The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Michelson/Morley Experimental Error  (Read 9889 times)

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« on: 28/06/2009 12:51:21 »
             
  The Michelson/Morley experiment has an embedded flaw. An experiment is supposed to be designed to eliminate any sources of major errors. Sometimes this is not possible as in the Michelson/Morley error. The experiment was supposed to show either of two things. Firstly that the velocity of a photonic beam coming from the sun to the Earth was constant and independent of direction of motion. Alternatively it was supposed to show an error term depending on whether the Earth was traveling toward or away from the sun.
   The Instrument showed no difference between the measurements. Therefore the speed of light reaching the instrument was independent of the relative velocity of the Earth and the Sun. Two solutions were then possible. The first solution was Einsteinís special relativity. This stated that the light approaches the instrument independent of the motion of the Earth and Sun.
    The alternative solution was basically a Lorentz solution. The instrument shrank in the direction of motion. Therefore the instrument would always correct itself and null out.
   Both the Lorentz solution and the Einsteinian solution failed to recognize that the experiment itself was faulty. Basically the speed of light depends upon the strength of the gravitational field. The stronger the field, the lower the speed of light. In addition the field tends to form spherical planes. Therefore at any radius from the center of the Earth, the field is basically constant in all directions. Therefore the speed of light at any radius from the center of the Earth is a constant. The speed of light is constant independent of the direction of travel of the Earth at any particular distance from the center of the Earth.
   As we move away from the center of the Earth, the light speed will vary very slightly. Thus the speed of light at sea level will be slightly slower than the speed of light atop a mountain. As we move further out in space, the speed of light will move faster and faster. The maximum speed of light will occur in pure outer space and between galaxies.
  A significant error in the M/M experiment was due to the Doppler gravitational field effect. As the Earth travels toward the sun, the Earthís gravitational field is compressed. This causes the photons coming from the sun to decrease in relative speed. A million miles from the Earth the photonic speed relative to the Earth is:
   Vp = C + Ve                        (6-14)
  As we get closer to the Earth, the photonic relative speed keeps decreasing. Finally as we touch the Earths atmosphere, the photonic relative speed reaches almost the speed of light C. At the M/M instrument, the speed of light is:

    Vp = C                           (6-15)
   Therefore the speed of light as it reached the instrument was the constant Earths light speed measurement. The experiment was destroyed by the Doppler gravitational field effect.
  Einstein came up with his brilliant theory, which was wrong. Lorentz was wrong as well. Both men did not account for the Doppler gravitational field, which automatically corrects the speed of light relative to the Earth as the photons travel from the sun to the Earth.


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #1 on: 28/06/2009 13:08:19 »
"The experiment was supposed to show either of two things. Firstly that the velocity of a photonic beam coming from the sun to the Earth was constant and independent of direction of motion. Alternatively it was supposed to show an error term depending on whether the Earth was traveling toward or away from the sun."

No, it wasn't. The experiment had nothing to do with the sun. It didn't use light from the sun.
The only thing the sun did was have the earth orbit round it.
Because we know the earth is going round in a circle (roughly) we know it is moving with respect to the universe. If the universe had some "luminiferous ether" pervading it then we would be moving with respect to that ether and the experiment would have shown that movement. It didn't because there's no "ether".

There's nothing wrong with the experiment; the problem seems to be with your interpretation of it.

 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #2 on: 28/06/2009 13:30:57 »
"The experiment was supposed to show either of two things. Firstly that the velocity of a photonic beam coming from the sun to the Earth was constant and independent of direction of motion. Alternatively it was supposed to show an error term depending on whether the Earth was traveling toward or away from the sun."

No, it wasn't. The experiment had nothing to do with the sun. It didn't use light from the sun.
The only thing the sun did was have the earth orbit round it.
Because we know the earth is going round in a circle (roughly) we know it is moving with respect to the universe. If the universe had some "luminiferous ether" pervading it then we would be moving with respect to that ether and the experiment would have shown that movement. It didn't because there's no "ether".

There's nothing wrong with the experiment; the problem seems to be with your interpretation of it.



  Everything I remember reading is that the sun was used. If they did not use the sun why did they repeat the experiment when we were moving toward the sun or away from the sun?
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #3 on: 28/06/2009 14:13:38 »
PS: I just reread my physics textbook where the Author mentions the experiment being performed when we moved toward the sun and away from the sun. Therefore with the sun being the source of the Aether field, the above analysis would be correct even if the source of light was fixed upon the Earth.

  However with a fixed light source all we have is the Earths gravitational field which equalizes the light speed in all directions.

 I just read "Relativistic re-evaluation of the m/M experiment by Andreas Varesi.

 In his conclusion he specifies

   "The velocity of a moving inertial system has no effect on the resulting interference patterns if length contraction and time dilation actually occur.

   The Doppler equations produce length contraction and time dialation as well. However this matters little since the gravitational field equalizes the speed of light in all directions.

  The gravitational field is a photonic field which continually rebuilds itself as the Earth moves. Thus the gravitational field this split second is replaced by the graviational field a split second from now.

   No matter how we look at the experiment, it is invalid because it fails to understand that the gravitational field itself is the aether.

  The aether is not a stationary aether but a dynmanic photonic field. The Earth does not travel through the aether. The aether can be considered chaos. The earth travels through chaos. The chaos continually rebuilds itself as the gravitational field.



 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #4 on: 28/06/2009 21:21:16 »
The experiment was done underground.
Not a lot of sunshine.
The earth's movement towards and away from the sun isn't that great.
The difference between the furthest and nearest is about 5 million Km and it takes half a year to move that distance, so the average radial velocity is about 540km/hr. If you are on the equator the daily variation is bigger than this.

What matters is the earth's orbital velocity (about 30 km/sec.)
Over half a year the earth's velocity changes from that fast forwards to that fast backwards. This happens for any definition of "forwards" in the earth's orbital plane.
So we know the earth moves about a hell of a lot. If there were an ether we would be moving through it. If that were the csse then the fringes would shift. They don't so we aren't so it doesn't exist.

There's another explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether_drag
but it has been discredited. It looks a lot like your idea.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #5 on: 28/06/2009 21:37:29 »
The experiment was done underground.
Not a lot of sunshine.
The earth's movement towards and away from the sun isn't that great.
The difference between the furthest and nearest is about 5 million Km and it takes half a year to move that distance, so the average radial velocity is about 540km/hr. If you are on the equator the daily variation is bigger than this.

What matters is the earth's orbital velocity (about 30 km/sec.)
Over half a year the earth's velocity changes from that fast forwards to that fast backwards. This happens for any definition of "forwards" in the earth's orbital plane.
So we know the earth moves about a hell of a lot. If there were an ether we would be moving through it. If that were the csse then the fringes would shift. They don't so we aren't so it doesn't exist.

There's another explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether_drag
but it has been discredited. It looks a lot like your idea.

  Thanks for the data. If you notice I am exploring two different theories. In this one the galaxy gravitational field is primary. Atop this is the suns field and then the Earths field. The photons ride the fields.
   As you point out the orbital velocity is much larger. So then it matters little if we are approaching the sun or moving away from it. This tends to harm the possibility of the photons riding the gravitational fields and constantly correcting its speed.
  The alternative is that the dot-waves exist in chaos most of the time. This means that the universe constantly reinvents itself every split second.
   If that is true, then the Earths gravitational field is primary. The sun's field and the galaxy field are secondary. If everything came from chaos a split second ago and reforms into a gravitational field, the photns from the sun or anywhere else are constantly readjusting to the reforming gravitaional fields.

  This would make the Earth look more like an Einsteinian inertial system in that the photons which reach the Earth will reform based upon the Earths gravitational field.

 The chaos theory would tend to make Einstein even more correct since the photons from the sun or elsewhere were constantly reinvented as they traveled toward us.
  The light source upon the Earth would only be concerned with the Earths field because everywhere else it would find chaos.
 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #6 on: 29/06/2009 20:43:43 »
This "The alternative is that the dot-waves exist in chaos most of the time. " is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of possibilities that don't include these "dotwaves" including the whole of mainstream physics.


If you cannot work out the relative magnitudes of the eart's Sun's and galaxy's gravitational force then you need to swat up on physics.
You really ought to know which one of them would be "primary" but, in any event, like all forces they add up so you just have to consider the sum of them and that's just a force. The things subject to that force can't know "where it came from".

Also you seem to have overlooked the fact that the earth is in free fall towards the sun (it keeps missing its target because it's in orbit).
The net effect is therefore nil.

You say that you are exploring two theories.
I don't know what either of them is but I bet they don't meet the scientific definition of "theory".
Do you have any evidence for them? Do they explain things better than thet current theory? Are they equivalent to an old debunked "theory" like the ether drag?
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #7 on: 29/06/2009 22:38:05 »
Do they explain things better than thet current theory? Are they equivalent to an old debunked "theory" like the ether drag?

  Since the dot-waves usually travel at light speed C, they impact the Earth equally in all directions. Most just pass through without effect. The net result is that they cannot drag down the Earth.

   However as you point out, the cosmology is not my best point since other people seem to have better answers. Therefore I will reduce my comments in that area.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #8 on: 29/06/2009 23:37:14 »
Taken on the chin, like a man.
Respect!!!
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #9 on: 30/06/2009 00:57:09 »
Taken on the chin, like a man.
Respect!!!

What have the people who have been dishing it out done in their lifetimes. Many people have good memories but no original thoughts. They can study the work of the masters. They become memory robots. so what. That means the errors of the past are compounded.
   It has been 100 years since Einstein"s original theory. Yet we still have not gotten the energy from the proton. Therefore in my opinion, the education relies too much on the approximate truths of the past.
   If people do not search for new truths aand better truths then we will continue to use oil and coal to power the world instead of the proton.
  So if people do not deny the experts of the world, then how can man progress. The time is short. We must deny the imperfect education and look for novel approaches. Otherwise man is doomed.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #10 on: 30/06/2009 04:32:28 »
Of what value is an original thought that is nonsensical?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #11 on: 30/06/2009 07:06:55 »
"So if people do not deny the experts of the world, then how can man progress. "
You could answer the questions for a start.
Do you have any evidence for them? Do they explain things better than thet current theory? Are they equivalent to an old debunked "theory" like the ether drag?
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #12 on: 30/06/2009 13:03:04 »
"So if people do not deny the experts of the world, then how can man progress. "
You could answer the questions for a start.
Do you have any evidence for them? Do they explain things better than thet current theory? Are they equivalent to an old debunked "theory" like the ether drag?


Since cosmology is not my strongest field, I cannot continue to discuss this area. I have little ideas concerning ether drag, etc.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #13 on: 30/06/2009 21:39:14 »
I think that we all owe just a teeny bit of respect to "the experts". Without them, the whacky alternative ideas would have no posh sounding words to be expressed in.
I appreciate the romance of the maverick primitive producing world shattering revelations. However, I can't think of any of the Greats of Science who did not start with a thorough grounding in the established Science of their day. They all did their time and used their memories to learn stuff off by heart Before they made their particular original contributions.
People who can't be bothered to learn stuff won't be able to contribute anything worth while. Don't knock Study.
 

Offline chuckage

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #14 on: 23/11/2009 06:45:09 »
The Michelson-Morley experiment was a poorly designed experiment that never had a chance to detect the ether.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #15 on: 23/11/2009 07:09:35 »
The Michelson-Morley experiment was a poorly designed experiment that never had a chance to detect the ether.
LOL
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #16 on: 09/01/2010 14:08:05 »

  Everything I remember reading is that the sun was used. If they did not use the sun why did they repeat the experiment when we were moving toward the sun or away from the sun?

As I understand it they were looking for the Aether, if there was one then they could use Earths motion around the sun to test if they would get different 'times' of 'c', as the light at certain angles might move with it and on other against this thought field.
 

Offline chosenbygrace

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #17 on: 17/03/2014 23:47:33 »
The only thing the sun did was have the earth orbit round it.
Because we know the earth is going round in a circle (roughly) we know it is moving with respect to the universe.

You believe that if you are a heliocentrist, not everyone is one, a very large amount of people in the world are geocentrists, and geocentrism is not a "flat earth" topic at all. When you say "we know", you're not being accurate, you're speaking for everyone inappropriately. You should research thoroughly the subject of geocentrism if you don't understand your error. It's not a mere "cuz the Bible says so" subject.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Michelson/Morley Experimental Error
« Reply #17 on: 17/03/2014 23:47:33 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums