Algorithm-WordLevelStatistics
view release on metacpan or search on metacpan
t/Relativity.test view on Meta::CPAN
It is not difficult to understand why, in spite of this, we feel
constrained to call the propositions of geometry "true." Geometrical
ideas correspond to more or less exact objects in nature, and these
last are undoubtedly the exclusive cause of the genesis of those
ideas. Geometry ought to refrain from such a course, in order to give
to its structure the largest possible logical unity. The practice, for
example, of seeing in a "distance" two marked positions on a
practically rigid body is something which is lodged deeply in our
habit of thought. We are accustomed further to regard three points as
being situated on a straight line, if their apparent positions can be
made to coincide for observation with one eye, under suitable choice
of our place of observation.
If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement the
propositions of Euclidean geometry by the single proposition that two
points on a practically rigid body always correspond to the same
distance (line-interval), independently of any changes in position to
which we may subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry
then resolve themselves into propositions on the possible relative
position of practically rigid bodies.* Geometry which has been
supplemented in this way is then to be treated as a branch of physics.
We can now legitimately ask as to the "truth" of geometrical
propositions interpreted in this way, since we are justified in asking
whether these propositions are satisfied for those real things we have
associated with the geometrical ideas. In less exact terms we can
express this by saying that by the "truth" of a geometrical
proposition in this sense we understand its validity for a
construction with rule and compasses.
Of course the conviction of the "truth" of geometrical propositions in
this sense is founded exclusively on rather incomplete experience. For
the present we shall assume the "truth" of the geometrical
propositions, then at a later stage (in the general theory of
relativity) we shall see that this "truth" is limited, and we shall
consider the extent of its limitation.
Notes
*) It follows that a natural object is associated also with a
straight line. Three points A, B and C on a rigid body thus lie in a
straight line when the points A and C being given, B is chosen such
that the sum of the distances AB and BC is as short as possible. This
incomplete suggestion will suffice for the present purpose.
THE SYSTEM OF CO-ORDINATES
On the basis of the physical interpretation of distance which has been
indicated, we are also in a position to establish the distance between
two points on a rigid body by means of measurements. For this purpose
we require a " distance " (rod S) which is to be used once and for
all, and which we employ as a standard measure. If, now, A and B are
two points on a rigid body, we can construct the line joining them
according to the rules of geometry ; then, starting from A, we can
mark off the distance S time after time until we reach B. The number
of these operations required is the numerical measure of the distance
AB. This is the basis of all measurement of length. *
Every description of the scene of an event or of the position of an
object in space is based on the specification of the point on a rigid
body (body of reference) with which that event or object coincides.
This applies not only to scientific description, but also to everyday
life. If I analyse the place specification " Times Square, New York,"
**A I arrive at the following result. The earth is the rigid body
to which the specification of place refers; " Times Square, New York,"
is a well-defined point, to which a name has been assigned, and with
which the event coincides in space.**B
This primitive method of place specification deals only with places on
the surface of rigid bodies, and is dependent on the existence of
points on this surface which are distinguishable from each other. But
we can free ourselves from both of these limitations without altering
the nature of our specification of position. If, for instance, a cloud
is hovering over Times Square, then we can determine its position
relative to the surface of the earth by erecting a pole
perpendicularly on the Square, so that it reaches the cloud. The
length of the pole measured with the standard measuring-rod, combined
with the specification of the position of the foot of the pole,
supplies us with a complete place specification. On the basis of this
illustration, we are able to see the manner in which a refinement of
the conception of position has been developed.
(a) We imagine the rigid body, to which the place specification is
referred, supplemented in such a manner that the object whose position
we require is reached by. the completed rigid body.
(b) In locating the position of the object, we make use of a number
(here the length of the pole measured with the measuring-rod) instead
of designated points of reference.
(c) We speak of the height of the cloud even when the pole which
reaches the cloud has not been erected. By means of optical
observations of the cloud from different positions on the ground, and
taking into account the properties of the propagation of light, we
determine the length of the pole we should have required in order to
reach the cloud.
From this consideration we see that it will be advantageous if, in the
description of position, it should be possible by means of numerical
measures to make ourselves independent of the existence of marked
positions (possessing names) on the rigid body of reference. In the
physics of measurement this is attained by the application of the
Cartesian system of co-ordinates.
This consists of three plane surfaces perpendicular to each other and
rigidly attached to a rigid body. Referred to a system of
co-ordinates, the scene of any event will be determined (for the main
part) by the specification of the lengths of the three perpendiculars
or co-ordinates (x, y, z) which can be dropped from the scene of the
event to those three plane surfaces. The lengths of these three
perpendiculars can be determined by a series of manipulations with
rigid measuring-rods performed according to the rules and methods laid
down by Euclidean geometry.
In practice, the rigid surfaces which constitute the system of
co-ordinates are generally not available ; furthermore, the magnitudes
of the co-ordinates are not actually determined by constructions with
rigid rods, but by indirect means. If the results of physics and
astronomy are to maintain their clearness, the physical meaning of
specifications of position must always be sought in accordance with
the above considerations. ***
We thus obtain the following result: Every description of events in
space involves the use of a rigid body to which such events have to be
referred. The resulting relationship takes for granted that the laws
of Euclidean geometry hold for "distances;" the "distance" being
represented physically by means of the convention of two marks on a
rigid body.
Notes
* Here we have assumed that there is nothing left over i.e. that
the measurement gives a whole number. This difficulty is got over by
the use of divided measuring-rods, the introduction of which does not
demand any fundamentally new method.
**A Einstein used "Potsdamer Platz, Berlin" in the original text.
In the authorised translation this was supplemented with "Tranfalgar
Square, London". We have changed this to "Times Square, New York", as
this is the most well known/identifiable location to English speakers
in the present day. [Note by the janitor.]
**B It is not necessary here to investigate further the significance
of the expression "coincidence in space." This conception is
sufficiently obvious to ensure that differences of opinion are
scarcely likely to arise as to its applicability in practice.
*** A refinement and modification of these views does not become
necessary until we come to deal with the general theory of relativity,
treated in the second part of this book.
SPACE AND TIME IN CLASSICAL MECHANICS
The purpose of mechanics is to describe how bodies change their
position in space with "time." I should load my conscience with grave
sins against the sacred spirit of lucidity were I to formulate the
aims of mechanics in this way, without serious reflection and detailed
explanations. Let us proceed to disclose these sins.
It is not clear what is to be understood here by "position" and
"space." I stand at the window of a railway carriage which is
travelling uniformly, and drop a stone on the embankment, without
throwing it. Then, disregarding the influence of the air resistance, I
see the stone descend in a straight line. A pedestrian who observes
the misdeed from the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in
a parabolic curve. I now ask: Do the "positions" traversed by the
t/Relativity.test view on Meta::CPAN
Nevertheless, there are two general facts which at the outset speak
very much in favour of the validity of the principle of relativity.
Even though classical mechanics does not supply us with a sufficiently
broad basis for the theoretical presentation of all physical
phenomena, still we must grant it a considerable measure of " truth,"
since it supplies us with the actual motions of the heavenly bodies
with a delicacy of detail little short of wonderful. The principle of
relativity must therefore apply with great accuracy in the domain of
mechanics. But that a principle of such broad generality should hold
with such exactness in one domain of phenomena, and yet should be
invalid for another, is a priori not very probable.
We now proceed to the second argument, to which, moreover, we shall
return later. If the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense)
does not hold, then the Galileian co-ordinate systems K, K1, K2, etc.,
which are moving uniformly relative to each other, will not be
equivalent for the description of natural phenomena. In this case we
should be constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of
being formulated in a particularly simple manner, and of course only
on condition that, from amongst all possible Galileian co-ordinate
systems, we should have chosen one (K[0]) of a particular state of
motion as our body of reference. We should then be justified (because
of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling
this system " absolutely at rest," and all other Galileian systems K "
in motion." If, for instance, our embankment were the system K[0] then
our railway carriage would be a system K, relative to which less
simple laws would hold than with respect to K[0]. This diminished
simplicity would be due to the fact that the carriage K would be in
motion (i.e."really")with respect to K[0]. In the general laws of
nature which have been formulated with reference to K, the magnitude
and direction of the velocity of the carriage would necessarily play a
part. We should expect, for instance, that the note emitted by an
organpipe placed with its axis parallel to the direction of travel
would be different from that emitted if the axis of the pipe were
placed perpendicular to this direction.
Now in virtue of its motion in an orbit round the sun, our earth is
comparable with a railway carriage travelling with a velocity of about
30 kilometres per second. If the principle of relativity were not
valid we should therefore expect that the direction of motion of the
earth at any moment would enter into the laws of nature, and also that
physical systems in their behaviour would be dependent on the
orientation in space with respect to the earth. For owing to the
alteration in direction of the velocity of revolution of the earth in
the course of a year, the earth cannot be at rest relative to the
hypothetical system K[0] throughout the whole year. However, the most
careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic properties
in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non-equivalence of
different directions. This is very powerful argument in favour of the
principle of relativity.
THE THEOREM OF THE
ADDITION OF VELOCITIES
EMPLOYED IN CLASSICAL MECHANICS
Let us suppose our old friend the railway carriage to be travelling
along the rails with a constant velocity v, and that a man traverses
the length of the carriage in the direction of travel with a velocity
w. How quickly or, in other words, with what velocity W does the man
advance relative to the embankment during the process ? The only
possible answer seems to result from the following consideration: If
the man were to stand still for a second, he would advance relative to
the embankment through a distance v equal numerically to the velocity
of the carriage. As a consequence of his walking, however, he
traverses an additional distance w relative to the carriage, and hence
also relative to the embankment, in this second, the distance w being
numerically equal to the velocity with which he is walking. Thus in
total be covers the distance W=v+w relative to the embankment in the
second considered. We shall see later that this result, which
expresses the theorem of the addition of velocities employed in
classical mechanics, cannot be maintained ; in other words, the law
that we have just written down does not hold in reality. For the time
being, however, we shall assume its correctness.
THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE
LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH THE
PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
There is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which
light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or
believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines
with a velocity c= 300,000 km./sec. At all events we know with great
exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours, because if
this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed
simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed
star by its dark neighbour. By means of similar considerations based
on observa- tions of double stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was
also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot
depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light. The
assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent on the
direction "in space" is in itself improbable.
In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the
velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child
at school. Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the
conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual
difficulties? Let us consider how these difficulties arise.
Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of light (and
indeed every other process) to a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate
system). As such a system let us again choose our embankment. We shall
imagine the air above it to have been removed. If a ray of light be
sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the
ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the
embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again
travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its
direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of
course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of
the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can
here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of
light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the
carriage. The velocity w of the man relative to the embankment is here
replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the
required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have
t/Relativity.test view on Meta::CPAN
propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both
these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory
has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it
from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later. In the
following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas of the special
theory of relativity.
ON THE IDEA OF TIME IN PHYSICS
Lightning has struck the rails on our railway embankment at two places
A and B far distant from each other. I make the additional assertion
that these two lightning flashes occurred simultaneously. If I ask you
whether there is sense in this statement, you will answer my question
with a decided "Yes." But if I now approach you with the request to
explain to me the sense of the statement more precisely, you find
after some consideration that the answer to this question is not so
easy as it appears at first sight.
After some time perhaps the following answer would occur to you: "The
significance of the statement is clear in itself and needs no further
explanation; of course it would require some consideration if I were
to be commissioned to determine by observations whether in the actual
case the two events took place simultaneously or not." I cannot be
satisfied with this answer for the following reason. Supposing that as
a result of ingenious considerations an able meteorologist were to
discover that the lightning must always strike the places A and B
simultaneously, then we should be faced with the task of testing
whether or not this theoretical result is in accordance with the
reality. We encounter the same difficulty with all physical statements
in which the conception " simultaneous " plays a part. The concept
does not exist for the physicist until he has the possibility of
discovering whether or not it is fulfilled in an actual case. We thus
require a definition of simultaneity such that this definition
supplies us with the method by means of which, in the present case, he
can decide by experiment whether or not both the lightning strokes
occurred simultaneously. As long as this requirement is not satisfied,
I allow myself to be deceived as a physicist (and of course the same
applies if I am not a physicist), when I imagine that I am able to
attach a meaning to the statement of simultaneity. (I would ask the
reader not to proceed farther until he is fully convinced on this
point.)
After thinking the matter over for some time you then offer the
following suggestion with which to test simultaneity. By measuring
along the rails, the connecting line AB should be measured up and an
observer placed at the mid-point M of the distance AB. This observer
should be supplied with an arrangement (e.g. two mirrors inclined at
90^0) which allows him visually to observe both places A and B at the
same time. If the observer perceives the two flashes of lightning at
the same time, then they are simultaneous.
I am very pleased with this suggestion, but for all that I cannot
regard the matter as quite settled, because I feel constrained to
raise the following objection:
"Your definition would certainly be right, if only I knew that the
light by means of which the observer at M perceives the lightning
flashes travels along the length A arrow M with the same velocity as
along the length B arrow M. But an examination of this supposition
would only be possible if we already had at our disposal the means of
measuring time. It would thus appear as though we were moving here in
a logical circle."
After further consideration you cast a somewhat disdainful glance at
me -- and rightly so -- and you declare:
"I maintain my previous definition nevertheless, because in reality it
assumes absolutely nothing about light. There is only one demand to be
made of the definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real
case it must supply us with an empirical decision as to whether or not
the conception that has to be defined is fulfilled. That my definition
satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same
time to traverse the path A arrow M as for the path B arrow M is in
reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical
nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill
in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity."
It is clear that this definition can be used to give an exact meaning
not only to two events, but to as many events as we care to choose,
and independently of the positions of the scenes of the events with
respect to the body of reference * (here the railway embankment).
We are thus led also to a definition of " time " in physics. For this
purpose we suppose that clocks of identical construction are placed at
the points A, B and C of the railway line (co-ordinate system) and
that they are set in such a manner that the positions of their
pointers are simultaneously (in the above sense) the same. Under these
conditions we understand by the " time " of an event the reading
(position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the
immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a
time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable
of observation.
This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the validity
of which will hardly be doubted without empirical evidence to the
contrary. It has been assumed that all these clocks go at the same
rate if they are of identical construction. Stated more exactly: When
two clocks arranged at rest in different places of a reference-body
are set in such a manner that a particular position of the pointers of
the one clock is simultaneous (in the above sense) with the same
position, of the pointers of the other clock, then identical "
settings " are always simultaneous (in the sense of the above
definition).
Notes
*) We suppose further, that, when three events A, B and C occur in
different places in such a manner that A is simultaneous with B and B
is simultaneous with C (simultaneous in the sense of the above
definition), then the criterion for the simultaneity of the pair of
events A, C is also satisfied. This assumption is a physical
hypothesis about the the of propagation of light: it must certainly be
fulfilled if we are to maintain the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo.
THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULATNEITY
Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body
of reference, which we have styled a " railway embankment." We suppose
a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant
velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig 1. People travelling
in this train will with a vantage view the train as a rigid
reference-body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in
Fig. 01: file fig01.gif
reference to the train. Then every event which takes place along the
line also takes place at a particular point of the train. Also the
definition of simultaneity can be given relative to the train in
exactly the same way as with respect to the embankment. As a natural
consequence, however, the following question arises :
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are
simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative.
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to be embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the
mid-point M of the length A arrow B of the embankment. But the events
A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M1 be
the mid-point of the distance A arrow B on the travelling train. Just
when the flashes (as judged from the embankment) of lightning occur,
this point M1 naturally coincides with the point M but it moves
towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train. If
an observer sitting in the position M1 in the train did not possess
this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light
rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him
simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. Now in
reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is
hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding
on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will
see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that
emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their
reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the
lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We
thus arrive at the important result:
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not
simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of
simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own
particular time ; unless we are told the reference-body to which the
statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the
time of an event.
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always
tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an
absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of
motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this
assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of
simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between
the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of
relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section 6,
which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the
man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative
to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the
embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing
considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with
respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration
of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as
reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking
travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is
equal to one second as judged from the embankment.
Moreover, the considerations of Section 6 are based on yet a second
assumption, which, in the light of a strict consideration, appears to
be arbitrary, although it was always tacitly made even before the
introduction of the theory of relativity.
ON THE RELATIVITY OF THE CONCEPTION OF DISTANCE
Let us consider two particular points on the train * travelling
along the embankment with the velocity v, and inquire as to their
distance apart. We already know that it is necessary to have a body of
reference for the measurement of a distance, with respect to which
body the distance can be measured up. It is the simplest plan to use
the train itself as reference-body (co-ordinate system). An observer
in the train measures the interval by marking off his measuring-rod in
a straight line (e.g. along the floor of the carriage) as many times
as is necessary to take him from the one marked point to the other.
Then the number which tells us how often the rod has to be laid down
is the required distance.
It is a different matter when the distance has to be judged from the
railway line. Here the following method suggests itself. If we call
A^1 and B^1 the two points on the train whose distance apart is
required, then both of these points are moving with the velocity v
along the embankment. In the first place we require to determine the
points A and B of the embankment which are just being passed by the
two points A^1 and B^1 at a particular time t -- judged from the
embankment. These points A and B of the embankment can be determined
by applying the definition of time given in Section 8. The distance
between these points A and B is then measured by repeated application
of thee measuring-rod along the embankment.
A priori it is by no means certain that this last measurement will
supply us with the same result as the first. Thus the length of the
train as measured from the embankment may be different from that
obtained by measuring in the train itself. This circumstance leads us
to a second objection which must be raised against the apparently
obvious consideration of Section 6. Namely, if the man in the
carriage covers the distance w in a unit of time -- measured from the
train, -- then this distance -- as measured from the embankment -- is
not necessarily also equal to w.
Notes
*) e.g. the middle of the first and of the hundredth carriage.
THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION
The results of the last three sections show that the apparent
incompatibility of the law of propagation of light with the principle
of relativity (Section 7) has been derived by means of a
consideration which borrowed two unjustifiable hypotheses from
classical mechanics; these are as follows:
(1) The time-interval (time) between two events is independent of the
condition of motion of the body of reference.
(2) The space-interval (distance) between two points of a rigid body
is independent of the condition of motion of the body of reference.
If we drop these hypotheses, then the dilemma of Section 7
disappears, because the theorem of the addition of velocities derived
in Section 6 becomes invalid. The possibility presents itself that
the law of the propagation of light in vacuo may be compatible with
the principle of relativity, and the question arises: How have we to
modify the considerations of Section 6 in order to remove the
apparent disagreement between these two fundamental results of
experience? This question leads to a general one. In the discussion of
Section 6 we have to do with places and times relative both to the
train and to the embankment. How are we to find the place and time of
an event in relation to the train, when we know the place and time of
the event with respect to the railway embankment ? Is there a
thinkable answer to this question of such a nature that the law of
transmission of light in vacuo does not contradict the principle of
relativity ? In other words : Can we conceive of a relation between
place and time of the individual events relative to both
reference-bodies, such that every ray of light possesses the velocity
of transmission c relative to the embankment and relative to the train
? This question leads to a quite definite positive answer, and to a
perfectly definite transformation law for the space-time magnitudes of
an event when changing over from one body of reference to another.
Before we deal with this, we shall introduce the following incidental
consideration. Up to the present we have only considered events taking
place along the embankment, which had mathematically to assume the
function of a straight line. In the manner indicated in Section 2
we can imagine this reference-body supplemented laterally and in a
vertical direction by means of a framework of rods, so that an event
which takes place anywhere can be localised with reference to this
framework. Fig. 2 Similarly, we can imagine the train travelling with
the velocity v to be continued across the whole of space, so that
every event, no matter how far off it may be, could also be localised
with respect to the second framework. Without committing any
fundamental error, we can disregard the fact that in reality these
frameworks would continually interfere with each other, owing to the
impenetrability of solid bodies. In every such framework we imagine
three surfaces perpendicular to each other marked out, and designated
as " co-ordinate planes " (" co-ordinate system "). A co-ordinate
system K then corresponds to the embankment, and a co-ordinate system
K' to the train. An event, wherever it may have taken place, would be
fixed in space with respect to K by the three perpendiculars x, y, z
on the co-ordinate planes, and with regard to time by a time value t.
Relative to K1, the same event would be fixed in respect of space and
time by corresponding values x1, y1, z1, t1, which of course are not
identical with x, y, z, t. It has already been set forth in detail how
these magnitudes are to be regarded as results of physical
measurements.
Obviously our problem can be exactly formulated in the following
manner. What are the values x1, y1, z1, t1, of an event with respect
to K1, when the magnitudes x, y, z, t, of the same event with respect
to K are given ? The relations must be so chosen that the law of the
transmission of light in vacuo is satisfied for one and the same ray
of light (and of course for every ray) with respect to K and K1. For
the relative orientation in space of the co-ordinate systems indicated
in the diagram ([7]Fig. 2), this problem is solved by means of the
equations :
eq. 1: file eq01.gif
y1 = y
z1 = z
eq. 2: file eq02.gif
This system of equations is known as the " Lorentz transformation." *
If in place of the law of transmission of light we had taken as our
basis the tacit assumptions of the older mechanics as to the absolute
character of times and lengths, then instead of the above we should
have obtained the following equations:
x1 = x - vt
y1 = y
z1 = z
t1 = t
This system of equations is often termed the " Galilei
transformation." The Galilei transformation can be obtained from the
Lorentz transformation by substituting an infinitely large value for
the velocity of light c in the latter transformation.
Aided by the following illustration, we can readily see that, in
accordance with the Lorentz transformation, the law of the
transmission of light in vacuo is satisfied both for the
reference-body K and for the reference-body K1. A light-signal is sent
along the positive x-axis, and this light-stimulus advances in
accordance with the equation
x = ct,
i.e. with the velocity c. According to the equations of the Lorentz
transformation, this simple relation between x and t involves a
relation between x1 and t1. In point of fact, if we substitute for x
the value ct in the first and fourth equations of the Lorentz
transformation, we obtain:
eq. 3: file eq03.gif
eq. 4: file eq04.gif
from which, by division, the expression
x1 = ct1
immediately follows. If referred to the system K1, the propagation of
light takes place according to this equation. We thus see that the
velocity of transmission relative to the reference-body K1 is also
equal to c. The same result is obtained for rays of light advancing in
any other direction whatsoever. Of cause this is not surprising, since
the equations of the Lorentz transformation were derived conformably
to this point of view.
Notes
*) A simple derivation of the Lorentz transformation is given in
Appendix I.
THE BEHAVIOUR OF MEASURING-RODS AND CLOCKS IN MOTION
Place a metre-rod in the x1-axis of K1 in such a manner that one end
(the beginning) coincides with the point x1=0 whilst the other end
(the end of the rod) coincides with the point x1=I. What is the length
of the metre-rod relatively to the system K? In order to learn this,
we need only ask where the beginning of the rod and the end of the rod
lie with respect to K at a particular time t of the system K. By means
of the first equation of the Lorentz transformation the values of
these two points at the time t = 0 can be shown to be
eq. 05a: file eq05a.gif
eq. 05b: file eq05b.gif
the distance between the points being eq. 06 .
But the metre-rod is moving with the velocity v relative to K. It
therefore follows that the length of a rigid metre-rod moving in the
direction of its length with a velocity v is eq. 06 of a metre.
The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion than when at rest, and
the more quickly it is moving, the shorter is the rod. For the
velocity v=c we should have eq. 06a ,
and for stiII greater velocities the square-root becomes imaginary.
From this we conclude that in the theory of relativity the velocity c
plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can neither be reached
nor exceeded by any real body.
Of course this feature of the velocity c as a limiting velocity also
clearly follows from the equations of the Lorentz transformation, for
these became meaningless if we choose values of v greater than c.
If, on the contrary, we had considered a metre-rod at rest in the
x-axis with respect to K, then we should have found that the length of
the rod as judged from K1 would have been eq. 06 ;
this is quite in accordance with the principle of relativity which
forms the basis of our considerations.
A Priori it is quite clear that we must be able to learn something
about the physical behaviour of measuring-rods and clocks from the
equations of transformation, for the magnitudes z, y, x, t, are
nothing more nor less than the results of measurements obtainable by
means of measuring-rods and clocks. If we had based our considerations
on the Galileian transformation we should not have obtained a
contraction of the rod as a consequence of its motion.
Let us now consider a seconds-clock which is permanently situated at
the origin (x1=0) of K1. t1=0 and t1=I are two successive ticks of
this clock. The first and fourth equations of the Lorentz
transformation give for these two ticks :
t = 0
and
eq. 07: file eq07.gif
As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged
from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes
of the clock is not one second, but
eq. 08: file eq08.gif
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion
the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c
plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity.
THEOREM OF THE ADDITION OF VELOCITIES.
THE EXPERIMENT OF FIZEAU
Now in practice we can move clocks and measuring-rods only with
velocities that are small compared with the velocity of light; hence
we shall hardly be able to compare the results of the previous section
directly with the reality. But, on the other hand, these results must
strike you as being very singular, and for that reason I shall now
draw another conclusion from the theory, one which can easily be
derived from the foregoing considerations, and which has been most
elegantly confirmed by experiment.
In Section 6 we derived the theorem of the addition of velocities
in one direction in the form which also results from the hypotheses of
classical mechanics- This theorem can also be deduced readily horn the
Galilei transformation (Section 11). In place of the man walking
inside the carriage, we introduce a point moving relatively to the
co-ordinate system K1 in accordance with the equation
x1 = wt1
By means of the first and fourth equations of the Galilei
transformation we can express x1 and t1 in terms of x and t, and we
t/Relativity.test view on Meta::CPAN
again since this time.
EXPERIENCE AND THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
To what extent is the special theory of relativity supported by
experience? This question is not easily answered for the reason
already mentioned in connection with the fundamental experiment of
Fizeau. The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the
Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of
experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support the
theory of relativity. As being of particular importance, I mention
here the fact that the theory of relativity enables us to predict the
effects produced on the light reaching us from the fixed stars. These
results are obtained in an exceedingly simple manner, and the effects
indicated, which are due to the relative motion of the earth with
reference to those fixed stars are found to be in accord with
experience. We refer to the yearly movement of the apparent position
of the fixed stars resulting from the motion of the earth round the
sun (aberration), and to the influence of the radial components of the
relative motions of the fixed stars with respect to the earth on the
colour of the light reaching us from them. The latter effect manifests
itself in a slight displacement of the spectral lines of the light
transmitted to us from a fixed star, as compared with the position of
the same spectral lines when they are produced by a terrestrial source
of light (Doppler principle). The experimental arguments in favour of
the Maxwell-Lorentz theory, which are at the same time arguments in
favour of the theory of relativity, are too numerous to be set forth
here. In reality they limit the theoretical possibilities to such an
extent, that no other theory than that of Maxwell and Lorentz has been
able to hold its own when tested by experience.
But there are two classes of experimental facts hitherto obtained
which can be represented in the Maxwell-Lorentz theory only by the
introduction of an auxiliary hypothesis, which in itself -- i.e.
without making use of the theory of relativity -- appears extraneous.
It is known that cathode rays and the so-called b-rays emitted by
radioactive substances consist of negatively electrified particles
(electrons) of very small inertia and large velocity. By examining the
deflection of these rays under the influence of electric and magnetic
fields, we can study the law of motion of these particles very
exactly.
In the theoretical treatment of these electrons, we are faced with the
difficulty that electrodynamic theory of itself is unable to give an
account of their nature. For since electrical masses of one sign repel
each other, the negative electrical masses constituting the electron
would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual
repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between
them, the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.* If
we now assume that the relative distances between the electrical
masses constituting the electron remain unchanged during the motion of
the electron (rigid connection in the sense of classical mechanics),
we arrive at a law of motion of the electron which does not agree with
experience. Guided by purely formal points of view, H. A. Lorentz was
the first to introduce the hypothesis that the form of the electron
experiences a contraction in the direction of motion in consequence of
that motion. the contracted length being proportional to the
expression
eq. 05: file eq05.gif
This, hypothesis, which is not justifiable by any electrodynamical
facts, supplies us then with that particular law of motion which has
been confirmed with great precision in recent years.
The theory of relativity leads to the same law of motion, without
requiring any special hypothesis whatsoever as to the structure and
the behaviour of the electron. We arrived at a similar conclusion in
Section 13 in connection with the experiment of Fizeau, the result
of which is foretold by the theory of relativity without the necessity
of drawing on hypotheses as to the physical nature of the liquid.
The second class of facts to which we have alluded has reference to
the question whether or not the motion of the earth in space can be
made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked
in Section 5 that all attempts of this nature led to a negative
result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was
difficult to become reconciled to this negative result, for reasons
now to be discussed. The inherited prejudices about time and space did
not allow any doubt to arise as to the prime importance of the
Galileian transformation for changing over from one body of reference
to another. Now assuming that the Maxwell-Lorentz equations hold for a
reference-body K, we then find that they do not hold for a
reference-body K1 moving uniformly with respect to K, if we assume
that the relations of the Galileian transformstion exist between the
co-ordinates of K and K1. It thus appears that, of all Galileian
co-ordinate systems, one (K) corresponding to a particular state of
motion is physically unique. This result was interpreted physically by
regarding K as at rest with respect to a hypothetical æther of space.
On the other hand, all coordinate systems K1 moving relatively to K
were to be regarded as in motion with respect to the æther. To this
motion of K1 against the æther ("æther-drift " relative to K1) were
attributed the more complicated laws which were supposed to hold
relative to K1. Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to
be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of
physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an
æther-drift at the earth's surface.
In one of the most notable of these attempts Michelson devised a
method which appears as though it must be decisive. Imagine two
mirrors so arranged on a rigid body that the reflecting surfaces face
each other. A ray of light requires a perfectly definite time T to
pass from one mirror to the other and back again, if the whole system
be at rest with respect to the æther. It is found by calculation,
however, that a slightly different time T1 is required for this
process, if the body, together with the mirrors, be moving relatively
to the æther. And yet another point: it is shown by calculation that
for a given velocity v with reference to the æther, this time T1 is
different when the body is moving perpendicularly to the planes of the
mirrors from that resulting when the motion is parallel to these
planes. Although the estimated difference between these two times is
exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment
involving interference in which this difference should have been
clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result -- a
fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the
theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body
relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the
t/Relativity.test view on Meta::CPAN
where the "inertial mass" is a characteristic constant of the
accelerated body. If now gravitation is the cause of the acceleration,
we then have
(Force) = (gravitational mass) x (intensity of the gravitational
field),
where the "gravitational mass" is likewise a characteristic constant
for the body. From these two relations follows:
eq. 26: file eq26.gif
If now, as we find from experience, the acceleration is to be
independent of the nature and the condition of the body and always the
same for a given gravitational field, then the ratio of the
gravitational to the inertial mass must likewise be the same for all
bodies. By a suitable choice of units we can thus make this ratio
equal to unity. We then have the following law: The gravitational mass
of a body is equal to its inertial law.
It is true that this important law had hitherto been recorded in
mechanics, but it had not been interpreted. A satisfactory
interpretation can be obtained only if we recognise the following fact
: The same quality of a body manifests itself according to
circumstances as " inertia " or as " weight " (lit. " heaviness '). In
the following section we shall show to what extent this is actually
the case, and how this question is connected with the general
postulate of relativity.
THE EQUALITY OF INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
AS AN ARGUMENT FOR THE GENERAL POSTULE OF RELATIVITY
We imagine a large portion of empty space, so far removed from stars
and other appreciable masses, that we have before us approximately the
conditions required by the fundamental law of Galilei. It is then
possible to choose a Galileian reference-body for this part of space
(world), relative to which points at rest remain at rest and points in
motion continue permanently in uniform rectilinear motion. As
reference-body let us imagine a spacious chest resembling a room with
an observer inside who is equipped with apparatus. Gravitation
naturally does not exist for this observer. He must fasten himself
with strings to the floor, otherwise the slightest impact against the
floor will cause him to rise slowly towards the ceiling of the room.
To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed externally a hook with
rope attached, and now a " being " (what kind of a being is immaterial
to us) begins pulling at this with a constant force. The chest
together with the observer then begin to move "upwards" with a
uniformly accelerated motion. In course of time their velocity will
reach unheard-of values -- provided that we are viewing all this from
another reference-body which is not being pulled with a rope.
But how does the man in the chest regard the Process ? The
acceleration of the chest will be transmitted to him by the reaction
of the floor of the chest. He must therefore take up this pressure by
means of his legs if he does not wish to be laid out full length on
the floor. He is then standing in the chest in exactly the same way as
anyone stands in a room of a home on our earth. If he releases a body
which he previously had in his land, the accelertion of the chest will
no longer be transmitted to this body, and for this reason the body
will approach the floor of the chest with an accelerated relative
motion. The observer will further convince himself that the
acceleration of the body towards the floor of the chest is always of
the same magnitude, whatever kind of body he may happen to use for the
experiment.
Relying on his knowledge of the gravitational field (as it was
discussed in the preceding section), the man in the chest will thus
come to the conclusion that he and the chest are in a gravitational
field which is constant with regard to time. Of course he will be
puzzled for a moment as to why the chest does not fall in this
gravitational field. just then, however, he discovers the hook in the
middle of the lid of the chest and the rope which is attached to it,
and he consequently comes to the conclusion that the chest is
suspended at rest in the gravitational field.
Ought we to smile at the man and say that he errs in his conclusion ?
I do not believe we ought to if we wish to remain consistent ; we must
rather admit that his mode of grasping the situation violates neither
reason nor known mechanical laws. Even though it is being accelerated
with respect to the "Galileian space" first considered, we can
nevertheless regard the chest as being at rest. We have thus good
grounds for extending the principle of relativity to include bodies of
reference which are accelerated with respect to each other, and as a
result we have gained a powerful argument for a generalised postulate
of relativity.
We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of
interpretation rests on the fundamental property of the gravitational
field of giving all bodies the same acceleration, or, what comes to
the same thing, on the law of the equality of inertial and
gravitational mass. If this natural law did not exist, the man in the
accelerated chest would not be able to interpret the behaviour of the
bodies around him on the supposition of a gravitational field, and he
would not be justified on the grounds of experience in supposing his
reference-body to be " at rest."
Suppose that the man in the chest fixes a rope to the inner side of
the lid, and that he attaches a body to the free end of the rope. The
result of this will be to strech the rope so that it will hang "
vertically " downwards. If we ask for an opinion of the cause of
tension in the rope, the man in the chest will say: "The suspended
body experiences a downward force in the gravitational field, and this
is neutralised by the tension of the rope ; what determines the
magnitude of the tension of the rope is the gravitational mass of the
suspended body." On the other hand, an observer who is poised freely
in space will interpret the condition of things thus : " The rope must
perforce take part in the accelerated motion of the chest, and it
transmits this motion to the body attached to it. The tension of the
rope is just large enough to effect the acceleration of the body. That
which determines the magnitude of the tension of the rope is the
inertial mass of the body." Guided by this example, we see that our
extension of the principle of relativity implies the necessity of the
law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Thus we have
obtained a physical interpretation of this law.
t/Relativity.test view on Meta::CPAN
We start off again from quite special cases, which we have frequently
used before. Let us consider a space time domain in which no
gravitational field exists relative to a reference-body K whose state
of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a Galileian
reference-body as regards the domain considered, and the results of
the special theory of relativity hold relative to K. Let us supposse
the same domain referred to a second body of reference K1, which is
rotating uniformly with respect to K. In order to fix our ideas, we
shall imagine K1 to be in the form of a plane circular disc, which
rotates uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer who
is sitting eccentrically on the disc K1 is sensible of a force which
acts outwards in a radial direction, and which would be interpreted as
an effect of inertia (centrifugal force) by an observer who was at
rest with respect to the original reference-body K. But the observer
on the disc may regard his disc as a reference-body which is " at rest
" ; on the basis of the general principle of relativity he is
justified in doing this. The force acting on himself, and in fact on
all other bodies which are at rest relative to the disc, he regards as
the effect of a gravitational field. Nevertheless, the
space-distribution of this gravitational field is of a kind that would
not be possible on Newton's theory of gravitation.* But since the
observer believes in the general theory of relativity, this does not
disturb him; he is quite in the right when he believes that a general
law of gravitation can be formulated- a law which not only explains
the motion of the stars correctly, but also the field of force
experienced by himself.
The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and
measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact
definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with
reference to the circular disc K1, these definitions being based on
his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise ?
To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at
the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the
disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves
whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the
non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the
clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at
the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the
rotation. According to a result obtained in Section 12, it follows
that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of
the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K.
It is obvious that the same effect would be noted by an observer whom
we will imagine sitting alongside his clock at the centre of the
circular disc. Thus on our circular disc, or, to make the case more
general, in every gravitational field, a clock will go more quickly or
less quickly, according to the position in which the clock is situated
(at rest). For this reason it is not possible to obtain a reasonable
definition of time with the aid of clocks which are arranged at rest
with respect to the body of reference. A similar difficulty presents
itself when we attempt to apply our earlier definition of simultaneity
in such a case, but I do not wish to go any farther into this
question.
Moreover, at this stage the definition of the space co-ordinates also
presents insurmountable difficulties. If the observer applies his
standard measuring-rod (a rod which is short as compared with the
radius of the disc) tangentially to the edge of the disc, then, as
judged from the Galileian system, the length of this rod will be less
than I, since, according to Section 12, moving bodies suffer a
shortening in the direction of the motion. On the other hand, the
measaring-rod will not experience a shortening in length, as judged
from K, if it is applied to the disc in the direction of the radius.
If, then, the observer first measures the circumference of the disc
with his measuring-rod and then the diameter of the disc, on dividing
the one by the other, he will not obtain as quotient the familiar
number p = 3.14 . . ., but a larger number,[4]** whereas of course,
for a disc which is at rest with respect to K, this operation would
yield p exactly. This proves that the propositions of Euclidean
geometry cannot hold exactly on the rotating disc, nor in general in a
gravitational field, at least if we attribute the length I to the rod
in all positions and in every orientation. Hence the idea of a
straight line also loses its meaning. We are therefore not in a
position to define exactly the co-ordinates x, y, z relative to the
disc by means of the method used in discussing the special theory, and
as long as the co- ordinates and times of events have not been
defined, we cannot assign an exact meaning to the natural laws in
which these occur.
Thus all our previous conclusions based on general relativity would
appear to be called in question. In reality we must make a subtle
detour in order to be able to apply the postulate of general
relativity exactly. I shall prepare the reader for this in the
following paragraphs.
Notes
*) The field disappears at the centre of the disc and increases
proportionally to the distance from the centre as we proceed outwards.
**) Throughout this consideration we have to use the Galileian
(non-rotating) system K as reference-body, since we may only assume
the validity of the results of the special theory of relativity
relative to K (relative to K1 a gravitational field prevails).
EUCLIDEAN AND NON-EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM
The surface of a marble table is spread out in front of me. I can get
from any one point on this table to any other point by passing
continuously from one point to a " neighbouring " one, and repeating
this process a (large) number of times, or, in other words, by going
from point to point without executing "jumps." I am sure the reader
will appreciate with sufficient clearness what I mean here by "
neighbouring " and by " jumps " (if he is not too pedantic). We
express this property of the surface by describing the latter as a
continuum.
Let us now imagine that a large number of little rods of equal length
have been made, their lengths being small compared with the dimensions
of the marble slab. When I say they are of equal length, I mean that
one can be laid on any other without the ends overlapping. We next lay
four of these little rods on the marble slab so that they constitute a
quadrilateral figure (a square), the diagonals of which are equally
long. To ensure the equality of the diagonals, we make use of a little
testing-rod. To this square we add similar ones, each of which has one
rod in common with the first. We proceed in like manner with each of
these squares until finally the whole marble slab is laid out with
squares. The arrangement is such, that each side of a square belongs
to two squares and each corner to four squares.
It is a veritable wonder that we can carry out this business without
getting into the greatest difficulties. We only need to think of the
following. If at any moment three squares meet at a corner, then two
sides of the fourth square are already laid, and, as a consequence,
the arrangement of the remaining two sides of the square is already
completely determined. But I am now no longer able to adjust the
quadrilateral so that its diagonals may be equal. If they are equal of
their own accord, then this is an especial favour of the marble slab
and of the little rods, about which I can only be thankfully
surprised. We must experience many such surprises if the construction
is to be successful.
If everything has really gone smoothly, then I say that the points of
the marble slab constitute a Euclidean continuum with respect to the
little rod, which has been used as a " distance " (line-interval). By
choosing one corner of a square as " origin" I can characterise every
other corner of a square with reference to this origin by means of two
numbers. I only need state how many rods I must pass over when,
starting from the origin, I proceed towards the " right " and then "
upwards," in order to arrive at the corner of the square under
consideration. These two numbers are then the " Cartesian co-ordinates
" of this corner with reference to the " Cartesian co-ordinate system"
which is determined by the arrangement of little rods.
By making use of the following modification of this abstract
experiment, we recognise that there must also be cases in which the
experiment would be unsuccessful. We shall suppose that the rods "
expand " by in amount proportional to the increase of temperature. We
heat the central part of the marble slab, but not the periphery, in
which case two of our little rods can still be brought into
coincidence at every position on the table. But our construction of
squares must necessarily come into disorder during the heating,
because the little rods on the central region of the table expand,
whereas those on the outer part do not.
With reference to our little rods -- defined as unit lengths -- the
marble slab is no longer a Euclidean continuum, and we are also no
longer in the position of defining Cartesian co-ordinates directly
with their aid, since the above construction can no longer be carried
out. But since there are other things which are not influenced in a
similar manner to the little rods (or perhaps not at all) by the
temperature of the table, it is possible quite naturally to maintain
the point of view that the marble slab is a " Euclidean continuum."
This can be done in a satisfactory manner by making a more subtle
stipulation about the measurement or the comparison of lengths.
But if rods of every kind (i.e. of every material) were to behave in
the same way as regards the influence of temperature when they are on
the variably heated marble slab, and if we had no other means of
detecting the effect of temperature than the geometrical behaviour of
our rods in experiments analogous to the one described above, then our
best plan would be to assign the distance one to two points on the
slab, provided that the ends of one of our rods could be made to
coincide with these two points ; for how else should we define the
distance without our proceeding being in the highest measure grossly
arbitrary ? The method of Cartesian coordinates must then be
discarded, and replaced by another which does not assume the validity
of Euclidean geometry for rigid bodies.* The reader will notice
that the situation depicted here corresponds to the one brought about
by the general postitlate of relativity (Section 23).
Notes
*) Mathematicians have been confronted with our problem in the
following form. If we are given a surface (e.g. an ellipsoid) in
Euclidean three-dimensional space, then there exists for this surface
a two-dimensional geometry, just as much as for a plane surface. Gauss
undertook the task of treating this two-dimensional geometry from
first principles, without making use of the fact that the surface
belongs to a Euclidean continuum of three dimensions. If we imagine
constructions to be made with rigid rods in the surface (similar to
that above with the marble slab), we should find that different laws
hold for these from those resulting on the basis of Euclidean plane
geometry. The surface is not a Euclidean continuum with respect to the
rods, and we cannot define Cartesian co-ordinates in the surface.
Gauss indicated the principles according to which we can treat the
geometrical relationships in the surface, and thus pointed out the way
to the method of Riemman of treating multi-dimensional, non-Euclidean
continuum. Thus it is that mathematicians long ago solved the formal
problems to which we are led by the general postulate of relativity.
GAUSSIAN CO-ORDINATES
According to Gauss, this combined analytical and geometrical mode of
handling the problem can be arrived at in the following way. We
imagine a system of arbitrary curves (see Fig. 4) drawn on the surface
of the table. These we designate as u-curves, and we indicate each of
them by means of a number. The Curves u= 1, u= 2 and u= 3 are drawn in
the diagram. Between the curves u= 1 and u= 2 we must imagine an
infinitely large number to be drawn, all of which correspond to real
numbers lying between 1 and 2. fig. 04 We have then a system of
u-curves, and this "infinitely dense" system covers the whole surface
of the table. These u-curves must not intersect each other, and
through each point of the surface one and only one curve must pass.
Thus a perfectly definite value of u belongs to every point on the
surface of the marble slab. In like manner we imagine a system of
v-curves drawn on the surface. These satisfy the same conditions as
the u-curves, they are provided with numbers in a corresponding
manner, and they may likewise be of arbitrary shape. It follows that a
value of u and a value of v belong to every point on the surface of
the table. We call these two numbers the co-ordinates of the surface
t/Relativity.test view on Meta::CPAN
law which has neither empirical nor theoretical foundation. We can
imagine innumerable laws which would serve the same purpose, without
our being able to state a reason why one of them is to be preferred to
the others ; for any one of these laws would be founded just as little
on more general theoretical principles as is the law of Newton.
