Skip to main content
Physics

Return to Question

added 190 characters in body
Source Link
Geremia
Geremia
  • 2.2k
  • 2
  • 17
  • 28

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not seem to be a null-result. Here is what Michelson and Morey say in their 1887 paper:

the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

In the absence of further constraints on the upper limit, how is a 0.01 or 0.02 displacement in the fringes a null-result?

Did the following later experiments constrain Michelson and Morley's upper bound on the displacement of the fringes?

  • Sagnac 1913
  • Miller 1921-26
  • Tomaschek 1924
  • Kennedy 1926
  • Piccard 1926
  • Illingworth 1927
  • Zeeman 1927
  • Michelson 1926-29
  • Joos 1930

cf. "Why do the Michelson-Morley (1887) & Michelson-Gale (1925) experiments both measure non-zero fringe shifts?"

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not seem to be a null-result. Here is what Michelson and Morey say in their 1887 paper:

the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

In the absence of further constraints on the upper limit, how is a 0.01 or 0.02 displacement in the fringes a null-result?

Did the following later experiments constrain Michelson and Morley's upper bound on the displacement of the fringes?

  • Sagnac 1913
  • Miller 1921-26
  • Tomaschek 1924
  • Kennedy 1926
  • Piccard 1926
  • Illingworth 1927
  • Zeeman 1927
  • Michelson 1926-29
  • Joos 1930

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not seem to be a null-result. Here is what Michelson and Morey say in their 1887 paper:

the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

In the absence of further constraints on the upper limit, how is a 0.01 or 0.02 displacement in the fringes a null-result?

Did the following later experiments constrain Michelson and Morley's upper bound on the displacement of the fringes?

  • Sagnac 1913
  • Miller 1921-26
  • Tomaschek 1924
  • Kennedy 1926
  • Piccard 1926
  • Illingworth 1927
  • Zeeman 1927
  • Michelson 1926-29
  • Joos 1930

cf. "Why do the Michelson-Morley (1887) & Michelson-Gale (1925) experiments both measure non-zero fringe shifts?"

added 58 characters in body
Source Link
Geremia
Geremia
  • 2.2k
  • 2
  • 17
  • 28

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not seem to be a null-result. Here is what Michelson and Morey say in their 1887 paper:

the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

HowIn the absence of further constraints on the upper limit, how is a 0.01 or 0.02 displacement in the fringes a null-result?

Did the following later experiments constrain Michelson and Morley's upper bound on the displacement of the fringes?

  • Sagnac 1913
  • Miller 1921-26
  • Tomaschek 1924
  • Kennedy 1926
  • Piccard 1926
  • Illingworth 1927
  • Zeeman 1927
  • Michelson 1926-29
  • Joos 1930

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not seem to be a null-result. Here is what Michelson and Morey say in their 1887 paper:

the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

How is a 0.01 or 0.02 displacement in the fringes a null-result?

Did the following later experiments constrain Michelson and Morley's upper bound on the displacement of the fringes?

  • Sagnac 1913
  • Miller 1921-26
  • Tomaschek 1924
  • Kennedy 1926
  • Piccard 1926
  • Illingworth 1927
  • Zeeman 1927
  • Michelson 1926-29
  • Joos 1930

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not seem to be a null-result. Here is what Michelson and Morey say in their 1887 paper:

the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

In the absence of further constraints on the upper limit, how is a 0.01 or 0.02 displacement in the fringes a null-result?

Did the following later experiments constrain Michelson and Morley's upper bound on the displacement of the fringes?

  • Sagnac 1913
  • Miller 1921-26
  • Tomaschek 1924
  • Kennedy 1926
  • Piccard 1926
  • Illingworth 1927
  • Zeeman 1927
  • Michelson 1926-29
  • Joos 1930
Source Link
Geremia
Geremia
  • 2.2k
  • 2
  • 17
  • 28

Why is the Michelson-Morley experiment considered a null-result?

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not seem to be a null-result. Here is what Michelson and Morey say in their 1887 paper:

the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

How is a 0.01 or 0.02 displacement in the fringes a null-result?

Did the following later experiments constrain Michelson and Morley's upper bound on the displacement of the fringes?

  • Sagnac 1913
  • Miller 1921-26
  • Tomaschek 1924
  • Kennedy 1926
  • Piccard 1926
  • Illingworth 1927
  • Zeeman 1927
  • Michelson 1926-29
  • Joos 1930