Talk:Michelson–Morley experiment

Math

I've removed two sections that were recently copied from Wikibooks (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Aether#Mathematical_analysis_of_the_Michelson_Morley_Experiment). It's also partially redundant to the preceding and following sections (see Fallout). I would rather suggest to expand the already existing formulas, if necessary. --D.H (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please restore it

All the math in the article shows why the experiment was expected to give a NON-NULL (incorrect) result. The section inserted shows the CORRECT interpretation, that confirms the NULL result. If you don't like it, I suggest that you edit it but do not delete it. Never mind, I see you added a link to the wikibooks section, this is good enough .

We much appreciate your efforts to improve the article. D.H has just finished some major rearrangements of the article to improve its logical flow, largely in response to your concerns. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately,the article is missing a center piece, THE EXPLANATION OF THE NULL RESULT. It has all the wrong explanations but it misses the correct explanation. Not very good article, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tach123 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The explanation was of course already included in the "fallout" section under "length contraction and Lorentz transformation", which you probably overlooked. Therefore I moved it upwards. --D.H (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean this: "So while the light may indeed transit slower on that arm, it also ends up travelling a shorter distance that exactly cancels out the drift. Therefore the light propagation times in different directions become the same"? This is a terrible explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tach123 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's very much "aether jargon". I agree that this can be better formulated in the context of special relativity, and accordingly rewrote this passage and included another. --D.H (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You should also note the historical context of the article: It demonstrates the search for aether drift and its failure, and then it shows the steps to reach the Lorentz transformation and Einstein's radical reinterpretation of the formulas. --D.H (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The title is "Michelson-Morley Experiment". There is a "historical" part, it is missing the "modern" explanation" (more exactly, the modern explanation is quite bad). By contrast, the wikibooks explanation I tried to add in is much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tach123 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what Wikipedia is all about. See what you and D.H can work out together to improve this section in a mutually agreeable fashion, while I (as usual) stick to the peripheral issues and the occasional custom illustration. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do remember that some of the Wikibooks material that you had pasted in was quite bad from an historical standpoint. Michelson, Morley, and most other early experimentalists had compelling reasons for performing their interferometric measurements using white light. We need a proper balance between historical and modern. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense mixed with non-sequitur. D.H. is contradicting you in his post below. Tach123 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What is non-sequitur? Did you or did you not paste in a section titled "Coherence length"? What do you claim to be nonsense? Michelson and Morley used sodium light only for aligning their apparatus, and performed their actual measurements in white light. They had very good reasons. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the wikibooks explanation also consists 80% of historical aether formulas, and only 20% at the end is related to relativity and length contraction. It's simply impossible to describe the importance of the experiment without broad historical context. Actually, also the wikibooks formulas concerning relativity can be much more simplified, because with contraction one simply has ${\scriptstyle t_{1}={\frac {2L{\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}{c}}{\frac {1}{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}={\frac {2L}{c}}{\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}=t_{2}}$, independent of rotation. That's all. --D.H (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to DERIVE the above. I take it that you are quite happy with the wiki page and that you feel a sense of "ownership" towards it, so I am not going to waste my breath anymore. Tach123 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Tach123 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

String theory and Planck length

Should have in See also ... String theory and Planck length --J. D. Redding 21:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why. That way just about everything should be in the See also. I have reverted for the reasons given. - DVdm (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Then there should be a mention in both. The detection is the point. --J. D. Redding 21:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what others say about this. - DVdm (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't buy into the wikiality. --J. D. Redding 22:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Rest assured, I only buy into wp:consensus. DVdm (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

1. The existing "See also" links have an obvious and direct relationship with the article, specifically mentioning Michelson–Morley.
2. While there is a relationship between String theory, Planck length and this article, this relationship is only apparent if you understand that at some scale, Lorentz invariance will be violated—certainly as one approaches the Planck length, but if you believe string theories, minute deviations may be measurable even with macroscopic measurements.
3. To date, cosmological speed-of-light measurements on gamma ray bursters presumably capable of detecting Planck-scale effects have not demonstrated any frequency-dependent variations in the speed of light. These measurements have nothing to do with Michelson–Morley.
4. To date, modern variants of the Michelson–Morley experiment have failed to detect directionally-dependent variations in the speed of light.
5. In my opinion, there is no justification at all for including a link to Planck length, and only weak justification for including a link to String theory.
6. The case for a link to the String theory article would be strengthened if the String theory article included an experimental section mentioning Michelson–Morley, equivalence principle tests, et cetera. It does not have such a section, but in my opinion it should, since existing equivalence principle measurements are of sufficient sensitivity so as to exclude a significant portion of the String theory landscape, and proposed experiments such as [STEP] have the potential of excluding most of the landscape. But there is no relationship between equivalence principle tests and Michelson–Morley.

Side note - "Excluding most of the landscape" is less impressive than it sounds. If the landscape comprises 10⁵⁰⁰ possibilities, give or take a few dozen orders of magnitude, excluding 99.9% of them would leave you with, (ahem!), 10⁵⁰⁰ possibilities, give or take a few dozen orders of magnitude. But at least most of the simpler, more straightforward variants of string theory could be excluded. As Witten has written, "It would be surprising if φ exists and would not be detected in an experiment that improves bounds on EP violations by 6 orders of magnitude" Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

1. My recommendation is to leave out these links. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Mirror reflection

Since there was a question concerning Qwerty123uiop's contribution in this section, I obtained a copy of Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). "Special relativity and the Michelson–Morley interferometer". American Journal of Physics. 62: 609. with the url pointing to my Google Drive account. I will leave sharing turned on for no more than two or three days, long enough for those interested in copyediting Qwerty123uiop's contribution to download the file as a reference. However, the paper is a copyrighted article, and for me to leave it up any longer than that would be a violation of fair use. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have turned off sharing. The link to the paper no longer works. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The reflection problem was also discussed in the early 1900s. For instance by Hicks [Phil. Mag., S. 6, Vol. 3, 1902], which was clarified by Morley/Miller: "s:On the Theory of Experiments to detect Aberrations of the Second Degree" (Phil. Mag., S. 6, Vol. 9)

As far as I know, the first fully relativistic treatment was given by Bateman: "The Reflexion of Light at an Ideal Plane Mirror moving with a Uniform Velocity of Translation", Phil. Mag., S. 6, Vol. 18: 890-895. --D.H (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see if I have time to look up the Hicks and the Bateman papers this weekend! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hicks drew some erroneous conclusions, because he thought that the modified reflection angles would probably invalidate the conclusions of Michelson. He also misunderstood the role of length contraction by making a sign error in his calculations. For a historical analysis of Hicks etc., see Swenson Etheral Aether, ch. 7.

Another criticism of the experiment concerning reflection was given by Kohl (1909, Ann. d. Phys. 333 (2), 259-307), which was refuted by Laue s:Translation:Is the Michelson Experiment Conclusive?. And another one by Budde (1911, Physik. Zeitschrift, 12, 979-991), and again refuted by Laue s:Translation:On the Theory of the Michelson Experiment.

However, describing those discussions in the article would probably give undue weight to this episode. --D.H (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no analysis that takes into account the real conditions of the experiment

Michelson perform these measurements in the air, not in vacuo. Therefore, any proposals, statements, drawn from the results of the experiments are complete worth nothing - pure stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.151.163 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Current repetitions of this experiment are, of course, all performed in high vacuum. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And please note that article talk pages are for discussing the article, not the content. See wp:talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In vacuum must be null shift, and Lorentz explained this long time ago. The experiments in the air show obviously non-null results, thus the cause must be the media itself, or refraction index: n > 1. So, where are the repetitions of the experiments, which go to the direction to really resolve the problem?

If a small refractive index of air gives something like 8 km/s, then what is expected for a medium with bigger refractive index, for example water has: n = 1.333 ?

There was no one scientist in the world, for 100 years, who noticed this, and didn't want to check this experimentally!? Unbelievable! If it's true, then the real science don't exist at all; this can be only pseudoscience, or somethin worse.

And for discussing the article:

Article don't contains correct formula, which applies for the Michelson experiment.

This formula should depend on the refractive index of the media, in which have been performed the measurements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.11.187 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

The article seems to be properly sourced. If you want to challenge the content, you need to bring wp:reliable sources to support your position. Otherwise this is just your original research (see wp:NOR), and bringing that here would be disruptive. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Again! Again, calculations for the vacuum does not allow to draw any conclusions for the experiment carried out in air (n = 1.0003).

Thus, all these categorical statements about the alleged zero as a result, should be removed.

There is no correct analysis of the experiment, so no grounds to draw tangible conclusions!

I would add that it's easy to modify the experiment to get the shift proportional to the first-order (v/c), that is, very clearly, and with virtually no error. The results of the Michelson is not zero, contrary to appearances, as indeed is evident even from the point of view of statistics: zero result means the average is zero, because the average does not depend on the variance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.113.239 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~).

See my previous reply. - DVdm (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What your previous reply? Don't play an idiot.

Your article don't provide any links to the sources with a new statistical theory, in which an average of distribution depends on variance.

Include the neccesery links, or delete all these unsupported scientifically claims about the null result!

Otherwise I will be obliged to destroy the whole subject, as anti-scientific popaganda, a type of creationism, eugenics, geocentric dogma, ect.

I'm wiking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.118.35 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~), and use proper indentation to thread message sections—see wp:INDENT. I have fixed the above conversation accordingly.

See the previous reply, which said:

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

The article seems to be properly sourced. If you want to challenge the content, you need to bring wp:reliable sources to support your position. Otherwise this is just your original research (see wp:NOR), and bringing that here would be disruptive. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionaly, you might have a look at wp:CIVIL, wp:OWN (i.o.w. this is not my article—see history), wp:CONSENSUS, wp:POINT: planning to "destroy the whole subject" might not be your best bet. - DVdm (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I point out that the architecture of the information in this article is confoundingly obscure?

The lede bypasses the reason for the experiment, ignoring all context, and goes headlong into who knows where. Can someone who cares about this rise to the fore?

Reliable reference?

I hardly think Hoover, Earl R. (1977). Cradle of Greatness: National and World Achievements of Ohio's Western Reserve. Cleveland: Shaker Savings Association. is a reliable unbiased reference for the claim that their physical experiment was "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution". It's so herp a derp American just like the edison page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.66.170 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"... given that the velocity of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun was about one hundredth of one percent of the speed of light."

Please fix this so that it doesn't imply that velocity is just a big word for speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:2000:3C1:5DAC:FF7A:18EC:766B (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done ([1]), even if magnitude is indeed a big word for speed, in a way, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Figure 4 incorrect gif

The gif in Figure 4 is incorrect. The red ball takes a longer path and should be behind the blue ball instead of ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.228.36 (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Bibliographical link "[1]"after the "Notes" section and before the "Bibliography" section (Nature article 1986)

After the "Notes" and before the "Bibliography ("A" series references)" there is a solitary link, "[1]" that stands out (or perhaps does not). It is linked to this text on this page, which to me looks like a reference, "E.W. silversmith "Special Relativity", Nature magazine, vol. 322 [AUG. 1986], P.590: the filed exists, per the United States Air Force research, and it measured precisely as Michaelson and Morely predicted.", yet it is outside the normal bibliography. What's going on with this reference? Is that even a reference? It seems to be, as it refers to an article in Nature magazine/journal. If so, why is it outside the normal bibliography? Or am I missing something?

Actually I looked up the relevant Nature page, it is a pretty short correspondence remark, not a full Nature article. (emphasis by Idyllic press) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6080/pdf/322590b0.pdf
And then this experience was repeated with negative results in 2012: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Silvertooth/Silvertooth.html
So as of now I would not use the Silvertooth stuff as scientific evidence. Maybe we can list both experiments in the list of related experiments.
Zbalai (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Healthfitness (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this information even if in a negative sense with other evidence that the experimental results were not repeatable. It does seem a pretty light weight reference but still acceptable. It is cited as proof of the aether in certain circles and should be included here in context. Having to dig through the talk page to spot the reference does no justice to Wikipedia.

Idyllic press (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Continuity.

Sentence one starts, "The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed over the spring and summer of 1887..." Which spring? Which summer? Every year has two springs and two summers. The author should not generalise. Michael Hodgson (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Every place has at most one spring and summer per year, and the place (Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio) is explicitly mentioned. I think it is clear that the local spring and summer are referred to. - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michelson–Morley experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091229162203/http://www.pro-physik.de:80/Phy/pdfs/ger_890_921.pdf to http://www.pro-physik.de/Phy/pdfs/ger_890_921.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Correcting an article reference

In this reference:

E.W. silversmith "Special Relativity", Nature magazine, vol. 322 [AUG. 1986], P.590: the field exists, per the United States Air Force research, and it measured precisely as Michaelson and Morely predicted.

E.W. silversmith should read E.W. Silvertooth.

Reference: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6080/pdf/322590b0.pdf

YohanDough (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)MLN 4/29/2016

Dubious

How can the results be consistent with SR (which is only valid for inertial frames), when the Earth is accelerating with respect to the Sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.230.7.241 (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Even if one of its postulates is formulated in terms of inertial frames, special relativity can perfectly handle accelerating objects and accelerated reference frames—see the 5th paragraph of the lead of article Special relativity (with references ^[7] and ^[8]).

Anyway, please note that questions and discussions about the article subject are off-topic on the article talk page. Here we should discuss the article only—see wp:Talk page guidelines. If you have more questions, a better place would be the wp:Reference desk/Science. - DVdm (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The earth is in free fall wrt the sun and is thus a near ideal inertial FOR.

Rotation is a larger problem but is insignificant over such short distances.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment for when rotation is both significant and measured. Byron Forbes (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"A series" references

I've never seen this phrase before. What does it mean? Omphaloscope talk 22:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I've slightly reworded. We have Series "A", we could potentially have Series "B", Series "C" etc. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The Lorentz Ether Theory should be acknowledged as a possible alternative to Special Relativity

If one examines the evidence one can see that the ether theory is not proved to be invalid by the Michelson-Morley experiment, in fact the Lorentz transformation (which explains the null result of the experiment) was invented in order that the ether theory could remain viable. So the ether theory should be acknowledged as a possible alternative, otherwise the information on the Michelson Morley Experiment page is incomplete and biased.

I made an edit to do this, but it was removed. The reason given was no citation of a reliable source even though the LET wiki page already acknowledges this.

I would like to have my edit reinstated. Comments/help to do this would be appreciated...

NOTE: There is a Primary Source reference on the LET wiki page that should be sufficient to validate my edit. It is Lorentz (1913), p. 75

If this Primary Source citation is added to my edit can the edit be accepted?

Regards,

Declan Traill (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The null-aether-theory is not settled science, and the related concept of a "preferred" or time-dilation minimising velocity certainly hasn't been disproved. Logic dictates that there must be a time-dilation minimising velocity, otherwise, The Twins Paradox can't be properly explained - people have tried to explain-away the Twins Paradox without an aether or preferred velocity - saying that acceleration explains it, but it doesn't - the atoms we are made of all experienced acceleration since the beginning of time, and that acceleration is never "forgotten", so there must be a preferred or time-dilation minimising velocity, corresponding to a zero velocity relative to the initial velocity. "Acceleration" that is in the opposite direction to the net of all previous acceleration is actually deceleration, and would reverse or lessen time dilation.

Demjanov applied Lorentz/relativistic corrections to all of the Michaelson-Morely-type experiment results, and the results for the speed of the aether are honing-in at almost exactly the speed of the Earth relative to the cosmic background radiation. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-the-Presence-of-Particle-in-the-Light-Carrying-Demjanov/7c8edc3ddf7c82128f4b4f0d921af07f8fac6611

MathewMunro (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

First, new stuff goes to the bottom. If you must squiggle a response in before the first response, add another colon. Second, one primary source is not enough to turn around the direction of the article. What if someone contradicts Demjanov? Do we have to change the article back? And if Demjanov responds, do we have to declare him the winner again? No, no, we go with the preponderance of secondary sources. Below, that has been explained - six years ago - to the user you agreed with. Maybe there is a reason why you should add new responses to the bottom: it forces you to glance at part of the responses to find the right place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, that Demjanov viXra ("an electronic e-print archive specializing in unorthodox and fringe science") paper has gone unnoticed in the real literature: it is cited by one: the author himself. That's entirely useless for Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ooo, the viXra article says it is without any threshold for quality. You showed considerable restraint when you chose the phrase "entirely useless". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be an old source for an old view on the matter, not sufficient to say something about the status of ether or special relativity now. At the time, to explain this ancient experiment, both ether and SR were viable, but other experiments since then have devaluated the former in favour of the latter. This is extensively explained in the article. - DVdm (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The experiments carried out and explained in the article are tests for violation of Lorentz Invariance, however an ether theory does not necessarily mean that Lorentz Invariance is violated.

As all the matter particles is space are comprised of matter waves, these matter waves can flow upstream/downstream through the ether background field in exactly the same way as light.

This results in no preferred frame and thus Lorentz Invariance.

I can demonstrate this to be true in my paper: "A Classical reconstruction of Relativity", located here: http://media.wix.com/ugd/344097_91b65a0dd5c846b5a7c34355fe3ed026.pdf

Also peer reviewed and published in Galilean Electrodynamics in 2010:

Traill. D, “On the Quantum-Wave Nature of Relativistic Time Dilation and Length Contraction”, p. 57 (Galilean Electrodynamics, Summer 2010 (Vol. 21, Special Issues No. 3).

And demonstrated in the computer model simulation here: https://anyfile.255bits.com/wix/download?id=751843b14e9322d0de7271a9be3cf60a

But, let me guess, I am not allowed to reference these papers either?..

The assumption made that Lorentz Invariance would be violated by an ether model is just that: an assumption, which turns out to be incorrect as I have demonstrated.

Thus all the so called proof that the ether is ruled out is invalid, and the ether remains a viable alternate model.

Regards

Declan Traill (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. I hope you don't mind my having indented your message. Thanks.

Indeed, these wp:primary source references in alternative journals such as Galilean Electrodynamics are not considered to qualtify as reliable sources here, unless of course when they are sufficiently quoted in the established mainstream literature to become notable wp:secondary sources. I guess that is not the case yet—that might take some time. Also note that referring to own research is not done at Wikipedia, except in certain cases where a kind of consensus on talk page allows it. When our own research is sufficiently valuable, then surely someone else will use and quote it. In this case it would probably still qualify as wp:original research. - DVdm (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the indentation...

Well it has been 6 years since publication - how long should it take?

There are so many papers out there, I'm not sure if anyone in mainstream Physics has even seen it, or ever will.

I would be great if this could be looked at by the editors of this 'talk' page and arrive at a consensus that would allow some form of acknowledgment that an ether theory is still viable to be added the the main wiki page.

Then maybe it could become known and mainstream Physics would become aware of it...

Regards

Declan Traill (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Casimir effect has a quantum origin, and the attempt to link it to LET represented wp:OR, regardless of any claims that may have been made by you in Galilean Electrodynamics, which does not constitute a "reliable source". Citation to one's own work is unacceptable. The point was already made in the article that the complete Lorentz transformation including time dilation fully explained all experimental results at the expense of requiring an undetectable stationary aether, so the expanded emphasis on LET in your additions represented special pleading in violation of wp:NPOV. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

An ether field with quantum properties allows Relativity and Quantum mechanics to be unified, as it can explain both in a single theory rather than the current situation we have where the two theories are at odds with one another.

The Casimir effect is just one example. There are a number of effects that require interaction between the vacuum energy and matter to be able to be explained.