Notes
*) Proof -- According to the theory of Newton, the number of "lines
of force" which come from infinity and terminate in a mass m is
proportional to the mass m. If, on the average, the Mass density p[0]
is constant throughout tithe universe, then a sphere of volume V will
enclose the average man p[0]V. Thus the number of lines of force
passing through the surface F of the sphere into its interior is
proportional to p[0] V. For unit area of the surface of the sphere the
number of lines of force which enters the sphere is thus proportional
to p[0] V/F or to p[0]R. Hence the intensity of the field at the
surface would ultimately become infinite with increasing radius R of
the sphere, which is impossible.
THE POSSIBILITY OF A "FINITE" AND YET "UNBOUNDED" UNIVERSE
But speculations on the structure of the universe also move in quite
another direction. The development of non-Euclidean geometry led to
the recognition of the fact, that we can cast doubt on the
infiniteness of our space without coming into conflict with the laws
of thought or with experience (Riemann, Helmholtz). These questions
have already been treated in detail and with unsurpassable lucidity by
Helmholtz and Poincaré, whereas I can only touch on them briefly here.
In the first place, we imagine an existence in two dimensional space.
Flat beings with flat implements, and in particular flat rigid
measuring-rods, are free to move in a plane. For them nothing exists
outside of this plane: that which they observe to happen to themselves
and to their flat " things " is the all-inclusive reality of their
plane. In particular, the constructions of plane Euclidean geometry
can be carried out by means of the rods e.g. the lattice construction,
considered in Section 24. In contrast to ours, the universe of
these beings is two-dimensional; but, like ours, it extends to
infinity. In their universe there is room for an infinite number of
identical squares made up of rods, i.e. its volume (surface) is
infinite. If these beings say their universe is " plane," there is
sense in the statement, because they mean that they can perform the
constructions of plane Euclidean geometry with their rods. In this
connection the individual rods always represent the same distance,
independently of their position.
Let us consider now a second two-dimensional existence, but this time
on a spherical surface instead of on a plane. The flat beings with
their measuring-rods and other objects fit exactly on this surface and
they are unable to leave it. Their whole universe of observation
extends exclusively over the surface of the sphere. Are these beings
able to regard the geometry of their universe as being plane geometry
and their rods withal as the realisation of " distance " ? They cannot
do this. For if they attempt to realise a straight line, they will
obtain a curve, which we " three-dimensional beings " designate as a
great circle, i.e. a self-contained line of definite finite length,
which can be measured up by means of a measuring-rod. Similarly, this
universe has a finite area that can be compared with the area, of a
square constructed with rods. The great charm resulting from this
consideration lies in the recognition of the fact that the universe of
these beings is finite and yet has no limits.
But the spherical-surface beings do not need to go on a world-tour in
order to perceive that they are not living in a Euclidean universe.
They can convince themselves of this on every part of their " world,"
provided they do not use too small a piece of it. Starting from a
point, they draw " straight lines " (arcs of circles as judged in
three dimensional space) of equal length in all directions. They will
call the line joining the free ends of these lines a " circle." For a
plane surface, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its
diameter, both lengths being measured with the same rod, is, according
to Euclidean geometry of the plane, equal to a constant value p, which
is independent of the diameter of the circle. On their spherical
surface our flat beings would find for this ratio the value
eq. 27: file eq27.gif
i.e. a smaller value than p, the difference being the more
considerable, the greater is the radius of the circle in comparison
with the radius R of the " world-sphere." By means of this relation
the spherical beings can determine the radius of their universe ("
world "), even when only a relatively small part of their worldsphere
is available for their measurements. But if this part is very small
indeed, they will no longer be able to demonstrate that they are on a
spherical " world " and not on a Euclidean plane, for a small part of
a spherical surface differs only slightly from a piece of a plane of
the same size.
Thus if the spherical surface beings are living on a planet of which
the solar system occupies only a negligibly small part of the
spherical universe, they have no means of determining whether they are
living in a finite or in an infinite universe, because the " piece of
universe " to which they have access is in both cases practically
plane, or Euclidean. It follows directly from this discussion, that
for our sphere-beings the circumference of a circle first increases
with the radius until the " circumference of the universe " is
reached, and that it thenceforward gradually decreases to zero for
still further increasing values of the radius. During this process the
area of the circle continues to increase more and more, until finally
it becomes equal to the total area of the whole " world-sphere."
Perhaps the reader will wonder why we have placed our " beings " on a
sphere rather than on another closed surface. But this choice has its
justification in the fact that, of all closed surfaces, the sphere is
unique in possessing the property that all points on it are
equivalent. I admit that the ratio of the circumference c of a circle
to its radius r depends on r, but for a given value of r it is the
same for all points of the " worldsphere "; in other words, the "
world-sphere " is a " surface of constant curvature."
To this two-dimensional sphere-universe there is a three-dimensional
analogy, namely, the three-dimensional spherical space which was
discovered by Riemann. its points are likewise all equivalent. It
possesses a finite volume, which is determined by its "radius"
(2p2R3). Is it possible to imagine a spherical space? To imagine a
space means nothing else than that we imagine an epitome of our "
space " experience, i.e. of experience that we can have in the
movement of " rigid " bodies. In this sense we can imagine a spherical
space.
Suppose we draw lines or stretch strings in all directions from a
point, and mark off from each of these the distance r with a
measuring-rod. All the free end-points of these lengths lie on a
spherical surface. We can specially measure up the area (F) of this
surface by means of a square made up of measuring-rods. If the
universe is Euclidean, then F = 4pR2 ; if it is spherical, then F is
always less than 4pR2. With increasing values of r, F increases from
zero up to a maximum value which is determined by the " world-radius,"
but for still further increasing values of r, the area gradually
diminishes to zero. At first, the straight lines which radiate from
the starting point diverge farther and farther from one another, but
later they approach each other, and finally they run together again at
a "counter-point" to the starting point. Under such conditions they
have traversed the whole spherical space. It is easily seen that the
three-dimensional spherical space is quite analogous to the
two-dimensional spherical surface. It is finite (i.e. of finite
volume), and has no bounds.
It may be mentioned that there is yet another kind of curved space: "
elliptical space." It can be regarded as a curved space in which the
two " counter-points " are identical (indistinguishable from each
other). An elliptical universe can thus be considered to some extent
as a curved universe possessing central symmetry.
It follows from what has been said, that closed spaces without limits
are conceivable. From amongst these, the spherical space (and the
elliptical) excels in its simplicity, since all points on it are
equivalent. As a result of this discussion, a most interesting
question arises for astronomers and physicists, and that is whether
the universe in which we live is infinite, or whether it is finite in
the manner of the spherical universe. Our experience is far from being
sufficient to enable us to answer this question. But the general
theory of relativity permits of our answering it with a moduate degree
of certainty, and in this connection the difficulty mentioned in
Section 30 finds its solution.
THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical
properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by
matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure
of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of the
matter as being something that is known. We know from experience that,
for a suitably chosen co-ordinate system, the velocities of the stars
are small as compared with the velocity of transmission of light. We
can thus as a rough approximation arrive at a conclusion as to the
nature of the universe as a whole, if we treat the matter as being at
rest.
We already know from our previous discussion that the behaviour of
measuring-rods and clocks is influenced by gravitational fields, i.e.
by the distribution of matter. This in itself is sufficient to exclude
the possibility of the exact validity of Euclidean geometry in our
universe. But it is conceivable that our universe differs only
slightly from a Euclidean one, and this notion seems all the more
probable, since calculations show that the metrics of surrounding
space is influenced only to an exceedingly small extent by masses even
of the magnitude of our sun. We might imagine that, as regards
geometry, our universe behaves analogously to a surface which is
irregularly curved in its individual parts, but which nowhere departs
t/Relativity.test view on Meta::CPAN
x = ct
or
x - ct = 0 . . . (1).
Since the same light-signal has to be transmitted relative to K1 with
the velocity c, the propagation relative to the system K1 will be
represented by the analogous formula
x' - ct' = O . . . (2)
Those space-time points (events) which satisfy (x) must also satisfy
(2). Obviously this will be the case when the relation
(x' - ct') = l (x - ct) . . . (3).
is fulfilled in general, where l indicates a constant ; for, according
to (3), the disappearance of (x - ct) involves the disappearance of
(x' - ct').
If we apply quite similar considerations to light rays which are being
transmitted along the negative x-axis, we obtain the condition
(x' + ct') = µ(x + ct) . . . (4).
By adding (or subtracting) equations (3) and (4), and introducing for
convenience the constants a and b in place of the constants l and µ,
where
eq. 29: file eq29.gif
and
eq. 30: file eq30.gif
we obtain the equations
eq. 31: file eq31.gif
We should thus have the solution of our problem, if the constants a
and b were known. These result from the following discussion.
For the origin of K1 we have permanently x' = 0, and hence according
to the first of the equations (5)
eq. 32: file eq32.gif
If we call v the velocity with which the origin of K1 is moving
relative to K, we then have
eq. 33: file eq33.gif
The same value v can be obtained from equations (5), if we calculate
the velocity of another point of K1 relative to K, or the velocity
(directed towards the negative x-axis) of a point of K with respect to
K'. In short, we can designate v as the relative velocity of the two
systems.
Furthermore, the principle of relativity teaches us that, as judged
from K, the length of a unit measuring-rod which is at rest with
reference to K1 must be exactly the same as the length, as judged from
K', of a unit measuring-rod which is at rest relative to K. In order
to see how the points of the x-axis appear as viewed from K, we only
require to take a " snapshot " of K1 from K; this means that we have
to insert a particular value of t (time of K), e.g. t = 0. For this
value of t we then obtain from the first of the equations (5)
x' = ax
Two points of the x'-axis which are separated by the distance Dx' = I
when measured in the K1 system are thus separated in our instantaneous
photograph by the distance
eq. 34: file eq34.gif
But if the snapshot be taken from K'(t' = 0), and if we eliminate t
from the equations (5), taking into account the expression (6), we
obtain
eq. 35: file eq35.gif
From this we conclude that two points on the x-axis separated by the
distance I (relative to K) will be represented on our snapshot by the
distance
eq. 36: file eq36.gif
But from what has been said, the two snapshots must be identical;
hence Dx in (7) must be equal to Dx' in (7a), so that we obtain
eq. 37: file eq37.gif
The equations (6) and (7b) determine the constants a and b. By
inserting the values of these constants in (5), we obtain the first
and the fourth of the equations given in Section 11.
eq. 38: file eq38.gif
Thus we have obtained the Lorentz transformation for events on the
x-axis. It satisfies the condition
x'2 - c^2t'2 = x2 - c^2t2 . . . (8a).
The extension of this result, to include events which take place
outside the x-axis, is obtained by retaining equations (8) and
supplementing them by the relations
eq. 39: file eq39.gif
In this way we satisfy the postulate of the constancy of the velocity
of light in vacuo for rays of light of arbitrary direction, both for
the system K and for the system K'. This may be shown in the following
manner.
We suppose a light-signal sent out from the origin of K at the time t
= 0. It will be propagated according to the equation
eq. 40: file eq40.gif
or, if we square this equation, according to the equation
t/Relativity.test view on Meta::CPAN
where w represents the angular velocity of rotation of the disc K1
with respect to K. If v[0], represents the number of ticks of the
clock per unit time (" rate " of the clock) relative to K when the
clock is at rest, then the " rate " of the clock (v) when it is moving
relative to K with a velocity V, but at rest with respect to the disc,
will, in accordance with Section 12, be given by
eq. 43: file eq43.gif
or with sufficient accuracy by
eq. 44: file eq44.gif
This expression may also be stated in the following form:
eq. 45: file eq45.gif
If we represent the difference of potential of the centrifugal force
between the position of the clock and the centre of the disc by f,
i.e. the work, considered negatively, which must be performed on the
unit of mass against the centrifugal force in order to transport it
from the position of the clock on the rotating disc to the centre of
the disc, then we have
eq. 46: file eq46.gif
From this it follows that
eq. 47: file eq47.gif
In the first place, we see from this expression that two clocks of
identical construction will go at different rates when situated at
different distances from the centre of the disc. This result is aiso
valid from the standpoint of an observer who is rotating with the
disc.
Now, as judged from the disc, the latter is in a gravititional field
of potential f, hence the result we have obtained will hold quite
generally for gravitational fields. Furthermore, we can regard an atom
which is emitting spectral lines as a clock, so that the following
statement will hold:
An atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on
the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated.
The frequency of an atom situated on the surface of a heavenly body
will be somewhat less than the frequency of an atom of the same
element which is situated in free space (or on the surface of a
smaller celestial body).
Now f = - K (M/r), where K is Newton's constant of gravitation, and M
is the mass of the heavenly body. Thus a displacement towards the red
ought to take place for spectral lines produced at the surface of
stars as compared with the spectral lines of the same element produced
at the surface of the earth, the amount of this displacement being
eq. 48: file eq48.gif
For the sun, the displacement towards the red predicted by theory
amounts to about two millionths of the wave-length. A trustworthy
calculation is not possible in the case of the stars, because in
general neither the mass M nor the radius r are known.
It is an open question whether or not this effect exists, and at the
present time (1920) astronomers are working with great zeal towards
the solution. Owing to the smallness of the effect in the case of the
sun, it is difficult to form an opinion as to its existence. Whereas
Grebe and Bachem (Bonn), as a result of their own measurements and
those of Evershed and Schwarzschild on the cyanogen bands, have placed
the existence of the effect almost beyond doubt, while other
investigators, particularly St. John, have been led to the opposite
opinion in consequence of their measurements.
Mean displacements of lines towards the less refrangible end of the
spectrum are certainly revealed by statistical investigations of the
fixed stars ; but up to the present the examination of the available
data does not allow of any definite decision being arrived at, as to
whether or not these displacements are to be referred in reality to
the effect of gravitation. The results of observation have been
collected together, and discussed in detail from the standpoint of the
question which has been engaging our attention here, in a paper by E.
Freundlich entitled "Zur Prüfung der allgemeinen
Relativit¨aut;ts-Theorie" (Die Naturwissenschaften, 1919, No. 35,
p. 520: Julius Springer, Berlin).
At all events, a definite decision will be reached during the next few
years. If the displacement of spectral lines towards the red by the
gravitational potential does not exist, then the general theory of
relativity will be untenable. On the other hand, if the cause of the
displacement of spectral lines be definitely traced to the
gravitational potential, then the study of this displacement will
furnish us with important information as to the mass of the heavenly
bodies. [5][A]
Notes
*) Especially since the next planet Venus has an orbit that is
almost an exact circle, which makes it more difficult to locate the
perihelion with precision.
The displacentent of spectral lines towards the red end of the
spectrum was definitely established by Adams in 1924, by observations
on the dense companion of Sirius, for which the effect is about thirty
times greater than for the Sun. R.W.L. -- translator
APPENDIX IV
THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
(SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 32)
Since the publication of the first edition of this little book, our
knowledge about the structure of space in the large (" cosmological
problem ") has had an important development, which ought to be
mentioned even in a popular presentation of the subject.
My original considerations on the subject were based on two
( run in 1.964 second using v1.01-cache-2.11-cpan-140bd7fdf52 )