Relativity Definitions

What is coordinate transformation?

The set of equations that perform the task of relating two sets of coordinates [for example,
(x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t')] is called coordinate transformation.

What is the standard configuration of frames?

Two frames of reference, say S and S', are in standard configuration when:

● S' moves with constant velocity V relative to S in the direction of increasing values of x.
● Each axis of S is parallel to its corresponding axis of S'.
● The origins of the frames coincide at time t = t' = 0.

What does it mean to say that a quantity X transforms to Y under a certain kind of
transformation?

Force F as measured in S transforms to F' which is the force as measured in S' under Galilean
transformation. But velocity v as measured in S transforms to (or becomes) v' + V in S'.

What is absolute motion?

Relative motion of a body is determinable only in relation to a body other than itself. Absolute
motion, on the other hand, is determinable from within the body itself, without the necessity of
"looking outside". For example, measuring the speed of light in a frame to be not c (which would
be its speed in ether, if there were such a thing as ether) would indicate the frame's motion
relative to ether without actually measuring it with respect to this privileged frame.

What is invariance? And what is form-invariance?

Consider two frames of reference S and S', with S' accelerating relative to S in the direction of
increasing x with a constant acceleration A. We take S to be an inertial frame here. Assuming
that the acceleration is constant and that the initial velocity of S' relative to S was zero (for
simplicity), we have the following coordinate transformation for coordinates of a particle P:

Differentiating this equation twice with respect to t (noting that t = t') we have
This is how acceleration will transform (when going from S to S') if P is accelerating relative to
both frames1. Note that even when a (=dv/dt) is zero, a' (=dv'/dt) is not zero. Multiplying the
above equation throughout by m, which is the mass of P, we have

(1)

From this we see that if

then

From this if we concluded that the form of Newton's law is preserved under transformation, then
that would be circular reasoning. We started with the premise that F' = ma' in (1). If we had a
definition of force independent of the measured acceleration, we would then see that the form
would not be preserved. Let's take another particle Q that is being attracted toward P due to P's
gravity (or P toward Q) with their line of interaction along the common x-x'-axes. If

Now if in our discussion above F was the gravitational force with which Q attracts P (directed
along the direction of increasing x) then F = F' as shown

(2)2

Hence, we can say, at least in this case, that F' ≠ ma' since F/m = a in S and F'/m = a, but a ≠ a'.
This shows that the specific Newtonian relationship between measured acceleration and
measured force is not preserved in S'.

If S' was also an inertial frame, then we would have a = a' and so the form would be preserved
under transformation.

1
We assume here that a ≠ A.
2
Note that here we have assumed that m = m'? Is that justified?
INVARIANCE is when a quantity measured in one frame of reference transforms to this quantity
as measured in any other frame of reference.

FORM-INVARIANCE is when the equation of a law in one frame of reference transforms to an

equation of the same form in any other frame of reference, under a given transformation. Note
that the quantities involved in the equations don't have to be invariants.
The form of such an equation is actually the essence of the law. It dictates how the quantities
measured are related in a specific way to one another and this should be invariant across some
set of reference frames. Note that Maxwell's equations or the wave equation of an
electromagnetic wave are not covariant (form-invariant) under Galilean transformation as we go
from S to S'. On the other hand, "When the coordinates used in two different frames are related
by the Lorentz transformations, it is soon seen that the laws of Newtonian mechanics do not
take the same form in all inertial frames."

Related Links:
(https://www.google.com/search?q=form+invariance+of+newton%27s+second+law&client=ms-a
ndroid-huawei-rev1&prmd=ivn&sxsrf=ALeKk01NIIMj5XY09nvdVSopiUr9ASjhBw:158834816032
3&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjoq4D_gZPpAhUDThUIHbQPDScQ_AUoBHoE
CAwQBA&cshid=1588348349889&biw=360&bih=637&dpr=2)

(https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=kXiwAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&dq=force+in+one+frame+tr
ansforms+to+force+in+another+frame&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcwf-Ho5XpAhXd4KYKHU-
3AZ8Q6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=force%20in%20one%20frame%20transforms%20to%20force
%20in%20another%20frame&f=true)

What is the classical velocity addition theorem in terms of vectors?

Here we have

Differentiating both sides with respect to time we have

Here u is the velocity of P relative to S, u' is the velocity of P relative to S' and v is the velocity
of S' relative to S. Note that these velocity vectors are NOT NECESSARILY in the direction of
the position vectors in the figure above. They are actually in the direction of the dr. Note that
Resnick in his book on relativity does not seem to restrict the meaning of v to either the velocity
of S' relative to S or of S relative to S'. Rather he says v is the relative velocity of the frames.

Michelson-Morley Experiment

1) The half-beam along L1 and that along L2 must be different in their specifics, otherwise
under a 90 degree rotation of the apparatus, there should be no shift in the interference
pattern.*
2) The to-and-fro travel times T1 and T2 along L1 and L2, respectively, are

and
 Note that v and c are magnitudes only. c refers to the speed of light relative to the ether.
For the beam along L2, according to classical velocity addition theorem, we have

where c' is the velocity of light relative to the apparatus frame, c is the velocity of light
relative to the ether and v is the velocity of ether relative to the apparatus. Since v and c'
are at right angles we have

3) Since T1 ≠ T2, a 90 degree rotation of the apparatus must cause a shift in the
interference pattern. But none was detected. This we call the null result. It implies that T1
= T2, indicating that v = 0, at the time of the experiment. Since v cannot always be 0, a
shift in the interference pattern should be observed at some point in the orbit of the earth
around the sun. Again, none was detected. Perhaps, the earth drags ether with itself, but
this caused difficulties too, not a tenable hypothesis.
4) One way out of this was: the arm moving longitudinally through the ether, contracts by
the factor

That is

so that T1 = T2. The two arms were designed to be equal in length, but the one moving
longitudinally through the ether shrinks and is no longer of the same length as that of the
other arm. "...where L1 and L2 are the purportedly equal lengths of the two arms."
(RINDLER) Note that L1 is actually contracted in both frames in the Lorentz theory and
not just as seen in the ether frame. But it cannot be detected within the frame itself since
if one compared say a "longitudinal" rod with a "transverse" rod, identical by design, one
would have to put them side by side and thus they will always turn out to be equal in
length.
5) As for time dilation, when the to-and-fro time T2 is actually measured with a clock when
L2 is moving with speed v relative to the ether, one gets the same time as when it is
measured when L2 is at rest relative to the ether so that v = 0. We call it T3. But we see
from the formula of T2 that if v = 0,
 that is the two times are not equal. We say that the clock moving through ether with
speed v goes slow by a factor γ. Thus, if T3 is two seconds, the measured time T2 is
also two seconds but these two seconds are dilated compared to the two seconds
measured when L2 is at rest relative to the ether.

What is an inertial frame?

An inertial frame is one in which spatial relations, as determined by rigid scales at rest in the
frame, are Euclidean and in which there exists a universal time in terms of which free particles
remain at rest or continue to move with constant speed along straight lines.

We can start with a free test particle and place at a fixed distance from it another free test
particle, using a rigid scale. By repeating this process along three perpendicular directions, we
can construct an inertial frame. Thus we can picture an inertial frame as

a) an aggregate of actual or virtual free test particles mutual at rest.

b) The distances between these defining particles satisfy Euclidean axioms.
c) Straight lines in such a frame are geodesics (lines of minimum length).
d) Each of these particles carries a clock that indicates the universal time throughout the
frame.

Special relativity is the theory of an ideal physics referred to an ideal set of infinitely extended
gravity-free (curvature free) inertial frames.

Why do extended inertial frames have to be gravity-free?**

Because gravity destroys Euclidicity on large scales. Free falling local frames (aggregates of
test particles falling freely and at rest relative to one another at least momentarily) are such that
spatial relations are Euclidean in them and in which free falling particles, all suffering the same
acceleration, are either at rest relative to each other or move at a constant velocity. Thus these
frames are inertial. In Newton's theory, inertial frames from which gravity has been eliminated
are equivalent locally to these freely falling frames as effects of gravity are not detectable within
a freely falling frame.

Is the frame of the fixed stars really inertial?**

Newtonian gravity does not affect the trajectory of, for example, a photon or does not curve
space or time, so in it fixed stars are really inertial. But since Einsteinian gravity is curvature of
space and time, so even a photon cannot move uniformly relative to it. The trajectories of even
free particles will not be along straight line in gravitational field due to curvature of space.

In what real world frames are the laws of special relativistic physics expected to apply
most accurately?
Space capsules in which astronauts are weightless.

How does gravity make a frame non-inertial? How does it affect space and time so as to make
the frame non-inertial? Space and time are always part of the stage, be it an inertial frame or
not. How does gravity affect the stage or what does the stage become like when it undergoes
gravity so as to make it a non-inertial stage?

What are the postulates of Special Relativity?

1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems. There is no preferred set of
inertial systems for the formulation of the laws of physics (Principle of Relativity)
2) The speed of light in free space is the same in all inertial frames and is c.

How is the postulate of the invariance of the speed of light consistent with the null result
of Michelson-Morley Experiment?

If the entire apparatus was in the ether frame we would observe no shift in the interference
pattern on rotating the apparatus. But that is also the case in a non-ether frame. This means
that this optical experiment cannot distinguish an ether from a non-ether frame. This renders the
ether frame unnecessary and we can throw out this concept on that basis. Since the speed of
light is a constant c in some inertial frame of reference (the constancy of speed being a law),
and since there is no ether frame to single it out (dismissing the case that c is special to that
"some" frame of reference), the principle of relativity implies that the speed of light must be the
same constant in any other inertial system. But one could also reach this hypothesis by arguing
in the following manner: since there is no ether frame, the number c is no longer special to a
preferred frame. This in itself indicates the speed of light should be the same in any inertial
frame of reference.