Relativistic Mechanics In earlier chapters, especially in mechanics, we stressed the importance: of inertial frames of refer- ence. In an inertial frame a body acted on by no forces moves with constant velocity. Newton's laws of motion are valid only in inertial frames, but they are valid in all inertial frames. Any frame moving with constant velocity with respect to an inertial frame is itself an inertial frame, so there are infi- nitely many inertial frames. As far as the laws of mechanics are concerned, all inertial frames are equivalent. The laws of mechanics are the same in every inertial frame of reference. In 1905, Einstein proposed that this principle should include all the basic laws of physics, including electromagnetism as well as mechanics. This inno- cent-sounding proposition, often called the principle of relativity, has far-reaching and startling conse- quences. For example, we will find that if the princi- ple of conservation of momentum is to be valid in all inertial systems, we have to revise the definition of momentum for particles moving at speeds compara- ble to the speed of light. The definition of kinetic energy also has to be modified. Equally fundamental are the modifications needed in the kinematic aspects of motion. These generalizations of the laws of me- chanics are part of the special theory of relativity, the subject of this chapter. In studying this material you have to be ready to confront some ideas that at first sight will seem too strange to be believed. You will find that your intuition is often unreliable when you are considering phenomena far removed from everyday experience. Our discussion will center mostly on mechanical concepts, but the theory of relativity has far-reach- ing consequences in all areas of physics, including thermodynamics, electromagnetism, optics, atomic and nuclear physics, and high-energy physics. 923 iia Scanned with CarRelativistic Mechanics 924 Chaprer 40 40-1» a ce of Physical Laws Padi the laws of phys Einstein's principle of relativity states imple ae ee in every inertia frame of reference MEET coil of wire by atin is the electromotive force (cai ee of reference Hee cheat moving permanent magnet. In Pe ange of magnetic hin eee 4 . stationary, the moving magnet ca i Fer caay. ae T loces an emit tar Te TETS where magnet is stationary, the motion of eblle ase ‘a Magnetic Causes magnetic-ield forces on the MOT or eh the conductor inducing an emf. According to the Pr bech ayes ee both of these points.of view have equal validity, 30 day's la Predict the same ine duced emf, As we saw in Chapter 32+ a n ade of electroma, induction can be applied to either description. DY” does indeed sq this requirement. If the moving-magnet a en ing-coil situations did not give the same results, we could use this &>PeTiment to distinguish ogg jnchial frame from another, and this would contradict the principe op relativity. i Equally significant isthe prediction of the speed of electroma radiation, emerging from the development in Chapter 35. Light and all other electromagnetic waves travel with a constant speed ¢= 299,792,458 mes, (We will often use the approximate value ¢ = 3.09 x 10° im-s=!, which is within one part in 1000 of the exact value.) The principle of relativity requires that this speed must be the same in all eertidl frames of reference and must be independent of the motion of the source. As we will see, the speed of light plays a very special role in the theory of relativity. During the nineteenth century, most physicists believed that light traveled through a hypothetical medium called the ether, just as sound waves travel through air. If so, the speed of light would depend on the motion of the observer relative to the ether and would therefore be dif. ferent in different directions, The Michelson—Morley experiment, de- scribed in Section 39-4, was an effort to detect motion of the earth relative to the ether. No such motion was ever detected, and the ether concept has been discarded. These negative results paved the way for the prediction, from the principle of relativity, that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. Let’s think about what this means. Suppose two observers measure Ee speed of light. One is at rest with respect to the light source, and the nee away from it. Both are in inertial frames of reference. the ae rinipe of relativity, the two observes must obit 1 despite the fact that one is moving with respect to the other, If this seems too easy, consi , i Y, Consider the following situation. A spaceship sono eee from earth at 1000 m:s~! es a ase