zotero/storage/5T2UE77Z/.zotero-ft-cache

Academia.edu Academia.edu
Log In Sign Up

    Log In
    Sign Up
    more
        About
        Press
        Blog
        People
        Papers
        Terms
        Privacy
        Copyright
        We're Hiring!
        Help Center
        less

Download Free PDF
paper cover icon
Download Free PDF
paper cover thumbnail
An Enigma for Physics and the History of Science
Profile image of Maurizio Consoli Maurizio Consoli

2019
See Full PDF Download PDF
Related Papers

Atti della Accademia Peloritana dei Pericolanti : Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali
The classical Michelson-Morley experiments: A new solution to an old problem

2018 •

Maurizio Consoli

The classical "ether-drift" experiments in gaseous media (Michelson-Morley, Miller, Illingworth, Joos, ...) have always shown small, irregular residuals, usually interpreted as typical instrumental artifacts. A recent re-analysis indicates, instead, that these small effects could represent the first experimental indication for the Earth's motion within the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). This intriguing possibility, and the overall consistency with the modern experiments with vacuum optical resonators, require to perform a different check with a new generation of dedicated experiments. Without such definite clarification, the classical ether-drift experiments will remain as an enigma for physics and history of science.
Download Free PDF View PDF
An Alternative Explanation to the Michelson-Morley experiment

Henok Tadesse
Download Free PDF View PDF
Michelson-Morley experiment: A misconceived & misinterpreted experiment

2020 •

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

A thorough review of the Michelson-Morley experiment reveals that the experiment had been not only misinterpreted but also misconceived. Under the theory & methodology adopted by Michelson & Morley the reasons of misconception and misinterpretation have been found to be: 1. Doppler Effect of light was not taken into account and 2. The motion of the solar system was not also taken into account. Since this experiment formed the basis of misinterpretation of absence of luminiferous ether in the space and as the consequence of absence of luminiferous ether the concept of length contraction in the direction of motion, theories of relativity, space-time concept and big bang theory were adopted.
Download Free PDF View PDF
Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment (www.indjst.org; April 2011)

Mohammad Shafiq Khan
Download Free PDF View PDF
0 51 21 60 v 2 1 9 Ju n 20 06 Michelson – Morley experiment revisited ∗

2006 •

Bogusław Broda

The idea of the Michelson–Morley experiment is theoretical ly reanalyzed. Elementary arguments are put forward to precisely derive the most general allowable f orm of the directional dependence of the oneway velocity of light. According to XIX-century physics light was supposed to prop agate in the aether, a mysterious medium devised especially for this purpose. As light was to travel w ith respect to the aether with a fixed velocity, an experiment was suggested to detect the dependence of the v elocity on the direction in a moving frame of the laboratory on the Earth. The experiment was proposed and the first time performed by Albert Michelson (a Nobel laureate, American physicist born in Poland) [1]. T he experiment is continually being repeated, known as the Michelson–Morley (MM) experiment, with ever in creasing accuracy and improved technical realization (see, e.g. [2]). The result is always the same, n egative, i.e. no dependence of the velocity of light on the direction has b...
Download Free PDF View PDF

Old and New Concepts of Physics
Michelson-Morley Experiment Revisited

2007 •

Bogusław Broda
Download Free PDF View PDF
A ug 2 00 7 Michelson – Morley experiment revisited ∗

2007 •

Bogusław Broda

The idea of the Michelson–Morley experiment is theoretical ly reanalyzed. Elementary arguments are put forward to precisely derive the most general allowable f orm of the directional dependence of the oneway velocity of light. According to XIX-century physics light was supposed to prop agate in the aether, a mysterious medium devised especially for this purpose. As light was to travel w ith respect to the aether with a fixed velocity, an experiment was suggested to detect the dependence of the v elocity on the direction in a moving frame of the laboratory on the Earth. The experiment was proposed and the first time performed by Albert Michelson (a Nobel laureate, American physicist born in Poland) [1]. T he experiment is continually being repeated, known as the Michelson–Morley (MM) experiment, with ever in creasing accuracy and improved technical realization (see, e.g. [2]). The result is always the same, n egative, i.e. no dependence of the velocity of light on the direction has b...
Download Free PDF View PDF
Alternative explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment

Daquan Gao

The famous Michelson-Morley experiment has been reanalyzed by us. We show that the transverse beam of light follows a diagonal path because of addition of light and the movement of the source. If one adheres the principle that the speed of light is constant as generally believed, light in that experiment should have kept the original direction when it is emitted. Résumé: La célèbre expérience de Michelson-Morley a été réanalysés par nous. Nous montrons que la poutre transversale de la lumière suit un parcours en diagonale en raison de l'addition de la
Download Free PDF View PDF

Henok Tadesse
A Modified Michelson-Morley Experiment

2020 •

Henok Tadesse

The small fringe shifts observed in the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiments are dismissed by mainstream physicists as experimental artifacts. However, this interpretation is increasingly being challenged. Based on a new insight, simple and modified MM experiments are proposed that should give much larger fringe shifts, typically more than sixty fringe shifts. The mystery to increase the sensitivity of the conventional MM experiment is to slightly adjust the angular positions and the distances of the beam splitter and/or the mirrors so that the angle between the longitudinal light beam and the transverse light beam at the source is as large as possible, say 10-2 radians. This angle is very small in conventional MM experiments, making the experiments insensitive to absolute motion. Conventional theories such as ether theory and special relativity consider a single beam up to the beam splitter. The new theory, called Apparent Source Theory, has the potential to consistently explain many of the previously enigmatic and controversial light speed experiments. However, getting a non-mainstream theory accepted is a major challenge in physics today. The only way to possibly convince the scientific community is to test and confirm a unique prediction of the theory.
Download Free PDF View PDF
Michelson Morley experiment

George Mpantes

the abandonment of the ether hypothesis leads to epistimological diffculties....W.Wien physics without ether is not physic........ j.Stark ether is not a fantastic creation of a theoretical philoshopher it isvital to us ad the air we breathe
Download Free PDF View PDF
See Full PDF Download PDF
World Scientifc NEW JERSEY • LONDON • SINGAPORE • BEIJING • SHANGHAI • HONG KONG • TAIPEI • CHENNAI • TOKYO Michelson-Morley Experiments An Enigma for Physics and the History of Science Maurizio Consoli National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Italy Alessandro Pluchino University of Catania, Italy 11209_9789813278189_tp.indd 2 16/10/18 3:06 PM Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 193.206.209.7 on 01/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
Published by World Scientifc Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224 USA ofce: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 UK ofce: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. The cover shows the scheme of the modern Michelson–Morley experiment by H. Müller et al. in Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 020401 with the portraits of Albert Einstein and Hendrik Anton Lorentz. MICHELSON–MORLEY EXPERIMENTS An Enigma for Physics and the History of Science Copyright © 2019 by World Scientifc Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the publisher. For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher. ISBN 978-981-3278-18-9 For any available supplementary material, please visit https://www.worldscientifc.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/11209#t=suppl Desk Editor: Christopher Teo Typeset by Stallion Press Email: enquiries@stallionpress.com Printed in Singapore Christopher - 11209 - Michelson–Morley Experiments.indd 1 17-10-18 8:42:50 AM Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 193.206.209.7 on 01/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page v Preface Subtle is the Lord but malicious He is not. A. EINSTEIN, 1921 The Lord whose oracle is at Delphi neither reveals nor conceals but gives a sign. HERACLITUS, V Century B. C. In 1887 Michelson and Morley tried to detect in laboratory a small di ff erence of the velocity of light propagating in di ff erent directions that, according to classical physics, should have revealed the motion of the earth in the ether (“ether drift”). The result of their measurements, however, was much smaller than the classical prediction and considered as a typical instrumental artifact: a “null result”. This was crucial to stimulate the first, pioneering formulations of the relativistic e ff ects and, as such, represents a fundamental step in the history of science. Nowadays, this original experiment and its early repetitions performed at the turn of 19th and 20th centuries (by Miller, Kennedy, Illingworth, Joos...) are considered as a venerable, well understood historical chapter for which, at least from a physical point of view, there is nothing more to refine or clarify. All emphasis is now on the modern versions of these experiments, with lasers stabilized by optical cavities that, apparently, have confirmed the null result by improving by many orders of magnitude on the limits placed by those original measurements. v Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 193.206.209.7 on 01/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page vi vi Michelson-Morley Experiments Though, this is not necessarily true. In the original measurements, light was propagating in gaseous systems (air or helium at atmospheric pressure) while now, in modern experiments, light propagates in a high vacuum or inside solid dielectrics. Therefore, in principle, the di ff erence with the mod- ern experiments might not depend on the technological progress only but also on the di ff erent media that are tested thus preventing a straightforward comparison. This is even more true if one takes into account that, in the past, great- est experts (as Hicks and Miller) have seriously questioned the traditional null interpretation of the very early measurements. The observed “fringe shifts”, although much smaller than the predictions of classical physics, were often non negligible as compared to the extraordinary sensitivity of the interferometers. Therefore, in some alternative scheme, the small resid- uals could acquire a definite physical meaning. By starting from this observation, in the last few years we have for- mulated a new theoretical framework where these residual e ff ects could represent the first experimental indication for the earth motion within the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). In fact, in this alternative scheme, the small observed residuals show surprising correlations with the direct observations of the CMB dipole anisotropy with satellites in space. The possibility of finally linking the CMB with the existence of a fun- damental reference frame for relativity, and the substantial implications for the interpretation of non-locality in the quantum theory, would be of paramount importance. Therefore, we should preliminarily explain at least the key ingredients of our alternative scheme. First of all, one should not compare the data with the classical predic- tions but impose that all measurable e ff ects vanish exactly if the velocity of light c γ propagating in the various interferometers, or more precisely its two-way combination ¯ c γ , coincides with the basic parameter c entering Lorentz transformations. This is the ideal vacuum limit of a refractive in- dex N = 1 where no ether drift should be observed. Instead if ¯ c γ ̸ = c , as for instance in the presence of matter, where light gets absorbed and then re-emitted, nothing would really prevent a non-zero light anisotropy Δ ¯ c θ =¯ c γ ( π / 2+ θ ) − ¯ c γ ( θ ) ̸ = 0. Then, in the infinitesimal region N =1+  , which corresponds for instance to gaseous systems, one can expand Δ ¯ c θ in powers of the two small parameters  and β = v/c , v being the velocity of the laboratory system with respect to the hypothetical preferred frame. By simple symmetry arguments, this expansion leads to the relation | Δ ¯ c θ | c ∼ β 2 which is much Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 193.206.209.7 on 01/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page vii Preface vii smaller than the estimate | Δ ¯ c θ | class c ∼ β 2 / 2 of the classical calculation. To have an idea, for experiments in air at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, where  ∼ 2 . 8 · 10 - 4 , and for the typical projection v ∼ 300 km/s of the earth cosmic motion where β 2 = 10 - 6 , our estimate would still be about 17 times smaller than the classical prediction for the much smaller traditional orbital value v = 30 km/s where β 2 = 10 - 8 . For helium at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, where  ∼ 3 . 3 · 10 - 5 , our expectation would even be 150 times smaller. This could now explain the order of magnitude of the observed e ff ects. The other peculiar aspect of our analysis concerns the time dependence of the data. Here, the traditional view is that, for short-time observations of a few days, where there are no sizeable changes in the orbital motion, a genuine physical signal should precisely follow the slow and regular modula- tions induced by the earth rotation. The fringe shifts instead were showing an irregular behavior indicating sizeably di ff erent directions of the drift at the same hour on consecutive days so that statistical averages were much smaller than all individual values. Within the traditional view, this has al- ways represented a strong argument to interpret the measurements as mere instrumental artifacts. Again, however, there might be a logical gap. The relation between the macroscopic earth motion and the microscopic propagation of light in a laboratory depends on a complicated chain of e ff ects and, ultimately, on the physical nature of the vacuum. By comparing with the motion of a body in a fluid, the standard view corresponds to a form of regular, laminar flow where global and local velocity fields coincide. Instead, some arguments suggest that the physical vacuum might rather behave as a stochastic medium which resembles a highly turbulent fluid where large-scale and small-scale flows are only indirectly related. In this di ff erent perspective, with forms of turbulence which, as in most models, become statistically isotropic at small scales, the direction of the local drift is a completely random quantity that has no definite limit by combining a large number of observations. Thus, one should first analyze the data in phase and amplitude (which give respectively the instantaneous direction and magnitude of the drift) and then concentrate on the latter which is a positive-definite quantity and remains non-zero under any av- eraging procedure. In this alternative picture, a non-vanishing amplitude (i.e. definitely larger than the experimental resolution) is the signature to separate an irregular, but genuine, signal from instrumental noise. Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 193.206.209.7 on 01/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page viii viii Michelson-Morley Experiments By implementing these two ingredients, the classical experiments in gaseous systems can now become consistent with the earth velocity of 370 km/s deduced from the direct CMB observations. In particular, from a fit to Joos’s 1930 very precise observations (data collected during all 24 hours to cover the full sidereal day and recorded automatically by photocamera), we have also obtained some information on the angular parameters of the earth motion, namely right ascension α (fit − Joos) = (168 ± 30) degrees and angular declination γ (fit − Joos) = ( − 13 ± 14) degrees, to compare with the present values α (CMB) ∼ 168 degrees and γ (CMB) ∼− 7 degrees. This consistency gives good motivations for a new generation of dedicated exper- iments to reproduce the experimental conditions of those old measurements with today’s much greater accuracy. Meanwhile, waiting for this definitive test, we have tried to obtain a di ff erent check with modern experiments in vacuum . The point is that in the physical vacuum the velocity of light may still di ff er from the para- meter c of Lorentz transformations. This might be due to several reasons. For instance, some authors have suggested that the curvature observed in a gravitational field might represent a phenomenon which emerges from a fun- damentally flat space-time. This would be in analogy with some condensed- matter systems (such as moving fluids, Bose-Einstein condensates...) at length scales much larger than the size of their elementary constituents. In this picture, one expects a tiny vacuum refractivity  v ∼ 10 - 9 which accounts for the di ff erence between an apparatus in an ideal freely-falling frame and an apparatus on the earth surface. Then, if our interpretation of the classical experiments is correct, we would also expect a very small anisotropy | Δ ¯ c θ | v c ∼  v β 2 ∼ 10 - 15 which could be detected by measuring the frequency shift of two vacuum optical resonators. More precisely, in our picture, this is the expected magnitude of the instantaneous , irregular signal. Its statistical average | ⟨ Δ ¯ c θ ⟩ v | c after many observations should instead be much smaller, say 10 - 18 , 10 - 19 ..., and vanish in the limit of an infinite statistics. As we will illustrate, this expec- tation is consistent with the most recent room temperature and cryogenic vacuum experiments thus providing further support for our alternative in- terpretation. Now, as it is well known, symmetry arguments give often a good de- scription of phenomena independently of the underlying physical mecha- nisms. As such, our view of the classical experiments in gaseous systems, in terms of a light anisotropy | Δ ¯ c θ | c ∼ β 2 , does not necessarily contradict the standard interpretation of those old measurements as due to thermal Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 193.206.209.7 on 01/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page ix Preface ix disturbances. Indeed, these disturbances are also known to become smaller and smaller when  → 0. For this reason, and for the overall consistency of the data, the small temperature variations of a millikelvin in the air of the optical arms assumed by various authors (and never fully understood) to explain Miller’s Mt. Wil- son observations might have a non-local origin somehow associated with an absolute earth velocity v . After all, our motion within the CMB gives the same order of magnitude [ Δ T ( θ )] CMB ∼ ± 3 mK. As we will show, this thermal interpretation could provide a dynamical basis for the enhancement found in the gas case (i.e. the observed magnitudes | Δ ¯ c θ | air c = O (10 - 10 ) for air and | Δ ¯ c θ | helium c = O (10 - 11 ) for gaseous helium vs. the much smaller vac- uum value | Δ ¯ c θ | v c  10 - 15 ) and, at the same time, could also help to under- stand the di ff erences and the analogies with the most precise experiment in solid dielectrics where again an instantaneous value | Δ ¯ c θ | solid c  10 - 15 (as in the vacuum case) is presently observed. In this way, symmetry arguments, on the one hand, would motivate and, on the other hand, would find justi- fication in underlying physical mechanisms, with an overall increase of our understanding. We emphasize that this book is primarily a monograph about the physics of these experiments. However, the history of this research is also interesting and sometimes even dramatic for the strong personal commitment of some scientist. For this reason, several historical accounts have been included as a useful supplementary material. In conclusion, our work should motivate the reader to sharpen his own understanding of both classical and modern Michelson-Morley experiments. Then, it will become evident that their standard null interpretation, pre- sented in all textbooks and specialized reviews as the most evident scientific truth, is very far from obvious and most probably wrong. This is why these experiments represent an enigma for physics and the history of science. In view of their fundamental importance, we hope that our book will induce to refine substantially the experimental tests and the analysis of the data thus contributing to reach a higher level of collective awareness. Acknowledgments We thank our friends and colleagues Evelina Costanzo, Caroline Matheson, Angelo Pagano, Lorenzo Pappalardo and Andrea Rapisarda for many useful discussions and their precious collaboration. Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 193.206.209.7 on 01/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
b2530 International Strategic Relations and China’s National Security: World at the Crossroads b2530_FM.indd 6 01-Sep-16 11:03:06 AM This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 193.206.209.7 on 01/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page xi Contents Preface v 1. Chapter One 1 1.1 Premise ............................ 1 1.2 Lorentz vs. Einstein ..................... 5 1.3 Classical ether-drift experiments: Just null results? .... 7 1.4 A universal thermal gradient, the CMB and the vacuum structure ............................ 10 2. Chapter Two 15 2.1 Some historical notes on the (a)ether ............ 15 2.2 Descartes ........................... 16 2.3 Newton ............................ 18 2.4 Kant .............................. 23 2.5 Young and Fresnel ...................... 26 2.6 Maxwell ............................ 31 2.7 The turbulent-ether model .................. 34 3. Chapter Three 37 3.1 The idea of the ether drift ................. 37 3.2 Albert A. Michelson and his first 1881 experiment .... 38 3.3 The 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment .......... 44 3.4 A closer look at the Michelson-Morley data ........ 51 4. Chapter Four 59 4.1 The first Lorentzian version of relativity .......... 59 xi Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 193.206.209.7 on 01/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page xii xii Michelson-Morley Experiments 4.2 1905: Einstein’s special relativity .............. 62 4.3 Einstein and the ether .................... 65 5. Chapter Five 71 5.1 After Michelson-Morley: Morley − Miller (1902-1905) ... 71 5.2 Miller 1920 − 1925 ....................... 73 5.3 Tomaschek 1924 ........................ 77 5.4 Miller 1925 − 1926 ....................... 78 5.5 Kennedy-Illingworth 1926-1927 ............... 84 5.6 Piccard and Stahel 1926-1928 ................ 88 5.7 Michelson-Pease-Pearson 1926 − 1929 ............ 92 5.8 Joos 1930 ........................... 95 5.9 Criticism of Shankland’s criticism of Miller’s work .... 96 6. Chapter Six 99 6.1 The non-trivial vacuum of present particle physics .... 99 6.2 The Cosmic Microwave Background ............. 104 6.3 General aspects of the ether-drift experiments ....... 108 6.4 A modern version of Maxwell’s calculation ......... 111 6.5 A stochastic form of ether-drift ............... 115 6.6 Reconsidering the classical experiments ........... 119 6.7 Reanalysis of the Piccard-Stahel experiment ........ 121 6.8 Reanalysis of the MPP experiment ............. 125 6.9 Reanalysis of Joos’s experiment ............... 128 6.10 Summary of the classical ether-drift experiments ..... 140 6.11 A modern experiment with He-Ne lasers .......... 142 7. Chapter Seven 145 7.1 Modern experiments with vacuum optical resonators ... 145 7.2 An e ff ective refractivity for the physical vacuum ...... 148 7.3 Simulations of experiments with vacuum optical resonators 155 7.4 Gaseous media vs. vacuum and solid dielectrics ...... 160 7.5 Summary and conclusions .................. 165 Bibliography 171 Index 179 Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 193.206.209.7 on 01/14/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 1 Chapter 1 You, my honored Herr Michelson began this work when I was only a small boy, not even a meter high. It was you who led the physicists into new paths, and through your marvelous experimental labors prepared for the development of the relativity theory. You uncovered a dangerous weakness in the ether theory of light as it then existed, and stimulated the thoughts of H. A. Lorentz and Fitzgerald from which the special theory of relativity emerged. A. EINSTEIN, Speech in honor of Michelson, Pasadena,15 January 1931. 1.1 Premise The Michelson-Morley experiment [1] was designed to check Maxwell’s clas- sical prediction [2] that if the earth drifts in the ether with a velocity v there should be an anisotropy | Δ ¯ c θ | c ∼ v 2 c 2 of the two-way velocity of light in the earth frame 1 . Michelson’s idea was to detect this tiny e ff ect by observing the interference fringes of two light rays propagating back and forth along perpendicular directions. To introduce the argument, let us consider the two-way velocity of light ¯ c γ ( θ ). This is the only one that can be measured unambiguously and is 1 Actually, Maxwell’s estimate is larger by a factor of two than the standard classical prediction | Δ ¯ c θ | c ∼ v 2 2 c 2 , see Chapt.3. 1 Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 2 2 Michelson-Morley Experiments Fig. 1.1 The typical scheme of Michelson’s interferometer. defined in terms of the one-way velocity c γ ( θ ) as ¯ c γ ( θ )= 2 c γ ( θ ) c γ ( π + θ ) c γ ( θ )+ c γ ( π + θ ) (1.1) where θ represents the angle between the direction of light propagation and the earth velocity with respect to the hypothetical preferred frame Σ . By introducing the anisotropy Δ ¯ c θ =¯ c γ ( π / 2+ θ ) - ¯ c γ ( θ ) (1.2) there is a simple relation with the time di ff erence Δ t ( θ ) for light propagation back and forth along perpendicular rods of length D (see Fig.1.1) Δ t ( θ )= 2 D ¯ c γ ( θ ) - 2 D ¯ c γ ( π / 2+ θ ) ∼ 2 D c Δ ¯ c θ c (1.3) (where, in the last relation, we have assumed that light propagates in a medium of refractive index N =1+  , with   1). This gives the fringe patterns ( λ is the light wavelength) Δ λ ( θ ) λ ∼ 2 D λ Δ ¯ c θ c (1.4) and could be measured, in principle, by rotating the apparatus. The classical prediction (see e.g. [3] for a simple derivation) was  Δ λ ( θ ) λ  class ∼ D λ v 2 c 2 cos 2 θ (1.5) and, for the Michelson-Morley apparatus, the relevant value was ( D/ λ ) ∼ 2 · 10 7 . Therefore, for v = 30 km/s (the earth orbital velocity about the sun, Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 3 Chapter One 3 and consequently the minimum anticipated drift velocity) where v 2 /c 2 = 10 - 8 , under a 90 degree rotation, one was expecting a shift  Δ λ (0) λ - Δ λ ( π / 2) λ  class ∼ 2 D λ v 2 c 2 ∼ 0 . 4 (1.6) that would have been about hundred times larger than the extraordinary sensitivity of the apparatus, about ± 0 . 004 [1, 4, 5]. Instead, in the various experimental sessions, the observed shifts were about 10 ÷ 20 times smaller than expected [6, 7]. By using Eq.(1.5), these values were indicating earth velocities of about 6 ÷ 10 km/s which have no obvious interpretation. In addition, the observed pattern was irregular because observations performed at the same hour on consecutive days were showing sizeable di ff erences. The simultaneous presence of these two as- pects gave a strong argument to consider the data as typical instrumental e ff ects, i.e. a “null” result. The acceptance of this view, indicating a failure of the classical ideas and/or the non-existence of the ether, had a strong impact on the scientific ambiance and was crucial to stimulate the first, pioneering formulations of the relativistic length contraction and time dilation e ff ects, by Fitzgerald in 1889 [8], Lorentz in 1895 [9] and 1899 [10], Larmor in 1897 [11] and 1900 [12]. These original developments of the theory of the electromagnetic ether induced Lorentz in 1904 [13] and Poincar´ e in 1905 [14] to derive a particular set of transformations of the space-time coordinates (Lorentz Transformations) : “Applying one of such transformations amounts to an overall translation to the whole system. Then two frames, one at rest in the ether and one in uniform translation, become the perfect images of each other”. This statement of Poincar´ e in 1905 was the precise formalization of the Principle of Relativity, already proposed by him in La Science et l’Hypothese (Flammarion, Paris 1902) and at the 1904 St. Louis Conference [15] 2 . 2 Poincar´ e’s precise words to formulate this principle in his 1904 address are:“The prin- ciple of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion” [16]. In the same address, Poincar´ e was also concluding that “From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics, which would be, above all, characterized by this fact, that no velocity could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature could fall below the zero absolute, because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light” [16]. Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 4 4 Michelson-Morley Experiments This first historical phase and its relation with special relativity [17] can be well described by quoting, twice, Einstein himself. The first quotation is from his address to Michelson during a social gathering of scientists at the California Institute of Technology in mid-January 1931:“You, my honored Herr Michelson began this work when I was only a small boy, not even a meter high. It was you who led the physicists into new paths, and through your marvelous experimental labors prepared for the development of the relativity theory. You uncovered a dangerous weakness in the ether theory of light as it then existed, and stimulated the thoughts of H. A. Lorentz and Fitzgerald from which the special theory of relativity emerged” [18]. The second quotation is from an Einstein’s interview delivered in 1955, a few months before his death. When asked, once more, about his original view and the relation with previous work he said:“ There is no doubt that the theory of relativity, if we regard its development in retrospect, was ripe for discovery in 1905. Lorentz had already observed that the transforma- tions which later were known by his name were essential for the analysis of Maxwell equations and Poincar´ e had even penetrated deeper into these connections. Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz’ important work of 1895 but not his later work nor the consecutive investigations by Poincar´ e. In this sense my work of 1905 was independent. The new feature of it was the realization that the bearing of Lorentz transformations transcended its connection with Maxwell equations and was concerned with the nature of space and time in general. The new result was that Lorentz invariance was the general condition for any physical theory” [19]. Thus, one could summarize as follows: (i) the Michelson-Morley exper- iment was crucial for the first formulation of the relativistic e ff ects within the theory of the electromagnetic ether (ii) later on, by Einstein, relativ- ity was recognized as a doctrine of nature and formulated in an axiomatic form, free of any association with ether and electromagnetism 3 . 3 Over the years, Einstein made di ff erent statements about the inception of relativity and the possible influence that the Michelson-Morley experiment had on his views. For instance, Holton [5] reports the following sentence: “In my own development Michelson’s result has not had a considerable influence. I even do not remember if I knew of it at all when I wrote my first paper on the subject (1905). The explanation is that I was, for general reasons, firmly convinced that there does not exist absolute motion and my problem was only how this could be reconciled with our knowledge of electrodynamics. One can therefore understand why in my personal struggle Michelson’s experiment played no role or at least no decisive role”. At the same time, this other statement is reported by van Dongen [20]: “As a young man I was interested, as a physicist, in the question what is the nature of light, and, in particular, what is the nature of light with respect to bodies. That is, as a child I was already taught that light is subordinate to the oscillations of the Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 5 Chapter One 5 Such premise is essential to properly frame the Michelson-Morley ex- periment in the history of physics. At the same time, nowadays, there is the tendency to consider this fundamental experiment, and its classical repetitions at the beginning of 20th century by Miller [7], Illingworth [21], Joos [22] ... as an old, well understood historical chapter for which there is nothing more to refine or clarify. All emphasis is now on the modern versions of these experiments, with lasers stabilized by optical cavities (see e.g. [23] for a review), which apparently have improved by orders of mag- nitude on those original measurements [24]. However, a basic aspect has been overlooked by most authors. The various measurements were performed in di ff erent conditions, i.e. with light propagating in gaseous media (as in [1,7,21,22]) or in a high vacuum (as in [25–27]) or inside dielectrics with a large refractive index (as in [24, 30]) and there could be physical reasons which prevent a straightforward comparison. In this case, the di ff erence between old experiments (in gases) and modern experiments (in vacuum or solid dielectrics) might not depend on the technological progress only but also on the di ff erent media that were tested. Then, if the small residuals of those original experiments were not mere instrumental artifacts, there would be substantial implications for both physics and history of science. 1.2 Lorentz vs. Einstein Before going deeper into the analysis of the experiments, we want to add some general comment about Lorentz’ and Einstein’s views of relativity. Apart from all historical aspects, the basic di ff erence could simply be phrased as follows. In a “Lorentzian” approach, the relativistic e ff ects originate from the individual motion of each observer S’, S”...with respect to some preferred reference frame Σ , a convenient redefinition of Lorentz’ ether. Instead, according to Einstein, eliminating the concept of the ether as a preferred frame leads to interpret the same e ff ects as consequences of the relative motion of each pair of observers S’ and S”. light ether. If that is the case, then one should be able to detect it, and thus I thought about whether it would be possible to perceive through some experiment that the earth moves in the ether. But when I was a student, I saw that experiments of this kind had already been made, in particular by your compatriot, Michelson. He proved that one does not notice anything on earth that it moves, but that everything takes place on earth as if the earth is in a state of rest”. In spite of these contradictions, we trust in our synthesis (points i) and ii) above) which derives from two consistent Einstein’s citations and fits well with the historical evolution of the scientific ideas. Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 6 6 Michelson-Morley Experiments In spite of this di ff erence, it is generally assumed that there is a sub- stantial phenomenological equivalence between the two formulations. This point of view was, for instance, already clearly expressed by Ehrenfest in his lecture ‘On the crisis of the light ether hypothesis’ (Leyden, Decem- ber 1912) as follows: “So, we see that the ether-less theory of Einstein demands exactly the same here as the ether theory of Lorentz. It is, in fact, because of this circumstance, that according to Einstein’s theory an observer must observe exactly the same contractions, changes of rate, etc. in the measuring rods, clocks, etc. moving with respect to him as in the Lorentzian theory. And let it be said here right away and in all general- ity. As a matter of principle, there is no experimentum crucis between the two theories”. In fact, independently of all interpretative aspects, the basic quantitative ingredients, namely Lorentz transformations, are the same in both formulations. Then, one may get the impression that the present supremacy of Ein- stein’s interpretation depends on the null interpretation of the ether-drift experiments where one attempts to measure the “absolute” earth veloc- ity with respect to the hypothetical Σ . Though, this is not true. In a Lorentzian perspective, if the velocity of light c γ propagating in the vari- ous interferometers coincides with the basic parameter c entering Lorentz transformations, relativistic e ff ects conspire to make undetectable the in- dividual velocity parameter of each observer. For this reason, a null result of the ether-drift experiments should not automatically be interpreted as a confirmation of special relativity. The motion with respect to Σ might well remain unobservable, yet one could interpret relativity ‘´ a la Lorentz’. As emphasized by Bell [31], see also [32, 33], this change of perspective, which may be useful for pedagogical reasons, could also be crucial to recon- cile faster-than-light signals with causality [34,35] and thus provide a very di ff erent view of the apparent non-local aspects of the quantum theory [36]. In our context of the ether-drift experiments, we want to add one more remark about Einstein’s and Lorentz’ points of views. According to Ein- stein, the original hypothesis of a real, physical length contraction along the direction of motion, to compensate the di ff erence of the light velocity and thus explain the failure of the classical relation (1.5), was important from a historical point of view but highly unsatisfactory as ultimate ex- planation. For him, it was preferable to build the theory by postulating the impossibility-in-principle of discovering an absolute state of motion, or equivalently of assigning “a velocity vector to a point in empty space where electromagnetic processes take place” [17]. For Lorentz, on the other Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 7 Chapter One 7 hand, only a conspiracy of e ff ects, associated with the equality c γ = c , was preventing to detect the motion with respect to the ether which, however di ff erent might be from ordinary matter, is nevertheless endowed with a certain degree of substantiality. For this reason, in his view, “it seems nat- ural not to assume at starting that it can never make any di ff erence whether a body moves through the ether or not” [37]. Adopting such a “Lorentzian” open mind was for us an important moti- vation to undertake a re-analysis [38] of the early ether-drift experiments in gaseous media and check the claims of those experts [6,7] that over the years have seriously questioned the standard null interpretation. In their opinion, in fact, the fringe shifts were much smaller than the classical predictions but not always negligible as compared to the extraordinary sensitivity of the interferometers. This means that, in some alternative model, the small residuals can acquire a definite physical meaning. 1.3 Classical ether-drift experiments: Just null results? For our analysis of the ether-drift experiments, we shall rely on two basic assumptions, namely (i) the existence of a preferred frame Σ where light propagation is seen isotropic and (ii) the validity of Lorentz transforma- tions. This means that any anisotropy in the earth frame S ′ should vanish identically either when the earth velocity v = 0 (i.e. S ′ ≡ Σ ) or when N = 1, i.e. when c γ ≡ c 4 . The reason for the substantial suppression of the fringe shifts can then be understood by exploring the possible func- tional forms for the two-way velocity of light in the limit of refractive index N =1+  . With our premise, in fact, for   1, one can expand in powers of  and β = v/c and it is elementary to show, see [38,40] and the follow- ing Chap.6, that the leading term for a possible anisotropy of the two-way velocity of light is Δ ¯ c θ c ∼ β 2 cos 2 θ . (1.7) Therefore, the fringe shifts are now predicted Δ λ ( θ ) λ ∼ D λ 2  v 2 c 2 cos 2 θ (1.8) and are suppressed by the tiny factor 2  with respect to Eq.(1.5). As such, this basic di ff erence can be reabsorbed into an observable velocity v 2 obs ∼ 2  v 2 (1.9) 4 Actually, De Abreu and Guerra have shown [39] that the null result of a Michelson- Morley experiment in an ideal vacuum can be deduced without using Lorentz transfor- mations, but only from general assumptions on the choice of the admissible clocks. Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 8 8 Michelson-Morley Experiments which depends on the refractive index and is the one traditionally reported in the classical analysis of the data. More precisely, one can define the observable velocity v obs through the relation Δ λ ( θ ) λ ∼ D λ v 2 obs c 2 cos 2 θ (1.10) to make clear that this is the velocity extracted from the fringe shifts. In classical physics one has v obs = v , where v is the kinematical velocity. However, in other contexts the two quantities are di ff erent. In any case, due to the formal properties of the two way velocity of light, the fringe shifts should represent a 2nd-harmonic e ff ect, i.e. periodic in θ in the range [0 , π ], with amplitude A 2 ∼ D λ v 2 obs c 2 . (1.11) Notice also that in the classical experiments, where one was always assuming the identity v obs = v , it was customary to formulate predictions for the orbital earth velocity v = 30 km/s. For this reason, we will often refer to the classical expected amplitude A class 2 ∼ D λ (30 km / s) 2 c 2 (1.12) as a convenient reference value to compute the observable velocity from the experimental amplitude A EXP 2 through the relation v obs ∼ 30 km / s  A EXP 2 A class 2 . (1.13) The main conclusion of this discussion is that those small observable velocities obtained from the measured fringe shifts, typically v obs =6 ÷ 10 km/s for experiments in air (where  is about 2 . 8 · 10 - 4 ) and v obs =2 ÷ 3 km/s for experiments in helium (where  is about 3 . 3 · 10 - 5 ), can now become consistent with the average kinematical earth velocity v ∼ 370 km/s obtained by studying, with aircraft and satellites, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Apart from the order of magnitude of the fringe shifts, another impor- tant aspect concerns the time dependence of the data. Traditionally, it has been always assumed that, for short-time observations of a few days, where there are no sizeable changes in the earth orbital velocity, the time dependence of a genuine physical signal should reproduce the slow and regular modulations induced by the earth rotation. The data instead, for Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 9 Chapter One 9 both classical and modern experiments, have always shown a very irregu- lar behavior. As a consequence, all statistical averages are much smaller than the instantaneous values. This di ff erence, between individual measure- ments and statistical averages, has always represented a strong argument to interpret the data as mere instrumental artifacts. However, again, could there be an alternative interpretative scheme? A possibility, would be to characterize the signal as in the standard simula- tions adopted to model turbulent flows. This idea derives from realizing that, at the most fundamental level, light propagation (e.g. inside an op- tical cavity) takes place in that substratum which we could call physical vacuum 5 . This is dragged along the earth motion but, so to speak, is not rigidly connected with the solid parts of the apparatus as fixed in the laboratory. Therefore, if one would try to characterize its local state of motion, say v μ ( t ), this does not necessarily coincide with the projection of the global earth motion, say ˜ v μ ( t ), at the observation site. The latter is a smooth function while the former, v μ ( t ), in principle is unknown. By comparing with the motion of a body in a fluid, the equality v μ ( t )=˜ v μ ( t ) amounts to assume a form of regular, laminar flow where global and local velocity fields coincide. Though, this is not necessarily true. For instance, it would be natural to compare the physical vacuum to a fluid with vanishing viscosity (or infinite Reynolds number for any flow velocity). But, within the framework of the Navier-Stokes equation, the picture of a laminar flow is by no means obvious due to the subtlety of the zero-viscosity limit, see for instance the discussion given by Feynman in Sec. 41.5, Vol.II of his Lectures [41]. The reason is that the velocity field of such a hypothetical fluid cannot be a di ff erentiable function [42]. Instead, one should think in terms of a continuous, nowhere di ff erentiable function 6 , similar to an ideal Brownian path [43]. This leads to the idea of the vacuum as a fundamental stochastic medium, somehow similar to a highly turbulent fluid, consistently with some basic foundational aspects of both quantum physics and relativity [45]. For these reasons, it becomes conceivable that, as in turbulent flows, the local v μ ( t ) exhibits random fluctuations while the global ˜ v μ ( t ) just deter- mines its typical limiting boundaries. Although the random v μ ( t ) cannot 5 Maxwell’s original argument in favor of an ether was indeed considering this basic aspect of light propagation [2]. 6 Onsager’s argument relies on the impossibility, in the zero-viscosity limit, to satisfy the inequality | v ( x + l ) - v ( x ) | < (const . ) l n , with n> 1 / 3. Kolmogorov’s theory [44] corresponds to n =1 / 3. Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 10 10 Michelson-Morley Experiments be computed exactly, one could still estimate its statistical properties by numerical simulations [38, 45]. To this end, one could start by assuming forms of turbulence or intermittency which, as it is generally accepted in the limit of zero viscosity, become statistically isotropic at small scales. In this way, see the following Chap.6, one could easily explain the irregular character of the data because, whatever the macroscopic earth motion, the average of all vectorial quantities (such as the fringe shifts at the various angles) would tend to zero by increasing more and more the statistics. In this framework, is not surprising that from instantaneous measurements of given magnitude one ends up with smaller and smaller statistical averages. This trend, by itself, might not imply that there is no physical signal. 1.4 A universal thermal gradient, the CMB and the vacuum structure Now, it is well known that symmetry arguments, of the type used to derive Eq.(1.7), can provide a successful description of phenomena independently of the particular dynamics. Still, one may wonder about the underlying physical mechanisms. Namely, when considering light propagation in a gas, why there should be an anisotropy in the earth laboratory where (the container of) the gas is at rest? For instance, a possibility is that the electromagnetic field of the in- coming radiation produces di ff erent polarizations in di ff erent directions de- pending on the state of motion of the medium. Such mechanism should act in both weakly bound gaseous matter and strongly bound solid dielectrics with the final conclusion that light anisotropy would increase proportionally to the refractivity of the medium. This is in contrast with the result of the Shamir-Fox [30] experiment in perspex where no particular enhancement was observed (with respect to the Michelson-Morley experiment in air). As an alternative possibility, it was noted in [38,40] (see also Chap.6) that the trend in Eq.(1.7) is just a special case of a more general struc- ture where light anisotropy originates from convective currents of the gas molecules, along the optical paths, associated with an absolute velocity v . Therefore, on the basis of the traditional thermal interpretation 7 of the residuals, and of the consistency of the kinematical velocities obtained 7 The idea that temperature di ff erences along the optical paths could be crucial dates back to Helmholtz, already at the time of the first 1881 Michelson [46] experiment in Potsdam. The same emphasis on temperature di ff erences is also found in the critical reanalysis of Miller’s observations performed by Shankland et al. [47]. Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 11 Chapter One 11 from measurements in di ff erent laboratories and di ff erent conditions, it be- comes conceivable that such universal e ff ect in gaseous systems reflects the existence of a non-local thermal gradient. At the beginning, the ultimate explanation for the sought non-local thermal gradient was searched for [38, 40] in the fundamental energy flow which, on the basis of general arguments, is expected in a quantum vacuum which is not exactly Lorentz invariant and thus sets a fundamental preferred reference frame (see Chap.6). Later on, however, it was argued [48] that the required physical mech- anism could perhaps be related to the temperature variations associated with the CMB kinematic dipole [49–51] . This is interpreted as a Doppler e ff ect due to a motion of the solar system with average velocity v ∼ 370 km/s toward a point in the sky of right ascension α ∼ 168 o and declination γ ∼- 7 o and produces angular variations of a few millikelvin which would fit well with the typical magnitude of the periodic temperature di ff erences in the air of the optical arms, about (1 ÷ 2) mK [47,52], which in principle could explain away the typical fringe shifts observed by Miller at Mount Wilson 8 . To check this interpretation, a new generation of dedicated experiments is needed to reproduce the experimental conditions of those early measure- ments with today’s much greater accuracy. The essential ingredient is that the optical resonators which nowadays are coupled to the lasers should be filled by gaseous media. Such experiments would be along the lines of ref. [53] where just the use of optical cavities filled with di ff erent forms of matter was considered as a useful complementary tool to study deviations from exact Lorentz invariance. In these modern ether-drift experiments one looks for a possible anisotropy of the two-way velocity of light through the relative frequency shift Δ ν ( θ ) of two orthogonal optical resonators (for a review see e.g. [23]). In units of their natural frequency ν 0 , we thus predict a frequency shift  Δ ν ( θ ) ν 0  gas ∼  Δ ¯ c θ c  gas ∼ ( N gas - 1) ( v 2 /c 2 ) cos 2 θ . (1.14) 8 We emphasize that our interpretation of light anisotropy Δ ¯ c θ c ∼  v 2 /c 2 in gaseous sys- tems, as originating from a non-local thermal gradient, applies to all classical ether-drift experiments and not just to Miller’s Mount Wilson measurements. This is an important di ff erence with the standard point of view, deriving from the article of the Shankland team [47], which tends to distinguish sharply Miller’s observations from all other ex- periments. These aspects will be discussed in great detail in the following Chaps.5, 6 and 7. Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 12 12 Michelson-Morley Experiments This type of thermal interpretation would also explain why the same trend Δ ¯ c θ c ∼ ( N - 1) v 2 /c 2 does not extend to experiments in solid di- electrics, where the refractivity N - 1 is of order unity, as with the men- tioned Shamir-Fox [30] experiment in perspex ( N =1 . 5). In this case, in fact, a small temperature gradient would mainly dissipate by heat conduc- tion without generating any appreciable particle motion or light anisotropy in the rest frame of the apparatus. Hence, the non-trivial physical dif- ference between classical experiments (in gaseous systems) and modern experiments (in a very high vacuum or in solid dielectrics). Now, conceptually, explaining the residuals of the classical ether-drift experiments as non-local thermal e ff ects, eventually related to the CMB temperature dipole, is di ff erent from introducing a preferred frame through a Lorentz-non-invariant vacuum state. To try to disentangle the two mech- anisms, we have thus started to look at experiments where optical cavities are maintained in an extremely high vacuum, both at room temperature and in the cryogenic regime. The reason is that, in this limit, where any residual gaseous matter is totally negligible, a temperature gradient of a millikelvin cannot produce any observable light anisotropy. Therefore, if some infinitesimal e ff ect still persists, the idea of a fundamental preferred frame would find additional support. As a definite scenario to analyze these experiments, one can again con- sider the same scheme where ¯ c γ ̸ = c so that the ideal equality N = 1 does not hold exactly in the physical vacuum. As a possible motivation, it was proposed [57] that an e ff ective vacuum value N v =1+  v , with  v ∼ 10 - 9 , could reveal the di ff erent refractivity between an apparatus in an ideal freely-falling frame and an apparatus on the earth surface. This di ff erence is expected if the curvature observed in a gravitational field is an emergent phenomenon from a fundamentally flat space-time. Then, the existence of a preferred frame would imply in our picture a definite, instantaneous | Δ ¯ c θ | c ∼  v β 2 ∼ 10 - 15 which coexists with a much smaller statistical aver- age | ⟨ Δ ¯ c θ c ⟩ |  10 - 15 . By assuming the same form of cosmic motion as for the classical experiments, in the following Chap.7, this expectation will be shown to be consistent with our numerical simulations of the most recent room temperature and cryogenic vacuum experiments. Likewise, the existence of a fundamental 10 - 15 instantaneous signal, with very precise measurements, should also show up in solid dielectrics where, as anticipated, there should be no particular enhancement with re- spect to the vacuum case. This expectation is consistent with the cryogenic experiment of ref. [24] where most electromagnetic energy propagates in a Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
November 26, 2018 20:53 Michelson-Morley Experiments 9in x 6in b3435-main page 13 Chapter One 13 solid with a refractive index N ∼ 3 (at microwave frequencies) but again a 10 - 15 instantaneous signal is observed. To conclude this introductive chapter, we emphasize that, apart from its relevance for our view of relativity and for the history of science, a check of our predictions could have other non-trivial implications. In fact, sup- pose some future experiment would confirm the unambiguous detection of a universal signal in gaseous systems as in Eq.(1.14). In our interpretation, this would mean that light propagation in gaseous systems is modified due to a non-local temperature gradient, somehow associated with our motion within the CMB. But, of course, all physical systems on the moving earth would also be exposed to the same energy flow. This is very weak to- day but was substantially larger in the past when the temperature of the CMB was much higher. For this reason, one may speculate [58] on the role that this gradient might have played for the chemistry of liquid wa- ter. More in general, it is known [59,60] that an external energy flow can induce forms of spontaneous self-organization in matter. In this sense, a universal thermal gradient could increase the e ffi ciency of physical systems and provide a microscopic, dynamical mechanism to produce those macro- scopic aspects (self-organized criticality, large-scale fluctuations, fat-tailed probability density functions...) which characterize the behavior of many complex systems, see e.g. [61–65] . In the following, we will start in Chap.2 with some historical accounts on the ether conceptions that finally, at the end of XIX century, gave the motivation for the ether-drift experiments. In Chap.3, we will concentrate on Michelson, on his early attempts to measure an ether-drift and on the original Michelson-Morley experiment. In Chap.4, we will briefly comment on the inception of relativity and on its implications for the analysis of the experiments. In Chap.5 we will report on the early repetitions of the Michelson- Morley experiment and on their traditional interpretation. In Chap.6, we will re-consider the whole issue from scratch by intro- ducing a modern formalism to re-interpret both the classical ether-drift experiments and the modern versions with optical resonators. Finally, in Chap.7, we will extend our analysis to the present exper- iments in vacuum and solid dielectrics by discussing in more detail the various aspects briefly illustrated above. Michelson–Morley Experiments Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 192.84.150.12 on 01/23/19. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
RELATED PAPERS
A Michelson-Morley Type Experiment Should be Performed in Low Earth Orbit and Interplanetary Space

James Marsen
Download Free PDF View PDF
Relativistic analysis of Michelson-Morley experiments and Miller's cosmic solution for the Earth's motion

2003 •

Maurizio Consoli
Download Free PDF View PDF
SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS NOT NECESSARY FOR MICHELSON AND MORLEY EXPERIMENT

Subhendu Das
Download Free PDF View PDF

Physics Letters A
On the interpretation of Michelson–Morley experiments

2001 •

Mark Haugan
Download Free PDF View PDF
A SECOND REVIEW OF MICHELSON-MORLEY (MM), SAGNAC AND MICHELSON-GALE-PEARSON (MGP) EXPERIMENTS

Musa D. Abdullahi
Download Free PDF View PDF
Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame

2002 •

Kirsty Kitto , Reginald T Cahill
Download Free PDF View PDF
Light Aberration Without Source Observer Relative Motion Solving the Contradiction Between the Michelson-Morley and the Sagnac Experiments Making Special Relativity Unnecessary

2014 •

Henok Tadesse
Download Free PDF View PDF
Relativity replaced; Ether found around Earth: I. Numerous reasons to abandon Einstein's Relativity Theories. II. Pre-relativistic physics offers entire the "relativistic" experience. III. Verification of Stokes' (1845) 'terrestrial luminiferous ether' by three or more experiments. Astronomical a...

Antonis Agathangelidis
Download Free PDF View PDF
The Michelson-Morley Experiment, Moving Source Experiments and Emission Theory of Light

Henok Tadesse
Download Free PDF View PDF
A Criticism of "Gas Mode" Reinterpretations of the Michelson-Morley and Similar Experiments

2014 •

Daniel Shanahan
Download Free PDF View PDF

European Physical Journal Plus
The classical ether-drift experiments: A modern re-interpretation

2013 •

Maurizio Consoli
Download Free PDF View PDF

Henok Tadesse
Disproof of the Principle and Theory of Relativity. Has the Michelson-Morley Experiment been Serving to Protect the Wrong Theory?

2023 •

Henok Tadesse
Download Free PDF View PDF
Theory of relativity

Tejbeer Manchanda
Download Free PDF View PDF
Relativistic and Non-relativistic Explanations of the Results of Michelson-Morley, Rogers, Bertozzi, Sagnac and Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiments

2004 •

Musa D. Abdullahi
Download Free PDF View PDF

Failures in physics
Failures in physics How errors in Michelson-Morley's tests gave us time dilation

2024 •

John-Erik Persson
Download Free PDF View PDF

Henok Tadesse
Explanation of the "Null" Result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment - Apparent Source Theory

Henok Tadesse
Download Free PDF View PDF
Explaining Michelson-Morley without Special Relativity

Sanjay Wagh
Download Free PDF View PDF
Results of Michelson-Morley & Sagnac Experiments Contradict the Relativistic Principle of Constancy of Speed of Light

Musa D. Abdullahi
Download Free PDF View PDF

How detect the Ether , The Einstein simultaneity and the Michelson Morley Experiment was wrong
How detect the Ether and how explain Einstein Simultaneity and the Michelson Morley Experiment

2018 •

Rafael José Rodríguez
Download Free PDF View PDF

Unsinkable Ether and Unthinkable Photon
Unsinkable Ether and Unthinkable Photon Michelson-Morley's experiments (MMX

2019 •

John-Erik Persson
Download Free PDF View PDF
An Absolute Space Interpretation (with NonZero Photon Mass) of the Non-Null Results of Michelson-Morley and Simi- lar Experiments: An Extension of Vigier's Proposal

1997 •

Hector A Munera
Download Free PDF View PDF

Applied Physics Research; Vol. 8, No. 3; 2016
Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley Type Experiments

2016 •

Gurcharn Sandhu
Download Free PDF View PDF
Michelson-Morley experiment proves light speed is not constant

Subhendu Das
Download Free PDF View PDF
The Other Michelson Experiment

2019 •

Monty Frost
Download Free PDF View PDF

How experiments drag on: Pieter Zeeman's Experiments on Einstein's theory of speciale relativity, SIS Bulletin No 143, pp 38-43
How experiments drag on: Pieter Zeeman's experiments on Einstein theory of special relativity

2019 •

Ad Maas , Beto Pimentel
Download Free PDF View PDF

    About
    Press
    Blog
    People
    Papers
    Topics
      We're Hiring!
      Help Center

    Find new research papers in:
    Physics
    Chemistry
    Biology
    Health Sciences
    Ecology
    Earth Sciences
    Cognitive Science
    Mathematics
    Computer Science

    Terms
    Privacy
    Copyright
    Academia ©2024