The Greatest Failed Experiment Ever
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2016
- In this episode SciShow Space we talk about the aether...which hasn't been proven.
Hosted by: Reid Reimers
Episode written by Jon Parnell
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters -- we couldn't make SciShow without them! Shout out to Justin Ove, Fatima Iqbal, Linnea Boyev, Kathy & Tim Philip, Kevin Bealer, Justin Lentz, Chris Peters, and Philippe von Bergen.
----------
Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: dftba.com/SciShow
Or help support us by becoming our patron on Patreon:
/ scishow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
Sources:
galileoandeinstein.physics.vir...
scienceworld.wolfram.com/physi...
www.aps.org/programs/outreach...
• Neil deGrasse Tyson ex...
Images:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pu...
But it didn't fail... the experiment successfully showed that the aether wind hypothesis was wrong.
+WrenAkula It did, but the purpose of the experiment was to show that the aether *did* exist, hence why we say that the experiment failed.
Bram42
No, it was to test whether or not the aether exists. Thus, it was successful (regardless of what the scientists' expectations were). What you're describing is a demonstration, not an experiment. A failed experiment is one that fails to test the hypothesis.
WrenAkula Alright, you bring a fair point.
+Bram42 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
To the designer of an experiment, the condition of success or failure should be defined as, "does the experiment sufficiently test a hypothesis?" The hypothesis in this case was the existence of the aether, which evidence was discovered to the contrary, leading to its, "rejection". WrenAkula is right, the experiment was a fantastic success, and it was the hypothesis that failed to describe reality.
+WrenAkula I actually down voted cause of that. totally sends the wrong message about science. oh you guessed wrong that means YOU FAIL!!
when you learn through experimentation, it is never truly a failure
Was there any need for that?
+ReMooseCode yes. yes there was. That was SICK.
Azure Kite No, it wasn't...
ReMooseCode you are the opposite of "fun"
Azure Kite We must have different definitions of fun.
proof that it isn't always bad to fail
+Recon WB A negative result is still a result :D
It's always good to know what NOT to do or what DOESN'T work to save time, resources etc in the future
"Failing" showed us that there wasn't an aether. We learned something from this experiment so it wasn't a failure.
nichrun they failed to proof the aether exists, hence "failure"
+Recon WB you learn more from failure than you do from success.
That's a great interpretation.
This isn't a failed experiment. A failed experiment is when you learn nothing, not when the experiment doesn't result in what you expect. This is actually a very successful experiment.
+Simon F. The experiment was made with the purpose of proving the hypothesis, something which it failed to do. Calling it a failure, however, doesn't and shouldn't imply that nothing was gained, and aren't important.
VintageLJ Then it's not an experiment. Experiments are when you intend to learn something, not prove something. Call it a demonstration.
+Simon F. But you just said experiments were meant to prove something. Vintage is saying experiments are meant to prove a hypothesis.
***** Ok, I never said experiments were meant to prove something? Sure they *can* prove something, if they produce the expected result, confirming a hypothesis. But it isn't a failure if it produces an unexpected result, because you still learn something. You learn that the hypothesis was wrong, and possibly, depending on the experiments result, observe a phenomenon and use that to develop a new hypothesis.
An experiment is successful when it adds to the evidence supporting a claim or hypothesis. This experiment only detracted from the established hypothesis, and was therefore, by definition, a failure. An experiment cannot be separated from the hypothesis it seeks to support. The failure of this experiment is the failure of the aether hypothesis.
Aether... inventing something to describe what we couldn't explain. Sounds like the approach for what Dark Matter is, trying to describe what we can't explain.
light doesnt bend. our eyes and machines cant process the data. so light is alive and in it own 'dimension' then it only reacts with other life in the order established. thats with mirrors being bypassed by the aether since mirrors have gapping holes of covalent bonds that allow light to seep through unabaded. the 'light' reflected is not light yet the image of the mirror itself. think artifical light and sunlight with comparison of mirror light to aether/living light
Alfonso Mena Hmmm, good smoke!
Nimodo. U think artifical light travels in same quantum psychics at true light.
Or religion.
Mr NightShock That's not even worth conversation.
The aether theory makes a lot of sense. I can see why people would come to that conclusion.
Too bad the lack of refined enough equipment to detect alterations in some thing that travels at hundreds of thousands of miles per second doesn't mean that the experiment proved the ether doesn't exist. It just proved that we don't have refined enough equipment yet
@@WorkerBeesUnite ha I believe its said that it is impossible to prove a negative since the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 😉
@@jessicaclakley3691 yeah, but only until we measure it (if it even exists) do we actually accept the theory in science. Until then, it's just a failed theory. Just like we don't postulate God to exist when we can't detect it, we don't postulate the aether to exist because we don't actually know if it exists or not. You clearly have a bias of believing in the aether, even though there's no evidence for it. The whole point of science is to look at what you currently know and can only reasonably postulate to form theories that describe reality. The aether, however, does not fulfill that task.
@@thebeast5215 lol well I mean philosophers for centuries have tried to prove the existence of God but that’s kinda the whole point. It’s nearly impossible to prove a negative. It’s not about bias near as much as it’s about approach
@@thebeast5215 Dark matter/energy....
Only exists as a margin of error atm.
They didn't think atoms looked like a plum pudding, that was just the name of the model.
+Tom Lucas True. I thought the same thing.
+john sanchez
Yes me too. I was under the impression is was merely an analogy. Like the solar system "model". Until the Bohr model, if I remember correctly.
Though to be a bit lenient, these are short on time, and meant mainly for laymen.
+Tom Lucas Yeah.... While it was a misleading model it not like they really thought it looked like a plum pudding. And it is not like it much more silly then the notion that a atom looks like bunch of balls orbiting a other ball. And that is how a lot of people think of it today.
+Tom Lucas It was called like that because it looked like it. Makes sense right?
Read a little about it here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment
+Tom Lucas Yeah, that comment annoyed me too. A rather absurd caricature of another very well-motivated hypothesis about the reality of atoms. The way people tend to make it seem like everyone who came before us was an idiot ... possibly not the best idea. Since, of course, our current understanding of the world is likely to look silly to people who are typing comments on their version of the internet 50 years from now ... and they will be calling us idiots ...
I'd argue that that experiment didn't fail at all. It'd've failed if it where inconclusive, if they wouldn't've been able to conclude anything from the experiment (for example if the mesurement instrument broke). Instead, they found that there was no such thing as an aether.
I just wrote the exact same opening line to my comment as you! Glad to see the scientific process has good support here!
+Huntracony Yeah! It's an experiment, not an attempt to get something. Their hypothesis might have been wrong, but experiments can't fail if they get results.
I like your contractions bro.
***** Thanks. First sentence I ever made with two double contractions.
+Huntracony The experiment was made with the purpose of proving the hypothesis, something which it failed to do. Calling it a failure, however, doesn't and shouldn't imply that nothing was gained, and aren't important.
The Sagnac Experiment proves the existence of the Aether by showing firsthand that movement manipulates the speed of light, destroying the Theory of Relativity.
And then, M-M experiment makes sense and "space" contracting and time space bending and such nonsense need not be concocted to maintain theoretical consistency.
@@platypusmaximus The title should be renamed to "GREATEST COVER UP IN THE HISTORY".
Scientists will never admit their mistakes as this would ruin their reputation. So, they make BS claims.
The zombie mind can only think of two possibilities and never the third possibility.
There is no aether or the earth doesn't move. Botb are wrong and this is the thinking of a zombie.
The real wise man would think the aether doesn't move, there is mo aether wind, and the earth moves in it without resistance.
The third CLEAR explanation would literally make the experiment meaningless. What's the point of trying to prove aether moves when it doesn't even move?
Zombies will always be zombies. Liars will always be liars. BS claims are the art of a politician. Science nowadays are all BS. Created by politicians and business man.
@@atum7355 Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Sagnac did indeed detect absolute motion. Unfortunately for him however, this motion is not in relation to any ether.
The motion is absolute because it follows a curved path on its spacetime trajectory. There is no point of view from which we can say a curve is not curved, therefore the motion is absolute.
Furthermore the results of this experiment were used in MGP to measure the rotation of earth.
Nope, it was the sagnac effect
People: "I think if This works That way, it makes sense"
physics: "I think screw you." *Does something completely unexpected*
I'm really happy about this video. We as a society are so used to failure meaning that nothing was gained, when in fact failure usually gives us a lot more information to go on. It's good to sometimes fail because next time you'll know what you did wrong the first time.
Michelson/Morley test is a bunk idea, when it comes to measuring aether wind, it's essentially similar to measuring electromagnetic radiation near the surface of the sun (you're overloaded with the sun's magnetic energy). The Earth is also a giant magnet; trying to measure an "aether wind" would be near impossible. If there is actually aether (an electromagnetic field that fills and makes up the universe), then it would be like the turbulence in water, from a massive spinning sphere; the surface of the sphere would be even layers of pressure, extending outward from the surface (if not from the center mass, in the case of aether).
This is what you're seeing in the later of this video (here: th-cam.com/video/7T0d7o8X2-E/w-d-xo.html ); layers of electromagnetic pressure, extending outward from the surface.
You would have to be outside the planet's turbulent field of aether, to actually measure aether wind.
If there's no aether, then why do we refer to the vacuum of space as "the fabric of space-time?" To top it off, we now also have "dark energy" in space. I hate to say this, but it really looks there's some sort of "aether," or whatever you want to call it, out there.
It's like the scientific community is playing semantic games... To me, this experiment only provided more insight into the nature of spacetime, the vacuum, the aether, or what ever else you wish to call it.
I agree, this video is 100% bullshit.
There is, in fact, an aether, but it does not have the properties ascribed to it by Michelson and Morley. They were unable to detect the supposed aether wind because there is no such thing. Current thinking is that the universe is pervaded with fields, that is, with an aether. This is embodied in the theories of Maxwell, Einstein, and Higgs.
This isn't semantics, and they're not wrong. The original BELIEVED substance called "Aether" does not exist. The term can now be reapplied to the physics that does fit the role "Aether" was meant to fill, but that original concept was false. This is the same as what happened with Gravity. "Gravity" the force does not exist. We've learned the truth about what creates it and how it works. The curvature of space-time the creates attraction between objects does what "gravity" the force was supposed to do, but it's the force. We still call it gravity purely because we're used to it.
William Dwyer Why do you hate to say it?
It didn't fail. They detected no motion because there was no motion.
Einstein said, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts".
That's exactly what he did to rescue the Heliocentric Model.
@Christiaan Baron No, he didn't say that. Ivanka Trump was soundly laughed at for giving this fake quote.
Einstein, Yogi Berra and Winston Churchill are often attributed with hundreds of "quotes" that they never said. With Google, it is quite easy to check the accuracy of quotes and other material. I am constantly amazed that so many are so willing to pass some of this stuff along without verification.
@@junkabogado ok Terry n we are spinning n spinning n spinning..lol and we came from apes n there is no God, bud, WE R THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, GOD CREATED EARTH B4 THE SUN, NOT A CHANCE R WE FLYING THRU SPACE AT 66 MILLION MILES PER HOUR OR MIN OR SECOND OR WHAT EVER THE HALIRIOUS BS the Sudo science they sold us. We r stationary n there is a firmament, MIT 2014 discovered invisible plasma shield that protects earth. Go research Project Fishbowl, Russians also shot up the missiles/rockets
@@donaldheinlein1545 it's cause of people like you that eugenics is proposed.
@@Dimitri88888888 go read Einstein's book The Evolution of Physics, then get back to me. Obviously you didn't read it.
I disagree that it was a failed experiment, it just didn't produce the expected results. A failed experiment produces no results, the results of this experiment basically proved there is no aether, is that really a failure?
can i phone a friend who is an expert
The experiment showed the aether not to have the presupposed properties. That is a negative result. We accept this negative result as reflective of reality itself, and count the result as new information.
Maxwell, and then Einstein, and now Higgs, showed there is in fact an aether, albeit with different properties than those conjectured by Michelson and Morley.
not only did it not produce the expected results, there is the possibility that it couldn't have produced the expected results. the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis showed that the molecular bonds that make up the material of the interferometer, which are electromagnetic in nature, would be subject to the same distortions as the light itself. namely that the arm in the direction of the aether would contract by the same factor the light would be slowed, making it impossible to measure the aether drift with this experiment.
Thomas Hoover so didn't Nicholas Tesla and his electromagnetic theory....unlike Einstein and all the other THEORETICAL THEORISTS...he actually could prove his theories with actual inventions. What the Michelson and Morley experiment did was prove we are a stationary plane
I feel like i could build on tesla. I heard software is becoming unified to optimize program and app exposure. Microsoft still needs alot of help so much so they gave programming error correction bonuses which are free compared to the application. I rather live forever and not as cyborg.
Amazing when everything just connects at the end of the video!
Really good stuff!
And this is why science isn't a beliefsystem or a dogma.
I haven't heard anyone said it was.
Golden-Leaf yeah, I do mingle with the wrong crowd at times...
+Golden-Leaf Some idiot creationists will try to discredit the usage of science by labelling it a belief system.
+Golden-Leaf
Really? I have. Many times unfortunately. And that is entirely a faith based position. Invariably from some religious proponent or apologist.
rationalmartian I've never heard anyone say that, and I'm Christian. Science is an explination of how things work, you don't need faith, it's just there.
This is not a failed experiment, it just did not get the results they thought it would. But that is what science is about, so it is still worked.
+Rotoprism This. Not finding what you are expecting is equally as excellent as finding what you expected. That's what experimentation is for. I hardly call that a failure.
+Haku infinite *nod* even if the net result was moving forward, the experiment itself, with its expected result, failed to produce what the experiment was designed to demonstrate.
I think people want to describe it as a non-failure due to some emotional weight assigned to the world 'failure'... but an experiment failing in science is not a bad thing, it is just a result.
+neeneko Experiments are tests, not demonstrations.
+Rotoprism The experiment was made with the purpose of proving the hypothesis, something which it failed to do. Calling it a failure, however, doesn't and shouldn't imply that nothing was gained, and aren't important.
+VintageLJ Experiments should be designed to disprove your hypothesis. If you fail to disprove it with a good experiment, there's a good chance the hypothesis is correct. Experiments only fail if they have bad data, not if they generate conclusive data.
Excellent.
Love the new host as much as I love the previous! Kudos!
You should launch another channel called "SciShow Spaces" where there are just endless videos of the crew on various drugs
How does the Aether differ from modern field theory?
+Charles Miller
fields don't need a medium.
+Charles Miller Good question. I want to know this too. Energy fields that permeate the universe sounds a lot like what they thought the aether was to me too.
+Charles Miller
If the Aether was real there would be a real, objective difference between moving and not moving. But in our Universe there isn't.
+Charles Miller The Aether was proposed as an actual medium, where light would push Aether particles back and forth like sound, whereas fields aren't quite like that, they're just descriptions of energy patterns. we don't say that electrons travel through the electron field in order to flow through a wire, we just say that the wire has a lot of electron field excitations within it.
+Charles Miller The aether was hypothesized to be an absolute reference frame. A gauge against which movement could be measured in an absolute sense. This is completely contrary to modern field theories, which incorporate Einstein's theory of relativity (at least special relativity).
thanks this made me to understand this concept
I love this channel!!!!!!!!!
To say scientists thought atoms "*looked like* plum pudding" is utterly wrong and we both know it.
He's not completely wrong, the atomic model proposed by Thompson was commonly known as the plum pudding, where the electrons (-) were incrusted in a huge proton (+).
Yeah, but they just were using that as a metaphor.
McCbobbish Well yeah, scientists aren't idiots, they didn't think we were literally made of pudding.
But it turns out that a modified version of their apparatus (LIGO) has actually detected gravitational waves.
Good job M&M on inventing that.
Michelson/Morley test is a bunk idea, when it comes to measuring aether wind, it's essentially similar to measuring electromagnetic radiation near the surface of the sun (you're overloaded with the sun's magnetic energy). The Earth is also a giant magnet; trying to measure an "aether wind" would be near impossible. If there is actually aether (an electromagnetic field that fills and makes up the universe), then it would be like the turbulence in water, from a massive spinning sphere; the surface of the sphere would be even layers of pressure, extending outward from the surface (if not from the center mass, in the case of aether).
This is what you're seeing in the later of this video (here: th-cam.com/video/7T0d7o8X2-E/w-d-xo.html ); layers of electromagnetic pressure, extending outward from the surface.
You would have to be outside the planet's turbulent field of aether, to actually measure aether wind.
Thank you!
I got an assignment about this Aether, and I quoted almost everything from this video, thanks SciShow!
Nice clickbait title. The fact that it didn't give the expected result does not mean it was a failure. In fact, it was a great success in that it showed that the æther does not exist.
+Nilguiri The experiment was made with the purpose of proving the hypothesis, something which it failed to do. Calling it a failure, however, doesn't and shouldn't imply that nothing was gained, and aren't important.
+VintageLJ No, experiments are designed to test hypothesis, not prove them. The experiment did not fail to test the hypothesis. The experiment was a fantastic success and by no correct definition was it a failure. The video is simply wrong.
