1: \documentstyle[epsf,epsfig,wrapfig,here,12pt]{article} % Specifies the document style.
2: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
3: \setlength{\textheight}{9.0in}
4: % The preamble begins here.
5: \begin{document} % End of preamble and beginning of text.
6: \baselineskip=0.33333in
7: \begin{quote} \raggedleft TAUP 2831-06
8: \end{quote}
9: %\title{A Sample Document} % Declares the document's title.
10: %\author{Leslie Lamport} % Declares the author's name.
11: %\date{December 12, 1984} % Deleting this command produces today's date.
12: \vglue 0.5in
13: %\maketitle % Produces the title.
14: \begin{center}{\bf Special Relativity is\\
15: an Excellent Theory}
16: \end{center}
17: \begin{center}E. Comay$^*$
18: \end{center}
19:
20: \begin{center}
21: School of Physics and Astronomy \\
22: Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences \\
23: Tel Aviv University \\
24: Tel Aviv 69978 \\
25: Israel
26: \end{center}
27: \vglue 0.5in
28: \vglue 0.5in
29: \noindent
30: PACS No: 03.30.+p, 03.50.De
31: \vglue 0.2in
32: \noindent
33: Abstract:
34:
35: Criteria for defining errors of a physical theory are formulated. It is
36: shown that the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) has a solid mathematical
37: basis. An enormous amount of experiments carried out in particle
38: physics use beams of particles having
39: a very high energy. The data of these
40: experiments are consistent with STR and support our confidence that
41: STR is an excellent theory. Several specific cases of this issue are
42: discussed explicitly. Contrary to a common belief, it is proved
43: that the contemporary mainstream of physicists
44: adhere to some theoretical ideas that violate STR.
45:
46: \newpage
47:
48: {\bf 1. Introduction}
49: \vglue 0.3333333in
50:
51: The validity of physical
52: theories should be tested time and again. Such a practice
53: enables the increase of our confidence in good theories and the removal
54: of erroneous ones. In order to carry out this task, one needs to define
55: the structure of physical theories and their interrelations.
56: Criteria for errors in physical theories can be created on this
57: basis. This work presents the fundamental elements of the Special
58: Theory of Relativity (STR) and explains why it should be regarded as
59: a self-consistent and excellent theory. STR is used in classical
60: physics and in quantum physics as well. The main part of the
61: discussion carried out in this work is restricted to the validity
62: domain of classical physics.
63:
64: The second Section discusses the general structure of physical theories
65: and defines criteria for a rejection of a theory because of its erroneous
66: properties. The third Section presents fundamental elements of STR
67: pertaining to
68: mechanics and to electrodynamics. The fourth Section examines
69: some peculiar (and counterintuitive) predictions
70: of STR and shows that these
71: predictions are consistent with experimental data. Several examples
72: proving that some widely accepted contemporary physical theories are
73: inconsistent with STR, are discussed in the fifth Section. The last
74: Section contains concluding remarks.
75:
76: In this work, Greek indices run from 0 to 3 and Latin indices run
77: from 1 to 3.
78: Units where $\hbar = c = 1$ are used. In this unit system,
79: the celebrated relativistic formula $E=mc^2$ reduces to $E=m$. For
80: these reasons, the symbol $c$ is removed in many cases and
81: the symbol $m$ denotes not the dynamic mass but the
82: particle's mass in its instantaneous rest frame.
83: The relativistic factor $\gamma = (1 - v^2)^{-1/2}$. The symbol
84: $_{,\mu}$ denotes the partial differentiation with respect to $x^\mu $.
85:
86: \vglue 0.6666666in
87: {\bf 2. The Structure of Physical Theories}
88: \vglue 0.3333333in
89:
90: A physical theory resembles a mathematical theory. Both rely on a set
91: of axioms and employ a deductive procedure for yielding theorems, corollaries,
92: etc. The set of axioms and their results are regarded as elements of the
93: structure of the theory.
94: However, unlike a mathematical theory, a physical
95: theory is required to explain existing experimental data and to predict results of
96: new experiments.
