Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the outcome of Michelson’s interference experiment has been interpreted as evidence against the existence of a luminiferous medium called “ether.” Einstein, however, emphasized in 1920 that an ether must exist in spite of Michelson’s null result. In this paper, it is shown that a medium theory—be it for light or for sound—actually predicts the observed null result. Michelson expected a gradual fringe shift when his apparatus was turned in the “ether wind.” Such a phase change would, however, require a temporary frequency change in one of the interferometer arms. Since wind does not alter the frequency in the interferometer, a phase shift cannot occur either.VC 2014 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-27.4.586] Resume: Habituellement, l’issue de l’experience sur l’interference de Michelson a ete interpretee comme evidence contre l’existence d’un medium luminifere appele “ether.” Einstein, cependant, a insiste, en 1920, sur le fait qu’un ether doit exister en depit du resultat nul de Michelson. Dans cet article il est demontre qu’une theorie de medium—que ce soit pour la lumiere ou pour le son— predit, en fait, le resultat nul observe. Michelson s’attendait a un changement graduel des franges d’interference quand son appareil etait tourne dans le “vent de l’ether.” Un tel changement de phase exigerait, cependant, un changement temporaire de frequence dans un des bras de l’interferometre. Puisque le vent ne change pas la frequence dans l’interferometre, un changement de phase ne peut se produire non plus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".