UNIT V RELATIVITY

Introduction: What is Relativity?

Until the end of the 19th century it was believed that Newtons three Laws of Motion and the associated ideas about the properties of space and time provided a basis on which the motion of matter could be completely understood. However, the formulation by Maxwell of a unified theory of electromagnetism disrupted this comfortable state of affairs the theory was extraordinarily successful, yet at a fundamental level it seemed to be inconsistent with certain aspects of the Newtonian ideas of space and time. Ultimately, a radical modification of these latter concepts, and consequently of Newtons equations themselves, was found to be necessary. It was Albert Einstein who, by combining the experimental results and physical arguments of others with his own unique insights, first formulated the new principles in terms of which space, time, matter and energy were to be understood. These principles, and their consequences constitute the Special Theory of Relativity. Later, Einstein was able to further develop this theory, leading to what is known as the General Theory of Relativity. Amongst other things, this latter theory is essentially a theory of gravitation. The General Theory will not be dealt with in this course. Relativity (both the Special and General) theories, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics are the three major theories on which modern physics is based. What is unique about these three theories, as distinct from say the theory of electromagnetism, is their generality. Embodied in these theories are general principles which all more specialized or more specific theories are required to satisfy. Consequently these theories lead to general conclusions which apply to all physical systems, and hence are of enormous power, as well as of fundamental significance. The role of relativity appears to be that of specifying the properties of space and time, the arena in which all physical processes take place. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that the word relativity immediately conjures up thoughts about the work of Einstein. The idea that a principle of relativity applies to the properties of the physical world is very old: it certainly predates Newton and Galileo, but probably not as far back as Aristotle. What the principle of relativity essentially states is the following: The laws of physics take the same form in all frames of reference moving with constant velocity with respect to one another. This is a statement that can be given a precise mathematical

meaning: the laws of physics are expressed in terms of equations, and the form that these equations take in different reference frames moving with constant velocity with respect to one another can be calculated by use of transformation equations the so-called Galilean transformation in the case of Newtonian relativity. The principle of relativity then requires that the transformed equations have exactly the same form in all frames of reference, in other words that the physical laws are the same in all frames of reference. This statement contains concepts which we have not developed, so perhaps it is best at this stage to illustrate its content by a couple of examples. First consider an example from everyday experience a train carriage moving smoothly at a constant speed on a straight and level track this is a frame of reference. Suppose that in this carriage is a pool table. If you were a passenger on this carriage and you decided to play a game of pool, one of the first things that you would notice is that in playing any shot, you would have to make no allowance whatsoever for the motion of the train. Any judgement of how to play a shot as learned by playing the game back home, or in the local pool hall, would apply equally well on the train, irrespective of how fast the train was moving. If we consider that what is taking place here is the innate application of Newtons Laws to describe the motion and collision of the pool balls, we see that no adjustment has to be made to these laws when playing the game on the moving train. This argument can be turned around. Suppose the train windows are covered, and the carriage is well insulated so that there is no immediate evidence to the senses as to whether or not the train is in motion. It might nevertheless still be possible to determine if the train is in motion by carrying out an experiment, such as playing a game of pool. But, as described above, a game of pool proceeds in exactly the same way as if it were being played back home no change in shotmaking is required. There is no indication from this experiment as to whether or not the train is in motion. There is no way of knowing whether, on pulling back the curtains, you are likely to see the countryside hurtling by, or to find the train sitting at a station. In other words, what the principle of relativity means is that it is not possible to determine or not the train carriage is moving. This idea can be extended to encompass other laws of physics. To this end, imagine a collection of spaceships with engines shut off all drifting through space. Each space ship constitutes a frame of reference, an idea that will be better defined later. On each of these ships a series of experiments is performed: a measurement of the half life of uranium, a measurement of the outcome of the collision of two billiard balls, an experiment in

thermodynamics, e.g. a measurement of the specific heat of a substance, a measurement of the speed of light radiated from a nearby star: any conceivable experiment. If the results of these experiments are later compared, what is found is that in all cases (within experimental error) the results are identical. In other words, the various laws of physics being tested here yield exactly the same results for all the spaceships, in accordance with the principle of relativity. Thus, quite generally the principle of relativity means that it is not possible, by considering any physical process whatsoever, to determine whether or not one or the other of the spaceships is in motion. The results of all the experiments are the same on all the space ships, so there is nothing that definitely singles out one space ship over any other as being the one that is stationary. It is true that from the point of view of an observer on any one of the space ships that it is the others that are in motion. But the same statement can be made by an observer in any space ship. All that we can say for certain is that the space ships are in relative motion, and not claim that one of them is truly stationary, while the others are all truly moving. This principle of relativity was accepted (in somewhat simpler form i.e. with respect to the mechanical behaviour of bodies) by Newton and his successors, even though Newton postulated that underlying it all was absolute space which defined the state of absolute rest. He introduced the notion in order to cope with the difficulty of specifying with respect to what an accelerated object is being accelerated. To see what is being implied here, imagine space completely empty of all matter except for two masses joined by a spring. Now suppose that the arrangement is rotated, that is, they undergo acceleration. Naively, in accordance with our experience, we would expect that the masses would pull apart. But why should they? How do the masses know that they are being rotated? There are no signposts in an otherwise empty universe that would indicate that rotation is taking place. By proposing that there existed an absolute space, Newton was able to claim that the masses are being accelerated with respect to this absolute space, and hence that they would separate in the way expected for masses in circular motion. But this was a supposition made more for the convenience it offered in putting together his Laws of motion, than anything else. It was an assumption that could not be substantiated, as Newton was well aware he certainly felt misgivings about the concept! Other scientists were more accepting of the idea, however, with Maxwells theory of electromagnetism for a time seeming to provide some sort of confirmation of the concept.

One of the predictions of Maxwells theory was that light was an electromagnetic wave that travelled with a speed c _ 3 108 ms1. But relative to what? Maxwells theory did not specify any particular frame of reference for which light would have this speed. A convenient resolution to this problem was provided by an already existing assumption concerning the way light propagated through space. That light was a form of wave motion was well known Youngs interference experiments had shown this but the Newtonian world view required that a wave could not propagate through empty space: there must be present a medium of some sort that vibrated as the waves passed, much as a string vibrates as a wave travels along it. The proposal was therefore made that space was filled with a substance known as the ether whose purpose was to be the medium that vibrated as the light waves propagated through it. It was but a small step to then propose that this ether was stationary with respect to Newtons absolute space, thereby solving the problem of what the frame of reference was in which light had the speed c. Furthermore, in keeping with the usual ideas of relative motion, the thinking then was then that if you were to travel relative to the ether towards a beam of light, you would measure its speed to be greater than c, and less than c if you travelled away from the beam. It then came as an enormous surprise when it was found experimentally that this was not, in fact, the case. This discovery was made by Michelson and Morley, who fully accepted the ether theory, and who, quite reasonably, thought it would be a nice idea to try to measure how fast the earth was moving through the ether. They found to their enormous surprise that the result was always zero irrespective of the position of the earth in its orbit around the sun or, to put it another way, they measured the speed of light always to be the same value c whether the light beam was moving in the same direction or the opposite direction to the motion of the earth in its orbit. In our spaceship picture, this is equivalent to all the spaceships obtaining the same value for the speed of light radiated by the nearby star irrespective of their motion relative to the star. This result is completely in conflict with the rule for relative velocities, which in turn is based on the principle of relativity as enunciated by Newton and Galileo. Thus the independence of the speed of light on the motion of the observer seems to take on the form of an immutable law of nature, and yet it is apparently inconsistent with the principle of relativity. Something was seriously amiss, and it was Einstein who showed how to get around the problem, and in doing so he was forced to conclude that space and time had properties undreamt of in the Newtonian world picture.

All these ideas and a lot more besides, have to be presented in a much more rigorous form. The independence of results of the hypothetical experiments described above on the state of motion of the experimenters can be understood at a fundamental level in terms of the mathematical forms taken by the laws of nature. All laws of nature appear to have expression in mathematical form, so what the principle of relativity can be understood as saying is that the equations describing a law of nature take the same mathematical form in all inertial frames of reference. It is this latter perspective on relativity that is developed here, and an important starting point is the notion of a frame of reference.

Frames of Reference
Classically, space and time are absolute; they have separate and independent existence: space is extent, time is duration. In contrast, a relative quantity depends on your point of view. For example, position is relative. If I say that Kent is 30 miles south, I need to add from where: Kent is 30 miles south of Cleveland. If I change my point of view from Cleveland to Akron, then I would describe the location differently: Kent is 10 miles North-East of Akron. Of course, Kent didnt move, just where we measured it from, that is our frame of reference changed. In general, a point is located in space by coordinates (x, y, z). For different coordinate system, the values of (x, y, z) for each coordinate can be different. A frame of reference specifies the origin (x,y,z) and the directions of the axes. A frame of reference can also be moving with respect to one another. For example, we always need to tell what the velocity is measured with respect to: the earth, someone driving in a car, etc. So, Velocities, like position, are also relative.

Figure 1: Frame of reference For example, a ball rolling to the back of a moving bus has a different speed relative to someone sitting on the bus (one reference frame) than the speed relative to someone standing on the street (another frame of reference).

Figure 2: Relative velocity Note something at rest at rest in one reference frame, can be moving in another.

Inertial and Non-inertial frames of reference

There are two basic kinds of reference frames: Inertial and non-Inertial. Newtons laws hold in inertial reference frames, but in non-inertial reference frames one has to add (fictitious) forces for Newtons laws to hold. Lets illustrate this with some examples. A car traveling at constant velocity is an inertial reference frame: a wallet on the seat next to you will not move unless acted by a force. A car rapidly coming to a stop is accelerating. This is not an inertial frame: the wallet flies forward (because of inertia), yet there is no force.

Figure 3: Inertial frame of reference. Another example of a non-inertial reference frame is a rotating frame If you try to walk straight across a spinning merry-go-round you have to lean towards the center. That is you feel an outward force, but there is no force in that direction. Newtons first law doesnt seem to work when we are rotating because it is an accelerating (ie, non-inertial) frame of reference.

The Galilean Transformation

The Newtons argument does not tell us whether there is one or many inertial frames of reference, nor, if there is more than one, does it tell us how we are to relate the coordinates of an event as observed from the point-of-view of one inertial reference frame to the coordinates of the same event as observed in some other. In establishing the latter, we can show that there is in fact an infinite number of inertial reference frames. Moreover, the transformation equations that we derive are then the mathematical basis on which it can be shown that Newtons Laws are consistent with the principle of relativity. To derive these transformation equations, consider an inertial frame of reference S and a second reference frame S moving with a velocity vx relative to S.

Figure 4: A frame of reference S is moving with a velocity v x relative to the inertial frame S. An event occurs with spatial coordinates (x, y, z) at time t in S and at (x, y, z) at time t0 in S. Let us suppose that the clocks in S and S are set such that when the origins of the two reference frames O and O coincide, all the clocks in both frames of reference read zero i.e. t = t = 0. According to common sense, if the clocks in S and S0 are synchronized at t = t = 0, then they will always read the same, i.e. t = t always. Suppose now that an event of some kind, e.g. an explosion, occurs at a point (x0, y0, z0, t0) according to S0. Then, by examining Fig. (2), according to S, it occurs at the point

And at the time

(1)

These equations together are known as the Galilean Transformation, and they tell us how the coordinates of an event in one inertial frame S are related to the coordinates of the same event as measured in another frame S moving with a constant velocity relative to S. Now suppose that in inertial frame S, a particle is acted on by no forces and hence is moving along the straight line path given by: (2) where u is the velocity of the particle as measured in S. Then in S, a frame of reference moving with a velocity v = vxi relative to S, the particle will be following a path

The Lorentz Transformation

In deriving this transformation, we will eventually make use of the constancy of the speed of light, but first we will derive the general form that the transformation law must take purely from kinematic/symmetry considerations. The starting point is to consider two inertial frames S and S where S is moving with a velocity vx relative to S. Let us suppose that when the two origins coincide, the times on the clocks in each frame of reference are set to read zero, that is t = t = 0. Now consider an event that occurs at the point (x, y, z, t) as measured in S. The same event occurs at (x, y, z, t) in S. What we are after is a set of equations that relate these two sets of coordinates. We are going to assume a number of things about the form of these equations, all of which can be fully justified, but which we will introduce more or less on the basis that they seem intuitively reasonable. First, because the relative motion of the two reference frames is in the X direction, it is reasonable to expect that all distances measured at right angles to the X direction will be the same in both S and S, (1) We now assume that (x, t) and (x, t) are related by the linear transformations (2)

(3) Why linear? Assuming that space and time is homogeneous tells us that a linear relation is the only possibility. What it amounts to saying is that it should not matter where in space we choose our origin of the spatial coordinates to be, not should it matter when we choose the orgin of time, i.e. the time that we choose to set as t = 0. Now consider the origin O of S. This point is at x = 0 which, if substituted into Eq. (2) gives (4) where x and t are the coordinates of O as measured in S, i.e. at time t the origin O has the X coordinate x, where x and t are related by Ax + Bt = 0. This can be written

(5) but x/t is just the velocity of the origin O as measured in S. This origin will be moving at the same speed as the whole reference frame, so then we have

(6) which gives B = vxA which can be substituted into Eq. (2) to give (7) If we now solve Eq. (22) and Eq. (23) for x and t we get

(8)

(9) If we now consider the origin O of the reference frame S, that is, the point x = 0, and apply the same argument as just used above, and noting that O will be moving with a velocity = vx with respect to S, we get

(10) Comparing this with Eq. (6) we see that (11) and hence the transformations Eq. (8) and Eq. (9) from S0 to S will be, after substituting for D and B:

(12) which we can compare with the original transformation from S to S

(13) Any difference between the two transformation laws can only be due to the fact that the velocity of S0 with respect to S is vx and the velocity of S with respect to S0 is vx. So, given the transformation laws that give the S coordinates in terms of the S0 coordinates, Eq. (12), the corresponding equations going the other way, Eq. (13), can be obtained simply swapping the

primed and unprimed variables, and change the sign of vx. If that is to be the case, then the factor A2 + vxAC must be unity i.e. (14) and it also suggests that C/A is proportional to vx to guarantee the change in sign that occurs in passing from the expression for t to the one for t. Thus,we have (15) from which we get

(16) If we now use the clue that C/A is proportional to vx to try a substitution C/A = vx/V2 where V is a quantity with the units of velocity yet to be determined, we have

(17) so that finally the transformation laws become

(18) This is a remarkable and very general result that depends purely on the assumed homogeneity and isotropy of space. At no stage have we mentioned light, or any other physical quantity for that matter, and yet we have been able to pin down the transformation laws relating coordinate systems for two different inertial frames of reference at least as far as there being only

one undetermined quantity left, namely V. More information is needed to determine its value, but if we were to choose V = , then we find that these transformation equations reduce to the Galilean transformation! However, we have yet to make use of Einsteins second proposal. In doing so we are able to determine V , and find that V has an experimentally determinable, finite value. To this end, let us suppose that when the two origins coincide, the clocks at O and O both read zero, and also suppose that at that instant, a flash of light is emitted from the coincident points O and O. In the frame of reference S this flash of light will be measured as lying on a spherical shell centred on O whose radius is growing at the speed c. However, by the second postulate, in the frame of reference S0, the flash of light will also be measured as lying on a spherical shell centred on O whose radius is also growing at the speed c. Thus, in S, if the spherical shell passes a point P with spatial coordinates (x, y, z) at time t, then by our definition of synchronization we must have:

(19) The flash of light passing the point P in space at time t then defines an event with spacetime coordinates (x, y, z, t). This event will have a different set of coordinates (x, y, z, t) relative to the frame of reference S0 but by our definition of synchronization these coordinates must also satisfy: (20) We want to find how the two sets of coordinates (x, y, z, t) and (x, y, z, t) are related in order for both Eq. (19) and Eq. (20) to hold true. But we know quite generally that these coordinates must be related by the transformation laws Eq. (18) obtained above. If we substitute these expressions into Eq. (20) we get

(21) This equation must reduce to Eq. (19). Either by working through the algebra, or simply by trial and error, it is straightforward to confirm that this requires V = c, i.e. the general

transformation Eq. (18) with V = c, guarantees that the two spheres of light are expanding at the same rate, that is at the speed c, in both inertial frames of reference. Introducing a quantity defined by

(22) we are left with the final form of the transformation law consistent with light always being observed to be travelling at the speed c in all reference frames:

(23) These are the equations of the Lorentz transformation. We can find the inverse transformation either by solving Eq. (23) for x, y, z, and t in terms of x, y, z, and t, or else by simply recognizing, as was mentioned above in the derivation of this transformation, that if S is moving with velocity vx relative to S, then S is moving with velocity vx relative to S. Consequently, all that is required is to exchange the primed and unprimed variables and change the sign of vx in Eq. (23). The result by either method is

(24)

These equations were first obtained by Lorentz who was looking for a mathematical transformation that left Maxwells equations unchanged in form.

Einsteins postulates
The kinematical part of Special Relativity is based on two postulates of Einstein.

The third prediction: The demise of Universal Time

Another peculiar and surprising consequence of the Principle of Relativity is that time intervals are no longer universal but depend on the frame of reference. Consider, for example, a clock consisting of a light source and detector. The source emits a light pulse, the pulse goes up and is reected at a height h by a mirror. It is then detected and this determines one unit of time. See Fig 5.

Figure 5: A clock at rest with respect to the observer The time it takes the light pulse to come and go is t0 = 2h=c. This is precisely the time it would be measured by any observer carrying any other clock as long as this observer is not moving with respect to the above timepiece. Now let's consider what an observer moving with respect to this simple clock sees. This is shown in Fig. 6.

Figure 6: A clock moving with speed v to the right with respect to the observer

It is clear that the distance traveled by the beam is larger than the updown trip observed by the first person. But since the speed of the light beam is the same for both observers, the time measured by the second observer will be larger. If we have two such clocks one is at rest with respect to us and the other is moving, we find that the moving clock slows down, moreover, the faster it moves the slower it ticks. This is called time dilation: a moving clock ticks slower. This argument was based on the simple clock of Fig. 5, will it be true for all clocks? To examine this question let's assume we have another clock (a Rollex, for example) which gives ticks same way no matter howit moves. You go on a long trip to a near-by star taking the Rollex with you and also a clock like the one in Fig.5. Your spaceship, you will notice, has no windows (they had to cut the budget somewhere!), but you go anyway. You experience the effects of lift-out but after a while you appear to be at a standstill: you are then moving at a constant speed with respect to Earth. But remember we assumed that the Rollex still ticks the same way as the clocks on Earth, and we have proved that your light-clock does not. So you will see a mismatch between the Rollex and the light-clock: this is an experiment which is done completely inside the spaceship and which determines whether you are moving. If there were such a Rollex the Principle of Relativity would be violated. If we accept the Principle of Relativity we must conclude that time dilation will occur for any clocks, be it a Rollex, a biological clock or a Cartier. Note that this follows from the Principle of Relativity and the validity of Maxwells' equations, no additional assumptions are required. If an observer at rest with respect to a clock, finds that she is pregnant and eventually delivers, the whole process taking precisely nine months, another observer moving with respect to her (and the simple clock) will _nd this claim to be wrong, he will state that she had a longer pregnancy (or a very long delivery) but that in any case the whole thing took longer than nine

months.

