eT). 1 EDUC, 1996, VoL 18, No, §, 6154629 Alternative conceptions in Galilean relativity: inertial and non-inertial observers Jayashree Ramadas, Shrish Barve, and Arvind Kumar, Homi Bhabha ‘Centre for Science Education, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India “This concadng par fa ty om Gaiam rea fans an tent? notions with rp tthe ‘pel ad ori arer of aes freer. See Pe a 1984, ama a. 199. “Feu hdr opine nr Sci tale sal crac ‘tsven fume sane poi fres to agin free. Cov fr essere ih ‘eg bce rte an ith ong fame: th err cae bythe Sete fe ‘Stecuralabece Anthrpomnephe ceria odes jer cstencet cna ce, wc [Pith ee eiton the eof Newtons hd tw) oth open fren aig ot, Introduction "The first two parts of this study dealt with students notions on ‘eames of reference’ (Panse e al. 1994) and Galilean transformations (Ramadas et al. in press). This concluding part probes student’ conceptions regarding inertial and non-inertial character of frames of reference and pseudo-frces, particularly the centrifugal force, “Alternative frameworks onthe centrifugal force at amore elementary level have been the subject of some earlier studies (eg. Gardner 1984), ‘Qualitative phenomenology of alternative conceptions A pilot version of a free-response test was administered to 17 college students, Alter certain modifications, the text (Appendix A) was administered to a sample ‘of 29 physics undergraduates from a Bombay college. Four studen's were selected for clinical interviews. Qualitative analysis of the data led to the following ‘phenomenology of alternative conceptions (A). AC) A frame is inertial if you are with it; noninertial if, chen looked at rom “outside, i je rotatinglacelrating "That Newon’s first law of dynamics defines an inertial frame is frequently stressed in physice teaching. What is perhaps rarely emphasized is the negative assertion: there is no a priori kinematic eriterion for deciding if a feame is inertial oF nor-inertil. Lack of appreciation of this fandamental point is germane to many alternative conceptions examined in cis paper. Thus when ealled upon to comment ‘on the inertial or non-inertial nature of a frame of reference in partiular situations, ‘students readily invent some simplistic kinematic eritera for the purpose16 eseancit meron ‘The recurrent view that emerges is that a frame is inertial if tis ‘stationary’ or if i may be considered stationary for the purpose at hand. By this erterion, regardless of what frame of reference one consider, if you perform experiments ‘on ito ‘near it, the motion of the fame i ivelevant, and hence the fame is inert [A variant ofthe same view in the context of Q.7 i thatthe earth's velocity is lange and the relative velocities of the bodies on it are much smaller; hence the earth's frame i inertial for terrestrial experiments. Yet another variant relates the inertial [property ofa frame to the relative ‘messes’ ofthe bodies and the frame: the earth's Frame is inertial for terzestral experiments since the earth i far more massive than other bodies omit (See also Ac (1) below.) ‘Why isthe earth then a non-inertial frame for astronomical observations? Well, 1s Jong as you are on it, you do not see its mation; so tis inertial If you want to Seethe motion ofthe frame, you must o ‘outside the fame to judge its non-nertal chiracter. From ‘outside’ the earth's frame, we know itis revalving and rotating Hence” the earth is non-inertisl for astronomical observations. ‘These lines paraphrase a rather common view that emerged from students responses. The view embodies both Ac (1) and Ac (vit) regarding localization of frames. AC (a) Some rotations are real, some apport Asit happens, Ac (11) sa correct conception in physics unlike uniform mation which Js relative, rotation and acceleration are absolute, i. ascertainable from measure- ‘ments relative toa frame, We ell ian alternative conception, nonetheless, brause students! responses suggest that their ‘correct™ conception ‘was an extension t0 ‘otational motion of the idea ofthe ‘real-apparentmes: of (translational) motion Aiggnosed earlier (Panse eta. 1994). “Markers for Ac (1) ate the views (in the context of C4) thatthe man outside the merry-go-round is