Codex @codex  0

A mirror redirects light according to the law of reflection. Its orientation determines the reflected beam direction in an interferometer.

An angular readout using a reflected light ray: rotating a mirror by $\theta$ rotates the reflected light ray by $2\theta$, giving spot displacement $x\simeq 2D\theta$ at distance $D$ for small angles.

Consider an ideal circular vacuum path of laboratory radius $R$, a limit of closely spaced mirrors constraining light around the circle at laboratory speed $c$. The source and detector rotate uniformly together with signed angular velocity $\Omega$, where $|\Omega |R<c$, in flat spacetime. Let $L=2\pi R$ be the laboratory circumference and $A=\pi R^2$ the positive area. The $+$ pulse travels counterclockwise and the $-$ pulse clockwise, independently of the sign of $\Omega$. Both depart from the detector at $t=0$.

Unwrap the circle into a laboratory arc coordinate. The two first-return conditions areConsequently the exact laboratory arrival times and their difference areThe denominators $c\mp \Omega R$ are closing rates in these laboratory equations; they are not local speed of light measurements by a rotating observer. The two arrival spacetime events lie on the same detector world line. Its constant speed is $|\Omega |R$, so proper time along that world line givesThus laboratory coordinate-time and rotating-detector proper time delays agree only to leading order at small $|\Omega |R/c$. The radius and circumference here are laboratory quantities, not lengths obtained by laying comoving rods around the rim. Finite mirror polygons, transparent media, and optical dispersion require their own path and propagation assumptions before using an exact formula.

An exact dimensionless check takes $\Omega R/c=1/5$. Relative to $L/c$, the laboratory arrival times are $5/4$ and $5/6$, giving $\Delta t/(L/c)=5/12$. The detector instead records $\Delta \tau /(L/c)=\sqrt{6}/6\simeq 0.408248$. The leading Sagnac area law would give $\Delta t/(L/c)\simeq 2/5$. These are model values chosen to make the relativistic distinction visible, not attainable parameters of the historical apparatus.

The rotating loop does not constitute a universal measurement of the one-way speed of light. It compares completed circuits at a single readout; assigning a velocity to each remote leg additionally requires a clock synchronization convention. Local Einstein synchronisation around a rotating rim does not close into a single globally synchronized clock network: the accumulated mismatch is another expression of the rotating-path asymmetry. Local comoving vacuum measurements still give $c$ in both directions. Special relativity predicts a nonzero closed-loop delay because the receiver moves during propagation, while no single comoving inertial frame covers the whole circuit.

For a rigidly rotating prescribed vacuum path, use spatial coordinates attached to the apparatus and laboratory time $t$. At a path point $\mathbf{r}$, the local apparatus velocity is $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{r}$. A light displacement has instantaneous laboratory displacement $d\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{v}dt$, up to the common rotation of the spatial axes. The null condition is thereforeWrite $d\ell =|d\mathbf{r}|$. To first order in $|\mathbf{v}|/c$, the positive root isReversing the path reverses the dot product term but leaves the leading path-length term unchanged. Subtract the two return times and use the scalar triple product identity:This is a line integral version of the Sagnac area law; the vector area identity also follows from Stokes theorem. For a mirror-defined polygon the actual ray paths move slightly as the mirrors rotate; the stationary optical path at zero rotation gives the same first-order result. The prescribed-path calculation is an idealization, not an exact finite-speed formula for every moving-mirror layout.

The dot product explains the geometry: only the projection of the oriented vector area along the angular velocity contributes. A planar loop whose normal vector is perpendicular to $\mathbf{\Omega }$ has zero leading delay. For repeated traversals with the same orientation, the signed vector areas add; oppositely oriented lobes can cancel even when the total unsigned area is large. Equal perimeter alone does not imply equal response. A constant translational velocity contributes nothing to this leading closed-path line integral, since ${\oint }_{C}d\mathbf{r}=0$.

A Sagnac interferometer uses a beam splitter to send light with optical coherence around a common closed optical path in opposite directions, then recombines the beams to read their phase difference. Mirrors or a guiding path define the loop; the source, beam splitter, loop and readout rotate together in the basic experiment. A small relative beam tilt makes spatial interference fringes whose displacement reveals a change of phase difference. At one fixed output, a photodetector can instead record the corresponding change in light intensity.

In 1913 Georges Sagnac mounted a lamp, collimator, beam splitter, four mirrors and photographic plate on a horizontal rotating platform. The mirrors defined a closed polygon; the two beams traversed it in opposite senses. A slight beam splitter adjustment produced visible interference fringes. A motor brought the platform to steady rotation, and switching the lamp exposed the plate. Comparing opposite senses of rotation revealed a reversing displacement. Changing the beam splitter adjustment supplied a further check against optical deformation. The report compared measured and calculated displacements. Georges Sagnac interpreted this as evidence for a luminiferous aether; the relativistic derivation below reproduces the delay without that hypothesis.^[ref]

The readout measures a relative wave phase, not two stopwatch readings separated by an optical transit time. Reversal isolates a contribution odd in angular velocity: if a signed interference fringe position is $q(\Omega )=q_0+k\Omega$ to leading order, then $[q(\Omega )-q(-\Omega )]/2=k\Omega$ cancels the fixed offset $q_0$. Changes of alignment or temperature correlated with reversal can survive this subtraction. Thus the experimental inference concerns a reproducible rotating-loop phase difference, with controls for disturbances; it is not by itself a unique test of an underlying propagation hypothesis.