PX2510 & 2511 Lecture Notes

No. 1

PX2510 and PX2511 Lecture Notes No. 1

Special Relativity
Frames of Reference
The objective of this weeks lectures is to make clear the concept of an inertial frame of reference. Fully
understanding what an inertial frame of reference is becomes essential when we want to grasp the problems
raised by special relativity later. First the lectures describe what a frame of reference is and then come back
to the meaning of inertial.
A frame of reference is simply a defined set of co-ordinate axes and an origin. In the three-dimensional
space we live in, we need distances measured in three perpendicular directions to fix the position of any
point relative to a chosen origin. The easiest way to see this is to take an origin fixed at the one of the
corners of the floor of the room you are in. To establish the position of any point in the room (say the tip of
your pen lying on the desk), measure out from the three planes (two walls and the floor) that meet in the
chosen corner. One distance from a wall to the tip is the x co-ordinate, the distance from the other wall is
the y co-ordinate and, finally, up from the floor to the tip is the z co-ordinate. The three distances (x, y, z)
uniquely fix the position of the tip of your pen within the chosen fame of reference. If you move your pen at
least one of the distances changes so the co-ordinates of the tip change.
Of course, you could have chosen a different corner and measured in different directions. In other words,
you could have used a different frame of reference. In the
diagram, the corner O fixes the origin of one frame of reference
and Q is the origin of another. P is (x, y, z) in the frame with
x
origin O but (x, y, z) in that with origin Q. It is clear that x =
y
y
P
x and z = z because the distances are measured from the same
O
Q
walls.
Also whatever the distance across the room, OQ, then y
z
and y are related because y + y = OQ.
This gives us the idea that if we choose a new frame of reference, we can usually relate the co-ordinates in
one frame to those in the other. This gets complicated if the pairs x, y and z axes are not parallel to each
other so in what follows we will always choose axes pointing in the same direction. (Note the two frames
based at O and Q above have their y axes pointing in opposite directions! We will not do that again.)

In this diagram, the origin Q of one frame of reference is at a distance Lx

from O in the x direction, a distance Ly from O in the y direction but all
the pairs of axes are parallel to each other. It can be seen that the coordinates of any point P in the two frames are related by

z
y

O
x

Lx

Ly
x

A
B
.P

x = x - Lx
y = y - Ly
z = z - Lz

where Lz = 0. x is the distance AP in the diagram and x is BP. It is easy to see that the difference between
these two lengths is Lx. (Note that in this diagram, I chose to have zero z and Lz just to make it easy to
draw.)
In any frame of reference, each of the co-ordinates of a point could be negative. That would mean that the
point was behind the origin instead of in the direction of the arrow on the axis. The (x, y, z) co-ordinates
of O in the frame of reference fixed at Q are, for example, (-Lx, -Ly, 0) as you can see both from the diagram
or by putting x, y and z to zero in the equations relating the co-ordinates in the two frames of reference to

PX2510 & PX2511 Lecture Notes

No. 1

each other. You can think of these equations as transforming the (x, y, z) co-ordinates into (x, y, z) ones.
For this reason the equations are known as Transformation Equations.
A simpler way of writing the transformation equations above is
r = r - L
where r is the vector with components x, y and z, r is (x, y, z) and L is (Lx, Ly, Lz).

Moving Frames of Reference

Now lets assume that Q is not fixed relative to O but moves at a constant speed. Again just to keep things
simple, assume both Ly and Lz to zero, all of the pairs of axes are parallel and that the motion of Q is along
the x direction. This means that Q (the origin of the x, y and z axes) moves along the x axis away from O.
Assume Q started at O when t was zero We call this arrangement of axes, relative motion and of the start of
time, the Standard Configuration.
In the Standard Configuration if Q moves with constant speed V, then Lx = Vt.
Now our transformation equations, relating the co-ordinates of P in the
two frames of reference are:

z
z
A

O
Lx
x

x = x - Vt
y = y
z = z.

.P

If P is a fixed point in the x,y,z frame of reference, it clearly will not be in the other x,y,z frame. The
distance AP, x, will stay fixed but the distance BP, x, will be changing. It can be calculated at any time t by
using the formula above. Similarly if x is fixed then x will not be - but the same formula applies.
Example: If x is fixed at 10 metres and V = 5ms-1, then when t = 0, x = 10; when t = 1, x = 15; when t = 2,
x = 20; etc.

Relative Speeds
The formula still works even if P is not fixed. Suppose P is moving relative to O at speed u along the x-axis.
Then after time t ;
x = ut.
If u is not equal to V then P will be moving relative to Q as well. We can find its speed by writing
x = ut.
Then
or, by cancelling the t,

ut = ut - Vt
u = u - V.

Example: A motorbike travelling at 70 mph along a motorway is moving at 70 mph relative to the ground.
To a car travelling at 65 mph, the bike is only pulling away at 5 mph. In terms of our formula, the bike is P,
the ground provides the x,y,z frame of reference and u is the speed of the bike in this frame so u is 70 mph.

PX2510 & 2511 Lecture Notes

No. 1

The car provides the other x,y,z frame of reference so V is 65 mph and the relative speed of the bike to the
car is u which equals u - V or 70 - 65.
If you know how to differentiate, you can derive this Transformation Law for speeds (u = u - V) by
differentiating the one for distances (x = x - Vt) with respect to t. The value of doing it that way is that the
result is seen to be correct even if the speeds u and u are not constant.
We can easily extend the formulae to apply when the velocity of Q is not along the x-axis. If Q has speeds
Vx, Vy and Vz along the three axes then it has velocity V where V = (Vx, Vy, Vz). Then
r = r -Vt..
This is the vector equation that expresses neatly and concisely the three equations
x = x - Vxt
y = y - Vyt
z = z - Vzt.
This particular transformation from one set of axes to another is known as the Galilean Transformation and
just as earlier, if P is moving with velocity u (i.e. u = dr/dt), then differentiating the equation above gives the
equation for the Galilean Transformation of Velocities
u = u - V.
Relative Accelerations
Differentiating again when V is constant (but u isnt) gives that accelerations are the same in both frames of
reference.
du du
=a.
a =
=
dt
dt
Intuitively we expect this. If the bike is accelerating along the road then it is also accelerating relative to the
car and its speed will be changing by the same amount per second in both cases.
This very simple observation clarifies a surprisingly important concept in physics:- what is meant by an
Inertial Frame of Reference.

Summary of Formulae:
Frame of Reference: A set of co-ordinate axes and an origin relative to which the position, velocity and
acceleration of any object can be defined and experiments described.
Galilean Transformation Equations
x = x - Vt
Velocity Transformation Equations
u = u - V
Acceleration Transformation Equations
a = a

Inertial Frames of Reference.

Galileo first conceived the law named Galileos Law of Inertia but Newton repeated it in his writings. As a
result it is also called Newtons First Law. It is:
A body remains at rest or moving with a constant speed in a straight line unless a force acts on it.
Put another way, this law says that a body has zero acceleration unless a net force acts on it. Incidentally
Newtons second law is F = ma which relates the force to the acceleration.
The importance of the first law is that allows us to distinguish between two sorts of frames of reference;
those in which the law holds, Inertial Frames, and those in which it doesnt, Non-Inertial Frames.
3

PX2510 & PX2511 Lecture Notes

No. 1

Inertial frames of reference are those in which a body remains at rest or moves at a constant speed when no
forces act on it. The frame itself does not have to be at rest - it can be moving at a constant speed relative to
other inertial frames of reference. This makes no difference because accelerations are the same in all frames
of reference moving at constant speed relative to each other. If the body is at rest in one inertial frame, its
acceleration is zero. So even though it will be moving in another inertial frame, it will move with zero
acceleration; i.e. at a constant speed in a straight line. Hence Galileos Law still holds in the other frame.
All of this means that you can do things quite normally on a train travelling at a constant speed or in a
jumbo-jet flying at a constant speed. You can play snooker if you want to. The speed of your frame of
reference relative to the ground makes no difference. The snooker balls all behave normally and you can
drink your wine standing up. But if the train or plane accelerates or slows down sharply, you will
immediately see the effects. The snooker balls all roll to one end of the table without being pushed, your
wine slops over the glass and you fall over if you do not support yourself. A physicist says that your frame
of reference has become a non-inertial one as the snooker balls, your wine and you, all accelerate without
any force acting on them.
Non-inertial frames are those in which bodies accelerate even when no force acts on them. Accelerating
cars, trains, planes or spaceships are obvious examples. Some non-inertial frames are so common that we
invent fictitious forces to explain the acceleration. Centrifugal force is the best example of these pseudoforces.

Rotating Frames of Reference

Centrifugal force: All bodies in a rotating frame of reference experience an outward acceleration. A rotating
frame is non-inertial.
.
Imagine a snooker ball on a rapidly rotating table. As it is swept round by a
radial bar behind it (see diagram), it will accelerate outwards towards the
edge. You can feel this effect every time you stand on a roundabout.
In the rotating frame of reference there appears to be an outward force. We
call it Centrifugal Force. But to someone outside that frame, no such
force exists, it seems clear that the ball is just accelerating along a straight
line in the direction of the pushing force. Centrifugal force is a fictitious

force introduced just to explain the acceleration caused by the fact that the
rotating frame is a non-inertial one. Note that an inward pointing force (a
centripetal one) would be required to keep the ball moving on a circle.
(The formula for the acceleration of a body a distance r from the centre is v2/r or 2r, where , or v/r, is the
angular velocity of the rotation. The acceleration increases with radial distance.)
Coriolis force: A body moving radially in a rotating frame of reference experiences a sideways acceleration
due to its motion.
Imagine throwing a ball from A to B in the diagram on the left. You
would throw it along the line AB. The trouble is that the sideways speed
of A (around the centre) is small while that at B is quite large. Hence
the ball would not travel along AB but would fall behind missing B. In
the rotating frame of reference the motion would look like this: The ball
B
would appear to have a sideways
A
force acting on it. This fictional
A
B
force is called the Coriolis Force.
Note that a similar sideways
displacement occurs when B throws a ball to A. In that case the ball has too high a sideways speed to travel
along the line BA. To an outside observer not rotating with the line AB, the ball travels in a straight line
4

PX2510 & 2511 Lecture Notes

No. 1

with no acceleration. The Coriolis acceleration is entirely due to the rotation of the non-inertial frame of
reference. The Coriolis force is another fictitious force or pseudo-force but it is appears very real to
people (like us) who live in slowly rotating frames of reference.
Because the Earth is rotating the Coriolis acceleration is seen to act on every wind that blows across it. It is
responsible for the fact that we have winds blowing in an anti-clockwise direction around low pressure areas
in the northern hemisphere but they have clockwise winds in the southern hemisphere. Winds would blow
straight into the centre of a low pressure area were the Earth not rotating. In reality, they miss, setting up a
circulating airflow around the centre of the low pressure.
How to Detect Pseudo-forces from Inside a Non-Inertial Frame.
There is one obvious characteristic of pseudo-forces that is quite different from real forces. When a real
force (like electric or magnetic forces, or even the pull of a string) acts, the resulting acceleration depends on
the mass of the body being accelerated. F = ma applies and a will double if m is halved for a given F and
vice-versa. Try pushing a lump of rock instead of a beach-ball and you will see how high is the acceleration
of the ball compared to the rocks. On the other hand, pseudo-forces give the same acceleration to all bodies
no matter how massive they are. The ball on the rotating table will have acceleration 2r no matter whether
it is made of rock or thin plastic and air. This is because the acceleration comes from the motion of the
frame of reference not from a real force.
So to detect a pseudo-force we just check if the acceleration it gives is the same for all masses.
Question.
Is gravity a pseudo-force?
Answer.
Newtons Formula for the attractive force between two masses M and m is F = GMm/r2. Here r is the
distance between the masses and G is a constant. On the surface of the Earth where M is the mass of the
Earth (ME) and r is the radius of the Earth (RE), we usually shorten this to F = mg where g is the value of
GME/RE2.
Hence the acceleration of any massive body, mass m, due to gravity is given by F = ma = GmM/r2. So a =
GM/r2 ( or a = g on the Earths surface). Thus the acceleration does not depend on the mass, m, of the body
being accelerated and is the same for all masses.
So yes. Gravity is a pseudo-force!
The thought that gravity could be viewed as a pseudo-force led Einstein to formulate his General Theory of
Relativity. Later in these lectures we will be looking at his Special Relativity Theory but the two theories are
quite different. Special Relativity is about unaccelerated motion through space and time. Einsteins General
Relativity is a theory about gravity and how it can be treated as a pseudo-force. The theory is too difficult to
treat until you have studied a lot more maths but we can discuss one of the consequences of assuming that
gravity is a pseudo-force; the prediction that light is affected by a gravitation field.
Example: Light bending by Gravity.
If the effects of gravity are exactly the same as being in a non-inertial accelerated frame of reference, then
we can replace gravity by an acceleration.

PX2510 & PX2511 Lecture Notes

(a )

No. 1

(b)

In the PX2508 spaceship, the class are observing a

ball falling. After measurements they establish that
it is accelerating downwards with acceleration g.
What they cannot tell is whether (a) the ball is being
pulled down by gravity or whether (b) they are
being accelerated upwards with acceleration g and
they are in fact far out in space well away from all
other masses.
Einstein suggested that the two situations are
completely equivalent (The Equivalence Principle).
He then pointed out that if a small window was
opened in side of the accelerating spaceship (b) and
a beam of light came in, its path across the
spaceship would be bent.

PX2509

PX2509

a
b

In this diagram, (a) is the straight line the light would follow if the
spaceship were stationary in space (with respect to the light source), (b)
is the straight line the light follows if the spaceship has a constant
speed and (c) the curved path the light follows in an accelerated
spaceship.
In case (c), the ship is accelerating up towards the light beam moving
faster and faster as the light crosses the ship. That is why the path is
bent.
Now if the light is bent in an accelerated ship and the Equivalence
Principle holds, then it must be bent by gravity as well.

Where is an Inertial Frame?

Truly inertial frames are very hard to find. The Earth is both rotating and exerting a gravitational pull. So
all frames on Earth are non-inertial. Even if we set axes at the centre of the Earth they would still be rotating
around the Sun. Similarly the Sun rotates around the galaxy and even our galaxy is accelerating within the
local group.
You can visualise that somewhere out in space there exists a set of inertial axes that are not accelerating with
respect to the average mass in the rest of the observable universe. To be more specific this means one in
which the cosmic background radiation is the same in all directions. It has to be in free-fall i.e. there is no
gravitational pull on any body in them. Once you have imagined one, then all other frames moving at
constant speed relative to this one are also inertial. In these frames, light moves in straight lines and
Galileos Law of Inertia holds.

Summary
Inertial Frame of Reference: A frame of reference in which a body remains at rest or moves at a
constant speed when no forces act on it.
Standard Configuration: If two frames of reference have parallel axes, their origins coincident at time t
= 0 and their relative motion along their x directions, they are said to be in Standard Configuration.

The Invariance of Mechanical Laws.

PX2510 & 2511 Lecture Notes

No. 1

An important property of inertial frames of reference is that the laws of Mechanics are true in any inertial
frame. We have to introduce pseudo-forces in non-inertial frames if we want to go on believing Galileos
law of inertia but all the laws of mechanics must hold in every inertial frame. We expect this to be reflected
in our mathematics.
For illustration, think about the law of conservation of momentum in a collision. If two bodies collide, then
their total momentum before the collision equals their total momentum afterwards. Let their masses be m and
M and their velocities u1 and v1 before and u2 and v2 after. Then assuming the bodies are moving on a
straight line
mu1 +Mv1 = mu2 + Mv2 .
In a different inertial frame of reference the same collision will be described by the same masses but
different velocities u1, v1, u2, v2. These will be related to the velocities in the unprimed reference frame by
the Galilean transformation law; u1 = u1 +V, etc. Let us check mathematically that it does follow that
momentum in the primed frame is conserved; i. e. that
mu1 +Mv1 = mu2 + Mv2 .
Substituting for u1 etc. in this equation we get
m(u1 + V) +M(v1 + V) = m(u2 + V) + M(v2 + V)
or
mu1 +Mv1 + (m + M)V = mu2 + Mv2 + (m + M)V
Since the total mass (m + M) doesnt change, the implication is that if the conservation of momentum holds
in the unprimed frame then the two sides of the equation are equal and it holds in the primed frame too.
It is only a slightly more difficult exercise to show that if the collision is elastic so that total kinetic energy is
conserved in one inertial frame then it must be true in all inertial frames. You will find you need to use the
conservation of momentum as well as mass to verify it.
The important point is that the form of the conservation equations remains the same in all frames. Thus it
does not matter in which frame we measure the momentum or energy to confirm the conservation law. The
Galilean transformation ensures that the law then holds in all frames.
One other property that the Galilean transformation does not change is the distance between two points. Let
P1 and P2 be two points described by (x1, y1, z1) and (x2, y2, z2).
The distance between them is D where
D2 = (x2 - x1)2 + (y2 - y1)2 + (z2 - z1)2 .
In a different frame of reference, the distance is D where
D2 = (x2 - x1)2 + (y2 - y1)2 + (z2 - z1)2 .
Since the Galilean transformation relates any x, y, z coordinates to their equivalent x, y, z ones by x = x Vt, y = y, z = z it is easy to see that D = D provided only that we measure both P1 and P2 in either frame of
reference at the same time t.

The Speed of Light

Measurements of the Speed of Light
Rmer
Although Galileo attempted to measure the speed of light, the Danish astronomer, Rmer, made the first
serious measurement in 1675. He observed the time it took Io, one of the moons of Jupiter to orbit once
7

PX2510 & PX2511 Lecture Notes

No. 1

round Jupiter. This can be done accurately by measuring the time between the instants when Io vanishes
behind Jupiter. The time between eclipses of Io is 42.5 hours.
What Rmer observed was that as the Earth travels round the sun during a year, the time of the eclipses got
later and later as the Earth moved away from Jupiter and earlier and earlier as it moved back towards Jupiter.
(Note Jupiter virtually stands still during one Earth year as its orbit round the Sun takes 12 years). When the
Earth is far from the Jupiter,
the eclipses are 16.6 minutes
(996 seconds) late on the
predicted time when the Earth
is close to Jupiter six months
Earths
Sun
Jupiter
earlier.
Rmer correctly
orbit
and Io
deduced that this was due to
the time light takes to travel the
extra distance across the Earths orbit. Because of the difficulties of measurement, Rmer got the speed
wrong but the idea is correct.
Foucault
The French physicist, Fizeau, made the first successful ground-based measurement. Foucault (of pendulum
fame) improved his method by using a rotating mirror rather than a toothed wheel. The basic idea is that you
release a short pulse of light by briefly opening a shutter. The light travels to a distant mirror and returns. If
you briefly open the shutter again at precisely the moment it gets back you will see the reflected light
through the shutter. The time between the two openings gives you the time it took the light to travel to the
distant mirror and back.
Incoming light
beam
Small 8-sided
rapidly rotating
mirror
(not to scale)
Small fixed mirror
far away

To telescope

The diagram illustrates Foucaults method. The first shutter consists of a mirror facet being at exactly the
correct angle to reflect the incoming light onto the far, fixed mirror. The second consists of a facet being at
precisely the correct angle to reflect the returning light into the telescope. The apparatus is set up so that the
light can be seen in the telescope when the 8-sided mirror is stationary. When it is rapidly spinning, if any
light is seen by the telescope, (a) one facet must be exactly at the correct angle to reflect the beam onto the
far mirror and (b) the next facet down must just have turned into place by the time the light returns. The
speed of rotation of the mirror is varied until the light can be seen. Then one eighth of the time of one
rotation is the time the light took to travel to the far mirror and back.
Nowadays the speed of light in a vacuum is realised to be one of natures constants. It comes into so many
physical laws that it is easier to define the speed of light as 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s and to say that the metre
is the distance light travels in vacuo in 1/299792458 of a second. The metre is now something we have to
measure as carefully as we can but the speed of light has absolutely no error in its value.
James Clerk Maxwell
The first person to calculate the speed of light was a Scot. James Clerk Maxwell lived and worked in
Aberdeen in the late 1850s and was made redundant in 1860 from his post as Professor of Physics in
Marischal College by the merger of Kings and Marischal. By scientists he is generally reckoned to be one
of the greatest physicists ever, ranking alongside Einstein, Newton and Galileo.
Just one of Maxwells achievements was the deduction of the complete, correct mathematical theory of
electromagnetic waves thirty years before the first crude radio waves were discovered! He did it by
8

PX2510 & 2511 Lecture Notes

No. 1

mathematically analysing the laws of electricity and magnetism that had been patiently built up by people
like Faraday, Ampere, Coulomb, Gauss, Biot and Savart and moulding them into a single, coherent theory.
He was the first to realise that light was an electromagnetic wave - although Faraday had suggested it earlier
because of the effect of electromagnetic fields on polarisation. We now know that Maxwells theory is
completely right and applies to all sorts of e-m waves, from long wave-length radio waves (with wavelengths
of thousands of kilometres or more) through microwaves, infrared waves, visible light, ultra-violet waves
down to X-rays and gamma rays with wavelengths less than 10-15 m.
For mathematical consistency Maxwell had to assume a new law that was not known at the time. The final
result linked the electric field vector E with the magnetic field vector B in a simple set of equations that in a
vacuum far from charges are:

xE =

B
t

E = 0

xB = 0 0

,
,

E
t

B = 0

Here 0 is the permittivity of free space that comes into Coulombs law and 0 is the permeability that comes
from the Biot-Savart law. From these four equations Maxwell deduced that both E and B satisfy a wave
equation, which for waves travelling in the x-direction are

2E

x 2

= 0 0

2E
t 2

2B
x 2

= 0 0

2B
t 2

He also deduced that the waves are transverse waves and that the speed at which they travel is (00)-. In
Maxwells words: This velocity is so nearly that of light that it seems we have strong reason to conclude
that light itself (including radiant heat and other radiations if any) is an electromagnetic disturbance in the
form of waves propagated through the electromagnetic field according to electromagnetic laws.
It is hard to overstate the brilliance of this work. What Maxwell had done was to show that simple
measurements made on any laboratory bench of the effects of electric currents and magnetic fields could be
used to calculate the speed of light as it travels throughout the universe!
The Electromagnetic Spectrum
Frequency (cycle/sec.)
102
106
1010
Radio

102
Wavelength (metres)

10-2

1014

1018

Visible
.
Infrared
UV

X-rays

10-6

1022

1026

Gamma rays
10-10

10-14

10-18

The visible wavelengths lie roughly in the range 400 nm to 700 nm (1 nm = 10-9 m) which corresponds to a
frequency range of about 4 x1014 s-1 to 7.5 x1014 s-1.