actually a rest, the centrifugal force on the rotating man (in the ‘merry-go-round’ fame) ie “apparent” and the claim thatthe man is rotating with opposite © (angular velocity) is wrong. In Q.3, AC (11) is justified” in tems of the relative masse ofthe sun and the earth, akin to the way the earths inertial nature for terrestrial experiment is “explained Tei the att tha rotates round the sun, because mass of the ert is very sll compared to the mus ofthe sunt quite obvious tha parle with mall mat can ‘The conflict berween real-apparentness of rotation and the principle of relativity is sometimes resolved by invoking a tied (neutral) obwervers “Tee become a third person” and go avay from the earth, and fe remain a et, then we wil leary be ele to ey thatthe sun alo rest andthe ject which moving the earth One cannot fail to draw a close parallel between this student's third person! and the [Newtonian conception ofa frame of absohite rest (ether) AC (1) All motion i relative (Ulerarelativom) ‘One unexpected outcome ofthis study is the realization that a student well aware ‘of the principle of relativity can carry it to an extreme: all frame of reference ate fn the sume footing. A(t) the opposite of AC (1). Relative tothe earth, the sun ‘moves across the sky, Relative tothe sun, the earth moves, and there is nothing toALTERZTIVE CONCEPTIONS IN GALILEAN RELATIVITY ony prefer one description tothe other. When aed in aninterview why the sunis usually Considered to be a better frame of reference, the student sbi that this was because the sun was at the centre of ur planetary system, What ifthe sun had just one planet? ‘Would the sun's frame be still preferable? It is usta system of two bodies rotating about eich other, replied the student, ‘Why should the frame of reference of one body be more privileged than the other?” [AC (it) isa standard conception of physics in that it is possible to formulate laws of physics which manifestly show equivalence ofall frames of reference (general theory of relativity). But that is not the sense in which it is held by students, Tn the coarse sens of denying absolute acceleration/rotation and banishing the distinction betweeninertial and non-inertial observers, ltra-relativiem can rightly be called sn alternative conception, at variance with physics. AC (WY) Inertial or non-inertial characteris relative property betseen frames of reference If a frame of reference $ is inertial, Galilean transformations (more generally, Lorentztransformations) ensure that any other frame moving uniformly eelative 10 Sis lso inertial. In the teaching of relativity, itis very customary t consider “two with AC (i. "This origin of Ac (1) is merely our conjecture; but its existence i a fact: "The same frame of reference, say 5), may be moving with uniform velocity with respect © another frame of reference 3, but it may not be moving with uniform velocity with respect a third frame of references, Thus is inertal with respect 102 butnon- inertial with respect to 8.""This binary attribute was als seen to satisfy reciprocity: the student held the view (Q.4) that for the man outside, the child js rotating and ise non-inertal observer; forthe child the man is roting, hence the ‘man is non-ineral. This sume student also held AC (1) firmly AC (¥) Cemrifugal force acts on rotating objets A common view among students is hat centrifugal force acts on every rotating body. ‘Thusa revolving stone or a child in a merry-go-round are ated upon by centrifugal force, regardless of the frame of reference. Objects which are steady (ike the man ‘outside the merry-go-round) do not have centrifugal foreeon them. Carly the view negates the correct conception that centrifugel foree-a pecudoforce~is to be invoked only in a non-inertial frame of reference. One response indicated that a natural ground for Ac (¥) may be that centrifugal forces perceived asa rection (inthe sense of Newton's third law) tothe centripetal force required to keep a body in circular motion "The origin of Ac (0) probably les in the ‘experience’ of centrifugal force (in a ‘merry-fg-round, ina vehicle negotiating a bend, et.) analsoin wrong instruction Informal observations indicate that AC(¥)is passed