In the 19th century most physicists accepted the old idea that all of space is filled with an elusive substance called the “luminiferous ether”. It was well known that. You were a sensical theory, luminiferous ether. And physicists love when things make sense. But science need not make sense—the universe. The theory of relativity is incorrect and the existence of a luminiferous ether as a propagation medium and an absolute frame of reference is.
|Published (Last):||5 May 2016|
|PDF File Size:||15.89 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.95 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
A century later, Thomas Young and Augustin-Jean Fresnel revived the wave theory of light when they pointed out that light could be a transverse wave rather than a longitudinal wave — the polarization of a transverse wave like Newton’s “sides” of light could explain birefringence, and in the wake of a series of experiments on diffraction the particle model of Newton was finally abandoned. Put a question mark there. According to Boyle, the aether consists of subtle particles, one sort of which explains the absence of vacuum and the mechanical interactions between bodies, and the other sort of which explains phenomena such as magnetism and possibly gravity that are, otherwise, inexplicable on the basis of purely mechanical interactions of macroscopic bodies, “though in the ether of the ancients there was nothing taken notice of but a diffused and very subtle substance; yet we are at present content to allow that there is always in the air a swarm of steams moving in a determinate course between the north pole and the south”.
In this work he demonstrated that light can be considered as particles that have a “wave-like nature”.
Maybe I’m just drawing the crests of the waves, but also come out from here. Kox, Studies in the history of general relativity3Boston-Basel-Berlin: Two of these measurement standout: Because each style has its own formatting nuances that evolve over time and not all information is available for every reference entry or article, Encyclopedia. You can’t disprove something that isn’t eyher, or something that doesn’t affect anything material in any way.
It is obvious from what has gone before that it wther be hopeless to attempt to solve the question of the motion of the solar system by observations of optical phenomena at the surface of the earth.
Light and the luminiferous ether (video) | Khan Academy
George Stokes’ theory, requiring complete ether entertainment at Earth’s surface, accounted for the null-result. Wave light can interfere with each other.
Thus the Earth could move through it fairly freely, but it would be rigid enough to support light. They found that the ratio equals the product of the speed of light and eyher square root of two. Thank You for Your Contribution! Actually, the astronomer James Bradley had earlier in done an experiment on stellar aberration that was intended to demonstrate ether drag near the earth, but it showed that starlight coming toward the earth was bent lumkniferous the opposite direction to that predicted by the ether drag theory.
Light and the luminiferous ether
By that time, Michelson, who believed in the ether, was resigned to the fact that it couldn’t be detected, and expected the experiment to fail, as had all of those before. All the old justifications for the ether do not apply to these modern concepts, nor did the modern versions in any way “arise” from the classical ether hypothesis.
So it died, though gradually, over the next decade. Once a concept is fixed in the mind, one often perceives confirmation of it elsewhere.
Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether.
Luminiferous aether – Wikipedia
It was impossible to visualize ether because contradictory properties had to be attributed to it in order to explain the phenomena known at any given time. He wrote another paper inentitled ” A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field “, in which the details of the luminiferous medium were less explicit. The experimental “evidence” that seemed to support the ether does not support the current theories.
Any text you add should be original, not copied from other sources.
Refutations of aether theory Refutations of emission theory. We saw that with the water, with the air, with the string. This luminiferous ether that the light is traveling through.
Thus, they could be expected to vary in accordance with Heaviside’s result. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the luminlferous of light without an aether. Although Michelson and Morley expected a fringe-shift, they once again obtained a null-result.
These air particles get ultra-compressed.