text:
# Reference spaces in Special Relativity Theory: an intrinsic approach

## 1 Introduction

The nature of motion is an important issue since the first stages in the science of mechanics. As it happened with many other topics, Galileo was one of the first to deal with this problem in an inquiring form. In his celebrated treatise Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems Ptolemaic and Copernican, Galilei (1632), he faced the problem of the relativity of the motion and argued that one may refer a motion not only to the resting Earth but also to other bodies moving with respect to it. Gradually, it was becoming clear that, for studying a motion, use had to be made only of the space relative to a body of reference, making thus needless even to mention an absolute space. In spite of this knowledge being so old, its operational meaning was not fully understood until Einstein’s findings on General Relativity. In his book The Meaning of Relativity, Einstein (1953), he set out clearly his ideas on the relativity of the space:

> “For the concept of space the following seems essential. We can form new bodies by bringing bodies $`B`$, $`C`$, … up to body $`A`$; we say that we continue body $`A`$. We can continue body $`A`$ in such a way that it comes into contact with any other body, $`X`$. The ensemble of all continuations of body $`A`$ we can designate as the ‘space of the body $`A`$.’ Then it is true that all bodies are in the ‘space of the (arbitrarily chosen) body $`A`$.’ In this sense we cannot speak of space in the abstract, but only of the ‘space belonging to a body $`A`$.’ The earth’s crust plays such a dominant role in our daily life in judging the relative positions of bodies that it has led to an abstract conception of space which certainly cannot be defended. In order to free ourselves from this fatal error we shall speak only of ‘bodies of reference,’ or ‘space of reference.’ ”

According to Einstein, the space of a body is a physical concept and, as such, operationally defined. He emphasized several features of it:

1. Any body may be used as a reference body. In special relativity we will limit ourselves to inertial bodies.
2. The points of a reference space have a permanent character to the extent that they can be conceived as particles of some continuation of the body. The points of a space of reference are by definition at rest.
3. In a given space of reference, the record of the position of a moving particle is the point of that body which coincides with it at the considered time instant. There are no moving points but moving particles passing by close points in a space of reference, instead.

The fact that the space is relative in no way means that this concept is irrelevant in physics. Energy or electric field are also relative concepts but however we do not dismiss them out as of lacking interest. Even though this is clear enough, after the Minkowskian geometric interpretation of spacetime the use of particular bodies of reference has been scorned as an old pre–relativistic prejudice similar to absolute time or instantaneous action at a distance. Nevertheless, to experimentally support a physical theory, it has usually to recourse to data obtained in a certain laboratory space. Therefore, it seems to be of the utmost interest to explicit the usage rules for spaces of reference in the realm of special relativity.

Besides the customary method based upon the use of coordinates, the study of spacetime can be undertaken in an axiomatic mathematically rigorous way in which it is considered as an affine pseudoeuclidean space. Matolcsi (1993) has promoted such a procedure in order to build up an intrinsic formalism upon which any physical theory can be erected. Our viewpoint is complementary: we are concerned with the construction of spacetime from the analysis of the transformations between inertial reference spaces.

Thus, the objectives this work is aimed to are:

1. To cast in mathematical form the idea of space of reference devised by Einstein.
2. Since the geometrical and physical relations on each body of reference do not depend on the chosen coordinate system, we will develop an intrinsic method, directly based on absolute objects of the Euclidean affine tridimensional space. The relativity of space demands to consider a different affine space associated to each body.
3. To present a theoretical device, that we call tracer mapping, having a direct physical interpretation, suited to characterize the relationship between the physical quantities measured in different spaces, without coordinates. The concept of tracer is not new, but we think it has not received the attention it deserves. For instance, Synge (1972) introduced the term snapshot, taken from Milne’s world–map, a term used in the same sense by Rindler (1977).
4. To obtain ab initio intrinsic expressions of the Galileo and Lorentz transformations.

The proposed method allows to wholly solve, or avoid, some little problems appearing in the usual derivations of space and time transformations, which are really associated to a particular choice of a coordinate system in each reference body. For instance we could list: the problem of parallelism between coordinate axes, addressed in Frahm (1979); the reciprocity relation for the relative motion of two inertial frames of reference, analysed in detail in Berzi et al. (1968); and the search for Lorentz transformations in cases with arbitrarily oriented axes, carefully studied in Cushing (1967).

In order to state clearly the components used in the construction of the space and time transformations, we have resorted to a style akin to the “more geometrico”. However, this work is not addressed to a search for a minimum set of postulates necessary for a logically closed derivation \[for that purpose see, for example, Matolcsi (1993), Lévy–Leblond (1976), Nishikawa (1997), Schwartz (1984) and References cited therein\]. Instead, the intention of this work is of a methodological nature. We try to clarify as far as possible the ingredients of physical character which arise on occasion of the analysis of the problems concerning the description of the measurements in space and time carried out by several observers and the comparison between these measurements.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, using the tracer mapping concept, the intrinsic method is introduced. By adding further physical hypotheses, we obtain in Sections 3 and 4 the transformations of Galileo and Lorentz. Next Section is devoted to widen the scope of the intrinsic method by giving an coordinate-free definition of angular velocity leading to Coriolis theorem, within the limits of Newtonian mechanics, and a characterization of the geometry on a rotating disk, in special relativity.

## 2 The intrinsic method

Spaces, times and events

According to Einstein’s construction, to every body $`A`$ there corresponds a space of reference $`K`$. Besides, if the body is an inertial one, its space is affine and euclidean. At every point, the spaces are equipped with identical measuring rods, i. e., rods made by using the same instructions, which define the same length unit in all of them.

From now on, the word “space” as used in this paper will mean the space of reference of a body. In that sense, a space has an objective character and its points are permanent as they can be considered as particles of a certain body.

Unless otherwise stated, only inertial bodies and spaces of reference will be considered. For any of these spaces of reference, such as $`K`$, being an affine space, the set of its translations (pairs of points) forms a vector space called $`𝒱`$. Following definitions and notation given in Crampin et al. (1986), Chap. 1, we will represent a translation of the point $`Q`$ by the vector $`𝐯`$ as a new point $`P`$ given by the sum $`Q+𝐯`$.

On each space of reference identical clocks, which define the same time measuring unit in them, are distributed. If the space is inertial, these clocks can be synchronized once and for all.

###### Postulate 1

Each event $`𝒫`$ happens in the neighborhood of a single point $`P`$ of the space $`K`$. The clock at $`P`$ registers its date, $`t`$, a single real number. The record $`(t,P)`$ fully characterizes the event.

In a similar way, the same event $`𝒫`$ is recorded in the space $`K^{}`$ of other body as $`(t^{},P^{})`$. Two different records in $`K`$ represent two different events that will produce also different records in any other space. This circumstance confers the event manifold an absolute character.

It is to be emphasized that $`(t,P)`$ is a very primitive way to register an event. This record consists of a point and a real number rather than four coordinates.

Particles, trajectories and velocities

A particle $`M`$ produces in the space $`K`$ the set of records $`(t,P_t)`$, $`\mathrm{}<t<+\mathrm{}`$, called the trajectory of $`M`$, a curve in $`K`$.

###### Definition 1

The velocity $`𝐯`$ of $`M`$ with respect to $`K`$ at time $`t`$ is

$$𝐯(t)=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}\frac{\stackrel{}{P_tP_{t+\mathrm{\Delta }t}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}.$$
(1)
Hence, $`𝐯`$ is a vector belonging to the space $`𝒱`$ associated to $`K`$ and, thus, it is a relative quantity obtained from a series of permanent records in $`K`$.

Space and time transformations

The study of the space and time transformations following Einstein’s guidelines can be undertaken by using the theoretical devices introduced below.

###### Definition 2

The bijective mapping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t:K^{}K`$ maps each point $`P^{}K^{}`$ onto the point $`PK`$ which mets $`P^{}`$ in the instant $`t`$. We will refer $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ to as tracer mapping.

The suitability of this definition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ as a bijective mapping will be evident upon its explicit construction. We call trace at $`t`$ of the point set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}K^{}`$ on the space $`K`$ to the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$. The trace, being a set of points in $`K`$, has a permanent character and it could be envisaged as a contact photograph of the space $`K^{}`$. Also, note that, in order to get the trace, no time consideration in $`K^{}`$ has to be made.

###### Definition 3

The event $`𝒫`$, characterized at $`K`$ by the pair $`(t,P)`$, happens in $`K^{}`$ at the date $`t^{}`$. Therefore, we can introduce a function $`f^{}`$ defined as

$$t^{}=f^{}(t,P).$$
(2)
The function $`f_P^{}:`$, defined by $`f_P^{}(t)=f^{}(t,P)`$ is invertible.

The pair of relations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P& =\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill t^{}& =f^{}(t,P),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
will be called mixed space and time transformation formulas (note the prime on those mappings with image on $`K^{}`$). They suffice for relating the records of any event in the spaces $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$. The mixed formulas are equivalent to the standard ones, in which $`(t^{},P^{})`$ is obtained from $`(t,P)`$. In fact, since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ has an inverse, call it $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\right)^1`$, the first of the Equations (3) leads to $`P^{}=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\right)^1(P)`$ which, together with $`t^{}=f^{}(t,P)`$, constitutes the formulas for the standard transformation. As we will see, the form (3) will prove to be very suitable for our intrinsic derivation. Moreover, it will be seen how certain symmetry considerations are all we need to carry them to their final form.

From the invertibility of the mappings $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ and $`f_P^{}`$, stated in their respective definitions, it follows that the mixed transformation formulas as a whole are also invertible. In fact, if $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\right)^1`$ and $`\left(f_P^{}\right)^1`$ do exist, then

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P^{}& =\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\right)^1(P),\hfill \\ \hfill t& =\left(f_P^{}\right)^1(t^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
allowing to write that

$$P^{}=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\left(f_P^{}\right)^1(t^{})}\right)^1(P),$$
(5)
which can be identified with the expression representing the trace of $`K`$ on $`K^{}`$ at the time $`t^{}`$, $`P^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^{}^{}(P)`$, i. e., with the first of the equations of the inverse mixed transformation. Resorting in advance to the principle of relativity, the spaces $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ are on equal terms and, therefore, in the same way as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$, the tracer mapping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^{}^{}`$ must also be invertible, so that

$$P=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^{}^{}\right)^1(P^{}).$$
(6)
By substitution of this expression for $`P`$ in the second of the equations (4), we obtain

$$t=\left(f_{\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^{}^{}\right)^1(P^{})}^{}\right)^1(t^{}),$$
(7)
which can be identified with the second of the equations for the inverse mixed transformation, $`t=f_P^{}(t^{})`$.

Since the standard transformation formulas can be derived from the mixed, the invertibility of the latter implies that of the former, as it was to be expected.

Spatial homogeneity of the transformation

As previously stated, the inertial character of $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ implies that both spaces are homogeneous and isotropic. On the other hand, the transformation among spaces and times itself may not depend on the considered point. This property, which we will call spatial homogeneity of the transformation, is expressed as it follows:

###### Postulate 2

The mappings $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ and $`f^{}`$ are homogeneous in their spaces, i. e., they do not privilege any of their points.

