Michelson - Morley Experiment Revisited

[geistkiesel]

Yet again - why would I want to assume that? You're saying: 'assuming I'm right, am I right?' Uh...duh?
M&M THEMSELVES viewed their experiment as a failure. You're the one second-guessing their experiment and you must prove why.

C'mon, do you have the data or not? Are you just saying it because you heard it somewhere and liked what you heard? Do you even know where the idea of a 1/20th result came from? Or is this just a fun game? Out with it: put up or shut up.

M&M's opinions are no more valuable than any other. Opinions of those conducting experiments do not enjoy elvated states of scieitific truth over the rest of humanity. Have you looked for the 1/20 of the truth russ_wattes, yeahright, "guffaw" I gave you the references, enough rope, so do it to yourself russ_watters.

 

[jammieg]

I think you miss the point geistkiesel, everyone wants to see some revolutionary new discoveries, the problem is nobody wants to go out of their way to find them or more likely spend a great deal of time and effort wasted on futile experiments, reason alone is worse than worthless here, who ever said the aether has to be moving anyway, there are too many what if's, and each of them have the overwhelming potential for being a monumental waste of time and effort.

 

[geistkiesel]

I think you miss the point geistkiesel, everyone wants to see some revolutionary new discoveries, the problem is nobody wants to go out of their way to find them or more likely spend a great deal of time and effort wasted on futile experiments, reason alone is worse than worthless here, who ever said the aether has to be moving anyway, there are too many what if's, and each of them have the overwhelming potential for being a monumental waste of time and effort.

You are correct of course. I just wanted to make the point that MM did not claim a null result. As stated by Dayton Miller the published MM results stated that "the observed relative motion of the Earth did not exceed one forurth of the Earth's oribital velocity". Miller also found that his experiments agreed with MM in their finding of an average of approximately 8,5 km/sec relative aether/earth velociy, which is geater than 1/4 the Earth's orbital velocity of 30km/sec. Miller narrowed the matter down to determining the realtive direction of the solar system generally to the constllation Hercules at approximately 20 km/sec, but Hercules was heading to the south pole apex direction in the constellation Dorado, the Sword-Fish, about 20 degeree south of Canopus, with a velocity of 208 km/sec. Canopus is the second brightest star in the Great Magellan Cloud. Miller did a lot more than experiment with relativity problems, though it is all related.

Assuming the validity of Miller's work (and MM) what does this have to say regarding Special Relativity? What it generates is the kind of responses seen by russ_watters i.e "go away".

 

[geistkiesel]

Yet again - why would I want to assume that? You're saying: 'assuming I'm right, am I right?' Uh...duh?
M&M THEMSELVES viewed their experiment as a failure. You're the one second-guessing their experiment and you must prove why.

C'mon, do you have the data or not? Are you just saying it because you heard it somewhere and liked what you heard? Do you even know where the idea of a 1/20th result came from? Or is this just a fun game? Out with it: put up or shut up.

Actually I did misquite the 1/20 number. The average relative velocity of Earth and aether found by both MM and Dayron Miller was 8.5 km/sec which is considerable miore than 1/20 of the expected. The Earth's orbital velocity being 30 km/sec. You can belittle all you want, I suppose that is your job, but Miller found what MM found. Miller also makes the point with emphasis that contrary to popular writing the MM results were not null. Likewise MM experiments were conducted over a few days. MM had no opportunity to go into a detailed experimental mode as did Miller later. Millers experiments were into a cuple of hundred thousand when he finally finished.

 

[wespe]

Actually I did misquite the 1/20 number. The average relative velocity of Earth and aether found by both MM and Dayron Miller was 8.5 km/sec which is considerable miore than 1/20 of the expected. The Earth's orbital velocity being 30 km/sec. You can belittle all you want, I suppose that is your job, but Miller found what MM found. Miller also makes the point with emphasis that contrary to popular writing the MM results were not null. Likewise MM experiments were conducted over a few days. MM had no opportunity to go into a detailed experimental mode as did Miller later. Millers experiments were into a cuple of hundred thousand when he finally finished.

Geistkiesel,

If it was possible to detect Earth's velocity through aether, sure, special relativity would be invalid. You talk about 30 km/sec orbital speed. But, with all the velocities of earth, sun, galaxy etc. combined, why only 8,5 km/sec speed was detected? Don't you think it is more probable that 8,5 km/sec was experimental error?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

 

[geistkiesel]

Geistkiesel,

If it was possible to detect Earth's velocity through aether, sure, special relativity would be invalid. You talk about 30 km/sec orbital speed. But, with all the velocities of earth, sun, galaxy etc. combined, why only 8,5 km/sec speed was detected? Don't you think it is more probable that 8,5 km/sec was experimental error?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Not at all Read Dayton Miller's story. A measurement of relative velocities between the solar system and The constellation hurcules is about 20 km/s toward the constellation, but Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec. The numbers of the average is taken at choice spots diurinally using sideral time. The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec, while the revolution speed is on the order of .4 km/s. I can only steer you to Miller's paper Reviews of Modern Physics July 1933 vol 5 203-242. The paper is readable.

Miller also emphcised that MM results were not zero, but as stated by MM, "less than 1/4 of the orbital velocity."

Shankland, once a grad student under Miller trashed the expeimebnt in 1955 when Miller was no longe around. I saw an internet paper analyzing th ebias of Shankland, and Enistein.

 

[wespe]

Not at all Read Dayton Miller's story. A measurement of relative velocities between the solar system and The constellation hurcules is about 20 km/s toward the constellation, but Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec. The numbers of the average is taken at choice spots diurinally using sideral time. The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec, while the revolution speed is on the order of .4 km/s. I can only steer you to Miller's paper Reviews of Modern Physics July 1933 vol 5 203-242. The paper is readable.

Well I don't have it. Maybe you can tell me, why "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", despite "Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec"? Why not add these velocities? And what can be considered stationary wrt aether as a reference to earth, to have any estimate at all?

Also see (maybe not a very credible source, but seems okay)
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/earthmotion.htm

If you followed my link, there's an article (very much in favor of Miller):
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

There it says:
"Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec" ... "but Earth-entrained ether in that particular direction, which lowered the velocity of the ether from around 200 to 10 km/sec"

So basically it is a "dragged aether" explanation. Not because "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", as far as I can tell.

Once again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

"One possible explanation of the Michelson-Morley result was that the Earth "dragged" the ether along with it, so that it is fixed for an Earthbound observer. However, this was contradicted by the observations of stellar abberation (a change in angle of light from a star due to the Earth's motion) by James Bradley in 1725 and again by George Airy 1871, which were not consistent with an ether that moved with the Earth."

 

[geistkiesel]

Well I don't have it. Maybe you can tell me, why "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", despite "Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec"? Why not add these velocities? And what can be considered stationary wrt aether as a reference to earth, to have any estimate at all?

Because the relative velocity of Earth (the solar system) wrt Hecules was measured ~ 20km/sec: Earth - Hercules 20km/s. Hercules wrt Dorado 226km/sec. we are subject to Hercuoles dragging us along.

You are on a ship that is moving south at 225km/s, you are r7unning at an angle across the ship at a telative velocity of 20km/s against the ship's velocity (but 3-km/sec in your straight line) ergo you are heading south to Dorado.

Also see (maybe not a very credible source, but seems okay)
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/earthmotion.htm

If you followed my link, there's an article (very much in favor of Miller):
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

There it says:
"Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec" ... "but Earth-entrained ether in that particular direction, which lowered the velocity of the ether from around 200 to 10 km/sec"

We are moving to hercules at ~ 20km/sec as measured by Miller. However, Hecules is moving in as outhernly direction at 220km/s or so. In the larger picture the solar system is tied to hecules even though we may be moving positivelely toward hercules.

