Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics

Amitabha Ghosh

Conceptual Evolution
of Newtonian and
Relativistic Mechanics
Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics
Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics (ULNP) publishes authoritative texts covering topics
throughout pure and applied physics. Each title in the series is suitable as a basis for
undergraduate instruction, typically containing practice problems, worked examples, chapter
summaries, and suggestions for further reading.

ULNP titles must provide at least one of the following:

• An exceptionally clear and concise treatment of a standard undergraduate subject.
• A solid undergraduate-level introduction to a graduate, advanced, or non-standard subject.
• A novel perspective or an unusual approach to teaching a subject.
ULNP especially encourages new, original, and idiosyncratic approaches to physics teaching
at the undergraduate level.

The purpose of ULNP is to provide intriguing, absorbing books that will continue to be the
reader’s preferred reference throughout their academic career.

Series editors

Neil Ashby
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

William Brantley
Department of Physics, Furman University, Greenville, SC, USA

Matthew Deady
Physics Program, Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA

Michael Fowler
Department of Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Morten Hjorth-Jensen
Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Michael Inglis
SUNY Suffolk County Community College, Long Island, NY, USA

Heinz Klose
Humboldt University, Oldenburg, Niedersachsen, Germany

Helmy Sherif
Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8917

Amitabha Ghosh

Conceptual Evolution
of Newtonian and Relativistic
Mechanics

123
Amitabha Ghosh
Department of Aerospace Engineering
and Applied Mechanics
IIEST Shibpur
Howrah, West Bengal
India

ISSN 2192-4791 ISSN 2192-4805 (electronic)

Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics
ISBN 978-981-10-6252-0 ISBN 978-981-10-6253-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6253-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017953829

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic
adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not
imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and
regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed
to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty,
express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore
To
dear
Meena
Preface

This book is the outcome of a science elective course offered at Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur by me along with another colleague of mine. The course used to cover both classical
and quantum mechanics, but in this volume, only the classical part is being covered and the
other part is expected to be penned down by my colleague. However, the motivation to design
and offer a course on ‘Conceptual Evolution of Mechanics’ germinated from an interesting
episode in the early life of the author of this volume. It may not be out of place to give a brief
account of that here.
I was very fond of egg curry from my childhood, but my mother never gave me more than
one egg at a time fearing it could cause stomach problems for me. As a young boy, I used to
think that when I grow up and become independent, I would take as many eggs at a time as I
pleased. Long after those childhood days, suddenly an opportunity came. I had a combined
hand who used to do all cooking and other household chores for me during the last years of the
1960s when I was a young faculty at Bengal Engineering College, Shibpur, Howrah. In
December 1970, when I decided to change over to IIT Kanpur, I had sent my combined hand
to my native home 260 km away to take household belongings there. My wife was also there
as my son was too young to undergo the problems of transferring residence to a faraway city.
I was alone, and suddenly it comes to my mind the old desire of consuming as many eggs as I
wanted. I had never learned cooking but prepared an egg curry with three eggs following
whatever steps came to my mind. To my utter surprise, I could not eat the curry as it tasted
horribly awesome. I realized that though I ate and digested (and enjoyed too) egg curry so
much during the previous 25 years of my life, I did not know how to cook egg curry. This
event gave me a realization that we teach our students only cooked science. As a result, it
becomes difficult for them to create new science. From that time, I planned to design a course
in which the students of mechanics can become familiar with the evolutionary process through
which the science of motion developed and achieved maturity. Mechanics being a very basic
subject and fundamental to many branches of physical science and engineering, I considered
this subject to be the most suited for my experiment.
It should be noted that the ‘conceptual evolution’ is somewhat different from the ‘history’.
There are excellent books on history of mechanics. It is also not a textbook on mechanics.
I have tried to emphasize the process through which the basic concepts evolved, transformed
and led to the consolidation of the scientific principles involved. The course at IIT Kanpur was
offered with a hope to give the students some taste of the process through which science is
created. It was hoped that the effort would be somewhat useful in enabling the students to
create new science when the occasion arises. As a secondary outcome, the course helped to
remove many incorrect impressions about some major scientific discoveries in the field of
mechanics.
Quite naturally, the major emphasis has been given on the development of Newtonian
mechanics as that is considered as one of the starting points of modern science. The chapters
on relativistic mechanics are much shorter as the evolutionary processes for the two theories
were confined to a much smaller extent of ‘space–time’, to use a relativity terminology. The

vii
viii Preface

period of their development was only a couple of decades and involved a much smaller group,
Einstein occupying the predominant place.
While leaving IIT Kanpur, I was requested by many of my colleagues to compile a book
using the material used by me in the part of the course I developed for the use by younger
faculty members desirous of offering similar courses. Realizing the desirability of their sug-
gestion, I planned this book. It is only the students of the subject can decide if I have been
successful (at least partially) in my original endeavour. If this book is used for offering similar
courses, it will be my greatest satisfaction. It goes without saying that there are many short
coming and mistakes in this book and I will remain perpetually grateful for suggestions and
corrections.
It has taken a long time in writing this book, and I gratefully acknowledge the help and
suggestions I received from my students and faculty colleagues of IIT Kanpur. Professors
Ashok Kumar Mallik, Pinaki Guptabhaya, Raminder Singh, H.S. Mani and Late Himanshu
Hatwal are the most prominent among them. I also gratefully acknowledge the kind help and
encouragement received from Professor E.C.G. Sudarshan of University of Texas at Austin.
I also acknowledge the help received from the Physics Department of UT Austin by giving me
free access to the library. It would not have been possible to complete the book without the
active support from my wife Meena who took the whole burden of running the household with
negative help from my side. I also gratefully acknowledge the help from my sister-in-law
Sabita Ghosh of Asansol for providing me the necessary refuge at her home that gave me free
and undisturbed time required to finish the work. The financial support from Indian National
Science Academy, New Delhi, and National Academy of Sciences, Allahabad, India, during
the period when the book was being written is thankfully acknowledged. The enthusiasm
shown by Ms. Swati Mehershi of Springer in publishing the manuscript and the careful typing
of the handwritten manuscript by Mr. Sourav Kundu also deserve my sincere thanks.
The preparation of the manuscript had many interruptions, and it has taken almost nine
years to complete the book. I will remain grateful to the readers for their suggestions for
further improvement of the book.

Shibpur, Howrah, India Amitabha Ghosh

April 2017 1 Boisakh, 1424 (Bengali New Year)
Contents

1 Evolution of Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Early Concepts and Aristotelian Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 The Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 Earth–Moon Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.3 Measuring the Sun’s Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.4 Size of the Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Role of Astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Difficulties in Discovering the Laws of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Pre-copernican Astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4.1 Hipparchus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4.2 The Epicycle–Deferent Model and Ptolemy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4.3 Problems with Explaining the Observations
with Ptolemaic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.4 Progress During the Period Between Ptolemy and Copernicus. . . . . 11
1.5 Copernican Model: Rediscovery of the Heliocentric Theory . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.6 Tycho Brahe: Improvement in Accuracy for Naked-Eye Astronomy . . . . . . 14
1.7 Kepler: Beginning of Modern Astronomy and Foundation
of Science of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 14
1.7.1 Discovery of the Laws of Planetary Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 15
1.7.2 Transition from Geometric to Physical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 19
1.7.3 Early Concept of Action-at-a-Distance and Gravitation,
and the Concept of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 19
1.8 Galileo: Naked Eye to Telescopic Astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 20
1.8.1 Observation of the Moon and Discarding the Concept
of Fifth Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 20
1.8.2 Discovery of Jupiter’s Moons and its Implications. . . . . . . . . .... 21
1.8.3 Discovery of the Phases of Venus: A Further Proof
of Heliocentric Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 21
1.9 Galileo: Experimental Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 22
1.9.1 Early Works on Accelerated Change: Merton School . . . . . . . .... 23
1.9.2 Galileo’s Work on Free Fall and Uniformly
Accelerated Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 23
1.9.3 Discovery of the Law of Inertia of Motion in Its
Primitive Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.9.4 Laws of Compound Motion: Projectiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.9.5 Galilean Relativity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.10 Collapse of the Old Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

ix
x Contents

1.11 Descartes: Beginning of Inertial Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 28

1.11.1 Law of Inertia of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 28
1.11.2 Collision Problems and Early Concept of Momentum
Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.11.3 Descartes’ Concept of Motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.12 Huygens: Breakthrough in the Discovery of Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.12.1 Theory of Collision and Conservation of Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.12.2 Kinematics of Circular Motion and ‘Centrifugal Force’ . . . . . . . . . 32
1.12.3 Modern Concept of Force and the ‘Force–Acceleration’
Relation: Second Law of Motion in Primitive Form. . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.12.4 Early Concept of the Principle of Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.13 Halley, Wren and Hooke: Rudiments of Gravitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.14 Newton and the Final Synthesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.14.1 Concepts of Mass, Momentum, Force and the Second Law
of Motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.14.2 Collision Problem and the Discovery of the Third Law . . . . . . . . . 38
1.14.3 Law of Universal Gravitation and Planetary Motion. . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.14.4 Universality of Gravitational Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.14.5 Orbit for Inverse Square Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.15 Newtonian Dynamics in Matured State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
1.15.1 Concept of Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.15.2 Principia and Subsequent Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

2.1 Nature of Motion and Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.1.1 Newton’s Concept of Absolute Space and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.1.2 Newton’s Bucket Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.1.3 Newton’s Bucket Experiment Follow up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.1.4 Ernst Mach and Mach’s Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.1.5 Quantification of Mach’s Principle—Concept of Inertial
Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.1.6 Origin of Inertia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.2 Relative–Absolute Duality of Nature of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.2.1 The Nature of the Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.2.2 Absolute Motion in Terms of Relative Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.3 Inertial and Gravitational Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.3.1 Inertial Mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.3.2 Gravitational Mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.3.3 Equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.4 Space–Time and Symmetry in Newtonian Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.5 Early Concept of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.6 The Principle of Relativity and Galilean Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.6.1 The Principle of Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.6.2 Symmetry and Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.6.3 Form Invariance of Physical Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.6.4 Energy and Energy Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.6.5 Energy Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.7 Laws of Motion and the Properties of Space and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.7.1 The Second Law of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.7.2 The Third Law of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Contents xi

2.8 Action-at-a-Distance and Spatiotemporal Locality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

2.8.1 Early Work on Non-contact Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.8.2 Spatiotemporal Locality and Action-at-a-Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.8.3 The Concept of Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.8.4 Field and Absolute Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3 Post ‘Principia’ Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

3.1 Early Concepts and Aristotelian Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.1.1 Diffusion of Newton’s Mechanics in Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.1.2 Multiplicity in the Concept of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.1.3 Degeometrization of Newtonian Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.2 Emergence of Analytical Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.2.1 New Principles for Dynamical Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.2.2 Principle of Virtual Velocity and Virtual Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.2.3 D’Alembert’s Principle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.2.4 Principle of Least Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.2.5 Lagrangian Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.3 Dynamics of Rigid Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4 Special Theory of Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 87

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 87
4.1.1 Space–Time in Newtonian Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 87
4.2 Euler’s Work on Relativity: Confrontation of Dynamics
with Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 88
4.2.1 Principle of Relativity in Solving Rigid Body Dynamics
Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 88
4.2.2 Euler’s Work on the Problem of Stellar Aberration . . . . . . . . .... 88
4.3 Efforts to Detect Ether Speed: The Null Result of Michelson–Morley
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.3.1 Early Attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.3.2 Michelson–Morley Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.4 Electromagnetism: Challenge to the Principle of Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.5 Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.5.1 Lorentz’s Transformation from the Two Principles
of Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 97
4.5.2 Special Relativity in Electromagnetic Phenomenon . . . . . . . . .... 98
4.5.3 Need for a Relativistic Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 100

5 General Theory of Relativity and Extension of Mach’s Principle . . . . . . . . . 103

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.2 Transition to General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.2.1 Minkowski’s Four-Dimensional Space–Time Continuum . . . . . . . . 104
5.2.2 Principle of Equivalence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.2.3 Freely Falling Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.2.4 Uniformly Accelerating Frames and the ‘Entwurf’ Theory . . . . . . . 109
5.2.5 The Field Equation and Final Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.3 Extension of Mach’s Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.3.1 Velocity-Dependent Inertial Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.3.2 Some Features of Velocity-Dependent Inertial Induction. . . . . . . . . 114
5.3.3 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
About the Author

Amitabha Ghosh completed his bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees in Mechanical
Engineering at Calcutta University in 1962, 1964 and 1969, respectively. After serving as a
lecturer in Mechanical Engineering at his alma mater, Bengal Engineering College, Shibpur
(now an Institute of National Importance—Indian Institute of Engineering Science and
Technology, Shibpur) from 1965 to 1970, Professor Ghosh joined the Indian Institute of
Technology Kanpur in January 1971 as an Assistant Professor and served as Professor of
Mechanical Engineering there from June 1975 till his retirement in 2006. From 1977 to 1978,
Professor Ghosh was Senior Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation at the RWTH
Aachen and subsequently visited the university with a Humboldt fellowship many more times.
He was director of the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur from 1997 to 2002. His
primary areas of research are manufacturing science, robotics, kinematics and mechanism
theory, and dynamics of mechanical systems. Professor Ghosh has written a number of
textbooks, which are popular, both in India and abroad. He has guided numerous master’s and
doctoral students and published a large number of research papers. He received several aca-
demic awards, including a number of Calcutta University Gold Medals, D Sc (h.c.), Distin-
guished Teacher Award from IIT Kanpur and an award for excellence in research from the
National Academy of Engineering. He is a fellow of all four national science and engineering
academies in India.

xiii
Introduction

The Science of Motion

Once the mankind invented agriculture, it became relatively free from the continuous pursuit
of food and the struggle for existence became relatively less severe. Agriculture also provided
a concept of settlement, and man stopped being a constant wanderer. Once the food was
ensured and shelters became permanent, man had some free time to think and observed the
surroundings; in other words, man noticed the nature.
However, even with all these revolutionary changes in the history of civilization, most men
were engaged in various services for the leaders and the kings, most important being the
military activities for protecting the individual kingdoms and clans. Only a very few among
them had the leisure to think of other matters; in Greek, ‘schol’ means ‘leisure’, these people
who had the leisure to think were called ‘scholars’ and the places where they worked were
termed as ‘schools’. (Of course, hardly any school-going child today will agree to this
definition.)
We should remember that ‘science’ is basically man’s aim to understand natural
phenomena. Earlier, the terminology ‘natural philosophy’ meant ‘science’. Even the word
‘physis’, the origin of the word ‘physics’, means ‘nature’ in Greek. One of the major aims for
understanding nature is to arrive at some general principles which can make reliable
predictions about natural happenings. It must be remembered that such predictions are possible
only because nature obeys well-structured general rules. In fact, one of the most important
achievements of the Galilean revolution was the realization that ‘The Book of Nature’ is
written in mathematical characters.1 The key to such rules of Nature are the observational
facts. Observations lead to hypotheses, a kind of tentative educated guess, and repeated
experiments on a particular phenomenon lead to a theory. Observation is a process which does
not manipulate the phenomenon, whereas in experiments, manipulation of certain aspects of
nature may be essential.
However, quite a few Greek philosophers believed that one cannot deduce the true nature
of the universe by simply observing it. In their opinion, sense may not reveal the true nature;
instead, only the use of reason and the insights of human mind can lead to the correct
understanding. A similar frame of mind existed even in the medieval Europe when people
trusted more the teachings of the masters instead of conducting experiments to verify the truth.
This, obviously, was a major reason for wrong theories to continue for a very long time
causing a severe hindrance to the progress of science.
The first thing that attracted man’s attention while observing his surrounding was change.
Day changed into nights, the night sky changed with the progress of night, objects changed

1
Galileo’s one famous statement (in his treatise Il Saggiatore, 1624) is as follows: ‘Philosophy is written in this
very great book which always lies before our eyes but one cannot understand it unless one first learns to
understand the language and recognize the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical
language and the characters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures; without these means it is
humanly impossible to understand a word of it; without these there is only clueless scrabbling around a dark
labyrinth’.

xv
xvi Introduction

positions, water flows, birds flew and fruits fell from the tree. As a matter of fact, movement of
objects was the most frequent happening all around. Thus, it is very natural that man wanted to
understand the basic natural laws which explained motions, and the ‘science of motion’ began
its long journey at the dawn of civilization. Nowadays, the students are introduced to the
subject ‘mechanics’, i.e. the ‘science of motion’, at school level. They are trained to use the
laws of motion as tools for solving mechanics problems; but, rarely do they get a chance to
develop a thorough understanding of the basic essence of ‘mechanics’. Since ‘mechanics’
forms the foundation of the ‘physical sciences’, a proper understanding of the subject is
essential to develop a true scientific temperament. Furthermore, the habit of following the set
laws without examining them is reminiscent of the situation prevailing in the Middle Ages. So,
it is necessary for the progress of science to keep an open mind, and that requires a thorough
and deep understanding of all these laws.
Furthermore, it is very important for a student of science to learn the thought processes,
transitory concepts and the gradual conceptual evolution of scientific theories. As one cannot
cook even after being fed a good dish repeatedly day after day, he or she can digest it well but
will be totally clueless when asked to cook the same dish even if all the basic ingredients are
supplied. So to create new science, it is essential to learn how science is created?
One may think that nothing more is there to learn about the laws of motion as the use
of these laws has given correct and useful results for a long time. However, one may find it
surprising to know that still there are unresolved issues and gaps in our understanding so far as
the ‘science of motion’ is concerned. Furthermore, the ‘laws of motion’ which took 2000 years
of hard work by giant intellectuals to be discovered are not as simple as they appear at a first
glance. To develop a solid understanding, one must go through the same mental thought
process which slowly led to the evolution of the subject.
Biological evolution is a very slow process and the raw human intelligence has not changed
at all during the last 5000 years, though, of course, our knowledge base has expanded
tremendously and man has improved his understanding of the nature significantly. So, the
enormous time it has taken to unravel the basic aspects of the science of motion indicates how
difficult the task must have been. One’s understanding of the subject can be made very solid if
he or she is taken through the same mental reasoning process which led the scientists and
philosophers to arrive at the current level of understanding of the subject. It is essential for one
to be familiar with the transitional concepts and the philosophical reasoning. Then only the
understanding of the subject can be considered complete. Only then it is possible to make
further progress and discover the uncharted territories of the subject.
 Evolution of Dynamics
1

1.1 Early Concepts and Aristotelian Physics earth’s centre when dropped, and a flame (or smoke) goes up
in an attempt to reach its natural place in the heaven. This
The beginning of scientific thinking started in almost all the type of motion was called ‘natural motion’. However, it was
ancient civilizations in India, China, Babylon, Egypt and also a common knowledge that a stone goes upwards when
Greece. Though considerable progress was made in the thrown up or an arrow moves as a projectile when shot.
preliminary ideas on natural processes particularly the Aristotle termed these unnatural motions as ‘violent motion’.
movement of objects in India and other ancient civilizations, Such motions could be induced by the act of an external
the most systematic and continued progress was made in agent like a hand or a bow. This led to the understanding
Greece. The period 600–400 BC is considered to be the pre- why things move. However, the ancient men (and also the
Hellenistic period and the prominent philosophers of this philosophers) were also aware of another type of motion—
period include Pythagoras (572–497 BC), Thales, Anaxi- daily uniform circular motion of all the heavenly objects like
mander, Anaximenes (all in the sixth century BC), the sun, the moon and the stars. Considering the luminosity
Anaxagoras (*430 BC), Socrates (470–399 BC) and Plato of the heavenly objects and their unchanging nature for
(472–347 BC). Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato’s disciple, centuries (in contrast to all terrestrial objects which changed
and he shaped the thinking process in the subject of me- with time), Aristotle considered the heavenly bodies to be
chanics for the next one and half millennia. He systematized made of a different material—the ‘fifth element’. The objects
the subject (along with many other fields) based on the made of this ‘fifth element’ were considered to be
common experience. unchanging, and their natural motion was ‘uniform circular
It is needless to emphasize that by and large science motion’. This scheme could successfully explain most of the
develops from the attempt to understand the rules behind the observed motions at least qualitatively.
observational facts. The bewildering variety of motions all Figure 1.1 shows schematically the Aristotelian cosmol-
around made it extremely difficult to figure out the funda- ogy. The stable unmoving earth is at the centre of the uni-
mental ideas of the science of motion. Since the philosophers verse. The outermost level consists of the stars and rotates
were unaware of the earth’s gravitational pull, the presence once every day. The space in between is occupied by the
of atmosphere and the buoyancy, friction, etc., the causes various spheres containing the moon, sun and the planets, all
behind the motions of objects were considered to be the rotating at different rates. It was conceived that these spheres
desire of those to reach their respective natural places. The were made of a transparent material. Beyond the sphere of
synthesized scheme of the universe as systematized by the stars, there was absolutely nothing—not even space and
Aristotle was inseparably intermingled with the science of time.
motion and formed a complete science. That is one of the It will be interesting to consider some other scientific
reasons why Aristotle’s philosophy continued for such a knowledge during the early civilizations. This will tell us
long time. In Aristotle’s scheme, there were four elements— about the wonderful reasoning power of the early scientists
earth, water, air and fire. For earth-like material, natural and will also give us a clue to the scientific thought process.
place was the earth’s centre which was also considered to be In the early period, the earth was considered to be sta-
the centre of the universe and stationary. Fire’s natural place tionary and at the centre of the universe. Heavenly objects
was in the heaven. Water and air were in between. Thus, a were thought to go round the stationary earth, and the
stone (consisting of earth-like matter) falls towards the outermost dome was studded with the luminous stars.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 1

A. Ghosh, Conceptual Evolution of Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics,
Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6253-7_1
2 1 Evolution of Dynamics

Westward Moon 1.1.2 Earth–Moon Distance

diurnal Mercury
motion Venus It is really quite an astonishing fact that the astronomers
Sun during the Hellenistic period were aware of the phenomenon
Mars of parallax in astronomy. Parallax is the apparent shift in the
position of an object in the background of a distant back-
Jupiter drop. Though it was very difficult to measure parallax due to
EARTH the lack of instantaneous communication between two far off
Saturn
locations on the earth, this effect was used by Hipparchus to
estimate the distance of the moon by observing moon at two
different instants separated by some hours at the same night.
Stars
When viewed from two diametrically opposite locations on
the earth, the parallax is about 2°. The astronomers also
knew that the parallax of the sun is much less than that of the
Fig. 1.1 Aristotelian two-sphere universe moon and the sun is much further away than the moon
(Fig. 1.3).

1.1.1 The Earth

1.1.3 Measuring the Sun’s Distance
Although at the very dawn of civilization, the earth’s
spherical shape was unknown to man, but soon certain Since the parallax in case of the sun is very small and
observational facts led the philosophers to realize that the beyond the capacity of the ancient astronomers to estimate it,
earth was a sphere. It was a common knowledge that for a very novel scheme was suggested by Aristarchus in the
approaching ships the first visible part was the mast. This second century BC. (He was among the ancient astronomers
happened irrespective of the directions (i.e. east, west, south who believed in a heliocentric model of the universe).
or north) which indicated that the earth’s surface slops down Figure 1.4 shows the basic idea. He considered the fact
in all directions. This can happen only if the earth is that when the moon is seen from the earth exactly half full
spherical in shape. Astronomers and philosophers also the angle \EMS is 90°. At this instant, it is possible to
noticed that when one travels towards the north the southerly measure the angular distance of the moon from the sun.1 As
stars gradually went below the horizon and new stars appear the distance EM could be estimated using the parallax
in the north. Aristotle also argued in favour of the spherical method, the hypotenuse ES of the right angle DEMS could
earth indicating the fact that the shape of the earth’s shadow be estimated. Aristarchus estimated \MES as 87° which led
on the moon during eclipse is always circular. (It is inter- to the result ES = 19 EM. In reality, the modern measure-
esting to note that even in Hellenistic astronomy the phe- ments show that \MES ¼ 89 510 and ES is about 400 EM.
nomenon of eclipse was well understood.) It is not only the Subsequently, Aristarchus developed another extremely
shape; the size of the earth was estimated by ancient innovative scheme using lunar eclipse for determining the
philosophers. Though there are references to a measurement sizes of the moon, sun and their distances.
of the earth’s radius in Aristotle’s writings, the first recorded
details of a measurement is found to be by Eratosthenes, the
librarian of the famous library in Alexandria, in the third 1.1.4 Size of the Universe
century BC.
Figure 1.2 shows the procedure schematically. Eratos- The size of the universe was another important matter for the
thenes noticed that when at a place called Seyne, 5000 stade ancient astronomers. Using the astronomical observations
due south of Alexandria, the noon sun did not cast any and very ingenious logic, they demonstrated that the sphere
shadow of a vertical pole. However, at Alexandria, the angle of the stars was much bigger than the earth.
subtended by the sunrays with a vertical pole was about 7.2°, They noticed that when one equinoctial point sets in the
i.e. about 1/50th of a full circle. Since all the sunrays can be west, the other equinoctial point rises in the east at the same
considered to be parallel (because of the sun’s vast distance), moment. Figure 1.5a shows that if the size of the earth had
the angle \AOS is also equal to about 1/50th of a full circle, been comparable with that of the sphere of the stars then the
implying the arc AS is about 1/50th of the earth’s circum-
ference. Thus, Eratosthenes concluded the earth’s circum-
ference to be about 250,000 stades, which is reasonably 1
It is possible only on principle. Particularly, it is very difficult to have
close to the actual value. any accurate estimate of the angle \MES.
1.1 Early Concepts and Aristotelian Physics 3

Fig. 1.2 Eratosthenes’ scheme θ

for measuring the earth’s radius
Sun rays
A
θ S
θ
O

Earth

Fig. 1.3 Parallax of the moon

M
P
δ

A B
Earth

Fig. 1.4 Aristarchus’ scheme to Moon

estimate the sun’s distance M

E S
Sun
Earth

Fig. 1.5 Earth’s size relative to (a) (b)

the outermost sphere of the
universe. a In a geocentric P P
universe and b in a heliocentric
universe

E
A B
A B
E S

Q Q
4 1 Evolution of Dynamics

horizontal plane where an observe stands will not divide the vacuum created by the displacement of a moving object is
stellar sphere is two equal halves. Thus, the observed filled by air and that acts as a pusher. However, he himself
simultaneous rising and setting of the two equinoctial points knew about the unsatisfactory character of the theory and left
(which are the intersection points of two great circles—the the problem. His dissatisfaction was quite obvious as he used
ecliptic and the celestial equator—placing them in exactly to be very argumentative on this subject. In the subsequent
opposite positions on the celestial sphere) would not have centuries, philosophers disproved this theory as they noticed
been possible. Thus, they concluded that the earth was like a that elongated objects with flattened and sharp tails moved
point relative to the stellar sphere. This argument was also almost identically when projected.
very effective in the proposal for a heliocentric model of the In this scenario, the motion of the heavenly bodies was a
universe at a later time. Figure 1.5b shows the earth in its relief to the philosophers. These motions were regular,
orbit around the sun. Since the orbit’s size is much larger uniform and unchanging. In comparison, most of the earthly
compared to that of the earth, the astronomers suggested that motions (like a dropping stone) were of very short duration
the horizontal plane of any observer cannot divide the and inadequate for any kind of scientific study, particularly
celestial sphere in two equal halves. But the simultaneous in the absence of an accurate time measuring instrument. So,
rising and setting of the equinoctial points indicated other- the celestial motions were very attractive to ancient
wise. This reasoning required the celestial sphere to be so philosophers; these motions were slow and regular.
large that it was outright rejected. Astronomy became important for another reason also.
Aristarchus reasoned against a geocentric model and People thought that heaven is the abode of the gods and the
suggested a diurnal spin rotation of the earth and an orbital heavenly bodies play a role in governing people and the
motion around the sun. His logic was based on primarily two earth. Such convictions became stronger as it was noticed
reasons. The geocentric model requires the stars to move at that it becomes hot when the sun is in Cancer and it becomes
tremendously large speeds, and the sun is much bigger than cold when it is in Capricorn. The link between the tidal
the earth. Thus, philosophically, it was unacceptable that phenomenon with moon’s phases and the matching of the
such a large object orbits around a much smaller body. He menstrual cycle of the women world over with the lunar
proposed that the observed motions were nothing but due to month consolidated the position of the subject ‘astrology’ in
kinematic relativity. However, the heliocentric model was the society. People started thinking that stellar and planetary
outright rejected. There was no idea of the law of inertia, and configurations can influence man’s life, kingdoms’ pros-
so a moving earth could not be conceived. When a stone perity, results of the wars, etc. As astronomers were gener-
is thrown up, it could not have come down and land at the ally able to predict eclipses, it was felt that they, as
same location had the earth been moving at such large speed astrologers, can predict future. Thus, astronomy became
—that was the primary reason for rejecting a moving earth closely linked with a ‘non-science’ subject like astrology,
hypothesis. Another objection to the proposal was the and for many years, they formed a single profession. The
absence any parallax when the earth occupied two diamet- astronomy which could predict the future stellar configura-
rically opposite positions in its orbit around the sun. It was tions was known as ‘natural astrology’ and that astronomy
not known then that the stars are immensely distant objects. which predicts the future of men and nations from the stars
and planets was known as ‘judicial astronomy’. Actually,
most of the famous astronomers of the antiquity like Ptolemy
1.2 Role of Astronomy and astronomers like Tycho Brahe and Kepler received their
bread and butter because they were considered to be good
One obvious point arises is that why the clue to the science astrologers!
behind the motion of objects on the earth was linked to In fact, one of the major motivations behind the growth of
astronomy? But the gradual development of astronomy astronomy was astrology. This may explain the decline of
played a major role in the evolution of the ‘science of Indian astronomy during the Buddhist period as in Bud-
motion’. There are quite a few reasons for that which will be dhism astrology did not have a good standing in the society.
clear as this book progresses. It was revived after the reintroduction of Hinduism in India.
All the earthly motions get corrupted and become com- As will be seen later in the text, prolonged and careful
plex due to the presence of gravity, wind resistance, friction, study of the motions of the celestial objects led to the
buoyancy, atmospheric pressure, etc. So, it is very difficult to development of certain branches of mathematics, viz.
find any pattern in this bewildering variety of terrestrial geometry and trigonometry which played important roles in
motions. Aristotelian physics could not explain why an the discovery of dynamics. Apart from this, the gradual
object continues to move even when the initial pushed leaves development of improved observational techniques of
contact with the object as inertia of motion was not dis- naked-eye astronomy ultimately convinced Kepler that
covered. Aristotle unsuccessfully tried to explain that the interaction of bodies is responsible for bodies to move.
1.3 Difficulties in Discovering the Laws of Motion 5