Consider first the mapping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$. Since $`K^{}`$ is affine, we have the obvious identity

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{}+𝐫^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{})+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{}+𝐫^{})},$$
(8)
where the vector $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{}+𝐫^{})}`$, being a function of $`t`$, $`Q^{}`$ and $`𝐫^{}`$, will be written as $`\lambda _t(Q^{},𝐫^{})`$. But Postulate 2 means that a vector $`𝐫^{}𝒱^{}`$ placed at two different points of $`K^{}`$ must map into the same vector in $`𝒱`$. Thus, $`\lambda _t(Q^{},𝐫^{})=\lambda _t(R^{},𝐫^{})`$, for any pair of points $`Q^{}`$ and $`R^{}`$, and so the argument $`Q^{}`$ in $`\lambda _t`$ can be suppressed. Instead of Eq. (8) we have, then,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{}+𝐫^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{})+\lambda _t(𝐫^{}).$$
(9)
Now, we can show that $`\lambda _t`$ is a linear mapping because of $`K^{}`$ being an affine space. In fact, consider two successive translations in $`K^{}`$, $`𝐫^{}`$ and $`𝐬^{}`$, for which $`(Q^{}+𝐫^{})+𝐬^{}=Q^{}+(𝐫^{}+𝐬^{})`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\left[Q^{}+(𝐫^{}+𝐬^{})\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{})+\lambda _t(𝐫^{}+𝐬^{})`$
$`=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\left[(Q^{}+𝐫^{})+𝐬^{}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{}+𝐫^{})+\lambda _t(𝐬^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{})+\lambda _t(𝐫^{})+\lambda _t(𝐬^{}).`$
Thus, $`\lambda _t(𝐫^{}+𝐬^{})=\lambda _t(𝐫^{})+\lambda _t(𝐬^{})`$. Starting with identities like

$`\lambda _t(2𝐫^{})=\lambda _t(𝐫^{}+𝐫^{})=\lambda _t(𝐫^{})+\lambda _t(𝐫^{})=2\lambda _t(𝐫^{}),`$
it is easily shown, for an $`m`$ being successively integer, rational and real, that $`\lambda _t(m𝐫^{})=m\lambda _t(𝐫^{})`$, thus finishing the proof.

With respect to $`f^{}`$, we can follow a similar line of reasoning. In the obvious identity

$`f^{}(t,Q+𝐫)=f^{}(t,Q)+\left[f^{}(t,Q+𝐫)f^{}(t,Q)\right]=f^{}(t,Q)+\theta _t^{}(Q,𝐫),`$
the assumed spatial homogeneity in $`f^{}`$ implies that $`\theta _t^{}(Q,𝐫)`$ must be independent on the particular point $`Q`$, then

$$f^{}(t,Q+𝐫)=f^{}(t,Q)+\theta _t^{}(𝐫).$$
(10)
By combining two translations in $`K`$ we can show that $`\theta _t^{}(𝐫)`$ is linear. In fact,

$`f^{}[t,Q+(𝐫+𝐬)]=f^{}(t,Q)+\theta _t^{}(𝐫+𝐬)`$
$`f^{}[t,(Q+𝐫)+𝐬]=f^{}(t,Q+𝐫)+\theta _t^{}(𝐬)=f^{}(t,Q)+\theta _t^{}(𝐫)+\theta _t^{}(𝐬),`$
hence $`\theta _t^{}(𝐫+𝐬)=\theta _t^{}(𝐫)+\theta _t^{}(𝐬)`$. And, finally, as in the case of $`\lambda _t`$, $`\theta _t^{}(m𝐫)=m\theta _t^{}(𝐫)`$.

The same reasoning can now be used with the other argument in $`f^{}`$. In the identity

$`f^{}(t+\tau ,Q)=f^{}(t,Q)+\left[f^{}(t+\tau ,Q)f^{}(t,Q)\right],`$
the term between square brackets, in principle a function of $`t,\tau `$ and $`Q`$, actually cannot depend on $`Q`$ according to the postulated homogeneity of $`f^{}`$, therefore

$`f^{}(t+\tau ,Q)=f^{}(t,Q)+g^{}(t,\tau ),`$
where $`g^{}(t,\tau )`$ depends on $`t`$ and linearly on $`\tau `$, i. e., $`g^{}(t,\tau )=\gamma ^{}(t)\tau `$. This last statement can be shown by considering the composition of two arbitrary translations in time. We get the relation

$$f^{}(t+\tau ,Q+𝐫)=f^{}(t,Q)+\gamma ^{}(t)\tau +\theta _t^{}(𝐫).$$
(11)
Time homogeneity of the transformation

In a similar way as in the last Subsection, the transformation between spaces of reference may not depend on a particular chosen time. This property, that we will call time homogeneity of the transformation, is expressed as it follows:

###### Postulate 3

The mappings $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ and $`f^{}`$ are homogeneous in time, i. e., they do not privilege any time instant.

An arbitrary point $`P^{}`$ of $`K^{}`$ describes in $`K`$ the trajectory $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{})`$. The homogeneity in time of the mapping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ implies that such a motion is uniform, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(P^{})+𝐮(P^{})t.$$
(12)
Here, $`𝐮(P^{})`$ is the velocity field linked to the particles in $`K^{}`$, the material velocity, in the language of the Kinematics of Continuous Media, see Marsden et al. (1994), p. 26. We may express this field also in terms of the points of $`K`$ (usually called spatial velocity, see Marsden et al. (1994), p. 27):

$$𝐔(t,P)=𝐮\left[\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\right)^1(P)\right].$$
(13)
Since time is homogeneous for the transformation, $`K`$ must observe a steady situation in any point and, thus, the space velocity field must be time independent:

$$\frac{𝐔}{t}=0.$$
(14)
This condition can only be satisfied if $`𝐮(P^{})`$ is the same for every point $`P^{}`$. It is worth noting that the relative motion between $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ establishes a relationship between the homogeneities in time and in space $`K^{}`$.

By differentiating (9) with respect to time we obtain the relation

$$𝐮(Q^{}+𝐫^{})=𝐮(Q^{})+\frac{d\lambda _t}{dt}(𝐫^{}).$$
(15)
If, as seen, every point of $`K^{}`$, in particular $`Q^{}`$ and $`Q^{}+𝐫^{}`$, have the same velocity, the following relation will hold

$$\frac{d\lambda _t}{dt}=0,$$
(16)
that is, $`\lambda _t`$ must be time independent and, thus, it can be represented simply as $`\lambda `$.

Two simultaneous events at $`Q`$ and $`Q+𝐫`$ happen in $`K^{}`$ with a time separation that, according to Eq. (10), is given by

$$f^{}(t,Q+𝐫)f^{}(t,Q)=\theta _t^{}(𝐫).$$
(17)
Time homogeneity in $`f^{}`$ requires that the above separation does not depend on the chosen instant, $`t`$. Therefore, the index in $`\theta _t^{}`$ is not necessary, so that

$$f^{}(t,Q+𝐫)=f^{}(t,Q)+\theta ^{}(𝐫).$$
(18)
On the other hand, for two events happening in the same point, $`Q`$, with a time separation, $`\tau `$, we have, from Eq. (11),

$$f^{}(t+\tau ,Q)f^{}(t,Q)=\gamma ^{}(t)\tau .$$
(19)
In the same way, the condition for time homogeneity leads to $`\gamma ^{}`$ to be independent of $`t`$. The results concerning the last two Postulates can be summarized in the following theorem:

###### Theorem 1

The homogeneities in space and time of the mappings $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ and $`f^{}`$ imply

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{}+𝐫^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(Q^{})+𝐮t+\lambda (𝐫^{})`$ (20)
$`f^{}(t+\tau ,Q+𝐫)=f^{}(t,Q)+\gamma ^{}\tau +\theta ^{}(𝐫),`$ (21)
where $`𝐮`$ is the velocity of any particle in $`K^{}`$ as measured in $`K`$, $`\lambda `$ is a linear mapping of $`𝒱^{}`$ on $`𝒱`$, $`\gamma ^{}`$ is a number and $`\theta ^{}`$ is a covector in $`𝒱^{}`$.

In order to take advantage of the affine property of the spaces we find useful to use vectors to represent points, which is carried out by choosing a point and an instant as an origin in each space and time. This process can be independently made in each space but the theory becomes simpler if one chooses a single, though arbitrary, event $`𝒬`$ as a reference or origin. This event registers at $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ as $`(t_𝒬,Q)`$ and $`(t_𝒬^{},Q^{})`$, respectively, and we have the relations

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q& =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{t_𝒬}(Q^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill t_𝒬^{}& =f^{}(t_𝒬,Q).\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
The choice of a reference event is the first step to coordinate the space and time records in both spaces of reference.

An arbitrary event, $`𝒫`$, is registered as $`(t_𝒬+\tau ,Q+𝐫)`$ and $`(t_𝒬^{}+\tau ^{},Q^{}+𝐫^{})`$ at $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$, respectively. Hence, we can write

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q+𝐫& =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{t_𝒬}(Q^{}+𝐫^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill t_𝒬^{}+\tau ^{}& =f^{}(t_𝒬+\tau ,Q+𝐫).\hfill \end{array}`$ (27)
Then, by using Eqs. (20) and (21), the mixed transformation formulas (3) can be written in terms of vector quantities as

$`𝐫=𝐮\tau +\lambda (𝐫^{})`$ (28)
$`\tau ^{}=\gamma ^{}\tau +\theta ^{}(𝐫).`$ (29)
Some consequences of the principle of relativity

The inverse transformation formulas,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P^{}& =\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^{}^{}(P),\hfill \\ \hfill t& =f(t^{},P^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
are merely those obtained by exchanging $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$. According to the principle of relativity, both spaces of reference are physically equivalent. Therefore we are allowed to repeat the previous analysis but now from the point of view of $`K^{}`$. Thus, we arrive to the vector relations, similar to (28) and (29),

$`𝐫^{}=𝐮^{}\tau ^{}+\lambda ^{}(𝐫)`$ (31)
$`\tau =\gamma \tau ^{}+\theta (𝐫^{}).`$ (32)
Here, $`𝐮^{}𝒱^{}`$ represents the velocity of the particles of $`K`$ as seen from $`K^{}`$.

###### Theorem 2

The mappings and constants $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$, $`\theta `$, $`\theta ^{}`$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ satisfy the identities

$`𝐮+\gamma ^{}\lambda (𝐮^{})=0,`$ (33)
$`𝐫=\theta ^{}(𝐫)\lambda (𝐮^{})+\lambda \left[\lambda ^{}(𝐫)\right],`$ $`𝐫𝒱,`$ (34)
$`\gamma ^{}\left[\gamma +\theta (𝐮^{})\right]=1,`$ (35)
$`\theta ^{}(𝐫)+\gamma ^{}\theta \left[\lambda ^{}(𝐫)\right]=0,`$ $`𝐫𝒱,`$ (36)
and those resulting by interchanging the positions of primed and unprimed symbols

$`𝐮^{}+\gamma \lambda ^{}(𝐮)=0,`$ (37)
$`𝐫^{}=\theta (𝐫^{})\lambda ^{}(𝐮)+\lambda ^{}\left[\lambda (𝐫^{})\right],`$ $`𝐫^{}𝒱^{},`$ (38)
$`\gamma \left[\gamma ^{}+\theta ^{}(𝐮)\right]=1,`$ (39)
$`\theta (𝐫^{})+\gamma \theta ^{}\left[\lambda (𝐫^{})\right]=0,`$ $`𝐫^{}𝒱^{}.`$ (40)
These results are obtained by imposing the condition that (31) and (32) are the inverse ones of (28) and (29), and then by substitution of the former into the later ones.

