arxiv:hep-ph/ Feb 2001

Transcription

1 MG P /5 To appear in the Aerican Journal of Physics The Thoas rotation John P. Costella, Bruce H. J. McKellar, and Andrew A. Rawlinson School of Physics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 35, Australia arxiv:hep-ph/44 Feb Gerard J. Stephenson, Jr. Departent of Physics and Astronoy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 873 (February, ) Abstract We review why the Thoas rotation is a crucial facet of special relativity, that is just as fundaental, and just as unintuitive and paradoxical, as such traditional effects as length contraction, tie dilation, and the abiguity of siultaneity. We show how this phenoenon can be quite naturally introduced and investigated in the context of a typical introductory course on special relativity, in a way that is appropriate for, and copletely accessible to, undergraduate students. We also deonstrate, in a ore advanced section aied at the graduate student studying the Dirac equation and relativistic quantu field theory, that careful consideration of the Thoas rotation will becoe vital as odern experients in particle physics continue to ove fro unpolarized to polarized cross-sections. I. Introduction Recently, a nuber of the current authors have reviewed how aspects of relativistic quantu echanics can be appreciated fro the point of view of relativistic classical echanics. In Ref., the Foldy Wouthuysen transforation was reviewed, where it was ephasized that any of the operators of the Dirac equation becoe, after transforation, copletely recognizable fro the point of view of classical physics. In Ref., the Feynan Stueckelberg forulation of antiparticles was reviewed, entirely within the doain of classical echanics, and it was ephasized that one can ake good sense of antiparticle otion without needing to resort to quantu echanical arguents. In extending these ideas to the doain of quantu field theory, we have found that there is a third aspect of classical relativistic echanics that is of crucial theoretical and practical iportance, but which rates scarcely a ention in ost textbooks on special relativity: the Thoas rotation. (In the case of a continuous evolution of infinitesial rotations, this effect is usually referred to as the Thoas precession; but we are here ainly concerned with the ore general case of a single, finite rotation.) Historically, the relativeobscurityof thiseffect can, perhaps, be traced to the fact that the special theory of relativity was two decades old before Thoas ade his discovery. Pais s suary of events 3 is instructive:

2 Twenty years later [after his seinal 95 paper on special relativity], Einstein heard soething about the Lorentz group that greatly surprised hi. It happened while he was in Leiden. In October 95 George Eugene Uhlenbeck and Sauel Goudsit had discovered the spin of the electron and thereby explained the occurrence of the alkali doublets, but for a brief period it appeared that the agnitude of the doublet splitting did not coe out correctly. Then Llewellyn Thoas supplied the issing factor,, now known as the Thoas factor. Uhlenbeck told e that he did not understand a word of Thoas s work when it first cae out. I reeber that, when I first heard about it, it seeed unbelievable that a relativistic effect could give a factor of instead of soething of order v/c... Even the cognoscenti of the relativity theory (Einstein included!) were quite surprised. At the heart of the Thoas precession lies the fact that a Lorentz transforation with velocity v followed by a second one with velocity v in a different direction does not lead to the sae inertial frae as one single Lorentz transforation with the velocity v + v. (It took Pauli a few weeks before he grasped Thoas s point.) It sees rearkable but, according to the above account, undeniable that neither Einstein nor Pauli cae across the Thoas rotation before 95. However, the effect we now call the Thoas rotation was known before Thoas s paper. The early history has been traced by Ungar. 4 Now, ost textbooks on special relativity follow the extraordinarily clear exposition of the theory given by Einstein in his seinal paper. Unfortunately, this has eant that little or no attention has usually been given to the Thoas effect, which has generally been relegated to a brief ention in textbooks on quantu echanics and atoic structure. As far as we are aware, the best treatent of the Thoas precession in a textbook still in print is arguably that contained in Jackson s book on classical electrodynaics. 5 A siilar discussion is given in Goldstein, 6 who ephasizes the coplexity of the general calculations. This coplexity is inhibiting to both the writers and the readers of the textbooks. That the Thoas rotation, or precession, still puzzles students and their teachers can be discerned fro the pages of this journal. In Question #57, MacKeown 7 asks... is said to introduce a velocity independent constant factor. Can any siple, convincing, arguent be given for this? Ungar 4 and Goedecke 8 have countered the coplexity by introducing new foraliss, a weakly associative-coutative groupoid by Ungar, and the tetrad foralis by Goedecke. While they offer useful insights, and ephasise the Thoas rotation, they are not well suited to the introductory course. Muller 9 (in the Appendix) and Philpott (to introduce the ain point of his paper) give derivations of the Thoas precession which are related to the present one. But we believe that the straightforward treatent below, and its ephasis on Thoas rotation, offers conceptual and pedagogical advantages which ake it suitable to an introductory course. In this paper, we show how an instructive, eleentary, and intriguing discussion of the Thoas rotation can be grafted on to any standard introductory course on special relativity. As prerequisite we assue nothing ore than the standard expression for a Lorentz boost along the x-axis of a syste of coordinates. For siplicity, we also ake use of the energy oentu four-vector, as well as atrix ultiplication, although such references could be deleted if thought necessary, albeit at the expense of rendering the algebra a little less transparent. (The widespread availability of calculators and coputer progras capa-

3 ble of atrix ultiplication eans that the coplexities of the following calculations can be drastically iniized by the use of atrix notation leaving ore tie for the conteplation of the physical results.) These preliinaries are covered in Sec. II. In Sec. III, we show how these siple building blocks can be put together to create a sequence of intriguing and copletely counterintuitive paradoxes. This aterial could be presented alost verbati in any introductory course on special relativity. Sec. IV provides full solutions and explanations of these eleentary Thoas rotation paradoxes, and general expressions are derived for the Thoas rotation in arbitrary cases. In Sec. V, we provide a further paradox in the context of the polarization properties of the scattering of a Dirac particle. This exaple is ore advanced, in that it presues failiarity with at least an introductory level of quantu field theory; and thus it would not usually be appropriate for an introductory course on special relativity. On the other hand, this exaple is arguably uch ore practically iportant than the others, in that it shows that real-life calculations of scattering cross-sections can be copletely erroneous if due regard is not taken of this subtle facet of relativistic kineatics. Sec. VI provides a full solution of this paradox. Finally, Sec. VII suarizes our conclusions. II. Preliinaries In this section we review those features of special relativity which we would assue to have been taught in an introductory course before the discussion of Thoas rotation, to set the scene and to establish our notation. Throughout this paper, we shall use a naturalized set of units, in which c =. To convert any expression to SI units, one need siply replace t by ct, v by v/c, E by E/c, and p by p/c. (Boldface denotes a three-vector.) In Secs. V and VI we shall also use units in which h =. The Lorentz transforation fro a frae S with coordinates (t, x, y, z), to a frae S, oving with respect to S with a velocity v along the x-axis, in which the coordinates are (t,x,y,z ), is t = γ(t vx), x = γ(x vt), y = y, z = z, () where γ v. () This transforation, written in atrix notation, is t γ γv x y γv γ z t x y z. (3) 3

4 We shall denote the atrix that effects this boost by velocity v in the x-direction as B x (v): γ γv γv γ B x (v). (4) Clearly, a boost by velocity v in the y-direction or in the z-direction would be effected by γ γv γ γv B y (v) γv γ, B z(v). (5) γv γ The energy oentu four-vector, p µ = E p x p y p z, (6) shall play a key role in our analysis. A particle of ass, at rest in a syste of coordinates, has E = and p =. If we boost our syste of coordinates by the velocity v in the x-direction (so that, relative to this new syste of coordinates, the particle has velocity +v in the x-direction), then the application of B x ( v) yields E p x p y p z γ γv γv γ γ γv This iplies that the x-velocity of the particle can be extracted fro the coponents p µ of its four-oentu by coputing the ratio p x /E. Since the x-direction is arbitrary, the iediate generalization to a particle oving with velocity v in any direction is. v = p E. (7) To obtain the law for the coposition of two velocities v and v in the sae direction, we ay siply apply B x ( v ) followed by B x ( v ) to a particle at rest: γ γ ( + v v ) B x ( v ) B x ( v ) γ γ (v + v ). (8) (In this and subsequent equations we shall take it to be understood that the four coponents of the colun vector refer to the coponents of the four-oentu.) On using (7), Eq. (8) yields v x = v + v +v v, (9) 4

5 naely, the standard result. It will be noted that the sae result would have been obtained if we had applied B x ( v )firstandb x ( v ) second: boosts in the sae direction coute. III. Soe eleentary Thoas rotation paradoxes Let us now apply the results obtained in Sec. II to soe hypothetical aneuvers of the USS Enterprise under ipulse power. In the following, the syste of coordinates being considered is that of an observer on board the bridge of the Enterprise. Let us assue that the Enterprise begins at rest relative to soe particular star. We ignore gravitational effects, so that if the Enterprise were to not fire any thrusters, then it would reain at rest relative to the star. Let us now apply a boost to the Enterprise by soe velocity v in the x-direction, and follow it by a boost by the velocity v, again in the x-direction. We expect that the net effect on the velocity of the Enterprise would be zero: it would ove in the x-direction during the aneuver (by what distance is of no interest to us here), but at the end of the aneuver it would again be at rest relative to the star. We can confir this by considering the effect of applying B x (v )andthenb x ( v ) on, say, the coponents of the four-oentu of the star, as observed fro the Enterprise. If the star has the ass, then a straightforward calculation verifies that B x ( v ) B x (v ), and indeed B x ( v ) B x (v )=I, wherei is the identity atrix. (In perforing these calculations, and those that follow, it is useful to replace even powers of v, wherever they occur, by eans of the identity v γ, () which can be derived fro the definition ().) We can perfor the sae aneuver in the y-direction: naely, B y ( v ) B y (v ) and B y ( v ) B y (v )=I, again as expected. Having thus verified the action of our thrusters in the x- andy-directions, by eans of these four boosts, let us now try another test aneuver, by ixing the order of these boosts. Naely, let us apply B x (v ), followed by B y (v ), then B x ( v ), and finally B y ( v ). Again, we expect that the star will be at rest, relative to the Enterprise, at the end of the, 5

6 aneuver. However, if we perfor the calculations, then (after soe algebra) we find + (γ +)(γ ) 3 B y ( v ) B x ( v ) B y (v ) B x (v ) γ (γ )v γ (γ )( γ + γ +)v. () Soething has gone wrong! Instead of ending up with the star at rest, we find that it is now drifting. What has happened? One can repeat and check the algebraic calculations above as any ties and in as any ways as one wishes; but the result () is not a coputational error. We can check its self-consistency by noting that, for any four-oentu of a particle of ass, theidentity p µ p µ E p = should be satisfied as it indeed is for the coponents listed in (). Moreover, if one siply changes the order of the final two boosts in (), then one finds B x ( v ) B y ( v ) B y (v ) B x (v ) which would be unlikely to be true had we ade any trivial error in coputing any of the boost atrices. Let us therefore try to find out where our intuition has led us astray in the calculation (), by breaking it down into saller parts. We already know what happens to the coponents of the four-oentu of a particle, originally at rest, when we subject our syste of coordinates to a single Lorentz boost, so let us consider instead the effect of the first two boosts in (), naely, B x (v ) followed by B y (v ). If we stop our calculation at this point, we find B y (v ) B x (v ), γ γ v γ v. () Now, sincewehaveboostedtheenterprise in the positive-x and positive-y directions, we expect that the star will be oving (relative to the Enterprise) with a negative velocity in the x- andy-directions; and this is borne out by the result (). However, we are surprised to find that the x- andy-velocities are not equal, despite us boosting the Enterprise by the sae velocity v in each direction! Indeed, aking use of the relation (7) with the coponents () of p µ, we find that the coponents of the three-velocity of the star, relative to the Enterprise, aregivenby v x = v γ, v y = v. (3) Thus, the second (y) boost has been fully effective but it has, in the process, reduced the velocity of the first (x) boost. Let us put this unexpected asyetry to one side, for the oent, and return to our first perplexing result, naely, the nonzero velocity represented by Eq. (). We have found 6

7 that the application of B x (v )andthenb y (v )totheenterprise leads to the star having the velocity coponents (3) (relative to the Enterprise). Let us now consider the final two boosts in Eq. (), naely, B x ( v ) followed by B y ( v ). Instead of applying the after the first two boosts, let us instead apply the to the original Enterprise, which was at rest relative to the star. The effect of these two boosts on the coponents of the four-oentu of the star, in this odified scenario, would be B y ( v ) B x ( v ) leading to the velocity coponents γ γ v γ v, (4) v x = v, v y = v. (5) γ Thus, coparing (3) and (5), we find that applying B x ( v )andthenb y ( v )results in the exact opposite velocity to that obtained by applying B x (v )andthenb y (v ). (We would, of course, expect that this would be the case but, given the probles we are having, it is essential to ensure that we do not ake intuitive assuptions without testing the atheatically.) We now find that our original result, Eq. (), has not been clarified in the least. For we have shown that our sequence of four boosts can be broken down into a boost by the velocity coponents (3) (let us, for definiteness, refer to this three-velocity as v xy ), followed by a boost by the velocity coponents (5) (naely, v xy ). But surely Einstein s very derivation of the Lorentz transforation guarantees us that a boost by any velocity v, followed by a boost by v, ust return us to the original inertial frae? How, then, can we ake any sense of the result (), which sees to iply that B( v xy ) B(v xy ) I? (6) Let us, again, put this proble to one side, and instead try the following tack: What if we were to perfor four boosts, again in the +x, +y, x, and y directionsrespectively,but now adjusting the agnitude of each boost velocity so as to aintain soe sort of control over the resultant overall velocity? Let us again start with a boost by velocity v in the positive-x direction: B x (v ) γ γ v We now apply a boost by soe velocity v (not equal to v )inthepositive-y direction: γ γ B y (v ) B x (v ) γ v γ γ v. 7.

8 Let us now adjust v so that the overall velocity has equal coponents in the x- andydirections (as was our original intention). We can do this by ensuring that p x and p y are equal naely, by insisting that γ v = v. After soe algebra, one finds that this is satisfied for v = γ v γ, γ = γ γ, (7) so that B y (v ) B x (v ) γ γ v γ v. Let us now apply a boost by velocity v in the negative-x direction: γ ( γ γ v v ) B x ( v ) B y (v ) B x (v ) γ (γ v v γ ) γ v. We can use this third boost to reduce the x-coponent of the velocity to zero by choosing v = v = γ v γ, yielding B x ( v ) B y (v ) B x (v ) γ γ v. Finally, it is evident that we can apply the fourth boost by the original velocity v in the negative-y direction, resulting in B y ( v ) B x ( v ) B y (v ) B x (v ) We finally see to have found a sequence of four boosts, in the +x,+y, x,and y directions respectively, that returns the Enterprise to a state of rest relative to the star at the end of the aneuver: naely, the sequence of boosts B y ( v ) B x ( v ) B y (v ) B x (v ) (8) 8.

9 together with the relation (7) between v and v. Let us now go back in tie to our original Enterprise, at rest relative to the nearby star. The crew of the Enterprise had noted that there was a shuttlecraft, of ass s, oving with velocity v s in the positive-x direction; in other words, the coponents of its four-oentu, relative to the Enterprise, were p µ = s γ s s γ s v s. (9) What happens to the coponents of the four-oentu of the shuttlecraft after the sequence of boosts (8)? We would expect that they like those of the star would be unchanged. However, if we perfor the calculations, we find that B y ( v ) B x ( v ) B y (v ) B x (v ) s γ s s γ s v s s γ s s γ s v s γ /γ s γ s v s ( /γ ). () We can t see to take a trick! Even though the sequence of boosts (8) has left the velocity of the star unchanged, relative to the Enterprise, it has changed the velocity of the shuttlecraft. But how can this be possible? IV. Solutions to the eleentary paradoxes Let us now discover the fallacies contained in the paradoxes described above. We shall begin by unraveling our chain of arguents, starting with the final paradox, and working our way back to the first. By this stage, the reasons for each paradox will be clear. We shall coplete this section by listing general expressions for the Thoas rotation in arbitrary cases. We begin with the result () for the final four-oentu of the shuttlecraft. We were surprised to find that it differed fro the four-oentu (9) of the shuttlecraft prior to the sequence of boosts. However, on closer inspection, we find that the result is not total chaos. In particular, the energy of the shuttlecraft has not changed. This, in turn, iplies that its speed is also unchanged in other words, the final velocity has the sae agnitude as the original velocity, but it has been rotated in space. We can confir this by using Pythagoras s theore to find the resultant of the coponents v x and v y in (); and we indeed find that its agnitude is siply v s, the original speed of the shuttlecraft. This rotation of the spatial axes is what we know as the Thoas rotation. It alost always occurs when we apply a sequence of non-collinear boosts that returns us to an inertial frae that is at rest relative to the original frae. This rotation had no net effect on the four-oentu of the star, because the star was at rest the spatial coponents of its four-oentu vanished; in contrast, the otion of the shuttlecraft defines a direction in space (the x-direction, in the original inertial frae), that was subject to the rotation. We can obtain a clearer view of this rotation if we copute not the coponents of the four-oentu (), but rather the entire atrix (8) that is applicable to arbitrary 9

10 four-vectors in the original frae: B y ( v ) B x ( v ) B y (v ) B x (v )= γ γ γ γ γ γ γ γ. () The atrix in the iddle of this result is an orthogonal transforation, resulting in a rotation of the axes of the x y plane by an angle ( ) γ θ = arctan. () γ In the nonrelativistic liit, the agnitude of θ approaches v radians (i.e., v /c in conventional units), and so is copletely negligible for terrestrial applications. (Even if v is set to the Earth s orbital velocity around the Sun, the Thoas rotation angle aounts to a ere.4 seconds of arc.) In the ultrarelativistic liit, on the other hand, θ approaches 9 for this particular sequence of boosts. Defining the direction of the Thoas rotation, however, requires soe care. Let us consider the above sequence of boosts fro the point of view of an inertial observer, jettisoned fro the Enterprise before the sequence of boosts coenced, who reained at rest relative to the star (and the distant fixed stars ) throughout the procedure. Relative to this fixed observer, the Enterprise s velocity rotated in the direction +x +y. Thevelocityofthe shuttlecraft, as seen by the Enterprise, was rotated in this sae direction. This eans that, relative to the fixed observer, the axes of the Enterprise s coordinate syste rotated in the opposite direction to its orbital rotation, as indicated by the inus sign in Eq. (). This is a general feature of the Thoas rotation. Nonrelativistic physics has conditioned us to assue that Cartesian coordinate systes can be defined in space, in such a way that all inertial observers agree on the directions of the axes. The Thoas rotation deonstrates that this assuption requires an operational definition, as Einstein showed was necessary to clarify our understanding of the physics of relativity. For exaple, say that observer A defines a set of Cartesian axes. If observer B is at rest relative to A, thenb can align her axes to agree with those of A. If observer A reains at rest, but observer B is boosted to soe finite velocity relative to A, byone boost or by a sequence of boosts, then the resultant orientation of B s axes depends on the particular sequence of boosts used. If such boosts are at all ties in the sae direction (relative to A, say), then it is eaningful to say that B s axes are still aligned with A s, in the sense that if we apply any sequence of boosts to B that is at all ties collinear with this direction, that returns B to rest with respect to A, then their axes will be found to still point in the sae directions. On the other hand, if B is, at any two ties, subject to boosts in different directions, then a sequence of boosts bringing B back to rest relative to A will, in general, lead to B finding her axes rotated relative to A s (unless the sequence of boosts backtracked precisely the original sequence).

11 To discuss the general case we need the expression for a (siple) boost by velocity v in the direction of v. We can obtain it ost siply by noting that our original boost transforation along the x-axis, B x (v) of Eq. (4), is an archetypical siple boost. If we rewrite B x (v) in three-covariant notation (i.e., in ters of three-vectors and three-vector operations, rather than individual coponents), then we know fro vector analysis that the result will be the boost we require for v in an arbitrary direction. It is now straightforward to verify that 5 t = γt γ(v x), x = x γtv + γ (v x)v, (3) γ + is equivalent to (4) for v =(v,, ); and thus (3) is the siple boost operation B(v) that we are seeking. (It is a straightforward calculation to confir that the coponent of x in the direction of v satisfies the usual Lorentz transforation: v x γv x = γvt, v v and that the coponents of x noral to the velocity v are unchanged: v x = v x, since the coponent of x or x in the direction of v does not contribute to the cross product.) Written out in atrix for, we have γ γv x γv y γv z γv x + γ vx γ v x v y γ v x v z γ + γ + γ + B(v) = γ v x v y γv y + γ vy γ v y v z γ + γ + γ + γ v x v z γ v y v z γv z + γ vz γ + γ + γ +. (4) A sequence of two such boosts, which are in different directions, is not a siple boost, but is rather a cobination of a rotation and a siple boost. If we consider B(v ) followed by B(v ), and denote the velocity of the boost iplied by the coposite transforation as v, then the atheatical expression of this observation is that B(v ) B(v )=B(v ) R(v, v ), where R(v, v ) is a spatial rotation, depending on the velocities v and v. Let us now return to the unexpected asyetry in the result (3), naely, the fact that a boost by the velocity v in the x-direction, followed by a boost by v in the y-direction, leads to v x v y relative to the original frae of reference. We can understand the result v y = v by the following arguent: Iagine that, after the x-boost, there is an object that is observed to be at rest. Applying the y-boost to ourselves, we have no choice but to observe

12 this object oving with velocity v in the y-direction. This sae arguent ust apply to any object in the original frae which had no velocity in the y-direction. The reduction in the x-velocity by the y-boost sees counterintuitive, but a littlethought akes sense of it. We know, fro Einstein s ingenious arguents, that lengths of rods perpendicular to a velocity vector are unchanged by the relative otion. But lengths are nothing ore than differences in positions; and positions are theselves the spatial coponents of the four-vector x µ. Thus, taking into account the universality of Lorentz covariance, Einstein s arguents iply that, for any four-vector, the spatial coponents perpendicular to the boost velocity are unchanged by the boost, as can be verified fro Eq. (3). But the spatial oentu coponents are siply the spatial coponents of the four-vector p µ ; therefore, p x and p z ust be unaltered by a y-boost. And, indeed, the result () shows us that the x-oentu of the star was unchanged by the second boost: it reained γ v. Rather, the energy of the star increased (due to its new y-velocity); and hence, by Eq. (7), its x-velocity decreased. To have an object aintain its oentu, but lose velocity, is nonrelativistically counterintuitive; but one can ake sense of it by reebering that all velocities ust reain saller than that of light, and so for a large enough boost in the y-direction, any original velocity in the x-direction ust be quenched (although not its oentu!). This asyetry tells us that the non-coutativity of two non-collinear boosts is ore coplicated than is widely appreciated: one not only finds a relative Thoas rotation between the two resulting fraes, but furtherore the resulting fraes are not even oving with the sae velocity. This is the source of the result expressed in Eq. (). There we considered a sequence of four boosts which we naively expected to return us to our initial state of otion. However, the first two boosts do not cobine to give a pure Lorentz boost, but rather involve a Thoas rotation. This rotation is not copensated by the later boosts indeed, there is a further rotation in the sae direction. Thus, we should not be surprised that the sequence of four boosts gives the counterintuitive result of Eq. (). This fundaental asyetry is hidden in any introductory accounts of the addition of non-collinear velocities, by eans of a judicious ixing of an active transforation for one velocity (i.e., the object is considered to be boosted, with we as observers being kept at rest) together with a passive transforation for the other (i.e., we as observers are being boosted), rather than two successive passive transforations as used in this paper. This trick gives the illusion of a greater degree of syetry than is generally the case. (Einstein s seinal 95 paper uses this trick.) All of these various points ust be kept in ind if one wishes to analyze Thoas rotations in full generality. Any closed sequence of finite boosts (i.e., that returns us to a frae at rest relative to the original frae) will, in general, result in a Thoas rotation. Any such closed sequence ay be broken down into a succession of closed sequences, each consisting of three boosts, in the sae way that any arbitrary polygon (not necessarily planar) can be broken down into a triangular esh by the addition of internal edges. Thus, the basic building block of a finite Thoas rotation is a sequence of three pure boosts: the first two are arbitrary, and the third ust be chosen so as to ake the sequence closed. The first two velocities, then, deterine the Thoas rotation for this building block. Coplicating such calculations, however, is the fact that the su v of two arbitrary velocities v and

13 v is, in the general case, quite a coplicated function of the first two velocities: { } v = v + γ v + γ γ ( + v v ) γ + (v v )v. (5) (We can clearly see here the asyetry between the two velocities v and v ;itisonlyifv and v are collinear that (5) becoes syetrical under their interchange, and reproduces the usual forula (9) for the relativistic addition of velocities, as a short calculation shows.) The expression for the Thoas rotation is, in turn, even ore coplicated. Let us assue that we have an arbitrary three-vector r in our initial frae. After the sequence of pure boosts B(v ), B(v ), and B( v ), the three-vector r is rotated to where r = r + γ γ (v v ) r Q +γ γ ( + v v ), (6a) Q γ (γ )(v r)v + γ(γ )(v r)v γγ (v v )(v r)v. (6b) (γ +)(γ +) (Again, Q has no particular syetry under the interchange of v and v.) It can be verified, after soe algebra, that r = r, i.e., that r is indeed siply a rotation of r in three-space. If v is sall (but v arbitrarily large), then the expression Q of Eq. (6b) is of order v,and hence is negligible in the context of Eq. (6a). If we are considering the continuous Thoas precession, thenwecansetv = v and v = δv. Then, to quantities of first order, Eq. (5) yields δv v v = δv (v δv )v. Thus, if δv is perpendicular to the velocity v, thenδv = δv ; but if δv is parallel to v, then one ust take into account the fact that the velocity ust reain saller than that of light. On the other hand, in all cases we have v δv = v δv, so that Eq. (6a) yields, to first order, δr r r = γ γ + (v δv) r, (7) which is the standard expression for the Thoas precession. 5 (To copare with Jackson s result following his (.7), note that our δv is his β, and that our v δv is, in his notation, β β = γ β δβ.) If we now consider the ultrarelativistic liit of Eq. (7), then we find soething rearkable. This liit ay be taken to be defined by the relations γ, v, v δv, (8) the latter two of which siply reflect the fact that the velocity is at all ties alost the speed of light, and (hence) that any changes δv to the velocity v ust be perpendicular to v. In this liit, Eq. (7) becoes δr (v δv) r. (9) 3

14 Consider, now, the expression (v δv) v. By a standard three-vector identity, we have (v δv) v v δv (v δv)v, which, on account of the relations (8), tells us that, in the ultrarelativistic liit, δv (v δv) v. (3) Coparing (9) and (3), we thus find that r and v are being rotated by the sae aount about the sae axis. Recalling our discussion above that the direction of the Thoas rotation of the axes is opposite to the rotation of r relative to these axes, we therefore find that we have proved the following rearkable theore: For any ultrarelativistic object, the Thoas rotation is equal and opposite to the orbital rotation. This theore explains why we obtained a rotation angle of 9 for our sequence of four boosts in the ultrarelativistic liit. For we can think of any finite boost as siply a sequence of infinitesial boosts in the sae direction. For our first (+x) boost, we siply boosted the Enterprise s velocity to ultrarelativistic speeds. The second (+y) boostwasdesignedto bring the Enterprise s velocity around to a 45 angle between the +x and +y directions; and the third ( x) boost to bring it around another 45 to the +y direction. The final ( y)boost was antiparallel to this velocity, and siply brought the Enterprise back to rest. Thus, the velocity of the Enterprise, relative to a fixed observer, was rotated by 9 at ultrarelativistic speeds; and hence, by the above theore, the Thoas rotation is just 9,whichiswhatwe found by eleentary eans above. V. An advanced paradox : polarization properties of scattering events Let us now consider a ore advanced situation: the calculation of a polarized crosssection in quantu field theory. For siplicity, let us consider the scattering of a Dirac electron by the (idealized) fixed Coulob field of an infinitely heavy, pointlike nucleus. For definiteness, we shall follow the notation and conventions eployed in the introductory textbook by Mandl and Shaw. In any frae for which the scattered electron oentu p has the sae agnitude as the incident oentu p (i.e., for which the electron s energy is unchanged by the scattering), the fully polarized cross-section is given by ( dσ dω ) = rs ( ) e Mrs = π ( ) e ūs (p )A/ π e (q)u r (p), (3) where is the ass and e the charge of the electron, M rs is the Feynan aplitude for the process, q p p is the oentu transfer, A e (q) is the external electroagnetic field (i.e., the Coulob field of the nucleus) in oentu space, and A/ e A µ e γ µ where γ µ are the Dirac gaa atrices (not to be confused with the factor γ defined in Eq. ()). The indices r and s (=, ) label the two possible spin states of the incident and scattered electron respectively. Let us first calculate all of the polarized cross-sections for the following scenario. We choose an inertial frae in which the nucleus is at rest, so that ( ) Ze A µ e (x) =,,,, 4π x 4

15 which under a Fourier transfor yields ( ) Ze A µ e (q) = q,,,, where Ze is the charge of the nucleus. We then have ( ) dσ dω = (αz) ū q rs 4 s (p )γ u r (p), (3) where α e /4π is the fine-structure constant. Let us consider the case when the incident electron has velocity coponents v x = 3, v y =, v z =+ 3, and the scattered electron has velocity coponents v x =+ 3, v y =, v z =+ 3, so that the electron is being scattered by 9 in the z x plane. Fro Eq. () we find that γ = 3, so that the incident and scattered four-oenta have the coponents 3 p µ =, p µ = and q = 4. Now, the positive-energy spin oentu eigenstates are, in the Dirac Pauli representation of the Dirac atrices, given by where u (p) =c c p z c (p x + ip y ) c 3, u (p) =c, c (p x ip y ) c p z, (33) E +, c E +, (34) where u (u ) is the spin-up (spin-down) eigenstate relative to the z-direction. The conjugate bispinor eigenstates, in this representation, are consequently ū (p) =c c p z c ( p x + ip y ) T, ū (p) =c c (p x + ip y ) c p z T. (35) 5

16 For our particular case, E =3, soc = andc =/4. For the incident electron we therefore have u (p) =, u (p) =, and for the scattered electron we have T ū (p )=, ū (p )= Let us now copute the cross-section (3). The quantity ū s (p )γ u r (p) is equal to for no spin flip in the z-direction (i.e., for ū with u,orforū with u ), and is equal to ± forspin flipinthez-direction (i.e., for ū with u,orforū with u ). We thus find that dσ dω (no spin flip) = α Z 6, dσ dω (spin flip) = α Z 64. (36) To obtain the unpolarized cross-section, we average over the initial spin states and su over the final spin states in the standard way. This results in dσ dω (unpolarized) ( ) dσ dω = dσ dσ dω (no spin flip) + dω (spin flip) = 5α Z 64. r= s= We can copare this result with the standard Mott scattering forula, rs dσ dω (Mott) = (αz) 4E v 4 sin 4 (θ/) [ v sin (θ/)], by noting that, for our case, θ =9 so θ/ =45 and hence sin (θ/) = /; v =8/9; and E = 3; which yields precisely the sae result: dσ dω (Mott) = 5α Z 64. We ay therefore be confident that we have not ade any eleentary istakes in calculating the polarized cross-sections (36). Let us now copute these cross-sections fro the point of view of a different inertial frae. Specifically, let us view the process fro an inertial frae which oves along the positive z-axis with velocity /3 relative to the inertial frae used above. Applying B z (/3) to the coponents of p µ and p µ, we find 3 B z (/3) 5, 6 B z(/3) 3 T. 5, (37)

17 so that, fro the point of view of this new frae, the electron travels in the negative-x direction with energy E = 5 and speed / 5, and is then reflected elastically to travel in the positive-x direction with the sae energy and speed. We also need to boost the coponents of the four-potential A µ e : B z (/3) A µ e (q) = Ze (3,,, ), 5 q so that the equivalent expression to (3) for the polarized cross-section is ( ) dσ dω = (αz) 3ū 5 q rs 4 s (p )γ u r (p)+ū s (p )γ z u r (p). (38) (We would, in general, need to transfor the arguent q as well as the coponents A µ e under a Lorentz transforation. However, if we define q µ p µ p µ,thenintheoriginal frae q = q µ q µ because q =, i.e., the electron energy is conserved. Since q µ q µ is a Lorentz scalar, then we find that q is invariant in any frae in which the electron energy is conserved as is the case in the frae we have defined above.) Finally, fro Eqs. (34) we find that, using the boosted oentu values (37), the constants c and c are given by + 5 c =, c = ( + 5), so that for the incident electron we have + 5 u (p) = ( + 5), u (p) = ( + 5) + 5, and for the scattered electron we have ū (p )= ( + 5) + 5 T, ū (p )= ( + 5) + 5 T. We now find that the quantity ū s (p )γ u r (p) is unity for no spin flip in the z-direction, but vanishes for spin flip. The quantity ū s (p )γ z u r (p), on the other hand, vanishes for no spin flip, but has the value ± for spin flip. Inserting these values into the expression (38), we find that dσ dω (no spin flip) = 9α Z 3, dσ dω (spin flip) = α Z. (39) We ve struck another disaster! The coefficients 9/3 and / in (39) look nothing at all like the values /6 and /64 that we found in (36). But we have erely perfored the sae calculation in two different inertial fraes! How on Earth could the value of the crosssection which can be directly related to the nuber of particles that would be expected 7

18 to be easured in an appropriately configured experient depend on an arbitrary choice of theoretical viewpoint? For exaple, if we prepare a bea of incident electrons so that they are copletely polarized in the z-direction, and filter the scattered electrons so that only those polarized in the z-direction are detected, then what would the cross-section be: α Z /6 or 9α Z /3? There cannot be two different answers! One ight, at first glance, suspect that soe trivial istake or oversight has been ade. However, the calculations above can be checked; they do not contain any arithetical errors. Failing this, one ight then suspect that we have not taken into account the transforation of the solid angle differential dω under a Lorentz boost. However, if one checks the derivation of the first of the relations (3), then one finds that it holds true in any elastic scattering of a single particle fro an external field essentially, the other kineatical factors happen to cancel out in this special class of scattering events. There is, of course, a siple way to confir or refute any suspicion one ight have about the veracity of the results (39): one need siply cobine the to find the unpolarized crosssection. Surely, any trivial errors ade in obtaining the results (39) would (in all but the ost contrived of situations) render the unpolarized cobination siilarly erroneous. But we are now flabbergasted to find that = = Thus, even though we have obtained two sets of irreconcilably contradictory polarized crosssections, we find that their unpolarized cobinations agree copletely (and agree with the standard Mott forula)! What is going on? VI. Solution to the polarization paradox Let us now use the general discussion of Sec. IV to understand the polarization paradox of the previous section. The key flaw in the arguents presented above is the description polarized in the z-direction. We have not specified whose z-direction is being used! The second calculation is sipler, in this regard, because the electron s final velocity is collinear with its initial velocity (i.e., it is in the sae direction, but has the opposite sense). Thus, it is consistent for us to define the z-direction to be our z-axis, since all boosts to the electron s fraes of reference are collinear. We can, say, prepare an electron polarized in the z-direction, and easure only those scattered electrons polarized in the z-direction, without abiguity. The first calculation, on the other hand, is ore subtle. In using the standard expressions (33) and (35), we are (iplicitly) applying one single Lorentz boost fro our frae of reference to the initial electron s frae, and another single Lorentz boost fro our frae to the scattered electron s frae. These two boosts, however, are not collinear; and so our description of events is different fro how the electron would describe atters. (By giving the electron apparently huan powers, we are of course iagining an observer traveling along with the electron.) In effect, the electron s very rest frae is Thoas-rotated by the scattering event, relative to us. For exaple, iagine that the electron state does not get spin-flipped, as deterined by the electron itself. Fro our point of view, however, the direction of polarization of the electron has changed! 8

19 The lesson of this exaple is clear. If one has need to calculate relativistic polarized cross-sections explicitly, and if the incident and scattered oenta of the particles involved are not absolutely collinear (and in ost practical experients they are not), then one ust be extreely cautious about how one defines the spins or polarizations of the particles involved. In particular, kineatical and sei-classical arguents ust be exained in fine detail, to ensure that the nonrelativistic concept of universality of orientation has not been inappropriately applied. Finally, we ay use the expressions (5) and (6) to re-analyze these polarized crosssection calculations quantitatively. If we set v to be the initial electron velocity, naely, ( /3,, /3), then it is straightforward to verify that a boost by v =(/3,, ) results in the correct final electron velocity of v =(/3,, /3). If one sets r to be, say, (,, ), then, after soe calculation, one finds that r =(4/5,, 3/5). Thus, the electron s rest frae has been Thoas-rotated by an angle θ T = arctan(4/3) 53 in the z x plane. If we now list the atrix eleents corresponding to the polarized Feynan aplitudes found in Sec. V (rather than the cross-sections), then for the first and second fraes of reference we found, respectively, M () rs = αz ( ), M q () rs = αz ( ) 3 4, 5 q 4 3 where the rows in these atrices represent the z-coponent of the initial spin, and the coluns the z-coponent of the final spin. To reconcile these Feynan aplitudes, we need siply apply the Thoas rotation or its inverse to either the initial or the final spin state in the first frae of reference. Reebering that spinors transfor under rotations by half-angles, and noting that cos(θ T /) = / 5 and sin(θ T /) = / 5, we finally obtain cos θ T sin θ T sin θ T cos θ T M() rs = M () rs. VII. Conclusions We have shown how the Thoas rotation of relativistic echanics can be introduced, and its paradoxical nature discussed, at quite an introductory level; that resolving such paradoxes is not overly difficult; and that a general expression for arbitrary Thoas rotations can be obtained without excessive effort. We have also shown how this general result connects up with standard textbook accounts of the infinitesial Thoas precession. We have endeavored to show that the raifications of such effects are deep, and fundaental, and that they ay also be of iediate practical iportance in the analysis and interpretation of relativistic polarized scattering experients. In the interests of keeping this discussion at an introductory level, we have refrained fro utilizing ore advanced theoretical concepts to explain or analyze the Thoas rotation ore elegantly or concisely. For exaple, group-theoretical ethods are hinted at in the above derivations, but are not ade explicit. (See, for exaple, Ref. 5 for a thorough treatent 9

20 in these ters.) Boosts can be viewed as siply rotations between space and tie; and since two rotations about different spatial axes do not, in general, coute, then one would (rightly) presue that two boosts in different directions do not coute either; this is another path to the Thoas rotation. Alternatively, one ay ake use of the concept of parallel transport ore failiar in the general theory of relativity, but equally applicable to boosts or accelerations in flat spacetie to arrive at the Thoas rotation by yet another path. We believe that all of these ore abstract views of the Thoas rotation do, in fact, augent, rather than detract fro, the eleentary nature and beauty of the effect as described here. Acknowledgents This work was supported in part by the Australian Research Council. Helpful discussions with Brian J. Morphett are gratefully acknowledged. This paper is dedicated to the eory of A. J. Drinan. References Current address: Mentone Graar, 63 Venice Street, Mentone, Victoria 394, Australia. jpc J. P. Costella and B. H. J. McKellar, The Foldy Wouthuysen transforation, A. J. Phys. 63, 9 (995). J. P. Costella, B. H. J. McKellar, and A. A. Rawlinson, Classical antiparticles, A. J. Phys. 65, (997). 3 A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 98), p A. A. Ungar, Thoas precession and its associated grouplike structure, A. J. Phys. 59, (99). 5 J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynaics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, 999), Sec H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 98), p P. K. MacKeown, Question #57. Thoas precession, A. J. Phys. 65, 5 (997). 8 G. H. Goedecke, Geoetry of the Thoas precession, A. J. Phys. 46, (978). 9 R. A. Muller, Thoas precession: Where is the torque? A. J. Phys. 6, (99). R. J. Philpott, Thoas precession and the Liénard Wiechert field, A. J. Phys. 64, (996). F. Mandl and G. Shaw, Quantu Field Theory (Wiley, Chichester, 984), Secs. 8.7 and A.8. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freean, New York, 97).