+Anthony Khodanian Indeed, you don´t try to prove your hypothesis right, you *try* to falsify it!
I would argue you don't try to prove it either right or wrong. Just that you do the experiment and the result is the result. If you go in expecting a certain answer, you may affect lab results.
Nilguiri it says greatest. The experiment didn't produce expected results therefore the title fits.
Why would you call that a failed experiment? It was a great way to test if there was an eather or not. Yes the theory about light traveling through aether was disproved, but that just makes it an even more successful experiment!
Very interesting video, I didn't know about this Aether thing before.
Such a great speaking voice
How is it a failed experiment? They tested a hypothesis and got a result. Sounds successful to me.
Is it just me, or does this experiment sound suspiciously similar to the one used to prove the existence of gravitational waves just last year? basically the same set up, but looking for different discrepancies in the results.
And using greater distances and measuring technology, so capable of recording results the human eye cannot register.
Both experiments use laser interferometers to measure the thing they're looking for. The Michaelson-Morley experiment expected to see different interferences in the beams of the interferometer depending on the time of year (that is, depending on which way the Earth, and the interferometer on it, were moving "through the aether", a difference of over 200,000 km/h six months apart in the year). They didn't. The LIGO experiment (which detected the gravity waves) expected to see brief interferences appear in several different interferometers in sequence as a slight warping of spacetime (a gravitational wave) passed over each of them. They did.
Well it is a principle to test wave forms, extremely effective one proving it's value again and again. Makes sense to use it on yet another wave form theory...
can't wait for you guys to talk about the LIGO gravity waves reveal!!
I feel like things like the Higgs field are technically kind of an aether since it's universally present even in the vacuum
There are no failed experiments, only results.
If you fail to deliver a result due to errors in your experiment I'd consider it a failed experiment. Unless you learned something I guess.
The definition of "failed" is relative and contextual let's just say that.
Please show why the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly the speed of light, and not faster or slower,
A vacuum in it's absolute sense is purely theoretical. No such place exists, therefore that universal constant (light speed in a vacuum) has never been measured. Axiom territorium. 2 explanations for that experiment; there was no aether, or earth isn't moving through that aether. Most don't want to open that can of worms.
Why would we know? Ask the big bang, ask god. The reason light travels at c is unknown; we just know that light travels at c.
I like this Guy's delivery
I would love love love love to see a video about Time Dilation! Still have a few questions myself, and you guys have a great of explaining things so that I can understand them. It would be great to see some of the experiments done to test/prove it, and if time dilation as a result of relativistic speeds and time dilation in proximity to black hole or other strong gravitational force are the same thing, or if the mechanisms behind the separate events occurring are inherently different.
As my professor taught us: the experiment “proved” that the earth doesn’t actually move. Only once scientists gave up the theory of aether did the experiment become intelligible.
Are you saying your professor is correct?
couldn't you make the argument that science has found a type of "aether" with the discovery of the higgs field?
@@blacktimhoward4322 oh hello. someone randomly commented on a post I made 5 years ago. The person who you are trying to reach is and always was dead. I'm no longer a scientist, I'm a Christian. Have you heard the good news of our LORD christ Jesus? Because unlike the cold hopelessness for the future that science offers Jesus actually offers hope. Also, don't mistake my faith as me blindly turning from science. I recognize that God blesses people with wisdom to understand the natural world. I'm just not putting my hope in what men can do anymore. God bless you and I just want you to know Jesus loves you and there is something better out there.
@@rickorefice9417 Are you okay?
oh sorry nvm. He deleted the reply
I love this dude's voice
great job! I would love to learn about the higgs field next
Not watched yet so I'll take a stab in the dark . Hmm could it be how much green house gases can we pump into the atmosphere until we completely fuck everything up ?
Aww I was way off
+Daves Reality That was my first thought, too.
sounds like modern day dark energy/matter
Not really. What they assumed about the Aether existing was based on unrelated data from sound and other traditional waves. What they theorise about dark energy and matter comes from actual observations and calculation directly from the universe.
+Sci_Ant No direct observations of DM or DE have been made. Only forces that have an unknown source, have been observed. Ether was theorized because light propigated as a wave on something that was not directly obsereved. Like DM and DE, ether was used as an explination, because it fit into their mathmatical models of light and was consistant with their knowledge of wave propigation, at the time. The expansion of the universe and observed gravitational forces lead to the theorization of DM and DE, due to current knowledge, mathmatical models and analytical data, exactly the same reason ether was theorized.
mike all My point was they didn't ever observe light acting like a wave in space directly so they were drawing parallels and prematurely assuming that there SHOULD BE an ether in the universe. They were working analogically.