So basically it is a "dragged aether" explanation. Not because "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", as far as I can tell.

Once again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Correct the 30km/sec velocity is the calculated orbital velocity which was assumed by the powers that were at the time and still is as far as i can tell. MM found that the aether relative velocity was maybe ~ 1/6 the orbital velocity 'but certainly not more than 1/4 the orbital velocity'

"One possible explanation of the Michelson-Morley result was that the Earth "dragged" the ether along with it, so that it is fixed for an Earthbound observer. However, this was contradicted by the observations of stellar abberation (a change in angle of light from a star due to the Earth's motion) by James Bradley in 1725 and again by George Airy 1871, which were not consistent with an ether that moved with the Earth."

Miller confirmed MM at ~8.5 km/s. the MM experiments were completed in a few short days, days some 30+ "runs". Miller had over 200,000 experimental runs over a few years time. (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 5 p202-243 (1933)). You seem stuck in the popular hole that MM rsults were "null". Not so read MM and/or Miller in the reference I gave.

To quote Miller:
"However, and this fact must be emphacized, the indicated effect was not zeo; the sensitivity of the apparatus was such that the conclusion, published in 1887 stated that the observed relative motion and aether did not exceed one-fourth of the Earth's orbital velocity.This is quite different from the null effect now so frequently imputed to this experiment by writers on Relativity. . . . MM made only one series of observations in July 1887, and never repeated the aether-drift experiment at any other time, notwithstanding many printed statements to the contrary." This Miller wrote in 1933.

 

[wespe]

Well I don't have it. Maybe you can tell me, why "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", despite "Hecules is moving to the southern apex at about 205 km/sec"? Why not add these velocities? And what can be considered stationary wrt aether as a reference to earth, to have any estimate at all?

Because the relative velocity of Earth (the solar system) wrt Hecules was measured ~ 20km/sec: Earth - Hercules 20km/s. Hercules wrt Dorado 226km/sec. we are subject to Hercuoles dragging us along.

You are on a ship that is moving south at 225km/s, you are r7unning at an angle across the ship at a telative velocity of 20km/s against the ship's velocity (but 3-km/sec in your straight line) ergo you are heading south to Dorado.

That doesn't answer my quesion. I'm not sure you have even read it.

Let me try again:

Consider: An experiment will be carried out to detect Earth's speed in aether. An estimated value is needed to compare with the experiment results. We know Earth's orbital speed around sun: 30 km/sec. If we assume sun is at rest wrt aether, we could use this 30 km/sec value. But we assume sun is not at rest wrt aether, we know its relative speed wrt Hercules. But also we assume Hercules is not at rest wrt aether. We know its relative is speed wrt Dorado is 226km/sec. So what do these speeds amount to? 200 something, or still 30? Why do you compare 8.5 with 30 and not 200 figure? Actually, Miller's estimate was 208 km/sec (as I quoted). So how did Miller explain 8.5? He explained it with aether drag (see previous post or read the Miller article, apparently you didn't understand Miller's view).

So basically it is a "dragged aether" explanation. Not because "The largest velocity component attributable to the Earth is orbital velociy of 30 km/sec", as far as I can tell.

Once again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Correct the 30km/sec velocity is the calculated orbital velocity which was assumed by the powers that were at the time and still is as far as i can tell. MM found that the aether relative velocity was maybe ~ 1/6 the orbital velocity 'but certainly not more than 1/4 the orbital velocity'

What are you babbling about? I'm saying there is a problem with "aether drag explanation". What is your answer to that?

"One possible explanation of the Michelson-Morley result was that the Earth "dragged" the ether along with it, so that it is fixed for an Earthbound observer. However, this was contradicted by the observations of stellar abberation (a change in angle of light from a star due to the Earth's motion) by James Bradley in 1725 and again by George Airy 1871, which were not consistent with an ether that moved with the Earth."

