MichelsonMorley experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The MichelsonMorley experiment was performed over

the spring and summer of 1887 by Albert A. Michelson
and Edward W. Morley at what is now Case Western
Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and published in
November of the same year.[1] It compared the speed of
light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the
relative motion of matter through the stationary
luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The negative results
are generally considered to be the first strong evidence
against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line
of research that eventually led to special relativity, in
which the stationary aether concept has no role.[A 1] The
experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point
for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific

Figure 1. Michelson and Morley's interferometric

setup, mounted on a stone slab that floats in an
annular trough of mercury.

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

Detecting the aether

Physics theories of the late 19th century assumed that just as surface water waves must have a supporting
substance, i.e. a "medium", to move across (in this case water), and audible sound requires a medium to
transmit its wave motions (such as air or water), so light must also require a medium, the "luminiferous
aether", to transmit its wave motions. Because light can travel through a vacuum, it was assumed that even a
vacuum must be filled with aether. Because the speed of light is so large, and because material bodies pass
through the aether without obvious friction or drag, it was assumed to have a highly unusual combination of
properties. Designing experiments to test the properties of the aether was a high priority of 19th century
physics.[A 4]:411ff
Earth orbits around the Sun at a speed of around 30km/s (18.75mi/s) or over 108,000km/h (67,500mi/hr).
The Earth is in motion, so two main possibilities were considered: (1)The aether is stationary and only
partially dragged by Earth (proposed by Augustin-Jean Fresnel in 1818), or (2)the aether is completely
dragged by Earth and thus shares its motion at Earth's surface (proposed by Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet in
1844).[A 5] In addition, James Clerk Maxwell (1865) recognized the electromagnetic nature of light and
developed what are now called Maxwell's equations, but these equations were still interpreted as describing the
motion of waves through an aether, whose state of motion was unknown. Eventually, Fresnel's idea of an
(almost) stationary aether was preferred because it appeared to be confirmed by the Fizeau experiment (1851)
and the aberration of star light.[A 5]
According to this hypothesis, Earth and the aether are in
relative motion, implying that a so-called "aether wind"
(Fig.2) should exist. Although it would be possible, in
theory, for the Earth's motion to match that of the aether at
one moment in time, it was not possible for the Earth to
remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times,
because of the variation in both the direction and the speed
of the motion. At any given point on the Earth's surface,
the magnitude and direction of the wind would vary with
time of day and season. By analyzing the return speed of
light in different directions at various different times, it
was thought to be possible to measure the motion of the
Earth relative to the aether. The expected relative
difference in the measured speed of light was quite small,
given that the velocity of the Earth in its orbit around the
Sun has a magnitude of about one hundredth of one percent

Figure 2. A depiction of the concept of the "aether

wind"

of the speed of light.[A 4]:417ff

During the mid-19th century, measurements of aether wind effects of first order i.e. effects proportional to v/c
(v being Earth's velocity, c the speed of light) were thought to be possible, but no direct measurement of the
speed of light was possible with the accuracy required. For instance, the FizeauFoucault apparatus could
measure the speed of light to perhaps 5% accuracy, which was quite inadequate for measuring directly a firstorder 0.01% change in the speed of light. A number of physicists therefore attempted to make measurements of
indirect first-order effects not of the speed of light itself, but of variations in the speed of light (see First order
aether-drift experiments). The Hoek experiment, for example, was intended to detect interferometric fringe
shifts due to speed differences of oppositely propagating light waves through water at rest. The results of such
experiments were all negative.[A 6] This could be explained by using Fresnel's dragging coefficient, according
to which the aether and thus light are partially dragged by moving matter. Partial aether-dragging would thwart
attempts to measure any first order change in the speed of light. As pointed out by Maxwell (1878), only

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.

1881 and 1887 experiments

Michelson experiment (1881)
Michelson had a solution to the problem of how to
construct a device sufficiently accurate to detect aether
flow. In 1877, while teaching at his alma mater, the United
States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Michelson conducted
his first known light speed experiments as a part of a
classroom demonstration. In 1881, he left active U.S.
Naval service while in Germany concluding his studies. In
that year, Michelson used a prototype experimental device
to make several more measurements.

Figure 3. Michelson's 1881 interferometer.

Although ultimately it proved incapable of
distinguishing between differing theories of aetherdragging, its construction provided important
lessons for the design of Michelson and Morley's

The device he designed, later known as a Michelson

interferometer, sent yellow light from a sodium flame (for
alignment), or white light (for the actual observations),
through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into
1887 instrument.[note 1]
two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After
leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to the ends of
long arms where they were reflected back into the middle by small
Wikisource has original
mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an
text related to this article:
eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive
The Relative Motion of
interference whose transverse displacement would depend on the
the Earth and the
Luminiferous Ether
relative time it takes light to transit the longitudinal vs. the transverse
(1881)
arms. If the Earth is traveling through an aether medium, a beam
reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of aether would take
longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the aether because the time gained from traveling downwind is
less than that lost traveling upwind. Michelson expected that the Earth's motion would produce a fringe shift
equal to .04 fringesthat is, of the separation between areas of the same intensity. He did not observe the
expected shift; the greatest average deviation that he measured (in the northwest direction) was only 0.018
fringes; most of his measurements were much less. His conclusion was that Fresnel's hypothesis of a stationary
aether with partial aether dragging would have to be rejected, and thus he confirmed Stokes' hypothesis of
complete aether dragging.[4]
However, Alfred Potier (and later Hendrik Lorentz) pointed out to Michelson that he had made an error of
calculation, and that the expected fringe shift should have been only 0.02 fringes. Michelson's apparatus was
subject to experimental errors far too large to say anything conclusive about the aether wind. Definitive
measurement of the aether wind would require an experiment with greater accuracy and better controls than the
original. Nevertheless the prototype was successful in demonstrating that the basic method was
feasible.[A 5][A 9]

MichelsonMorley experiment (1887)

In 1885, Michelson began a collaboration with Edward Morley,
spending considerable time and money to confirm with higher accuracy
Fizeau's 1851 experiment on Fresnel's drag coefficient,[5] to improve on
Michelson's 1881 experiment,[1] and to establish the wavelength of

Wikisource has original

text related to this article:
On the Relative Motion
of the Earth and the
Luminiferous Ether

light as a standard of length.[6][7] At this time Michelson was professor

of physics at the Case School of Applied Science, and
Morley was professor of chemistry at Western Reserve
University (WRU), which shared a campus with the Case
School on the eastern edge of Cleveland. Michelson
suffered a nervous breakdown in September 1885, from
which he recovered by October 1885. Morley ascribed this
breakdown to the intense work of Michelson during the
preparation of the experiments. In 1886, Michelson and
Morley successfully confirmed Fresnel's drag coefficient
this result was also considered as a confirmation of the

(1887)

stationary aether concept.[A 1]

This result strengthened their hope of finding the aether
wind. Michelson and Morley created an improved version
of the Michelson experiment with more than enough
accuracy to detect this hypothetical effect. The experiment
was performed in several periods of concentrated
observations between April and July 1887, in the basement
of Adelbert Dormitory of WRU (later renamed Pierce Hall,
demolished in 1962).[A 10][A 11]
As shown in Fig.5, the light was repeatedly reflected back
and forth along the arms of the interferometer, increasing
the path length to 11 m. At this length, the drift would be
about 0.4 fringes. To make that easily detectable, the
apparatus was assembled in a closed room in the basement
of the heavy stone dormitory, eliminating most thermal and
vibrational effects. Vibrations were further reduced by
building the apparatus on top of a large block of sandstone
(Fig.1), about a foot thick and five feet square, which was
then floated in an annular trough of mercury. They
estimated that effects of about 1/100 of a fringe would be
detectable.

Figure 5. This figure illustrates the folded light path

used in the MichelsonMorley interferometer that
enabled a path length of 11 m. a is the light source,
an oil lamp. b is a beam splitter. c is a compensating
plate so that both the reflected and transmitted
beams travel through the same amount of glass
(important since experiments were run with white
light which has an extremely short coherence length
requiring precise matching of optical path lengths
for fringes to be visible; monochromatic sodium
light was used only for initial alignment[4][note 2]).
d, d' and e are mirrors. e' is a fine adjustment
mirror. f is a telescope.

Michelson and Morley and other early experimentalists

using interferometric techniques in an attempt to measure the properties
of the luminiferous aether, used (partially) monochromatic light only
for initially setting up their equipment, always switching to white light
for the actual measurements. The reason is that measurements were
recorded visually. Purely monochromatic light would result in a
uniform fringe pattern. Lacking modern means of environmental
temperature control, experimentalists struggled with continual fringe
drift even though the interferometer might be set up in a basement.
Because the fringes would occasionally disappear due to vibrations
caused by passing horse traffic, distant thunderstorms and the like, an
observer could easily "get lost" when the fringes returned to visibility.
The advantages of white light, which produced a distinctive colored
fringe pattern, far outweighed the difficulties of aligning the apparatus
due to its low coherence length. As Dayton Miller wrote, "White light
fringes were chosen for the observations because they consist of a small
group of fringes having a central, sharply defined black fringe which

Figure 6. Fringe pattern produced

with a Michelson interferometer
using white light. As configured here,
the central fringe is white rather than
black.

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.

Most famous "failed" experiment

After all this thought and preparation, the experiment
became what has been called the most famous failed
experiment in history.[A 13] Instead of providing insight
into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley's
article in the American Journal of Science reported the
measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected
displacement (Fig.7), but "since the displacement is
proportional to the square of the velocity" they concluded
that the measured velocity was "probably less than onesixth" of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in
orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth."[1] (Afterward,
Michelson and Morley ceased their aether drift
measurements and started to use their newly developed
technique to establish the wavelength of light as a standard
of length.[6][7]) Although this small "velocity" was
measured, it was considered far too small to be used as
evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was

Figure 7. Michelson and Morley's results. The

upper solid line is the curve for their observations at
noon, and the lower solid line is that for their
evening observations. Note that the theoretical
curves and the observed curves are not plotted at
the same scale: the dotted curves, in fact, represent
only one-eighth of the theoretical displacements.

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.

Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887

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.

Light path analysis and consequences

Observer resting in the aether
The beam travel time in the longitudinal direction can be
derived as follows:[A 15] Light is sent from the source and
propagates with the speed of light in the aether. It passes
through the half-silvered mirror at the origin at
.
The reflecting mirror is at that moment at distance (the
length of the interferometer arm) and is moving with
velocity . The beam hits the mirror at time
and thus
travels the distance
. At this time, the mirror has
traveled the distance
. Thus
and
consequently the travel time
. The same
consideration applies to the backward journey, with the
sign of reversed, resulting in
and
. The total travel time
is:

Michelson obtained this expression correctly in 1881,

however, in transverse direction he obtained the incorrect
expression

Figure 4. Expected differential phase shift between

light traveling the longitudinal versus the transverse
arms of the MichelsonMorley apparatus

,
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]

By multiplying with c, the corresponding length difference before rotation is

and after rotation

Dividing

by the wavelength , the fringe shift n is found:

.

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]

Observer comoving with the interferometer

If the same situation is described from the view of an observer co-moving with the interferometer, then the
effect of aether wind is similar to the effect experienced by a swimmer, who tries to move with velocity
against a river flowing with velocity .[A 17]
In the longitudinal direction the swimmer first moves upstream, so his velocity is diminished due to the river
flow to
. On his way back moving downstream, his velocity is increased to
. This gives the beam
travel times
and
as mentioned above.
In the transverse direction, the swimmer has to compensate for the river flow by moving at a certain angle
against the flow direction, in order to sustain his exact transverse direction of motion and to reach the other
side of the river at the correct location. This diminishes his speed to
, and gives the beam travel
time
as mentioned above.

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]

Length contraction and Lorentz transformation

Further information: History of special relativity and History of Lorentz transformations
A first step to explaining the Michelson and Morley experiment's null result was found in the FitzGerald
Lorentz contraction hypothesis, now simply called length contraction or Lorentz contraction, first proposed by
George FitzGerald (1889) and Hendrik Lorentz (1892).[A 19] According to this law all objects physically
contract by
along the line of motion (originally thought to be relative to the aether),
being the Lorentz factor. This hypothesis was partly motivated by Oliver Heaviside's
discovery in 1888, that electrostatic fields are contracting in the line of motion. But since there was no reason
at that time to assume that binding forces in matter are of electric origin, length contraction of matter in motion
with respect to the aether was considered an Ad hoc hypothesis.[A 9]
If length contraction of is inserted into the above formula for , then the light propagation time in the
longitudinal direction becomes equal to that in the transverse direction:

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.

Albert Einstein, 1916

The extent to which the null result of the MichelsonMorley experiment influenced Einstein is disputed.
Alluding to some statements of Einstein, many historians argue that it played no significant role in his path to
special relativity,[A 24][A 25] while other statements of Einstein probably suggest that he was influenced by
it.[A 26] In any case, the null result of the MichelsonMorley experiment helped the notion of the constancy of
the speed of light gain widespread and rapid acceptance.[A 24]
It was later shown by Howard Percy Robertson (1949) and others[A 3][A 27] (see RobertsonMansouriSexl test
theory), that it is possible to derive the Lorentz transformation entirely from the combination of three
experiments. First, the MichelsonMorley experiment showed that the speed of light is independent of the
orientation of the apparatus, establishing the relationship between longitudinal () and transverse () lengths.
Then in 1932, Roy Kennedy and Edward Thorndike modified the MichelsonMorley experiment by making
the path lengths of the split beam unequal, with one arm being very short.[8] The KennedyThorndike
experiment took place for many months as the Earth moved around the sun. Their negative result showed that
the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the apparatus in different inertial frames. In addition it
established that besides length changes, corresponding time changes must also occur, i.e. it established the
relationship between longitudinal lengths () and time changes (). So both experiments do not provide the
individual values of these quantities. This uncertainty corresponds to the undefined factor as described

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

motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial

entrainment or aether dragging, though he did not attempt a
detailed explanation. He ignored critiques demonstrating the
inconsistency of his results and the refutation by the Hammar
experiment.[A 31][note 5] Miller's findings were considered
important at the time, and were discussed by Michelson, Lorentz
and others at a meeting reported in 1928.[A 32] There was general
agreement that more experimentation was needed to check Miller's
results. Miller later built a non-magnetic device to eliminate
magnetostriction, while Michelson built one of non-expanding
Invar to eliminate any remaining thermal effects. Other
experimenters from around the world increased accuracy,
eliminated possible side effects, or both. So far, no one has been
able to replicate Miller's results, and modern experimental
accuracies have ruled them out.[A 33] Roberts (2006) has pointed
out that the primitive data reduction techniques used by Miller and
other early experimenters, including Michelson and Morley, were
capable of creating apparent periodic signals even when none
existed in the actual data. After reanalyzing Miller's original data
using modern techniques of quantitative error analysis, Roberts
found Miller's apparent signals to be statistically
insignificant.[A 34]
Using a special optical arrangement involving a 1/20 wave step in
one mirror, Roy J. Kennedy (1926) and K.K. Illingworth (1927)
(Fig.8) converted the task of detecting fringe shifts from the
relatively insensitive one of estimating their lateral displacements
to the considerably more sensitive task of adjusting the light
intensity on both sides of a sharp boundary for equal

Figure 8. Simulation of the

Kennedy/Illingworth refinement of the
MichelsonMorley experiment. (a)
MichelsonMorley interference pattern in
monochromatic mercury light, with a dark
fringe precisely centered on the screen. (b)
The fringes have been shifted to the left by
1/100 of the fringe spacing. It is extremely
difficult to see any difference between this
figure and the one above. (c) A small step
in one mirror causes two views of the same
fringes to be spaced 1/20 of the fringe
spacing to the left and to the right of the
step. (d) A telescope has been set to view
only the central dark band around the
mirror step. Note the symmetrical
brightening about the center line. (e) The
two sets of fringes have been shifted to the
left by 1/100 of the fringe spacing. An
abrupt discontinuity in luminosity is
visible across the step.

luminance.[14][15] If they observed unequal illumination on either

side of the step, such as in Fig.8e, they would add or remove
calibrated weights from the interferometer until both sides of the
step were once again evenly illuminated, as in Fig.8d. The number
of weights added or removed provided a measure of the fringe
shift. Different observers could detect changes as little as 1/300 to 1/1500 of a fringe. Kennedy also carried out
an experiment at Mount Wilson, finding only about 1/10 the drift measured by Miller and no seasonal
effects.[A 32]
In 1930, Georg Joos conducted an experiment using an automated interferometer with 21-meter-long arms
forged from pressed quartz having very low thermal coefficient of expansion, that took continuous
photographic strip recordings of the fringes through dozens of revolutions of the apparatus. Displacements of
1/1000 of a fringe could be measured on the photographic plates. No periodic fringe displacements were found,
placing an upper limit to the aether wind of 1.5km/s.[16]
In the table below, the expected values are related to the relative speed between Earth and Sun of 30km/s.
With respect to the speed of the solar system around the galactic center of about 220km/s, or the speed of the
solar system relative to the CMB rest frame of about 368km/s, the null results of those experiments are even
more obvious.

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

Miller[17][A 12] Mt. Wilson

Kennedy[14]

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

The frequency of a rotating microwave cavity resonator is compared

with that of a quartz clock

~3km/s

Cedarholm et
al.[24][25]

1958

Two ammonia masers were mounted on a rotating table, and their

beams were directed in opposite directions.

~30m/s

Mssbauer rotor
experiments

1960 In a series of experiments by different researchers, the frequencies of

63
gamma rays were observed using the Mssbauer effect.

~34m/s

The frequencies of two HeNe masers, mounted on a rotating table,

1964 were compared. Unlike Cedarholm et al., the masers were placed
perpendicular to each other.

~30m/s

Jaseja et

al.[26]

Both arms of the interferometer were contained in a transparent solid

Shamir and Fox[27] 1969 (plexiglass). The light source was a Heliumneon laser.
Trimmer et
al.[28][29]

They searched for anisotropies of the speed of light behaving as the

first and third of the Legendre polynomials. They used a triangle
1973 interferometer, with one portion of the path in glass. (In comparison,
the MichelsonMorley type experiments test the second Legendre
polynomial)[A 27]

~7km/s

~2.5cm/s

Recent optical resonator experiments

Over the last several years, there has been a resurgence in interest
in performing precise MichelsonMorley type experiments using
lasers, masers, cryogenic optical resonators, etc. This is in large
part due to predictions of quantum gravity that suggest that special
relativity may be violated at scales accessible to experimental
study. The first of these highly accurate experiments was
conducted by Brillet & Hall (1979), in which they analyzed a laser
frequency stabilized to a resonance of a rotating optical Fabry
Prot cavity. They set a limit on the anisotropy of the speed of
light resulting from the Earth's motions of c/c1015, where c
is the difference between the speed of light in the x- and ydirections.[31]
As of 2009, optical and microwave resonator experiments have

Figure 9. MichelsonMorley experiment

with cryogenic optical resonators of a form
such as was used by Mller et al.
(2003).[30]

improved this limit to c/c1017. In some of them, the devices

were rotated or remained stationary, and some were combined with the KennedyThorndike experiment. In
particular, Earth's direction and velocity (ca.368km/s) relative to the CMB rest frame are ordinarily used as
references in these searches for anisotropies.

Author

Year

Description

Wolf et al.[32]

The frequency of a stationary cryogenic microwave oscillator, consisting

of sapphire crystal operating in a whispering gallery mode, is compared
2003 to a hydrogen maser whose frequency was compared to caesium and
rubidium atomic fountain clocks. Changes during Earth's rotation have
been searched for. Data between 20012002 was analyzed.

Mller et al.[30]

Two optical resonators constructed from crystalline sapphire, controlling

the frequencies of two Nd:YAG lasers, are set at right angles within a
2003
helium cryostat. A frequency comparator measures the beat frequency of
the combined outputs of the two resonators.

Wolf et al.[33]

2004

Wolf et al.[34]

2004 See Wolf et al. (2003). Data between 20022004 was analyzed.

c/c

See Wolf et al. (2003). An active temperature control was implemented.

Data between 20022003 was analyzed.

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]

Similar to Mller et al. (2003). The frequencies of two optical Fabry

Prot resonators cavities are compared one cavity was continuously
2005
rotating while the other one was stationary oriented northsouth. Data
between 20042005 was analyzed.

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.

Similar to Herrmann et al. (2005). The frequencies of a pair of rotating,

orthogonal optical FabryProt resonators are compared. The
Herrmann et al.[3] 2009 frequencies of two Nd:YAG lasers are stabilized to resonances of these
resonators.

Other tests of Lorentz invariance

Further information: Modern searches for Lorentz violation
Examples of other experiments not based on the MichelsonMorley principle, i.e. non-optical isotropy tests
achieving an even higher level of precision, are Clock comparison or HughesDrever experiments. In Drever's
1961 experiment, 7Li nuclei in the ground state, which has total angular momentum J=3/2, were split into four
equally spaced levels by a magnetic field. Each transition between a pair of adjacent levels should emit a
photon of equal frequency, resulting in a single, sharp spectral line. However, since the nuclear wave functions
for different MJ have different orientations in space relative to the magnetic field, any orientation dependence,
whether from an aether wind or from a dependence on the large-scale distribution of mass in space (see Mach's
principle), would perturb the energy spacings between the four levels, resulting in an anomalous broadening or
splitting of the line. No such broadening was observed. Modern repeats of this kind of experiment have
provided some of the most accurate confirmations of the principle of Lorentz invariance.[A 36]

See also
MichelsonMorley Award
Moving magnet and conductor problem
The Light (Glass)

References
Experiments

Figure 10. 7Li-NMR spectrum of LiCl

(1M) in D2O. The sharp, unsplit NMR

1. Michelson, Albert A.; Morley, Edward W. (1887). "On the Relative

line of this isotope of lithium is
Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether". American Journal of
evidence for the isotropy of mass and
Science 34: 333345. doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-34.203.333.
space.
2. Eisele, Ch.; Nevsky, A. Yu.; Schiller, S. (2009). "Laboratory Test of the
17
Isotropy of Light Propagation at the 10
level" (PDF). Physical Review
Letters 103 (9): 090401. Bibcode:2009PhRvL.103i0401E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.090401. PMID19792767.
3. Herrmann, S.; Senger, A.; Mhle, K.; Nagel, M.; Kovalchuk, E. V.; Peters, A. (2009). "Rotating optical cavity
experiment testing Lorentz invariance at the 1017 level". Physical Review D 80 (100): 105011. arXiv:1002.1284.
Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80j5011H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.105011.
4. Michelson, Albert A. (1881). "The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether". American Journal of
Science 22: 120129. doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-22.128.120.
5. Michelson, Albert A.; Morley, Edward W. (1886). "Influence of Motion of the Medium on the Velocity of Light".
Am. J. Science 31: 377386. doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-31.185.377.
6. Michelson, Albert A.; Morley, Edward W. (1887). "On a method of making the wave-length of sodium light the
actual and practical standard of length" (PDF). American Journal of Science 34: 427430. doi:10.2475/ajs.s334.204.427.
7. Michelson, Albert A.; Morley, Edward W. (1889). "On the feasibility of establishing a light-wave as the ultimate
standard of length" (PDF). American Journal of Science 38: 1816. doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-38.225.181.
8. Kennedy, R. J.; Thorndike, E. M. (1932). "Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time". Phys. Rev. 42:
400408. Bibcode:1932PhRv...42..400K. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.42.400.
9. Fox, J. G. (1965), "Evidence Against Emission Theories", American Journal of Physics 33 (1): 117,
Bibcode:1965AmJPh..33....1F, doi:10.1119/1.1971219.
10. Brecher, K. (1977). "Is the speed of light independent of the velocity of the source". Physical Review Letters 39
(17): 10511054. Bibcode:1977PhRvL..39.1051B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.1051.
11. Filippas, T.A.; Fox, J.G. (1964). "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source". Physical Review 135 (4B):
B10711075. Bibcode:1964PhRv..135.1071F. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071.
12. Edward W. Morley and Dayton C. Miller (1904). "Extract from a Letter dated Cleveland, Ohio, August 5th, 1904, to
Lord Kelvin from Profs. Edward W. Morley and Dayton C. Miller". Philosophical Magazine. 6 8 (48): 753754.
doi:10.1080/14786440409463248.
13. Edward W. Morley and Dayton C. Miller (1905). "Report of an experiment to detect the FitzgeraldLorentz Effect".
Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences XLI (12): 3218. doi:10.2307/20022071.
14. Kennedy, Roy J. (1926). "A Refinement of the MichelsonMorley Experiment". Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 12 (11): 621629. Bibcode:1926PNAS...12..621K. doi:10.1073/pnas.12.11.621.
15. Illingworth, K. K. (1927). "A Repetition of the MichelsonMorley Experiment Using Kennedy's Refinement".
Physical Review 30 (5): 692696. Bibcode:1927PhRv...30..692I. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.30.692.
16. Joos, G. (1930). "Die Jenaer Wiederholung des Michelsonversuchs". Annalen der Physik 399 (4): 385407.
Bibcode:1930AnP...399..385J. doi:10.1002/andp.19303990402.
17. Miller, Dayton C. (1925). "Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson". Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 11 (6): 306314. Bibcode:1925PNAS...11..306M. doi:10.1073/pnas.11.6.306.
18. Tomaschek, R. (1924). "ber das Verhalten des Lichtes auerirdischer Lichtquellen". Annalen der Physik 378 (1):
105126. Bibcode:1924AnP...378..105T. doi:10.1002/andp.19243780107.
19. Piccard, A.; Stahel, E. (1926). "L'exprience de Michelson, ralise en ballon libre". Comptes Rendus 183 (7): 420
421.
20. Piccard, A.; Stahel, E. (1927). "Nouveaux rsultats obtenus par l'exprience de Michelson". Comptes Rendus 184:
152.
21. Piccard, A.; Stahel, E. (1927). "L'absence du vent d'ther au Rigi". Comptes Rendus 184: 11981200.
22. Michelson, A. A.; Pease, F. G.; Pearson, F. (1929). "Results of repetition of the MichelsonMorley experiment".
Journal of the Optical Society of America 18 (3): 181. Bibcode:1929JOSA...18..181M. doi:10.1364/josa.18.000181.

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]

Bibliography ("A" series references)

1. Staley, Richard (2009), "Albert Michelson, the Velocity of Light, and the Ether Drift", Einstein's generation. The
origins of the relativity revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN0-226-77057-5
2. Hoover, Earl R. (1977). Cradle of Greatness: National and World Achievements of Ohio's Western Reserve.
Cleveland: Shaker Savings Association. OCLC2936545.
3. Robertson, H. P. (1949). "Postulate versus Observation in the Special Theory of Relativity". Reviews of Modern
Physics 21 (3): 378382. Bibcode:1949RvMP...21..378R. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.21.378.
4. Whittaker, Edmund Taylor (1910). A History of the theories of aether and electricity (1. ed.). Dublin: Longman,
Green and Co.
5. Janssen, Michel; Stachel, John (2010). "The Optics and Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (pdf). In Stachel, John.
Going Critical. Springer. ISBN1-4020-1308-6.
6. Laub, Jakob (1910). "ber die experimentellen Grundlagen des Relativittsprinzips (On the experimental
foundations of the principle of relativity)". Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitt und Elektronik 7: 405463.
7. Maxwell, James Clerk (1878), "Ether", Encyclopdia Britannica Ninth Edition 8: 568572
8. Maxwell, James Clerk (1880), "On a Possible Mode of Detecting a Motion of the Solar System through the
Luminiferous Ether", Nature 21: 3145, Bibcode:1880Natur..21S.314., doi:10.1038/021314c0
9. Miller, A.I. (1981). Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity. Emergence (1905) and early interpretation (1905
1911). Reading: AddisonWesley. p.24. ISBN0-201-04679-2.
10. Fickinger, William (2005). Physics at a Research University: Case Western Reserve, 18301990. Cleveland.
pp.1822, 48. ISBN0977338606. "The Dormitory was located on a now largely unoccupied space between the
Biology Building and the Adelbert Gymnasium, both of which still stand on the CWRU campus."
11. Hamerla, Ralph R. (2006). An American Scientist on the Research Frontier: Edward Morley, Community, and
Radical Ideas in Nineteenth-Century Science. Springer. pp.123152. ISBN978-1-4020-4089-4.
12. Miller, Dayton C. (1933). "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth".
Reviews of Modern Physics 5 (3): 203242. Bibcode:1933RvMP....5..203M. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.5.203.

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michelson

Morley_experiment&oldid=678969840"
Categories: Aether theories Case Western Reserve University Physics experiments Special relativity
1887 in science
This page was last modified on 1 September 2015, at 18:49.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.