Waves and Particles: The Continual Scientific Error

[treddie]

Howdie.<br />Was growing impatient when for the umteen-millionth time have heard a "trained professional" once again mistate the facts about the Michelson/Morley experiment.<br />In his article, "Waves and Particles: Musings after the National Science Teachers Convention", Dr. Dana Backman makes the oft mentioned remark that the Theory of the Ether was disproven 125 years ago, and I would assume he is reffering to the results of this groundbreaking experiment. To recap, the Michelson/Morley experiment was designed to test if the Earth was moving through an all pervasive gas, the "ether", that was the proposed medium that light waves would need in order to travel through space. With the successful conclusion of the experiment, which demonstrated that no ether was detected, the scientists decreed that there was no ether. Back in their day, I can understand this reasoning. But only to a point, for that reasoning is scientifically flawed, for ANY moment in science history.<br />Their conclusion was, that since no ether was detected it did not exist. This is a bit of a stretch. What the experiment DOES demonstrate, and ONLY demonstrates, is that since no ether (gas) was detected, that if the ether DID exist, it did not BEHAVE like a gas, and therefore, it could be concluded, was NOT a gas. This leaves only two possible scenarios:<br /> 1. The ether does NOT exist in any form whatsoever.<br /> 2. The ether DOES exist, but is sufficiently exotic that present notions about its existence is flawed, and no reasonable, replacement hypothesis has been offered which can be tested.<br /><br />In other words, the question still remains...is there an "ether"? What ADDITIONAL knowledge PROVES that electromagnetic radiation does not need a medium through which to travel?<br /><br />-treddie

 

[kelvin_zero]

Science generally does not so much disprove something as conclude it is unnecessary or insufficient to explain the phenomona for which it was proposed.<br /><br />Who can say the ether does not exist in any form whatsoever? Can vacuum energy satisfy your definition? or dark matter? or love?<br /><br />All the Michelson Morley experiment demonstrated was that (unlike waves in water) light behaves the same regardless of our velocity wrt to our environment.<br /><br />If it had found the sort of ether they sought, for example, we would probably all be wearing wristwatches that could tell us our absolute velocity with respect to the universe. We would also be able to point to a unique center of the universe which is at true rest, and from which everything else is receding.<br /><br />Instead we live in a universe which is more strange but in some sense more even handed.

 

[why06]

This is the wrong place, but I like the post nonetheless.<br /><br />Could it be possibble that time itself is the ether that carries light? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I am moving this thread to Space Science & Astronomy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Thanks, Calli.<br /><br />Actually, Michaelson-Morely <i>did</i> disprove the existence of the Aether in their experiments, at least utilizing the science available to them.<br /><br />Recollect, they were seeking to prove/disprove the presence of the Aether by using light to determine if their were any changes via the motion of the Aether. And they did not detect any. Note, please, that their experiment was neutral in the sense that it had no ability whatsoever to determine what gas might be causing such a drift - only whether or not such a drift existed at all.<br /><br />And it did not. <br /><br />(Edited for idiot grammatical mistake and clarity's sake) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I was once told by a somewhat flakey physicist friend that there is a relativistic explanation that can explain the MM result, and "save" Aether - it has been many years and I don't recall ANY details.<br /><br />Wayne<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I seem to vaguely recollect the same thing.<br /><br />Still and all, MM had no ability to determine <i>what</i> might be causing a drift if it had been detected - only that it was there at all.<br /><br />So that's the answer to the original topic: no, that's wrong, MM essentially disproved the existence of the Aether - regardless of what it might be postulated to be.<br /><br />(As I said, using the science available to them, early last Century). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This leaves only two possible scenarios:<br />1. The ether does NOT exist in any form whatsoever.<br />2. The ether DOES exist, but is sufficiently exotic that present notions about its existence is flawed, and no reasonable, replacement hypothesis has been offered which can be tested. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />no, that experiment leaves just one scenario - that the ether MAY exist but not in the form imagined by the experimenters (M&M)<br /><br />your conclusions are too sweeping - that it DOES or DOES NOT exist neither of which is acceptable interpretation of that experiment which at maximum could only prove the validity of the preconceived idea M&M had of the ether which was that of the ether and light behaving essentially as air and sound do<br /><br />scientists to this very day never proved that ether does not exist, all they have done is shown us that they can make do without it, but can they? that is the question, they don't seem to be so well advancing with their science today to warrant any certainty of their position on ether which is one of denial<br /><br />BTW one can never prove that something does not exist, ether or anything else, you simply can't prove a negative, all you can do is make experiments testing some hypothesis and prove or disprove what it claims <br /><br />for example you can't prove that unicorns or little green men on Mars (or ether) do not exist, all you can do is test the validity of claims that they exist and at most you can say those claims are false (i.e., arbitrary, groundless assertions) because there is no evidence that they are true but you can't say properly (as a scientist) that unicorns or those little green men on Mars do not exist, one can't have such knowledge unless one is like God who sees into every cranny of the universe, bottom line is you can disprove a theory but not the object of its claims, that is you can establish that it is a false (arbitrary, uns <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>