Positive attitude and power of thought. Is it possible to live long

Analysis of the Michelson–Morley experience

Russian scientist V.A. Atsyukovsky scrupulously analyzed the experimental foundations of Einstein's theories of relativity and came to the following conclusion: "Analysis of the results of experiments conducted by various researchers in order to verify the provisions of SRT and GRT showed that experiments in which positive and unambiguously interpreted results were obtained, confirming the provisions and conclusions of the theories of relativity A. Einstein does not exist."

This conclusion extends to the most famous experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment. Note that the Michelson-Morley interferometer was stationary relative to the Earth, only light was moving. The authors believed that they would be able to fix the influence of the Earth's velocity V = 30 km/s relative to the Sun on the deflection of the interference fringe of light. The calculation was made according to the formula

The expected fringe shift of 0.04 was not recorded. And the authors for some reason did not begin to look for the reason for the discrepancies between theory and experiment. Let's do it for them.

Since photons have mass, the Earth for them is an inertial frame of reference and their behavior in the field of its gravity should not differ from the behavior of other bodies with mass in this field, so we must substitute in the above formula not the speed of the Earth relative to the Sun ( V = 30 km / s), and the speed of the Earth's surface (V = 0.5 km / s), formed by its rotation about its axis. Then the expected shift of the interference fringe in the Michelson-Morley experiment will not be 0.04, but much less

. (423)

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Michelson-Morley instrument showed no shift in the interference fringe. And we now know the reason for this: it lacked the necessary sensitivity (accuracy).

However, the Nobel Committee issued in 1907 to A. Michelson Nobel Prize"For the creation of precision optical instruments and the performance of spectroscopic and metrological studies with their help." We add that the erroneous interpretation of Michelson's experiment was the experimental basis for A. Einstein's erroneous theories of relativity.

But what if we set up such an experiment so that in it the light source and the device that fixes the displacement of the interference fringe move (rotate) in the Earth's gravitational field? In this case, the readings of the instruments are compared in the absence of rotation of the entire installation and during its rotation. It is immediately clear that in the absence of rotation of the installation, the measurement principle will not differ from the measurement principle in the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the device will not show any displacement of the interference fringe. But as soon as the installation begins to rotate in the Earth's gravity field, a shift of the indicated band should immediately appear. This is explained by the fact that while the light goes from the source to the receiver, the position of the latter changes in the Earth's gravity field relative to the source, and the device must record the shift of the indicated band.

We emphasize once again: the position of the signal source and receiver in the Michelson-Morley experiment does not change relative to each other in the Earth's gravity field, but in the example we have described, it does. This is the main difference between these experiments. The described elementary logic is convincingly confirmed by Sagnac's experience. The results of his experiment contradict the readings of the Michelson-Morley interferometer, and relativists hush up and stubbornly ignore this fact, clearly demonstrating that they are not interested in scientific truth.

We have given fairly strong evidence of the fallacy of Einstein's theories of relativity, so the question involuntarily arises: how can we now perceive the fact that A. Einstein's theories of relativity lie at the foundation, according to relativists, of all the achievements of physics in the 20th century? Very simple! All these achievements are the result of the efforts mainly of experimental physicists who conducted experiments not to test physical theories, but to obtain such a result that could be used for military purposes or in competition when conquering markets for their products.

Theorists, of course, tried to find an explanation for these achievements, somehow justify them, but these explanations turned out to be approximate and superficial. The main brake in explaining the deep foundations of matter and the universe was the stereotype of thinking formed by Einstein's erroneous theories, and the persistence of his supporters in defending these theories from criticism.

12.5. How were the planets of the solar system born?

Let us analyze only that hypothesis about the formation of the planets of the solar system, according to which they were formed from a star flying near the Sun, which captured it with its gravitational field (Fig. 228, a).

Rice. 228. a) - diagram of the motion of the planets around the Sun; scheme

entrainment of star A by the gravitational force of the Sun (C)

into orbital motion

This hypothesis allows us to find answers to most of the main questions related to the birth of planets.

Let's start the analysis of the process of the birth of the planets of the Solar System with the formulation of the main questions, the answers to which should follow from this analysis.

1. Why are the orbits of all the planets almost circular?

2. Why are the orbits of all the planets almost in the same plane?

3. Why do all the planets revolve around the Sun in the same direction?

4. Why do the directions of rotation of the planets (with the exception of Uranus) around their axes coincide with the directions of their rotation around the Sun?

5. Why are the planes of the orbits of most planetary satellites close to their equatorial planes?

6. Why are the orbits of most satellites nearly circular?

7. Why do most of the satellites and the ring of Saturn revolve around their planets in the same direction as the planets around the Sun?

8. Why is there a planetary density gradient?

9. Is it possible to assume that the regularity of the changing density of the planets, as they move away from the Sun, is similar to the change in density existing sun, starting from its core to its surface?

10. Why, as planets move away from the Sun, do their densities first decrease and then slightly increase?

We have already shown that the formation of basic elementary particles: photons, electrons, protons and neutrons is controlled by the law of conservation of angular momentum (momentum), the mathematical model of which is Planck's constant (219). We have called this law the main law governing the formation of the material world. From this it follows that the same law should have controlled the process of the birth of the planets of the solar system. Now we will make sure high probability connection of this hypothesis with reality.

Since the planets do not have rectilinear motions, but rotate relative to the Sun and relative to their axes, to describe these rotations we will use a mathematical model of the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Now we formulate a hypothesis. The planets of the solar system were formed from a star that flew past the Sun and was captured by its gravitational field (Fig. 228, b, positions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5…). When a star was far from the Sun, then, moving in space, it rotated only about its axis, which was parallel (mostly) to the axis of rotation of the Sun. It is quite natural that the star had its own angular momentum, the magnitude of which is not known to us. However, we know that the absence of external forces kept this moment constant. As we approached the Sun, the Sun's gravitational force began to act on the star.

Suppose that this star flew past the Sun at a distance equal to the distance from the Sun to the very first planet Mercury. It is quite natural that the gravitational force of the Sun (Fig. 228, b, positions: 2, 3, 4 ...) involved this star in Roundabout Circulation around the sun. The next assumption is that the direction of rotation of the star around its axis coincided with the direction of rotation of the star around the Sun. As a result, the angular momentum of rotation around the Sun was added to the angular momentum of the star's rotation about its axis.

Since the star was in a plasma state, like the Sun, only smaller than the Sun in mass and size, it could stay in orbit only if the centrifugal force of inertia and the gravitational force of the Sun were equal (Fig. 228, b, position 5). If this equality did not exist, then only that part of the strongly bound star plasma (Fig. 228, position 6), which ensured equality between the centrifugal force of inertia and the gravitational force of the Sun, could hold on to the formed first orbit. The remaining part of the star's plasma began to move away from the Sun under the action of a greater centrifugal force of inertia (Fig. 228, position 7). In the process of moving away from the Sun, the next portion of a stable structure began to form from the receding part of the star, which the gravitational force of the Sun again separated from the star's plasma and formed the second planet - Venus. The sequence of events described formed the planets around the Sun.

Now we need to prove the reliability of the described hypothetical scenario for the birth of the solar system. To do this, we collect information about state of the art planets of the solar system. In this information, it is necessary to include the masses of all the planets and their major satellites, the densities of all the planets, their radii, as well as the orbital radii, orbital velocities, and the angular speeds of rotation of the planets about their axes. This information will allow us to find the orbital angular momentum of the star at the moment it begins to rotate around the Sun. A star moving away from the Sun due to the fact that the centrifugal force of inertia more power gravitation of the Sun, will leave as much plasma mass in the orbits of the existing planets as they now have it in a solid state together with their satellites.

It is quite natural that the total angular momentum of all modern planets will be equal to the angular momentum of the star at the moment of the beginning of its orbital motion around the Sun (Fig. 228, b, position 5).

So, let's give basic information about the Sun and its planets. The sun has mass . Its radius is , and its density . The angular velocity of the Sun's rotation about its axis is . It is known that the sum of the masses of all the planets and their satellites is almost 1000 times less than the mass of the Sun. Below, in table. 61 shows the masses of the planets of the solar system and their densities.

Table 61. Masses of planets and their satellites, and densities of planets

planets	Masses, , kg	density,
1. Mercury
2. Venus
3. Earth
4. Mars
5. Jupiter
6. Saturn
7. Uranus
8. Neptune
9. Pluto
Total

We took the basic information about the parameters of the planets on the Internet: Astronomy + Astronomy for amateurs + Solar system + planet names + planet in numbers. It turned out that the compilers of this background information made a number of mistakes. For example, according to their data, the orbital radii of Jupiter and Saturn are the same, while Neptune's orbital radius, expressed in astronomical units, differs from its value, expressed in kilometers. It seems to us that the published hypothesis will be of interest to professional astronomers, and they, having more accurate information, will refine the results of our calculations.

Let's pay attention to the sequence of changes in the density of the planets. Those of them that are closer to the Sun have a greater density. As the planets move away from the Sun, their density first decreases, and then grows again. Saturn has the smallest density, and the Earth has the largest. It is surprising that the Sun, being in the plasma state, has a density ( ) greater than that of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, which are in a solid state.

It is believed that Saturn is composed mainly of solid hydrogen and helium. In the composition of Neptune and Pluto, in addition to hydrogen and helium, there are other chemical elements.

If we assume that all the planets formed from a star, then it should have a density gradient, approximately the same as that formed in successively formed planets. The core of the star consisted of heavier chemical elements, which were born in the process of her life and evolution and descended by her forces of gravity to the center. The fact that Saturn, having the most low density, consists mainly of hydrogen, provokes the assumption that hydrogen, as the main source of thermonuclear reactions, occupied the middle region of the star, in which thermonuclear explosions occur. Most of heavy chemical elements that are born at the same time, rushes by the force of gravity of the star to its core, and a smaller part is ejected by explosions towards the surface of the star.

The described provokes us also to assume that the modern Sun also has a density gradient with a sequence that the density gradient of the sequence of planets has (Table 40). From this it follows that thermonuclear reactions take place approximately in the middle spherical region of the Sun, and the prominences on its surface are the consequences of these explosions.

If the described hypothesis of a change in the density of a star in a plasma state is close to reality, then the difference between the centrifugal force and the gravitational force of the Sun, which acted on a passing star, should have delayed, first of all, that part of its plasma that has highest density, which means the strongest bond between the molecules of chemical elements. The lighter part of the plasma, with a smaller bond between the molecules of chemical elements, must be removed from the Sun by the centrifugal force of inertia, which is greater than the gravitational force of the Sun. The probability of such a scenario is confirmed by the tides in the oceans of the Earth, formed by the gravitational force of the Moon, which is equivalent in action to the force of inertia.

Of course, water is not a plasma, but its fluidity is sufficient to respond to a change in the magnitude of the gravitational force of the Moon with a change in the distance between the ocean surface and the Moon by only 3.3%.

The radii of the planets and the radii of their orbits, as well as the angular velocities of rotation of the planets relative to their axes and relative to the Sun, and the orbital velocities of the planets. They are presented in tables 62, 63.

Table 62

Orbital centrifugal forces of inertia and the gravitational forces of the Sun, acting on modern planets, are presented in Table. 64. Their equality is proof of the stability of the orbits (Table 64).

Table 64

It is quite natural that only that part of its plasma remained in the first orbit, which the star began to form, which came from space to the Sun, which ensured equality between the gravitational force of the Sun and the centrifugal force of inertia (Table 65). It is also obvious that such separation of the star's plasma began at the very beginning of its rotation relative to the Sun, so the orbital velocity of the plasma remaining in the first orbit could decrease.

Table 65

modern planets

planets
1. Mercury
2. Venus
3. Earth
4. Mars
5. Jupiter
6. Saturn
7. Uranus
8. Neptune
9. Pluto

It is also natural that the gravitational forces of that part of the plasma that remained in the first orbit formed a spherical formation out of it, shape-like the modern planet Mercury (Fig. 228, b, position 6).

Thus, a spherical formation with a sufficiently high density remained in the first orbit, and the rest of the star's plasma moved away from the Sun by the centrifugal force of inertia. As a result, from the receding plasma, the forces of gravity formed the second portion of the plasma with a mass that ensures equality between the force of gravity of the Sun and the force of inertia. From this portion, the second planet, Venus, was formed, and the remaining plasma of the former star continued to move away from the Sun. Then our planet was formed from it, and another object separated from the receding part of the remnant of the star, which we now call the Moon. Thus, portions with a higher density gradually emerged from the plasma of the former star.

The moment came when a part of the sphere with the maximum number hydrogen, which provided thermonuclear reactions of the star, and Jupiter was formed first, and then Saturn.

The remaining plasma had less hydrogen and more of the heavier chemical elements that were ejected nuclear explosions on the surface of a star during its normal activity. As a result, the density of the outermost planets increased.

Of course, the process of separating each portion of the star's plasma is very complicated. There are bonding forces between the molecules of chemical elements and their clusters, the internal forces of gravity of the star, the centrifugal forces of inertia of the rotation of the star about its axis, the orbital centrifugal forces of inertia and the forces of gravity of the Sun. However, the plasma state of the matter of the star leads to the fact that the gravitational force of the Sun detains in orbit, first of all, that part of it that has the highest density, since the forces that unite this part are greater than the forces that act in the less dense layers of the star. In the receding part of the star, gravitational forces will again form the core of those chemical elements that are closer to its center.

From the described scheme of planet formation, we immediately get an answer to the question of the reasons for their movement in one plane and the coincidence of their rotations (excluding Uranus) relative to their axes and relative to the Sun with the direction of rotation of the Sun relative to its axis.

It is quite natural that the formation of planetary satellites is a consequence of the plasma state of parts of the star moving away from the Sun. Some of these parts were separated from that part of the star's plasma, which, having separated from itself a portion for the formation of a planet, moving away from the Sun, lost some more of its plasma. The fact that the density of the Moon is less than the density of the Earth confirms this assumption.

As for the reverse rotation of Uranus relative to its axis, there may be several reasons for this and they must be analyzed.

So, the described process of planet formation is possible if a portion of the star's plasma comes to each orbit, the centrifugal force of which will be greater than the gravitational force of the Sun. How to check it?

We have already noted the role of the law of conservation of angular momentum. First of all, the total mass of all planets and their satellites must be equal to the mass of the star from which they formed. Further, the total value of the kinetic moments of all existing planets and their satellites must be equal to the kinetic moment of the star at the moment of the beginning of its rotation relative to the Sun (Fig. 228, b, position 5). Both of these quantities are easy to calculate. The results of these calculations are presented in tables 65-66. It only remains for us to give explanations on the method of these calculations.

Table 65

planets	Own throw. moments,	Orbital throw. moments,
1. Mercury
2. Venus
3. Earth
4. Mars
5. Jupiter
6. Saturn
7. Uranus
8. Neptune
9. Pluto

The information presented in table. 40, obtained from reference data on the planets of the solar system. The values ​​of the angular velocities of rotation of the planets around their own axes and around the Sun (Table 63), necessary to calculate the kinetic moments of rotation of the planets relative to their axes and relative to the Sun, are taken from the Internet.

Table 66

planets	Orbital throw. moments,	General throw. moments,
1. Mercury
2. Venus
3. Earth
4. Mars
5. Jupiter
6. Saturn
7. Uranus
8. Neptune
9. Pluto
Total

Let us pay attention to the fact that the planets have shapes close to spherical, so their moments of inertia about their axes of rotation are determined by the formula . Next important information(Table 65): the orbital angular momentum of all the planets is several orders of magnitude greater than the angular momentum of their rotation relative to their axes. As a result, for approximate calculations, it is sufficient to take the total angular momentum of all planets equal to their orbital values.

Bernard Jeff

5. Michelson-Morley experiment

The Case School of Applied Science, which opened its doors to students in 1881 and subsequently became Institute of Technology Case, was located in the house that had previously belonged to Case on Rockville Street, not far from the central square of Cleveland. The first thing Michelson had to do upon taking up his duties was to equip a laboratory in an outbuilding on the school grounds.

Adjacent to Case's property was Western Reserve University, which was transferred to Cleveland in the summer of 1882 from Hudson, Ohio. Across the street, a hundred meters from Michelson's laboratory, was Adelbert Hall, one of the university buildings where chemistry professor Edward W. Morley worked.

Michelson and Morley soon became acquainted and became close on the basis of common interests. scientific interests. Together they traveled to scientific conferences in Baltimore, Montreal and other cities, and the better they got to know each other, the more their mutual sympathy and respect grew stronger.

Outwardly, these two scientists seemed very different. Morley was more than fifteen years older than Michelson and descended from English settlers who left the British Isles at the beginning of the 17th century. His father was a Congregationalist priest, and in 1864 he himself graduated from the Theological Seminary in Andover (Massachusetts) and was preparing to accept clergy His career is an example of how a hobby turns into a life's work. Not having received a suitable spiritual department, he took up chemistry, which until then he had only done amateurly. In 1868, Western Reserve University offered him a professorship in chemistry and natural philosophy. Morley was very religious and from time to time delivered sermons in the surrounding churches. Moreover, he agreed to accept a professorship at the Western Reserve only on the condition that he be allowed to preach regularly in the university chapel.

As for Michelson, he was very far from religion. His father was an atheist, and religion did not occupy any place in the life of their family. Thus, he did not join ancient faith of his forefathers and was an unbeliever all his life. He entrusted the upbringing of children in the spirit of religion to his wife. Admiring the wonders of nature, he nevertheless refused to attribute them to some creator. One day starry night, showing and naming the constellations in the sky to his children, he said: “You can forget the names of the constellations, but I consider people who do not bow to the wonders of nature unworthy of respect.” He once wrote: “What can compare in beauty with the magnificent correspondence between the means of nature and its ends, and with that invariable rule of regularity that governs the most seemingly disorderly and complex of its manifestations?” However, he did not recognize the idea of ​​God.

Michelson was good-looking, slender, and always immaculately dressed. Morley dressed, to put it mildly, casually and would have completely corresponded to the stereotypical idea of ​​​​an absent-minded professor, if not for the liveliness of his movements, energy and talkativeness. He wore shoulder-length hair and a huge red mustache that stuck out almost to his ears. He was married but childless.

However, Michelson and Morley had much in common. Both loved music. Michelson played the violin well, and Morley was an excellent organist. Both were distinguished by ingenuity in terms of precise measuring instruments and extraordinary thoroughness in their work. Morley, like Michelson, did not miss a single detail and, like him, taking up the study of any scientific problem He didn't back down until he got the job done.

Prior to meeting Michelson, Morley, while checking reports of different percentages of oxygen in different air samples, undertook a study of the relative weight of oxygen and hydrogen in the composition pure water. This research took almost twenty years. He conducted thousands of experiments, many at his own expense. He analyzed countless samples of distilled water by electrolysis and synthesized water by the method of an electric spark by combining given amounts of two elements. As a result of many years of research, he determined the weight of these elements to the fifth decimal place. A liter of oxygen weighs 1.42900 g, and hydrogen 0.89873 g, s possible mistake one three hundred thousandth. These values ​​were universally accepted as standard, as was Morley's ratio of hydrogen to oxygen of 1.0076 to 16. Morley's experiments were classic and won him worldwide recognition.

Influence of the motion of the medium on the speed of light

Lord Kelvin and Lord Rayleigh asked Michelson to test the influence of the motion of the medium on the speed of light. Michelson decided to take water as a moving medium and shared his idea with Morley. He offered him his laboratory for work. It was located in a large basement room, and the conditions in it were ideal for the experience conceived by Michelson. Morley was not a physicist, but he was quick-witted, resourceful, and passionate about the problem. In 1860, while still a student, he worked at one time in the field of astronomy. Michelson told him about the task before them and about the device that he was thinking of using. Morley was ready to get to work immediately. However, in September 1885, when work on the experiment was still in initial stage, Michelson appeared in the laboratory in the morning in a completely miserable form. He told Morley that he was suffering from nervous exhaustion and needs a long rest. He said he had to leave Cleveland for at least for a year. Wouldn't Morley agree to complete the device on his own, conduct experiments and publish the results? He handed over to Morley a certain amount he had received for experiments, and added another 100 dollars of his own. Morley then received a letter from Michelson from New York. They corresponded regularly about the experiment. Four months later, Michelson unexpectedly arrived in Cleveland and offered to continue working together. His health improved significantly and he was able to complete the experiment. In 1886, the American Journal of Science, signed by both of them, appeared the work The Influence of the Motion of a Medium on the Speed ​​of Light. Michelson and Morley found that the movement of water has an effect on the speed of light, but not in the way that one would expect from the aether theory. Their experience confirmed the results of research done by Fizeau in 1851. Two at once educational institutions– Western Reserve University and Stevens Institute of Technology awarded Michelson a Ph.D. This one was the first academic degree Michelson, because in his time the Naval Academy did not yet have the right to award the title of Bachelor of Science.

Now, with improved apparatus and enriched experience, Michelson was able to return to the experiment with the ether, which he had been postponing for so long. Morley also had to take part in this work. They were filled with the most optimistic hopes, and Morley wrote to his father on April 17, 1887: “Michelson and I have begun a new experiment, which should show whether the speed of propagation of light is the same in all directions. I have no doubt that we will get the final answer." Of course, Morley somewhat simplistically defined the purpose of the experiment. Michelson and Morley were about to make a determined attempt to "catch" the elusive ether. When positive result science will receive not only the speed of the Earth's movement in orbit relative to the ether, but also the speed of its rotation around its axis, and, perhaps, even a method for determining the speed of movement in space of the entire solar system. This would be the first attempt, by means of a local optical phenomenon, to determine the absolute motion of the Earth in space, which was identified with the ether.

Michelson-Morley instrument

The device they designed turned out to be a very massive structure. It consisted of a stone slab approximately 150 square centimeters in area and about 30 cm thick. On the slab were placed four mirrors made of an alloy of copper, tin and arsenic, as well as all other equipment, including an Argand burner. To ensure strictly horizontal position stone slab and avoid errors due to vibration, friction and tension, the slab floated in mercury purified by Morley. Mercury was poured into an annular cast-iron vessel with a wall thickness of about 1.5 cm; a donut-shaped wooden stand floated on top of the mercury, and a stone slab was already installed on it. The axial rod ensured the concentricity of the wooden float and the cast iron vessel. The gap between the vessel wall and the outer rim of the float was less than 1.5 cm (Fig. 9).

Rice. 9. Michelson-Morley installation.
A large and very heavy stone slab rested on a wooden float placed in liquid mercury. The vessel with mercury had the shape of a donut. Floating in the liquid, the stone slab and wooden stand remained strictly horizontal.

The cast-iron vessel rested on a support, which was a low, sloping brick octagon, inside of which cement was poured. The foundation of the interferometer went deep into the ground, to the bedrock, since upper layer soil was not stable enough. On the circumference of the vessel, at the same distance from one another, sixteen marks were made. Wooden case protected optical part appliance (mirror at each corner of the plate) from air currents and sudden changes in temperature.

The resistance to the motion of a heavy apparatus was reduced to a minimum, and by applying a slight force around its circumference, it was possible to give it a slow, smooth and continuous rotation. One full rotation was completed in about 6 minutes. The observer walked around the apparatus, moving simultaneously with the rotating stone slab, and periodically stopped, looking through a small telescope to check if the interference fringes had shifted. Such a shift would mean a change in the speed of light in that direction (Fig. 10).

Rice. ten. Interferometer in the Michelson-Morley setup.
The principle of its operation is the same as that of the device shown in Fig. eight.

It took several months to adjust this unique device. In the end, Michelson made sure that he registered the slightest shift interference fringes. Morley and Michelson alternately walked around the instrument and looked through the telescope.

They assumed that during the year there should be two days when maximum effect bias (if such an effect exists at all). On one day the Earth will move in the exact opposite direction to that in which it moved on that other day.

They made observations daily at twelve o'clock in the afternoon and at six o'clock in the evening in sixteen different directions. Straining their eyes, they peered into the interference fringes, trying to determine their displacement.

The experiments were completed in July 1887. When all the results were brought together and analyzed, all the calculations were made and repeatedly verified, the researchers found themselves in the face of a stubborn fact that destroyed the whole harmonious theory. Against all expectations, no displacement of the order required by the fixed ether hypothesis was found. It was like a death sentence for the idea of ​​a motionless ethereal ocean. Michelson was quite sympathetic to the theory of the fixed ether and hoped that experiment would make it possible to discover it. How else could electromagnetic oscillations, including light waves, propagate? Again, the result of a finely conceived and brilliantly executed experiment led Michelson to complete bewilderment.

"The Greatest of All Negative Results"

Michelson and Morley sent their report to the American Journal of Science. It was entitled: "On the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether." In the same year it was also published in the English Philosophical Magazine. Michelson's conclusion became known to scientists all over the world. In whatever direction the observer moved, there was no perceptible difference in the speed of light. In other words, you had to admit the incredible: no matter how fast you run after the light, it is impossible to catch up with it. He will still run away from you at a speed of 300,000 km per second. Such a conclusion was contrary to all human experience. An airplane flying at a speed of 600 km per hour with a tailwind blowing at a speed of 50 km per hour makes 650 km per hour relative to some fixed point. If it flies against the wind, its speed will decrease to 550 km per hour. Since the Earth moves around the Sun at a speed of about 30 km per second, the speed of a light beam going in the same direction as the Earth must be greater than the speed of a beam going in the opposite direction. However, Michelson's experience refuted this assumption.

The English physicist and philosopher John D. Bernal called Michelson and Morley's discovery "the greatest of all negative results in the history of science." However, Michelson was not completely discouraged by the results of his experience. Although they ruled out the existence of a motionless ether, there remained one more possibility that “the Earth drags the ether with it, giving it almost the same speed with which it moves itself, so that the speed of the ether with respect to the surface of the Earth is zero or very small.”

Ten years after the publication of this historic report, Michelson experimentally tested “the second hypothesis by sending two beams of light along the perimeter of a vertically placed rectangle, the sides of which were equal to 15 and 60 m. The results did not confirm this hypothesis.

Michelson was not convinced that the "failure" of his experiment finally settled the issue. “Since the result of the experiment was negative, the problem is still waiting to be resolved,” he publicly stated. And to console himself, he brought a rather unexpected argument: “In my opinion, the experiment was not in vain, since the search for a solution to this problem led to the invention of the interferometer. I think that everyone recognizes that the invention of the interferometer fully compensates for the negative result of this experiment.

Many years later, speaking at the Mount Wilson Observatory to a scientific audience, Michelson gave a very different assessment of the relative importance of the experiment with the ether and the invention of the interferometer. He acknowledged that his statement about greater value tool contradicted "certain important theoretical considerations" that shocked scientific world. As it turned out over the past years, Michelson, without suspecting it, prepared the material from which one of the greatest scientific theories of all time was built in Europe. This is one of rare cases when the original discovery was made in America and later used in Europe. It almost always happened the other way around.

Michelson-Morley experiment

Scheme of the experimental setup

Experimental setup illustration

Michelson's experience- a physical experiment set by Michelson in 1991 to measure the dependence of the speed of light on the motion of the Earth relative to the ether. The ether was then understood as a medium similar to volumetrically distributed matter, in which light propagates like sound vibrations. The result of the experiment was negative - the speed of light did not depend in any way on the speed of the Earth and on the direction of the measured speed. Later in the year, Michelson, with Morley, performed a similar but more accurate experiment known as Michelson-Morley experiment and showing the same result. In 2009, an even more accurate experiment was conducted at Columbia University (USA) using counter-directional beams of two masers, which showed the invariance of the frequency from the Earth's movement with an accuracy of about 10 −9% (the sensitivity to the Earth's velocity relative to the ether was 30 km / s). Even more accurate measurements in 1974 the sensitivity was increased to 0.025 m/s. Modern versions of Michelson's experiment use optical and cryogenic microwave cavities and make it possible to detect the deviation of the speed of light if it were several units per 10 −16 .

Michelson's experience is the empirical basis of the principle of invariance of the speed of light, which is included in the general theory of relativity (GR) and the special theory of relativity (SRT).

Notes

Links

• Physical Encyclopedia, vol. 3. - M.: Bolshaya Russian Encyclopedia; page 27 and page 28 .
• G. A. Lorenz. Michelson's interference experiment. From the book "Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern. Leiden, 1895 , paragraphs 89...92.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what the "Michelson-Morley Experiment" is in other dictionaries:

MICHELSON MORLEY EXPERIMENT, an experiment that had great importance for the development of science. It was carried out in 1887 by Albert MICELSON and Edward MORLY to reveal the motion of the Earth through the ETHER. The fact that this movement was not detected then… …

General view of the interferometer in perspective. Image from the report of A. Michelson based on the results of his experiments performed in 1881. The movement of the Earth around the Sun and through the ether ... Wikipedia

- (Morley) Edward Williams (1838 1923), American chemist who worked with Albert MICELSON on the famous EXPERIMENT OF MICHELSON MORLEY in 1887. This experiment proved that there is no hypothetical substance called "ether", ... ... Scientific and technical encyclopedic dictionary

General view of the interferometer in perspective. Image from A. Michelson's report on the results of his experiments performed in 1881 ... Wikipedia

Theories of relativity form an essential part of the theoretical basis of modern physics. There are two main theories: private (special) and general. Both were created by A. Einstein, private in 1905, general in 1915. In modern physics, private ... ... Collier Encyclopedia

Albert Abraham Michelson Albert Abraham Michelson ... Wikipedia

Michelson, Albert Abraham Albert Abraham Michelson Albert Abraham Michelson Birthday ... Wikipedia

Albert Abraham Michelson Albert Abraham Michelson (Eng. Albert Abraham Michelson December 19, 1852, Strelno, Prussia May 9, 1931, Pasadena, USA) is an American physicist, known for the invention of the Michelson interferometer named after him and ... ... Wikipedia

Books

• Errors and delusions of modern physics (the theory of relativity and the classical theory of gravitation), Avdeev EN Any scientific theory must meet two basic requirements: the absence of systemic logical contradictions and correspondence to experience. Neither one nor the other is satisfied by the theory ...
• Mistakes and delusions of modern physics. The theory of relativity and the classical theory of gravitation, Avdeev E. Any scientific theory must meet two basic requirements: the absence of systemic logical contradictions and correspondence to experience. Neither one nor the other is satisfied by the theory ...