TIO LT . Chapter 1 Special Relativity Our study of modern phys es begins with a consideration of the 5 i pecial theory of relativity This is a logical starting point, since all of physics is ultimately concerned with measurement and relativity involves an analysis of how measurements depend upnn the observer as well a upon what is observed. From relativity emerges a new mechanies in which there are intimate relationships between space and time. ma and energy. Without these relationships it would be impossible to understand the microscopic world within the atom whose elucidation is the central problem of modern physics 1.1 The Michelson-Morley Experiment The wave theory of light was devised and perfected several decades before the electromag. netic nature of the waves became known. It was ard ‘easonable for the pioneers in upties tor medium called the ether, and their = light waves as undulations in an all-pervading diffraction and interference phenomena in terms of ether waves made ful explanation 0} the notion of the ether so familiar that ils esistenee was accepted without question. Maxwell's development of the electromagnetic theory of light in 186 and Herts experimental con- firmation of it in 1887 deprived the ether of most of its properties. but nobody at the time to diseard the fundamental idea represented by the ether: that light propagates sort of universal frame of reference. Let us consider an example of what this seemed willi relative to som: idea implies with the help of a simple analogy. Figure 1.1 isa sketch of a river of width D which flows with the speed v. Two boats start out from one bank of the river with the same speed V. Boat 4 crosses the river to a point on the other bank directly opposite the starting point and then returns. while boat B heads downstream for the distance D and then returns to the starting point, Let us calculate the time required for each round trip. We begin by considering boat 4. If Ah will carry it downstream from its goal on the opposite bank ( somewhat upstream in order to compensate for the current. lish th der to cancel out the river ¢ 1.2 we see that these eads perpendicularly across the river, the current Fig, 1.2). It must therefore heal In order to accomplish this. 1ts at upstream component of velocity should be exactly — v in order to cans ¥ leaving the component V’ as its net speed across the river. From Fig speeds are related by the formula veeV2+e?land FIGURE 1.1 Boat A goes directly across the river and returns to its starting point, while boat B heads downstream for an identical distance and then returns. so that the actual speed with which boat A crosses the river is Hence the time for the initial crossing is the distance D divided by the speed V’. Since the FIGURE 1.2 Boat A must head upstream in order to compensate for the river current if it is to go directly across the river 7 Se ee 2. Special Relativityreverse crossing involves exactly the same amount of time, the total round-trip time t4 is twice D/V’, or 20/V vi - ov a “= ‘The case of boat B is somewhat different. As it heads downstream, its speed relative to the shore is its own speed V plus the speed » of the river (Fig. 1.3), and it travels the distance D downstream in the time we Vee On its return trip, however, B's speed relative to the shore is its own speed V minus the speed of the river. It therefore requires the longer time to travel upstream the distance D to its starting point. The total round-trip time ¢ is the sum of these times, namely Using the common denominator (V+ «)(V/— «) for botlt terms, DV - vy + DV +9 = 12 GURE 13 The speed of Bost 8 downstream relative tothe shore is increasad by the speed iver current while its speed upstraam is reduced by the same amount.which is greater than t4, the corresponding total round-trip time, for the other boat. The ratio between the times t4 and tg is 4“ 13 “ ; = WV If we know the common speed V’ of the two boats and measure the ratio t4/tp. we can deter. mine the speed » of the river. The reasoning used in this problein may be transferred to the analogous problem of the passage of light waves through the ether. If there is an ether pervading space. we move through it with at least the 3 X 104 m/sec (18.5 mi/sec) speed of the earth's orbital motion about the sun: if the sun is also in motion, our speed through the ether is even greater (Fig, 1.4). From the point of view of an observer on the earth. the ether is moving past the earth, To detect this motion, we can use the pair of light beams formed by a half-silvered mirror instead of a pair of boats (Fig. 1.5). One of these light beams is directed to a mirror along a path perpendicular to the ether current, while the other goes to a mirror along a path parallel to the ether current. The optical arrangement is such that both beams return to the same view: ing screen. The purpose of the clear glass plate is to ensure that both beams pass through the same thicknesses of air and glass. If the path lengths of th two beams are exactly th same, they will arrive at the screen in phase and will interfere constructively to yield a bright field of view. The presence of an ether current in the direction shown, however, would cause the beams to have different transit FIGURE 1.4 Motions of the earth through a hypothetical ether. earth's moon : relative to sun Earth 4 Special RelativitySo tir A / sass plate parallel light from single source mirror B gee hypothetical ether current viewing screen FIGURE 1.5 The Michelson-Morley experiment, times in going from the half-silvered mirror to the screen, so that they would no longer arrive at the screen in phase but would interfere destructively. In essence this is the ment performed in 1887 by the American physicists Michelson and Morley In the actual experiment the two mirrors are not perfectly perpendicular, with the result that the viewing screen appears crossed with a series of bright and dark interference fringes due to differences in path length between adjacent light waves (Fig. 1.6). If either of the optical paths in the apparatus is varied in length, the fringes appear to move across the screen as reinforcement and cancellation of the waves succeed one another at each point. The sta Uonary apparatus, then, can ‘ell us nothing about any time difference between the two paths. ‘When the apparatus is rotated by 90°, however, the two paths change their orientations rela. tive to the hypothetical ether stream, so that the beam formerly requiring the time t4 for the round trip now requires ¢g and vice versa. If these times are different, the fringes will move across the screen during the rotation 4 I fe bus experiLet us calculate the fringe shift expected on the basis of the ether theory, From and 1.2 the time difference between the two paths owing to the ether drift is a= — ta 2p/V___2D/V “jaan vie Here w is the ether speed, which we shall take as the earth's orbital speed of 3 x 104 m/sec, and V is the speed of light c, where c = 3 X 108 m/sec. Hence ve vw nog’ = 10-8 which is much smaller than 1. According to the binomial theorem, foe ae a(n — Ux? a(n — Vin — 2d (=a stem + sO + which is valid for x? < 1. When x is extremely small compared with 1, Q+xy=ltnx We may therefore express Ar to a good approximation as, 2D vw le a= =)- aoe ¢ () (+25)| =()() In this expression D is the distance between the half-silvered mirror and each of the other mirrors. The path difference d corresponding to a time difference Ar is d=ch 1€d corresponds to the shifting of n fringes, d=nd here D is the wavele, : where ) is the wavelength of the light used Equating these two formulas for d, we find that cu x Det Xa 6 Special Rel ivityactual experiment Michelson and Morley were able to make D about 10 m in effective vcngth through the use of multiple reflections, and the wavelength of the light they used was dhput 5.000 A (A = 10-10 m). The expected fringe shift in each path when the apparatus js rotated by 90° is therefore In the 10m x (3 x 10¢ m/sec)? X 10-7 m X (3 X 108 m/sec)? .2 fringe " since both paths experience this fringe shift, the total shift should amount to 2n or 0.4 fringe A chit ofthis magnitude is readily observable, and therefore Michelson and Morley looked forward to establishing directly the existence of the ether. ‘To everybody's surprise, no fringe shift whatever was found. When the experiment was formed at different seasons of the year and in different locations, and when experiments Prrther kinds were tried for the stme purpose, the conclusions were always identical: no motion through the ether was detected. ‘The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment had two consequences. First, is rendered untenable the hypothesis of the ether by demonstrating that the ether has no measurable properties—an ignominious end for what had once been a respected idea. Second, it suggested a new physical principle: the speed of light in free space ie the same everywhere, regardless of any motion of source or observer. 1.2. The Special Theory of Relativity he ether as a universal frame of reference with respect to which light waves were supposed to propagate. Whenever we speak of “motion,” of course, we ttve to a frame of reference.” The frame of reference may be a road, the earth’s surface, the sun, the center of our galaxy; but in every case we must specify it Stones dropped in Bermuda and in Perth, Australia, both fall “down,” and yet the two mmovein exactly opposite directions eelative to the earth's center. Which is the correct location of the frame of reference in this situation. the earth’s surface or its center? The answer is that all frames of reference are equally correct, although one may be more convenient to use ina specific case. If there were an ether pervading all space. we could refer all motion to it and the inhabitants of Bermuda and Perth would escape from their quandary. The ahsence of an ether then, implies that there is no universal frame of reference, so that all motion exists colely relative to the person or instrugent observing it. If we are in & free Ialloonsbove a uniform eloud bark and see another free balloon change its position relative 10 us, we have no way of knowing which balloon is “really” moving (Fig, 1.7). Should we be iolated in he universe. there would be no way in which we could determine whether we We mentioned earlier the role of 1 really mean “motion rel:apparent direction of motion of other balloon apparent direction of is upward motion of other balloon is downward FIGURE 1.7 All motion is relative to the observer. are in motion or not, because without a frame of reference the concept of motion has no meaning The theory of relativity resulted from an analysis of the physical consequences implied by the absence of a universal frame of reference. The special theory of relativity, developed by Albert Einstein in 1905, treats problems involving inertial frames of reference. which are frames of reference moving at constant velocity with respect to one another. The general theory of relativity, proposed by Einstein a decade later, treats problems involving frames of reference accelerated with respect to one another. An observer in an isolated laboratory a an —- bexbody who has been in an elevator or on a merry-go-round can rae a Speen The special theory has had a profound in Bee wll consider it in this chapter and the first part of Chap. 2 general theory ‘The ‘cial theo la « special theory of relativity is based upon two postulates. The first states that the laws of physics ma ticle phy es be expressed in equations having the same form in all frames af oving at constant velocity with ae i absence of a universal frame of referenc for different observers in relative motion, AL con pect to one another. This postulate If the laws of physics had differeat ld be determined from these differ Special Rel‘ences which objects are “stationary” in space and which are “moving.” But because there is no universal frame of reference, this distinction does not exist im nature; hence the above postulate. The second postulate of special relativity states that the speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion. This postulate follows directly from the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and others) [At first sight these postulates hardly seem radical. Actually they subvert almost all of the intuitive concepts of time and space we form on the basis of our daily experience. '\ simple example wil illustrate this statement. In Fig, 1.8 we have the two boats 4 and B ‘once more, with boat A stationary in the water while boat B drifts at the constant velocity v. There is a dense fog present, and so on neither boat does the observer have any idea which is the moving one. At the instant that B is abreast of 4, a lace is fired. The light from the fare travels uniformly in all directions, according to the second postulate of special rela- «_ An observer on either boat must see a sphere of light expanding with himself at its enter, according to the first postulate of special relativity, even though one of them is hanging his position with respect to the point where the fare went off: The observers cannot detect which of them is undergoing such a change in position since the fog eliminates sareipame of reference other than each boat itself. and so, sinee the speed of light isthe same for both of them. they must both, see the identical phenomenon. Whe fc the situation of Fig. 1.8 unusual? Let us consider a more familiar analog, The nats are at cea on a clear day and somebody on one of them drops a stone into the water FIGURE 1.8 Relativistic phenomena differ from everyday experience. & “pa B ‘each person sees sphere light emitted by flare of light expanding about himself a “D> B pattern of ripples from ‘each person sees pattern stone dropped in water in different place relative to himself 9 The Special Theory of Relativitywhen they are abreast of each other. A circular pattern of ripples ona cs aa the bottom of Fig, 1.8, which appears different to observers on each boat. Merels y Sbarvng whether or not he is atthe center of the patern of ripples. each obmerver can inl wbelier he is moving relative to the water or not. Water is in itself « frame of relereice, aud an cbserver on a boat moving through it measures ripple speeds with respect 10 himsell tha are different in different directions, in contrast to the uniform ripple spe ae an observer on a stationary boat. It is important to recognize that motion and waves ‘eoter are entirely diferent from motion and waves in space; water is in itself a frame of reference while space is not, and wave speeds in water vary with the observer's motion while wave speeds of light in space do not. The oy aa of imeqehag the fact that observers in the two boats in our cumple perceive identical expanding spheres of light is to regard the coordinate ae each observer, from the point of view of the other, as being affected by their relative motion When this idea is developed, using only accepted laws of physics and Einstein's postulates, we shall see that many peculiar effects are predicted. One of the triumphs of modern physics is the experimental confirmation of these effects. 1.3. The Galilean Transformation . Let us suppose that we are in a frame of reference S and find that the coordinates of some event that occurs at the time ¢ are x, y, z. An observer located in a different frame of refer- ence S’ which is moving with respect to S at the constant velocity v will find that the same event occurs at the time ¢’ and has the coordinates x’, y’, 2’. (In order to simplify our work. we shall assume that v is in the + x direction, as in Fig. 1.9.) How are the measurements x,y, 2 related tox’, y'.2'7 At first glance the answer seems obvious enough. If time in both systems is measured from the instant when the origins of S and S' coincided, measurements in the x direction made in S will exceed those made in S’ by the amount vt, which represents the distance that S’ has moved in the x direction. That is vy , ‘There is no relative motion in the y and = directions, and so 1s 16 In the absence of i any indication to the co Sa contrary in our everyday experience. we further wy ¢ ‘The set of Eqs. 1.410 1.7 is know 7 To unten seca atten mh lean vnyomatin anents messured in the S frame to their equivalents in the2 FIGURE 19. Frame S* moves in the + direction with the speed ¥ relative to frame S. § frame according to the Galilean transformation, we simply differentiate Eqs. 1.4 to 1.6 vith respect to time: 8 weGeune 1s - 110 2 bis ba the Galilean transformation and the velocity transformation it leads to are aa with our intuitive expectations, they violate both ofthe postulates of special Naa frst postulate calls for identical equations of physics in beth the Sand S nee be the fundamental equations of electricity and magnetism assume ma ee 1-4 to 1.7 are used to convert quantities measured in one ¢ equivalents in the other. The second postulate calls for the same value ry sted flight ¢ whether determined in S ofS If we measure the speed of Tight in ion in the S system to be c, hawever, in the S* aystem it will be ol the speed of e-e We cas alilean Tr Transformation aaccording to Eq, 1.8. Clearly 2 different transformation is requited if the postulates of sp. cial relativity are to be satisfied. 1.4 The Lorentz Transformation Gk dhall nome derlop’ a, set of teanslormanon equations directly from the postulates of of relationship between x and ai special relativity. A reasonable guess 2610 the kind of relationship ae wal ake — 0) where k is a factor of proportionality that does not depend upon either x or £ but may be funetion of v. The choice of Eq. 1.11 follows from several considerations: Lie je owas in x und x, So that o single evest in fearoe S corresponds to a single event in frame S’, as it must. 2. Iris simple, and a simple solution to a problem should always be explored first, 3. Ithas the possibility of reducing to Eq. T-4, which we know to be correct in vidinary mechanics. Because the equations of physics must have the same form in both S and S’, we need only change the sign of v (in order to take into account the difference in the direction of relative motion) to write the con nding equation for xin terms of x” and ¢ Laz x= K(x’ + et) The factor & must be the same in both frames of reference since there is no difference be- other than in the sign of v pween Sand ‘As in the case of the Galilean transformation. there is nothing to indicate that there might be differences between the corresponding coordinates y. y’, and 2 which are normal to the direction of v. (We shall verify this assumption in See. 1.6.) Hence we again take yoy 1s The time coordinates ¢ and ', however, are ‘ and ¢', however, are not equal. We can see this by substituting th value of x’ given by Eq. 1.11 into Eq. 1.12. We obtain aa x = R(x — vt) + hot! from which we find that qas vane (LEH): ke Equations 111, 1.13, 1 +113, LIM, and 115 constitute er oe titute a coordinate transtormation that satisties The second postulate of relativity enables us to uate k. At the instant ¢ 0, the 12 Special Relativitynig of the two frames of reference S and Sate in the nal conditions. and = 0 then also, Suppose that a flare Pe aR according to our Mr Sal Sat ¢= = 0. and the observers in ach system ea the common origin swith which the Hight from it spreads out, Both ol a to measure the speed eevers must find reams that inthe S fran ust find the same speed c, which 116 vale while in the S’ frame 17 Substituting for x’ and ¢ in Eq. 1.17 with the help of Eqs. 1.11 and 1.15. ke — 0) = okt + ( = Pe 2 and solving for x. 1, provided and Lae The \orentz Transformation B Sai,Inseiting the above value of k in Eqs. 1.11 and 1.15, we have for the complete trans. formation of measurements of an event made in S to the corresponding measurements made in S the equations as x Lorents transformation 1.20 yoy Lorentz transformation 121 fas Lorentz transtormation 1.22 t Lorentz transformation Equations 1.19 to 1.22 comprise the Lorents transformation. They were first obtained by the Dutch physicist H. A. Lorentz, who showed that the basic formulas of electromagnetism are the same in all frames of reference in uniform relative motion only when these transforma- tion equations are used. It was not until a number of years later that Einstein discovered their full significance. In order to transform measurements from S’ to S, the only changes in the Lorentz transformation equations that need be made are to exchange primed for unprimed quantities and vice versa, and to replace » by —v. Thus the inverse Lorentz transformation is 123 Inverse Lorentz transformation 124 Inverse Lorentz transformation 12 s lnwerse Lorentz transtormation gee us ts = Inverse Lorentz trans Var worse Lorents transformation o Two obvious aspects of the Lorentz transformation are worth noting, The first is that he of time as well as of position depend upon the frame of reference of the ob- mae leno hich onc simulisnously in one frame at different places need }eous in another. The second is that the Lor cna rgdluce'to the andl nary Galilean equations 1.4.10 1.7 when the relative velocity ct Sand S farall ova : with the velocity of light ¢. Therefore we ao re we may anticipate that the nd Sis small compared 14° Special Relativity1.5 The Lorentz-FitrGerald Contraction rod is lying along the 2” axis of a moving frame of reference 5. 1 pnes the coordinates of its ends tobe x{ and 22, and he ae tame of the rod is aid, ur ea Las the rods length a8 measured in a frame of reference in which itis at rest. Suppose the same quantity is determined from a frame of reference S relative to which the rod is moving with the velocity v: Will the length L measured in S be the same as the length Lo that was measured in S? In more familiar terms, if a yardstick is in a speeding car (the S’ frame), does it seem to have the same length to someone standing beside the road (the 5 frame) as it does to someone inside the car? In order to find L, we use the Lorentz transformation to go from the coordinates xj and xy in the moving frame S’ to the corresponding coordinates x1 and xp in the stationary frame S. From Eq. 1.19 we have, since the measurements of x1 and x2 are made at the same time 1, 3 y debitio ‘ton the length L measured in the stationary frame S is given by la Len-y which means thar Ngee o vVI- ve Meee of an bo VIA Lorents-PtxGaraid contraction jeer mn motion wi ‘on sth respect to an observer appears to the observer to be Loren, "Mt Contraction 15,shorter than when itis al eat with respect to him, « phemornene? cee FuzGerald contraction, Tecauee the relative velocity ofthe two frames Sand S appears only as 1? in Eq, 1.29, ih doee not matter which frame we call Sand which S: 1 find thatthe length of» space Chips Lo when ition its launching pad, me wl Bd Hip pround that st length L whe moving with the speed vis ; Leb vi-"/" i fhe earth behind him appear shorter than they chile to a man in the spaceship. objects 0” the Se 3 vTed when he was on the ground by the same f8cior ade Terence frame in which itis tations and its length is lens maximum when measured in a rel when measured in a reference frame in which it is moving, : ‘The ratio between L and Loin Eq, 1.27 is the same as that in Eq. 1.3 when it is applied to the times of travel of the two light beams, so that we might be tempted to consider the Michelson-Morley result solely as evidence for the contraction of the Jength of their appa- vatus in the direction of the earth’s mouion, This interpretation was tested by Kennedy and Thorndike in a similar experiment using an jnterferometer with arms of unequal length ‘They also found no fringe shift, which means that these experiments must be considered evidence for the absence of an ether with all this implies and not only for contractions of the apparatus. ‘The relativistic length contraction 1s negligible for ordinary speeds, but it is an im- portant effect at speeds close to the speed of light.-A speed of 1,000 mi /sec seems enormous to us, and vet it results in a shortening in the direction of motion to only Le E7Vi-@ ~ (1,000 mi/sec)* (186,000 mi/sec)? = 0.999985 = 99,9985 percent =\/1 of the length at rest. Or the lngh at ret Jn the other hand, a body traveling at 0.9 the speed of light is shortened ey et Lo ES = 0.436 = 43.6 percent of the length at rest, « significant change ‘The Lorenty-Fite( FitzGerald if vis parallel to x, 1 aa, eae oteurs onl i el tps. the yands only in the di ¥ and z dimensions of a moving died cancel ei peas me in both S am 16 Special RelativityAn actual photograph of an object in very rapi chat different distortion, depending upon the direc the ratio v/c. The reason for this effect is that by matter) from the more distant pa the nearer parte: the camera “se was at different locations when the various elements of the Jeft it, This effect alters the Lorentz-FitaGerald a oe fepataciglin of a moving object in the direction of motion. A three-dimensional body cet ee may be seen as rotated in orientation as well as changed in shape, again dlegendine wre ae ition of the observer and the valve of te, This visual effect must be dietinpehed io, the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction itself, which isa physical phenomenon. If there were ny Lorentz-FitGerald contraction, the appearance of a moving hody would be diferent nny what itis at rest, but in another way , Its imeresting to note that the above approach to the visual appearance of rapidly moving objects was not made until 1950. 54 years after the publication of the special theory of relativity. Nd relative motion might reve ton from which he nb are f the obey ht Teaching the camera (or eve for that Xe object was emitted earlier than that coming fy ‘at is actually @ composite, since ee i object 1.6 Time Dilation Time intervals. too. are affected by relative motion. Clocks moving with respect to an ob- server appear to tick Jess rapidly than they do when at rest with respect to him. If we. in the S frame, observe the length of time £ some event requires in a frame of reference S’ in mo- tion relative to us, our clock will indicate a longer time interval than the t@ determined by a clock in the moving frame. This effect is called ume dilation. To see how time dilation comes about, let us imagine a clock at the point x’ in the moving frame S. When an observer in S’ finds that the time is (4. an observer in S will find it to be 4, where, from Eq. 1.26, a+ i+a After a time interval of to (to him), the observer in the moving system finds that the time is ‘now t2 according to his clock. That is. cad w=h-h The observer in S, however, measures the end of the same time interval te be S01 him the duration of the interval ¢ is 7 Time Dilation1.31 t=a-h or 1.32 t= a-4 Vi -#/e 4 SSS Tio stati T= v?/ [A stationary clock measures a longer time interval between events occurring in a moving frame of reference than does a clock in the moving frame. The slowing down of clocks in motion is so remarkable a phenomenon that it deserves 1 further look. Instead of starting from the Lorentz transformation, let us directly examine the mechanism of a clock and see how relative motion affects what we measure. A particularly simple clock consists of a stick L long with a mirror at each end (Fig, 1.10). A pulse of light is reflected up and down between the mirrors, and an appropriate device is attached to one of the mirrors to give a “tick” of some kind each time the pulse of FIGURE 1.10 A simple clock. Each “tick” corresponds to a round trip of the light pulse from the lower mirror to the upper one and back. -——— nsirrer meter stick recording device light pulse 000 7 mirror / photosensitive surface “teks” — 18 Special Relativityjight strikes it. (Such a device might be a photosensitive surface on th, arranged to give an eleciric signal when the light pulse arrives) The nn Ahicks 1s mirror which can be ime interval 4p between 133 ip wee c 1 the stick is 1 m long. _ 2m Be egy DA mex 7 987 X 10-4 see and there are 1.5 X 108 ticks sec. Twa identical clocks of this kind are built. and one is attached to a spaceship mounted perpendicular to the direction of motion while the other at rest on the earth's surface. The first question to ask is whether the length of the meter stick on the spaceship, as measured from the ground. is different when it is in motion. We assumed earlier in Eq. 1.20 that y’ = and hence that there is no difference: now let us verify this statement by a'hypo- thetical experiment. On the ground pencils are attached near the ends of the spaceship’s meter stick, and by bringing this stick to the stick fixed on the ground, marks are made ‘on the latter. The spaceship is then set in motion. and the same process is repeated with the pencils brushing against the meter stick on the ground as the moving stick speeds past. Ifthe spaceship’s meter stick is different in length from what it was at rest the new pencil marks will not coincide with the old ones; if the moving stick is shorter, for instance, the new marks will be closer together than the old ones. The various marks are definite permanent physical things. and when the spaceship lands, ite pilot can compare them and check . ‘whether his meter stick changed in length while in motion relative to the ground For the sake of argument, let us suppose a moving meter stick in the y direction does server on seem smaller to a stationary observer when it is moving in the x direction. An ol the ground would therefore expect the new marks on the stationary stick to be closer te ether than the old ones. But to the pilot of the spaceship. the stick on the ground is in mo- tom relative to him and hence is the shorter one, which means that the marks his pencils make on the latter ought to be farther apart than the marks made when both were at rest There is no way to resolve this contradiction while retaining the idea that all m live except by concluding that the new pencil marks must coincide with the old ones. in which casey’ = y as in Eq. 1.20. he preceding analysis holds equally well for a meter suck fz ct im Eq. 1.21, However, the analysis cannot be applied to a meter stick in the 3 rection, whichis the direction of mation, because the pene marks would all fall on the ‘Siw line and be indistinguishable. A different kind of experiment is needed heres and it will yield the Lorenta- FitzGerald « won of Eq, 1.29) stp cee established that the distance L between the mirrors of the sey in the se mo lected by its motion, the next question to ask is how much time «¢lapers 0 ‘moving clock as measured by an observer on the ground with an identical cl jon is rela in the = direction, 96 Time Dilation =FIGURE 1.11 A light clock in the moving S’ system as seen by an observer (nt the stationary S system. that is stationary with respect to him. Each tick involves the passage of a pulse of light at speed ¢ from the lower mirror tothe upper one and back. During this round-trip passage, the crire clock in the spaceship is in motion, which means that the pulse of light, as seen from the ground, actually follows a zigaag path (Fig. 1.11). On its way from the lower mirror to the upper one in the time 1/2. the pulse of light travels a horizontal distance of vt/2 and a total distance of «1/2. Since L is the vertical distance between the mirrors, =e GF Fas, fit-8) =P a N= Ll " and v But 2 fc a the time interval to be and so ine interval tg between ticks on the clock on the ground, as in Eq. 1.33 20 Special Relativityas before. The moving clock in the spaceship appears to tick at tionary one on the ground, as seen by an observer on the ground, Fractly the same analysis holds for measurements of the ol pilot of the spaceship. To him, the light pulse of the ground ‘ehich requires a total time per round trip, while his own cloc ticks at intervals of to. He too finds that a slower rate than the sta- lock on the ground by the lock follows a zigzag path a rest in the spaceship, 4 VI = 12/8 Pies so the effect is reciprocal: every observer finds that clocks in motion relative to him tick more slowly than when they are at rest. Gur discussion has been based on a somewhat unusual clock that employs a light pulse bouncing back and forth between two mirrors. Do the same conclusions apply to more con- sentional clocks that use machinery—spring-controlled escapements, tuning forks, or whatever—to produce ticks at constant time intervals? The answer must be yes, since if a mirror clock and a conventional clock in the spaceship agree with each other on the ground but not when in flight, the disagreement between them could be used to determine the speed of the spaceship without reference to any other object—which contradicts the principle that all motion is relative. Detailed calculations of what happens to conventional clocks in mo- tion—as seen from the ground—confirm this answer. For example, as we shall learn in Chap. 2. the mass of an object is greater when it is in motion, so that the period of an oscil- lating object must be greater in the moving spaceship. Therefore all clocks at rest relative to one another behave the same to all observers. regardless of any motion at constant velocity of either the group of clocks or the observers. 1.7 Meson Decay A striking illustration of both the time dilation of Eq. 1.32 and the length contraction of Eq, 1.29 occurs in the decay of unstable particles called jx mesons, whose properties we shalt discuss in greater detail later. For the moment our interest lies in the fact that a 4 meso.. decays into an electron an average of 2 X 10 sec after it comes into being. Now mesons are created high in the atmosphere by fast cosmic-ray particles arriving at the earth from spice, and reach sea level in profusion. Such mesons have a typical speed of 2.994 x 10° M/sec, which is 0.998 of the velocity of light c. But in t = 2 X 10- sec, the meson's ‘mean lifetime, they can travel a distance of only y= = 2.994 x 108 m/sec x 2 x 10-6 sec = 600m while they are actually created at altitudes more than 10 times greater than this. can resolve the meson paradox by using the results of the special theory of rele Meson Decay 2f the meson, in which lem from the frame of reference of ne a ma Pearce! While the mooon lifetime ia unaffected by the motion its distance ime is . to the ground appears shortened by the factor L=vi-¥F x That is, while we, on the ground, measure the altitude at which the meson is produced as , aieeoty y, lf we let y be 600 m, the maximum distance the meson can go in is oun frame of reference at the speed 0,998e before decaying, we find that the corresponding distance yo in our reference frame is = 9,500 m Hence, despite their brief lifespans, it is possible for the mesons to reach the ground from the considerable altitudes at which they are actually formed. Now let us examine the problem from the frame of reference of an observer on the ground. From the ground the altitude at whic! h the meson is produced is yo, but its lifetime in our reference frame has been extended, owi 22 Special Relativitywa = 2.904 x 108 m/see X BLT X 10-8 sec = 9.500 m ae came distance obtained before, The two points of view give identi 1.8 Simultaneity ‘Tye relative character of time at well as space has many implications, For example, evens We gem to take place simultaneously to one observer may not be simultaneous te another server in relative motion. and vice versa. Let us consider two events—the explosion of a pair of time bombs. y—that sceur at the same time foto somebody on the ground but at the different locations ay and 2. What d Joes the pilot of a spaceship see? To him, the ex- plosion at 21 and fo oceurs at the time, according to Eq, 1.22. while the explosion at x2 and to occurs at the time by — txe/c? yi Hence two events that occur simultaneously to one observer are separated by a time interval of \ anothet observer. Who is right? The question is, of course. meaningless: both observers are “right.” since each simply measures what he sees. ae is a relative notion and not an absolute one, physical theories 7c ee in events at different locations must be discarded. The principle eae ile coer in it elementary form states that the total energy content of the AE vente nat: bot it does not rule out a process in which a certain amount of energy ee while an equal amount of energy AE spontaneously comes into ine ene with no actual transport of energy from one place to the other. Be Conserved. To seen relative, some observers of the process will find energy not being sre to ay they Senacration of energy in the light of special relativity, then, it ts when energy disappears somewhere and appears elsewhere, it has ally flo owed { oF ener rom the frst location to the se é BY ean occur, af course.) Ty nto the second. (T are many ways in which a flow thus energy is conserved locally in any arbitrary region of Smultaneityspace at any time, not merely when the universe as a whole considered—a much st statement of this principle. . Although time is a relative quantity, not all the notions of time formed by everyday experience are incorrect. Time does not run backward to any observer, for instance: sequence of events that occur somewhere at {1 2, £3, - -. will appear in the same order 1p all observers everywhere, though not necessarily with the same time intervals tg — fy — tz... between each pair of events. Similarly. no distant observer, regardless of his state of motion, can see an event before it happens—more precisely, before a nearby observer sees it—since the speed of light is finite and signals require the minimum of time L/ctto travel a distance L. There is no way to peer into the future, although temporal {and spatial) perspectives of past events may appear different to different observers. 1.9 Space-Time ‘As we have seen, the concepts of space and time are inextricably mixed in nature. A quan- tity that one observer is able to measure with only a meter stick may have to be measured with both a meter stick and a clock by a different observer. A convenient and elegant way to express the results of special relativity is to regard events as occurring in a four-dimen- sional continuum called space-time in which the three coordinates x, y, z refer to space and a fourth coordinate ict refers to time (i = \/—1). Such a coordinate system cannot be visu: alized, of course, but it is no more difficult to cope with mathematically than a three-dimen- sional system. The reason for choosing ict as the time coordinate instead of simply + is that the quantity 1.36 staat + y2 4 22 — (cy)? 's invariant under a Lorentz transformation. That is, if an event occurs at x, y, :,¢ ina frame of reference Sand at x,y’, 2, ¢ in another frame S’, : Patty tt yt aad yr 4 22 (eye 2 is i Benet 5 is invariant, we can regard a Lorentz transformation merely as a rotation of coordinate axes x, y,z, ict in space-time (Fig. 1.12), f ‘The four cartesian coordinates x, y, z, ict define a vector in space-time, and this four ‘ecior remains fixed in space-time regardless of . Any rotation of the coordinate system—that is, regardless of a - ‘ny shift in point of view from one inertial frame of reference Sto another S Another four-vec or "ctor whose magnitude remains constant under Lorentz transform is the four-vector mome: ha ne eo fa This has the components pe, py ps iE/e, whete Pe Po Pt dealer «linear momentum of a body and Eis its total energy. Hence Pe + py? + pat — (y ce ‘DckatindteeAAGURE 1.12 Rotating a two-dimensional coordinate system leaves unaltered the quantity gia it +f = 27 + ¥'. Ths result can be generalized to the four-dimensional coordinate system 3, yet isthe same in all frames of reference even though Pe, Pw Pe and E separately may be di ferem ac measured in different frames. Electrodynamics, too, can be expressed in terms of foarvectors, though more elaborate mathematical quantities called tensors are also re- quired here. For example. the observation in elementary physics that what appears to be purely electric eld to an observer at rest relative 10a charge q appears as 2 combination aaevcee and magnetic fields to another observer in motion relative to g turns out to be perfectly natural in relativistic electrodynamics, where E and B are associated in a single field tensor. hile we shall go no deeper into this type of analysis, itis already evident that when the laws of physics are expressed in appropriate four-dimensional form, the result is a considerable simplification that clearly exhibits relationships which otherwise might be area ot even averlooked. Historically, the incorporation of special relativity into physies whe fourrectons and four-tensors has led both to a deeper understanding of natural laws already known and to the discovery of new phenomens and relationships Let ws ose some of the notions of space-time we confirm the siements made the last paragraph of Sec. 1.8. Figure 1.13 shows two events ploted on the rectangular axes and ct, Event 1 occurs at x = 0,1 = Oand event 2 oceurs atx = Ax. = ‘At. The interval ‘As between them is defined by as (As)? = (cdo)? — (Ox)? : o is invariant under Lorent? between two events red in the S frame, The vi The rine ofthis definition ie that (As)?, like the s? of Eq. 1.3 tanslormations. f Ax and Ar are the differences in space and time tured in the S frame and Ax’ and A’ are the same quantities meas (As)? = (edn? — (dx)? = (ede)? — (Ae)? Therefore i "lore whatever canclusons we arrive atin the S frame in which even! 1 1% the onigin holed ‘ually well in any other frame in relative motion at eanstant velocity Spacetime 25ams 1 and 2. Event 2 can Now let us look:into the possible relationships between i reaveding oh be related causally in some waY to event 1 provided that a signal 2) jing slower than the speed of light can ‘connect these events that is. provided that cit > [Ol or (a9? >9 > ike interval that e ‘An interval in which ai en = et in Fig. 1.13. even : t cone; all events th [AIL events that co ht cone; all events i ven Lis able to affect lie in the mot necessarily be related, of COO ‘Conversely. the criterion for there bein 2 is that ‘ed by timelike intervals need be related.) no ca between events 1 and cde < [el Figure 1.13 The past and future light cones of event 1 ct event 1 sais ol icici niciABSOLUTE | FUTURE UNRELATED FIGURE 1.14 The world line of 2 particle. (as? <0 ‘Spacetce interval ‘An interval in which (As)? < 0 is said to be spacelike, Every event that is connected with event 1 by a spacelike interval lies outside the light cones of event 1 and neither has inter- acted with event 1 in the past nor is capable of interacting with it in the future: the two events must be entirely unrelated. When events 1 and 2 can be connected with a light signal only, cht = |A2| As=0 ‘An interval in which As V by lighttik O is said w he lighalike. Events that can be connected with event ehtlike intervals lie on the boundaries of the light cones. These cu for exam Unclusons holdin terms of the light cones of event 2 because (As)? is invariant; le, if event 2 is inside the past light cone of event 1, event 1 is inside the future SpacecTime 27, events that lie in the future of an event ct Napa cut in every other frame S*, and events that Ij frame ot eet ‘nis pat in evry oser frame S. Thus “future” and “pants ye! of an event in Tae: “simultaneity” is an ambiguous concept, because al] ot ane a stand fate ight cones of event 1 (hati, all evens connnge) Se ial very event 1) can appear to occur simultaneously with event | pe spa a pera ic spocestime is called its world line (Fig. 1.14). The word gg ie light cones. SED in one in the pug of a particle must lie within its Problems 1. Isa laboratory at rest on the earth's surface really an inertial frame of reference? 2. The length of a rod is measured in several frames of reference, in one of which the rod is at rest. How can the latter frame be identified? 3. Starting from the Lorentz transformation equations 1.19 to 1.22, prove that the inverse transformation of Eqs. 1.23 to 1.26 is correct. 4. A meter stick is projected into space at so great a speed that its length appears con: tracted to only 50 em. How fast is it going in miles per second? 5. A rocket ship is 100 m long on the ground. When it is in flight, its length is 99 m to an observer on the ground, What is its speed? 6. A rocket ship leaves the earth at a speed of 0.98c. How much time does it take for the minute hand of a clock in the ship to make a complete revolution as measured by an observer on the earth? A rocket ship travels away from the earth at 300 m/sec. How many years must elups¢ ore a clock in the ship and one on the ground differ by 1 sec? 8. (a) The density of a substance i ; is pin the S fi i ; denaite vel an'abdciar ta ha’ teak Tame in which it ig at rest. Find the densi Wh) Cold'ias s deacy'or moving at a speed relative to S of » would determine 19.3 g/em? when th, hat is vem" wi ¢ sample is a a observer: What is its density when the relative velocity is 0. cee a 9 A centai 2 particle has a lifetime of 10-7 6° bere dcaig ine ae sec when measured at rest. How far does at it ts created? 0. Light of freq UeNCY ¥ is emitted by times per second and gives off «pul ; Qi rider the source asa clock tat sik # 6 oF i eht with each Nek, show that 28 Special RelativityLak 252149 T4 ee ‘This constitutes the longitudinal doppler effet in light Why does the above formula differ fram the corresponding one for sound waves in air? LL. The eransverse doppler effect, which has no nonrelativistic counterpart, applies 10 measurements of light waves made by an observer in relative motion perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the waves, (In the preceding problem the observer moves parallel ta the direction of propagation.) Show that in the transverse doppler effect vy av lve 12, In 1903 Trouton and Noble performed an inlor=h experiment to detect the existence of an absolute frame of reference. What they did, in essence, was to place a charge +9 31 sen cad of 0 veel amg weal anctbor Coster =f % the opposite end. The rod was suspended From its center with a tiny fiber so it could rotate & horizontal plane. If itis supposed that all electromagnetic phenomena take place in stationary frame of reference (the “ether”). then the charges are moving through the ther with the speed v. and each charge gives "se to a magnetic field. If the angle between Vhs rod and the direction of v is 8, show that the torque on the rod produced by the action of these magnetic fields on the moving charges '§ (q?v? sin 28)/87€0 iA.