97:
98:
99: This distinction between a mathematical theory and a physical theory
100: has several aspects. First, experiments
101: generally do not yield precise values but
102: contain estimates of the associated errors. (Some quantum mechanical
103: data, like spin, are the exception.) It follows that in many cases,
104: a certain numerical difference between theoretical predictions and
105: experimental data is quite acceptable.
106:
107:
108: Next, one does not expect that a physical theory should explain every
109: phenomenon. For example, it is well known that physical theories yield
110: very good predictions for the motion of planets around the sun. On the
111: other hand, nobody expects that a physical theory
112: be able to predict the
113: specific motion of an eagle flying in the sky. This simple example proves
114: that the validity of a physical theory should be evaluated only with
115: respect to a limited set of experiments. The set of experiments which
116: are relevant to a physical theory is called its domain of validity. (A
117: good discussion of this issue can be found in [1], pp. 1-6.)
118:
119:
120: Relations between two physical theories can be deduced from an
121: examination of their domain of validity. In particular, let
122: $D_A$ and $D_B$
123: denote the domains of validity of theories $A$ and $B$,
124: respectively. Now, if $D_A$ is a subset of $D_B$ then
125: one finds that the rank of theory
126: $B$ is higher than that of theory $A$ (see
127: [1], pp. 3-6). Hence, theory $B$ is
128: regarded as a theory having a more
129: profound status. However, theory $A$ is not ``wrong", because it yields
130: good predictions for experiments belonging to its own (smaller) domain
131: of validity. Generally, theory
132: $A$ takes a simpler mathematical form. Hence,
133: wherever possible, it is used in actual calculations.
134: Moreover, since theory $A$ is good in its validity domain
135: $D_A$ and $D_A$ is a part of $D_B$
136: then one finds that {\em theory A imposes
137: constraints on theory
138: B, in spite of the fact that B's rank is higher than
139: A's rank}. This self-evident
140: relation between lower rank and
141: higher rank theories is called here ``restrictions imposed by a lower rank
142: theory."
143: Thus, for example, although Newtonian
144: mechanics is good only for cases where the velocity $v$ satisfies
145: $v/c \rightarrow 0$, relativistic mechanics should yield formulas
146: which agree with corresponding formulas of Newtonian mechanics,
147: provided $v$ is small enough. As is very well known, STR satisfies this
148: requirement.
149:
150:
151: Having these ideas in mind, a theoretical error is regarded here as a
152: mathematical part of a theory that yields predictions which are clearly
153: inconsistent with experimental results, where the latter are carried out
154: within the theory's validity domain. The direct meaning of this definition
155: is obvious. It has, however, an indirect aspect too. Assume that
156: a given theory has a certain part, $P$, which is regarded as well
157: established. Thus, let $Q$ denote
158: another set of axioms and formulas which hold in
159: (at least a part of) $P$'s domain of validity. Now, assume that
160: $Q$ yields predictions that are inconsistent with those of $P$ and
161: the inconsistency holds in the common part of their domains of validity.
162: In such a case, $Q$ is regarded as a
163: theoretical error. (Note that, as explained above, $P$ may belong to a lower
164: rank theory.) An error in the latter sense is analogous to an
165: error in mathematics, where two elements of a theory are inconsistent
166: with each other.
167:
168:
169: There are other aspects of a physical theory which have
170: a certain value but are not well defined.
171: These may be described as neatness, simplicity and physical acceptability of
172: the theory. A general rule considers theory $C$ as simpler (or neater)
173: than theory $D$ if theory $C$ relies on a smaller number of axioms.
174: These properties of a physical theory are relevant to a
175: theory whose status is still undetermined because there is a lack of
176: experimental data required for its acceptance or rejection.
177:
178:
179: The notions of neatness, simplicity and physical acceptability have
180: a subjective nature and so it is unclear how disagreements based on them
181: can be settled. In particular, one should note that ideas concerning
182: physical acceptability changed dramatically during the 20th century. Thus,
183: a 19th century physicist would have regarded many well established
184: elements of contemporary physics as unphysical. An incomplete list of
185: such elements contains the relativity of length and time intervals, the
186: non-Euclidean structure of
187: space-time, the corpuscular-wave nature of pointlike particles,
188: parity violation and the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics (which is
189: manifested by the EPR effect).
190:
191:
192: For these reasons neatness, simplicity and physical acceptability
193: of a theory have a secondary value. Thus, if there is no further evidence,
194: then these aspects should not be used for taking a {\em final decision}
195: concerning the
196: acceptability of a physical theory.
197:
198:
199: Before concluding these introductory remarks, it should be stated that the
200: erroneous nature of a physical theory $E$ cannot be established merely
201: by showing the
202: existence of a different (or even a contradictory) theory $F$. This point
203: is obvious. Indeed, if such a situation exists then one may conclude that
204: either of the following relations holds: the two theories agree/disagree on
205: predictions of experimental results belonging to a common
206: domain of validity. If the theories agree on
207: all predictions of
208: experimental results then they are just two different mathematical
209: formulations of the {\em same} theory. (The Heisenberg and the
210: Schroedinger pictures of quantum mechanics are an example of
211: this case.) If the theories disagree then
212: (at least) theory $E$
213: {\em or} theory $F$ is wrong. However, assuming that neither $E$ nor
214: $F$ relies on a mathematical
215: error, then one cannot decide on the issue without having an adequate
216: amount of experimental data.
217:
218:
219: Another issue is the usage of models and phenomenological formulas.
220: This approach
221: is very common in cases where there is no established theory or where
222: theoretical formulas are
223: too complicated. A model is evaluated by its usefulness and not by its
224: theoretical correctness. Hence, models apparently do not belong to
225: the subject of this compilation of Articles.
226:
227:
228: \vglue 0.6666666in
229: {\bf 3. The Mathematical Structure of the Special Theory of Relativity}
230: \vglue 0.3333333in
231:
232: Within the scope of this work, one certainly cannot write a
233: comprehensive presentation of STR. As a matter of fact, there is no need
234: for doing that, because there are many good textbooks on this subject.
235: References [2,3] as well as many other textbooks may be used
236: by readers who are still unacquainted with STR. Hence,
237: fundamental elements of the mathematical structure of STR are presented
238: here without a thorough pedagogical explanation.
239:
240: STR is based on 2 postulates:
241: \begin{itemize}
242: \item[{1.}] The laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics take the same
243: form in all inertial frames.
244: \item[{2.}] The speed of light in vacuum takes the same value $c$ in
245: all inertial frames (and it is independent of the velocity of the source).
246: \end{itemize}
247:
248: The theory derived from these postulates can be formulated by using
249: tensor calculus within Minkowski space of 4 dimensions. Three equivalent
250: forms of this space can be found in the literature.
251: In these forms the metric tensor (denoted by $g_{\mu \nu }$) is diagonal and
252: contains the numbers $\pm 1$. The signature of the three forms takes the
253: values 4, 2 and $-2$, respectively. In the signature 4, the metric is the
254: unit tensor and calculations use complex numbers. The metric used here
255: is (1,-1,-1,-1). Apparently, this is the most popular metric used by
256: modern textbooks.
257:
258: The differential of the interval $ds$ is obtained from $ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2$.
259: Lorentz transformations are second rank tensors $L^\mu _\nu $
260: that conserve the length of the interval. They are used for transforming
261: quantities from one inertial frame to another. Lorentz transformations
262: form a group. A subgroup of this group is the group of rotations in
263: the ordinary 3-dimensional space. The Poincare group is the group
264: that contains the Lorentz group and the group of space-time translations.
265:
266: There are some
267: important physical quantities which
268: are invariant under Lorentz transformations
269: (these invariants are also called Lorentz scalars).
270: These invariants are the interval;
271: the following relation of
272: energy and momentum components of
273: a closed system $E^2 - P^2$;
274: $B^2 - E^2$ and ${\bf E\cdot B}$ of the electromagnetic fields.
275: The electric charge is a Lorentz scalar too.
276:
277: Some other physical quantities are entries of first rank tensors (also
278: called 4-vectors). Thus, space-time coordinates are entries of
279: a 4-vector denoted by $x^\mu $.
280: For coordinates of the path of a moving massive particle, the
281: square of the interval $ds^2 =dt^2 - dx^2 > 0$. Hence, the 4-velocity of a
282: massive particle $v^\mu \equiv dx^\mu/ds=\gamma (1,{\bf v})$
283: is a well defined 4-vector. Similarly, the 4-acceleration is defined
284: as follows $a^\mu \equiv dv^\mu/ds$. Energy and momentum of a closed
285: system are entries of
286: the 4-vector $P^\mu \equiv (E,{\bf P})$. The scalar and
287: vector potentials of electrodynamics are entries of the 4-vector
288: $A^\mu \equiv (\Phi,{\bf A})$. The 4-current is another 4-vector. Here
289: $j^\mu \equiv (\rho,\rho {\bf v})$, where $\rho $ denotes charge
290: density. This 4-current satisfies the
291: continuity equation $j^\mu _{,\mu}=0$, which proves charge conservation.
292: The 4-current can be written in a different notation, where $\rho $
293: denotes probability density and all entries
294: of the 4-vector are multiplied by
295: the electric charge $e$.
296: An analogous 4-vector is the mass current where the rest mass $m$
297: (which is a Lorentz scalar!) replaces the electric charge.
298:
299: Electromagnetic fields are components of a second rank antisymmetric
300: tensor which is the 4-curl of $A_\mu $. Thus
301: $F_{\mu \nu } \equiv A_{\nu ,\mu} - A_{\mu ,\nu }$. Energy and
302: momentum densities as well as energy and momentum currents
303: are entries of a second rank symmetric tensor
304: $T^{\mu \nu }$. This tensor is called the energy-momentum tensor (or
305: the stress energy tensor).
306: Thus, $T^{00}$ is the energy density and $T^{i0}$ are
307: densities of momentum components.
308:
309: The density of angular momentum components
310: are entries of a third rank tensor
311: $S^{\lambda \mu \nu} \equiv x^\lambda T^{\mu \nu} - x^\mu T^{\lambda \nu}$.
312:
313: It is interesting to note that Maxwellian electrodynamics predicts the
314: existence of transverse electromagnetic waves that satisfy the following
315: equation
316: \begin{equation}
317: \frac {\partial ^2{\bf E}}{\partial t^2} - \nabla ^2 {\bf E} = 0
318: \label{eq:MAXWELLWAVES}
319: \end{equation}
320: and a similar equation for the components of the magnetic field.
321: In the vacuum, these waves travel
322: in the speed of light. Moreover, since
323: Maxwell's wave equation is independent of quantities of the
324: inertial frame
325: where the fields are measured (and of the velocity of the source
326: of the fields as well), one concludes that Maxwellian fields
327: travel in the speed of light $c$ in all frames. This conclusion
328: agrees completely with postulate 2 of STR.
329:
330: The mathematical structure of Minkowski space is known to be
331: self-consistent. Moreover, as stated above, STR agrees with Newtonian
332: mechanics in cases where $v/c\rightarrow 0$.
333: Thus, the mathematical aspect of STR is flawless and its
334: validity should be examined by means of a
335: comparison of its predictions with well established experimental data.
336:
337:
338:
339: \vglue 0.6666666in
340: {\bf 4. Experimental Data and Special Relativity}
341: \vglue 0.3333333in
342:
343: As explained in Section 2, the acceptability of STR should be examined within
344: its validity domain. Thus experiments where effects of gravitational
345: field or of noninertial frames can be ignored are examined. Hence,
346: terrestrial experiments of strong, electromagnetic and weak
347: interactions belong to the validity domain of STR. This
348: section discusses several results of STR, some of which may look strange
349: to everybody who follows his intuition (which has been developed on the
350: basis of life experience in a macroscopic world and where $v/c \ll 1$).
351:
352: \begin{itemize}
353:
354: \item[{1.}] It is proved in STR that the speed of light is an upper
355: bound for the velocity of massive particles $v<c$. This property is verified
356: in many experiments. Take for example the CERN's LEP accelerator where
357: beams of electrons and positrons are accelerated to a very
358: high kinetic energy. The beams collide and their center
359: of mass energy exceeds
360: 200 GeV [4]. Thus, electrons and positrons of the beams have
361: kinetic energy which is more than 200000 times $mc^2$. In spite of this
362: gigantic kinetic energy, particles do not move faster than light.
363:
364: Another kind of information are the neutrinos measured from the 1987A
365: supernova. This supernova exploded about 164000 years ago (data taken
366: from the Internet site of Wikipedia). Thus the number of seconds
367: elapsed is about $5\cdot 10^{12}$. On earth,
368: the neutrino burst lasted about 13
369: seconds. A variation in the energy of these neutrinos is expected to
370: hold, due to Doppler shift and other reasons. According to recent
371: experimental measurements, neutrinos are massive particles
372: (see [5], pp. 451-467). Therefore,
373: one may conclude that the variation in speed of these very high energy
374: particles is less than $10^{-11}$ of their mean speed. This conclusion is
375: consistent with STR. Indeed, in STR the speed of all very high energy
376: massive particles is $c(1 - \varepsilon )$, where $\varepsilon $ is a
377: very small positive number.
378:
379: \item[{2.}] The equivalence of mass and energy is another result of STR.
380: This conclusion is seen in many experiments of particle physics.
381: Thus, the
382: positronium is a bound state of an electron and a positron. These particles
383: annihilate each other
384: and two or three photons are emitted. Photons are massless
385: particles found in electromagnetic radiation. Hence, they are a form
386: of energy (which can be converted into heat, etc.). Similarly, the particle
387: $\pi ^0$ disintegrates into 2 photons. Another experimental example of
388: the equivalence of mass and energy
389: is the heat released from a fission of heavy nuclei
390: like $^{235}U$ and $^{239}Pu$. Here the sum of the masses of the nuclei
391: produced by fission is smaller than that of the original nucleus.
392: The difference between the masses appears as a kinetic energy which is
393: eventually converted into heat.
394:
395: Processes taking the opposite direction are seen too. Thus, photons
396: having energy greater than 1 MeV are absorbed by matter in a process called
397: pair production, where an electron and a positron are created [6]. In
398: higher energy processes, meson production [7] (namely a $\bar {q}q$
399: bound state) is observed. In even higher energy, a pair of proton-antiproton
400: are produced [8].
401:
402:
403:
404: \item[{3.}] The Lorentz contraction of length is another result of STR. Thus,
405: a rod of length $l$ looks shorter, if it is measured in an inertial
406: frame $\Sigma $
407: where it moves in a direction which is not perpendicular to its
408: length. Lorentz contraction
409: is seen in an examination of $\mu $ mesons
410: having a very high energy. The
411: half-life time of these particles is about $2.2\cdot 10^{-6}$ seconds.
412: This time interval should be measured in the particle's rest
413: frame $\Sigma '$.
414: Hence, if Lorentz contraction does not hold, then after moving
415: 4000 meters, their number should be about $1.5\%$ of their original number.
416: After passing 10000 meters, the number should be less than $10^{-4}$
417: of the original number.
418: Now, many $\mu $ mesons are produced at the upper part of the atmosphere
419: as a result of interactions initiated by a very energetic cosmic ray and
420: a considerable part of these particles
421: reach sea level. This effect is explained by measuring the time (and
422: the half-life time) in the particle's rest frame $\Sigma '$ and by
423: the Lorentz contraction of
424: the distance between the upper part of the atmosphere and sea level,
425: which holds in $\Sigma '$.
426:
427: This effect can also be seen in a $\mu $ meson machine where processes are
428: under control [9]. Here high energy $\mu $ mesons move in a storage
429: ring. Lorentz contraction of length in the $\mu $ meson's
430: instantaneous rest frame is
431: seen as a time dilation in the laboratory frame. Thus, in this specific
432: case, the time dilation factor is about 30.
433: This outcome is a very convincing argument supporting the Lorentz contraction
434: of length.
435:
436: \item[{4.}] Landau and Lifshitz use STR and prove that
437: an elementary classical particle must be pointlike (see [2], pp. 43-44).
438: This
439: result is supported by quantum mechanics and by quantum field theory.
440: Indeed, in these theories
441: the wave function/field function $\psi (x^\mu)$ depends
442: on a {\em single} set of space-time coordinates $x^\mu $. Hence, these
443: functions describe pointlike particles. Experimental results of
444: the elementary Dirac particles: electrons, $\mu $ mesons and $u,\;d$ quarks are
445: consistent with this property. This conclusion is inferred from the
446: experimental support of the Bjorken scaling in very high energy
447: scattering [10].
448:
449: \end{itemize}
450:
451: The foregoing examples show several kinds of experimental data,
452: all of which
453: are predicted by STR. In addition to these examples, it
454: can also be stated that an enormous number of experiments
455: in high energy physics have been carried out during the last 50 years.
456: These experiments are designed, constructed and analyzed in accordance with
457: the laws of STR. Therefore, beside yielding specific results, these
458: experiments provide a solid basis for our confidence that STR is an
459: excellent theory.
460:
461:
462: \vglue 0.6666666in
463: {\bf 5. Violations of the Special Theory of Relativity by Contemporary
464: Theoretical Ideas}
465: \vglue 0.3333333in
466:
467: This Section shows three examples where theoretical ideas
468: adopted by the mainstream of contemporary physics are inconsistent with STR.
469:
470:
471: \begin{itemize}
472:
473: \item[{1.}] The data of high energy photons interacting with nucleons show
474: that in this case, protons and neutrons are very much alike [7]. These
475: data cannot be explained by an analysis of the photon interaction with
476: the electric charge of nucleon constituents.
477: Thus, an idea called Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) has been suggested for
478: this purpose.
479:
480: The main point of VMD is that the wave function of an energetic photon
481: takes the form
482: \begin{equation}
483: \mid \gamma >\; = c_0\mid \gamma _0> + c_h \mid h>
484: \label{eq:GAMMA}
485: \end{equation}
486: where $\mid \gamma >$ denotes the wave function of a physical photon,
487: $\mid \gamma _0>$
488: denotes the pure electromagnetic
489: component of a physical photon and $\mid h>$ denotes
490: its hypothetical hadronic component. $c_0$ and $c_h$ are appropriate
491: numerical coefficients
492: {\em whose values depend on the photon's energy} [7,11]. Thus,
493: for soft
494: photons $c_h = 0$ whereas it
495: begins to take a nonvanishing value for photons whose
496: energy is not much less then the $\rho $ meson's mass.
497:
498: The fact that the Standard Model has no other explanation for the hard
499: photon-nucleon interaction is probably the reason for the survival of
500: VMD. An analysis published
501: recently proves that VMD is inconsistent with many well established
502: elements of physical theories [12]. In particular, VMD is inconsistent
503: with Wigner's analysis of the Poincare group [13,14]. This outcome
504: proves that VMD violates STR.
505:
506:
507: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
508: \begin{figure}[h]
509: \vspace*{3ex}
510: \begin{center}
511: \rotatebox{0} {\includegraphics*[height=5cm]{fig_VMD.eps}}
512: % \hspace{10ex}
513: % \includegraphics*[height=5cm]{rotor.eps}
514: \end{center}
515: \begin{quotation}
516: \caption{
517: Two rays of light are emitted from sources $S_1$
518: and $S_2$ which are located at $x=\pm 1$,
519: respectively. The rays intersect at point $O$
520: which is embedded in the $(x,y)$ plane.
521: (This figure is published in [12] and is used here with permission.)
522: }
523:
524:
525: % {\it Rotations.} The small circle marks the origin. The point
526: % $X=(\half,\half,\half,\half)$ is marked by a cross.
527: %Thick squares show the blocking pattern.
528:
529: %\lbl{figprop}}
530: \end{quotation}
531: \vspace*{-1ex}
532: \end{figure}
533: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
534:
535: This conclusion can also be proved by the following specific example.
536: Consider the experiment described in figure 1.
537: In the laboratory frame $\Sigma $ of fig. 1, the optical
538: photons of the rays do not interact. Thus, neither energy
539: nor momentum are exchanged between the rays. Therefore,
540: after passing through $O$, the photons travel in their
541: original direction. Let us examine the situation in a frame $\Sigma '$. In
542: $\Sigma $, frame $\Sigma '$ is seen moving
543: very fast in the negative direction of
544: the Y axis. Thus, in $\Sigma '$, photons of the two rays are very
545: energetic. Hence, if VMD holds then photons of both rays contain hadrons
546: and should exchange energy and momentum at point $O$.
547: This is a contradiction because if the
548: rays do not exchange energy and momentum in frame $\Sigma $ then they
549: obviously do not do that in any other frame of reference. Thus, this
550: simple example proves that VMD violates STR.
551:
552:
553: \item[{2.}] The Yukawa interaction is derived from the interaction
554: term of a Dirac spinor $\psi (x^\mu )$
555: with a Klein-Gordon (KG) particle $\phi (x^\mu )$
556: (see [15], p.79 and [16], p. 135)
557: \begin{equation}
558: L_{Yukawa} = L_{Dirac} + L_{KG} - g\bar {\psi}\psi \phi .
559: \label{eq:LYUKAWA}
560: \end{equation}
561: Here the KG particle plays a role which is analogous to that of the
562: photon in electrodynamics. The following argument proves that a Lorentz
563: scalar (like the KG particle) cannot be used as a basis for a field of
564: force.
565:
566: Consider the following Lorentz scalar $v^\mu v_\mu$. As a scalar, it
567: takes a fixed value in all inertial frames. (In the units used here
568: its value is unity.) Differentiating this expression with respect
569: to the interval, one finds
570: \begin{equation}
571: \frac {d(v^\mu v_\mu )}{ds} = 2v^\mu a_\mu = 0.
572: \label{eq:VA}
573: \end{equation}
574: This relation means that in STR
575: the 4-velocity is orthogonal to the 4-acceleration.
576:
577: Let an elementary classical particle $W$
578: move in a field of force. The field quantities are independent of the
579: 4-velocity of
580: $W$ but the associated 4-force must be orthogonal to it. In
581: electrodynamics this goal
582: is attained by means of the Lorentz force.
583: In this case, one finds
584: \begin{equation}
585: a^\mu v_\mu = \frac {e}{m}F^{\mu \nu}v_\nu v_\mu = 0,
586: \label{eq:LOROK}
587: \end{equation}
588: where the null result is obtained from the antisymmetry of
589: $F^{\mu \nu }$ and the
590: symmetry of the product $v_\mu v_\nu $. In electrodynamics, the
591: antisymmetric field tensor
592: $F^{\mu \nu }$ is constructed as the 4-curl of the 4-potential $A_\mu $. Such a
593: field of force cannot be obtained from the {\em scalar} KG field.
594: Now, the notion of force holds in classical physics. Hence, the
595: classical limit of the Yukawa interaction is inconsistent with STR.
596:
597: \item[{3.}] Following historical ideas, $\pi $ mesons are regarded as KG
598: particles (see [15], pp. 79, 122).
599: This is certainly wrong because it has recently been proved
600: that the KG equation is inconsistent with well established physical
601: theories [17,18]. This conclusion is in accordance with Dirac's
602: negative opinion on the KG equation [19,20].
603:
604: This matter has also an indirect
605: aspect pertaining to STR. Indeed, as shown in
606: point 4 of Section 4, STR proves that
607: a truly elementary classical particle should be pointlike.
608: This result is also obtained from the quantum mechanical wave
609: function $\Psi(x^\mu )$ which depends on a {\em single} set of
610: space-time coordinates.
611: Now, the KG equation, is supposed to be a quantum mechanical equation.
612: As such, it must describe pointlike particles. On the other hand, it
613: is now recognized that $\pi $ mesons are not pointlike and that their
614: size is not much smaller than the size of the proton (see [5],
615: pp. 499, 854.). Therefore
616: the usage of $\pi $ mesons as KG particles violates STR indirectly.
617:
618: \end{itemize}
619:
620: \vglue 0.6666666in
621: {\bf 6. Concluding Remarks}
622: \vglue 0.3333333in
623:
624: The notion of a theoretical error is defined. It is explained that STR
625: has a solid mathematical basis. The fact that
626: its formulas agree with Newtonian
627: mechanics in cases where $v/c \rightarrow 0$ proves that it satisfies restrictions
628: imposed by a lower rank theory.
629: Next, it is shown that some peculiar predictions
630: of STR are confirmed by experiments. The predictions discussed here
631: are the relation $v<c$ where $v$ denotes the velocity of a massive
632: particle; the equivalence of mass and energy; the Lorentz contraction;
633: and the pointlike nature of elementary particles.
634: The enormous number of experiments
635: carried out in particle physics use particles whose velocity is in
636: the relativistic domain where $0 < 1 - v/c \ll 1$. The design, construction
637: and analysis of these experiments abide by the laws of STR.
638: The data obtained are compatible with STR and
639: provide a solid basis for our confidence that STR is an excellent
640: theory.
641:
642: The discussion carried out above concetrates on phenomena belonging to
643: classical physics. It should be noted that the Dirac equation is
644: a relativistic quantum mechanical equation.
645: It predicts correctly the spin of
646: the electron and the existence of antiparticles. It yields very good
647: predictions for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom and
648: for the electron's g-factor. Corrections to these values
649: are obtained from quantum field theory, which is a higher
650: relativistic theory.
651:
652: It is also proved that, contrary to a common belief, some
653: theoretical ideas, adopted by the
654: mainstream of contemporary physicists, violate STR. These ideas are
655: VMD, the Yukawa theory of a field of force carried by a scalar meson
656: and the idea that $\pi $ mesons are Klein-Gordon particles.
657:
658: % ?????????????
659:
660:
661:
662:
663:
664: \newpage
665: References:
666: \begin{itemize}
667:
668: \item[{*}] Email: elic@tauphy.tau.ac.il \\
669: Internet site: http://www-nuclear.tau.ac.il/$\sim $elic
670: \item[{[1]}] F. Rohrlich, {\em Classical Charged Particles}, (Addison-wesley,
671: Reading Mass, 1965).
672: \item[{[2]}] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, {\em The Classical
673: Theory of Fields} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1975).
674: \item[{[3]}] J. D. Jackson, {\em Classical Electrodynamics} (John Wiley,
675: New York,1975).
676: \item[{[4]}] K. Hubner, Phys. Rep., {\bf 403}, 177 (2004).
677: \item[{[5]}] S. Eidelman et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett.
678: {\bf B592}, 1 (2004).
679: \item[{[6]}] K. S. Krane, {\em Introductory Nuclear Physics} (John Wiley,
680: New York, 1988). p. 201.
681: \item[{[7]}] T. H. Bauer, R. D. Spital, D. R. Yennie and F. M. Pipkin,
682: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 50}, 261 (1978).
683: \item[{[8]}] P. Achard et al., Phys. Lett., {\bf B571}, 11 (2003).
684: \item[{[9]}] R. M. Carey et al,, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 82}, 1632 (1999)
685: \item[{[10]}] D. H. Perkins, {\em Introduction to High Energy Physics}
686: (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1987). Pp 272-273.
687: \item[{[11]}] H. Frauenfelder and E. M. Henley, {\em Subatomic Physics},
688: (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1991). pp. 296-304.
689: \item[{[12]}] E. Comay, Apeiron {\bf 10}, no. 2, 87 (2003).
690: \item[{[13]}] E. P. Wigner, Annals of Math., {\bf 40}, 149 (1939).
691: \item[{[14]}] S. S. Schweber, {\em An Introduction to Relativistic
692: Quantum Field Theory}, (Harper \& Row, New York, 1964). pp. 44-53.
693: \item[{[15]}] M. E. Peskin and D. V.
694: Schroeder, {\em An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory} (Addison-Wesley,
695: Reading, Mass., 1995).
696: \item[{[16]}] G. Sterman {\em An Introduction to Quantum
697: Field Theory} (University Press, Cambridge, 1993).
698: \item[{[17]}] E. Comay, Apeiron, {\bf 11}, No. 3, 1 (2004).
699: \item[{[18]}] E. Comay, Apeiron {\bf 12}, no. 1, 27 (2005).
700: \item[{[19]}] P. A. M. Dirac, {\em Mathematical Foundations of Quantum
701: Theory} Ed. A. R. Marlow (Academic, New York, 1978). (See pp. 3,4).
702: \item[{[20]}] S. Weinberg {\em The Quantum Theory of Fields}
703: (Cambridge, University Press, 1995). Vol. 1, pp. 3-8
704:
705:
706:
707:
708: \end{itemize}
709:
710: \end{document}
711:
712:
713: