Abstract
The famous Michelson-Morley experiment is examined and found wanting in every respect. Although cited as proof that the speed of light is constant everywhere in the universe and in all directions, the experiment never measured the speed of light in any direction at all at anywhere in the universe. Furthermore, the experiment did not make any measurements whatsoever concerning the vertical direction and, in addition, used an artificial light source instead of natural light. Interpretations of the experiment therefore depend upon a whole raft of unjustified assumptions. An alternative explanation is given in terms of field physics.
Use of artificial light
We will usually think of ‘light’ as the radiation from the sun which travels through the vacuum of space and through our atmosphere to our eyes where we see a spectrum of colours.
The M-M experiment did not use this substance at all but instead used two different constructs for performing the experiment.
A sodium lamp was used to perform initial alignments followed by something called ‘white light’ to perform the measurements. The ‘white light’ turns out to be the light from an oil lamp which has been ‘collimated’ into a parallel beam by passing it through a condensing lens.
The question therefore arises as to how similar this light is for the purposes of the experiment. If we have created an artificial product then how can we be sure that our results are not similarly artificial and therefore not representative of natural processes.
We do not even know if the light that comes out of a glass lens is the same as light that went into it in the first place.
Use of laser beams
Later experiments used an even more highly processed product in the form of a laser beam which “significantly improved measurement precision” – Wikipedia
But if the new light source gives significantly different results, then how do we know that we are measuring the same thing? Moreover, how wo we know that the results are an improvement? What are we comparing them against?
We are at risk of creating the results that were sought for in the first place.
Consider, as an example, that natural or even ‘white’ light may contain a variety of photons all travelling at slightly different speeds and that what is being measured is an effect emerging from some sort of average and that the process of producing laser light somehow irons out the variations in photon speeds to produce a ‘cleaner’ product.
What is a collimated beam of light?
A collimated beam of light or other electromagnetic radiation has parallel rays, and therefore will spread minimally as it propagates. A laser beam is an archetypical example. A perfectly collimated light beam, with no divergence, would not disperse with distance. However, diffraction prevents the creation of any such beam. – Wikipedia
A collimated beam is therefore composed of ‘rays’ – but we all thought it was composed of ‘photons’ like sunlight.
So what is a ‘ray’ of light?
.. a ray is an idealized geometrical model of light or other electromagnetic radiation, obtained by choosing a curve that is perpendicular to the wave-fronts of the actual light, and that points in the direction of energy flow — Wikipedia
In other words, there is no such ‘real thing’ as a ray of light.
Collimated beams are therefore idealised models of light that can never be realised in practical experiments and yet still give better results than the real thing!
What is a laser beam?
A laser differs from other sources of light in that it emits light that is coherent. – Wikipedia
A laser beam is a highly processed and artificial product where the individual photons have been carefully manufactured to be identical to each other.
This is said to give the ‘best’ measurements for the Michelson-Morley experiment whilst at the same time differs from other sources of light.
Laser light surely cannot be said to be representative of all forms of light everywhere in the universe if it differs from other sources of light.
Einstein’s solution
The speed of light was inferred to be the same in each direction. This was a surprise to the scientists at the time and without a physical explanation.
Einstein’s solution was to declare, as a universal ‘principle’ that the speed of light was always the same with respect to the observer.
This provides no novel physics to explain the phenomenon and does not, of itself, constitute a description of a physical process. The experimental result is just a measurement outcome in a local reference frame (that of a laboratory) which Einstein has elevated to a Universal Principle of physics with no justification whatsoever.
A solution from field physics
The Earth’s gravitational field is of an electromagnetic nature and revolves around with the Earth: The vortex nature of gravity
Photons are ripples in a gravitational field and take on the topology of a ring vortex or a pair of leap-frogging ring vortices (Konstantin Meyl). These vortices are analogous to travelling water rings or smoke rings and will propagate through the surrounding medium (gravitational field) at the speed of light.
Now since to Earth’s gravitational field rotates with the Earth, the light rings will move at a constant speed relative to the Earth’s surface and hence relative to the experimental equipment.
The Earth’s field adopts a spiral pattern which means that measurements of the speed of light further out from the planet will demonstrate only a partial rotation with respect to the Earth’s surface. This is a possible explanation for the phenomenon of ‘frame dragging’: Wikipedia
The ripples in the field are fully mutable and may take on a variety of forms. It is hard to say what is going on in a laser but standard descriptions seem to imply that what is produced is a highly structured and stable beam of electromagnetic energy in the form of a scalar wave beam as described by either Tesla or Meyl. This is a somewhat different structure to that of a collection of individual photons and there is no reason why we should expect measurements of such a structure to produce identical results to measurements of a collection of individual photons.
The interference pattern
The M-M experiment did not measure the speed of light in any direction but instead produced an interference pattern at the centre of the apparatus and made the assumption that if the light had been travelling at different speeds then a different interference pattern would have been produced.
Note also the implicit assumption that ‘measurement’ is purely a passive process and that the physical construction of the apparatus has no impact on the behaviour of the light or the outcome of the experiment.
However, if we are thinking that the light beams, gravitational field and even the experimental equipment are all part of the same field continuum, then it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the apparatus itself somehow coerces the local field into a resonant system, similar to that produced by a Chladni plate, and that the experimental results are now almost entirely an artefact of the measurement process.
Summary
Scientists have performed an experiment with ‘light’ but with having no consistent definition of what constitutes ‘light’. They have used several different types of ‘light’ which have observably different behaviours but imagine that these differences have no impact on the experiment outcome.
The assumption all along is that this difference in observable behaviour has nothing to do with the outcome of the experiment even though the different types of light have been specifically chosen for their variation in observable behaviour.
Einstein’s ‘principle’ is a massive overreach and does not by itself constitute a Law of Physics but is merely a re-iteration of the experiment outcome.
The Michelson-Morley experiment:
- Measured nothing in the vertical direction
- Made no measurements concerning natural light
- Did not directly measure the speed of light in any direction at all
- Retained the assumption of light as a rigid waveform
Alternative explanations were available even at the time in terms of aether drag. A proposed solution in terms of field physics shares some of the features of aether theory.