Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:54:57.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Independent Testability: The Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ronald Laymon
Ronald Laymon*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Grünbaum has argued that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis is not ad hoc since the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment can be used to provide a test that is significantly different from that provided by the Michelson-Morley experiment. In the first part of the paper, I show that the differences claimed by Grünbaum to hold between these two experiments are not sufficient for establishing independent testability. A dilemma is developed: either the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, because of experimental realities, cannot test the uncontracted Fresnel aether theory, or if experimental difficulties are ignored, the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment degenerates into a version of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The second part of the paper is a feasibility study of the prospects for defining experimental types according to aims of measurement and determination. This approach is applied to the contraction hypothesis, where it is suggested that the usual analysis of independent testability be modified.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 1980 , pp. 1 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to express thanks and much gratitude to the following for their many helpful comments and suggestions: Roger Stuewer, Carl Nielson, Philip Quinn, Jarrett Leplin, and the anonymous referees.

References

Aharoni, J. (1965): The Special Theory of Relativity. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Born, M. and Wolf, E. (1970): Principles of Optics. (4th ed.) Oxford: Pergamon Press. Press.Google Scholar
Brace, D. B. (1904): “On Double Refraction in Matter moving through the Aether,” Philosophical Magazine, 6th ser., 7: 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlichson, H. (1971): “The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Hypothesis and the Combined Rod Contraction-Clock Retardation Hypothesis.” Philosophy of Science 38: 605–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. G. (1969): “On the Falsity of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction Hypothesis.” Philosophy of Science 36: 354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1959): “The Falsifiability of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Hypothesis.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10: 48–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1973a): “The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of the Special Theory of Relativity.” (Revised text.) Published in (1973): 709–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1973): Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. (2nd enlarged ed.) Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1976): “Ad Hoc Auxiliary Hypotheses and Falsificationism,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 27: 329–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1977): “Remarks on Miller's Review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time,” Isis 68: 447–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, W. M. (1930): “On the Michelson-Morley Experiment Relating to the Drift of the Ether,” Philosophical Magazine, 6th ser., 3:9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illingworth, K. K. (1927): “A Repetition of the Michelson-Morley Experiment Using Kennedy's Refinement,” Physical Review, 30:692–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joos, Georg. (1930): “Die Jenaer Wiederholung der Michelsonversuchs.” Annalen der Physik, 5th ser., 7: 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, R. J. (1926): “A Refinement of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 12: 621–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, R. J. and Thorndike, E. M. (1932): “Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time.” Physical Review 42: 400–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, R. J. (1935): “Simplified Theory of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.” Physical Review 47: 965–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970): “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. (Ed. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laymon, R. (1977): “Feyerabend, Brownian Motion, and the Hiddenness of Refuting Facts,” Philosophy of Science 44: 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laymon, R. (1978a): “Newton's Advertised Precision and His Refutation of the Received Laws of Refraction,” Studies in Perception, ed. Machamer, P. K. and Turnbull, R. G., Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 231–258.Google Scholar
Laymon, R. (1978b): “Newton's Experimentum Crucis and the Logic of Idealization and Theory Refutation,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 9: 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laymon, R. (1978c): “Newton's Bucket Experiment,” History of Philosophy, 16: 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, J. (1975): “The Concept of an Ad Hoc Hypothesis.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 5: 309–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipson, S. G. and Lipson, H. (1969): Optical Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lorentz, H. A., Michelson, A. A., Miller, D. C., Kennedy, R. J., et al. (1929): “Conference on the Michelson-Morley Experiment.” The Astrophysical Journal 68: 341–402.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. C. (1890): “General Considerations concerning Scientific Apparatus,” The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, ed. Niven, W. D., vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reprint edition.) New York: Dover Publications (1965): 505–522.Google Scholar
Miller, D. C. and Morley, E. W. (1895): “On the Theory of Experiments to Detect Aberrations of the Second Degree.” Philosophical Magazine, 6th ser., 9: 669–680.Google Scholar
Miller, D. C. (1933): “The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth.” Reviews of Modern Physics 5: 204–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, A. A. (1881): “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether.” American Journal of Science, 3rd ser., 22: 120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, A. A. (1882): “Interference Phenomena in a New Form of Refractometer.” American Journal of Science, 3rd ser, 23: 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, A. A. and Morley, E. W. (1887): “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether.” American Journal of Science, 3rd ser., 34: 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, A. A. (1897): “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether.” American Journal of Science, 4th ser., 3: 475–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, A. A. (1927): Studies in Optics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1974): “Einstein versus Lorentz: Research Programmes and the Logic of Theory Evaluation.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shankland, R. S., McCuskey, S. W., Leone, S. W. and Kuerti, G. (1955): “New Analysis of the Interferometer Observations of Dayton C. Miller.” Reviews of Modern Physics 27: 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shankland, R. S. (1964a): “Michelson-Morley Experiment.” American Journal of Physics 32: 16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shankland, R. S. (1964b): “The Michelson-Morley Experiment.” Scientific American 211: 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silberstein, L. (1914): The Theory of Relativity. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Strutt, J. W. (Lord Rayleigh) (1902): “Does Motion through the Aether cause Double refraction,” Philosophical Magazine, 6th ser., 4: 678–683.Google Scholar
Swenson, L. S. (1972): The Ethereal Aether: A History of the Michelson-Morley-Miller Aether-Drift Experiments, 1880–1930. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, E. F. and Wheeler, J. A. (1966): Spacetime Physics. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Tolansky, S. (1955): An Introduction to Interferometry. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Tolman, R. C. (1912): “Some Emission Theories of Light,” Physical Review 35: 136–143.Google Scholar
Zahar, E. G. (1973): “Why did Einstein's Program supersede Lorentz's?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24: 95–123, 223–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar