Atlantis Online
October 24, 2019, 12:23:57 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Site provides evidence for ancient comet explosion
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/173177.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein  (Read 529 times)
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2009, 11:46:38 pm »

Section 9 - The Relativity of Simultaneity
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

Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2009, 11:47:09 pm »

Figure 1

Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2009, 11:47:28 pm »

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 M ' 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 M ' 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 M ' 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.

Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2009, 11:47:45 pm »

Section 10 - 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 ' and B ' 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 ' and B ' 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 the 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.

Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2009, 11:48:00 pm »

Notes
 *) e.g. the middle of the first and of the hundredth carriage
Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2009, 11:48:15 pm »

Section 11 - 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.

Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2009, 11:48:44 pm »

« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 11:49:12 pm by Jean » Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2009, 11:49:51 pm »

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 K ', the same event would be fixed in respect of space and time by corresponding values x ', y ', z ', t ', 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 x ', y ', z ', t ', of an event with respect to K ', 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 K '. 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 :

Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2009, 12:09:31 am »


« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 12:16:50 am by Jean » Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2009, 12:17:23 am »

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:

Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2009, 12:17:43 am »

x ' = x − vt
y ' = y
z ' = z
t ' = t
Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2009, 12:18:00 am »

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 K '. 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 x ' and t '. In point of fact, if we substitute for x the value ct in the first and fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation, we obtain:

Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2009, 12:19:26 am »

from which, by division, the expression

x ' = ct '
Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2009, 12:19:47 am »

immediately follows. If referred to the system K ', the propagation of light takes place according to this equation. We thus see that the velocity of transmission relative to the reference-body K ' 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Jean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2009, 12:20:04 am »

Notes
 *) A simple derivation of the Lorentz transformation is given in Appendix I.

Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy