Question on Michelson-Morley Experiment

[nakakayama]

In a book "Teoria della relativita" By W.Pauli 1970, it's written as follows. "From view point of an observer who moves with moving medium, light must be considered that it's propagated (always and to every direction) at the speed of c/n in this medium" (translated from Japanese edition). In the air, it may be the same. Why it's not an explanation for M-M experiment ? For what reason ?
P.S. With vacuum, the emission theory may be able to cope.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

[bobdezon]

[nakakayama]

In a book "Special Relativity" By French, A.P. 1971, it's written that the air 0.1mm thick is enough to extinguish the memory of light source's motion. The notion of extinction seems to be about light speed (in the medium). In a forum (in English), i was shown a web-site below. See a heading "Optical Extinction".

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physi...periments.html

The extinction seems the most reasonable explanation for the result of Michelson-Morley experiment (as to vacuum, the emission supports). But no book doesn't refer to "extinction" by air. Bad dream !!

[Pebble]

Any chance of an idiots guide to 'Michelson-Morley experiment' for the luddites among us?

[Trinoc]

Any chance of an idiots guide to 'Michelson-Morley experiment' for the luddites among us?

Wikipedia is your friend ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

[skbuncks]

I think this is correct but am willing to be corrected on every point

The MM experiment was design in an attempt to detect something known as the luminifereous aether.
The luminifereous aether is to light as air is to sound i.e. it was postulated to be the medium through which light propagates.
Since light can tracel in a vacuum this aether would be present even in space, in fact all around us.
As the earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun it would be highly unlikely that the Earth could remain stationary relative to the aether at all times, therefore there should be an aether wind'.
At any given point in time the direction and force of the would vary depending upon the time of day, year etc.

The MM experiment was designed via a complicated set up of mirrors to detect this aether.


The experiment can be visualised like this where the swimmers represented a split beam of light

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/H...sonMorley.html

For the null hypothesis to be true then the two swimmers, or beams of light, would arrive at different times.
This was found to not be the case, in fact both swimmers/beams of light arrived at the same time demonstrating that the null hypothesis was incorrect

skb

[nakakayama]

Allow me to correct my late post : (as to vacuum, the emission theory supports). But no book refers to "extinction" by air. Bad dream !!

[Pebble]

I think this is correct but am willing to be corrected on every point

The MM experiment was design in an attempt to detect something known as the luminifereous aether.
The luminifereous aether is to light as air is to sound i.e. it was postulated to be the medium through which light propagates.
Since light can tracel in a vacuum this aether would be present even in space, in fact all around us.
As the earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun it would be highly unlikely that the Earth could remain stationary relative to the aether at all times, therefore there should be an aether wind'.
At any given point in time the direction and force of the would vary depending upon the time of day, year etc.

The MM experiment was designed via a complicated set up of mirrors to detect this aether.


The experiment can be visualised like this where the swimmers represented a split beam of light

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/H...sonMorley.html

For the null hypothesis to be true then the two swimmers, or beams of light, would arrive at different times.
This was found to not be the case, in fact both swimmers/beams of light arrived at the same time demonstrating that the null hypothesis was incorrect

skb

Thanks, one lives and learns.

[nakakayama]

In a forum, i wrote about Michelson-Morley experiment as follows.

"If the air moves at the speed of 30km/sec relative to the instrument, expected result may be gotten. But the fact is that the air is at a stand-still. Zero result is only natural."

[Trinoc]

In a forum, i wrote about Michelson-Morley experiment as follows.

"If the air moves at the speed of 30km/sec relative to the instrument, expected result may be gotten. But the fact is that the air is at a stand-still. Zero result is only natural."

What has air got to do with it? Light moves through air at a constant rate regardless of the motion of the air. In any case, it would be a simple matter - and it probably has been done - to repeat the MM experiment with the light path in a vacuum.

[nakakayama]

To Mr. Trinoc

Yes, it's quite simple matter, i agree.

i wrote this view in a forum (Anti-Relativity.com). And this (Question on "EXTINCTION") is not opposed (denied) up to the present.

Please read Pauli's short writing (sorry, it's translated by me from Japanese fdition) once again.

[nakakayama]

In a library, i found English edition of Pauli's book : "Theory of Relativity". Quoted passage above is as follows (It's in 1-6).

Rather should one say that for an observer moving with the medium, light is propagated as usual with velocity c/n in all direction.

[nakakayama]

There is Einstein's passage the same as above Pauli's. Therefore he may say he didn't know M-M experiment. There may be no other way but to say so.

P.S. Pauli's writing seems to be the most reasonable explanation for the result of M-M experiment.

[nakakayama]

Allow me to add please.

Einstein's passage (the same as Pauli's) is in his book : [Uber die spezielle und allgemine relativitatstheorie] 1916,1956 (in 1-13 : chapter on Fizeau experiment). In short, he says that in the medium, the medium (very thing) is the reference frame of propagation of light.

He may be aware (probably) that for the result of M-M experiment, above is the most reasonable explanation. But all are prising (on their own initiative), "Mystery of M-M experiment is solved by Einstein's theory !!". And he doesn't point out this misunderstanding (Only he says, he didn't know M-M experiment).

[nakakayama]

Einstein says, I didn't know M-M experiment. He says (probably), you have misunderstanding of M-M experiment and I am not concerned with it.