Comments about the book "Introducing Einstein's Relativity" by Ray d'Inverno

This document contains comments about the book: "Introducing Einstein's Relativity" by Ray d'Inverno. Reprinted 1998
In the last paragraph I explain my own opinion.

Contents

Reflection

Chapter 1. The organization of the book - page 3

2. The k-calculus- page 15

2.3 Newtonian framework - page 16

An event intuitivily means something happening in a fairly limited region of space and for a short duration in time.
From a physical point this includes also any measurement happening at a certain position and time. A duration is considered as two events.
Mathematically, we idealize this concept to become a point in space and an instant in time

Page 17 

  Time
   ^ 
   t8               |
   t7              . 
   |            .
   t6         .
   t5        |               
   t4        |                            
   t3       .
   t2     . 
   t1    |
   t0----P---Q------R
We can illustrate this in the following way: for simplicity let us assume that the motion takes place in a straight line; then we can represent the motion by a space-time diagram (Fig 2,2) in which we plot the position of some fixed point on the train, which we represent by a pointer, against time.
Fig 2.2 shows the movement of a train
Each point of the continuous plotted line is an event
The train is at rest at P, during the intervals (t0-t1) at PQ during (t4-t5) and after t8 at R
The train moves and undergoes accelaration during the intervals (t2-t3) at during (t6-t7)

It is important to consider that each observer involved, should observe the same events and should draw the same plot.

One of the central assumptions of the Newtonian framework is that two observers will, once they have synchronized their clocks, always agree about the time of an event, irrespective of their relative motion.
The question is, how are different clocks synchronized. An even more important question is how is a clock on earth synchronized with a clock on the moon.
A related question is: What is the time of an event? This question implies that each event happens at a specific moment and independent of the observers.
This implies that for all observers time is an absolute concept.
This is an empty sentence, if there is not something like relative time.
Newton's mechanics assumes that all clocks in use have the same time and run synchronized. This is for example true for all clocks in use in the universe
in particular all observers can agree on an origin of time.
That is true.
We shall refer to an observer's clock, ruler, and coordinate axes as a frame of reference
Then an observer is able to coordinatize events, that is determine the time t an event occurs and its relative position (x,y,z).
How do you do that in detail? How do you establish that an event which happens at position (x,y,z) happens at time t. How do you establish that an event which happens at time t, happens at position (x,y,z). My understanding is that you need a large grid an many clocks.

2.4 Galilean transformations - page 17

Now, realtivity theory is concerned with the way different observers see the same phenomena.
All observers will observe the same phenomena different. For example, an observer at the moon will observe the state of the Big Ben in Londen, at present, different than an observer in front of the Big Ben.
One can ask: are the laws of physics the same for all observers or are there prefered states etc.
For any specific experiment their exists only one detailed description of what has happened. This implies that if an experiment is performed twice (identical) the description is the same.
N1: Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces acting on it
Consider two bodies at rest at the origin of a reference frame.
When a force acts on body B in the x direction than body B will start to move in the x direction and the speed will increase, untill the force is removed. There after body B will continue in a straight line with a constant speed.
Thus there exists a privileged set of bodies, namely those not acted on by forces.
In the whole of the univers no such objects exist.
The frame of reference of a co-moving observer is called an inertial frame (Fig 2.4).
My understanding of an inertial frame is a frame on which no forces are acting. Such a frame does not exist .

Page 18

Fig 2.4 Two observed bodies and their inertial frames.

Fig 2.4 shows two inertial frames.
  • One frame with the coordinates(x,y,z) and a clock identified as t.
  • a second frame with the coordinates(x',y',z') and a clock identified as t'. This frame has a speed v.

The question is how is this speed defined/measured. In which frame ?

Fig 2.5 Two frames in standard configuration at time t.

Fig 2.5 shows two inertial frames.
  • One frame with the coordinates(x,y,z) and a clock identified as t.
  • a second frame with the coordinates(x',y',z') and a clock identified as t'. This frame has a speed v along the x' axis. The x axis of both frames are in the same direction.

The question is how is this speed v defined/measured in the (x',y',z') frame. See below

We also assume that the observers synchronize their clocks so that the origins of time are set when the origins of their the frames coincide.
My understanding is that both relative moving clocks are reset when they meet, and that there after they stay synchronized. That means they both indicate the same time (counts)
It follows from Fig 2.5 that the Galilean transformation connecting the two frames is given by
x = x' + vt y = y' z = z' t = t' (2.1)

2.5 The principle of special relativity - page 18

This means that, if one inertial observer carries out some dynamical experiment and discovers a physical law, then any other inertial observer performing the same experiments must discover the same law.
This is tricky.
Put another way these laws must be invariant under a Galilean transformation.
That maybe is true, but does that say anything about the experiment itself? about the physical process involved? I doubt that.
In Newtonian theory, we cannot determine the absolute position in space of an event, but only its position relative to some other event.
This is an unlucky description of Newtonian theory. Newton's main discussion is about forces. When the sum of all the forces is zero than the speed (and direction) of an object stays the same *. When this is not the case the speed (and direction) of an object will change. (*) or be at rest.
Thus both position and velocity are relative concepts.
This sentence is empty. No content.
Einstein realized that the principle as stated above is empty because there is no such thing as a purely dynamical experiment.
The issue are the physical process and these processes are dynamic i.e. changing in time.
Even on every elementary level any dynamical experiment we think of performing involves observation, i.e. looking and looking is part of optics not dynamics.
That is why you should try to describe of processes all purely from the physical point of view and remove the step of looking i.e. human observations.
Postulte I. Principle of special relativity
All inertial observers are equivalent
But this does not say anything about the physical processes involved.

2.6. The constancy of the velocity of light - page 19

However the approach of the k-calculus is to dispense with the rigid ruler and use radar methods for measuring distances.
The use of a rigid ruler is not very practical, specific if you want to measure distances in space. However rigid rulers have one big advantage: You can measure distances simultaneous and that is when you use light signals not the case.
What is rigidity anyway? If a moving frame appears non-rigid in another frame, which, if either is the rigid one?
Tricky sentence
IMO a frame along a straight track defines a rigid frame. A train on that track also.
Thus an observer measures the distance of an object by sending out a light signal which is reflected off the object and received back by the observer.
This sentence should mention the implication if the inner working of the clock used, also involves lightsignals.

2.7. The k-factor - page 20

Let us assume we have two observers A at rest and B moving away from A with uniform constant speed.
It is tricky to use the word observers. In real it is one object A at rest and object B moving.
However you can also claim that B is at rest and A is moving.
Then in a space-time diagram the worldline of A will be represented by a vertical straight line and the worldline of B by a straightline at an angle to A's as shown in Fig 2.6
It is easy to make such a sketch, but this is very difficult to draw an accurate one based on observations. 
  Time
   ^ 
   t8               |
   t7              . 
   t6          .
   t5        |               
   t4        |                            
   t3       .
   t2     . 
   t1    |
   0-----P---Q----

  Time
   ^     |A      /B
   +3    |       .
   |     |      /
   +2    |      .
   |     |     /
   +1    |     . 
   |     |    /
   0--------------
The problem is in the units of the time axis. The Time axis shows the time in days. +1 is at day 1, +2 is at day 2 etc
The line A is simple because object A is supposed to be at rest.
Line B is much more complex. To draw this line you can send out each day a flash and monitor the reflection. When you send at t0 and you receive at t1 than the total duration of the signal is t1-t0. The maximum distance is at (t0+t1)/2 and the distance is (t1-t0)/2 * c. This calculation requires that the speed of light is c in both directions and that the line A is in "absolute" rest.

2.8. Relative speed of two inertial observers - page 21

Hence, if v is the velocity of B relative to A we find
v = x/t = (k^2-1)/(k^2+1)

2.9 Composition law for velocities - page 22

2.10 Relativity of Simulatneity - page 23

Imagine a train travelling along a straight track with velocity v relative to an onbserver A on the bank of the track.
How is this velocity v measured? v as a function of c?
in the train, B is an observer situated at the center of one of the carriages.
Okay
We assume that there are two electrical devices on the track which are the length of the carriage apart and equidistant from A.
It is also assumed that this is the situation when the train is at rest.
When the carriage containing B goes over these devices, they fire and activate two light sources situated at each end of the carriage (Fig 2.13)
Okay
From the configuration, it is clear that A will judge that the two events, when the light sources first switch on, occur simultaneous.
However B is travelling towards the light emanating from light source 2 and away from the light emanating from light source 1.
Since the speed of light is a constant, B will observe the light from source 2 before observing the light from source 1, and so will conclude that one light source is turned on before the other i.e. these are non-simulataneous events.
This cannot physical be the case considering a universal point of view.
The problem is that also both A and B can be wrong.
  • The only thing that is true that definitely both observers cannot claim that they both observe the two lights simultaneous but.
  • At the best one observer can claim that he or she observes the light simultaneous.
  • Most probably both are wrong in interpreting about what actual happened. The problem is that what each observes (sees) is not what has actual happened.
See Reflection 1 - relativity of simultaneity What makes this whole experiment more complicated is the issue if, in the moving train, physical length contraction can be involved. See also: Clock and Centrifuge

2.11. The clock paradox - page 24

The moral is that in SR time is a more difficult concept to work with than the absolute time of Newton.
Newton does not use the concept of absolute time nor absolute space. He somehow uses the concepts of time and space and uses somehow only one reference frame. Within that frame everywhere the speed of light is c. I'am specific writing somehow because he only considers the solar system as his reference frame.

2.12. The Lorentz transformations- page 25

Let event P have coordinates (t,x) relative to A and (t',x') relative to B (Fig 2.17)
How do you know that?

3. The key attributes of special relativity- page 29

3.1 Standard derivation of the Lorentz transformations- page 29

4. The elements of relativistic mechanics- page 42

5. Tensor algebra - page 55

9. The principles of general relativity - page 120

9.1 The role of physical principles- page 120

9.2 Mach's principle- page 121

Let's us ask another fundamental question. If Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames, then how do we detect inertial frames.
The question is more: If Newton's laws are only valid in certain frames and not in others how do we detect in which type of frame we are? (In the sense that Newton's law is valid.
Newton realized that this is a fundamental question and attempted to answer it by devising an ingenious thought experiment - the famous bucket experiment.
This whole problem is related to the question: who is at rest? the moving train or the platform i.e. the Earth.?
The most obvious answer is: the Earth.
The next question is: who is at rest? the Earth or the Sun?
He first of all postulated the existence of absolute space: 'Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable'
To define a concept 'absolute space' makes only sense if there is also something as 'space'. Space is considered by definition as empty
An inertial observer then becomes an observer at rest or in uniform motion relative to absolute space.
The difference is impossible to establish.

14. The Schwarzschild solution- page 180

15. Experimental tests of general relativity.- page 192

15.2 Classical Kepler motion- page 192

This paragraph shows 4 specific equations:
15.7, 15.10, 15,11 and 15,12.
All these 4 equations are simulated in the VB program "VB Mercury numerical"
To observe the results select this link: VB Mercury numerical

15.3 Advance of the perihelion of Mercury- page 195

We now look at the one-body problem in general relativity. We asssume that the central massive body produces a spherically symmetric gravitational field.
The appropriate solution in general relativity is then the Schwarzschild solution. Moreover a test particle moves on a time
It is easy to understand that the reality of the solar system is much more complex.
Moreover, a test particle moves on a timelike geodesic, and so we begin by studying some of the geodesics of the Schwarzschild solution.
To understand the first sentence the definition of a timelike geodesic should be thoroughly understood, other wise it 'explains' nothing.
Also here the reality of the planet Mercury versus the Sun is more complex than a testparticle versus the Sun.
In Newtonian mechanics both objects are considered as spherical. This means that they are pointlike with all the mass at one point, That is already a hugh simplification.

15.6 Time delay of light- page 204

The idea is to use radar methods to measure the time travel of a light signal in a gravitational field.
That is a very good idea
Because space-time is curved in the presence of a gravitational field, this travel time is greater than it would be in flat space, and the difference can be tested experimentally.
In a more general way, this experiment tests the influence of a gravitational field.
In both Fig. 15.13 one, and Fig. 15.13.1 four of these paths of the light ray are drawn at 4 different locations of the Planet.
We could use our solution (15.42) but since we are only going to work in the first order in m/r it is sufficient to take the straight-line approximation.
The situation showing solution (15.42) is depicted in Fig 15.6. In Fig 15.6 the line is bended. In Fig 15.13 the line is straight.
A more detailed explanation is required 


                  p1                                 

            P2                   
                     
                    
         P3         
                  x3           
                                         

       P4         S                         E  
              Fig. 15.13
Fig. 15.13 A light ray travelling from a planet to the Earth in the Sun's gravitational field. 

                  p1x1               

             P2   x2                   
                     
                  x3  
         P3         
                  x4         

                                         
       P4         S                         E  
              Fig. 15.13.1
Fig.15.13.1 Shows 4 light rays travelling from a planet to the Earth in the Sun's gravitational field.
Fig 15.13 in the book shows 1 lightray. The ligtray follows the path E,x3,p3,x3 and back to E. The path is not bended.
The modified version Fig 15.13.1 shows 4 lightrays at t1,t2,t3 and t4. 'Each' path is bended.
  • A light ray at t1 following the path E,x1,p1,x1 and back to E
  • A light ray at t2 following the path E,x2,p2,x2 and back to E
  • A light ray at t3 following the path E,x3,p3,x3 and back to E
  • A light ray at t4 following the path E,x4,p4,x4 and back to E

The experimental verification of the delay consists of sending pulsed radar signals from the Earth to Venus and Mercury and timing the echoes as the positions of the Earth and the planet change relative to the Sun.
I doubt if this is the correct description of the experiment.
What I expect is that a pulsed radar signal is send from Earth to a planet. This signal is reflected and measured back on Earth. That means both the moments t1 when the pulse is emitted and the moment t2 when the pulse is received are measured.
See Also: Reflection 3 - Shapiro time Delay
For Venus, the measured delay is about 200 micro-sec, which gives an agreement with the theoretical prediction of better than 5%.
As said before, this sentence does not give enough detail about the experiment.
It should be mentioned again that the most important is the physical details of the experiment i.e. measurements peformed. The mathematics or the theory behind the experiment comes second. See also Reflection 4 - Shapiro time delay versus speed of light
  • 23.3 Classification of Friedmann models

    23. Cosmological models.- page 331

    23.3 Classification of Friedmann models- page 335

    Case I: k=-1

    All of these models have open topology
    Okay

    Case II: k=0

    All of these models have open topology
    (i) Lambda > 0 This is identical in character to the Case I: k=0, again possessing a kink and assymptotically approaching exp^(f(Lambda)*t)
    This is the current most accepted model.
    For the parameters see this link:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209 Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters See page 69

    23.18 The anthropic principle - page 356

    Cosmology is based on the cosmological principle which is a simplicity principle leading to a smooth out universe, namely one which is homogeneous and isotropic.
    The problem is that this statement looks likes a definition, consisting of (unclear) concepts, which by definition is true.
    But why is the universe so smooth?
    The universe is the way it is. You could also call it non-smooth.
    One answer is that if we are to exist then it could hardly be otherwise.
    That is just one opinion.
    This is an example of The anthropic principle: which in simple terms, states the following:
    The anthropic principle: we see the universe the way it is because we exist
    My understanding is, that the evolution of the universe has nothing to do with us, we humans.
    The principle comes in two versions, the weak and the strong, which we consider in turn.
    Okay
    The weak anthropic principle: the conditions for the development of life are only met in certain regions of the universe.
    That is definite true.
    Most probably these regions resemble the conditions on earth.

    Page 357

    The strong anthropic principle: the conditions for the development of life are only met in a few universes.
    The concept universes is pure speculation.
    The anthropic principle can also be used to throw light on whether the three arrows of time agree or not.
    What has the second part to do with the first
    These are
    • the thermodynamic arrow (as expressed in the idea that disorder or entropy is always increasing
    • psychological time (as perceived by humans)
    • and cosmological time (world time)
    1. My understanding that the concepts like order or disorder can not be used as a reliable concept throughout the universe at a specific moment.
    2. My understanding that the concept time (as perceived by humans) can not be used as a reliable concept throughout the universe at a specific moment.
    3. My understanding is that cosmological time is the time at present since the big bang.
      This time is measured by one clock at rest in the universe, and is valid for the whole of the universe.
      My understanding is also that each event in the universe should be measured by this clock.

    Index

    Event page 16
    Frame of reference page 17
    Inertial frame page 17
    Shapiro page 204, Ref 4
    Universe page 198, Ref 2
    World time page 325

    Reflection 1 - Relativity of simultaneity.

    The first question to answer is: is it possible that two events happening at different locations are simultaneous events. IMO the answer is Yes. At the same time most events that have happened, are happening or will happen are not simultaneous events.
    For example: different events happening at the same position, in sequence, are definitely not simultaneous events. In fact each event can be caused by a previous event.
    The real problem is that in general it is difficult by one observer to decide if different events are simultaneous or not. The fact that he observes two events simultaneous, does not mean that they are simultaneous.

    To decide if events are simultaneous you need a coordinate system, or better a grid, with at equally spaced distances a clock. All the clocks should be synchronised.

    Reflection 2 - Speed of light versus speed of gravity

    Studying this book about gravity, specific how the movements of objects influence each other, it is important to make a clear difference between the speed of light and the speed of gravity.

    In the next paragraph the concept one world view is introduced. The concept one world view means that at every moment of the physical existance of the universe all the objects in the universe have a specific state and all the events happening at that moment are simultaneous events. That means neither of these events, for example collisions between objects, can influence each other. To be more specific two specific collisions, involving 4 objects, which happened simultaneous can never influence each other. Event A can only influence Event B if event A happened before Event B.

    Assuming we accept a one world view about the state of the universe:

    • The speed of light is important, because, in order to calculate the actual position of an event, based on the position from which the event was detected (for example a collision between two objects, or in general any observation of an object, observed from earth) the speed of light has to be taken into account.
    • The speed of gravity is important because, when there is a collision between two objects in space, to calculate when this collision influences us i.e. an observer on earth, the speed of gravity has to be taken into account.
      Also this requires a one world view approach based on the ideas when the events actual happend and when they are observed.
    It is important to remark that the speed of light and the speed of gravity are physical two complete different concepts. The speed of light is a much more complex concept because the path that a light rays follows, is influenced by the masses in its immediate environment.
    The path that gravity follows is not influenced by any mass and propagates in a sphere around the original source in straight lines. The strength of this field can flutuate for example when two objets are involved.

    Reflection 3 - Shapiro time delay

    The Shapiro effect involves two important phenomena:
    • A change in reflection angle of the light path
    • A Change in arriving time of the reflected signal
    To measure this a pulsed radar signal is send from Earth to a planet. This signal is reflected back towards Earth and measured on Earth. That means both the moments t1 when the pulse is emitted and the moment t2 when the pulse is received are measured.
    In principle this measurement should involve one complete revolution of the planet.
    Suppose that the trajectory of the planet is a circle.
    When the planet is in front of the Sun the path of the light ray is not disturbed by the (gravity field) of the Sun. When the planet is at the back of the Sun the path of the light ray is mostly not disturbed by the the Sun, except when the planet comes the furtest away from the Earth. This is region when Planet, Sun and Earth are almost on one line.
    This is the situation sketched in Fig. 15.13.1
    In Fig 15.13 (in the book) The path from E to P3 and back to E is a straight line and not bended. This is okay when the position of Planet, Sun and Earth are not in one line, but not when they are almost in one line. This is also very important for a mathematical description of this phenomena.

    The experiment should be performed in such a way that over a long period 'every hour' both t1 and t2 should be measured and t2 should be compared with a situation when the gravitational field has no influence.
    Unfortunate that information is not supplied.
    In a second part t2 should be compared with a theoretical value. For example GR or Newton's Law. Also that information is not supplied.

    How ever there is a much more bassic problem. The Spahiro effect is bassicaly a physical effect and involves the behaviour of the path of a light ray very close to an object which also emits light. That means a lot of physical interaction can be involved which can influence this path. The question is in what respect both laws describe this possible interaction. One thing is for sure for both laws and that is that gravity influences the behaviour of the light path of the light ray. One thing that is not know and that is: to what extent light rays emitted by the Sun influence the artificial light rays emitted from earth and reflected by the planet. This is a physical issue.

    Reflection 4 - Shapiro time delay versus speed of light

    The Shapiro effect involves two steps:
    • First to demonstrate the time delay i.e. to demonstrate that the reflection time is not symmetric. That means is not what is theoretical expected when the light ray passes the Sun at close distance. This happens when the planet is behind the Sun and not in front of Sun, observed from the point of view of the Earth.
    • Secondly to quantify this behaviour. This requires the speed of light.
    The problem IMO is that Fig 15.13 at page 205 in the book is 'wrong'. The reflected path of the light ray from the Planet towards Earth is drawn as a straight line, and that is wrong? The path should be bended.
    In Fig 15.13, the line going from P3 towards Earth is also straight. In Fig 15.13.1, the line going from P3 towards Earth is bended. The same for all the 3 points P2, P3 and P4. The line from P1 towards point E is straight. Figure 15.13.1 is highly exaggerated.
    How much bending is involved is different for each light ray. The line p2,x2,E is bended the least. The line p4,x4,E is bended the most. The cause of this bending is physical. There could be two reasons:
    • The first reason that the light ray consists of photons and each photon has energy and has mass. This mass is attracted towards the mass of the Sun and as a consequence the path is bended.
    • The second reason is that the Sun also emits photons. In fact the photon 'field' emitted by the Sun is much stronger than de photon 'field' embedded in the light ray and original emitted from Earth.
    • What is also important is that this bending is happening twice. First when the light ray travels towards the planet and secondly, after reflection when the light ray travels back towards Earth.
    What this means, capsulating, is that the bending is very complex physical process.
    How closer the Planet, the Sun and the earth are on one line, how more bending is involved.

    My estimate is that the speed of the light ray will be effected in both directions, but they will cancel out, meaning that the overall influence will be less.
    To assume that the speed of light is physical everywhere the same is wrong. To make things simple as part of mathematical considerations is okay. The most important part lies in the details of the actual measurements involved.

    Feedback

    If you want to give a comment you can use the following form Comment form
    Created: 22 August 2017
    Updated: 9 July 2021.

    Go Back to Book and Article Review
    Back to my home page Index