Speculations in Science and Technology 21, June 1998

THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT: THE FINAL SOLUTION?

Frank Pio Russo

P.O. Box 90 Campbelltown 5074 South Australia

The Michelson-Morley experiment is the foundation cornerstone of Einsteinian relativity: whether Einstein admitted it or not, it is where time dilation began. For over 100 years elite minds have been looking at it, yet one solution has escaped them all. Until now: here is the answer to that riddle: there is no fringe shift in the Michelson-Morley experiment, because both the lengths and the times are equal; hence there is no time dilation. This is being presented as a speculation for this journal prior to any future verification.

Introduction

I will not bore the readers with a detailed explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MME). It will suffice to say (Fig. 1) that a beam of light is separated by a beam-splitter into two beams and the resultant component beams are sent at 90 degrees to each other. Then the beams are reflected back together, after one has travelled with the velocity of the earth, the other 'across' that velocity. The interference fringes are then set up and the equipment is rotated until the beams swap roles, thus giving rise to a doubling of any inherent time difference; this is the way it is outlined in all current literature [1, 2]. The MME had great sophistication and was at a technical level unequalled in its day. It was such a precise interferometer that it had to be suspended in a mercury bath to eliminate the differential effect of any vibrations. It has been repeated many times including, more recently, with lasers, and has always produced a null result (except for Miller's obviously spurious results [3]).

The second generation version of the experiment was performed in July 1887 and its null result immediately clashed with the establishment position, shaking Newtonian and Galilean science to its very foundations. Interestingly enough, it had been exactly 200 years since the publication of Principia (1687), and it led to Einstein's speculations, namely that the speed of light would be the same in all inertial frames; that is, that the speed of light would be unaffected by the motion of the earth. Although most people would like to immortalize Einstein's relativity as a bolt from the blue...it is clear that 'he did allude vaguely to experiments that had failed to detect motion through the aether' [4], namely the MME.

For a more proper rendition, one must be clear about different versions of the speed of light. Thus one would be advised to revisit relative and absolute values for the speed of light, in line with [5]. There I revised the absolute speed of light cA , from 299 792 458 m/s upwards to 304 475 873.2 m/s (mean value); and the relative speed of light cR which in pre-Einsteinian calculations had the value 299 792 456.5 m/s, to 299 792 458 m/s; this is of course based on stellar aberration derivations which also give rise to an absolute orbital velocity VA of the earth of 53 198 115.45 m/s (mean value). The relative speed of light is given by:

cR = ( c2A - V2A )1/2

(1)

Fig. 1. Michelson-Morley experiment.

Wrong assumptions corrected

One of the basic assumptions which Michelson and Morley made and which could have been wrong, was to assume that the effective perpendicular speed of light was different to the effective orbital speed, i.e. cA as opposed to ( cA - VA ) and ( cA + VA ).

Obviously this is wrong! If Einstein could have been right about one thing, then it should have been that light always travels at the same effective speed (effective as opposed to relative). But nevertheless, the cA - VA in the t1A orbital component and the cA + VA in the t1B represent the respective relative speeds, and have to be used to work out the various lengths of the subintervals as a function of the orbital velocity. Hence the length incorporating the ratio cA / ( cA - VA ) in its working out, would represent a long length whereas, the one using cA / ( cA + VA ) would represent a smaller length (that is S1 and S2 ). This simply uses them as relative speeds rather than effective speeds and to clarify matters a bit further I must state that the effective speed is the one in the absolute frame (i.e. old ether frame), whereas the relative speeds are the ones oriented in the laboratory frame i.e. relative to the Earth's motion. Fig. 1. Michelson-Morley experiment.

A second assumption which is wrong, is that all MME workers have taken the orbital t1 as equal to L / ( c - V ) + L / ( c + V ). However, the two individual Ls are not identical in the absolute frame. It can be proven as I have done in this paper that S1 is not equal to S2 i.e. in arms of 10.83079918 m their lengths would be respectively 12.92192328 m and 9.078076717 m in the absolute frame, pointing forwards or backwards. (This fact was viewed as crucial for the verification of my theory by a referee from PennState in a previous format of my paper: obviously if 11 m forwards did not equal 11 m backwards, then I was on very solid ground.)

A third assumption which Michelson and Morley made and held was that both the perpendicular and orbital arms have an equal length when rotated to the other slot. This assumption appeared to be rectified slightly by Lorentz and Fitzgerald with the so called Lorentz Contraction. However, even this left a lot to be desired because you cannot contract the length and leave the speed of light unaltered; hence if the 10.83079918 m perpendicularly travelled at the laboratory speed of 299 792 458 m/s with an actual speed of light of 304 475 873.2 m/s along the hypotenuses, would become 10.66420099 m when rotated to be parallel to the orbit: the speed, however, would also be contracted from 304 475 873.2 m/s to 299 792 458 m/s. In other words, just as multiplying the arm length by the SDR (slowing down ratio) or Lorentz Contraction Equivalent, i.e. 0.984 618 107, you likewise multiply the speed of light by the same factor. This in turn tends to keep the two speeds synchronized i.e. perpendicular and orbital speed.

A fourth assumption held by most workers is that there is a contraction only along the orbital arm. If this was true then the orbital time would be much quicker than the perpendicular time. However, in unison with the contraction there is an expansion of this contracted arm thus balancing the times; this expansion is caused by the orbital speed which has a tendency to expand the length: I will soon show how this takes place.

The effect of these four assumptions being wrong, was to render the MME insoluble - it was tautologous, no difference between arms could be demonstrated.

As a result of innumerable failures at solving the MME scientists eventually just gave up in embarrassment and accepted the illogical, nonsensical and psychotic notion that time changes. This, in my opinion, has no merit as time is merely a mirage created by relative motion and therefore relative motion is real but time is only an artifact of our interaction with relative motion: sure, it is hard in practice to standardize clocks in view of the effect of gravity and also in view of the fact that the relative speed of light is variable. The latter in effect torpedoes atomic clocks. But just because one finds it hard to measure something does not mean that the concept of absolute time does not exist!

Technical details

The mammoth cardinal error made by concerned physicists in the past 107 years, is that just because the MME of 1887 had 11 m arms [6], then the absolute MME arms are worked out from this 11 m figure. The quantum leap in thinking was to realize that this is incorrect as there are two types of arms to consider: the stationary and the moving arm, for each arm. Furthermore, it is better to make the absolute arms equal 11 m as the laboratory arms can be subjected to transformations through the incurred swapping of roles via rotation.

Once this is realized, the rest will become history: namely that the measurement is a laboratory frame measurement only, when it is measured by a rod, and not with a light beam in motion, and this changes everything, including the way the time intervals are worked out. The reason for this is simply because the motion of light is independent of the motion of the apparatus.

First let us work out the laboratory arm along the orbit, this is a moving arm but can be viewed as a stationary arm in the sense that it is measured with a rod so that its start and endpoint are sampled simultaneously; the expansive influence of the orbital speed is thus not a factor:

x . cA / ( cA - VA ) = S1

(2)

x . cA / ( cA + VA ) = S2

(3)

where

S1 + S2 = 22 m

(4)

Clearly x = 10.664 200 99 m.

Hence, if one calls t1 the time along the orbit, and t2 the time perpendicular to the orbit: one has to work out the absolute distance travelled along the orbit as S1 (in the same direction as the orbital speed) and S2 (backwards along the orbit). Having defined the total as 22 m, the individual Ss can be worked out respectively as S1 = 12.921 923 28 m and S2 = 9.078 076 717 m; it must be noted that if one adds the motion of the apparatus to S2 or subtracts it from S1, one ends up with the stationary 10.664 200 99 m in both cases. As far as the derivation of Equations 2 and 3 goes, they are derived from the infinitesimal solution of a system in motion; e.g. one can set up a simple system such as c = 100 m/s, V = 10 m/s and L = 1000 m, it is clear that the derived S1 after going through the motion is 1111.1111111. . . m, i.e. one L plus one ninth of an L. The process involved is calculus or more specifically: the summation of a series.

I must make one point very strongly and that is that when working out the relative t1 by the classical rendition, all researchers use

t1 = L / ( c - V ) + L / ( c + V )

(5)

However they are totally oblivious to the fact that they are actually mixing their frames of reference to some extent. As hinted earlier in this paper, the Ls are actually S1 and S2 which are in the absolute frame; therefore in order to have everything above-board one must correct the numerators for the motion of the earth, just as has already been done for the denominators so that

t1 = ( S1 - v1 ) / ( cA - VA ) + ( S2 + v2 ) / ( cA + VA )

(6)

where

v1 = VA ( S1 - v1 ) / ( cA - VA )

(7)

and

v2 = VA ( S2 + v2 ) / ( cA + VA )

(8)

This correction is crucial for a correct relative -t1.

Although I have always objected to the Lorentz Contraction as a fudge-factor, I have now independently arrived at such a factor through proper mathematical logical development : I called it the SDR: 'slowing down ratio' where SDR = cR / cA = 0.984 618 107

This has already been mentioned whilst discussing all the wrong previous assumptions. The crucial difference is that with my transformation, it is not only the length that changes but also the speed! In other words, the extra length involved slows the speed down! This is how we get arms of 10.664 200 99 m along the orbit at 299 792 458 m/s, which we have now seen expanded in their away stage, (in the direction the Earth is travelling) and contracted in their return stage (backwards along the orbit). Of course this modified set of lengths is measured as if Ca were true, which would give an average arm length of 11 m as can be verified in the supplied scale diagram; and this average length is the same as the perpendicular absolute arm. Of course the actual arm, as measured orbitally with a rod, would still remain at 10.664 200 99 m, and it is this entity that gets rotated to the perpendicular slot where it would become 10.830 799 18 m.

Naturally, this means that t1 is equal to t2 and that there is no time dilation. True, there is a significant lengthening of the away orbital component and a marked shortening of the return component; this however would only have an effect on light clocks. . .not on brains.

A less accurate description is that there would be an expansion along the orbit by the factor 1/SDR. This would convert the stationary laboratory orbital arm to a larger laboratory moving arm, for the 'lower' speed of light, ending up at the same 10.830 799 18 metres.

Conclusion

What does this mean? This means that what I have believed all along is correct. That is that the Einsteinian Relativity belongs only in the realm of electromagnetic propulsion.   It had to be destroyed at its foundation, that is at the MME stage. Interestingly, such electromagnetic formulations were already catered for by Maxwell. Einstein's Theory was to do with 'mechanical' propulsions where it is now obviously inappropriate.

This work of mine is very original. An example of this originality is the fact that everybody objected to my mixing of velocities with distances: however, 'there are exceptions to every rule' and 'rules are often made to be broken'! The exception being that a particular velocity's numerical value can double as both velocity and distance travelled in a particular interval.

Hence in conclusion, we have seen the balancing of the MME without really resorting to the fudge-factors of length contraction and time dilation; true length does contract but then again so does velocity, preserving the status quo! May this be the start of a new shift to rationality and logical development, which have unfortunately gone out of the window in the last 100 years.

 

> michelson-morley addendum

References

1. Giancoli, D.C. (1988) Physics for Scientists and Engineers with modern Physics, 2nd edition. London: Prentice-Hall International, pp. 842-843.

2. Panofsky, W.K.H. and Phyllips, M. (1962) Classical Electricity and Magnetism, 2nd edition, London; Addison-Wesley, pp. 275-278.

3. Miller, D.C. (1933) The ether drift experiment and the determination of the absolute motion of the earth, Reviews of Modern Physics, 5, 204-241.

4. Will, C.M. (1995) Was Einstein Right? 2nd edition, London; Oxford University Press, p. 267.

5. Russo, F.P. (1995) Analysis of stellar aberration yields the `real' speed of light, Speculations in Science and Technology, 18, 200-204.

6. Michelson, A.A. and Morley, E.W. (1887) On the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether, American Journal of Science; 3rd series; 34(203), 334-345.

Speculations in Science and Technology 21, Dec. 1998

Letter to the Editor of SST

Frank Pio Russo

P.O. Box 90 Campbelltown 5074 South Australia

To the editor of SST: I am afraid that very few persons will be able to understand my recent Michelson-Morley paper (June98) [1], without some elucidatory comments:

1) The first point, one must grasp, is that there is a stationary length and a moving length and that although there was reference to the stationary length (i.e. contracted) of 10.66420099m... the orbital arm that is set when the experiment is set-up, is of the 10.83079918m length; i.e. the orbital shorter arm is only pivotal for working things out, because after all it is set whilst the earth is in motion and even if the earth would stop orbiting after it is set: the setting would remain as set. i.e. the apparatus does not shrink and expand.

2) A second key point which must be grasped so as to "command" the experiment, is that one should also do the analysis with the "summation of series" without contracting the orbital length i.e. starting off with a stationary orbital arm which is the same as the perpendicular, that is 10.83079918m... this is crucial so that one can work out the proper ‘relative’ speeds of light as well as the relative orbital speeds because to do this you need to compare equal lengths (that is apples with apples and not apples with oranges). Hence if one uses a perpendicular L of 10.83079918m and an orbital stationary L which is also 10.83079918m; then S1 , (the length for the light beam to reach the mirror whilst the mirror is moving away from it), would become 13.12379204m and S2, (the length of the light beam to return to the moving sample splitter which is coming to meet it), would become 9.219896174m; and using the ratios of these lengths to the 11m (which are travelled at the same speed perpendicularly along the hypotenuses), one would get the respective SDRs ("Slowing" Down Ratios) as 1.193072004 and 0.838172379 giving the respective relative velocities as 255203267m/sec and 363261640.2m/sec. That is cA which is 304475873.2m divided by 1.193072004 for the longer absolute length segment and divided by 0.838172379 for the shorter absolute length.

3) One must now convert the absolute lengths, which are obtained in my paper by expanding the contracted length. Using the expanded shorter arm, one gets the following:

4) Using ratios, one can convert the orbital velocity [2] of the earth of 53198115.45m/sec to relative velocities for the t1a and t1b : (in other words, if the velocity of light is modified to appear to be going at these altered speeds... how fast would the earth appear to be relatively going?

5) The miraculous happening which takes place when one marries the relative velocities of light with the apparent relative velocities of the earth ... (i.e. addition in the forward subinterval because both speeds are in the same direction; and subtraction in the return subinterval because the relative motion of the earth is in the opposite direction to that of the beam of light)... one gets the perpendicular relative speed of 299792458m/sec in both cases!

6) Out of my Michelson-Morley experiment, comes a contraction factor of about 1.47 from full expansion: this is truly amazing because it explains the dimorphism of the age of the universe. Ten billion years can be the contracted age with 15 billion as the expanded version and perhaps the true value might be somewhere near the average of the two.

Hopefully this elucidation makes it a lot clearer to be able to understand the finer points and inner workings of the hitherto most difficult branch of learning: Relativity.


BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Russo F.P.(1998) The Michelson-Morley experiment : the final solution? Speculations in Science and Technology, 21, 73-78.

2. Russo F.P.(1995) Analysis of Stellar Aberration yields the ‘real’ speed of Light. Speculations in Science and Technology,18, 200- 204.

FURTHER SUGGESTED READINGS

3. Russo F.P.(1993) The required modifications for Relativity to be universal; Investigator Magazine; July 1993 (Supplement) . ISSN 1032-4704

4. Russo F.P.(1995) The truth about Gravity: unmasking the mystery! Investigator Magazine; September 1995; pp42-47. ISSN 1032-4704

5. Russo F.P.(1995) Experimental Evidence for Classical Relativity; Investigator Magazine; November 1995 pp47-49. ISSN 1032-4704

6. Stett B. (1997) Frank Russo Development; Investigator Magazine; March 1997 Editorial Comment; pg8. ISSN 1032-4704

7. Russo F.P.(1997) The Bending of Light; Investigator Magazine; July 1997; pg45. ISSN 1032-4704.

 

Some Michelson-Morley Experiment and related Articles.

Frank Pio Russo

> stellar aberration

> michelson-morley

> michelson-morley addendum

> 063 The required modifications for Relativity to be universal

> 068 The truth about Gravity: unmasking the mystery!

> 069 Experimental Evidence for Classical Relativity

> 070 Frank Russo Development

> 071 The Bending of Light

BACK TO ARTICLES: www.frankrusso.net/articles.html 

This page is copyright © Frank P Russo 1999-2003