Help!! w/ Michelson-Morley (1 Viewer)

[sprstvn]

Hey, I recently got this assignment, and i need help with some questions:
1) Describe and evaluate the Michelson-Morley attempt to measure the relative velocity of the Earth through the aether.
2) Discuss the role of the Michelson-Morley experiments in making determinations about competing theories.

I'm pretty sure they're questions straight from the the syllabus, I was wondering if anyone could possibly help me =D

 

[munchiecrunchie]

those are straight from the syllabus

you may want to consider the following for each one:

1) the experimental procedure, the apparatus itself; the accuracy, reliability + validity of the experiment

2) what exactly did the outcome of the MM experiment say about the aether model? what did it mean for Einstein's theory of special relativity? How did scientists deal with the outcome of the MM experiment?

 

[Rachaek]

Yep, straight from syllabus, therefore important =)
Here is some info straight from my notes, hope it helps:

(1) Describe and evaluate the Michelson-Morley attempt to measure the relative velocity of the Earth through the aether
- Aim was to measure the earth’s speed relative to the aether, it was believed that if earth moved through the aether, an ‘aether wind’ should be able to be detected
- An inferometer was set up to race two beams of light, one with the aether wind (parallel to its direction relative to the earth) and another across it (perpendicular to its direction relative to the earth.)
- A single light beam was emitted from a light source, which was then split into two beams by a half-silvered mirror. The light beams travel perpendicular to one another until they are directed back to a telescope receiver by regular mirrors. The interference pattern caused by the differences in velocities of the two beams could then be observed.
- Because the direction of the earth through the aether was unknown, the whole apparatus was then rotated through 90° with a shift expected in the interference pattern, which could be used to calculate the earth’s speed relative to the aether. However, as the apparatus was rotated, there appeared to be no shift in the interference pattern. They obtained a null result.
- The apparatus had sufficient sensitivity according to the aether model but the experiment continued to produce null results despite changes in the time of day and year.

(2) Discuss the role of the Michelson-Morley experiments in making determinations about competing theories
- For a theory to be tested, predictions must be made that can be experimentally tested to determine the validity of the theory
- The Michelson Morely experiment produce a null result, which seemed to indicate that the aether didn’t exist
- New theories about the aether were made to compensate for the null results obtained, but these also failed when tested
- Einstein proposed his theory of relativity, which although it could not be tested at the time, explained the null results of the Michelson Morely experiment
- Some scientists accepted Einstein’s theory because there was no evidence against it, whereas there was a lot of evidence not in favour of the aether model
- Einstein’s theory has now been tested with all evidence in its favour, and is now accepted.

You probably should do more research, but to get you started...

 

[sprstvn]

Yep, straight from syllabus, therefore important =)
Here is some info straight from my notes, hope it helps:

(1) Describe and evaluate the Michelson-Morley attempt to measure the relative velocity of the Earth through the aether
- Aim was to measure the earth’s speed relative to the aether, it was believed that if earth moved through the aether, an ‘aether wind’ should be able to be detected
- An inferometer was set up to race two beams of light, one with the aether wind (parallel to its direction relative to the earth) and another across it (perpendicular to its direction relative to the earth.)
- A single light beam was emitted from a light source, which was then split into two beams by a half-silvered mirror. The light beams travel perpendicular to one another until they are directed back to a telescope receiver by regular mirrors. The interference pattern caused by the differences in velocities of the two beams could then be observed.
- Because the direction of the earth through the aether was unknown, the whole apparatus was then rotated through 90° with a shift expected in the interference pattern, which could be used to calculate the earth’s speed relative to the aether. However, as the apparatus was rotated, there appeared to be no shift in the interference pattern. They obtained a null result.
- The apparatus had sufficient sensitivity according to the aether model but the experiment continued to produce null results despite changes in the time of day and year.

(2) Discuss the role of the Michelson-Morley experiments in making determinations about competing theories
- For a theory to be tested, predictions must be made that can be experimentally tested to determine the validity of the theory
- The Michelson Morely experiment produce a null result, which seemed to indicate that the aether didn’t exist
- New theories about the aether were made to compensate for the null results obtained, but these also failed when tested
- Einstein proposed his theory of relativity, which although it could not be tested at the time, explained the null results of the Michelson Morely experiment
- Some scientists accepted Einstein’s theory because there was no evidence against it, whereas there was a lot of evidence not in favour of the aether model
- Einstein’s theory has now been tested with all evidence in its favour, and is now accepted.

You probably should do more research, but to get you started...

Oh Wow! Thanks so much, it's ALOT of help

 

[imoO]

You might also want to put that although the experiment didn't show that aether was present, it didn't disprove it's present either, it just failed to provide evidence that it's present.

 

[sprstvn]

You might also want to put that although the experiment didn't show that aether was present, it didn't disprove it's present either, it just failed to provide evidence that it's present.

Alright cool, thanks buddy

 

[milolamb]

You might also want to put that although the experiment didn't show that aether was present, it didn't disprove it's present either, it just failed to provide evidence that it's present.

They changed their theory on the aether.
They said that it didn't exist (not saying that it doesn't), but it was stated
"The aether is non existent or if it does exist it is incredibly hard to find"
They won the nobel prize for that experiment to.:jaw:

 

[youngminii]

They changed their theory on the aether.
They said that it didn't exist (not saying that it doesn't), but it was stated
"The aether is non existent or if it does exist it is incredibly hard to find"
They won the nobel prize for that experiment to.:jaw:

No they didn't say that
The aether model is something that cannot be disproved. I mean, how do you disprove something?

Einstein came in while everyone was going "wtfuck, where's the aether wind" and provided an alternative solution
And it steadily became more and more accepted

 

[Continuum]

No they didn't say that
The aether model is something that cannot be disproved. I mean, how do you disprove something?

Einstein came in while everyone was going "wtfuck, where's the aether wind" and provided an alternative solution
And it steadily became more and more accepted

Lol.

 

[imoO]

The important thing is...aether cannot be found...the interferometer (the M&M experiment apparatus) showed no change in the interference pattern.

 

[youngminii]

The important thing is...aether cannot be found...the interferometer (the M&M experiment apparatus) showed no change in the interference pattern.

Again, there's a little technical error in what you said

The interferometer DID show a TINY change in the interference pattern. However, this was extremely small, and was probably due to the inaccuracies of the apparatus. The expected interference pattern was a LOT bigger.

So it's better if you say 'showed a very small amount of change, well within the boundaries of error' or something, rather than 'showed no change'