Declan Traill (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Declan Traill: re your question "how long should it take": until it is sufficiently quoted in the established mainstream literature to become a notable wp:secondary source, as explained above. That's how Wikipedia works, sometimes alas perhaps. - DVdm (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Frame of reference

Why would there be expected differential phase shift/interference between light traveling the longitudinal versus the transverse arms of the Michelson–Morley apparatus for the observer (Michelson) in the same frame of reference?2001:56A:7399:1200:D947:7409:2A4E:ADA6 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)eek

From the standpoint of current physics, where the symmetries of special relativity are taken as a given, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Michelson-Morley apparatus should have detected differential phase shifts. To understand why MMX was expected to "work", one has to understand the dominant assumptions of late 19th–early 20th century physics. Providing this background context was pretty much the whole point of the introductory sections of this article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

But didn't einstien know that his special theory of relativity was / is an agreement with MMX if yes then why einstein theory is superseded and why they are at odd as stated in above section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7399:1200:7892:CB42:D469:AAAE (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Please note that article talk pages are for discussions about the article, not about the subject. Here we discuss additions and changes to, and removals from the article—see wp:Talk page guidelines. You can ask questions about any subject at the wp:reference desk. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Most famous "failed" experiment

I object to the title (of a section), because the experiment didn't "fail", it yielded null results, and that is very different. Null result is also what at least my references call it. YohanN7 (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hm... it failed in the sense that it failed to produce the expected result. The scare quotes are there because, with hindsight, it succeeded at producing something far more interesting. The text in the section explains that in great detail, and thus the section header accurately reflects the content. So I have no problem with that header. - DVdm (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I know what it means. It is still commonly called a null result. YohanN7 (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

However, it is not my most urgent concern in life.B t w, come to think of it, I performed the experiment in school, and nothing really happened to those interferometer fringe patterns. YohanN7 (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It certainly is commonly called a null result now, but not likely at the time when it was performed, as the methods and jargon of statistical hypothesis testing pretty much started in the early 20th century, well after the experiment. Anyway, see the third paragraph of article Null result: This experiment's famous failed detection, commonly referred to as the null result, contributed to the development of special relativity. It was indeed a failed detection of something. They set out to detect the motion through the ether, and they failed. Nothing to worry about i.m.o. - DVdm (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A failed experiment is when the equipment unexpectedly blows up or something. Not the same as non-detection of something expected. YohanN7 (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It failed to achieve what it set out to do: to prove aether existed. It's in that sense that the word is used, and this is made crystal clear in the text. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I find many references on the web referring to the Michelson-Morley experiment as a "failed" experiment. What did Michelson himself think? To find out, I looked through the book "Master of Light" written by Dorothy Livingston, Michelson's daughter. At multiple points throughout this book we see references to how disappointed Michelson was at his null result.

If the ether were in motion with the earth, it would be quite impossible to perceive any motion. The interferometer was not at fault in being unable to perceive it. Galileo had experienced a similar failure when trying to measure the speed of light. He knew it was finite, but he could not prove this with his lanterns. The interferometer had performed with marvelous accuracy, and its beauty consoled Michelson to some extent for the negative result. He began to think of new fields where this technique might apply. Like Pygmalion, he became enraptured with his own creation. Theoretical physicists as a rule do not experience this emotion and are therefore inclined to belittle it. (page 84)

For different reasons, Michelson and Lorentz both longed for a positive result for ether drift. Michelson's frustration came to some extent from the feeling that mathematicians were taking the question out of his hands into a realm beyond his comprehension whence they drew their own, somewhat preposterous conclusions. He wished the dogged little Dutchman would drop the matter and accept the fact that both of Michelson's ether-drift experiments had been miserable failures. The ether was out there, but at present his instruments were unable to detect its presence. (page 132)

Michelson's disappointment at the failure of the second ether-drift experiment was harder to bear than at that of his first attempt, which had left some hope of finding a positive result with a different method. One of Albert Einstein's biographers later explained this disappointment. (page 133)

We know that Michelson did not actually fail. But he definitely thought that he did. The section title therefore appears appropriate to me. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Errors in Michelson's Theory

I added a paragraph with this title in the article on the basis of a recently published paper in European Journal of Physics. I did not make any other changes in this respect to the article, even though in the long term it may be necessary to reformulate the Theory section.

Additionally, I added a reference to the preceding paragraph 'Mirror reflection' as the second order aberration effect addressed there was actually already discussed in detail in the Supplement section of Michelson's original 1887 paper. Peakplans (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it. See wp:secondary sources. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You sent a PM claiming that my edit was not supported by s reliable source. But I gave as reference this peer-reviewed publication http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aa82f8/meta by the 'European Journal of Physics' which is one of the journals published by the largest physics society in the world, the 'European Physical Society' ( http://www.eps.org/?page=publications ), is abtracted in all the relevant scientific indexes ( http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0143-0807/page/Abstracted%20in ), listed as a reputable journal by JournalGuide ( https://www.journalguide.com/journals/european-journal-of-physics ), and frequently referenced in various Wikipedia articles.

So I do not see any good (that is factual) reason to question the reliability of the source.

(P.S.: comments please here on the article talk page not as a PM) Peakplans (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

All good, but it is a wp:primary source. If you can find wp:secondary sources, that actually cite the primary, that would be a sign that this is something important and worthwhile for the article — see wp:UNDUE. - DVdm (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how one can argue that the article is a primary source: it was published by the publishing company (who also holds the copyright) on the basis of a manuscript submitted to them by the original author (who is merely given credit in order to establish his moral rights). In this respect it is in no way different from a newspaper article published on the basis of a report sent to them by some freelance author. And one hardly would consider a newspaper article a primary source. Ask yourself who you would approach in order to have a certain issue in the article clarified. Naturally that could only be the original author (that is the primary source). It is safe to say that the publishing company could not and would not answer your enquiry. Peakplans (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is an important item, then surely it will be cited by others. That would make it wp:DUE for Wikipedia.

What do other contributers think about this? - DVdm (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The paper claims that Michelson and all other sources presenting the standard calculations are wrong, so in order to back up this claim one certainly needs additional secondary sources supporting this paper (see also WP:Undue). --D.H (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as explained in wp:FRINGE. - DVdm (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I quote from the two Wikpedia references mentioned:

"it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

"If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

"Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective."

On that basis it does not appear to me that adding a short paragraph indicating the result of a paper published in a reputable journal would mean giving undue weight to the issue (especially as one could re-formulate the paragraph somewhat accordingly). Peakplans (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as nobody else picks up on this and finds it worthwile for quoting in the literature, it remains just a fringe wp:primary source, where Wikipedia requires wp:secondary sources, otherwise... wp:UNDUE. - DVdm (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Error in the formula for the fringe shift

is there an error in the formula for the expected fringe shift. No factor 2 on the front.129.69.28.124 (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The factor 2 is correct. Check the second order Taylor expansion of the result:

$\Delta _{1}=2\left({\frac {L}{1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}-{\frac {L}{\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}}\right)$

$\Delta _{2}=2\left({\frac {L}{\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}}-{\frac {L}{1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}\right)$

$n={\frac {\Delta _{1}-\Delta _{2}}{\lambda }}={\frac {4L}{\lambda }}\left({\frac {1}{1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}-{\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}}\right)\approx {\frac {4L}{\lambda }}\left(1+{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}-(1+{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}})\right)={\frac {2Lv^{2}}{\lambda c^{2}}}.$

- DVdm (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

how do you define "after rotation"?

