To raczej był wynik błędu. Z drugiej strony ich eksperyment w najmniejszym stopniu nie dowodzi, że światło nie przemieszcza się w tzw. Etherze. Ja jestem na 100% przekonany, że tak jest, bo niby dlaczego dla światła miała obowiązywać nagle inna fizyka. Wynik ich doświadczenia jest logiczny i nie mógł być inny. Wynika po prostu ze skrócenia wymiarów w kierunku ruchu i nikt nie wie w jakiej naprawdę odległości mierzonej w strukturze przestrzeni są zwierciadła oddalone od siebie. Elektron w atomie musi być w tej samej odległości czasowej od jądra - Siły są w atomie przenoszone przez fotony. Wystarczy prosta matematyka i można sobie policzyć o ile wolniej będzie zachodzić komunikacja w atomie (dylatacha czasu) i o ile wolniej będzie to w kierunku ruchu niż poprzecznie. Żeby zachowała została ta sama odległość czasowa, atom w ruchu robi się eliptyczny ( skrócenie wymiaru w kierunku ruchu)
So, the conclusion is on assumption of the heliocentric, if in geocentric model, it should've no problem. I tried to look on the galelio and Ptolemy.. something doesn't feel right.
Great video. Except the part you neglected to mention…that there WAS a fringe pattern detected in the Michelson-Morley experiment. The amount of resistance expected in the fringe pattern on the photogenic plate was 0.40 but the actual result was 0.02 👇: “The experiments on relative motion of earth and ether have been completed and the result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe - the maximum displacement was ⭐️0.02⭐️[ding! ding! ding! Ether detected!]and the average much less than 0.01 - and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.” (Source: Letter dated August 17, 1887, from the Rayleigh Archives, cited in Dorothy M. Livingston, The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson, 1973, p. 130.) Now notice that Michelson says “the result is decidedly negative”. He doesn’t mean that the ether was not detected. He means that the amount of ether detected was not enough to show that the earth was moving THROUGH the ether. Ergo-the earth doesn’t actually revolve around the sun. Since it was heresy to say that the earth was not moving though space, Lorentz, Fitzgerald and others worked feverishly to explain the null result of the experiment. They were subsequently assisted 15yrs later by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Special relativity was of course not without critics when it was introduced: “The principle of relativity accounts for the negative result of the experiment of Michelson and Morley but without an ether how do we account for the interference phenomena, which made that experiment possible?“ Source: William F. Magie, “The Primary Concepts of Physics,” Science, vol. XXXV, Feb. 23, 1912, cited in Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., The Ethereal Ether, 1972, p. 177. You see, the “interference phenomenon” is that “0.02” fringe detected during the experiment. That’s what the article is talking about. That 0.02 fringe would not have happened at all had there been no ether. Plain and simple. That’s because Special Relativity tells us that light speed is constant-so there should never be a misalignment on the photogenic plate used in the experiment. Yet there WAS. A misalignment occurred which is the aforementioned 0.02 fringe. Special Relativity said that there was “no ether”-so the fact that this 0.02 fringe EXISTS(it represents two beams traveling at different speeds) means that both Special Relativity AND General Relativity ARE WRONG. Michelson-Gale repeated the experiment again in 1925, this time attempting to detect “ether drift” or rather a ROTATION of the earth as opposed to a revolution of the earth(as in Michelson-Morley) and this attempt was ⭐️successful⭐️. Yup, that’s right-look it up. This positive result validated the hypothesis that there IS an ether which can be detected. It detected that there was a rotation(note: I do not say a ‘rotation’ of earth since general relativity applied here could mean that the ether itself was rotating and not the earth). Now really think about that. Why would the same experiment be able to positively show a rotation in 1925 but NOT a revolution of the earth as it goes around the sun? Captain Obvious Says: Because the earth doesn’t actually revolve around the SUN! 😂😂😂 Thus, the Michelson-Gale experiment subsequently lends credibility to the first experiment as having been accurate without the need of Special Relativity shenanigans. However by then the damage of Special Relativity was done and nobody wanted to deal with this outlier. Of course Quantum mechanics inadvertently posited that the ether exists with it’s concept of “quantum foam”. It’s strange to me that people still say the ether does not exist in light of this. Special Relativity lives or dies on whether or not there is an ether, as Einstein explains here while remarking on Millers(successful) experiments to detect ether-drift: “My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory." - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) So…yeaaaah. This means that there is no limit to the speed of light, the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun, there is a rotation involving the earth…which only mean one thing: The earth is literally at the center of the universe and the universe is rotating around it.
They swept the discrepancies under the rug. The reason they call Einstein a genius is because he was able to fool the masses into believing a silly theory that wasn't even his to begin with while keeping the actual knowledge away from curious minds.
Thank you so much for this explenation and facts not mentined in official schools. I felt something was wrong. But why is the stationary Earth the direct conclusion, that is not so obvious to me???
@@rusamed2876 If an experiment can detect a REVOLUTION involving the earth but NOT a rotation involving the earth then that means the experiment is sound “in principle”. We just have to interpret the data. Is it possible for the earth to be revolving around the sun but NOT rotating? No, because then we wouldn’t see a day/night cycle. One side of the earth would be permanently dark. Therefore the only remaining explanation is that the earth doesn’t move at all, while everything else is moving around IT.
@@lightninlad then I can't also understand how the experiment would "sence" the revolution at all?? And also, whar is the diference betwin the idea that the Earth moves throgh Cosmos, and the idea that everything rotates around us? Wouldn't then everything show a centrifugal effect, and run away from us, expend, but faster than Habl proposed?
Hi, I'm not sure that is the only conclusion that can be made from this experiment, a null effect could result from matter been affected by the direction of the ether too, if matter arises from the ether then elongations in matter will be relative to the elongations in light waves. This would also then point to matter or more accurately particles maybe being standing wave points.
Nice presentation and informative. However- M&M didn’t understand light wave and Aether enough committed to design and ran experiments with a negative results, as expected. All electromagnetic and light wave requires a medium (dielectric) to propagate. It is e0 in Maxwell’s equation. The instance we let air infiltrate the experiment then air becomes the medium and not Aether. Aether exists in absolute empty space with a measurable dielectric constant e0 of 8.8541817128 pF/meter. At this point of writing, Aether’s properties are not fully understood. We can’t insert jars of low pressure vessel as part of M&M’s apparatus on earth to validate the apparatus for Aether compliance because Aether in it moves as much as the jar moves. Unless the whole experiment is space far from any galaxies, spiral arm, molecular clouds or cosmic plasma to make result conclusive.
Back in 1983 Professor Daniel Goodstein of Caltech created a film (video) series of his physics lectures for first-year students, Called the Mechanical Universe and Beyond (Now available on RUclips). The use of computer graphics was an outstanding development, made possible only through the help of top computer visualization researchers at IBM. Each minute of computer graphics took many hours to render and cost many thousands of dollars. If you continue with your videos, you could also cover the entire course, which would be quite an achievement in and of itself.
Ayuta...This is classic especially 03:04 to 03:20...Couldn't find this bit on any "top Relativity or MM experiment" videos on RUclips or the entire Internet.
