michelson M. question?? (1 Viewer)

[香港!]

Only special relativity is in the syllabus.

Just to clarify things, general relativity relates to the curvature of space-time, black holes and binary pulsar systems.

yea special relativity is in it of coz

but am i rite about Principle of General Relativity not being in syllabus?

 

[tennille]

yea special relativity is in it of coz

but am i rite about Principle of General Relativity not being in syllabus?

I just mentioned that only special relativity is in the syllabus. So no, general relativity isn't in it.

 

[Abtari]

she just answered ur question and ur asking her the same thing again lol

 

[香港!]

lol nvm im an idiot kekeke

 

[Abtari]

thats cool..

one question for everyone:

evaluate the mm attempt to measure the relative velocity of the Earth through the aether.

how would we evaluate this? i.e. say whether it was 'good' or 'bad' please help.

 

[香港!]

^^
dunno.. if i had dat in da exam i would just write all the BS i've memorised for it, fill up a whole page
hahaha

 

[Haku]

i just say its valid, and with its many repetition it is also reliable. use of interferometer give accuracy.

the rest would be description. and justify the individual steps.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

It was an 'attempt' because they weren't successful to measure the relative velocity of the earth through the aether, for obvious reasons.

That dotpoint would consist of a description of the experiment, the reasoning behind it, the null result and reason for the null result.

 

[Haku]

i am not really getting ur attempt thing. but they did set up the experiment, but recorded 0. the experiment, the experiment is valid to the hypothesis. they repeated it and still "null result", so its reliable. So this just proved that there is no relative motion between earth and aether.

Can u clarify on ur attempt thingy?

 

[香港!]

It was an 'attempt' because they weren't successful to measure the relative velocity of the earth through the aether, for obvious reasons.

That dotpoint would consist of a description of the experiment, the reasoning behind it, the null result and reason for the null result.

Was there an actual "reason" for the null result?
Cuz I thought they still couldn't show that the aether existed, but it didn't disprove the existence of aether either.
And it was Mr Einstein who came up with his constancy of light which made the aether model not necessary, but didn't disprove it.

Is that right?

 

[Haku]

there were two accepted theories.

1: the instrument is not sensitive enough.
2: the atmosphere of earth drags the aether along with it as it moves through aether. Still even now that we know that light do no need a medium to propogate, we sitll cannot prove that aether dun exist or exist aether due to its properties.

 

[香港!]

^ They couldn't find a reason for the Null Result, so people tried to adapt to the experiment. Some people said that the Earth dragged the aether along with it, thus the interference patterns are not apparent. But that was later proved incorrect. So then also Lorentz and Fitzgerald proposed that the length of the arms of the apparatus contracted as it turned, so cancelling out with the light shift, so there was no apparent interference. But the length of the arms of apparatus was proved that it did not contract.

 

[kerry]

their "null" result was that their findings showed nothing to so with their hypothesis

 

[Captain Gh3y]

i am not really getting ur attempt thing. but they did set up the experiment, but recorded 0. the experiment, the experiment is valid to the hypothesis. they repeated it and still "null result", so its reliable. So this just proved that there is no relative motion between earth and aether.

Can u clarify on ur attempt thingy?

It doesn't really matter, we'd just be discussing the meaning of words. I just meant that at the end they didn't have any value of the earth through the aether. Remember the experiment was done like 20 years before Einstein's theory, so at the time they didn't really know why there was no relative velocity between the earth and the aether. This lead to the aether theory being adjusted, like ideas of the Earth dragging the aether with it and other things.

Remember the experiment was done under the premise that the aether definately existed, and it had no intent of proving/disproving the actual existence of the aether. Yes, it was a valid experiment, and yes, the result was 0. The null result was, of course, because the aether doesn't exist.

 

[Abtari]

ummm ppl..

my original question was how do i evaluate it as? do i say oh its good, even though it didn't establish the existence of aether (which it set out to do) because of the reliability, validity and accuracy (i would expand on these) of the experiment....

is that how i would evaluate it? would that be my criteria?

 

[Haku]

pretty sure thats how u do it. even though it give a result of 0, it is still a result.

 

[helper]

The evaluation could mean two things.
How well it was done, which you mentioned

What role did the experiment have on our understanding of light?

In a question like that, they probably would give you an idea of what criteroa in the stimulus material.