NASA TECHNICAL TRANSLATION

NASA

F-13,423

HYPOTHESES ON LUMINOUS ETHER AND ON AN EXPERIMENT

THAT APPEARS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MOTION OF BODIES CHANGES
THJ3 VELOCITY WITH W H I C H LIGHT PROPAGATES IN THEIR INTERIOR

H . Fizeau

T r a n s l a t i o n of "Sur les hypotheses relatives a l'ether lumiaeux", Annales de Chemie et de Physique, 3rd Series, Vol. 57, December 1859, pp. 385-404.

386
Y

L?
J

(THRU)

(PAGES,

" s

-__-

L/
(CATEGORY)

(NASA CR O R IMX O R A D NUMBER)

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION . C. 20546 APRIL 1971 WASHINGTON, D

HYPOTHESES ON LUMINOUS ETHER

-4ND ON A N EXPERIMENT THAT APPEARS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT

THE MOTION OF BODIES CHANGES THE VELOCITY WITH WHICH LIGHT PWPAGATES I N THEIR INTERIOR

I Fizeau .

The author d i s c u s s e s F r e s n e l ' s hypothesis t o explain l i g h t abberation and l i g h t waves. An experiment t o determine t h e p o s s i b l e changes i n t h e speed of l i g h t t r a v e l i n g through t r a n s p a r e n t bodies is discussed, as w e l l as t h e apparatus used f o r such experiments. The author p r e s e n t s c a l c u l a t i o n s and discusses r e s u l t s and p o s s i b l e sources of e r r o r .

ABSTRACT.

Several t h e o r i e s on w a v e systems have been proposed t o attempt t o e x p l a i n

t h e abberation of l i g h t . F i r s t , Fresnel and, mre r e c e n t l y , Doppler, Stokes, C h a l l i s and s e v e r a l o t h e r s have published papers on t h i s subject, b u t i t does not seem t h a t any of t h e t h e o r i e s so f a r proposed have been a b l e t o completely s a t i s f y the physicists. Because of a l a c k of d e f i n i t e knowledge about t h e p r o p e r t i e s of t h e luminous e t h e r and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o ponderable matter,
i t has been necessary t o introduce hypotheses, amoag which are those which

are more o r less probable, b u t none t h a t can b e considered as proven.

These can be reduced t o t h r e e main hypotheses, a l l of which refer t o t h e

state i n which the e t h e r i n s i d e a t r a n s p a r e n t body should be considered:

*Numbers

~~

~~

i n the margin i n d i c a t e the pagination i n t h e o r i g i n a l f o r e i g n t e x t .

The e t h e r adheres, o r i s f i x e d , t o t h e molecules of t h e body, and, consequently, s h a r e s i n t h e motion t h a t may be imposed on t h e body;
O r , t h e e t h e r is f r e e and independent, and is not c a r r i e d along by t h e

body i n i t s motion; O r , f i n a l l y , a t h i r d hypothesis which borrows from each of t h e two above, i n which only a portion of t h e e t h e r would be f r e e , while t h e o t h e r p o r t i o n would be f i x e d t o t h e molecules of t h e body and would s o l e l y s h a r e i n its motion.

/386 -

This last hypothesis, p o s t u l a t e d by Fresnel, w a s conceived i n o r d e r t o

s a t i s f y a t t h e same time t h e phenomenon of abberation, and a famous experiment by Arago, i n which he had shown t h a t t h e motion of t h e Earth d i d not have any e f f e c t upon t h e r e f r a c t i o n value of s t a r l i g h t in a prism. These two phenomena could be explained through Fresnel's hypothesis w i t h admirable p r e c i s i o n . However, Fresnel's hypothesis is not regarded today as absolute t r u t h , and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between e t h e r and ponderable matter are s t i l l g e n e r a l l y considered as uncertain and hard t o understand.
This is because Fresnel's mechac.--

c a l conception seems too unusual t o be accepted without d i r e c t proof, or

perhaps because i t seemed equally p o s s i b l e t o s a t i s f y t h e observed phenomena with e i t h e r of t h e two o t h e r hypotheses. Perhaps, f i n a l l y , as o t h e r p h y s i c i s t s have thought, c e r t a i n results from t h i s theory seemed contrary t o experience. The following considerations have l e d me t o t r y an experiment, the restlts of which, I b e l i e v e , should c l a r i f y t h i s matter.
It is p o s s i b l e in t h e t h r e e hypotheses enumerated above t h a t , i f t h e body

is in motion, the v e l o c i t y a t which l i g h t w i l l go through i t w i l l be different:

from t h a t observed i f t h e body were at rest. For each of t h e s e hypotheses, t h e motion of t h e body would have a d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t upon t h e l i g h t v e l o c i t y . Thus, i f e t h e r is supposed
b e f i x e d t o t h e body Curing t h e l a t t e r ' s

motion, t h e v e l o c i t y of l i g h t w i l l be augmented by t h a t of t h e body, i f t h e

2

d i r e c t i o n of t h e l i g h t ray and of t h e motion are t h e same. I f the e t h e r is supposed t o b e f r e e , t h e v e l o c i t y of l i g h t w i l l not change. F i n a l l y , i f only p a r t of t h e e t h e r is attached t o t h e body, t h e v e l o c i t y of l i g h t w i l l b e augmented only by a f r a c t i o n of t h e v e l o c i t y of t h e body, and not by t h e t o t a l amount as i n t h e f i r s t hypothesis. This result i s not
I387 -

as evident as in t h e f i r s t two hypotheses, b u t Fresnel has made i t clear t h a t

i t may b e upheld by very c r e d i b l e mechanical considerations.

It is supposed t h a t t h e speed or l i g h t i n a body a t rest o r i n motion may

be determined exactly.
I f t h e body is i n motion, and i f the speed of l i g h t

corresponding t o t h e state of rest i n c r e a s e s by t h e t o t a l speed of motion of t h e body, t h i s w i l l conform with t h e f i r s t hypothesis. I f t h e speed of l i g h t is t h e same in both cases (body a t rest o r i n motion), t h e second hypothesis w i l l b e s a t i s f i e d . I f , on t h e o t h e r hand, t h e speed of l i g h t corresponding t o t h e s t a t e of

rest i s augmented by a f r a c t i o n of t h e speed of t h e body, t h e r e s u l t w i l l b e

i n agreement w i t h the t h i r d hypothesis.

It is t r u e t h a t l i g h t travels a t such a g r e a t speed -when

compared t o

t h e speeds t h a t w e may impart t o t h e bodies

-that

t h e change i n t h e speed

of l i g h t i s too s m a l l t o b e observable.
and water, t o a d e c i s i v e test.

Nonetheless, by choosing t h e most

favorable circumstances, i t has seemed t o me p o s s i b l e t o submit two media, air and These two media, because of t h e mobility of t h e i r components o r molecules, can b e a c c e l e r a t e d t o g r e a t speeds.

W e o w e t o Arago a method of observation, based on i n t e r f e r e n c e , which

reveals t h e smallest v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e r e f r a c t i v e i n d i c e s of bodies. Arago

and Fresnel have demonstrated t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y s e n s i t i v i t y of t h i s

procedure through s e v e r a l d e l i c a t e observations, such as t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n r e f r a c t i o n between dry and humid air. It has seemed t o m e t h a t a mode of observation based on t h i s p r i n c i p l e is the only one t h a t r e v e a l s t h e changes i n speed due t o motion. It consists i n
I388 -

producing i n t e r f e r e n c e f r i n g e s with two l i g h t rays, a f t e r they have passed through two parallel tubes i n which air and water may f l o a t a t g r e z t speeds and i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s . The s p e c i a l g o a l t h a t I have t r i e d t o a t t a i n has needed several innovations, which I w i l l i n d i c a t e .

Great d i f f i c u l t i e s were encountered relative t o t h e l i g h t i n t e n s i t y .

n e a r t h e i r c e n t e r and n o t n e a r t h e i r s i d e s . point of o r i g i n of t h e f r i n g e s w a s very low.

The

tubes, with an i n t e r i o r diameter of 5.3 mm, had t o b e t r a v e r s e d by t h e l i g h t

Thus, t h e two slits had t o be

more elongated than u s u a l , and, consequently, t h e l i g h t i n t e n s i t y a t t h e

This inconvenience w a s overcome by placing a convergent l e n s behind t h e

slits.

Then t h e f r i n g e s were observed a t t h e point of t h e beam j u n c t i o n where

the l i g h t i n t e n s i t y is f a i r l y great. Since the l e n g t h of t h e tubes w a s f a i r l y l a r g e , 1.487 m, i t was feared t h a t any d i f f e r e n c e i n temperature o r p r e s s u r e between t h e two tubes would i n i t i a t e a considerable displacement of t h e f r i n g e s , which i n t u r n could ccmq-letely mask t h e displacement due t o motion. This d i f f i c u l t y has been obviated by means of a telescope having a mirror a t i t s f o c a l point. opposite d i r e c t i o n . compensated. This way

each beam is forced t o t r a v e r s e t h e two

tubes s u c c e s s i v e l y , so t h a t both beams covered e x a c t l y t h e same d j s t a n c e , b u t i n

The e f f e c t s produced by pressure o r temperature are thus

have s a t i s f i e d myself, through several experiments, t h a t t h e

compensation is complete, and regardless of any changes i n d e n s i t y o r temperat u r e introduced upon t h e medium i n one of t h e tubes, t h e f r i n g e s keep t h e i r

same exact p o s i t i o n .

I n t h i s type of arrangement, t h e f r i n g e s should be

/389 -

observed a t t h e same p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e of t h e beams; s u n l i g h t i s ac-sitied l a t e r a l l y , and d i r e c t e d toward t h e tubes by i t s r e f l e c t i o n on a mirror. The beams, a f t e r t h i s double passage through t h e tubes, r e t u r n t o set up t h e i r i n t e r f e r e n c e p a t t e r n a s h o r t d i s t a n c e beyond t h e m i r r o r t r a v e r s e d by them originally.
It is h e r e t h a t t h e f r i n g e s are observed w i t h t h e a i d of an

o c u l a r h a v h g a divided scale. Another advantage of t h e double t r a j e c t o r y by t h e beam i s t h z t of i n c r e a s i n g t h e probable e f f e c t of motion; i t i s j u s t as i f t h e tubes were twice as long

.
This arrangeme.it a l s o permits t h e use of a very simple means t o m a k e t h e

f r i n g e s larger than they should b e a t t h e d i s t a n c e s e p a r a t i n g t h e two slits ( t h i s distance w a s 9 millimeters). This i s done by p l a c i n g a very t h i c k The g l a s s i n f r o n t of one of t h e slits i n c l i n e d i n such a way t h a t , because of r e f r a c t i o n e f f e c t s , t h e two s l i t s would appear very c l o s e t o each o t h e r . f r i n g e s are then as l a r g e as they would b e i f t h e s l i t s were r e a l l y a l o t

closer.

Also, t h e r e is no a p p r e c i a b l e loss i n i n t e n s i t y , and, on t h e con-

t r a r y , t h e i n t e n s i t y can b e g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e d by i n c r e a s i n g t h e l i g h t source.
The s i z e of t h e f r i n g e s can be v a r i e d a t w i l l by changing t h e i n c l i n a t i o n of

t h e g l a s s , and so i t i s p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n t h e f r i n g e s i z e most convenient f o r observing t h e displacement w i t h p r e c i s i o n .

I w a n t t o d e s c r i b e now
t h e water i n Eotion.

arrangement o f t h e tubes and apparatus t o set

The two t u b e s , placed s i d e by s i d e , were closed at e i t h e r end w i t h a s i n g l e p i e c e of g l a s s glued i n t o p l a c e w i t h gum l a c , i n a p a s i t i o n perpendi-

cular t o t h e common d i r e c t i o n .
of a f l a s k .

Near each end a branch, shaped as a rounded

elbow, e s t a b l i s h e s communication w i t h a l a r g e r tube t h a t goes t o t h e bottom Consequently, t h e r e were f o u r f l a s k s connected t o t h e ends of

/390 -

t h e two tubes.

One of t h e two f l a s k s connected t o a tube is f u l l of water; a p i e c e of tubing allows t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of compressed a i r coming from a r e s e r v o i r connected t o an a i r pump. The p r e s s u r e f o i es t h e water t o rise i n t o t h e tube,

traverse i t completely, and go i n t o t h e f l a s k a t t h e o p p o s i t e end.

This l a t t e r

f l a s k may, i n t u r n , be p r e s s u r i z e d w i t h compressed a i r , and t h e water w i l l r e t u r n t o t h e f i r s t f l a s k , t r a v e r s i n g t h e tube i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n .

Water speeds over seven meters p e r second may b e obtained.

another.

The same flow took

p l a c e simultaneously i n t h e two t u b e s , although i n o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n t o one

The observer has two handy stopcocks connected t o t h e a i r r e s e r v o i r ; i f e i t h e r one i s open, water flow is e s t a b l i s h e d a t once i n both tubes. d i r e c t i o n of flow is reversed with the o t h e r stopcock.

The

The air r e s e r v o i r , where t h e air is u s u a l l y a t two atmospheres of press u r e , has a 15 l i t e r capacity. The c a p a c i t y of t h e f l a s k s i s about two

liters.

They are c a l i b r a t e d i n equal volumes, and t h e d u r a t i o n f o r t h e flow

of 0.5 liters p l u s t h e water i n t h e s e c t i o n of t h e tubes are s u b t r a c t e d from t h e speed of t h e water.

The apparatus arrangement, which I have just t r i e d t o d e s c r i b e , h a s only

been used f o r experimentation with water i n motion.

I t i s a l s o convenient f o r

air, provided some modifications are made.

The experiment w i t h a i r i n motion

w a s made previously with a somewhat d i f f e r e n t apparatus, which w i l l b e d e a l t

with later, and w i t h which conclusive r e s u l t s were obtained.

I have determined t h a t air motion does not produce a p e r c e p t i b l e d i s placement of t h e f r i n g e s . detail. I n t h e case of water, t h e r e is an evident displacement.

Later I s h a l l go over t h e s e r e s u l t s i n g r e a t e r

When t h e water flows away from t h e observer i n t h e tube on h i s r i g h t , and toward t h e observer i n t h e tube on h i s l e f t , t h e f r i n g e s are d i s p l a c e d toward t h e r i g h t . When t h e water flow t a k e s p l a c e i n a d i r e c t i o n o p p o s i t e t o t h e one described above, t h e f r i n g e s are d i s p l a c e d t o t h e l e f t . The f r i n g e s remain very clear w h i l e t h e water is i n motion. t i o n a l t o t h e speed of t h e water. They move

/391 -

p a r a l l e l t:, themselves, without d i s t u r b a n c e s , i n amounts p e r c e p t i b l y proporAt a speed of two meters p e r second, t h e

displacement i s a l r e a d y f a i r l y n o t i c e a b l e , and is p e r f e c t l y measq?y-.bie a t

water speeds between 4 and 7 meters p e r second.

I t has been found experimentally t h a t t h e displacement of a f r i n g e occupying f i v e nicrometer d i v i s i o n s is 1.2 d i v i s i o n s t o t h e r i g h t or 1.2 d i v i s i o n s t o t h e l e f t , a t a water v e l o c i t y of 7.059 meters p e r second. Thc sum of both displacements is 2.4 d i v i s i o n s , which means a s e n s i t i v i t y of 1 / 2 f r i n g e . I n o r d e r t o avoid c e r t a i n o b j e c t i o n s , I should say t h a t t h e system of tubes and f l a s k s i n which t h e motion of t h e water took place was completely i s o l a t e d from t h e o t h e r p o r t i o n of t h e apparatus.

This precaution w a s taken

i n o r d e r t o prevent t h e p r e s s u r e o r t h e shock of t h e water from producing a c c i d e n t a l f l e x u r a l changes i n certain p o r t i o n s o f t h e apparatus whose movements could have influenced t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e f r i n g e s . system had :io i n f l u e n c e upon t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e f r i n g e s . A f t e r having v e r i f i e d t h e existence of t h e phenomenon, I t r i e d t o determine t h e value w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e accuracy. In o r d e r t o avoid a cause f o r e r r o r which, I thought, would exert an i n f l u e n c e on t h e r e s u l t s , I have changed t h e width of t h e f r i n g e s , t h e speed 7

On t h e o t h e r hand,

I have assured myself t h a t motion imposed by t h e design upon t h e two-tube

/392

of t h e water, and even t h e n a t u r e of t h e mic-ometer d i v i s i o n s , so as t o obscrve t h e d i f f e r e n t displacements without being a b l e t o presuppose t h e value. I n f a c t , t h e g r e a t e s t i n f l u e n c e t o b e f e a r e d was t h a t of preoccupation while measuring small q u a n t i t i e s which involved a g r e a t d e a l of e s t i m a t i o n .

b e l i e v e t h a t the r e s u l t s I have obtained have been f r e e of t h i s cause of e r r o r . The g r e a t e r p o r t i o n of t h e observations were made a t a speed of 7.059

meters p e r second.

A c e r t a i n number of them were made a t a spead of 5.515

:be

meters p e r second, and some were made a t 3.7 meters p e r second.

r e l a t e d t o t h e l e n g t h of a f r i n g e taken as u n i t y .

observed

values wcre reduced t o t h e maximum speed of 7.059 meters p e r second, and

Fringe displacement values f o r an average water speed of 7.059 m p e r second.

Differences between t h e observed v a l u e s and t h e average.

- 0,063 - 0,059
0,005
.-

0,030

9,010
0,010

- o,orF,
0,000

0,oo

L . 0,006

I - 0,077
-I4-

+ o,oT,t
0,026 0,010 0,010

3-

0,017 0,006

+ -

0,041

By doubling t h e average value,0.46 is obtained, which is very c l o s e t o

h a l f a f r i n g e , and which r e p r e s e n t s t h e displacement value produced when t h e flow i n t h e tubes is reversed.
8

I393 -

The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e observed and t h e average values w a s added t o t h e observed values i n o r d e r t o determine t h e d e v i a t i o n a t e i t h e r s i d e of t i e average. fringe.
I t was observed t h a t they g e n e r a l l y r e p r e s e n t a very minute f r a c d o n

of t h e width of t h e f r i n g e ; t h e g r e a t e s t d e v i a t i o n d i d n o t exceed 1/13 of a

A d i f f i c u l t y , impossible t o avoid, furnished t h e explanation f o r these

differences. The maximum displacement t a k e s p l a c e during a very s h o r t time, I f i t were p o s s i b l e and, consequently, t h e observation must be done r a p i d l y . ments would b e more p r e c i s e .

t o maintain a constant flow speed of t h e water f o r a longer t i m e , t h e measureBut t h i s has n o t been p o s s i b l e without i n t r o Such changes would have r e t a r d e d ducing considerable changes i n t h e apparatus. s u n l i g h t become almost impossible t o perform.
I want now t o compare t h e v a l u e found f o r t h e displacement of t h e f r i n g e s

t h i s experiment t o a time of t h c y e a r when experiments r e q u i r i n g t h e use of

t o t h a t which would be t h e r e s u l t of each of t h e hypotheses

iii

question.

To start with, i t s u f f i c e s t h a t t h e motion of t h e water d i s p l a c e s t h e f r i n g e s i n any amount t o exclude t h e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e e t h e r is completely f r e e and independent of t h e motion of t h e body.
It is a l s o necessary t o c a l c u l a t e what t h e displacement of t h e f r i n g e s

would be

assuming t h a t t h e e t h e r is a t t a c h e d t o t h e molecules of t h e body s o

t h a t they would s h a r e i n each o t h e r ' s motion.

Let

v
v' u

= speed of l i g h t i n vacuum, = speed of l i g h t in s t i l l water, and = speed of water parallel t o t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e l i g h t rays.

1394 -

The speed of l i g h t i n water, when t h i s l i q u i d is i n motion, w i l l be f o r b o t b rays,

The motion t a k e s p l a c e i n a r e l a t i v e d i r e c t i o u which i s opposed t o each of t h e rays I f w e c a l l A t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n speeds being sovght, E t h e l e n g t h of t h e column of water t r a v e r s e d by t h e r a y s , by applying
!..?

p r i n c i p l e s of t h e theory

of interferences,we f i n d t h a t

0'"

also,

Since u i s so small i n r21ation t o v, reduced,wlthovt a p p r e c i a b l e e r r o r , t o

'

33 000 000

), this expression may be

Replacing t h e expression formula w e have

V V

-, by

m, t h e r e f r a c t i v e index of water, i n t h e above

A f 2 E -m*.
Q

Each ray t i a v e r s e s t h e tubes twice, and so t h e l e - g t h E is twice t h e a c t u a l Length of t h e tubes.

By c a l l i n g L t h e a c t u s . l e n g t h of each tube (1.4875

m e t e r s j , t h e previous express i o n be comes

Numerical c a l c u l a t i o n y i e l d s :

A = 0.0002418 millimeters
This is t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n d i s t a n c e t h a t should e x i s t between t h e two rays - 2 t h e f i r s t hypothesiE were true. 10

This number is a c t u a l l y i n r e l a t i o n t o v e l o c i t y i n a vacuum.

I n order t o

relate i t t o a i r , i t should be divided by t h e r e f r a c t i o n index of t h i s medium.

But, t h i s index is so c l o s e t o unity t h a t , f o r t h e sake of s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l t t o ignore t h e transformation while introducing an e r r o r no g r e a t e r .han u n i t y i n t h e l a s t f i g u r e .

The value f o r t h e f r i n g e displacement,as a f u n c t i o n of t h e width of a

f r i n g e , i s obtained by d i y i d i n g t h e above q u a n t i t y by t h e v a l u e of a wavelength.

As a matter of f a c t , f o r a d i f f e r e n c e i n speed of 1, 2 , 3, m wavelengths, t h e

frizlge system is displaced by 1, 2, 3, m f r i n g e s .
Tki2 wavelength f o r ray E i s h = O.Cd0526.

These are t h e rays t h a t seem

t o maintain t h e g r e a t e s t i n t e n s i t y , s i n c e t h e l i g h t m u s t travel through a r a t h e r considerable thickness of water. Final17 t h e Fringe displacement i s found,
A

5 = 014597:
I f t h e r e were agreement with :he hypothesis i n q u e s t i o n , t h e e t h e r would be placed i n motion at a speed equal t o t h a t of t h e water, which, i n t h e preceding experimeat would have caused a displacement of 0.46 f r i n g e s . But,the average of t h e observations has been only 0.23, proaches t h e number 0.46.
and observation

'

of t h e i n d i v i d u a l values higher than t h e average shows thar: none of t h e n apI should a l s o add t h a t t h i s number should be s t i l l

g r e a t e r because of a small e r r o r i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e speed of water. source of t h i s e r r o r is known, as w i l l b e seen l a t e r , but i t has not been p q s s i b l e t o c o r r e c t t h e e r r o r exactly.

The

I t is evident t h a t t h i s hypothesis is not i n agreement

:h t h e experiment./396

Ox? the o t h e r harrd, we s h a l l see t h a t t h e : Iird hypothesis p * Fresnel, leads t o a displacement value very c l o s e t o t h e obsex.

18

11

It i s known t h a t t h e ordinary phenomenon of r e f r a c t i o n i s due t o t h e f a c t

t h a t t h e speed of propagation of l i g h t i n t h e i n t e r i o r of bodies i s less than i n a vacuum. Fresnel admiLs t h a t t h i s change i n speed takes p l a c e because t h e e t h e r possesses a g r e a t e r tensity i n t h e i n t e r i o r of bodies than i n vacuum. I n t h e case of two media w i t h t h e same e l a s t i c i t y b u t d i f f e r e n t d e n s i t i e s , t h e squared powers of t h e speeds of propagation are i n i n v e r s e proportion t o t h e densities. Thus

w e have

' are t h e d e n s i t i e s of t h e e t h e r i n vacuum and i n t h e body, i n which D and D

and v and v' are t h e corresponding propagation speeds, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Consequently , and This l a s t expression g i v e s t h e excess d e n s i t y of t h e i n t e r i o r e t h e r . I f t h e body is set in motion, only a p a r t of t h e i n t e r i o r e t h e r i s set i n motion w i t h t h e body; t h i s i s t h e p o r t i o n t h a t h a s a g r e a t e r d e n s i t y than t h a t

of t h e surrounding e t h e r .
D'

The d e n s i t y of t h i s mobile p o r t i o n is expressed by

D.

The o t h e r p o r t i o n of t h e e t h e r , which remains immobile while t h e

motion takes p i a c e , has a d e n s i t y D.

What is t h e speed of propagation of t h e waves i n c h i s type o f medium-

a p o r t i o n i n motion and a p o r t i o n motionless

- supposing,

for simplicity's

sake, t h a t t h e body moves i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of propagation of t h e waves? F r e s n e l considers t h a t t h e speed assumed by t h e c e n t e r of g r a v i t y of t h e system is added t o t h e speed of propagation of t h e waves.

/397

If u is t h e speed of t h e body,

'4

(%2)w i l l

b e t h e speed of t h e c e n t e r

of g r a v i t y of t h e s y s t e m , and from preceding c o n s i d c r a t i o n s , t h i s expression i s equal t o

12

which is t h e amount by which t h e speed of propagation of t h e waves should be increased.

Also, if t h e speed of propagation in t h e state of rest is v ' , i n t h e

s t a t e of motion i t w i l l be

Now, with t h e help of t h i s expressions1 am going t o c a l c u l a t e t h e f r i n g e displacement t h a t should be observed in t h e experiment i n question. The speed of propagation of l i g h t i n moving water, f o r each of t h e two rays t h a t have to i n t e r f e r e , i s one of t h e values expressed by t h e preceding formula. Using the same n o t a t i o n as i n t h e previous example, t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n velocities w i l l be

By doing t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s and some transformations, i t is found

This expression may be s i m p l i f i e d by taking i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t u is I 2 veAy small i n r e l a t i o n t o v, , and t h a t t h e c o e f f i c i e n t of u i s = v' 33000000 2 always smaller than u n i t y , which permits t h e c a n c e l a t i o n of t h e term i n u

("

/398 -

without a p p r e c i a b l e e r r o r ; m i s t h e index of r e f r a c t i o n , E is twice t h e l e n g t h

L of t h e t u b e s , and t h e f i n a l formula is

13

By making t h e numerical c m c e l a t i o n , i t is found:

A = 0.00010634 millimeters
This is t h e d i f f e r e n c e in speeds between t h e two r a y s t h a t i n t e r f e r e , e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e motion of t h e water. of a wave, Dividing '-lis r e s u l t by t h e length

A, t h e f r i n g e displacement i s obtpiceo

The experimental result w a s 0.23. These two values are almost i d e n t i c a l .

I also want t o demonstrate t h a t

t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e observed and t h e c a l c u l a t e d values can very l i k e l y be described by an e r r o r i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e water speed, w i t h a source easy t o a s s i g n , and whose value can be assumed by a n ~ i o g yt o be very s m a l l . The speed of water i n each tube has been c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g t h e volume of water flowing i n one second by t h e tube s e c t i o n . I n t h i s way, t h e median speed of t h e water has been obtained, which would b e t h e a c t u a l one i f t h e motion of t h e l i q u i d threads were t h e same through t h e c r o s s s e c t i o n of t h e tube, along t h e c e n t e r as w e l l as along t h e w a l l s . But, reasoning shows t h a t t h i s i s not t h e case, and t h a t t h e r e s i s t a n c e experienced by t h e l i q u i d along t h e walls has an immediate e f f e c t upon t h e neighiooring l a y e r s c l o s e r t o the center.

This means t h a t t h e speed is d i f f e r a t f o r l i q u i d threads flowing

The speed value obtained by c a l c u l a t i o n
The speed near t h e center is much

a t d i f f e r e n t d i s t a n c e s from t h e w a l l .

is intermediate t o t h e s e d i f f e r e n t speeds.
t h e walls.

g r e a t e r than t h e median speed, which i n t u r n is g r e a t e r than t h e speed near

Also, t h s s l i t s , placed i n f r o n t of each tube t o admit t h e l i g h t rays

t h a t w i l l eventually cause the i n t e r f e r e n c e , are located i n t h e middle of t h e

c i r c u l a r end of t h e tubes, so t h a t t h e rays t r a v e r s e t h e c e n t r a l zones where

t h e speed of t h e water should be g r e a t e r than t h e media? speed.

(Each s l i t

14

has t h e shape of a r e c t a n g l e , 3 mm by 1.5 mm, and i t s s u r f a c e i s 1/5 of t h e

c r o s s s e c t i o n of t h e tube.)

Laws governing t h e flow of water i n t u b e s , t h a t would follow t h e s e speed

variations,have y e t t o be dLcerrmned, and t h u s i t is n o t p o s s i b l e t o introduce t h e necessary c o r r e c t i o n s .
A t t h e same t i m e , a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e
As a matter of f a c t , a l a w governing t h e

p o s s i b l e error cannot be too g r e s +

water flow in open canals has been determined, and i n t h i s case

t h e same

cause produces a similar e f f e c t .

It is seen t h a t in t h e middle of t h e canal,

n e a r t h e burface, t h e water has a greater speed t h a n t h e median.

It has been

found t h a t . when t h e median speed varies between 1 and 5 meters per second, t h e maximum speed i s obtained by multiplying t h e median speed by a f a c t o r varying from 1.23 t o 1 . 1 1 . By analogy, i t is p o s s i b l e t o assume t h a t t h e c o r r e c t i o n t o use would be on t h e o r d e r of this magnitude. I f u is m u l t i p l i e d by 1.1, 1.15, o r 1.2, and t h e corresponding f r i n g e displacement i s c a l c u l a t e d , values of 0.22, 0.23 and 0.24 are found i n place of 0.20.
It is seen t h a t t h e c o r r e c t i o n tends t o become closer t o t h e calcu-

l a t e d ratLer than t h e observed r e s u l t . a c t u a l vater v e l o c i t y :

Thus, i t is p o s s i b l e t o assume t h a t t h e small d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e two values is due t o a small e r r o r i n t h e

an e r r o r t h a t cannot be corrected i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y

/400 -

manner because of a l a c k of s u f f i c i e n t l y precise data.

Thus, t h e f r i n g e displacement by t h e movement of t h e water, and t h e amount of displacement, are s a t i s f a c t o r i l y explained by t h e theory proposed
by Fresnel.

I s a i d before t h a t , where t h e rays travel through a i r i n s t e a d of water,

no f r i n g e displacement is observed when t h e a i r is i n motion.

This f a c t has

been proven by means of t h e apparatus whick. I w i l l b r i e f l y describe.

A bellows, counterpoised with weights and moved by a l e v e r , f o r c e s t h e

a i r through two copper tubes closed w i t h g l a s s a t t h e i r ends; the a i r moves

i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s in each tube.

These tubes had an e f f e c t i v e length of

15

1.495 meters and a diameter of 1 a . The p r e s s u r e necessary t o produce t h e

a i r flow w a s measured with a manometer connected a t t h e entrance t o t h e tubes; a t tines i t would go as high as 3 cm of mercury.
The air speed w a s c a l c u l a t e d from t h e p r e s s u r e and t h e dimensions of t h e tubes, according t o t h e known laws p e r t a i n i n g t o gas flow. The found value

w a s c o n t r o l l e d by t h e known capacity of t h e bellows,aud t h e speed a t which i t

had t o be actuated i n o r d e r t o produce a f a i r l y constant pressure a t t h e entrance t o t h e tubes.
It w a s r e l a t i v e l y easy t o o b t a i n air speeds of up t o 25 meters p e r second and, on rare occasions, much g r e a t e r speeds of u n c e r t a i n

value.
No appreciable displacement of t h e f r i n g e s w a s d e t e c t e d i n any of t h e
experiments. They always occupied t h e same p o s i t i o n whether t h e air was s t i l l , o r moving a t speeds of 25 meters p e r second o r b e t t e r . When t h i s experiment w a s being conducted, I had not y e t thought of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of using a r e f l e c t i n g telescope, which makes i t p o s s i b l e t o double t h e value of t h e displacements by f u l l y compensating f o r t h e e f f e c t s due t o a c c i d e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n temperature o r pressure i n t h e two tubes. a c c i d e n t a l e f f e c t s t h a t could occur. This c o n s i s t s of making two successive observations by passing through t h e apparatus beams going i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s .
I used a

/401

s u r e way t o d i s t i n g u i s h between t h e e f f e c t s due t o motion and the o t h e r

This w a s done by placing

t h e l i g h t source a t t h e point where t h e c e n t r a l f r i n g e had formed in t h e preceding experiment, and t h e new f r i n g e s would form a t t h e exact point where t h e source had been before. With t h e d i r e c t i o n of air flow constant i n both cases, i t is e a s y t o see t h a t a c c i d e n t a l e f f e c t s should have produced displacement a t t h e s i d e of t h e

same tube during both observations, while t h e displacement due t o a i r motion

should have taken place f i r s t t o t h e s i d e of one tube, and then t o t h e s i d e of t h e opposite 16
OG.

I n t h i s way, a displacement due t o motion would have been

recognized, even i f i t had been accompanied by an a c c i d e n t a l displacement due mainly t o some d e f e c t of symmetry i n t h e diameters o r i n t h e o r i f i c e of t h e tubes. gas,and This would have r e s u l t e d i n unequal resistance t o t h e passage of t h e

,consequently,

i n a difference i n density.

But i t has been p o s s i b l e t o g i v e t h e apparatus such a high degree of symmetry t h a t t h e r e were no apparent d e n s i t y d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e two tubes during t h e flow of air. necessary.

Thus, t h e double observation would n o t have been

Nonetheless, t h i s second o b s e r v a t i o n h a s been done fcr added assur-

ance, and t o a l l a y t h e f e a r t h a t t h e displacement being looked f o r could have

been a c c i d e n t a l l y compensated by a small d i f f e r e n c e i n d e n s i t y , which would have masked i t completely. I n s p i t e of t h e s e precautions, no f r i n g e displacement by a i r motion could b e found.

I estimate t h a t a displacement as s m a l l as 1/14 of a f r i n g e , produced by

t h e motion of t h e air, would have been noticed.

/402

Here are t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h i s experiment.

Considering t h e hypcthesis where t h e e t h e r is completely a f f i x e d t o t h e

air i n motion,

where m2 is 1.00G567 a t a temperature of 10C. Since t h e experiment w a s conducted on air, t h e m a x i m u m l i g h t i n g i s obt a i n e d from yellow l i g h t rays, and t h i s maximum is t h e one t h a t determines t h e width of t h e f r i n g e s . corresponding t o ray D. Thus, i t i s convenient t o use f o r A , t h e value

Thus, we have

17

or some o t h e r similar displacement which could b e daubled by r e v e r s i n g t h e

d i r e c t i o n of t h e flow. observation. Following are t h e results of t h e c a l c u l a t i o n according t o F r e s n e l ' s hypothesis : This displacement c e r t a i n l y could not have escaped

This is a displacement of 2/10,000 of t h e width of a f r i n g e which is

unobservable, even i f i t were 100 t i m e s g r e a t e r . Thus, F r e s n e l ' s theory exp l a i n s t h e apparent inrmodbility of t h e f r i n g e s i n t h e experiment made w i t h

air i n motion.

The displacement of t h e f r i n g e s i s not r e a l l y zero, b u t i t i s

so weak t h a t i t cannot b e noticed.

After o b t a i n i n g t h i s n e g a t i v e f a c t , I s t i l l continued t o search f o r an explanation f o r t h e hypotheses relative t o e t h e r t h a t would,at t h e same t i m e , e x p l a i n t h e phenomenon of a b b e r a t i o n and Arago's experiment.

/403

It seemed t o m e

t h a t i t was necessary t o admit w i t h Fresnel t h a t t h e motion of bodies produces

a change i n t h e speed of l i g h t , and t h a t t h e magnitude of t h i s change of speed

depends upon t h e energy with which t h e d i f f e r e n t media r e f r a c t l i g h t . r e f r a c t very l i t t l e , such as a i r . This r e s u l t e d i n t h e f r i n g e s n o t being displaced when l i g h t t r a v e l e d through t h e a i r i n motion.
A n a p p r e c i a b l e displacement should have been ob-

It is

f a i r l y l a r g e f o r h i g h l y r e f r a c t i v e bodies, and very small f o r those t h a t

t a i n e d i f t h e experimenr. were performed i n water, whose r e f r a c t i v e index is much g r e a t e r than t h a t of air.

One experiment performed by Babinet and mentioned i n Volume 9 of t h e

Academy's Comptes Rendus, seemed t o c o n t r a d i c t tile hypothesis of t h e speed change i n conformance with F r e s n e l ' s law. But upon considering t h e

18

circumstances of t h e experiment, I have n o t i c e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o r a compensating cause t h a t d i s g u i s e s t h e e f f e c t of motion. s u f f e r e d by t h e l i g h t i n t h i s experiment. This cause is t h e r e f l e c t i o n I n f a c t , is i s p o s s i b l e t o show
A separats cal-

t h a t when t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e v e l o c i t y of two r a y s , t h i s d i f f e r e n c e

is changed when t h e rays are r e f l e c t e d by a m i r r o r i n motion.

e q u a l values, b u t with o p p o s i t e s i g n s .

c u l a t i o n of t h e e f f e c t s i n Babinet's experiment shows t h a t they have f a i r l y

This explanation renders even more probable t h e hypothesis of t h e change of speed, and i t has seemed t o m e t h a t an experiment made i n moving water should h e l p t o decide t h e q u e s t i o n w i t h c e r t a i n t y .

I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e success of t h i s experiment should b r i n g about t h e

adoption of F r e s n e l ' s hypothesis, o r a t least of t h e l a w h e discovered t h a t e x p l a i n s t h e change i n t h e speed of l i g h t because of motion o f bodies. of which t h i s l a w is only a consequence. a d d i t i o n a l proofs might s t i l l b e required. Since

/404 -

this law is t r u e , i t c o n s t i t u t e s a very s t r o n g proof i n f a v o r of t h e h y p o t h e s i s ,

It might be t h a t Fresnel's concept i o n w i l l seem so extraordinary,and s o hard t o admit i n c e r t a i n r e s p e c t s , t h a t

A thorough examination by t h e

goemetricians is required, b e f o r e t h i s can be considered t o be v a l i d .

Translated f o r National Aeronautics and Space Administration under cmr*.z+.c: No. NASw 2035, by SCITRAN, P.O. Box 5456, Santa Barbara, C a l i f o r n i a Q J . ~ ) !

19