1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
5: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
6:
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% EXTRA
8:
9: %\nofiles
10:
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{How Amp\`ere could have derived the Lorentz Transformations}% Force line breaks with \\
15: \author{G. Faraco}
16: \email{gefa@mat.unical.it} \affiliation{Istituto Nazionale Fisica
17: Nucleare, Italy; Dipartimento di Matematica, Universit\` a della
18: Calabria, via P. Bucci 30b, 87036, Rende (Italy)}
19:
20:
21: \author{G. Nistic\`o}
22: \email{gnistico@unical.it}
23: \affiliation{Dipartimento di
24: Matematica, Universit\` a della Calabria, via P. Bucci 30b, 87036,
25: Rende (Italy)} \affiliation{Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare,
26: Italy; Dipartimento di Matematica, Universit\` a della Calabria,
27: via P. Bucci 30b, 87036, Rende (Italy)}
28:
29: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
30: % but any date may be explicitly specified
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33: Lorentz Transformations of Special Relativity are derived from two
34: postulates: the first is the Principle of Relativity, while the
35: postulate of invariance of the velocity of light, used in usual
36: derivations, is replaced by a law of electro-magneto-statics and
37: invariance of electrical charge. Our derivation does not require
38: the assumption of regularity conditions of the transformations,
39: such as linearity and continuity required by other derivations.
40: The level of the needed mathematics and physical concepts makes
41: the proposed derivation suitable for Secondary School.
42:
43: \end{abstract}
44: \pacs{03.30.+p; 01.40.-d}
45:
46:
47:
48: \maketitle
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51: In Special Relativity, Lorentz Transformations are usually derived
52: from two postulates: the Principle of Relativity stating that
53: ``The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames'', and
54: the law of the invariance of velocity of light (Einstein's second
55: postulate) \cite{Einstein}. The literature shows that Lorentz
56: Transformations can be derived without this second postulate; a
57: partial review can be found in \cite{Field}.
58:
59: In his approach to ``relativity without light'', Mermin
60: \cite{Mermin} derives the relativistic addition law for parallel
61: velocities directly from the Principle of Relativity and ``a few
62: simple assumptions of smoothness and symmetry''. Starting from
63: the same assumptions of Mermin, Singh \cite{Singh} derives the
64: Lorentz Transformations. The pedagogical advantage of these
65: approaches is that the invariance of light velocity, with its
66: paradoxical character, is not imposed \textit{ab initio}, but it
67: is obtained as a consequence of the theory. However, Mermin
68: him-self acknowledges that his approach entails an ``higher level
69: of analysis'', hence it ``is unavailable for a general educational
70: physics course, but as an introduction to special relativity for
71: physics majors''.
72:
73: Another approach is due to Sen \cite{Sen}. He was able to obtain
74: essentially the same results of Mermin by using only simple
75: algebra and some assumptions of regularity of the functions
76: involved in his derivations. For this reason this approach can be
77: used for introducing the Special Relativity to the students at an
78: introductory level.
79:
80: We have to remark that all these derivations do not single out
81: Lorentz Transformations as the only transformations consistent
82: with their postulates. Actually, what can be stated is that the
83: function $w(u,v)$ expressing the additional law of velocities $u$
84: and $v$ is $w(u,v)=(u+v)/(1+Kuv)$, where $K$ is a non-negative
85: constant. Therefore we have a large range of possibilities: if $K$
86: is $0$ then we get the Galilean Transformations; if $K>0$ then we
87: get a theory in which there is an invariant velocity
88: $c_K=1/\sqrt{K}$. Thus, what is the right transformation law
89: cannot be decided on the basis of their assumptions only.
90:
91: In this work we propose a derivation of Lorentz Transformations,
92: and hence of Special Relativity, without making use of invariance
93: of light velocity. Similarly to the approaches above outlined, we
94: assume the Principle of Relativity and a few simple assumptions of
95: symmetry and reciprocity; nevertheless, our derivation is
96: different. We impose that a given law of electro-magneto-statics,
97: whose empirical validity was known since Amp\`ere \cite{Ampere},
98: holds in all inertial frames according to the Principle of
99: Relativity. In so doing we can directly derive Lorentz Contraction
100: and thereby Lorentz Transformations in their complete form without
101: indeterminate parameters, as the only transformations consistent
102: with the validity of that physical law in all inertial frames. In
103: our derivation, furthermore, it is not necessary making use of
104: regularity assumptions such as linearity or continuity. For this
105: reason, our derivation lies on (empirical) physics rather than on
106: mathematics.
107:
108: A central point of the proposed derivation is to single out this
109: particular law. It is obtained by reformulating the conditions for
110: equilibrium of the classical electro-magneto-statics without
111: resorting to the notion of force, in a particular ideal experimental
112: situation. The main contribution to discovery of this rule was
113: given by Amp\`ere, who established its empirical validity
114: independently of any underlying theory.
115:
116: Section II is devoted to establish the above mentioned law,
117: denoted by \textbf{(L.3)}. Furthermore, it is proved that
118: Principle of Relativity implies that the lengths orthogonal to be
119: relative motion between inertial frames are invariant (II.A). In
120: section III.A we derive the relation between lengths parallel to
121: the direction of the relative motion (Lorentz Contraction), by
122: using law \textbf{(L.3)}. Lorentz Transformations, in their
123: explicit form, are derived in section \textbf{(III.B)}, from
124: Lorentz Contraction. Our conclusive remarks are given in section
125: IV.
126:
127: \section{A law of electro-magneto-statics}
128:
129: In our derivation of Lorentz Transformations we need to impose
130: that, according to Principle of Relativity, a same law holds in two
131: different reference frames. In the present section, first we show
132: that Principle of Relativity implies that lengths orthogonal to
133: the direction of the relative motion between two inertial frames
134: are invariant; second we assume that electrical charge is
135: invariant, and finally establish a law of electro-magneto-statics
136: submitted to Principle of Relativity and which can be expressed
137: without the concept of force.
138:
139: \subsection{Invariance of transversal lengths}
140:
141: Let us consider two inertial frames $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$,
142: with the $x$ axes oriented as in Fig. \ref{fig1} and with relative
143: constant velocity ${\bf v}=(v,0,0)$. Let us suppose that two
144: material wires are parallel to the direction of the relative
145: motion, and that one wire is at rest with respect to $\Sigma_1$,
146: while the other is at rest with respect to $\Sigma_2$. By $r_1$
147: and $r_2$ we denote the distances between the two wires with
148: respect to $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$, respectively. Between these
149: distances, which are the measures of lengths orthogonal to the
150: direction of the relative motion,
151:
152: \begin{figure}[htb!]
153: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig1.eps}}
154: \caption{\label{fig1}}
155: \end{figure}
156:
157: one of the following two relations must hold:
158: $$
159: (i)\; r_1\leq r_2\qquad\hbox{or}\qquad (ii)\; r_2\leq r_1.
160: $$
161: If case (i) were realized, the following statement should hold as a physical law.
162: \begin{description}
163: \item[({\bf L.1})] {\sl Let $\Sigma_1$ be an inertial frame. If $\Sigma_2$ moves with
164: velocity ${\bf v}=(v,0,0)$ with respect to $\Sigma_1$,
165: the distances $r_1$ and $r_2$, relative to $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$,
166: between two wires parallel to the direction of the relative motion, one at rest with respect
167: to $\Sigma_1$ and the other at rest with respect to $\Sigma_2$,
168: satisfy the following relation.
169: $$
170: r_1\leq r_2
171: .
172: $$}
173: \end{description}
174: The Principle of Relativity
175: implies that ({\bf L.1}) holds in every inertial frame $\Sigma_1$.
176: \par
177: Now, let us denote frames $\Sigma_1$ by $\Sigma^{\prime\prime}$,
178: frame $\Sigma_2$ by $\Sigma'$, distance $r_2$ by $r'$ and distance
179: $r_1$ by $r^{\prime\prime}$. After this re-wording we see that
180: $\Sigma^{\prime\prime}$, $r'$ and $r^{\prime\prime}$, with respect
181: to $\Sigma'$, satisfy the conditions that ({\bf L.1}) requires to
182: $\Sigma_2$, $r_1$ and $r_2$ with respect to $\Sigma_1$. In
183: particular, one of the wires is at rest with respect to $\Sigma'$
184: (namely, the wire at rest with respect to $\Sigma_2$) and the
185: other is at rest with respect to $\Sigma^{\prime\prime}$ (Fig.
186: \ref{fig2}). Therefore law ({\bf L.1}) applies, and we have to
187: conclude that $r'\leq r^{\prime\prime}$; hence, $r_2\leq r_1$
188: holds together with $r_1\leq r_2$, so that $r_1=r_2$.
189:
190: If case (ii) were realized, we would reach the same conclusion, by
191: using the same argument.
192:
193:
194: \begin{figure}[htb!]
195: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig2.eps}} \caption[]{}
196: \label{fig2}
197: \end{figure}
198:
199: \subsection{Invariance of electrical charge}
200: Electrical charge is assumed to be invariant.
201:
202: The quite familiar experience that if a solid body, with no (net) charge
203: is heated, then its (net) charge remains zero provides an argument showing invariance of charge.
204: Indeed, the increase of the
205: temperature provokes an increase of the average kinematic energy of
206: the particles constituting the body, i.e. electrons and nuclei.
207: But due to the lower mass of electrons, their velocity increases
208: much more than the velocity of nuclei. If the charge were
209: dependent on the velocity, the change of charge due to electrons
210: should overcome the change due to nuclei, and the body would
211: acquire a (net) electrical charge. But this phenomenon has never
212: been observed.
213:
214: \subsection{The empirical law}
215:
216: Let us consider
217: two parallel
218: wires which carry a stationary electrical current $i$ and an uniform
219: charge density $\lambda$. One of the laws of Electro-magneto-statics establishes that
220: \begin{description}
221: \item[({\bf l.2})] The function
222: \begin{equation}\label{l.2}
223: \phi(\lambda, i)=\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi\epsilon_0
224: r}-\frac{\mu_0}{2\pi}\frac{i^2}{r}
225: \end{equation}
226: is the density of the {\sl force} acting on each wire.
227: \end{description}
228: Unfortunately, this physical law can be interpreted only by making
229: resort to the notion of Newtonian {\sl force}. Since the effects
230: of a Newtonian force follow from the second Newton law
231: \par
232: \textbf{(NL)} \qquad\qquad{\sl force }= {\sl mass} $\times$ {\sl
233: acceleration}
234: \par\noindent
235: the validity of \textbf{(l.2)} could be verified only by
236: implicitly assuming \textbf{(NL)}. To avoid such a further
237: undesired assumption, we shall extract from \textbf{(l.2)} another
238: physical law, with a more poor physical content than
239: \textbf{(l.2)}, but which can be expressed without using undesired
240: concepts, such as that of force, and whose empirical validity can
241: be tested independently of any theory.
242: \par
243: Let us consider a device $\cal D$ consisting of an uniform
244: distribution of identical springs, each of them acting on both
245: wires. If the springs are suitably manufactured, the action of the
246: device establishes equilibrium between the wires. An implication
247: of \textbf{(l.2)} is that such an equilibrium is broken if
248: $\lambda$ and $i$ change their values in such a way that also the
249: value of $\phi$ turns out to be modified.
250: % However, if these values
251: %are changed into new values $\hat\lambda$ and $\hat i$ without
252: %affecting the value of $\phi$, i.e. if $\phi(\hat\lambda, \hat
253: %i)=\phi(\lambda,i)$, then the same device $\cal D$ continuous to
254: %held the wires in equilibrium. Also the converse holds:
255: This statement can be re-formulated as follows.
256: \begin{description}
257: \item[({\bf L.2})]
258: If the action of device $\cal D$ yields equilibrium for both the
259: two pair of values $(\lambda,i)$ and $(\hat{\lambda},\hat{i})$,
260: then
261: $$
262: \phi(\hat{\lambda}, \hat{i})=\phi(\lambda,i)
263: $$
264: \end{description}
265: Statement ({\bf L.2}) is an empirical implication of the laws
266: of electromagnetostatics, which is expressed without the need to
267: interpret function $\phi$ in terms of {\sl force}. Principle of
268: Relativity implies that ({\bf L.2}) must be considered as a
269: physical law which holds in all inertial frames.
270: \\
271: {\bf Remark 1.} The equilibrium could be obtained by means of a
272: device different from $\cal D$, for instance by replacing the
273: springs with a greater number of weaker ones, without affecting
274: the validity of ({\bf L.2}). Now we show that the device can be
275: designed in such a way to be {\sl invariant}.
276:
277: \begin{figure}[htb!]
278: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig3.eps}}
279: \caption[]{Device ${\cal I}={\cal D}_1+{\cal D}_2$ with respect to
280: $\Sigma$} \label{fig3}
281: \end{figure}
282:
283: Given the two wires considered above in frame $\Sigma$, let us
284: consider another frame $\Sigma'$ which moves with respect to frame
285: $\Sigma$ with a constant velocity $v$ in the direction parallel to
286: the wires (Fig. \ref{fig3}). Our device $\cal I$ consists of two
287: distributions of springs, ${\cal D}_1$ and ${\cal D}_2$. The first
288: one, ${\cal D}_1$, is made up of identical springs, each of them
289: acting on both wires, uniformly distributed with density $\rho_1$,
290: at rest with respect to frame $\Sigma$. Second distribution,
291: ${\cal D}_2$, is made up of springs which move with velocity $v$
292: (hence they are at rest with respect to $\Sigma'$), identical to
293: each other, but different from the spring of ${\cal D}_1$,
294: uniformly distributed with density $\rho_2$ with respect to
295: $\Sigma$. Hence, with respect to $\Sigma$ device $\cal I$ consists
296: of a distribution at rest with density $\rho_1$ and another
297: distribution with density $\rho_2$ which moves with velocity $v$.
298:
299: \begin{figure}[htb!]
300: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig4.eps}}
301: \caption[]{Device ${\cal I}={\cal D}_1+{\cal D}_2$ with respect to
302: $\Sigma'$} \label{fig4}
303: \end{figure}
304:
305: Now, the value $\rho_2$ of the density of ${\cal D}_2$ with
306: respect to $\Sigma$ is chosen in such a way that its value
307: $\rho_2'$ with respect to $\Sigma'$ turns out to be equal to
308: $\rho_1$. This means that if a distribution at rest has density
309: $\rho_1$, then it has density $\rho_2$ with respect to a frame
310: where it moves with velocity ${v}$.
311: As a consequence, with respect to $\Sigma'$,
312: device $\cal I$ consists of a distribution at rest with density
313: $\rho_1$ and another distribution with density $\rho_2$ and
314: velocity ${v}$ (Fig. \ref{fig4}).
315: \par
316: Therefore, as regards to the densities, device $\cal I$ composed
317: by ${\cal D}_1$ and ${\cal D}_2$ appears to $\Sigma$ identical to
318: that seen by $\Sigma'$, apart from an exchange of the roles of
319: ${\cal D}_1$ and ${\cal D}_2$. Like the density $\rho_2$, the
320: value of any other physical magnitude of ${\cal D}_2$, which
321: determines its action on the wires, can be chosen in such a way
322: that device ${\cal I}={\cal D}_1+{\cal D}_2$ appears to $\Sigma'$
323: identical to that seen by $\Sigma$, after an exchange in the roles
324: of ${\cal D}_1$ and ${\cal D}_2$. For instance, suppose that the
325: value of one of these magnitudes, say $C$, is $c_1$ for the
326: springs of ${\cal D}_1$ with respect to $\Sigma$. Then we choose
327: the springs of ${\cal D}_2$ with a value $c_2$ of $C$ with respect
328: to $\Sigma$ such that its value $c_2'$ with respect to $\Sigma'$
329: satisfies $c_2'=c_1$, which implies $c_1'=c_2$ (in fig.4 value
330: $c_1$ (resp., $c_2$) is revealed by the white (resp. gray) colour
331: of the spring). The invariance of $\cal I$ is completed by the
332: fact that the distance $r$ between the wires is invariant, as
333: proved in section II.A
334: \par
335: Now, according to \textbf{remark 1}, we state the following law
336: ({\bf L.3}), obtained from ({\bf L.2}) by replacing device $\cal
337: D$ by the invariant device $\cal I$.
338: \begin{description}
339: \item[({\bf L.3})]
340: If the action of device $\cal I$ yields equilibrium for both the
341: two pair of values $(\lambda,i)$ and $(\hat{\lambda},\hat{i})$,
342: then
343: $$
344: \phi(\hat{\lambda}, \hat{i})=\phi(\lambda,i).
345: $$
346: \end{description}
347:
348: \section{Lorentz transformations}
349:
350: In this section we shall establish which are the transformation
351: laws consistent with the Principle of Relativity and law {(\bf L.3)}.
352: To do this, we derive a relation between the lengths observed by
353: two different frames of reference. While the lengths orthogonal to
354: the direction of relative motion are invariant, in III.A we show
355: that the lengths parallel to the direction of relative motion are
356: not invariant.
357:
358: \subsection{Lorentz contraction}
359:
360: We consider two wires with uniform electrical charge, at rest in
361: $\Sigma$. Let us introduce another reference frame $\Sigma'$ that
362: moves with respect $\Sigma$ with velocity ${v}$ in the same
363: direction of the wires. For realizing the equilibrium we consider
364: a device $\cal I$, like that designed in sect. II.C, manufactured
365: in such a way that it is invariant. Since the equilibrium is
366: realized in both $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$ by means the same device,
367: by {\bf (L.3)} we have to conclude that
368: \begin{equation}
369: \label{A} \phi(\lambda, i)=\phi(\lambda', i')
370: \end{equation}
371: where $\lambda$ ($i$) and $\lambda'$ ($i'$) are the values of
372: density charge (current) with respect $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$
373: respectively. Since the wires in $\Sigma$ are at rest, we have $i=0$. In $\Sigma'$ the current is produced by the motion
374: of the wires, therefore $i'=\lambda'{v}$. Then (\ref{A})
375: becomes
376: $$\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi\epsilon_0
377: r}=\frac{\lambda'^2}{2\pi\epsilon_0
378: r}-\frac{\mu_0}{2\pi}\frac{(\lambda'v)^2}{r}$$
379: which implies
380: $\lambda^2=\lambda'^2(1-{\epsilon_0\mu_0}{v^2})$; therefore,
381: if we set $\epsilon_0\mu_0=\frac{1}{c^2}$, we have
382: \begin{equation}\label{C}
383: \lambda=\lambda'\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}
384: \end{equation}
385: This result says that the charge density is not invariant.
386: \par
387: Now we consider a piece of wire of length $L$ carrying a charge
388: $\delta Q$ respect to $\Sigma$. With respect to $\Sigma'$, this same piece of wire has a length $L'$ and carries a
389: charge $\delta Q'=\delta Q$. Then
390: $$\lambda=\frac{\delta Q}{L}\quad\quad \textrm{and}\quad\quad
391: \lambda'=\frac{\delta Q'}{L'}=\frac{\delta Q}{L'}.$$
392: Therefore, (\ref{C}) becomes
393: $$
394: \frac{\delta Q}{L}=\frac{\delta
395: Q}{L'}\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}
396: $$
397: which leads to
398: \begin{equation}\label{B}
399: L'=L\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}
400: \end{equation}
401: This relation is known as \textsl{Contraction of Lorentz}.
402:
403: \subsection{From Lorentz contraction to Lorentz transformations}
404:
405: Now we derive Lorentz Transformations from Lorentz Contraction. Our aim is to obtain the law of motion
406: of a particle $P$ with respect to $\Sigma'$ when this law is known
407: in $\Sigma$. We proceed as follows:
408: \begin{description}
409: \item[(a)] first, we consider the case in which particle $P$
410: is at rest in $\Sigma$ on the $x$ axis and we use Lorentz
411: Contraction to derive its law of motion in $\Sigma'$;
412: \item[(b)] the result obtained in (a) is generalized to a particle at rest in a any spatial point of $\Sigma$.
413: \item[(c)] by means of the results of (b), we derive the law of
414: motion in $\Sigma'$ when the particle moves in
415: $\Sigma$ according to any known law.
416: \end{description}
417: {\bf Step (a)}. If particle $P$ is at rest in the point of
418: coordinate $\xi$ of the $x$ axis with respect to $\Sigma$, its
419: motion with respect to $\Sigma'$ is described by the ``world
420: line'' $(\tau',\xi'(\tau'))$, where $\xi'(\tau')$ is the $x$
421: coordinate of the particle at time $\tau'$ with respect to
422: $\Sigma'$. The particle moves with respect to $\Sigma'$ with a
423: velocity $-{v}$.
424:
425: The value $\xi$ represents the length $l$ of the segment $[0,\xi]$
426: on the spatial $x$ axis of $\Sigma$. This length $l$ is related to
427: the length $l'$ of this same segment with respect to $\Sigma'$
428: just by Lorentz Contraction
429: \begin{equation}\label{E}
430: l'=l\sqrt{1-{v^2\over c^2}}.
431: \end{equation}
432: But $l'$ is also the difference between the coordinates of $P$ and
433: of the origin of $\Sigma$ with respect to $\Sigma'$, which are
434: $\xi'(\tau')$ and $-v\tau'$:
435: \begin{equation}\label{D}
436: l'=\xi'(\tau')-(-v\tau')=\xi'(\tau')+v\tau',
437: \end{equation}
438: Therefore, by equating (\ref{E}) and (\ref{D}) we get
439: \begin{equation}\label{F}
440: \xi'(\tau')=\xi\sqrt{1-{v^2\over c^2}}-v\tau'.
441: \end{equation}
442: This relation is the law of motion with respect to $\Sigma'$ in
443: the case (a). The same argument can be used to show that if a
444: particle is at rest in point $\xi'$ with respect to $\Sigma'$,
445: then its world line $(\tau, \xi(\tau))$ with respect to $\Sigma$
446: is given by
447: \begin{equation}\label{G}
448: \xi(\tau)= \xi'\sqrt{1-{v^2\over
449: c^2}}+v\tau.
450: \end{equation}
451: {\bf Step (b).} Now we consider a particle $P$ at rest in the
452: point of coordinates $(\xi, \eta, \zeta)$ with respect to
453: $\Sigma$. Our aim is to find the world line $(\tau', \xi'(\tau'),
454: \eta'(\tau'), \zeta'(\tau'))$ with respect to $\Sigma'$. Let us
455: imagine a parallelepiped at rest in $\Sigma$ with a vertex in the
456: origin of $\Sigma$ three edges lying along the axes $(x, y, z)$,
457: and particle $P$ in the vertex with the greatest distance from
458: the origin. With respect to $\Sigma'$ the coordinates
459: $(\xi(\tau'), \eta'(\tau'), \zeta'(\tau'))$ of $P$ at time $\tau'$
460: coincide with those of this last vertex. The coordinates
461: $\eta'(\tau')$ e $\zeta'(\tau')$ are the lengths of the edges of
462: the parallelepiped orthogonal to the relative motion, and
463: therefore are invariant. For the $x$ coordinate, we can repeat the
464: argument of step (a); thus, with respect to $\Sigma'$, particle
465: $P$ moves according to
466: \begin{equation}\label{H}
467: \begin{cases}
468: \xi'(\tau')=\xi\sqrt{1-{v^2\over c^2}}-v\tau'& \text{}, \\
469: \eta(\tau')=\eta & \text{} \\
470: \zeta(\tau')=\zeta & \text{}
471: \end{cases}
472: \end{equation}
473:
474: Reciprocally if a particle is at rest in $\Sigma'$ its laws
475: motion with respect to $\Sigma$ are
476: \begin{equation}\label{I}
477: \begin{cases}
478: \xi(\tau)= \xi'\sqrt{1-{v^2\over c^2}}+v\tau & \text{}, \\
479: \eta(\tau)=\eta(\tau') & \text{} \\
480: \zeta(\tau)=\zeta(\tau')& \text{}
481: \end{cases}
482: \end{equation}
483: {\bf Step (c).} Now we let particle $P$ move in an arbitrary way
484: with respect to $\Sigma$; suppose that at time $t$ it is in the
485: point $(x, y, z)$. Let us imagine a particles $A$ at rest with
486: respect to $\Sigma$ and another particles $B$ at rest in
487: $\Sigma'$, such that both $A$ and $B$ collide with our particle
488: just in the space-time point $(t, x, y, z)$. Our assumption is
489: simply that this threefold collision occurs also in $\Sigma'$ in a
490: space-time point denoted by $(t',x', y', z')$. Since $B$ is at
491: rest in $\Sigma'$ its position is just the location of the impact,
492: i.e. $(x', y', z')$. The space-time point of the collision must
493: belong to the world line of particle $A$ in $\Sigma'$. Therefore
494: by (\ref{H}) we have
495: \begin{equation}\label{L}
496: \begin{cases}
497: x'=x\sqrt{1-{v^2\over c^2}}-vt' & \text{}, \\
498: y'=y & \text{} \\
499: z'=z & \text{}
500: \end{cases}
501: \end{equation}
502: and by (\ref{I})
503: \begin{equation}\label{M}
504: \begin{cases}
505: x=x'\sqrt{1-{v^2\over c^2}}+vt & \text{}, \\
506: y'=y & \text{} \\
507: z'=z & \text{}
508: \end{cases}
509: \end{equation}
510: By rewriting (\ref{L}) and (\ref{M}) in explicit form, we get the
511: usual form of Lorentz Transformations:
512: \begin{equation}\label{N}
513: \begin{cases}
514: x'=\frac{x-{v}t}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \text{}, \\
515: y'=y & \text{} \\
516: z'=z & \text{} \\
517: t'=\frac{t-\frac{{v}}{c^2}x}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2.}}} & \text{}
518: \end{cases}
519: \end{equation}
520:
521: \section{Conclusions}
522:
523: The heart of the present derivation is law \textbf{(L.3)}. Since
524: this rule is obtained from \textbf{(l.2)}, which has not an
525: interpretation independent of the concept of force, the legitimacy
526: of its use could be questioned. However, these kinds of doubts are
527: ruled out by the following arguments. Once function $\phi$ in
528: \textbf{(L.3)} is interpreted as empirical mean to establish
529: conditions for the equilibrium, its empirical validity can be
530: experimentally verified without making reference to any underlying
531: theory. This is the method followed by Amp\`ere in establishing
532: the ``Th\'eorie des ph\'enom\`enes \'electro-dynamiques,
533: uniquement d\'eduite de l'exp\'erience'' \cite{Ampere}.
534:
535: Amp\`ere him-self wrote: ``\textsl{The main advantage of the
536: formulas so established [...] is that of remaining independent of
537: the hypotheses, both of them used by their authors in the research
538: of the formulas, and also of the hypotheses that in the future
539: replace the former. [...] Whatever the physical cause one wants
540: attribute to the phenomena made by such an [electro-dynamical]
541: action, the formula obtained by my-self will be always the
542: expression of real facts. [...] The adopted [method] which led me
543: to the desired results [...] consists in verifying, by means of
544: experience, that an electrical conductor rests in equilibrium
545: under equal forces [...]}''
546:
547: Clarified the legitimacy of the arguments presented in our
548: derivation of Lorentz Transformations, we would now to emphasize
549: the advantage that our approach carry by a didactics and
550: pedagogical point of view. The derivations of Lorentz
551: Transformations without light produce that the second postulate of
552: Einstein is as a direct consequence of the theory and, for this
553: reason, it can be easily accepted by the student that frequently
554: reject concepts that cannot be observed and verified
555: experimentally. In addition, the proposed approach allows to
556: obtain the Lorentz Transformations as the only transformations
557: consistent with the starting assumptions. Other derivations without
558: light, on the contrary, exhibit that there are only two possible
559: equations of transformations, one corresponding to the old
560: Galilean-Newtonian transformation laws and the other corresponding
561: to the standard Lorentz ones without specifying the value of the
562: velocity of light. The starting assumptions are very few, do not
563: concerning linearity and continuity of the functions of
564: transformations; the linearity and continuity are properties that
565: the student can directly verify. The use of physical concepts and
566: laws already known by students enables teachers to use this
567: approach in a introductory physics class as well, and furthermore
568: in a Secondary School in which the Lorentz Transformation are
569: presented, but not derived, as new laws of transformations to be
570: substituted to the Galilean Transformation in order to take into
571: account the time dilatation and length contractions and other
572: effects which follow from the Relativity Theory.
573:
574: \bibliography{apssamp}
575: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
576: \bibitem{Einstein} A. Einstein, ``Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
577: K$\ddot{o}$rper'', Annalen der Physik, XVII 891-921 (1905)
578: \bibitem{Field} J. H. Field, ``A New Kinematical Derivation of the Lorentz
579: Transformation and the Particle Description of Light'', Helv.
580: Phys. Acta \textbf{70}, 542-564 (1997)
581: \bibitem{Mermin} N. D. Mermin, ``Relativity without light'', Am. J. Phys.
582: \textbf{52}, 119-124 (1984)
583: \bibitem{Singh} S. Singh, ``Lorentz Transformations in Mermin's Relativity
584: without Light'', Am. J. Phys. \textbf{54} (2), 183-184 (1986)
585: \bibitem{Sen} A. Sen, ``How Galileo could have derived the Special Theory of
586: Relativity'', Am. J. Phys. \textbf{62} (2), 157-162 (1994)
587: \bibitem{Ampere} A. M. Amp\`ere, ``Th\'eorie des ph\'enom\`enes \'electro-dynamiques,
588: uniquement d\'eduite de l'exp\'erience'' (M\'equignon-Marvis,
589: Paris, 1826)
590: \end{thebibliography}
591: \end{document}
592: