text:
# A Tunable Echelle Imager

## 1 Introduction

One of the most versatile instruments for astronomical narrow-band imaging is the gap-scanning Fabry-Perot (FP) etalon. Light passing through a FP produces a series of wavelength passbands called orders (examples of the transmission are shown in Figure 1).

The positions of the passbands can be moved by varying the separation of the cavity surfaces (e.g., Atherton et al., 1981; Atherton, 1995; Bland-Hawthorn & Jones, 1998). However, in order to image a field with a FP, broad- or intermediate-band filters are usually used to block out the light from all the passbands except the one of interest. An alternative method is to use a dispersive element to separate the images formed by different FP orders. Recently this principle has been used in the PYTHEAS instrument (le Coarer et al., 1995) and the GraF instrument (Chalabaev & le Coarer 1995; Chalabaev et al. 1999a, 1999b). In this paper, we consider the use of a cross-dispersed echelle grating111We use the term ‘echelle’ for any multi-order diffraction grating used above about the fifth order, rather than distinguishing between an ‘echellette’ and an ‘echelle’ grating. crossed with a gap-scanning FP called a Tunable Echelle Imager (TEI). This forms a mosaic of narrow-band images with different wavelengths on a detector, and by scanning the plate separation of the FP, a complete data cube can be obtained (2D image plus 1D spectral).

### 1.1 The basic physics

The wavelength positions of the FP orders are described by the equation for constructive interference:222Note that Equation 1 does not include the effect of phase changes on reflection (Atherton et al., 1981; Jones & Bland-Hawthorn, 1998). Such phase changes only have a significant impact for low-order etalons which are not considered here.

$$m_{\mathrm{fp}}\lambda =2\mu d\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(1)
where $`m_{\mathrm{fp}}`$ is the FP order, $`\mu `$ is the refractive index of the medium in the cavity gap, $`d`$ is the plate separation (or gap spacing) and $`\theta `$ is the angle of incidence.

The bandwidth of each FP order is dependent on the reflectivity and defects of the coated surfaces (non-parallelism). The ratio between inter-order wavelength spacing ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$) and the FWHM bandwidth ($`\delta \lambda `$) is called the effective finesse:

$$N=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }{\delta \lambda }.$$
(2)
The finesse is also related to the contrast between the peak transmission of an order and the minimum transmission between orders. For contrast values greater than 100, 250, 500 or 1000, the finesse needs to be greater than 16, 25, 35 or 50, respectively. At high finesse, the efficiency can drop significantly due to defects (Atherton et al., 1981). A finesse between 20 and 40 is optimal for a high-throughput imaging FP (Bland-Hawthorn, 1995).

The echelle grating (EG) disperses the FP orders using multi-order diffraction. The diffracted angle ($`\beta `$) for gratings that are not immersed between prisms is determined from the grating equation:

$$m_{\mathrm{eg}}\lambda =\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\mathrm{sin}\beta ),$$
(3)
where $`m_{\mathrm{eg}}`$ is the EG order, $`\mu `$ is the refractive index of air, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the grating period and $`\alpha `$ is the incidence angle in air.

With an echelle grating, several wavelengths corresponding to different EG orders are diffracted at or near the same angle. For this reason, a low-dispersion element is needed to separate the EG orders. This could be another grating, one or more prisms, or a grism.

## 2 TEI setup

A TEI system is suitable for use at Cassegrain focus with a small collimated beam, preferably less than 100 mm in diameter for cheaper and better-quality etalons.

An aperture is placed in the telescope focal plane in order to prevent overlap of images at the detector. The TEI is placed in the collimated beam. Different setups are shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4.

The first optical element is the Fabry-Perot (FP) filter which produces a series of narrow passbands or orders. Alternatively, it is possible to put one or both of the dispersing elements before the FP. The advantage in placing the FP first is that all the light from a given point source passes through the FP at the same angle ($`\theta `$). This allows for a smaller etalon and the variations in central wavelength across a field are the same for all orders (consider the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ factor in Equation 1). If the variation in $`\theta `$ is small enough, the image of each field will be effectively monochromatic. For monochromaticity, it is preferable that the centre of the field is on-axis with the FP, i.e., to minimize the variation in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

The second optical element is a grism which separates the FP orders with low-dispersion first-order diffraction. In principal, a grating without a prism could be used. The advantage of using a grism is that it is more likely to be compatible with existing astronomical optical instruments if the beam is not deviated significantly at this point. Some grism formats are shown in Figure 5.

In some cases, it may be necessary to include a colored-glass filter to block second- and higher-order diffraction by the grism. This could be placed before the FP element to minimize scattered light in the TEI.

The third optical element disperses the light in the perpendicular direction (to the grism) with high-dispersion multi-order diffraction. The dispersion is too high to correct to zero beam deviation by using a prism. The setup in Figure 2 uses a transmission grating with Littrow diffraction. The advantage of this is that the beam size remains the same after diffraction and, therefore, the pixel scale on the detector is the same as for direct imaging. The setup in Figure 3 uses a reflection grating. Higher spectral resolution (or a larger field for a given resolution) can be achieved with this setup but there is an anamorphic increase in beam size. An alternative reflection grating setup is shown in Figure 4 with an anamorphic decrease in beam size. In this case, it may be advantageous to place the grism after the reflection grating.

The use of an articulated camera333For example, articulated cameras are planned for the ATLAS (Robertson et al., 2000) and OSIRIS (Cepa et al., 2000) spectrographs. would allow a choice of the beam deviation that is most suitable for the experiment. Especially in the case of the transmission echelle grating, the ability to control the observed angle of diffraction allows significant control over the dispersion and anamorphic factor of the instrument. The recent advent of volume-phase holographic (VPH) technology offers another advantage for the completely transmissive version of the TEI, in that, the grism and echelle grating could be combined into one optical element for higher efficiency (a multiplexed grating; Barden et al. 2000).

### 2.1 Parameters

There are a number of different parameters that define the properties of the instrument. The principal parameters that we will consider are:

* for the telescope:

+ the field-of-view size,
    + the beam reduction factor (collimated-beam diameter / telescope diameter $`=f_{\mathrm{coll}}/f_{\mathrm{tel}}`$), which determines the scaling between angles in the collimated beam and on the sky;
* for the Fabry-Perot filter:

+ the separation between the highly reflective surfaces of the FP ($`d`$), which determines the central wavelengths of the orders and the separations between the orders,
    + the finesse ($`N`$), which determines the resolution and contrast for a given order;
* for the echelle grating:

+ the line density of the grating ($`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$),
    + the incident and diffracted angles ($`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$).
* for the grism:

+ the line density of the grating,
    + the angle and the refractive index of the prism(s),
    + the incident and diffracted angles;

In the next section (2.2), we give some examples of various setup parameters.

### 2.2 Examples

To determine the type of images that can be obtained with a TEI, we shall consider a system that can image a 12° x 12° angular spread in the collimated beam. This corresponds to a 6 x 6 arcminute field of view for a telescope with a beam reduction factor of 1/120 (e.g., a 10-m telescope with an 83-mm collimated beam), or a 12 x 12 arcminute view with a beam reduction factor of 1/60 (e.g., a 4-m telescope with a 67-mm beam). For the 6 x 6 arcminute field, the image sampling corresponds to 0.18 arcsec per pixel for a 2K x 2K detector.

Examples of various setup parameters are shown in Table 1.

The fixed grism format disperses the wavelength range 600 to 1000 nm across the detector with first-order diffraction. For most optical systems, a colored filter would be required to block wavelengths below 500 nm (e.g., OG 550) to avoid contamination of the images with second-order diffraction from the grism. This range was chosen to span roughly an octave in spectral coverage. The TEI setup parameters can easily be adapted for other wavelength ranges, beam characteristics and detector sizes.

The plate separation of the FP determines the number of imaged orders between 600 and 1000 nm. This combined with the finesse determines the resolving power of the instrument. If the finesse is constant across the observed wavelengths then the resolving power will be highest at the shortest wavelength and be proportional to $`1/\lambda `$. This could be altered by increasing the reflectivity as a function of wavelength.

The parameters of the echelle grating determine the maximum aperture size usable at a given resolving power (without overlap of FP orders). Higher dispersion gratings and/or increased anamorphic factor allow for wider apertures or a larger resolving power. The maximum length of the aperture is determined by the separation of the EG orders imaged onto the detector. Simulated images of FP orders with various EG orders and dispersions (Table 1) are shown in Figures 611.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 Observing and data reduction

To fully sample the spectral dimension at the resolving power of the TEI setup, it will be necessary to take a number of exposures (at different FP gap spacings) equal to or greater than the finesse of the FP. The reason for a greater number of exposures is because the requirements for sampling at the shortest wavelength may be different from the longest wavelength. In many cases, there will be double sampling of some wavelengths near the shortest wavelength, these could be used as a self-calibration check in reconstructing the spectral dimension.444Bland & Tully (1989) noted that it was easier to reconstruct the $`\lambda `$ dimension than an image dimension (e.g., as with a scanning slit or IFU). Spectrophotometric measurements could be obtained in photometric conditions by calibrating with a standard star.

The TEI can mimic a true 3D spectrograph by scanning, as described above. Some applications may not need scanning or only partial scanning (a few exposures) if the sampling of the spectral dimension is adequate. For example, multiple narrow-band imaging could be used to selectively combine images in order to suppress sky-emission lines, thus mimicking an OH-suppression instrument.

Wavelength calibration of a TEI would be made using arc lamps to define the wavelength for each order and gap spacing for the etalon. The calibration is then uniquely defined for a given gap spacing and should be stable during an exposure using capacitance micrometry (Hicks et al., 1984). Advantageously, the spectral stability of the TEI is not subject to instrument flexure as with a normal Cassegrain spectrograph.

In some of the example image formats, it appears that optimal use is not made of the detector in the sense that there are repeated orders (e.g., Figure 10). However, if every order is repeated twice on the detector, it may increase the efficiency and allow the possibility of removing image defects (e.g., hot pixels, cosmic rays, bad columns) by comparing the same narrow-band image.

### 3.2 Aperture width and the PSF

The dispersion of the gratings spreads out the light from a single FP order, contributing to the point spread function (PSF) of the image. The FWHM of this one-dimensional contribution is equal to the separation (on the detector) between adjacent FP orders divided by the finesse. The lines in the bottom-left corner of each image in the Figures 611 represent this PSF.

If the aperture size is maximized for a particular echelle grating and FP setup then the FWHM of the dispersive PSF is equal to the width of the aperture divided by the finesse, for the lowest wavelength. Therefore, if a certain image resolution is required in both spatial dimensions (the TEI only degrades resolution in one direction), then there is a limit on the setups to those with certain aperture widths. For example, in the case of adaptive optics a resolution of 0.1 arcsec may be required limiting the aperture width to 3 arcsec (with a finesse of 30). Alternatively, if 0.5 arcsec is satisfactory then an aperture width of 15 arcsec would be suitable. If good image resolution is only required in one direction then the aperture width can be larger still.

We note that the elongated PSF is a common occurrence in radio interferometry where many software tools exist to treat such data (Perley et al., 1994). The TEI situation is somewhat better because an instrument rotation allows us to sample the field with orthogonal PSF orientations.

### 3.3 Anamorphic factor

The ratio of the beam sizes after and before diffraction by a grating is called the anamorphic factor. For a reflection grating or a transmission grating without prisms, the anamorphic factor

$$A=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta }{\mathrm{cos}\alpha },$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the incident and diffracted angles in air. The change in beam size is inverse to the change in angular size (the angle between light rays in the collimated beam). A grating setup which has an anamorphic factor above unity can increase the resolution because the angular size of the aperture (in the dispersion direction) is reduced. However, the increase in resolution is less than the anamorphic factor because the dispersion is also reduced (though not by as much).

Figures 9 to 10 show the effect of varying the anamorphic factor with the same resolution and EG orders (see Table 1). Larger apertures can be used with the blaze-to-collimator setup (increasing beam size) even though the images appear smaller on the detector (Fig. 10). Using the example of a 2K x 2K CCD and a 6 x 6 arcminute field, the pixel sampling on the detector would change from 0.18 to 0.28 arcsec/pixel across the width of the aperture (14 arcsec). The change in sampling is not critical in this case because the dispersion PSF is about 0.47 arcsec (FWHM). In quadrature with 0.5 arcsec seeing, we find that the sampling is still adequate. In other cases a large anamorphic factor could cause undersampling of the PSF (instrumental and seeing) on the detector. Ideally, the change in sampling caused by an increase in beam size could be matched to the decrease in image resolution. A decrease in beam size cannot cause undersampling on the detector.

With a limited number of gratings, it would be useful to be able to use either a transmission or a reflection grating setup, with an increase or decrease in beam size. In this way, the aperture width could be matched more easily to the desired spectral resolving power.

A decrease or no change in beam size after dispersion has the advantage of instrumental compactness, in that, the camera optics could be smaller than if an increase in beam size is allowed.

### 3.4 Finesse

Choosing the finesse is tradeoff between a number of factors. A lower finesse has the advantage of needing less scans to complete the data cube. In effect, the total throughput of the instrument is approximately proportional to $`1/N`$. A higher finesse has the advantage of higher spectral and image resolution, and better suppression of the light between the narrow bands.

### 3.5 Comparison with a mono-order FP

The advantages of the TEI over a FP, where a single order has been selected with a blocking filter, include: imaging in many narrow bands simultaneously, and; imaging at any wavelength and spectral resolution without the need for many order-sorter filters. The disadvantages include: a smaller field of view; compromised image resolution (in one direction) because of the PSF caused by the dispersion, and; efficiency loss for a single order due to the extra dispersive elements.

A significant aspect of the TEI is that the field, although smaller, will be monochromatic or nearly monochromatic in many cases. In fact, the size of the field decreases as the spectral resolving power ($`R`$) is increased which is in the same sense as the Jacquinot (1954, 1960) criterion for a monochromatic field:

$$R\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi ,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle at the FP. The TEI parameters can be chosen to give maximum spectral coverage for the monochromatic field.

### 3.6 Comparison with the GraF concept

The GraF concept uses a single dispersive element to separate the FP orders (Chalabaev & le Coarer, 1995). Such a concept has been used in the GRAF/ADONIS instrument on the ESO 3.6-m telescope (Chalabaev et al. 1999a, 1999b). This instrument operates in the near-IR with adaptive optics used to obtain 0.1 arcsec image resolution. As an example, it can provide 10 images of 9” by 0.9” in the $`H`$ band at a spectral resolution of 10000 (Chalabaev et al., 1999b). The field is thus small and narrow for high image resolution.

Here, we compare the TEI with a more general GraF instrument. A lower image resolution GraF instrument could, for example, have a field of 6 arcmin by 20 arcsec.

The advantage of the TEI is the ability to image in more FP orders simultaneously, i.e., providing a larger wavelength coverage except for the lowest spectral resolutions. The disadvantages include: efficiency losses due to the extra dispersive element, and; a shorter field of view.

In general, the shorter field of view is not a significant disadvantage because (i) the field will not be monochromatic over a longer field of view and (ii) astrophysical objects of interest may not be extended in one direction only, over the length of field possible with a GraF instrument (arcminutes).

The TEI could be converted to a GraF instrument by replacing the echelle grating with a mirror, or positioning the camera for direct imaging.

### 3.7 Comparison with an echelle grating

The advantages of the TEI over a standard echelle grating include: imaging, and; better spectrophotometry because a wider aperture can be used without compromising wavelength calibration or resolution. A disadvantage is that it requires scanning (tens of exposures) to fully sample a wavelength region.

The TEI can reach the same resolution as a standard echelle with a wider aperture and a smaller beam. The first factor allows better sampling of extended sources and the second allows the TEI to be a Cassegrain instrument with a smaller camera. These two factors partially offset the disadvantage of the scanning requirement in terms of efficiency. In certain cases, the TEI could be comparable to a slit echelle spectrograph for high-resolution spectroscopy of extended sources. For spectrophotometry and imaging, the TEI is significantly better.

### 3.8 Comparison with an IFS

In recent years, there has been great interest in the use of integral-field spectrographs (IFS). These include image slicers (e.g., Content, 2000), integral-field units and the TIGER approach (Courtès, 1982; Courtès et al., 1988; Bacon et al., 1995). Both TEI and IFS instruments are true 3D spectrographs. However, they differ in one key respect. For the IFS, the incident wavefront is divided and dispersed, in contrast to the TEI where the wavefront is only dispersed.

The advantages of the TEI compared to an IFS include: better imaging and spectrophotometry because images do not need to be reconstructed; a larger field of view for a given detector size, and; potentially higher spectral resolution. The disadvantages include: the scanning requirement to fully sample a wavelength region, and; compromised image resolution (in one direction) because of the PSF.

Integral-field spectrographs divide the focal plane and therefore image integrity can be compromised (i.e., they are not spectrophotometric). So while an IFU is more efficient than a TEI device, for the same image size and spectral resolution requirements, there are certain cases where the TEI’s undivided approach to 3D spectro-imaging could be more beneficial.

### 3.9 Some applications

The potential applications include: spectro-imaging and/or high-resolution spectroscopy of extended sources, through production of a full data cube; OH suppression in the 600–1600 nm wavelength range ($`RIzJH`$), and; targeted line imaging.

The OH-suppression method is to selectively combine the images produced by a TEI, rejecting those images that contain OH-line emission (or applying a lower weight). This will considerably reduce the sky background especially in the $`J`$ and $`H`$ bands. Figure 12 shows an example of a FP transmission profile plotted over the $`J`$-band sky emission spectrum.

Evaluation of OH-suppression methods has been done by Herbst (1994); Jones et al. (1996); Offer & Bland-Hawthorn (1998). Equation 5 of Jones et al. gives the gain ($`G`$) in performance of an OH-suppression filter for the broad-band S/N.555The analysis of Jones et al. (1996) uses Poisson-noise statistics. They point out that even $`G1`$ could provide a significant S/N gain, if most of the OH emission is removed from the background, because the continuum background is more stable and therefore systematic effects could be reduced. For background limited conditions, this equation reduces to

$$G=\frac{\tau }{\sqrt{\beta }},$$
(6)
where $`\tau `$ is the fraction of object flux remaining, and $`\beta `$ is the fraction of background remaining. Simple numerical calculations, for the broad-band S/N in the $`J`$ band, show that $`G`$ can be larger or about unity, when selectively combining TEI images at resolving powers of above 10000 using a finesse of 30. Note that this broad-band gain only applies to dark time because the TEI is imaging between the OH lines where the background flux is moon-phase dependent. Additionally, a suitable TEI instrument could image in the $`J`$ and $`H`$ bands simultaneously and provide a spectrum (low-resolution if the FP is not scanned).

As with a mono-order FP, the TEI could be used for targeted line imaging but, in addition, the TEI can simultaneously provide an OH-suppressed broad-band image using the non-targeted FP orders. The reduction of field of view in comparison with a standard FP mode is not always significant because, if the FP is not scanned, it is only the monochromatic field of view that images the targeted emission line.

## 4 Summary

The Tunable Echelle Imager offers an interesting reformation of existing spectrographs, by the use of a Fabry-Perot filter crossed with an echelle grating. This forms a mosaic of narrow-band images on a detector, offering a significant multiplex wavelength advantage over a mono-order FP system.

The TEI instrument is placed in the collimated beam and includes a FP element, a grism and an echelle grating. Parameters such as the plate separation of the FP and the dispersion of the echelle determine the resolving power and the field-of-view size of the images. Resolving powers ranging from about 1 000 to 100 000 are observable with fields of view ranging from an arcminute down to arcseconds in size.

The potential of the TEI includes its spectrophotometric integrity for producing a 3D datacube and the ability to create an OH-suppressed image by selectively combining different FP orders.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Keith Taylor and Brian Boyle for discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity Einstein showed that Time Dilatation (TD) and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction (LFC), which had previously been introduced in a somewhat ad hoc way into Classical Electrodynamics, are simple consequences of the Lorentz Transformation (LT), that is, of the geometry of space-time.

As an example of the LFC Einstein stated that a sphere moving with velocity $`v`$ would, ‘viewed from the stationary system’, appear to be contracted by the factor $`\sqrt{1(\frac{v}{c})^2}`$ in its direction of motion where $`c`$ is the velocity of light in free space. It was only pointed out some 54 years later that if ‘viewed’ was interpreted in the conventional sense of ‘as seen by the eye, or recorded on a photograph’ then the sphere does not at all appear to be contracted, but is still seen as a sphere with the same dimensions as a stationary one and at the same position  ! It was shown in general  that transversely viewed moving objects subtending a small solid angle at the observer appear to be not distorted in shape or changed in size, but rather rotated, as compared to a similarly viewed and orientated object at rest. This apparent rotation is a consequence of three distinct physical effects:

* The LFC.
* Optical Aberration.
* Different propagation times of photons emitted by different parts of the moving object.

The effect (ii) may be interpreted as the change in direction of photons, emitted by a moving source, due to the LT between the rest frames of the source and the stationary observer. Correcting for (ii) and (iii), the LFC can be deduced as a physical effect, if not directly observed. It was also pointed out by Weinstein  that if a single observer is close to a moving object then, because of the effect of light propagation time delays, it will appear elongated if moving towards the observer and contracted (to an extent greater than the LFC) if moving away. Only an object moving strictly transversely to the line of sight of a close observer shows the LFC.

However, the LFC itself is a physical phenomenon similar in many ways to (iii) above. The human eye or a photograph taken with a fast shutter record, as a sharp image, the photons incident on it during a short resolution time $`\tau _R`$. That is, the image corresponds to a projection at an almost fixed time in the frame S of observation. This implies that the photons constituting the observed image are emitted at different times from the different parts,along the line of sight, of an extended object. As shown below, the LFC is similarly defined by a fixed time projection in the frame S. The LT then requires that the photons constituting the image of a moving object are also emitted at different times, in the rest frame S’ of the object, from the different parts along its direction of motion. In the following S will, in general, denote the reference frame of a ‘stationary’ observer (space-time coordinates x,y,z,t) while S’ refers to the rest frame of an object moving with uniform velocity $`v`$ in the direction of the positive x axis relative to S ( space-time coordinates x’,y’,z’,t’).

The purpose of this paper is to point out that the $`t=constant`$ projection of the LFC (see Section 2 below) and the $`x^{}=constant`$ projection of TD (see Section 3 below) are not the only physically distinct space-time measurements possible within Special Relativity. In fact, as will be demonstrated below, there are two others: Space Dilatation (SD), the $`t^{}=constant`$ projection and Time Contraction (TC), the $`x=constant`$ projection. All four ‘effects’ are pure consequences of the LT. The additional effects of Optical Aberration and Light Propagation Delays on the appearance of moving objects and synchronised clocks have been extensively discussed elsewhere .

Although each of the four effects may be simply derived from the projective geometry of the space time LT, the LFC and TD give rise to more easily observable physical effects, so it is not surprising that they are better known, For example the LFC is essential for the physical interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and TD is necessary to describe the observed lifetimes of unstable particles decaying in flight. In contrast, the two new effects SD and TC seem to have no similar simple observational consequences. As pointed out below, the most interesting effects are likely to result from SD, which is necessary to describe observations of, for example, a rotating extended object moving with a relativistic transverse velocity. It is easy to conceive a simple experiment involving the observation of two synchronised clocks in space, to test the TC effect. Although it is clearly of interest to work out in more detail such examples, there is no attempt to do so in the present paper, which is devoted to the precise definition of the four possible space-time projections of the LT and a discussion of their interrelations.

The $`t=constant`$ projection of the LFC is the space-time measurement appropriate to the ‘moving bodies’ of Einstein’s original paper and to the photographic recording technique. This medium has no intrinsic time resolution and relies on that provided by a rapidly moving shutter to provide a clear image. The LFC ‘works’ as a well defined physical phenomenon because the ‘measuring rod’ or other physical object under observation is assumed to be illuminated during the whole time interval required to make an observation, and so constitutes a continuous source of emitted or reflected photons, such that some are always available in the different space ($`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}`$) and time ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$) intervals in S’ for every position of the rod corresponding to the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\tau _R`$ around the fixed time $`t`$ in the observer’s frame S during which the observation is made. If, however, the physical object of interest has internal motion (rotation, expansion or contraction) or is only illuminated, in its rest frame S’, during a short time interval, the above conditions, that assure that the $`t=constant`$ projection gives a well defined space-time measurement no longer apply. All such objects, uniformly illuminated for a restricted time $`\tau _L`$ (their ‘Luminous Proper Time’) in their rest frames, may be called ‘Transient Luminous Objects’. For such objects it is natural to define a length measurement by taking the $`t^{}=constant`$ projection in S’. The observation, from the stationary frame S, of such objects is discussed in Section 2 below.

In Section 3 time measurements other than the conventional TD of Special Relativity are considered. The TD phenomenon refers only to a local clock, in the sense that its position in the frame S’ is invariant (say at the spatial origin of coordinates $`x^{}=0`$). However, the time recorded by any synchronised clock in the same inertial frame is, by definition, identical. Einstein used such an array of ‘equivalent clocks’ situated at different positions in the same inertial frame in his original discussion of the relativity of simultanaeity . The question addressed in Section 3 is: What will an observer in S see if he looks not only at a given local clock in S’, but also at other, synchronised, equivalent clocks at different positions in S’, in comparison to a standard clock at rest in his own frame? It is shown that such equivalent clocks may be seen to run slower than, or faster than, the TD prediction for a local clock. In particular they may even appear to run faster than the standard clock. This is an example of the Time Contraction effect mentioned above.

In Section 4 the analogy between the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction effect and linear perspective in two spatial dimensions is described. The final Section points out how all four space-time ‘effects’ (observed distortions of space-time) in Special Relativity may be described in a unified way in terms of projective geometry, in close analogy with the effect of linear perspective in the perception of space.

## 2 Observation of Transient Luminous Objects in Motion: the Space Dilatation Effect

Consider a square planar object centered at the origin of the moving frame S’ as shown in Fig 1a. The points P’($`x^{}=L/2`$, $`y^{}=0`$) and Q’($`x^{}=L/2`$, $`y^{}=0`$) lie on the vertical edges of the square of side $`L`$ whose boundary is shown in Fig 1a as the short dashed lines. Suppose now that the square is uniformly illuminated in the time interval $`\tau _L/2<t^{}<\tau _L/2`$ to give the ‘Transient Luminous Object’ indicted by the zig-zag lines. The proper time interval $`\tau _L`$ is the ‘Luminous Proper Time’ of the object. For example, the surface of the square may be covered with a mosaic of light-emitting diodes that are simultaneously switched on during a time $`\tau _L`$. The object as seen by an observer, at rest in the stationary system S, viewing the object in a direction perpendicular to the plane $`O^{}x^{}y^{}`$, is given by the LT connecting space time points in the frame S’ to those in S:

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (x^{}+vt^{})`$ (2.1)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (t^{}+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{c}})`$ (2.2)
where

$$\beta v/c,\gamma \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\beta ^2}}.$$

It is assumed that the stationary observer is sufficiently distant from the object that the effects of light propagation times are negligible, and that the object is diffusely illuminated so that Optical Aberration effects may be neglected . In this case any changes in the appearance of the moving object when viewed from the frame S are due solely to the LT. The results of the transformation for $`t^{}=0`$ and $`x^{}=L/2,0,L/2`$ are given in Table 1. It can be seen that the points P’,O’,Q’ are observed at different times in the frame S. This is the well known effect of the relativity of simultanaeity first pointed out in Einstein’s classic paper . It can also be seen from Table 1 that the distance between the positions of P’ and Q’ as observed in S is $`\gamma L`$; that is, the object will appear to be elongated if it is viewed with a time resolution larger than the difference in time, $`\gamma \beta L/c`$, between the observations in S of the space time points P’ and Q’ that are simultaneous in the frame S’. This is the ‘Space Dilatation’ (SD) effect. It will now be discussed in more detail, taking into account the non zero Luminous Proper Time $`\tau _L`$ of the Transient Luminous Object as well as the Resolution Time $`\tau _R`$ of the observer, so that the general conditions under which the SD effect occurs are established.

Space time points of the Transient Luminous Object may be observed at the fixed time $`t`$ in S provided that:

$$x_{MIN}^{}<x^{}<x_{MAX}^{}$$

where

$$t=\gamma (\frac{\tau _L}{2}+\frac{\beta x_{MAX}^{}}{c})=\gamma (\frac{\tau _L}{2}+\frac{\beta x_{MIN}^{}}{c})$$
(2.3)
In (2.3) it is assumed that $`x_{MIN}^{}>L/2`$, $`x_{MAX}^{}<L/2`$. The general condition relating $`\tau _L`$,$`L`$, $`v`$ and $`c`$ ensuring the validity of this assumption will be discussed below. Using (2.1) the co-ordinates in S corresponding to $`x_{MIN}^{}`$ and $`x_{MAX}^{}`$ are found to be:

$`x_{MAX}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\beta }}(t+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _L}{2\gamma }})`$ (2.4)
$`x_{MIN}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\beta }}(t{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _L}{2\gamma }})`$ (2.5)
Thus the width $`\delta `$ of the Transient Luminous Object observed at time $`t`$ in S (indicated by the zig-zag lines in Fig1b; the actual boundary is shown by the short dashed lines) is:

$$\delta x_{MAX}x_{MIN}=\frac{c\tau _L}{\beta \gamma },$$
(2.6)
while, as can be seen from (2.4) and (2.5), the observer in S sees a luminous object that moves with velocity $`c/\beta `$, i.e. faster than than the velocity of light. In the case of continous illumination of the object ($`\tau _L\mathrm{}`$) the upper and lower limits of the object observed at the fixed time $`t`$ in S will correspond to the physical boundaries $`x_{MIN}^{}=L/2`$, $`x_{MAX}^{}=L/2`$. Denoting by $`t_{MIN}^{}`$, $`t_{MAX}^{}`$ the times in S’ corresponding to the observation of these boundaries at time $`t`$ in S, then, instead of (2.3), the following relation is obtained:

$$t=\gamma (t_{MIN}^{}+\frac{\beta L}{2c})=\gamma (t_{MAX}^{}\frac{\beta L}{2c})$$
(2.7)
Using (2.1), the boundaries of the object observed in S at time $`t`$ are then:

$`x_{MAX}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\gamma }}+vt`$ (2.8)
$`x_{MIN}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\gamma }}+vt`$ (2.9)
The width of the object as seen in S is then $`x_{MAX}x_{MIN}=L/\gamma `$, the well known LFC effect. As can be seen from (2.8) and (2.9) the object is now observed to move in S with velocity $`v`$. Thus, in the limit $`\tau _L\mathrm{}`$ (continous illumination of the object) the usual results of Special Relativity are recovered.

Using (2.1) and (2.2) the upper (U) and lower (L) limits of the space time region in the stationary frame S swept out by the moving Transient Luminous Object in Fig 1b are:

$`x_U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(L+v\tau _L)`$ (2.10)
$`x_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(Lv\tau _L)`$ (2.11)
$`t_U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(\tau _L+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta L}{c}})`$ (2.12)
$`t_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(\tau _L{\displaystyle \frac{\beta L}{c}})`$ (2.13)
Taking account of the inequality:

$$\frac{\beta L}{c}<\frac{L}{v},$$

it can be seen that if $`\tau _L\beta L/c`$ the terms containing $`\tau _L`$ in (2.10)-(2.13) may be neglected, so that:

$`x_Ux_L`$ $``$ $`\gamma L`$ (2.14)
$`t_Ut_L`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \beta L}{c}}`$ (2.15)
Thus the Space Dilatation effect of Table 1 is recovered in the limit $`\tau _L0`$. On the other hand, because of the inequality:

$$v\tau _L<\frac{c\tau _L}{\beta },$$

then, if $`\tau _LL/v`$, the terms containing $`L`$ in (2.10)-(2.13) may be neglected, leading to the relations:

$`x_Ux_L`$ $``$ $`\gamma v\tau _L`$ (2.16)
$`t_Ut_L`$ $``$ $`\gamma \tau _L.`$ (2.17)
These are the well-known equations of Special Relativity describing the motion of a small continously illuminated object as observed in the frame S. The time interval $`t_Ut_L`$ corresponds to the TD effect and the observed velocity is:

$$(x_Ux_L)/(t_Ut_L)=\gamma v\tau _L/\gamma \tau _L=v.$$
(2.18)
The conclusions of this Section are now summarised. When $`\tau _L\beta L/c`$ a stationary observer in S with a time resolution $`\tau _R\gamma \beta L/c`$, viewing the object in the direction transverse to the relative velocity, sees the square object at rest in S’ illuminated during the proper time interval $`\tau _L`$ as a narrow rectangular object of width $`\delta =c\tau _L/(\beta \gamma )`$ moving with velocity $`c/\beta `$ and sweeping out during the time $`\gamma \beta L/c`$ a region of total length $`\gamma L`$. If however the resolution time $`\tau _R`$ of the observer is much larger than $`\gamma \beta L/c`$ the object will appear at rest but elongated by the factor $`\gamma `$ in the direction of motion. This is the Space Dilatation effect. In the contrary case that the Luminous Proper Time $`\tau _L`$ is large ($`\tau _LL/v`$), the object observed from S moves with velocity $`v`$ and has an apparent length $`L/\gamma `$ due to the well known LFC effect. Also, in this case, the elapsed times in S and S’ are related by the TD effect (Eqn. 2.17).

It should be noted that the ‘narrow rectangular object’ referred to above corresponds to the case of uniform illumination of the square object. Actually, because of the relativity of simultaneity, different parts of the square are seen at different times and positions by the stationary observer. If the square were illuminated using different colours: red, yellow, green, blue in four equal bands parallel to the $`y^{}`$ axis, in the direction of increasing $`x^{}`$, then the moving object in Fig 1b would appear red during the time interval $`\gamma \beta L/2c<t<\gamma \beta L/4c`$, yellow during the time $`\gamma \beta L/4c<t<0`$, and so on. The colours will, of course, be seen shifted in frequency according to the relativistic transverse Doppler effet.

If the square is rotated about the $`y^{}`$ axis by an angle $`\alpha `$, a subtle interplay occurs between the effects of the LT and light propagation time delays. Depending on the values of $`v`$ and $`\alpha `$ the rectangular object may be seen, by an observer at rest in the frame S, to move parallel to $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ (as in the case $`\alpha =0`$ described above), antiparallel to $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, or may even even be stationary and of length $`\gamma L\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$. In all cases the total length swept out by the object in the direction of motion is $`\gamma L\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$. These effects have been described in detail elsewhere .

## 3 Observation of an Array of Equivalent Moving Clocks: The Time Contraction Effect

In this Section space time measurements of an array of synchronised clocks situated in the inertial frame S’ will be considered. These clocks may be synchronised by any convenient procedure  (see for example Ref.). For an observer in S’ all such clocks are ‘equivalent’ in the sense that each of them records, independently of its position, the proper time $`\tau ^{}`$ of the frame S’. For convenience, the array of clocks is assumed to be placed on the wagons of a train which is at rest in S’, as shown in Fig.2a. The clocks are labelled $`C_m,m=\mathrm{}2,1,0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and are situated (with the exception of the ‘magic clock’ $`C_M`$, see below) at fixed distances $`L`$ from each other, along the Ox’ axis, which is parallel to the train. It is assumed that the observers in the frames S and S’ view the train transversely at a sufficiently large distance that the effects of light propagation time delays may be neglected. It is clear that by considering the limit $`L0`$ an Equivalent Clock may be associated with each position on the train and, by extending the ‘lattice’ of clocks to 3 dimensions, to any spatial position in S’.

The observer in S’ will note that each Equivalent Clock (EC) indicates the same time, as shown in Fig.2a. It is now asked how the array of EC will appear to an observer at a fixed position in the frame S when the train is moving with velocity $`\beta c`$ parallel to the direction Ox in S (Fig.2b). It is assumed that the EC $`C_0`$ is placed at $`x^{}=0`$ and that it is synchronised with the Standard Clock $`C_S`$, placed at $`x=0`$ in S, when $`t=t^{}=0`$. All the clocks are similar, that is $`C_S`$ and each $`C_m`$ record exactly equal time intervals when they are situated in the same inertial frame.

The appearence of the moving array of EC to an observer in S at $`t=0`$ is shown in Fig.2b, and in more detail in Fig.3 for both $`t=0`$ and $`t=\tau `$. The period $`\tau `$ is the time between the passage of successive EC past $`C_S`$. The big hand of $`C_S`$ in Fig.3 rotates through $`180^{}`$ during the time $`\tau `$. Explicit expressions for the observed times are presented in Table 2. In Fig.2b,3 the times indicated by the clocks are shown for $`\beta =0.6`$. These times are readily calculated using the LT equations (2.1),(2.2). Consider the time indicated by $`C_1`$ at $`t=0`$. The space-time points are:

$$S^{}:(L,t^{});S:(x,0)$$

Hence, Eqns.(2.1),(2.2) give:

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (L+vt^{})`$ (3.1)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (t^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta L}{c}})`$ (3.2)
which have the solution \[ $`C_1(t=0)`$ \]:

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta L}{c}}`$ (3.3)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\gamma }}`$ (3.4)
As shown in Fig 2b, the wagons of the train appear shorter due to the LFC effect (Eqn.(3.4)) and also the wagons at the front end of the train are seen at an earlier proper time than those at the rear end. Thus a $`t=0`$ snapshot in S corresponds, not to a fixed $`t^{}`$ in S’ but one which depends on $`x^{}`$: $`t^{}=\beta x^{}/c`$. This is a consequence of the relativity of simultaneity of space-time events in S and S’, as first pointed out by Einstein in Ref.. Here it appears in a particularly graphic and striking form. Consider now the time indicated by $`C_1`$ at $`t=\tau `$, i.e. when $`C_1`$ is at the origin of S. The space-time points are:

$$S^{}:(L,t^{});S:(0,\tau )$$

Hence, Eqns.(2.1),(2.2) give:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (L+vt^{})`$ (3.5)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (t^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta L}{c}})`$ (3.6)
with the solutions \[ $`C_1(t=\tau )`$ \]:

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{v}}`$ (3.7)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\gamma v}}={\displaystyle \frac{t^{}}{\gamma }}`$ (3.8)
so that

$$t^{}=\gamma \tau $$
(3.9)
The EC at the origin of S at $`t=\tau `$ shows a later time than $`C_S`$ i.e. it is apparently running faster than $`C_S`$. This is an example of Time Contraction (TC). The Time Contraction effect is exhibited by the EC observed at any fixed position in S. In fact, if the observer in S can see the EC only when they are near to $`C_S`$ he (or she) will inevitably conclude that the clocks on the train run fast, not slow as in the classical TD effect (see below). Suppose that the observer is sitting in a waiting room with the clock $`C_S`$ and notices the time on the train (the same as $`C_S`$) by looking at $`C_0`$ as it passes the waiting room window. If he (or she) then compares $`C_1`$ as it passes the window with $`C_S`$ it will be seen to be running fast relative to the latter. In order to see the TD effect the observer would (as will now be shown), have to note the time shown by, for example, $`C_0`$, at time $`t=\tau `$ as recorded by $`C_S`$ in comparison with that shown by the same clock $`C_0`$ at $`t=0`$. Using Eqn.(3.8),Eqn.(3.3) may be written as \[$`C_1(t=0)`$\]:

$$t^{}=\beta ^2\gamma \tau =\frac{(\gamma ^21)\tau }{\gamma }$$
(3.10)
This is the formula for the observed time reported in Table 2. Now consider $`C_0`$ at time $`t=\tau `$. The space-time points are:

$$S^{}:(0,t^{});S:(x,\tau )$$

Hence, Eqns.(2.1),(2.2) give:

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma vt^{}`$ (3.11)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma t^{}`$ (3.12)
with the solutions \[ $`C_0(t=\tau )`$ \]:

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau /\gamma `$ (3.13)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`v\tau =L/\gamma `$ (3.14)
So the EC $`C_0`$ at time $`t=\tau `$ indicates an earlier time, and so is apparently running slower than $`C_S`$. This is the classical Time Dilatation (TD) effect. It applies to observations of all local clocks in S’,(i.e. those situated at a fixed value of $`x^{}`$) as well as any other EC that has the same value of $`x^{}`$.

As a last example consider the ‘Magic Clock’ $`C_M`$ shown in Fig 2a at time $`t=\tau `$. With the space-time points:

$$S^{}:(L/(1+\gamma ),t^{});S:(x,\tau )$$

Eqns.(2.1),(2.2) give:

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma [L/(1+\gamma )+vt^{}]`$ (3.15)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma [t^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{c}}L/(1+\gamma )]`$ (3.16)
with the solutions \[ $`C_M(t=\tau )`$ \]:

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau `$ (3.17)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma v\tau /(1+\gamma )`$ (3.18)
where the relation $`L=\gamma v\tau `$ from Eqn.(3.8) has been used. Thus $`C_M`$ shows the same time as $`C_S`$ at $`t=\tau `$. Similar moving ‘Magic Clocks’ can be defined that show the same time as $`C_S`$ at any chosen time $`t`$ in S. Such a clock is, in general, situated at $`x^{}=ct(\gamma 1)/\beta \gamma `$. All of the other clock times presented in Table 2 and shown in Figs. 2b, 3 are calculated in a similar way to the above examples by choosing appropriate values of $`x^{}`$ and t.

The combined effects of the LT and light propagation delays for light signals moving parallel to the train (corresponding to observations of the array of Equivalent Clocks by observers on, or close to the train) have been described in detail elsewhere . The observed spatial distortions of the train in this situation were previously considered by Weinstein .

## 4 Analogy with Linear Perspective in Two Dimensional Space

The analogy between the observed distortions of space-time in Special Relativity and linear spatial perspective is illustrated in Fig.4. The ‘Object Space’ on the right is separated from the ‘Image Space’ on the left by a plane partition containing a small aperture (pin hole). Light reflected from the rod PQ in the Object Space, can pass through the pin hole and produce an image on a screen located in the Image Space. To facilitate the comparison with the Lorentz Transformation the cartesian axes in the Object \[Image\] space are denoted by (X’,T’) \[ (X,T)\] respectively (see Fig. 4). The T, T’ axes are perpendicular to the plane of the partition and pass through the pin hole. The Object Space is now compared to the rest frame S’ of the moving object, with the correspondences:

$$X^{}x^{},T^{}t^{},$$

while the Image Space is compared to the frame S of the stationary observer with the correspondences:

$$Xx,Tt,$$

An arbitary point with coordinates (X’,T’) on the rod will project into the Image Space the line:

$$X=\frac{X^{}T}{\tau ^{}}$$
(4.1)
which may be compared to the LT equation:

$$x=\frac{1}{\gamma }x^{}+vt$$
(4.2)
Taking the $`T=\tau =constant`$ projection in (4.1), i.e. setting the screen in the image space parallel to the planar surface at the distance $`\tau `$ from it, gives for the length $`L_I`$ of the image of the rod:

$$L_I=X_2X_1=\frac{\tau }{\tau ^{}}(X_1^{}X_2^{})=\frac{\tau }{\tau ^{}}L$$
(4.3)
where the points 1,2 denote the ends of the rod or of its image. Similarly taking the $`t=constant`$ projection in (4.2) gives, for the apparent length $`l_I`$ of a rod, parallel to the x axis, of true length $`l`$:

$$l_I=x_1x_2=\frac{1}{\gamma }(x_1^{}x_2^{})=\frac{l}{\gamma }$$
(4.4)
corresponding to the LFC effect. The rôle of the factor $`1/\gamma `$ in the LT is replaced, in the case of linear perspective, by the ratio $`\tau /\tau ^{}`$ that specifies the relative position and orientation of the object and the screen on which it is observed.

