Terrell rotation

Last updated

Terrell rotation or Terrell effect is the visual distortion that a passing object would appear to undergo, according to the special theory of relativity if it were travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. This behaviour was described independently by both Roger Penrose and James Edward Terrell. Penrose's article was submitted 29 July 1958 and published in January 1959. [1] Terrell's article was submitted 22 June 1959 and published 15 November 1959. [2] The general phenomenon was noted already in 1924 by Austrian physicist Anton Lampa. [3]

Contents

This phenomenon was popularized by Victor Weisskopf in a Physics Today article. [4]

Due to an early dispute about priority and correct attribution, the effect is also sometimes referred to as the Penrose–Terrell effect, the Terrell–Penrose effect or the Lampa–Terrell–Penrose effect, but not the Lampa effect.

Further detail

Comparison of the measured length contraction of a cube versus its visual appearance. The view is from the front of the cube at a distance four times the length of the cube's sides, three-quarters of the way from bottom to top, as projected onto a vertical screen (so that the vertical lines of the cube may initially be parallel). Animated Terrell Rotation - Cube.gif
Comparison of the measured length contraction of a cube versus its visual appearance. The view is from the front of the cube at a distance four times the length of the cube's sides, three-quarters of the way from bottom to top, as projected onto a vertical screen (so that the vertical lines of the cube may initially be parallel).

Terrell's and Penrose's papers pointed out that although special relativity appeared to describe an "observed contraction" in moving objects, these interpreted "observations" were not to be confused with the theory's literal predictions for the visible appearance of a moving object. Thanks to the differential timelag effects in signals reaching the observer from the object's different parts, a receding object would appear contracted, an approaching object would appear elongated (even under special relativity) and the geometry of a passing object would appear skewed, as if rotated. By R. Penrose: "the light from the trailing part reaches the observer from behind the sphere, which it can do since the sphere is continuously moving out of its way". [2] [1]

A globe, moving at various speeds to the right, is observed from three diameters distance from its nearest point on the surface (marked by a red cross). The left image shows the globe's measured, Lorentz-contracted shape. The right image shows the visual appearance of the globe. Terrell Rotation Sphere.gif
A globe, moving at various speeds to the right, is observed from three diameters distance from its nearest point on the surface (marked by a red cross). The left image shows the globe's measured, Lorentz-contracted shape. The right image shows the visual appearance of the globe.

For images of passing objects, the apparent contraction of distances between points on the object's transverse surface could then be interpreted as being due to an apparent change in viewing angle, and the image of the object could be interpreted as appearing instead to be rotated. A previously popular description of special relativity's predictions, in which an observer sees a passing object to be contracted (for instance, from a sphere to a flattened ellipsoid), was wrong. A sphere maintains its circular outline since, as the sphere moves, light from further points of the Lorentz-contracted ellipsoid takes longer to reach the eye. [2] [1]

Terrell's and Penrose's papers prompted a number of follow-up papers, [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] mostly in the American Journal of Physics , exploring the consequences of this correction. These papers pointed out that some existing discussions of special relativity were flawed and "explained" effects that the theory did not actually predict – while these papers did not change the actual mathematical structure of special relativity in any way, they did correct a misconception regarding the theory's predictions.

A representation of the Terrell effect can be seen in the physics simulator "A Slower Speed of Light," published by MIT.

See also

References and further reading

  1. 1 2 3 Roger Penrose (1959). "The Apparent Shape of a Relativistically Moving Sphere". Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society . 55 (1): 137–139. Bibcode:1959PCPS...55..137P. doi:10.1017/S0305004100033776. S2CID   123023118.
  2. 1 2 3 James Terrell (1959). "Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction". Physical Review . 116 (4): 1041–1045. Bibcode:1959PhRv..116.1041T. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.116.1041.
  3. Anton Lampa (1924). "Wie erscheint nach der Relativitätstheorie ein bewegter Stab einem ruhenden Beobachter?". Zeitschrift für Physik (in German). 27 (1): 138–148. Bibcode:1924ZPhy...27..138L. doi:10.1007/BF01328021. S2CID   119547027.
  4. Victor F. Weisskopf (1960). "The visual appearance of rapidly moving objects". Physics Today . 13 (9): 24. Bibcode:1960PhT....13i..24W. doi:10.1063/1.3057105. S2CID   36707809.
  5. Mary L. Boas (1961). "Apparent shape of large objects at relativistic speeds". American Journal of Physics . 29 (5): 283–286. Bibcode:1961AmJPh..29..283B. doi:10.1119/1.1937751.
  6. Eric Sheldon (1988). "The twists and turns of the Terrell Effect". American Journal of Physics . 56 (3): 199–200. Bibcode:1988AmJPh..56..199S. doi:10.1119/1.15687.
  7. James Terrell (1989). "The Terrell Effect". American Journal of Physics . 57 (1): 9–10. Bibcode:1989AmJPh..57....9T. doi:10.1119/1.16131.
  8. Eric Sheldon (1989). "The Terrell Effect: Eppure si contorce!". American Journal of Physics . 57 (6): 487. Bibcode:1989AmJPh..57..487S. doi:10.1119/1.16144.
  9. John Robert Burke and Frank J. Strode (1991). "Classroom exercises with the Terrell effect". American Journal of Physics . 59 (10): 912–915. Bibcode:1991AmJPh..59..912B. doi:10.1119/1.16670.
  10. G. D. Scott and H. J. van Driel (1970). "Geometrical Appearances at Relativistic Speeds". American Journal of Physics . 38 (8): 971–977. Bibcode:1970AmJPh..38..971S. doi: 10.1119/1.1976550 .
  11. P. M. Mathews and M. Lakshmanan (1972). "On the Apparent Visual Forms of Relativistically Moving Objects". Nuovo Cimento B . 12B (11): 168–181. Bibcode:1972NCimB..12..168M. doi:10.1007/BF02895571. S2CID   118733638.
  12. G.D. Scott and M. R. Viner (1965). "The geometrical appearance of large objects moving at relativistic speeds". American Journal of Physics . 33 (7): 534–536. Bibcode:1965AmJPh..33..534S. doi:10.1119/1.1971890.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special relativity</span> Theory of interwoven space and time by Albert Einstein

In physics, the special theory of relativity, or special relativity for short, is a scientific theory of the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's 1905 treatment, the theory is presented as being based on just two postulates:

  1. The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference.
  2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of light source or observer.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Speed of light</span> Speed of electromagnetic waves in vacuum

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant that is exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second. According to the special theory of relativity, c is the upper limit for the speed at which conventional matter or energy can travel through space.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theory of relativity</span> Two interrelated physics theories by Albert Einstein

The theory of relativity usually encompasses two interrelated physics theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity, proposed and published in 1905 and 1915, respectively. Special relativity applies to all physical phenomena in the absence of gravity. General relativity explains the law of gravitation and its relation to the forces of nature. It applies to the cosmological and astrophysical realm, including astronomy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trouton–Noble experiment</span>

The Trouton–Noble experiment was an attempt to detect motion of the Earth through the luminiferous aether, and was conducted in 1901–1903 by Frederick Thomas Trouton and H. R. Noble. It was based on a suggestion by George FitzGerald that a charged parallel-plate capacitor moving through the aether should orient itself perpendicular to the motion. Like the earlier Michelson–Morley experiment, Trouton and Noble obtained a null result: no motion relative to the aether could be detected. This null result was reproduced, with increasing sensitivity, by Rudolf Tomaschek, Chase and Hayden in 1994. Such experimental results are now seen, consistent with special relativity, to reflect the validity of the principle of relativity and the absence of any absolute rest frame. The experiment is a test of special relativity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Length contraction</span> Contraction of length in the direction of propagation in Minkowski space

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. It is also known as Lorentz contraction or Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Relativistic Doppler effect</span> Scientific phenomenon

The relativistic Doppler effect is the change in frequency, wavelength and amplitude of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer, when taking into account effects described by the special theory of relativity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass–energy equivalence</span> Relativity concept expressed as E = mc²

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the relationship between mass and energy in a system's rest frame, where the two quantities differ only by a multiplicative constant and the units of measurement. The principle is described by the physicist Albert Einstein's formula: . In a reference frame where the system is moving, its relativistic energy and relativistic mass obey the same formula.

The word "mass" has two meanings in special relativity: invariant mass is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames, while the relativistic mass is dependent on the velocity of the observer. According to the concept of mass–energy equivalence, invariant mass is equivalent to rest energy, while relativistic mass is equivalent to relativistic energy.

The ladder paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity. It involves a ladder, parallel to the ground, travelling horizontally at relativistic speed and therefore undergoing a Lorentz length contraction. The ladder is imagined passing through the open front and rear doors of a garage or barn which is shorter than its rest length, so if the ladder was not moving it would not be able to fit inside. To a stationary observer, due to the contraction, the moving ladder is able to fit entirely inside the building as it passes through. On the other hand, from the point of view of an observer moving with the ladder, the ladder will not be contracted, and it is the building which will be Lorentz contracted to an even smaller length. Therefore, the ladder will not be able to fit inside the building as it passes through. This poses an apparent discrepancy between the realities of both observers.

In relativistic physics, Supplee's paradox is a physical paradox that arises when considering the buoyant force exerted on a relativistic bullet immersed in a fluid subject to an ambient gravitational field. If a bullet has neutral buoyancy when it is at rest in a perfect fluid and then it is launched with a relativistic speed, observers at rest within the fluid would conclude that the bullet should sink, since its density will increase due to the length contraction effect. On the other hand, in the bullet's proper frame it is the moving fluid that becomes denser and hence the bullet would float. But the bullet cannot sink in one frame and float in another, so there is a paradox situation.

Special relativity is a physical theory that plays a fundamental role in the description of all physical phenomena, as long as gravitation is not significant. Many experiments played an important role in its development and justification. The strength of the theory lies in its unique ability to correctly predict to high precision the outcome of an extremely diverse range of experiments. Repeats of many of those experiments are still being conducted with steadily increased precision, with modern experiments focusing on effects such as at the Planck scale and in the neutrino sector. Their results are consistent with the predictions of special relativity. Collections of various tests were given by Jakob Laub, Zhang, Mattingly, Clifford Will, and Roberts/Schleif.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Experimental testing of time dilation</span> Tests of special relativity

Time dilation as predicted by special relativity is often verified by means of particle lifetime experiments. According to special relativity, the rate of a clock C traveling between two synchronized laboratory clocks A and B, as seen by a laboratory observer, is slowed relative to the laboratory clock rates. Since any periodic process can be considered a clock, the lifetimes of unstable particles such as muons must also be affected, so that moving muons should have a longer lifetime than resting ones. A variety of experiments confirming this effect have been performed both in the atmosphere and in particle accelerators. Another type of time dilation experiments is the group of Ives–Stilwell experiments measuring the relativistic Doppler effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bell's spaceship paradox</span> Thought experiment in special relativity

Bell's spaceship paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity. It was first described by E. Dewan and M. Beran in 1959 but became more widely known after John Stewart Bell elaborated the idea further in 1976. A delicate thread hangs between two spaceships headed in the same direction. They start accelerating simultaneously and equally as measured in the inertial frame S, thus having the same velocity at all times as viewed from S. Therefore, they are all subject to the same Lorentz contraction, so the entire assembly seems to be equally contracted in the S frame with respect to the length at the start. At first sight, it might appear that the thread will not break during acceleration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wolfgang Rindler</span>

Wolfgang Rindler was a physicist working in the field of general relativity where he is known for introducing the term "event horizon", Rindler coordinates, and for the use of spinors in general relativity. An honorary member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and foreign member of the Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, he was also a prolific textbook author.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spacetime diagram</span> Graph of space and time in special relativity

A spacetime diagram is a graphical illustration of locations in space at various times, especially in the special theory of relativity. Spacetime diagrams can show the geometry underlying phenomena like time dilation and length contraction without mathematical equations.

When using the term "the speed of light" it is sometimes necessary to make the distinction between its one-way speed and its two-way speed. The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector. What can however be experimentally measured is the round-trip speed from the source to a mirror and back again to detector. Albert Einstein chose a synchronization convention that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. The constancy of the one-way speed in any given inertial frame is the basis of his special theory of relativity, although all experimentally verifiable predictions of this theory do not depend on that convention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gravitoelectromagnetism</span> Analogies between Maxwells and Einsteins field equations

Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM, refers to a set of formal analogies between the equations for electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation; specifically: between Maxwell's field equations and an approximation, valid under certain conditions, to the Einstein field equations for general relativity. Gravitomagnetism is a widely used term referring specifically to the kinetic effects of gravity, in analogy to the magnetic effects of moving electric charge. The most common version of GEM is valid only far from isolated sources, and for slowly moving test particles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tests of relativistic energy and momentum</span>

Tests of relativistic energy and momentum are aimed at measuring the relativistic expressions for energy, momentum, and mass. According to special relativity, the properties of particles moving approximately at the speed of light significantly deviate from the predictions of Newtonian mechanics. For instance, the speed of light cannot be reached by massive particles.

<i>A Slower Speed of Light</i> 2012 special relativity demonstration game

A Slower Speed of Light is a freeware video game developed by MIT Game Lab that demonstrates the effects of special relativity by gradually slowing down the speed of light to a walking pace. The game runs on the Unity engine using its open-source OpenRelativity toolkit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of special relativity and the speed of light</span>

This timeline describes the major developments, both experimental and theoretical, of: