0
$\begingroup$

I have been reading about Michelson Morley experiment. According to the explanation given in that book the experiment tried to detect ether wind when earth was moving through ether. But doesn't that assume that matter interacts with ether to create this ether wind. I we assume that ether doesn't interact with matter but only propagates light then there would be no wind to detect in the first place. Please someone explain to me why ether cant be a medium which does not interact with matter but only propagates light?

Below are two images showing ether interacting with matter and not interacting. Ether wind is only created when matter interacts with ether. Why can't the explanation that ether doesn't interact with matter be a solution to the ether problem? (I am sorry if the answer to this question is very basic. I am not a physicist. I just want to understand this qualitatively. I tried searching this on Internet but I could not find any answer.) enter image description here

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ you have demonstrated one of the fundamental problems that physicists in michelson & morley's time had in trying to come up with a plausible description of the ether and its interactions with matter. Well done! there are a number of books about physics containing sections which deal with the implications of M&M's experiment and how people struggled unsuccessfully to make sense of it in terms of the properties which the ether had to possess. Try searching for references on "ether drag". $\endgroup$ – niels nielsen Oct 29 '17 at 6:15
1
$\begingroup$

The effect which has been tried to be measured was similar to the following: Imagine a plane going from south to north and then back from north to south. You can calculate that if there is wind blowing from south to north all the time, the plane will be slower than without wind. It will be accelerated on the way there and decelerated on the way back but the effects do not exactly cancel out, the deceleration effect is stronger because the plane spends more time for the way back.

The M&M experiment tried to measure this effect. In the plane and wind example what was essential was interaction between plane and air. In the actual M&M experiment the essential part is the interaction between light (corresponds to the plane) and ether (corresponds to the air). Turned out, there is none. So, my point is, it doesn't matter if ether interacts with matter, what matters is, if it interacts with light or not, and according to M&M it doesn't. But if it doesn't it cannot be the medium light propagates through and we can remove it from our model altogether.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ ok. So light is equivalent to the plane in this example. But I am talking about still ether. There is light and there is ether. In the analogy light is equivalent to plane, ether is equivalent to air. But wind in air is caused by something. So what is causing wind in the ether because if we assume ether does not interact with any matter how would wind be generated in the ether which is the basis of Michelson Morley experiment. $\endgroup$ – serbia99 Oct 29 '17 at 6:27
  • $\begingroup$ Ether wind was thought to be generated by the movement of earth with respect to the ether. If you stand on an open platform of a moving train, air will move with respect to you generating wind, no matter if you can feel it (due to wind matter interaction) or not. $\endgroup$ – Photon Oct 29 '17 at 7:29
  • $\begingroup$ I would move with respect to air. But since we assume air doesn't interact with me the air itself will be still. So any vibrations generated by the source would travel at the speed at which it should travel in air (a moving source will only produce doppler effect and does not affect speed). So why would you expect the speed of light to increase or decrease? (Again. If this is a silly question please tell me why it is?) $\endgroup$ – serbia99 Oct 29 '17 at 7:48
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think it matters if air interacts with you. There is a relative velocity between you and the air, no matter if you interact with it or not. Important is just if light/sound (whatever analogy we are looking at) is interacting with the medium or not. $\endgroup$ – Photon Oct 30 '17 at 6:47
1
$\begingroup$

But doesn't that assume that matter interacts with ether to create this ether wind?

No. It is simply enough to note that there is no frame which is at rest relative to all reference frames. In Galilean relativity, a body's observed speed is in general changed by a change in the observer's motion state: a change is wrought unless the motion state change is defined by a very special velocity vector that adds to the observed velocity vector to bear the latter along an equal-speed circle. An there is no observer motion state change that will preserve the speeds of two or more general equal speed bodies.

Actually in most aether theories, it was pretty essential and obvious that aether did not interact with what physicists called "matter" in the nineteenth centuries - otherwise there would be all kinds of observable effects such as drag and force of otherwise unexplained origin on material bodies, and that's not what science - even in the nineteenth century - observed.

Ultimately, for all the discussion of the Michelson-Morely experiment and all the considerations that led to special relativity, the only property an aether needed to have was to merely define a frame of reference relative to which light would have the propagation speed foretold by the relevant dynamical equations, i.e. Maxwell's equations. Later, even this property was eviscerated when Lorentz formulated Lorentz Aether Theory which is identical in its experimental predictions to special relativity. User ACuriousMind summarizes this theory, and why special relativity is preferred, in his answer here. Also, some more information in my answer here.

Once Maxwell postulated his electromagnetic theory, there is a definite prediction of the speed $1/\sqrt{\mu_0\,\epsilon_0}$ of light and so one cannot easily avoid the question, "what frame is this predicted speed relative to?". One could not avoid the question in the nineteenth century because in Galilean relativity observed speeds generally changed by a change of the observer's motion state. And then, in the nineteenth century, one would look to other known wave phenomena - most notably acoustic waves - and witness that the speed of propagation predicted from the dynamic equations was always a speed relative to a certain frame, namely that which the acoustic medium was at rest in. So the natural inductive step was to assume that for light too there had to be some privileged reference frame at which light would move at speed $1/\sqrt{\mu_0\,\epsilon_0}$ relative to. Note that Maxwell's equations would accordingly change their form in frames other than this one, as is so for acoustic waves in frames other than the one at rest relative to the medium.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Checkout Paul LaViolette's "sub-quantum kinetics" theory. $\endgroup$ – Tomachi Jul 26 '18 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ In 2009 when German scientist Martin Grusenick conducted an interferometer experiment that proved the existence of an ether and that indicated the presence of an ether wind oriented vertical to the Earth’s surface. etheric.com/grusenick-experiment-proves-existence-ether $\endgroup$ – Tomachi Jul 26 '18 at 15:25
0
$\begingroup$

Eventually, the only sensible way to deal with this conundrum is to dispense entirely with what is essentially an arbitrary and improper distinction between 'matter' and 'light', and indeed any other quality of phenomenal reality, and to conceive 'a priori' of a 'unitary universal substance' or singular fabric of which all of reality is comprised; and to appreciate the essential truth that the reason that the ultimate qualitative nature of this substance cannot ever be discriminated is because we too are composed entirely and exclusively of it. Nonetheless, the principles of its dynamics are not only readily observable but more-or-less fully comprehensible according to the primary principle of 'resonance' which must operate universally and definitively within it.

All relative motion is that within such a substance, effectively between its components, and ultimately subject to meaningful analysis only according to relations in 'phase' within such a unitary frame. What the Michelson-Morley experiment and its 'null result' evidently demonstrated--on a variety of questionable assumptions--was only the truth that nothing, including the Earth itself, can move relatively to such a substance.

With respect to the ostensible distinction between 'light' (or EMR generally) and what is defined as 'matter' (according to given properties generally reducible to assumptions regarding its relation to applied or theoretically implied forces) is, as all else in such a conception, only that between 'degrees or levels of resonance' between components of such a 'unitary substance' which must eventually be reduced to components of a correspondingly unitary force (which become effectively 'polarities'); broadly, the greater the degree of such resonance, the closer to a state (of 'energy' or 'distribution' of such components) in which light propagates as if 'freely in space'. That is, the ideas of 'light' and 'matter' are eventually inextricable.

$\endgroup$

protected by Qmechanic Oct 29 '17 at 7:00

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.