1.3 Difficulties in Discovering the Laws the concept of any non-contact interactive force between
of Motion objects. Though electrostatic phenomenon was discovered
by the ancient Greeks, it was considered more as a magical
It may appear surprising to any school-going student today effect and had little to do with physical science, i.e. science
that it took almost two millennia to discover the laws of of motion in those days. In fact, it was about 1800 years
motion. The subject is taught to school students at a rea- after those Hellenistic periods when Kepler realized the
sonably early stage, and in the way, the laws of motion are influence of sun on the motions of the planets and a primitive
presented to them in a plate as well-cooked food it is idea of gravitation emerged. He too was also enthused along
inconceivable for all to recognize the enormous difficulties this concept because of Gilberts’ book on magnetism pub-
which blocked the vision and reasoning of the philosophers lished in 1600.
of the antiquity. This single fact should make the present-day Finally, perhaps most damaging influence was too much
students of science aware how difficult the problems of dependence on the teachings of the old masters. It was also
discovering these laws are? In fact, it is essential for one to considered blasphemous to conduct experiments for verify-
grasp the foundational concepts behind these three laws of ing the teachings of the masters, particularly in the Aris-
motion. Thus, a discussion on the difficulties in discovering totelian schools of thought. This caused many completely
the laws of motion and to understand why it took so long is erroneous concepts to continue for centuries. It was taught
desirable. that heavier bodies fall faster, a projectile attains maximum
Most persons familiar with the science of motion have a speed in midflight, etc. It was also taught that when a stone
tendency to feel that the first law of motion, i.e. uniform drops from the top of the mast of a moving ship it does not
rectilinear inertial motion, should be obvious to all. On the fall at the foot of the mast. Such anti-scientific teachings did
contrary, this law is most difficult to unravel as there is no a great harm and delayed the process of unravelling the
uniform rectilinear motion on the earth. All rectilinear fundamental basic laws of an inertial physics.
motions on earth, like free fall on an object or horizontal In hindsight, it looks that, perhaps, the development of
motion of an object on a surface, are non-uniform. Projectile science of motion has taken the inevitable course of destiny.
and most other violent motions are not rectilinear. Even the Most probably, one should not expect to have taken a dif-
eternal uniform motions of the celestial bodies are circular. ferent and faster path. In the subsequent chapters, it will be
Thus, the most fundamental type of motions is non-existent. seen how complex the process of discovering the laws of
The ancient philosophy believed that a motion has to be motion had been. It took more than 2000 years for a large
either natural (which is a property of every material) or number of giant intellectuals to build this grand edifice of
violent. If ice skating had been a popular sport (which was science. It also demonstrates the fact that science progresses
impossible in a Mediterranean country like Greece); perhaps, in very small steps involving a large number of thinkers,
people could get some clue to this fundamental aspect of although the limelight, in general, is enjoyed by the person
dynamics. who accumulates the knowledge and presents a synthesized
Another relatively more difficult aspect did not get version.
unravelled till the time of Galileo. He was the first to rec-
ognize and study the composition of motion. Till the idea of
decomposing motions into their more elemental components 1.4 Pre-copernican Astronomy
was developed, it was virtually impossible to make any
scientific study of motion as all appeared too complex. It has already been emphasized that astronomy was the most
The third difficulty which is responsible for this delay in important factor which led man to study motion (of course
discovering the laws of dynamics was the absence of accu- the kinematic aspect of to begin with). Thus, it is desirable to
rate time measuring clock. We know that ‘acceleration’ follow the chain of thoughts and transitional concepts which
plays the central role in dynamics, but quantitative study of led to the ultimate unravelling of the laws of motion.
accelerated motion was very difficult. This is because most
of terrestrial motions are of relatively short duration and
without a good clock are impossible to study. Thus, for a 1.4.1 Hipparchus
very long time, a wrong notion persisted that impetus (old
term that was used to represent something like force) leads to One of the most important figures in Hellenistic astronomy
speed. Without the discovery of the role acceleration plays in is, undoubtedly, Hipparchus (*150 BC). His visit to
dynamics, it was impossible to develop the science of Babylon made the prolonged observation-based Babylonian
motion. data available to Hipparchus, and as a theoretical astron-
The next difficulty that faced the philosophers of the omer, he could systematize this data into a physical scheme.
antiquity (and also of the Middle Ages) was the absence of He used the phenomenon of parallax for estimating the
6 1 Evolution of Dynamics

distance to the moon and its size. Apart from the detection of the vernal equinox to the summer solstice position and 92½
the phenomenon ‘precision of the equinox’, Hipparchus was days from the summer solstice to autumn equinox. This was
the first to attempt developing astronomy as a geometro absolutely against the prevailing physics of the time as
quantitative discipline of philosophy. non-uniformity in the natural circular motions of the heav-
Because of the orbital motion of the earth around the sun, enly objects was beyond any compromise. Hipparchus was
the sun appears to slowly drift across the stationary stellar the first to forward a geometro kinetic solution to the
background and completes one full round in one solar year. problem starting the era of quantitative astronomy. His
Figure 1.6 helps to make the point clear. This path, appar- proposed solution is explained in Fig. 1.8.
ently traversed by the sun, is called the ‘ecliptic’ (because According to this theory, the sun moves uniformly on the
eclipse occurs whenever the moon is on the plane described circle with centre O which is displaced from the centre of the
by the ecliptic, as then only the sun, the earth and the moon earth. The angle \VOS ¼ 93:2 so that the sun takes 94½
can be in one straight line). days to cover arc VS. \SOA ¼ 91:2 , making the sun’s
A second great circle can be imagined on the celestial duration in the arc SA equal to 91½ days. The earth’s
dome by expanding the terrestrial equator; this great circle is position is such that from the earth the segments VS and SA
called the ‘celestial equator’ (Fig. 1.6c). The path of the sun subtend 90° angles at E. This way the theory of uniform
(used to be assumed as a perfect circle in Hipparchus time) circular motion of the heavenly bodies was rescued to the
has four special equispaced points; two of these points, great relief of the contemporary philosophers and
obtained by the intersection of the ecliptic with the celestial astronomers.
equator are called ‘equinoxes’ (because when the sun is at an
equinoctial point, the day and night, i.e. nox, are equal
everywhere on the earth). The other two points represent the 1.4.2 The Epicycle–Deferent Model and Ptolemy
two extremely northerly and southernly positions of the sun
during its journey along the ecliptic. These two points are The invention of the epicycle–deferent theory is not clearly
called ‘solstice’ as the sun temporarily appears to be stand- known, but it is clear that even Apollonius, about a century
ing still at these two positions. The summer solstice coin- before Hipparchus and about four centuries before Ptolemy,
cides with the longest day in the Northern Hemisphere, and was aware of this hypothesis. The need for the development
the day is shortest at winter solstice. These four special of such geometro kinetic schemes arose primarily to fit the
positions of the sun on the ecliptic are equispaced at 90° as irregularities of the planetary and solar motions which
shown in Fig. 1.7 became increasingly prominent as more and more observa-
According to well-established theory of uniform circular tional data started accumulating. It should be remembered
motion of all the heavenly bodies, the sun should take equal that irregularity meant any discrepancy of the observation
time to cross the four quadrants. But the Greek astronomers with predictions based on uniform circular motion theory.
were surprised to note that the sun takes 94½ to travel from The non-uniformity of the sun’s motion was resolved by

Fig. 1.6 Ecliptic and celestial (a) (b)

equator D
D

3 2
A
1
S
A

4 C C
B B
Actual Motion of the earth Apparent motion of the sun

(c) VE

SS
WS

Ecliptic
AU
Celestial equator
1.4 Pre-copernican Astronomy 7

SS (Summer solstice) Suitable combinations of these two motions can generate

complicated paths for the object P; one example is shown in
Fig. 1.10b. It is clear from the figure that the object will
appear to have a retrograde motion against the starry back-
S
ground from the earth when it is near the location A. It is
90º 90º further seen that at this location the object (a planet) is
VE AE nearest to the earth and will appear to be brighter, which
(Vernal (Autumn matches with actual observation. This mechanism is thus
equinox) E equinox) capable of explaining both the retrograde motion and vary-
90º
ing brightness of the planets.
The deferent–epicycle model was also used as an alter-
native to Hipparchus’s eccentric circle theory to explain the
apparent non-uniformity of the sun’s motion.
Figure 1.11 shows a deferent with the earth at its centre.
WS (Winter Solstice)
The sun is placed on an epicycle with the desired eccen-
Fig. 1.7 Solstice and equinoctial positions of the sun tricity as its radius. Now, if the deferent point A moves
uniformly and the epicycle does not rotate, then the sun’s
locus will be another circle with its centre shifted to O′. This
S can be a geometro kinetic model to explain the
non-uniformity of sun’s motion.
It is not difficult to demonstrate that observationally a
deferent–epicycle system will be indistinguishable from a
corresponding heliocentric system. Let P be a planet (for
91˙2º convenience, let it be an outer planet) orbiting the sun, S,
93˙2º
along its circular path 1 (Fig. 1.12).
V A Let E be the position of the earth at the instant. Now, let it
E be assumed that the planet P is on an epicycle 2 of radius
r (the radius of the earth’s orbit) whose centre is at D on a
O deferent 3 with the earth as the centre and R (the radius of
the planet’s orbit around the sun). When the rotational speed
of the planet in its epicycle is same as that of the earth’s
orbital motion and speed of point D along the deferent 3
W around E be the same as the orbital speed of the planet
around the sun, then observationally the result will be same
Fig. 1.8 Hipparchus’s hypothesis of solar motion
to an astronomer on the earth. That is why the deferent–
epicycle system provided a good computational instrument
Hipparchus as discussed in the previous section. However, to the astronomers to both understand and explain the gross
more vexing problems started bothering the astronomers. It features of planetary motions. The position of P in the he-
was observed that the brightness of the planets varied with lioastral plane due to its rotation about the sun with an
time indicating the variation in their distances from the earth. angular velocity will be identical with that if P is assumed to
Worst of all, it was found that except the sun and the moon rotate in the epicycle with angular velocity x the deferent
all planets exhibited retrograde motion. A typical retrograde point orbits the earth with angular velocity X and the earth
motion of mars is shown in Fig. 1.9. rotates about the sun with an angular speed x. The radius of
This posed a severe challenge to the contemporary the epicycle is equal to the radius of the earth’s orbit, and the
Aristotelian physics. The deferent–epicycle system was radius of the deferent is equal to the orbital radius of the
conceived to explain such complex motions using only planet P.
uniform circular motions. As more observational data accumulated, the astronomers
Figure 1.10 shows the basic idea of the theory. The circle needed to continuously adjust their Ptolemaic model. The
with the earth as the centre is called the ‘deferent’. Another most convenient method was to add epicycles over epicycles
smaller circle with its centre on the deferent is called the as shown in Fig. 1.13.
‘epicycle’. The heavenly body under consideration is P and By adding more and more epicycles and adjusting the
rotates uniformly about the centre C. At the same time, the sizes and tinkering with the angular speeds, it was possible
point C moves along the deferent at a uniform speed. to fit any observational data and make reasonably good
8 1 Evolution of Dynamics

Fig. 1.9 A typical retrograde September 1

motion of Mars October 1
April 1 Apparent
path of mars
June 1
Ecliptic
July 1

Fig. 1.10 Deferent–epicycle (a) (b)

system
P
Epicycle
C
A

E E

Deferent
Deferent-epicycle for Path generated by an epicycle
a planet moving on a deferent

predictions. Astronomers after Ptolemy used multiple most of the irregularities in the motions of the heavenly
epicycles sometimes numbering even a dozen minor epicy- objects. Ptolemy introduced a new concept in these
cle to fit the observation of a single planet taking care of all approaches. He suggested that the irregular motion can be
the irregularities in its motion. explained with the help of an ‘equant’.
Hipparchus used the concept of an eccentric to explain Figure 1.15a shows the circular orbit of a planet with the
the irregularities of the motion of the sun (shown in earth as the centre. The planet describes the circular path
Fig. 1.14a). Astronomers did not stop here. They sometimes with a constant angular speed with respect to not its geo-
used an eccentric whose geometric centre O (Fig. 1.14b) metric centre where the earth is located but with respect to
moves on a deferent with the earth as the centre. Sometimes, another point Q which was termed as the ‘equant’. This new
a scheme of using a second eccentric for the motion of the concept added another weapon to the arsenal of the theo-
original eccentric O (Fig. 1.14c) was also proposed. Such retical astronomers. It is not difficult to realize why the
combinations of epicycles and eccentrics lead to immensely equant concept yielded nice results.
complicated geometro kinetic models which could explain Figure 1.15b shows the orbit of a planet around the sun.
As was always assumed in the past, the orbit is circular and
the sun is placed a little away from the centre O. Let SO be
S
equal to e. The equant point E is also at a distance e from the
centre O in the opposite direction on the line of apsides.
e A When h is very small (dh), i.e. when the planet is near A,
S' the following relation can be written

A' 1
ðr þ eÞ  PA ¼ area swept by PS in time dt starting from A
O' 2
e ¼ dA
E
1 1
) dA ¼ ðr þ eÞðPAÞ  ðr þ eÞ  ðr  eÞdh
2 2
Deferent
or


dA 1 2 2 dh r2 e2
¼ ðr  e Þ ¼  x  1  2
dt 2 dt 2 r
Fig. 1.11 Deferent–epicycle alternative model for sun’s motion
1.4 Pre-copernican Astronomy 9

P
2
Ω R
ω
S r
ω
D
r
R
E Ω

Fig. 1.12 Equivalence of heliocentric and geocentric deferent–epicycle model

P
Minor
epicycle

Major
epicycle

Deferent

Fig. 1.13 Ptolemaic system with compounded epicycles

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1.14 a Eccentric, b eccentric on a deferent, c eccentric on an eccentric

10 1 Evolution of Dynamics

(a) (b) X

e θ
S e O A
B E
r

Fig. 1.15 a Concept of equant, b area law and concept of equant

Similarly at B (considering B to be the starting point and these epicycles was nothing but introducing free adjustable
measuring h from line OB) parameters in a theory (as is seen to be not too uncommon a
practice even in modern science).
1
dA ¼ ðr  eÞ  ðr þ eÞdh However, even the ad hoc introduction of epicycles could
2 not resolve some basic difficulties with the Ptolemaic model,
and and as is the practice even these days, such problems were

 pushed under the carpet and ignored. Some of these diffi-
dA r 2 e2 culties are discussed below:
¼ x 1 2
dt 2 r
(a) It was observed that a planet looked brightest whenever
near X it can be proved that it was in opposition to the sun. Figure 1.16 shows the

 relative location of a planet with respect to the earth and
dA r 2 e2
¼ x 1þ 2 the sun. Since the orbital motion of the sun and that of
dt 2 r
the planet do not have any rigid connection, such ob-
Thus, when er2  1, the rate of area sweep remains con-
2 servation was unexplainable. It was recognized that the
variation of the distance of a planet from the earth was
stant if x remains constant (the concept behind the equant).
the main reason for the variation of the apparent
The fixed idea in the minds of the people that heavenly
brightness of a planet. It could not be understood why
objects are made of the fifth element whose natural motion
the distance of the planet will be minimum when the sun
was uniform circular motion as taught by the masters was
the real culprit behind all these seemingly complex
arrangements. It clearly shows how the Aristotelian
mechanics shaped the astronomy in the ancient times. It is
not difficult to imagine how happily an astronomer will retire P
after a lifetime’s hard work resulting in the addition of one
minor epicycle! Unfortunately, for them, there existed not
many attractive prizes or awards for such accomplishments.
S

1.4.3 Problems with Explaining

the Observations with Ptolemaic Model

As mentioned in the previous section, the Ptolemaic model E

could explain the observational results in a broad sense;
using a number of minor epicycles, the model could fit into
the increasingly complex observational data as the accuracy
of naked-eye astronomy improved and the volume of accu-
mulated observational data increased. However, the role of Fig. 1.16 Relative position of a planet with the earth and sun
1.4 Pre-copernican Astronomy 11

(c) Another very uncomfortable feature of the Ptolemaic

system was that all such gigantic bodies were moving
around a void point which did not coincide with the
earth’s centre. It had no physical explanation.

1.4.4 Progress During the Period Between

Ptolemy and Copernicus
E
Contrary to the common belief that no progress was made
during the period between Ptolemy and Copernicus, some
significant activities took place that had a reasonable degree
of influence on the discovery of the inertial dynamics. The
Fig. 1.17 A planet’s nearest position to earth with the sun in gradual decline of the Greek science and astronomy fol-
opposition lowed by the invasion from the Islamic countries in Asia led
to the disappearance of the scientific activities in Europe.
Some of the activities were forced to shift from the
Sun Mediterranean Europe to the northern parts of the continent.
Though the old wisdom in the form of Aristotelian physics
and Ptolemaic astronomy was lost form Europe, the Islamic
civilization preserved a major part of that. During the later
period of the Middle Ages, a resurgent Europe retrieved
Venus most of their old science and astronomy from the Arabs
during the twelfth century. Medieval European scholars
Mercury forged a number of concepts and sowed the seeds of many
doubts about the Aristotelian science that helped the
Copernican revolution and the emergence of modern
science.
Jean Buridan (1295–1358) was one of most reputed sci-
entist and was also the Rector of the Paris University who
played a major role in introducing some new concepts in the
E science of motion. He developed a theory of impetus
according to which if a body was given an impetus it could
Fig. 1.18 Deferents of the sun, mercury and venus in the modified
Ptolemaic model
continue to move when not resisted by air or friction. It was
against the Aristotelian mechanics which required a contin-
ued effort for a body to move. Buridan conceptualized the
was in opposition. So, why a configuration as shown in impetus of a body as the product of its speed and its quantity
Fig. 1.17 is assured could not be understood with the of matter. This may be considered to be the seed from which
help of a Ptolemaic model. the matured concept of momentum was developed by Des-
(b) It was also noticed that the planets mercury and venus cartes and Huygens about three centuries later. Buridan also
always remain within a small angular distance from the suggested that during free fall the weight of a body
sun. In the technical language of astronomy, the elon- impresses equal increments of impetus upon the body in
gation of the inferior planets was limited. This difficulty equal intervals of time. It was the forerunner of Galileo’s
was attempted to be resolved by another ad hoc theory that speed increases linearly with time during free
assumption which tied the deferent of the sun, mercury fall. Buridan’s student Nicole Oresme (1320–1382) argued
and venus together as shown in Fig. 1.18. This addi- in favour of a spinning earth that resulted in the apparent
tional constraint did put further strain on the credibility daily motion of the heavens.
of the geometric model. The original attractive model Studies on motion were also conducted by Oresme in
proposed by Hipparchus lost most of its elegance by Paris, John of Holland and the scientists at Merton College,
then. Oxford, more or less contemporarily. The concept of
12 1 Evolution of Dynamics

Speed, V Ptolemaic models with many epicycles and eccentricities. In

1 this model, also the planets did not go round the sun, but a
Va= (V +V )
2 1 2 void point away from the sun’s centre. However, the model
V2 proposed in the book could explain the retrograde motion of
planets when the sun is in opposition and the limited elon-
Va gation of the inferior planets in a very natural way without
introducing any artificial ad hoc conditions. Another major
V1 Equal areas difference in the basic characteristics of the Ptolemaic and
Copernican models is that in the Copernican model the
motions and orbits of all the planets got linked. Even then
the difficulties were enormous. In the absence of the concept
Time, T
of inertial motion (the first law of motion), people had
Fig. 1.19 Oresmes’ geometrical proof of the Merton College rule extreme difficulty in understanding how a vertically thrown
particle returns its original starting point. So, although De
Revolutionibus was not a revolutionary book, it started the
uniform motion in which an object traverses equal space in process. According to Kuhn, ‘The significance of the De
equal intervals of time was developed. Furthermore, we also Revolutionibus lies less in what it says itself than what it
notice that the rudiments of uniformly accelerated motion caused others to say’.
were also developed. It was shown that the distance tra- It will be interesting to note first the natural occurrences
versed by a uniformly accelerated body during a period will of the retrograde motion of planets and the characteristic
be the same as that traversed by the mean speed (average of limited elongation of venus and mercury.
the initial and the final speeds). Oresme proved this theorem Figure 1.20 shows the sun, the earth and a superior pla-
(first developed at Merton College) geometrically as shown net, viz. mars. As the earth has a much faster motion than
in Fig. 1.19. that of the mars, the corresponding positions of the two
Oresme had the vision to assume the area under the planets in their orbits will be somewhat as indicated.
V − T curve represents the distance travelled. Thus, it is seen Examining the lines of sight from different positions of the
that the works done by Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo did earth, the path traced by mars in the backdrop of the fixed
not take place in vacuum. A reasonable degree of maturity stars will be as shown. The natural occurrence of the
and some early concepts of the science of motion did grow apparent retrograde motion is very clear from the diagram. It
during the thirteenth and fourteenth century in northern should be noted at this point that the retrograde motion in
Europe. Ptolemaic epicycle based model in real, whereas the retro-
grade nature of mars’ motion in the heliocentric model is not
a real retrograde motion of the planet mars. The retrograde
1.5 Copernican Model: Rediscovery motion of venus and mercury can be also explained with this
of the Heliocentric Theory model in a similar manner.
Though Ptolemaic model cannot explain the occurrence
Even in the Hellenistic period in Greece, quite a few eminent
of retrograde motion only when the sun is in opposition in a
astronomers never felt very comfortable with the Aristotle’s heliocentric model, this observation is easily understood.
idea of a geocentric universe. Most notable was the
A planet will also be at its brightest during retrograde motion
hypothesis by Aristarchus (310–230 BC) that the earth spins
as the distance from the earth will be the smallest as shown
around its own axis producing the relative diurnal motion of in Fig. 1.20.
the heavens and a yearly orbital motion around the sun. It
The other major advantage of a heliocentric model is the
has been discussed earlier in this text why such a proposal
observed limited elongation of venus and mercury. Fig-
was rejected by the philosophers and astronomers.
ure 1.21 shows the sun and the orbits of the planets earth,
The popular belief that Copernicus proposed a simple
venus, mercury.
heliocentric model of the universe that could explain the
It is clear from the diagram that from any position on the
observations is, strictly speaking, not correct. Copernicus’
earth’s orbit the maximum elongation of venus and mercury
book ‘De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium’ published in    
1543 had very strong resemblance with the writings of will be sin1 RRVE and sin1 RRME where RE, RV and RM are
ancient and medieval astronomers. The model presented by the radii of the orbits of earth, venus and mercury, respec-
Copernicus was, in fact, as complex as the modified tively. Because of the limited elongation, venus is seen at
1.5 Copernican Model: Rediscovery of the Heliocentric Theory 13

Fig. 1.20 Appearance of retrograde motion of Mars

heliacal rising and heliacal setting positions. In Ptolemaic

model, one needs to artificially tie up the deferent of the sun,
venus and mercury which mess up the aesthetic beauty of the
ßV model.
Sun As mentioned earlier, in the Copernican system the sizes
RE
of the orbits of various planets were no longer independent
ßM Earth
and adjustable. All the orbits’ radii could be expressed in
terms of the radius of the earth’s orbit. From Fig. 1.22, it is
Mercury seen that if RE and RV be the radii of the earth and venus’
Venus orbit and bV be the maximum elongation for the planet
venus, then RV = RE sin bV.
Though a heliocentric model explains the observed
Fig. 1.21 Maximum elongation of venus and mercury
characteristics of the planets’ motion and their variations in
brightness, the real grounds for Copernicus’ belief in a
spinning earth orbiting around the sun were different. He
argued that as the earth is spherical its spinning motion is
RV natural to it. He received psychological justification for an
orbital motion also because of the earth’s spherical shape.
RE ßV
This demonstrated how ignorant the scientists had been
E about the science of motion (Fig. 1.23).
Sun V Figure 1.24 shows the fundamental difference between
Ptolemaic and Copernican schemes. In both cases, the
orbiting objects moved around some void points in space
and not about material objects. So there was no possibility to
Fig. 1.22 Size of venus’ orbit guess that either the earth or the sun had anything to do with
the motions of the orbiting bodies. Their motions had to be
taken as natural motion. So the Aristotelian physics contin-
ued to play important roles even in the Copernican system.
E'
Apart from this, the Copernican model also looks as com-
plicated and artificial as the Ptolemaic system. The motion of
P' the earth, in Copernican model, was explained with the help
of a scheme depicted in Fig. 1.25.
P
The earth moves in a circle with its centre at CE which
E moves about a point C in a circle. The point C in turn rotates
S
about the sun S in a circle. In case of other planets also
equally complex mechanisms involving epicycles and def-
erents were devised. Therefore, one can call Copernicus as
either the first modern astronomer or the last astronomer of
Fig. 1.23 Determination of orbital radius for superior planets the Aristotelian era.
14 1 Evolution of Dynamics

Fig. 1.24 Fundamental Earth

difference between Ptolemaic and Sun
Copernican schemes

E
Sun

E tremendous energy and motivation led to the development of

a huge bank of observational data with an accuracy that was
almost an order of magnitude better than that of the tradi-
C tional data. He was also very fortunate to observe a super-
nova in 1572 that appeared as a new star in the constellation
CE of Cassiopeia. After systematic and careful observations
over a year, he decided that there was no parallax of the new
S star placing it far beyond the spheres of the planets. When it
faded away after a few years, it was the first time when doubt
arose against the ‘incorruptible’ nature of the fifth element
that constituted the heavenly objects. All these prepared the
ground for emergence of new science and rejection of the
old science. It was also a great coincidence that he invited
Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) to work as his assistant and
Fig. 1.25 Explanation of the earth’s motion in Copernican model Kepler was, perhaps secretly, a devoted Copernican. It was
also, perhaps, a still more important coincidence the Tycho
Brahe died a very early, and untimely, death and all his
1.6 Tycho Brahe: Improvement in Accuracy excellent and accurate observational results fell in the hands
for Naked-Eye Astronomy of Kepler. What it resulted into will be seen in the next
section. Though Tycho Brahe’s cosmology and astronomical
It is said that new concepts in science emerge when the model had no importance in the development of new sci-
accuracy of observation improves by an order of magnitude. ence, it is without doubt that without his invaluable accurate
The science of motion could not have been discovered observations the so-called Copernican revolution would
without Tycho Brahe’s phenomenal improvement in have not been possible.
naked-eye astronomy. As the primary objective of the sci-
entists is to explain observational phenomena with the help
of theories, no motivation for either modifying or rejecting a 1.7 Kepler: Beginning of Modern Astronomy
scientific theory can be felt if the existing theories can and Foundation of Science of Motion
explain the observations. Or, in other words, if the predic-
tions by a theory agree with the observational or experi- Normally, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) is given the credit
mental results, there is no reason not to accept the theory as for discovering the three laws of planetary motion. But in
correct. In this sense, Tycho Brahe’s contribution to the reality, Kepler’s contributions go far beyond transforming
evolution of physical science and astronomy should be astronomy from a mystical medieval subject to an exact
treated as very significant if not critical. Tycho Brahe (1546– mathematical and physical science. He laid down the foun-
1601), though played a revolutionary role in bringing many dation for the modern science of motion by introducing a
innovations to observational astronomy that improved the number of important concepts in the subject we call today
accuracy to about 1′–2′ of arc (in traditional observation, the ‘dynamics’. The primary aim of this section is to present the
accuracy was rarely better than 10′ of arc), was a lifelong evolutionary thought processes and some transitory concepts
opponent of the Copernican concept of a heliocentric model that later matured in the form of laws of motion. However, it
in which earth moved. Instead, he proposed his own will be desirable to start from his work on the motion of
Tychonic system in which the sun moved around the earth planets which played the pivotal role in exposing the hidden
and the planets moved about the sun. Thus, Brahe’s secrets of dynamics.
1.7 Kepler: Beginning of Modern Astronomy and Foundation of Science of Motion 15

1.7.1 Discovery of the Laws of Planetary Motion

Typically, it is suggested that Kepler found the planets to VA

describe elliptic orbits with the sun at a focus. In reality, the
process of discovering this important fact of celestial S
P A
mechanics was far more complex than popularly perceived. Sun
Though the role of determining mars’ positions by triangu- Lines of apsides
lation was very important, the area law which was proposed
by Kepler before finding the elliptic nature of the orbits
VP
played an equally if not more important role. It must be
emphasized at the very beginning that all the laws could be
discovered only because Kepler was unable to match only 8′ Fig. 1.26 Velocities of a planetal perihelion and aphelion positions
of arc in the martian orbit with theoretical predictions using
only systems of perfect circles for geometric description of
planetary motions. In fact, the difference between the pre- first to propose the concept of orbits. He found out from
dictions of the models and actual observations in old observations the nodal points of the orbits at which they
astronomy was most often below the detectable levels. Only crossed the plane of the ecliptic (i.e. the plane of the earth’s
with the drastically improved data, acquired by Tycho orbit around the sun) and found that the planets return to
Brahe’s superior astronomical observations, the discrepancy their respective nodes at fixed periods. Kepler was also able
could be detected. Even then most astronomers would have, to find out the inclinations made by the various orbital planes
perhaps, ignored this mismatch of 8′ arc in the martian orbit. with the plane of the ecliptic. He noticed that all the orbital
But for a strange reason, Kepler felt deep inside him that planes contain one common object—the sun. He also found
something far more fundamental reason exists for this error. that the apsidal lines of all the planets’ orbits pass through
Thus, it is also a matter of lucky coincidence that the planet the sun. However, Kepler continued to assume that all the
mars has an eccentricity of its orbit that is small but planetary orbits were eccentric circles. Thus, to begin with,
significant. Kepler assumed all planets to move in perfect circles with
Kepler was a Copernican believing in a heliostatic2 sys- their lines of apsides passing through the sun. He was of the
tem of the universe. But all the models were just geometric impression that a perfect representation of the motion of all
descriptions of the motions. There was no ‘cause’ for such planets was possible by means of exact circles and Ptolemaic
movements. This disturbed Kepler deeply; he felt very equants. Kepler realized that while going along the orbit a
strongly that there must be a reason for the orbital motions. planet can sense only the distance from the sun. This
He noticed that a huge object like the sun is not occupying directed him to describe the motion with the sun’s distance
the centre and the centre point was a void point in space! from the planet to control the motion. Of course, he was still
Psychologically, it was very disturbing to Kepler, and he felt considering a circular orbit but with ‘non-uniform’ motion.
that the sun must be the prime mover for all the planets’ His belief became a firm conviction when he noticed that the
motions. In modern language, his arguments can be worded planets’ speeds at the apsidal positions (Fig. 1.26) were
as follows: inversely proportional to the distance from the sun.
Thus, he found that VVAP ¼ SPSA, and he concluded that the
• Why do all planets move around a void point which planet’s speed is inversely proportional to the distance from
happened to be the centre of the earth’s orbit? the sun. Such a law looked natural to him as he thought that
• As the sun, a huge body, is always very near to the centre larger distance will weaken the sun’s driving influence,
of the earth’s orbit (called the mean sun) should not sun hence lower speed. Of course, we now know this to be
influence the planets to move as they do? Thus, should wrong, but this was the forerunner for the famous area law
not these orbits be most simply described in a system of which Kepler arrived at through a mixture of guesswork,
coordinates with the sun at the origin? intuition and serendipity. In an attempt to find out the time
required for a planet to traverse a finite distance, through a
Kepler first established that the planets move on orbits complex argument, Kepler suggested that the rate at which
which are fixed in helioastral space. Actually, Kepler was the area is described by the radius vector remained approxi-
mately constant. Noting the fact that a planet moves fastest
when closest to the sun led Kepler to believe in a distance
law according to which the speed of the planet to be
2
The orbits were not really ‘heliocentric’ as the centres of the circles did
not coincide with the sun. But as the sun was not an orbiting object, inversely proportional to its instantaneous distance from the
such models should be more appropriately termed as ‘heliostatic’. sun. To test this hypothesis, Kepler had to determine the
16 1 Evolution of Dynamics

P AB is the apsidal line of a planetary orbit (still considered

to be a circle with centre O), and S is the position of the
eccentrically located sun at a distance e from the centre. To
r 180 determine the time t the planet takes to reach point P starting
B A from A, it is necessary to find out the area of the segment
S O
ASP. Assuming the orbital period to be 2p and the orbit
R radius to be unity, the rate at which area is swept k, is given
by

p  12 1
Fig. 1.27 Emergence of the area of law k¼ ¼
2p 2
Thus, time to reach P from A
P
t ¼ Area of ASP=k ¼ 2  Area of ASP
Now,
θ
B A Area of ASP ¼ Area of AOP þ Area of OSP
S e O Q
h 1
¼  p  12 þ  e  PQ
2p 2
1 1 1
¼ h þ  e  PQ ¼ ðh þ e sin hÞ
2 2 2