###### Postulate 4

The following equalities hold

$`\gamma ^{}=\gamma ,`$ (41)
$`u^{}=u,`$ (42)
where $`u^{}=|𝐮^{}|`$ and $`u=|𝐮|`$.

This statement presupposes that identical length and time measuring standards have been adopted in both spaces, and it derives, then, from the principle of relativity. We can make this connection plausible by means of conceptual experiments like the following ones. In relation to Eq. (41), consider the measurement of the period of a standard clock, like a neutron lifetime, at rest in the origin of $`K`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^{}`$ be the values obtained at $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$, respectively. Then, according to Eq. (29), $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^{}=\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _0`$. For the standard clock now at rest in $`K^{}`$ one would obtain similarly $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\tau _0^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _0^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ are the measured period in $`K^{}`$ and $`K`$, respectively. The equivalence between $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$, implicit in the principle of relativity, implies (41); if not, a strange asymmetry between $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ would appear possibly reminiscent of an ether at rest, and both spaces could be distinguished from one another (see Nishikawa (1997) for a critical analysis of these assumptions and their relationship to the principle of relativity). Besides, if the times in both spaces flow in the same direction, all the time intervals considered so far are positive, and $`\gamma >0`$. A similar argument involving the motion of the origins of both spaces can be used to justify Eq. (42).

Cylindrical symmetry of the transformation problem

###### Postulate 5

In the transformation problem, at $`K`$, the direction $`U`$ of $`𝐮`$ is privileged. All directions in the plane (subspace) $`T`$ of vectors perpendicular to $`𝐮`$ are physically equivalent. In the same way, at $`K^{}`$, the direction $`U^{}`$ of $`𝐮^{}`$ is privileged and all directions in the plane $`T^{}`$ of vectors perpendicular to $`𝐮^{}`$ are also physically equivalent.

margin: margin:

This cylindrical symmetry implies that, if $`𝐫_TT`$, then $`\theta ^{}(𝐫_T)`$ must be independent on the vector direction even though it will depend on its magnitude. To $`\lambda `$, this symmetry demands that, if $`𝐫_T^{}T^{}`$, then $`|\lambda (𝐫_T^{})|^2`$ is independent on the direction of $`𝐫_T^{}`$. Stated otherwise, the image by $`\lambda `$ of a circumference of $`T^{}`$ has to be a circumference in $`T`$.

###### Theorem 3

The action of the covector $`\theta ^{}`$ on arbitrary vectors is given by

$$\theta ^{}(𝐫)=\frac{1\gamma ^2}{\gamma }\frac{𝐫𝐮}{u^2}.$$
(43)
Proof to Equation (43): Given any vector $`𝐩_1`$ in the plane $`T`$ we can add two more vectors in it, $`𝐩_2`$ and $`𝐩_3`$, to form an equilateral triangle and such that

$$𝐩_1=𝐩_2𝐩_3.$$
(44)
Since the magnitude of the three vectors is the same, the action of $`\theta ^{}`$ on any of them must be identical, i. e.,

$$\theta ^{}\left(𝐩_1\right)=\theta ^{}\left(𝐩_2\right)=\theta ^{}\left(𝐩_3\right)=C.$$

Applying $`\theta ^{}`$ on both sides of Equation (44) and on account of its linearity, we conclude that $`C=0`$, that is, the action of $`\theta ^{}`$ on any vector perpendicular to $`𝐮`$ is zero. This result allows us to fully characterize $`\theta ^{}`$. In fact, let $`𝐫_T`$ and $`𝐫_U`$ be the projections of a vector $`𝐫,`$ $`𝐫𝒱`$, on the plane $`T`$ and on the direction of $`𝐮`$, respectively. As $`𝐫_U=(𝐫𝐮/u)(𝐮/u)`$ and $`\theta ^{}\left(𝐫_T\right)=0`$, then $`\theta ^{}\left(𝐫\right)=\theta ^{}\left(𝐫_U\right)`$, and by using Equations (39) and (41) we obtain immediately Equation (43).

###### Definition 4

We define the linear mappings $`\lambda _U:𝒱^{}𝒱`$ and $`\lambda _T:𝒱^{}𝒱`$ as

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda _U(𝐫_T^{})& =0\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda _U(𝐫_U^{})& =\lambda (𝐫_U^{})\hfill \end{array};\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda _T(𝐫_T^{})& =\lambda (𝐫_T^{})\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda _T(𝐫_U^{})& =0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (49)
where $`𝐫_T^{}T^{}`$ and $`𝐫_U^{}U^{}`$.

These definitions are consistent since $`𝒱^{}=U^{}T^{}`$, and it is straightforward to see that $`\lambda =\lambda _T+\lambda _U`$. In the same way, by introducing similar definitions for $`\lambda ^{}`$, merely by exchanging primed and unprimed letters, we write $`\lambda ^{}=\lambda _T^{}+\lambda _U^{}`$.

###### Theorem 4

The linear mapping $`\lambda =\lambda _T+\lambda _U`$ satisfies the conditions

$`\lambda _U(𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫^{}𝐮^{}}{u^2}}𝐮`$ (50)
$`𝐫_T^{}T^{}`$ $``$ $`\lambda (𝐫_T^{})T`$ (51)
$`\lambda _T(𝐫_{T1}^{})\lambda _T(𝐫_{T2}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`𝐫_{T1}^{}𝐫_{T2}^{};𝐫_{T1}^{}\text{}𝐫_{T2}^{}T^{}`$ (52)
Equation (50) follows directly from Equation (33) and the result (41). The other ones can be shown from the cylindrical symmetry of the transformation and the principle of relativity, following a similar reasoning to the used to prove Theorem 3.

Equation (52) shows that $`\lambda _T`$ preserves the magnitude of those vectors perpendicular to $`𝐮^{}`$ when transformed from $`T^{}`$ to $`T`$. As it is well known, a single parameter, usually an angle, is enough to determine this transformation. The value of this angle is so far undefined since we have not specified the orientation of $`K^{}`$ with respect to $`K`$. Once the origins in spaces and times and the directions of the velocities $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐮^{}`$ have been established, the space $`K^{}`$ can be rotated around $`𝐮^{}`$ without any change in the previous results. From this consideration, it follows that no better determination of $`\lambda `$ can be obtained unless that missing piece of information is added.

Finally, in order to fully characterize the mappings $`\theta ^{}`$ and $`\lambda _U`$ we have to find out a relation between $`\gamma `$ and $`𝐮`$. To that aim, we will extend the method developed for one-dimensional spaces in Lévy–Leblond (1976) and accordingly we will assume that the space and time transformations have a group structure. That group structure was already explored in part when we assumed the existence of an inverse transformation.

Closure of composition of transformations

Let $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$ and $`K_3`$ be three inertial spaces of reference. Between each pair of them a space and time transformation can be established: $`T^a`$ between $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$, $`T^b`$ between $`K_2`$ and $`K_3`$, and $`T^c`$ between $`K_3`$ and $`K_1`$. We assume, as before, that a single event defines origins in the three spaces and times. Each transformation is characterized by a relative velocity that can be measured in any of the two spaces related by the transformation. Thus, $`T^a`$ is characterized by $`𝐮_1^a`$ and $`𝐮_2^a`$ in $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$, respectively. Let $`(\tau _1,𝐫_1)`$ and $`(\tau _2,𝐫_2)`$ be records of the same event at $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$, respectively. Our previous analysis \[refer to Eqs. (28), (29), (41), (43) and (50), and to Definition 4\] allows us to write the equations of the mixed transformation between those spaces as

$$𝐫_1=\lambda _{T1}^a(𝐫_2)+𝐮_1^a\tau _1\frac{1}{\gamma _a}\frac{𝐫_2𝐮_2^a}{u_a^2}𝐮_1^a,$$
(53)
$$\tau _2=\gamma _a\tau _1+\frac{1\gamma _a^2}{\gamma _a}\frac{𝐫_1𝐮_1^a}{u_a^2},$$
(54)
where $`u_a^2=𝐮_1^a𝐮_1^a=𝐮_2^a𝐮_2^a`$, $`\gamma _a=\gamma (u_a)`$ and $`\lambda _{T1}^a`$ maps the perpendicular component (with respect to $`𝐮_2^a`$) of its $`K_2`$–argument onto a vector of $`K_1`$ perpendicular to $`𝐮_1^a`$, preserving the length of that component. Equations (53) and (54) must be considered on an equal footing with the inverse equations obtained interchanging indices 1 and 2:

$$𝐫_2=\lambda _{T2}^a(𝐫_1)+𝐮_2^a\tau _2\frac{1}{\gamma _a}\frac{𝐫_1𝐮_1^a}{u_a^2}𝐮_2^a,$$
(55)
$$\tau _1=\gamma _a\tau _2+\frac{1\gamma _a^2}{\gamma _a}\frac{𝐫_2𝐮_2^a}{u_a^2}.$$
(56)
The formulas for the other two transformations can be immediately deduced from the preceding ones by changing on them the indices $`a`$, for the transformation, and the related pair 1–2, for the linked spaces, to the ones desired.

This set of equations will permit us to find an universal form for the relation between the parameter $`\gamma `$ and the relative velocity for any transformation as well as formulas relating the relative velocities of the three transformations. For that purposes it is easier to study the motion of the origin of each space from the other two spaces together with the transformation linking the last ones. According to the equations defining the transformation $`T^c`$, the events experienced by the chosen origin of $`K_3`$, $`𝐫_3=0`$, appear in $`K_1`$ as

$$𝐫_1=𝐮_1^c\tau _1,$$
(57)
$$\tau _1=\gamma _c\tau _3.$$
(58)
In the same way, $`𝐫_3=0`$ appears in $`K_2`$ as

$$𝐫_2=𝐮_2^b\tau _2,$$
(59)
$$\tau _2=\gamma _b\tau _3,$$
(60)
obtained from the equations of the transformation $`T^b`$. The records of such events registered in $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are related by the equations of the transformation $`T^a`$ given above. By substitution of Eqs. (57)–(60) into Eq. (53) we get a relation among relative velocities:

$$𝐮_1^c=\frac{\gamma _b}{\gamma _c}\lambda _{T1}^a(𝐮_2^b)+\left[1\frac{\gamma _b}{\gamma _a\gamma _c}\frac{𝐮_2^b𝐮_2^a}{𝐮_a^2}\right]𝐮_1^a.$$
(61)
Similarly, by eliminating times among Equations (54), (58) and (60), the former becomes

$$\frac{\gamma _b}{\gamma _c}=\gamma _a+\frac{1\gamma _a^2}{\gamma _a}\frac{𝐮_1^c𝐮_1^a}{𝐮_a^2}.$$
(62)
By studying in an identical way the motion of the origin of $`K_2`$ from $`K_1`$ and $`K_3`$ and the equations of the transformation $`T^c`$ we arrive to relations similar to the previous ones, namely

$$𝐮_1^a=\frac{\gamma _b}{\gamma _a}\lambda _{T1}^c(𝐮_3^b)+\left[1\frac{\gamma _b}{\gamma _a\gamma _c}\frac{𝐮_3^b𝐮_3^c}{𝐮_c^2}\right]𝐮_1^c.$$
(63)
and

$$\frac{\gamma _b}{\gamma _a}=\gamma _c+\frac{1\gamma _c^2}{\gamma _c}\frac{𝐮_1^c𝐮_1^a}{𝐮_c^2}.$$
(64)
Results similar to those given by Eqs. (61)–(64) may be readily obtained from the consideration of the motions of the other possible pairs of origins. Finally, by eliminating the product $`𝐮_1^c𝐮_1^a`$ between Eqs. (62) and (64), and through analogous calculations on the other mentioned results, we arrive to the important identities

$$\frac{1\gamma _a^2}{\gamma _a^2}\frac{1}{u_a^2}=\frac{1\gamma _b^2}{\gamma _b^2}\frac{1}{u_b^2}=\frac{1\gamma _c^2}{\gamma _c^2}\frac{1}{u_c^2}.$$
(65)
Hence, the quantity $`(1\gamma ^2)/(\gamma u)^2`$ has a universal value irrespective the transformation it refers to. By denoting it as $`\alpha `$, we get the advertised expression for $`\gamma (u)`$:

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\alpha u^2}}.$$
(66)
The theory does not yield the actual value for $`\alpha `$ that will have to be obtained by experimental means. The simpler choice is $`\alpha =0`$ leading to Galileo transformation, briefly considered in Section 3. The choice $`\alpha =1/c^2`$ corresponds to Lorentz transformation, studied in Section 4. The possibility of a positive value for $`\alpha `$ can be discarded on causality arguments. See Lévy–Leblond (1976) for more details.

Summary of space and time transformations

For later use we collect here the results obtained in this Section. The mixed transformation formulas between $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$, transcribed with an obvious change in notation from Eqs. (53) and (54), where the expression for $`\gamma (u)`$ given in Eq. (66) is used, take the general form:

$$𝐫^{}=\lambda _T^{}(𝐫)+\left(\tau ^{}\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{𝐫𝐮}{u^2}\right)𝐮^{},$$
(67)
$$\tau =\gamma \tau ^{}+\alpha \gamma 𝐫^{}𝐮^{}.$$
(68)
For the standard transformation, the corresponding formulas are

$$𝐫^{}=\lambda _T^{}(𝐫)\gamma \frac{𝐫𝐮}{u^2}𝐮^{}+\gamma 𝐮^{}\tau ,$$
(69)
$$\tau ^{}=\gamma \tau +\alpha \gamma 𝐫𝐮.$$
(70)
The important formula for velocity addition is easily obtained from the (inverse of the) previous relations as:

$$𝐯=\frac{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}\lambda _T(𝐯^{})+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{𝐯^{}𝐮^{}}{u^2}}\right)𝐮}{1+\alpha 𝐯^{}𝐮^{}},$$
(71)
where $`𝐯=d𝐫/d\tau `$ and $`𝐯^{}=d𝐫^{}/d\tau ^{}`$ are the measured velocities of a particle in $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$, respectively.

These equations, together with the method used for obtaining them, exhibit certain formal aspects which are worth to be emphasized.

1. Only intrinsic objects belonging to each space are used.
2. The mathematical formalism keeps each object separate in its own space. Thus, in Equation (71) a vector of $`K`$ is written as the sum of two vectors of the same space, and a numerical coefficient is obtained as the dot product of two vectors of the other space.

## 3 Galilean transformation. Absolute space

If one takes $`\alpha =0`$ then, irrespective of the value of the relative velocity, $`\gamma =1`$. Hence, from Eq. (68), the formula for time transformation is, simply,

$$\tau =\tau ^{},$$
(72)
showing that the time elapsed between two events is he same in any space of reference. That is the old concept of absolute time, implicit in Newton’s Mechanics. The transformation formula for position is, from Eq. (67),

$$𝐫^{}=\lambda _T^{}(𝐫)\left(\frac{𝐫𝐮}{u^2}\right)𝐮^{}+𝐮^{}\tau ,$$
(73)
which, together with Equation (72), are the Galilean transformation formulas between the spaces $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$. The classical law for velocity addition can now readily obtained from Equation (71), with $`\gamma =1`$, as

$$𝐯=\lambda _T(𝐯^{})+\left(1\frac{𝐯^{}𝐮^{}}{u^2}\right)𝐮.$$
(74)
As it is easily shown, the linear mapping $`\lambda `$, and not only $`\lambda _T`$, is an isometry, i. e., $`\lambda (𝐫^{})\lambda (𝐫^{})=𝐫^{}𝐫^{}`$, and thus defines a metric isomorphism between the vectors in $`𝒱^{}`$ and $`𝒱`$. Therefore, a metric isomorphism between $`K^{}`$ and $`K`$ can be established which makes possible to identify both spaces at any time according to the rules:

1. Place $`Q^{}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{})=Q+(tt_0)𝐮`$;
2. Place $`𝐮^{}`$ on $`\lambda (𝐮^{})=𝐮`$; and
3. Place a vector $`𝐩^{}T^{}`$ on $`\lambda (𝐩^{})`$.

In this way, any point of $`K^{}`$ is identified with its trace in $`K`$. The idea of an absolute space, as defined in Desloge (1982), comes from the possibility of this identification. We should point out that this identification is possible at any speed, even at relative rest. This is the reason why figures showing two frames of reference in relative motion seem so obvious: in spite of the inherent limitations of a still picture forcing us to draw not only $`K`$ but also $`K^{}`$ at rest, such identification is always allowed. On the other hand, since this identification is not possible in the spacetime of Minkowski when $`K^{}`$ is moving, such simple figures cannot properly be drawn, situation that we discuss in the following Section.

We may fuse $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ into one space by setting $`𝐫^{}\lambda (𝐫^{})`$ and $`𝐮\lambda (𝐮^{})`$ and obtain the well known transformation formula

$`𝐫=\tau 𝐮+𝐫^{}.`$ (75)
This classical result entails a trap very difficult to escape from. The Galilean transformation formula (75), an innocent vector addition, seems to be a direct consequence of the affine character of the (absolute) space. When it was shown that this was not an accurate physical law it resulted rather natural to doubt the affine property of the space by introducing an spatial anisotropy along the motion of the body of reference. That idea was formulated as the FitzGerald contraction hypothesis. If, on the contrary, we keep the separation between spaces and write the Galilean transformation as Equation (73), consequence of an absolute time, the jump to special relativity is easier since there is more room to look for a solution elsewhere. Einstein solved the difficulty by questioning the absolute character of time in his celebrated 1905 paper.

## 4 Lorentz transformation

By choosing a suitable negative value for $`\alpha `$ one arrives to Lorentz transformation. Experimentally, one finds that, actually, $`\alpha =1/c^2`$, where $`c`$ is the speed of light in a vacuum. Accordingly, the actual dependence of $`\gamma `$ on $`u`$ is

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{u^2}{c^2}}}.$$
(76)
The formulas for the mixed Lorentz transformations are Eqs. (67) and (68) with this value for $`\gamma `$, i. e.,

$`𝐫`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _T(𝐫^{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫^{}𝐮^{}}{u^2}}\right)𝐮+𝐮\tau ,`$ (77)
$`\tau ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \left(\tau {\displaystyle \frac{𝐫𝐮}{c^2}}\right).`$ (78)
The inverse transformation formulas are readily obtained by exchanging primed and unprimed symbols in the later expressions. From these equations we get the standard Lorentz transformation

$`𝐫`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _T(𝐫^{})+\gamma \left(\tau ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫^{}𝐮^{}}{u^2}}\right)𝐮,`$ (79)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \left(\tau ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫^{}𝐮^{}}{c^2}}\right).`$ (80)
Now, from Equation (77), it can be seen that

$$\lambda (𝐫^{})\lambda (𝐫^{})=𝐫^{}𝐫^{}\frac{(𝐫^{}𝐮^{})^2}{c^2},$$
(81)
showing that $`\lambda `$ is not an isometric mapping. This fact has the important consequence for the spaces $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ that they cannot be identified to each other. Therefore, figures mixing two spaces, even if one-dimensional, are impossible, and only figures in spacetime can be drawn if one insists in showing both spaces on them.

## 5 Extending the method to two classical problems

The intrinsic method based on the concept of tracer mapping may be used in more general situations. As examples of that we have chosen two classical problems, the analysis of which is, in our opinion, more transparent when the proposed method is used.

### 5.a Intrinsic definition of angular velocity

In Newtonian Mechanics, the spaces of two inertial bodies of reference, $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$, may be metrically identified since the mapping $`\lambda `$ preserves the magnitude of vectors. This is true independently of the relative velocity between the bodies. This fact makes possible to study the transformations between two spaces of reference having arbitrary motions. As before, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t:K^{}K`$ is the tracer mapping of $`K^{}`$ on $`K`$.

#### Postulate

In Newtonian mechanics, the tracer mapping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ between two spaces $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$, having arbitrary relative motion, is affine and isometric.

We take as origins the arbitrary points $`Q`$ of $`K`$ and $`Q^{}`$ of $`K^{}`$. As before, we write the condition for the mapping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ to be affine, at any time, as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\left(Q^{}+\stackrel{}{Q^{}P^{}}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{})+\lambda _t\left(\stackrel{}{Q^{}P^{}}\right),$$
(82)
but now we cannot take $`\lambda _t`$ as time independent since different points of $`K^{}`$ have different velocities. Equation (82) in vector form is

$$𝐫=𝐑+\lambda _t\left(𝐫^{}\right)$$
(83)
where

$$𝐫(t)=\stackrel{}{Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{})},𝐑(t)=\stackrel{}{Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(Q^{})}\text{ and }𝐫^{}(t)=\stackrel{}{Q^{}P^{}}.$$
(84)
By differentiating (83) with respect to time, now absolute, we obtain a relation between velocities,

$$𝐯=𝐕+\dot{\lambda }_t(𝐫^{})+\lambda _t(𝐯^{}(t)),$$
(85)
where $`𝐯(t)=\dot{𝐫}(t)`$, $`𝐕(t)=\dot{𝐑}(t)`$ and $`𝐯^{}(t)=\dot{𝐫}^{}(t)`$. From now on, the $`t`$ index in $`\lambda `$ will be suppressed for a simpler notation.

Let us introduce the operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }:𝒱𝒱`$ defined as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\dot{\lambda }\lambda ^1.$$
(86)
By direct differentiation of the identities $`\lambda \lambda ^1=\mathrm{id}`$ and $`\lambda ^1(𝐱)\lambda ^1(𝐲)=𝐱𝐲`$, we obtain the relation:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱)𝐲=𝐱\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐲),$$

showing that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an antisymmetric operator.

In terms of this operator, Equation (85) can be rewritten as

$$𝐯=𝐕+\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\lambda (𝐫^{})\right]+\lambda (𝐯^{}).$$
(87)
Let $`𝝎`$ be the vector associated to the antisymmetric operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i. e. $`𝝎\times 𝐲:=\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐲)`$ \[see Crampin et al. (1986), p. 97\]. Now, Equation (87) can be written in the more familiar form

$$𝐯=𝐕+𝝎\times \left[\lambda (𝐫^{})\right]+\lambda (𝐯^{}).$$
(88)
Hence, $`𝝎`$ is the usual angular velocity and reasonably we can call $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the angular velocity operator.

As an important application of the angular velocity operator, we are going to derive an intrinsic expression for Coriolis theorem (see Dede et al. (1996) for an unconventional derivation of that theorem based on an interesting graphical trick, a kind of our tracer mapping). For that aim, we time differentiate Equation (87) and obtain

$`𝐚=\dot{𝐕}+\lambda (\dot{𝐯}^{})+\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left[\lambda (𝐫^{})\right]+\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\dot{\lambda }(𝐫^{})\right]`$
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\lambda (𝐯^{})\right]+\dot{\lambda }(𝐯^{})`$
$`=𝐀+\lambda (𝐚^{})+\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left[\lambda (𝐫^{})\right]+\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\dot{\lambda }\lambda ^1\lambda (𝐫^{})\right]`$
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\lambda (𝐯^{})\right]+\dot{\lambda }\lambda ^1\lambda (𝐯^{}).`$
that, by using the definition of the angular velocity, can be written as

$$𝐚=𝐀+\lambda (𝐚^{})+\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left[\lambda (𝐫^{})\right]+\mathrm{\Omega }\left\{\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\lambda (𝐫^{})\right]\right\}+2\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\lambda (𝐯^{})\right],$$
(89)
the advertised Coriolis theorem. In this form, we see clearly which space each quantity belongs to. Besides, the derivation is straightforward and intrinsic. Finally, it is worth pointing out that whenever quantities in $`K^{}`$ are to be obtained from those in $`K`$ or vice versa it suffices to use $`\lambda `$ and its time derivatives instead of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The intrinsic definition of the angular velocity makes possible to formulate the kinematics and dynamics of the rigid body in a completely intrinsic way.

### 5.b Geometry of the rotating disk in special relativity

It is well known the important heuristic role played by the rotating disk in the formulation of General Relativity \[see Stachel (1989)\]. Here we approach the study of the geometry of the rotating disk in the framework of the Special Relativity in a similar way as in Møller (1952), but trying to clarify the nature both of the problem statement and its solution by using the intrinsic method previously introduced.

The first problem is to give a precise and meaningful definition of a rotating disk. On the one hand, as in the rest of this paper, $`K`$ is an inertial body of reference. As such, the corresponding space is euclidean and provided with a set of synchronized clocks. On the other hand, $`K^{}`$ designates the rotating disk which is made of a continuum of particles.

As before, we define the trace of any particle of the disk $`K^{}`$ on $`K`$ at time $`t`$ as the point in $`K`$ coinciding with it at that time. We call $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ the tracer mapping of $`K^{}`$ on $`K`$,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_t:K^{}K.$$

Definition: We say that $`K^{}`$ is a rotating disk around a point $`O`$ of $`K`$ if the trace of any particle $`P^{}`$ of $`K^{}`$ describes a uniform circular motion around $`O`$, with an angular velocity $`\omega `$, the same for every particle.

We define a rotation operator in $`K`$ around the point $`O`$ by an angle $`\theta `$ as $`e^{i\theta }`$,

$$𝐫e^{i\theta }𝐫.$$
(90)
Let $`P^{}`$ be a fixed point in $`K^{}`$. By definition, the vector $`\stackrel{}{O\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{})}`$ can be seen as the rotated $`\stackrel{}{O\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(P^{})}`$ by the angle $`\omega t`$, thus

$$\stackrel{}{O\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{})}=e^{i\omega t}\stackrel{}{O\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(P^{})}.$$
(91)
The velocity of $`P^{}`$ at $`t`$ is

$$𝐕(P^{},t)=\frac{}{t}\stackrel{}{O\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{})}=i\omega e^{i\omega t}\stackrel{}{O\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(P^{})}=i\omega \stackrel{}{O\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{})},$$
(92)
where $`i`$ rotates vectors by an angle of $`\pi /2`$ in the positive sense. This result can be stated à la Euler as the velocity of the disk particle coinciding at $`t`$ with the point $`P`$ of $`K`$ given as $`\stackrel{}{OP}=\stackrel{}{O\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{})}`$, i. e., the trace of $`P^{}`$ at $`t`$. Thus

$$𝐯(P)=i\omega \stackrel{}{OP}=𝐕(P^{},t)\text{ provided }P=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(P^{}).$$
(93)
Now, we are going to construct the disk spatial metric. For that aim we introduce a collection of inertial bodies, comoving each with the velocity $`𝐯(P)`$. Thus, consider the reference body $`K_P^{}`$ comoving with the disk particle passing by $`P`$ at $`t`$. Being at relative rest, a little patch of $`K^{}`$ around $`P^{}`$ can be identified with a similar portion of $`K_P^{}`$, and thus the mapping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^P:K_P^{}K`$ can be used for transforming the portion of $`K^{}`$ into $`K`$. Therefore,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^P(P^{}+d𝐫^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^P(P^{})+\lambda ^P(d𝐫^{}).$$

Hence, the little displacement $`d𝐫`$ at $`K`$ and the corresponding $`d𝐫^{}`$ at the disk are related as

$$d𝐫=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^P(P^{}+d𝐫^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^P(P^{})=\lambda ^P(d𝐫^{})$$
(94)
From Theorem 4,

$`d𝐫_T^2=d𝐫_{}^{}{}_{T}{}^{2}`$
$`d𝐫_U^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}d𝐫_{}^{}{}_{U}{}^{2},`$
where, according to Equation (76),

$$\gamma =\left(1\frac{\omega ^2}{c^2}r^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(95)
Hence,

$$d𝐫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=d𝐫_T^2+\gamma ^2d𝐫_U^2.$$
(96)
Thus, we have obtained the local metric of the disk in terms of the metric of its trace on $`K`$. This metric confers the disk a structure of a Riemannian manifold.

We parametrize the points of the disk manifold by introducing polar coordinates in $`K`$. The velocity of a point $`P(r,\theta )`$ of the disk, according to Equation (93), is $`𝐯(P)=r\omega \widehat{𝐞}_\theta `$. A small but arbitrary displacement from $`P`$, $`d𝐫=dr\widehat{𝐞}_r+rd\theta \widehat{𝐞}_\theta `$, can be divided into parallel and perpendicular components respect to $`𝐯(P)`$ as

$$d𝐫_U^2=r^2d\theta ^2\text{ and }d𝐫_T^2=dr^2.$$
(97)
Then, the expression for the metric (96) in the chosen chart is

$$d𝐫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=dr^2+\gamma ^2r^2d\theta ^2,$$
(98)
where $`\gamma `$, as given by (95), depends on the radial coordinate $`r`$. Finally, the element of arc length is

$$dl^{}=\sqrt{d𝐫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}=\sqrt{dr^2+\gamma ^2r^2d\theta ^2}.$$
(99)
Now, it is immediate to obtain the disk radius length from the element of arc by taking $`d\theta =0`$:

$$R^{}=_0^R\sqrt{dr^2+\gamma ^2r^20^2}=R$$

The disk rim length is obtained by integration of the arc element along $`r=R`$:

$$l^{}=_0^{2\pi }\sqrt{0^2+\gamma ^2r^2d\theta ^2}=\frac{2\pi R}{\sqrt{1\frac{\omega ^2}{c^2}r^2}}.$$

## 6 Conclusions

We have developed an intrinsic method for deriving space and time transformations. For that purpose, following a suggestion by Einstein, we associated a different space of reference to every reference body. In order to connect the space and time measurements in the spaces we introduced the tracer mapping, a simple concept fitted with a direct physical meaning, which makes possible to express with a greater clarity several ideas of the special relativity.

The intrinsic method shows some advantages we are going to summarize:

1. The space and time transformations were derived using no coordinate systems. Therefore, a clear distinction is now possible between a coordinate system and a body of reference.
2. The tracer mapping allows a sharp definition for the geometry of a moving body: It is nothing but the geometry of its trace. A reference space not equipped with clocks is an incomplete system to register events. Nevertheless, as seen in the discussion of the rotating disk, we were able to obtain its geometry by using the tracer mapping as it does nor require any time measurement in that space.
3. The intrinsic method does not depend in any way on a notion of parallelism between both spaces of reference. Rather, the trace allows us to define that parallelism in an operational way. Note that, in the non–intrinsic derivations of the spacetime transformations, the coordinate axes of both reference frames are assumed parallel to each other. But, here we have not argued, for example, that $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐮^{}`$ are parallel because they belong to different spaces. We affirm, instead, that $`𝐮`$ and $`\lambda (𝐮^{})`$ are parallel.
4. Even though in the Galilean space and time one might identify the different spaces of reference, the lesson our derivation of Coriolis Theorem teaches us is that the tracer mapping between separated spaces is useful even in these cases, in which one could identify them.

## Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Professors J. Casahorrán, A. Viña and J. Fernández-Núñez for helpful discussions and kind advice. We are particularly grateful to Professor T. Matolcsi for sending us a copy of his most valuable book referenced as Matolcsi (1993).


format: text

text:
# Relaxation of the cosmological constant in a movable brane world

(July 2002)

## Abstract

We present numerical evidence that a domain wall in a background with varying vacuum energy density acquires velocity in the direction of decreasing Hubble parameter. This should lead to at least a partial relaxation of the cosmological constant on the wall.
hep-th/0207258

Brane-world scenarios, according to which we live on a domain wall in a higher-dimensional space , open new avenues for thinking about the cosmological constant. Here, we want to explore feasibility of one particular mechanism that may help the “constant” to relax to a small value.

The effective cosmological constant seen by an observer on the wall is determined by the local value of the Hubble parameter, $`H`$. It has long been known  that a domain wall in a space with zero vacuum energy will inflate, i.e. $`H`$ will be nonzero. To achieve $`H=0`$, one may introduce a negative vacuum energy in the bulk, with a value tuned precisely to compensate for the effect of the wall tension . Alternatively, one can introduce a scalar field with a dilaton-like coupling to the brane, to obtain static solutions for more generic values of the tension . Or, with more than two external dimensions, one may keep the bulk vacuum energy zero but assume that gravity in the bulk is so weak that the Hubble parameter induced by the wall tension is small enough to be compatible with observations .

Here, we want to consider a different idea. If the bulk vacuum energy varies along an extra dimension, the wall may be moving in such a way that the Hubble parameter on it starts at a large positive value but then approaches zero—or even crosses zero and becomes negative. In this way, the wall will move towards a region where two large contributions to $`H`$ (one from the bulk energy, and the other from the wall tension) nearly cancel. In other words, a finely tuned solution similar to that of ref.  will be reached automatically in the course of the evolution. If the cancellation persists for some time, it may be possible to identify that period of time with the standard cosmology.*** Similarly, $`H`$ can change sign if the wall itself is static but the bulk vacuum energy or the wall tension change in time. In this case, however, it may be more difficult to make the time when $`H`$ is close to zero long enough to include the entire known cosmological history.

How closely $`H`$ can get to zero in this scenario will depend on the complicated dynamics occurring when the above two contributions become of the same order. In this paper, we address an earlier, simpler stage of the evolution, when the effect of the wall tension is still much smaller than the effect of the bulk vacuum energy. We have tried to obtain numerically geometries in which $`H`$ changes little with time but varies significantly in space, and see which way a test domain wall will move in such a background. Our main result is that, in the backgrounds we were able to obtain, the wall quite generically acquires velocity in the direction of decreasing Hubble parameter, i.e. towards regions that are “less inflationary”. Although the actual displacements that we have been able to detect in the lifetime of our simulation are quite small, it is encouraging that the final velocity is a sizable fraction of the speed of light.

A suitable smooth background can be formed, for example, by another domain wall, which is much thicker than ours. The difference in the thickness may be due to a difference in masses, or simply in initial profiles, of the scalar fields forming the walls. Towards the end of the paper, we will speculate that there is also a more “economical” possibility, wherein a configuration of one domain wall in the background of another is realized with a single field in the context of topological inflation . For most of the paper, though, we will prefer to think about these two walls as being due to two different fields.

In the remainder of the paper, we (i) describe some a priori guesses about geometries induced by a space-dependent vacuum energy and (ii) present a sample of the numerical results.

We prefer to use isotropic coordinates, in which the metric has the form

$$ds^2=N^2(z,t)dt^2+\psi ^4(z,t)[dz^2+d𝐱^2];$$
(1)
$`N`$ is called lapse, and $`\psi `$—conformal factor. This choice of coordinates was adopted from our numerical studies of post-inflationary universe , and the numerical algorithm we use here follows closely the one used in that work. We allow for the total of $`D>1`$ spatial coordinates, but the metric depends only on one of them—the fifth coordinate $`z`$. Thus, $`d𝐱^2`$ is the flat Euclidean metric in the remaining $`(D1)`$ dimensional space.

For a preliminary discussion, it will suffice to use the energy constraint

$$\frac{\kappa ^2C_E}{D1}\frac{\kappa ^2E}{D1}\frac{1}{2}DH^2+2\frac{\psi ^{\prime \prime }}{\psi ^5}+2(D3)\frac{(\psi ^{})^2}{\psi ^6}=0,$$
(2)
and the equation for the lapse

$$\frac{N^{\prime \prime }}{N}\frac{4\psi ^{}N^{}}{\psi N}+2(D2)\frac{\psi ^{\prime \prime }}{\psi }6(D2)\left(\frac{\psi ^{}}{\psi }\right)^2=\kappa ^2\underset{n}{}(\varphi _n^{})^2.$$
(3)
Here $`E`$ is the energy density (defined below), and

$$H=\frac{2\dot{\psi }}{N\psi }$$
(4)
is the local Hubble parameter. The sum on the right-hand side of (3) is over all scalar fields $`\varphi _n`$ of the model; a prime denotes derivative with respect to $`z`$, and a dot—with respect to $`t`$; $`\kappa ^2=8\pi G`$; $`G`$ is bulk Newton’s constant.

We first look for purely vacuum solutions with a constant energy density. In this case, the right-hand side of (3) is zero, while $`E`$ in (2) equals the cosmological constant: $`E=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The equations have the following solution:

$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\sqrt{z\alpha t}}},`$ (5)
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^2,`$ (6)
where $`A`$ and $`\alpha `$ are constants. The Hubble parameter (4) is constant: $`H=\alpha /A^2`$, so whenever $`\alpha >0`$ the solution is inflationary. Note that for $`\alpha >0`$, the solution is well-defined in the half-space $`z>0`$ for any $`t<0`$. This is appropriate, since according to (6), $`t`$ is the conformal time, which for inflationary solutions is limited to negative values.

Eq. (3) is satisfied by (5)–(6) identically, but the energy constraint (2) imposes a relation between the parameters:

$$\alpha ^21=\frac{2\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D(D1)}A^4.$$
(7)
This is the same relation as obtained for a class of solutions in ref. , so ours should be the same solutions except written in different coordinates. In particular, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, we have $`\alpha =\pm 1`$ and any $`A`$. ($`A`$ will be determined by the junction condition on the wall: e.g. for a static thin wall with the geometry symmetrical about it, $`A^2=\kappa ^2\sigma /2(D1)`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the wall tension.) The $`\alpha =1`$ solution is the inflationary solution of ref.  in different coordinates.The explicit relation between our coordinates and those used in ref.  and called here $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ is: $`z=\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{t})\mathrm{sinh}\stackrel{~}{z}`$, $`t=\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{t})\mathrm{cosh}\stackrel{~}{z}`$, all in units of the constant Hubble distance $`H^1`$. To obtain $`\alpha =0`$ (and consequently $`H=0`$), we need to have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=D(D1)/2\kappa ^2A^4`$. This is the anti-de Sitter solution of ref. .

Now, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not exactly a constant but is slowly varying, we expect the geometry to interpolate between faster expanding regions with larger $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and slower expanding, or perhaps even contracting, regions with smaller $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Geometries interpolating between de Sitter and and anti-de Sitter spaces can presumably be obtained by analytical continuation of certain Euclidean instantons. Such instantons, containing a de Sitter region sandwiched between two anti-de Sitter regions, have been considered in ref.  in connection with the problem of counting de Sitter microstates. Note that for every positive $`\alpha `$ (expanding) solution, eq. (7) has a negative $`\alpha `$ (contracting) solution. Such contacting regions are ubiquitous in our numerical simulations. We do not know, however, if they can obtained by analytical continuation from any instantons.

To study real-time evolution that may possibly lead to such interpolating geometries, we will need the rest of Einstein’s equation. As in ref. , we write these in the Hamiltonian form. The Hamiltonian pair to eq. (4) is

$$\frac{\dot{H}}{N}=\frac{D}{2}H^2+2(D2)\frac{(\psi ^{})^2}{\psi ^6}+\frac{2\psi ^{}N^{}}{\psi ^5N}+\frac{\kappa ^2}{D1}\left(2VE+wC_E\right).$$
(8)
(Although we did not emphasize that above, for a constant $`E=V=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ eq. (8) is also satisfied by the solution (5)–(6).) Equations for the fields are

$`\dot{\varphi }_n`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _n}{\psi ^{2D}}},`$ (9)
$`\dot{\pi }_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\psi ^{2D4}N\varphi _n^{}\right)^{}N\psi ^{2D}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\varphi _n}},`$ (10)
The energy density is

$$E=\underset{n}{}\left(\frac{\pi _n^2}{2\psi ^{4D}}+\frac{(\varphi _n^{})^2}{2\psi ^4}\right)+V(\varphi );$$
(11)
$`V`$ is the potential of the fields. The energy constraint $`C_E`$ can be added to the right-hand side of (8) with any coefficient $`w`$ (however, for numerical studies some choices may be better than others ). In what follows, we use $`w=1`$.

The Hamiltonian structure of the equations allows us to use a leap-frog algorithm, in which the coordinates $`\varphi _n`$ and $`\psi `$ are defined at full time steps, while the momenta $`\pi _n`$ and $`H`$ are defined at half-steps. The lapse does not have a Hamiltonian pair; as in , we update it at full steps using eq. (3) and extrapolate it to half-steps. The energy constraint (2) is not used for the evolution but is monitored to provide an idea of how accurate the results are. In addition, we have monitored the momentum constraint

$$\kappa ^2\psi ^2C_M\frac{\kappa ^2}{\psi ^{2D}}\underset{n}{}\pi _n\varphi _n^{}+(D1)H^{}=0$$
(12)
and have found that for the time intervals shown in the plots both $`C_E`$ and $`C_M`$ stay close to zero to a satisfactory degree.

To start numerical evolution, we need to solve the constraints (2) and (12) at the initial time slice. The momentum constraint (12) is solved trivially with $`H=\mathrm{const}`$ and the initial choice of the fields such that for each $`n`$ either $`\pi _n`$ or $`\varphi _n^{}`$ vanish. There is some advantage in being able to choose a suitable initial profile of $`\psi `$ by hand. To make our choice compatible with the energy constraint (2), we introduce a massive “radiation” field which is initially zero and whose initial momentum is determined by solving eq. (2). (This is similar to the method used in ref.  to study the onset of inflation in inhomogeneous spacetimes.) We call this field “radiation” only to distinguish it from the fields forming the domain walls; its mass is in fact the largest mass in the problem. The “radiation” energy redshifts away in the course of the evolution (of course, more so in regions that are inflationary).

We thus have three fields in our simulation: $`\varphi _0`$ that forms the thick background wall, $`\varphi _1`$ that forms the movable thin wall, and $`\varphi _2`$, the massive “radiation” field. We keep the thick wall centered at $`z=0`$ by choosing the boundary condition $`\varphi _0(0,t)=0`$. For the potential, we use

$$V=\underset{n=0,1}{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mu _n^2\varphi _n^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda _n\varphi _n^4\right)+\frac{\mu _1^4}{4\lambda _1}+\frac{1}{2}M^2\varphi _2^2+\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a constant—it is the vacuum energy at $`z=0`$. A nontrivial $`z`$-dependence of vacuum energy is due to variation of the field $`\varphi _0`$. With potential (13), the only interaction between different fields is gravitational.

A word about the choice of parameters. We measure times and lengths in units of $`\mu _0^1`$ and energy densities in units of $`\mu _0^4/\lambda _0`$, so that we can set $`\mu _0=1`$ and $`\lambda _0=1`$. The results below are for $`\mu _1=2`$, $`\lambda _1=2000`$, $`M=250`$, $`\kappa ^2=37.5`$ (this dimensionless $`\kappa ^2`$ is $`\kappa ^2\mu _0^2/\lambda _0`$ in the original units), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.16`$, and $`D=4`$ (i.e. one extra dimension).

We want the background to be sufficiently smooth, so that the interior of the thick wall—a region near $`z=0`$—can inflate. This type of inflation is sometimes called topological inflation . So, we choose the initial profile of $`\varphi _0`$ in the form

$$\varphi _0(z,t=0)=\frac{z}{\sqrt{z^2+\mathrm{}^2}},$$
(14)
with the spatial scale $`\mathrm{}`$ much larger than the wall’s “natural” thickness: $`\psi ^2\mathrm{}\mu _0^1`$. The plots below are for $`\mathrm{}=L=50`$, where $`L`$ is the total length of the integration region: $`z[0,L]`$, from a grid with the total of 2049 points.

Another necessary condition for topological inflation is that near $`z=0`$ the Hubble parameter supported by the vacuum energy of $`\varphi _0`$ is large enough, in comparison with $`\mu _0`$ . With the above values of the parameters, this Hubble parameter is $`H_0=(\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/6)^{1/2}=1`$. There have been numerical determinations of the critical ratios $`H_0/\mu _0`$ for which the interiors of various types of topological defects will inflate in three spatial dimensions . We have not attempted a similarly detailed study for $`D=4`$, but have observed large amounts of inflation for the above value of $`H_0/\mu _0=1`$.

In comparison, gravitational effects due to the wall formed by $`\varphi _1`$ are, by our choice of the parameters, much smaller. A convenient measure of these effects is the expansion rate the wall would have if it were inflating in empty space with zero bulk cosmological constant: $`H_1=\kappa ^2\sigma _1/2(D1)`$, where $`\sigma _1\mu _1^3/\lambda _1`$ is the wall tension. For the above values of the parameters, this gives $`\sigma _14\times 10^3`$. This estimate is well born out numerically,Variation of the tension with time is relatively small, which implies that the wall formed by $`\varphi _1`$ maintains more or less constant physical (as opposed to comoving) thickness. so we use $`H_1=0.03`$. Because $`H_1H_0`$, the wall formed by $`\varphi _1`$ has only a minor effect on the geometry in the rapidly expanding region near $`z=0`$. On the other hand, when the wall is in a region where the expansion rate is of order $`H_1`$, or smaller, we expect strong gravitational effects due to the wall’s tension. As we have already mentioned, such effects are likely to determine if the present scenario leads to a complete solution to the cosmological constant problem, but they lie outside the scope of this initial study.

In Fig. 1, we show the initial profiles of $`\varphi _0`$, $`\varphi _1`$, and $`\psi `$ for a typical initial position of the second wall, $`z_1=20`$.

Now, let us see if an interpolating geometry of interest to us is reached in the course of numerical evolution. Evidence for that is shown in Fig. 2, where we plot profiles of the Hubble parameter $`H`$ at several moments of time. We see that, after a transient behavior, $`H`$ acquires a nearly static profile, in which it has positive values near $`z=0`$ (where the vacuum energy is the largest) and negative values at large $`z`$.

To estimate the amount of inflation we obtain near $`z=0`$, we plot in Fig. 3 the value of the conformal factor $`\psi `$ at $`z=0`$ as a function of time. We see an exponential growth by a factor over 40 between $`t=12.5`$ and $`t=20`$. This corresponds to the size of the universe growing by a factor over 1600.§§§To properly interpret the plot, one needs to know also the time-dependence of the lapse $`N`$ at $`z=0`$, since it is $`N(z,t)dt`$ that determines the increment of cosmic time at location $`z`$. As it happens, after $`N`$ reaches the value of 1 at $`z=0`$ in our simulation, we keep it equal to 1 there at all subsequent times (which is always possible due to the remaining gauge freedom). For Fig. 3, this resetting of the clock rate took place at $`t12.7`$; after that, time $`t`$ coincides (up to a constant) with the cosmic time at $`z=0`$.

We define velocity of the domain wall formed by $`\varphi _1`$ as the ratio of the momentum of $`\varphi _1`$ to its energy, both taken per unit transverse area:

$$v=\frac{\pi _1\varphi _1^{}\psi ^{2D}𝑑z}{E_1\psi ^2𝑑z},$$
(15)
where

$$E_1=\frac{\pi _1^2}{2\psi ^{4D}}+\frac{(\varphi _1^{})^2}{2\psi ^4}+\frac{1}{4}\lambda _1\left(\varphi _1^2\frac{\mu _1^2}{\lambda _1}\right)^2.$$
(16)
(The denominator in (15) divided by the $`\gamma `$-factor of the wall is our definition of the wall tension $`\sigma _1`$.) Note that if the profile of $`\varphi _1`$ with respect to the comoving coordinate $`z`$ does not change, i.e. $`_t\varphi _1=0`$, the definition (15) gives zero. In other words, $`v`$ as defined by (15) is insensitive to a motion that is due solely to the expansion of the universe: it measures velocity of the wall relative to the expanding background.

In Fig. 4 we plot the wall’s velocity as a function of time, for the same initial position of the wall $`z_1=20`$ that was used for the previous plots, as well as for two smaller values of $`z_1`$. We see that $`v`$ invariably becomes positive at late times, when a geometry with an almost static profile of the Hubble parameter is reached. The final value of the velocity can be a sizable fraction of the speed of light and is larger for walls that are further away from the origin.

It may appear from Fig. 4 that the velocity goes to a steady asymptotic value, but we should point out that the lapse $`N(z,t)`$ at the locations of the wall drops precipitously during the late-time evolution. So, the entire stage when $`v`$ is close to its final value corresponds only to a small interval of cosmic time on the wall. As a consequence, the corresponding displacements of the wall are tiny. On the other hand, one can argue that the velocity remains steady over large amounts of expansion in the inflating region, cf. Fig. 3.

Throughout this paper, we have considered the case when the wall formed by $`\varphi _1`$ is much “weaker”, in terms of its gravitational effects, than the wall formed by $`\varphi _0`$. This does not always have to be so, and, as we have already mentioned, perhaps the most interesting case with regard to the cosmological constant problem is when the “strengths” of the two walls are comparable. In addition, walls of different thicknesses but of equal “strengths” naturally arise in the context of topological inflation  with an extra dimension. Let us see how.

The wall formed by $`\varphi _1`$ in our simulations maintains more or less constant physical thickness, as opposed to typical walls of $`\varphi _0`$ considered in topological inflation. Those latter are produced by growth of small fluctuations in the middle of the inflating region, where $`\varphi _00`$, and the vacuum energy $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}`$ is much larger than the gradient energy $`E_{\mathrm{grad}}`$ of a new wall (whose thickness at birth is of the order of the Hubble distance). So, these walls expand in all directions . Analogy with the case considered here is much closer for a wall produced at the fringe of the inflating region. If a wall finds itself in a region with $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}E_{\mathrm{grad}}`$, its thickness will not grow, but its gravitational effects will be comparable to those of the background. This can be seen by comparing the previously introduced parameters $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$. Indeed, $`H_0^2\kappa ^2E_{\mathrm{vac}}`$, while $`H_1\kappa ^2\sigma _1\kappa ^2E_{\mathrm{grad}}H_0^1`$, so $`H_1H_0`$.

Production of new domains walls of $`\varphi _0`$ should be observable even in the model considered here, if we were able to follow the evolution for a long enough time. In fact, it may well be that the eventual breakdown of our simulations (at times larger than those shown in the plots) is due primarily to the onset of this new, more complex dynamics. Obtaining good quality data for such a regime will require further numerical work. We hope to return to this question in a future publication.

In conclusion, we have found that numerically solving Einstein’s equations on one-dimensional lattices allows one to obtain, and experiment with, geometries in which the vacuum energy density varies along an extra dimension, and the local value of the Hubble parameter is almost static but varies from point to point. We have also found that a test domain wall in such a geometry will move in the direction of decreasing Hubble parameter, suggesting that this mechanism can lead to at least a partial relaxation of the cosmological “constant” in a brane world.

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy through Grant DE-FG02-91ER40681 (Task B).


text:
# Fringe Structure in the Phase-Space Dynamics of Atomic Stabilization in An Intense Field

## I INTRODUCTION

Atomic stabilization means that the ionization rate of an atom decreases with increasing intensity of intense , high-frequency laser field, which is one of the most interesting nonperturbative phenomena observed in laser-atom interaction and attracts much attention recently. This effect has been predicted by both quantum theories $`[1]`$ and classical theories $`[2]`$, and has recently been verified experimentally$`[3,4]`$. In particular, Sundaram and Jensen  connect successively this exciting phenomenon with the chaotic dynamics.

More recently, by numerically solving time-dependent Schrodinger equation for one-dimensional model, some researchers have investigated the phase-space dynamics of intense-field stabilization and found the existence of a striking structure - fringe structure $`[6,7]`$. These findings enrich greatly the discussions on atomic stabilization and helpful to better understand the stabilization mechanism. However, the dynamical mechanism of the fringe structure is far from fully understood.

In this paper, using the approximate analytic expression of the evolution operator of the atom-laser system, we shall demonstrate the fringe structure from classical distribution and quantal Wigner distribution. Furthermore, in light of nonlinear dynamics we shall discuss the dynamical mechanism underlying this striking structure. As we shall see later that, the fringe structure associates closely with the ionization process in the regime of stabilization.

The one-dimensional model is widely used in studying the atom stabilization phenomenon $`[1,2]`$ in the strong-field laser-atom physics, its Hamiltonian is

$$H(x,v,t)=\frac{v^2}{2}+V(x)xF\mathrm{cos}\omega t,V(x)=1/\sqrt{1+x^2},$$
(1)
where $`F,\omega `$ are the strength and frequency of the oscillating electric field, respectively. In all calculations of this paper, the atomic units ($`m_e=e=\mathrm{}=1a.u.`$) is adopted for simplicity.

Usually, the stabilization phenomenon is discussed in the Kramers-Henneberger (KH) frame, i.e. the laser-atom interaction is viewed from the stand point of a free classical electron oscillating in a lasert field . By this way, the Hamiltonian becomes

$$H_{KH}(q,p,t)=\frac{p^2}{2}+V(q\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\omega t),$$
(2)
where $`\alpha _0=F/\omega ^2`$ is the amplitude of an electron’s quiver motion. Notice that the wave function in the KH frame is related to that in the length gauge by an unitary transformation.

This is a periodically driven system. With the help of a time-order exponential, the formal evolution operator at $`t>0`$ can be written as,

$$\widehat{U}(t)=P[exp(i_0^t𝑑t^{}\widehat{H}_{KH}(t^{}))],$$
(3)
where $`P`$ is the time order operator.

The time evolution operator referring to one period $`T`$ is the so-called Floquet operator

$$\widehat{F}=\widehat{U}(T).$$
(4)
If the frequency of the laser field is assumed to be asymptotically high, we can discard all but the the time average of the KH potential, namely,

$$V_0(q)=\frac{1}{T}_0^TV(q\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\omega t)𝑑t.$$
(5)
Then the Hamiltonian becomes time independent and takes the form of

$$\overline{H}_{KH}=\frac{p^2}{2}+V_0(q).$$
(6)
The eigenstates of this system is called KH states. So one is led to the prediction that all KH states will be stable. However, in practical case of finite field frequency rather than an asymptotically high frequency, Sundaram and Jensen pointed out that the high order Fourier terms are also important and can not be neglected for simplicity. With the assumption that every coefficients of the Fourier expansion of $`V(q\alpha _0\mathrm{cos}\omega t)`$ are equally important, the potential can be described by a periodic train of delta kicks as follows,

$$H_{KH}=\frac{p^2}{2}+V_0(q)\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\delta (\frac{t}{T}n).$$
(7)
In $`[5]`$ the validity of the above assumption has been tested for a wide range of parameters. It is found that in the regime of atomic stabilization the approximation can provide a good qualitative description. Provided that the zero of time is chosen halfway between two consecutive kicks, in terms of (3) and (7), the Floquet operator is

$$\widehat{F}=\widehat{R}\widehat{K}\widehat{R},$$
(8)
where

$$\widehat{R}=exp(ip^2T/4),$$
(9)
represents the half-periodic time evolution of a free electron, and

$$\widehat{K}=exp(iV_0T).$$
(10)
represents an impulse on momentum.

The above evolution operator describes the interaction between field and atoms . It is easy to show that the above operator is time-reversal invariant.

## II Classical Description of Ionization Process

The classical version of the above quantum Floquet operator (eq.8) takes form,

$$M=RKR,$$
(11)
where $`R:(q,p)(q+pT/2,p)`$, propagates the trajectory for a half-period ahead along the constant momentum; $`K:(q,p)(q,pT\frac{V_0}{q})`$, describes an impulse on the electron. Obviously, $`M`$ is area-preserving in phase plane.

By iterating $`M`$ for a variety of initial conditions and plotting the trajectories in the phase plane $`(q,p)`$, we can construct a Poincare surface of section which provides an overview of the classical dynamics. The phase plots of $`M`$ demonstrate many different structures for different parameters $`F`$ and $`\omega `$. A detailed analysis show that, for the case of stabilization the phase structures can be classified into three main cases as we show in Figs. 1,2 and 3. Case one, as shown in Fig.1, the $`P_1(0,0)`$ is the unique 1-periodic elliptic fixed point. Outside the regular island around $`P_1`$, the phase plane is filled with chaotic trajectories. In case two (fig.2), with changing the parameters , this elliptic point $`P_1`$ undergoes a pitch bifurcation to an unstable hyperbolic fixed point and gives birth to a pair of 1-periodic elliptic fixed points ($`P_2,P_3`$) locate at $`(\pm \alpha _0,0)`$ approximately. Outside these two regular islands the phase plane is full of stochastic orbits. Case three (fig.3), the $`P_2`$ and $`P_3`$ becomes unstable, and the phase plane is mainly filled by chaotic trajectories and very small fraction of regular islands. In term of classical description of ionization, the electrons initiated in the islands will never be ionized. The regular islands around high-periodic fixed points are too small compared with that of 1-periodic fixed points and contribute little to the confinement of the electrons. Therefore, the above analyses provide three typical parameters $`(F,\omega )`$ which are used in following discussions on ionization suppression.

In addition to those fixed points, KAM tori and Cantori, another striking structures commonly existing in fig.1,2 and 3 are the fringe pattern in the lower and upper momentum plane. This is so called ’fringe structure’, first observed in classical simulations of atomic behavior in the stabilization regime by Grobe and Law $`[8]`$, and recently confirmed by Watson et al in their quantum Wigner functions of quantum description $`[6,7]`$.

In view of nonlinear dynamics, the unstable manifold of a steady state is a set of points $`X`$ such that the orbit going backward in time starting from $`X`$ approaches this steady state. The stable manifold can be similarly defined for the forward orbit. A stable manifold can not intersect other stable manifolds, and neither do the unstable manifolds . However, as chaos occur, stable and unstable manifolds can intersect with each other. These invariant manifolds characterize the dynamical properties of the whole system $`[9]`$. Therefore, we conjecture that these fringe structures are relics of the unstable invariant manifolds. To identify it, we employ a numerical algorithm (see e.g. $`[10,11]`$) to simulate those unstable manifolds for a rather long time . The results are plotted in the same figure so as to be compared with the fringe structures. The correspondence between the fringe structures and unstable manifolds is obvious.

In case three, the invariant manifolds are obtained according to the 1-periodic hyperbolic point (0,0). However, in case one and case two, things are much more complicated. Through careful investigations, we find that, in case one, unstable manifolds of 4-periodic saddles $`(P(0.4449,0.61567),MP,\mathrm{}M^3P)`$ surrounding the stable island associated with the 1-periodic orbit organize the ’fringe structure’; in case two, the unstable manifolds of period-6 hyperbolic points $`(P(1.1761,0.6032),MP,\mathrm{}M^5P)`$ around the fixed point (0,0) construct the fringe pattern. Because of the symmetry of the map M, the stable manifolds and unstable manifolds are symmetric about x axis. This fact means that the stable and unstable manifolds intersect with each other for infinite times and form a hyperbolic invariant set. Therefore, in the regime of stabilization the classical ionization process is characterized by chaos.

To deeply understand the phase dynamics of ionizaton process in the classical description, we trace 10000 trajectories which initiate on a piece-line of the phase plane described by $`x=0`$ and $`p(0.5,0.5)`$. The phase plane representation of the time-evolution of this piece-line is shown in figure 4. It is clear that, a classical particle is attracted by the unstable manifolds and comes close to them along the stable manifolds, meanwhile it moves in the unstable direction determined by the unstable manifolds. Therefore, the whole piece-line is folded and stretched along the unstable manifolds and demonstrates a complex geometric configuration. Thus, a particle has more probability to stay near the unstable manifolds, this is the reason for the existence of fringes and those gaps between them.

From the above analyses, we conclude that, unstable manifolds play an important role in ionization process and is the dynamical source of the striking fringe structure in the classical phase plane.

## III Quantum Signature

A stable state commonly refers to a quantal state of atom irradiated by laser with long lifetime. As the stabilization phenomenon is first discovered in the case of asymptotically high-frequency field, the eigenstates of the time-average Hamiltonian (KH states) are assumed to be stable states .

However, in order to expect such phenomenon to persist in the face of various experimental realities and can be realistically pursued in the laboratory, the field frequency $`\omega `$ should be a concrete and finite rather than asymptotically high. In this case, as was pointed out by Sundaram and Jensen , the high-order fourier coefficients of the expansion of time-dependence Halmiltonian is also important. Therefore, the quasienergy eigenstates of the time evolution operator $`\widehat{U}(T)`$ will act as the candidates of the stable states which result in the ionization suppression.

The Floquet operator is unitary and satisfies following eigenvalue equation,

$$\widehat{U}(T)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda >=e^{i\lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda >$$
(12)
where the eigenphase $`\lambda `$ is real , $`\lambda /T`$ is the quasienergy (QE). The quasienergy wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ describes QE state. These QE states are obtained by diagonalizing $`\widehat{U}(T)`$ with a large basis of plane waves , $`|n>=|e^{ip_nx}>,(n=1,2,\mathrm{},512)`$.

For the operator $`\widehat{U}(T)`$ is time-reversal invariant, let the time-reversal operator act on the both sides of eigenvalues equation (12), we find that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^{}`$ are both eigenfunctions with the same quasienergy . In general, the bounded states are not degenerate for one-dimensional quantal system. It is evident that potential $`V_0(q)`$ is symmetric about zero point. Therefore we conclude that the bound QE states can be described by real functions and parity is a good quantum number.

In following section, we shall take the second case, where the parameters are $`F=5,\omega =1.34`$, as an example for our discussion. We calculate the lowest two eigenfunctions and find that the ground state (QE0) possesses even parity and mainly concentrats in the zero point; The 1-excited state (QE1) with odd parity demonstrates dichotomous collection at $`\pm \alpha _0`$.

We use the wave packet propagation method to calculate the evolution of the bound QE states. In this approach, an initial wave packet is propagated by the Fourier spectral method, which is directly applicable to the free propagation step of the Floquet operator, with the impulse delivered once every period. The free time propagation step is divided into many small intervals to reduce the error, introduced by boundary conditions. This kinetic propagation is carried out in the momentum space, since time evolution reduces to simple multiplication in that space. The impulsive step is performed in coordinated space for a similar reason. A Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) routine is used to transform the wave function between these two spaces. Since the ionization occurs in our problem, an absorptive filter in the asymptotic region ($`>\pm 50\alpha _0`$) is used to avoid the unphysical reflection of the wave packet from the grid boundary once it is on its way out. The filter takes the form $`[12]`$

$$f(x)=1/(1+e^{\beta (xa)})$$
(13)
where $`a`$ is a large distance and $`\beta `$ is the width of the filter , the wave function is multiplied by the filter function after each time step.

The time evolution of ground and 1-excited QE states for the case two are plotted in figure 5 , they show a good straight line which indicates an exponential decay $`e^{\gamma t}`$. The ionization rate $`\gamma `$ of the corresponding QE states is well defined and relates to the extent of the stability of the QE states.

To study the phase-space evolution of a wave packet , we use the Wigner function which is defined by

$$W(q,p,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\varphi (q\tau /2,t)\varphi ^{}(q+\tau /2,t)e^{ip\tau }𝑑\tau $$
(14)
for a given wave function $`\varphi (q,t)`$. This Wigner function is formally analog to the classical probability density on phase space, and reduces to it in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$.

In the exponential decay regime the Wigner function is time invariant except for a decay factor. Therefore, we plot the full Wigner function(a) and its contour plot (b) after 20 cycles of evolution in Figs.6,7. The most striking feature of this plot is the ’fringe structure’ observed in the upper and lower region of the figures. We also use the term ’fringe’ to describe the striking structure observed in the Wigner functions following Watson et al $`[6]`$ .

As to the evolution of the ground QE state, the corresponding Wigner distribution contains a strong positive peak at original point and many weak positive peaks. The strong positive peak at original point results from the even character of the wave function. Those weak peaks resulting in the fringe structures relates closely with the ionization process. In the case of 1-excited QE state the strong peak at origin is negative because of the odd parity of the wave function. In our time-reversal invariant model, parity is a good quantum number, therefore the Wigner distributions are symmetric about the original point. This symmetry can be observed clearly in Figs.6,7. When we compare the quantum phase space with the classical unstable manifolds, surprisely we find that the fringe structure in classical phase space also shows up. The fringe structure in both quantum and classical phase space has the same symmetry, and locates at the same regions. Since the size of the fringe structures in fig.6 and 7 is much larger than, the quantum uncertainty, namely, the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}(=1)`$, this structure is physically significant. So, we believe that it is quantum signature of the classical unstable manifolds.

As a further test, we also calculate the Wigner function of the lowest two KH states and show them in figures 8,9. Since the wave functions are real and has finite parity, they have the reflection symmetry about q axis and p axis. Wigner distributions of the ground and 1-excited states contain strong positive peak and strong negative peak at original point, respectively. This character is the same as that discussed above. However, for these bound KH states, no fringe structure is observed. This also implies that the fringe structure associates closely with the ionization process.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper, we have studied the phase-space dynamics of atomic stabilization in the frame of a time-reversal invariant model, both classically and quantum mechanically. Our results show that 1) The dynamical mechanism of the fringe structure in the classical phase space is the unstable manifolds. In this situation the ionization process is characterized by chaos. 2) The fringe structure observed in the quantum Wigner distribution is the quantal signature of the classical unstable manifolds. 3) The fringe structure has geometric symmetry about the original point, and associates closely with the ionization process in the regime of stabilization.

Our results show a strong connection between the unstable manifolds and the ionization process qualitatively, however, it is still an open question that how the ionization rate is related to the fractal structure of the unstable manifolds, quantatitively. The study along this direction is undergoing.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Research Grant Council RGC and the Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty Research Grant FRG , and partially by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Climbing Project.