:

You can see whether the water flow is static or has the speed VX, it will not affect the driving time from A to B.

Light is like the car.

The air on the earth is like water.

We have to do the Murray experiment in a vacuum to uncover the truth.

29 minutes ago, TonyWang said:

Now if the speed of water flow is VX, the speed of driving along the water is V0 + VX, but the float is also moving along the water, so the time needed from A to B is L / (V0 + VX - VX) = L / V0. If it is driving against the water, the speed of the car is V0 - VX, so the time needed from B to A is L / (V0 - VX + VX) = L / V0.

This is not even correct by non relativistic (Newtonian) mechanics.

You are deceiving yourself.