Introducing the theory of relativity

A simple way of introducing the theory of relativity to chemistry students is presented. This is based on experimental observations of the variation in the mass of an electron with speed. Analysis of these generates the equations chemists use, and provides a basis for critical discussion of the theory.


Introduction
The theory of relativity enters into chemistry in two main ways. First, it helps to explain the chemistry of heavy elements (Banna 1985;Norrby 1991;Balasubramanian 1997;Thayer 2005). A good example is the inert pair effect (Grimm and Sommerfeld 1926;Sidgwick 1927). This concerns the formation of compounds by heavy main-group elements with a valency that is two less than the group valency (e.g. TlCl and PbCl 2 ). Thermodynamic analysis shows that these compounds are formed because the energies of outer s electrons do not decrease down a group to the same extent as those of other electrons (Hopkins and Nelson 1984). This is attributable to the high speeds attained by electrons moving near a nucleus with a high nuclear charge, causing them to increase in mass and slow down. This affects s electrons more than other electrons because they have a higher probability of being near the nucleus. The slowing down means that they spend longer in the region where nuclear attraction is high, which raises their binding energy relative to other electrons and lowers their chemical activity.
Secondly, the theory of relativity explains the difference between the mass of an atom and the sum of the masses of the particles of which it is composed (Atwood and Sheline 1989). For example, the mass of a 12 C atom is (by definition) exactly 12 u, compared with a mass of about 12.09894 u for six protons, six neutrons, and six electrons (Cohen et al. 2007). 1 In chemistry courses, the results of the theory of relativity are usually assumed. To explain the above phenomena, the equations are taken as starting points (m = mass, m 0 = rest mass, v = speed, c = speed of light, E = energy). This spares students from having to grapple with the derivation of these equations, but means that they have to take them on trust. Here I would like to suggest a more satisfying approach.

Variation of mass with speed
The approach begins by returning to an experiment used to find the ratio of the mass (m) to the charge (q) of an electron (Nelson 2002). This involves passing cathode rays through a uniform electric field (E), measuring the radius (r) of the circular path they take, and then using a uniform magnetic field (B) at right angles to annul the deflection of the beam. Under the first conditions, the electric force on each electron (Eq) is equal to the particle's rate of change of momentum (mv 2 /r); under the second, the electric force is balanced by the magnetic force (Bvq). The second relation gives From this and the first relation Experiments with cathode rays of low energy give m/q = -5.69 9 10 -9 g C -1 . Combining this with the charge on an electron (q = -1.602 9 10 -19 C) gives m = 9.11 9 10 -28 g. However, when experiments like this are repeated with cathode rays of high energy, the values of m are found to increase with speed (calculated from Eq. 3). This was investigated by Kaufmann (1901) before Einstein put forward his theory of relativity (see Miller 1997). His results, along with some of those obtained later by Bucherer (1909), are plotted in Fig. 1 (Shankland 1960: Chap. 2, Sect. 4). These show that m rises increasingly rapidly with v, and apparently approaches a limit equal to the speed of light (c = 2.998 9 10 8 m s -1 ). The limits (m = m 0 at v = 0, m = ? at v = c) suggest changing the variables to a = m/m 0 and b = v/c. The variable a then varies from one to infinity as b varies from zero to one.

Relation between mass and energy
Equation 2 follows from Eq. 1. The latter can be differentiated by first taking logarithms. The result is Rearrangement of this gives where p is the momentum. This can be written in terms of force (= rate of change of momentum) and energy (= force 9 distance): Integration from E = 0 at m = 0 gives Eq. 2. Equation 2 can be tested experimentally by measuring the energies of nuclear processes. Oliphant et al. (1935) studied the bombardment of lithium with protons to give a-particles: They found the energy of this to be 1.706 9 10 7 eV = 2.733 9 10 -12 J. From Eq. 2, this represents a loss in mass of 3.041 9 10 -26 g or 0.01831 u. Mass spectrometry gives 0.01862 u (Cohen et al. 2007).
Physicists have recently made a much more precise test of Eq. 2 by comparing the reduction in total mass when an atom captures a neutron with the energy (hm) of the c rays emitted (Rainville et al. 2005;Jentschel et al. 2009). Because the mass of a neutron is difficult to measure accurately without using Eq. 2, it is necessary to compare the results for two processes, e.g. 1 H ? n ? 2 H and 28 Si ? n ? 29 Si. Results for 1 H/ 28 Si and 1 H/ 32 S indicate that Eq. 2 holds to better than ± 0.00005 %.

Discussion
The approach I have described has the merit of tying Eqs. 1 and 2 closely to experiment. This takes away some of the mystery. If they are presented without proof, they are very puzzling. Interested students can go on to study Einstein's derivation of these equations (Miller 1997)

later.
A second merit of my approach is that it invites the question of whether there is a better way of understanding the experimental data than on the theory of relativity. It is certainly not obvious that we should interpret the cathode-ray results by imagining two observers, one alongside the beam and another travelling with it. A more obvious explanation is that the particles are moving in a sub-electronic medium that retards their motion as their speed approaches c, much as a viscous liquid restricts the speed of particles moving through it to a limiting value. This was how physicists understood the phenomenon before Einstein (Miller 1997

Reformulation
This discussion supports the reformulation of Eqs. 1 and 2 in terms of constant mass (Kolbenstvedt and Stølevik 1991). If m is taken to represent apparent mass (m app. ) and m 0 actual mass (m act. ), substitution of Eq. 1 into Eq. 2 gives with For further discussion, see Kolbenstvedt and Stølevik (1991).
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.