Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Revolution".[A 2]
MichelsonMorley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity. These
include experiments from 1902 to 1905, and a series of experiments in the 1920s. In addition, recent resonator
experiments have confirmed the absence of any aether wind at the 1017 level.[2][3] Together with the Ives
Stilwell and KennedyThorndike experiments, the MichelsonMorley experiment forms one of the
fundamental tests of special relativity theory.[A 3]
Contents
1 Detecting the aether
2 1881 and 1887 experiments
2.1 Michelson experiment (1881)
2.2 MichelsonMorley experiment (1887)
2.3 Most famous "failed" experiment
3 Light path analysis and consequences
3.1 Observer resting in the aether
3.2 Observer comoving with the interferometer
3.3 Mirror reflection
3.4 Length contraction and Lorentz transformation
3.5 Special relativity
3.6 Incorrect alternatives
4 Subsequent experiments
5 Recent experiments
5.1 Optical tests
5.2 Recent optical resonator experiments
5.3 Other tests of Lorentz invariance
6 See also
7 References
7.1 Experiments
7.2 Notes
7.3 Bibliography ("A" series references)
8 External links
experimental arrangements capable of measuring second order effects would have any hope of detecting aether
drift, i.e. effects proportional to v2/c2.[A 7][A 8] Existing experimental setups, however, were not sensitive
enough to measure effects of that size.
(1887)
forms a permanent zero reference mark for all readings."[A 12][note 3] Use of partially monochromatic light
(yellow sodium light) during initial alignment enabled the researchers to locate the position of equal path
length, more or less easily, before switching to white light.[note 4]
The mercury trough allowed the device to turn with close to zero friction, so that once having given the
sandstone block a single push it would slowly rotate through the entire range of possible angles to the "aether
wind," while measurements were continuously observed by looking through the eyepiece. The hypothesis of
aether drift implies that because one of the arms would inevitably turn into the direction of the wind at the
same time that another arm was turning perpendicularly to the wind, an effect should be noticeable even over a
period of minutes.
The expectation was that the effect would be graphable as a sine wave with two peaks and two troughs per
rotation of the device. This result could have been expected because during each full rotation, each arm would
be parallel to the wind twice (facing into and away from the wind giving identical readings) and perpendicular
to the wind twice. Additionally, due to the Earth's rotation, the wind would be expected to show periodic
changes in direction and magnitude during the course of a sidereal day.
Because of the motion of the Earth around the Sun, the measured data were also expected to show annual
variations.
understood to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.[A 1]
For instance, Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August
1887:[A 14]
The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result
decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have
been 0.40 of a fringe the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01
and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative
velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the
earths velocity.
From the standpoint of the then current aether models, the experimental results were conflicting. The Fizeau
experiment and its 1886 repetition by Michelson and Morley apparently confirmed the stationary aether with
partial aether dragging, and refuted complete aether dragging. On the other hand, the much more precise
MichelsonMorley experiment (1887) apparently confirmed complete aether dragging and refuted the
stationary aether.[A 5] In addition, the MichelsonMorley null result was further substantiated by the null
results of other second-order experiments of different kind, namely the TroutonNoble experiment (1903) and
the Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (19021904). These problems and their solution led to the
development of the Lorentz transformation and special relativity.
,
because he overlooked that the aether wind also affects the transverse beam travel time. This was corrected by
Alfred Potier (1882) and Lorentz (1886). The derivation in the transverse direction can be given as follows
(analoguous to the derivation of time dilation using a light clock): The beam is propagating at the speed of
light and hits the mirror at time , traveling the distance
. At the same time, the mirror has traveled the
distance
in x direction. So in order to hit the mirror, the travel path of the beam is in the y direction
(assuming equal-length arms) and
in the x direction. This inclined travel path follows from the
transformation from the interferometer rest frame to the aether rest frame. Therefore the Pythagorean theorem
gives the actual beam travel distance of
. Thus
and consequently the travel time
, which is the same for the backward journey. The total travel time
is:
The time difference between Tl and Tt before rotation is given by[A 16]
Dividing
Since L11 meters and 500 nanometers, the expected fringe shift n was 0.44. So the result would be a
delay in one of the light beams that could be detected when the beams were recombined through interference.
Any slight change in the spent time would then be observed as a shift in the positions of the interference
fringes. The negative result led Michelson to the conclusion that there is no measurable aether drift.[1]
Mirror reflection
The classical analysis predicted a relative phase shift between the longitudinal and transverse beams which in
Michelson and Morley's apparatus should have been readily measurable. What is not often appreciated (since
there was no means of measuring it), is that motion through the hypothetical aether should also have caused the
two beams to diverge as they emerged from the interferometer by about 108 radians.[A 18]
For an apparatus in motion, the classical analysis requires that the beam-splitting mirror be slightly offset from
an exact 45 if the longitudinal and transverse beams are to emerge from the apparatus exactly superimposed.
In the relativistic analysis, Lorentz-contraction of the beam splitter in the direction of motion causes it to
become more perpendicular by precisely the amount necessary to compensate for the angle discrepancy of the
two beams.[A 18]
However, length contraction is only a special case of the more general relation, according to which the
transverse length is larger than the longitudinal length by the ratio . This can be achieved in many ways. If
is the moving longitudinal length and
the moving transverse length,
being the rest lengths,
then it is given:[A 20]
.
can be arbitrarily chosen, so there are infinitely many combinations to explain the MichelsonMorley null
result. For instance, if
the relativistic value of length contraction of
occurs, but if
then
no length contraction but an elongation of
occurs. This hypothesis was later extended by Joseph Larmor
(1897), Lorentz (1904) and Henri Poincar (1905), who developed the complete Lorentz transformation
including time dilation in order to explain the TroutonNoble experiment, the Experiments of Rayleigh and
Brace, and Kaufmann's experiments. It has the form
It remained to define the value of , which was shown by Lorentz (1904) to be unity.[A 20] In general, Poincar
(1905)[A 21] demonstrated that only
allows this transformation to form a group, so it is the only choice
compatible with the principle of relativity, i.e. making the stationary aether undetectable. Given this, length
contraction and time dilation obtain their exact relativistic values.
Special relativity
Albert Einstein formulated the theory of special relativity by 1905, deriving the Lorentz transformation and
thus length contraction and time dilation from the relativity postulate and the constancy of the speed of light,
thus removing the ad hoc character from the contraction hypothesis. Einstein emphasized the kinematic
foundation of the theory and the modification of the notion of space and time, with the stationary aether no
longer playing any role in his theory. He also pointed out the group character of the transformation. Einstein
was motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism (in the form as it was given by Lorentz in 1895) and
the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether.[A 22]
This allows a more elegant and intuitive explanation of the Michelson-Morley null result. In a comoving frame
the null result is self-evident, since the apparatus can be considered as at rest in accordance with the relativity
principle, thus the beam travel times are the same. In a frame relative to which the apparatus is moving, the
same reasoning applies as described above in "Length contraction and Lorentz transformation", except the
word "aether" has to be replaced by "non-comoving inertial frame". Einstein wrote in 1916:[A 23]
Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and
Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been
clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result a fact very perplexing to
physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the
motion of the body relative to the ther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of
motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time
mentioned above. Comparison with the discussion in Section 11 shows that also from the
standpoint of the theory of relativity this solution of the difficulty was the right one. But on the
basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more satisfactory.
According to this theory there is no such thing as a "specially favoured" (unique) co-ordinate
system to occasion the introduction of the ther-idea, and hence there can be no ther-drift, nor
any experiment with which to demonstrate it. Here the contraction of moving bodies follows from
the two fundamental principles of the theory, without the introduction of particular hypotheses;
and as the prime factor involved in this contraction we find, not the motion in itself, to which we
cannot attach any meaning, but the motion with respect to the body of reference chosen in the
particular case in point. Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of
Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest
relatively to the sun.
above. It was clear due to theoretical reasons (the group character of the Lorentz transformation as required by
the relativity principle) that the individual values of length contraction and time dilation must assume their
exact relativistic form. But a direct measurement of one of these quantities was still desirable to confirm the
theoretical results. This was achieved by the IvesStilwell experiment (1938), measuring in accordance with
time dilation. Combining this value for with the KennedyThorndike null result shows that must assume
the value of relativistic length contraction. Combining with the MichelsonMorley null result shows that
must be zero. Therefore, the Lorentz transformation with
is an unavoidable consequence of the
combination of these three experiments.[A 3]
Special relativity is generally considered the solution to all negative aether drift (or isotropy of the speed of
light) measurements, including the MichelsonMorley null result. Many high precision measurements have
been conducted as tests of special relativity and modern searches for Lorentz violation in the photon, electron,
nucleon, or neutrino sector, all of them confirming relativity.
Incorrect alternatives
As mentioned above, Michelson initially believed that his experiment would confirm Stokes' theory, according
to which the aether was fully dragged in the vicinity of the earth (see Aether drag hypothesis). However,
complete aether drag contradicts the observed aberration of light and was contradicted by other experiments as
well. In addition, Lorentz showed in 1886 that Stokes's attempt to explain aberration is contradictory.[A 5][A 4]
Furthermore, the assumption that the aether is not carried in the vicinity, but only within matter, was very
problematic as shown by the Hammar experiment (1935). Hammar directed one leg of his interferometer
through a heavy metal pipe plugged with lead. If aether were dragged by mass, it was theorized that the mass
of the sealed metal pipe would have been enough to cause a visible effect. Once again, no effect was seen, so
aether-drag theories are considered to be disproven.
Walter Ritz's Emission theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not
requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source.[A 28]
However de Sitter noted that emitter theory predicted several optical effects that were not seen in observations
of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in a spectrometer. If emission theory
were correct, the light from the stars should experience unusual fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars
being added to the speed of the light, but no such effect could be seen. It was later shown by J. G. Fox that the
original de Sitter experiments were flawed due to extinction,[9] but in 1977 Brecher observed X-rays from
binary star systems with similar null results.[10] Also terrestrial tests using particle accelerators have been made
that were inconsistent with source dependence of the speed of light.[11] In addition, Emission theory might fail
the IvesStilwell experiment, but Fox questioned that as well.
Subsequent experiments
Although Michelson and Morley went on to different experiments after their first publication in 1887, both
remained active in the field. Other versions of the experiment were carried out with increasing
sophistication.[A 29][A 30] Morley was not convinced of his own results, and went on to conduct additional
experiments with Dayton Miller from 1902 to 1904. Again, the result was negative within the margins of
error.[12][13]
Miller worked on increasingly larger interferometers, culminating in one with a 32m (effective) arm length
that he tried at various sites including on top of a mountain at the Mount Wilson observatory. To avoid the
possibility of the aether wind being blocked by solid walls, his mountaintop observations used a special shed
with thin walls, mainly of canvas. From noisy, irregular data, he consistently extracted a small positive signal
that varied with each rotation of the device, with the sidereal day, and on a yearly basis. His measurements in
the 1920s amounted to approximately 10km/s instead of the nearly 30km/s expected from the Earth's orbital
Name
Michelson[4]
Arm
Fringe
Fringe
Year length
shift
shift
Ratio
(meters) expected measured
Location
0.02
20km/s
yes
< 0.02
40
or 0.01
4
8km/s
yes
1.13
0.015
80
0.015
3.5km/s
yes
1921 32.0
1.12
0.08
15
8
unclear
10km/s
unclear
Cleveland
1923
32.0
1924
1.12
0.03
40
5km/s 0.03
yes
Cleveland
1924 32.0
1.12
0.014
80
3km/s 0.014
yes
Heidelberg
1924 8.6
0.3
0.02
15
7km/s 0.02
yes
1925
32.0
1926
1.12
0.088
13
8
unclear
10km/s
unclear
0.07
0.002
35
5km/s 0.002
yes
1881 1.2
0.04
0.02
Michelson and
Cleveland
Morley[1]
1887 11.0
0.4
Morley and
Miller[12][13]
Cleveland
1902
32.2
1904
Miller[17]
Mt. Wilson
Miller[17]
Miller
(sunlight)[17]
Tomaschek
(star light)[18]
Potsdam
Upper
Limit Experimental Null
on
Resolution result
Vaether
Pasadena/Mt.
1926 2.0
Wilson
0.01
Illingworth[15] Pasadena
1927 2.0
0.07
0.0004
175
2km/s 0.0004
yes
Piccard &
Stahel[19]
with a
Balloon
1926 2.8
0.13
0.006
20
7km/s 0.006
yes
Piccard &
Stahel[20]
Brussels
1927 2.8
0.13
0.0002
185
0.0007
2.5km/s
yes
Piccard &
Stahel[21]
Rigi
1927 2.8
0.13
0.0003
185
0.0007
2.5km/s
yes
Michelson et
al.[22]
Mt. Wilson
1929 25.9
0.9
0.01
90
3km/s 0.01
yes
Joos[16]
Jena
1930 21.0
0.75
0.002
375
0.002
1.5km/s
yes
Recent experiments
Optical tests
Optical tests of the isotropy of the speed of light became commonplace.[A 35] New technologies, including the
use of lasers and masers, have significantly improved measurement precision. (In the following table, only
Essen (1955), Jaseja (1964), and Shamir/Fox (1969) are experiments of MichelsonMorley type, i.e.
comparing two perpendicular beams. The other optical experiments employed different methods.)
Author
Year
Upper
bounds
Description
Louis Essen[23]
1955
~3km/s
Cedarholm et
al.[24][25]
1958
~30m/s
Mssbauer rotor
experiments
~34m/s
~30m/s
Jaseja et
al.[26]
~7km/s
~2.5cm/s
Author
Year
Description
Wolf et al.[32]
Mller et al.[30]
Wolf et al.[33]
2004
Wolf et al.[34]
2004 See Wolf et al. (2003). Data between 20022004 was analyzed.
c/c
Similar to Mller et al. (2003), though the apparatus itself was set into
Antonini et al.[35] 2005 rotation. Data between 20022004 was analyzed.
Similar to Wolf et al. (2003). The frequency of two cryogenic oscillators
Stanwix et al.[36] 2005 was compared. In addition, the apparatus was set into rotation. Data
between 20042005 was analyzed.
Herrmann et
al.[37]
Stanwix et al.[38] 2006 See Stanwix et al. (2005). Data between 20042006 was analyzed.
Mller et al.[39]
Eisele et
al.[2]
See Herrmann et al. (2005) and Stanwix et al. (2006). Data of both
groups collected between 20042006 are combined and further analyzed.
2007 Since the experiments are located at difference continents, at Berlin and
Perth respectively, the effects of both the rotation of the devices
themselves and the rotation of Earth could be studied.
The frequencies of a pair of orthogonal oriented optical standing wave
2009 cavities are compared. The cavities were interrogated by a Nd:YAG
laser. Data between 20072008 was analyzed.
See also
MichelsonMorley Award
Moving magnet and conductor problem
The Light (Glass)
References
Experiments
23. Essen, L. (1955). "A New ther-Drift Experiment". Nature 175 (4462): 793794. Bibcode:1955Natur.175..793E.
doi:10.1038/175793a0.
24. Cedarholm, J. P.; Bland, G. F.; Havens, B. L.; Townes, C. H. (1958). "New Experimental Test of Special
Relativity". Physical Review Letters 1 (9): 342343. Bibcode:1958PhRvL...1..342C.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.1.342.
25. Cedarholm, J. P.; Townes, C. H. (1959). "New Experimental Test of Special Relativity". Nature 184 (4696): 1350
1351. Bibcode:1959Natur.184.1350C. doi:10.1038/1841350a0.
26. Jaseja, T. S.; Javan, A.; Murray, J.; Townes, C. H. (1964). "Test of Special Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by
Use of Infrared Masers". Phys. Rev. 133 (5a): 12211225. Bibcode:1964PhRv..133.1221J.
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.133.A1221.
27. Shamir, J.; Fox, R. (1969). "A new experimental test of special relativity". Il Nuovo Cimento B 62 (2): 258264.
Bibcode:1969NCimB..62..258S. doi:10.1007/BF02710136.
28. Trimmer, William S.; Baierlein, Ralph F.; Faller, James E.; Hill, Henry A. (1973). "Experimental Search for
Anisotropy in the Speed of Light". Physical Review D 8 (10): 33213326. Bibcode:1973PhRvD...8.3321T.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.3321.
29. Trimmer, William S.; Baierlein, Ralph F.; Faller, James E.; Hill, Henry A. (1974). "Erratum: Experimental search
for anisotropy in the speed of light". Physical Review D 9 (8): 24892489. Bibcode:1974PhRvD...9R2489T.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.2489.2.
30. Mller, H.; Herrmann, S.; Braxmaier, C.; Schiller, S.; Peters, A. (2003). "Modern MichelsonMorley experiment
using cryogenic optical resonators". Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2): 020401. arXiv:physics/0305117.
Bibcode:2003PhRvL..91b0401M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.020401. PMID12906465.
31. Brillet, A.; Hall, J. L. (1979). "Improved laser test of the isotropy of space". Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 (9): 549552.
Bibcode:1979PhRvL..42..549B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.549.
32. Wolf; et al. (2003). "Tests of Lorentz Invariance using a Microwave Resonator". Physical Review Letters 90 (6):
060402. arXiv:gr-qc/0210049. Bibcode:2003PhRvL..90f0402W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.060402.
PMID12633279.
33. Wolf, P.; Tobar, M. E.; Bize, S.; Clairon, A.; Luiten, A. N.; Santarelli, G. (2004). "Whispering Gallery Resonators
and Tests of Lorentz Invariance". General Relativity and Gravitation 36 (10): 23512372. arXiv:gr-qc/0401017.
Bibcode:2004GReGr..36.2351W. doi:10.1023/B:GERG.0000046188.87741.51.
34. Wolf, P.; Bize, S.; Clairon, A.; Santarelli, G.; Tobar, M. E.; Luiten, A. N. (2004). "Improved test of Lorentz
invariance in electrodynamics". Physical Review D 70 (5): 051902. arXiv:hep-ph/0407232.
Bibcode:2004PhRvD..70e1902W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.051902.
35. Antonini, P.; Okhapkin, M.; Gkl, E.; Schiller, S. (2005). "Test of constancy of speed of light with rotating
cryogenic optical resonators". Physical Review A 71 (5): 050101. arXiv:gr-qc/0504109.
Bibcode:2005PhRvA..71e0101A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.050101.
36. Stanwix, P. L.; Tobar, M. E.; Wolf, P.; Susli, M.; Locke, C. R.; Ivanov, E. N.; Winterflood, J.; van Kann, F. (2005).
"Test of Lorentz Invariance in Electrodynamics Using Rotating Cryogenic Sapphire Microwave Oscillators".
Physical Review Letters 95 (4): 040404. arXiv:hep-ph/0506074. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95d0404S.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.040404. PMID16090785.
37. Herrmann, S.; Senger, A.; Kovalchuk, E.; Mller, H.; Peters, A. (2005). "Test of the Isotropy of the Speed of Light
Using a Continuously Rotating Optical Resonator". Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (15): 150401. arXiv:physics/0508097.
Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95o0401H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.150401. PMID16241700.
38. Stanwix, P. L.; Tobar, M. E.; Wolf, P.; Locke, C. R.; Ivanov, E. N. (2006). "Improved test of Lorentz invariance in
electrodynamics using rotating cryogenic sapphire oscillators". Physical Review D 74 (8): 081101. arXiv:grqc/0609072. Bibcode:2006PhRvD..74h1101S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.081101.
39. Mller, H.; Stanwix, Paul L.; Tobar, M. E.; Ivanov, E.; Wolf, P.; Herrmann, S.; Senger, A.; Kovalchuk, E.; Peters,
A. (2007). "Relativity tests by complementary rotating MichelsonMorley experiments". Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (5):
050401. arXiv:0706.2031. Bibcode:2007PhRvL..99e0401M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.050401.
PMID17930733.
Notes
1. Among other lessons was the need to control for vibration. Michelson (1881) wrote: "...owing to the extreme
sensitiveness of the instrument to vibrations, the work could not be carried on during the day. Next, the experiment
was tried at night. When the mirrors were placed half-way on the arms the fringes were visible, but their position
could not be measured till after twelve o'clock, and then only at intervals. When the mirrors were moved out to the
ends of the arms, the fringes were only occasionally visible. It thus appeared that the experiments could not be
performed in Berlin, and the apparatus was accordingly removed to the Astrophysicalisches Observatorium in
Potsdam... Here, the fringes under ordinary circumstances were sufficiently quiet to measure, but so extraordinarily
sensitive was the instrument that the stamping of the pavement, about 100 meters from the observatory, made the
fringes disappear entirely!"
2. Michelson (1881) wrote: "...a sodium flame placed at a produced at once the interference bands. These could then
be altered in width, position, or direction, by a slight movement of the plate b, and when they were of convenient
width and of maximum sharpness, the sodium flame was removed and the lamp again substituted. The screw m was
then slowly turned till the bands reappeared. They were then of course colored, except the central band, which was
nearly black."
3. If one uses a half-silvered mirror as the beam splitter, the reflected beam will undergo a different number of frontsurface reflections than the transmitted beam. At each front-surface reflection, the light will undergo a phase
inversion. Because the two beams undergo a different number of phase inversions, when the path lengths of the two
beams match or differ by an integral number of wavelengths (e.g. 0, 1, 2...), there will be destructive interference
and a weak signal at the detector. If the path lengths of the beams differ by a half-integral number of wavelengths
(e.g., 0.5, 1.5, 2.5...), constructive interference will yield a strong signal. The results are opposite if a cube beamsplitter is used, because a cube beam-splitter makes no distinction between a front- and rear-surface reflection.
4. Sodium light produces a fringe pattern that displays cycles of fuzziness and sharpness that repeat every several
hundred fringes over a distance of approximately a millimeter. This pattern is due to the yellow sodium D line being
actually a doublet, the individual lines of which have a limited coherence length. After aligning the interferometer to
display the centermost portion of the sharpest set of fringes, the researcher would switch to white light.
5. Thirring (1926) as well as Lorentz pointed out that Miller's results failed even the most basic criteria required to
believe in their celestial origin, namely that the azimuth of supposed drift should exhibit daily variations consistent
with the source rotating about the celestial pole. Instead, while Miller's observations showed daily variations, their
oscillations in one set of experiments might center, say, around a northwestsoutheast line.
[1]
13. Blum, Sergey V. Lototsky, Edward K.; Lototsky, Sergey V. (2006). Mathematics of physics and engineering. World
Scientific. p.98. ISBN981-256-621-X., Chapter 2, p. 98 (http://books.google.com/books?
id=nFRG2UizET0C&pg=PA98)
14. Shankland, R.S. (1964). "MichelsonMorley experiment". American Journal of Physics 31 (1): 1635.
Bibcode:1964AmJPh..32...16S. doi:10.1119/1.1970063.
15. Feynman, R.P. (1970), "The MichelsonMorley experiment (15-3)", The Feynman Lectures on Physics 1, Reading:
Addison Wesley Longman, ISBN0-201-02115-3
16. Albert Shadowitz (1988). Special relativity (Reprint of 1968 ed.). Courier Dover Publications. pp.159160. ISBN0486-65743-4.
17. Edward Teller, Wendy Teller, Wilson Talley (2002), Conversations on the Dark Secrets of Physics, Basic books,
pp.1011, ISBN0786752378
18. Schumacher, Reinhard A. (1994). "Special Relativity and the Michelson-Morley Interferometer". American Journal
of Physics 62: 609612. Bibcode:1994AmJPh..62..609S. doi:10.1119/1.17535.
19. Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1895), Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies,
Leiden: E.J. Brill
20. Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1904), "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than
that of light", Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 6: 809831
21. Poincar, Henri (1905), "On the Dynamics of the Electron", Comptes Rendus 140: 15041508 (Wikisource
translation)
22. Einstein, A (June 30, 1905). "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Krper" (PDF). Annalen der Physik (in German) 17:
890921. Bibcode:1905AnP...322..891E. doi:10.1002/andp.19053221004. Retrieved 2009-11-27. English
translation: Perrett, W; Jeffery, GB (tr.); Walker, J (ed.). "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Fourmilab.
Retrieved 2009-11-27.
23. Einstein A. (1916), Relativity: The Special and General Theory, New York: H. Holt and Company
24. Stachel, John (1982), "Einstein and Michelson: the Context of Discovery and Context of Justification",
Astronomische Nachrichten 303 (1): 4753, Bibcode:1982AN....303...47S, doi:10.1002/asna.2103030110
25. Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, ISBN 0-226-67288-3, footnote
page1011: Einstein reports, via Dr N Balzas in response to Polanyi's query, that "The MichelsonMorley
experiment had no role in the foundation of the theory." and "..the theory of relativity was not founded to explain its
outcome at all."[1] (http://books.google.com/books?
id=0Rtu8kCpvz4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PT19#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
26. Jeroen van Dongen (2009), "On the Role of the MichelsonMorley Experiment: Einstein in Chicago", Archive for
History of Exact Sciences 63 (6): 655663, arXiv:0908.1545, doi:10.1007/s00407-009-0050-5
27. Mansouri R., Sexl R.U. (1977). "A test theory of special relativity: III. Second-order tests". General. Relat. Gravit. 8
(10): 809814. Bibcode:1977GReGr...8..809M. doi:10.1007/BF00759585.
28. Norton, John D. (2004). "Einstein's Investigations of Galilean Covariant Electrodynamics prior to 1905". Archive for
History of Exact Sciences 59: 45105. Bibcode:2004AHES...59...45N. doi:10.1007/s00407-004-0085-6.
29. Swenson, Loyd S. (1970). "The MichelsonMorleyMiller Experiments before and after 1905". Journal for the
History of Astronomy 1 (2): 5678. Bibcode:1970JHA.....1...56S. doi:10.1177/002182867000100108.
30. Swenson, Loyd S., Jr. (2013) [1972]. The Ethereal Aether: A History of the Michelson-Morley-Miller Aether-drift
Experiments, 18801930. University of Texas Press. ISBN978-0-292-75836-0.
31. Thirring, Hans (1926). "Prof. Miller's Ether Drift Experiments". Nature 118 (2959): 8182.
Bibcode:1926Natur.118...81T. doi:10.1038/118081c0.
32. Michelson, A. A.; et al. (1928). "Conference on the MichelsonMorley Experiment Held at Mount Wilson,
February, 1927". Astrophysical Journal 68: 341390. Bibcode:1928ApJ....68..341M. doi:10.1086/143148.
33. Shankland, Robert S.; et al. (1955). "New Analysis of the Interferometer Observations of Dayton C. Miller".
Reviews of Modern Physics 27 (2): 167178. Bibcode:1955RvMP...27..167S. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.27.167.
34. Roberts, T.J. (2006). "An Explanation of Dayton Miller's Anomalous "Ether Drift" Result". Retrieved 7 May 2012.
35. Relativity FAQ (2007): What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html)
36. Haugan, Mark P.; Will, Clifford M. (May 1987). "Modern tests of special relativity" (PDF). Physics Today 40 (5):
6776. Bibcode:1987PhT....40e..69H. doi:10.1063/1.881074. Retrieved 14 July 2012.
External links
Media related to Michelson-Morley experiment at Wikimedia Commons
Mathematical analysis of the Michelson Morley Experiment at Wikibooks
Roberts, T; Schleif, S; Dlugosz, JM (ed.) (2007). "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?".
Usenet Physics FAQ. University of California, Riverside.
1. E.W. silversmith "Special Relativity", Nature magazine, vol. 322 [AUG. 1986], P.590: the filed exists, per the
United States Air Force research, and it measured precisely as Michaelson and Morely predicted.