Michelson-Morley Experiment Proved (1 Viewer)

[untamedanimal]

In my textbook, at the end of the chapter it says that the Michelson-Morley experiment was eventually shown to work and prove that aether wind exists. If this was proven, wouldnt it mean that Einstein's special theory of relativity be wrong. The results were ignored as Einstein's theory was the accepted one.

 

[Dash]

I remember this mentioned once...
But it was a one off deal...
When Michelson and Morley obtained a "null" result, other experimenters wanted to prove them wrong.
So yeh, there was this scientist who performed the experiment himself and obtained a result proving the aether.
Since then however, the experiment has been repeated and the "null" result was conclusive.
So it was assumed that the experiment confirming the aether was flawed.
But you're right.
If the aether did exist then Einstein's special relativity theory would be incorrect.
BUT, since special relativity has been proven in a primative sense we can safely say that.........
THE DUDE WHO PROVED THAT THE AETHER EXISTED SCREWED UP SOMEWHERE

 

[kalinda]

actually there was not actually proven
sure there were a few times were the experiment worked however they were few so discounted
in the end it was called a null result

 

[George W. Bush]

Special relativity can coexist with the aether. However, special relativity doesn't require an aether to be valid.

 

[t-i-m-m-y]

Originally posted by untamedanimal
If this was proven, wouldnt it mean that Einstein's special theory of relativity be wrong.

were u the one askin' about scalin in bio?

well for physics, i suggest u forget anything about the aether existing mmkay? just learn the frigging things u need to
otherwise u really need scalin to get a band 6

 

[untamedanimal]

nothing wrong with a little bit of extra knowledge

 

[Aerials]

hmmm in all the text-books that I've read, this is the first time I hear of a person proving that the aether wind existed. And, how can the aether model and special relativity coexist? I remember my teacher telling me something about one proving the other wrong or something like that. I may be wrong though. Can someone explain? (I feel so bad, I learned this crap last term).

 

[Dash]

If you read my previous post carefully, it should all make sense...

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by untamedanimal
nothing wrong with a little bit of extra knowledge

Except for the fact that it's totally useless, and the marker won't know what you're talking about so you'll probably be marked wrong if you start an answer with m't' = k

 

[CaR]

oh damn...

wish i didnt come in here...now im in deep confusion ><"

 

[Constip8edSkunk]

are you talking about Lorentz and others who tried to distort the aether theory so that the M-M results would make sense? and that EMR's propagation is affected by a multiple of the Lorentz factor through aether. the difference is that while this sounded all well and good @ te turn of the century, there lacked evidence supporting it, while einstein's special relativity and its assumptions has been shown 2 b correct by many experiments since. so it is rather logical 2 accept einstein's theory. also, i think some of lorentz's assumptions were proven 2 b incorrect in the 1970s i think(not sure about this last part... HSC was so long ago)

anyway,

 

[untamedanimal]

No lorentz has nothing to do with it. One of the two (I think Michelson) instantly lost interest, so morley joined with another guy. Soon after morley lost interest. But after many attempts, that other guy actually got a result. But i dont know much about it, and these guys have clarified that it was a one off