on to studentsin connection with the explination of the ‘equilibrium’ of a body in uniform eieular motion. The ‘explanation is right only in the rotating body's frame of reference and not in the laboratory frame™a fact that is rarely emphasized.os ese FORTS AC (F2 Judging forces by anthropomorphic eriteria [A common anthropomorphic criterion is to equate force with its “Teeling! oF physiological ‘experience’ Ifyou are on a merry-go-round you fee! being pushed fout= hence’ theresa centrifugal force on you. By thiserterion, chereisa centrifugal {orceon the child but not on the man the child eels the centrifugal force, the man oes not. ‘AC (Visa natural bu simplistic way of thinking it persists since students are zaely old the important poine thatthe ‘feeling’ ofa force arises only when our body (non-rigid exible system) develops internal stresses o prevent any relative motion ‘between ts various parts Tt is these stresses, not the ne external force, chat give rise to the ‘feling’of force. A less common anthropomorphic criterion for centrifugal force is its related visual effects. You can see the widening between the bars of a merry-go-round as its starts to rotate, hence’ there is a centrifugal force onthe child. "The man on the tground secs the rotating child prested against the seat hence’ thee ia centefugal force on the child in the man’s frame, 4€ (v1) Localizing rotating frames by the extension ofthe associated objects ‘Ac (V1) part of she ener tendency of students to localize a frame of reference (Panse e al. 1994). In ths view, the rotating frame of reference ofa turntable goes tap to the edge of the turntable. "Beyond" that is the inertial frame of the ground. ‘Though students may disown this conception if putin an exaggerated form, it sill shows up implicitly even among well-tained students. One response to Q-4 contained the categorical (and correct) statement that ‘centrifugal force can be ‘considered only for non-inerial frames of reference’, which showed clear absence ‘of Ac (v), Yetin the same response were phrases suchas ‘the child is in the rotating frame of reference’ ‘the man on the ground is inthe inertial frame’ ~clear pointers to the conception of localization, A corollary of AC (VI) shows up naturally in some responses: the man on the ground experiences no centrifugal force since he is ‘outside’ the non-inerial frame of the merry-go-round. 40 (vin) Preudoforces are “apparent” or imaginary forces -A€ (vit) says that centrifugal force actually does not exis; i is merely invoked to ‘explin rotational phenomena. This i a correct conception if, by that, one means ‘thatthe centrifugal force arises not from any material or physical agency, but from the intrinsic nature ofthe Frame of reference. But the s not what i intended by students when they use words ike “apparent or “imaginary” to qualify centrifugal force. A mos telling evidence of AC (Vi!) appeared inan interview when a student was reluctant to cancel a ‘real’ force (like tension) with a pseudo-force like a centrifugal force. Tf the wo forces cancel, why should one feel the centrifugal force at all?” This response indicates AC (1) ao AC (IK) probably arises partly from the linguistic connotation of the word ‘pseudo’. It woul be interesting to test f, by using tems lke “inertial forces’ oF “Trame-dependent forces’, this conception could be remedied. ‘Oneabservation shat emerged fem Q.2 and Q.5 was that for situations involving ‘wanslationel motion, students prefer inerie-based exp anations, while for rotationalALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS IN GALILEAS HELATIVETY 619 Table 1. Ac ( using kinematic criteria, Prevalence Certainty et) Arpt of 4000) : inde Newsnet character ofa * 7 * frame ha 1 be determined from ‘outside? the frame, 8A frame is inerial if you * © 3 perform experiments ‘on i br near i (Gn which ease $Youcan conser ito be Eutiones), © The earth being ve “ si a find hence is fame it Barth's frame i * " a since se velocity i “Compared to that of jects font (and therefore con be hen to be a cman, ‘motion, they invoke pseulo-forces, This tendency is probebly roote ia instruction, and was not probed further Force-option test results “The forced-option test (Appendix B) was administered to a sample of 77 senior physics undergraduates in Bombay. As in the earlier parts ofthe study (Panse et al 1994, Ramadas et al. in press), the Pearson correlation between prevalence end certainty index was strong (0-62, ¢= 0001). Most of the items in this part, however, showed a low certsinty index, perhaps reflecting the higher technical level of the subject. 4c (Ds Using kinematic criteria for judging the inertial or non-inetial character of a frame of reference, "The four different aspects of AC (I) in -#appear in Table I. The consistency between the two aspects A and b of AC () was not particularly good (j2 =2°89, 2 = 009). Aspects © and D are two different ‘justifications’ for the inertial character of the earth's frame. Aspect D is particularly intriguing. The italicized statement in "Table {for Ac ()D is our conjecture about the underlying reason forthe conception. A fairly large proportion of students (58%) agreed with 1b, the correct response Clearly, students’ learnt ideas coexis with the loosely consistent set of kinematic criteria they posses for ascertaining the inertial or non-inertal character ofa fame. 40 (1): Some rotations are real, some apparent. Ie and 1. are comound Results of ac (11) are shown in ‘Table 2. Note that since statements, responses to them are influenced by atpects of aC (tl) and AC (¥) Similarly, responses to Ii and 13k ae influenced by ac (it) and ac (vin). There620 DISEAReH sto Table 2. ac some apparent. Prevalence Certainty Ac Aspects of 00) : Sindee A Some objects aren fact ot st atonary thence no eon a 3 “ hem). On objects which are 4 o st apparently rotating, tk 70 a © Abwolutenes of rotation is 6 a 6 felted to relative mec, ‘high consistency between the responses to I le and 1 3f (= 17-25, ¢=0-0000), and aso between those to. tiand 13k (= 9-41, = 0.002), The difference berween between responses to Ile and 1.3 and also between I liand 1.3k was not signiiant Ie appesrs chat anthropomorphic contests do not materially affect Ac (), AC (1): ALL motion i relative. (Ulorareativiom) Ac (ut) was tested in 1.6b dletly, and somewhat indivectly in tt and 134 (Table 3) Here, again the responses to I.lg and 134 are influenced by sapects of AC (\). The consistency between these responses was found to be low (7! = (32, = 057), ‘Table 3. Ac (im): ultra-relativism. Prevatnce — Certainy ACU Aspects of seu) : andes A All motion ie relatve. ob 38 2 is wrong to say that either the sun or the earth Rotation i elatie Pes 56 Objects rotating relative u EN 2 to a fame experience ef, tionary objects donot, Table 4. Ac (0 inertial/non-inertial nature is relat Prevaloce Certainty ACU) —_Arpecteof ac) inde Uniform ative motion ar 7 implies relative neenines” 1» Relave seceleraton implies 3h “ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS IN GALILEAN RELATIVIY ou AC (1): Inertial or non-inetial characteris @ relative property between ames of reference Results for Ac (1v) are summarized in Table 4. The consistency between aspects A and nofac (1v) was found tobe low (= 21, 6= 0-18), Further, 73%of the students also acexpted the correct alternative. Its clear thatthe inconsisteney between the standard conception and Ac (Wv) isnot appreciated by most studenss 4c (P): Centrifugal force acts on rotating objects ‘Six different aspects of Ac () were tested (Table 5). Within ech group of questions corresponding toagiven aspect, there wasahigh degree of internal corsstency. High prevalence and high certainty of certain aspects of AC (¥), and low prevalence and low certainty of the standard concepts, is an important result of this work, The alternative framework emerging from aspects and 8 of AC (i!) and aspects A, and of ac (v) may be described thus: Centrifugal force acts on rotating object; rotation | may be ral oF apparent; centrifugal force on truly rotating object is real whereas ‘that on an apparently rotating object is apparent. ‘Table §. Ac (¥): rotating objects experience centrifugal force. Prevalence Certainty ac) Annet of 40(0) 1 Inde A Tn labjground Frame, 7s 7% rotating objects have cf, 2 8 o steady objects do not ba te * 8 Rotating object have cin ® sr 6 ‘heir own frame, » & Ee © Nomaner which fame, 1c ° so rotating objects have ef, se & 2 ot stendy object > Not on bodies which are te 6 si Sn ce sationary a Sh “ Beton objects not ‘truly 4 o st ‘ovating is epparent te 0 a Ff and centripetal force » 70 6 te cton-rescton pi. Prevalence Certainty ac(r) Indes ‘26 (0 Han objet ele 3 @ 6 ential force, thers 3 2 3s seh otherwise noton sant ES Table 7. Ac (vi): localizing frames by associated objects. Prevalince Certainty Aspects of ac (00) 1 Inte AC (ON) Fae on an object inside’ Md ry tram not on anebject Se ss ° cide Table 8 Ac (vt): pseudo-forces are not ‘real’ forces. Provalince — Covainty Aspect of ac (em) 1 den AC (VI) ef, being Hetious fore, uo b at tlance rel AC (UD: Judging forces by anthropomorphic eviteria Results for Ac (V1) are summarized in Table 6. Stadens" responses were not very ‘consistent and this finding is dificult to interpre, Despite much effort, questions in the test are sometimes overly suggestive and this lads to guarded responses by the students. We suspect anthropomorphism is mere prevalent than our daca indiate;« more thorough investigation is needed. C(I Localzing rotating frames by the exiension of the asocated objets Results for AC (vil) are given in Table 7. The consistency between the esponses to the wo items was fir (= 589, 2 = 002) 4c (v1): Peeudoforces are “apparent or imaginary forces Results for AC (Wht) ste summarized in Table 8. AC (Cit) by itself is not very prevalent. However, when it combines with real-apparentness of rotation [A¢ (1) iegives se 10 aspect of Ac (V) which has high prevalence es noted earlier, Conclusions physicist decides the inertial nature of a frame of reference by a purely empirical “criterion: the validity of che fis law of motion. (Ifa no-foree situation required by the first la is impractical, the inertial nature ofa frame i tested by seeing ifthe second law works without having to invoke pseudo-forees). Thiseriterion intrinsic, ite. it needs no ather frame for comparison. However, iT some feame of reference, ‘say 5), has been so tested tobe inertia, the inertial or non-inetial character of any ‘other frame (62) can be ascertained by a relative kinenati criterion: is inertial {non-inerta) if it moves uniformly (non-uniformly) with respect to 5 ‘We have seen that students? conceptions respect rether the empirical nor the inteinsic nature of he criteria, Most students opr simplistic a prior criteria ifyou are ‘with’ the frame, it is inertial if from “outside” you se it accelerating or rotating, itnon-inertial. Further, they violate the intrinsic nature of the property by viewingALTERNATIVE CONCHETIONS IN GALILEAN RELATIVITY 623 itas arcltive reciprocal property between two frames. Thislast view combined with the (leamt) principle of relativity ean sometimes lead to ultra-relatiism, where al, frames of reference are considered equivalent (in naive sense) and the distinction ‘between inertial and non-inertal frames is banished. ‘Students’ @ prior kinematic criteria in a way implicitly subsume their other ‘important alternative frameworks based on localization of frames 0” reference and anthropomorphic reasoning, These later conceptions, however, shew up indepen ently and markedly in connection with situations involving rotating frames and ‘entrifgl forces, When these frameworks combine with students” value judge- ments an real and apparent motion, they result in the variety of confusions and Inconsistencies students display in dealing with simple problems on inertial and References Ganoyea, P-L. (1984) Circular motion: some post-instrctigna alternative feameworks Paper proseaed st the conference of the Australian Science Education Research Amocation, Melbourne Panst,S: RANADAS,J and KUMAR, A. (194) Akernative conceptions in Galilean ela eames of reference, Interntinel Jourtalof Science Edenton, 16 (1), 63-82 Rawabad, J, Bake, S. and KUMa, A” (1998) Alternative conceptsns in Galilean elas: distance, time, energy and ws. Iaerntional Journal of Science Eauction, 183), 363-475 Appendix A. ‘The fee response test Q.1, Image yourself siting steady in a rotating merry-go-round. In which rection do you feel yourself being pushed? Why? Then what prevents our ration in that direction? (Q.2. Imagine yourself sitting in an accelerating bus, facing forwards. In which irection do your feel youself being pushed? Why? ‘Phen what prevents ‘your motion in that direction? Q.3, Motion, itis said, is relative. For example, onthe earth's frame of reference, ‘the sun moves across the sky each day from east to west; while in the sun’s frame of reference the earth rotates about its axis. Yet we insist thatthe ‘motion of the sun around the earth is apparent, and it the earth chat ‘ually rotates. What isthe basis for this preference? (Please ignore the presence of other planets in the solar system.) (QA. A child is sitting in a rotating merry-go-round and a man in standing on the ground, In the ground’ frame of reference is there a centrifugal foree ‘on the child? In the child’ frame of reterence, is there a centrifugal force ‘on the man? Explain, QS. Atzainis moving uniformly. A ball reseson the floor ofthe an, Ifthe train “Slows down sddenly, describe and explain the motion of theball both from the poinc of view of train observer and a ground observe. Ignore friction. (6, A'stone is ted to. string and rotated uniformly ina horizonal circle. Is ‘the following statement true? ‘The tension in the string and the centifgal force on the stone are equal and opposite, and therefore keep the stone in equilibrium,’ Explain your answer,out Iseanet weno QZ. Iris said thatthe earth is an inertial frame for most verre but non-inertal frame for astronomical observations, How can the same Frame of reference be inertial for one purpose and non-inertal for another? Explain Appendix B ‘The forced option text and results, In the various problem situations below, a series of satements are given. Some of these statements ae followed by the options ‘a b,c, d- Please seleet one ofthe four ‘options by circling i, using che Following key a: ‘The statement is definitely true. by: Not sure, bus the statement might possibly be tue : Not sure, but the statement appears to be wrong 4: The statement is definitly untrue (or) it does not make sense ‘Consider the statements only in the given sequence. Do not go back to any question ‘hat you have already read [The results are summarized in tems of the percentages of students who agreed with, disagreed with, or gave no response to the given statement. The correct Fesponse are underlined.) “Agree Disagree No response eo * Figure 1 LL A turmuble kept on a platform rotates clockwise with a constant angular Speed. Coin I rests on the rotating {rntable, while coin 2 rests on the platform. (see Figure 1) 1a, Inthe lb frame, there is a centrifagal force on the rotating coin [bur noton the stationary coin 2 sD 3 1b, In the rotating turntable's frame, there isa centrifugal force on coin 1 ‘bur not on coin 2 7 0 3ALTHRATIVE CONCEPTIONS IN GALILEAN RELATIVITY eas Agree Disagree No response as ‘® Ie. Nomatter which frame, there is centrifugal foree on coin 1 but not on eoin 2 9 8 3 1d, ‘There is no centrifugal foree on coin 2 in ether frame, because coin 2 is ‘outside the turntable. Crt 1 Je, There i no centrifugal force on coin 2 in either frame, because coin 2 is in fact stationary. a 6 a 1, In the Iab frame there is no centrifugal foree on either coin 1 oF enin 2. nu 5 1g. Inthe rotating turntable’ frame coin 2, which appears to rotate (anticlockwise) has a centrifugal Taree, but coin 1, which is stationary swith respect tothe frame, does not have centrifugal free w3 3 th, In the rotating turntable's frame, both coins land 2 have centrifugal force 3 3 1i, The centrifugal foree on coin 2 in the rotating frame is only apparent (ce. itreally does not exit), because coin 2 is actualy at rest, oe 5 12 Astone is tied ta string and rotated uniformly in 8 horizontal circle, 2a. Inthe lab frame, there ie « centrifugal force on the rotating stone. Bo ° 2, The centripetal force (due to tension in the string) and the ‘centrifugal force on the stone fare equal and opposite by ‘Newton's TH lave, 7m 30 ° 2c. Tn the rotating stone's frame, the centsfugal force an the Stone is balanced by the force dduc to tension 2d. Centrifugal force cannot balance tension because centrifugal force fietitious force; it cannot balance a ral force like tension a ‘ ” 4