# That’s over and done with, the result was null!!

#### Jzz

“That’s over and done with, the result was null!!” This is how physicists tend to dismiss any reference to the possibility of the existence of an aether like substance through which light propagates. The statement is based on the null result of the Michelson & Morley experiment. How potent is this argument? Does it need to be re-examined, or is everything Okay with accepting such a conclusion? If one looks at the way in which a wave travels one finds that there are certain criteria that are involved. For instance: (1) every wave is the transfer of energy through a medium. (2) the medium usually consists of minute elements such as molecules of air, water etc., (3) every wave follows the inverse square law for intensity equal to the inverse of the square over the distance from the source. (4) The speed of a wave remains constant if the medium through which it is travelling remains unchanged. (5) the properties of the wave are bounded by the dimensions of the medium it is travelling through. For instance, a wave in a rope would be bounded by the dimensions of the rope but the intensity of the wave would be dependent on the distance of the wave from the source. Its speed would be constant.

Given that this simple solution explains all the properties of a wave, it is surprising that such esoteric theories have been accepted for explaining identical phenomena when related to light. For instance, how does quantum mechanics explain the fact that light spreads out according to the inverse square law, where the area over which the wave acts increases directly as the square of the distance from the source. The answer is that QM uses Maxwell’s equations to explain how light spreads out according to the inverse square law but then has to use numerous normalization and quantisation processes to try and explain the quantum properties of light. Surely, this is a lot of work for something that obviously will not work: by its very definition a wave cannot be quantized. Again, how does the intensity of light vary with distance from the source? Why is light (Copenhagen Interpretation) as it travels from A to B, not ‘real’? Why does it have to exist as an abstract mathematical wave-function that travels through dimensions that are non-existent everywhere in the Universe? It is the elephant in the room, it is obvious that the existence of a medium is a one size fits all solution: such a medium would explain every property of light. Both quantum mechanics and relativity have gone out of their way to bend over backwards and undergo all kinds of distortion, to try and circumvent this simple fact. Today, the existence of dark matter with exactly similar properties to that of the aether, is totally ignored in the hope that it will go away. In fact there now exist theories that dark matter may not even exist!

#### Pentcho Valev

“That’s over and done with, the result was null!!” This is how physicists tend to dismiss any reference to the possibility of the existence of an aether like substance through which light propagates. The statement is based on the null result of the Michelson & Morley experiment. How potent is this argument?

Actually the null result disproved the central tenet of the ether theory - that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. This fact is ignored for obvious reasons (Einstein adopted the independence in 1905) and replaced with the euphemism that the null result disproved the existence of the ether. Still the euphemism seems correct. If the speed of light does depend on the speed of the source, it is unlikely that things occur in the ether, isn't it?

#### Jzz

Actually the null result disproved the central tenet of the ether theory - that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source
Pentcho, it looks as if you like to write a lot without first verifying or understanding what you are saying. Your ideas about the Michelson & Morley experiment are all wrong. They got a null result because (a) it was the wrong type of experiment to determine the existence of the aether and (b) too much has been made of this experiment. Ask yourself, if the Michelson & Morley experiment was used to detect the existence of dark matter and came up with a null result, would it mean that dark matter does not exist ?

#### Pentcho Valev

Pentcho, it looks as if you like to write a lot without first verifying or understanding what you are saying. Your ideas about the Michelson & Morley experiment are all wrong. They got a null result because (a) it was the wrong type of experiment to determine the existence of the aether and (b) too much has been made of this experiment. Ask yourself, if the Michelson & Morley experiment was used to detect the existence of dark matter and came up with a null result, would it mean that dark matter does not exist ?
In the experiment, the two perpendicular beams returned simultaneously while Michelson and Morley expected them not to return simultaneously. Why did they have the wrong expectation? Because in their calculations they had used c'=c, speed of light independent of the speed of the source. If, in their calculations (which have been reproduced countless times in textbooks), you replace c'=c with c'=c±v, speed of light dependent on the speed of the source as per Newton, you obtain simultaneous return. I have done this in the past.

#### Jzz

In the experiment, the two perpendicular beams returned simultaneously while Michelson and Morley expected them not to return simultaneously. Why did they have the wrong expectation? Because in their calculations they had used c'=c, speed of light independent of the speed of the source. If, in their calculations (which have been reproduced countless times in textbooks), you replace c'=c with c'=c±v, speed of light dependent on the speed of the source as per Newton, you obtain simultaneous return. I have done this in the past.

No, this is not true at all! With all due consideration, your references and conclusions are wrong. The reason that Michelson & Morley were expecting the two beams of light to return at different times is that they were under the impression that the earth as it moved through the aether would exert a dragging effect on the aether causing the light to arrive at the source at different times. The measured speed of light would then depend on the speed of this motion ("aether wind"), which should be measurable by instruments at rest on Earth's surface. This was the ethos of the Michelson & Morley experiment and there is no surprise that it failed considering what we now know about the very low interaction with matter that exists in particles like neutrinos which can travel through a block of lead a light year across and emerge without having undergone any interactions whatsoever.

Taking more prosaic situations into consideration, the same result can be seen. For instance, take a sound wave, (the medium, remaining unaltered) sound as it travels from a moving source, does not acquire a velocity of speed of sound + v (where v is the velocity of the moving source.). If, sound had behaved in the manner that you state, it would be impossible to break the sound barrier. The speed of Light, when moving through a medium can also be broken by fast electrons as demonstrated in the Cherenkov effect. So basically light behaves just like any other wave there is nothing super natural about it.

#### Jzz

Actually the null result disproved the central tenet of the ether theory - that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. This fact is ignored for obvious reasons (Einstein adopted the independence in 1905) and replaced with the euphemism that the null result disproved the existence of the ether. Still the euphemism seems correct. If the speed of light does depend on the speed of the source, it is unlikely that things occur in the ether, isn't it?
Thank you for your comment. In actual fact Einstein did not state that the aether did not exist, he merely stated that it had outlived its usefulness. His contention was that Maxwell’s hypothetical electric and magnetic fields negated the need for an aether. Still, you are right it was very bold of Einstein, to go against the wisdom of ages and to state that light obeyed Galilean laws of transformation and then showed why this was not apparent, by stating that time got dilated and lengths contracted. So Einstein went to an extreme in one way by stating that light obeyed Galilean transformations and then he went to an extreme the other way by stating that light did not demonstrate any of the effects of Galilean transformations because lengths contracted and time dilated in order to keep the speed of light constant. No more than one person in ten thousand probably understood this aspect of special relativity when it first came out, hence its success and acceptance. It is also the reason that Eiunstein was probably wrong.

#### Atlan0001

Light is not independent of the source regarding speed of REALTIME. It is independent of source regarding subsequent direction and magnitude. The source continues into the future light cone, thus unobservable. The time frame of the light is past light cone orientated, thus observable. They separate, in direction and magnitude of time, at the same constant of the speed of light. It is why you will always see / observe light's frame of time as some time past and never now nor some time future, however redundant that last may seem (the future is now). The frame is in obvious time travel into the past though it will always meet you face to face head on as the universe always repositions you mid-Horizon of the universe. Your frame of time (instantaneous spontaneous concurrent REALTIME) will always be out front in frame of time of the time frame -- light's coordinate point SPACETIME -- of the past light cone (from a split second to 13-billion years and farther in expanding (accelerating expanding) separation). That it is constant guaranties increasing triangulation separation in going away from observers and just as rapid coming together in oncoming to observers.

Last edited:

Replies
21
Views
576
Replies
0
Views
345
Replies
0
Views
353
Replies
17
Views
929
Replies
22
Views
2K