I would not actually use this for uhhh, repeatable measurements over any extended period of time!

(If that were the case, I'd recommend re-printing it in a slightly more stable material, or just CNC milling the mounts out of aluminum using some of the ~$1-2K aluminum desktop mills and using some aluminum extrusions as the base.)

The Michelson–Morley experiment was indeed very important, but it has not proved in any way the non-existence of ether. It has just proved that the ether does not behave as it was previously supposed, i.e. like the materials with which humans are familiar.

It does not matter at all what names are used for it, one may choose to name it "ether", "vacuum", "electromagnetic field", "force field" or anything else, but all the modern physics, since James Clerk Maxwell and William Thomson, is built on the assumption that the space is not empty, but it is completely filled with something that mediates all the interactions between things.

Only before the middle of the 19th century, the dominant theories of physics assumed the existence of true vacuum. The existence of true vacuum is possible only in the theories based on action at a distance, like the Newtonian theory of gravity or the electromagnetic theory of Wilhelm Eduard Weber, but not in field-based theories, like the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell or the gravitational theory of Einstein.

It is rather shameful for physics that the main result of the Michelson-Morley experiment has been the replacement of the word "ether" by "vacuum", as if a change of name would change the thing to which the name is applied, instead of focusing on a better understanding of the properties of the thing for which the name is used.

But yes :)

that one has uhh substantially less drift for what it's worth, but reprinting in more stable material would help that a ton (and still be quite cheap!)

It sort of depends on what your goal is; personally, I live to see something expensive on Thorlabs, and make a simplified, less accurate, and far cheaper alternative in my home lab. But that's rarely how folks in labs do it- instead, they will focus on getting people to be useful for performing state of the art research, which usually depends on applying hundreds of years of experience to make some tiny marginal improvement, which frequently depends on having extremely precise and accurate gear.

There's a balance that has to be struck between: 1) Equipment that's so perfect that students learn nothing about the effort to get an experiment working. 2) Or so crappy that it's an obstacle to learning anything at all.

Also, the crappy-ness is multiplied by 30 for the number of setups needed for a class of 60 students, assuming they work in pairs.

Oh, the crappy oscilloscopes. They were cheap "student scopes" and their controls were worn out, so they behaved erratically. Since then I've met other people who took freshman physics lab, and they remember the "oscilloscope lab" with disgust.

> Ok, time to confess: I did cheat a little in calling it the “cheapest” Michelson interferometer, since technically even this beam splitter is like 16 USD, but it is very possible to use a microscope slide instead at the cost of some contrast, which will net out to < 20 cents, even at pretty expensive per-unit prices.

:)