So how come we do not see this in ordinary life? The reason is that the e_ect is very small in everyday occurrences. To be precise it an observer at rest with respect to the clock in Fig. 6.11 measures a time T0 then the observer which sees the clock move at speed v (and sees the situation depicted in Fig. 6) will measure a time T, where

(see the box above). So the e_ect reduces to the appearance of the factor

which in usual circumstances is very close to one (so that T is almost equal to T0). For example an ordinary man moving at, say 90miles/hr (trying to get his wife to the hospital before she delivers), v=c = 0:0000001 = 10-7 (approximately) so that the above factor is essentially one (up to a few hundredths of a trillionth). This is typical of the magnitude of the new effects predicted by

Einstein's theory for everyday situations: they are in general very small since the velocities of things are usually very small compared to c. There are some instances, however, in which the effects are observable. There are subatomic particles which are unstable and decay (the process by which they decay is irrelevant) in a very small time interval when measured in the laboratory. It has also been found that high intensity radiation coming from space and hitting the upper atmosphere generates these same particles (again the process is immaterial). To the initial surprise of the experimenters, these particles survive the trip down to surface of the earth, which takes longer, as measured on the Earth, than the particle's lifetime! The surprise evaporated when it was noted that the particles are moving very fast with respect to the Earth, almost at the speed of light, so that a time interval which is very short when measured at rest with respect to the particle will be much longer when measured in the laboratory.

Length contraction
So time is relative, what about distance? In order to think about this note that when we say that the distance between two objects is ` we imagine measuring the position of these objects simultaneously...but simultaneity is relative, so we can expect distance to be a relative concept also. To see this, consider the above subatomic particles. As mentioned they are moving very fast but we can still imagine Superman (an unbiased observer if there is one) riding along with them. So we have two pictures: from the observer on earth Superman's clocks (accompanying the particle) are very slow, and so he/she can understand why it takes so long for the particle to decay. But for Superman the particle is at rest and so it must decay in its usual short time...the fact remains, however, that the particle does reach the earth. How can this be? Only if the distance which the particle traveled as measured in the frame of reference in which it is at rest is very short. This is the only way the observation that the particle reaches the earth's surface can be explained: for the observer on the earth this is because of time dilation, for the observer riding along with the particle, this is because of length contraction, see Fig. 7. But we do not require peculiar subatomic particles in order to demonstrate length contraction though the Principle of Relativity requires that if it occurs for the example above it should occur in all systems, otherwise we could determine by comparison which system has an absolute motion). So consider the previous experiment with the moving clock.

Figure 7: An observer measures a long life-time for the particles due to time dilation. The articles measures a short distance between itself and the observer due to length contraction.
o

The observer watching the clock move with velocity v notes that in a time T the clock moves a distance

o The observer riding with the clock notes that the same distance is covered in a time T0; therefore the length measured by him/her is

(He also sees the other observer receding with speed v.)
o

Therefore

we

have

Thus, the observer moving with the clock will measure a shorter length compared to the one measured by the other observer.

Time Dilation
Every periodic motion can be used as a clock. A particularly simple clock is called the light clock. This is illustrated in Fig. a.

Figure a: Light-clock The clock consists of two parallel mirrors that reflect a light pulse back and forth. If the period of the clock is de_ned as the time interval between each time the light pulse hits the lower mirror, then t = 2L0/C.

Assume that the clock is at rest in an inertial reference frame where it is placed along the y-axis, as shown in Fig. a. If this system moves along the ct-axis with a velocity v relative to another inertial reference frame , the light pulse of the clock will follow a zigzag path as shown in Fig. b.

Figure b: Moving light-clock The light signal follows a different path in than in 0. The period t of the clock as observed in is different from the period t which is observed in the rest frame. The period t is easily found from Fig. b. Since the pulse takes the time (1/2) t from the lower to the upper mirror and since the light velocity is always the same, we find

(1)

(2)

The factor is a useful short-hand notation for a term which is often used in relativity theory. It is commonly known as the Lorentz factor. Since the period of the clock in its rest frame is t, we get

(3) Thus, we have to conclude that the period of the clock when it is observed to move (t) is greater that its rest-period (t). In other words: a moving clock goes slower than a clock at rest. This is called the relativistic time-dilatation. The period t of the clock as observed in its rest frame is called the proper period of the clock. The corresponding time t0 is called the proper time of the clock. One might be tempted to believe that this surprising consequence of the special theory of relativity has something to do with the special type of clock that we have employed. This is not the case. If there had existed a mechanical clock in that did not show the time dilatation, then an observer at rest in might measure his velocity by observing the different rates of his light clock and this mechanical clock. In this way he could measure the absolute velocity of . This would be in con_ict with the special principle of relativity.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment

In Michelsons interferometer, shown schematically in Figure 8, light beams are the analogs of the boats in Example 1-1, with Earth corresponding to the ground. The field of view seen by the observer consists of parallel alternately bright and dark interference fringes (see Figure 9). As you recall, interference between the two recombining light waves at A is the result of the difference n in the number of waves n1 and n2 in the two paths, which results in the waves differing in phase on returning to A. The number of waves n in either path is given by

(1) where = the wavelength of the light and L = the length of the path. For n= 0 or integer, constructive interference (i.e.,phase difference = 0, 2 , 4, . . . ) results in maximum brightness. If n=1/2 integer (i.e., an integer 1/2), destructive interference (i.e., phase difference= , 3 , 5 , . . .) results in darkness or minimum intensity. Intermediate values for n result in intermediate intensities. While the absolute value of n for any specific fringe is difficult to determine, it is

clear that for successive bright (or dark) fringes, the values of n differ by 1. The distance between successive maxima or minima is called the width of the fringe. Notice in Equation 1 that a change in either L or (or both) will cause a change in n. A change in L for light path 2 across the field of view due to the air wedges between M 2and M1is what causes the parallel fringes shown in Figure 9. The change in the speed of light due to Earths motion that Michelson and Morley were looking for would result in a change in , since the speed c of a wave is related to the wavelength by (2) where f = frequency of the wave.8 Changing c to c_ thus changes C to C, and this would in turn result in a change in n. With the interferometer at rest in the laboratory as the Earth moves to the left through the ether with speed v, the two light beams in Figure 8 correspond to the boats in Figure 1-6a, the points labeled A, B, and C on the interferometer are analogs of the labeled marks on the shore, and the ether replaces the river. Thus, Michelson derived an expression for the difference _t in the travel times for the two light beams produced by the beam splitter at A along paths 1 and 2:

(3) with the speed in path 1 greater than that in path 2 because t2 > t1. The greater speed in path 1 means that 1> 2 and, hence, there would be a difference in the number of waves n in the two paths in addition to the n caused by the air wedge. The observed interference fringes would, of course, be the result of the sum of the two n values. Michelsons interest was in that part of the total n associated with the expected difference in the speed of light in the two paths, and he devised an ingeniously simple way of separating its effect from the total while coincidently making knowledge of the actual direction of v unnecessary. By rotating the entire experimental apparatus 90 about an axis perpendicular to the plane formed by the light rays so that path 2 became parallel to the assumed direction of v, the values of the relative light speeds in the two paths were interchanged. In this configuration t now becomes

(4) and the magnitude of the total time difference during a 90 rotation ttotal is equal to

(5) As the interferometer rotates, there is then a corresponding change _N in the number of light waves in the two paths given by

(6) Equation 6 is also equal to the expected change, or shift, in the position of the fringes in the field of view of the interferometer. To see that this is true, recall that each point across the field of view of the interferometer in Figure 2 corresponds to a particular phase difference between the recombining beamse.g., the phase difference between successive bright fringes is 2. Rotating the interferometer causes an additional phase difference =2N at each point, thus shifting the entire fringe pattern by an amount , which is, of course, N.

Figure 8 Experimental arrangement of Jaseja et al. for the laser version of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Recent searches for the relative velocity have utilized apparatus and techniques of higher precision than the Michelson-Morley experiment for making the crucial measurements of t. One of these, performed by T. S. Jaseja et al.9 in 1964, replaced the mirrors and light beams in paths 1 and 2 with identical lasers, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure9. Stellar aberration. Light from a star, traveling at speed c in a straight line, enters the objective of the telescope. As the light moves down the tube, the telescope moves a distance d = vt, where v = orbital speed of Earth, L= length of the tube, and t= time for light to travel down the tube = L cos /c. Thus, =tan-1 (v c) = 20.5 seconds of arc. Observations of the star made six months later, when Earths velocity vector is in the opposite direction, require an aiming correction of 20.5 s in the opposite direction, or 41 s over the course of a year. This observation contradicts the proposal that a layer of ether dragged along by the moving Earth would explain the null result of the Michelson- Morley experiment. Light in which a standing wave is produced between two parallel mirrors. The frequency of the standing wave (=frequency of the emitted laser light) is proportional to the speed of light in the laser and inversely proportional to the distance between its parallel mirrors. With the lengths of the lasers equal, the difference in frequencies of the two laser beams (the beat frequency) is proportional to the difference in the speeds of light in the two lasers. As the system is rotated through 360 , any motion of Earth relative to the ether would cause the beat frequency to

alternately increase and decrease, just as the fringes in Michelsons interferometer were expected to shift when the apparatus was rotated. In the several laser experiments that have been performed, no change in the beat frequency within measurement accuracy has been detected. The most recent of these10 has set an upper limit of 15 m s for Earths speed relative to the ether. Many alternatives have been suggested to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, such as a stationary layer of ether at the surface dragged along by Earths motion (see Figure 2) or a dependence of light speed on the relative motion of the source and observer (see Figure 3), but all have been ruled out by experimental observations. Thus, experimental evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the propagation of light is unaffected by the motion of Earth.

Figure 10, Light curve of Algol, a bright eclipsing binary star in the constellation Perseus.(a) One star of the binary is about three times as bright as the other. When the bright star is eclipsed by the dim star, as shown in the situation above the curve, the deep minimum in the intensity results. The eclipse of the dim star results in the more shallow minima. Each star in the pair rotates about the common center of mass once every 69 h at a speed of approximately 250 km s. (b) On opposite

sides of the orbit of either star its orbital velocity v points alternately toward and away from Earth. Classical theories of light would equire that the speed of the stars light with respect to Earth be c _ v and c _ v, respectively, leading to bizarre ghost stars, one of the pair appearing simultaneously in two locations. The fact that they have never been observed supports Einsteins second postulate.

Derivation of E = mc2
Over the years that Karl's Calculus Tutor has been on line, I have received a number of emails requesting that I show from first principles how you get Einstein's famous formula, E = mc2. I shall begin by assuming that anybody interested enough to read this page is already familiar with basic Newtonian physics and is also familiar with the origin of the time dilation formula, the Lorenz contraction formula, and most importantly, the formula by which the mass of an object increases with its speed. The time dilation formula, which states that a clock in motion ticks slower as seen by an observer at rest, derives from basic geometry combined with the experimentally verified fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is always the same regardless of whether the observer is moving toward or away from the light source or whether the light source is moving toward or away from the observer. The contraction of distances in the direction of motion and the increase in mass of an object that is in motion can both be thought of as consequences of the time dilation, since they are necessary to make the basic laws of physics remain consistent. The mass, m, of an object whose mass at rest is m0 and which is moving at a speed, v, with respect to the observer is given by m0 m = 1 - v2/c2 Keep in mind that m0 and the speed of light, c, are both constants. In what follows, we shall use the above formula to show that when you increase the velocity of an object by a small amount, dv, sufficient to increase the mass by small amount, dm, then the kinetic energy is increased by an amount equal to c2 dm. Let's start by taking the derivative of the mass formula with respect to velocity. That gives dm m0 (v/c2)

= dv (1 - v2/c2)(3/2) Observe the relationship between m and dm/dv (which you can determine from simple algebra): dm (1 - v2/c2) c2 dm (c2 - v2) m = = dv v dv v So where do we get kinetic energy from? By classical physics, the kinetic energy is increased by the amount of work done on an object. Work is given as force applied to an object times the distance the object moves while the force is applied. This works also in the world of relativity. But before we can look at that, we have to be specific about what is meant by force. You have probably already learned that Newton's second law is f = ma -- that is force is mass times acceleration. In the Newtonian world, that works. But in the world of relativity it doesn't. Why? Because it assumes that mass is constant. In the Newtonian world, the mass of objects does not change as a function of their speed. But in relativity it does. So in relativity we use a definition of force that works both in relativity and in the Newtonian world. It is that force is the rate of change of momentum. dp f= dt where momentum, p, is given by p = mv. If you assume mass to be constant and take the derivative of momentum, you easily see that you get the familiar f = ma, where acceleration, a, is the time derivative of velocity, v. But if mass is not constant, but is instead a function of velocity, then you get Dp f = = d(mv) dm = v + m Dv

dt dt dt dt Now we replace m with the expression we derived earlier for it in terms of dm/dv: d(mv) f = Dt By the chain rule we also have dm dm dv = V Dt Dm + dv v dt dm (c2 - v2) dv

= dt which gives d(mv) Now we drop the middle part of the equation and just keep f = Dt Dm = v dt + v dt (c2 - v2) dm dv dt

the right and left parts. And we multiply through by dt, which gives what happens when a force is applied to the object over a short time, dt: (c2 - v2) f dt = v dm + dm v But this is not what we are looking for. We want the left side to be force applied over a short distance, dx. To convert dt to dx, we multiply by velocity, dx/dt. On the left that gives us f dx, which is the change in kinetic energy, dE (recall that work is force applied over distance, and change in kinetic energy is equal to work done). We multiply the right by v, which is equal to dx/dt. dE = f dx = v2 dm + (c2 - v2) dm The v2's cancel, leaving dE = c2 dm Remember that c, and therefore also c2, is constant. So this indicates that the amount of kinetic energy it takes to cause an object to gain any amount of mass is equal to the amount of mass gained times c2, which you get by integrating the last equation above.

MINKOWSKIS FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACE

The non-mathematician is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of fourdimensional things, by a feeling not unlike that awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more common-place statement than that the world in which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum. Space is a three-dimensional continuum. By this we mean that it is possible to describe the position of a point (at rest) by means of three numbers (co-ordinates) x, y, z, and that there is

an indefinite number of points in the neighbourhood of this one, the position of which can be described by co-ordinates such as x1, y1, z1, which may be as near as we choose to the respective values of the co-ordinates x, y, z of the first point. In virtue of the latter property we speak of a continuum, and owing to the fact that there are three co-ordinates we speak of it as being threedimensional. Similarly, the world of physical phenomena which was briefly called world by Minkowski is naturally four-dimensional in the space-time sense. For it is composed of individual events, each of which is described by four numbers, namely, three space co-ordinates x, y, z and a time co-ordinate, the time-value t. The world is in this sense also a continuum; for to every event there are as many neighbouring events (realised or at least thinkable) as we care to choose, the co-ordinates x1, y1, z1, t1 which differ by an indefinitely small amount from those of the event x, y, z, t originally considered. That we have not been accustomed to regard the world in this sense as a fourdimensional continuum is due to the fact that in physics, before the advent of the theory of relativity, time played a different and more independent rle, as compared with the space coordinates. It is for this reason that we have been in the habit of treating time as an independent continuum. As a matter of fact, according to classical mechanics, time is absolute, i.e. it is independent of the position and the condition of motion of the system of co-ordinates. We see this expressed in the last equation of the Galileian transformation (t = t). The four-dimensional mode of consideration of the world is natural on the theory of relativity, since according to this theory time is robbed of its independence. This is shown by the fourth equation of the Lorentz transformation:

Moreover, according to this equation the time difference t of two events with respect to K does not in general vanish, even when the time difference t of the same events with reference

to K vanishes. Pure space-distance of two events with respect to K results in time-distance of the same events with respect to K. But the discovery of Minkowski, which was of importance for the formal development of the theory of relativity, does not lie here. It is to be found rather in the fact of his recognition that the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.1 In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time coordinate t by an imaginary magnitude proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same role as the three space co-ordinates. Formally, these four co-ordinates correspond exactly to the three space co-ordinates in Euclidean geometry. It must be clear even to the non-mathematician that, as a consequence of this purely formal addition to our knowledge, the theory perforce gained clearness in no mean measure. These inadequate remarks can give the reader only a vague notion of the important idea contributed by Minkowski. .ct

Reference
1. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/ 2. http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/SpecRel.pdf 3. http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/TimeDilation.html 4. http://web.mit.edu/birge/Public/books/Einstein-Relativity.pdf 5. http://www.phy.duke.edu/courses/143/syllabus/einsteinweek.pdf 6. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=208904 7. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm 8. http://video.google.com/videoplay? docid=8773586855870787823&ei=291eSqXFGpOAwgOP5ulR&q=relativity&hl=en

ASSIGNMENT

1. In the Michelson-Morley experiment, the wavelength of the monochromatic light used in

6000A0. What will be the expected fringe shift on the basis of stationary ether hypothesis if the effective length of each path be 11m? Given velocity of the earth=310 4m/s and velocity of light=3108m/s. 2. Show that for values of v<<c, Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilean transformation. 3. A rod 1m long is moving along its length with a velocity 0.6c. Calculate its length as it appears to an observer. a)on the earth b)moving with the rod itself. 4. How fast would a rocket have to go relative to an observer for its length to be contracted to 99% of its length at rest?
5. Calculate the percentage contraction of a rod moving with a velocity 0.8c in a direction

inclined at 600 to its own length.

6. A clock in a space-ship emits signals at intervals of 1s as observed by an astronaut in the

space-ship. If the space ship travels with a speed of 3107m/s, what is the interval between successive signals as seen by an observer at the control centre on the ground?
7. A -meson has a mean life-time of 210-8s when measured at rest. How far does it go

before decaying into another particle if its speed is 0.99c?

8. Find out the ratios of the mass of the particle to its rest mass if it is moving with a velocity

of 1.5108m/s.
9. Calculate the relativistic K.E, total relativistic energy, and rest-mass energy of a cosmic ray

muon moving at speed 0.999c. The rest mass of a muon is 1.910-28kg.

10. A high-energy particle accelerator produces a beam of protons (hydrogen atom nuclei) that

have relativistic masses m which are 100 times their rest masses m0. Determine the speed of the protons in the beam.