RELATIMTY An Introduction to the Special Theory Asghar Qadir Department of Mathematics Quaid-Azam University Pekistan Ww World Scientific Singapore * New Jersey * London * Hong KongPublished by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., P.O Box 128, Farrer Road, Singapore 9128 USA office: 687 Hartwell Street, Teaneck, NJ 07666 UK office: 73 Lynton Mead, Totteridge, London N20 8DH RELATIVITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL THEORY Copyright © 1989 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Alll rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo- copying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher. ISBN 9971-50-612-2 Printed in Singapore by Loi Printing Pte. Ltd.Dedicated to my wife RABIYA QADIRPREFACE This book is based on a series of lectures I gave for M.Sc. students repeatedly over the years at the Department of Mathematics, Quaid- i-Azam University, Islamabad. These lectures evolved according to the needs of the students whom I taught. The background of the students was very different from that of Western students at a similar level. The problem was, keeping the lectures largely self-contained, to develop the background required for Special Relativity more or less from scratch. Of course, this development must be made in a finite time — one semester, to be precise. On the presumption that these problems are faced throughout the Third World, I decided to publish this book with a press that could make it available for the Third World. It is hoped that this book will be useful, not only in the Third World, but everywhere. It is aimed at an audience making its first real contact with the Special Theory of Relativity. A background of matrices and vectors, of differential and integral calculus and the rudiments of group theory is assumed. Virtually no background in Physics is assumed except for some Classical Mechanics and a nod- ding acquaintance with the formalisms of Lagrange and Hamilton. A word of explanation is in order as to why the General Theory of Relativity is not included af all in this volume. In Pakistan, this subject is dealt with separately in a one-semester course. The background required for it is more extensive. All things considered, viiviii Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory it did not seem useful for most readers to be forced to ‘buy’ the General Theory when they are only interested in the Special Theory. This is particularly true for students of Physics who intend to work on the experimental side, or even in branches of Theoreti- cal Physics other than Particle Physics, Cosmology, Astrophysics or General Relativity itself. While General Relativity is steadily gain- ing importance in Physics, it is by no means as basic for it as the Special Theory is. T have tried to maintain, throughout, a historical perspective of the development of the Theory of Relativity. This is done for two reasons, First, I believe that it helps to build an interest in the subject and give credit where it is due. Second, I believe that it helps to give a better ‘feel’ for the concepts on which the theory is based. Many nuances are ‘lost in non-translation’ in carrying forward earlier terms out of their original context. Finally, 1 would like to record my indebtedness to my late father, Mr. Manzur Qadir, who introduced me to the pleasures of Relativity; to my Ph.D. supervisor, Professor Roger Penrose, from whom I learnt precision in thinking (particularly in the field of Relativity); to Professor John Archibald Wheeler, who brought home to me the importance of clear and attractive presentation of ideas; and to my numerous students on whom I experimented in an effort to find the best method of teaching Relativity to students with the background available in Pakistan. Thanks are also due to many colleagues and students who refused to ‘see the Emperor’s new clothes’ till they were put on. Of course, my gratitude goes to my family who were neglected because of this work and in particular to my wife, Rabiya Qadir, for giving me continual support and encour- agement in writing this book. Finally, I wish to thank Mr. Shabahat Ullah Khan for his excellent typing of the manuscript. ASGHAR QADIRTABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION 1. Historical Background of Motion . The Measurement of Time . Classical Motion . Pre-Relativistic Mechanics . A Digression on Scientific Method Exercise 1 oR CHAPTER 2 — DERIVATION OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY 1, Einstein’s Formulation of Special Relativity 2. Reformulation of Relativity 3. Length Contraction, Time Dilation and Simultaneity 4, The Velocity Addition Formulae 5. Three Dimensional Lorentz Transformations Exercise 2 1. Invariant Quantities cor 18 19 21 25 26 30 31 34 39 43x Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory |B. Coordinate Transformations) 46 Exercise 3 51 CHAPTER 4 —- THE FOUR-VECTOR FORMULATION OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY 1. The Four-Vector Formalism 53 2. The Lorentz Transformations in 4-Vectors 55 8. The Lorentz and Poincaré Groups 59 4. The Null Cone Structure 62 5. The Search for: Absolutes — Proper Time 65 Exercise 4 67 CHAPTER 5 — APPLICATIONS OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY 1. Relativistic Kinematics 69 2. The Doppler Shift in Relativity 73 3. The Compton Effect 7 4. Particle Scattering 80 5. Binding Energy, Particle Production and Particle Decay 83 Exercise 5 89 CHAPTER 6 — ELECTROMAGNETISM IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY 1. Review of Electromagnetism 93 2. The Electric and Magnetic Field Intensities 94 3, The Electric Current 96 4, Maxwell’s Equations and Electromagnetic Waves 98 5. The Four-Vector Formulation 99 6. The Maxwell Equations Again 103 Exercise 6 105Table of Contents CHAPTER 7 — SPECIAL RELATIVITY WITH SMALL ACCELERATIONS INDEX it 2. Oop Some ‘Paradoxes’ in Special Relativity The Range of Validity of Special Relativity . The Gravitational Red-Shift . Gravitational Deflection of Light . Four-Vector Acceleration and Force . Restatement of the Principle of Special Relativity . Change of Metric Due to Acceleration Exercise 7 xt 107 lll 112 113 15 119 119 122 125Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Relativity theory as it stands may be thought of as the study of motion. In this sense Special Relativity is the theory dealing with uniform motion. It deals with ‘kinematics’ rather than with ‘dynamics’ (which deals with the motion of a body experiencing force). Before