The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was expected to
be affected by its relative motion with respect to an aether,
composes one frame of reference. I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a completely
different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the aether;
in this leg there was no expected influence of an aether wind
upon the radiation and so it can be considered as a separate frame
from the lab frame and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

But the actual light source of the Michelson-Morley experiment
effectively exists at the intersection of these two different
frames of reference and yet emits the same radiation into both of them;
so then, how can we say that the source will be affected by
the relative motion between the lab frame and the aether frames
when the light source exists inside both frames at the same time?

We can't, and that's why there's a null result.

"ca314159" wrote in message ...
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was expected to
be affected by its relative motion with respect to an aether,
composes one frame of reference. I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a completely
different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the aether;
in this leg there was no expected influence of an aether wind
upon the radiation and so it can be considered as a separate frame
from the lab frame and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

But the actual light source of the Michelson-Morley experiment
effectively exists at the intersection of these two different
frames of reference and yet emits the same radiation into both of them;
so then, how can we say that the source will be affected by
the relative motion between the lab frame and the aether frames
when the light source exists inside both frames at the same time?

We can't, and that's why there's a null result.

You can theorise all you want to, Sagnac doesn't get a null result but it would
if you stopped it turning.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Dear ca314159:

On May 8, 8:08 am, ca314159 wrote:
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was
expected tobe affected by its relative motion with
respect to an aether, composes one frame of reference.
I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a
completely different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the
aether; in this leg there was no expected influence
of an aether wind upon the radiation and so it can be
considered as a separate frame from the lab frame
and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

Actually, no. Both legs would have to be under influence of the
"aether wind". If light were a canoe, and it went perpendicularly
across the stream, it would end up downstream.

Not only that, but no one expected that the motion of the Earth ever
*necessarily* exactly cancelled the apparatus' motion through the
aether.

David A. Smith

ca314159 wrote in news:46409267.3C8E2341
@bestweb.net:

The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was expected to
be affected by its relative motion with respect to an aether,
composes one frame of reference. I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a completely
different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the aether;

So what? It CAN still be included in the LAB FoR.

in this leg there was no expected influence of an aether wind
upon the radiation and so it can be considered as a separate frame
from the lab frame and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

But the actual light source of the Michelson-Morley experiment
effectively exists at the intersection of these two different
frames of reference and yet emits the same radiation into both of them;
so then, how can we say that the source will be affected by
the relative motion between the lab frame and the aether frames
when the light source exists inside both frames at the same time?

Lack of motion in a FoR does NOT require a second FoR

We can't, and that's why there's a null result.

Try it with a moving liquid media.

Tell me if using different FoRs in the analysis will give you different
experimental results.





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

You don't know what "frame of reference" means.
That is not correctable.
I suggest that you stop using terms that you can't understand.

Paul Cardinale

dlzc wrote:

Dear ca314159:

On May 8, 8:08 am, ca314159 wrote:
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was
expected tobe affected by its relative motion with
respect to an aether, composes one frame of reference.
I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a
completely different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the
aether; in this leg there was no expected influence
of an aether wind upon the radiation and so it can be
considered as a separate frame from the lab frame
and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

Actually, no. Both legs would have to be under influence of the
"aether wind". If light were a canoe, and it went perpendicularly
across the stream, it would end up downstream.

The length contraction proposed by Lorentz-Fitzgerald only
applied to one leg of the interferometer not to both;
their interpretation was adequate to describe the null result.


Not only that, but no one expected that the motion of the Earth ever
*necessarily* exactly cancelled the apparatus' motion through the
aether.


The role of the "aether" was purposely abstracted in
the interpretation I gave; the main point there being that
the light source (effectively the beam splitter)
was integral to both frames, and so a null result should
be expected.

Dual laser MM:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v133/i5A/pA1221_1

"ca314159" wrote in message
...
dlzc wrote:

Dear ca314159:

On May 8, 8:08 am, ca314159 wrote:
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was
expected tobe affected by its relative motion with
respect to an aether, composes one frame of reference.
I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a
completely different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the
aether; in this leg there was no expected influence
of an aether wind upon the radiation and so it can be
considered as a separate frame from the lab frame
and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

Actually, no. Both legs would have to be under influence of the
"aether wind". If light were a canoe, and it went perpendicularly
across the stream, it would end up downstream.

The length contraction proposed by Lorentz-Fitzgerald only
applied to one leg of the interferometer not to both;
their interpretation was adequate to describe the null result.


You are aware that the interferometer is rotated?

As the interferometer is rotated, the aether wind would be reduced for one
leg as it increased for the other. This would result in fringe shifts as the
lengths of the legs changed.

Dear ca314159:

"ca314159" wrote in message
...
dlzc wrote:

Dear ca314159:

On May 8, 8:08 am, ca314159 wrote:
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was
expected tobe affected by its relative motion with
respect to an aether, composes one frame of
reference. I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a
completely different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the
aether; in this leg there was no expected influence
of an aether wind upon the radiation and so it can be
considered as a separate frame from the lab frame
and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

Actually, no. Both legs would have to be under
influence of the "aether wind". If light were a canoe,
and it went perpendicularly across the stream, it
would end up downstream.

The length contraction proposed by Lorentz-Fitzgerald

Post-dates MMX.

only applied to one leg of the interferometer not to
both; their interpretation was adequate to describe
the null result.

With an entirely different kind of aether that was expected at
the time. Otherwise, the expectation of the aether at this time
was, there could be a noticeable fringe shift.

Not only that, but no one expected that the motion of
the Earth ever *necessarily* exactly cancelled the
apparatus' motion through the aether.

The role of the "aether" was purposely abstracted in
the interpretation I gave; the main point there being that
the light source (effectively the beam splitter)
was integral to both frames, and so a null result should
be expected.

You failed to so abstract:
in this leg there was no expected influence
of an aether wind upon the radiation

I gave the analogy of canoe and stream, but you missed the point.
The arm where less Lorentz contraction should take place, there
was expected to be a longer path length, and a consequent fringe
shift.

David A. Smith

OG wrote:

"ca314159" wrote in message
...
dlzc wrote:

Dear ca314159:

On May 8, 8:08 am, ca314159 wrote:
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was
expected tobe affected by its relative motion with
respect to an aether, composes one frame of reference.
I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a
completely different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the
aether; in this leg there was no expected influence
of an aether wind upon the radiation and so it can be
considered as a separate frame from the lab frame
and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

Actually, no. Both legs would have to be under influence of the
"aether wind". If light were a canoe, and it went perpendicularly
across the stream, it would end up downstream.

The length contraction proposed by Lorentz-Fitzgerald only
applied to one leg of the interferometer not to both;
their interpretation was adequate to describe the null result.


You are aware that the interferometer is rotated?

As the interferometer is rotated, the aether wind would be reduced for one
leg as it increased for the other. This would result in fringe shifts as the
lengths of the legs changed.

While the interferometer is rotating, or after it has been rotated?

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote:

Dear ca314159:

"ca314159" wrote in message
...
dlzc wrote:

Dear ca314159:

On May 8, 8:08 am, ca314159 wrote:
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was
expected tobe affected by its relative motion with
respect to an aether, composes one frame of
reference. I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a
completely different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the
aether; in this leg there was no expected influence
of an aether wind upon the radiation and so it can be
considered as a separate frame from the lab frame
and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

Actually, no. Both legs would have to be under
influence of the "aether wind". If light were a canoe,
and it went perpendicularly across the stream, it
would end up downstream.

The length contraction proposed by Lorentz-Fitzgerald

Post-dates MMX.

only applied to one leg of the interferometer not to
both; their interpretation was adequate to describe
the null result.

With an entirely different kind of aether that was expected at
the time. Otherwise, the expectation of the aether at this time
was, there could be a noticeable fringe shift.

Not only that, but no one expected that the motion of
the Earth ever *necessarily* exactly cancelled the
apparatus' motion through the aether.

The role of the "aether" was purposely abstracted in
the interpretation I gave; the main point there being that
the light source (effectively the beam splitter)
was integral to both frames, and so a null result should
be expected.

You failed to so abstract:
in this leg there was no expected influence
of an aether wind upon the radiation

I gave the analogy of canoe and stream, but you missed the point.
The arm where less Lorentz contraction should take place, there
was expected to be a longer path length, and a consequent fringe
shift.


The up-and-downsteam light propagation time was expected to
be longer than the cross-stream propagation time,
so Lorentz suggested the up-and-down stream length
was contracted to equalize the two paths.

Lorentz claimed that matter was actually physically compressed
only in the direction of the relative motion by the transmission
of "molecular forces" through the ether, and Einstein claimed
that space itself was contracted only in that direction.

When causes are less certain than their effects interpretations
will run wild:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...iferous_aether