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.
No! this is due to the contraction of the dimension in the direction of motion! Nobody knows what the actual distance measured in the structure of space is from the M1 and M2 mirrors to Ms. The forces in the atom are transferred by photons and to keep the electron at the same time distance from the nucleus, the atom becomes elliptical, smaller in size in the direction of motion.
It is bad explenatiin!! Michelson Morley's experience does not prove at all that there is no so-called ether and that the speed of light is the same from every direction! No one has ever measured the one-way speed of light. Of course, the reflected light reached the observer at the same time, but this is due to the contraction of the dimension in the direction of motion! Nobody knows what the actual distance measured in the structure of space is from the M1 and M2 mirrors to Ms. The forces in the atom are transferred by photons and to keep the electron at the same time distance from the nucleus, the atom becomes elliptical, smaller in size in the direction of motion.
What is the sensitivity of the Michelson interferometer (in terms of velocity), and does the Earth's velocity in space towards the Great Attractor exceed that threshold?
Please, comment! My problem with this experiment, as well as with the "Hafele and Keating experiment", is that it was conducted in and affected by the Earth's gravitational field. Is there an experiment that was (or is being conducted) in space, as far away from the Sun and/or any planet's gravitational field? Thanks
@@deepbean Thanks! but the scientists used the laser in huge optical fibers bundle with significant distance to try to detect the earth's rotation by interference produced for the distance run by the laser(light). This makes me confused.
@@deepbean Tell me, what is the wave number, wavelength, and wave period for the perpendicular direction to the parallel mirror (your T(t) time; this direction has the angle. A typical definition of wave number in all 3D (dimension)!
the best physics video I've ever seen. i really enjoyed it, keep making such awesome content. Remember me I was here brfore this video got a million views
They forgot light aberration to account for horizontal drift, and length contraction for the arms that are within the ether. The slowed down side is slowed down, and the sped up time is sped up, but it's over a shorter distance, so it ends up being the same amount of time as laterally. The last video on my channel (at this time) Michelson-Morley interferometer demo is a video about my open source demo - all written in JS and portable to any system that lets you move the interferometer in any direction, and shows how the forward-backward and left-right paths are always exactly the same amount of time.
What would be the result of the experiment if we assume Ether to be made of sub microscopic particles moving in every direction. This would affect both beams equally & give zero path difference beside confirming presence of Ether like medium.
I guess that would then depend on the motion of the ether particles; if they were random in the rest frame of the ether, then the net effect would not be zero when an object (and the light that it emits) is moving with respect to the ether.
Michelson Morley suggested that the earth was stationery if aether exists Instead of saying the earth does not move, science took away the aether and went down the path of ever more convoluted mathematics that bear no relation to reality
@@renedekker9806 If the aether exists then the michelson Morley proves that the earth does not move. That's how science should work. Instead, of saying that the earth does not move, they stated that the aether does not exist.
@@yingyang1008 _"If the aether exists then the michelson Morley proves that the earth does not move. "_ - it cannot prove that, because there is overwhelming experimental evidence that the Earth does move. So then the hypothesis in your statement must be incorrect: the aether does not exist. That's how science works.
Why did they assume something that doesnt exist only moves in one direction. If it acts like a fluid wouldnt it run in the opposite direction to the flow of photons?
And electrical theory still uses aether... Why? because space has properties of a substance which we measure and consider in all EE works. Makes me wonder how people just "made up" that it doesn't exist.
James Clerk Maxwell did in fact base his electromagnetic theory on the aether, and imagined that electric and magnetic fields were "mechanical states" of the aether, although it was realised that mathematics of the theory could work without assuming an actual aether substance, against which absolute motion should be defined. So, that's the basic difference between EM theory and aether theory; the former does not privilege a particular frame of reference (as it is understood today)
The speed of light must be relative to the speed of the charge producing the wave because the coulomb field moves with the charge and the wave is a change of this field, caused by an acceleration of the charge. So the medium of light is not any ether, but the field of the charge producing it. This can also be considered as being confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment, as a scenario which was not disproved. This is not only my individual view but Richard Feynman also described and calculated it like that.
_"So the medium of light is not any ether, but the field of the charge producing it."_ - there are various experiments that debunk that notion. One is stellar aberration: stars that have different speeds wrt to the Earth show the same aberration, and therefore have the same speed of light. Another is the Sagnac effect as used in the Sagnac gyroscopes. The light source is rotating with the light path, yet there is a travel time difference between the paths. _"Richard Feynman also described and calculated it like that."_ - it is very unlikely that Richard Feynman expressed disagreement with Relativity, so you more likely misinterpreted his explanations.
Velocity based time dilation calculation So we have V/c gives us a result in degrees Celsius. We live at electron weight, so the time dilation when moving matter would be ((5+(V/c))/5)^2 So traveling at the speed of light you have a Time Dilation Factor of (6/5)^2 or 1.44 Seconds Observed for the matters' one second. M.B.Eringa 1981 - 2023
@@yingyang1008 Because spacial density alters all internal velocities making time "appear" to slow down to the outside observer. To objects "inside" time appears to move forward normally.
Aether is a fluid, an incompressible fluid. It adheres to matter in order to couple light electromagnetic energy between Aether and matter, in doing so drag with earth as well as the interferometer, and hence to a static fringe pattern. However, as a liquid, Aether velocity remote from earth moves at a slower average velocity defined by the nearest planets and galaxies by a factor of 1/r.
Spatial compression is Time Dilation. TIme Dilation IS GENERAL RELATIVITY! (I.E. Why does matter persist in out Universe) Spooky action at a distance is SPECIAL RELAITIVTY! Gravity, Radio Waves, Gravity Waves, Magnetism etc etc (I.E. How does energy interact in our Universe) **EISNTEIN**
The Mickelson Morley experiment is totally wrong because the only speed it can measure is the speed of the local oscillator transmission literally the beam splitter surface. The error is in assuming that this light passes and or is reflected denies the reality that the light is entirely absorbed into the matrix of the mirror and mirror beomes the local emitter.
You are advancing an unsupported theory that the mirror's "matrix," which I assume you are referring to the mirror's atomic composite lattice structure, exhibits Black Body properties of lossless absorption of photons, but then you also generically posit that the mirror can then *reflect* absorbed photons in a vector conserving the angular momentum? It is erroneous to advance such an unfounded narrative without any supporting data to substantiate your argument. Composition of any given mirror is identified by specific characteristic parameters and performance values. For such an experiment, all that's required is that both mirrors are identical.
The experiment was conducted at the Case School of Applied Science (which became Case Institute of Technology, my alma mater). We had a big rock with a plaque commemorating the experiment.
You know neutrinos are 65 billion solar neutrinos, per second per square centimeter and they didn't detect that interaction either. The Ether is likely even smaller. Discounting the existence of an Aether using stone knives and bear skins. What a joke. This is why you don't discount anything, and try to evolve your experiments.
Everyone interprets the ether in terms of mass-like properties, namely, it should exhibit a drift from some absolute "point" in space. All it has to be is that the ether is not like mass and has no points to define. Therefore, the properties of light are set at the source that created it. Mirrors are a new source. Relativity ONLY works, because transform equations change the numbers that need to change so that light can BECOME constant relative to the observer LIKE IT'S DECLARED TO BE! A transform is a factorial fudge factor -a number between 0 and 1, that changes on a circular curve according to speed and used to change length, mass, and time. Light speed is "declared" to be constant, BUT IT DON'T LOOK CONSTANT BEFORE YOU CHANGE THE NUMBERS! You move your head, and the entire Universe changed its shape FOR YOU? Math can lie to you, look at my gyro video. Deriving cause from math is wrong.
_"Therefore, the properties of light are set at the source that created it. Mirrors are a new source. "_ - there are many experiments that debunk that notion. _"Light speed is "declared" to be constant"_ - light speed has been measured to be constant. _"You move your head, and the entire Universe changed its shape FOR YOU?"_ - that's how it appears to you, yes, when you rotate your head.
@@renedekker9806 1). " - there are many experiments that debunk that notion.": What experiments debunk that notion? If that were true, then the velocity of light would not be constant coming from the mirror, would it. 2). "-light...measured to be constant." The only experiments that are difficult are pion +v experiments, but these are rather complicated, and they may very well be creating the result rather than allowing it. 3). You did not understand this part at all. Transform equations CHANGE length, mass, and time, so when you move your head, length along that motion axis gets transformed INSTANTLY throughout the ENTIRE Universe. That's just too much to believe. IT IS 100% math. Nothing is observed that way UNTIL AFTER THE MATH!
And the next deceptive false irrational claim of Einstein is the way he twists his first postulate from saying the correct thing, into a incorrect conclusion. Namely that yes, laws of kinematics are applicable equally in any inertial condition. Thus we know that as Light has a constant velocity, just like a brick has a constant mass and constant length, we know that these things do not change from one inertial condition to the next. (and that is the exact 1st Postulate, which is correct) But Einstein deceives us when he swaps to a totally different claim, which is that Light actual MEASURED velocity, will not change. Which is of course absolute nonsense, and a deception, a trick of rhetoric. Light velocity can be consistent in any frame, but it certainly wont be MEASURED with the identical value in all frames, because of those LAWS of Kinematics that Einstein actually already agreed , "were VALID". Those Laws say that any MEASUREMENT requires TWO facts. One is the thing being measured, the other is the origin and motion condition of the measurer. Simply put, one can get a speed of 100 for a car, and also get a speed of 50 for that same car, (which never altered its motion) simply by the observer changing his own speed form zero to 50 . So here is the key to revealing the lies of Einstein's SR theory. The instant that Einstein claimed that Light Speed was a constant velocity of 300 million meters per second, THAT SET in concrete, the ORIGIN of that measurement as being ZERO velocity. Now applying those Laws of Kinematics that are valid in all inertial Frames of reference, we know that If some second observer were to measure that same light, but he was also moving at 50% of light speed relative to the first observer, then the ONLY possible value he MUST get for HIS measure of Light speed MUST be 150 million meters per second. Its totally IRRATIONAL, illogical and mathematical impossible for all observers to all get 300 irrespective of their relative speeds. But what they all WILL SAY, is that Light speed is CONSTANT, (unvarying) but the measured values MUST be different, because the Observers conditions are different. Now as the interferometer can never measure this, (its just not capable of comparing light speeds) there remains no other evidence to suggest that Light alone ought to be the one thing with motion (that has a finite velocity), that gets to BREAK all the known Laws of Kinematics. The claim is nonsensical and it requires rhetorical gibberish to conclude that it could be possible. And finally, NO, .... Time Dilation has NOT been demonstrated ever by anyone. Clocks may get to be inaccurate under different conditions, but that's just showing that you have a clock that has lost accuracy, it doesn't show that TIME has warped.
Time Dilation is the result of space and energy relation to mass. The problem is that there's no such thing as mass if your resolution limit is infinite. You can do the math if you want E=m*c^2 E=m*s^2/t^2; m*s^2 is the 3 dimensional space, say volume, hence: E=V/t^2 -> t=sqrt(V/E); with words time is the square root of energy in space, so Time Dilation comes from this relation. The constant speed of light caused by ether, what they tried to deny, and LIGO proved to be exist with gravity waves. By the way gravity is nothing, one could say it's just another relative vacuum among the others, or if you're attached to classic mass it's the one and only absolute vacuum
@@bencegyurky1596 But trouble is that the equation e=m*c squared, is wrong. Because its taken from Einstein's hopelessly wrong theory of SR. And the claim that Time is the square root of Energy is just a silly thing to say. There is no such thing as Time Dilation, and LIGO never found any "Gravity waves". They just lied, its a fraud, necessary to prop up Einstein's silly theories. Gravity is clearly a Force. No one knows how Gravity, Magnetism, Light or Electricity really work. No one. Quantum theory is bunk. That pretty well covers it all.
Einstein wasn't wrong when he concluded that there is no EFFECT of the ether on the speed of light, whether the ether exists or not in the space fabric in some form. Where he went wrong, or maybe was convinced to think like that by Minkowski and his abstract (non-physical) spacetime model, was to assume that time dilation happens with just constant speed. Nothing physical at all happens to a moving clock with constant velocity, it only happens during ACCELERATION phases, and note that moving in a circle with constant speed is one form of acceleration (the direction changes). Atoms and orbits / vibrations of their inner parts (electrons, quarks), are then physically affected (compressed) and the rate of change in them is changed = time change = time dilation. Time is PHYSICAL. Brains have a psychological view of time, made for supporting survival. It has nothing to do with what time really is, different rates of change in all atoms in the universe, depending on how much they accelerate. It means that Lorentz was on the right track (before Einstein) when he suggested that atoms are physically affected, but he believed in it for the wrong reason (he believed in an ether with an effect on moving matter). This acceleration theory makes sense all the way, and is for example explained by very clever physicists at "Physics in progress" in Canada. www.ptep-online.com/2017/PP-51-07.PDF "On the Question of Acceleration in Special Relativity" Comments/reflections concerning the claim you make that the speed of light varies depending on the velocity of objects: - When a photon hits matter it can make an electron absorb the energy, and move to another energy state (orbit in Bohr's model) in the atom. That change can not take place with a higher speed than the speed of light. Therefore one can say that every OBSERVER (receiver) of a photon observes it with the speed of light. What changes is the received energy if you move relative to a light beam, the frequency of the light (Doppler effect), the atom can not handle higher speeds than c. - If you DON'T observe a photon (passing by you), it of course has a lower/ higher speed than c, depending on the velocity of you relative to the photon. Einstein himself never said/wrote anything else, what I know **. - It makes no sense at all to claim that "every photon, or EM-wave, moves in space with the same speed relative to anyone, whether observing it or not". I agree.
Comment concerning the claim you make that time Dilation has NOT been demonstrated ever by anyone: - It has not been demonstrated by anyone WITHOUT acceleration involved (gravitational acceleration, or normal kinematical acceleration, or moving in a circle/ellipse = acceleration) - The light clock, which often is used to demonstrate that time dilation occurs with just constant speed, was not introduced by Einstein (it came later by others). The conclusion there is wrong, the outside "observer" does not (theoretically) OBSERVE the photon in the light clock (the light does not propagate sideways, just up and down), and it therefore moves faster than c relative to him/her = no physical time dilation occurs.
** From Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity paper: "in empty space light is always propagated with a definite velocity V (the notation c came later) which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body". No statement about other bodies, and it can not be a mistake that he excluded them. einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154 (at the bottom). So, try to separate what Einstein actually wrote/said himself 1905, and how he then has been (mis)interpreted. ____________________________________________________________ At last, the twin "paradox" is a good basis for clarifying things even more: In the famous twin thought experiment, there is a consensus among scientists and physics enthusiasts that the travelling twin is the one which becomes older. When asked why, Einstein replied "because that twin has accelerated". That is a correct answer imo and from a consensus point of view, but there are details about this answer which have to be clarified. With "because that twin has accelerated" one can mean two different things: A. That the clock hypothesis* is true = time dilation is an effect of only movement in abstract spacetime, whether it is accelerated movement or non-accelerating movement. Minkowski's approach with space-time diagrams describes a true physical phenomenon. B. That the clock hypothesis is false, and the acceleration hypothesis** is true. * The clock hypothesis = there is NO physical effect on matter of acceleration as such, on time dilation. ** The acceleration hypothesis (the one I describe here) = there is ONLY a time dilation effect (which is purely physical) during acceleration phases of matter. The rocket with the travelling twin has four such phases: 1. Accelerating from the earth 2. Decelerating when approaching the distant star 3. Accelerating from the distant star, back to the earth 4. Decelerating when approaching the earth again If you believe that there is no physical effect on matter when accelerating, then imagine a piece of metal orbiting around a neutron star, 10 kilometer above it. To not fall in to the star, it has to go around the star with an enormous speed, because the star pulls on it with an enormous gravitational force. If it should fall in to the star, its electrons in the atoms get so deformed that they merge with the quarks to create neutrons. Now, why should that be a sudden effect on the atoms ? First no deformation at all when orbiting, and then total collapse of the proton structure to neutron ? Doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that it instead is a growing deformation/compression effect, depending on the amount of acceleration. It also makes sense that this deformation IS the time dilation effect, a slowed down rate of change in the machinery of the atom as a whole (in the atoms of a clock for example).
@@Music_Creativity_Science You wrote a lot, and i may reply in detail later , but for now, I can't agree that Time changes in any way, due to anything ever, not by inertial motion of accelerating motion. Clocks may get stuffed up, but that is not Time changing, its only that your clock has lost the ability to maintain accuracy. About Einstein using the symbol V for light speed and not the popular "c" used now, this observation is irrelevant. As far as Physics is concerned, V = c in Einstein's paper. He absolutely meant that V was a constant, had a singular numerical value which must be recorded by anyone irrespective of their own relative emotion. This is the cornerstone principal of SR, but of course its total garbage and quite irrational.
@@Music_Creativity_Science I just run quickly through your reply so sorry if brevity hides errors but for some folks it's essential. It doesn't matter to matter if it accelerates or just travels with constant velocity in regards of time dilation. It is always relative energy in space. Acceleration has a given velocity at a given - in classical mass, Planck - time. One can travel in time forward with two solutions. With low energy (freezing), or with high energy (speeding). Both solutions have the same relation with the surrounding space. The matter that matter is in lower energy state. It's obvious in the first solution, with the second case only the propulsion energy binds time relation, the clocks matter in the rocket has lower energy relative to the surrounding space. Hope this is clear now. I know a bit contradictory how can be something at higher energy state in reality at lower energy state, but this is relativity. If you want to reset the "wrong" clock, just let it splash to the "good" one, and loosing energy solve the equation between them. :) Relativity can surprise us. Many know F = m*a, a few only F = -m*a just to throw a link facebook.com/watch/?v=503517728452754
Let me show you why this math is nonsensical: For the beam parallel to the aether, when it is moving with the aether towards the mirror, its speed is increased like so c+v. Ok now, they say when the light is moving against the aether, the speed reduces by the same amount v, like so, c-v. This contradicts the initial assumption that the light will be impeded more when moving against the aether than it will gain when moving with the aether. The math shows that the speed is added by the same amount that it is reduced. That is one. When the light was moving with the aether, its speed was c+v. This is the speed with which it will hit the mirror, and according to the law of reflection it is the same speed with which it will reflect. After reflection, it moves against the aether so the speed is now c+v-v and this is equal to c. So the light returns with the same speed, hence no fringe shift is observed. I cannot believe that the whole physics community will get this kind of basic physics wrong! Or perhaps they did it intentionally just to make physics fancier to the world, cuz this whole relativity stuff is nonsense.
You've misunderstood the mathematics entirely due to faulty premises; the speed through the aether was taken to be constant w.r.t the aether, and the delay is not negated by the fact that the speed one way is c+v and c-v in the other.
Ah yes, the entire physics community is wrong and you are correct. Surely the speed of light would be moving at c+v, and not c, because the speed of light (in a vacuum) _isn't_ constant in all inertial reference frames, and because Galilean relativity _does_ make sense at speeds of light (compared to dumb Lorentz relativity). Ah yes, it all makes sense now: those physicists did this intentionally to make it look fancy! Einstein must have gotten everything wrong. You are fully correct and everyone else got it wrong.
_"I cannot believe that the whole physics community will get this kind of basic physics wrong!"_ - that is a very clear hint that you got it wrong yourself instead.
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.
No! this is due to the contraction of the dimension in the direction of motion! Nobody knows what the actual distance measured in the structure of space is from the M1 and M2 mirrors to Ms. The forces in the atom are transferred by photons and to keep the electron at the same time distance from the nucleus, the atom becomes elliptical, smaller in size in the direction of motion.
I'm glad RUclips recommended me this channel... Very interesting content!
Commenting for the algorithm to do it's thing.
Really appreciate the comment!!
Oh wow! Please continue this. Reaching big audience would a matter of time!
Agreed!
Excellent video! I am just starting to study Special Relativity, great great explanation (respect to the one ive got on class)
It is bad explenatiin!! Michelson Morley's experience does not prove at all that there is no so-called ether and that the speed of light is the same from every direction! No one has ever measured the one-way speed of light. Of course, the reflected light reached the observer at the same time, but this is due to the contraction of the dimension in the direction of motion! Nobody knows what the actual distance measured in the structure of space is from the M1 and M2 mirrors to Ms. The forces in the atom are transferred by photons and to keep the electron at the same time distance from the nucleus, the atom becomes elliptical, smaller in size in the direction of motion.
Thank you kind stranger on the internet for explaining this very well indeed!
Probably the very best science experiment of All time.
Really good.. honest and so glad you can have your sister along to share the fun and the struggles.
Fun channel. Like the machine-learning bits too. Subscribed. Cheers ...
What is the sensitivity of the Michelson interferometer (in terms of velocity), and does the Earth's velocity in space towards the Great Attractor exceed that threshold?
Keep going...
Great explanation
I’m here because of Lord Jamar. His interview on the Godfrey Comedy channel was very interesting….
Zero point energy (bare vacuum) needs to be included in this.
How does double slit play into this? If a particle beam changes if it's monitored or not, wouldn't that effect this experiment aswell🤔
Please, comment!
My problem with this experiment, as well as with the "Hafele and Keating experiment", is that it was conducted in and affected by the Earth's gravitational field. Is there an experiment that was (or is being conducted) in space, as far away from the Sun and/or any planet's gravitational field?
Thanks
Hello! Not that I'm aware of. But yes, that would eliminate the effect of gravity and/or the proposed "aether drag" of the Earth.
Wow wonderful explanation ❤️ ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Why wouldn’t going against the aether be the opposite of going with it. They should cancel out.
Why the light travel forward and backward distance are the same? it is not the same.
This is assuming the light rays have constant speed.
@@deepbean Thanks! but the scientists used the laser in huge optical fibers bundle with significant distance to try to detect the earth's rotation by interference produced for the distance run by the laser(light). This makes me confused.
@@deepbean Tell me, what is the wave number, wavelength, and wave period for the perpendicular direction to the parallel mirror (your T(t) time; this direction has the angle. A typical definition of wave number in all 3D (dimension)!
the best physics video I've ever seen. i really enjoyed it, keep making such awesome content. Remember me I was here brfore this video got a million views
Thanks for your comment!! Really glad you enjoyed the video, and keep an eye out for more upcoming stuff!
The sheer arrogance of Michelson and Morley in ignoring the obvious fact that gravity is ether flow totally bewilders me to this day.
I think you are a little confused. These experiments should be sufficient.
The video is woow
They forgot light aberration to account for horizontal drift, and length contraction for the arms that are within the ether. The slowed down side is slowed down, and the sped up time is sped up, but it's over a shorter distance, so it ends up being the same amount of time as laterally. The last video on my channel (at this time) Michelson-Morley interferometer demo is a video about my open source demo - all written in JS and portable to any system that lets you move the interferometer in any direction, and shows how the forward-backward and left-right paths are always exactly the same amount of time.
What would be the result of the experiment if we assume Ether to be made of sub microscopic particles moving in every direction. This would affect both beams equally & give zero path difference beside confirming presence of Ether like medium.
I guess that would then depend on the motion of the ether particles; if they were random in the rest frame of the ether, then the net effect would not be zero when an object (and the light that it emits) is moving with respect to the ether.
Michelson Morley suggested that the earth was stationery if aether exists
Instead of saying the earth does not move, science took away the aether and went down the path of ever more convoluted mathematics that bear no relation to reality
they were such staunch Copernicans and it would shatter 200 years of their theorizing
Imagine what would happen now its impossible
_"Michelson Morley suggested that the earth was stationery"_ - we have simply measured the rotation of the Earth. It is not stationary.
@@renedekker9806 If the aether exists then the michelson Morley proves that the earth does not move.
That's how science should work. Instead, of saying that the earth does not move, they stated that the aether does not exist.
@@yingyang1008 _"If the aether exists then the michelson Morley proves that the earth does not move. "_ - it cannot prove that, because there is overwhelming experimental evidence that the Earth does move. So then the hypothesis in your statement must be incorrect: the aether does not exist.
That's how science works.
Why did they assume something that doesnt exist only moves in one direction. If it acts like a fluid wouldnt it run in the opposite direction to the flow of photons?
Exactly my question, can't find the answer anywhere, let me know if you do!
And electrical theory still uses aether... Why? because space has properties of a substance which we measure and consider in all EE works.
Makes me wonder how people just "made up" that it doesn't exist.
James Clerk Maxwell did in fact base his electromagnetic theory on the aether, and imagined that electric and magnetic fields were "mechanical states" of the aether, although it was realised that mathematics of the theory could work without assuming an actual aether substance, against which absolute motion should be defined. So, that's the basic difference between EM theory and aether theory; the former does not privilege a particular frame of reference (as it is understood today)
I think the Aether does exist
The speed of light must be relative to the speed of the charge producing the wave because the coulomb field moves with the charge and the wave is a change of this field, caused by an acceleration of the charge. So the medium of light is not any ether, but the field of the charge producing it.
This can also be considered as being confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment, as a scenario which was not disproved.
This is not only my individual view but Richard Feynman also described and calculated it like that.
_"So the medium of light is not any ether, but the field of the charge producing it."_ - there are various experiments that debunk that notion. One is stellar aberration: stars that have different speeds wrt to the Earth show the same aberration, and therefore have the same speed of light.
Another is the Sagnac effect as used in the Sagnac gyroscopes. The light source is rotating with the light path, yet there is a travel time difference between the paths.
_"Richard Feynman also described and calculated it like that."_ - it is very unlikely that Richard Feynman expressed disagreement with Relativity, so you more likely misinterpreted his explanations.
Velocity based time dilation calculation
So we have V/c gives us a result in degrees Celsius.
We live at electron weight, so the time dilation when moving matter would be ((5+(V/c))/5)^2
So traveling at the speed of light you have a Time Dilation Factor of (6/5)^2 or 1.44 Seconds Observed for the matters' one second.
M.B.Eringa 1981 - 2023
How can time (an abstract concept) dilate?
@@yingyang1008 Because spacial density alters all internal velocities making time "appear" to slow down to the outside observer. To objects "inside" time appears to move forward normally.
cool ok
Earth does not move!
Aether is a fluid, an incompressible fluid. It adheres to matter in order to couple light electromagnetic energy between Aether and matter, in doing so drag with earth as well as the interferometer, and hence to a static fringe pattern. However, as a liquid, Aether velocity remote from earth moves at a slower average velocity defined by the nearest planets and galaxies by a factor of 1/r.
1887:Zero Drift
1905 1ST Time
Of ether Denial
1913 Whirlwind
Displace Fringe
1887: Expected
Einstein was a jerk.
Spatial compression is Time Dilation.
TIme Dilation IS GENERAL RELATIVITY!
(I.E. Why does matter persist in out Universe)
Spooky action at a distance is SPECIAL RELAITIVTY!
Gravity, Radio Waves, Gravity Waves, Magnetism etc etc
(I.E. How does energy interact in our Universe)
**EISNTEIN**
The Mickelson Morley experiment is totally wrong because the only speed it can measure is the speed of the local oscillator transmission literally the beam splitter surface. The error is in assuming that this light passes and or is reflected denies the reality that the light is entirely absorbed into the matrix of the mirror and mirror beomes the local emitter.
You are advancing an unsupported theory that the mirror's "matrix," which I assume you are referring to the mirror's atomic composite lattice structure, exhibits Black Body properties of lossless absorption of photons, but then you also generically posit that the mirror can then *reflect* absorbed photons in a vector conserving the angular momentum?
It is erroneous to advance such an unfounded narrative without any supporting data to substantiate your argument. Composition of any given mirror is identified by specific characteristic parameters and performance values. For such an experiment, all that's required is that both mirrors are identical.
The experiment was conducted at the Case School of Applied Science (which became Case Institute of Technology, my alma mater). We had a big rock with a plaque commemorating the experiment.
@@john-or9cf That's cool!
Finite light speed & non zero values of permitivity & permeability of free space suggest presence of ether like medium.
You know neutrinos are 65 billion solar neutrinos, per second per square centimeter and they didn't detect that interaction either. The Ether is likely even smaller.
Discounting the existence of an Aether using stone knives and bear skins. What a joke. This is why you don't discount anything, and try to evolve your experiments.
Everyone interprets the ether in terms of mass-like properties, namely, it should exhibit a drift from some absolute "point" in space. All it has to be is that the ether is not like mass and has no points to define. Therefore, the properties of light are set at the source that created it. Mirrors are a new source. Relativity ONLY works, because transform equations change the numbers that need to change so that light can BECOME constant relative to the observer LIKE IT'S DECLARED TO BE! A transform is a factorial fudge factor -a number between 0 and 1, that changes on a circular curve according to speed and used to change length, mass, and time. Light speed is "declared" to be constant, BUT IT DON'T LOOK CONSTANT BEFORE YOU CHANGE THE NUMBERS! You move your head, and the entire Universe changed its shape FOR YOU? Math can lie to you, look at my gyro video. Deriving cause from math is wrong.
_"Therefore, the properties of light are set at the source that created it. Mirrors are a new source. "_ - there are many experiments that debunk that notion.
_"Light speed is "declared" to be constant"_ - light speed has been measured to be constant.
_"You move your head, and the entire Universe changed its shape FOR YOU?"_ - that's how it appears to you, yes, when you rotate your head.
@@renedekker9806 1). " - there are many experiments that debunk that notion.": What experiments debunk that notion? If that were true, then the velocity of light would not be constant coming from the mirror, would it. 2). "-light...measured to be constant." The only experiments that are difficult are pion +v experiments, but these are rather complicated, and they may very well be creating the result rather than allowing it. 3). You did not understand this part at all. Transform equations CHANGE length, mass, and time, so when you move your head, length along that motion axis gets transformed INSTANTLY throughout the ENTIRE Universe. That's just too much to believe. IT IS 100% math. Nothing is observed that way UNTIL AFTER THE MATH!
And the next deceptive false irrational claim of Einstein is the way he twists his first postulate from saying the correct thing, into a incorrect conclusion. Namely that yes, laws of kinematics are applicable equally in any inertial condition. Thus we know that as Light has a constant velocity, just like a brick has a constant mass and constant length, we know that these things do not change from one inertial condition to the next. (and that is the exact 1st Postulate, which is correct) But Einstein deceives us when he swaps to a totally different claim, which is that Light actual MEASURED velocity, will not change. Which is of course absolute nonsense, and a deception, a trick of rhetoric. Light velocity can be consistent in any frame, but it certainly wont be MEASURED with the identical value in all frames, because of those LAWS of Kinematics that Einstein actually already agreed , "were VALID". Those Laws say that any MEASUREMENT requires TWO facts. One is the thing being measured, the other is the origin and motion condition of the measurer. Simply put, one can get a speed of 100 for a car, and also get a speed of 50 for that same car, (which never altered its motion) simply by the observer changing his own speed form zero to 50 . So here is the key to revealing the lies of Einstein's SR theory.
The instant that Einstein claimed that Light Speed was a constant velocity of 300 million meters per second, THAT SET in concrete, the ORIGIN of that measurement as being ZERO velocity. Now applying those Laws of Kinematics that are valid in all inertial Frames of reference, we know that If some second observer were to measure that same light, but he was also moving at 50% of light speed relative to the first observer, then the ONLY possible value he MUST get for HIS measure of Light speed MUST be 150 million meters per second.
Its totally IRRATIONAL, illogical and mathematical impossible for all observers to all get 300 irrespective of their relative speeds.
But what they all WILL SAY, is that Light speed is CONSTANT, (unvarying) but the measured values MUST be different, because the Observers conditions are different.
Now as the interferometer can never measure this, (its just not capable of comparing light speeds) there remains no other evidence to suggest that Light alone ought to be the one thing with motion (that has a finite velocity), that gets to BREAK all the known Laws of Kinematics. The claim is nonsensical and it requires rhetorical gibberish to conclude that it could be possible.
And finally, NO, .... Time Dilation has NOT been demonstrated ever by anyone. Clocks may get to be inaccurate under different conditions, but that's just showing that you have a clock that has lost accuracy, it doesn't show that TIME has warped.
Time Dilation is the result of space and energy relation to mass. The problem is that there's no such thing as mass if your resolution limit is infinite. You can do the math if you want E=m*c^2 E=m*s^2/t^2; m*s^2 is the 3 dimensional space, say volume, hence: E=V/t^2 -> t=sqrt(V/E); with words time is the square root of energy in space, so Time Dilation comes from this relation. The constant speed of light caused by ether, what they tried to deny, and LIGO proved to be exist with gravity waves. By the way gravity is nothing, one could say it's just another relative vacuum among the others, or if you're attached to classic mass it's the one and only absolute vacuum
@@bencegyurky1596 But trouble is that the equation e=m*c squared, is wrong. Because its taken from Einstein's hopelessly wrong theory of SR.
And the claim that Time is the square root of Energy is just a silly thing to say.
There is no such thing as Time Dilation, and LIGO never found any "Gravity waves". They just lied, its a fraud, necessary to prop up Einstein's silly theories.
Gravity is clearly a Force.
No one knows how Gravity, Magnetism, Light or Electricity really work. No one.
Quantum theory is bunk.
That pretty well covers it all.
Einstein wasn't wrong when he concluded that there is no EFFECT of the ether on the speed of light, whether the ether exists or not in the space fabric in some form.
Where he went wrong, or maybe was convinced to think like that by Minkowski and his abstract (non-physical) spacetime model, was to assume that time dilation happens with just constant speed. Nothing physical at all happens to a moving clock with constant velocity, it only happens during ACCELERATION phases, and note that moving in a circle with constant speed is one form of acceleration (the direction changes). Atoms and orbits / vibrations of their inner parts (electrons, quarks), are then physically affected (compressed) and the rate of change in them is changed = time change = time dilation.
Time is PHYSICAL. Brains have a psychological view of time, made for supporting survival. It has nothing to do with what time really is, different rates of change in all atoms in the universe, depending on how much they accelerate. It means that Lorentz was on the right track (before Einstein) when he suggested that atoms are physically affected, but he believed in it for the wrong reason (he believed in an ether with an effect on moving matter).
This acceleration theory makes sense all the way, and is for example explained by very clever physicists at "Physics in progress" in Canada. www.ptep-online.com/2017/PP-51-07.PDF "On the Question of Acceleration in Special Relativity"
Comments/reflections concerning the claim you make that the speed of light varies depending on the velocity of objects:
- When a photon hits matter it can make an electron absorb the energy, and move to another energy state (orbit in Bohr's model) in the atom. That change can not take place with a higher speed than the speed of light. Therefore one can say that every OBSERVER (receiver) of a photon observes it with the speed of light. What changes is the received energy if you move relative to a light beam, the frequency of the light (Doppler effect), the atom can not handle higher speeds than c.
- If you DON'T observe a photon (passing by you), it of course has a lower/ higher speed than c, depending on the velocity of you relative to the photon. Einstein himself never said/wrote anything else, what I know **.
- It makes no sense at all to claim that "every photon, or EM-wave, moves in space with the same speed relative to anyone, whether observing it or not". I agree.
Comment concerning the claim you make that time Dilation has NOT been demonstrated ever by anyone:
- It has not been demonstrated by anyone WITHOUT acceleration involved (gravitational acceleration, or normal kinematical acceleration, or moving in a circle/ellipse = acceleration)
- The light clock, which often is used to demonstrate that time dilation occurs with just constant speed, was not introduced by Einstein (it came later by others). The conclusion there is wrong, the outside "observer" does not (theoretically) OBSERVE the photon in the light clock (the light does not propagate sideways, just up and down), and it therefore moves faster than c relative to him/her = no physical time dilation occurs.
** From Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity paper: "in empty space light is always propagated with a definite velocity V (the notation c came later) which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body". No statement about other bodies, and it can not be a mistake that he excluded them.
einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154 (at the bottom).
So, try to separate what Einstein actually wrote/said himself 1905, and how he then has been (mis)interpreted.
____________________________________________________________
At last, the twin "paradox" is a good basis for clarifying things even more:
In the famous twin thought experiment, there is a consensus among scientists and physics enthusiasts that the
travelling twin is the one which becomes older. When asked why, Einstein replied "because that twin has accelerated". That is a correct answer imo and from a consensus point of view, but there are details about this answer which have to be clarified.
With "because that twin has accelerated" one can mean two different things:
A. That the clock hypothesis* is true = time dilation is an effect of only movement in abstract spacetime, whether it is accelerated movement or non-accelerating movement. Minkowski's approach with space-time diagrams describes a true
physical phenomenon.
B. That the clock hypothesis is false, and the acceleration hypothesis** is true.
* The clock hypothesis = there is NO physical effect on matter of acceleration as such, on time dilation.
** The acceleration hypothesis (the one I describe here) = there is ONLY a time dilation effect (which is purely physical) during acceleration phases of matter. The rocket with the travelling twin has four such phases:
1. Accelerating from the earth
2. Decelerating when approaching the distant star
3. Accelerating from the distant star, back to the earth
4. Decelerating when approaching the earth again
If you believe that there is no physical effect on matter when accelerating, then imagine a piece of metal orbiting around a neutron star, 10 kilometer above it. To not fall in to the star, it has to go around the star with an enormous speed, because the star pulls on it with an enormous gravitational force. If it should fall in to the star, its electrons in the atoms get so deformed that they merge with the quarks to create neutrons. Now, why should that be a sudden effect on the atoms ? First no deformation at all when orbiting, and then total collapse of the proton structure to neutron ? Doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that it instead is a growing deformation/compression effect, depending on the amount of acceleration. It also makes sense that this deformation IS the time dilation effect, a slowed down rate of change in the machinery of the atom as a whole (in the atoms of a clock for example).
@@Music_Creativity_Science You wrote a lot, and i may reply in detail later , but for now, I can't agree that Time changes in any way, due to anything ever, not by inertial motion of accelerating motion. Clocks may get stuffed up, but that is not Time changing, its only that your clock has lost the ability to maintain accuracy.
About Einstein using the symbol V for light speed and not the popular "c" used now, this observation is irrelevant. As far as Physics is concerned, V = c in Einstein's paper.
He absolutely meant that V was a constant, had a singular numerical value which must be recorded by anyone irrespective of their own relative emotion.
This is the cornerstone principal of SR, but of course its total garbage and quite irrational.
@@Music_Creativity_Science
I just run quickly through your reply so sorry if brevity hides errors but for some folks it's essential. It doesn't matter to matter if it accelerates or just travels with constant velocity in regards of time dilation. It is always relative energy in space. Acceleration has a given velocity at a given - in classical mass, Planck - time. One can travel in time forward with two solutions. With low energy (freezing), or with high energy (speeding). Both solutions have the same relation with the surrounding space. The matter that matter is in lower energy state. It's obvious in the first solution, with the second case only the propulsion energy binds time relation, the clocks matter in the rocket has lower energy relative to the surrounding space. Hope this is clear now. I know a bit contradictory how can be something at higher energy state in reality at lower energy state, but this is relativity. If you want to reset the "wrong" clock, just let it splash to the "good" one, and loosing energy solve the equation between them. :) Relativity can surprise us. Many know F = m*a, a few only F = -m*a just to throw a link facebook.com/watch/?v=503517728452754
Light travels through the *either* 😁
Let me show you why this math is nonsensical:
For the beam parallel to the aether, when it is moving with the aether towards the mirror, its speed is increased like so c+v.
Ok now, they say when the light is moving against the aether, the speed reduces by the same amount v, like so, c-v. This contradicts the initial assumption that the light will be impeded more when moving against the aether than it will gain when moving with the aether. The math shows that the speed is added by the same amount that it is reduced. That is one.
When the light was moving with the aether, its speed was c+v. This is the speed with which it will hit the mirror, and according to the law of reflection it is the same speed with which it will reflect. After reflection, it moves against the aether so the speed is now c+v-v and this is equal to c. So the light returns with the same speed, hence no fringe shift is observed.
I cannot believe that the whole physics community will get this kind of basic physics wrong! Or perhaps they did it intentionally just to make physics fancier to the world, cuz this whole relativity stuff is nonsense.
You've misunderstood the mathematics entirely due to faulty premises; the speed through the aether was taken to be constant w.r.t the aether, and the delay is not negated by the fact that the speed one way is c+v and c-v in the other.
Ah yes, the entire physics community is wrong and you are correct. Surely the speed of light would be moving at c+v, and not c, because the speed of light (in a vacuum) _isn't_ constant in all inertial reference frames, and because Galilean relativity _does_ make sense at speeds of light (compared to dumb Lorentz relativity). Ah yes, it all makes sense now: those physicists did this intentionally to make it look fancy! Einstein must have gotten everything wrong. You are fully correct and everyone else got it wrong.
@@georgemissailidis3160 this video shows the complete proof ruclips.net/video/bIQBIujrn3w/видео.html
This video shows the complete proof. ruclips.net/video/bIQBIujrn3w/видео.html . It shows how to derive the time shift equal to zero
_"I cannot believe that the whole physics community will get this kind of basic physics wrong!"_ - that is a very clear hint that you got it wrong yourself instead.
We were naive because we were young but gravity is not constant
this experience revealed that the earth is stationary and ... you know the rest 🫡