@@lightninlad if the universe and everything else rotates around the Earth, does that mean aether also rotates? This would mean light waves would reveal a pattern of interference of the aether which could be measured, and you would also be able to calculate the speed that the aether moves relative to the stationary Earth. The Michelson Morley experiment and the same type of experiments conducted in the 100+ years since then should have revealed this. But this hasn't happened. Or does the aether not rotate at all with the universe? If that were true, then this means aether cannot move and it therefore has no flow, so it cannot exert a downwards force on objects. It therefore does not explain why things fall downwards. You might instead say that, actually, the fact there is more aether above an object compared to below it causes it to fall down. In this case, the less aether there is, the less downwards pressure it applies to an object. The higher from Earth you are, the less aether there is and so objects would have less downwards pressure applied to them. This happens to be exactly what we observe in real life, but the problem here is the implication that the closer to Earth you are, the more aether there is. This further implies that the Earth attracts aether, which means it does actually have momentum, or flow. Or, you might instead argue that aether only exists around the Earth. In that case, light would not have a medium to travel through outside Earth, so light from the universe would not reach us because it has no way of getting here.
@@johnkyle2205 You wrote: “This would mean light waves would reveal a pattern of interference of the aether which could be measured, and you would also be able to calculate the speed that the aether moves relative to the stationary Earth.” First off the aether WAS detected. It just wasn’t detecting the earth as the thing that was moving so Einstein just made light “constant” arbitrarily to explain the final result. He just invented an adhoc explanation. Next, while you could technically calculate the speed aether moves relative to the stationary earth within local space, this speed would increase the further out you go. That’s why the farther out we observe we see that the galaxies rotate faster than current physics tells us they should.
@@lightninlad They did not detect ether, can you point to the part of the published study that says they did? They even suspended the apparatus in mercury to prevent readings caused by Earth's rotation. They still did not get an interference pattern. Also, a couple of times, you have said the Earth is stationary, but then you said that the Earth moves/rotates? "...the earth as the thing that was moving.." Einstein actually invented the universal constant because he thought the universe was static, and the universal constant fit nicely with certain equations. Nowadays, we interpret the constant differently. Why does aether move faster the further away from Earth you go? Does it still move in the same direction, i.e. downwards? What causes ether to move? You know Einstein himself said his theory of spacetime/gravity can be thought of as a type of ether? At their core, they're really not so different, except that gravity has more defined properties and exerts a pulling force, rather than a pushing force. They're almost the same thing... Oh and about the galaxies rotating faster than we expect...this is almost certainly because of something we call dark matter. Is that the same thing as ether, just interpreted differently? Maybe...we don't know yet. Whatever it is, it doesn't produce any radiation so we can't observe it directly, but we are 99.9% something dark matter exists. We already know that different types of matter exists that we can't we can't see. Neutrinos are one example
@@lightninlad They did not detect ether, can you point to the part of the published study that says they did? They even suspended the apparatus in mercury to prevent readings caused by Earth's rotation. They still did not get an interference pattern. Also, a couple of times, you have said the Earth is stationary, but then you said that the Earth moves/rotates? "...the earth as the thing that was moving.." Einstein actually invented the universal constant because he thought the universe was static, and the universal constant fit nicely with certain equations. Nowadays, we interpret the constant differently. Why does aether move faster the further away from Earth you go? Does it still move in the same direction, i.e. downwards? What causes ether to move? You know Einstein himself said his theory of spacetime/gravity can be thought of as a type of ether? At their core, they're really not so different, except that gravity has more defined properties and exerts a pulling force, rather than a pushing force. They're almost the same thing... Oh and about the galaxies rotating faster than we expect...this is almost certainly because of something we call dark matter. Is that the same thing as ether, just interpreted differently? Maybe...we don't know yet. Whatever it is, it doesn't produce any radiation so we can't observe it directly, but we are 99.9% something dark matter exists. We already know that different types of matter exists that we can't we can't see. Neutrinos are one example
I don't think this disproves the ether. They account for drag, but they forget about distance. General relativity predicted both time dilation and length contraction, so the "missing" interference in their experiment is due to the distances between the mirrors changing as the apparatus rotates. I think a better experiment to detect ether would be the double slit experiment...
Or the Ether is being carried along with the Earth, like the air inside of jet flying at mach 1 speeds. The sound inside the cockpit is the same at any direction that you measure, yet the waves are moving at mach2 from a point of view of person at the ground ...Liked your video by the way.
I think one problem the ether theory also has is that there probably would be drag when the earth travels through the ether. So you could argue that the ether has some property so it wouldn’t interact with the earth what would mean no drag. But if the earth carries the either along then there definitely is an interaction between ether and earth and that would cause drag. Drag would slow the earth down and let it collide into the sun at some point. So this is why I think that your theory is wrong.
Good thought, in fact, that is a real issue for Aether theories, historically. But that is due to these classic theories referring Aether as being a gas or fluid. That view would not work for sure. However, humor me for a min. There is a state of matter where pressure is present but no attrition occurs. It is called full degeneracy fermion state. This state is possible when particles are bounded so close to each other that their momentum is incredible high due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Pauli's exclusion principle. That state can occur on a well-structured, high pressurized state of matter, with very little entropy. I call it Yfasma for "fabric" in Greek ;O). Now, what you might be asking is, what quantum particle can create such conditions? Think like this, what is the particle involved in the creation of photons? How about magnetism and magnetic fields? and the stabilization of molecules? and electricity? I think you got the idea. The electron. Why is the electron not involved in gravity for instance? Well, it turns out that it does. It is the electron that precludes stats from collapsing under the pressure of Gravity. To push on electrons would require a net with meshes of equal size and since electrons are point particles, well, there is no reason for nature to create anything smaller or more complicated. If that is true, that there is a fabric of point particles in the universe, then, there is no reason to have 4 forces in the universe, but only two, pull and push. Seems far-fetched but it is more doable than "spooky action at a distance" or bending "spacetime" of which no really explanation for the cause of these forces (gravity, the attraction of the electromagnetic forces) from either theories. Or how about concept of "charges" and "fields" of which no theory explains yet both concepts are used to explain attractions and repulsion. Look, I am attracted to my wife, hehe, because I have eyes and nose and ears to translate all into an irresistible impulse, but I highly doubt that "charges" can smell anything, haha. You see, everything that we know and accept are based on unfounded concepts. It is like a sudoku game going wrong. The numbers may work for while but then you hit a wall. Well, I wrote a paper and submitted to the Gravity Research Foundation. Let's see what they say.
That's a great explanation, except in the jet experiment there's a physical barrier between the traveling jet and the outside air. In the Heliocentric model there's no physical barrier outside of earth.
I add some aether info as follows. (1) Google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 km/s min & 480 km/s max during a day (this was the horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is approx 500 km/s south to north blowing approx 15 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX was 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs. (2) The MMXs were never null. (3) The correct calibration needed to allow for length contraction caused by the aetherwind. (4) The correct calibration needed to allow for the Fresnel Drag of light by the air. Prof Reg Cahill explains. (5) All MMX's suffer a linear ever-growing fringe-shift that gets larger with each rotation. All MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs. Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect. Because at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn. University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing. Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy & suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right). (6) Secondly the Michelson Morley MMX, & the Morley Miller MMXs, suffered a spurious signal that was periodic in a full turn. This was because their mirrors were at two levels, hence some of their light beams had to angle up & later down. This then introduced a spurious signal (fringe shift) due to angle contraction of the mirrors in their apparatus, which changed the effective lengths of the angled beams. I call such angle contraction Esclangon angle contraction, as Esclangon is i think the first person to bring it to the attention of science (but he didn't mention that it must also happen in an MMX). EAC is due to Lorentzian Length Contraction of solids (which should be called FitzGerald LC as FitzGerald was the first to predict it) which is due to any change in the aetherwind blowing throo a solid (which changes the size/shape of solids)(because solids are held together by electric forces)(these forces being affected by the wind).
No-this experiment did not prove that. The follow up experiment Michelson-Gale proved that. 1. Michelson-Morley could not detect the earth moving(revolving) around the sun…but it wasn’t clear if the experiment was flawed somehow. 2.In 1925 Michelson-Gale re-oriented the beams to detect the Earth’s rotation INSTEAD of the Earth’s revolution around the Sun. Which it detected. Which meant that the first experiment was proof that the earth did not revolve around the Sun. However even though Michelson-Gale showed that the earth wasn’t revolving around the Sun, it DID detect that there was a rotation around the earth. Now…logically, the stellar procession we see could NOT be produced by an earth that is rotating in space, and since we know that the earth isn’t revolving around the sun…it leaves only one other option: The Universe MUST be revolving around the Earth. There is no other answer.
But let's imagine that a medium did exist. If you then add to that the proper understanding of "Motion", the outcome would be the phenomena that is described via Albert Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. Also, one would expect that the Michelson-Morley experiment would produce results exactly the same as the experiment itself did. It is funny how many folk thought that the special relativity theory somehow proved that there was no possibility of there being an ether. Albert Einstein said: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time …” (Albert Einstein, 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden)
Yes, if the ether exists then Special relativity would be undone. Here are Einstein’s remarks in regards to Miller’s successful detection of ether-drift: “My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory." - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)
Please help me, I just cant understand why the horizintal ray of light (parallel to the ether) is slower that the vertical one. Is it because it hits the half reflective mirror slightly earlier (due to its direction of travel changing slightly) or something that I am not seeing here? Thank you in advance!!!
No, you’re confusion is actually the result of realizing that the speed of light cannot be constant if one light beam hits the reflector earlier than the other one. You weren’t the first person to notice this. Others criticized Einstein when he introduced his Special Relativity: “The principle of relativity accounts for the negative result of the experiment of Michelson and Morley but without an ether how do we account for the interference phenomena, which made that experiment possible?“ Source: William F. Magie, “The Primary Concepts of Physics,” Science, vol. XXXV, Feb. 23, 1912, cited in Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., The Ethereal Ether, 1972, p. 177. Congratulations-you have just discovered that this experiment only works BECAUSE the ether exists and that someone has been blowing smoke up your ass. That’s really the answer to why you are so confused. Let me explain. You see the experiment was considered a “failure” but NOT because it didn’t detect the ether. It DID detect it. It detected a 0.02 fringe on the photogenic plate. That’s not the issue. The issue is that it didn’t detect the 0.4 fringe they were hoping to find: “The experiments on relative motion of earth and ether have been completed and the result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe - the maximum displacement was ⭐️0.02⭐️ and the average much less than 0.01 - and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.” (Source: Letter dated August 17, 1887, from the Rayleigh Archives, cited in Dorothy M. Livingston, The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson, 1973, p. 130.) You see Michelson is calling it a “negative result” not because the ether was detected…no…he’s calling it a null result because the revolution of the earth around the Sun was not detected! To show that the earth revolves around the Sun, you need to have a 0.40 fringe on the reflector plate. No why would it be the case that you could only detect a .02 fringe when you need to detect a 0.4 fringe? 🤔 Captain Obvious says: Because the earth isn’t moving around the sun. Does that help? So now you’re getting the big reason behind Special and General Relativity. It’s all a shell game to hide the fact that what Michelson-Morley had discovered was that the Earth is not revolving around the Sun-it is the Sun that is revolving around the earth. Which means that the earth is at the center of the known universe. I kid you not.
Can something travel through nothing? The physicists say that this only means physics instruments are not capable of measuring absolute motion, they can only measure relative motion.
The Sagnac experiment demonstrated that there is an ether. The Earth is round and it rotates on its axis. I have been told that the Michelson-Morley Experiment measured a movement through the ether in the direction of spin at from 1 to 10 KPH but was still called a null result. Who should we believe?
That experiment proves the existençe of the eather , because the waves is a perturbation or " effect" of the eather himself.A wave is not what someting is, but what something does.The problem with the phisicians is they don't understand nothing of anscient philosophiy essecially Methafisics from Aristoteles .Greatings from A Portuguese from Portugal.
Hello. There is a new idea. In Michelson's experiment in 1881 to search for the carrier of light - ether. In the experiment, it is necessary to replace the light source with a maser. With the help of this experiment on transport, it is possible to determine its speed relative to the dominant gravitational field of the Earth. Maser - microwave amplification by stimulate demission of radiation. Maser - invented in England in 2018.
The problem with the “ether entrainment theory” is that it would only be viable if the Michelson/Morley experiment showed no positive result. The ether was positively detected in the form of a 0.02 fringe in the photogenic plate in the experiment: “The experiments on relative motion of earth and ether have been completed and the result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe - the maximum displacement was ⭐️0.02⭐️and the average much less than 0.01 - and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.” (Source: Letter dated August 17, 1887, from the Rayleigh Archives, cited in Dorothy M. Livingston, The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson, 1973, p. 130.) If the ether were entrained by a moving Earth then the Michelson/Morley apparatus would show no fringe shifting. But since the results were positive to at least one-sixth of what they expected, then the ether had to be moving against the Earth to that degree and thus could not be entrained.
Actually its a simple concept that when a light ray gets reflected in the rarer medium then a phase difference of "π" is introduced in the wave... Hence the reflected ray and transmitted ray gain a phase difference of "π" and hence we see a interference pattern
Won't the 45-degree orientation of the mirror affect the distance in time calculaton for wave?
3 года назад+1
Can someone explain me, why they didn't think that along the ether wind direction, the light beam slows down and then accelerates again after reflection, thus not showing interference?
There WAS interference. The ether was positively detected in the form of a 0.02 fringe on the photogenic plate in the experiment: “The experiments on relative motion of earth and ether have been completed and the result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe - the maximum displacement was ⭐️0.02⭐️and the average much less than 0.01 - and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.” (Source: Letter dated August 17, 1887, from the Rayleigh Archives, cited in Dorothy M. Livingston, The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson, 1973, p. 130.)
Why are we thinking that ether is a moving medium and there is a possibility that it's Stationary medium right?? And if it was a stationary medium this experiment would lose its purpose. Can anyone clarify me.
All the experiments are done one earth, for obvious reasons. As all other celestial bodies move relative to the earth, it would mean the ether is stationary only from the earth's point of view and is moving from all other celestial bodies point of view. This leaves only two possible conclusions: 1. The earth is the center of the universe and is unmoving 2. The ether doesn't exist.
The horizontal beam gets a boost but also gets resistance. So the question is why didnt the velocity change during the boost cancel out the velocity change during the resistance...???
It might be difficult to imagine it but if we just write the equation for time taken by beam in or without the presence of ether ,it becomes pretty clear
@Barbara Willick when the beam reaches the mirror ,it has already gained that boost ,so on reflection, the beam's V is initially not 1 but greater but after reflection it is affected by aether resistance and therefore slows down .. We actually calculate the time taken by beam to reach mirror and come back which is simply double of one side trip due to the reason explained above
@@deepanshutyagi1467 So your answer agrees that there is no net effect whether there is an aether wind or not. As in my example 1+1=2 on the trip to the mirror, then 2-1=1 on the way back from the mirror. So how would this apparatus ever detect a difference due to aether??
Great job! Easily the best and most easy-to-follow video on the M-M-Experiment. PS: Are all of you "flat earthers" also "flat mooners"? ;) If you think the earth is at rest and everything else moves around us, take this experiment to the moon and see what happens. ;) Exactly the same. For there is no "resting relational system" (because what shall it rest to?), c equals c, no matter what the speed of its emitter is.
No, aether has no drag, or there is some but you always swim in it and can't observe it due to it . Super fluid helium is also frictionless. Super fluid helium exists and there are youtube videos about it.
The experiment is technically precise but the question raised is wrong. Whats to be enquired is , if theres presence of Aether , the seperated beams in waves, will hv thier frequencies distorted to ensure thier light speeds remain constant, inspite of the motion of the light source distorting distances of light paths. This is the consequence of the doppler phenomenon of property of light. So, the light beams will converge without misalignment. If theres no Aether , then the impulses of light of the beam will propagate as like particles thru a medium and the distances differences of pathways caused by the Earths rotation will result in a misalignment when the beams converge. I think during MnM time the doppler phenomenon is yet to be found. N light as a particle was certainly not an idea. Conclusion : Yes. Theres AETHER. Mystery solved.
Yup. You are correct. There is an ether but the reason why there was only a 0.02 fringe detected and not the expected 0.4 they were expecting is because….wait for it…the earth isn’t revolving around the sun. If the ether exists then Special Relativity is wrong. Here are Einstein’s remarks regarding Miller’s own success in discovering ether-drift: “My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory." - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) This means-and I find this incredible… …there IS NO LIMIT ON THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It also means that the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment which discovered ether-drift has further implications. It proved that there WAS a rotation involving the ether thus VALIDATING the results from Michelson-Morley. So… 1. Michelson-Morley demonstrated that the earth isn’t revolving around the Sun. 2. Michelson-Gale re-oriented the light beams which positively detected a rotation. 3. This means that Special Relativity AND General Relativity are wrong. 4. Which means that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE must be rotating around the Earth!!!!!! The reason why is because if we were to say that the Earth rotates in space but does not revolve around the Sun-then the universe we see would look completely different because you would not see the stellar procession we see now.
I deduced that in the case of the interference experiment, with the interferometer in the horizontal plane, the light has exactly the same speed in all directions. This is because light (photons) is coupled with the mass density field of the earth. Field that leaves the substance of the earth and emanates in the space in the immediate vicinity. The coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium is proved by Fizeau's experiment. Experiment that accurately verifies Fresnel's formula, called partial ether entrainment. Fresnel's formula is easy to find, without any relativistic metaphysics, if the density of light and the density of the environment and the density of the earth are added together. And it is not about the entrainment of the ether, but it is about the variation of the refractive index of the transparent medium, when it is moving (in translation) compared to the situation when it is at rest. The negative term in Fresnel's formula is due to the coupling of light with the density field of the planet. Because he is in solidarity with the planet.
The problem with the “ether entrainment theory” is that it would only be viable if the experiment had not detected the ether, which it DID-because there was a fringe pattern measurement of 0.02 on the photogenic plate👇: “The experiments on relative motion of earth and ether have been completed and the result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe - the maximum displacement was ⭐️0.02⭐️[ding! ding! ding! Ether detected!]and the average much less than 0.01 - and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.” (Source: Letter dated August 17, 1887, from the Rayleigh Archives, cited in Dorothy M. Livingston, The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson, 1973, p. 130.) If the ether were entrained by a moving Earth then the Michelson/Morley apparatus would show NO FRINGE SHIFTING. But since the results were positive to at least one-sixth of what they expected, then the ether had to be moving against the Earth to that degree and therefore, not be entrained.
Cannot say Ether does not exists!, because waves cannot travel without a medium. Wave itself is the disturbance of medium. The experiment just proves that 'a stationary medium' doesn't exist. The experiment assumes the velocity (Magnitude and Direction) of ether as a constant. That assumption might be incorrect. The velocity of Ether must be the same as the Earth's inside and around its vicinity. i.e Earth is rotating in the vortex of Ether, just like a ball of mud rotating in the vortex of water.
The conclusions are very narrow-minded because it doesn't take into account that some of its assumptions are false. For example one of the conclusions could be that the earth is not moving, or at least moving at a negligible speed. Or another conclusion would be that the ether doesn't move.
There is a problem with the experiment, if the ether reacts with matter then it could potentially become stationary with respect to local matter. even if the experiment is run inside a vacuum the ether would/could be caught in the local bubble of the matter surrounding the vacuum chamber similar to the air inside an airplane. To be definitive the experiment needs to be repeated in orbit away from other significant or encapsulated masses that could influence the local ether (if it exists). Depending on the accuracy of the equipment a wind tunnel could be used to generate ether 'flow' although it would require some very careful design Can wind deflect light?
Great explanation. Of course you have ruled out Aether as a pervading medium, but still have not explained what Light is disturbing to create "peaks and troughs" How is a "Field" different to an Aether ?
This is one of the few videos where I have seen the math written out. This helps a lot to understand how the experiment works. Nice work!
im still trying to find out how they got the mirrors less than 3 micrometers difference in length from the center mirror. does anyone know?
Türkkk
One of the best explanations of the Michelsen Morley experiment. Very clear and lucid. Thank you.
actually they detected movement between 1 and 10 km/s, but it wasn't 30 km/s which they expect so that's why it was concluded as a failure.
To raczej był wynik błędu. Z drugiej strony ich eksperyment w najmniejszym stopniu nie dowodzi, że światło nie przemieszcza się w tzw. Etherze. Ja jestem na 100% przekonany, że tak jest, bo niby dlaczego dla światła miała obowiązywać nagle inna fizyka. Wynik ich doświadczenia jest logiczny i nie mógł być inny. Wynika po prostu ze skrócenia wymiarów w kierunku ruchu i nikt nie wie w jakiej naprawdę odległości mierzonej w strukturze przestrzeni są zwierciadła oddalone od siebie. Elektron w atomie musi być w tej samej odległości czasowej od jądra - Siły są w atomie przenoszone przez fotony. Wystarczy prosta matematyka i można sobie policzyć o ile wolniej będzie zachodzić komunikacja w atomie (dylatacha czasu) i o ile wolniej będzie to w kierunku ruchu niż poprzecznie. Żeby zachowała została ta sama odległość czasowa, atom w ruchu robi się eliptyczny ( skrócenie wymiaru w kierunku ruchu)
One of the best explanation of michelson-morley exp I ever witnessed.!
You deserve millions of subscribers for the way you explain everything so simply.
What an amazing demonstration! Thanks a lot for such a great work 😍
Sir you explained this PERFECTLY. THANK YOU FOR THIS!!
Simply the best of the best. I wish you'd upload more experiments
Best explanation of Michelson-Morley experiment on RUclips. thank you.
Was searching this type of video... just awesome work
Understood clearly one of the best animation with Excellent explanation thank u keep uploading
one of the best explanation videos I have watched so far. good job
Your videos helped me and many more like me in understanding such a difficult topic. Keep doing the great work. Best of luck👍
Excellent tutorial, the best explanation I saw, thanks
One of the best explanation videos.Awesome work..thanks😘
Please create more videos like this....thanks for creating it ...excellent tutorial 🤗
Thanks a lot .. This video helped me very much to understand the concepts better.
So, the conclusion is on assumption of the heliocentric, if in geocentric model, it should've no problem. I tried to look on the galelio and Ptolemy.. something doesn't feel right.
Those aren't the only options. Research Simon Shack's Tychos model of the solar system.
Very Clear and easy to understand. Thanks!
Thank you for making this video !👌
What an incredible video.
So simple and so effective
Definitely is not the only conclusion we can make out of this .
Great video.
Except the part you neglected to mention…that there WAS a fringe pattern detected in the Michelson-Morley experiment. The amount of resistance expected in the fringe pattern on the photogenic plate was 0.40 but the actual result was 0.02 👇:
“The experiments on relative motion of earth and ether have been completed and the result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe - the maximum displacement was ⭐️0.02⭐️[ding! ding! ding! Ether detected!]and the average much less than 0.01 - and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.”
(Source: Letter dated August 17, 1887, from the Rayleigh Archives, cited in Dorothy M. Livingston, The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson, 1973, p. 130.)
Now notice that Michelson says “the result is decidedly negative”. He doesn’t mean that the ether was not detected. He means that the amount of ether detected was not enough to show that the earth was moving THROUGH the ether.
Ergo-the earth doesn’t actually revolve around the sun.
Since it was heresy to say that the earth was not moving though space, Lorentz, Fitzgerald and others worked feverishly to explain the null result of the experiment. They were subsequently assisted 15yrs later by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.
Special relativity was of course not without critics when it was introduced:
“The principle of relativity accounts for the negative result of the experiment of Michelson and Morley but without an ether how do we account for the interference phenomena, which made that experiment possible?“
Source: William F. Magie, “The Primary Concepts of Physics,” Science, vol. XXXV, Feb. 23, 1912, cited in Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., The Ethereal Ether, 1972, p. 177.
You see, the “interference phenomenon” is that “0.02” fringe detected during the experiment. That’s what the article is talking about. That 0.02 fringe would not have happened at all had there been no ether. Plain and simple. That’s because Special Relativity tells us that light speed is constant-so there should never be a misalignment on the photogenic plate used in the experiment. Yet there WAS. A misalignment occurred which is the aforementioned 0.02 fringe.
Special Relativity said that there was “no ether”-so the fact that this 0.02 fringe EXISTS(it represents two beams traveling at different speeds) means that both Special Relativity AND General Relativity ARE WRONG.
Michelson-Gale repeated the experiment again in 1925, this time attempting to detect “ether drift” or rather a ROTATION of the earth as opposed to a revolution of the earth(as in Michelson-Morley) and this attempt was ⭐️successful⭐️.
Yup, that’s right-look it up.
This positive result validated the hypothesis that there IS an ether which can be detected. It detected that there was a rotation(note: I do not say a ‘rotation’ of earth since general relativity applied here could mean that the ether itself was rotating and not the earth).
Now really think about that. Why would the same experiment be able to positively show a rotation in 1925 but NOT a revolution of the earth as it goes around the sun?
Captain Obvious Says:
Because the earth doesn’t actually revolve around the SUN! 😂😂😂
Thus, the Michelson-Gale experiment subsequently lends credibility to the first experiment as having been accurate without the need of Special Relativity shenanigans. However by then the damage of Special Relativity was done and nobody wanted to deal with this outlier.
Of course Quantum mechanics inadvertently posited that the ether exists with it’s concept of “quantum foam”. It’s strange to me that people still say the ether does not exist in light of this.
Special Relativity lives or dies on whether or not there is an ether, as Einstein explains here while remarking on Millers(successful) experiments to detect ether-drift:
“My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
- Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)
So…yeaaaah. This means that there is no limit to the speed of light, the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun, there is a rotation involving the earth…which only mean one thing:
The earth is literally at the center of the universe and the universe is rotating around it.
They swept the discrepancies under the rug. The reason they call Einstein a genius is because he was able to fool the masses into believing a silly theory that wasn't even his to begin with while keeping the actual knowledge away from curious minds.
True
Thank you so much for this explenation and facts not mentined in official schools. I felt something was wrong. But why is the stationary Earth the direct conclusion, that is not so obvious to me???
@@rusamed2876
If an experiment can detect a REVOLUTION involving the earth but NOT a rotation involving the earth then that means the experiment is sound “in principle”. We just have to interpret the data. Is it possible for the earth to be revolving around the sun but NOT rotating? No, because then we wouldn’t see a day/night cycle. One side of the earth would be permanently dark. Therefore the only remaining explanation is that the earth doesn’t move at all, while everything else is moving around IT.
@@lightninlad then I can't also understand how the experiment would "sence" the revolution at all?? And also, whar is the diference betwin the idea that the Earth moves throgh Cosmos, and the idea that everything rotates around us? Wouldn't then everything show a centrifugal effect, and run away from us, expend, but faster than Habl proposed?
Phenomenal video and explanation. I am blown away, thank you so much for your help
Thank you for this awesome video .❤
Very good explanation. Thank you.
Hi, I'm not sure that is the only conclusion that can be made from this experiment, a null effect could result from matter been affected by the direction of the ether too, if matter arises from the ether then elongations in matter will be relative to the elongations in light waves. This would also then point to matter or more accurately particles maybe being standing wave points.
I loved it. Explained so simply..
Best explanation of MM experiment. Thank you very very much 😊
Superb explanation. Thank You Sir!
Thank you so much....for making this video🙂.....concepts are crystal clear now😇
Probably the best video for its explaination 👌
First video i found in which explaination is that much easy.... Thankyou
Nice presentation and informative. However-
M&M didn’t understand light wave and Aether enough committed to design and ran experiments with a negative results, as expected.
All electromagnetic and light wave requires a medium (dielectric) to propagate. It is e0 in Maxwell’s equation. The instance we let air infiltrate the experiment then air becomes the medium and not Aether.
Aether exists in absolute empty space with a measurable dielectric constant e0 of 8.8541817128 pF/meter. At this point of writing, Aether’s properties are not fully understood.
We can’t insert jars of low pressure vessel as part of M&M’s apparatus on earth to validate the apparatus for Aether compliance because Aether in it moves as much as the jar moves. Unless the whole experiment is space far from any galaxies, spiral arm, molecular clouds or cosmic plasma to make result conclusive.
Thanks a lot! Which software do you use to make it?
Back in 1983 Professor Daniel Goodstein of Caltech created a film (video) series of his physics lectures for first-year students, Called the Mechanical Universe and Beyond (Now available on RUclips). The use of computer graphics was an outstanding development, made possible only through the help of top computer visualization researchers at IBM. Each minute of computer graphics took many hours to render and cost many thousands of dollars.
If you continue with your videos, you could also cover the entire course, which would be quite an achievement in and of itself.
Most of my Delhi IIT friends recommend me to watch this video and now I can say that are now one of my most trustworthy friends. Superb video✌️✌️
Ayuta...This is classic especially 03:04 to 03:20...Couldn't find this bit on any "top Relativity or MM experiment" videos on RUclips or the entire Internet.
The best way to explain Michelson- Morley experiment is this...
thank you❣️ for this video
ruclips.net/video/BCo7DyemdrE/видео.html
Thank you for the meaningful knowledge. I love your video. Very clear and easy to understand!
Best content in RUclips for the explanation of Michelson Morley experiment
Well done 👍 sir
Best explanation of Michealson Morley exp . Ur so underated
Amazing! Thank you so much for this video😍
great job! it's much much better to see a well made animation that read when you need to get a spatial representation like here
At first i thought what is he going to explain in just 5 min , but man...
Watching the video was worth it
What about considering that the earth isn’t moving and is actually stationary as a conclusion to this experiment?
That’s not an option because it would imply that the universe rotates around the earth and looks to much like God exists. Science can’t have that! Lol
@@lightninlad if the universe and everything else rotates around the Earth, does that mean aether also rotates? This would mean light waves would reveal a pattern of interference of the aether which could be measured, and you would also be able to calculate the speed that the aether moves relative to the stationary Earth. The Michelson Morley experiment and the same type of experiments conducted in the 100+ years since then should have revealed this. But this hasn't happened. Or does the aether not rotate at all with the universe? If that were true, then this means aether cannot move and it therefore has no flow, so it cannot exert a downwards force on objects. It therefore does not explain why things fall downwards. You might instead say that, actually, the fact there is more aether above an object compared to below it causes it to fall down. In this case, the less aether there is, the less downwards pressure it applies to an object. The higher from Earth you are, the less aether there is and so objects would have less downwards pressure applied to them. This happens to be exactly what we observe in real life, but the problem here is the implication that the closer to Earth you are, the more aether there is. This further implies that the Earth attracts aether, which means it does actually have momentum, or flow. Or, you might instead argue that aether only exists around the Earth. In that case, light would not have a medium to travel through outside Earth, so light from the universe would not reach us because it has no way of getting here.
@@johnkyle2205
You wrote:
“This would mean light waves would reveal a pattern of interference of the aether which could be measured, and you would also be able to calculate the speed that the aether moves relative to the stationary Earth.”
First off the aether WAS detected. It just wasn’t detecting the earth as the thing that was moving so Einstein just made light “constant” arbitrarily to explain the final result. He just invented an adhoc explanation.
Next, while you could technically calculate the speed aether moves relative to the stationary earth within local space, this speed would increase the further out you go. That’s why the farther out we observe we see that the galaxies rotate faster than current physics tells us they should.
@@lightninlad They did not detect ether, can you point to the part of the published study that says they did? They even suspended the apparatus in mercury to prevent readings caused by Earth's rotation. They still did not get an interference pattern. Also, a couple of times, you have said the Earth is stationary, but then you said that the Earth moves/rotates? "...the earth as the thing that was moving.."
Einstein actually invented the universal constant because he thought the universe was static, and the universal constant fit nicely with certain equations. Nowadays, we interpret the constant differently.
Why does aether move faster the further away from Earth you go? Does it still move in the same direction, i.e. downwards? What causes ether to move?
You know Einstein himself said his theory of spacetime/gravity can be thought of as a type of ether? At their core, they're really not so different, except that gravity has more defined properties and exerts a pulling force, rather than a pushing force. They're almost the same thing...
Oh and about the galaxies rotating faster than we expect...this is almost certainly because of something we call dark matter. Is that the same thing as ether, just interpreted differently? Maybe...we don't know yet. Whatever it is, it doesn't produce any radiation so we can't observe it directly, but we are 99.9% something dark matter exists. We already know that different types of matter exists that we can't we can't see. Neutrinos are one example
@@lightninlad They did not detect ether, can you point to the part of the published study that says they did? They even suspended the apparatus in mercury to prevent readings caused by Earth's rotation. They still did not get an interference pattern. Also, a couple of times, you have said the Earth is stationary, but then you said that the Earth moves/rotates? "...the earth as the thing that was moving.." Einstein actually invented the universal constant because he thought the universe was static, and the universal constant fit nicely with certain equations. Nowadays, we interpret the constant differently. Why does aether move faster the further away from Earth you go? Does it still move in the same direction, i.e. downwards? What causes ether to move? You know Einstein himself said his theory of spacetime/gravity can be thought of as a type of ether? At their core, they're really not so different, except that gravity has more defined properties and exerts a pulling force, rather than a pushing force. They're almost the same thing... Oh and about the galaxies rotating faster than we expect...this is almost certainly because of something we call dark matter. Is that the same thing as ether, just interpreted differently? Maybe...we don't know yet. Whatever it is, it doesn't produce any radiation so we can't observe it directly, but we are 99.9% something dark matter exists. We already know that different types of matter exists that we can't we can't see. Neutrinos are one example
I don't think this disproves the ether. They account for drag, but they forget about distance. General relativity predicted both time dilation and length contraction, so the "missing" interference in their experiment is due to the distances between the mirrors changing as the apparatus rotates.
I think a better experiment to detect ether would be the double slit experiment...
This is probably one of the best video I've ever seen
Excellent explanation!
OMG so deep!!! Thanks for the explanations mate!
Or the Ether is being carried along with the Earth, like the air inside of jet flying at mach 1 speeds. The sound inside the cockpit is the same at any direction that you measure, yet the waves are moving at mach2 from a point of view of person at the ground ...Liked your video by the way.
Ernesto Melo you are spot on.
I think one problem the ether theory also has is that there probably would be drag when the earth travels through the ether. So you could argue that the ether has some property so it wouldn’t interact with the earth what would mean no drag. But if the earth carries the either along then there definitely is an interaction between ether and earth and that would cause drag. Drag would slow the earth down and let it collide into the sun at some point. So this is why I think that your theory is wrong.
Good thought, in fact, that is a real issue for Aether theories, historically. But that is due to these classic theories referring Aether as being a gas or fluid. That view would not work for sure. However, humor me for a min. There is a state of matter where pressure is present but no attrition occurs. It is called full degeneracy fermion state. This state is possible when particles are bounded so close to each other that their momentum is incredible high due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Pauli's exclusion principle. That state can occur on a well-structured, high pressurized state of matter, with very little entropy. I call it Yfasma for "fabric" in Greek ;O). Now, what you might be asking is, what quantum particle can create such conditions? Think like this, what is the particle involved in the creation of photons? How about magnetism and magnetic fields? and the stabilization of molecules? and electricity? I think you got the idea. The electron. Why is the electron not involved in gravity for instance? Well, it turns out that it does. It is the electron that precludes stats from collapsing under the pressure of Gravity. To push on electrons would require a net with meshes of equal size and since electrons are point particles, well, there is no reason for nature to create anything smaller or more complicated. If that is true, that there is a fabric of point particles in the universe, then, there is no reason to have 4 forces in the universe, but only two, pull and push. Seems far-fetched but it is more doable than "spooky action at a distance" or bending "spacetime" of which no really explanation for the cause of these forces (gravity, the attraction of the electromagnetic forces) from either theories. Or how about concept of "charges" and "fields" of which no theory explains yet both concepts are used to explain attractions and repulsion. Look, I am attracted to my wife, hehe, because I have eyes and nose and ears to translate all into an irresistible impulse, but I highly doubt that "charges" can smell anything, haha. You see, everything that we know and accept are based on unfounded concepts. It is like a sudoku game going wrong. The numbers may work for while but then you hit a wall. Well, I wrote a paper and submitted to the Gravity Research Foundation. Let's see what they say.
That's a great explanation, except in the jet experiment there's a physical barrier between the traveling jet and the outside air. In the Heliocentric model there's no physical barrier outside of earth.
ruclips.net/video/zgiw5SungVw/видео.html&index=162&list=WL
I add some aether info as follows.
(1) Google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 km/s min & 480 km/s max during a day (this was the horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is approx 500 km/s south to north blowing approx 15 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX was 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs.
(2) The MMXs were never null.
(3) The correct calibration needed to allow for length contraction caused by the aetherwind.
(4) The correct calibration needed to allow for the Fresnel Drag of light by the air. Prof Reg Cahill explains.
(5) All MMX's suffer a linear ever-growing fringe-shift that gets larger with each rotation. All MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs. Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect. Because at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn. University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing. Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy & suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right).
(6) Secondly the Michelson Morley MMX, & the Morley Miller MMXs, suffered a spurious signal that was periodic in a full turn. This was because their mirrors were at two levels, hence some of their light beams had to angle up & later down. This then introduced a spurious signal (fringe shift) due to angle contraction of the mirrors in their apparatus, which changed the effective lengths of the angled beams. I call such angle contraction Esclangon angle contraction, as Esclangon is i think the first person to bring it to the attention of science (but he didn't mention that it must also happen in an MMX). EAC is due to Lorentzian Length Contraction of solids (which should be called FitzGerald LC as FitzGerald was the first to predict it) which is due to any change in the aetherwind blowing throo a solid (which changes the size/shape of solids)(because solids are held together by electric forces)(these forces being affected by the wind).
Or the Earth is motionless and static whereas the other celestial objects are moving wrt to earth
Then we should conduct this experiment on other planet
as far as we have seen, it's not like that
Here comes the new age Ptolemy. Go back!!! Copernicus and kepler have already desstroyed you!!!
As your motionless braincells
@@chadchampion3700 come , show us your brain cells..gangsta
Why is this called a failed experiment?Doesn’t it prove the earth is stationary?
No-this experiment did not prove that. The follow up experiment Michelson-Gale proved that.
1. Michelson-Morley could not detect the earth moving(revolving) around the sun…but it wasn’t clear if the experiment was flawed somehow.
2.In 1925 Michelson-Gale re-oriented the beams to detect the Earth’s rotation INSTEAD of the Earth’s revolution around the Sun. Which it detected. Which meant that the first experiment was proof that the earth did not revolve around the Sun.
However even though Michelson-Gale showed that the earth wasn’t revolving around the Sun, it DID detect that there was a rotation around the earth. Now…logically, the stellar procession we see could NOT be produced by an earth that is rotating in space, and since we know that the earth isn’t revolving around the sun…it leaves only one other option:
The Universe MUST be revolving around the Earth. There is no other answer.
Because it has nothing to do with the rotation of the earth.
Thank you, you helped me a lot understanding these experiments!
Ohh thank you so much for this …. This was much needed 😍
ruclips.net/video/BCo7DyemdrE/видео.html
Greatly explained ! Thanks !
Extraordinary explanation 👌
But let's imagine that a medium did exist. If you then add to that the proper understanding of "Motion", the outcome would be the phenomena that is described via Albert Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. Also, one would expect that the Michelson-Morley experiment would produce results exactly the same as the experiment itself did. It is funny how many folk thought that the special relativity theory somehow proved that there was no possibility of there being an ether. Albert Einstein said: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time …” (Albert Einstein, 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden)
Yes, if the ether exists then Special relativity would be undone. Here are Einstein’s remarks in regards to Miller’s successful detection of ether-drift:
“My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
- Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)
Wouldn't this also prove that the earth is just not spinning and hurling through space?
So it means both horizontal and vertical waves took same time to reach detector and has no interference pattern....
Awesome explaination sir. Thanks a lot .
Please help me, I just cant understand why the horizintal ray of light (parallel to the ether) is slower that the vertical one. Is it because it hits the half reflective mirror slightly earlier (due to its direction of travel changing slightly) or something that I am not seeing here?
Thank you in advance!!!
No, you’re confusion is actually the result of realizing that the speed of light cannot be constant if one light beam hits the reflector earlier than the other one. You weren’t the first person to notice this. Others criticized Einstein when he introduced his Special Relativity:
“The principle of relativity accounts for the negative result of the experiment of Michelson and Morley but without an ether how do we account for the interference phenomena, which made that experiment possible?“
Source: William F. Magie, “The Primary Concepts of Physics,” Science, vol. XXXV, Feb. 23, 1912, cited in Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., The Ethereal Ether, 1972, p. 177.
Congratulations-you have just discovered that this experiment only works BECAUSE the ether exists and that someone has been blowing smoke up your ass. That’s really the answer to why you are so confused. Let me explain.
You see the experiment was considered a “failure” but NOT because it didn’t detect the ether. It DID detect it. It detected a 0.02 fringe on the photogenic plate. That’s not the issue. The issue is that it didn’t detect the 0.4 fringe they were hoping to find:
“The experiments on relative motion of earth and ether have been completed and the result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe - the maximum displacement was ⭐️0.02⭐️ and the average much less than 0.01 - and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.”
(Source: Letter dated August 17, 1887, from the Rayleigh Archives, cited in Dorothy M. Livingston, The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson, 1973, p. 130.)
You see Michelson is calling it a “negative result” not because the ether was detected…no…he’s calling it a null result because the revolution of the earth around the Sun was not detected! To show that the earth revolves around the Sun, you need to have a 0.40 fringe on the reflector plate.
No why would it be the case that you could only detect a .02 fringe when you need to detect a 0.4 fringe? 🤔
Captain Obvious says:
Because the earth isn’t moving around the sun.
Does that help?
So now you’re getting the big reason behind Special and General Relativity. It’s all a shell game to hide the fact that what Michelson-Morley had discovered was that the Earth is not revolving around the Sun-it is the Sun that is revolving around the earth. Which means that the earth is at the center of the known universe. I kid you not.
Got scared when you said to wait for 6 months xD.
Amazing video though, specially the part at 3:00
The best explanation video of the michelons morley experiment
Can something travel through nothing? The physicists say that this only means physics instruments are not capable of measuring absolute motion, they can only measure relative motion.
or, the Earth doesn't move, since we know there is an eather because water slows light
The Sagnac experiment demonstrated that there is an ether. The Earth is round and it rotates on its axis. I have been told that the Michelson-Morley Experiment measured a movement through the ether in the direction of spin at from 1 to 10 KPH but was still called a null result. Who should we believe?
That experiment proves the existençe of the eather , because the waves is a perturbation or " effect" of the eather himself.A wave is not what someting is, but what something does.The problem with the phisicians is they don't understand nothing of anscient philosophiy essecially Methafisics from Aristoteles .Greatings from A Portuguese from Portugal.
Hello. There is a new idea. In Michelson's experiment in 1881 to search for the carrier of light - ether. In the experiment, it is necessary to replace the light source with a maser. With the help of this experiment on transport, it is possible to determine its speed relative to the dominant gravitational field of the Earth.
Maser - microwave amplification by stimulate demission of radiation.
Maser - invented in England in 2018.
in the calculation of t in vertical wave, shouldn't the velocity with which light covers d' distance be taken as sqrt(c^2+v^2)?
Thanks for showing the math! Regards from Baltimore.
Great explanation. But one question what if at closed distance to earth, ether is always moving at the same speed as the speed of earth ??
ruclips.net/video/BCo7DyemdrE/видео.html
The problem with the “ether entrainment theory” is that it would only be viable if the Michelson/Morley experiment showed no positive result. The ether was positively detected in the form of a 0.02 fringe in the photogenic plate in the experiment:
“The experiments on relative motion of earth and ether have been completed and the result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe - the maximum displacement was ⭐️0.02⭐️and the average much less than 0.01 - and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.”
(Source: Letter dated August 17, 1887, from the Rayleigh Archives, cited in Dorothy M. Livingston, The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson, 1973, p. 130.)
If the ether were entrained by a moving Earth then the Michelson/Morley apparatus would show no fringe shifting. But since the results were positive to at least one-sixth of what they expected, then the ether had to be moving against the Earth to that degree and thus could not be entrained.
Nice Explanation
Actually its a simple concept that when a light ray gets reflected in the rarer medium then a phase difference of "π" is introduced in the wave... Hence the reflected ray and transmitted ray gain a phase difference of "π" and hence we see a interference pattern
Crisp and Clear expounding. Well done
What about if we live in a closed stationary sistem?
Won't the 45-degree orientation of the mirror affect the distance in time calculaton for wave?
Can someone explain me, why they didn't think that along the ether wind direction, the light beam slows down and then accelerates again after reflection, thus not showing interference?
I have the same question.
There WAS interference.
The ether was positively detected in the form of a 0.02 fringe on the photogenic plate in the experiment:
“The experiments on relative motion of earth and ether have been completed and the result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe - the maximum displacement was ⭐️0.02⭐️and the average much less than 0.01 - and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.”
(Source: Letter dated August 17, 1887, from the Rayleigh Archives, cited in Dorothy M. Livingston, The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson, 1973, p. 130.)
Why are we thinking that ether is a moving medium and there is a possibility that it's Stationary medium right??
And if it was a stationary medium this experiment would lose its purpose.
Can anyone clarify me.
All the experiments are done one earth, for obvious reasons. As all other celestial bodies move relative to the earth, it would mean the ether is stationary only from the earth's point of view and is moving from all other celestial bodies point of view. This leaves only two possible conclusions: 1. The earth is the center of the universe and is unmoving 2. The ether doesn't exist.
great and clear. thank you very much
The horizontal beam gets a boost but also gets resistance.
So the question is why didnt the velocity change during the boost cancel out the velocity change during the resistance...???
It might be difficult to imagine it but if we just write the equation for time taken by beam in or without the presence of ether ,it becomes pretty clear
@Barbara Willick when the beam reaches the mirror ,it has already gained that boost ,so on reflection, the beam's V is initially not 1 but greater but after reflection it is affected by aether resistance and therefore slows down ..
We actually calculate the time taken by beam to reach mirror and come back which is simply double of one side trip due to the reason explained above
@@deepanshutyagi1467
So your answer agrees that there is no net effect whether there is an aether wind or not. As in my example 1+1=2 on the trip to the mirror, then 2-1=1 on the way back from the mirror.
So how would this apparatus ever detect a difference due to aether??
I have no words to thank you....
Great job! Easily the best and most easy-to-follow video on the M-M-Experiment. PS: Are all of you "flat earthers" also "flat mooners"? ;) If you think the earth is at rest and everything else moves around us, take this experiment to the moon and see what happens. ;) Exactly the same. For there is no "resting relational system" (because what shall it rest to?), c equals c, no matter what the speed of its emitter is.
No, aether has no drag, or there is some but you always swim in it and can't observe it due to it .
Super fluid helium is also frictionless. Super fluid helium exists and there are youtube videos about it.
I have to say , u guys made it so easy to understand, GJ!
Perfect video! First time understanding this concept
The experiment is technically precise but the question raised is wrong.
Whats to be enquired is , if theres presence of Aether , the seperated beams in waves, will hv thier frequencies distorted to ensure thier light speeds remain constant, inspite of the motion of the light source distorting distances of light paths. This is the consequence of the doppler phenomenon of property of light.
So, the light beams will converge without misalignment.
If theres no Aether , then the impulses of light of the beam will propagate as like particles thru a medium and the distances differences of pathways caused by the Earths rotation will result in a misalignment when the beams converge.
I think during MnM time the doppler phenomenon is yet to be found. N light as a particle was certainly not an idea.
Conclusion : Yes. Theres AETHER. Mystery solved.
Yup. You are correct.
There is an ether but the reason why there was only a 0.02 fringe detected and not the expected 0.4 they were expecting is because….wait for it…the earth isn’t revolving around the sun.
If the ether exists then Special Relativity is wrong. Here are Einstein’s remarks regarding Miller’s own success in discovering ether-drift:
“My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
- Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)
This means-and I find this incredible…
…there IS NO LIMIT ON THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
It also means that the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment which discovered ether-drift has further implications. It proved that there WAS a rotation involving the ether thus VALIDATING the results from Michelson-Morley.
So…
1. Michelson-Morley demonstrated that the earth isn’t revolving around the Sun.
2. Michelson-Gale re-oriented the light beams which positively detected a rotation.
3. This means that Special Relativity AND General Relativity are wrong.
4. Which means that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE must be rotating around the Earth!!!!!!
The reason why is because if we were to say that the Earth rotates in space but does not revolve around the Sun-then the universe we see would look completely different because you would not see the stellar procession we see now.
One of the best video on this topic...
I deduced that in the case of the interference experiment, with the interferometer in the horizontal plane, the light has exactly the same speed in all directions. This is because light (photons) is coupled with the mass density field of the earth. Field that leaves the substance of the earth and emanates in the space in the immediate vicinity. The coupling of light with the density field of the transparent medium is proved by Fizeau's experiment. Experiment that accurately verifies Fresnel's formula, called partial ether entrainment. Fresnel's formula is easy to find, without any relativistic metaphysics, if the density of light and the density of the environment and the density of the earth are added together. And it is not about the entrainment of the ether, but it is about the variation of the refractive index of the transparent medium, when it is moving (in translation) compared to the situation when it is at rest. The negative term in Fresnel's formula is due to the coupling of light with the density field of the planet. Because he is in solidarity with the planet.
The problem with the “ether entrainment theory” is that it would only be viable if the experiment had not detected the ether, which it DID-because there was a fringe pattern measurement of 0.02 on the photogenic plate👇:
“The experiments on relative motion of earth and ether have been completed and the result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe - the maximum displacement was ⭐️0.02⭐️[ding! ding! ding! Ether detected!]and the average much less than 0.01 - and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.”
(Source: Letter dated August 17, 1887, from the Rayleigh Archives, cited in Dorothy M. Livingston, The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson, 1973, p. 130.)
If the ether were entrained by a moving Earth then the Michelson/Morley apparatus would show NO FRINGE SHIFTING. But since the results were positive to at least one-sixth of what they expected, then the ether had to be moving against the Earth to that degree and therefore, not be entrained.
Cannot say Ether does not exists!, because waves cannot travel without a medium. Wave itself is the disturbance of medium. The experiment just proves that 'a stationary medium' doesn't exist. The experiment assumes the velocity (Magnitude and Direction) of ether as a constant. That assumption might be incorrect.
The velocity of Ether must be the same as the Earth's inside and around its vicinity. i.e Earth is rotating in the vortex of Ether, just like a ball of mud rotating in the vortex of water.
Legends will watch it after 5 years
you are a life saver man pls make some more videos
The conclusions are very narrow-minded because it doesn't take into account that some of its assumptions are false. For example one of the conclusions could be that the earth is not moving, or at least moving at a negligible speed. Or another conclusion would be that the ether doesn't move.
There is a problem with the experiment, if the ether reacts with matter then it could potentially become stationary with respect to local matter. even if the experiment is run inside a vacuum the ether would/could be caught in the local bubble of the matter surrounding the vacuum chamber similar to the air inside an airplane. To be definitive the experiment needs to be repeated in orbit away from other significant or encapsulated masses that could influence the local ether (if it exists). Depending on the accuracy of the equipment a wind tunnel could be used to generate ether 'flow' although it would require some very careful design Can wind deflect light?
I want more video
Great explanation. Of course you have ruled out Aether as a pervading medium, but still have not explained what Light is disturbing to create "peaks and troughs"
How is a "Field" different to an Aether ?
This kind of animation video help us a lots for understanding....thanks for making such video
But why they discard ether to be static. If so, existing a ether wouldn't mean in changes of light velocity
how can the blue beam reflect at an angle when it comes back?
Thanks for the explanation!