In the section where you derive the phase shift you say that after the rotation the phase shift is $\Delta _{2}$. It looks like you assumed that the the table was rotated by 90 deg. But in this case the phase shift would be the same, since the both legs are equal. In the experiment they rotated the table such that the both legs of the interferometer were affected equally by the ether (both legs are at 45 deg with respect to the earth velocity).Kirill plasma (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else pointed this out, thought I missed something. I did the derivation myself and I'm going to remove it, proving a few sources which shows it is not needed. FrancisPeacock (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC). So I did some reading, and turns out that for some reason when rotated by 90 deg there would be a fringe shift. I can't myself get my head around it, and no source I've looked at has explained why. I tried my best to explain how the prexisting book source got there mathmatically. FrancisPeacock (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Stationary?

I wonder whether or not the article's emphasis on "stationary aether" is overdone a bit. Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't the MM experiment just test for motion relative to an aether, which, itself, might actually be moving in some reference frame? Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Take any two random frames that are in relative motion. Then a "stationary aether", if it would exist, would be moving in at least one of the two frames, and probably in both. So it would be moving in almost all other frames, so to speak. That is probably why "stationary aether" is pretty standard lingo:

Google	Scholar	Books
"Stationary aether"	237	792

So this might not really be a question for here. Perhaps better at wp:Reference desk/Science—see wp:Talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Figure 4 gif accuracy

I took the gif in Figure 4 apart frame by frame, and I noticed that on the return trip the blue photon on the right is moving 2 pixels every frame, as opposed to 3 pixels every frame for the photons on the left. I understand that the gif is for demonstrative purposes, but it shouldn't rely on deceptive illusions. It's unfortunate, because this gif is very nice, but I think it should be removed until someone makes a more accurate depiction. Spiritrain (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This image is a response to User:Spiritrain, who in a comment on the Michelson–Morley experiment talk page, claimed that the blue photon was traveling rightwards and leftwards at markedly different rates

@Spiritrain: According to my analysis, there is no discrepancy. In the accompanying figure, the images on the left illustrate frames 10 thru 13, while on the right are illustrated 40 thru 43.

Cheers! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to interpret User:Prokaryotic's figure, but the right blue photon is definitely moving a pixel per frame slower on its return path, just as Spiritrain stated. It's pretty obvious even from watching the animation. Not a very good illustration. Eechini (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the image should be removed, as its suggestion that different photons take different paths is pretty antithetical to the whole idea of wave interference. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... looking back at my image from a year-and-a-half back, I don't understand it either. Will remove the animation in question. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

New Picture?

Does anyone think the article would benefit from adding a picture of CWRU’s replica of the experiment, to better visualize it? UnknownM1 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Corrections.

I have tried to alter erroneous mathematical assumptions from a wiki physics page. And supplied the correct mathematical answer as evidence. Yet this is removed. Presumably by a moderator who does not agree with the initial false claim on wiki being challenged. Is there a seperate arbitration process? Mattrush200 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The first place to discuss your change proposals is here, on this talk page. Make sure you have wp:reliable sources at hand to support your proposals. - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There are no experiments in the substance, only for vacuum.

This article is silent about the incompleteness of the experiments. The experiments were carried out in a vacuum. Miller's experiments were carried out in the air. And they gave deviations, but they are called unclear. Moreover, there is no mention of experiments in a substance with a high refractive index. Voproshatel (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

!!!(Urgent)!!! The problem of Michelson Morley experiment is in the calculated formula !!!!(correction)!!!

There is a new peer reviewed article correcting the Michelson-Morley formulas. Please read it objectively and post your remarks. This is the link to the article: https://revues.imist.ma/index.php/MJPAS/article/download/20383/12441 196.74.233.24 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, most things are not urgent. Wikipedia needs wp:secondary sources, specially for wp:FRINGE topics, "proving Einstein wrong". As soon as—and only when/if—this work is extensively mentioned in the relevant literature, it might be eligible to be DULY mentioned or used as a source here. - DVdm (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I published again my article about the formulas of the Michelson Morley experiment as a mini-review in a better journal. I wait now for your objective ractions and opinions. Here is the link :

https://www.pulsus.com/abstract/the-michelsonmorley-experiments-proper-formulas-12207.html 196.74.236.59 (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracy.

In section "Detecting the aether" the following wording is included: "According to the stationary and the partially dragged aether hypotheses, Earth and the aether are in relative motion, implying that a so-called "aether wind" (Fig. 2) should exist. Although it would be possible, in theory, for the Earth's motion to match that of the aether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the Earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the motion."

The idea of 'wind' related to motion comes from the analogy with 'motion through air'. In the case of motion relative to air it is irrelevant to speak about direction of motion as the 'wind' effect will be the same irrespective of which is described as moving relative to the other and in what direction. Any relative motion of an entity 'through air' will effect 'wind'.

In that sense no other 'unrelated' motion of the air needs to be included in order to introduce the concept of wind. Similarly, it appears that the text "... the Earth's motion to match that of the aether ..." is superfluous, making the whole of the second quoted sentence above redundant. (This is in relation to the statement earlier in the text discussing the possibility that "The aether is stationary ...".)

Suggest removing that sentence. Gozo032 (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Did the Michaelson-Morley setup influence gravitational wave detection setups?

I understand that many gravitational wave experiments rely on laser interferometry. Because of the different goals, and the greater distances, they don't rotate. But if Michaelson-Morley setup inspired aspects of the newer ones, then a section on gravitational wave experiments might be an appropriate addition after "Recent experiments". 138.88.18.245 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Although gravitational wave detectors are Michelson interferometers, they are intentionally designed to be insensitive to slow drifts in band position, such as the 12-hour periodicity that Michelson and Morley would have expected if their interferometer were stationary. So this article is not appropriate for discussing gravitational wave detectors. You do see discussion of gravitational wave detectors in Michelson interferometer. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong values in the table in section "Subsequent experiments"

This table seems to originate from Shankland et al. (1955). The table states that the experiments of Michelson et al. (1929) were conducted on Mt. Wilson. This is wrong. According to Michelson et al. (1929) the experiments were conducted in a "basement room of the Mount Wilson Laboratory". According to Pease (1930) the experiments were conducted in "the optical shop of the Mount Wilson Observatory in Pasadena" and "placed in a basement chamber below the optical shop floor". The location was Santa Barbara Street in Pasadena. Can someone confirm this?

References
Pease, F. G. (1930). ETHER DRIFT DATA. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 42(248), 197–202. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40668741
https://calisphere.org/item/fd0d5fd7b723eda059c03ca3f67e3b37/
https://calisphere.org/item/569d7f0d43dfaaaf5d51b2b4f1ad25c0/
--Sebastian Pliet (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, and the confusion is understandable. I will make the necessary edits shortly. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It was also installed on Mount Wilson, see Pease, p. 202 (The interferometer is now being installed in the hollow pier of the 100 inch telescope on Mount Wilson where it will be maintained at constant temperature).--Claude J (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That is another experiment, which followed the referenced one. I am not sure if it was even done. Is there a paper about it? --Sebastian Pliet (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I was very intrigued when I read that note. The Mt. Wilson repetition of the experiment would not have been complete until sometime after 1931, but Michelson died in May 1931. Does anybody know anything about this attempted repetition of the MMX? Did Pease possibly complete the experiment and publish? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems that Pease and Pearson worked on measuring the velocity of light. Result were published 1935. Pease died 1938. These reports https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/p_=0&q=abs%3A%22work%20at%20Mount%20Wilson%22%20%20year%3A1929-1936&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc don't mention interferometer experiments by Pease, only the measurements of the velocity of light (At begin and end of the reports). --Sebastian Pliet (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Is Thomas J. Roberts (2006) paper a reliable source?

I'm talking about this reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#cite_note-Roberts2006-54 and conclusions mentioned in this article. I don't this it's reliable, because a) It's on arxiv.org and not peer-reviewed, and b) It's in conflict with the papers from Shankland et al. (1955) and Consoli et al. (2013).

References

Shankland et al. (1955): https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.27.167 In their statistical analysis, they find a signal.

Consoli et al. (2013): https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3508 They point out an error in a method Roberts used.

--Sebastian Pliet (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For various reasons, I consider Shankland's analysis to be somewhat deficient. By modern standards, Joos' eighty-year-old results are far from "very accurate", and modern measurements contradict Consoli et al's assertions which are largely based on Joos. Quite frankly, the paper by Consoli et al. has very much of a bad smell to me in their assertion that modern measurements of anisotropy are intrinsically incapable of detecting aether drift precisely because they are performed in high vacuum to eliminate artifacts -- this is a very common crackpot argument. I note also that Eur. Phys. J. Plus has frequently published articles on special relativity that I consider fringe. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not guarantee reliability of any individual paper. I'll bring your questions up with Tom. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I bought a copy of Measuring Nothing, Repeatedly: Null experiments in physics • Allan Franklin and Ronald Laymon • Published December 2019 • Copyright © 2019 Morgan & Claypool Publishers. This is reliable secondary source that, in addition to exhaustively discussing the MMX and its replications, references both Shankland (6 pages) and Roberts (5 pages) in discussing Miller's results. There is a lot to digest here. It will be some time before I can re-write the section in dispute. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's a reliable second source. The authors are a historian and a philosopher, and it seems to be a history book. In a scientific context this is more of a tertiary source, because Shankland's and Roberts' papers are reviews, thus secondary sources. I don't have the book, but i believe they just summarize. (...How much is from wikipedia?) How can a tertiary source be reliable, when the secondary's source reliability is in question? --Sebastian Pliet (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Shankland and Roberts both contain novel analyses of Miller's results, so they are not reviews. The vast majority of primary source papers contain at least some discussion of the previous literature, but the presence of some discussion of previous literature does not make such papers secondary sources. A review article basically summarizes the previous work and places the work in context. Both Shankland and Roberts go far beyond merely putting Miller's work in context. Allan Franklin is a former high energy physicist at the Univ. of Colorado, and many current faculty and research staff at the Univ. of Colorado helped him in his research putting together this book. He is not merely a historian. Despite Consoli et al's eminent qualifications in quantum mechanics, his 30 year history of publication concerning ether-drift experiments and possible existence of a preferred reference frame strike me as pure crackpot. Expertise in one branch of physics does not automatically quality a person in all branches of physics. There are many cases in point that I could cite. In the end, it up to the Wikipedia editor to make judgement calls about how to present the material in a fair manner, not allowing fringe positions to acquire wp:UNDUE emphasis. Consoli's position is very much fringe. Roberts' work is mainstream. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

What you write about reviews and both papers ist exactly my point. See the example on wp:SECONDARY. But maybe i am wrong. Shankland et al.'s and Roberts' papers are a critique, which makes them a primary source, because they do not confirm Millers conclusions. But, Shankland et al. confirm a real signal, so it's a secondary source for this part of Millers claim, for which Roberts has different conclusions. This is getting complicated. Roberts' conclusion supports the mainstream, but his reasoning is not i think. Where is the secondary source, which is reliable in a scientific sense, supporting him? My main argument ist still "arxiv.org" and "not peer-reviewed" and a book is not an article in a peer-reviewed journal either.

Concerning Consoli: Please don't use terms like "crackpot" as a replacement for missing arguments. Consolis paper is peer-reviewed and also on arxiv. So if you are right, then there is "fringe science" and "crackpottery" on arxiv, which invalidates its reliability.

Let's see what you will find in the book. --Sebastian Pliet (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, things are complicated. The online version of the book is published by IOP Publishing, and Google Scholar tells me that the book has been cited three times in the scholarly literature (not counting self-references). wp:Reliable sources considers books published "by well-regarded academic presses" as being reliable, and I certainly regard IOP Publishing as being well-regarded.

The book has so far been fascinating, filled with experimental detail (probably by Franklin) and philosophical context (probably by Laymon). It starts off with Galileo's null experiments disproving the Aristotelian expectation that masses should fall at rates proportional to their masses, going through the history of equivalence principle experiments from Newton, Bessel, Eötvos, et cetera through to the Eöt-Wash group, searches for a fifth force, experiments to answer a minor but intriguing puzzle on the exact path taken by a dropped object (it's much more complicated than you think!), MMX, Miller, physics beyond the standard model (searches for SUSY, top squarks, dark matter), and I'm currently working my way through the penultimate chapter on neutrinoless double beta decay. The depth of coverage and quality of scholarship are obvious, although I did catch them on an error -- Franklin obviously never read my description (contributed under an earlier user name, which I dropped after a long hiatus from contributing and discovered that I lost the password and due to a technical glitch couldn't seem to recover it) of Kennedy and Illingworth's optical arrangement which "converted the task of detecting fringe shifts from the relatively insensitive one of estimating their lateral displacements to the considerably more sensitive task of adjusting the light intensity on both sides of a sharp boundary for equal luminance", or examined my illustration.

My first read has been swift and shallow. I need to re-read the entire book in depth, focusing on their coverage of Shankland and Roberts. It's quite a good book. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, i still think it is undue to cite Roberts, but i see that i can't convince you, so i rest my case.

I know Roberts' paper very well, because i did a review and wrote a comment. Search my name on vixra.org or zenodo.org. --Sebastian Pliet (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There might be some point to your efforts to reinstate Miller's work if Miller's purported signal satisfied the Thirring-Lorentz criterion. As it is, there are only two alternatives, depending on whether one accepts Shankland's analysis or Roberts' analysis: (1) Miller's purported signal was statistically significant, but the signal was of terrestrial origin, or (2) Miller's purported signal was statistically insignificant. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I am the author of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#cite_note-Roberts2006-54 . Based on its content it is reliable, because it does not do anything out of the ordinary, today. After RMP rejected it as not of current interest in 2006, I did not have time to pursue publication. While arguing about "secondary and tertiary sources" might be a Wikipedia thing, it is not a physics thing. Seeking sources for what I did in my paper requires one to look for basic physics and statistics textbooks, especially those on experimental technique and analysis. As is usual, I did not attempt to reference them as they are part of the general knowledge of my intended audience. Note also that my analysis was based on Miller's original data sheets (copies obtained from the CWRU archives); does that make my paper a "primary" or a "secondary" source?

The calculation of statistical errorbars is bulletproof, as Miller, Michelson&Morley, and Illingworth all took averages for their final plots, and errorbars on those averages are standard and unassailable (Fig.s 5, 12, 13 of my paper). They are also underestimates, because they omit systematic errors, and for all three it is clear that their systematic errors due to drift far exceed the statistical errorbars. Any attempt to "reinstate Miller's work" is doomed to failure, as he was looking at statistically insignificant patterns in his systematic drift that mimicked the appearance of a real signal -- Section III of my paper uses digital signal processing techniques to show precisely how and why that happened. In particular, the comb filter of his averaging aliased almost all of his noise into the lowest frequency bin, precisely where a real signal would be; as one frequency bin dominates, in his plots it will look like a sinewave.

Shankland et al did not "confirm a real signal". Their abstract says "Miller's extensive Mount Wilson data contain no effect of the kind predicted by the aether theory and, within the limitations imposed by local disturbances, are entirely consistent with a null result at all epochs during a year." But they did not compute the errorbars, which show conclusively that the variations he claimed were statistically insignificant, by a large factor (see Fig. 5 of my paper).

By comparison, Consoli et al's opening paragraph shows clearly that they do not understand that Special Relativity and Lorentz Ether Theory are mathematically equivalent for the modeling of any experimental result, and thus cannot possibly be distinguished experimentally. No amount of mumbling about "condensation of elementary quanta", or anything else, can change this basic fact. They spent 70 pages attempting to do the impossible. Tjrob137 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Roberts, i'm not sure if this is the right place for a discussion of scientific papers, but i will so some comments anyway. Concerning your paper: You really should take a closer look at Consoli et al's and my papers and arguments.

Shankland et al. conclude, that there is no true signal of the aether, but in their statistical analysis of the raw data, they find a real signal, which also can be a systematic error. You conclude, that there is no real signal, which is questionable.

A mathematical description is nothing physical. In aether theory, the Lorentz symmetry may be broken and probably can be broken. Some people having hypotheses, that's just science. Sebastian Pliet (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in those of your papers nor in those of Consoli et al's papers that I have perused do you or Consoli address the failure of Miller's results to satisfy the Thirring-Lorentz criterion. Although Miller's contemporaries agreed that Miller's results needed to be explained, there was also a near-universal consensus among Miller's contemporaries that Miller's results could not possibly be of astrophysical origin. Hence your efforts to reinstate Miller's work are a total waste of time. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, that is Doctor Roberts, not Mister. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to ask last time, what is the "Thirring-Lorentz criterion"? I found no explanation. The problem that causes confusion is, that everyone is right. There is a signal of cosmic origin (Miller), but it's superimposed by systematic errors, caused by temperatur etc. (Shankland), and that's why Millers signals do not fit to any theoretical signal (Thirring). Sebastian Pliet (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's say that, at a particular time of year, the apparent direction of a hypothetical aether flow due to the sum of Sun's motion through space and Earth's motion around the Sun is from a point displaced by 30 degrees from Earth's poles. Then, over the course of 24 hours, one would expect the azimuthal direction of the measured aether flow to swing back and forth by 30 degrees from a North-South line. Thirring and Lorentz both noted that instead, Miller would measure periodic swings back and forth along, say, a NorthWest-SouthEast line.

In his 1933 paper, Miller provided a gobbledegook non-explanation for this failure of his data to satisfy the Thirring-Lorentz criterion, and applied completely arbitrary corrections to his measurements before using them to compute a supposed absolute motion of the Solar System through space.

Contrary to what you state, not everyone is right. Miller's "signal" cannot possibly be of cosmic origin, but must be completely systematic error. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I assume that a dominant periodic systematic error is the reason why the Thirring-Lorentz criterion does not hold. Because of interference with the aether signal, one still sees variations depending on the sidereal time, but with an offset/phase-shift. Of course, i can not explain the systematic error.

Miller tried to explain his amplitudes and anomalies without a theory, i also question his explanations.

Well, i'll be more conservative and state that, Millers measurements contain a signal with the properties needed to be of cosmic origin. Miller thought that the whole signal he measured is the aether drift, i think that's wrong. It's mostly a periodic systematic error. Sebastian Pliet (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Miller's total purported signal is near the limit of measurability. After you remove the systematic error, what is left is indistinguishable from noise. There is absolutely no evidence of any astrophysical component to the purported signal. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a whole paper on this topic, including error calculation. I conclude the opposite. But my paper is still preprint and not peer-reviewed.Sebastian Pliet (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

References

New Evidence of the valid detection of the Aether by both Michelson-Morley and Miller due to a correction to the mathematical model used for Gas-Mode Interferometers.

I have new evidence that I have published in a peer-reviewed Physics journal that confirms the detection of the Aether by Michelson-Morley and Miller (Mt Wilson) and agrees with the magnitude of the Aether wind determined by Cahill of around 486km/sec. Please carefully read and understand the explanation and maths presented in this paper:

Find a link to the paper on my webpage here, or look up the reference details below: https://www.energyfieldtheory.com/copy-of-my-papers

Reference: Traill, D. (2022) The Light Timing Calculations of the Interferometer in the Quest to Detect Light Speed Anisotropy and a Case Study of the Michelson-Morley and Miller Mt Wilson Experiments. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 10, 802-827. doi: 10.4236/jamp.2022.103055. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declan Traill (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

Not for Wikipedia — see wp:NOR, wp:Reliable sources, wp:secondary sources, wp:UNDUE, wp:FRINGE, wp:COI. You were amply warned about all this six years ago. - DVdm (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk page - not the main site, so this is entirely appropriate to discuss here.

Try actually reading it and understanding it before declaring it 'Fringe' etc. It makes complete sense and explains the experimental results completely. Declan Traill (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk page The talk page is for discussing suggestions to improve the article, and if those suggestions would, if implemented, violate guidelines for articles, then it should be pointed out on the Talk page.

It makes complete sense and explains the experimental results completely That's wonderful. Let's include it as soon as reliable secondary sources also see it that way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It is illogical to validate the theory of relativity based on a single assumption regarding aether

Using set theory, we can divide the probability space in two. Sections A and B

Section A: Aether does not exist Section B : Aether exists.

Now if Aether does not exist then the theory of relativity is correct. That would mean we are in section A

So one way to conclusively deduce that we are in section A, is to prove we are not in section B

That would mean to test for the existence of Aether i.e perform experiments assuming we are in section B.

But to conduct those experiments we have to make assumptions about what aether is. There is no single assumption for the existence of Aether. There can be many theories. So section B of the set is further divided in subsections Bi so that Σ Bi = B Each subsection Bi is a supposition as to what Aether is what are its properties etc etc

What we have done is, we have tested only one such assumption. We have found it wrong.

It is hardly proof that Aether does not exist.

This is basic logic. And it seems , in the least, embarrassing to have continued for so long on this narrow-minded if not erroneous path.

It's like I give you a closed bag of marbles. You then say to a friend of yours that you will prove to him that there are no red marbles in the bag. So you pick a marble, it's blue, so you say you proved to your friend that there are no red marbles in the bag? Hardly, and what's worse, you stop picking marbles.

Besides the proof that something exists has been around since the beginning of this whole theory of relativity, but that is something I would rather not discuss here, partly because there are far more capable physicists and if they don't see it, you would hardly believe someone like me. 5.203.177.31 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Using set theory, we can divide Stop right there. You need to understand these facts:

• This page is for improving the article. It is not a forum. See WP:NOTFORUM.
• You cannot improve the article by using your own reasoning. You need reliable sources. See WP:V.

So, you are in the wrong place. Go somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Limitations of the equipment

I’ve added a new section in good faith. Don’t revert it just because you don’t like it or don’t agree with it. It is a fully cited good faith edit. Consider polices three-revert rule, edit warring and reverting.

Good faith editors please improve upon the new section. The oracle 2015 (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

In the process of citing policy you have neglected the two actually relevant to the edit: WP:BRD, WP:Fringe. The sources you cited are either unreliable or misrepresented and the content promotes fringe theory. In no way does Feynman take issue with relativity through QED, a blatantly ridiculous suggestion given that QED assumes relativity. Fermiboson (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no assertion by me that Feynman or QED attacks relativity. The only assertion is that Feynman’s QED states that light is absorbed by matter and that matter emits light. The oracle 2015 (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You titled the section “limitations of the equipment”, but I neglected to realise you made no actual attempt to elaborate on what that limitation is. My apologies. Let us then talk about how the rest of that section is a poorly cited rambling explanation of the fact that mirrors reflect light with no relevance to the interferometer whatsoever.

Apart from the first sentence, what in that section even implies any bearing on how M-M interferometer and its measurements? Not to mention that there is no utilisation of QED whatsoever apart from one intimidating, unpaged Feynman citation in that entire section, despite the starting claim being that the interferometer is problematic due to new understandings of QED. Fermiboson (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree my new section needed some work, maybe lots of work, but the essence is that mirrors have never been proven to emit light at the same speed as they receive it. The limitation on the equipment is that, regardless of the speed of the incoming light, a mirror will always reflect it at c creating the illusion that the speed of light is universal for all observers. QED is an established and very predictable theory. The oracle 2015 (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

And QED does not say what you claim it says.

Mirrors do "emit" light at the same speed they "receive" it in a classical sense, because the light propagates in a medium which transmits EM waves at a given speed. Unless you claim that the presence of a mirror magically changes the dispersion relation of the air/vacuum in which the arm of a M-M interferometer is held, the optical path length assumptions made in the interferometer calculations are correct. Fermiboson (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Where can you show me that a mirror has been proven to reflect light at the same speed as it receives it? I’ve been a theoretical physicist for 35 years and I have never heard of it. Light strikes a mirror and then the mirror uses that energy to emit corresponding light at the same frequency. A mirror can not measure or detect the speed of inbound light. The oracle 2015 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

In the recently added (and reverted) subsection, I saw no sourcing describing an equipment limitation. User:The oracle 2015 says in this thread: "The limitation on the equipment is that, regardless of the speed of the incoming light, a mirror will always reflect it at c creating the illusion that the speed of light is universal for all observers". Oracle apparently wants that idea ("creating an illusion") included in the article, seemingly in an effort to debunk the M-M experiments, but provided no references to sources which state the idea. The editor's conclusion, apparently, that the results of the M-M experiments are illusory appears to be either original thought or synthesis, both prohibited by (wp:OR). This whole conversation is revolving around personal ideas and interpretations, and does not appear to be a discussion of what reliable sources say on the subject, specifically, of equipment "limitation" in relation to the experiments. DonFB (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Better indexed corrected formulas of the experiment

Hi everybody. I published again my article about the formulas of the Michelson Morley experiment as a mini-review in a better journal. I wait now for your objective ractions and opinions. Here is the link : https://www.pulsus.com/abstract/the-michelsonmorley-experiments-proper-formulas-12207.html 196.74.236.59 (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Einstein's relativity rejected

Ladies and Gentlemen, please be aware of my Physics letter where I explain that Einstein's theory should be rejected. The correct formulas of Michelson-Morley experiment have been proven recently. Here is the link: https://revues.imist.ma/index.php/MJPAS/index Akram louiz (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible Michelson-Morley experiment at The University of Chicago

I remember a biography of Michelson by a daughter, which mentioned the aether-drift experiment being carried out in Ryerson Hall on the campus of The University of Chicago, in ducts travelling the length of the building and the height of the central tower.

I worked in that building for years, and saw the ducts (which is not valid information for the Wikipedia article, but lends some credence to the existence of the biography).

I will try to find a copy of the biography again. I believe that I found it in The University of Chicago library before, but I am no longer close enough to look it up there.

My own inspection of the ducts left me skeptical that they could have been used in the aether-drift experiment, but I am not a physicist, and I recall that the daughter/author had some background in physics.

I see that this information is very sketchy, and should not lead to any addition to the article at present, but perhaps someone else will find the biography that I remember and check it further. Mjodonnell (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the biography in question is Michelson: The Master of Light. A biography of Albert A. Michelson. Dorothy Michelson Livingstone. Scribner, New York 1973. Reprinted by The University of Chicago Press

https://archive.org/details/masteroflightbio0000livi/page/200/mode/2up?q=ryerson

Pages 199-200 appear to describe the ether-drift experiment in Ryerson Hall. I am suffering a neurological difficult making it unlikely that I will edit the Wikipedia article. I would be delighted if someone else could confirm my reading and make an appropriate edit. Mjodonnell (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)