with a speed of Sile’s speed relarh ne to” directly away from earth. What is the me velocity The enreo,? Carth? This is an elementary problem in 3000 ms“! Bur nec, AnSWEr, according to Newtonian mechani - But now suppose there i a searchlight in the spaceshi» Veariicu witht Udl; ea Cle , 40-1 Invariance of Physical Laws 925 Pointing in the same the space: direct SPaceship measures hao” that the missile was fired. An observer 0” he value c, Aceon eee of light emitted by the searchlight and ho measures pa '© Our previous discussion, the observer value o, 1 the g LUCE: This contradicts og, Peet OF this same light must also obtain the « Mama MOL appear to agree ye siMeMaty notion of relative velocities, and intuition based on everydge eth common sense. But “common sense” is pa measurements aia pecan and this does not usually include Pie iestion of pote, et restate this. angune it described by the' coor St frames of reference bee symbolically, using the two inertial ? linates x and yin movi + labeled 5S for the ol for the frame of references or by x andy? in ble, ee pPaceship, shown in Bee ae. cs relative to $ with constant co Wwe have omitted the z-axes eo things as simple as ee ete eth Common ryanig, CHeSAMeling, but the origin Oot rere eee lie along oTigins 0 and 0" ¢oi of frame § with of frame $’ moves relative to the origin O core a our ck ith constant velocity 4 along the common x-x«'-axis. We set Clocks so that the wo origins coincide at = 0, so their separa- tion ata later time ¢ is ut, Combet aie” No nicht ‘think about how we describe the motion of a particle P. This of light fa exploratory vehicle launched from the spaceship or a flash Uinta searchlight. We can describe the position ofthis point by Guing the earth coordinates (x,y, 2) in S or the spaceship coordinates &’,y', 2!) in S". The figure shows;that these are related by x=x' tut, (40-1) These equations, based on the familiar Newtonian notions of space and time, are called the Galilean coordinate transformation. If point P moves in the x-direction, its velocity v as measured by an observer stationary in Sis given by v = Ax/At. Its velocity v' measured by an observer at rest in $" is v’ = Ax’/At, From our discussion of relative velocities in Sections 2-6 and 3-6 we know that these are related by veu'tu, (40-2) which agrees with the relative velocity equation we derived at the end of Chapter 2. We can also derive this relation from Eqs. (40-1). Suppose that the particle is at a point described by coordinate x; or xy’ at time t and by x2 or x2’ at time fa, Then At = tp ~ t,. From Eq. (40-1), Ax = xp — x1 = (va! —m1') + lle — th) = Ax! + wt, Ax _ Ax’ tu, At AL and vev'tu, in agreement with Eq. (40-2). : ‘Sow here's the fundamental problem. Applied to the speed of light Eq, (40-2) says that c=c! + u. Einstein's principle of relativity, sup- ported by experimental consistency, not an evidence, says that ¢ =’. This is a genuine in- illusion, and it demands resolution. If we accept the forced to conclude that Eqs. (40-1) and (40-2). modified OUaliicu wittt Val926 Chapter 40 Relativistic Mechanics 40-2 __ The resolution involves some very fundamental modification i kinematic concepts, First is the seemingly ObviOUS assumption thar qe Observers in Reames § and ’ use the same tine scale. We can state gfe formally by adding to Eqs. (40-1) a fourth equation: nt t ‘Alas, we are about to show that the assumption f = #' cannot be c the two observers must have different time scales. The difficulty lies ig the concept of simullancity, which is our next topic. A careful analysis a simultaneity will help us to develop the appropriate modifications fel notions about space and time. Relative Nature of Simultaneity 4 zy ° B @ 4 y B See ® 4 o 3 ie © 40-2 (@) To the stationary observer at point 0, two lightning bolts appear to strike at point 0° hearin fom eter Soe eS src a0 intervals involves the concept of simultaneiy. When you say that you awoke at seven o'clock, you mean that two event (your awakening and the arrival of the hour hand of your clock atthe number seven) occurred simultaneously. The fundamental problem in Measuring times and time measuring time intervals i neous in one frame of refe it is moving in relation to the first, eve! Here is a hypothetical experiment, devised by Einstein, that illus 1. Consider a long train moving with uniform velocity, shown in Fig. 40—2a. Two lightning bolts strike the train, one at each ‘end, Each bolt leaves a mark on the train and one on the ground atthe same instant, The points on the ground are labeled A and B in the figure, and the corresponding points on the train are A’ and B'. An observeris Standing on the ground at 0, midway between A and B. Another db Server is at Q’ at the middle of the train, midway between A’ and 8 moving with the train, Both observers se both ligt flashes emitted from the points where the lightning strikes. Suppose the two light flashes reach the observer at 0 simultaneously. He knows he is the same distance from A and B, so he concludes that the two bolts struck A and B simultaneously. But the observer at 0" is mov to the right, with the train, with respect to the observer at O, and the light flash freon B’ reaches her before the light flash from A’ does. Becatt the observer at 0’ is the same distance from A’ and B’, she concludes that the lightning bolt at the front of the train struck earlier than the one at the rear, The two events appear simultaneous to observer 0 but not? observer O'! Whether two events at different space points are si pends on the state of motion of the observer. 4 ell You may want to argue that in this example the lightning bol rw ‘are simultaneous and that if the observer at 0° could ‘communicate WY the distant points without the time delay caused by the fine om light, she would realize this, But that would be erroneous: speed of information transmission is not the real issue. If 0" is se) between A’ and B’, then, in her frame of reference, the time for 2 ‘ trates this point oCdiined WIithl & s that, in general, two events that are simulta | srence are not simultaneous in a second frameif | n_ if both are inertial frames, ”40-3 Bs idee atin to travel from A’ to 0” simultaneoualy at 8 Me same as from Bt 0". Two signals arte BY. In this example a if they were emitted simultaneously at A’ amy, Must conclude thar the’. %™! atrive simultaneously at 0’, and #0 Furthermore, thee ett at A’ and B’ were not simultaneous. TON OF the eee nee 8 no basis for saying that O is right and O” is frame of refennee, otding tothe principle of relativity, no in i Physical lane ban ope erelerted over any other in the formulation of other wom en UsetVEt i correct nhs or her cum frame of reference. 1D immor simultaneity is not an absolute concept. Whether two events Xls on the frame of reference. Because of the neity in measuring time intervals, ‘ a — is two events depends om the frame of reference. Teh eens how to compare time intervals in different Relativity of Time Mirror LL 4 o (2) Light pulse emitted from source at 0" and reflected back along the same line, as observed in S°. (b) Path of the same light pulse, as observed in S. The Positions of 0" at the times of departure and return of the pulse are shown. The speed of the pulse is the same in Sas in S', but the path is longer in S. To derive a quantitative relation between time intervals in different coor- dinate systems, we consider another thought experiment. As before, a frame of reference $’ moves along the common x-x'-axis with constant Speed w relative to a frame S. For reasons that will become clear later, we assume that u is always less than the speed of light c. An observer 0’ in S’ with a light source directs a flash of light at a mirror a distance d away, as shown in Fig. 40-3a. He measures the time interval At’ for light to make the “round trip” to the mirror and back. The total distance is 24, so the time interval is ae = 4, (40-8) ¢ The time for the round trip as measured in frame S is a different interval At. During this time the source moves in relation to $ a distance 1 At, The total round-trip distance as seen in $ is not just 2d but is 21, In writing this expression we have used the fact that the distance d looks. the same to both observers. This can (and indeed must) be justified by other thought experiments, but we won't go into this now. The speed of light is the same for both observers, so the relation in S analogous to Eq. (40-3) is a 2) a+ (SY 40-4) ‘We would like to have a relation between At and At’ that doesn’t contain d. To get this, we solve Eq. (40-3) for d and substitute the At vvuari950 Chapter 40 Relativistic Mechanics 40-4 Relativity of Length boa wan » sot (@) A light pulse is emitted from a source at'one end of a ruler, reflected from a mirror at the opposite end, and returned to the source position, as seen by an observer in S'. () Motion of the light pulse as seen by an observer in S. ‘The distance traveled from source to ‘mirror is greater than the length / measured in S, by the amount u At, a8 shown. Eartha remains on earth, while Astro takes off on a high-speed through the galaxy. Because of time dilation, Eartha sees Astro’s het! beat and all other life processes proceeding more slowly than his Thus Eartha thinks that Astro ages more slowly, so when Astro ret to earth, he is younger than Eartha i. Now here is the paradox: All inertial frames are equivalent. Cay Astro make exactly the same arguments to conclude that Eartha isin the younger? ‘Then each twin thinks that the other is younger, and that a paradox. 7 To resolve the paradox, we recognize that the twins are not iden in all respects. If Eartha remains in an inertial frame at all times, must have an acceleration with respect 0 inertial frames during pa histrip in order to turn around and come back. Eartha remains alway Fest in the same inertial frame; Astro does not. Thus there isan physical difference between the circumstances ofthe twins. Careful at ysis shows that Eartha is correct; when Astro returns, he is younger than Eartha, Just as the time interval between two events depends on the observers frame of reference, the distance between two points also depends on the observer's frame of reference. To measure a distance, one must, in prin ple, observe the positions of two points, such as the two ends of a ruler, simultaneously; but what is simultaneous in one reference frame is not simultaneous in another. To develop a relationship between lengths in various coordinate ys tems, we consider another thought experiment. We attach a source of light pulses to one end of a ruler and a mirror to the other end, as shown in Fig. 40-4. The ruler is at rest in reference frame S’, and its length in this frame is /’. Then the time At’ required for a light pulse to make the round trip from source to mirror and back is given by Ate 2 (40-6) Fi This is a proper time interval because departure and return occur at the same point in S’. In the ruler is moving to the right with speed u during this travel of the light pulse. The length of the ruler in $ is 1, and the time of travel from source to mirror, as measured in , is Af. During this interval the ruler, with source and mirror attached, moves a distance u At). The total length of path d from source to mirror is not ! but, d=l+udn. (40-7, The light pulse travels with speed c, so itis also true that d=cAn. woo) z scanned with Cat932 Chapter 40 Relativistic Mechanics 40-5 Newtonian relation | =I’, This and the corresponding result for «i dilation show that Eqs. (40-1) retain their validity in the limit of much smaller than ¢; only at speeds comparable to ¢ are modificatioy needed. "4 We have derived Eq. (40-13) for lengths measured in the direction parallel to the relative motion of the two frames of reference. Len, measured perpendicular to the direction of motion are not contracted. Ty prove this, consider two identical rulers. One ruler is at rest in frame § and lies along the y-axis with one end at O, the origin of S. The othe ruler is at rest in frame S’ and lies along the y'-axis with one end at 0. the origin of $’, At the instant the two origins coincide, observers in the two frames of reference $ and $’ simultaneously observe the positions of the upper ends of the rulers. (Note that because the observations occur atthe same space point for both observers, they agree that they are simultaneous, If the observer in $ thinks that her ruler is shorter, the observer in §’ must think that his ruler is longer, or the reverse. But this would mean that there is some distinction between the two frames of reference, and this violates our basic premise that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. Thus both observers must conclude that the two rulers have the same length, even though to each observer, one of them is stationary and one is moving. So there is no length contraction per- pendicular tothe direction of relative motion of the coordinate systems. In fact, we used this result in our derivation of Eq. (40-5) when we assumed that the distance d is the same in both frames of reference. The Lorentz Transformation ‘The distance x’ is a proper length in |S’ in S it appears contracted by the | factor VI= w/e. The distance between O and 0’, as seen in S, is ut, ‘and x is a proper length in S. Thus xeute'VI ule, In Section 40-1 we discussed the Galilean coordinate transformation, which relates the coordinates (x, y, 2) of a point in frame of reference 5 to the coordinates (x', y', z') of the point in a second frame S’ moving with constant velocity w relative to S, along the common x-x'-axis. The transformation is given by Eqs. (40-1). Embedded in this formulation is the assumption that the time scale is the same in the two frames of refer- ence, as expressed by the additional relation ¢ = #’. This transformation, as we have seen, is valid only in the limit when w is much smaller than ¢ We are now ready to derive a more genetal transformation that is consis tent with the principle of relativity. The more general relations are called the Lorentz transformation. In the limit of very small w they reduce to the Galilean transformation, but they may also be used when w is comparable toc. The basic problem is this: When an event occurs at point ( y2)at time 1, as observed in a frame of reference S, what are the coordinate (’, y', 2') and time 1” of the event as observed in a second frame s moving relative to $ with constant velocity w along the x-direction? To derive the transformation equations, we refer to Fig. 40-5 w! is the same as Fig. 40-1. As before, we assume that the origins conc’ at the initial time ¢ = t' = 0. Then in $ the distance from 0 to 0’ attime is still ut. The coordinate x’ is a proper length in S’, so in S ita cu aan UUaT934 ‘Chapter 40. Relativistic Mechanics ‘The Galitean velocity transformation equation, Eq. (40-2), is vai only in the limit when u i very small. We can use Eqs. (40-19) to ph the appropriate relativistic generalization. We use v and v' for the s-components of velocity of a particle, as measured in § and $', r¢, spectively. In $', if a point moves a distance Ax’ in a time Af’, jxy velocity v’ is v’ = Ax’/At’. Using the expressions for Ax’ and AV’ given by Eqs. (40-19), we find Ax—uat (Ax/At) = wv ‘Bt was (u/eV(Ax]” But Ax/At equals v, the x-component of velocity as measured in S, 50 we finally obtain v (40-20) When u and v are much smaller than c, the denominator in Eq, (40-20) approaches unity, and we obtain the nonrelativistic result y' = vnu The opposite extreme is the case v = c; then we find This says that anything moving with speed ¢ relative to § also has speede relative to $', despite the relative motion of the wo frames. So Eq, (40-20) is consistent with our initial assumption that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. We can also rearrange Eq. (40-20) to give v in terms of u', We leave the algebraic details as a problem; the result is vitu “Twit sea $$$ $$ Example 40-4 A spaceship moving away from the earth with speed 0.90 fires a missile in the same direction as its motion, with speed 0.70 relative to the spaceship. What is the missile’s speed relative to the earth? Solution Let the earth's frame of reference be S, the spaceship $'. Then 4 = 0.90¢ and v’ = 0.70c. The nonrelativisitic velocity addition formula would give a velocity relative to earth of 1.60c. The correct relativistic result, from Eq. (40-21), is 0:70 + 0.90 °* T+ @.90-K0.70e,e ~ 99%: ‘When wu is less frame of than ¢, a body moving with a speed less than ¢ in 00€ oon Mohn 3 peed tos tase 7b ony ober mel hy uhis i one reason for thinking that no material body sf “savel with a speed greater than that of light relative to amy frameTeference. The rela which we will consi this hypothesis, |. 1. Try hard to ‘understand the concepts of | proper time and Proper length. A time interval | between two events that happen at the same space | point in a particular frame of reference is a proper | time in that frame, and the time interval bewween | the same two events is longer in any other frame. | The length of a body measured in a frame in ) which it is at rest is a proper length in that frame, _and the length is less in any other frame, 2. ‘The Lorent, transformation eq how to relate measurements m: | de in different | inertial frames of reference. When you use them, it idhelps to make a list of coordinates and times of | events in the two frames, s por. List and label carefully wi | dont know, Do you know and you know the coordinates in one id. 40-6 Momentum 935 Livistic generalizations of energy and momentum, er in the following sections, give further support to P. ROBLEM OLVING STRATEGY: Lorentz Transformation frame? The time of an event in one frame? What.» j are your knowns and unknowns? i 3. In velocity-transformation problems, if you *”'* have two observers measuring the motion of a ©)’ body, decide which you want to call Sand which S’, identify the velocities v and v’ clearly, and make sure you know the velocity « of S” relative to Se Use either form of the velocity transformation ; equation, (40-20) or (40-21), whichever is, 4. Don't be discouraged if-some of your, results’. don’t seem to make sense or if they disagree with your intuition. Reliable intuition about’ relativity. - "| takes time to develop. Keep trying to develop » intuitive understanding; it will come, | Scanned with Car