## 5 Discussion

The different space-time effects (observed distortions of space or time) in Special Relativity that have been discussed above are summarised in Table 3. These are the well-known LFC and TD effects, Space Dilatation (SD) introduced in Section 2 above, and Time Contraction (TC) introduced in Section 3. Each effect is an observed difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ ($`q=x,x^{},t,t^{}`$) of two space or time coordinates ($`\mathrm{\Delta }q=q_1q_2`$) and corresponds to a constant projection $`\stackrel{~}{q}=constant`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{q}=0`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{q}q`$), in another of the four variables $`x`$, $`x^{}`$, $`t`$, $`t^{}`$ of the LT. As shown in Table 3, the LFC, SD, TC and TD effects correspond, respectively, to constant $`t`$, $`t^{}`$, $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ projections. After making this projection, the four LT equations give two relations among the remaining three variables. One of these describes the ‘space-time distortion’ relating $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ while the other gives the equation shown in the last column, (labelled ‘Complementary Effect’) in Table 3. These equations relate either $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (for SD and TD) or $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$ (for LFC and TC). It can be seen from the Complementary Effect relations that the two space-time points defining the effect (of space-time distortion) are space-like separated for LFC and SD and time-like separated for TC and TD.

For example, for the LFC when $`t_1=t_2=t`$, the LT equations for the two space-time points are:

$`x_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (x_1vt)`$ (5.1)
$`x_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (x_2vt)`$ (5.2)
$`t_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (t{\displaystyle \frac{\beta x_1}{c}})`$ (5.3)
$`t_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (t{\displaystyle \frac{\beta x_2}{c}})`$ (5.4)
Subtracting (5.1) from (5.2) and (5.3) from (5.4) gives:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }x`$ (5.5)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \beta }{c}}\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ (5.6)
Eqn.(5.5) describes the LFC effect, while combining Eqns.(5.5) and (5.6) to eliminate $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ yields the equation for the Complementary Effect. By taking other projections the other entries of Table 3 may be calculated in a similar fashion. It is interesting to note that the TD effect can be derived directly from the LFC effect by using the symmetry of the LT equations. Introducing the notation: $`sct`$, the LT may be written as:

$`x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (x\beta s)`$ (5.7)
$`s^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (s\beta x)`$ (5.8)
These equations are invariant  under the following transformations:

$`T1`$ $`:`$ $`xs,x^{}s^{}`$ (5.9)
$`T2`$ $`:`$ $`xx^{},ss^{},\beta \beta `$ (5.10)
Writing out the LFC entries in the first row of Table 3, replacing $`t`$, $`t^{}`$ by $`s/c`$, $`s^{}/c`$ ; gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }s=0\mathrm{\Delta }x=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s^{}}{\beta }$$

Applying $`T1`$ to each entry in this row results in:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }s\mathrm{\Delta }x=0\mathrm{\Delta }s=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s^{}}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }s^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}}{\beta }$$

Applying $`T2`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }s^{}\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}=0\mathrm{\Delta }s^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }s=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{\beta }$$

Replacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }s^{}`$ by $`c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, $`c\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$ yields the last row of Table 3 which describes the TD effect. Similarly TC can be derived from SD (or vice versa) by successively applying the transformations $`T1`$, $`T2`$.

The ‘Complementary Effects’ listed in Table 3 have the following geometrical interpretations:

* LFC ($`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}=(c/\beta )\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$). This is the locus of all the points in S’ that are observed at the same time ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0`$) in S.
* SD ($`\mathrm{\Delta }x=(c/\beta )\mathrm{\Delta }t`$). The locus of the moving object as observed in S (see Fig1b).
* TC ($`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}=c\beta \mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$). The locus of the position of the local clock in S’ observed at a fixed position ($`\mathrm{\Delta }x=0`$) in S.
* TD ($`\mathrm{\Delta }x=c\beta \mathrm{\Delta }t`$). The locus of the position of the moving local clock observed in S.

A remark on the ‘Observed Quantities’ in Table 3. For the LFC, SD effects the observed quantity is a length interval in the frame S. The observed space distortion occurs because this length differs from the result of of a similar measurement made on the same object in its own rest frame. $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}`$ is not directly measured at the time of observation of the LFC or SD. It is otherwise with the time measurements TD, TC. Here the time intervals indicated in their own rest frame by a local moving clock (TD), or different equivalent clocks at the same position in S (TC), are supposed to be directly observed and compared with the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ registered by an unmoving clock in the observer’s rest frame. Thus the effect refers to two simultaneous observations by the same observer not to separate observations by two different observers as in the case of the LFC and SD.

Einstein’s first paper on Special Relativity  showed, for the first time, that the LFC and TD effects could be most simply understood in terms of the geometry of space time, in contrast to the previous works of Fitzgerald, Larmor, Lorentz and Poincaré where dynamical and kinematical considerations were always mixed . However it can also be argued that Special Relativity has a dynamical aspect due to the changes in the electromagnetic field induced by the LT. Indeed, by calculations of the equilibrium positions of an array of point charges in both stationary and uniformly moving frames Sorensen has shown that the LFC may be derived from dynamical considerations . By considering several different ‘electromagnetic clocks’ either at rest or in uniform motion, Jefimenko has demonstrated that the TD effect may also be dynamically derived . Similar considerations, emphasising the ‘dynamical’ rather than the ‘kinematical’ aspects of Special Relativity, have been presented in an article by Bell . Such calculations, based on the properties of electromagnetic fields under the LT, demonstrate the consistency of Classical Electromagnetism with Special Relativity, but as pointed out by Bell , in no way supersede the simpler geometrical derivations of the effects. It is not evident to the present author how similar ‘dynamical’ derivations of the new SD and TC effects could be performed.

In conclusion the essential characteristics of the two ‘new’ space-time distortions discussed above are summarised :

* Space Dilatation (SD): If a luminous object lying along the Ox’ axis, at rest in the frame S’, is uniformly illuminated for a short time $`\tau _L`$ in this frame it will be observed from a frame S, in uniform motion relative to S’ parallel to Ox’ at the velocity -$`\beta c`$, in a direction perpendicular to the relative velocity, as a narrow strip of width $`c\tau _L/(\beta \gamma )`$, perpendicular to the x-axis, moving with the velocity $`c/\beta `$ in the same direction as the object. The total distance swept out along the $`x`$-axis by the strip during the time $`\beta L/(c\sqrt{1\beta ^2})`$, for which it is visible, is $`L/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$ where $`L`$ is the length along Ox’ of the object as observed in S’. Thus the apparent length of the object when viewed with a time resolution $`\tau _R`$ much larger than $`\beta L/(c\sqrt{1\beta ^2})`$ is $`L/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$.
* Time Contraction (TC):  The equivalent clocks in the moving frame S’, viewed at the same position in the stationary frame S, apparently run faster by a factor $`1/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$ relative to a clock at rest in S.

Acknowledgements

I thank G.Barbier and C.Laignel for their valuable help in the preparation of the figures, and an anonymous referee whose pertinent and constructive criticism has allowed me to much improve the presentation of Section 2.


text:
# Synergetic theory for jamming transition in traffic flow

## 1 Introduction

In recent years considerable study has been given to the traffic problems . It is shown, in particular, that the jamming transition is similar to the conventional gas-liquid phase transition, where the freely moving traffic and the jammed traffic correspond to the gas and liquid phases respectively. The transition between them is caused by growth of car density above a critical value. The congested traffic flow with unstable uniform part leads to the formation of traffic jams where the freely moving traffic and jammed traffic coexists. Within the framework of Ref. , the jamming transition is represented as a first-order phase transition, whose behavior is defined by headway (car density) that acts as the volume (density) and by the inverted delay time (sensitivity parameter) that reduces to temperature.

Our approach is to take into consideration the complete set of freedom degrees as equivalent variables. We obtain the self-consistent analytical description of the jamming transition as result of the self-organization caused by the positive feedback of the headway deviation and acceleration/braking time – on the one hand, as well as the negative feedback of the deviations of headway and velocity – on the other one.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the self-consistent Lorenz system of the governed equations for the headway and velocity deviations as well as for the acceleration/braking time is obtained. The jamming transition is shown to be supercritical in character (has the second order) if a relaxation time for the first of pointed out quantities does not depend on its value; it transforms to subcritical regime with this dependence appearance. Section 3 deals with the determination of steady-state values for the headway deviation and the acceleration/braking time within adiabatic approximation. Out of the latter limit, the time dependencies for the headway and velocity deviations are studied on the basis of the phase-portrait method. Section 4 contains a short discussion of used assumptions.

## 2 Basic equations

Within framework of the simplest car-following model the acceleration $`\dot{V}`$ of a given vehicle as a function of its distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ to the front vehicle is defined by equality $`\dot{V}=[v_{opt}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)V]/\tau `$, where $`v_{opt}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)=\mathrm{\Delta }x/t_0`$ is the optimal velocity function ($`t_0`$ being a characteristic time interval), $`h=Vt_0`$ is the optimal headway and $`\tau `$ is the time of acceleration/braking needed for car to take the optimal velocity. It is convenient to introduce deviations $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }xh`$ and $`v\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{x}h/t_0+V`$ of headway $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and its velocity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{x}`$ from corresponding optimal values $`h`$ and $`h/t_0V`$. Then, the flow of cars can be described in terms of the pointed out quantities $`\eta `$, $`v`$, and $`\tau `$. The key point of our approach is that the above degrees of freedom are assumed to be of dissipative type, so that, when they are not coupled, their relaxation to the steady state is governed by the Debye-type equations with corresponding relaxation times $`t_\eta `$, $`t_v`$, $`t_\tau `$. Within the simplest approach, equations for the time dependencies $`\eta (t)`$, $`v(t)`$, and $`\tau (t)`$ are supposed to coincide formally with the Lorenz system that describes the self-organization process .

The first of the stated equations has the form

$$\dot{\eta }=\eta /t_\eta +v,$$
(1)
where the dot stands for a derivative with respect to time $`t`$. The first term in the right-hand side describes the Debye relaxation during time $`t_\eta `$, the second one is the usual addition. In a stationary state, when $`\dot{\eta }=0`$, solution of Eq. (1) defines conventional linear relationship $`\eta =t_\eta v`$, so that the headway deviation is proportional to the velocity deviation.

The equation for the rate of quantity $`v`$ variation is supposed to have the nonlinear form

$$\dot{v}=v/t_v+g_v\eta \tau ,$$
(2)
where $`t_v,g_v`$ are positive constants. As in Eq. (1), the first term in the right-hand side of Eq. (2) describes the relaxation process of velocity deviation $`v`$ to the stationary value $`v=0`$ determined by a time $`t_v`$. The second term describes the positive feedback of the headway deviation $`\eta `$ and the time $`\tau `$ of acceleration/braking on the velocity deviation $`v`$ that results in the increase of value $`v`$ and, thus, causes the self-organization process.

The kinetic equation for the acceleration/braking time $`\tau `$

$$\dot{\tau }=(\tau _0\tau )/t_\tau g_\tau \eta v$$
(3)
differs from Eqs. (1), (2) as follows: the relaxation of quantity $`\tau `$ occurs not to the zero but to the finite value $`\tau _0`$, representing the stationary time needed for car to take the characteristic velocity (in other words, $`\tau _0`$ is the car characteristic); $`t_\tau `$ is a corresponding relaxation time. In Eq. (3) the negative feedback of the quantities $`\eta `$ and $`v`$ on $`\tau `$ is introduced to imply the decrease of acceleration/braking time $`\tau `$ with the growth of the headway and velocity deviations ($`g_\tau >0`$ is a corresponding constant).

The equations (1), (2), (3) constitute the basis for self-consistent description of the car-following model driven by the control parameter $`\tau _0`$. The distinguishing feature of these equations is that nonlinear terms that enter Eqs. (2), (3) are of opposite signs, while Eq. (1) is linear. Physically, the latter means just that the velocity deviation is the derivative of headway deviation with respect to time. The negative sign of the last term in Eq. (3) can be regarded as a manifestation of Le Chatelier principle, i.e. since an decrease in the acceleration/braking time promote to the formation of a stable car flow, the headway and velocity deviations $`\eta `$ and $`v`$ tend to impede the growth of the acceleration/braking time and, as a consequence, the jamming. The positive feedback of $`\eta `$ and $`\tau `$ on $`v`$ in Eq. (2) plays an important part in the problem. As we will see later, it is precisely the reason behind the self-organization that brings about the traffic jam.

To explain the relaxation transition to the stable jamming state, we will show further that it is quite enough to use the adiabatic approximation: $`t_v=0,t_\tau =0`$. Therefore we could proceed not from Eqs. (2), (3) but from much simple expressions

$$v=a_v\eta \tau ,a_vt_vg_v;\tau =\tau _0a_\tau \eta v,a_\tau t_\tau g_\tau ,$$
(4)
which are related to the stationary case $`\dot{v}=0,\dot{\tau }=0`$ in Eqs. (2), (3) respectively. The equalities (4) have absolutely clear physical meaning: the increase of the headway deviation $`\eta `$ or acceleration/braking time $`\tau `$ leads to growth of the velocity deviation $`v`$, whereas the increase of the headway $`\eta `$ and velocity $`v`$ deviations should cause the decrease of acceleration/braking time $`\tau `$ in comparison with characteristic time $`\tau _0`$ if the car flow is not broken.

After introducing the suitable scales for quantities $`\eta ,v,\tau `$:

$$\eta _m(a_va_\tau )^{1/2},v_m\eta _m/t_\eta =t_\eta ^1(a_va_\tau )^{1/2},\tau _c(t_\eta a_v)^1,$$
(5)
Eqs. (1), (2), (3) can be rewritten in the simplest form of the well–known Lorenz system:

$`\dot{\eta }`$ $`=`$ $`\eta +v,`$ (6)
$`ϵ\dot{v}`$ $`=`$ $`v+\eta \tau ,`$ (7)
$`\delta \dot{\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`(\tau _0\tau )\eta v,`$ (8)
where the relaxation times ratios $`ϵt_v/t_\eta ,\delta t_\tau /t_\eta `$ are introduced and the dot now stands for the derivative with respect to the dimensionless time $`t/\tau _\eta `$. In general, the system (6) – (8) can not be solved analytically, but in the simplest case $`ϵ1\mathrm{and}\delta 1`$, the left-hand sides of Eqs. (7), (8) can be neglected. Then, the adiabatic approximation can be used to express the velocity deviation $`v`$ and the acceleration/braking time $`\tau `$ in the form of the equalities (4). As a result, the dependencies of $`\tau `$ and $`v`$ on the headway deviation $`\eta `$ are given by

$$\tau =\frac{\tau _0}{1+\eta ^2},v=\frac{\tau _0\eta }{1+\eta ^2}.$$
(9)
Note that, under $`\eta `$ is in the physically meaningful range between $`0`$ and $`1`$, the acceleration/braking time is a monotonically decreasing function of $`\eta `$, whereas the velocity deviation $`v`$ increases with $`\eta `$ (at $`\eta >1`$ we have $`\mathrm{d}v/\mathrm{d}\eta <0`$ that has no physical meaning).

Substituting second equality (9) into Eq. (6) yields the Landau–Khalatnikov relation:

$$\dot{\eta }=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\eta }$$
(10)
with the effective potential given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^2\frac{1}{2}\tau _0\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\eta ^2\right).$$
(11)
For $`\tau _0<1`$, the $`\eta `$–dependence of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is monotonically increasing and the only stationary value of $`\eta `$ equals zero, $`\eta _e=0`$, so that there is no headway deviations in this case. If the parameter $`\tau _0`$ exceeds the critical value, $`\tau _c=1`$, the effective potential assumes the minimum with non–zero steady state headway deviation $`\eta _e=\sqrt{\tau _01}`$ and the acceleration/braking time $`\tau _e=1`$.

The above scenario represents supercritical regime of the traffic jam formation and corresponds to the second–order phase transition. The latter can be easily seen from the expansion of the effective potential (11) in power series of $`\eta ^21`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1\tau _0}{2}\eta ^2+\frac{\tau _0}{4}\eta ^4.$$
(12)
So the critical exponents are identical to those obtained within the framework of the mean-field theory .

The drawback of the outlined approach is that it fails to account for the subcritical regime of the self–organization that is the reason for the appearance of traffic jam and analogous to the first–order phase transition, rather than the second–order one. So one has to modify the above theory by taking the assumption that the effective relaxation time $`t_\eta (\eta )`$ increases with headway deviation $`\eta `$ from initial value $`t_\eta /(1+m)`$ fixed by a parameter $`m>0`$ to the final one $`t_\eta `$ . The simplest two–parameter approximation is as follows:

$$\frac{t_\eta }{t_\eta (\eta )}=1+\frac{m}{1+(\eta /\eta _0)^2},$$
(13)
where $`0<\eta _0<1`$. The expression for the effective potential (11) then changes by adding the term

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{m}{2}\eta _0^2\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{\eta ^2}{\eta _0^2}\right)$$
(14)
and the stationary values of $`\eta `$ are

$`\eta _e^m`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{00}\left\{1\left[1+\eta _0^2\eta _{00}^4(\tau _0\tau _c)\right]^{1/2}\right\}^{1/2},`$ (15)
$`2\eta _{00}^2`$ $``$ $`(\tau _01)\tau _c\eta _0^2,\tau _c1+m.`$
The upper sign in the right-hand side of Eq. (15) is for the value at the unstable state $`\eta ^m`$ where the effective potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the maximum, the lower one corresponds to the stable state $`\eta _e`$. The corresponding value of the stationary acceleration/braking time

$$\tau ^m=\frac{1+\eta _{00}^2+\sqrt{\left(1+\eta _{00}^2\right)^2\left(1\eta _0^2\right)\tau _0}}{1\eta _0^2}$$
(16)
smoothly increases from the value

$$\tau _\mathrm{m}=1+\eta _0\sqrt{\frac{m}{1\eta _0^2}}$$
(17)
at the parameter $`\tau _0=\tau _{c0}`$ with

$$\tau _{c0}=\left(1\eta _0^2\right)\tau _\mathrm{m}^2$$
(18)
to the marginal value $`\tau _c=1+m`$ at $`\tau _0=\tau _c`$.

## 3 Results

The $`\tau _0`$–dependencies of $`\eta _e,\eta ^m`$, and $`\tau _e`$ are depicted in Fig. 1. As is shown in Fig. 1a, under the adiabatic condition $`t_\tau ,t_vt_\eta `$ is met and the parameter $`\tau _0`$ slowly increases being below $`\tau _c`$, no traffic jam can form. At the point $`\tau _0=\tau _c`$ the stationary headway deviation $`\eta _e`$ jumps upward to the value $`\sqrt{2}\eta _{00}`$ and its further smooth increase is determined by Eq. (15). If the parameter $`\tau _0`$ then goes downward, the headway deviation $`\eta _e`$ continuously decreases up to the point, where $`\tau _0=\tau _{c0}`$ and $`\eta _e=\eta _{00}`$. At this point the headway deviation jump-like goes down to zero. Referring to Fig. 1b, the stationary acceleration/braking time $`\tau _e`$ shows a linear increase from $`0`$ to $`\tau _c`$ with the parameter $`\tau _0`$ being in the same interval. Then, after the jump down to the value $`(1\eta _0^2)^1`$ at $`\tau _0=\tau _c`$, the stationary time $`\tau _e`$ smoothly decays to $`1`$ at $`\tau _0\tau _c`$. Under the parameter $`\tau _0`$ then decreases from above $`\tau _c`$ down to $`\tau _{c0}`$ the acceleration/braking time $`\tau _e`$ grows. When the point (18) is reached, the traffic becomes freely moving, so that the stationary acceleration/braking time undergoes the jump from the value (17) up to the one defined by Eq. (18). For $`\tau _0<\tau _{c0}`$ again the parameter $`\tau _e`$ does not differ from $`\tau _0`$. Note that this subcritical regime is realized provided the parameter $`m`$, that enters the dispersion law (13), is greater than value

$$m_{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{\eta _0^2}{1\eta _0^2}.$$
(19)
Clearly, according to the picture described, the jamming generation is characterized by the well pronounced hysteresis: the cars initially being at motion with optimal headway between them, begin to deviate only if the acceleration/braking time $`\tau _0`$ of cars exceeds its limiting value $`\tau _c=1+m`$, whereas the acceleration/braking time $`\tau _{c0}`$ needed for uniform car flow is less than $`\tau _c`$ (see Eqs. (17), (18)). This is the case in the limit $`t_\tau /t_\eta 0`$ and the hysteresis loop shrinks with the growth of the adiabaticity parameter $`\delta t_\tau /t_\eta `$. In addition to the smallness of $`\delta `$, the adiabatic approximation implies the ratio $`t_v/t_\eta ϵ`$ is also small. In contrast to the former, the latter does not seem to be realistic for the system under consideration, where, in general, $`t_vt_\eta `$. So it is of interest to study to what extent the finite value of $`ϵ`$ could change the results.

Owing to the condition $`\delta 1`$, Eq. (8) is still algebraic and $`\tau `$ can be expressed in terms of $`\eta `$ and $`v`$. As a result, we derive the system of two nonlinear differential equations that can be studied by the phase portrait method . The phase portraits for various values of $`ϵ`$ are displayed in Fig. 2, where the center $`O`$ represents the stationary state and the saddle point $`S`$ is related to the maximum of the effective potential. As is seen from the figure, independently of $`ϵ`$, there is the universal section – the ”mainstream”, that attracts all phase trajectories and its structure is appeared to be almost insensitive to changes in $`ϵ`$. Analysis of time dependencies $`v(t)`$ and $`\eta (t)`$ reveals that the headway and velocity deviations slow down appreciably on this section in comparison to the rest parts of trajectories that are almost rectilinear (it is not difficult to see that this effect is caused by the smallness of $`\delta `$). Since the most of time the system is in vicinity of the ”mainstream”, we arrive at the conclusion that finite values of $`ϵ`$ do not affect qualitatively the above results obtained in the adiabatic approximation.

## 4 Discussion

According to the above consideration, the simplest picture of the dissipative dynamic of traffic flow in a homogeneous car-following model can be represented within the framework of Lorenz model, where the headway $`\eta `$ and velocity $`v`$ deviations play a role of an order parameter and its conjugate field, respectively, and the acceleration/braking time $`\tau `$ is a control parameter. The model is examined to show that a jam creates if the car characteristic $`\tau _0`$ is larger than the critical magnitude $`\tau _c`$. The above pointed out dissipative regime is inherent in the systems with small values of the relaxation time $`t_\tau `$ for acceleration/braking, being apparently a characteristic of a car-driver, and large ones $`t_\eta `$, $`t_v`$ for the headway and velocity deviations. According to Ref. , in the opposite case $`t_\tau t_\eta ,t_v`$, the system behaves in auto-oscillation or stochastic manners.

It is worth-while to note that the above synergetic scheme allows us to explain the collective phenomena of jamming transition in the $`N`$-body problem with $`N\mathrm{}`$. Then, the question arises: why exactly three variables (the headway and velocity deviations $`\eta ,v`$, and acceleration/braking time $`\tau `$) permit to explain the nontrivial behaviour of $`N`$-body problem? The answer to this question gives the theorem by Ruelle and Takens: nontrivial collective behaviour of many-body system (type of the strange attractor) can be represented only in the case, when number of variables is not less than three . The interpretation of this fact is the simplest: the first of the freedom degrees can be chosen as the way along the phase trajectory, the second one corresponds to the negative Lyapunov exponent, ensuring an attraction to this trajectory, the third one acts in opposite manner to give repulsion. In our case of the self-organization process, the second $`v`$ and third $`\tau `$ freedom degrees provide the positive and negative feedbacks in Eqs. (2), (3).

The last question to our approach is why the just Lorenz scheme allows us to describes main peculiarities of the jamming transition? The answer is that this is the simplest approach, permitting to catch on the self-organization effects, just as the Landau phenomenological theory of phase transitions describes the great variety of thermodynamical transformations in the simplest way . Let us note in this connection that the effective potential given by the sum of equalities (11), (14) acts the part of the Landau free energy. But the above stated synergetic scheme has the principle difference from the Landau-type theory  because the former takes into account a feedback of thermostat (the velocity deviation and the acceleration/braking time) with subsystem under consideration (the headway deviation), whereas the latter does not.

## Acknowledgment

We are grateful to anonymous reviewer for constructive criticism that promotes to improve the above scheme exposition.

CAPTIONS

Fig. 1. The $`\tau _0`$–dependencies of the stationary values of: (a) headway deviations $`\eta _e`$, $`\eta ^m`$; (b) acceleration/braking time $`\tau _e`$. The arrows indicate the hysteresis loop.

Fig. 2. Phase portraits in the $`\eta v`$ plane at $`m=1,\eta _0=0.1,\tau _0=1.25\tau _c`$ for: (a) $`ϵ=10^2`$; (b) $`ϵ=1`$; (c) $`ϵ=10^2`$.