Foundations of Physics

, Volume 19, Issue 11, pp 1385–1396

The relativistic velocity composition paradox and the Thomas rotation

  • Abraham A. Ungar
Article

Abstract

The relativistic velocity composition paradox of Mocanu and its resolution are presented. The paradox, which rests on the bizarre and counterintuitive non-communtativity of the relativistic velocity composition operation, when applied to noncollinear admissible velocities, led Mocanu to claim that there are “some difficulties within the framework of relativistic electrodynamics.” The paradox is resolved in this article by means of the Thomas rotation, shedding light on the role played by composite velocities in special relativity, as opposed to the role they play in Galilean relativity.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and notes

  1. 1.
    Constantin I. Mocanu, “Some difficulties within the framework of relativistic electrodynamics,”Arch. Elektrotech. 69, 97–110 (1986).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands,The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts 1964), Vol. II, Sec. 17-4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. P. Sastry, ‘Is length contraction really paradoxical?”Am. J. Phys. 55, 943–945 (1987).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Constantin I. Mocanu,Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies at Relativistic Velocities (Publ. House of Roum. Acad., Bucharest, 1985); “Hertzian alternative to special theory of relativity. I. Qualitative analysis of Maxwell's equations for motionless media,”Hadronic J. 10, 61–74 (1987), and references therein.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. H. Thomas, “The motion of the spinning electron,”Nature (London) 117, 514 (1926); “The kinematics of an electron with an axis,”Philos. Mag. 3, 1–22 (1927); see also Ref. 28.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    George E. Uhlenbeck, “Fifty years of spin: Personal Reminiscences,”Phys. Today 29, 43–48 (June, 1976).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Presently, most books on STR make no mention of the Thomas rotation (or precession). Several outstanding exceptions are: E. F. Taylor and J. A. Wheeler,Spacetime Physics, H. M. Foley and M. A. Ruderman, eds. (Freeman, San Francisco, 1966); M. C. Møller,The Theory of Relativity (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952); J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1975); and H. P. Robertson and T. W. Noonan,Relativity and Cosmology (Saunders, Philadelphia, 1968). Several articles on the Thomas precession (rotation) are listed in Refs. 8–22.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lanfranco Belloni and Cesare Reina, “Sommerfeld's way to the Thomas precession,”Eur. J. Phys. 7, 55–61 (1986).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ari Ben-Menahem, “Wigner's rotation revisited,”Am. J. Phys. 53, 62–66 (1985). In this article, as well as in several others, the Thomas rotation is referred to as theWigner rotation. The use of the term “Wigner rotation” for the description of the Thomas rotation apparently came into the English literature from a text by S. Gasiorowicz,Elementary Particle Physics (Wiley, New York, 1967), p. 74, who copied the term from the German literature. An objection to the use of this term for the description of the Thomas rotation is based on the claim that the “correct” Wigner rotation is the Thomas rotation measured in the frame in which the accelerated particle is at rest; see Ref. 25 of Ref. 28.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shahar Ben-Menahem, “The Thomas precession and velocity space curvature,”J. Math. Phys. 27, 1284–1286 (1986).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    James T. Cushing, “Vector Lorentz transformations,”Am. J. Phys. 35, 858–862 (1967).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sidney Dancoff and D. R. Inglis, “On the Thomas precession of accelerated axes,”Phys. Rev. 50, 784 (1936).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. F. Farago, “Derivation of the spin-orbit interaction,”Am. J. Phys. 35, 246–249 (1967). This article containes an incorrect statement about the Thomas rotation, see Ref. 17 of Ref. 28;Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    George P. Fisher, “The electric dipole moment of a moving magnetic dipole,”Am. J. Phys. 39, 1528–1533 (1971) and “The Thomas precession,”40, 1772–1781 (1972).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. H. Furry “Lorentz transformation and the Thomas precession,”Am. J. Phys. 23, 517–525 (1955).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roger R. Haar and Lorenzo J. Curtis, “The Thomas precession givesg e - 1, notg e/2,”Am. J. Phys. 55, 1044–1045 (1987).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. C. Hirshfeld and F. Metzger, “A simple formula for combining rotations and Lorentz boots,”Am. J. Phys. 54, 550–552 (1986).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. R. MacKenzie “Thomas precession and the clock paradox,”Am. J. Phys. 40, 1661–1663 (1972).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. G. Peter Rowe “The Thomas precession,”Eur. J. Phys. 5, 40–45 (1984).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nikos Salingaros “The Lorentz group and the Thomas precession. II. Exact results for the product of two boosts,”J. Math. Phys. 27, 157–162 (1986); and “Erratum: The Lorentz group and the Thomas precession. II. Exact results for the product of two boosts,”J. Math. Phys. 29, 1265 (1988).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    David Shelupsky, “Derivation of the Thomas precession formula,”Am. J. Phys. 35, 650–651 (1967).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    N. W. P. Strandberg, “Special relativity completed: The source of some 2s in the magnitude of physical phenomena,”Am. J. Phys. 54, 321–331 (1986).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. H. Thomas, “Recollections of the discovery of the Thomas precessional frequency,” AIP Conf. Proc. No. 95, High Energy Spin Physics, G. M. Bunce, ed. (Brookhaven National Lab, 1982), pp. 4–12.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    See, for instance, V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii,Quantum Electrodynamics, trans. by J. B. Sykes and J. S. Bell (Pergamon Press, New York, 1982), p. 126.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See, for instance, J. T. Cushing. “Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Albert Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik Bewegter Körper (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies),”Ann. Phys. 17, 891–921 (1905). For English translation, see H. M. Schwartz “Einstein's first paper on relativity” (covers the first of the two parts of Einstein's paper),Am. J. Phys. 45, 18–25 (1977); and H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl,The Principle of Relativity, trans. by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery, (Dover, New York) 1952), first published in 1923.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    A. A. Ungar, “Thomas rotation and the parametrization of the Lorentz transformation group,”Found. Phys. Lett. 1, 57–89 (1988).Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    A. A. Ungar, “The Thomas rotation formalism underlying a nonassociative group structure for relativistic velocities,”Appl. Math. Lett. 1, 403–405 (1988).Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    A. A. Ungar, “The relativistic noncommutative nonassociative group of velocities and the Thomas rotation,”Results Math. 16, 168–179 (1989).Google Scholar
  30. 32.
    M. C. Møller,The Theory of Relativity (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952), p. 42.Google Scholar
  31. 33.
    A. A. Ungar, “Weakly associative groups,” preprint.Google Scholar
  32. 34.
    H. Wefelscheid,Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. 23, 9 (1980); W. Kerby and H. Wefelscheid, “The maximal sub near-field of a near-domain,”J. Algebra 28, 319–325 (1974); H. Wähling,Theorie der Fastkörper (Thales, W. Germany, 1987), and references therein.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abraham A. Ungar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsNorth Dakota State UniversityFargo

Personalised recommendations