Miller confirmed MM at ~8.5 km/s. the MM experiments were completed in a few short days, days some 30+ "runs". Miller had over 200,000 experimental runs over a few years time. (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 5 p202-243 (1933)). You seem stuck in the popular hole that MM rsults were "null". Not so read MM and/or Miller in the reference I gave.

That was the quote from the link. Why are you answering it separately? Did you read anything I wrote?

Also see:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=248717&postcount=241

 

[geistkiesel]

That doesn't answer my quesion. I'm not sure you have even read it.

Let me try again:

Consider: An experiment will be carried out to detect Earth's speed in aether. An estimated value is needed to compare with the experiment results. We know Earth's orbital speed around sun: 30 km/sec. If we assume sun is at rest wrt aether, we could use this 30 km/sec value. But we assume sun is not at rest wrt aether, we know its relative speed wrt Hercules. But also we assume Hercules is not at rest wrt aether. We know its relative is speed wrt Dorado is 226km/sec. So what do these speeds amount to? 200 something, or still 30? Why do you compare 8.5 with 30 and not 200 figure? Actually, Miller's estimate was 208 km/sec (as I quoted). So how did Miller explain 8.5? He explained it with aether drag (see previous post or read the Miller article, apparently you didn't understand Miller's view).

Quoting Miller;
The direction of the Earth's motion in space has been determined by assuming the that the motion is projected onto the plane of the interferometer and by observing the the variations produced in the projected component by the rotation of the Earth on its axis and by the erevolution around the sun. ...The evaluation of the observed effect i s based on the presumpotion that it is a second order effect and that the aether is wholly stagnant and undisturbed by the motion of the Earth through it. There are fiound to be two facts of observation that are whollty unexplained on this simple theory.

Miller says
The sun is mioving to the southern apex at v = 208 km/s
and in the opposite direction to Hecules at 19 km/s
the group of stars as a whole ar e heading to the southern apex at 227 km/sec.

The real answer is probably buried in the rhetoric someplace. Which numbers get mistated consistenly: The MM null effect and then all the theory following including SR, among others. Why don't you solve it? You aren't going to get there from here if you set your theoretical mind in some sr concrete or any theory for that matter.

But get miller first if you haven't 'Also, get Shankland's tyrashing of Miller anda miller's defense in the intenet, you can find it.

Dayton Miller The Ether Drift Experiments and Dxetermination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth.
Reviews iof Modern Ohysics july 1933 vol 5 203 -242

Aha, I see the conundrum. Miller could not measure the aether drag of anything but the earth, as far as I am able to determine. Firsat miller two facts which are unexplained by the Earth through eher theory. The displacement of the fringes is less than expected as if the aeher is carried along by the Earth is niot wholly at rest. There is reduction that is inexplicable. the reduction factor is k in the table whic h shiow the maximum values for maximum velocity of Earth twice per year.. If Miller isn't on th eintwernet and I haven't found it which is why i ordeed a copy from my local library.

1. Epoch--- Velocity-Obs. ---Velocity-Calc.---- k
2. _________________________________________
3. Feb 8 ----- 9,3km/s ----- 195.2 km/s-----0.048
4. Apr 1 -----10.2--------- 198.2 ----------- .051
5. Aug 1 -----11.2--------- 211.5------------.053
6. Sep 15 ---- 9.6 --------- 207.5 -----------.046
   
7. values adopted for calculations k = .0514

Miller found an aether drag velocity of ~8.5 km/sec, the same as the Michelson Morely experiments . I am sure you have looked at the MM setup. It is the same basic model used by miller with improved resoluiton mainly in the extended lengths of the various legs the photons traveled. Alsol, MM only experimented fot 4 days and evenings in July 1887 and never again after that, according to Miller and contrary to some reports that siad MM did it again.Miller did 200,00 or ao runs.

This is different than the relative velocities you referred to. I admit my numbers were crudely stated, but the thrust of my statement was as I stated. Wespe and geistkiesel are moving 1 m/s wrt each other due east. G is heading north W is heading SE such that their combined velocity is 1m/s east. The ship they are on is heading due west at 10 m/sec. Therefore G and w are heading west at 9 m/sec. Now the ship is in an ocean current moving north at 5 m/sec, ergo the G and W velocity are (9x9 + 5x5)^1/2 = 10.29m/sec.West by North West, OK? The main difference is the W and G veloicities do not have any unexplained values associated with aether which is becoming more and more like something completely different than simple aether effects. The answer will bubble up be patient. Get Miller.

One possible source, that I haven't looked at in detail is the use of the reflected beam from the transverse leg if the interferieter which should be a straight line instead of the triangle so popularly expressed in the literature, even Miller.

e you babbling about? I'm saying there is a problem with "aether drag explanation". What is your answer to that?

Mill;3er had a problemtoo, ask him!

i don't kniow what the inexplicable values found by Miller, except that there is some intrinsic characteristic ovf light propagation that is not explained by SR or geistkiesel/grounded/ram1024 et al.

That was the quote from the link. Why are you answering it separately? Did you read anything I wrote?

Sometimes I get busy and overlook detail. Is the current post more to your liking?

Also see:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=248717&postcount=241

 

[russ_watters]

This needs to be pointed out again: geistkiesel has yet to provide a source for his data. In light of all of his other issues in this matter, I'm not inclinded to take his word for it.

Show me the data.

edit: from the wikipedia link, I find this statement interesting:

Computer analysis after Miller's death on the little available data has proven that the shifts were statistically significant.[emphasis added]

This implies to me that very little actual data of Miller's exists. But that's ok - since this all happened more than half a century ago, someone else surely must have confirmed his results by now...right?

A good quote from that second wikipedia link:

A few physicists (like Dayton Miller and Edward Morley) continued research on the aether for some time, and occasionally researchers still explore these concepts. While it is not difficult to create aether theories consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is much harder to remain consistent with all of the related experiments of modern physics. Any new theory of aether must be consistent with all of the experiments testing phenomena of special relativity, general relativity, relativistic quantum mechanics, and so on.

Although the vast majority of modern scientists reject all aether-based theories, the aether's mystic appeal continues to draw pseudoscientific proponents and protoscientific aspirants.

 

[russ_watters]

Since I'm curious about Miller (and not too optomistice I'll ever be provided with info I asked for), I'm doing a little of my own research. Some interesting stuff I've found:

http://www.aetherometry.com/miller.html

...And ever since then, those who seek to re-establish the old notion of a static Aether that would be detected by its supposed drift, have taken recourse to Miller's results, pushing them to the forefront as if they were a repressed of Physics that betrayed the "truth of an electromagnetic Aether". However, Miller never fully achieved a demonstration that the borderline periodic displacements he observed could not be related to sensible and latent heat lag effects derived from solar ambipolar radiation...

... Miller himself eventually acknowledged that there were thermal effects at work. Since he wanted his apparatus to be as exposed to the elements as possible, it would invariably detect a diurnal variation in the start-up calibration (to say that sunlight might have caused spurious peaks is of little use if complete diurnal atmospheric records were not being kept; for instance, he should have taken control temperatures of the room, walls and roof, which apparently he did not). Nowhere does Miller seem to have controlled for this in a systematic fashion. But it is not just the heating effect of the sun upon the atmosphere that one should consider (even if it happened only once, which is rather unlikely...), but equally the cooling effect of nighttime. We have seen these effects in ORACs and therefore can easily suppose that they would affect such a sensitive interferometer as Miller's.

More disturbing still is that the data Miller obtained - with his final and improved interferometer - yielded two very different reports of the direction of the aether drift...

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2

[Miller] reported this result to a meeting of the American Physical Society (APS), and interpreted it as a refutation of Einstein's theory.

But was it? The APS's members did not think so. Hundreds of other experiments agreed with Michelson and Morley's work, and relativity was already tightly woven into contemporary science.[emphasis added]

So far, I'm rather unimpressed with Miller's work. But if you have any info of your own, geist...