The evolution of scientific thought from Newton to EinsteinD'Abro, A. (Aram)
Science
The evolution of scientific thought from Newton to Einstein
D'Abro, A. (Aram)
Relativity (Physics); Science -- Methodology
Stokes’ hypothesis was thus discarded, and the most satisfactory
explanation of all negative experiments that had been suggested was
given by Fresnel. It must be realised that up to this stage all the
experiments attempted were of an optical nature, and related to
the transmission of light rays through dielectrics (glass, water,
etc.). Such experiments had been performed by Foucault, Airy, and
Arago. Fresnel succeeded in proving by mathematical analysis that if
dielectrics carried the ether along in their interior in a partial
manner, increasing in a definite degree with their refractive power,
all the negative results attained up to his day would be explained,
provided they were not pursued to too high an order of accuracy. This
required percentage of drag of the ether by dielectrics was called
Fresnel’s convection coefficient.
Fresnel’s hypothesis was subjected to a direct experimental test.
Fizeau discovered, exactly as had been anticipated by Fresnel, that
when a ray of light was propagated through running water, the total
speed of the light ray with respect to the tube was equal to its
speed through the water, when the water was stagnant, plus only
a fraction of the water’s velocity in the tube; and that this
fraction was precisely equal to the convection coefficient predicted by
Fresnel.
In view of this remarkable confirmation, Fresnel’s hypothesis was
considered fairly established, so that the situation confronting
science was the following: The ether was stagnant in that the earth
moved through it without disturbing it in any way. Velocity through
[Pg 124]
the ether had therefore a definite physical significance, and a real
ether hurricane must be blowing over the earth’s surface in various
directions according to the time of day. Experiments had failed to
detect it, not because it did not exist, but on account of this
compensating effect of the partial drag of the ether by dielectrics in
motion. Such a failure, however, could only be regarded as temporary;
for Fresnel’s hypothesis specifically showed that this compensating
effect was but partial, and that experiments of a still more refined
order ought certainly to detect the ether drift on the earth’s surface,
revealing thereby the earth’s absolute velocity.
Obviously Fresnel’s hypothesis would fall if more refined experiments
should also fail to detect the ether hurricane. Furthermore, even to
the order of precision contemplated by Fresnel, if in our experiments
we should appeal to phenomena in which dielectrics played no part,
his showed that this compensating effect was but partial, and that
experiment of Michelson and Morley was of this type. Not only was it
far more precise than the ones hitherto attempted, but in addition
refraction played no part in it. Yet, in spite of all, the Michelson
and Morley experiment again gave a negative result.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account