DOCSLIB.ORG

The Experimental Verdict on Spacetime from Gravity Probe B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Experimental Verdict on Spacetime from Gravity Probe B The Experimental Verdict on Spacetime from Gravity Probe B James Overduin Abstract Concepts of space and time have been closely connected with matter since the time of the ancient Greeks. The history of these ideas is briefly reviewed, focusing on the debate between “absolute” and “relational” views of space and time and their influence on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, as formulated in the language of four-dimensional spacetime by Minkowski in 1908. After a brief detour through Minkowski’s modern-day legacy in higher dimensions, an overview is given of the current experimental status of general relativity. Gravity Probe B is the first test of this theory to focus on spin, and the first to produce direct and unambiguous detections of the geodetic effect (warped spacetime tugs on a spin- ning gyroscope) and the frame-dragging effect (the spinning earth pulls spacetime around with it). These effects have important implications for astrophysics, cosmol- ogy and the origin of inertia. Philosophically, they might also be viewed as tests of the propositions that spacetime acts on matter (geodetic effect) and that matter acts back on spacetime (frame-dragging effect). 1 Space and Time Before Minkowski The Stoic philosopher Zeno of Elea, author of Zeno’s paradoxes (c. 490-430 BCE), is said to have held that space and time were unreal since they could neither act nor be acted upon by matter [1]. This is perhaps the earliest version of the relational view of space and time, a view whose philosophical fortunes have waxed and waned with the centuries, but which has exercised enormous influence on physics. The opposing absolutist view, that space and time do possess independent existence apart from matter, has an equally distinguished history that might be traced back to the Stoics’ philosophical rivals, the Epicureans, whose founder Leucippus of Abdera (active c. 450 BCE) introduced the concept of a pre-existing void as the “emptiness between atoms” [2]. The earliest explicit statement of the absolutist view has been attributed by Max Jammer to the Pythagorean philosopher Archytas (428-347 BCE): “Since everything which is moved into a certain place, it is plain that the place where the thing moving or being moved shall be, must exist first” [3]. V. Petkov (ed.), Space, Time, and Spacetime, Fundamental Theories of Physics 167, 25 DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-13538-5 2, c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010 26 J. Overduin Aristotle (384-322 BCE) constructed a hybrid of the absolute and relational views. He accepted arguments similar to that of Archytas, but was deeply unhappy with the atomistic idea of void, “since no preference can be given to one line of motion more than to another, inasmuch as the void, as such, is incapable of differ- entiation . how [then] can there be any natural movement in the undifferentiated limitless void?” To get around this difficulty Aristotle developed the arguably rela- tional idea that space is defined by that which contains it. He was led in this way (in the Physics) to his influential picture of a cosmos pinned simultaneously to the center of the earth and the firmanent of fixed stars: “The center of the universe and the inner surface of the revolving heavens constitute the supreme ‘below’ and the supreme ‘above’; the former being absolutely stable, and the latter constant in its position as a whole.” Such was Aristotle’s authority that few questioned it for two millenia. An exception was John Philoponus (c. 490-570), who argued for a more purely absolute picture and reacted in particular against the idea that space is somehow defined by that which contains it: “Place is not the adjacent part of the surrounding body . It is a given interval, measurable in three dimensions; it is distinct from the bodies in it, and is, by its very nature, incorporeal. In other words, it is the dimensions alone, devoid of any body.” Claudius Ptolemy (c. 85-165) elaborated on Aristotle’s system, using only cir- cular motions and uniform speeds so as to “save the phenomena” in the face of increasingly accurate observations. However, the way in which he did so points up the limited extent to which Aristotle’s thinking can truly be considered relational. The fact that the “firmanent of fixed stars” and “center of the earth” defined the rest frame of Aristotle’s cosmos did not mean that space was physically anchored to the matter making up the earth or stars. Rather it so happened that these refer- ents stood still in a background space that was more properly conceived as existing absolutely. Thus, adopting an earlier idea of Hipparchus, Ptolemy first detached the sun’s “orbit” from the center of the earth (giving it an “eccentricity”). Later he added planetary “deferents,” “epicycles” and finally “equants”–all reference points or paths in empty