Michelson-Morley Revisited with Occam’s Razor
Abstract. The results of the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX), allegedly showing that an aether medium for the propagation of light did not exist, were interpreted by Einstein under the constraint of a constant light speed. This led him to invent Special Relativity, not necessarily the simplest or most logical explanation, as would have been recommended by Occam’s Razor. MMX is revisualized here, relaxing these constraints to show what might have been the better conclusion, or at least dismissal of the MMX as a basis for inventing Special Relativity.
Key Words: Michelson-Morley, Dayton Miller, Light, Aether, Lasers, Interferometer, Relativity, Occam’s Razor
- INTRODUCTION
The Michelson Morley Experiment (MMX) was a key to Einstein proposing his theory of Special Relativity, based on the alleged “null” result indicating no aether existed. Given his constraint of a constant light speed (c), he felt compelled to assume relativistic effects (length contraction/time dilation via Lorentz transforms) to explain why there was no difference in the behavior of light over the two perpendicular directions. In actuality, MMX did observe some difference (later confirmed even more strongly by Dayton Miller), albeit viewed as sufficiently less than expected for the then known only motion of the Earth through an assumed “stationary“ aether at 30 km/s. [1]
The following examines the two extremes from MMX (difference in light behavior observed [but dismissed] by MMX vs. no difference concluded by MMX), without invoking relativity, by treating light first as a “ballistic“ phenomenon (e.g., photon “particle“) and then as a wave phenomenon (generated by an aether medium). In the spirit of Occam‘s Razor (“in light of multiply possible explanations, the simplest is usually best“), we show that inventing Special Relativity did not satisfy Occam‘s Razor since simpler, logical explanations were possible, both without and with and aether. [2] Finally, the case for “partially entrained (dragged)“ aether is presented (and a parallel for the “no-aether“ case), corresponding to what might actually have been the true results from MMX and Dayton Miller.
- CASE 1: NO AETHER, LIGHT SPEED CONSTANT AT C
Lasers did not exist at the time of MMX, so performing the experiment with monochromatic, unidirectional light was not an option. Calkins has championed the use of lasers in light experiments [3], and it is with this in mind the following revisualization of MMX is presented. Figure 1 shows a revisualization of just the portion of the MMX interferometer from the junction of the two arms where the original beam was split to the two reflecting mirrors. Now, place red and blue lasers at this junction and allow them to activate simultaneously, sending monochromatic, unidirectional red and blue beams along arms. Assume the red beam reaches the mirror/laser at end of its arm in time ; the blue beam reaches the mirror/laser at end of its arm at time t. To avoid any complication of possible “absorption effect” at each mirror, we can visualize two lasers exactly the same as the originals that activate upon impingement of respective beams, corresponding to “perfect” reflection (i.e., no delay or loss of energy) of the beams by the mirrors. Let the red beam returns to original launch point in time ; the blue beam returns to original launch point in same time t as before due to symmetry in the perpendicular direction. Assume the entire interferometer is in orbit above the Earth and moving to the right at maximum constant speed v = 0.003c, derived as follows.
The orbital speed of an object about the equator 8 km/s. [4] Earth’s rotational speed at the equator 0.5 km/s. [5] Earth’s speed of revolution about the sun 30 km/s. [6] The sun’s speed of revolution about the galaxy 230 km/s. [7] The Milky Way Galaxy’s speed through “space” 580 km/s. [8] Combining these yields a total maximum orbital speed through “space” 850 km/s, rounded to 900 km/s, or 0.3{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} light speed c (3.00 x 105 km/s). Note that this approximation would hold even for the fastest man-made object ever launched.
The record holder is … the New Horizons mission to Pluto and the Kuiper belt. Launched by NASA in 2006, it shot directly to a solar system escape velocity. This consisted of an Earth-relative launch of 16.26 kilometers a second (that’s about 36,000 miles per hour), plus a velocity component from Earth’s orbital motion (which is 30 km/s tangential to the orbital path). Altogether this set New Horizons barreling off into the solar system with an impressive heliocentric speed of almost 45 km/s or 100,000 miles per hour.” [9]
Let us view light motion from the “preferred” reference frame of “space” (i.e., that frame in which the galaxy is moving at 580 km/s,) such that the interferometer, when all vectors align as optimally as possible, moves at 900 km/s. Note that, unlike Calkins, the laser beam is assumed to acquire the motion of its source, essential for the blue beam being able to complete its round trip.
4. CASE 3. “STATIONARY” AETHER (WITH RESPECT TO “PREFERRED” REFERENCE FRAME OF “SPACE”) WITH CONSTANT LIGHT SPEED
As before, the interferometer moves to the right at constant speed v = 0.003c, but now through a “stationary” aether. Rather than using lasers to create our beams, we now use a flash, one red, one blue, that activate simultaneously at the same location (interferometer junction). Each will spread as a spherical wave front (or a circular one, in the illustrated two dimensions), as shown in Figure 2. At the end of each arm, we now have an equivalent flash (rather than an equivalent laser) along with a mirror to activate and return the pulse instantaneously upon impingement (for the same reason as before). The results through the four time steps indicate that the results exactly match those for Case 1 (no aether, light speed constant at c), as follows.
4.1. Step I
5 CASE 4. “FULLY ENTRAINED (DRAGGED)” AETHER (WITH RESPECT TO “PREFERRED” REFERENCE FRAME OF “SPACE”) WITH CONSTANT LIGHT SPEED C
As before, the interferometer moves to the right at constant speed v = 0.003c, but now through a “fully entrained (dragged)” aether moving at the same velocity v with the interferometer itself. Rather than using lasers to create our beams, we again use flashes, one red and one blue, that activate simultaneously at the same location (interferometer junction). Each will spread as a spherical wave front (shown as a circular one, in the illustrated two dimensions). The results through the two time steps indicate that the results exactly match those for Case 2 (no aether, variable light speed), as follows (Figure 3).
As before, the interferometer moves to the right at constant speed v = 0.003c, but now through a “fully entrained (dragged)” aether moving at the same velocity v with the interferometer itself. Rather than using lasers to create our beams, we again use flashes, one red and one blue, that activate simultaneously at the same location (interferometer junction). Each will spread as a spherical wave front (shown as a circular one, in the illustrated two dimensions). The results through the two time steps indicate that the results exactly match those for Case 2 (no aether, variable light speed), as follows (Figure 3).
6. CASE 5. “PARTIALLY ENTRAINED (DRAGGED)” AETHER (WITH RESPECT TO “PREFERRED” REFERENCE FRAME OF “SPACE”) WITH CONSTANT LIGHT SPEED C
At this point, it should be evident that one cannot distinguish between Cases 1 and 3 or between Cases 2 and 4 based solely on the MMX results. And the actual MMX (and Dayton Miller) results suggest Case 5.
7. CASE 6. NO AETHER, VARIABLE LIGHT SPEED (LIGHT ACQUIRES ONLY PARTIAL VELOCITY OF SOURCE) [PRESENTED FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS AS A PARALLEL TO CASE 5]
As a no-aether parallel to Case 5 (see Figure 2), assume the laser beam (now refer back to Figure 1) acquires only part of the source motion, i.e., a speed u < v. Note that, unlike Calkins [3], the laser beam is now assumed to acquire only part of the motion of its source, still essential for the blue beam being able to complete its round trip.
8. CONCLUSION
Because MMX allegedly yielded a “null” result, and Einstein constrained himself to light traveling at a constant speed c without an aether, he was stuck between Cases 1 and 2 (albeit without the benefit of a laser). The “null” result aligned with Case 2, but the restriction of constant light speed corresponded to Case 1. Since the fringe shift, analogous to the time delay between blue and red beams, was allegedly not observed, to align Case 1 with Case 2, Einstein invented his Special Relativity, relying on “relativistic” effects (length contraction/time dilation via the Lorentz transforms) to explain how the results from Case 2 could be possible given the constraints of Case 1. He rejected the applicability of Case 2 (or Case 4) as responsible for the alleged “null” result. In actuality, fringe shifts were observed, and later confirmed by Dayton Miller, suggesting that Case 5 may have been the “Occam’s Razor” explanation (or Case 6, although how light would acquire only part of its source velocity in the absence of an aether is difficult to conceive). In hindsight, MMX appears to have been inconclusive regarding the nature of light’s motion or the presence of an aether, certainly not a firm basis upon which to build Special Relativity.
- REFERENCES
- Gallucci, R. “Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiment of 1887: ‘Null’ Result,” Proceedings of the First Annual Chappell Natural Philosophy Society Conference, August 5-8, 2015, Florida Atlantic University, pp. 66-67 (also http://vixra.org/pdf/1601.0079.pdf [2016]; https://principia-scientific.com/michelson-morley-interferometer-experiment-of-1887-null-result/ [January 17, 2018]).
- “Occam’s Razor,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}27s_razor.
- Calkins, R., “A Report on how the Optical Laser Disproves the Special Theory of Relativity,” calkinspublishing.com (2013).
- “Earth Orbit Velocity,” http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv3.html.
- “How Fast is the Earth Moving?” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/.
- “At What Speed does the Earth Move about the Sun?” http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/91-at-what-speed-does-the-earth-move-around-the-sun-beginner.
- “Considering the Motion of the Earth, the Solar System, and the Galaxy, how Fast am I Moving while Lying in Bed Asleep?” http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/86-considering-the-motion-of-the-earth-the-solar-system-and-the-galaxy-how-fast-am-i-moving-while-lying-in-bed-asleep-intermediate.
- “The Milky Way is Moving through the Universe at 2.1 Million Kilometers per Hour,” http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2017/07/the-milky-way-is-moving-through.html.
- “The Fastest Spacecraft Ever?” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/the-fastest-spacecraft-ever/.
“Electromagnetic Spectrum,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Author’s contact details:
Dr. Raymond H.V. Gallucci, P.E. (ret.) at [email protected], r_gallucci@verizon.net
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Raymond,
While Einstein did assume the speed of light was constant, this was not the critical assumption. The critical assumption was that nothing can occur instantaneously. There has to be an exchange of information at a speed which is finite and not infinite. Hence, there must be some maximum (limiting) speed. Do we know that the speed of light in a transparent medium varies with the wavelength of light because there is a physical property of the medium which is termed its index of refraction?
No, I am not physicist so I could be wrong. But is a physicist immune to being wrong as you question Einstein’s ideas?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Raymond H Gallucci
| #
A limiting speed would make sense if there was a medium through/by which light has to travel, such as an aether, for waves have limited speeds in media (although if the medium itself is moving relative to an observer, that observer can see a speed exceeding that in a stationary medium). Ballistic objects (photons?) in the absence of drag/friction would only be limited by the amount of accelerating force that could be applied, so theoretically, infinite speed could be approached. Einstein’s assumption of a constant, limiting light speed was part of his simultaneity concept, which has been shown to be faulty by, e.g., Crothers’ work (http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0047v6.pdf). It is not a question of physicists being wrong – many have been and will continue to be – but of mainstream physicists proclaiming they are right and having closed the door to logical alternatives by putting Einstein on an unassailable pedestal. Therefore, what has been taken as gospel since the early 20th century must continue to be questioned.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Raymond,
You wrote: “so theoretically, infinite speed could be approached”. But practically we (scientists) have measured the speed of light several different ways and have found a reproducible value within the limits of observational error. I thought
we had learned long ago that science can ‘prove’ nothing except that wrong scientific ideas are absolutely wrong.
For this reason it seems that Einstein wrote: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” So I am waiting that that reproducible experimental result that proves the speed of light can be greater than that practically measured.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Raymond H Gallucci
| #
As I said, a constant light speed implies that there is a medium through/by which it propagates. So if one accepts that a constant, limiting light speed has been proven, then one makes an argument for the existence of a medium, such as an aether. If one denies an aether, then there is no physical reason for there to be a limiting speed (at least in a “vacuum”). I neither support nor deny the existence of an aether (but remain open to examining from both perspectives, as with this and other articles I have written), only that it is a logical explanation for a constant, limiting light speed.. Although mainstream physics claims light speed has been measured as constant in multiple ways, I remain open to the possibility of it not being limited in the absence of a medium. Calkins has provided one theory as to how there might be a limiting speed without a medium that pervades the universe, although he still allows for a medium that light itself transports. Renshaw has yet another unique theory as to the “apparent” constancy and limitation of light speed. I review both in the following, also on PSI: Gallucci, R. 2016. “The Speed of Light: Constant and Non-Constant” Proceedings of the Second Annual Chappell Natural Philosophy Society Conference, July 20-23, 2016, College Park, MD, pp. 67-73; submitted to Galilean Electrodynamics, https://home.comcast.net/~adring/ (also http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0128.pdf; https://principia-scientific.com/the-speed-of-light-constant-and-non-constant/ [February 1, 2018]).
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Raymond,
I thought that a constant speed of light was only possible if light was a particle (non-existent photon). Light as a wave means a varying speed of light depending on the medium in which it travels (electric and magnetic fields). A stronger medium like water will cause light to travel faster which is why objects appear closer/larger underwater. In varying fields, such as in space, the speed of light changes which explains why some light from distant stars exhibits both a red and a blue shift.
Herb
Reply
Raymond H Gallucci
| #
When I say constant, I mean with respect to the specific medium, with a “vacuum” being treated as a (non-)medium where the speed is allegedly a maximum constant. I am aware that its speed varies with different media, yet it is still constant with respect to each medium, just a different constant. What I question in the absence of an aether is why light would have a fixed speed within any one particular medium, such as 300,000 km/s in a vacuum This being said, I do not believe that air, water, etc., are viewed as media by which light travels, but rather non-propagating media through which light must “fight its way” while traveling, thereby being slowed relative to its vacuum speed. An aetherist would contend that aether is always the universally present medium that propagates light, and it is present in air, water, etc., propagating that light, which somehow gets “slowed” by air’s, water’s, etc., “interference. Mainstream does not consider red and blue shifts to be due to varying light speed, but rather Doppler or other effects (e.g., the alleged “expansion of space-time supposedly attributable to Hubble), wherein the wavelength and frequency change complementarily just enough to offset each other while maintaining the same speed. I am not myself an “aetherist” or a “non-aetherist,” recognizing there are arguments both for and against each – I merely entertain the implications from both perspectives.
Reply
Jonas
| #
I am still a bit surprised to hear that there was a non-zero result in MMX. I do not remeber how many times I have heard that it was a null result, but it is many. I start to wonder if anything I have learned in school/university is correct. Based on own experience, I can tell you that Debye T3 law is not correct, but it is still in Solid State Physics – course 1.
Regarding you analysis : am I wrigth that it applies to all type of waves ?The parallell for sound waves in air would be case 3 and 4, depending on if the interferometer is closed (the air inside the interferometer follows the interferometer) or if it is open to ambient air
The speed of sound is also constant.
My point is (if I got it right) that the only difference between sound waves and light waves is the null result in MMX, which apperently is not the case. All magic about light waves gone ?? Just ordinary waves ?
Reply
Raymond H Gallucci
| #
The assumption that has always been associated with light traveling through an aether has been wave behavior similar to that for sound or water waves, depending upon whether one views light waves as longitudinal or transverse, or a combination of both. The “null” result has always been a fabrication from mainstream physics since even before Einstein’s “Miracle Year ” of 1905, based on the faulty conclusions following the original MMX. Dayton Miller showed even more “dragged aether” than MMX. The following is a nice review of all such work by DeMeo:
https://principia-scientific.com/part-1-the-dynamic-ether-of-cosmic-space-correcting-a-major-error-in-modern-science/
https://principia-scientific.com/part-two-the-dynamic-ether-of-cosmic-space-correcting-a-major-error-in-modern-science/
Reply