In case of DM and DE they aren't working analogically and coming up with assumptions about something based on something else from another realm of physics entirely. They observed galaxies having more gravity than they should and acting differently than they should and so they had a direct observation of something and then came up with a theory to explain it.
To put it simply, in case of the above experiment it's observation about A leads to assumption about B, and in the case of DM it's observation about A leads to theory about A.
+Sci_Ant I see where you are coming from but i think where our disconnect is, lies in assumption of when light was directly observed to act like a wave. The Double Slit Experiment, which proved lights duality and wave like properties was in 1801 and the experiment referenced in this video was in 1881. So direct observations of light as a wave were made and ether was the medium theorized. So A lead to A, as you referenced. At the end of the day, the theories behind DM and DE are embeded in much stronger physics than ether ever was, and there in lies the difference. The point I am really getting at, is that we can't get caught up in the "group think," of scientific research. DE and DM have a lot of ways to go before they can be regarded as solid, but there are not very many people who are working on alternate theories and those who are, often are discarded and not taken very seriously. This type of attitude existed in a similar fashion, towards ether and its' opponents. Unfortunately, science, as a field is subject to political and societal influences, inside and outside their respective communities and these can hold back innovative ideas. I strongly believe that any new, popular theory should have as much effort invested into disproving it, as is invested in the proof. Healty debate, challenging ideas and constructive criticism (heavy on the constructive part), lead to progress, inovation and a stronger individual/group knowledge base. Anyway, im off my soap box.
mike all Wow, thanks for correcting my error by sharing that vital information! I didn't actually know that it was already observed to be a wave and was under the impression that the Double Slit Experiment happened way after this one. :) I really applaud your comment too, the kind of sound logic you used is really inspiring and I apologise for talking about something without having all the information which is something I always try to avoid. Turns out I just had the wrong info to begin with leading to incorrect conclusions. Cheers! :)
Can't wait to see Reid go to Space Camp.
last time i came this early my girlfriend left me.
original comment 5 stars
+Thomas Sturm Last time I read a comment exactly the same as this one, was 10 seconds ago.
+Thomas Sturm
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
HILARIOUS AND ORIGINAL
The experiment had two possible outcomes so how does reaching one answer a failure? It would have failed if the experiment hadn't worked at all, providing no outcome
Mainstream media calls it a "failure" because what it really concluded was that the earth was not moving. It didnt fail because it wasnt trying to prove an aether but the motion of the earth relative to an assumed aether. The counter to the results of this experiment was the "contraction of the equipment" due to the earth's movement. yeah...stupid right. So Einstein just said that the aether doesnt exist in order to keep the model that the earth is moving.
th-cam.com/video/7T0d7o8X2-E/w-d-xo.html
Uhmm, can we call it a failure? It actually managed to prove the null hypothesis in the setting, that there was no ether
+Julian Alberto Arce Sánchez The experiment was made with the purpose of proving the hypothesis, something which it failed to do. Calling it a failure, however, doesn't and shouldn't imply that nothing was gained, and aren't important.
thats actually a great piece of side information
Finally I understand the Aether thingy !! Now it makes sense for me why scientists thought about it
But light is a wave through electrical and magnetic fields, which is kinda what they were thinking, right?
Right. There is an aether, but it does not have the property of generating an aether wind by motion through it.
Thomas Hoover Right. This is the most confusing part of physics to me at the moment.
Katzen4u because it's bull crap...they make it up to fit there own false theories. So they say waves can't travel in space do to the lack of particles too bounce off of....that's why sound will not travel in space. then how did they discover gravitational waves in space???? How does the moon's gravity travel to earth too effect our ocean's? Like I said...they make it up....but you better believe them or your a tinfoil hat wearer.
Gravitational waves do not need particles to travel through because they're traveling through space itself. "Gravity" is the curvature of space-time due to large masses. The moon's "gravity" brushes against earth slightly, which is what causes tides. The gravitational waves, on the otherhand, are curvatures created by objects so massive, and revolving so quickly around eachother, that the actual curvature associated with them is sent outward in waves. The medium for these waves to travel through is space-time itself, because they're spots of curvation in space-time.
Wynaro but then that would also apply to sound waves and astronauts say you can't hear sound in space. Also if gravity is what causes waves in the Oceans then it would also have an effect on every body of water not just salt water...but in the electromagnetic world that Nicholas Tesla believed ( and some say proven ) salt water reacts to the electric moon because of salt being a conductor. Gravity was a theory that was thought up well before man could get his feet off the ground and before anyone knew anything about electricity....that's why if can't be seen,measured or recreated. Theories on top of theories lead to know where that why the USA has dropped from 26th in the world to 30th for education...yet we are the only ones that were smart enough too make it too the moon?? NASA's space missions have done nothing for society besides cost billions of tax dollars. It's a joke .
Why is it always pudding
+preClassic Cuz everyone likes pudding :D
It proved the earth to be stationary, so they deemed it a failure to hide the truth.
this episode is like some fearful version of science
How is this a failure?
+swf
Its not... That's sorta the whole point of the video? Like, read the title, yeah?
+swf The experiment was made with the purpose of proving the hypothesis, something which it failed to do. Calling it a failure, however, doesn't and shouldn't imply that nothing was gained, and aren't important.
+VintageLJ Your endless repeating it in every single thread doesn’t make it so. It only embarrasses you, I’m sad to say.
Only two branches of study work with proofs, namely mathematics and philosophy. Science, on the other hand, does not _prove_ anything. It starts with observation, then forms hypotheses as possible explanations of the observed phenomena. It then _tests_ the hypotheses with experiments. As a result of an experiment, a hypothesis can be either _rejected_ or _confirmed_. In either case such an experiment is a success.
If a hypothesis is confirmed (especially with more than one experiment), it becomes a _theory_ (which can be further refined with more observations, hypotheses and experiments, thus enhancing our understanding more and more). A theory has to be able to correctly predict how previously unobserved things work.
If a hypothesis is rejected, it is either replaced with a new hypothesis (which is then tested with new experiments) or, in some cases, completely scratched.
That’s how all branches of experimental science work, from physics and chemistry, through biology and physiology, to psychology and sociology and everything in-between and beyond. It has been working like that consistently for centuries since around the time of Galileo. And since the experiment discussed here happened long after the time of Galileo...
Captain Obvious may offer another reasoning it did prove, Geocentricity ( The Earth at Rest) The video showed a prevailing wind carrying a voice farther than a resistance wind and a still day would carry sound the same intensity at any direction.
If the Earth is at rest, any direction would have the same light speed and therefore not really a test of Aether resistance as intended, but demonstrates Earth at Rest for the light waves always matched.
This explanation seems to be ignored or missed because every one knows the Earth rotates (philosophy not science which questions all)
I'm disappointed in the title, SciShow. Are we talking about real science here, or Night Vale science? "Great" and "failed" don't belong together in the same sentence. A well-designed experiment doesn't aim to prove the experimenter's hypothesis "right." It aims to determine, one way or the other, which reality you're living in: one with the aether, or one where light can travel in a vacuum. The Michelson-Morley experiment did that, and calling it a failure reinforces some deep-rooted misconceptions about the scientific method.
When will you upload video about gravitational waves?
I can't wait for the gravitational waves video :D
I swear... The first thing that popped into my head when I read the title was *Donald Trump*!
Mine was the failed theory of socialism. #burncommiesanders
+Mak Shethiya
You people sure do make a big deal about him.
+Dr Pebbs I just think that the title suits him well. If there's a post-elections documentary that needs to be made after him, this is the title they should go for. Lol...
+Mak Shethiya Hopefully the USA realizes how stupid they are making themselves look for even having idiots like him and clinton in their presidential races at all let alone lead in the polls. Pretty damn sad tbh.
- A Canadaian
Mote of Dust Amen dude.
what program do they do there shows in? after effects and PP or FCPX. CAN we get the behind the scenes?
Nice video! A very similar experimental setup is used to detect gravitational waves. Next Thursday (11/feb) there will be the announcement of LIGO findings on gravitational waves!
Experiments are only a failure is they show no results. The experiment you're referring to was a smashing success
Neither experiments nor Ideas gives failure, there will always be something new to learn from it...
Furthermore, the Michelson interferometer featured at 1:55 has become a key component to all Fourier transform instruments in science. It didn't detect the Aether, but it allows us to do FT-NMR and FT-IR. Two extremely important instruments in chemistry.
Hell yeah Michelson Morley! Michelson interferometers are still used in cutting edge research today, as gravitational wave detectors. Look out for the LIGO press conference on Thursday!
It's instructive to compare the Michaelson-Morley Experiment with LIGO. Both use a similar experimental setup. This means we have to understand the subtle distinction between the original hypothesis of an Aether, Einstein's model of the variable geometry of SpaceTime, and the subsequent models of Quantum Fields.
We need an entire episode debating the meaning of 'failed experiment'.
Aether Wind is one of the coolest sounding names for one of the most mundane sounding forces of all time.
So this is the guy that gave us the Michelson Interferometer. Cool, I'm currently using this equipment.
Glad to know my life could also help disprove a hypothesis.
It this Michelson the same named after Michelson Interferometer used in moderns Fourier Trasnsformed Infrared Spectrometers?
(paused at start) Michelson-Morley?
(continuing video)
Hah! Called it!
If you ask me, it wasn't a fail, just an unexpected success.
I find it really fascinating (and really uncanny) that a similar-looking apparatus, albeit with different materials and much larger in scope, with a similar-looking procedure, would one day lead to the discovery of gravitational waves.
Another explanation for the failure to detect a resistance ether is that the Earth was at rest (not moving) but that would not be entertained for philosophical reasoning.
Thanks for putting out this clear reasoned video which allowed me to reason all possibilities as I had no philosophical constraints. Wow the Geocentric model is provable by experimentation.
I've been wondering about the aether thing ever since I read a science book from the early 1800's. I laughed when I read about it, but there was no further information about the theory in that book. Great that it lead to such useful failures.
The Michelson Morley experiment is still ongoing at a larger scale with more precise measuring equipment, I do not remember where. And that is to detect gravitational waves.
What about the Higgs field? Photons have no mass, so they have little to no resistance traveling thru it. Could the waves from light just be ripples produced by photons, or any charged particle?
Is same experment work for gravy wave detector.?
I like this but feel happy while explaining physic 😍
Hurray, I knew what the subject would be before clicking the video ^_^ (internally hi-fiveing myself).
Subjective failure is objective success. In fact, having a hypothesis debunked is more groundbreaking than proving it correct, as it demonstrates there's still much to learn.
Can you do a video on the Fine Brothers Filed experiment also please.
aether sounds awesome
Failed? The scientific method is not about proving a hypothesis. It's about *disproving* a hypothesis. This was an incredibly successful experiment as evidenced by the monumental shift it brought about and the technological/theoretical innovation that followed.
This clip proves the writers and hosts for this channel don't actually understand how science works in the least. Cripes...
You learn more from defeat than from victory.
"It Interfered with itself"
Giggity.
I guess they shed some light on this topic.
It would be really interesting to compare this experiment and its concept of ether and ligo's search for gravitational waves. There seem to be some similitudes in their designs, but also very different reasons to use them. what would have happened if Michelson and Morley had enough precision and luck to find a gravitational wave? would it have given them a false positive for their ether theory or would it have looked very different from what they were looking for?
Wait wait wait. I need to hear about the plum pudding atom thing
Does the electromagnetic field exist? If so, is that not the medium of EM waves?
Very nice episode. Not sure why this is on SciShow Space and not SciShow.
This makes me wonder: Are there peaks and troughs to sound waves at the edge of the atmosphere, like there are in water at the boundary between a body of water and the atmosphere? Or is the atmosphere too diffuse at that altitude? Also, what do waves in water do at the boundary between the water and something denser, like the ground, or whatever container the water is in?
that's an uncharitably literal interpretation of the plum pudding model of the atom. all the model really said was that electrons were embedded in the surface of atoms, and it's really the best that the evidence supported at that time. no one actually thought delicious snacks made up our universe.
michelson - morley at my college whaddup. whole buildings and fountains devoted to it haha
Someone please correct me if off base here, but wasn't the aether just replaced with the concept of the quantum field? The substrate which is waving?
will you guys ever talk about the Philadelphia experiment
2 questions that have been bugging me for a while. First off, if there is no aether, then what IS the medium that EM waves propagate through? I vaguely recall hearing something to the effect of existence itself being the medium. I don't know if it's like with electrons where the peaks are where a photon is more likely to be and the troughs are where it's less likely to be, or if the photon literally comes into existence at the peaks. I'm sure there's something terribly flawed about that notion though. My other question is that if sound is pressure waves, how can it propagate through liquid and solid mediums which can't be compressed?