space (some of them even with inherent motions of their own). These so-called “void points” make sense only with respect to absolute space–or perhaps to “matter” of a divine kind, as hinted at in the Almagest: “The first cause of the first motion of the universe, if one considers it simply, can be thought of as an invisible and motionless deity.” Here Ptolemy anticipated Newton, who would later refer to absolute space (in the Opticks) as the “sensorium” of God. The nature of time as well as space was eagerly debated in this way by the ancients. The Epicurean philosopher Lucretius (c. 99-55 BCE) may have been the first to argue explicitly for a relational view of time, writing in The Nature of the Universe that: “Time by itself does not exist . It must not be claimed that any- one can sense time by itself apart from the movement of things.” Saint Augustine (354–430) put a theological twist on this argument in his Confessions, emphasizing that “God created the world with time, not in time.” Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) relocated the center of Aristotle’s universe from the earth to the sun. This step was not quite so daring as often thought, for Hipparchus and Ptolemy had already nudged the sun’s “orbit” away from the center of the earth by introducing “eccentricity.” As Copernicus himself noted near the The Experimental Verdict on Spacetime from Gravity Probe B 27 beginning of De Revolutionibus: “Nothing prevents the earth from moving . For, it is not the center of all the revolutions.” Furthermore, although he re-centered the cosmos kinematically on the sun, Copernicus did not attach space dynamically to the rest frame of the sun or any other physical body, but followed Aristotle in associating it with the metaphysical “sphere of the fixed stars,” which (he wrote): “contains itself and everything, and is therefore immovable. It is unquestionably the place of the universe, to which the motion and position of all the other heavenly bodies are compared.” Fifty years later, the notion of rigid planetary spheres could no longer be rec- onciled with astronomical observations, leading Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) to declare: “From henceforth the planets follow their paths through the ether like the birds in the air. We must therefore philosophize about these things differently.” Thoughts such as these led him to the radical idea of attaching the rest frame of space to physical bodies rather than a metaphysical construct such as absolute space (he conceived of forces extending outward from the sun and sweeping the planets along in their orbits). The laws of planetary motion that he subsequently derived have been wonderfully characterized by Julian Barbour as a “pre-Machian triumph of Mach’s Principle” [2]. A similar shift in thinking is apparent in Galilei Galileo (1564–1642). Rather than identifying the fixed stars with the rest frame of space in an abstract sense, he asserted (in the Dialogo) that they are physically at rest in space: “The fixed stars (which are so many suns) agree with our sun in enjoying perpetual rest.” However, Galileo did not further define this state of “rest,” and appears to have implicitly adopted the absolutist view. In fact he was the first to use the actual term “abso- lute motion,” in his theory of the tides. R´en´e Descartes (1596–1650) also relied on the concept of absolute space (which he referred to as a “plenum”) in arriving at something similar to Newton’s eventual first law of motion. After learning of Galileo’s trial by the Inquisition, however, he put off publishing his results by more than a decade and eventually prefaced them (in the Principia Philosophiae)bya disclaimer stating that all motion was, after all, relative. He may have been the first to hold both absolutist and relational views at the same time. This inconsistency irritated Isaac Newton (Fig. 1), who complained in De Grav- itatione that if all motion was really relative as Descartes said, then “it follows that a moving body has no determinate velocity and no definite line in which it moves.” It was partly to do away with any such confusion that he expressed himself so Fig. 1 Isaac Newton (1643–1727) and his bucket experiment: the concavity of the water’s surface indicates that the water is rotating with respect to “absolute space” 28 J. Overduin categorically in the famous opening of his Principia: “Absolute, true and mathe- matical time, of itself and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external . absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immoveable.” He added that the existence of absolute space could be demonstrated by watching the water in a spinning bucket.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Relativity with a Preferred Frame. Astrophysical and Cosmological Implications Monday, 21 August 2017 15:30 (30 Minutes)
    6th International Conference on New Frontiers in Physics (ICNFP2017) Contribution ID: 1095 Type: Talk Relativity with a preferred frame. Astrophysical and cosmological implications Monday, 21 August 2017 15:30 (30 minutes) The present analysis is motivated by the fact that, although the local Lorentz invariance is one of thecorner- stones of modern physics, cosmologically a preferred system of reference does exist. Modern cosmological models are based on the assumption that there exists a typical (privileged) Lorentz frame, in which the universe appear isotropic to “typical” freely falling observers. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background provided a stronger support to that assumption (it is tacitly assumed that the privileged frame, in which the universe appears isotropic, coincides with the CMB frame). The view, that there exists a preferred frame of reference, seems to unambiguously lead to the abolishmentof the basic principles of the special relativity theory: the principle of relativity and the principle of universality of the speed of light. Correspondingly, the modern versions of experimental tests of special relativity and the “test theories” of special relativity reject those principles and presume that a preferred inertial reference frame, identified with the CMB frame, is the only frame in which the two-way speed of light (the average speed from source to observer and back) is isotropic while it is anisotropic in relatively moving frames. In the present study, the existence of a preferred frame is incorporated into the framework of the special relativity, based on the relativity principle and universality of the (two-way) speed of light, at the expense of the freedom in assigning the one-way speeds of light that exists in special relativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Frames of Reference
    Galilean Relativity 1 m/s 3 m/s Q. What is the women velocity? A. With respect to whom? Frames of Reference: A frame of reference is a set of coordinates (for example x, y & z axes) with respect to whom any physical quantity can be determined. Inertial Frames of Reference: - The inertia of a body is the resistance of changing its state of motion. - Uniformly moving reference frames (e.g. those considered at 'rest' or moving with constant velocity in a straight line) are called inertial reference frames. - Special relativity deals only with physics viewed from inertial reference frames. - If we can neglect the effect of the earth’s rotations, a frame of reference fixed in the earth is an inertial reference frame. Galilean Coordinate Transformations: For simplicity: - Let coordinates in both references equal at (t = 0 ). - Use Cartesian coordinate systems. t1 = t2 = 0 t1 = t2 At ( t1 = t2 ) Galilean Coordinate Transformations are: x2= x 1 − vt 1 x1= x 2+ vt 2 or y2= y 1 y1= y 2 z2= z 1 z1= z 2 Recall v is constant, differentiation of above equations gives Galilean velocity Transformations: dx dx dx dx 2 =1 − v 1 =2 − v dt 2 dt 1 dt 1 dt 2 dy dy dy dy 2 = 1 1 = 2 dt dt dt dt 2 1 1 2 dz dz dz dz 2 = 1 1 = 2 and dt2 dt 1 dt 1 dt 2 or v x1= v x 2 + v v x2 =v x1 − v and Similarly, Galilean acceleration Transformations: a2= a 1 Physics before Relativity Classical physics was developed between about 1650 and 1900 based on: * Idealized mechanical models that can be subjected to mathematical analysis and tested against observation.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Science -----Paulk
    PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE -----PAULK. FEYERABEND----- However, it has also a quite decisive role in building the new science and in defending new theories against their well-entrenched predecessors. For example, this philosophy plays a most important part in the arguments about the Copernican system, in the development of optics, and in the Philosophy ofScience: A Subject with construction of a new and non-Aristotelian dynamics. Almost every work of Galileo is a mixture of philosophical, mathematical, and physical prin~ a Great Past ciples which collaborate intimately without giving the impression of in­ coherence. This is the heroic time of the scientific philosophy. The new philosophy is not content just to mirror a science that develops independ­ ently of it; nor is it so distant as to deal just with alternative philosophies. It plays an essential role in building up the new science that was to replace 1. While it should be possible, in a free society, to introduce, to ex­ the earlier doctrines.1 pound, to make propaganda for any subject, however absurd and however 3. Now it is interesting to see how this active and critical philosophy is immoral, to publish books and articles, to give lectures on any topic, it gradually replaced by a more conservative creed, how the new creed gener­ must also be possible to examine what is being expounded by reference, ates technical problems of its own which are in no way related to specific not to the internal standards of the subject (which may be but the method scientific problems (Hurne), and how there arises a special subject that according to which a particular madness is being pursued), but to stan­ codifies science without acting back on it (Kant).
    [Show full text]
  • Principle of Relativity and Inertial Dragging
    ThePrincipleofRelativityandInertialDragging By ØyvindG.Grøn OsloUniversityCollege,Departmentofengineering,St.OlavsPl.4,0130Oslo, Norway Email: [email protected] Mach’s principle and the principle of relativity have been discussed by H. I. HartmanandC.Nissim-Sabatinthisjournal.Severalphenomenaweresaidtoviolate the principle of relativity as applied to rotating motion. These claims have recently been contested. However, in neither of these articles have the general relativistic phenomenonofinertialdraggingbeeninvoked,andnocalculationhavebeenoffered byeithersidetosubstantiatetheirclaims.HereIdiscussthepossiblevalidityofthe principleofrelativityforrotatingmotionwithinthecontextofthegeneraltheoryof relativity, and point out the significance of inertial dragging in this connection. Although my main points are of a qualitative nature, I also provide the necessary calculationstodemonstratehowthesepointscomeoutasconsequencesofthegeneral theoryofrelativity. 1 1.Introduction H. I. Hartman and C. Nissim-Sabat 1 have argued that “one cannot ascribe all pertinentobservationssolelytorelativemotionbetweenasystemandtheuniverse”. They consider an UR-scenario in which a bucket with water is atrest in a rotating universe,andaBR-scenariowherethebucketrotatesinanon-rotatinguniverseand givefiveexamplestoshowthatthesesituationsarenotphysicallyequivalent,i.e.that theprincipleofrelativityisnotvalidforrotationalmotion. When Einstein 2 presented the general theory of relativity he emphasized the importanceofthegeneralprincipleofrelativity.Inasectiontitled“TheNeedforan
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Spacetime Structure
    Classical Spacetime Structure James Owen Weatherall Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science University of California, Irvine Abstract I discuss several issues related to \classical" spacetime structure. I review Galilean, Newto- nian, and Leibnizian spacetimes, and briefly describe more recent developments. The target audience is undergraduates and early graduate students in philosophy; the presentation avoids mathematical formalism as much as possible. 1. Introduction One often associates spacetime|a four-dimensional geometrical structure representing both space and time|with relativity theory, developed by Einstein and others in the early part of the twentieth century.1 But soon after relativity theory appeared, several authors, such as Hermann Weyl (1952 [1918]), Elie´ Cartan (1923, 1924), and Kurt Friedrichs (1927), began to study how the spatio-temporal structure presupposed by classical, i.e., Newtonian, physics could be re-cast using the methods of four-dimensional geometry developed in the context of relativity. These reformulations of classical physics were initially of interest for the insight they offered into the structure of relativity theory.2 But this changed in 1967, when Howard Stein proposed that the notion of a \classical" spacetime could provide important insight arXiv:1707.05887v1 [physics.hist-ph] 18 Jul 2017 Email address: [email protected] (James Owen Weatherall) 1The idea of \spacetime" was actually introduced by Minkowski (2013 [1911]), several years after Einstein first introduced relativity theory. 2And indeed, they remain of interest for this reason: see, for instance, Friedman (1983), Malament (1986a,b, 2012), Earman (1989b), Fletcher (2014), Barrett (2015), Weatherall (2011a,b, 2014, 2017d,c), and Dewar and Weatherall (2017) for philosophical discussions of the relationship between relativity theory and Newtonian physics that make heavy use of this formalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Spacetime Is Probably a Substance Author(S): Tim Maudlin Reviewed Work(S): Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol
    Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime Is Probably a Substance Author(s): Tim Maudlin Reviewed work(s): Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp. 183-203 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/188350 . Accessed: 28/12/2012 20:13 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and Philosophy of Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy of Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:13:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Philosophy of Science June, 1993 BUCKETS OF WATER AND WAVES OF SPACE: WHY SPACETIME IS PROBABLY A SUBSTANCE* TIM MAUDLINtt Department of Philosophy Rutgers University This paper sketches a taxonomy of forms of substantivalism and relationism concerning space and time, and of the traditional arguments for these positions. Several natural sorts of relationism are able to account for Newton's bucket experiment. Conversely, appropriately constructed substantivalism can survive Leibniz's critique, a fact which has been obscured by the conflation of two of Leibniz's arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1704.03334V1 [Physics.Gen-Ph] 8 Apr 2017 Oin Ffltsaeadtime
    WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE GEOMETRY OF SPACE? B. E. EICHINGER Department of Chemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1700 Abstract. The belief that three dimensional space is infinite and flat in the absence of matter is a canon of physics that has been in place since the time of Newton. The assumption that space is flat at infinity has guided several modern physical theories. But what do we actually know to support this belief? A simple argument, called the ”Telescope Principle”, asserts that all that we can know about space is bounded by observations. Physical theories are best when they can be verified by observations, and that should also apply to the geometry of space. The Telescope Principle is simple to state, but it leads to very interesting insights into relativity and Yang-Mills theory via projective equivalences of their respective spaces. 1. Newton and the Euclidean Background Newton asserted the existence of an Absolute Space which is infinite, three dimensional, and Euclidean.[1] This is a remarkable statement. How could Newton know anything about the nature of space at infinity? Obviously, he could not know what space is like at infinity, so what motivated this assertion (apart from Newton’s desire to make space the sensorium of an infinite God)? Perhaps it was that the geometric tools available to him at the time were restricted to the principles of Euclidean plane geometry and its extension to three dimensions, in which infinite space is inferred from the parallel postulate. Given these limited mathematical resources, there was really no other choice than Euclid for a description of the geometry of space within which to formulate a theory of motion of material bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • Newton's First Law of Motion the Principle of Relativity
    MATHEMATICS 7302 (Analytical Dynamics) YEAR 2017–2018, TERM 2 HANDOUT #1: NEWTON’S FIRST LAW AND THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY Newton’s First Law of Motion Our experience seems to teach us that the “natural” state of all objects is at rest (i.e. zero velocity), and that objects move (i.e. have a nonzero velocity) only when forces are being exerted on them. Aristotle (384 BCE – 322 BCE) thought so, and many (but not all) philosophers and scientists agreed with him for nearly two thousand years. It was Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) who first realized, through a combination of experi- mentation and theoretical reflection, that our everyday belief is utterly wrong: it is an illusion caused by the fact that we live in a world dominated by friction. By using lubricants to re- duce friction to smaller and smaller values, Galileo showed experimentally that objects tend to maintain nearly their initial velocity — whatever that velocity may be — for longer and longer times. He then guessed that, in the idealized situation in which friction is completely eliminated, an object would move forever at whatever velocity it initially had. Thus, an object initially at rest would stay at rest, but an object initially moving at 100 m/s east (for example) would continue moving forever at 100 m/s east. In other words, Galileo guessed: An isolated object (i.e. one subject to no forces from other objects) moves at constant velocity, i.e. in a straight line at constant speed. Any constant velocity is as good as any other. This principle was later incorporated in the physical theory of Isaac Newton (1642–1727); it is nowadays known as Newton’s first law of motion.
    [Show full text]
  • + Gravity Probe B
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Gravity Probe B Experiment “Testing Einstein’s Universe” Press Kit April 2004 2- Media Contacts Donald Savage Policy/Program Management 202/358-1547 Headquarters [email protected] Washington, D.C. Steve Roy Program Management/Science 256/544-6535 Marshall Space Flight Center steve.roy @msfc.nasa.gov Huntsville, AL Bob Kahn Science/Technology & Mission 650/723-2540 Stanford University Operations [email protected] Stanford, CA Tom Langenstein Science/Technology & Mission 650/725-4108 Stanford University Operations [email protected] Stanford, CA Buddy Nelson Space Vehicle & Payload 510/797-0349 Lockheed Martin [email protected] Palo Alto, CA George Diller Launch Operations 321/867-2468 Kennedy Space Center [email protected] Cape Canaveral, FL Contents GENERAL RELEASE & MEDIA SERVICES INFORMATION .............................5 GRAVITY PROBE B IN A NUTSHELL ................................................................9 GENERAL RELATIVITY — A BRIEF INTRODUCTION ....................................17 THE GP-B EXPERIMENT ..................................................................................27 THE SPACE VEHICLE.......................................................................................31 THE MISSION.....................................................................................................39 THE AMAZING TECHNOLOGY OF GP-B.........................................................49 SEVEN NEAR ZEROES.....................................................................................58
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Space Substantivalism and Relationism Newton's Argument For
    6 Space Substantivalism and relationism abstract entities vs concrete entities. regions is commonly thought to be concrete but that isn’t in the category of material objects. realists would say regions or space do exist. Anti-realists about space would say, regions are an unnecessary addition. God creating the universe The realist about regions thinks that God has first to make an enormous container – the regions – in order to put the objects in. The anti-realist thinks that all God has to do to make the universe is make a bunch of objects, and then arrange them in a certain way. Those who are realists about regions are called substantivalists, whilst those who are anti- realists about regions are often called relationists. Newton’s argument for absolute space Dirction + Speed = velocity # Velocity + acceleration = innertial forces Newton’s bucket Newton’s argument for substantivalism – if velocity has to be relative to something, and acceleration is a change in velocity, then acceleration has to be relative to something as well. But, says Newton, it’s possible for one object to accelerate even though there’s no object that the acceleration could be relative to. But, as it must be relative to something, it must be relative to something that was not an object: it must be relative to space itself; ergo, space must exist. Stage 1: The rope is twisted but has not been let loose. The bucket and the water are at rest with respect to one another. Stage 2: The rope has been let loose and the bucket has started to rotate.
    [Show full text]
  • 11. General Relativistic Models for Time, Coordinates And
    CHAPTER 11 GENERAL RELATIVISTIC MODELS FOR TIME, COORDINATES AND EQUATIONS OF MOTION The relativistic treatment of the near-Earth satellite orbit determination problem includes cor­ rections to the equations of motion, the time transformations, and the measurement model. The two coordinate Systems generally used when including relativity in near-Earth orbit determination Solu­ tions are the solar system barycentric frame of reference and the geocentric or Earth-centered frame of reference. Ashby and Bertotti (1986) constructed a locally inertial E-frame in the neighborhood of the gravitating Earth and demonstrated that the gravitational effects of the Sun, Moon, and other planets are basically reduced to their tidal forces, with very small relativistic corrections. Thus the main relativistic effects on a near-Earth satellite are those described by the Schwarzschild field of the Earth itself. This result makes the geocentric frame more suitable for describing the motion of a near-Earth satellite (Ries et ai, 1988). The time coordinate in the inertial E-frame is Terrestrial Time (designated TT) (Guinot, 1991) which can be considered to be equivalent to the previously defined Terrestrial Dynamical Time (TDT). This time coordinate (TT) is realized in practice by International Atomic Time (TAI), whose rate is defined by the atomic second in the International System of Units (SI). Terrestrial Time adopted by the International Astronomical Union in 1991 differs from Geocentric Coordinate Time (TCG) by a scaling factor: TCG - TT = LG x (MJD - 43144.0) x 86400 seconds, where MJD refers to the modified Julian date. Figure 11.1 shows graphically the relationships between the time scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Relativistic Kinematics & Dynamics Momentum and Energy
    Physics 106a, Caltech | 3 December, 2019 Lecture 18 { Relativistic kinematics & dynamics Momentum and energy Our discussion of 4-vectors in general led us to the energy-momentum 4-vector p with components in some inertial frame (E; ~p) = (mγu; mγu~u) with ~u the velocity of the particle in that inertial 2 −1=2 1 2 frame and γu = (1 − u ) . The length-squared of the 4-vector is (since u = 1) p2 = m2 = E2 − p2 (1) where the last expression is the evaluation in some inertial frame and p = j~pj. In conventional units this is E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 : (2) For a light particle (photon) m = 0 and so E = p (going back to c = 1). Thus the energy-momentum 4-vector for a photon is E(1; n^) withn ^ the direction of propagation. This is consistent with the quantum expressions E = hν; ~p = (h/λ)^n with ν the frequency and λ the wave length, and νλ = 1 (the speed of light) We are led to the expression for the relativistic 3-momentum and energy m~u m ~p = p ;E = p : (3) 1 − u2 1 − u2 Note that ~u = ~p=E. The frame independent statement that the energy-momentum 4-vector is conserved leads to the conservation of this 3-momentum and energy in each inertial frame, with the new implication that mass can be converted to and from energy. Since (E; ~p) form the components of a 4-vector they transform between inertial frames in the same way as (t; ~x), i.e. in our standard configuration 0 px = γ(px − vE) (4) 0 py = py (5) 0 pz = pz (6) 0 E = γ(E − vpx) (7) and the inverse 0 0 px = γ(px + vE ) (8) 0 py = py (9) 0 pz = pz (10) 0 0 E = γ(E + vpx) (11) These reduce to the Galilean expressions for small particle speeds and small transformation speeds.
    [Show full text]