Notes on Relativity and Cosmology - Physics Department, UCSB

Notes on Relativity and Cosmology - Physics Department, UCSB Notes on Relativity and Cosmology - Physics Department, UCSB

web.physics.ucsb.edu
from web.physics.ucsb.edu More from this publisher
27.09.2014 Views

30 CHAPTER 1. SPACE, TIME, AND NEWTONIAN PHYSICS 1. Does this quantity actually exist? (Can we perform the above operations and find the position and time of an event?) 2. Is this quantity unique or, equivalently, is the quantity “well-defined?” (Might there be some ambiguity in our definition? Is there a possibility that two people applying the above definitions could come up with two different positions or two different times?) Well, it seems pretty clear that we can in fact perform these measurements, so the quantities exist. This is one reason why physicists like operational definitions so much. Now, how well-defined are our definitions are for position and time? [Stop reading for a moment and think about this.] ⋆ One thing you might worry about is that clocks and measuring rods are not completely accurate. Maybe there was some error that caused it to give the wrong reading. We will not concern ourselves with this problem. We will assume that there is some real notion of the time experienced by a clock and some real notion of the length of a rod. Furthermore, we will assume that we have at hand ‘ideal’ clocks and measuring rods which measure these accurately without mistakes. Our real clocks and rods are to be viewed as approximations to ideal clocks and rods. OK, what else might we worry about? Well, let’s take the question of measuring the time. Can we give our friend just any old ideal clock? No..... it is very important that her clock be synchronized with our clock so that the two clocks agree 3 . And what about the measurement of position? Well, let’s take an example. Suppose that our friend waits five minutes after the event and then reads the position off of the meter stick. Is that OK? What if, for example, she is moving relative to us so that the distance between us is changing? Ah, we see that it is very important for her to read the meter stick at the time of the event. It is also important that the meter stick be properly ‘zeroed’ at that same time. So, perhaps a better definition would be: time: If our friend has a clock synchronized with ours and is present at an event, then the time of that event in our reference frame is the reading of her clock at that event. position: Suppose that we have a measuring rod and that, at the time that some event occurs, we are located at zero. Then if our friend is present at that event, the value she reads from the measuring rod at the time the event occurs is the location 4 of the event in our reference frame. 3 Alternatively, if we knew that her clock was, say, exactly five minutes ahead of ours then we could work with that and correct for it. But the point is that we have to know the relationship of her clock to ours. 4 Together with a + or - sign which tells us if the event is to the right or to the left. Note that if we considered more than one dimension of space we would need more complicated directional information (vectors, for the experts!).

1.3. NEWTONIAN ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SPACE AND TIME 31 Now, are these well-defined? After some thought, you will probably say ‘I think so.’ But, how can we be sure that they are well-defined? There are no certain statements without rigorous mathematical proof. So, since we have agreed to think deeply about simple things (and to check all of the subtleties!!!), let us try to prove these statements. 1.3 Newtonian Assumptions about Space and Time Of course, there is also no such thing as a proof from nothing. This is the usual vicious cycle. Certainty requires a rigorous proof, but proofs proceed only from axioms (a.k.a. postulates or assumptions). So, where do we begin? We could simply assume that the above definitions are well-defined, taking these as our axioms. However, it is useful to take even more basic statements as the fundamental assumptions and then prove that position and time in the above sense are well-defined. We take the fundamental Newtonian Assumptions about space and time to be: T) All (ideal) clocks measure the same time interval between any two events through which they pass. S) Given any two events at the same time, all (ideal) measuring rods measure the same distance between those events. What do we mean by the phrase ‘at the same time’ used in (S)? This, after all requires another definition, and we must also check that this concept is welldefined. The point is that the same clock will not be present at two different events which occur at the same time. So, we must allow ourselves to define two events as occurring at the same time if any two synchronized clocks pass through these events and, when they do so, the two clocks read the same value. To show that this is well-defined, we must prove that the definition of whether event A occurs ‘at the same time’ as event B does not depend on exactly which clocks (or which of our friends) pass through events. Corollary to T: The time of an event (in some reference frame) is welldefined. Proof: A reference frame is defined by some one clock α. The time of event A in that reference frame is defined as the reading at A on any clock β which passes through A and which has been synchronized with α. Let us assume that these clocks were synchronized by bringing β together with α at event B and setting β to agree with α there. We now want to suppose that we have some other clock (γ) which was synchronized with α at some other event C. We also want to suppose that γ is present at A. The question is, do β and γ read the same time at event A?

30 CHAPTER 1. SPACE, TIME, AND NEWTONIAN PHYSICS<br />

1. Does this quantity actually exist? (Can we perform the above operati<strong>on</strong>s<br />

<strong>and</strong> find the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> time of an event?)<br />

2. Is this quantity unique or, equivalently, is the quantity “well-defined?”<br />

(Might there be some ambiguity in our definiti<strong>on</strong>? Is there a possibility<br />

that two people applying the above definiti<strong>on</strong>s could come up with two<br />

different positi<strong>on</strong>s or two different times?)<br />

Well, it seems pretty clear that we can in fact perform these measurements, so<br />

the quantities exist. This is <strong>on</strong>e reas<strong>on</strong> why physicists like operati<strong>on</strong>al definiti<strong>on</strong>s<br />

so much.<br />

Now, how well-defined are our definiti<strong>on</strong>s are for positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> time? [Stop<br />

reading for a moment <strong>and</strong> think about this.]<br />

⋆ One thing you might worry about is that clocks <strong>and</strong> measuring rods are<br />

not completely accurate. Maybe there was some error that caused it to give<br />

the wr<strong>on</strong>g reading. We will not c<strong>on</strong>cern ourselves with this problem. We will<br />

assume that there is some real noti<strong>on</strong> of the time experienced by a clock <strong>and</strong><br />

some real noti<strong>on</strong> of the length of a rod. Furthermore, we will assume that we<br />

have at h<strong>and</strong> ‘ideal’ clocks <strong>and</strong> measuring rods which measure these accurately<br />

without mistakes. Our real clocks <strong>and</strong> rods are to be viewed as approximati<strong>on</strong>s<br />

to ideal clocks <strong>and</strong> rods.<br />

OK, what else might we worry about? Well, let’s take the questi<strong>on</strong> of measuring<br />

the time. Can we give our friend just any old ideal clock? No..... it is very<br />

important that her clock be synchr<strong>on</strong>ized with our clock so that the two clocks<br />

agree 3 .<br />

And what about the measurement of positi<strong>on</strong>? Well, let’s take an example.<br />

Suppose that our friend waits five minutes after the event <strong>and</strong> then reads the<br />

positi<strong>on</strong> off of the meter stick. Is that OK? What if, for example, she is moving<br />

relative to us so that the distance between us is changing? Ah, we see that it<br />

is very important for her to read the meter stick at the time of the event. It is<br />

also important that the meter stick be properly ‘zeroed’ at that same time.<br />

So, perhaps a better definiti<strong>on</strong> would be:<br />

time: If our friend has a clock synchr<strong>on</strong>ized with ours <strong>and</strong> is present at an<br />

event, then the time of that event in our reference frame is the reading of<br />

her clock at that event.<br />

positi<strong>on</strong>: Suppose that we have a measuring rod <strong>and</strong> that, at the time that<br />

some event occurs, we are located at zero. Then if our friend is present<br />

at that event, the value she reads from the measuring rod at the time the<br />

event occurs is the locati<strong>on</strong> 4 of the event in our reference frame.<br />

3 Alternatively, if we knew that her clock was, say, exactly five minutes ahead of ours then<br />

we could work with that <strong>and</strong> correct for it. But the point is that we have to know the<br />

relati<strong>on</strong>ship of her clock to ours.<br />

4 Together with a + or - sign which tells us if the event is to the right or to the left. Note<br />

that if we c<strong>on</strong>sidered more than <strong>on</strong>e dimensi<strong>on</strong> of space we would need more complicated<br />

directi<strong>on</strong>al informati<strong>on</strong> (vectors, for the experts!).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!