Unit-8

Special theory of
Relativity-II
Michelson-Morley Experiment

Michelson and Morley  (1887)

Idea behind the experiment:
If ether really exists  reasonable to determine how fast
earth is moving through ether
Theoretical Basis:

Suppose, velocity of earth through stationary ether  v
velocity of light  c

Light emitted from a source fixed on earth  direction of
propagation same as direction of earth’s motion

Then velocity of light relative to earth  c − v

If light travels in exactly opposite direction of the earth’s motion,
then

velocity of light relative to earth  c + v

If the distance travelled by light  L
L

Then time of travel in direction of the motion of earth 
c−v
L

and time of travel in opposite direction 
c+v

Total time travel of light signal:

L L 2cL
t|| = + = 2 2 (1)
c+v c−v c −v

Consider next, B B'

ray of light propagated ⊥ earth’s motion

While, this ray travels a distance: L ct L

L = AB

In the same time t, point A on A A' A''
vt v
earth has moved to A', and
point B moved to B' (for an observer in ether frame)

Then AB′ = ct B B'

AA′ = vt
In right-angled ∆: c 2t 2 = L2 + v 2t 2
( )
L ct L
or t 2 c 2 − v 2 = L2
L
t=
(c 2 − v 2 )
A vt A' A'' v

Since light signal takes the same time to travel from B' to A'',
then total time of travel in perpendicular direction:
2L
t⊥ = (2)
(c 2 − v 2 )

Then ratio of equations (1) and (2):

t|| 2cL c2 − v2
= 2 2⋅
t⊥ c − v 2L
t|| 1
= (3)
t⊥ 1 − (v c )
2 2

and difference of equations (1) and (2):

2cL 2L
t|| − t ⊥ = −
c2 − v2 (c 2 − v 2 )
2cL 2L
t|| − t ⊥ = 2 −
c (1 − v c ) c (1 − v 2 c 2 )
2 2

2L  1 1 
=  − 
c  (1 − v c )
2 2
(1 − v c ) 
2 2
Using Binomial theorem, the terms in bracket can be written as:

1 v2
= 1+ 2 + ⋅⋅⋅⋅
1 − (v c )
2 2
c
1 1 v2
and = 1+ 2 + ⋅⋅⋅⋅
1 − (v c )
2 2 2c

2L  v2 1 v2 
therefore t|| − t ⊥ = 1 + 2 − 1 − 2 
c  c 2c 
L v2
t|| − t ⊥ = ∆t = ⋅ 2 (4)
c c
Experiment
2

The difference and the ratio both depend on (v c )

Orbital velocity of earth, v = 3 × 10 4 m/s
and c = 3 ×108 m/s
−8
⇒ v / c = 10 −4 and (v / c) = 10
2

Effect should be difficult to detect!

Purpose of the experiment  to detect the motion of the earth
relative to the hypothetical medium ether
M2

Michelson and Morley (1887) developed an

interferometer:

PM1 = PM2= L P M1
S
P  half-silvered mirror *

arm PM1 ⊥ arm PM2
Screen
and if one arm || direction of earth’s motion
 M2

During experiment  apparatus also
moves with the earth with velocity v
2
⇒Total travel time for beam “1” is
P 1 M1
given by eq. (1) S
*

also travel time for beam “2” is
given by eq. (2) Screen

Comparing expressions (1) and (2), two light beams 1 and 2

takes different times to cover round trips

the time difference given by:
M2
2
L v
t|| − t ⊥ = ∆t = ⋅ 2
c c
P P

position of fringe pattern depends on
absolute velocity of earth  pattern 0

should be displaced from position

corresponding to v = 0

If interferometer is rotated though 90°, the fringe pattern is shifted
in opposite direction

Observing the pattern during rotation of interferometer, the shift
should correspond to time interval:

2L v 2
∆t = ⋅ 2
c c

Path difference corresponding to time difference:

2 Lv 2
∆xrot = c∆t = 2 (5)
c

Condition for constructive interference: ∆x = ∆nλ
where ∆n is number of fringes.
∆nλ
so ∆t = (6)
c

From equations (5) and (6), displacement in pattern in terms of
number of fringes:
∆nλ 2 L v 2
= ⋅ 2
c c c
or 2L v2
∆n = ⋅ 2 (7)
λ c
Experimental values: L = 11 m
λ = 5.9 ×10 −7 m
v 2 c 2 = 10 −8
2 ×11× 10 −8
Using (7): ∆n = −7
= 0.37
5.9 × 10

So when interferometer was rotated by 90°, the fringes should
have been shifted by more than 1/3rd of a wavelength.

The experiment could detect displacement 100th of this amount!

Michelson and Morley experiment  expected fringe shift did
not appear

Experiment repeated many times with greater accuracy during

different parts of the day and different seasons of the year
→ no fringe shift was detected
⇒ result of the experiment  null or negative

If ether exists  the result implies earth’s velocity relative to ether

is zero.

Negative result of experiment  contradiction of Galilean law of
addition of velocity

All attempts to explain the negative result  unsatisfactory

Over the years  many explanations  None satisfactory!

Einstein (1879–1955)

Concepts of space and time of classical physics no longer true

could not be truly applied to bodies moving at speed of light

Difficulty to be resolved  to choose amongst three alternatives:

1. The Galilean transformation correct  something wrong with

Maxwell’s equations.

2. The Galilean transformation applies only to Newtonian mechanics.

3. The Galilean transformation, and the Newtonian principle of relativity

based on this transformation were wrong  there existed a new
relativity principle valid for both mechanics and electromagnetism
that was not based on the Galilean transformation.

Which to choose?
i) Maxwell’s equations  totally successful in application.
ii) Unacceptable  could not be restricted to only one set of natural
phenomena; physics was a unified subject.
iii) Einstein set about trying to uncover a new principle of relativity.

Einstein – 1905  Paper ‘on electrodynamics of moving bodies’

→ Special Theory of Relativity
(physical theory of space and time)
Einstein’s Postulates
Einstein proposed two postulates:
Postulate 1.  ‘The Principle of Relativity’
The laws of physical phenomena are the same when
stated in terms of either of two reference systems
moving at constant velocity relative to each other.
Implication  no experiment whether based on laws of
mechanics or laws of electromagnetism from which it is
possible to determine whether or not a frame of reference
is in a state of uniform motion
 rejects the idea of absolute space and absolute
motion
Postulate 2.  ‘The Universal Speed of Light’
The velocity of light in free space is the same for all
observers, and is independent of relative velocity of the
source of light and the observer.
Implication  the speed of light in vacuum is an invariant quantity

Immediate consequence of two postulates  speed of light is the
same in all inertial frames of reference
S

2 inertial frames, S and S’
 S’ moving with velocity vx
S'
 S stationary relative to source vx
of light

By postulate 2, S measures the speed of light to be c.

For S’, situation indistinguishable by postulate 1

both S and source of light moving
with relative velocity, -vx S
-vx

By postulate 2, S’ should also
measures the speed of light to S'
-vx
be c.

Before proceeding further with consequences of these two
postulates 

how we measure time in an inertial frame of reference

Clock Synchronization in an Inertial Frame

Assume all of space filled with clocks  one for each point
in space

separate set of clocks for each set of rulers

A number of clocks measure time of occurrence of an

event  clocks must be synchronized

Useful to compare times of events that occur at two spatially
different points

Speed of light precisely known  assumed to be constant every
where in free space

Assume a master clock at origin:
y P(x,y,z)

at some instant t0 = 0, a spherical flash
of light emitted from the source at O
d
 Reaches at P(x, y, z) distance d away
O x
from origin

z

Clock at P adjusted to read
t = d /c
since d 2 = x2 + y2 + z 2
⇒ x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = c 2t 2

all the clocks throughout the frame of reference, then may be
synchronised
Lorentz Transformation

To investigate  how the coordinates of an event as measured
in one frame of reference are related to the coordinates of the
event in another frame of reference
⇒ The relation ship  Lorentz Transformation

General form of the transformation law  must take from

kinematic/symmetry considerations.

Consider two frames of reference  S and S’

Velocity of S’ relative to S  v y y'

Motion of S'  along x direction S S'

Let an event occur anywhere: v

O x'
O'

measured in S at point (x, y, z, t)
z z'

measured in S' at point (x', y', z', t')

Any distance measured perpendicular to x direction should be
same in both frames.

therefore y = y′ and z = z′ (8)

When two frames coincide  set t = t' =0

In general x′ = f ( x, t )
therefore dx′ = f x dx + f t dt
(where fx is the partial derivative of f with respect to x, and
similarly for ft)

assuming space and time homogenous  partial derivatives
are constants

Assume that ( x, t ) and ( x′, t ′) are related by the linear
transformations:
x′ = Ax + Bt (9)
t ′ = Cx + Dt (10)

Consider the origin O′ of S’  at x′ = 0

Therefore Eq. (9) gives: Ax + Bt = 0
where x and t are the coordinates of O' as measured in S
x B
so =− (velocity of O' as measured in S)
t A
B
therefore v=− → B = −vA (11)
A

Substituting in Eq. (9): x′ = A( x − vt ) (12)

Solving Eq. (9) and (10) for x and t:
x′ Bt
From (9): x= −
A A
 x′ Bt 
Substituting in (10): t ′ = C  −  + Dt
A A
At ′ − Cx′
Rearranging the term: t= (13)
AD − BC
 At ′ − Cx′ 
Substituting in (9): x′ = Ax + B 
 AD − BC 
Dx′ − Bt ′
Simplifying: x=
AD − BC
Dx′ + vAt ′
Putting B = −vA in numerator: x = (14)
AD − BC

Now consider the origin O of the reference frame S, i.e. x = 0
Dx′ + vAt ′
Then Eq. (14): =0
AD − BC
vA x′
or − = = −v (15)
D t′
(O moving with velocity −v w.r.t. S')

or A=D (16)

So using Eqs. (11) and (16), we can write (14) and (13) as
transformation laws for S' to S:
A( x′ + vt ′)
x= 2
A + vAC
(17)
A(t ′ − (C / A)x′)
t=
A2 + vAC

Also we can write Eqs. (12) and (10) as transformation laws for
S'to S':
x′ = A( x − vt )
(18)
t ′ = A(t + (C / A)x )

Compare (17) and (18):  velocity of S' w.r.t. S is v

velocity of S w.r.t. S' is −v
Isotropy of space  there is no difference in the transformation
laws relating the coordinates of an event in a reference frame to
those of the event in a frame moving to the left or to the right,
apart from a change in the sign of v

So (18) can be obtained from (17) by swapping primed and

unprimed variables, and changing the sign of v.
then A2 + vAC = 1 (19)
Also comparing (17) and (18):

C/ A∝v  to guarantee the change in sign that

occurs in passing from the expression for t
to the one for t’.

We can write Eq. (19) as: A2 (1 + v(C / A)) = 1

1
or A=
1 + vC / A
as v∝C/A Try substitution: C / A = −v / V 2
1
so A= (V has units of velocity) (20)
1 − (v / V )
2
 Then using Eqs. (8) and (18), transformation equations become:
( x − vt )
x′ =
1 − (v / V )2
y′ = y
(21)
z′ = z

t′ =
(
t − vx / V 2 )
1 − (v / V )2

Transformations (21)  general result

V still undefined

transformation laws  relate coordinate systems for two different
inertial frames of reference

For V = ∞  the transformation equations reduce to
Galilean transformation!

V can be determined:

Postulate 2.  The velocity of light in free space is the same for all
observers, and is independent of relative velocity of the
source of light and the observer.

Suppose when the two origins coincide
 clocks at O and O' both read zero

Also suppose at t = t’ = 0  a flash of light emitted at coincident

O and O'

In frame S  flash of light measured as lying on a spherical
shell centred on O, whose radius growing at the speed c.

According to second postulate 
in the frame of reference S',  flash of light also measured as
lying on a spherical shell centred on O' (radius also growing at
speed c)

In S  if spherical shell passes a point P (x, y, z) at time t, then
by definition of synchronization:
x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = c 2t 2
or x 2 + y 2 + z 2 − c 2t 2 = 0 (22)

Similarly, in S' due to synchronization:

x′ 2 + y ′ 2 + z ′ 2 − c 2 t ′ 2 = 0 (23)

to find how the two sets of coordinates (x, y, z, t) and

(x', y', z', t') are related so that Eqs. (22) and (23) hold true,

substitute expressions (21) in (23):

( x − vt )
2
c (t − (vx / V ))
2 2 2
+y +z −
2 2
=0
1 − (v / V )2
1 − (v / V )2

This must reduce to Eq. (22).

 Simplifying:

( 
)
2  2
( x − vt )2 + y 2 + z 2 1 − 2  − c 2  t − 2  = 0
v vx
 V   V 

(
 v2  2 2 2 2 v2
)
2
c
x + v t − 2 xvt + y + z 1 − 2  − c t − c x 4 + 2vxt 2 = 0
2 2 2 2 2

 V  V V


( )
2   v2  2 2 2 2 2
v c
x 2 1 − c 2 4  + y 2 + z 2 1 − 
 V 2  − c t + v t − 2 xvt + 2vxt V 2 = 0
 V   
To reduce this to (22), putting V = c, We get:

(x 2 + y 2 + z 2 ) (1 − (v / c )2 )− c 2t 2 (1 − (v / c )2 ) = 0
or x 2 + y 2 + z 2 − c 2t 2 = 0
Therefore, using V = c in Eqs. (21), we can define:
1
γ= (24)
1 − (v / c )
2

So we have final form of transformations with light always

observed travelling with speed c in all frames of reference.

x′ = γ ( x − vt )
Equations of
Lorentz
y′ = y (25)
transformation: z′ = z
( (
t′ = γ t − v / c2 x ))

We can find the inverse transformation for x, y, z, and t in terms
of x', y', z', and t':
x = γ ( x′ + vt ′)
y = y′
(26)
z = z′
( ( ) )
t = γ t ′ + v / c 2 x′

Lorentz did not assign a physical significance to transformation
equations.

Einstein realised the significance and derived the equations without

reference to Maxwell’s equations.

Two immediate conclusions:

• Suppose v > c → frame S' moving with speed greater that
speed of light
then, γ 2 <1 ⇒ γ is imaginary → both position and time are
imaginary  (must be real)

Therefore, no material object can be accelerated to speed greater

than c.
• for v << c → γ ≈ 1
so equations of Lorentz transformation → equations of Galilean
transformation
• Transformation of time ⇒ moving clocks run slow
Problems

(1) An event ‘1’ occurs at x1 = 20 m, t1 = 2 × 10–8s and event ‘2’

occurs at x2 = 60 m, t2 = 3 × 10–8s in frame S. A frame S’ moves
relative to S with velocity 0.6 c along the common axis xx'.
(i) What is the spatial separation of the events in frame S’ ?
(ii) What is the time interval between the two events?
(47. 75 m, – 8.75 × 10–8 s)
(2) The space-time coordinates of two events 1 and 2 in a frame S are
x1= 24 m, t1 = 8 × 10–8s and x2 = 48 m, t2 = 4 × 10–8s. Find the velocity
of the frame S' in which both the events occur simultaneously.
(– 0.5c)