Advertisement

The Michelson-Morley Experiment

  • C. K. Raju
Part of the Fundamental Theories of Physics book series (FTPH, volume 65)

Abstract

In the previous two chapters, we covered problems related to the physical notion of time in (i) philosophy and (ii) Newtonian mechanics. Our contention is that a theoretical analysis of the concept of time in Newtonian theory is and was of greater relevance than the Michelson-Morley experiment in understanding the special theory of relativity. Here we argue in support of the latter part of the contention. The Michelson-Morley experiment, though relevant, was not intended to test the constancy of the speed of light. Rather, the experiment attempted to distinguish between the theories of Fresnel and Stokes, both of which used the aether hypothesis. Michelson concluded that the Stokes theory was valid, while Miller was awarded a prize for his claim to have detected an aether drift, which was widely disbelieved.

Keywords

Special Theory Apparent Position Stellar Parallax Stokes Theory Aether Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    H. A. Lorentz et al, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, 1952.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. T. Whittaker, [ 1910 ], History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity Vol. I: The Classical Theories, Thomas Nelson and Sons, London, 1951.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. C. Maxwell [1879], Nature, 29 Jan 1880, 315.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Fresnel, Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 9, 57–66 (1818).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. G. Stokes, Philosophical Magazine, 27, 9–15 (1845); 28, 76–81 (1846).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. A. Michelson, Amer. J. Sci., 22, 120–9 (1881).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jonathan Powers, Philosophy and the New Physics, Methuen, London, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, Philosophical Magazine, S.5, 24, 449–63 (1887), Amer. J. Sci. 3, 333–45 (1887); E. W. Morley and D. C. Miller, Philosophical Magazine S.6, 8, 753–4 (1904); Phil.Mag. 680–5 (1905) and Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., 41, 321–7 (1905); D. C. Miller, Rev. Mod. Phys., 5, 203–42 (1933); see also Phys. Rev., 19 (4), 407–8 (1922).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conference on the Michelson-Morley Experiments held at Mount Wilson Observatory, Pasadena, California, Feb. 4 and 5 1927, Ap.J., 68 (5), 341–402 (1928).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. S. Shanidand, S. W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone, and G. Kuerti, Rev. Mod. Phys., 27, 167 (1955); J.L. Synge, The Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, 26, 45–54 (1952–4).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Kaufmann, Ann. der Phys., 19, 487 (1906).ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Pais, ‘Subtle is the Lord…’ ( Oxford: Univ. Press, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. L. Synge, Relativity: the Special Theory, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1956, p 161–2.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    R.S. Shankland, Amer. J. Phys., 31, 47 (1962);32, 16 (1964); 41, 895 (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. K. Raju
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Advanced StudyRashtrapati NivasShimlaIndia
  2. 2.Centre for Development of Advanced ComputingNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations