Length contraction is the phenomenon that a moving object's length is measured to be shorter than its proper length, which is the length as measured in the object's own rest frame.[1] It is also known as Lorentz contraction or Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction (after Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald) and is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. Length contraction is only in the direction in which the body is travelling. For standard objects, this effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes, only becoming significant as the object approaches the speed of light relative to the observer.
History
Main article: History of special relativity
Length contraction was postulated by George FitzGerald (1889) and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1892) to explain the negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley experiment and to rescue the hypothesis of the stationary aether (Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis).[2][3] Although both FitzGerald and Lorentz alluded to the fact that electrostatic fields in motion were deformed ("Heaviside-Ellipsoid" after Oliver Heaviside, who derived this deformation from electromagnetic theory in 1888), it was considered an ad hoc hypothesis, because at this time there was no sufficient reason to assume that intermolecular forces behave the same way as electromagnetic ones. In 1897 Joseph Larmor developed a model in which all forces are considered to be of electromagnetic origin, and length contraction appeared to be a direct consequence of this model. Yet it was shown by Henri Poincaré (1905) that electromagnetic forces alone cannot explain the electron's stability. So he had to introduce another ad hoc hypothesis: non-electric binding forces (Poincaré stresses) that ensure the electron's stability, give a dynamical explanation for length contraction, and thus hide the motion of the stationary aether.[4]
Eventually, Albert Einstein (1905) was the first[4] to completely remove the ad hoc character from the contraction hypothesis, by demonstrating that this contraction did not require motion through a supposed aether, but could be explained using special relativity, which changed our notions of space, time, and simultaneity.[5] Einstein's view was further elaborated by Hermann Minkowski, who demonstrated the geometrical interpretation of all relativistic effects by introducing his concept of four-dimensional spacetime.[6]
Basis in relativity
In special relativity, the observer measures events against an infinite latticework of synchronized clocks.
First it is necessary to carefully consider the methods for measuring the lengths of resting and moving objects.[7] Here, "object" simply means a distance with endpoints that are always mutually at rest, i.e., that are at rest in the same inertial frame of reference. If the relative velocity between an observer (or his measuring instruments) and the observed object is zero, then the proper length L 0 {\displaystyle L_{0}} L_{0} of the object can simply be determined by directly superposing a measuring rod. However, if the relative velocity > 0, then one can proceed as follows:
Length contraction: Three blue rods are at rest in S, and three red rods in S'. At the instant when the left ends of A and D attain the same position on the axis of x, the lengths of the rods shall be compared. In S the simultaneous positions of the left side of A and the right side of C are more distant than those of D and F. While in S' the simultaneous positions of the left side of D and the right side of F are more distant than those of A and C.
The observer installs a row of clocks that either are synchronized a) by exchanging light signals according to the Poincaré–Einstein synchronization, or b) by "slow clock transport", that is, one clock is transported along the row of clocks in the limit of vanishing transport velocity. Now, when the synchronization process is finished, the object is moved along the clock row and every clock stores the exact time when the left or the right end of the object passes by. After that, the observer only has to look at the position of a clock A that stored the time when the left end of the object was passing by, and a clock B at which the right end of the object was passing by at the same time. It's clear that distance AB is equal to length L {\displaystyle L} L of the moving object.[7] Using this method, the definition of simultaneity is crucial for measuring the length of moving objects.
Another method is to use a clock indicating its proper time \( T_{0} \), which is traveling from one endpoint of the rod to the other in time T as measured by clocks in the rod's rest frame. The length of the rod can be computed by multiplying its travel time by its velocity, thus \( L_{0}=T\cdot v \) in the rod's rest frame or \( L=T_{0}\cdot v \) in the clock's rest frame.[8]
In Newtonian mechanics, simultaneity and time duration are absolute and therefore both methods lead to the equality of L and \( L_{0} \). Yet in relativity theory the constancy of light velocity in all inertial frames in connection with relativity of simultaneity and time dilation destroys this equality. In the first method an observer in one frame claims to have measured the object's endpoints simultaneously, but the observers in all other inertial frames will argue that the object's endpoints were not measured simultaneously. In the second method, times T and \( T_{0} \) are not equal due to time dilation, resulting in different lengths too.