Fig. 1.28 Derivation of Kepler’s equation from area law Hence, t = h + e sinh
This equation is known as Kepler’s equation. Kepler
time taken by a planet to reach a certain point in the orbit. knew that this equation did not have a simple solution.
Kepler divided the first half of the orbit from aphelion3 A to Only much later, Kepler discovered that in reality his ‘area
perihelion B in 180 equal segments. Each segment was pR/ law’ was exact and his favourite distance law was an
180 as indicated in Fig. 1.27. approximation. He realized that the ‘area law’ was an
For each segment, Kepler found out the current distance empirically exact result, but, of course, he tried in vain to find
r from the sun and assumed that the time taken by the planet out a physical significance through his favourite ‘distance
to cover this distance, Dt, is proportional to r. The constant law’. This empirical rule eliminated the need incorporating
of proportionality was normalized to make the total time the concept of Ptolemaic equant. Finally, Kepler concen-
required to cover the whole distance from A to B, equal to trated his efforts to arrive at an exact description of the orbit
half the orbital period which was well known. While going of mars for which Tycho Brahe accumulated the most
through this extremely laborious exercise, it occurred to him accurate and extensive observational data. One must recog-
that all the instantaneous distances (which were in fact nize the tremendous difficulty of the problem. In Einstein’s
infinite in number) are contained in the area of the segment. words ‘If the planets moved uniformly in circles round the
Thus, he considered the area swept by a line joining the sun, it would have been comparatively easy to discover how
planet and the sun to be proportional to the time taken to their movements must look from the earth. Since, however,
traverse the corresponding segment. Of course, noticing the the phenomena to be dealt with were much more complicated
fact that the area law can be derived from the distance law than that, the task was a far harder one. To grasp how difficult
(which according to Kepler was exact) only when the line a business it was even to find out the actual rotating move-
joining the planet to the sun is at right angles to the ments, one has to realize the following. One can never see
instantaneous velocity of the planet (i.e. at A and B only), he where a planet really is at any given moment, but only in
treated his area law to be an approximate rule! Much later, what direction it can be seen just then from the earth, which is
he realized that the area law was exact. Kepler could show itself moving in an unknown manner round the sun. The
that the area law leads to predictions on planetary motion difficulties thus seemed practically in surmountable. Kepler
which were in closer agreement with the observations than had to discover a way of bringing order into this chaos. To
those based upon the concept of an equant. Thus, the fol- start with he saw that it was necessary to try and find out
lowing scheme was developed by him (Fig. 1.28). about the motion of the earth itself’.
Determination of the earth’s orbit was a masterstroke of
theoretical astronomy by Kepler. But Kepler had to follow a
very torturous route. He struggled with the idea of a circular
The terms ‘aphelion’ and ‘perihelion’ were introduced by Kepler.
3
1.7 Kepler: Beginning of Modern Astronomy and Foundation of Science of Motion 17

E2 E2
E3
90°
E1 M2
θ M2'
o
S S
E1

M M1'
E4

Fig. 1.30 Triangulation for determination of Mars’s orbit

Fig. 1.29 Triangulation procedure for determining the earth’s orbit

Kepler’s all attempts to apply the area law to find out
orbit and his area law. Unfortunately, the predicted positions mars’s orbit (assuming it to be a circle) failed. He then
of Mars still showed errors up to 8′ of arc. As he used a large attempted direct triangulation to determine the orbit. The
number of acronychal4 observations, it was possible for him method can be represented in Fig. 1.30.
to develop a theory of martian motion which yielded the The orbit of the earth is determined, and the position of
martian longitudes almost correctly but not the positions on earth at anytime can be located on its orbit. In the initial
the orbits. Kepler called this theory as ‘vicarious hypothesis’ position, the sun, earth and mars are in one line as repre-
and used it for martian longitudes (as seen from the sun sented by the line SE1 (mars’s position is not known; only
because during acronychal observations the sun, earth and the direction is known). As the earth rotates at a faster rate
mars are in one line). Kepler next determined the orbit of the around the sun than mars, it reaches a point E2 so that
earth in helioastral space. The orbital period of mars was \SE2 M20 ¼ 90 , M2 being the corresponding new position of
known to be 687 days. Thus, Kepler assumed that mars must mars (location still unknown but the direction is known). If
return to the same position in the helioastral space after the time elapsed during the motion of the earth during this
every 687 days. So, observations of mars’s position were period is noted, \E1 SE2 can be determined from the known
recorded at an interval of 687 days; this makes the sun–mars motion of the earth. Similarly, \M1 SM20 , through which
line fixed in space. From the model of mars’s motion, Kepler mars rotates during the same period, can be also determined
developed based on the assumption of a circular orbit, and from the vicarious hypothesis Kepler developed. Now
using the acronychal observation,1 very accurate longitudes
could be estimated though the distances had errors. The \M20 SE2 ¼ \M10 SE2  \M20 SM10 ¼ h
observations gave the directions for both mars and the sun as With this value of h, the location of planet mars at the
seen from the earth. From the vicarious hypothesis, the sun– instant, M2, is determined. Kepler found out three such
mars line SM is determined (Fig. 1.29). positions and the circular orbit containing these three points.
Then, knowing the directions of the sun and the mars on When he repeated the process a number of times, he found a
three occasion (at the interval of 687 days), the positions of new circle each time. With utter frustration, Kepler had to
the earth with respect to the fixed sun–mars direction are come to the conclusion that the orbit cannot be a circular
found out as E1, E2 and E3 by drawing the triangles with SM one. This discovery led him to assume the orbit to be an
as the base. Assuming the earth’s orbit to be circular, it can ovoid.6 Taking a non-circular geometry to be involved in
be drawn using a fourth point E4 and it can be further ver- planetary motion was unheard of, and this step by Kepler
ified if all the four points lie on the same circle. Luckily for was truly revolutionary. But he found working with an ovoid
Kepler, earth’s orbit has very little eccentricity and he could orbit for applying his area law was very difficult. Then, by a
establish the earth’s orbit.5 stroke of luck and extreme case of serendipity, Kepler
attempted to approximate the ovoid by an ellipse. He drew
an auxiliary circle with line of apsides of mars as the
4
Acronychal observation means observation of a planet when it is in diameter and inscribed an ellipse with the line of apsides as
opposition; i.e., the planet, the earth and the sun are in one straight line.
The acronychal longitudes are the longitude of a planet with the
observer on either the earth or the sun.
5
Kepler found that the sun was shifted from the centre of the earth’s 6
It is surprising to note that ‘ellipse’ came to the picture at the end of
orbit by a very small amount. So it was only 1.8% of the orbit radius. Kepler’s massive calculations and analyses.
18 1 Evolution of Dynamics

P' longitude as seen from the sun was known. Dropping a

perpendicular onto the line of apsides, the location of P could
P be determined as the intersection of PN with the line SP with
\ASP known. With one point P determined, the whole
W ellipse is known and position of the planet can be found out at
any time. Thus, Kepler’s first law was discovered. Contrary
V to popular belief, the second law was discovered (in a
θ serendipitous manner, of course) first and, actually, played a
e
B A very vital role in discovering the first law, i.e. the planets
S O N U
move in elliptic paths. Kepler also soon discovered that the
Line of apsides sun is at the foci of all the elliptic orbits of the planets. This,
of course further convinced Kepler that the sun must be
driving all the planets in their respective orbits.
Kepler discovered the third law that the orbital periods
Fig. 1.31 Application of area law to an elliptic orbit
were proportional to the 3/2 power of the respective mean
distances from the sun, about a decade after he completed his
the major axis (Fig. 1.31). He could use his area law by
work on the first and the second laws. To begin with, he still
applying a result obtained by Archimedes for elliptic curves.
continued with his erroneous concept that the driving force
Let P be a point on the ellipse and PN be normal to the
due to the sun decreases as 1/r where ‘r’ is the distance from
major axis. When NP is extended, it cuts the auxiliary circle
the sun. He justified saying that as the purpose of this force
at point P′. Then, the property of an ellipse yields that the
is to drive the planets in their orbits the influence spreads
ratio of the lengths P′P/PN to be constant. The area of the
only in the orbital plane and strength does not decrease as
elliptic segment APN is equal to the sum of the elemental
1/r2. With a further proposal that orbital speed is directly
areas shown. Thus, the elemental areas constituting the cir-
proportional to the driving force, Kepler proposed the ratio
cular segment AP′N and the elliptic segment APN will be in
of the periods of two planets 1 and 2 to be related as follows
proportion of the lengths of the elemental areas UW/UV,
(in modern language):
which remains constant for a particular ellipse. So,

2
P0 N T2 r2
0
Area AP N=Area APN ¼ ¼ k ða constantÞ ¼
PN T1 r1

Now, the areas of the two triangles SP′N and SPN are also However, Kepler worked on the basis of increment of
of the same proportion. period where one transfers from orbit 1 to orbit 2. One can
get it from the above relation as follows (again in modern
P0 N mathematical language):
Area SP0 N=Area SPN ¼ ¼k
PN The increase in time period for going from 1 to 2 is
Hence, DTð¼ T2  T1 Þ. Thus,

2

Area SP0 A=Area SPA DT T2 r2 r1 þ Dr 2
¼ 1¼ 1 ¼ 1
¼ ðArea SP0 N þ Area AP0 NÞ=ðArea SPN þ Area APNÞ T1 T1 r r1

12
2Dr Dr
¼k ¼ þ
r1 r1
Thus, Kepler could determine the point P after a time where Dr is the increase in orbital radius for going from orbit
t (starting from position A) using his area law. It should be 1 to 2. Kepler by mistake took
remembered that both the line of apsides for mars and the
position of the sun on this line were well determined DT 2Dr
¼
beforehand by Kepler. Now, for a given t, he could solve T1 r1
Kepler’s equation.  2  32
The two errors, taking TT21 ¼ rr21 instead of TT21 ¼ rr21
t ¼ h þ e sin h  2
and taking DT
T1 ¼ 2Dr
r1 instead of DT
T1 ¼ 2Dr
r1 þ Dr
r1 had a
to find out h and through this the location of point P′. If t be
the time for achronycal observation, then the martian mutual cancellation effect. Kepler was, therefore, initially
1.7 Kepler: Beginning of Modern Astronomy and Foundation of Science of Motion 19

encouraged by this chance agreement of observation with Planet

theory, though approximately. However, with more careful Planet
analysis of the observational results, Kepler finally arrived at Sun
the correct form of his third law.

r
1.7.2 Transition from Geometric to Physical
Model Fig. 1.32 Scheme of ‘anima mortix’

It has been demonstrated how Kepler transformed the very

basic foundation of astronomy. Even till the time of time, he also suggested that all matter has the inherent ten-
Copernicus, the planetary motions were described in terms dency to remain at rest. Concept of inertia of rest was, thus,
of the so-called natural motion of the heavenly objects. first suggested by Kepler, and the word ‘inertia’ was also
Thus, the models of the universe were based on the com- first coined by him. Unfortunately, Kepler was unable to
bination of uniform circular motions. All the motions were discover the subtle way in which force interacts with matter
basically geometrical in nature, and there was no concept of through ‘acceleration’; he followed the mediaeval science in
cause and effect phenomenon. Of course, it is suspected that relating force to speed. Using modern methodology, his
many astronomers of the antiquity considered the models as force law can be written as F / v.
computing machines only for the purpose of describing the He used this law to explain how a rotating sun can move
planetary motions. the planets in their respective orbits. He considered forces to
Kepler was the first who introduced the concept that the emanate from the body of the sun like spokes in a bicycle
planets are being driven by the sun. He also brought in the wheel which produces azimuthal force on a planet causing it
idea that the planets move in their respective paths fixed in to rotate around the sun. He gave a name of this entity
the helioastral space—i.e. the concept of orbit was born. It is coming out of the sun—‘anima mortix’. He also assumed
noticed that throughout his work on arriving at a correct this force to expand radially in the plane containing the
description of the planetary motions Kepler constantly orbits of the planets. Thus, according to Kepler, this force
emphasized that the sun is behind the motions of the planets was inversely proportional to the distance. Figure 1.32
and these motions can be described with the help of a cause shows his scheme of ‘anima mortix’.
and effect relation. He established that all the orbital planes Kepler even estimated a possible rate at which the sun
and the apsidal lines pass through the sun. Finally, once he should rotate for the observed orbital motion of the planets.
was able to show that the planets move in elliptic orbits, it When, subsequently, Galileo observed the rotation of the sun
was shown that the sun is at the foci of all these elliptic and the rotational speed matched the prediction, Kepler was
orbits. ecstatic and happy.
His distance law, that later changed to the area law, was This phenomenon of ‘action-at-a-distance’, that causes
based on a physical model in which the sun’s distance the planetary motions under the influence of the sun, was
played an important role. This concept ultimately gave birth considered as an occult phenomenon and rejected by most
to the third law. For the first time in the history of the contemporary scientists including Galileo. Kepler’s sug-
astronomy, the whole solar system got bound by a common gestion that the tidal phenomena were caused by the gravi-
rule and became physically related. tational influence of the moon was also summarily rejected
by Galileo. Kepler proposed his concept of this kind of force
acting through void space after Gilbert published his work
1.7.3 Early Concept of Action-at-a-Distance on magnetism. It was demonstrated that magnets can interact
and Gravitation, and the Concept of Force and generate force without physical contact. When Gilbert
demonstrated earth to be a magnet, Kepler developed a
Kepler’s work not only transformed astronomy from its scheme to explain the planetary motions considering the sun
ancient structure to that belonging to the modern era, but he and the planets to be magnets.
was the first since Aristotle who attempted to develop a new While working on his ideas about how physically sepa-
dynamical scheme. Though he was unsuccessful in his rate bodies can interact, Kepler came quite close to the
attempts, according to many researchers in the history of concept of gravitation. Of course, without any concept of
science, he came quite close to many basic aspects of composition of accelerated motions with inertial uniform
Newtonian mechanics. He completely rejected any concept motions and dependence of acceleration on force rather than
of natural motion and forwarded the suggestion that all velocity, he could not make any useful contribution. Kepler
motions are caused by some entity like force. At the same made the following statement about gravity in his book
20 1 Evolution of Dynamics

Astronomia Nova ‘Gravity is a mutual propensity between revolutionary contributions that supplied the required
like bodies to unite or come together… so that the earth ammunition to destroy the old science.
draws to stone to it much rather than the stone seeks the As this book has been dealing with astronomical concepts
earth… If two stones were to be placed anywhere in the and ideas, this section of Chap. 2 is being developed to the
world outside the range of influence of a third similar body, astronomical discoveries made by Galileo.
then each stone, like two magnetic bodies, would come
together at an intermediate point, each stone travelling
towards the other a distance proportional to the bulk of the 1.8.1 Observation of the Moon and Discarding
other’. the Concept of Fifth Element
It is quite clear from the passage that Kepler was very
close to the truth. Perhaps, another point that strikes all is an Johannes Kepler sent a copy of his first book ‘Mysterium
anticipation of Newton’s third law of motion. Kepler’s all Cosmographicum’ in 1597 to Galileo. This book showed
attempts to quantitatively explain his laws of planetary that the orbits of planets in the Copernican model of the
motion from the dynamics he developed failed. Like all universe followed a harmony and showed that the corre-
astronomers before him, who spent lifetimes in observing sponding spheres are circumscribed by the five regular
near circular motions of the heavenly objects, he could solids. Galileo thanked Kepler and confessed that though he
hardly dream that the foundation of dynamics lies in the believed in Copernican theory he could not publish it for the
‘uniform rectilinear motion’. But Kepler sowed the seeds of fear of losing professional reputation and credibility. In the
many original and useful ideas which provided useful clues subsequent letter, Kepler requested Galileo to publicly sup-
to the subsequent generation of scientists. port Copernicanism. In the same letter, he enquired whether
Galileo had any astronomical equipment for measuring star
positions with an accuracy of a thousand of a degree; with
1.8 Galileo: Naked Eye to Telescopic that, stellar parallax could be measured providing irrefutable
Astronomy proof for the orbital motion of the earth.
It has been found again and again that nothing goes waste
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) was born in 1564. His father in life. Galileo’s father died in 1591 and Galileo became the
Vincenzio Galilei was a cloth merchant but also an expert on head of an extended family. He had to support his mother
music. Galileo spent his early student years in a monastery, and three siblings and had to arrange for substantial amounts
and in 1581, his father got him admitted to the University of for the dowry to get his two sisters married. Each time the
Pisa to study medicine. (In those years, even in academics dowry amounts were about twice his annual salary as a
medicine was considered a superior subject compared to professor of mathematics. Over and above, he had his own
mathematics and the salary of medicine professor was about family with three children and a mistress to take care.
six times that of a mathematics professor.) Galileo shifted to Therefore, Galileo had to run a parallel business of making
mathematics and physics finding little interest in medicine, and supplying precision instruments of various kinds, and
particularly the way it used to be taught then. business was good. This gave Galileo a reputation in pre-
Galileo made his scientific contribution to both the sci- cision instrument making. His capability in designing and
ence of terrestrial motions and astronomy. Both brought making precision instruments was essential for his telescopic
revolutionary changes to physics. Furthermore, he was the discoveries.
first to bring the concept of scientific demonstration and In 1592, Galileo had to leave the University of Pisa and
experiment to compare the actual outcome with the mathe- joined a better post at the University of Padua near Venice.
matical prediction. In this sense, Galileo can be considered As Venetian society was much more liberal and tolerant, he
as the father of modern science. found many like-minded scholars and an appreciating
Galileo started his work on the science of motion during intellectual environment. Such an environment was ideal for
his first posting at Pisa. He observed the motion of pendu- continuing his investigations on science of motion. At
lums and considered the problem of free fall of bodies; Padua, he heard from his friend in 1609 that an unknown
however, he was Aristotelian in his outlook though quite Dutch spectacle maker claimed to have invented an optical
critical of many of his teachings. He studied Copernicus’s device that could make faraway objects nearby. The matter
De Revolutionibus but was still not converted to drew Galileo’s attention when he was told by his friend that
Copernicanism. a foreign merchant had approached the Venetian Senate for
His work with telescope and profound discoveries started selling a crude ‘spyglass’ at a substantial price. Such a
much later—towards the end of 1609. Later, he again device was considered very useful to Venice for military
returned to the study of terrestrial motions and made specific purpose. Knowing Galileo’s ability to make precision
1.8 Galileo: Naked Eye to Telescopic Astronomy 21

instruments, the senate told him to make a better spyglass. constellation Orion (with many more stars compared to as
Thinking that a considerably improved spyglass could make seen with naked eye) is shown in Fig. 1.33b.
his business prospects much better, Galileo discovered the
basic principle of spyglass using his knowledge in optics;
after a considerable number of trial and error, finally Galileo 1.8.2 Discovery of Jupiter’s Moons and its
succeeded in developing a spyglass with power ‘9’. He led Implications
the Venetian Senate to the top of the tower at San Marco for
a demonstration. Galileo presented the spyglass to the senate With the improved version of the telescope, Galileo could
as a gift and received a good rise in his salary. Later, he also observe four moons10 of Jupiter. He was amazed to see
travelled to Tuscany and presented a similar spyglass to the this mini solar system, and its significance was enormous.
ruler. Towards the end of 1609, Galileo could develop One major objection of the scientists to a moving earth was
spyglass with power twenty and even thirty! These devices7 that how moon could then not be left behind. Galileo
he turned to the heavens to observe the moon and other demonstrated by actual observation that planet Jupiter could
objects in January 1610. With this astronomy entered a new move (about the earth as a centre as proposed by the old
era leaving a two-millennia legacy of naked-eye astronomy. geocentric theory) carrying not one but four moons along
The results were astounding and soon demolished many with it. So earth could move without leaving behind one
old concepts. It also provided new evidence in favour of the moon. Thus, another major hurdle could be overcome
Copernican hypothesis. It was quite natural that when towards establishing the sun-centred model of the universe.
Galileo turned his telescope to the heaven the first object he Subsequently, Galileo also observed that the planet
studied was the moon. He saw the craters, mountains and the Saturn has two ear-like bulges, but he failed to understand
valleys. Measuring the shadow of the hills, he did even that this was a ring around the planet.
estimate the heights of many mountains. He announced that
moon was made of earth-like material and its illumination
was due to sunlight. He, by such observation, announced 1.8.3 Discovery of the Phases of Venus:
that the moon (and other planets as well) was not composed A Further Proof of Heliocentric Model
with any ‘fifth element’ as was suggested in Aristotelian
science; instead, they are made of ordinary materials found With the naked eye, the planet venus looks like any other
on the earth. They shone like stars not because they radiated planet, the major difference being that it is always seen either
their own light but because of the sunlight reflected by these in the evening western sky or morning eastern sky (implying
bodies.8 This was a major conceptual revolution that that venus always remains within a definite angular distance
demolished the idea of uniform circular motion as the natural from the sun), and it is much brighter than other planets.
motion of the heavenly bodies.9 This also brought the When Galileo observed venus with his telescope, he saw that
necessity of a cause of the motion of the planets and like the moon venus also passes through various phases. The
Kepler’s suggestion of the sun being the driver became more characteristics observed supported a heliocentric model
plausible. This was one step forward in establishing the proposed by Copernicus. This is explained with the help of
heliocentric theory proposed by Copernicus and perfected by Fig. 1.34.
Kepler. Figure 1.33a shows a copy of Galileo’s sketch of the In case of a geocentric model, the relative configuration
moon as seen through his telescope. of the earth, the sun and venus is shown in Fig. 1.34a. If sun
He also noticed that the Milky Way consists of a very and venus go round a stationary earth as shown in
large number of stars. Galileo’s sketch of the sky near the Fig. 1.34a, point A moves in a circle. Furthermore, E, A and
S (the sun) must always remain on a line as the angular
distance between the sun and venus is always within a limit.
For four successive positions of the planet 1, 2, 3 and 4, the
7
In 1611, Galileo visited Rome and the local academy arranged a shape of the illuminated part of venus will appear as shown
banquet in his honour: on a hillside just outside Rome. During this in the figure. On the other hand, if both the earth and venus
banquet, one of the mathematician guests, Giovanni Demisiani, go round a stationary sun (as shown in Fig. 1.34b), the shape
announced a name for Galileo’s device. By combining two words
of the illuminated part of venus will change in a manner as
‘tele’ (meaning ‘distant’) and ‘skopeo’ (meaning ‘to took’), he
pronounced that Galileo’s device be given the name ‘Telescope’.
8
It is very interesting to note that though this phenomenon got revealed
10
to the European astronomers only about four centuries ago, astronomers Later, Galileo proposed these moons orbiting the planet Jupiter to be
of ancient India were aware of this fact. used as a clock from different far off places for solving the longitude
9
It is also very interesting that in ancient India it was known that the determination problem. While observing eclipse of these moons by
earth rotates about its axis and that causes the sun to rise in the east and Jupiter for this purpose, Römer first found that light travels with a finite
sets in the west. speed and estimated its approximate magnitude.
22 1 Evolution of Dynamics

Fig. 1.33 a Moon as seen

through Galileo’s telescope,
b sketch of the stars near Orion’s
belt as drawn by Galileo

(a) (b)

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
S
3 2
V
3 2 V V

V S
Fixed
A

V 4 V
4 1 1
V V
E
E Fixed

Fig. 1.34 Phases of venus and the model of the universe

shown in this figure. The observation supported the pattern discoveries he made brought his work and name to limelight.
with sun as fixed, and therefore, the universe is This helped him in gaining scientific respectability in spite of
heliocentric.11 the wrath of the Catholic Church. His work on motion could
Of course, this could not completely demolish the geo- not have gained popularity and quick acceptance without his
centric model. The required clinching direct evidence was reputation earned through the astronomical discoveries.
the detection of the parallax of stars at 6 months’ interval
(when the earth is at diametrically opposite positions in its
orbit and at a distance of 2 AU). Unfortunately, even the 1.9 Galileo: Experimental Mechanics
nearest star is too far off for the detection of the extremely
small parallax with Galileo’s telescope.12 Galileo argued the According to most scientists, Galileo can be considered to be
absence of any stellar parallax by suggesting the distance of the first modern scientist. The four most important person-
the stars to be enormously large. alities of science in the medieval period can be easily clas-
The astronomical observation by Galileo (from 1609 to sified into four different categories. If we consider
1612) with the help of his telescope could not completely Copernicus as a philosopher, Tycho Brahe as an observer,
demolish the geocentric model, but the new startling Kepler as a mathematician, then Galileo can be described as
a physicist. He was the first to suggest that the nature follows
11
strict mathematical rules and these rules can be discovered
It should be remembered that the model proposed by Tycho Brahe by observation and experimentation supported by logical
also satisfied the actual observation.
12
The first stellar parallax was detected almost two centuries later by thinking. Galileo had serious doubt about the Aristotelian
Bessel for 61 Cygnus 0′ 31″, by Henderson for a 0′. scientific thoughts as many of the old and established
1.9 Galileo: Experimental Mechanics 23

theories (like heavier bodies fall faster in proportion to their Galileo at the Merton College, Oxford, and little later by
weights) as he conducted experiments and the results did not Nicole Oresme at Paris. At Merton College, work on
agree with the old theory. He was definitely the major force studying the matter of accelerated change was carried out
in demolishing the old science and strove throughout his life during the period 1328–1350. It was not restricted to only
to establish a new one. He was enormously successful in the ‘change of position’ (or motion) but any change. The
analysing kinematic problems but could not make any pro- ‘instantaneous’ rate of change used to be termed as the
gress in the matter of creating a new dynamics. Perhaps, he ‘intensity’ of the rate of change, and the total change used to
still could not shake off some old concepts like ‘natural be termed as the ‘quantity’ of change. When applied to the
motion’, and the matter of force and motion relationship subject kinematics, the results relate to the case of uniformly
remained undisclosed to him. He, in fact, did not like accelerated motions. The important and fundamental kine-
Kepler’s hypothesis of force causing motion of objects, and matic theorem (that became known as the ‘Merton Rule’)
he totally rejected any idea of a force exerted by a body on can be described as follows (see also Sect. 1.4.4).
another from a distance (like gravity).13 So, he did brilliantly If a particle starts from rest and is uniformly accelerated
in unravelling the kinematics of motion and creating a solid at the rate ‘a’ for a time T, after a time T/2 the speed of the
foundation for one of the legs of ‘mechanics’ to rest. But the particle will be given by the following rule
development of ‘dynamics’ had to wait for another half a

century. As mentioned by Cohen very nicely ‘Galileo was T aT
V ¼
the last tenant of the old science. Like all tenants he com- 2 2
plained and grumbled but never left the old premise’. The The Merton Rule suggests that the total displacement of
list of his major contributions in mechanics can be described the particle in time T will be equal to the distance travelled
in the following manner: by a particle in time T when moving with a constant speed
 
equal to V T2 .14
(i) Discovery of the law of inertia of motion and the
Galilean relativity among all inertial frames.
(ii) Study of free fall and motion under constant
1.9.2 Galileo’s Work on Free Fall and Uniformly
acceleration.
Accelerated Motion
(iii) Compound motion and projectiles.
(iv) Work on pendulum.
One of the major difficulties in studying the kinematics of
free fall and uniformly accelerated motion was the absence
Apart from the above, Galileo did a considerable amount
of an accurate time measurement device. Galileo overcame
of pioneering work on hydrostatics, strength of materials and
this hurdle by an extremely ingenious way. He started his
scaling laws. As the true secret of dynamics could be
study using objects rolling down inclined planes. How he
unravelled through ‘acceleration’ and not ‘speed of motion’,
came to this idea has been suggested by Stillman Drake in
Galileo could not achieve the breakthrough, but his
the following statement in his book ‘Galileo’ published by
pioneering move to establish the mathematical rules for the
Oxford University Press in 1980. ‘It was probably the long
behaviour of nature led to the development of ‘dynamics’.
and heavy pendulum that Galileo used in 1602 which called
According to Barbour, ‘It was in this mathematization of
his attention to the importance of acceleration in downward
empiricism that Galileo laid such secure foundation for
motion, and to the continuation of motion once acquired,
dynamics’.
things that soon led him to an entirely new basis for his
science of motion which replaced his earlier causal reason-
ing’. This substantial reduction of acceleration due to gravity
1.9.1 Early Works on Accelerated Change:
and his use of musical notes for timekeeping made it pos-
Merton School
sible for him to discover the law of free fall and its associated
phenomena.
Normally, Galileo is given the full credit for studying
In 1604, Galileo constructed a long incline of about 2 m
accelerated motions. However, study of accelerated changes,
length. The inclination to the horizontal was only 1.7°.
i.e. not only accelerated motions (change of position) but
A heavy bronze ball was made to roll down this inclined
any type of change, was started almost three centuries before
plane. Then, he placed small frets on the incline so that

13
It is rather surprising that Galileo disbelieved any action-at-a-distance
14
concept though by then magnetic attraction was an experimentally As can be easily seen that this rule is the forerunner of the modern
verified fact. results used universally, v = at and s = ½ at2.
24 1 Evolution of Dynamics

s1
s2
s3 C
s4
90º
1.7º θ

Fig. 1.35 Galileo experiment with incline plane

whenever the ball passes over a fret a small sound can be θ

heard. The arrangement is schematically shown in Fig. 1.35.
Galileo arranged the spacing of the frets so that the
ticking sounds were at equal interval of time (managed by B
singing a musical tune). He then measured the increasing
distances s1, s2, s3 … as shown in Fig. 1.35. Like many Fig. 1.36 Derivation of Galileo’s theorem
before him, Galileo was also used to think that under con-
stant acceleration the speed increases in proportion to the
Figure 1.36 shows a particle at location A, and it is
distance travelled.15 When he measured the distances of the
dropped from rest. It falls freely and reaches point B after
frets taking the distance covered in the first interval as unity
time t. Next, a circle is constructed with AB as its diameter.
s1 ¼ 1 Now, if the particle is allowed to slide from A freely along an
inclined plane making an angle h with horizontal, then
s2 ¼ 3
Galileo’s theorem states that the time taken by the particle to
s3 ¼ 5 slide down along the incline to point C, the point of inter-
s4 ¼ 7 section of the incline with the circle, is the same as that taken
by the particle to fall freely to point B.16 We all know that
From these, he found that the total distance travelled
Galileo at his young age noticed a swinging Chandelier in
increased as follows
the Pisan Cathedral and discovered the time period to be
sð1Þ ¼ 1 ¼ 12 independent of the amplitude of oscillation. He used his
above theorem to prove the observational results as
sð2Þ ¼ ðs2 þ s1 Þ ¼ 4 ¼ 22 explained below. If the pendulum OC be long and the
sð3Þ ¼ ðs3 þ s2 þ s1 Þ ¼ 9 ¼ 32 amplitude of swing (represented by the arc CB) be small,
sð4Þ ¼ ðs4 þ s3 þ s2 þ s1 Þ ¼ 16 ¼ 42 then the arc CB may be almost indistinguishable from the
chord CB. Thus, the motion of the bob may be considered to
Hence, the distance travelled is proportional to the square be same as that of a sliding particle along an incline CB.
of the time. So if a be the constant acceleration, using Comparing Fig. 1.37 with an inverted version of Fig. 1.36
Merton Rule and applying Galileo’s theorem, it can be seen that the time
for the bob to reach point B is same as the time taken by a
sðtÞ ¼ 1=2 a t2 particle falling freely from A to B which is a constant
Thus, Galileo proved through experiment that motion in quantity and remains independent of the location of point
an incline plane is with constant acceleration. C (near B).
He conducted further tests with free fall of objects by He extended his study of fall along an incline with the
measuring the time it takes to hit the ground when dropped following postulate:
from a given height. For measuring time using a kind of I assume that the degree of speed acquired by the same move-
water clock, he showed that free-falling objects also follow a able over different inclinations of planes are equal whenever the
constant acceleration, i.e. the acceleration due to gravity. heights of those planes are equal.
Galileo also developed a theorem connecting the above two
phenomena.

16
To any modern school student, this is obvious. The acceleration along
15
In fact it was a serious question before Galileo demonstrated that the the incline is g sin ffi h, and the time t to cover the distance
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi AC is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
dependence was on time (i.e. v = at). Logical thinking that leads to this 2  AC=g sin h. But AC/g sin h = AB. Hence, t ¼ 2  AB=g
conclusion is that if v / s then it cannot start from rest when s = 0. that is equal to the time for the particle to fall freely to B.
1.9 Galileo: Experimental Mechanics 25

C D
B

Fig. 1.37 Constancy of time period of long pendulums

(a) (b)
1

2
h
3
1' 2' 3'
I I
1 2 3

Fig. 1.38 a Independence of speed acquired for sliding along different inclines with same height, b Pendulums rise to the same original level
from where they start

Figure 1.38a shows the situation. For three different if we place it at rest, it will remain at rest, and given an
inclines, the speed a particle acquires on reaching the level impetus in any direction, it will move in that direction,
I-I remains same as the height ‘h’ remains unchanged. maintaining always the same speed that it shall have
Galileo also proposed that the bob of a swinging pendulum received from our hand and having no action to increase or
always reaches the original level from where is started as diminish this, there being neither rise nor drop in that plane’.
shown in Fig. 1.38b. (In the modern language, this demon- However, in Galileo’s scheme, the whole proposition is
strates the conversion of gravitational potential energy to with respect to the earth and the continuity of motion was
kinetic energy and vice versa.) implied to be parallel to the earth’s surface, i.e. along a
circle. Thus, the true spirit of the most fundamental of the
laws of motion is absent in his thought process. He con-
1.9.3 Discovery of the Law of Inertia of Motion sidered his all laws of mechanics strictly with reference to
in Its Primitive Form the terrestrial surface. Galileo mentioned quite emphatically
that the scheme of a horizontal plane is valid only locally. In
While studying the pendulum motion, Galileo did have the reality, the eternal motion will be along a circle around the
glimpse of the tendency of the bob to continue in its motion earth.
after reaching the lowermost position. This did strike Gali-
leo’s thinking, and the persistent nature of motion was
revealed to him. Subsequently, Galileo arrived at a crude 1.9.4 Laws of Compound Motion: Projectiles
form of the first law of motion—law of inertia of motion.
The excerpt from Galileo’s book given below demonstrates One of the most significant contributions to the development
that he had arrived at a rudimentary idea of the law of inertia. of the science of motion made by Galileo was the devel-
He describes what ‘happens to a heavy and perfectly round opment of the method to describe compound motion.
moveable placed on a very smooth plane’. In his own words A compound motion consists of two independent and
‘If the plane were not inclined, but horizontal, then this simultaneous primordial motions. Galileo employed the
round solid placed on it would do whatever we wish; that is, technique used by the Greeks. It was known that if a point
26 1 Evolution of Dynamics

A B

C D

Fig. 1.39 Composition of two uniform motions

(a) (b)
1 A
2
3
gsinβ

g
3' 2' 1'
β

Fig. 1.40 a Experiment on law of inertia, b projectile experiment on an inclined plane

Fig. 1.41 Orbital motion as a P hit the floor should be proportional to the horizontal velocity
compound motion A' acquired depending on the height of the decent. Galileo also
A used his inclined plane technique for studying projectile
B'
motion. It is indicated in Fig. 1.40b.
B
The reason for better accuracy was, again, the reduced
C C' component of the acceleration due to gravity along the plane.
On the fourth day, Galileo states in Proposition 1, Theo-
S rem 1 ‘when a projectile is carried in motion compounded
from equable horizontal and from naturally accelerated down
ward, it describes a semi-parabolic line in its movement’.
This work on compound motion by Galileo was extre-
mely important as all planetary motions were later described
as a compound motion consisting of an inertial motion and a
moves uniformly along a straight road AB (from A to B) and continuous free fall towards the centre of attraction.
the rod is moved uniformly in a direction different from the Figure 1.41 explains the situation. An orbiting object at
line AB (Fig. 1.39), say along AC, then the point’s resultant P moves to Aʹ due to inertial motion but due to attraction
motion will be along the diagonal AD. towards the centre of attraction S falls to position A. Then, it
According to Drake, the discovery of the theory behind continues due to inertia to reach Bʹ but free fall towards
projectile motion was a by-product of Galileo’s experiment S brings it to position B and the process continues.
to verify the law of inertia of motion. Scientists and philosophers before Galileo also treated
Galileo allowed a smooth heavy ball to slide down an projectile problems for study. Unfortunately, their studies
incline of known height acquiring a definite speed (de- were purely qualitative in nature. Though they knew that
pending on the height of decent). The ball is then allowed to projectiles follow curved paths they failed to notice any
drop to the floor below (Fig. 1.40a). Galileo considered the general pattern in those. Decomposition of motions into their
motion of the ball (after it leaves the table surface) to be basic elements which follow specific rules independently
composed of a uniform horizontal (inertial) motion and a was a major breakthrough for the development of the science
vertical free fall motion. The distances of the point the balls of motion.
1.9 Galileo: Experimental Mechanics 27

1.9.5 Galilean Relativity its vertical straight path. He finds that the ball drops to a point
at the base of the mast, the amount of forward motion of the
One of the major objectives Galileo pursued was to establish ball being the same as that of the mast base during the period
Copernican theory on firm scientific ground. One of the very of fall. However, to an observer standing on the coast, the ball
natural and obvious objections to any suggestion of the daily will appear to take the path of a projectile and describe a
rotation and the orbital motion of the earth was the complete semi-parabolic path. At this point it is interesting to note that
absence of any sensory feeling and terrestrial observational17 more than a thousand years before Galileo, Aryabhata I
effects. The usual common sense told people that if the earth suggested the same principle giving the example of motions
is a moving body then a stone dropped from the top of a of objects on a moving boat in his famous book Aryabhatyam.
tower should not fall at the base of the tower but a distance He did it to support his proposition for a spinning earth.
away opposite to the direction of motion of the earth at that Figure 1.42 explains the phenomena. The ship is moving
location. Since the earth rotates once in every 24 h and the towards right with a constant speed V, and the observer B is
earth’s equatorial circumference is about 24,000 miles, the standing on the deck. There is another observer A standing
speed of the earth’s surface in the tropical region (due to its on a fixed jetty. If the cannon ball takes a time t to reach the
daily rotation only) is about 1000 miles/h! It is a large speed, deck of the ship, the ship (and everything else attached to it)
and the effect should be very noticeable. moves a distance Vt towards right (Fig. 1.42a) and the path
Galileo was the first to give explanation for the absence of of the ball is a semi-parabolic. This is because of the reason
any effect of the earth’s motions on the objects moving on or that when the ball started its decent it had a horizontal speed
near the earth’s surface. In the process, he discovered one of V (that it acquired at the start of the journey being a part of
the most profound scientific principles what Einstein termed ship moving with a speed V). Observer A will notice this
as ‘Galilean Relativity’. Galileo correctly mentioned that all curved path, but to the observer B at every instant of time the
objects on the earth share the same ‘natural motion’ of the horizontal displacement of the ball will be equal to that of
earth and therefore cannot be noticed. He gave an extremely observer B. Hence, B cannot see any relative movement of
interesting example to clarify the statement. He suggests the the ball in the horizontal direction. This study also reveals
readers to consider an artist sitting on the deck of a ship as it the significance of the concept of a frame of reference.
sails from Venice to Aleppo and drawing a picture. Next, he Galileo described very correctly that if one shuts himself in a
asks the reader to imagine the true path of the tip of the completely closed cabin in a ship he cannot decide whether
artist’s pen as observed by an observer in one of the two the ship is sailing (in a calm sea) or not by observing all
cities. He suggests that it will be a long line from Venice to kinds of phenomena happening inside the cabin. It will be
Aleppo with imperceptible deviations. But the picture drawn seen later how the application of Galilean relativity can help
does not reveal any trace of the actual motion of the vessel. in discovering new principles of mechanics.
Thus, Galileo observes ‘Motion, in so far as it is and acts as
motion, to that extent exists relatively to things that lack it;
and among things which all share equally in any motion; it 1.10 Collapse of the Old Science
does not act, and is as if it did not exist’.
Galileo gives the example of a cannon ball dropped from Galileo’s telescopic observations and his pioneering role in
the tip of a mast of a ship sailing in the sea.18 He mentions bringing experimental observation and verification of theory
clearly that when a ball is dropped from the mast top the ball brought destruction to the most antique concepts in science.
already has the motion of the ship. So when it makes its Kepler’s mathematical genius and work leading to the
downward journey, it continues to move with the ship in the establishing of the idea that an object can influence another
forward direction while accelerating down due to gravity. body’s motion from a distance without any physical contact
Thus, to an observer on the ship, who is also moving along paved the way for Newton to carry out the final grand
with the ship, there is no sign of any deviation of the ball from synthesis leading to a matured science ‘mechanics’. The
most important of these was the elimination of the age-old
idea of ‘natural motion’ and ‘violent motion’. Kepler
17
18
Foucolt’s pendulum was too far in the future. brought the idea of ‘force’ in a rudimentary form. He also
In the seventeenth century, it was a common belief that such a cannon
brought the strict mathematical regularity obeyed by the
ball does not chop at the root of the mast but drops at a point somewhat
behind the base at distance opposite to the direction of motion of the solar system, and how the geometric and temporal aspects of
ship. This belief was so much firmly ingrained in the minds of the the planetary system could link together was first unravelled
people that nobody ever thought of verifying it by conducting an actual by Kepler. Even today, one is awed to recognize the
observational test. In fact, the absence of any tendency of objects being
incomprehensible combination of utmost dedication and
left behind a moving earth’s surface (when an object leaves physical
contact with ground) was used by the people against a moving earth unparalleled drudgery Kepler’s scientific life was composed
theory as a clinching evidence in favour of a geocentric model. of! The seed of future success in discovering the mystery of
28 1 Evolution of Dynamics

V
B
Vt

Vt

Fig. 1.42 Principle of Galilean relativity

the solar system was hidden in Kepler’s concept of inter- seventeenth century that any attempts to explain the uni-
action between the sun and planet, and the theory of com- versal phenomena were bound to be trivial and wrong.
pound motion as proposed by Galileo as the clue to the
success was hidden in the understanding that all planetary
motions are composed of inertial motion and a free fall to the 1.11.1 Law of Inertia of Motion
sun.
However, the deepest mystery of dynamics is hidden in The fundamental difference between the approaches fol-
the fact that it is acceleration which plays the central role in lowed by Galileo and Descartes was Galileo wanted to study
the ‘force and motion’ type of causal relationship. It was and analyse individual phenomenon related to motion,
beyond the capacity of both Kepler and Galileo to untangle whereas Descartes took a holistic approach. Unlike Galileo,
this mystery. But Galileo helped to divert the attention of the he proposed to establish the basic physics of the whole
scientists from the heaven to the motions occurring on the universe. He believed that the same laws of physics are valid
terrestrial surface. It was important. The terrestrial experi- for the whole universe. This was a revolutionary idea at that
ments have the advantage that a scientist can repeat such time which can hardly be appreciated nowadays. The idea of
experiments with different initial and boundary conditions. this universality of the laws of science came to him as he
On the contrary, the heavenly motions are unique and eter- was building up a physics of the universe to explain all the
nal. They can be observed but cannot be changed by altering observed phenomena. He considered that the two basic
the conditions. This shift of focus from the heaven to the properties of all matter were ‘extension’ and ‘motion’.
terrestrial motions helped the scientists and the philosophers According to his physics, God provided the ‘primordial’
to uncover the deeper layers of the science of motion using motion to all material at the time of creation that could be
better time measuring techniques and breaking free from the only transferred from one body to another through interac-
tradition of ‘received wisdom’. Galileo also sowed the way tions and collisions but could not be annihilated. This, per-
how sometimes thought experiments help to deduce valuable haps, was the first concept of a conservation law which later
hypotheses through ‘hypothetico-deductive’ method. got developed into very important fundamental principle of
mechanics. This concept of ‘indestructibility’ of motion gave
rise to the preliminary idea of ‘inertia of motion’. The
1.11 Descartes: Beginning of Inertial Science long-standing puzzling question of old science—‘what
keeps a thrown body to continue in its motion when the
It has been mentioned earlier that Galileo was the last link contact with the thrower is no more there?’—was reversed
with the old science. He, undoubtedly, laid the stepping by Descartes. He suggested—‘we should ask simply, why
stones towards the new science but failed to take the nec- the body should not continue to move forever’. He also
essary steps out of the old premise. The required necessary investigated the sling extensively. He observed that ‘when
impetus to break away from the Aristotelian physics came one whirls a stone in a sling, not only does it go straight out
from Rene Descartes (1596–1650). Though his contribution as soon as it leaves the sling, it presses in the middle of the
in mathematics, introduction of coordinate (or analytical) sling and causes the cord to stretch. It clearly shows thereby
geometry, is well recognized, his contribution to the evolu- that it always has an inclination to go in a straight line and
tionary process of the science of motion has remained that it goes around only under constraint’. The language is
somewhat obscured. It is, perhaps, due to the fact that his very clear, and the principle is almost indistinguishable from
important work on dynamics was much entangled with his the modern version of the first law of motion. One should
‘physics of the universe’ that is unimpressive to most notice the fundamental difference between the understanding
modern readers of science and obviously very wrong. The of the law of inertia by Galileo and that by Descartes,
knowledge about the universe was so meagre in the early whereas Galileo’s whole premise was the surface of the earth
1.11 Descartes: Beginning of Inertial Science 29

dynamics was hidden in the uniform rectilinear motion as such

motion was never observed either on the earth or in the heaven.

O
1.11.2 Collision Problems and Early Concept
of Momentum Conservation

Descartes proposed that the primordial motions imparted by

A
the God got transferred from one body to another and
transformed from one type to another through collisions.
Fig. 1.43 Law of inertia from a sling Thus, it became absolutely essential for him to propose laws
that are followed by such events. The emergence of the
where a gravitational field exists; Descartes’ law is irre- conservation principle and the concept of an entity like
spective of any particular situation and is in the form of a ‘quantity of motion’ were also inevitable in the process.
true universal law. Figure 1.43 shows the motion of a stone Descartes assumed the quantity of motion to be a product
when the string of a sling in motion breaks. of the speed and volume of an object. He did not have any
That Descartes’ concept of inertia was much matured can concept of ‘mass’ of an object. He assigned initial speeds of
be judged by the three laws of nature he proposed in his the colliding bodies 1 and 2 as u1 and u2 and the volumes of
book ‘The World’. He proposed in his first rule the concept the bodies being b1 and b2. Given these quantities, the
of inertia of rest as shown below19: problem was how to predict the speeds after the impact, v1
and v2. As his basic fundamental principle was based on the
The first is that each individual part of matter always continues conjecture that motion cannot be destroyed, he could write
to remain in the same state unless collision with others forces it
one relation as shown below:
to change that state.

His second rule was as follows: b1 u1 þ b2 u2 ¼ b1 v1 þ b2 v2

I suppose as a second rule that, when one of these bodies pur- Though the above relation is correct when the directions
chase another, it cannot give the other any motion except by of all the motions are same in a direct straight-line collision
losing as much of its own at the same time; nor can it take away and the material of all objects is the same, it is not valid in a
from the other body’s motion unless its own is increased by as
much. This rule, joined to the preceding, agrees quite well with
general sense. But the other necessary condition to deter-
all experiences in which we see one body begin or ease to move mine the post-collision speeds could not be established by
because it is pushed or stopped by other. Descartes. Instead, he proposed six more ad hoc rules for
finding the speeds. The solutions from these rules lead to
In this rule, one can easily identify the rudimentary form
confusing and contradictory results.
of the conservation principle. Descartes’ third rule is given in
the following form:
I will add as a third rule that, when a body is moving, even if its 1.11.3 Descartes’ Concept of Motion
motion most often takes place along a curved line and can never
take place along any line that is not in some way circular,
nevertheless each of its individual parts tends always to continue
In the old science, all motions were found to be observed
its motion along a straight line. And thus their action, i.e. the with reference to the earth that was at a fixed centre of the
inclination they have to move, is different from their motion. universe. Thus, philosophically, the concept of motion posed
no serious problem. After the dethronement of the earth from
So, the most fundamental principle in dynamics is
a fixed position at the centre of the universe, ‘motion’
expressed with no ambiguity, and the foundation of the inertial
became a problematic idea. Descartes was actually aware of
science of motion is laid down.20 Nowadays, it is, almost,
the serious difficulty as one can find from his following
incomprehensible to all students of science how difficult the
statement:
task was. No one before could imagine that the mystery of
Furthermore, if we think that the earth moves, and travels from
West towards the East exactly as far as the ship progress from
the East towards the West; we shall once again say that the
19
Descartes’, Rene ‘Le Monde’ (1664); ‘The World: Le Monde’ person seated in the stern does not change his place; because of
Translation by M. S. Mahoney, Abaris Books, New York (1979). course we shall determine his place by certain supposedly
20
Though Descartes’ book ‘Principles of Philosophy’ was very motionless points in the heavens. Finally, if we think that no
influential at that time, a correct formulation of the law of inertia was truly motionless points of this kind are found in the universe; as
published just before him by Pierre Gassendi. Unfortunately, he did not will later be shown to be probable; then, from that, we shall
receive the kind of recognition that he deserved.
30 1 Evolution of Dynamics

conclude that nothing has an enduring place, except in so far as were first shown by him. He framed the Principle of Rela-
its place is determined in our minds. tivity of motion observed from different inertial frames, and
Thus, it is seen that Descartes had the preliminary idea using these along with some symmetry principles, he arrived
about the relative nature of motion. The main contribution, at many conclusions resembling Einstein’s work. According
therefore, in the development of dynamics was to delink it to Barbor, ‘De Motu Corporum is a pre-run of the 1905
completely from the old science. Descartes was also the first paper that created special relativity’. Even the principle of
to conceive that the laws of nature were valid everywhere in equivalence, that states the indistinguishability between
the universe. This was a revolutionary idea that time. In fact, inertial and gravitational forces locally, was conjectured by
this helped him to dissociate the inertial property of matter Huygens. It is this basic principle on which Einstein con-
from its location and presented it in the form of a universal structed his General Theory of Relativity. Though somewhat
law and not just a particular type of behaviour of objects unrelated, his work on optics was also of phenomenal
being experimented with on the surface of the earth. His importance and he formulated the wavefront principle. It
concept of quantity of motion as the product of the volume looks really strange that the students of mechanics do hardly
of an object and its speed was obviously erroneous, but it get a chance to appreciate Huygens and all the limelight is
should be remembered that for a new concept in funda- taken away by Newton. As Barbor mentions, ‘… many of
mental science to gain maturity, thinking and experimenting the formulas and results that students of dynamics must learn
by generations of great scientists are essential. In that sense, when they begin the subject were discovered by Galileo and
Descartes’ work on collisions led to the beginning of the Huygens before Newton published the Principle in 1687’.
concept of momentum and the corresponding conservation
principle. Unfortunately, for him, his attempt to develop a
physics of the universe was too early and led to erroneous 1.12.1 Theory of Collision and Conservation
results, but in the process gave birth to the very important of Momentum
concepts in the science of motion.
To begin with Huygens reaffirmed Descartes’ law of inertia
of motion in a more succinct form as given below:
When once a body has been set in motion, it will, if nothing
1.12 Huygens: Breakthrough opposes it, continue the motion with the same speed in a straight
in the Discovery of Dynamics line.

Christiaan Huygens (1629–1695) was one of the brilliant However, for tackling the problem of collision of two
scientists of the seventeenth century, and his contributions to bodies, his second proposition was another important con-
the development of the science of motion were of prime cept which first germinated in the mind of Galileo—the
importance. Looking at most books on mechanics and principle of Galilean relativity, but Huygens framed it in a
physics, it is amazing to note how his contributions are very modern language. He mentions21 very clearly that ‘…
disastrously underestimated. He was a close friend and fol- when two bodies collide but have in addition a further
lower of Descartes. He also believed that all phenomena of common uniform motion, they impart to each other impulses
mechanics could be understood by a process of interaction that, viewed by one that also partakes in the common uni-
based upon physical contact. His attitude, inherited from form motion, are exactly the same as if the uniform motion
Descartes (and also Galileo), prevented him from accepting common to all were not present’. Huygens used very modern
the idea of an attractive gravitational force. As a result, he approach of relativity according to which he describes the
could not accomplish the synthesis of the science of celestial same event, collision of two bodies, as seen by the observer
and terrestrial mechanics that was finally done by Newton. of a boat where the experiment is conducted and also by
Huygens had the scientific talent to bring together all the another observer standing still on the bank.
elements of dynamics for the grand synthesis. His results Figure 1.44 shows a collision experiment conducted by
were published properly after his death, and by then, Newton one standing on a boat moving with a uniform speed v0
had already published his magnum opus—‘The Principia’. towards right. Let the conductor of the boat experiment be
Besides making revolutionary breakthroughs in the sci- called A. A brings the balls (identical) by moving his hands.
ence of motion, Huygens was a brilliant inventor and his Let the right hand be moved at speed u1 and the left hand be
invention of pendulum clocks made the progress in science moved at speed u2, so that u1 > u2. Thus, the balls 1 and 2
possible. In a way, his work on the invention of clocks can collide moving at speeds u1 and u2, respectively, as observed
be compared to that of Galileo for the telescope.
The seeds of the theory of relativity, that brought revo- 21
J. Barbor—‘Absolute or Relative Motion’, Cambridge University
lution in scientific thinking after more than two centuries, Press, 1989.
1.12 Huygens: Breakthrough in the Discovery of Dynamics 31

A B Huygens used this result with his centre of gravity law for
having a complete solution for the collision problem. Huy-
gens earlier showed that if through a mechanical phe-
nomenon involving gravity the centre of gravity of a system
1 2
of bodies could be raised it could lead to the development of
a perpetual motion machine; i.e., work could be done
without any input energy. Since from the antiquity it was not
ν0
considered possible, Huygens suggested that at best the
heights of the centre of gravity before and after the
Fig. 1.44 Collision experiment as thought of by Huygens mechanical process could be same. Huygens did not have

Fig. 1.45 Huygens’ thought 1 2

experiment on the centre of
gravity of two bodies
h2
2
h1
1 H
H h2
h1

by A. As observed by B, standing still on the bank, balls 1 Newton’s concept of mass but what he did was far superior
and 2 move with speed u1 + v0 and u2 + v0. Speed towards to Descartes’ concept of quantity of matter. He considered
right in Fig. 1.44 is considered to be positive. If A observes weight of a body to present the quantity of matter it contains.
the collision and finds the post-collision speeds of 1 and 2 to If one considers the acceleration due to gravity, g, to be a
be v1 and v2 (+ve or –ve depending on their directions), constant on the surface of the earth, then weight is propor-
observer B will find the post-collision speeds to be v1 + v0 tional to mass.
and v2 + v0, obviously. Next come the ingenuity of Huygens So, instead of using the sign w for mass, m can be used to
and the demonstration of the basic Principle of Relativity. match with the modern convention. It was also shown by
Observer B, standing on the bank, conducts a separate Galileo that the speed, u, gained by a body after a free fall
experiment with spheres 1ʹ and 2ʹ, identical to 1 and 2, by through a height ‘h’ is given by
moving them with speeds u1 + v0 and u2 + v0. It is a dif- pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ferent physical experiment, but if the two experiments are u ¼ 2gh ð1:12:1Þ
conducted simultaneously at adjacent locations the balls will
He also showed that when the body again goes up it can
appear to move together before experiment. Huygens asks
reach up to height h. Now, let two bodies 1 and 2 of masses
‘what should be the post-collision speeds of spheres 1ʹ and
m1 and m2 are allowed to fall from original heights of the
2ʹ?’ Since the motions before the collision were identical in
two bodies h1 and h2. They come down and collide at the
the two experiments, observer B cannot distinguish between
location P at speeds u1 and u2, and reversing their directions
their movements after the collision also and those will be
starts climbing with speeds v1 and v2, reaching the final
v1 + v0 and v2 + v0.22 Thus, if a collision can be described as
heights
h1 and
h2 , respectively, as shown in Fig. 1.45.23
u 1 ; u2 ! v 1 ; v 2 So, at the start of the mechanical process, the height of the
centre of gravity is
then any experiment with initial speeds u1 + v0 and u2 + v0
should yield the resulting speeds as v1 + v0 and v2 + v2.

23
One need not bother to find out if they reach their respective
maximum heights simultaneously or not when they are dropped
22
The observer B could then go on to the boat and conduct the simultaneously. Once a body reaches the maximum height it can be
experiment with pre-collision speeds u1 + v0 and u2 + v0, and the result locked at that position and wait for the other to reaches its topmost
will be same (i.e. post-collision speeds v1 + v0, v2 + v0). location.
32 1 Evolution of Dynamics

m1 h1 þ m2 h2 two impacting bodies approach before collision is the same

H¼ ð1:12:2aÞ
m1 þ m2 with which the two bodies separate after the collision. Thus,
The final height of the centre of gravity at the end of the the actual physical happenings at the point of contact depend
mechanical process is given by only on the relative velocity.

¼ m1 h1 þ m2 h2
H ð1:12:2bÞ
m1 þ m2 1.12.2 Kinematics of Circular Motion
Huygens stated that when the collision was elastic
and ‘Centrifugal Force’

¼H
H ð1:12:2cÞ Study of motion related to rotation was a very important
activity during the seventeenth century and eighteenth cen-
Using (1.12.1) in (1.12.2a) and (1.12.2b) tury. It was extremely relevant to the concept of a rotating
earth. A major objection to the earth’s rotation was that if the
m1 u21 þ m2 u22
¼ m1 v1 þ m2 v2
2 2
H¼ ¼H earth is spinning about its axis once every 24 h all objects on
2gðm1 þ m2 Þ 2gðm1 þ m2 Þ
its surface, those were not rigidly attached to the earth,
Hence should be flung away. It was observed that when a wet wheel
spins at high speed water particles fly away from the rim
m1 u21 þ m2 u22 ¼ m1 v21 þ m2 v22 ð1:12:3Þ along tangential directions. Galileo suggested that the
gravity is stronger than the tendency that tries to throw away
So this quantity (known as twice the kinetic energy in
the objects. The question of this tendency of objects on
modern language) is conserved in all elastic collisions. It has
rotating bodies was also a serious topic taken up by
been shown earlier in this section that if the pre-collision
Copernicus. In Descartes’ works ‘The World’ and ‘The
speeds of these bodies be u1 + v0 and u2 + v0 the
Principles of Philosophy’, this subject takes a significant
post-collision speeds have to be v1 + v0 and v2 + v0.
part. He attempted to explain the terrestrial gravity with an
According to (1.12.3), one gets
idea of a kind of centrifuge effect of the cosmic vortex.
m1 ðu1 þ v0 Þ2 þ m2 ðu2 þ v0 Þ2 ¼ m1 ðv1 þ v0 Þ2 þ m2 ðv2 þ v0 Þ2 Huygens’ main idea, to begin with, was to follow Des-
cartes along the line showed by him. This led him to
investigate the motion of rotating objects. The term ‘cen-
or,
trifugal force’ was first used by Huygens in his paper ‘De Vi
m1 u21 þ m1 v20 þ 2m1 u1 v0 þ m2 u22 þ m2 v20 þ 2m2 u2 v0 Centrifuga’, and he proposed a number of theorems related
to, what is called today, centripetal acceleration. He was the
¼ m1 v21 þ m1 v20 þ 2m1 v1 v0 þ m2 v22 þ m2 v20 þ 2m2 v2 v0
first to correctly determine the magnitude of centripetal
Using (1.12.3) in the above relation, one gets acceleration.
In his first theorem, Huygens proposed on the subject, he
m1 u1 þ m2 u2 ¼ m1 v1 þ m2 v2 ð1:12:4Þ proves that the centripetal acceleration24 was proportional to
the radius ‘r’ when the speed of rotation remains constant. In
This is the correct form of Descartes’ conservation of
his original form, the statement is as follows25:
quantity of motion relation. Equations (1.12.3) and (1.12.4)
can be used to solve elastic collision problems of any two If two equal bodies pass around unequal circles in equal times
bodies. Huygens proposed in 1669 three fundamental laws the ratio of the centrifugal force on the larger circle to that on the
smaller is equal to the ratio of the circumferences, or the
of nature related to science of motion. diameters.

(i) Momentum conservation Figure 1.46 shows the situation as depicted in Huygens’
(ii) Kinetic energy conservation in no loss interactions, work. If a particle moves along the larger circle and starts at
(iii) The centre of gravity law mentioned above. the point A after a time t, it comes to the point P. But if the
particle gets detached from the rotating body at A according
Huygens should be considered to be the pioneer in to Descartes and Huygens, it should move uniformly along
effectively using the Principle of Relativity and proposing
the correct momentum conservation law. His energy con-
servation principle became very important at a later stage. 24
In fact used ‘centrifugal force’ as a measure of the acceleration. He
Before the section on Huygens’ work on elastic collision already came to the great revolutionary idea that force and acceleration
problem is closed, it should be mentioned that he emphati- are proportional. The next section will take up the topic in details.
25
cally stated many times that the relative speed with which Barbor, J.—‘Absolute or Relative Motion’, Cambridge University
Press, page 491.
1.12 Huygens: Breakthrough in the Discovery of Dynamics 33

Fig. 1.46 Dependence of P" P' A 1 AP002

centripetal acceleration on radius PP00  ð1:12:7aÞ
P 2 OA
Q' B
Q" Similarly
Q
1 BQ002
O QQ00  ð1:12:7bÞ
2 OB
From the above two relations

2

PP00 AP00 OB
 ð1:12:8Þ
QQ00 BQ00 OA
Combining (1.12.5a), (1.12.5b), (1.12.6) and (1.12.8),
0
c in time
the tangent and reach the point P′ (so that AP ¼ AP) one gets
t. If AP′ is extended and the radius OP is also extended, they aA PP00 AO
intersect at the point P″. Now, for very small values of t (i.e. ¼ ¼ ð1:12:9Þ
aB QQ00 BO
when the phenomenon is restricted to the immediate vicinity
of A), AP′  AP″ and PP′ curve will be indistinguishable Hence, centripetal acceleration is
from the line PP″. Huygens conceived that the point reaches
the location P, instead of the location P″ (P′) because of a / r ð1:12:10Þ
acceleration, aA, directed towards the centre. He reasoned for a given rotational speed.
out that Huygens’ second theorem on centripetal acceleration
states that it is proportional to the square of the rotational
P00 P ¼ 1=2 aA t2 ð1:12:5aÞ
speed for a given value of the radius. In his language, ‘If two
Next, he considered a particle to move on the same
equal bodies move around the same circle or wheels with
rotating body and started at point B. Following the same
unequal speeds, though uniformly, the ratio of the centrifu-
logic elaborated above, Huygens found
gal force of the faster to the slower is equal to the ratio of the
Q00 Q ¼ 1=2 aB t2 ð1:12:5bÞ squares of the velocities’.
One should note that Huygens used the term ‘two equal
where aB represents the centripetal acceleration of particle bodies’ in both theorems. Thus, the force will be propor-
B. Next, he realized that tional to acceleration (or, in another way, ‘force’ represents
‘acceleration’). Figure 1.47 is used for proving the second
AP00 ¼ AP0 ¼ AP ¼ x  AO theorem.
The bodies describe the same circle with radius OA, but
and
with different rotational speeds. One body moves a distance
BQ00 ¼ BQ0 ¼ BQ ¼ x  BO
Hence,
Q" P" A,B
AP00 AO
¼ ð1:12:6Þ
BQ00 BO P
Q
Next, he found that

PP00 ¼ OP00 OP ¼ OP00 OA

O
and


AP002
OP00 ¼ ðOA2 þ AP002 Þ2  OA 1 þ
1

2 OA2

as AP″/OA  1, t being very small as mentioned above.

From the above, one finds Fig. 1.47 Dependence of centripetal acceleration on speed
34 1 Evolution of Dynamics

T earth’s surface is very small compared to that exerted by the

earth’s gravity, and therefore, bodies do not fly away even
T though the earth spins around its axis once every 24 h. The
correct expression for the centripetal acceleration as derived
T'
by Huygens played a very important role in developing the
science of motion as will be seen later in the volume.

