Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Annalen der Physik

MAXWELL-Theorie (in Medien) und Quantentheorie in einem rotierenden Bezugssystem

Ernst Schmützer

Published Jan 1, 1973• 19 citations
Publisher

Abstract

On the basis of our 3-dimensional conceptions of the electromagnetic quantities [1] the MAXWELL theory is represented in a rotating frame of reference. For such a frame the MAXWELL equations obtain additional terms depending on the angular velocity (analogous to the CORIOLIS term etc. in NEWTONian mechanics). Using these results with the help of the DIRAC equation we investigate quantum mechanics in a rotating frame of reference. Also in this case we obtain interesting additional terms depending on the angular velocity. The need for such a theory is obvious for many reasons: 1. Our Earth is such a rotating laboratory. Later the rotation effects must not be neglected. 2. In magnetic resonance physics theoretical questions with respect to rotating systems are important. 3. Interesting statements result for a rotational JOSEPHSON effect of superconductors. — All our calculations are carried out up to the first order in the angular velocity.

DOI
10.1002/andp.19730290109

Related papers

MAXWELL‐Theorie (in Medien) und Quantentheorie in einem rotierenden Bezugssystem

Ernst Schmützer

Abstract On the basis of our 3‐dimensional conceptions of the electromagnetic quantities [1] the MAXWELL theory is represented in a rotating frame of reference. For such a frame the MAXWELL equations obtain additional terms depending on the angular velocity (analogous to the CORIOLIS term etc. in NEWTONian mechanics). Using these results with the help of the DIRAC equation we investigate quantum mechanics in a rotating frame of reference. Also in this case we obtain interesting additional terms depending on the angular velocity. The need for such a theory is obvious for many reasons: 1. Our Earth is such a rotating laboratory. Later the rotation effects must not be neglected. 2. In magnetic resonance physics theoretical questions with respect to rotating systems are important. 3. Interesting statements result for a rotational JOSEPHSON effect of superconductors. — All our calculations are carried out up to the first order in the angular velocity.

Annalen der Physik•Jan 1, 1973•4 citations

Dynamics of a Quantum Particle Interacting With an Electromagnetic Field

Eliade N. Stefanescu

Essentially, we solve the particle-field equations obtained in the matter distribution quantum mechanics. In the framework of this theory, a particle is described by a density amplitude function, we call wave function, as a packet of waves with the time dependent phases proportional to the relativistic Lagrangian. The mass quantization of such a particle, as a distribution of matter, is obtained from the equality of the spatial integral of the density with the mass as a characteristic of the relativistic dynamics of this matter. The particle dynamics, as a motion of a mass spatial distribution, is obtained from the equality of the wave propagation velocities with the distribution coordinate velocities. This description is a physical one, compared to the Schrödinger-Heisenberg description leading to unphysical results as a null velocity for the kinetic energy as a constant of motion, or Zitterbewegung. The description of a particle interaction with an electromagnetic field by additional Lagrangian terms, with a vector potential conjugated to coordinates, as in the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and an electric potential conjugated to time, leads to the Lorentz force, and the Maxwell equations. In the two conjugated spaces, of the coordinates and of the momentum, the dynamics of a quantum particle is described by propagation operators, depending on the coordinate-momentum product, applied to time dependent wave functions satisfying matter-field equations. Unlike the standard Schrödinger or Schrödinger-Dirac equations, depending only on the Hamiltonian operator, instead of the Hamiltonian these equations contain the Lagrangian, which, besides the Hamiltonian, include additional terms with an explicit dependence on velocity, as it is expected in a relativistic theory. We obtain the wave function of a particle-antiparticle system interacting with an electromagnetic field, as a wave packet of spinors propagating in space with finite dimensions, given by the finite definition domain of the density function, in the space of the matter-field momentum, as a constant of motion. We show that an electrically charged quantum particle, rotating in a central electric field, generates a vector potential with a magnetic field perpendicular to the rotational plane and an electric field in this plane. By a quantum transition, a photon is emitted in the particle rotational plane, with the magnetic field perpendicular to this plane, and the electric field contained in this plane. In this framework, the vector potential rotation is correlated to a particle momentum rotation, for the canonical matter-field momentum as a constant of motion, without any electromagnetic field radiated outside.

European journal of applied sciences•Dec 1, 2021•4 citations

The first and second order equations of the quantum theory

H. T. Flint

Abstract The form of the wave equation for a non-rotating electron suggests that it enters into the theory very much in the same way as the wave equation associated with electromagnetic theory. It would be expected to be derivable from equations of the first order corresponding to Maxwell's equations. It has been suggested that the function Ψ might enter by means of a relation such as s = grad Ψ (1) where s replaces the current four vector of the electromagnetic theory. The difficulty in connection with this procedure is to account for the phenomena associated with electronic rotation. Dirac has shown how to overcome this difficulty and has derived first order equations which can be derived from generalisations of Maxwell's equations. There are certain difficulties with regard to the form of Dirac's results which have been much discussed and some of them have been removed. There are two unsatisfactory points in the treatment of this question. One is the introduction of an operator (h/2πi ∂/∂xα - eϕα) into the equations when it is desired to pass from a non-electromagnetic problem to one in which an electromagnetic field is present. The second difficulty lies in the occurrence of a term in mc. Darwin has pointed out this difficulty and considers that it is due to our inability to calculate electromagnetic mass in the quantum theory.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character•May 2, 1929•2 citations

PRINCIPLES OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Mircea S. Rogalski, Stuart B. Palmer

Ψ∂ (4.1) The harmonic trial solution of this equation with respect to a fixed inertial frame ( is given by )tx, ( ) ( ) ( )ctxikectxktx −Ψ=Ψ−Ψ=Ψ 00 orcos, In another inertial frame( ),, tx ′′ considered to be in uniform translational motion with velocity as described by the Galilean transformation (2.13), with respect to the fixed frame, the wave is represented by a wave function ,v ( ) ( ), related to ,x t x′ ′Ψ Ψ t as 2 2i.e., x t x x x t x x x x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = =′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ and 2 2i.e., 2 x t v v v t x t t t x t x tt x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = − + = − +′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ 2t∂ ∂ ∂ where use has been made of known properties of partial derivatives. It follows that obeys the following wave equation, with respect to the moving inertial frame ( tx ′′Ψ , ) ( ) tx v tx vc ′∂′∂ Ψ∂−′∂ Ψ∂=′∂ Ψ∂− 2 22 2 (4.2) which is obviously different from the wave equation (4.1) that holds in the fixed inertial frame. In other words the electromagnetic wave equation is not invariant with respect to a uniform translation of the inertial frame, using a Galilean transformation. Inserting into Eq.(4.2) harmonic solution written as we obtain 2 2 2 2 2 2( ) ( ) 2 ( ) i.e., orc v k k w v k w w v c w c− − = − − = − ± = ± v (4.3) Hence Galileo's transformation predicts that the velocity of light should be different from c, if measured with respect to a moving inertial frame. We therefore have a choice to make before we can fully understand the electromagnetic phenomena. We can either accept Galileo's principle of relativity which states that all inertial frames are equivalent or the Galilean transformation (2.13). We can sacrifice Galileo's principle of relativity by saying that there is a privileged inertial frame, called the ether, in which it is supposed that the electromagnetic wave velocity is c as given by Maxwell's equations, although they made no essential reference to the ether. A long series of investigations has been carried out, in order to detect some effect of the motion of the earth through the ether, always with negative results. All of the experiments (the best known being that of Michelson-Morley) have indicated that the speed of light is always the same in all directions and is independent of the relative motion of observer, source and transmitting medium. Einstein has reaffirmed Galileo's principle of relativity on the equivalence of all the inertial frames and, in addition, has assumed as a basic postulate the experimental fact that the speed of light is always constant. As a consequence, the Galilean transformation had to be replaced by another, in order to preserve the same speed of light in all systems. Einstein's basic assumptions are known as the postulates of special relativity: 1. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems 2. The speed of light in empty space is a universal constant c and is the same for all observers. It is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body Special relativity is only concerned with transformations between inertial frames, as indicated by the restriction contained in the first postulate. General relativity covers reference frames in arbitrary relative motion, and is based on the principle of equivalence, confirmed experimentally, which unifies gravitational and inertial forces. The first of Einstein's postulates implies that it is only possible, by means of physical measurements, to demonstrate that two gravity-free reference frames are moving relative to each other. There is no physical basis to infer that any such frame is intrinsically at rest or in uniform motion. The notion of absolute rest is not consistent with the first postulate. The second postulate is in contradiction with the Galilean transformation which would preserve the form of Newton's laws of motion, as illustrated by Eq.(4.3). Therefore, we must find a transformation between two frames moving with uniform relative motion, which is consistent with the second postulate. We must then generalize the laws of Newtonian mechanics in a form which is invariant under that transformation, as required by the first postulate. A fundamental requirement of special relativity is that the laws of Newtonian mechanics are valid in the low speed limit and must be obtained as limiting cases of relativistic formulae for .cv << This assumption plays, for special relativity, a role analogous to that of Bohr's correspondence principle in quantum mechanics (see Chapter 28). 4.2. THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION Einstein's procedure is to locate an event in a reference frame by its spatial Cartesian coordinates x, y and z and a temporal coordinate t. Consider two frames S and S' moving with uniform relative motion, such that the Cartesian axis system in coincides with that in S, Oxyz, at time ,S ′ zyxO ′′′′ .0==′ tt As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the x and axes are parallel to the direction of relative motion: in moves in the x direction with velocity v, and in x′ , the frameS ′S S, the frameS ′ moves with velocity in the direction. A pulse of light emitted from O at time v− x′ 0=t spreads as a spherical wave travelling with speed c, so that the equation of the wave front in S, at a time t will be (4.4) 22222 tczyx =++ 0 0' z' y' x,x' z y Figure 4.1. Cartesian axes of two inertial frames in uniform relative motion The second postulate requires that the wave front in S ′ can be represented by (4.5) 22222 tczyx ′=′+′+′ In other words an observer in also sees a spherical wave travelling from its origin if not, any change of the wave front could be used to infer that the system is moving uniformly instead of being at rest. The invariance of the expression S ′ ,O′ S ′ (4.6) 2222222222 tczyxtczyx ′−′+′+′=−++ is a basic requirement that the transformation between the two systems must satisfy. The Galilean transformation (2.13), which in our case reads ttzzyyvtxx =′=′=′−=′ ,,, is not consistent with the invariance property (4.6), as it gives xvttvtczyxtczyx 2222222222222 −+−++=′−′+′+′ The first postulate brings some simplification to the possible form of the desired transformation. Since a uniform rectilinear motion in S must go over into a uniform rectilinear motion in S', the transformation must be linear. A nonlinear transformation would predict acceleration in S' even if the velocity were constant in S. The choice of the origins in space and time has avoided constant terms, and the transformation will be homogenous. The directions perpendicular to the relative motion, which are effectively at rest, must be left unchanged by the transformation. We then take the general form BtAxx +=′ yy =′ (4.7) zz =′ FtDxt +=′ Further simplification comes from the argument that the origin O', which has the coordinate moves along the x axis with velocity ,0=′x ,/ vdtdx = that is ABvBtAx /or0 −=+= while the origin O, with coordinate ,0=x moves along x-axis with velocity Recalling that when , we can write .'/' vdtdx −= 0=x 0=t 00 ort D B Bx A B t v F F F ′ − ⋅′ ′= ⋅ + = − = so that Inserting now Eqs.(4.7) into Eq.(4.5), we obtain the equation .FA = ( ) ( ) 02 22222222222222222 =−+⎟⎟⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜⎝ ⎛ −−++−=′−′+′+′ DcBAxt c BAtczyxDcAtczyx The identity (4.6) requires that 2222 =−=−=− DcB c BADcA Since ,B vA= we obtain 2222 /1 /, /1 , /1 cv cvD cv vB cv A − −= − −= − = (4.8) so that Eqs.(4.7) now read 22 /1 cv vtxx − −=′ yy =′ (4.9) zz =′ /1 / cv cvxtt − −=′ The four equations (4.9) are known as the Lorentz transformation, which in this case applies to the relative motion of inertial frames along the x-axis. It is a straightforward matter to show that Eqs.(4.9) are consistent with the invariance relation (4.6), which is thus a sufficient as well as a necessary condition for the Lorentz transformation. With the usual abbreviations ( )1 /1 1, 222 ≥ − = − == γ β γβ cvc v (4.10) the Lorentz transformation simplifies to ( ) ( )x x ct x x ctγ β γ β′ ′= − = + ′ a) yyyy ′==′ or b) (4.11) zzzz ′==′ c) ⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ ′+′=⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ −=′ x c ttx c tt βγβγ d) The right hand side shows the inverse transformations where the primed and unprimed quantities are interchanged and the sign of the relative velocity is reversed, because its direction is the only difference between the systems S and S'. In the low velocity limit the Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilean transformation since the only difference consists in the presence of the factor γ and the term ,1< that, in Eq.(4.11a), γ indicates a change of measuring stick length and in Eq.(4.11d) a change in the clock rate in the Lorentz transformation. The term ( )xc/β− in Eq.(4.11d) shows that the time is dependent on the position of a given event. Therefore, the immediate consequences of the Lorentz transformation require the revision of the usual concepts of simultaneity, time and length. Simultaneity Consider two events occuring at the same time ttt == 21 at two different positions and in the unprimed system S. According to Eqs.(4.11) the events are recorded in the primed system S' at different times 1x 2x / /, 1 1 t x c t xt t cβ ββ β − −′ ′= = − − so that the apparent time interval in S' is given by ( ) 0 1 / 2 21 12 ≠− −=′−′=′∆ β β cxx ttt (4.12) and hence, it is a function of the relative velocity v. The events will not appear as simultaneous to observers in S'. We are then forced to abandon the intuitive idea of absolute simultaneity, which is based on our experience with objects of low velocity, and accept the relativity of simultaneity, which depends on the coordinate system and applies in the domain of high velocities. Length contraction Consider a rod at rest in the primed system S' lying along the x-axis and having the length 12 xx ′−′=λ given by the distance between its ends 21 and xx ′′ measured at the same instant of time t'. The length in an inertial frame in which the rod is at rest is called its proper length. To define length in a frame S in which the rod is moving, an observer must locate the position of both end points, 21 and xx ′′ , at the same time From the inverse equations (4.11) we obtain 1 2 .t t t= = 1 1 2 1 x ct x ct x xx x x xβ ββ β β − −′ ′ ′ ′= = − = − − − − so that the apparent length 12 xxl −= is 21 βλ −=l (4.13) This equation is known as the Lorentz contraction and states that a rod parallel to the direction of its motion is shortened by the factor .1 2β− It results from the fact that simultaneous events in the rest frame of one rod are not simultaneous in the rest frame of the other. A rod transverse to its direction of motion is unchanged in length. The proper length λ is independent of the orientation of the rod, as a manifestation of the isotropy of inertial rest frame S'. If the orientation of a rod is neither longitudinal nor transverse to the direction of relative motion, both the length and the inclination are changed in the laboratory frame S, as an effect of a contraction in the direction of the relative motion with no change of transverse dimensions.

