New Analysis of the Interferometer Observations of Dayton C. Miller in Reviews of Modern Physics 27, No. 2, April 1955, pp. 167-179
Lancaster: American Physical Society, 1955. 1st Edition. One of the major issues in relation to Einstein’s relativity was raised in 1933 by Dayton Clarence Miller and his ‘ether drift experiment’. In one of the most interesting and problematic “reviews of special relativity, [Miller] questioned Michelson and Morley’s ‘null result’. According to [Miller], a systematic periodic term would alter the interferometer data, regardless of any statistical error, fluctuations or other mechanical effects” (Shankland, 1955). Miller himself was a vociferous opponent of Einstein’s relativity – something his experiment seemed to back up".
Miller’s results gnawed at the scientific community, particularly given that “For nearly thirty years the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment obtained by Dayton C. Miller on Mount Wilson have stood at variance with all other trials of this experiment” (Shankland 1955). “Shankland believed that the accepted direct explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment is provided by the special theory of relativity given by Einstein in 1905” (Wikipedia).
Several years after [Miller’s] death, Robert S. Shankland reconsidered Miller’s conclusions were reconsidered [in this paper] by Robert S. Shankland. To start, Shankland “reanalyzed Miller’s data using a contaminating-influence computer model, finding the fringe-shift anomalies were a combination of statistical fluctuations in the readings and subtle but systematic temperature disturbances (ibid). [To do so, Shankland] used data modeling as a surrogate for the physical control Miller could not achieve to demonstrate that the fringe-shift anomalies were artifacts that could be removed, producing models of data displaying real null effects” (Miller, Changing the Atmosphere, 75).
Shankland took as a ‘given’ the systematic patterns in Miller’s results, but ascribed them to fluctuations and some other thermal artifact in his measurement technique” (Mezzasalma, Macromolecules, 28). “The remaining systematic effects are ascribed to local temperature conditions. These were much more troublesome at Mount Wilson than those encountered by experimenters elsewhere, including Miller himself in his work done at Case in Cleveland. As interpreted in the present study, Miller's extensive Mount Wilson data contain no effect of the kind predicted by the aether theory and, within the limitations imposed by local disturbances, are entirely consistent with a null result at all epochs during a year” (Shankland, 1955). Einstein’s relativity was safe. Item #778
CONDITION & DETAILS: Original wraps. Lancaster: American Physical Society. Volume 27, Number 2, April 1955. (10.5 x 8 inches; 263 x 200mm). This is not an ex-libris copy; ownership signature of the physicist William Primak on the front wrap. Very slight wear at the edges of the wraps. Near fine condition inside and out.
Price: $375.00