The deviation between the measurements in all inertial frames is given by the formulas for Lorentz transformation and time dilation (see Derivation). It turns out that the proper length remains unchanged and always denotes the greatest length of an object, and the length of the same object measured in another inertial reference frame is shorter than the proper length. This contraction only occurs along the line of motion, and can be represented by the relation
\( {\displaystyle L=L_{0}/\gamma (v)} \)
where
L is the length observed by an observer in motion relative to the object
L0 is the proper length (the length of the object in its rest frame)
γ(v) is the Lorentz factor, defined as
\( \gamma (v) \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} \ \)
where
v is the relative velocity between the observer and the moving object
c is the speed of light
Replacing the Lorentz factor in the original formula leads to the relation
\( {\displaystyle L=L_{0}{\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}} \)
In this equation both L and L0 are measured parallel to the object's line of movement. For the observer in relative movement, the length of the object is measured by subtracting the simultaneously measured distances of both ends of the object. For more general conversions, see the Lorentz transformations. An observer at rest observing an object travelling very close to the speed of light would observe the length of the object in the direction of motion as very near zero.
Then, at a speed of 13,400,000 m/s (30 million mph, 0.0447c) contracted length is 99.9% of the length at rest; at a speed of 42,300,000 m/s (95 million mph, 0.141c), the length is still 99%. As the magnitude of the velocity approaches the speed of light, the effect becomes prominent.
Symmetry
The principle of relativity (according to which the laws of nature are invariant across inertial reference frames) requires that length contraction is symmetrical: If a rod rests in inertial frame S, it has its proper length in S and its length is contracted in S'. However, if a rod rests in S', it has its proper length in S' and its length is contracted in S. This can be vividly illustrated using symmetric Minkowski diagrams, because the Lorentz transformation geometrically corresponds to a rotation in four-dimensional spacetime.[9][10]
Magnetic forces
Main article: Relativistic electromagnetism
Magnetic forces are caused by relativistic contraction when electrons are moving relative to atomic nuclei. The magnetic force on a moving charge next to a current-carrying wire is a result of relativistic motion between electrons and protons.[11][12]
In 1820, André-Marie Ampère showed that parallel wires having currents in the same direction attract one another. To the electrons, the wire contracts slightly, causing the protons of the opposite wire to be locally denser. As the electrons in the opposite wire are moving as well, they do not contract (as much). This results in an apparent local imbalance between electrons and protons; the moving electrons in one wire are attracted to the extra protons in the other. The reverse can also be considered. To the static proton's frame of reference, the electrons are moving and contracted, resulting in the same imbalance. The electron drift velocity is relatively very slow, on the order of a meter an hour but the force between an electron and proton is so enormous that even at this very slow speed the relativistic contraction causes significant effects.
This effect also applies to magnetic particles without current, with current being replaced with electron spin.
Experimental verifications
See also: Tests of special relativity
Any observer co-moving with the observed object cannot measure the object's contraction, because he can judge himself and the object as at rest in the same inertial frame in accordance with the principle of relativity (as it was demonstrated by the Trouton–Rankine experiment). So length contraction cannot be measured in the object's rest frame, but only in a frame in which the observed object is in motion. In addition, even in such a non-co-moving frame, direct experimental confirmations of length contraction are hard to achieve, because at the current state of technology, objects of considerable extension cannot be accelerated to relativistic speeds. And the only objects traveling with the speed required are atomic particles, yet whose spatial extensions are too small to allow a direct measurement of contraction.
However, there are indirect confirmations of this effect in a non-co-moving frame:
It was the negative result of a famous experiment, that required the introduction of length contraction: the Michelson–Morley experiment (and later also the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment). In special relativity its explanation is as follows: In its rest frame the interferometer can be regarded as at rest in accordance with the relativity principle, so the propagation time of light is the same in all directions. Although in a frame in which the interferometer is in motion, the transverse beam must traverse a longer, diagonal path with respect to the non-moving frame thus making its travel time longer, the factor by which the longitudinal beam would be delayed by taking times L/(c-v) & L/(c+v) for the forward and reverse trips respectively is even longer. Therefore, in the longitudinal direction the interferometer is supposed to be contracted, in order to restore the equality of both travel times in accordance with the negative experimental result(s). Thus the two-way speed of light remains constant and the round trip propagation time along perpendicular arms of the interferometer is independent of its motion & orientation.
Given the thickness of the atmosphere as measured in Earth's reference frame, muons' extremely short lifespan shouldn't allow them to make the trip to the surface, even at the speed of light, but they do nonetheless. From the Earth reference frame, however, this is made possible only by the muon's time being slowed down by time dilation. However, in the muon's frame, the effect is explained by the atmosphere being contracted, shortening the trip.[13]
Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat disks when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered.[14][15][16]
The ionization ability of electrically charged particles with large relative velocities is higher than expected. In pre-relativistic physics the ability should decrease at high velocities, because the time in which ionizing particles in motion can interact with the electrons of other atoms or molecules is diminished. Though in relativity, the higher-than-expected ionization ability can be explained by length contraction of the Coulomb field in frames in which the ionizing particles are moving, which increases their electrical field strength normal to the line of motion.[13][17]
In synchrotrons and free-electron lasers, relativistic electrons were injected into an undulator, so that synchrotron radiation is generated. In the proper frame of the electrons, the undulator is contracted which leads to an increased radiation frequency. Additionally, to find out the frequency as measured in the laboratory frame, one has to apply the relativistic Doppler effect. So, only with the aid of length contraction and the relativistic Doppler effect, the extremely small wavelength of undulator radiation can be explained.[18][19]
Reality of length contraction
Minkowski diagram of Einstein's 1911 thought experiment on length contraction. Two rods of rest length A'B'=A''B''=L_0 are moving with 0.6c in opposite directions, resulting in \( A^\ast B^\ast <L_0. \)
In 1911 Vladimir Varićak asserted that one sees the length contraction in an objective way, according to Lorentz, while it is "only an apparent, subjective phenomenon, caused by the manner of our clock-regulation and length-measurement", according to Einstein.[20][21] Einstein published a rebuttal:
The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.[22]
— Albert Einstein, 1911
Einstein also argued in that paper, that length contraction is not simply the product of arbitrary definitions concerning the way clock regulations and length measurements are performed. He presented the following thought experiment: Let A'B' and A"B" be the endpoints of two rods of the same proper length L0, as measured on x' and x" respectively. Let them move in opposite directions along the x* axis, considered at rest, at the same speed with respect to it. Endpoints A'A" then meet at point A*, and B'B" meet at point B*. Einstein pointed out that length A*B* is shorter than A'B' or A"B", which can also be demonstrated by bringing one of the rods to rest with respect to that axis.[22]
Paradoxes
Due to superficial application of the contraction formula some paradoxes can occur. Examples are the ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox. However, those paradoxes can be solved by a correct application of relativity of simultaneity. Another famous paradox is the Ehrenfest paradox, which proves that the concept of rigid bodies is not compatible with relativity, reducing the applicability of Born rigidity, and showing that for a co-rotating observer the geometry is in fact non-Euclidean.
Visual effects
Main article: Terrell rotation
Formula on a wall in Leiden
Length contraction refers to measurements of position made at simultaneous times according to a coordinate system. This could suggest that if one could take a picture of a fast moving object, that the image would show the object contracted in the direction of motion. However, such visual effects are completely different measurements, as such a photograph is taken from a distance, while length contraction can only directly be measured at the exact location of the object's endpoints. It was shown by several authors such as Roger Penrose and James Terrell that moving objects generally do not appear length contracted on a photograph.[23] This result was popularized by Victor Weisskopf in a Physics Today article.[24] For instance, for a small angular diameter, a moving sphere remains circular and is rotated.[25] This kind of visual rotation effect is called Penrose-Terrell rotation.[26]
Derivation
Length contraction can be derived in several ways:
Known moving length
In an inertial reference frame S, \( x_{1} \) and \( x_{2} \) shall denote the endpoints of an object in motion in this frame. There, its length L was measured according to the above convention by determining the simultaneous positions of its endpoints at \( t_{1}=t_{2}\, \) . Now, the proper length of this object in S' shall be calculated by using the Lorentz transformation. Transforming the time coordinates from S into S' results in different times, but this is not problematic, as the object is at rest in S' where it does not matter when the endpoints are measured. Therefore, the transformation of the spatial coordinates suffices, which gives:[7]
\( {\displaystyle x'_{1}=\gamma \left(x_{1}-vt_{1}\right)\quad \mathrm {and} \quad x'_{2}=\gamma \left(x_{2}-vt_{2}\right)} \)
Since \( t_{1}=t_{2}\,, \) and by setting \( L=x_{2}-x_{1}\, \) and \( L_{0}^{'}=x_{2}^{'}-x_{1}^{'}, \) the proper length in S' is given by
\( {\displaystyle L_{0}^{'}=L\cdot \gamma .\qquad \qquad {\text{(1)}}} \)
with respect to which the measured length in S is contracted by
\( L=L_{0}^{'}/\gamma. \qquad \qquad \text{(2)} \)
According to the relativity principle, objects that are at rest in S have to be contracted in S' as well. By exchanging the above signs and primes symmetrically, it follows:
\( L_{0}=L'\cdot\gamma. \qquad \qquad \text{(3)} \)
Thus the contracted length as measured in S' is given by:
\( L'=L_{0}/\gamma.\qquad \qquad \text{(4)} \)
Known proper length
Conversely, if the object rests in S and its proper length is known, the simultaneity of the measurements at the object's endpoints has to be considered in another frame S', as the object constantly changes its position there. Therefore, both spatial and temporal coordinates must be transformed:[27]
\( {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}x_{1}^{'}&=\gamma \left(x_{1}-vt_{1}\right)&\quad \mathrm {and} \quad &&x_{2}^{'}&=\gamma \left(x_{2}-vt_{2}\right)\\t_{1}^{'}&=\gamma \left(t_{1}-vx_{1}/c^{2}\right)&\quad \mathrm {and} \quad &&t_{2}^{'}&=\gamma \left(t_{2}-vx_{2}/c^{2}\right)\end{aligned}}} \)
Computing length interval \( {\displaystyle \Delta x'=x_{2}^{\prime }-x_{1}^{\prime }} \) as well as assuming simultaneous time measurement \( {\displaystyle \Delta t'=t_{2}^{\prime }-t_{1}^{\prime }=0} \) , and by plugging in proper length \( L_{0}=x_{2}-x_{1}, \) it follows:
\( {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Delta x'&=\gamma \left(L_{0}-v\Delta t\right)&(1)\\\Delta t'&=\gamma \left(\Delta t-{\frac {vL_{0}}{c^{2}}}\right)=0&(2)\end{aligned}}} \)
Equation (2) gives
\( {\displaystyle \Delta t={\frac {vL_{0}}{c^{2}}}} \)
which, when plugged into (1), demonstrates that \( \Delta x' \) becomes the contracted length L':
\( L'=L_{0}/\gamma. \)
Likewise, the same method gives a symmetric result for an object at rest in S':
\( L=L^{'}_{0}/\gamma. \)
Using time dilation
Length contraction can also be derived from time dilation,[28] according to which the rate of a single "moving" clock (indicating its proper time T 0 {\displaystyle T_{0}} T_{0}) is lower with respect to two synchronized "resting" clocks (indicating T). Time dilation was experimentally confirmed multiple times, and is represented by the relation:
\( T=T_{0}\cdot\gamma \)
Suppose a rod of proper length \( L_{0} \) at rest in S and a clock at rest in S' are moving along each other with speed v. Since, according to the principle of relativity, the magnitude of relative velocity is the same in either reference frame, the respective travel times of the clock between the rod's endpoints are given by \( T=L_{0}/v \) in S and \( T'_{0}=L'/v \) in S', thus \( L_{0}=Tv \) and \( L'=T'_{0}v. \) By inserting the time dilation formula, the ratio between those lengths is:
\( \frac{L'}{L_{0}}=\frac{T'_{0}v}{Tv}=1/\gamma. \)
Therefore, the length measured in S' is given by
L ′ = L 0 / γ {\displaystyle L'=L_{0}/\gamma } L'=L_{0}/\gamma \)
So since the clock's travel time across the rod is longer in S than in S' (time dilation in S), the rod's length is also longer in S than in S' (length contraction in S'). Likewise, if the clock were at rest in S and the rod in S', the above procedure would give
\( L=L'_{0}/\gamma \)
Geometrical considerations
Cuboids in Euclidean and Minkowski spacetime
Additional geometrical considerations show, that length contraction can be regarded as a trigonometric phenomenon, with analogy to parallel slices through a cuboid before and after a rotation in E3 (see left half figure at the right). This is the Euclidean analog of boosting a cuboid in E1,2. In the latter case, however, we can interpret the boosted cuboid as the world slab of a moving plate.
Image: Left: a rotated cuboid in three-dimensional euclidean space E3. The cross section is longer in the direction of the rotation than it was before the rotation. Right: the world slab of a moving thin plate in Minkowski spacetime (with one spatial dimension suppressed) E1,2, which is a boosted cuboid. The cross section is thinner in the direction of the boost than it was before the boost. In both cases, the transverse directions are unaffected and the three planes meeting at each corner of the cuboids are mutually orthogonal (in the sense of E1,2 at right, and in the sense of E3 at left).
In special relativity, Poincaré transformations are a class of affine transformations which can be characterized as the transformations between alternative Cartesian coordinate charts on Minkowski spacetime corresponding to alternative states of inertial motion (and different choices of an origin). Lorentz transformations are Poincaré transformations which are linear transformations (preserve the origin). Lorentz transformations play the same role in Minkowski geometry (the Lorentz group forms the isotropy group of the self-isometries of the spacetime) which are played by rotations in euclidean geometry. Indeed, special relativity largely comes down to studying a kind of noneuclidean trigonometry in Minkowski spacetime, as suggested by the following table:
Three plane trigonometries Trigonometry Circular Parabolic Hyperbolic
Kleinian Geometry Euclidean plane Galilean plane Minkowski plane
Symbol E2 E0,1 E1,1
Quadratic form positive definite degenerate non-degenerate but indefinite
Isometry group E(2) E(0,1) E(1,1)
Isotropy group SO(2) SO(0,1) SO(1,1)
type of isotropy rotations shears boosts
Algebra over R complex numbers dual numbers split-complex numbers
ε2 -1 0 1
Spacetime interpretation none Newtonian spacetime Minkowski spacetime
slope tan φ = m tanp φ = u tanh φ = v
"cosine" cos φ = (1+m2)−1/2 cosp φ = 1 cosh φ = (1-v2)−1/2
"sine" sin φ = m (1+m2)−1/2 sinp φ = u sinh φ = v (1-v2)−1/2
"secant" sec φ = (1+m2)1/2 secp φ = 1 sech φ = (1-v2)1/2
"cosecant" csc φ = m−1 (1+m2)1/2 cscp φ = u−1 csch φ = v−1 (1-v2)1/2
References
Dalarsson, Mirjana; Dalarsson, Nils (2015). Tensors, Relativity, and Cosmology (2nd ed.). Academic Press. p. 106–108. ISBN 978-0-12-803401-9. Extract of page 106
FitzGerald, George Francis (1889), "The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere" , Science, 13 (328): 390, Bibcode:1889Sci....13..390F, doi:10.1126/science.ns-13.328.390, PMID 17819387, S2CID 43610293
Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1892), "The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Aether" , Zittingsverlag Akad. V. Wet., 1: 74–79
Pais, Abraham (1982), Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-520438-7
Einstein, Albert (1905a), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" (PDF), Annalen der Physik, 322 (10): 891–921, Bibcode:1905AnP...322..891E, doi:10.1002/andp.19053221004. See also: English translation.
Minkowski, Hermann (1909), "Raum und Zeit" , Physikalische Zeitschrift, 10: 75–88
Various English translations on Wikisource: Space and Time
Born, Max (1964), Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-60769-0
Edwin F. Taylor; John Archibald Wheeler (1992). Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity. New York: W. H. Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-2327-1.
Albert Shadowitz (1988). Special relativity (Reprint of 1968 ed.). Courier Dover Publications. pp. 20–22. ISBN 0-486-65743-4.
Leo Sartori (1996). Understanding Relativity: a simplified approach to Einstein's theories. University of California Press. pp. 151ff. ISBN 0-520-20029-2.
Feynman, Richard P.; Leighton, Robert B.; Sands, Matthew (2013-01-01). he Feynman Lectures on Physics, Desktop Edition Volume II: The New Millennium Edition (illustrated ed.). Basic Books. p. 13–6. ISBN 978-0-465-07998-8. Extract of page 13-6
E M Lifshitz, L D Landau (1980). The classical theory of ields. Course of Theoretical Physics. Vol. 2 (Fourth ed.). Oxford UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 0-7506-2768-9.
Sexl, Roman; Schmidt, Herbert K. (1979), Raum-Zeit-Relativität, Braunschweig: Vieweg, Bibcode:1979raum.book.....S, ISBN 3-528-17236-3
Brookhaven National Laboratory. "The Physics of RHIC". Retrieved 2013-01-01.
Manuel Calderon de la Barca Sanchez. "Relativistic heavy ion collisions". Retrieved 2013-01-01.
Hands, Simon (2001). "The phase diagram of QCD". Contemporary Physics. 42 (4): 209–225. arXiv:physics/0105022. Bibcode:2001ConPh..42..209H. doi:10.1080/00107510110063843. S2CID 16835076.
Williams, E. J. (1931), "The Loss of Energy by β -Particles and Its Distribution between Different Kinds of Collisions", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 130 (813): 328–346, Bibcode:1931RSPSA.130..328W, doi:10.1098/rspa.1931.0008
DESY photon science. "What is SR, how is it generated and what are its properties?". Archived from the original on 2016-06-03. Retrieved 2013-01-01.
DESY photon science. "FLASH The Free-Electron Laser in Hamburg (PDF 7,8 MB)" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-01-01.
[1]
Miller, A.I. (1981), "Varičak and Einstein", Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity. Emergence (1905) and early interpretation (1905–1911), Reading: Addison–Wesley, pp. 249–253, ISBN 0-201-04679-2
Einstein, Albert (1911). "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift. 12: 509–510.; Original: Der Verfasser hat mit Unrecht einen Unterschied der Lorentzschen Auffassung von der meinigen mit Bezug auf die physikalischen Tatsachen statuiert. Die Frage, ob die Lorentz-Verkürzung wirklich besteht oder nicht, ist irreführend. Sie besteht nämlich nicht "wirklich", insofern sie für einen mitbewegten Beobachter nicht existiert; sie besteht aber "wirklich", d. h. in solcher Weise, daß sie prinzipiell durch physikalische Mittel nachgewiesen werden könnte, für einen nicht mitbewegten Beobachter.
Kraus, U. (2000). "Brightness and color of rapidly moving objects: The visual appearance of a large sphere revisited" (PDF). American Journal of Physics. 68 (1): 56–60. Bibcode:2000AmJPh..68...56K. doi:10.1119/1.19373.
Weisskopf, Victor F. (1960). "The visual appearance of rapidly moving objects". Physics Today. 13 (9): 24–27. Bibcode:1960PhT....13i..24W. doi:10.1063/1.3057105. S2CID 36707809.
Penrose, Roger (2005). The Road to Reality. London: Vintage Books. pp. 430–431. ISBN 978-0-09-944068-0.
Can You See the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction? Or: Penrose-Terrell Rotation
Walter Greiner (2006). Classical Mechanics: Point Particles and Relativity. Springer. ISBN 9780387218519.; Equations 31.4 – 31.6
David Halliday, Robert Resnick, Jearl Walker (2010), Fundamentals of Physics, Chapters 33-37, John Wiley & Son, pp. 1032f, ISBN 978-0470547946
External links
Physics FAQ: Can You See the Lorentz–Fitzgerald Contraction? Or: Penrose-Terrell Rotation; The Barn and the Pole
vte
Relativity
Special
relativity
Background
Principle of relativity (Galilean relativity Galilean transformation) Special relativity Doubly special relativity
Fundamental
concepts
Frame of reference Speed of light Hyperbolic orthogonality Rapidity Maxwell's equations Proper length Proper time Relativistic mass
Formulation
Lorentz transformation
Phenomena
Time dilation Mass–energy equivalence Length contraction Relativity of simultaneity Relativistic Doppler effect Thomas precession Ladder paradox Twin paradox
Spacetime
Light cone World line Minkowski diagram Biquaternions Minkowski space
Spacetime curvature.png
General
relativity
Background
Introduction Mathematical formulation
Fundamental
concepts
Equivalence principle Riemannian geometry Penrose diagram Geodesics Mach's principle
Formulation
ADM formalism BSSN formalism Einstein field equations Linearized gravity Post-Newtonian formalism Raychaudhuri equation Hamilton–Jacobi–Einstein equation Ernst equation
Phenomena
Black hole Event horizon Singularity Two-body problem
Gravitational waves: astronomy detectors (LIGO and collaboration Virgo LISA Pathfinder GEO) Hulse–Taylor binary
Other tests: precession of Mercury lensing redshift Shapiro delay frame-dragging / geodetic effect (Lense–Thirring precession) pulsar timing arrays
Advanced
theories
Brans–Dicke theory Kaluza–Klein Quantum gravity
Solutions
Cosmological: Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (Friedmann equations) Kasner BKL singularity Gödel Milne
Spherical: Schwarzschild (interior Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation) Reissner–Nordström Lemaître–Tolman
Axisymmetric: Kerr (Kerr–Newman) Weyl−Lewis−Papapetrou Taub–NUT van Stockum dust discs
Others: pp-wave Ozsváth–Schücking metric
Scientists
Poincaré Lorentz Einstein Hilbert Schwarzschild de Sitter Weyl Eddington Friedmann Lemaître Milne Robertson Chandrasekhar Zwicky Wheeler Choquet-Bruhat Kerr Zel'dovich Novikov Ehlers Geroch Penrose Hawking Taylor Hulse Bondi Misner Yau Thorne Weiss others
Categories
► Theory of relativity
vte
Tests of special relativity
Speed/isotropy
Michelson–Morley experiment Kennedy–Thorndike experiment Moessbauer rotor experiments Resonator experiments de Sitter double star experiment Hammar experiment Measurements of neutrino speed
Lorentz invariance
Modern searches for Lorentz violation Hughes–Drever experiment Trouton–Noble experiment Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace Trouton–Rankine experiment Antimatter tests of Lorentz violation Lorentz-violating neutrino oscillations Lorentz-violating electrodynamics
Time dilation
Length contraction
Ives–Stilwell experiment Moessbauer rotor experiments Experimental testing of time dilation Hafele–Keating experiment Length contraction confirmations
Relativistic energy
Tests of relativistic energy and momentum Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments
Fizeau/Sagnac
Fizeau experiment Sagnac experiment Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment
Alternatives
Refutations of aether theory Refutations of emission theory
General
One-way speed of light Test theories of special relativity Standard-Model Extension
Hellenica World - Scientific Library
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/"
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
