01 Jul 2025

Frames, the Michelson–Morley Experiment, and Einstein's Postulates

Inertial and non-inertial frames, the ether-drift test, its null result, and the two postulates of special relativity.

bsc semester-i special-relativity inertial-frames michelson-morley

A reference frame is a coordinate system together with synchronized clocks. If two frames $S$ and $S^{\prime}$ have parallel axes and $S^{\prime}$ moves at constant velocity $v\hat{\mathbf x}$ relative to $S$, Newtonian kinematics gives the Galilean transformation

\[x^{\prime}=x-vt,\qquad y^{\prime}=y,\qquad z^{\prime}=z,\qquad t^{\prime}=t.\]

Differentiating twice,

\[u_x^{\prime}=u_x-v,\qquad a_x^{\prime}=a_x,\]

so Newton’s equation has the same form in every frame moving uniformly relative to another. Such a frame is inertial: a free particle has constant velocity, or equivalently $\mathbf a=0$.

If the frame origin has acceleration $\mathbf A(t)$, then $\mathbf r^{\prime}=\mathbf r-\mathbf R(t)$ gives

\[\mathbf a^{\prime}=\mathbf a-\mathbf A, \qquad m\mathbf a^{\prime}=\mathbf F-m\mathbf A.\]

The extra term $-m\mathbf A$ is an inertial (fictitious) force. A frame whose origin accelerates, or whose axes rotate, is therefore non-inertial; rotating frames similarly require centrifugal and Coriolis terms. Special relativity relates inertial frames.

The ether-drift prediction

Nineteenth-century wave theory suggested that light propagated through a stationary ether. Consider equal interferometer arms of length $L$ in the pre-relativistic ether model, with the apparatus moving at speed $v$ through the ether. Light of ether-frame speed $c$ would then have different round-trip times along arms parallel and perpendicular to $\mathbf v$.

For a parallel arm of length $L$, the outward and return times would be

\[t_+=\frac{L}{c-v},\qquad t_-=\frac{L}{c+v},\]

hence

\[t_{\parallel} =\frac{L}{c-v}+\frac{L}{c+v} =\frac{2Lc}{c^2-v^2} =\frac{2L}{c}\frac{1}{1-\beta^2}, \qquad \beta=\frac vc.\]

For one transverse crossing of duration $t_\perp/2$, the mirror advances by $vt_\perp/2$ while the light covers $ct_\perp/2$. The right triangle therefore gives

\[\left(\frac{ct_\perp}{2}\right)^2 =L^2+\left(\frac{vt_\perp}{2}\right)^2,\]

and hence

\[t_\perp=\frac{2L}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} =\frac{2L}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}.\]
Michelson interferometer with parallel and transverse light paths for an apparatus moving through the assumed ether
In the ether model, the longitudinal closing speeds are $c-v$ and $c+v$; the transverse arm has the effective along-arm speed $\sqrt{c^2-v^2}$ because the actual ether-frame light path is diagonal.

Their predicted difference is

\[\Delta t=t_\parallel-t_\perp =\frac{2L}{c} \left[ \frac{1}{1-\beta^2}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}} \right].\]

For $v\ll c$, $(1-\beta^2)^{-1}\simeq1+\beta^2$ and $(1-\beta^2)^{-1/2}\simeq1+\beta^2/2$, so

\[\boxed{\Delta t\simeq\frac{Lv^2}{c^3}}.\]

Rotating the apparatus through $90^\circ$ exchanges the arms, changing the difference by $2\Delta t$. The corresponding predicted fringe displacement is

\[N=\frac{c(2\Delta t)}{\lambda} \simeq\boxed{\frac{2Lv^2}{\lambda c^2}}.\]

Michelson and Morley observed no displacement of the predicted size within experimental sensitivity: the outcome was null. No preferred ether rest frame was detected.

The two postulates

Einstein replaced the ether hypothesis by two statements:

  1. Relativity principle: the laws of physics have the same form in every inertial frame.
  2. Light-speed invariance: light in vacuum has the same speed $c$ in every inertial frame, independent of the motion of its source or observer.

The Galilean rule would give $u_x^{\prime}=c-v$ for a light pulse and therefore contradict the second postulate. Space and time must transform together. The next lecture derives that transformation.

Solved Problems

1. Apparent weight in an accelerating frame

A lift accelerates upward at $A=2.00\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}$. Find the apparent weight of a $70.0\ \mathrm{kg}$ passenger, using both the ground frame $S$ and the lift frame $S^{\prime}$. Take upward as positive and $g=9.81\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}$.

In the approximately inertial ground frame, the passenger has acceleration $+A$. If $N$ is the normal reaction,

\[N-mg=mA,\]

so

\[N=m(g+A) =(70.0\ \mathrm{kg})(11.81\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}) =\boxed{826.7\ \mathrm N}.\]

In $S^{\prime}$ the passenger is at rest, so $a^{\prime}=0$. The frame acceleration is $+A$, hence the inertial force is $-mA$:

\[N-mg-mA=0,\]

which gives the same $N=826.7\ \mathrm N$. The upward-support force exceeds $mg$, so the passenger feels heavier. For $A\to0$, $N\to mg$; for free fall, $A\to-g$ and $N\to0$.

2. Predicted Michelson–Morley fringe shift

An ether model assigns an interferometer equal effective arm length $L=11.0\ \mathrm m$, wavelength $\lambda=500\ \mathrm{nm}$, and drift speed $v=30.0\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$. Take $c=3.00\times10^8\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-1}}$ and calculate the shift after a $90^\circ$ rotation.

All speeds are measured in the assumed ether frame. Here

\[\beta=\frac vc=1.00\times10^{-4}.\]

The exact pre-relativistic round-trip times are

\[t_{\parallel}=\frac{2L/c}{1-\beta^2}, \qquad t_{\perp}=\frac{2L/c}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}.\]

Numerically,

\[t_{\parallel}=7.333333407\times10^{-8}\ \mathrm s, \qquad t_{\perp}=7.333333370\times10^{-8}\ \mathrm s,\]

so one orientation has $\Delta t=3.667\times10^{-16}\ \mathrm s$. Rotation reverses this delay, giving an optical-path change $2c\Delta t$. Therefore

\[N=\frac{2c\Delta t}{\lambda} \simeq\frac{2Lv^2}{\lambda c^2} =\boxed{0.440\ \text{fringe}}.\]

The positive sign denotes the predicted displacement from exchanging the parallel and transverse arms; the opposite rotation gives the opposite displacement. The effect is second order in $v/c$, so $N\to0$ as $v\to0$. The observed null result was therefore physically significant at the instrument’s quoted sensitivity.

Descriptive Questions

  1. Distinguish inertial and non-inertial frames by applying Newton’s first law, and explain why inertial forces are required in an accelerating frame.
  2. Derive the longitudinal and transverse round-trip light times predicted by the stationary-ether model.
  3. Explain why rotating a Michelson interferometer through $90^\circ$ doubles the change in relative travel time.
  4. State Einstein’s two postulates and identify the conflict between light-speed invariance and Galilean velocity transformation.

Numerical Problems

  1. A $3.00\ \mathrm{kg}$ body experiences a net force of $12.0\ \mathrm N$ in an inertial frame. A second frame translates at constant velocity relative to it. Find the acceleration measured in each frame. Answer: $4.00\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}$ in both frames.
  2. A $2.00\ \mathrm{kg}$ body is at rest at radius $0.500\ \mathrm m$ on a platform rotating uniformly at $4.00\ \mathrm{rad\,s^{-1}}$. Find the centrifugal force in the platform frame. Answer: $F_{\rm cf}=m\omega^2r=16.0\ \mathrm N$ radially outward.
  3. In the ether calculation take $v=0.600c$. Express $t_{\parallel}$ and $t_{\perp}$ as multiples of $2L/c$. Answer: $t_{\parallel}=1.5625(2L/c)$ and $t_{\perp}=1.2500(2L/c)$.
  4. A railway carriage starts accelerating along $+x$ at $2.50\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}$. A puck, initially at rest relative to the carriage, is released on a frictionless floor. Find its carriage-frame displacement from the release point after $4.00\ \mathrm s$. Answer: $x^{\prime}=-\tfrac12At^2=-20.0\ \mathrm m$; the puck falls behind the accelerating carriage.
  5. An interferometer with $L=10.0\ \mathrm m$ and $\lambda=500\ \mathrm{nm}$ has a predicted shift $N=0.100$. Infer the ether-drift speed from the small-$\beta$ formula. Answer: $v=1.50\times10^4\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-1}}=15.0\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$.
  6. A light ray moves along $+x$ while a rocket moves in the same direction at $0.400c$. Find the ray speed in the rocket according to Galilean kinematics and according to Einstein’s second postulate. Answer: $0.600c$ (Galilean); $c$ (special relativity).

The derivations and all problem values are checked in the Maxima worksheet; every printed residual is zero.

References

  1. “Michelson–Morley experiment,” Wikipedia.
  2. A. P. French, Special Relativity, 1st ed., MIT Introductory Physics Series, W. W. Norton, 1968, Chapter 2, “Perplexities in the Propagation of Light.”
  3. David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2017, Chapter 12, §12.1, “The Special Theory of Relativity.”
© Rajesh Kumar, SKMU · Physics Lecture Notes · rajeshphy.github.io

Discussion

Share This Page