CRC Press eBooks•Jan 8, 2014•0 citations

Transformation of spin in quantum reference frames

Marion Mikusch, Luis C. Barbado, Časlav Brukner

In physical experiments, reference frames are standardly modeled through a specific choice of coordinates used to describe the physical systems, but they themselves are not considered as such. However, any reference frame is a physical system that ultimately behaves according to quantum mechanics. We develop a framework for rotational (i.e., spin) quantum reference frames, with respect to which quantum systems with spin degrees of freedom are described. We give an explicit model for such frames as systems composed of three spin coherent states of angular momentum $j$ and introduce the transformations between them by upgrading the Euler angles occurring in classical $\text{SO}(3)$ spin transformations to quantum mechanical operators acting on the states of the reference frames. To ensure that an arbitrary rotation can be applied on the spin we take the limit of infinitely large $j$, in which case the angle operator possesses a continuous spectrum. We prove that rotationally invariant Hamiltonians (such as that of the Heisenberg model) are invariant under a larger group of quantum reference frame transformations. Our result is a development of the quantum reference frame formalism for a non-Abelian group.

arXiv:2103.05022•Physical Review Research•Nov 29, 2021•23 citations

Symmetry and invariance

D J Newman

The concept of invariance relates to both the intrinsic symmetries of physical systems and the symmetry of the set of equivalent reference frames used to observe them. Standard algebraic expressions for electrostatic potentials and crystal-field effective operators display both types of invariance. The concept of a reference frame is generalized to that of an ‘observing system’, which can, for example, be the basis states of a quantum system. This idea is related to Racah’s mathematical machinery for evaluating the matrix elements of many-electron 4f open-shell states in lanthanide ions. It is argued, on the basis of computational flexibility and ease of interpretation, that all equations that represent physical processes be expressible in terms of invariants of the set of observing systems. This ‘Principle of Invariance’ is then applied to special relativity, leading to a simple geometrical interpretation of Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations. The close relationship between Dirac’s relativistic wave equation and Maxwell’s equations is then exposed. This leads to the concept of an inner structure of space-time and the reinterpretation of particle spin. Finally, it is shown that the use of invariants in relativity theory identifies a set of observing systems with a higher symmetry than that of Minkowski space-time.

Molecular Physics•Jun 10, 2004•2 citations
On the basis of our 3-dimensional conceptions of the electromagnetic quantities [1] the MAXWELL theory is represented in a rotating frame of reference. For such a frame the MAXWELL equations obtain additional terms depending on the angular velocity (analogous to the CORIOLIS term etc. in NEWTONian mechanics). Using these results with the help of the DIRAC equation we investigate quantum mechanics in a rotating frame of reference. Also in this case we obtain interesting additional terms depending on the angular velocity. The need for such a theory is obvious for many reasons: 1. Our Earth is such a rotating laboratory. Later the rotation effects must not be neglected. 2. In magnetic resonance physics theoretical questions with respect to rotating systems are important. 3. Interesting statements result for a rotational JOSEPHSON effect of superconductors. — All our calculations are carried out up to the first order in the angular velocity.
Abstract On the basis of our 3‐dimensional conceptions of the electromagnetic quantities [1] the MAXWELL theory is represented in a rotating frame of reference. For such a frame the MAXWELL equations obtain additional terms depending on the angular velocity (analogous to the CORIOLIS term etc. in NEWTONian mechanics). Using these results with the help of the DIRAC equation we investigate quantum mechanics in a rotating frame of reference. Also in this case we obtain interesting additional terms depending on the angular velocity. The need for such a theory is obvious for many reasons: 1. Our Earth is such a rotating laboratory. Later the rotation effects must not be neglected. 2. In magnetic resonance physics theoretical questions with respect to rotating systems are important. 3. Interesting statements result for a rotational JOSEPHSON effect of superconductors. — All our calculations are carried out up to the first order in the angular velocity.
Essentially, we solve the particle-field equations obtained in the matter distribution quantum mechanics. In the framework of this theory, a particle is described by a density amplitude function, we call wave function, as a packet of waves with the time dependent phases proportional to the relativistic Lagrangian. The mass quantization of such a particle, as a distribution of matter, is obtained from the equality of the spatial integral of the density with the mass as a characteristic of the relativistic dynamics of this matter. The particle dynamics, as a motion of a mass spatial distribution, is obtained from the equality of the wave propagation velocities with the distribution coordinate velocities. This description is a physical one, compared to the Schrödinger-Heisenberg description leading to unphysical results as a null velocity for the kinetic energy as a constant of motion, or Zitterbewegung. The description of a particle interaction with an electromagnetic field by additional Lagrangian terms, with a vector potential conjugated to coordinates, as in the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and an electric potential conjugated to time, leads to the Lorentz force, and the Maxwell equations. In the two conjugated spaces, of the coordinates and of the momentum, the dynamics of a quantum particle is described by propagation operators, depending on the coordinate-momentum product, applied to time dependent wave functions satisfying matter-field equations. Unlike the standard Schrödinger or Schrödinger-Dirac equations, depending only on the Hamiltonian operator, instead of the Hamiltonian these equations contain the Lagrangian, which, besides the Hamiltonian, include additional terms with an explicit dependence on velocity, as it is expected in a relativistic theory. We obtain the wave function of a particle-antiparticle system interacting with an electromagnetic field, as a wave packet of spinors propagating in space with finite dimensions, given by the finite definition domain of the density function, in the space of the matter-field momentum, as a constant of motion. We show that an electrically charged quantum particle, rotating in a central electric field, generates a vector potential with a magnetic field perpendicular to the rotational plane and an electric field in this plane. By a quantum transition, a photon is emitted in the particle rotational plane, with the magnetic field perpendicular to this plane, and the electric field contained in this plane. In this framework, the vector potential rotation is correlated to a particle momentum rotation, for the canonical matter-field momentum as a constant of motion, without any electromagnetic field radiated outside.
Abstract The form of the wave equation for a non-rotating electron suggests that it enters into the theory very much in the same way as the wave equation associated with electromagnetic theory. It would be expected to be derivable from equations of the first order corresponding to Maxwell's equations. It has been suggested that the function Ψ might enter by means of a relation such as s = grad Ψ (1) where s replaces the current four vector of the electromagnetic theory. The difficulty in connection with this procedure is to account for the phenomena associated with electronic rotation. Dirac has shown how to overcome this difficulty and has derived first order equations which can be derived from generalisations of Maxwell's equations. There are certain difficulties with regard to the form of Dirac's results which have been much discussed and some of them have been removed. There are two unsatisfactory points in the treatment of this question. One is the introduction of an operator (h/2πi ∂/∂xα - eϕα) into the equations when it is desired to pass from a non-electromagnetic problem to one in which an electromagnetic field is present. The second difficulty lies in the occurrence of a term in mc. Darwin has pointed out this difficulty and considers that it is due to our inability to calculate electromagnetic mass in the quantum theory.
Ψ∂ (4.1) The harmonic trial solution of this equation with respect to a fixed inertial frame ( is given by )tx, ( ) ( ) ( )ctxikectxktx −Ψ=Ψ−Ψ=Ψ 00 orcos, In another inertial frame( ),, tx ′′ considered to be in uniform translational motion with velocity as described by the Galilean transformation (2.13), with respect to the fixed frame, the wave is represented by a wave function ,v ( ) ( ), related to ,x t x′ ′Ψ Ψ t as 2 2i.e., x t x x x t x x x x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = =′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ and 2 2i.e., 2 x t v v v t x t t t x t x tt x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = − + = − +′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ 2t∂ ∂ ∂ where use has been made of known properties of partial derivatives. It follows that obeys the following wave equation, with respect to the moving inertial frame ( tx ′′Ψ , ) ( ) tx v tx vc ′∂′∂ Ψ∂−′∂ Ψ∂=′∂ Ψ∂− 2 22 2 (4.2) which is obviously different from the wave equation (4.1) that holds in the fixed inertial frame. In other words the electromagnetic wave equation is not invariant with respect to a uniform translation of the inertial frame, using a Galilean transformation. Inserting into Eq.(4.2) harmonic solution written as we obtain 2 2 2 2 2 2( ) ( ) 2 ( ) i.e., orc v k k w v k w w v c w c− − = − − = − ± = ± v (4.3) Hence Galileo's transformation predicts that the velocity of light should be different from c, if measured with respect to a moving inertial frame. We therefore have a choice to make before we can fully understand the electromagnetic phenomena. We can either accept Galileo's principle of relativity which states that all inertial frames are equivalent or the Galilean transformation (2.13). We can sacrifice Galileo's principle of relativity by saying that there is a privileged inertial frame, called the ether, in which it is supposed that the electromagnetic wave velocity is c as given by Maxwell's equations, although they made no essential reference to the ether. A long series of investigations has been carried out, in order to detect some effect of the motion of the earth through the ether, always with negative results. All of the experiments (the best known being that of Michelson-Morley) have indicated that the speed of light is always the same in all directions and is independent of the relative motion of observer, source and transmitting medium. Einstein has reaffirmed Galileo's principle of relativity on the equivalence of all the inertial frames and, in addition, has assumed as a basic postulate the experimental fact that the speed of light is always constant. As a consequence, the Galilean transformation had to be replaced by another, in order to preserve the same speed of light in all systems. Einstein's basic assumptions are known as the postulates of special relativity: 1. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems 2. The speed of light in empty space is a universal constant c and is the same for all observers. It is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body Special relativity is only concerned with transformations between inertial frames, as indicated by the restriction contained in the first postulate. General relativity covers reference frames in arbitrary relative motion, and is based on the principle of equivalence, confirmed experimentally, which unifies gravitational and inertial forces. The first of Einstein's postulates implies that it is only possible, by means of physical measurements, to demonstrate that two gravity-free reference frames are moving relative to each other. There is no physical basis to infer that any such frame is intrinsically at rest or in uniform motion. The notion of absolute rest is not consistent with the first postulate. The second postulate is in contradiction with the Galilean transformation which would preserve the form of Newton's laws of motion, as illustrated by Eq.(4.3). Therefore, we must find a transformation between two frames moving with uniform relative motion, which is consistent with the second postulate. We must then generalize the laws of Newtonian mechanics in a form which is invariant under that transformation, as required by the first postulate. A fundamental requirement of special relativity is that the laws of Newtonian mechanics are valid in the low speed limit and must be obtained as limiting cases of relativistic formulae for .cv << This assumption plays, for special relativity, a role analogous to that of Bohr's correspondence principle in quantum mechanics (see Chapter 28). 4.2. THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION Einstein's procedure is to locate an event in a reference frame by its spatial Cartesian coordinates x, y and z and a temporal coordinate t. Consider two frames S and S' moving with uniform relative motion, such that the Cartesian axis system in coincides with that in S, Oxyz, at time ,S ′ zyxO ′′′′ .0==′ tt As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the x and axes are parallel to the direction of relative motion: in moves in the x direction with velocity v, and in x′ , the frameS ′S S, the frameS ′ moves with velocity in the direction. A pulse of light emitted from O at time v− x′ 0=t spreads as a spherical wave travelling with speed c, so that the equation of the wave front in S, at a time t will be (4.4) 22222 tczyx =++ 0 0' z' y' x,x' z y Figure 4.1. Cartesian axes of two inertial frames in uniform relative motion The second postulate requires that the wave front in S ′ can be represented by (4.5) 22222 tczyx ′=′+′+′ In other words an observer in also sees a spherical wave travelling from its origin if not, any change of the wave front could be used to infer that the system is moving uniformly instead of being at rest. The invariance of the expression S ′ ,O′ S ′ (4.6) 2222222222 tczyxtczyx ′−′+′+′=−++ is a basic requirement that the transformation between the two systems must satisfy. The Galilean transformation (2.13), which in our case reads ttzzyyvtxx =′=′=′−=′ ,,, is not consistent with the invariance property (4.6), as it gives xvttvtczyxtczyx 2222222222222 −+−++=′−′+′+′ The first postulate brings some simplification to the possible form of the desired transformation. Since a uniform rectilinear motion in S must go over into a uniform rectilinear motion in S', the transformation must be linear. A nonlinear transformation would predict acceleration in S' even if the velocity were constant in S. The choice of the origins in space and time has avoided constant terms, and the transformation will be homogenous. The directions perpendicular to the relative motion, which are effectively at rest, must be left unchanged by the transformation. We then take the general form BtAxx +=′ yy =′ (4.7) zz =′ FtDxt +=′ Further simplification comes from the argument that the origin O', which has the coordinate moves along the x axis with velocity ,0=′x ,/ vdtdx = that is ABvBtAx /or0 −=+= while the origin O, with coordinate ,0=x moves along x-axis with velocity Recalling that when , we can write .'/' vdtdx −= 0=x 0=t 00 ort D B Bx A B t v F F F ′ − ⋅′ ′= ⋅ + = − = so that Inserting now Eqs.(4.7) into Eq.(4.5), we obtain the equation .FA = ( ) ( ) 02 22222222222222222 =−+⎟⎟⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜⎝ ⎛ −−++−=′−′+′+′ DcBAxt c BAtczyxDcAtczyx The identity (4.6) requires that 2222 =−=−=− DcB c BADcA Since ,B vA= we obtain 2222 /1 /, /1 , /1 cv cvD cv vB cv A − −= − −= − = (4.8) so that Eqs.(4.7) now read 22 /1 cv vtxx − −=′ yy =′ (4.9) zz =′ /1 / cv cvxtt − −=′ The four equations (4.9) are known as the Lorentz transformation, which in this case applies to the relative motion of inertial frames along the x-axis. It is a straightforward matter to show that Eqs.(4.9) are consistent with the invariance relation (4.6), which is thus a sufficient as well as a necessary condition for the Lorentz transformation. With the usual abbreviations ( )1 /1 1, 222 ≥ − = − == γ β γβ cvc v (4.10) the Lorentz transformation simplifies to ( ) ( )x x ct x x ctγ β γ β′ ′= − = + ′ a) yyyy ′==′ or b) (4.11) zzzz ′==′ c) ⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ ′+′=⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ −=′ x c ttx c tt βγβγ d) The right hand side shows the inverse transformations where the primed and unprimed quantities are interchanged and the sign of the relative velocity is reversed, because its direction is the only difference between the systems S and S'. In the low velocity limit the Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilean transformation since the only difference consists in the presence of the factor γ and the term ,1< that, in Eq.(4.11a), γ indicates a change of measuring stick length and in Eq.(4.11d) a change in the clock rate in the Lorentz transformation. The term ( )xc/β− in Eq.(4.11d) shows that the time is dependent on the position of a given event. Therefore, the immediate consequences of the Lorentz transformation require the revision of the usual concepts of simultaneity, time and length. Simultaneity Consider two events occuring at the same time ttt == 21 at two different positions and in the unprimed system S. According to Eqs.(4.11) the events are recorded in the primed system S' at different times 1x 2x / /, 1 1 t x c t xt t cβ ββ β − −′ ′= = − − so that the apparent time interval in S' is given by ( ) 0 1 / 2 21 12 ≠− −=′−′=′∆ β β cxx ttt (4.12) and hence, it is a function of the relative velocity v. The events will not appear as simultaneous to observers in S'. We are then forced to abandon the intuitive idea of absolute simultaneity, which is based on our experience with objects of low velocity, and accept the relativity of simultaneity, which depends on the coordinate system and applies in the domain of high velocities. Length contraction Consider a rod at rest in the primed system S' lying along the x-axis and having the length 12 xx ′−′=λ given by the distance between its ends 21 and xx ′′ measured at the same instant of time t'. The length in an inertial frame in which the rod is at rest is called its proper length. To define length in a frame S in which the rod is moving, an observer must locate the position of both end points, 21 and xx ′′ , at the same time From the inverse equations (4.11) we obtain 1 2 .t t t= = 1 1 2 1 x ct x ct x xx x x xβ ββ β β − −′ ′ ′ ′= = − = − − − − so that the apparent length 12 xxl −= is 21 βλ −=l (4.13) This equation is known as the Lorentz contraction and states that a rod parallel to the direction of its motion is shortened by the factor .1 2β− It results from the fact that simultaneous events in the rest frame of one rod are not simultaneous in the rest frame of the other. A rod transverse to its direction of motion is unchanged in length. The proper length λ is independent of the orientation of the rod, as a manifestation of the isotropy of inertial rest frame S'. If the orientation of a rod is neither longitudinal nor transverse to the direction of relative motion, both the length and the inclination are changed in the laboratory frame S, as an effect of a contraction in the direction of the relative motion with no change of transverse dimensions.
In physical experiments, reference frames are standardly modeled through a specific choice of coordinates used to describe the physical systems, but they themselves are not considered as such. However, any reference frame is a physical system that ultimately behaves according to quantum mechanics. We develop a framework for rotational (i.e., spin) quantum reference frames, with respect to which quantum systems with spin degrees of freedom are described. We give an explicit model for such frames as systems composed of three spin coherent states of angular momentum jjj and introduce the transformations between them by upgrading the Euler angles occurring in classical SO(3)\text{SO}(3)SO(3) spin transformations to quantum mechanical operators acting on the states of the reference frames. To ensure that an arbitrary rotation can be applied on the spin we take the limit of infinitely large jjj, in which case the angle operator possesses a continuous spectrum. We prove that rotationally invariant Hamiltonians (such as that of the Heisenberg model) are invariant under a larger group of quantum reference frame transformations. Our result is a development of the quantum reference frame formalism for a non-Abelian group.
The concept of invariance relates to both the intrinsic symmetries of physical systems and the symmetry of the set of equivalent reference frames used to observe them. Standard algebraic expressions for electrostatic potentials and crystal-field effective operators display both types of invariance. The concept of a reference frame is generalized to that of an ‘observing system’, which can, for example, be the basis states of a quantum system. This idea is related to Racah’s mathematical machinery for evaluating the matrix elements of many-electron 4f open-shell states in lanthanide ions. It is argued, on the basis of computational flexibility and ease of interpretation, that all equations that represent physical processes be expressible in terms of invariants of the set of observing systems. This ‘Principle of Invariance’ is then applied to special relativity, leading to a simple geometrical interpretation of Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations. The close relationship between Dirac’s relativistic wave equation and Maxwell’s equations is then exposed. This leads to the concept of an inner structure of space-time and the reinterpretation of particle spin. Finally, it is shown that the use of invariants in relativity theory identifies a set of observing systems with a higher symmetry than that of Minkowski space-time.