I’ve done a couple of videos about relativity
and I’ll do some more. I guess that you could say that I’m on a relativity kick. In one of my videos, I showed that relativistic
mass wasn’t real. It’s just a pedagogical device that has some value in terms of building
intuition, but ultimately is more trouble than it’s worth. In the comments of that video, people asked
about the physical meaning of the gamma term in the momentum equation. By the way, another
name for gamma is the Lorentz factor. And that’s a really good question. After
all, while equations are the language of precise science, equations should lead to an understanding
and not just be accepted as is. It turns out that there is more than one answer
to the physical meaning of gamma and in what is no doubt going to annoy some of you, I’m
going to save my favorite interpretation for the next video. But wait! Don’t click away! There’s a
reason for that! The reason is that unless you’ve had a class
in special relativity, my favorite interpretation just kind of comes at you from out of the
blue. So, I thought I’d tell you in this video a perfectly fine way to understand the
Lorentz gamma. And you even get the anticipation of knowing that in an upcoming video you’ll
see something even more interesting. So, what I thought I’d do in this episode
is show you how it is derived in an introductory class in special relativity. Now you guys
said you wanted to see some equations, so we’re going to go for it. Einstein started with two postulates when
he did his derivation of special relativity. The first is that the laws of physics are
the same for any two people who are moving with respect to one another at constant speed.
These are called inertial observers. And the second postulate is that the speed of light
is the same for all observers. Now that last one is the thing that causes
relativity skeptics so much trouble. After all, it flies in the face of common sense.
I mean- if I sit with a ball in my hand, I will say that the ball isn’t moving. However,
if I am sitting in a car, driving 60 miles per hour, a person on the side of the road
will say that the ball is moving 60 miles per hour. By the way, that's 100 kilometers
per hour for the pro-metric crowd. Common sense says that Einstein’s second
postulate is wrong. But we can simply assume that he is right and see the consequence.
So, let’s do that. We’ll start with a railroad car, a mirror,
a flashlight, a stopwatch and two observers. One observer is in the railroad car. She simultaneously
starts the stopwatch and shines the flashlight across the car into the mirror, which then
reflects the beam of light back to her. When it returns, she stops the stop watch. She’s
got really fast reflexes. If the width of the train car is W, then the
distance the beam of light travelled is 2W, because it goes there and back. And if you
wanted to figure out how long it took for the light beam to travel back and forth, the
time would be the distance divided by the velocity. We use the symbol c for the speed
of light and we see that the transit time T is 2 times W, divided by c. You’ll note that the T has a subscript “stationary”
to imply that the woman doesn’t see the mirror move. And, in case you are wondering
why the symbol “c” is used for the speed of light, it’s from the Latin word celeritas,
which means “quickness.” Okay , so now let’s have the train move
and ask how long an observer outside the train thinks it takes for the light to leave the
woman, bounce off the far side of the train, and return to her. Suppose that we say that
the train is moving at a velocity that we call v. Now the absolutely, key, crucial, central
and other similar adjectives, point is that the person outside the train also sees light
moving at the speed of light, which is c. And that changes everything. Classically, the way you learn about all other
velocities, you’d say that the velocity of light would be faster than c to the person
seeing the train moving. That’s because the stationary observer said that light moved
at c across the train. Because the train is also moving at velocity v, we would then say
by the Pythagorean theorem that light was moving along the hypotenuse of the triangle
at a speed S, which is equal the square root of c-squared plus v-squared. But this is simply
not right. It fails Einstein’s second postulate. Remember that the outside observer also says
that light is traveling at the speed of light along the path they see, which is the hypotenuse
of the triangle. So if light is moving along the hypotenuse at c and along the motion of
the train at v, then it's moving towards the mirror at the speed of the square root of
c-squared minus v-squared. And if the velocity of light moving across
the train and back is that, then the time it takes for light to cross the train and
back according to the person seeing the train move is two times W divided by that speed,
which is the square root of c-squared minus v-squared. Now if we remember our equation for T-stationary,
we can do some simple algebra and come up with an equation for 2W, which we can then
put into the T-moving equation. And finally we can factor out the c, and we
can finally put in the gamma. So that’s where the gamma comes from. Or
at least that’s one way to do it. There are lots of similar derivations. What does it mean? Well if you put in any
non-zero velocity less than the speed of light, you find that gamma is a number greater than
1. That means that the person watching the train move will think that the round trip
time for the light to bounce off the mirror is longer than the person sitting in the train. Now that might sound just utterly ridiculous-
in fact, let me share a secret with you- when I first heard this when I was a teenager,
I thought it was all so much malarkey or other, less family friendly, words. It’s partly
why I became a physicist, because I thought that the world’s scientists had gone mad-
mad I tell you! Mwahahahaha! But it turns out that we can prove that this
bizarre-oid prediction is actually true. In fact, I made another video showing how physicists
prove that this difference in how time is perceived every single day. If you haven’t
watched it, it’s worth your time. So this brings us to the question I asked
at the beginning of the video. What is gamma? Well, we can solve for gamma and we see that
it is simply the ratio of time a person experiences when they see a clock moving to the time experienced
by someone who is moving along with the clock. Now, like I said before, this isn’t exactly
my favorite explanation of what gamma is physically. There’s another explanation that I like
better. But the derivation is way harder, so I thought I’d show you this approach
as a starter. The next video will tell you some eye-opening truths about E = m c squared
and why it’s actually wrong or at least not the whole story. Okay, so you guys said that you were willing
to see some equations, so I made a video that had more of them. I’m curious to know what
you thought. Hopefully you loved it. If you did, please like, subscribe and share. And
let me know what you think in the comments. Well, I’ll see you next time, and remember-
physics is everything.