going on to the subject itself, we will first take a brief look at the history of the theories of motion. In the process we will also need to consider the scientific method as we now think of it and as it used to be thought of. 1. Historical Background of Motion Familiar as we are today with the concepts of acceleration, velocity, time, etc., it is very difficult to understand what motion meant to the ancient mind. At the very start, it could not have been more than the fact that an object occupied different positions at different instants. Thus, a man seen in the village on one occasion and in the forest on another, had moved. Similarly, a lion one ran away from in the forest, seen in the village, had moved. If a stone seen in one part of the village was found elsewhere, it had moved. ‘Those objects that were seen to be able to move of their own volition were called ‘animate’ objects, while those that could not were called “nanimate’. If an inanimate object moved, but there was no appar- ent visible object which had moved it, an invisible personality — a spirit - was supposed to have moved it. Thus, for example, Greek myths abound in ‘wood-spirits’ or ‘dryads’ which moved the leaves2 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory of trees and ‘water nymphs’ which caused the motion of water that was seen, but was not due to fish. As the human mind started to grope for more general causes, which could be impersonal, people came to search for patterns. One of the most important of the ancient formulations was that of Aristotle. He stated some ‘self-evident truths’, as he saw them, and deduced the observed patterns from them. This fitted in with the view of science as held at that time. We shall look at his ‘laws of motion’ and the ‘self-evident truths’ supporting those laws. It seemed an obvious truth to Aristotle that the most perfect curve, and hence path, is a perfect circle and the most perfect shape is a sphere. Also, that the Heavens are perfect while the Earth is imperfect. Further, that objects tend to return to their place of origin, whether they be animate or inanimate. Now, from the first two principles Aristotle deduced his law of celestial motion: ‘All Heavenly bodies move in perfect circles, except insofar as they may be made imperfect due to the influence of the Earth, whereby they develop epicycles — the more epicycles the closer they are to the Earth’. Aristotle had stated that the Universe was made up of five ‘elements’, The four Earthly elements were, in order of in- creasing perfection: earth; water; air; fire. The Heavenly element was ‘aether’. This belief made more concrete his law of terrestrial motion, which states that ‘All terrestrial bodies tend to go to their natural state of rest’. This law explains why a stone will fall to the Earth - since it was taken from there and that had been its natural state of rest. Similarly the apple will fall to the ground because the seed from which the apple tree grew had been sowed in the ground. Again on burning wood, when smoke rises and ashes fall; this is be- cause the earthly part is returned to the Earth, while the airy part goes back to the air. In the process, a certain amount of water and fire which were contained in the wood are released. It was, again, self-evident to Aristotle that the more Earthly something was the greater its tendency would be to get back to the Earth and therefore it would fall faster. The Earthly ‘elements’ are what we would nowIntroduction x call solid, liquid, gas, and energy. We will return to the ‘aether’ later. The motion of the Heavenly bodies requires further discussion. ‘As regards their motion, there were two types of objects normally in the sky: the fixed stars, which were points of light and moved in perfect circles, and the planets which were larger objects and moved in more eccentric ways. In addition there were comets and meteors which Aristotle identified as atmospheric phenomena, and hence are terrestrial in nature. The Heavenly objects were made of aether, but nearness to the Earth could contaminate them. Thus the more imperfect-seeming Heavenly objects should be closer to the Earth and move more eccentrically. This eccentric motion was given by an epicycle, ie., a perfect circle whose centre moves in a perfect circle about the Earth. If the degree of contamination increased there would be more epicycles in the orbit of the object. Thus, there would be increasing fiery contamination of those objects which had more epicycles. Now, aether was unchanging and eternal while fire was changing all the time. Thus the Moon, which had the greatest epicycles, changed the most, but still it changed cyclically. The Sun, still with a lot of fiery contamination, but much less changeable (changing with a cycle of a year instead of a month), had fewer epicycles in its orbit. The other planets, again, had very little changeability and few epicycles. Contemporaneous with Aristotle were scientists who saw the Heavens very differently. They believed that the Moon went round the Earth, but that the Earth and other planets went round the Sun. The major proponent of this view was Aristarchus of Samos. A follower of this view, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, made some beau- tifully simple observations to deduce the size of the Earth. He noticed that on the shortest day of the year, the shortest shadow cast by an upright stick decreased to vanishing, However, 500 miles due North of Alexandria (where the shadow vanished), a shadow was cast corresponding to an angle of 7° (see Fig. 1). Thus, when the Sun was directly overhead on the equator it was 7° lower at a distance 500 miles due North. Now the ratio of the circumference of the Earth to4 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory Fig. 1. Bratosthenese’s measurement of the Earth’s circumference and diameter. The stick PQ casts no shadow. The stick AB casts the shadow AG, which gives the angle subtended by PA as 7°. The ratio of the circumference to PA ls equal to the ratio of 360° to 7°. Completed Earth’s shadow Fig. 2. By observing the shadow of the Earth on the Moon and completing the observed arc to form a complete circle, we can see that the ratio of the Moon’s diameter to the Earth’s diameter is the ratio of the circle’s (representing the Moon) diameter to the completed circle’s diameter. This is roughly 1:4, 500 miles is the ratio of 360° to 7°. From here it is easy to see that Eratosthenes obtained the very good estimate of about 25,000 miles. This estimate was used shortly afterwards by Hipparchus to estimate the size of the Moon. The Moon was observed during a partial lunar eclipse. The arc of the Earth’s shadow on the Moon could be extended to form a complete circle and the ratio of the diameter of the Moon’s disc to the shadow of the Earth’s dise would be the ratio of their actual diameters (see Fig. 2). The estimate was close to 2,000 miles for the Moon’s diameter ~ again an excellent estimate. Since the angular diameter of the Moon was known to beIntroduction Ss 3°, the distance to the Moon could be easily worked out (see Fig. 3) to be roughly 250,000 miles — once again an excellent estimate. The next step was to note that during a solar eclipse the Moon just covers the disc of the Sun. Thus the angular diameter of the Sun is also 4°. By observing the angle made at the Earth by the Moon and the Sun at half-moon (see Fig. 4), knowing the distance from the Earth to the Moon, the distance to the Sun and hence the size of the Sun could be estimated. Earth Fig. 3. If the angular diameter of the Moon as seen on Earth, is 6 (measured in radians) the distance to the Moon, D, is d0, where d is the Moon’s diameter. Fig. 4. When there is a half-Moon the Sun-Moon-observer on Earth forms a right angle triangle. Observing the angle, 6 = MES, and knowing D, the distance ME, we can work out £= D/cos 6, the distance ES. ‘These estimates were available to Ibn-al-Haytham, over a thousand years later. He revived the view of Aristarchus. If on no other count, then just the sheer size of the Sun would have convinced him that the Earth went round the Sun. He showed that the planets6 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory moved in circles around the Sun. Two centuries later, Al Zarkali modified these results, in the light of better data, to state that they moved in ellipses with the Sun at one focus. In the meantime Al Kindi stated his ‘law of terrestrial gravity: “All terrestrial objects are attracted towards the centre of the Earth”. Thus the ‘Arabs’ modified the Aristotilean laws of celestial and terrestrial motion. For completeness, it may be mentioned that the ancients knew of six planets: the Moon, the Sun, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the fixed stars. Before Aristotle the beliefs appear to be that there were 7 separate moving domes. The Arabs discovered Mercury and thus provided 7 planets. The fact that Mercury is so obviously a satellite of the Sun may have played a significant role in convincing Tbn-al-Haytham that all the planets (except the Moon) are satellites of the Sun. By this stage, Muslim civilisation was on the decline and the next developments in the study of motion came from the West. 2. The Measurement of Time With hindsight we can say that one of the main problems in the study of motion has been the measurement of spatial and temporal intervals. As regards the measurement of space intervals, they were soon refined enough for the purpose. Certainly, the ancient Greeks were able to obtain very accurate measures of distance. However, the measurement of time remained a problem for long afterwards. The subjective impression of the passage of time was as inaccurate as that of distance or temperature or other such quantities. The problem was the lack of an objective measure that was fine enough to study motion. There were available crude measures such as the day, the month and the year. Early on these were broken into four parts, and later even more parts. However none of these were refined enough to study terrestrial motion. The first real ‘clocks’ were the sun-dial and the water clock. The sun-dial consisted of a dial with an upright piece which cast a shadow. Since the rate at which the shadow moved would depend on the time of day and the season, and could be seen only during the day and when the sky was clear, this ‘clock’ was not very reliable. The water-clock consisted of 2Introduction 7 bucket with a hole near the bottom and a marking near the top. It would be filled up to the marking and then allowed to empty out. The time taken of course depended on the heat and humidity, which would determine the loss of water not through the hole, but due to evaporation. Also, the hole would expand at higher temperatures, allowing more water through. In all, it was much too crude a measure of time to be useful. In fact, there was (and remains) the notion that there are ‘different times’ since there was no reliable time-measure which was significantly better than the subjective impression of the passage of time. Fig. 5. A schematic representation of an hour-glass. The ends are closed. ‘The first major improvement in the technology of time measure- ment comes with the production of smooth, clear, glass moulded into different shapes. In the West, where the next developments arose, the ‘hour glass’ came into use towards the start of the Middle Ages. It consists of glass moulded in the form shown in Fig. 5 with sand trickling from one end to the other, both ends being closed. After the sand passes from one end completely, the glass is turned upside down. For the first time, with this development, a time interval of about an hour could be measured objectively distinctly better than it could be measured subjectively. Presumably the hour glass was invented in Arabia. which seems the most likelv to develon the tech-8 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory nology used for its construction. However, even this development was not adequate for the proper study of motion. The Middle Ages do, nevertheless, mark the start of the scientific study of terrestrial motion, as we shall see later. Galileo Galilei, the discoverer of so many other important facts and principles, was the first to provide a time-measuring device for sufficiently small intervals of time. He noticed that what we now call a pendulum swings with the same period regardless of the amplitude of the oscillation. He verified this belief by timing the swing against his pulse. Further, he noticed that a shorter pendulum swings faster than a longer one. Thus he was able to construct ‘clocks’ which measured different intervals and could be calibrated against each other. He himself used such clocks to measure the rate of motion in given situations. From this empirical work he drew certain conclu- sions which could be stated as the first modern laws of motion. Since then there have been further improvements in the tech- nology of time measurement. The spring watch was the earlier one and the electronic and atomic clocks the more recent. The atomic clock essentially measures time by ‘counting the number of elec- tromagnetic waves’ of a given wavelength emitted by a particular element. The current accuracy of time measurement is about 10-1® sec! It should be borne in mind that such clocks were not available to Einstein. At the start of the development of Relativity, the accuracy was only about 107? sec. It should be clear already that after the start of the Renaissance there was no reason for confusion about the concept of time. As pointed out earlier, the subjective assessment of time is unreliable at best, as with the subjective assessment of distance, force, tem- perature, humidity, etc. At worst, as in dreams, it can be entirely misleading. Unfortunately, many philosophers, over the generations, have continued to mystify the time-concept. The validity of their hair-splitting arguments is doubtful, but there can be no doubt of their lack of relevance for practical purposes. There are very good objective means of measuring time. However, they are not necessar- ily equivalent. It is necessary, when talking of time measurement, toIntroduction 9 specify the means of measurement. For example, if we define time as being measured by a pendulum clock, the clock will slow down as we go higher above the surface of the Earth. We would have to conclude that ‘time dilates’ as we go up. For the purposes of the present work it is adequate to take the time concept as that defined by measurement by atomic clocks (even though they have become available only recently and were not available for the study of motion being discussed, at that time). 3. Classical Motion The first major breakthrough in the study of motion was when Baron Simon disproved Aristotle’s belief that, in general, heavier bodies fall faster than lighter ones. He made the following arrange- ment (see Fig. 6). A wooden board was placed over a large hollow in the ground to provide a sound-box such as one has in musical Fig. 6, A schematic representation of the demonstration that heavier and lighter objects fall at the same rate. The hollow beneath the wooden plank makes an enormous sound-box which can identify any beats produced. The null result of this experiment proves that there is no significant time lag between the falling of the smaller and the larger stone, instruments (particularly of the stringed variety). From a second storey he arranged to drop two stones simultaneously. He found that, regardless of whether the stones were of equal weight or one was mnch heavier than the other. no heats were nroduced. If the10 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory stones had fallen at different times beats would have been produced. ‘Thus they fell equally fast. Galileo used his invention of the pendulum clock to study, quantitatively, how bodies moved on the Earth. He found that an object once put in motion would continue in its uniform motion if it were not for friction or other forces acting on it. By performing experiments on an inclined plane he inferred that the height through which a body falls is proportional to the square of the time it takes to fall, unless other forces act on it ‘There were also major advances made in the study of celes- tial motion. Nicolai Copernicus, a Polish monk, had revived the views of Ibn-al-Haytham. According to this view, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn followed concentric, circular orbits of increasing radius about the Sun. The Moon followed a circu- lar path about the Earth. Beyond Saturn were the fixed stars. (This picture is nowadays known as the Copernican system instead of Aristarchus’ or Ibn-al-Haytham’s system.) Again Galileo played a major role in this study. He developed and improved the recent invention of the telescope. He used it, not merely as a toy for looking at distant objects on the Earth, but as a scientific instrument to study the Heavens. He deduced that the shadows on the face of the Moon were due to mountains. By carefully measuring the shadow as a ratio of the diameter of the Moon and the angle of the Sun, he calculated the height of the lunar mountains. In fact he mapped the entire surface of the Moon very accurately. He also discovered four satellites of Jupiter and studied their motion carefully. His work clearly marked the end of the Aristotilean laws of celestial motion. His discovery of ‘novae’ (new stars) was the death knell of the belief that the Heavens are eternal and perfect. With him the so-called Copernican system came into its own. Not that everybody accepted his views and findings immediately. Quite the contrary. There was an uproar each time he announced results at variance with Aristotle’s beliefs and he was repeatedly forced toIntroduction u recant those views. Nevertheless, his findings gained currency ~ fairly quickly for those times. The telescope and Galileo’s findings were used to good effect by Tycho Brahe to collect data. The data he collected was used by Johannes Kepler. Kepler revived Al Zarkali’s law of planetary motion, which states that planets move in ellipses with the Sun at one focus. (This is now known as Kepler’s first law rather than Al Zarkali’s law.) He went on, however, to state two more laws which were quantitative. These laws were vital for the further development of the study of the motion of celestial objects. Then came Newton! He used Galileo’s law, which he restated as follows: “Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion unless an external force acts on it”. This statement is nowa- days known as Newton’s first law of motion. The second law was stated as: “The rate of change of the amount of motion is propor- tional to the force causing the change”. The ‘amount of motion’, as distinct from the ‘rate of motion’, was momentum rather than speed. A consequence of these laws was his third law of motion: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. This was not enough to explain motion in general. Robert Hooke had earlier quan- tified and modified Al Kindi’s law of terrestrial gravity for explaining celestial motion to state that: “All objects are pulled towards the Sun with a force proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of their distance from the Sun”. Thus he had stated a law of celestial gravity. This law led to Kepler’s laws as a conse- quence. Newton generalised this law to the law of universal gravity: “Every body attracts every other body with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”. He thus managed to unify motion in the Heavens with that on Earth. The same laws apply everywhere in the Universe. For completeness, it should be added that Newton thought of light as composed of corpuscles possessing mass and hence he expected that the path of light would be bent by a gravitational source. He also talked of the paths of planets being12 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory ‘refracted’ about the Sun. This is a remarkable insight presaging the General Theory of Relativity. ‘Vhe opinion on the nature of light that was generally accepted was that of Christian Huyghens. He believed that light was a form of energy propagated by wave motion. Of course, the motion had to be in some medium. For this purpose Aristotle’s ‘aether’ was modified to serve as a medium in which travelled wave-like disturbances that we call light. Later many different ‘aethers’ were required. The medium for light was called the ‘luminiferous aether’. The ‘aether’ also provided a frame for absolute rest. The study of both wave motion and usual mechanical motion continued. Most notable were the contributions of Lagrange and Hamilton in this respect. The essential problem they tackled was of celestial mechanics. Since every body attracted every other body, not only did the Sun attract each of the planets, but the planets also attracted the Sun. In fact they also attracted each other. The procedure originally adopted was to solve the problem for the Sun with each planet separately and then apply corrections for each of the other planets. The corrected result would be applied to provide further corrections, and so on. Later Lagrange developed a method of dealing with all ten bodies together on the same footing using generalised coordinates and velocities to express the total free-energy of the system and minimise it. Then Hamilton used generalised coordinates and momenta to express the total energy of the system. These are the methods of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics that are used so extensively nowadays. We will need to refer to them later. In the meantime there had been extensive investigations into the phenomena of electricity and magnetism. In the nineteenth “century these phenomena were unified in Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. He developed a set of equations to describe these phenomena. In addition, he showed that there were electromag- netic waves which would travel in a vacuum with the speed of light and in dielectric media with a correspondingly slower speed. The conclusion was quite unavoidable ~ light is an electromagnetic wave.Introduction 13 The ‘electromagnetic aether’ is the ‘luminiferous aether’. By about 1880 Newton’s theory as augmented by Maxwell's work seemed complete. Maxwell had introduced the concept of a field, which was the tendency to influence a test particle (sufficiently small so as not to influence the field). Such a field could be visualised as the lines of force about a bar magnet that can be traced by placing iron filings near it. This concept has, since then, become very important due to its application in modern physics where it often replaces the generalised coordinates in the Lagrangian or the Hamiltonian (the free or the total energy). The stage is now set to present the events which led to the formulation of Relativity. 4. Pre-Relativistic Mechanics Towards the end of the nineteenth century, Lorentz tried to complete the theory of electromagnetism by including discrete charged particles. There were some basic problems involved but the B-rays of J. J. Thompson had been identified as streams of charged particles, nowadays called ‘electrons’. A theory for the motion of these particles was necessary. Lorentz published it in the form of a book entitled ‘The Theory of Electrons’. In order to make the theory self-consistent he had to introduce certain ad-hoc assumptions. One was that the ‘electromagnetic mass’, i.e., the mass relevant for the theory, was velocity-dependent according to the formula (14) Men = Viva ‘The other was that there must be a transformation of coordinates and a new ‘local time’ parameter had to be introduced: wd=ye(x-vt), yoy, 2=2, t= e(t~ve/c?), \ a-v3/er * (1.2) In the mean time Poincaré had been discussing the theory of motion from a more philosophical and mathematical point of view.14 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory He stated categorically that only relative motion should be discussed, that there was no meaning to be attached to absolute motion. He called this the principle of relativity of motion- The most significant development was Michaelson’s attempt to measure the velocity of Earth through the aether.If a measurement was made at a time when the rotation of the Earth (at the place of measurement) was in the same direction as the revolution of the Earth about the Sun, the two velocities should add. Thus, if the Sun was at rest in the aether there would be a speed of about 30 km/sec. of the Earth through the aether. If the Sun was moving then at some time of the year, when the Earth’s motion was in the same direction as the Sun’s, the speed would be even greater. He showed that with his newly developed interferometer he should be able to measure such a velocity accurately and thus indirectly ‘see the aether’. The basis for this expectation is contained in the following argument. Resultant Revolution a Fig. 7. The essentials of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. Light is sent along the direction of motion of the Earth, (classically) at a speed (c + v) ° and back against the motion (classically) at a speed (c — uv). Perpendicular to the motion the epeed of both legs of the journey muet be the same, The time-lag could be measured by seeing interference fringe-shifts, but none were seen. Consider two rays of light sent out from a point on the Earth's surface, one along the direction of motion and one perpendicular toJntroduction 45 it. Let both be reflected back, as shown in Fig. 7. For convenience, suppose that the distance travelled in both directions is the same: d. If the speed of light is denoted by ¢ and the speed of the Earth through the aether by v, we can work out the time taken by the light to travel in each direction. Along the direction of motion it is dd 2d/e h=ote? ome 1—v2/e * (1.3) To travel perpendicular to the direction of motion if must be directed into the effective aether wind (see Fig. 8) so that the resultant velocity is perpendicular to the direction of motion. As is clear from Fig. 8, the magnitude of the resultant velocity of light is (1.4) Pig. 8. If light is sent with a velocity ¢ so that the resultant velocity, (c — v) is perpendicular to v, the magnitude of this resultant vector is Thus, the time taken by this ray of light is (13)16 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory The time lag, At, is then Atty —tym le (1- Vi — v/e?) (1.6) “Towa ‘Thus, we get 2 Al inven it, (1.7) ty 2c for sufficiently. small v/c. In this case, we expect u/c ¥ 10-*. Thus, 2At/t, = 10-8. Now, if the situation is changed so that the ray that was perpendicular to the direction of motion now goes against it and back, and the ray that went in the direction of motion now goes perpendicular, we would get a total effect of 2At w 10-® xt). Michaelson developed an instument which split a beam of light into two parts which could travel different distances, and so the waves comprising the light beams would arrive out of phase with each other. They would then ‘interfere’ with each other ‘construc- tively’ at some places and ‘destructively’ at others. This instrument is called a Michaelson interferometer. Now a change of the speed of light would lead to a phase shift corresponding to a change in the positions of constructive and destructive interference. Where there is constructive interference there is a bright band and where - there is destructive interference a dark band. These bands are called ‘interference fringes’. The change of the speed of light should, there- fore, lead to a fringe shift. Since the wavelength of light is very small, phase shifts of extremely small duration can be detected. It is found that for the expected motion of the Earth there should be a significant shift in the interference fringes. Michaelson’s attempt was significant because it failed. Despite repeated attempts with many precautions taken and all sorts of improvement made in collaboration with Morley, it failed. Not a fraction of a fringe shifted. It was as if the fringes were painted onto the eye-piece, so definitely fixed they remained. By 1895 there was no room for doubt that the Michaelson-Morley null result was valid. An explanation of this result was required. It was suggested that maybe the aether ‘dragged’ along with the Earth so that thereIntroduction 7 was no relative motion between the Earth and the aether. How- ever, if it did it should take some energy of motion from the Earth and hence reduce the Earth’s energy causing it to spiral in towards the Sun. This did not happen. To avoid this conclusion we must postulate that the aether took no energy because it was massless. In that case it would be impossible to ‘drag’ it as any force would accelerate it infinitely. The aether already had been postulated to be infinitely hard. This property was required to explain the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum was greater than in any medium. The essence of the argument is as follows. A wave travels faster in a hard than in a soft medium. If there is aether everywhere where there is no matter, but is displaced by matter, and it is harder than any substance, we would expect light to travel faster where there is less matter than where there is more matter. It might seem odd that the aether did not stop the Earth’s motion through it, but that could be explained away by postulating that it passes through matter with no resistance. However, this makes the ‘dragging of aether’ even more implausible. ‘An alternative ‘explanation’ was suggested by Fitzgerald. Suppose, he said, that because of some unknown dynamical process, there is a contraction of length in the direction of motion for all physical bodies, but there is no such effect in the directions perpendicular to the motion. Let this shortening be given by d=dJfi-v/e. (1.8) Now, in Eq. (1.3) d" would appear instead of d. Thus t, would be equal to tz and so no time-lag could be expected. Independently, but somewhat later, Lorentz showed that if we take ¢ = 1 in Eqs. (1.1) and (1.2), Eq. (1.8) follows from there, He also believed that there would be some dynamic, or electrodynamic, process which would account for this contraction, now known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction.18 Relativity: An Introduction 10 the Special Theory 5. A Digression on Scientific Method Before continuing with the study of motion it is necessary to discuss (very briefly) what is meant by ‘science’, ‘scientific theory’ and ‘scientific method’. In ancient times they referred to the attempt to provide causes for observed phenomena. Since these were assigned to the whims of some unseen personalities or personality, mythology and religion formed the basis of ‘science’. With Aristo- tle, ‘science’ became the process of finding the ‘self-evident truth’ which explained observed phenomena. In the Muslim civilisation ‘science’ became essentially the collection and systematic collation of data by observation. With Galileo, the data collection began to include experimentation in a modern sense. With Newton it became the reduction of all phenomena to mechanical models by which they could be understood in terms of the ‘laws of Nature’ discovered by Newton. (A more detailed discussion of this subject is available in my article ‘Modern Scientific Thought in Perspective’ in The History of Science in Central Asia, ed. A. Qadir, Centre for the Study of Central Asian Civilisations, Quaid-i-Azam University Press, 1975.) The modern view, expressed by Karl Popper, is largely based on Einstein’s work in Quantum Theory and Relativity. This is not accepted unanimously, but it is important to grasp fully the theory of Relativity. According to this view, ‘doing science’ means following the ‘scientific method’ to comprehend phenomena. The ‘scientific method’ consists of formulating ‘scientific theories’ which explain all known phenomena and then testing them. A ‘scientific theory’ is a set of assumptions which leads to a falsifiable conclusion, i.e., one which could in principle be proved wrong. To be able to test a prediction quantitatively there must be a procedure to measure the relevant quantities explicitly. In addition, there is an infinite set of assumptions which provide the concepts used. The collection of all these gives us a physiccl theory. (Details are given in A. Qadir, Int. J. Theoret, Phys. 15 (1976) 635-641.) It is necessary that any ‘explanation’ of observed phenomena is a physical theory.Introduction 19 Exercise 1 VM A man walks to work at a speed of 6km/hr. How accurately would it be necessary to measure his walking stick to be able to detect the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of the stick if it is 1m long? Is such an accuracy physically attainable? 2. An electronic device capable of measuring changes of 10-? cm is being used at a fencing match, and it sees a 1 m foil decreased in size. Considering the matter quantitatively, could the decrease be due to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction? - What are the percentage changes in length due to the Lorentz- Fitzgerald contraction for the following? (a) A train. (b) A racing car. (c) A jet plane. (d) A satellite. (e) A deep-space reconaissance vehicle (like Mariner). (£) The Earth moving round the Sun. 4. Is Fitzgerald’s suggestion a physical theory? Does Lorentz’s suggestion improve Fitzgerald’s idea or make it worse? 5. If light is effected by gravitation, it should be possible for it to go into orbit (i.e., a closed path) about a gravitational source. How dense would a thousand kilogramme mass have to be for light to be in a circular orbit about it?Chapter 2 DERIVATION OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY 1. Einstein’s Formulation of Special Relativity In 1905 Einstein solved the problems of the day by appealing to kinematics rather than dynamics. It was because of the lack of any dynamic reasoning that his theory met with such strong resistance initially. He first analysed classical kinematics and showed that it would lead to an observer-dependent speed of light. He then showed that this result would lead to stellar aberration which was not observed. The prediction was quite independent of the Michaelson-Morley null experiment. (However, we shall use the latter experiment in our discussion.) He then showed how, if we assume that the speed of light is observer-independent, the Lorentz transformations follow as a consequence. Further, he showed that the ‘local time parameter’ must be treated as a genuine, physical, time. The classical kinematic transformations for uniform linear motion with speed v, which Einstein called the Galilean transformations, are g=2-vt, yay, 2=2, = 1, (2.1) where motion is in the 2-direction only. Differentiating these equa- tions with respect to t!, bearing in mind that t’ = t, gives the formula for the resultant velocity, ulsue-y, =u, usu. (2.2) 22 Relativity: An Introduction 10 the Special Theory Taking u = (c,0,0) we see that u’ = (¢— v,0,0). Thus, if we take v as negative the magnitude of u’, |u’|, is greater than c. This result would lead to various problems with stellar aberration and the theory of electromagnetism and electrons. Most important of all, it leads to the supposedly measurable time-lag that was not found by Michaelson and Morley. Einstein now made explicit two assumptions. On these assump- tions he based his explanation. The assumptions made were the following: (a) The principle of special relativity, that all inertial frames are physically equivalent; (b) The principle of the constancy of the speed of light, that the speed of light in vacuum (approximately 3 x 10° m/sec) is constant for all inertial observers. An ‘inertial frame’ is a frame of reference in which Newton’s second law of motion holds. On the Earth, for example, it does not hold because an object without support falls instead of continuing in its state of rest. Here, the external force acting on it is gravity. In an inertial frame an object without support should stay in its place nevertheless. Principle (a) states that there is no physical difference for any two observers in inertial frames even if they move relative to each other in that ‘physical laws’ appear the same to both observers. This way the absence of absolute motion gets reformulated. Principle (b) simply says that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer though it could depend on accelerations, etc. Clearly the theory is restricted to dealing with uniform (linear) motion. It is for this reason that it was called the Restricted, or Special, Theory of Relativity. Einstein spent 10 more years formulating a workable Non- restricted, or General, Theory of Relativity to deal with arbitrary motions. Here we will not follow Einstein’s original derivation of his - result, or his subsequent derivations. Rather, I would like to present a procedure for derivation which fits in with a more general and simpler formulation of the axioms underlying the theory. These will be stated after deriving Einstein’s basic results.Derivation of Special Relativity 23 Fig. 9. The thought experiment of Special Relativity. Light signals (or signals at maximum speed), sent by relatively moving observers O and 0! must travel together. This enables us to provide the moving wave-front (P and Q) to translate from one frame to another. Consider two observers O and O', where O’ is moving with speed v in the z-direction relative to O. Thus, of course, O is moving with speed —v relative to O’. At one instant the two observers ‘coincide’. By this, we mean that there is some small (negligible) displacement between them in a direction perpendicular to the z-direction, but there is no displacement in the z-direction. They both take this instant as their origin of time, i.e., at this instant they start their clocks. They both also send two light signals in the positive and negative z-directions (see Fig. 9). Now, because the speed of light is the same for all observers, the signals travel together. Let O measure time and space by the coordinates (, 2, y, 2) and O! by (t,2',y',2’). To translate the coordinates of one into the other we need to have an agreed point and determine how the coordinates of one are used in terms of the coordinates of the other. Let the signal, at any instant, be at P in the positive direction and Q in the negative direction. The equations for P and Q, respectively, according to O, are et-2=0(P), ct+2=0(Q), (2.3) and according to O! are ct’ —2'=0(P), ct +2/=0(Q). (2.4) Since P is given by both equations, each implies the other. For the reciprocity implicit in principle (a) to hold, et! —2' = X(ct-2) , (2.5)4 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory where is a constant of proportionality. Similarly, for Q et’ +2'=p(ct+z) , (2.6) where y is a constant of proportionality. Adding Eqs. (2.5) and (2.6) and dividing by 2, et! = act — br , (2.7) where a and b are defined by a=(A+n)/2, b=(A-p)/2~ (2.8) Subtracting Eq. (2.5) from Eq. (2.6) and dividing by 2 gives a! =—bet+az. (2.9) We now need to determine a and b. To determine }, notice that the equation for the position, 2, of O! according to O is z=vt. (2.10) According to O! it is, of course, 2’ = 0. Putting these values into Eq. (2.9) gives us O=-bet +avt . (2.11) Since this equation holds for all t, we have b=avfe. (2.12) ‘Thus Eqs. (2.7) and (2.9) become ct! = a(ct — 22) ‘ (2.13) a! =a(z- Set) : (2.14) To determine a we have to appeal to principle (a). It may be rephrased to say that on interchanging the primed and unprimedDerivation of Special Retativity 25 indices there should be no difference (except for a change of v to —v). Now, let us define 2) as ¢ at t = 0 and 2/, as 2’ at t’ = 0. Putting ¢ = 0 in Eq. (2.14) gives 20/2! =1/a . (2.15) To obtain an expression for x1, we need to obtain a relation between x and t when t’ = 0 and use that relation to obtain an expression for 2’ at t’ =0. Putting ¢’ = 0 in Eq. (2.18) v t| =e 2.16) thao = 22 (2.16) Inserting this relationship in Eq. (2.14) gives us ve a = a(z— 3 22) : (2.17) Thus, we get xo/z = a(1—v?/c?) . (2.18) Now, by principle (a) to/2! = 25/z . (2.19) Using Eqs. (2.15), (2.18) and (2.19) we see that co! (2.20) Vi= 07/2 © There has been no effect due to motion in the direction perpen- dicular to the motion. Thus, Eqs. (2.13), (2.14) and (2.20) are in fact the Lorentz transformations, Eqs. (1.2), with a= 7 and ¢ = 1. The Lorentz transformations are purely kinematic and have no need to appeal to dynamics or electrodynamics. Before drawing any further conclusions from here, let us look at the simpler statement of the theory. 2. Reformulation of Relativity A question could arise whether the speed of light is the same for all observers, or that it changes so little from observer to observer26 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory that we are unable to detect that change with our present technology. In other words ‘how reliable is Relativity theory?’ and ‘how strongly does it depend on experimental data”. It turns out that we do not even really need to assume principle (b). We could construct the set of all physically attainable speeds and without loss of generality call its least upper bound C. If the set is not bounded from above, we would have an infinite value of C. Now, we could repeat the previous argument with signals sent at this maximum speed C. Since it is a maximum speed it is the same for all observers. This may be seen simply by noticing that the signal in the positive z-direction sent by O cannot reach any point ajter that sent by O', as it is travelling at the fastest possible speed, and vice versa. All we have to do then is replace c by C. Another modification is that we do not need to restrict ourselves to inertial frames only, even for principle (a). All we really need here is that they be relatively unaccelerated frames. In one sense this is a weaker formulation, because the assumption is stronger. On the other hand the theory gets wider applicability since it can deal with non-inertial frames as well. In this reformulation we will need one experiment to determine C and another to test the theory. In the usual formulation one experiment to test the theory would have been adequate. It turns out that within the limits of experimental error C = c, and we do have other predictions to test the theory with. We shall therefore use c throughout. Even if it turned out that C is not exactly equal to ¢ it would not change the theory much; we would just use C' instead of c. We now proceed to derive the basic consequences of the theory. 3. Length Contraction, Time Dilation and Simultaneity The Lorentz transformations are not directly physically testable. They refer to coordinates only. For testing we need to have predic- tions in terms of intervals. We could, for example, consider what happens to time intervals. Let there be a time interval 6t as seen by O. By this we mean that there were two times when somebody in the frame of O looked at his clock, t; and tz. The position remainedDerivation of Special Relativity 27 the same according to O. Thus, x; = zz. Let us write down the Lorentz transformations for both points (t;,2,) and (tz,2): v , v ah- gm), t=r-Zm) » (2.21) where we have, by definition, 6=t-k, =K-h. (2.22) Thus, bt! = afl - 4) - F(a -22)] - (2.23) Since z, = 2, we see that 6t! = yt = (2.24) This is known as the time dilation formula, It implies that the unit of time measurement of O’ is larger than that of O. Thus, in the same interval fewer of the units of O' will fit in than those of O. Thus the clocks of O' will appear to run slow. Another possibility is to measure spatial intervals. Let the spatial interval according to O be éz=m- m2. (2.25) Now O! must see the two ends of the interval at the same time according to him, ie., t', = t,. From Eq. (2.13) we see that then . h-=S(-m). (2.28) Again using the Lorentz transformations 2 ; bi! = 2, — 2 = 9( (a ~ m2) - F (s—)) =: 6n-(1—07/c?) (2.27)28 Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory Thus, we get the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction $2! = 62/y = 62/1 — w/e? (2.28) Both these formulae have been thoroughly tested: the first by flying atomic clocks in a jet plane and comparing them with other atomic clocks in the laboratory, the second by radar tracking space- craft. As mentioned earlier, c here has the same value as our best estimates of the speed of light in vacuum. Consider now two events that appear simultaneous to O, i.e., one occurs at x; and the other at 2, at the same time t, or in other words t; =tg =t. According to O’, they occur at , v v =r - ou) =t- an), (2.29) and at . . % = te — Gm) =t- Za) - (2.30) Thus, we see that t, # t, as t-t= 2 (2, —) (2.31 1—t2 = 775 (22-21) - 2.31) Hence simultaneity ie relative. It is the relativity of simultaneity, rather than of motion, that gives the theory its name. It should be pointed out at this stage that a common error is the belief that according to this theory (i.e., Relativity) everything is relative. This is just not true. In fact the theory attempts to formulate that part of physical theory that can be stated in absolute terms. It is only mo- tion (known classically) and simultaneity (stated by Einstein) that are taken to be relative. Some other quantities turn out to be relative as well. Many supposed ‘paradoxes’ were constructed to try to ‘disprove’ Relativity. In fact, they merely highlighted misconceptions that can arise due to mixing the older concepts with the results of Relativ- ity. The most famous one ~ the clock (or twin) paradox — will be discussed later. Here I would like to discuss one which arises from