I guess the following statement should be true, but I can not prove it, I can just prove the reverse implication.
$\star$ Condition: Let $2\leq m$ be a natural number. Let's denote the multiplicative group of rational numbers by $\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}$, and consider the subgroup of perfect $m^{\rm th}$-perfect powers $\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}$.
Let $t, t'$ be two elements in the quotient group $\dfrac{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}}{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}}$ such that: the order of $t$ and $t'$ in the group $\dfrac{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}}{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}}$ are equal to $m$, i.e. $m$ is the least positive integer such that $t^m \in \mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}$.
(2): If The two sets $\{t, t^2, \cdots, t^{m}\}\neq\{t', t'^2, \cdots, t'^{m}\}$ are not the same in the group $\dfrac{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}}{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}}$, Then
(3) the two extensions $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t})$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t'})$ are non-isomorphic.
We can reformulate it in the following way: Under the $\star$ Condition, [(2) implies (3)].
If $m=2$, or $m=3$, I can prove the statement. (For example see the answer by @ArturoMagidin to this question: Is $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}) \cong \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{3})$? )
Wild version of my Question: What are some ideas to show that two given fields are non-isomorphic?
Irrelevant attempt:
I can just prove the reverse implication: Under the $\star$ Condition, [(3) implies (2)]. Instead of proving this, I will prove the contraposition, i.e. I will prove [$\neg(2)$ implies $\neg(3)$].
[$\neg(2)$ implies $\neg(3)$]: If the two sets $\{t, t^2, \cdots, t^{m}\}=\{t', t'^2, \cdots, t'^{m}\}$ are the same in the group $\dfrac{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{}}}{\mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}}}$, then the two fields extensions $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t})$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t'})$ are isomorphic.
Proof: If $\{t, t^2, \cdots, t^{m}\} = \{t', t'^2, \cdots, t'^{m}\}$, then there is an integer $1\leq k \leq m$ with $\gcd(k,m)=1$, such that $t^k= t' (\mod \mathbb{Q}^{\ast^{m}})$. Then clearly $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t}) = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t^k}) =\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[m]{t'})$, and we are done.
(1): Why this statement is true? "In the case of $\gcd(m,\phi(m))=1$ and $t\ne \pm 1$ then $x^m-t$ stays irreducible over $\Bbb{Q}(\zeta_m)$."
(2): I can see that if that two fields are isomorphic, then $t'^{1/m}=\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l t^{l/m}$ should belongs to $\mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m})$. But why $t'^{1/m}=\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} a_l t^{l/m}$ should belongs to $\mathbb{Q}^{1/m}$?
(3): I think by $\mathbb{Q}(t^{1/m})$ you mean the $m^{\rm th}$-cyclotomic field, and maybe you meant the compositum of fields, not their intersection. Am I right?