1.12.3 Modern Concept of Force

(a) (b) (c) and the ‘Force–Acceleration’ Relation:
Second Law of Motion in Primitive Form
Fig. 1.48 Huygens’ experiments of tug and acceleration
Huygens made the real breakthrough in the science of
c in time t. The other one starts at the same point A (B) motion and paved the way for the final development. Huy-
AP
gens accomplished this feat through a series of intense rea-
and reaches Q after time t.
soning when trying to solve the ‘centrifugal force’ problem
c ¼ xA t and AQ
Therefore, AP c ¼ xB t. Following the logic
and an attempt to understand the phenomenon of gravity.
already explained, Huygens arrived at the relation This led him to study Galileo’s free fall experiments. He
found that the most important characteristic feature of the
aA PP00
¼ ð1:12:11Þ earth’s gravity is a motion with constant acceleration.
aB QQ00
Slowly, it emerged in his mind that dynamically the most
Now significant quantity could be acceleration. He studied the
‘tug’ on a string attached to a ball under different conditions
1 AP002 as indicated in Fig. 1.48.
PP00 ¼ OP00  OP ¼ OP00  OA 
2 OA He noticed that the ‘tug’ was preventing the body to
and accelerate down. Comparing the magnitudes of the ‘tugs’
and the corresponding accelerations the ball could have
1 AQ002 when the ‘tugs’ were removed, he found that the magnitudes
QQ00 ¼ OQ00  OQ ¼ OQ00  OA  of the ‘tugs’ were correlating to the subsequent motion. He
2 OA
further observed that the ‘tugs’ did not have any relation to
From the above two relations, one gets the displacement of the object. This he demonstrated using
the cases shown in Fig. 1.48a, c. At the moment of release,
PP00 AP002 c 2 x2
AP
¼  ¼ A the accelerations are identical though the subsequent gross
QQ00 AQ002 AQ c 2 x2B
motions are different. He made a revolutionary idea—‘the
Hence, combining the above result with (1.12.11), Huy- tug represents what the bodies acceleration would be at the
gens arrived at his final result instant when the tug is released, not its subsequent overall
motions’. Huygens concluded with the following statement:
aA x2A
¼ It is therefore clear that when we wish to determine the force we
aB x2B must consider, not what happens during a length of time after
the body has been released, but rather what happens in an
or, arbitrarily small amount of time at the beginning of the motion.

a / x2 ð1:12:12Þ Thus, the nature of the relationship of the ‘force’ and

‘motion’ as an instantaneous proportionality between ‘force’
Combining the results of the two theorems, Huygens and ‘acceleration’ was discovered. This was definitely the
correctly arrived at the final result most important (and most difficult too) discovery in the
history of science of motion. Huygens also had the realiza-
a / x2 r ð1:12:13Þ
tion that a ‘tug’ (or force) is experienced only when con-
It should be remembered that modern language and straints are imposed on to the motion of a body. When the
symbolism have been used in the above derivations. But the tug is released, the body will be subjected to an immediate
logic is the same as that followed by Huygens. acceleration in the direction of the tug, and the acceleration
Using the above results, Huygens was able to prove will be proportional to the tug. In modern terminology, it can
quantitatively that the centrifugal force on an object on the be written as T / a.
1.12 Huygens: Breakthrough in the Discovery of Dynamics 35

R" R' Q" Q' P" P' A P

P
F
Q

r
R
S

Fig. 1.49 Acceleration of a point in circular motion

Fig. 1.51 Kepler’s third law and law of gravitation

ω towards the centre O) to be the effect of centripetal action.

He found that

1 AP002
P00 P ¼ P00 O  OA ¼ ðAP00 þ OA2 Þ2  OA 
1

2 OA
mg v2 2
 s
2OA
Similarly,
Fig. 1.50 Huygens’ experiment to show equivalence of gravity and
inertia force
v2 v2
Q00 Q  4s2 and R00 R  9s2
2OA 2OA
This was a major breakthrough, and using this result Thus, Huygens obtained the result that as in case of a free
along with his expression for the centripetal acceleration, the fall under gravity the displacement due to centripetal
planetary motion could be solved by Newton and others. Of acceleration also is increasing as square of the time. Or in
course, the ‘force–acceleration’ relationship could not be other words, the particle is falling towards O with a motion
framed in the form of an equation. Only when Newton that resembles free fall under gravity. This led Huygens to
introduced the concept of ‘mass’, the proportionality sign the revolutionary realization that the effects of centrifugal
could be replaced by an equality sign yielding the modern force and the gravity are indistinguishable in a localized
form of the second law of motion. sense. One is amazed to note that this profound realization
waited for two and half centuries and then was taken up by
Einstein for developing his General Theory of Relativity.
1.12.4 Early Concept of the Principle To demonstrate the nature of equivalence between gravity
of Equivalence and inertia force (centrifugal force is nothing but an inertia
force in modern language), Huygens conducted experiments
Another great discovery was made by Huygens during the in which a rotating body could balance the tug due to
process of studying rotational motions. He considered a another body’s gravity as shown in Fig. 1.50. Huygens did
thought experiment as described below. not stop at the geometric analysis represented by Fig. 1.49,
Figure 1.49 shows a particle at A describing circular but he also showed that the path of the particle with respect
motion with its centre at O. The particle takes the position P, to the point A when it is detached from the rotating wheel
Q and R at equal intervals of time so that APc ¼ PQ c ¼ QR.c (and executes a uniform straight line motion) is an involute
On the other hand, it would have reached positions P′, Q′ that starts at A in the radially outward direction. This way he
and R′, if released at A, instead of reaching positions P, could prove that the direction of centrifugal force will be in
Q and R. When the time intervals are very short and the the radially outward direction.
whole experiment is confined to a region very near to A, the Before ending the section on Huygens’ contributions to
curves PP′, QQ′ and RR′ become indistinguishable from the the development of the science of motion, it is important to
sections of the radial lines PP″, QQ″ and RR″. If the cir- mention how a mindset can prevent one from making the
cumferential speed of the particle be v and the time intervals final synthesis of a science in spite of developing all the
be ‘s’, then AP″ = vs, AQ″ = 2vs and AR″ = 3vs. Huygens basic elements. Newton’s success in solving the problem of
considered the displacement P″P, Q″Q and R″R (all directed planetary motion and unifying the rules dictating the
36 1 Evolution of Dynamics

motions in the heavens with those for terrestrial movements

became possible for his acceptance of the forces that can act
without physical contact—a fundamental departure from
Galileo, Descartes and Huygens.
θ

1.13 Halley, Wren and Hooke: Rudiments T

of Gravitation
P
Once a discussion on Newton’s contribution to the devel- O
F
opment of mechanics is initiated, one becomes so over-
whelmed with his brilliance that the contributions of other W
contemporary scientists fade out into the background. Nev-
Fig. 1.52 Simulation of planetary motion with conical pendulum
ertheless, it must be remembered that there were a few
contemporary scientists (most noteable among them being
Halley, Wren and Hooke) who did make definite contribu- F, acting on the planet is always directed towards the sun.
tions towards the development of gravitational theory. As it They figured out that this attraction balances the centrifugal
happened with the science of motion, in case of gravitation force on the planet due to its orbital motion. Using the work
also masterly final stroke by Newton almost obliterated done by Huygens on circular motion, one finds the accel-
others’ useful additions. But they are there and should be eration towards the centre (which when multiplied by the
acknowledged. It is quite possible that their work even planets’ mass with a negative sign becomes the ‘centrifugal
helped Newton to arrive at his final results. It is Hooke who force’)
first proposed that the planets are subjected to an attractive
force directed towards the sun. a / x2 r
Wren and Halley were interested in investigating the
nature of the force that keeps the planets in their orbits. They v2
a/ ð1:13:4Þ
used Kepler’s third law along with Huygens’ expression for r
centripetal acceleration to show that gravitational attraction Huygens also demonstrated that
diminishes as square of the distance.
Figure 1.51 shows a planet P in its orbit around the sun F/a
S. The eccentricities of most orbits being very small, the
Using (1.13.3) and (1.13.4) in the above relation, it was
orbit can be approximated as a circle with radius r. Kepler’s
possible to show that
third law states that the square of the orbital period T is
proportional to the cube of the orbital size, r. Thus 1
F/ ð1:13:5Þ
r2
T 2 / r3 ð1:13:1Þ
Now, if the v be the orbital speed This way Halley and others came to the conclusion that
gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to the square
2pr of the distance. Around the same time, Hooke conducted
T¼ ð1:13:2Þ
v many experiments with conical pendulums to simulate
planetary motions.
Using (1.13.2) in (1.13.1)
Figure 1.52 shows a conical pendulum. The component
r2 of the tension T in the direction PO can represent an
/ r3 attractive force always directed towards O (the vertical
v2
component of T balances the weight of the bob representing
or, a planet). Hooke demonstrated various aspects of planetary
motions (both circular and elliptical).26 Using a double
v2 / r 1 ð1:13:3Þ
pendulum, Hooke was even successful in simulating the
By using the concept of composition of motion developed motion of the earth–moon system round the sun. Though the
by Galileo, scientists could figure out that the orbital motion results were of purely qualitative nature, Hooke posed the
was a combination of uniform inertial motion in the trans-
verse direction and a free fall towards the sun due to its 26
The simulation is actually not correct as the attractive force F in these
attractive force. So it was known that the gravitational force, experiments is not inversely proportional to PO2.
1.13 Halley, Wren and Hooke: Rudiments of Gravitation 37

problem in a very focused manner. Hooke did make some F2 F1+ F2

valuable contributions which were, of course, of qualitative
nature. However, the first focused presentation and clear
statement of the planetary motion dynamics were undoubt-
edly made by Hooke.

1.14 Newton and the Final Synthesis F1

Fig. 1.53 Law of addition of motive force

Traditionally, it is mentioned that Isaac Newton was born on
the Christmas Day in the year 1642, the year Galileo died.
According to the new calendar, his date of birth was 4 Newton’s concept of inertia was more or less the same as
January 1643. There are a vast number of books and articles developed by Descartes and Huygens, but he was more
on his life and work. It is entirely justified keeping in view of systematic in analysing the situation. He had primarily two
his enormous contributions to the development in science in types of ‘forces’ that are linked to the inertial property of
general and the science of motion in particular. Newton moving bodies. The first type of force that he called ‘vis
made many breakthroughs in different branches of physics, insita’ or ‘innate force’ of matter keeps a body moving
astronomy, mechanics and also was one of the creators of a uniformly when imparted with the motion at the start. This
new branch of mathematics—calculus. ‘force’ or ‘impetus’ for motion is proportional to the body.
Newton used many developments in his research on the Newton conceived the idea of ‘inertial mass’ as a quantita-
motion of bodies those were already accomplished by tive measure of the content of matter in a body from this
Huygens about a decade or so before, but many theories definition. Newton, unlike his predecessors, made a clear
were rediscovered by Newton himself. It will be attempted distinction between ‘mass’ and ‘weight’ and mentioned that
here to present the final synthesis of the results by him these two quantities always maintain a fixed ratio. This was a
leading to the formation of the most fundamental branch of great achievement that helped to transform the rules of dy-
science—dynamics.27 The main topics are the development namics to become applicable beyond the terrestrial region
of the concept of mass and the second law of motion, dis- free from its gravity. Weight is a quantity that depends on
covery of the third law, general solution of collision prob- the earth’s gravity, but mass is an invariant quantity for a
lem, law of universal gravitation and the solution of the particular body.28 Newton polished the statement of the law
problems of planetary motion. Using his second law of of inertia of motion (proposed by Descartes and Huygens) as
motion along with the law of universal gravitation, Newton his first law in the following form:
completely solved the two-millennia old problem of plane-
Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in
tary motions. a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces
impressed upon it.

Kepler’s original concept of inertia as an inherent laziness

1.14.1 Concepts of Mass, Momentum, Force
of matter is accepted by Newton, and he extends it to the
and the Second Law of Motion
situation where continuing in a particular state of motion is
also included in the definition of ‘laziness’.
Once the earth was dethroned from its fixed position at the
Unlike Descartes, Newton recognized from the very
centre of the universe, a serious difficulty was faced by the
beginning the importance of the direction of motion beside
philosophers and scientists. The relational nature became
its magnitude, the speed. Thus, the quantity of motion, the
apparent, and the point of contention was how such relative
product of the quantity of matter with speed, was also a
motion can be considered to follow some set of universal
directional quantity. This was the modern concept of
rules. The matter is still not fully settled till today. Newton
momentum, and Newton recognized that even to change the
based his whole science of motion on the basis of a concept
direction without causing any change in speed (i.e. the
of absolute space and universal time. Newton developed his
quantity of motion) an external ‘motive force’ has to act on
whole mechanics using the absolute space as the fame of
the body. His other concept of ‘force’ was this ‘motive
reference for all motions.
force’, and instead of philosophizing too much about its true
status, very intelligently he decided that whatever the real
27
This word ‘dynamics’ was first coined by Leibniz in relation to his
work on energy-based mechanics. The word was finally given its
current meaning by D’Alembertt in his famous book ‘Traite de 28
So a ball may appear very light on moon’s surface, but it will generate
Dynamique’ published in 1743. the same impact on the toe (as on the earth) when kicked.
38 1 Evolution of Dynamics

nature of this ‘motive force’ may be its quantitative measure

must be through the change in the ‘innate force’ (momentum A B
in today’s language) it produces. He also conjectured that the
direction of change of the momentum has to be the same as X Y
that of the impressed ‘motive force’. He identified this force
with change in directional speed (velocity) multiplied by the
bulk (mass) of the body. Thus, a matured dynamics started
crystallizing to handle motion in three-dimensional space. Fig. 1.54 Newton’s study of collision problem
Another advance Newton made was to free the concept of
force from its Cartesian status of ‘instantaneous physical 1.14.2 Collision Problem and the Discovery
impact’. Instead, he conceived a continuously acting force as of the Third Law
a series of impacts spaced with infinitesimally small time
intervals. The parallelogram law of addition of motive force It is evident that the first law of motion was discovered by
(Fig. 1.53) was clearly stated by him. Newton’s predecessors almost to its final form. The basic
If a body is acted upon by two forces, F1 and F2 simul- tenant of the second law was also unravelled to a great extent
taneously, the change of motion of the body (i.e. the by Huygens. However, the credit for discovering the third
instantaneous acceleration) will be along the diagonal and its law of motion totally goes to Newton.
magnitude will be proportional to the force with a magnitude Newton solved the collision problem in a far more elegant
given by the length of the diagonal. Newton’s concept of a manner after almost a decade of Huygens’ solution. It
continuously active force as the result of innumerable appears that Newton was not familiar with Huygens’ work.
infinitesimally small impacts slowly led to the need to handle It is noteworthy that Newton’s solution to collision problem
such situations mathematically. This could be the impetus was applicable to both elastic and inelastic impacts. While
for Newton to develop calculus. He formally defined ‘motive solving the collision problem, Newton received a number of
force’ (or, impressed force) as follows: deep understanding those led him to the development of a
An impressed force is an action exerted upon a body, in order to
mature and elegant dynamics. While studying the collision
change its state, either of rest, or of uniform motion in a right problem, the precise idea of ‘force’ crystallized in Newton’s
line. mind and he realized that ‘force’ never appears in isolation.
A force is always in pairs comprising of the impressed force
The proportionality of ‘tug’ (or force) was already
and its equal and opposite reaction. Using Newton’s lan-
demonstrated by Huygens. It was also known to the scien-
guage in studying the collision problem, the following
tists in UK as Wren and Halley used that to deduce the
statement indicates how the idea of third law emerged.
inverse square law of the gravitational attraction from the
Figure 1.54 shows two bodies A and B in collision along
third law of Kepler. Hence, the second law of motion, that
the line XY. Newton’s statement could be written as follows:
gave a quantitative description between the causes (force)
and effect (change in motion), finally came from Newton in
(a) If A presses B towards Y, then B presses A towards X (i.e.
the following form:
in the opposite direction). It is obvious.
The change of motion is proportional to the motive force (b) A body must move that way in which it is pressed.
impressed, and is made in the direction of the right line in which (c) If two bodies A and B meet the one and the other, the
that force is impressed.
resistance in both is the same for so much as A presses
One should note that Newton’s original formulation of upon B so much B presses on A. And, therefore, they
the second law was also in the form of proportionality. both must suffer in equal changes in their motion.
Using mass as a quantity of matter and its product with
velocity to yield the quantity ‘momentum’, the second law This third law that the force on B due to A is equal and
can be in the form of an equality, by suitably choosing the opposite to the force that acts on A due to B provides the
unit of mass, in the modern form: necessary condition for solving collision problem, both
elastic and inelastic. Newton attempted to justify the law
d
F ¼ ðm
vÞ ð1:14:1Þ using the results of a significant number of experiments on
dt collisions. The scheme of the experiments was based on that
demonstrated by Wren in the Royal Society. Pendula of
F ¼ m
a
different weights were suspended from points A and
B (Fig. 1.55).
1.14 Newton and the Final Synthesis 39

Fig. 1.55 Wren’s collision

experiment demonstration in the A B
Royal Society

hQ
hP

P Q

The speeds of the two spheres P and Q with which they

collided could be controlled (and also determined) by
adjusting the heights from where they were allowed to
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ascended, using Galileo’s formula (vQ ¼ 2ghQ ). Again,
the velocities after the collision could be estimated from the
heights they ascended to. Newton used the length of the
pendula as 10 ft and adjusted hP and hQ to 8, 12 and 16 ft.
He always found (within an error of 3 inches, in the reas-
S
cended heights) that the forces291 acting on P and Q during
collision were equal and opposite. Newton, of course, used
the language ‘… the action and the reaction were always
equal’.
Once the equality of action and reaction is realized, the
solution becomes simple. It is true the scientists and
philosophers were aware that every action involves some
Fig. 1.56 Orbital motion as a composite motion
kind of reactions. But Newton’s credit goes in discovering
the magnitudes to be equal. This Newton did when he was
around 23–24 years old. Much later, at the time of formal- As mentioned earlier, the concept of gravitation as an
izing his work on the science of motion, he proposed this attractive force between two bodies was first started by
discovery as the third law of motion by generalizing it so Kepler. He also proposed that the sun’s gravitation keeps the
that the rule could be applicable to all types of forces. planets orbiting around the sun. However, it was primarily
Hooke (and also Halley and Wren) who successfully showed
the gravitational force to be an attractive force towards the
1.14.3 Law of Universal Gravitation sun. It was also recognized that the orbital motion is nothing
and Planetary Motion but a composite motion composed by inertial motion
superimposed on the constant falling motion towards the sun
Newton’s most spectacular success was in finally discover- as indicated in Fig. 1.56.
ing the law of universal gravitation and solving the The credit for the concept of composite motion goes
two-millennia old planetary motion problem. He not only obviously to Galileo who derived the trajectory of a pro-
solved the problem of the orbital motion of the planets but jectile using the concept. The fact that the attractive force
also solved a number of other finer and more subtle prob- diminishes as square of the distance was also figured out by
lems (like precision of the equinox). Of course, one should using Kepler’s third law and Huygen’s formula for cen-
remember that his approach was more of geometrical nature tripetal acceleration. Hooke first posed the problem of
rather than the elegant treatments found in the currently used gravitation to Newton when Hook was the curator of the
textbooks. ‘English Academy of Sciences (Royal Society)‘. In a reply
to a letter from Hooke regarding the trajectory of a falling
body (due to the earth’s attraction), Newton proposed the
29 trajectory as shown in Fig. 1.57a. Hooke corrected Newton
However, it is clear that the studied quantity was impulse (in modern
language) and not force. But considering the fact that the duration of the and suggested that in the absence of any resistance due to air
impact was very small, the equality of average forces could be the trajectory should be as shown in Fig. 1.57b.
represented by the equality of the impulses.
40 1 Evolution of Dynamics

Fig. 1.57 Trajectory of a falling (a) (b)

body

Trajectory proposed by Newton Proposed by Hooke

Hooke also tried to derive the shape of an orbit due to Bd d

0 C0 , C 0 D0 are equal. Similarly, AB = BC = CD … and
gravitational attraction (inverse square law); he did not pos- points OB′B, OC′C, OD′D, … are collinear. Now, Newton
sess the necessary skill, but Hooke found approximate solu- showed that
tions of the ‘equation of motion’ using Huygen’s formula. He 1=2
BB0 ¼ OA2 þ AB2 OA
drew the orbits and found those to be somewhat like ellipses.
He called them as ‘ellipsoids’. Not being able to mathemati- 1 AB 1 v22
1
  ¼   t2 ¼ ft2
cally prove, he suggested to Newton to take up the problem. 2 OA 2 OA 2
Newton took up the problem of gravitation and proved 1=2
that Kepler’s second law (equal area in equal time) is valid CC 0 ¼ OA2 þ AC 2 OA
for any central force, not necessarily for the inverse square 1 AC 1 v22
1
  ¼   ð2tÞ2 ¼ f ð2tÞ2
force due to gravitational attraction. Like most other con- 2 OA 2 OA2 2
temporary scientists, he also used geometry for analysing the
problems of motion. Newton replaced the continuous
attraction of the sun into a series of closely placed impulses Since AB = vt, AC = 2vt, AD = 3vt with v as the speed at
causing the change in inertial motion. A, the fall towards O given by BB′, CC′, DD′, … increases as
If the trajectory is locally approximated by a circle with O, square of the time—a result of free fall.30 Then, Newton
as, the centre (Fig. 1.58) a planet occupies positions B′, C′, D′, proceeds to prove the second law as described below.
… (starting from A) in times t, 2t, 3t, … In the absence of any The motion of the orbiting body about a fixed centre of
attractive force, the planet would have moved in a straight line attraction O is divided into small time intervals. The resultant
(first law of motion) uniformly and would have occupied motion (giving the position of the body at the end of each
positions B, C, D, … at times t, 2t, 3t, … (starting the clock interval) is due to an inertial uniform rectilinear motion com-
when the planet was at A). Since the whole analysis is being pounded by a displacement due to the attraction towards
done in the immediate neighbourhood of A, A − B′ − C′ − D′ O. Figure 1.59 shows the scheme. Let P1 be the starting
c 0, position, and the orbiting body has a velocity in the direction
can be approximated as a circle and the lengths of arcs AB
1. In a small interval of time, it will reach the position P02 as
shown. The sun exerts an attractive force in a direction AO
where A is at the middle of the segment P1 P02 . If the resultant
D C B effect of the attractive force during the period s (when the
A
body goes from P1 to P02 ) be represented by a displacement
B' in a direction parallel to AO (average direction during the
C' whole time interval), the final location the body will reach is
D' a point P2 so that P2 P02 is parallel to AO.
After moving from A to P2, the body would have moved
along the same direction and would have reached position
P03 after a period of time s in the absence of any attraction
towards O. However, if the resultant effect of the attractive

O
30
This analysis is similar to that obtained by Huygens earlier while
Fig. 1.58 Motion due to an attractive force deriving the expression for centripetal acceleration.
1.14 Newton and the Final Synthesis 41

Fig. 1.59 Newton’s proof of P4'

Kepler’s second law P3'
P3
P4
P2 P2'

O P1

force be a displacement along the mean direction of attrac- laws of nature are valid universally and at all times. How-
tion given by P2O, it will reach the position P3 as shown so ever, that was not the concept generally prevalent among
that P03 P3 is parallel to P2O. Now, the following conditions philosophers. According to Aristotle’s philosophy, the rules
are satisfied. for the heavenly bodies were different from those followed
on the earth. Thus, the idea of a law valid all over was a very
P1 A ¼ AP2 ; P02 P2 is parallel to AO novel concept in the early periods of the modern science.
AP2 ¼ P2 P03 ; P03 P3 is parallel to P2 O Newton demonstrated this with the example of a falling
P2 P3 ¼ P3 P04 ; P04 P4 is parallel to P3 O body on the earth’s surface and the moon. He was successful
in demonstrating that the moon is continually falling towards
The time taken to travel the segments P1A, AP2, P2P3, the earth by the same gravitational attraction that causes a
P3P4 is same and equal to s/2. Again, the following relations body to fall on the earth’s surface. This wonderful demon-
among the areas of the triangles are also satisfied. stration was done by Newton around 1665 when he was just
a 21-year-old young person! His analysis is presented below.
As P1 A ¼ AP02 ; DP1 OA ¼ DAOP02 ; Newton first found the distance through which moon falls
DAOP02 ¼ DAOP2 as P02 P2 is parallel to AO towards the earth in 1 s. From the work done by the Hel-
As AP2 ¼ AP2 P03 ; DAOP2 ¼ DP2 OP03 ; lenistic astronomers, Newton was aware that the distance to
DP2 OP03 ¼ DP2 OP3 as P03 P3 is parallel to P2 O moon from the earth is approximately 60 times that of the
radius of the earth. Since the distance of an attracted object
As P2 P3 ¼ P3 P04 ; DP2 OP3 ¼ DP3 OP04 ;
has to be measured from the centre of the earth, the
DP3 OP04 ¼ DP3 OP4 as P04 P4 is parallel to P3 O strength31 of the gravitational force on moon will be
The following relations yield the following area 1/3600th of that on a falling body near the earth’s surface.
conditions Again, from the work of Eratosthenes, the earth’s radius was
known to be 6400 km. Therefore, the distance to the moon
DP1 OA ¼ DAOP2 ¼ DP2 OP3 ¼ P3 OP4 ¼    was 384,000 km. Since the moon takes 27.3 days to make
one complete round of its orbit, the speed at which it moves
Since the time taken to traverse the distances P1A, AP2,
along the orbit is given by
P2P3, P3P4 is equal, the second law of Kepler is proved.
Of course, Newton conceptualized that when the time 2p  384; 000
v¼ km/s
intervals become infinitesimally small the trajectory will be a 27:3  24  3600
smooth continuous curve. He also emphasized that the sec- ¼ 1:023 km/s  1000 m/s
ond law is valid for any central force as no condition on the
nature of force is assumed in the proof above. From Fig. 1.60, it is seen that if there had been no
attraction by the earth the moon would have gone to position
A (starting from position M) in 1 s. But it goes to the posi-
1.14.4 Universality of Gravitational Force tion M′ due to the gravitational attraction of the earth. Hence,
the fall of the moon towards the earth in 1 s is given by the
Newton demonstrated that the inverse square law of gravi-
tational attraction is not of local character but valid univer-
sally. That is why the name ‘universal gravitation’ was 31
Strength of gravitation can be indicated either by the force on a body
coined by him. At present, it is generally understood that the of unit mass or by the acceleration due to gravity at the location.
42 1 Evolution of Dynamics

M v Of course, the matter was not simple for Newton. The

Moon A distance to moon from the earth was less ambiguous. But
B M' Newton had to first prove that for the apple the distance had
to be taken from the centre of the earth. It took him almost
20 years to prove that, and he published his work only in
1685!

1.14.5 Orbit for Inverse Square Law

O It has been shown in Sect. 1.13 that gravitational pull was

known to decrease as the square of the distance from
Earth Kepler’s third law and Huygen’s formula for centripetal
acceleration. However, the task to prove that the resulting
Fig. 1.60 Falling moon orbit due to such a force is an ellipse remained as a
challenge.
height AM′. Now, AM′ = MB when B is the point (on the The discovery of the relationship of the inverse square
radial line OM) where a perpendicular line to OM from point law of gravitational attraction with orbit shape has an
M′ meets OM. Again by geometry interesting history. The idea of explaining the orbital motion
of the planets by combining the inertial motion and the
M 0 B2 ¼ MBð2OM  MBÞ attraction by the sun was first hinted by the Italian
philosopher Giovanni Alphonso Borelli (1608–1679) in the
 2  MB  OM ðneglecting MB2 as MB  OMÞ
year 1666. But his exposition was somewhat nebulous, and a
Hence, better expression of this revolutionary idea was presented by
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Robert Hooke (1635–1703), secretary of the Royal Society,
M 0 B ¼ AM  2  MB  OM in the year 1674 in his book ‘An Attempt to Prove the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ 2  MB  3:84  105 km Motion of the Earth’. Even before this publication, Hooke
gave a lecture at Gresham College in London in the year
But AM is nothing but the distance travelled by the moon 1670, a part of the lecture dealt with the problem of plane-
in 1 s, i.e. its velocity. Converting all quantities in m, tary motions. He proposed very clearly what in modern
Newton obtained32 scientific language one can mention as ‘orbital motions are
combinations of tangential inertial rectilinear motions and
2  MB  3:84  108  AM 2 ¼ 10002
continuous free fall towards the centre of attraction’. Many
or, historians of science feel that Hooke should be credited with
the first unambiguous and correct statement of the dynamic
1 1 nature of orbital motion. However, a quantitative treatment
MB ¼ AM 0  m¼ m
2  3:84  102 768 of the problem was beyond Hooke’s capability. Realizing
On the surface of the earth, an apple falls 12  g, i.e. 12  this, Hooke corresponded with Newton and requested him to
take up and solve the problem in the year 1679.
9:81 m in 1 s. Thus, the ratio of the distance of fall by moon
This problem of planetary motion also interested Edmond
to that of the apple in 1 s is given by
Halley and Christopher Wren. They had a meeting with
1
m 1 Hooke in January 1684 in which this problem was discussed.
768
9:81
¼ The problem of deriving the laws of planetary motion from
2 m 3767
the law of gravitation could not be solved by them. In
That is close to 1/3600 as predicted. Hence, Newton Halley’s own words, ‘Sir Christopher, to encourage the
concluded that it is the same force that acts on both the apple Inquiry said, that he would give Mr. Hooke, or me, two
and the moon. months time, to bring him a convincing demonstration
thereof; and besides the honour, he of us, that did it, should
have from him a present of a book of 40 shillings’. Of
32
Of Course, Newton did not use metre as the length dimension. course, neither Hooke nor Halley succeeded in solving the
However, it must be mentioned here that this idea that celestial motions
problem. In August 1684, about 7 months after this meeting,
are governed by the same forces which control the motion of bodies on
the earth was not original to Newton. Before him, the same idea was Halley visited Cambridge and happened to meet Newton.
found in the propositions of Kepler, Borelli and Hooke. When he asked Newton what would be the shape of a
1.14 Newton and the Final Synthesis 43

The objective is to prove that the ratio of the forces of

attraction at A and B is equal to CB2/CA2.
Q If the planet moves to point P from A in a small interval
S of time, the planet in the same period will move from B to
O C O' Q so that the area ACP is equal to area CBQ. It should be
A B
remembered that Newton proved in Proposition 1 ‘equal area
r r
R in equal time’ law for all central forces. For very small
P intervals of time, ACP and CBQ can be considered to be
right-angled triangles. Hence, the area law suggests

1 1
Fig. 1.61 Proof of proposition 2  AP  AC ¼  BQ  BC
2 2
Now, in Newton’s own language ‘because the Ellipsis is
alike crooked at both ends’, the areas AP and BQ can be
assumed to be on the same circle (Fig. 1.62) of radius r as
explained in Fig. 1.61.
Q S Now, PR and QS are perpendiculars dropped on the
tangents drawn at A and B, respectively. PM and QN are
normal drawn on line AB. As
M
A r r B
O,O' N PM 2 ¼ AMð2r  AMÞ
 2r  AM

whereas AM2 can be neglected for very small time interval.

Similarly,
R P
QN 2  2r  BN
Fig. 1.62 Circle representing the sections of the ellipse at the two ends
Hence,

PM 2 AM
planet’s orbit under the action of a gravitational force that 
QN 2 BN
decreases according to an inverse square law, Newton’s
immediate reply was that the orbit would be an ellipse with For very small time intervals, PM ! AP and QN ! BQ.
one of the foci being the centre of attraction. Unfortunately, Thus,
Newton could not show his derivation and suggested that the
PR AM PM 2 AP2
paper was misplaced and could not be found. But after ¼  
another three months, in November 1684 Newton sent a QS BN QN 2 BQ2
nine page manuscript containing a proof of Kepler’s first law But from Kepler’s second law, already it has been shown
from an inverse square law of gravitation. In what follows, that AP  AC ¼ BQ  BC, or,
Newton’s proof is presented in an abridged form.
Newton solved the problem in two stages using a purely AP BC
¼
geometric approach. In his first proposition, Newton proved BQ AC
Kepler’s second law as described in the previous section.
His second proposition states: i.e.
‘If a body be attracted towards either focus of an Ellipsis PR AP2 BC2
and the quantity of the attraction be such as suffices to make ¼ 
QS BQ2 AC2
the body revolve in the circumference of the Ellipsis; the
attraction at the two ends of the Ellipsis shall be reciprocally as Now, PR and QS represent the amount of fall of the planet
the squares of the body in those ends from that focus’. Fol- (from its uniform inertial linear motions) due to the attractive
lowing Newton’s lines of argument, the proof is as follows: force directed towards the centre of attraction. But the length
Figure 1.61 shows an ellipse with AB as the major axis of fall for a given time is proportional to the acceleration which
with C as one of the foci which is the centre of attraction. is again proportional to the force as demonstrated by Huygens.
44 1 Evolution of Dynamics

K Y X 1 1
P  FP  YZ ¼  Fp  yz
p 2 2

x Z or,
z
y
FP  YZ ¼ Fp  yz
A B or,
R F
Q
FP  YZ ¼ Fp  yz
Now, from the first relation
r
q
XY PQ xr YZ 2
L ¼  
xy pq XR yz2
Fig. 1.63 Newton’s geometrical proof of Kepler’s first law because PQ ! XR and pq ! xr when the time interval
becomes infinitesimally small. Since XY and xy represent the
ðPR=QSÞ fall towards F and proportional to the force of attraction
¼ ðForce of attraction at A=Force of attraction at BÞ YZ 2 Fp2
ðForce at PÞ=ðForce at pÞ ¼ ¼
1 BC 2
yz2 FP2
¼ 
AC 2 1
Thus,
This proves that the force of attraction at the ends in inver-
sely proportional to the distance from the centre of attraction. 1
Force of attraction a
In his Proposition 3, Newton proved that for an elliptic Distance from the focus2
orbit the force of attraction at any point on the orbit to be Of course, using modern mathematical tools, the proof is
inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the far more elegant and familiar to all. But the above proof of
centre of attraction. Proposition 3 states ‘if a body is Kepler’s first law is of historical importance. It also
attracted towards either focus of any Ellipsis and by that demonstrates the importance of geometry in the develop-
attraction is made to revolve in the Perimeter of the Ellipsis: ment of science in the pre-calculus era.
the attraction shall be reciprocally as the square of the dis-
tance of the body from that focus of the Ellipsis’.
The proof by Newton is purely geometrical and will show 1.15 Newtonian Dynamics in Matured State
his mathematical competence of extraordinary nature. The
proof is presented in a compact form without too much Newton is justly credited for the final synthesis of all the
explanation of the standard geometrical results (Fig. 1.63). prevailing and discovered (by him) concepts that resulted in
Let P and p be two positions of a planet on its elliptic his famous (but least read) book ‘Principia’. By now, it is
orbit under the influence of an attractive force directed clear that the first law of motion was not a discovery by
towards the focus F, the centre of attraction. In a small Newton and the credit for the second law of motion should
interval of time, the planet would have moved to X (due to go to both Huygens and Newton. However, it was Newton’s
inertial motion). But due to the attraction towards F, it falls insight that there is an entity that is required to alter inertial
through the distance XY and the planet reaches point Y on the motion. The quantitative measure of this entity is what was
orbit. Line XR is parallel to line PFQ through F. Z is the called by Newton as ‘force’. Till his time, the idea of force
point where the normal on PQ from point Y meets. In a was somewhat imprecise and nebulous. It was purely
similar way, the planet moves to point y (instead of x) in the Newton’s contribution that force always appears in pair.
same time interval. Line xr is parallel to pFq. Purely from Each force has an equal and opposite reaction which is
geometric theories, Newton derived the following relation: known as the third law of motion. This discovery was made
by Newton while solving the collision problems. Newton’s
AB  PQ  YZ 2
XY ¼ solution to the collision problems became far more general
XR  KL2 and elegant than those obtained by Huygens. Newton also
For very small time intervals, PY and py can be treated as was aware that there are two forms of third law—the weak
straight lines. According to the second law of Kepler, the form and the strong form. In the weak form, it is stated that
area of DFPY and DFpy is equal. Hence, there is an equal and opposite force to every impressed force.
1.15 Newtonian Dynamics in Matured State 45

In the strong form, the action and reaction are not only equal or,
and opposite, but they act along the same line of action. The
m 2 a2 m 3 a3
third law of motion—‘Lex Tertia’—as mentioned by New- ¼ ; ¼ ;
m 1 a1 m 1 a1
ton provided the final link to complete a comprehensive
science of motion. Newton also recognized the extremely If any one of these bodies, say m1, be considered as the
important fact that the total quantity of motion (i.e. ‘mo- unit, all other masses can be quantitatively measured in
mentum’ in modern language) is preserved in any collision terms of the standard mass.
as a consequence of the third law. Of course, experiments have been conducted along the
Newton also realized that the force depends on not only line described above using different magnitudes of the
the change in inertial motion (i.e. acceleration) but also the applied force. Though the acceleration magnitudes are dif-
‘bulk’ of the body. In fact, this type of force, that changes the ferent, the ratios in the above equation have been found to
inertial motion of a body, was called by Newton as ‘motive remain unchanged. Therefore, inertial mass of an object is
force’. In contrast, Newton also used a term ‘innate force’ independent of the force and acceleration and can be con-
(i.e. inherent force) to describe the capacity of a body to sidered as a property of the body concerned. Since the
continue in its inertial motion. Of course, to any careful gravitational pull and accelerated motion are two different
reader, it becomes immediately clear that such ‘innate force’ phenomena, there is no guarantee, per se, that l and m be
has to depend on the frame of reference and is not an related. Using a suitable unit, these two can be made equal.
inherent property of the body. But Newton continued to When experiments are conducted, it is found that
believe throughout in the existence of an ‘absolute frame of
reference’. mal

and with suitable choice of units, m = l. This equivalence of

the inertial and gravitational masses of a body is called the
1.15.1 Concept of Mass ‘principle of equivalence’ and represents one of the most
mysterious and deep-rooted phenomena in the physical
Newton’s next (and perhaps the most significant one) con-
world.
ceptual contribution was the concept of ‘mass’ as a measure
of the bulk of a body. He clearly distinguished between
‘weight’ and ‘mass’ of a body. As per Newton’s law of
1.15.2 Principia and Subsequent Development
universal gravitation, if the earth has a gravitational mass le
then an object with gravitational mass l on the surface of the
No book in the whole history of science can match the fame
earth will be pulled by a force F towards the centre of the
of Newton’s Principia. During the interaction with Halley
earth where
once, Newton wrote a paper presenting his results related to
le l mechanics in details. He titled the paper as ‘Philosophic
F¼G ¼ gl
R2 Naturalis Principia Mathematica’ and submitted it to the
Royal Society in 1686. Unfortunately, the Society had no
R is the radius of the earth, and G is the constant of universal funds for the publication, and Newton was unwilling to
gravitation. This force is the weight of the body. If the same spend any money on this endeavour. So, finally, Halley took
force is applied to the body, it is accelerated at the rate a and the responsibility of publishing the book and even read the
F ¼ ma proofs himself.
In Principia, all the basic elements of science of motion
where m is another property of the body, called the ‘inertial were encapsulated. However, the book was not easy to read,
mass’. But first, it is necessary to make sure that the inertial and popularization of the subject ‘mechanics’ had to wait till
mass of a body, defined above, is a ‘property’ of that body. the works of Bernoulli and Euler. In the whole book, there
This is essential as both the definitions of force and mass are was no mention of entities like energy and Newton wanted
linked through only one equation. If experiments are con- to resolve all problems using F = ma.
ducted on different bodies with inertial masses m1, m2, m3, It was Leibniz who used the term ‘Vis Viva’ as another
… by applying the same force F (ensured by a spring bal- type of force. This is nothing but the kinetic energy (without
ance), then the resulting accelerations of these bodies will be the term ½) in modern terminology. It is interesting to note
a1, a2, a3, … From the second law that the term ‘dynamics’ was first coined by Leibniz in
relation to his treatment of the science of motion. Much later,
F ¼ m1 a1 ¼ m2 a2 ¼ m3 a3 ¼    the word transformed to mean ‘dynamics’ the way it is done
46 1 Evolution of Dynamics

in modern science. Freeing ‘dynamics’ from the narrow guided by the philosophy of Descartes, Huygens and Leib-
Leibnizian concept was done by D’Alembert in 1743. niz. However, as his father considered Newton to be in the
As has been revealed through research on the historical enemy camp because of the fight between Leibniz and
developments in mechanics after the publication of Prin- Newton, Daniel’s work on Principia to take it to higher level
cipia, not more than six to seven persons understood the of perfection enraged his father. Nevertheless, Daniel’s work
book during Newton’s lifetime. However, Newton’s doctrine ‘Hydrodynamica’ in 1738 and his paper on tides in 1741 led
did not face any problem in becoming accepted in the aca- to the triumph of Newton’s doctrine in the continental
demic world of England, but there was not any further cre- Europe. More or less contemporaneously Leonhard Euler
ative development in mechanics as follow-up action. In the published his book ‘Mechanica’ in 1736. This book opened
continental Europe, the popularization of Principia was slow up the world of mechanics accessible to general readers for
because of the quarrel between Newton and Leibniz the first time which helped to establish mechanics as an
regarding the priority of discovering calculus. The first book identified domain of knowledge in the university curricula.
that systematically presented Newton’s mechanics after Only after a total synthesis, the works done by Descartes,
Principia was Phoronomia by Jacob Bernoulli, in the year Huygens, Newton, Bernoulli, Leibniz and Euler gave the
1716. This book for the first time presented the laws of subject its modern look.
motion in differential form. The first response to Principia Following the line of thought started by Leibniz, Euler
that had original and creative elements contained therein gave importance to energy in developing his mechanics
came from Daniel Bernoulli who learnt mathematics and which later became known as analytical mechanics after
physics from his father Johann Bernoulli. Daniel was also Lagrange gave the final shape to the subject.
 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics
2

2.1 Nature of Motion and Space understood in the following discourse I do not define time, space,
place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must
observe that the common people conceive those quantities under
Some of the deepest concepts in science include the nature of no other motions but from the relation they bear to sensible
motion and space. From the very beginning of modern sci- objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of
ence, the matter has been examined by many great scientists which it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and
relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.
and thinkers. One can safely remark that the pursuit of deeper
understanding of the nature of motion and space continues
I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its
even today and many points remain unresolved. The difficulty
own nature, flows equably, without relation to anything
arises because these two aspects of the science of motion are external, and by another name is called duration: relative,
at the very root of man’s understanding of the universe. apparent and common time, is some sensible and external
Motion is defined as the change of place as time progress, and (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the
means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true
this led the philosophers to ponder over the question ‘what is
time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.
space?’ and ‘what is time?’ Though it is next to impossible to II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to any-
arrive at definite answers to the above questions, it is not very thing external remains always similar and immovable. Rel-
difficult to recognize ‘space’ as the ‘arena of motion’. Any ative space is some movable dimension or measure of the
absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to
further philosophical discussion may not yield any fruitful
bodies; and which is commonly taken for immovable space;
results except framing of flowery sentences demanding a such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aerial or celestial
good vocabulary in English. Therefore, now onwards further space, determined by its position in respect of the earth.
discussions will be devoted to space and time relevant to Absolute and relative space are the same in figure and mag-
nitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same.
better understanding of Newtonian dynamics.
For if the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our air, which
relatively and in respect of the earth remains always the same,
will at one time be one part of the absolute space into which
2.1.1 Newton’s Concept of Absolute Space the air passes; at another time it will be another part of the
and Time same, and so, absolutely understood, it will be continually
changed.
III. Place is a part of space which a body takes up, and is
Newton took a more straightforward route to the under- according to the space, either absolute or relative.
standing of the nature of the space and time to describe his IV. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one
dynamics. As dynamics deals with motion that is defined as absolute place to another; and relative motion, the transla-
tion from one relative place into another.
the change of position with time, it is obvious that the
fundamental characteristics of space have to be linked with Newton ascribed the absolute space with
geometry. Newton believed in the existence of an entity three-dimensional Euclidean geometry. It will be shown later
called ‘absolute space’ that exists by itself on its own right how this geometrical structure of absolute space gives rise to
independently. Similarly, he considered ‘time’ to be also an the conservation principles. It is desirable that the primary
entity that is universal and flows uniformly independent of characteristics of the absolute space and time of Newton are
space. It may be worthwhile to quote Newton from his compiled here.
Scholium where he defined ‘absolute time’, ‘absolute space’ Important properties of Newtonian space and time:
and ‘absolute motion’: (i) Absolute space and time are passive; i.e., these do not get
Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less influenced by external agency. These do not depend on the
known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be presence of matter and energy in the universe. (ii) The

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 47

A. Ghosh, Conceptual Evolution of Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics,
Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6253-7_2
48 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

behaviour of space remains same at all times. Similarly, time (a) (b) (c) (d)
is also independent of the location where it is measured.
(iii) Time interval between two events is same to all obser-
vers, and the order of events is independent of the observer
and appears same to all. (iv) The absolute space follows
Euclidean geometry.
Though all the above properties appear to be obvious to us
as our senses have developed in a very small region of space
surrounded by non-massive objects over a very short span of
time, all the above points have been refuted by the philoso- Fig. 2.1 Newton’s bucket experiment
phers and scientists of a later period. In more concrete terms,
the following properties of absolute space lead to the
observed rules of Newtonian dynamics. These are as follows: expected from our common knowledge (Fig. 2.1c). At the
(i) the homogeneity of space, (ii) the isotropy of space, final stage of the experiment, the bucket is stopped by hand,
(iii) the continuity of space, (iv) the completeness of space, but the water still continues to rotate due to inertia, and one
(v) the homogeneity of time, (vi) the continuity of time, finds that the surface of the rotating water is concave as shown
(vii) the independence of space and time. These points will be in Fig. 2.1d. Newton’s logic in support of the existence of
again revisited in a later section to demonstrate the origin of absolute space was along the following lines.
the conservation principles of Newtonian dynamics. Initially, the bucket and water are both stationary and the
The Newtonian dynamics hinges on one kinematic water body does not possess any acceleration with respect to
parameter, i.e. acceleration. Newton believed that this accel- the absolute space. Hence, the water surface is flat. In the
eration of an object, which is equal to the impressed force next stage, the bucket body is rotating, but the water body is
divided by the mass of the object, is with respect to the still stationary. So, the water body has motion relative to the
absolute space. So an observer who is moving with a uniform bucket but has no acceleration with respect to the absolute
velocity with respect to the absolute space finds the acceler- space. Therefore, the water surface is flat. In the third stage,
ation to remain unchanged and the second law of motion both the bucket and the water rotate and there is no motion
works. Thus, the second law of motion remains valid in all of the water with respect to the bucket but has motion with
frames of reference which are moving with uniform velocity respect to the absolute space. Hence, according to Newton’s
with respect to the absolute space. It should be noted that the logic water surface is curved. Finally, again the water is
first and third laws also remain valid in these frames of ref- moving with respect to the absolute space and the bucket. As
erence which Newton called as ‘inertial frames of reference’. expected, the water surface is curved because of its motion
To demonstrate the fact that acceleration of a particle with with respect to the absolute space.
respect to the absolute space is relevant in dynamics and its The above experiment demonstrates (according to New-
relative motion with respect to other objects does not play ton) that the relative motion between the bucket and the
any role, Newton devised his famous bucket experiment water in it does not generate any force (due to relative
described in the following section. acceleration of the water molecules) on the water. But when
the water body is accelerating with respect to the absolute
space, its molecules are subject to forces. Therefore, Newton
2.1.2 Newton’s Bucket Experiment concluded motion relative to absolute space has relevance to
dynamics; relative motion between bodies develops no
This experiment, which was devised by Newton to prove his dynamical effect.
point that motion with respect to the absolute space is rele- Newton suggests another experiment to establish his idea
vant, is quite simple and anyone can perform it. One has to of absolute space using two globes in the following manner:
hang a bucket, with some water in it, with the help of a rope For instance, if two globes, kept at a given distance one from the
(Fig. 2.1a). To start with, both the water and the bucket are other by means of a cord that connects them, were revolved
stationary. Then, the bucket is spun as shown in Fig. 2.1b, but about their common centre of gravity, we might, from the ten-
sion of the cord, discover the endeavour of the globes to recede
initially, the water is still stationary as it will take some time to from the axis of this motion, and from thence we might compute
pick up the rotational motion from the inner wall of the the quantity of their circular motions. And then if any equal
spinning bucket. Thus, it is observed that the bucket is rotating forces should be impressed at once on the alternate faces of the
but the water is stationary with its surface flat as before. Next, globes to augment or diminish their circular motions, from the
increase or decrease of the tension of the cord, we might infer
the water in the bucket gradually picks up the rotational the increment or decrement of their motion; … And thus we
motion from the bucket, and at a stage, both the bucket and the might find both the quantity and the determination of this cir-
water rotate and the water surface becomes concave as cular motion, even in an immense vacuum, where there was
2.1 Nature of Motion and Space 49

nothing external or sensible with which the globes could be It is affirmed,1 that motion necessarily implies a relative change
compared. of situation in one body, with regard to other bodies; and yet no
way is shown to avoid this absurd consequence, that then the
However, it is not difficult to recognize the difficulty in mobility of one body depends on the existence of other bodies;
conducting the above-mentioned globe experiment in an and that any single body existing alone, would be incapable of
otherwise empty universe. motion; or that the parts of a circulating body (suppose the sun)
would lose the vis centrifuga arising from their circular motion,
At this, it is quite pertinent to ask why only acceleration if all the extrinsic matter around them were annihiliated.
with respect to absolute space leads to dynamical effect, i.e.
development of force. Uniform non-accelerated motion with Thus, without realizing, Clarke hit the bull’s eye by
respect to the absolute space should also lead to the devel- conjecturing that if the matter in the rest of the universe is
opment of force. This matter will be taken up for further annihilated effects of motion, like curving of the water sur-
discussion in the later sections. However, at this stage, it is face in a rotating bucket or the tension in the cord connected
enough to point out that all experiments conducted so far to the globes, would vanish. Hence, the relative motion of
have not indicated the existence of any inertial resistive force the water is not important as the matter content in the bucket
to counter uniform motion with respect to the absolute space. is small to produce any visible effect. Though Clarke raised
Either it does not exist or the current level of technology is this point to establish the futility of a ‘relative motion’ the-
not capable of detecting such forces those being extremely ory, the hint got lost. Otherwise, both Leibniz and Berkeley,
small. The accuracy that can be achieved in the K-meson at a later time, could answer the question raised by Newton’s
decay experiments may not be high enough to detect any bucket experiment.
ultra-small force, if there is any. Soon after Leibniz, Newton’s concept of absolute space
and absolute motion was criticized by Bishop G. Berkeley
(1685–1753) following the line laid down by Leibniz. The
2.1.3 Newton’s Bucket Experiment Follow up criticism is found in his two books—‘The Principle of
Human Knowledge’ published in 1710 and ‘Of Motion’—
Notwithstanding the logic and suggested experiments by published in 1721. His opinion on motion can be quoted
Newton to establish the concept of absolute space and ab- from his first book as follows:
solute nature of motion, his philosophy did not go unchal- But, notwithstanding what has been said, I must confess it does
lenged. Two contemporary scientist philosophers questioned not appear to me that there can be any motion other than rela-
the validity of the concept of absolute space and motion. G. tive; so that to conceive motion there must be at least conceived
W. Leibniz (1646–1716) was introduced to science of two bodies, where of the distance or position in regard to each
other is varied. Hence, if there was one only body in being could
motion by none other than Huygens. Leibniz did not accept not possibly be moved. This seems evident, in that the idea I
Newton’s idea of absolute space and absolute time. His have of motion do the necessarily include relation.
contention was that it is impossible to feel space without the
presence of any matter, its existence can be identified as a Similarly, in his other book also the criticism is quoted as
‘system of relationships’, and it is meaningless to endow follows:
‘space’ with absolute existence. It is worthwhile to quote No motion can be recognized or measured, unless through
from his letter to S. Clarke, one of Newton’s disciples, on sensible things. Since this absolute space in no way affects the
this subject. senses, it must necessarily be quite useless for the distinguishing
of motions. Besides, determination or direction is essential to
As for my opinion, I have said more than once, that I hold space motion; but that consists in relation. Therefore, it is impossible
to be something merely relative, as time is; that I hold it to be an that absolute motion should be conceived.
order of coexistences, as time is an order of successions. For
space denotes, in terms of possibility, an order of things which But, like Leibniz, Berkeley also failed to grasp the
exist at the same time, considered as existing together; without unintentional hint from Clarke that in the absence of matter
enquiring into their manner of existing. And when many things in the rest of the universe, no effect of any motion can be
are seen together, one perceives that order of things among
sensed.
themselves.
Both Leibniz and Berkeley were somewhat confused but
But Leibniz was unable to provide a satisfactory expla- Berkeley took one step further in the right direction. He tried to
nation to Newton’s bucket experiment considering his con- replace Newton’s absolute space by the conglomeration of the
cept of reality of relative motion only. Interestingly, the seed fixed stars that do not have motions relative to one another and
of a truly relational mechanics was sowed by Newton’s can be conceived to form a frame of reference that can be used
to describe motion. He mentions in his book “On Motions –”, “-
disciple, Clarke, in his last letter to Leibniz that reached him - - - for the removal of ambiguity and for the furtherance of the
on 29 October 1716. No reply was ever written as Leibniz
died on 14 November 1716. It is appropriate to quote the
relevant part of the letter. 1
By Leibniz.
50 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

mechanics of these philosophers who take the wider view of the Mach did not prescribe a specific physical theory, but his
system of things, it would be enough to bring in, instead of proposition was also in the form of a principle without any
absolute space, relative space as confined to the heavens of the
fixed stars, considered as at rest - - - - - - -” quantitative model. Utilizing this principle, M. Schlick was
the first to interpret in 1915 that ‘the case of inertia must be
Anyhow, the tremendous success of Newtonian mechanics assumed to be an interaction of masses’. Thus, the first hy-
in explaining all motions—celestial and terrestrial—did not pothesis of the origin of inertia as the interaction of a body
allow much scope for further debate on the issue and New- moving with respect to the matter present in the rest of the
ton’s ideas continued without any challenge for a century and universe was born and became widely known as the ‘Mach’s
a half. principle’.
This concept greatly impressed Einstein, and in his paper
of 1918, he clearly indicates ‘Mach’s principle’ as a
2.1.4 Ernst Mach and Mach’s Principle founding pillar of the General Theory of Relativity. To quote
him
The relative–absolute debate was resurrected by the
nineteenth-century scientist philosopher Ernst Mach (1838– c) Mach’s Principle: The G-field is completely determined by
the masses of the bodies. Since mass and energy are identical in
1916). He wanted to clear the nebulosity surrounding the accordance with the results of the Special Theory of Relativity
nature of space and provide a solid concept devoid of any and the energy is described formally by means of the symmetric
ambiguity. In the preface of his famous book ‘The Science of energy tensor (Tlv), this means that the G-field is conditioned
Mechanics’, he clearly stated in the preface that ‘The present and determined by the energy tensor of the matter.
volume is not a treatise upon the application of the principles When Mach was 75 years old and became immobile
of mechanics. Its aim is to clear up ideas, expose the real because of a paralytic attack, Einstein’s last letter from
significance of the matter and get rid of metaphysical obscu- Zurich on 25 June 1913 included the following:
rities’. He was the first to take up the challenge posed by
Newton’s thought experiment with two globes tied up by a Recently you have probably received my new publication on
Relativity and Gravitation which I have at last finished after
chord and executing rotation and the other famous experiment unending labour and painful doubt. Next year at the solar eclipse
with the bucket full of water. To explain the tension in the it will turn out whether the light rays are bent by the sun, in other
chord and the curvature of the water surface without bringing words whether the basic and fundamental assumption of the
in the concept of absolute space was at a task with insur- equivalence of the acceleration of the reference frame and of the
gravitational field really holds. If so, then your inspired inves-
mountable difficulty for the Leibnizian relativists. Mach tigations into the foundations of mechanics – despite Planck’s
solved the difficulty with one simple stroke—by rejecting the unjust criticism – will receive a splendid confirmation. For it is a
experiments. According to him, one can say what will happen necessary consequence that inertia has its origin in a kind of
to the globe experiment when the matter from the rest of the mutual interactions of bodies, fully in the sense of your critique
of Newton’s bucket experiment.
universe vanishes. According to him it would be impossible to
see any rotation of the pair of globes. So far as the bucket Subsequently, many scientists and philosophers have
experiment is concerned, his view is quoted as follows: provided support to the concept. The ‘Mach’s principle’ is
also considered important for providing explanation to the
Newton’s experiment with the rotating vessel of water simply
informs us, that the relative rotation of the water with respect to origin of inertial effect. According to Thomas Phipps, ‘when
the sides of the vessel produces no noticeable centrifugal forces, the subway jerks, it’s the fixed stars that throw you down’.
but that such forces are produced by its relative rotation with With time, the term ‘fixed stars’ has been replaced by the term
respect to the mass of the earth and other celestial bodies. No ‘matter present in the rest of the universe’. Many scientists
one is competent to say how the experiment would turn out if
the sides of the vessel are increased in thickness and mass till consider that inertia is nothing but the manifestation of a body
they were ultimately several leagues thick. The one experiment accelerating with respect to the rest of the universe.
only lies before us, and our business is, to bring it into accord
with the other facts known to us, and not with the arbitrary
fictions of our imagination.
2.1.5 Quantification of Mach’s Principle—
Thus, according to Mach, dynamical effect is produced by Concept of Inertial Induction
relative motion between bodies and there is no role for the
existence of a real absolute space. If the bucket would have Although the Mach’s principle is very attractive as a con-
been sufficiently massive, a rotating bucket could produce cept, the primary difficulty was the absence of a quantitative
curved surface in the water even if it were not rotating with model of the theory. Without such a quantitative model, not
respect to the fixed stars (representing the absolute space). much further progress was possible. To remedy the situation,
Hence, the problem is with the magnitude. Had our technol- D.W. Sciama, the Cambridge University Professor of Phy-
ogy been advanced enough, such effects could be observed. sics, proposed the concept of ‘inertial induction’ as a
2.1 Nature of Motion and Space 51

quantitative description of Mach’s principle. According to (a)

Sciama, a major advantage of Mach’s principle over the
‘absolute space’ concept of Newton is that the primary role m1 Fs Fs m2
played by ‘acceleration’ can be explained. According to the
conventional doctrine of Mach’s principle, the interactive
r
force between two material objects depends on the relative
‘acceleration’ between the two bodies and the relative
velocity does not lead to the development of any interactive (b)
force. To establish this point (that the velocity of a particle
with respect to the matter present in the rest of the universe is m1 Fi Fi m2 a
not detectable), experiments have been conducted on the
decay of K meson into p meson. The rate of K meson decay r
into two p mesons was expected to depend on its velocity
with respect to the matter in the rest of the universe if the Fig. 2.2 Concept of inertial induction
interactive force were dependent on velocity. But no such
dependence was found from the experiments, and the exis-
of a can be either positive or negative. Sciama arrived at this
tence of an interactive force depending on the relative
concept after considering the force between two electric
velocity between two objects was disproved.
charges. Figure 2.3a shows two charges +e1 and −e2 at a
However, this could be a matter of accuracy. If the
distance r. Coulomb’s law of electrostatic force suggests that
interactive force due to relative velocity be too small to be
the attractive force is given by
detected by the K meson decay experiment, then the ques-
tion remains open. Anyhow Sciama considered the interac- e1 e2
F¼e ð2:1:3Þ
tive force between two particles to depend only on their r2
relative acceleration and named the phenomenon as ‘inertial
where e is the dielectric constant of the free space. The
induction’. According to Sciama, the total force between two
similarity of the law with the law of universal gravitation is
particles of mass2 m1 and m2 has two parts—one static and
quite obvious. Now, if −e2 is moved away with an accel-
the other dynamic as follows:
eration a with respect to +e1, then the total force between the
F ¼ Fs þ Fi ð2:1:1Þ two charges is given by
e1 e2 e1 e2
The static part of the force is the usual Newtonian grav- F0 ¼ e 2
þe 2 a ð2:1:4Þ
itational attraction r cr
Sciama attributed a similar effect of a in the case of
m1 m2 gravitational interaction also in an intuitive manner. Of
G
r2 course, the model is quite simple and the question whether
where r is the distance between the two particles and G is the relative velocity generates any force or not remains unre-
constant of universal gravitation (Fig. 2.2a). The dynamic solved. But this was the first attempt to quantify Mach’s
part of the total interactive force is due to the inertial principle.
induction effect due to the relative acceleration and is given
by
(a)
m1 m2
G a
cr 2 +e1 F F −e2

where c is the speed of light in a vacuum and a is the

acceleration of m2 with respect to m1 as shown in Fig. 2.2b. r
Thus,
m1 m2 m1 m2 (b)
F¼G þG a ð2:1:2Þ
r2 cr 2
If a is reversed, the direction of Fi will also reverse. Of +e1 F' F' −e2 a
course, this is a very simplistic situation and the magnitude
r

2
Actually, this is the gravitational mass. Fig. 2.3 Force between electric charges
52 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

2.1.6 Origin of Inertia dr

Once a quantitative model is available, it is possible to use it

for finding the source of the inertial property of an object.
r
Using Sciama’s model of inertial induction, it is possible to
have a rough estimate of the total force due to the interaction
of a particle of (gravitational) mass m accelerating at the rate a
a with respect to the rest of the matter in the universe. If Mj Fi m
be the mass of the jth object in the universe (Fig. 2.4)

X
ObservableUniverse  
GMj
Fi ¼ ma ð2:1:5Þ
j
c2 r
In the very large scale, it may be assumed that the matter
Fig. 2.5 Interaction of a particle with an element of the universe
is uniformly distributed all over and the matter in the uni-
verse does not possess any particular acceleration. Thus, for
a stationary, homogenous and isotropic universe, the total where R0 is the radius of the observable universe given by c/
force on the particle due to inertial induction from the rest of H with H as the Hubble’s constant. From (2.1.7), one obtains
the universe can be expressed as follows:
ZZZ  2pGqR20
Gmq dv Fi ¼ ma
Fi ¼ 2 a ð2:1:6Þ c2 ð2:1:8Þ
c r 2pGq
¼ ma
H
where dv is the volume of a thin spherical elemental cell as
shown in Fig. 2.5 and q is the uniform density of matter in Using the currently estimated density q as 10−26 kg m−3 and
the universe. The radius of the cell is r with the test particle H as 50 km s−1 Mpc−1 (1.5  10−18 s−1), (2.1.8) yields
at the centre.
Now, the elemental volume dv can be expressed as Fi  1:8ma ð2:1:9Þ
follows: Ideally, Fi (i.e. the force to be exerted for accelerating a
mass m at the rate a) should be equal to exactly ma. However,
dv ¼ 4pr 2 dr
considering the approximate nature of the inertial induction
Using this in (2.1.6), the total force on m due to inertial model and the uncertainties involved in estimating the values
induction becomes of q and H, the close agreement is remarkable. This provides
0 1 enough hint that Mach’s principle may be the real cause of
R0Z¼c=H inertia as suggested by some scientists. It is felt that a more
4pGmq B 1 2 C
Fi ¼ 2 @ r dr Aa ð2:1:7Þ accurate modelling could lead to more accurate results.
c r It should be mentioned here that considering the theory of
0
Weber’s electrodynamic force law
"   #
e1 e2 1 dr 2 2r d2 r
F¼ 1 2 þ 2 2 ð2:1:10Þ
4per 2 c dt c dt
Mj
Tisserand proposed a modified law for gravitational
interaction between two masses in the following form as
early as 1872:
m " #
 
Gm1 m2 1 dr 2 2r d2 r
a F¼ 1 2 þ 2 2 ð2:1:11Þ
r2 h dt h dt

where h was considered to be the speed of propagation of

gravitation. It is interesting to note that besides the Newto-
nian static term, the force law contains a velocity-dependent
term and an acceleration-dependent term very similar to that
Fig. 2.4 A particle accelerating in the universe proposed by Sciama. However, Tisserand proposed the
2.1 Nature of Motion and Space 53

model to explain the anomaly observed in the advance of the universal motion. Locally, there are evolutions of systems
perihelion of Mercury. Since this was adequately explained and destructions are also of local nature. Such a universe is
by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, Tisserand’s considered to satisfy the ‘perfect cosmological principle’. In
model of dynamic gravitational interaction as a possible the nineteenth century, it was thought that the universe is
quantitative model of Mach’s principle remained unnoticed filled up by stars. But now it is known that the main con-
till very recently. stituent members of the universe are the galaxies along with
Though it is expected that a more accurate modelling some other types of objects.
following Sciama’s logic will give the desired result, there is There are a number of cosmological models. According
a serious philosophical issue involved. The exactness of the to the currently popular ‘Big-Bang’ theory, the universe is
equation F = ma cannot be dependent on the fine tuning of finite in size and possesses a universal expansion and the
the values of G, q, H and c. So, there must be some other universe is also evolving as a whole. In the ‘steady-state’
matter of very fundamental nature to take care of such theory the universe is infinite but possesses a universal
exactness. This problem will be taken up again in a later expansion. The steady state is maintained by continuous
chapter. creation of matter to keep the matter density unchanged.
However, according to the less-known ‘stationary universe’
model the universe satisfies the ‘perfect cosmological prin-
2.2 Relative–Absolute Duality of Nature ciple’. The expanding universe model is favoured because
of Motion that provides a simple and straightforward explanation for
the observed cosmological redshift without invoking new
The debate between the supporters of Newton’s concept of physics. But there is no direct evidence of universal
motion (i.e. acceleration) with respect to an absolute space expansion so far. So, to illustrate the absolute nature of
and the continental scientists’ philosophy of relative (with motion using the relative motion of a body with respect to
respect to other objects in the universe) motion continued for other bodies present in the universe, a model of infinite,
a long time. However, as the progress of science did not get homogenous, isotropic non-evolving stationary universe
affected by the philosophical nature of the disagreement the model will be chosen.
debate is not given any serious consideration by the prac- Figure 2.6 shows a plot of a million galaxies in the
tising scientists; the subject has been gradually pushed to a observable universe. It is clear that in the very large scale,
dark corner of the world of philosophy of science. the lumpiness of the matter content in the universe gradually
One may think that the matter is of purely academic nature reduces and the homogenous and isotropic nature of the
without any relevance to down-to-earth science but it is not universe becomes apparent. Apart from this, all contempo-
exactly so. In the Newtonian concept of absolute space as the rary observations also point towards the absence of any
background for motion to take place ‘inertia’ is an intrinsic curvature of the universal space–time continuum and the
property of mass and the second law of motion is a ‘law’. But geometry is strictly Euclidean. There is no systematic motion
it will be seen later in this volume that ‘inertia’ can be shown of the bodies in the universe though all objects possess some
to be manifestation of an object’s motion relative to the matter finite motion. In such a scenario, it is possible to conceive a
present in the rest of the universe. This solves also a number mean rest frame of this quasistatic universe. When very large
of paradoxes and mysteries in Newtonian scheme of things. sections are considered, the centre of mass of each of these
These will be taken up in later sections of this book. In this sections is almost without any perceptible motion. An
section, it will be attempted to demonstrate that a sense of imaginary network connecting these centres of mass con-
absolute motion can emerge from the results obtained through stitutes a frame of reference embedded in the universe that
the observation of an object’s relative motion with respect to may be treated as an absolute frame of the quasistatic infinite
other objects present in the universe. To keep the treatment universe. Even the cosmic microwave radiation that fills the
uncomplicated, only a two-dimensional situation will be whole universe may be treated as a background for detecting
analysed though the results for a three-dimensional situation absolute motions, i.e. motions with respect to the mean rest
will remain the same. frame of the universe.

2.2.1 The Nature of the Universe 2.2.2 Absolute Motion in Terms of Relative
Motion
It will be necessary first to identify the nature of the uni-
verse. From all observations, the universe appears to be In this section, an attempt will be made to show a method-
infinite, homogenous, and isotropic. The objects in the uni- ology by which the displacement of an object in the universe
verse have random motions, but there is no systematic can be provided with some scientific meaning.
54 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

Fig. 2.6 A million galaxies

Figure 2.7a shows a section of the universe containing relative displacements of a body in relation to other bodies
the targeted object P and other bodies. If another snapshot of can lead to a sense of absolute motion.
the same region of the universe is taken at another instant of The problem will be dealt with in a reverse order. First,
time, it may look as shown in Fig. 2.7b. Now as all objects let it be assumed that there is an absolute frame, and finally,
in this universe are in motion, it is not possible to find out the the validity of this assumption is established. At the first
amount of displacement of the object P. Even it may be, at a instant, when a snapshot is taken, let the position of the body
first glance, meaningless to talk about the displacement of P with respect to all the other bodies is given by
the objects. This is the fundamental problem of motion;
many philosophers and scientists feel that it is impossible to r1 ; ði ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .; n; . . .; 1Þ
have any sense in talking about the motion of an object When the next snapshot is taken after an interval of time
unless it is defined in relation to other objects. But as all Dt, let these positions be r01 ; (i = 1, 2, 3, …, n, …, ∞) when
objects are in motion, there cannot be any sense in con- the body P has moved to position P0 (with respect to the
templating motion of a body. But in an infinite, assumed mean rest frame of the universe). The other bodies
non-evolving homogenous and isotropic universe, the at positions 1, 2, 3, … have moved to positions 10 , 20 , 30 , …
(as indicated in the figure) in this assumed mean rest frame
(a) (b) of the universe. Thus, the displacements of these bodies are
given by Dq1 ; (i = 1, 2, 3, …, n, …, ∞), whereas body
P moves through the displacement Ds (all in the imagined
mean rest frame of the universe). The quantities which are
p p directly observed are the position vectors r1 and r01 ; (i = 1, 2,
3, …, n, …, ∞). It can be shown that Ds can be determined
from these quantities. From Fig. 2.8, the following equations
are obtained:
Fig. 2.7 Snapshots of a region at the two different instants
2.2 Relative–Absolute Duality of Nature of Motion 55

!
∆ρ3 1 X
N X
N
3' Ds ¼ r0i  ri ð2:2:3Þ
3
1'
N i¼1 i¼1
r3 r3'
∆ρ1
r1' Therefore, it is seen that if the initial and final positions of
1
P' an object with respect to a very large number of other objects
r1 rn
P ∆s in the universe are known, the displacement of the object
n
with respect to the mean rest frame of the universe can be
r2' rn' ∆ρn determined from (2.2.3). Thus, relative position can yield the
2 r2'
n' absolute motion. This is a fine example of relative–absolute
∆ρ2
2' duality in the science of motion.
As already mentioned earlier in this section, the concept
Fig. 2.8 Relative displacement of bodies of absolute motion is not absurd as it sounds. In fact, the
cosmic microwave background radiation provides such a
notion to absolute nature of motion. The motion of the earth
r1 þ Ds ¼ Dq1 þ r01
through this ‘soupe’ of background radiation can be deter-
r2 þ Ds ¼ Dq2 þ r02 mined by observing the dipole anisotropy in the Doppler
r3 þ Ds ¼ Dq3 þ r03 effect. The magnitude of the earth’s absolute velocity (with
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . respect to this radiation) has been found out to be
rn þ Ds ¼ Dqn þ r0n 260 km s−1.
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

Summing up both sides of the above vector equations for 2.3 Inertial and Gravitational Mass
N terms (when N is very large tending to infinity), the fol-
lowing equation is obtained: The concept of mass was first proposed by Newton to
quantify the quantity of matter. The definition of mass given
X
N X
N X
N
by Newton was ‘quantity of matter’, and he quantified it by
ri þ N  Ds ¼ Dqi þ r0i ð2:2:1Þ the product of density and volume. In earlier times, the
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
‘bulk’ or the ‘quantity of matter’ used to be recognized by
To proceed further, let the displacements Dqi be consid- the weight of an object. Newton recognized mass as an in-
ered to be equal in the magnitude, Dqav but randomly ori- trinsic property of matter and different from weight which is
ented. In reality, the magnitudes of the displacements of the nothing but the force of gravitational pull by the earth. So
objects satisfy a normal distribution with an average value weight is not a property of an object as the gravitational pull
Dqav. But the final outcome of this argument remains the does not remain constant. In Newton’s scheme of things,
same. From the random walk theorem, ‘mass’ comes into picture in two ways. In the first case, the
mass represents the inertia to change of motion. Quantita-
X
N
tively, this is manifested in the second law
Dqi ¼ Dq
i¼1
F ¼ ma
pffiffiffiffi
where jDqj ¼ N  Dqav . If ^k be a unit vector along the On the other hand, the law of universal gravitation pro-
direction of the resultant vector Dq, posed by Newton also incorporates a quantity called ‘mass’.
The force of gravitational attraction between two bodies with
X
N pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Dqi ¼ ^k NDqav ð2:2:2Þ masses m1 and m2 is given by
i¼1
m1 m2
jFj ¼ G jrj
Substituting this resultant in (2.2.1) and dividing both r3
sides by N
where r is the position vector of one body with respect to the
1 X
N ^k 1 X
N other. It should be noted that in Newtonian mechanics, the
ri þ Ds ¼ pffiffiffiffi Dqav þ r0i phenomenon of accelerating a body with an impressed force
N i¼1 N N i¼1 has no relation to the gravitational attraction between two
bodies. So the properties designated by the term ‘mass’ in
when N becomes very large, Dq
pffiffiavffi tends to zero, and the above
N the two cases need not be the same. In modern times, two
equation becomes after rearrangement different names are used to denote this difference: in the case
56 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

of a body’s resistance (or inertia), change in the state of m = m/1 = (acceleration of the standard mass)/(acceleration
motion is called ‘inertial mass’ (mi), and in the case of of the body)
gravitational attraction, the property is defined as the
‘gravitational mass’ (mg). Over and above, to make further where the above relation is also used to define the unit of
finer distinction, the gravitational mass of a body on which force. In the SI unit, the mass of the standard mass is 1 kg,
the gravitational pull acts is often termed as ‘passive gravi- and when a force acting on the body produces unit accel-
tational mass’ and the mass of the body exerts the pull is eration, 1 m s−2, the force is defined to be 1 N. In Newto-
called the ‘active gravitational mass’. However, according to nian mechanics, the inertial (and also gravitational) mass
Newton’s third law, the situation is symmetric and there is remains conserved. The mass also shows additive property.
no important difference between the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ If two objects have masses m1 and m2, they accelerate at the
gravitational mass of a body. rate a when subjected to forces F1 and F2,
Newton did not make any special effort, to differentiate
between the ‘inertial’ and ‘gravitational’ mass though he was F1 ¼ m1 a and F2 ¼ m2 a
aware of the difference. Perhaps, the primary reason for this When the two bodies are combined and subjected to a
was the traditional way of considering the weight of an force (F1 + F2), the following result is obtained:
object as its bulk (representing the mass). But, nevertheless,
he proposed to demonstrate the equality by more accurate F1 þ F2 ¼ ðm1 þ m2 Þa
experiments than the standard ‘free fall’ experiments of
So the combined bodies as a single body have mass
Galileo. This point will be taken up later in this section.
m1 + m2.

2.3.1 Inertial Mass

2.3.2 Gravitational Mass
To concretize the concept of inertial mass, a methodology
needs to be developed. A thought experiment can be con- The fact that all bodies fall with equal acceleration when no
ceived in which different bodies are impressed upon the resistance acts was well established by Galileo first and other
same force. subsequent scientists later. If an object has a gravitational
The scheme is indicated in Fig. 2.9. To ensure the con- mass mg and inertial mass mi, the force of attraction due to
stancy of the impressed force F, the compression of the gravity on the earth’s surface is given by Newton’s law of
spring is used. A definite force compresses a spring by a universal gravity3 as follows:
definite predetermined amount. If the experiments are con-
GmEg mg
ducted in an inertial frame of reference, the second law of F¼ ð2:3:3Þ
motion stipulates that R2E

F ¼ m 1 a1 ¼ m 2 a2 ð2:3:1Þ when mEg represents the gravitational mass of the earth and
RE is the earth’s radius. This force acting on the object
where m1 and m2 are the inertial masses of two bodies being produces an acceleration according to the second law as
accelerated at the rates a1 and a2, respectively. Conducting follows:
the experiments in an inertial frame also ensures that the  
results will be agreed upon by all inertial observers. Equa- F GmEg mg
a¼ ¼ ¼g ð2:3:4Þ
tion (2.3.1) yields mi R2E mi
m1 a2 where g is the acceleration due to gravity on earth’s surface.
¼ ð2:3:2Þ
m2 a1 Since ‘g’ is found to be same for two objects 1 and 2,
This is an unambiguous way of defining the ratio of mg1 mg2
inertial masses of two bodies. So, if one of the bodies, say ¼ ¼ a ðconstÞ ð2:3:5Þ
mi1 mi2
body 2, is assumed to have mass equal to 1 (as the standard),
then the mass of any other body is given by which implies that the ratio of the gravitational mass and the
inertial mass is same for all objects. Using the known value

F
m1 a1

3
In fact, Newton did not formulate his law of universal gravitation in
Fig. 2.9 Experiment to determine inertial mass the familiar form.
2.3 Inertial and Gravitational Mass 57

mEg = 5.976  1024 kg, RE = 6.378  106 m and Fig. 2.10 Newton’s conical
ω
g = 9.80665 m s−2 pendulum experiment

mg 1 6:3782  1012 6:6754  1011 θ l

¼  9:80665  ¼ ¼a
mi G 5:976  1024 G
miω 2lsinθ
Taking G = 6.67  10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2, a becomes equal
to unity rendering the gravitational and inertial masses equal.
This equality of gravitational and inertial masses intrigued mgg
all scientists as there has been no theory relating the phe-
nomena of inertia and gravitation till Mach propose his very
qualitative philosophy towards the end of the nineteenth mi x2 l2 sin h cos h ¼ mg gl sin h
century. or,
   
mi =mg ¼ g= x2 l cos h
2.3.3 Equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational As the pendulum mass rotates at speed x, the period of
Mass rotation is given by

Traditionally, all users of Newtonian mechanics generally do 2p 2p

T¼ ¼  
not ponder over the matter of using ‘mass’ without making x g= mi =mg l cos h
1=2

any distinction whether it is inertial or gravitational. This is

so because of the exact equivalence of the inertial and Newton equated this period with the time period of a
gravitational mass of an object (i.e. the ratio of these two pendulum with length l cos h given by
properties is a constant for all objects). Though the observed
2p
results of the free fall experiments lead to this understanding, T¼   1=2
the accuracy of these results was not high and many other g= mi =mg l cos h
experiments have been devised to test this equivalence. Even
at present some billion-dollar experiments are being planned and used the time period expression for a simple pendulum
to test the accuracy of this equivalence—the matter is of so to determine the speed x of a conical pendulum. Using the
profound importance to scientists and philosophers. experiments, Newton established the equivalence of mi and
Huygens was the first to derive in 1673 the expression for mg with a much higher level of accuracy.
the period of oscillation of a simple pendulum as follows: In 1880, Baron Eötvös from Budapest conducted an
experiment to demonstrate the equivalence with an accuracy
sffiffiffi
l level of 10−8. In 1964, Dicke and, in 1971, Braginski and
T ¼ 2p Panov verified the equivalence to a limit of 10−12. In more
g
recent experiments using space technology, the accuracy of
Using this formula, the value of g was determined with a one part is 1018 has been achieved! The basic principle
higher degree of accuracy than that obtained from the free followed in Eötvös experiment is explained through the
fall experiments. By conducting experiments with the length simplified diagram in Fig. 2.11.
l, as 11 ft and using the oscillating mass made of different
materials, Newton was able to prove
North Pole
  ω
mi mg =mi  103
T
h

meaning that the inertial and gravitational masses of a body c r m

are equal within one part in thousand. Using a spherical
E
R

mgg = Fg
pendulum, Newton was able to improve the accuracy
λ
further. o
Figure 2.10 shows the arrangement. The equilibrium
configuration of the pendulum, when rotated at an angular
speed x, is given by the balancing act of the deflecting
moment mix2l sin h. l cos h and the restoring moment
mggl sin h. The obtained relation is
Fig. 2.11 Principle of Eötvös experiment
58 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

T
φ A
c m A
φΑ
mgg B B
λ mA
o East
mA φΒ
mB
mB
West

Fig. 2.13 Development of an unbalance moment when the equiva-

Fig. 2.12 Forces on mass in Eötvös experiment lence is not valid

Because of the earth’s rotation, the mass has acceleration ω

towards the centre C of the circle. The magnitude of the ω 2 rm1i
centripetal acceleration directed towards C is x2r  r
2
Rcos k as h ⋘ R, where h is the height of the post from m1i
which the pendulum suspended. The force required for this
acceleration is equal to mx2Rcos k. This force is the resul-
tant of the tension T and the gravitational pull Fg on the m2g
mass. The force towards C acting on the bob (Fig. 2.12) is
m2g g
given by

mg g cos k  T cosðk þ uÞ ¼ mi x2 R cos k Fig. 2.14 Balancing of gravitational pull by inertial centrifugal force

or,
Before Newton, Huygens recognized the equivalent nature
ðmg g  mx2 RÞ cos k ¼ T cosðk þ uÞ ð2:3:6Þ of the inertial centrifugal force and gravitational pull. He
suggested an experiment through which this could be verified.
Figure 2.14 shows the scheme of this experiment. When
Since the mass is not subjected to any acceleration in the the mass m1 is rotated at the appropriate angular velocity x
direction of the local vertical keeping the length of the rotating part of the rope r, the
mg g sin k ¼ T sinðk þ uÞ ð2:3:7Þ centrifugal force m1i x2 r due to the inertial mass can balance
the hanging weight. By suitable adjustment, it can be shown
Eliminating T from the above two equations that mi = mg when m1 = m2. Only two and half centuries
  later this equivalence of gravity and inertia became the
mi x2 R
1 cot k ¼ cotðk þ uÞ foundation for Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. It is
mg g also interesting to note this is at the root of all planetary
Simplifying after approximation motions.
  2
mi x R
u sin k cos k ð2:3:8Þ
mg g
2.4 Space–Time and Symmetry
Since u depends on the ratio (mi/mg), it will not be same for in Newtonian Mechanics
different materials if the equivalence of mi and mg is not true.
To check this, two bobs of same weight but made of different It may occur to careful readers if there are definite reasons
materials are hung from a suspended lever AB as shown in for the laws of motion to be as they are. As the laws of the
Fig. 2.13. If the angles uA and uB are different, then the sus- game of chess are closely linked to the structure of a
pended lever will be subjected to a resultant moment causing it chessboard, the laws of motion are also linked to certain
to rotate as indicated. However, if mi  mg, u will be same for properties of the space and time. In fact while presenting the
different material bobs and no rotation of the suspended lever laws of motion such special properties are implicitly taken
will be noticed. In the experiments conducted by Eötvös, no for granted. Of course the laws of mechanics cannot be
rotation of the suspended lever was found. directly derived only from the structure of space and time,
2.4 Space–Time and Symmetry in Newtonian Mechanics 59

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

Fig. 2.15 Symmetry of geometric shapes

but understanding their close inter dependence provides a

deeper understanding of the concepts.
Three important properties have been a priory assumed
while formulating the laws of motion. These are as follows:

i. Homogeneity of space,
ii. Isotropy of space and
iii. Homogeneity of time

The homogeneity of space implies that the results of a Reflection

dynamics experiment do not depend on the location where
Fig. 2.16 Reflection of shapes
the experiment is conducted. Similarly, the isotropic nature
of space ensures that the results of a dynamics experiment
are not dependent on the orientation. Similarly, the outcome or it is rotated through space. How the symmetry properties
of a dynamical lest is independent of the time when it is are linked to various laws of motion and conservation
conducted suggesting the homogeneity of time. principle will be discussed in the later section.
Another important aspect that plays a very profound role
in mechanics is ‘symmetry’. To understand the meaning, it
may be helpful to present the concept of symmetry through 2.5 Early Concept of Energy
geometrical shapes.
Figure 2.15 shows five geometric shapes with varying At this point, it is desirable to focus the attention to the
degrees of symmetry. The shape shown in (i) does not development in science of motion that was taking place in
possess any symmetry as the appearance changes when it is the continent at a time when Newton was developing his
rotated in the range 0 < angle of rotation < 360°. The rect- mechanics. After Rene Descartes and Christian Huygens, it
angle shown in (ii) preserves its appearance when rotated was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) who was busy
through 180°. The square and the equilateral triangle shown in developing this branch of science. One should not forget
in (iii) and (iv) possess increasingly higher degree of sym- that it was Leibniz who first introduced the word ‘dynamics’
metry. The square and the triangle maintain the shape to describe this branch of natural philosophy. Newton used
through a rotation of 90° and 60°, respectively. Finally, the to refer to this discipline as ‘rational mechanics’ and con-
circle shown in (v) is perfectly symmetric as any amount of sidered it to be a mathematical discipline. However, Leibniz
rotation does not alter the shape. Thus, symmetry is signified considered his ‘dynamics’ to be a physical discipline. Of
by the ‘absence of change’, and in case of geometrical course, Leibniz’s treatment of the subject was predominantly
shapes, it is recognized by the lack of change through metaphysical and, quite often, lost its meaning in the modern
rotation or reflection. context.
Figure 2.16 shows the reflections in the cases of the The primary difference in the approach followed by
shapes (i) and (ii). It is shown that the shape is preserved in Leibniz was because of his refusal to accept the concept of
the case of a rectangle but not for the shape shown in (i). force as per the Newtonian doctrine. At the same time, being a
Any amount of rotation of the reflected shape does not follower of Descartes and Huygens, Leibniz did not agree to
produce the original shape. the ‘action-at-a-distance’ approach for gravitational interac-
In case of geometrical figures, the symmetry is depicted tion. Apart from this the basic idea, behind his dynamics were
by the absence of change when it is rotated or reflected. In conceived some years before the publication of Principia. So,
the case of dynamics, the symmetry is identified by the lack the explanations for the planetary motion given by Leibniz
of change in the results of an experiment when one goes depended heavily on metaphysics. To him, ‘motion’ has no
from one inertial frame to another or when such an experi- reality and only relative motion is meaningful. He also totally
ment is moved through space or conducted at a different time rejected Newton’s concept of ‘absolute space’.
60 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

Leibniz proposed two types of forces—‘passive force’ 2.6 The Principle of Relativity and Galilean
and ‘active force’. The ‘passive force’ is somewhat akin to Transformation
the inertial effect in bodies, and the ‘active force’ is directly
related to the motion of bodies. Thus, passive force repre- It was Galileo who first removed the biggest hurdle in
sents the mass of a body, whereas the active force relates to resolving the problem of a moving earth by introducing the
the mass and speed of a body. In Leibniz’s opinion, the concept of relativity and the indistinguishability of inertial
motion of a body has no reality; it is possible to conceive frames from one another. At the present time, it is next to
motion as change of position relative to other bodies. Active impossible to understand the tremendous difficulty in
forces, according to the scheme proposed by Leibniz, again incorporating this idea into the thought process of not only
could be classified into two types—‘living’ forces and ‘dead’ the common men but even the philosophers.
forces. Those which are associated with only the tendency of Since mass is an invariant quantity in Newtonian me-
motion were considered as ‘dead’ forces, and those which chanics and the acceleration of a body is observed to be the
were associated with the motion were called ‘living’. same by the observers in all inertial frames, the second law
Without entering into the metaphysical discussion on Leib- ensures that the observers will also agree on the force to be
niz’s science of motion, in modern language, one can the same. Thus, two inertial observers agree about the cause
understand ‘dead’ forces as the product of mass and an of a given motion to be the same though the description of
infinitesimal change is speed, i.e. mdv. This is nothing but motion will be different. To elaborate this point, let the
an infinitesimal change in momentum and is same as the following example be considered.
concept of impetus or impulse used by Newton in his An observer A sitting in a moving train throws a ball in
analyses. (It should be remembered that Newton did not use the vertical direction and catches it back. Another observer
the second law in a form it is used in modern times. He B stands on the platform and observes the motion of the ball.
solved his mechanics problems using the concept of impulse Their descriptions are indicated in Fig. 2.17a, b. But both
that is equal to the change in momentum in very short can predict their respective observations by using the second
durations.) The ‘living’ force in Leibniz’s mechanics is law of motion employing the respective initial conditions.
proportional to the product of mass and the square of the The implication of the above experiment is that the laws of
speed, i.e. mv2. Leibniz used the term ‘vis viva’ for this motion are the same in all inertial frames. This is an example
quantity. A considerable degree of nebulosity exists in of the Principle of Relativity, the general statement of which
Leibniz’s writings, and maybe the true nature of these is that the laws of physics do not distinguish one inertial
quantities was not very clear to Leibniz himself. When frame from another. Though this idea was used by Einstein
translated into the modern language, ‘dead’ force bears a for developing his Special Theory of Relativity, it was first
close relationship with the concept of force or, more strictly proposed by Galileo in his famous book ‘Dialogue Con-
speaking, with the idea of ‘virtual work’. But the living force curring Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic and
is merged with the modern concept of kinetic energy with Copernican’.
some subtle differences. According to Leibniz, the living Though the text is widely read, it may be useful to present
force had both direction and magnitude, whereas kinetic here the dialogue of two imaginary characters (one was, of
energy is a purely scalar quantity. course, Galileo himself), Sagredo and Salviati.
Using examples from collision problems, Leibniz also
Salviati: Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin
claimed that his ‘motive action’ (meaning living force, most below decks on some large ship, and have with you there some
probably) remains conserved. Using this principle, he solved flies, butterflies, and other small flying animals. Have a large
collision problems with elastic bodies. Thus, the concept of bowl of water with some fish in it; hang up a bottle that empties
an entity that is conserved took shape in continental drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. With the ship
standing still, observe carefully how the little animals fly with
mechanics that laid the foundation of the modern concept of equal speed to all sides of the cabin. The fish swim indifferently
mechanical energy. More elaborate discussion on energy and in all directions; the drops fall into the vessel beneath; and, in
related issues will be taken up in the later section. throwing something to your friend, you need to throw it no more

(a) (b)

u u
v
v

Fig. 2.17 a, b A ball’s motion observed by two observers, c Two inertial observers looking at the motion of a particle
2.6 The Principle of Relativity and Galilean Transformation 61

(c) Similarly,
y x′
P a y0 ¼ a y and az0 ¼ az
V′
Hence,

A A′ a0 ¼ a
y′
o x o′ It will be seen in what follows is that many interesting
features of Newtonian mechanics can be derived through the
Fig. 2.17 (continued) application of the symmetry concepts and the Principle of
Relativity.
strongly in one direction than another, the distances being equal;
jumping with your feet together, you pass equal spaces in every
direction. When you have observed all these things carefully 2.6.1 The Principle of Relativity
(though there is no doubt that when standing still everything
must happen in this way), have the ship proceed with any speed
you like, so long as the motion is uniform and not fluctuating Before proceeding further, it is desirable to examine the
this way and that. You will discover not the least change in all Principle of Relativity in a more mathematical form to
the effects named, nor could you tell from any of them whether concretize the concepts.
the ship was moving or standing still…. Figure 2.17c shows two different inertial observers A and
The above statement of Salviati suggests that it is not A0 taking note of the motion of a particle P as indicated. The
possible to detect uniform motion from observing internal inertial frame o′−x′−y′ has a uniform velocity V 0 with respect
motion phenomena. Thus, Galileo was the first proponent of to the other inertial frame o–x−y as shown in the figure.
‘The Principle of Relativity’ that states that ‘all inertial Although, A and A0 will have different descriptions of the
frames are equivalent so far as the laws of motion are con- motion of P as y(x) and y0 ðx0 Þ, both of them will agree on the
cerned’. This principle which is within the domain of acceleration of P as a ¼ a0 . The Principle of Relativity in
Newtonian mechanics is also termed as Galilean Relativity Newtonian Mechanics can be expressed in a more elaborate
to distinguish it from Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. manner as described below.
The transformation of kinematic quantities from one inertial Let S be an isolated system in which the particles interact
frame observer to another follows the rules which are known with one another but not with the rest of the universe.
as Galilean transformation. If A and A0 be two observers in Observer A marks the motion of all particles (with specific
inertial frames S and S0 , respectively, and, if the Ox and O0x0 initial positions and velocities at t = 0) as time progresses.
are aligned with the direction of the velocity V with which S0 The positions and velocities of all particles are recorded as
moves with respect to frame S, then the velocity components
ri ¼ ri ðtÞ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; N
of a particle follow the transformation rules as given below:
vi ¼ vi ðtÞ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; N
t0 ¼ t
Now, observer A0 conducts an experiment with the same
u0x ¼ ux V
particles with the same initial positions and same initial
u0y ¼ uy velocities in A0 frame of reference, and then, the description
u0z ¼ uz of motion with the progress of time will be the same as that
marked by A. Thus, with
The transformation of coordinates follows the following
rules: ri ðoÞ ¼ r0i ðoÞ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; N

t0 ¼ t and
x0 ¼ x  Vt vi ðoÞ ¼ v0i ðoÞ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; N
y0 ¼ y
the subsequent motion’s description will be the same or
z0 ¼ z mathematically
It is also clear that acceleration components transform as ri ðtÞ ¼ r0i ðt0 Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; N
follows:
and
du0 dðux  VÞ dux
ax0 ¼ 0x ¼ ¼ ¼ ax vi ðtÞ ¼ v0i ðt0 Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; N
dt dt dt
62 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

At 2.6.2 Symmetry and Relativity

2 t' = 0
1 1
At The Principle of Relativity, when applied to mechanics
t=0 2
N problems involving some symmetry, can lead to many
o'
important results without solving the problems. Some
o v N examples presented below illustrate the point.
ri(o), vi(o) ri'(o), vi'(o) The first example is based on a collision problem of two
isolated identical particles. Before the collision, the situation
is ‘perfectly’ symmetric when viewed by an inertial observer
A as shown in Fig. 2.19a. The possibilities of the state of
motion after the collision could be as indicated in Fig. 2.19b.
At
any t At time t'
To determine the possibility without solving the collision
2
problem, let the same phenomenon be observed by A0 as
1 N shown in Fig. 2.19a. At the beginning, both A and A0 found
o the situation to be symmetric. According to the Principle of
ri(t), vi (t) o' 1' 2' Relativity, the two observers must find the description of
motion after the collision to be indistinguishable. A little
v N' careful study shows that the situation indicated in (i) of
t = t' ri'(t'), vi'(t')
Fig. 2.19b is the only case that satisfies the Principle of
Fig. 2.18 Explicit illustration of the Principle of Relativity Relativity. Cases (ii) and (iii) look different to the two
observers, and the descriptions differ. If a third observer A00
is considered in the frame x00 y00 z00 , the possibilities shown
with a further stipulation that in (iv) and (v) look different and the descriptions differ after
the collision. Therefore, the only possible situation is as
t ¼ t0
shown in (i). In general, if a situation is symmetric, after a
Figure 2.18 illustrates the above diagrammatically. dynamical interaction the situation must maintain the sym-
One important point needs to be carefully noted. The metry according to the Principle of Relativity.
Principle of Relativity also ensures three important proper- If the case of a head-on symmetric collision of two
ties of the space and time. The homogeneity of space is identical particles appears to be too restrictive, a little more
ensured as the inertial frames are located at different loca- generalized case can be considered where two identical
tions. The orientation of the inertial frames does not affect particles collide in an unsymmetrical fashion as indicated in
the laws of motion indicating the isotropy of space. Since the Fig. 2.20.
principle is valid not depending on when the experiments are Figure 2.20 shows the phenomenon. The figure shows
conducted, it ensures the homogeneity of time. the initial positions and velocities of the particles, and let the
The profoundness of the principle is evident in the fact particles be initially free to move (as they are far off from
that according to the Principle of Relativity, all inertial each other and the system is an isolated one from the rest of
frames are equivalent for all physical phenomena not only the universe). Therefore, in the inertial frame x–y–z, both
the dynamical ones. will move with no acceleration. Next, let the collision be

Fig. 2.19 Presentation of 3, 3''

symmetry (i)
A

x'' (ii)

m y', y'' u m (iii)

2 −u y 1
(iv)

x, x'
(v)
A'
3'
2.6 The Principle of Relativity and Galilean Transformation 63

Fig. 2.20 Unsymmetrical

z v2 z
collision of two identical particles z'
v1 2 2
1 1 y'
o'
r2(0)
x'
r1(0) o y o y

x
x

observed from a frame x0 y0 z0 whose origin is at the v01 ðtÞ ¼ v02 ðtÞ and a01 ðtÞ ¼ a02 ðtÞ
midpoint of the line joining the two particles, O0 . Initially,
the velocity of the point O0 is Therefore, a01 ðtÞ þ a02 ðtÞ ¼ 0 in the x0 y0 z0 frame, and
since accelerations are same in all inertial frames, all inertial
d1 1 observers conclude that
½r1 ðoÞ þ r2 ðoÞ ¼ ½v1 ðoÞ þ v2 ðoÞ ¼ vo0 ðoÞ
dt 2 2
a01 ðtÞ þ a02 ðtÞ ¼ 0
i.e. a constant. Therefore, if the axes of the primed frame of
reference be always kept parallel to those in the inertial or,
frame x–y–z, the primed frame moves with respect to the
d
inertial frame with a constant velocity. Thus, the frame ½mv1 ðtÞ þ mv2 ðtÞ ¼ 0
x0 y0 z0 is also an inertial frame if the velocity is kept dt
constant. Now, when observed from this second inertial or,
frame, the collision is a symmetrical one. The initial veloc-
ities of the two particles in this frame are found out as mv1 ðtÞ þ mv2 ðtÞ ¼ constant
follows:
meaning that the total momentum of the system is con-
1 served. Therefore, a considerable amount of information can
v01 ðoÞ ¼ v1 ðoÞ  vo0 ðoÞ ¼ v1 ðoÞ  ½v1 ðoÞ þ v2 ðoÞ
2 be extracted by applying the symmetry concept and the
1 Principle of Relativity.
¼ ½v1 ðoÞ þ v2 ðoÞ ¼ uðoÞ
2
and
2.6.3 Form Invariance of Physical Laws
1
v02 ðoÞ ¼ v2 ðoÞ  vo0 ðoÞ ¼ v2 ðoÞ  ½v1 ðoÞ þ v2 ðoÞ Physical laws represent the generalized patterns of physical
2
1 phenomena. The Principle of Relativity states that no dis-
¼  ½v1 ðoÞ þ v2 ðoÞ ¼ uðoÞ tinctions can be made among the inertial frames by con-
2
ducting internal experiments only. It means that the
As this frame is also an inertial frame, the Principle of observers in different inertial frames must arrive at identical
Relativity has to be satisfied; i.e., the initial symmetry has to conclusions about the laws of physics from the results of the
be maintained. So the positions of particles 1 and 2 in the internally conducted experiments. Or in other words, the
new frame must also remain symmetrical, implying that form of the laws of physics must be invariant. This very
during the subsequent motion also r1(t) = −r2(t). It ensures important property dictated by the Principle of Relativity is
that even when the particles start interacting the origin O0 called the ‘form invariance of physical laws’.
remains at the middle of the two particles. This also ensures This property of physical laws puts very severe restric-
that the velocities and accelerations of the particles are tions on the allowed forms. A very suitable example can be
always equal and opposite when the collision is viewed from taken to illustrate this as follows. Let two particles 1 and 2
the frame x0 y0 z0 . Thus, interact gravitationally, and let the phenomenon be observed
64 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

z' is admissible because jr1  r2 j ¼ r01  r02 . Therefore, in

z A' general, the laws of physics must remain invariant under
1
r1' y' transformation from one inertial frame to another.
r1
F o'

A −F 2.6.4 Energy and Energy Function

o r 2'
y x'
r2 One of the most profound concepts in the science of motion
2 is the concept of energy. However, an attempt to define
x
energy is futile (like many other very important quantities in
Fig. 2.21 Gravitational interaction as viewed from two inertial frames physics such as charge, force). Qualitatively, one can state
that energy is something that is required to do work or get
by two inertial observers A and A0 sitting in the inertial things done. In the whole of Principia, Newton did not refer
frames xyz and x0 y0 z0 as indicated in Fig. 2.21. to this concept even once. It was the contemporary conti-
Observer A notices the positions of the two particles 1 nental scientists like Huygens and Leibniz who considered a
and 2 as r1 and r2. Similarly the observer A0 records the quantity like energy (Leibniz’s vis viva) to play an important
positions of the same particles with respect to the primed role in dynamics.
frame of reference x0 y0 z0 as r01 and r02 . Now let a law of The significance of ‘energy’ is in its conservation prop-
gravitation is suggested in the following form. The gravita- erty. The ‘energy’, i.e. the capacity to do work in a
tional force is given by dynamical system, is conserved. Of course, energy can be
stored (or possessed by something) in various forms, viz.
Gm1 m2 chemical, heat, sound, electromagnetic, nuclear and
jFj ¼
jr1 þ r2 j2 mechanical. The sum total of energy in an isolated system is
always conserved though there can be transformation from
Hence, the accelerations of the particles should be one form into another. So far as dynamics is concerned, the
F F only form of energy that is relevant is mechanical energy. In
a1 ¼ and a2 ¼  dynamics, if mechanical energy is transformed into another
m1 m2
non-mechanical form like heat or chemical, then it is con-
The force of acceleration according to the observer A0 , sidered to be lost. Thus, in mechanics, energy conservation
according to this suggested force law, will be of a system implies that the total mechanical energy remains
constant.
Gm1 m2
jF0 j ¼ 2
Mechanical energy can be in two forms. When the
r01 þ r02 capacity to do work of a body is by virtue of its motion (like
a bullet), the energy is called ‘kinetic energy’ (it is very
as mass is an invariant quantity. Thus, the acceleration of the
similar to Leibniz’s ‘vis viva’). Mechanical energy can exist
particles according to A0 will be
in another form, i.e. ‘potential energy’. A body with
F0 F0 potential energy can do work not by virtue of its motion but
a01 ¼ and a02 ¼  because of its internally stored energy. Best examples of a
m1 m2
body possessing potential energy are that which is raised to a
But both A and A0 being inertial observers they must height against gravity, or a spring that is deformed.
agree that a1 ¼ a01 and a2 ¼ a02 . This requires the two Figure 2.22 shows the various examples of a mechanical
quantities system (or body) to possess mechanical energy in different
manners. In the first case, the capacity to do work comes
Gm2 Gm2
2
and 2
from the speed of the body, whereas in the second and third
jr1 þ r2 j r01 þ r02 examples, the capacity to do work is in potential form.
Quantitative measures of energy can be done by equating it
must be equal which is not true as jr1 þ r2 j 6¼ r01 þ r02 . to the amount of work done. So it is important to understand
Hence, the suggested form is not admissible. On the other what is meant by work. Work is done either by a force or
hand, a force law against a force, and the amount of work is the product of the
Gm1 m2 force and the displacement of the point of application of the
jFj ¼ force A as illustrated in Fig. 2.23.
j r1  r2 j 2
2.6 The Principle of Relativity and Galilean Transformation 65

(a) (b) (c) 2.6.5 Energy Function

m m k The concept of energy function is very important. A partic-
v
ular mechanical system can be disturbed by putting it in
g x motion. A system undergoes infinite states of motion
h depending on the initial disturbance. But is there something
that describes all possible states of motion of the system and
not a particular state? If such a ‘thing’ exists, then that
1 1
E = 2 mv2 E = mgh E = 2 kx2 describes the ‘system’ consisting of all the ‘possible’ states
of motion. In fact, there is such a thing that describes a
Fig. 2.22 Examples of mechanical energy ‘system’ instead of a particular motion executed by it. This
‘something’ can be called the ‘energy function’ of a system.
Each mechanical system possesses a unique ‘energy func-
F(x) tion’. The positions and velocities of the individual particles
(a) constituting a system determine the value of its ‘energy
A x W = ∫ F(x) dx function’. An example can illustrate the importance of
A energy function concept.
F(x) F(x) W = ∫ F• d r
(b) Let the first case be that of a simple spring mass system.
dr
Its energy function is given as follows:
A F x
x 1 1
(c) W = − ∫ F (x) dx E ¼ m_x2 þ kx2
2 2
dx
Since it is a conservative isolated system, E must be
Fig. 2.23 Work done by a force conserved:

or; ddEt ¼ 0
If the force and displacement of the point of application or; m_x€x þ kx_x ¼ 0
of the force A are vectors, then the scalar product summed or; x_ ðm€x þ kxÞ ¼ 0
over the whole process is taken as the work done by the
force. The scalar quantity, work, goes into the system (to Hence, two possible situations are permitted. Either the
which the point A belongs) to be stored as energy. When the body is at rest, i.e. x_ ¼ 0, or the following relation is
displacement of the point A is against the direction of satisfied:
application of the force (Fig. 2.23c), the work is done by the m€x þ kx ¼ 0
system against the force. Hence, the work done is negative
and is achieved through the expenditure of energy stored in The example is simple but shows how the dynamical
the system. In case of the vector nature of the force and the behaviour expressed in the form of a relationship among
displacement, the sign of the scalar product automatically various quantities (in modern language this is called the
decides the situation. Using this concept, it is seen that the equation of motion). It can be stated that the dynamical
kinetic energy is given by ½mv2 and the gravitational or characteristics of a mechanical system are governed by its
strain potential energy is given by mgh and ½kx2 where ‘h’ ‘energy function’. It should be carefully noted that the ‘en-
is the height raised and x is the deformation of a spring from ergy function’ of a system is not explicitly dependent on
its natural length, k being the stiffness of the spring given by time. For an isolated conservative system, the energy func-
the force required to produce unit deformation (elongation or tion remains constant implying
compression). The law of conservation of mechanical energy
E½ri ðtÞ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; N; vi ðtÞ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; N  ¼ constant
of a system states that the sum total of the kinetic and
potential energy remains constant. Figure 2.24 shows a or
number of different types of mechanical systems and their
respective total energy expression. dE
¼0
dt
66 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

Fig. 2.24 Examples of

mechanical system and their total m1 −
vn
energy
− −
mi|−
v1 v2 mn n
vi|2
E = _1 Σ
2 i =1
m2
(a) A system of noninteracting particle

m1 m2 _. 1_ _. G m1 m2
z _ E = _21 m2|r1|2 + 2 m2|r1|2− |r_ − _
r |
_ 1 2
r1
O r2
y
x
(b) A pair of gravitationally interacting particles
x
E = _21 mx2+ _12 kx2
.
m
k
Equilibrium
position
(c) A spring-mass system

.
l g E = _21 ml2θ 2 +mgl(1− cosθ )
θ
m
(d) An oscillating pendulum

which signifies that the results of an experiment are inde- observers, the potential energy is an invariant quantity
pendent of the time when it is conducted. Thus, homogeneity independent of the observer’s frame of reference.
of time is a direct consequence of energy conservation.
It is interesting to study what is the situation when a
mechanical phenomenon is observed in a non-inertial frame. 2.7 Laws of Motion and the Properties
It is quite obvious that the velocities of the bodies seen from of Space and Time
a non-inertial frame do not remain constant. Thus, the energy
of a mechanical system does not remain conserved. Since In this section, the laws of motion will be studied in asso-
energy conservation is not valid in a non-inertial frame of ciation with the properties of space and time, and from the
reference, homogeneity of time is not satisfied in such Principle of Relativity. Let the case of an isolated single
frames. As just mentioned, the kinetic energy of a particle particle moving freely in an inertial frame be taken up. The
(or, a system of particles) is not same in different inertial energy function of this particle will be of the form Ejvj2 . It
frames (though it remains conserved in any particular frame) cannot depend on time as time is homogenous; similarly, the
as the velocities are different in different inertial frames of energy function cannot depend on either the position r or the
reference. However, the potential energy of a system direction of v since the space is both homogenous and iso-
depends on the interaction among particles. Considering a tropic. Next, let the y and y0 axes of two inertial observers
case of a two-particle system, it is clear that the potential A and A0 be aligned with the direction of v as indicated in
energy depends on the distance between two particles. Fig. 2.25 without affecting the generality of the result.
Hence, as the distance remains unchanged to different
2.7 Laws of Motion and the Properties of Space and Time 67

z interaction of the particles, and it is a function of their

A instantaneous distance jr1  r2 j only. If the kinetic energies
z′
A′ of the individual particles be T1 and T2, depending on the
square of their speeds v1 and v2, the total mechanical energy
of the whole system can be expressed as follows:

− E ¼ T1 v21 þ T2 v22 þ U ½ðr1  r2 Þ  ðr1  r2 Þ

y′ v
O,O ′ y Since the system is an isolated one and neither of the
above energy terms being explicitly dependent on time (as
time is homogenous as mentioned earlier), the total energy is
x conserved. Hence, writing v21 ¼ v1  v1 and v22 ¼ v2  v2
x′ dE d
¼ ½T1 ðv1  v1 Þ þ T2 ðv2  v2 Þ
Fig. 2.25 Motion of a free particle with respect to two inertial frame
dt dt ð2:7:1Þ
with different orientation þ U ½ðr1  r2 Þ  ðr1  r2 Þ ¼ 0

Using the identities

To begin with the motion possesses symmetry in both the
frames as x, z, x0 and z0 components of v are zero. Following dð v 1  v 1 Þ dð v 2  v 2 Þ
¼ 2v1 a1 ; ¼ 2v2 a2
the Principle of Relativity, both observers must not be able dt dt
to detect any break of symmetry during the subsequent and
motion. So all the above four components of v must continue
to remain zero. Hence, the particle moves along a straight d½ðr1  r2 Þ  ðr1  r2 Þ
¼ 2ð r 1  r 2 Þ  ð v 1  v 2 Þ
line. Furthermore as Ejvj2 remains constant, the speed jvj dt
must remain constant. These are the two predictions of the
(2.7.1) can be written in the following form:
first law.
dT1 dT2
2
ð2v1  a1 Þ þ 2 ð2v2  a2 Þ
dv1 dv2
2.7.1 The Second Law of Motion dU
þ 2ð r 1  r 2 Þ  ð v 1  v 2 Þ ¼ 0
d½ðr1  r2 Þ  ðr1  r2 Þ
Extracting the second law of motion from the properties of
the space and time along with the application of the Principle ð2:7:2Þ
of Relativity can be achieved as demonstrated below. Let the following quantities are defined as given below:
Figure 2.26 shows two particles 1 and 2 that are inter-
acting with each other but are isolated from the rest of the dT1
m1 ðv1 Þ2 ¼ 2
universe. Let the particles be in motion with velocities v1 and dv21
v2 as shown, their instantaneous locations being r1 and r2 . dT2
m2 ðv2 Þ2 ¼ 2 2
Let U be the potential energy of the system because of the dv2

and,
z −
v1
1 dU
f ðjr1  r2 jÞ ¼ 2
d½ðr1  r2 Þ  ðr1  r2 Þ
−
v2
_
r1 _ Incorporating these definitions in (2.7.2), one obtains
r2 2
dE    
O y ¼ m1 v21 v1  a1 þ m2 v22 v2  a2
dt
þ f ðjr1  r2 jÞðr1  r2 Þ  ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ 0

Separating the kinetic and potential energy terms

   
x m1 v21 v1  a1 þ m2 v22 v2  a2
ð2:7:3Þ
¼ f ðjr1  r2 jÞðr1  r2 Þ  ðv1  v2 Þ
Fig. 2.26 System of two interacting particles
68 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

Now, it should be remembered that all equations are form Therefore,

invariant and valid in all inertial frames. The right-hand side
dU
of (2.7.3) has the same value in all inertial frames as the F1  ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ f ðjr1  r2 jÞðr1  r2 Þ  ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ 
quantities ðjr1  r2 jÞ and ðjv1  v2 jÞ have the same values in dt
all inertial frames. Hence, the quantity
and
dU
f ðjr1  r2 jÞðr1  r2 Þ  ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ dU
dt F2  ðv2  v1 Þ ¼ f ðjr1  r2 jÞðr2  r1 Þ  ðv2  v1 Þ ¼ 
dt
is an invariant quantity4 and, therefore, the term
so,
    dT
m1 v21 v1  a1 þ m2 v22 v2  a2 ¼
dt dU
¼ F1  ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ F2  ðv2  v1 Þ ð2:7:7aÞ
dt
is also invariant. Therefore,
Again from (2.7.5)
dT    
¼ m1 v21 v1  a1 þ m2 v22 v2  a2
dt dT
  0 0  02  0 0 ¼ m1 a1  ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ m2 a2  ðv2  v1 Þ ð2:7:7bÞ
dT 0 dt
¼ m1 v021 v 1  a 1 þ m 2 v 2 v 2  a 2 ¼
dt Combining (2.7.7a) and (2.7.7b)
 2  
This invariance restricts the function m1 v1 and m2 v22 .
dT dU
It can be shown that one choice of m1 and m2 satisfies the þ ¼ ð m 1 a1  F 1 Þ  ð v 1  v 2 Þ
dt dt ð2:7:8Þ
condition of invariance as demonstrated below. Let the fol-
dE
lowing forms be assumed ¼ ð m 2 a2  F 2 Þ  ð v 2  v 1 Þ ¼ ¼0
dt
   
m1 v21 ¼ m1 ðconstantÞ; m2 v22 ¼ m2 ðconstantÞ Unless v1 ¼ v2 or the vector ðv1  v2 Þ is perpendicular to
the vector ðm1 a1  F1 Þ, (2.7.8) can be satisfied if and only if
and,
F1 ¼ m1 a1
m1 a1 ¼ m2 a2 ð2:7:4Þ
and,
with above choices
F2 ¼ m2 a2 ð2:7:9Þ
dT
¼ m1 v1  a1 þ m2 v2  a2 ¼ m1 v1  a1  m2 v2  a2
dt which are nothing but the second law of motion and F1 and
  dT 0 F2 are the forces. Thus, the second law of motion can be
¼ m1 a1  ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ m1 a01  v01  v02 ¼
dt derived from the properties of the space, time and the
ð2:7:5Þ Principle of Relativity.

by using the Galilean transformation rules. It can be proved

that the choices given in (2.7.4) are the only way to maintain 2.7.2 The Third Law of Motion
invariance of ddTt . It is left as an exercise for the reader. Next,
let the following definitions be introduced: This law is a contribution of Newton alone unlike the first
and second laws which had major contributions from others
F1 ¼ f ðjr1  r2 jÞðr1  r2 Þ and before Newton. The profound importance of this law is often
ð2:7:6Þ
F2 ¼ f ðjr1  r2 jÞðr2  r1 Þ missed. The basic content of the law has two forms—weak
form and strong form. The weak form of the third law states
that the forces between two interacting particles are always
equal and opposite. Thus if the forces on particles 1 and 2 be
F1 and F2, then
4
This can be demonstrated in a more direct way using the laws of
Galilean transformation. Let x–y–z be two inertial frames with the F1 ¼ F2
following transformation equations r0 ¼ r  ut; v0 ¼ v  u;
a0 ¼ a; t0 ¼ t; then, the following equalities are obtained: r01  r02 ¼ Figure 2.27 shows two particles and the forces acting on
r1  r2 and v01  v02 ¼ v1  v2 ; and so, ddUt ¼ f ðjr1  r2 jÞðr1  r2 Þ  those. As per the third law, the forces are equal and opposite.
     0
However, the strong form of the third law states that these
ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ f r01  r02 r01  r02  v01  v02 ¼ ddUt .
2.7 Laws of Motion and the Properties of Space and Time 69

z Now, considering the homogeneity of space a pure

1 translation of the pair of particles should not result in any
_
F1 _ change. Under pure translation, both the particles undergo
_ F2 equal displacement
r1
_
r2 2 @r1 ¼ @r2 ¼ @r
O Hence,
y
F1 ¼ F2

as a result of the homogeneity of space. When a pure rota-

tion is imparted, the displacement of the two particles are
x
equal and opposite, as shown in Fig. 2.28.
Fig. 2.27 Third law of motion So,

@r1 ¼ @r2 ¼ @r
forces are not only equal in magnitude and opposite in
direction, but act along the same line of action. Using the above condition in (2.7.12), one obtains
Thus, using the quantities shown in Fig. 2.27 F1  @r1  F2  @r2 ¼ 0
F1 ¼ F2 or,
and 2F1  @r1 ¼ 0
F1  ðr1  r2 Þ ¼ F2  ðr1  r2 Þ ¼ 0 But for infinitesimal displacement, dr is perpendicular to
ðr1  r2 Þ. Hence, F1 and F2 are parallel to the line joining
and
the particles. This is a consequence of the isotropy of space.
F1  r1 ¼ F2  r2 ð2:7:10Þ The above two results complete the third law of motion.
The third law of motion also leads to two important
In fact from the previous section, it has been found that conservation principles as explained below. For the pair of
dU particles under consideration, the two important quantities
¼ f ðjr1  r2 jÞðr1  r2 Þ  ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ F1  ðv1  v2 Þ are linear momentum and the angular momentum. These are
dt
defined as follows:
¼ F2  ðv2  v1 Þ
P ¼ Linear momentum ¼ m1 v1 þ m2 v2
or,
lo ¼ Angular momentum about O ¼ r1  m1 v1 þ r2  m2 v2
F1  ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ F2  ðv1  v2 Þ

or,

F1 ¼ F2 z 1

Again,

dU _ _ _
¼ F1  ðv1  v2 Þ ¼ F1  v1  F2  v2 r1 (r 1− r2 )
dt
dr1 dr2 _ 2
¼ F1   F2  O r2
dt dt y
Hence,

@U ¼ F1  @r1  F2  @r2 ð2:7:11Þ

Using @U ¼ 0, since dU/dt = 0 x

F1  @r1  F2  @r2 ¼ 0 ð2:7:12Þ Fig. 2.28 Rotation of a pair of particles

70 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

When the third law is employed, the following results are treatment like providing the planets with ‘soules’. The first
obtained: work on physical force without requiring physical contact
between the interacting bodies was the book ‘De Magnete,
dP d Magnetieisque Corporibus, et de Magno Magnete Tellure’
¼ ðm1 v1 þ m2 v2 Þ ¼ m1 a1 þ m2 a2 ¼ F1 þ F2 ¼ 0
dt dt by W. Gilbert published from London in 1600. Kepler, who
So P is conserved. Again was the prime person working on the motion of planet, could
free himself from J.C. Scaliger’s (1484–1558) concept of
dlo d ‘souls’ and ‘spirits’ once he came across Gilbert’s book. In
¼ ðr1  m1 v1 þ r2  m2 v2 Þ
dt dt the earlier days, he used to call the gravitational force also as
¼ v1  m1 v1 þ r1  m1 a1 þ v2  m2 v2 þ r2  m2 a2 a ‘magnetic force’. The matter has been already discussed in
Sect. 1.7.3.
as O is a point fixed in the frame of reference meaning It was not very easy to accept the gravitational interaction
r_ 1 ¼ v1 and r_ 2 ¼ v2 . So, as in the continent the influence was of Descartes’ physics
dlo that was based upon the impact between particles. Kepler
¼ r1  F1 þ r2  F2 ¼ r1  F1  r2  F2 was an exception; he not only conceived of a force like
dt
gravitation by the sun on the planets controlling their
by the first part of the third law of motion. motions, but he correctly attributed the attraction by the
Thus, moon to explain the phenomenon of tide. But Galileo was
also a disbeliever in such ‘occult’ non-contact forces. Galileo
dlo
¼ ðr1  r2 Þ  F1 ¼ 0 proposed a theory of the tides which was obviously wrong.
dt According to Galileo’s theory, the accumulation of ocean
because F1 acts along the vector ðr1  r2 Þ by the second part water in certain regions of earth was related to the speed of
of the third law. the earth relative to the distant stars based on a combination
Finally, the properties of the space and time, i.e. the of the orbital motion and the daily rotation. Even during the
homogeneity of space, the isotropy of space and the later period, scientists like Descartes and Huygens were
homogeneity of time, result in: totally opposed to the idea of non-contact ‘gravitational
force’. A meeting to discuss the nature of ‘gravity’ was
• The conservation of linear momentum, organized in 1669 at Paris Académie. Two scientists,
• The conservation of angular momentum and Robervel and Frenicle proposed the gravity to be a force of
• The conservation of energy. attraction by the earth on objects near the earth’s surface—a
mutual force between like bodies. But Huygens opposed the
So, these conservation principles and the laws of motion proposition vehemently as is clear from a translation of his
are the manifestations of the properties of the space and time statement given below:
and the Principle of Relativity. To discover a cause of weight that is intelligible, it is necessary
to investigate how weight can come about while assuming the
existence only of bodies made of one common matter in which
2.8 Action-at-a-Distance and Spatiotemporal one admits no quality or inclination to approach each other but
solely different sizes, figures and motions.
Locality
In fact, according to many historians of science, this total
Accepting the existence of non-contact force in the science rejection of the concept of a non-contact gravitational
of motion was a serious problem to a large number of sci- attraction denied Huygens in developing a complete syn-
entists in the seventeenth century. Frankly speaking, it is not thesis of the science of motion. Although he developed most
very easy to grasp the reality behind such of the basic elements much before Newton.
‘action-at-a-distance’ phenomenon. It is not very easy even To begin with, Newton also attempted many models to
at the present time. This section is devoted to a discussion on explain gravitational attraction through mechanical means.
this very important issue. The story of apple falling giving the idea of explaining the
motion of the moon to young Newton in 1665 may contain a
certain element of truth, but Newton’s attempt at that time
2.8.1 Early Work on Non-contact Forces was to try for a mechanical explanation. Such models based
on Cartesian principles of collision of fundamental particles
The earlier diffused ideas and nebular concepts regarding the filling the universe could somehow generate a force towards
motion of planets led to the introduction of metaphysical the earth. But such models could not result in an equal and
2.8 Action-at-a-Distance and Spatiotemporal Locality 71

opposite force on the earth that attracted it to the other interaction between two bodies at a distance. It is also the
interacting bodies, viz. the apple and the moon. The correct reason why Mach’s principle has remained unacceptable to
idea of universal gravitation took shape in Newton’s mind many. Gravitational action violates ‘spatial locality’ condi-
much later, perhaps, in 1680. Thus, Newton transformed tion as the interacting bodies are separated by finite space.
dynamics from its restricted domain of ‘contact force’ only On the other hand, Mach’s principle violates ‘spatiotemporal
to forces extending over long distances. Thus, the concept of locality’ condition as illustrated through Fig. 2.29.
the ‘action-at-a-distance’ achieved acceptability among the Two bodies A and B, as shown in Fig. 2.29 are located at
scientists. a distance r. At t = t1, body A is given an acceleration a with
respect to body B. According to Mach’s principle, A expe-
riences a force F resisting the acceleration because of body
2.8.2 Spatiotemporal Locality B at the same instant. The information about A’s acceleration
and Action-at-a-Distance takes a finite time to reach B, and its effect should take a
finite time to reach back A in the form of the resisting force
In general, it is easy to conceive that a ‘cause’ can give rise Fi. This is a kind of a ‘reverse’ violation of spatiotemporal
to a ‘result’ only at that location in space and precisely at that locality. The bodies at separate locations cannot develop
instant of time. Of course, there are instances where, ‘instantaneous’ relationship for any ‘cause–result’ phe-
apparently, the result takes some time to show up, but a little nomenon. It is an insurmountable hurdle in accepting and
thinking reveals that in all such cases there are innumerable understanding such ‘action-at-a-distance’ phenomenon.
‘mini-intermediate results’ which connect the original
‘cause’ with the final ‘result’.
In a loose sense, one can logically accept that a particle 2.8.3 The Concept of Field
can influence the motion of another one when it is in
physical contact. It can be stated that two bodies can be Apart from the phenomenon of gravitation, very serious
considered to be in physical contact when no region of problems involving violation of spatiotemporal locality
space, however small, can be placed between them. Simi- condition are exhibited by the phenomena of electricity and
larly when two events are separated by a gap of interval, magnetism. Therefore, from the mediaeval period, philoso-
however small, can be considered to be temporally local. phers and scientists continuously attempted to provide
Very precise and scientific definitions of ‘spatial’, ‘temporal’ acceptable physical solutions to the observed
and ‘spatiotemporal locality’ have been given by Marc ‘action-at-a-distance’ phenomena.
Lange in ‘An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics’. The first clear and concrete evidence of a body
These are quoted below: influencing another at a distance was the phenomenon of
tide. In the ninth century AD, an Arabian philosopher, Abu
Spatial locality: For any event E and for any finite distance
d > 0, no matter how small, there is a complete set of causes of Mashar published a book in 850 AD in which he clearly
E such that for each event C in this set, there is a location at emphasized the relationship between the moon’s position in
which it occurs that is separated by a distance no greater than d the sky and the state of the tide. Of course, his primary aim
from a location at which E occurs. was to establish ‘astrology’ on scientific basis. But it was
Temporal locality: For any event E and for any finite temporal
interval s > 0, no matter how short, there is a complete set of E’s Kepler who first realized the need for an action without
causes such that for each event C (a cause) in this set, there is a physical contact to explain the motions of planets. Gilbert’s
moment at which it occurs that is separated by an interval no
greater than s from a moment at which E occurs.
Spatiotemporal locality: For any event E, any finite temporal
interval s > 0, and any finite distance d > 0, there is a complete A B
set of causes of E such that for each event C in this set, there is a
location at which it occurs that is separated by a distance no t=o
greater than d form a location at which E occurs, and there is a
moment at which C occurs at the former location that is sepa- r
rated by an interval no greater than s from a moment at which
E occurs at the latter location.
t = t1 a
Even without the precise and robust definitions quoted
above, it is not difficult to conceive the violation of spa-
tiotemporal locality in the physical world. ‘Action-at- t = t1 + δ
Fi
a-distance’ is something that violates this condition; pre- δ→o
cisely because of this, many philosophers and scientists in
the past could not accept the concept of gravitational Fig. 2.29 Violation of spatiotemporal locality by Mach’s principle
72 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

book also brought the existence of magnetic force as another eq1 q2

F¼
example of action-at-a-distance. Though Galileo and Huy- r2
gens were against any such ‘action-at-a-distance’ phenom-
when r is the distance between the charges and e is a uni-
ena and associated gravitational attraction, Newton’s
versal constant. Augustin de Coulomb (1736–1806) framed
development of the celestial mechanics stopped all further
this law in 1785. Though the law of electrostatic force is
hostilities. However, both Newton and Huygens had to
very similar to that of universal gravitation proposed by
explain the phenomena involving transfer of influence
Newton almost a century before Coulomb, the gravitational
through open space. In case of Newton, it was the phe-
force is extremely weak in comparison with electrostatic
nomenon of gravitation and Huygens had to explain his
force. Thus, the gravitational attractive force between two
theory of light in which the light propagated as the wave-like
electrons is 10−42 times that of the electrostatic force
oscillations in a medium called ‘aether’.5 Thus, the concept
between them. If +q1 be a stationary charge and +q2 be the
of a continuous medium filling all space became essential to
test charge, then the electrostatic interaction is represented
physically explain the observed phenomena involving
by Fig. 2.30.
‘action-at-a-distance’. The presence of a medium helped the
The electrostatic field is represented by the radially
scientists to accept such phenomena, and the violation of
outflowing ‘lines of forces’ from +q2, and the intensity of the
‘spatiotemporal locality’ condition was eliminated. Roger
field at a location drops as inversely proportional to the
Boscovitch (1711–1787), who worked upon the mechanics
square of the distance (qualitatively indicated by the size of
of both Newton and Leibniz, was perhaps the first to propose
the arrow heads). Force on the test particle is given by the
a theory in which the intermediate space between two
product of the test charge and the intensity of the field at the
interacting bodies (without any direct physical contact) is
location of the test charge. Thus, the intensity of the elec-
filled up by points associated with local properties that could
trostatic field at location r is given by
interact with other points and develop either attraction or
repulsion. This kind of a hypothetical model may be con- eq1
Ee ¼ r ð2:8:1Þ
sidered as the forerunner of the later mathematically devel- r3
oped theory of field. Though science historians like Mary In a similar way, the gravitational field of a stationary
Hesse attribute ‘field’ concept to the hydrodynamics devel- mass m1 can be expressed as follows:
oped by Leonhard Euler in the true sense, the ‘velocity field’
belonging to a flowing fluid is very different from the con- Gm1
Eg ¼  r ð2:8:2Þ
cept of gravitational or electromagnetic fields. The velocity r3
field represents the property of the material particles occu-
The diagrammatic representation of (2.8.2) is shown in
pying the space. The concept of an aether filling all space
Fig. 2.31.
was also used by the philosopher Kant (Immanuel Kant:
Thus, the ‘field lines’ or the ‘lines of forces’ characterize
1723–1804).
the field and may be considered to be the diagrammatic
The foundation stone for the modern field concept was
representation of a field. If the test charge be considered to
first laid down by Michael Faraday (1791–1867). He could
be always positive, then the field due to two equal charges
understand the phenomenon of electrical induction only by
with opposite signs becomes as shown in Fig. 2.32.
assuming the propagation of the effect was by forces filling
the intervening space between the interacting bodies. Ini-
tially, he was hesitant to assert his assumption as a real
physical entity; however, gradually he became more confi-
dent about the existence of the field and the associated lines _
of forces. Finally, it was James Clerk Maxwell who pub- F
lished his seminal paper in 1864 and put the field concept on +q2
a rigorous mathematical foundation. In the earlier times, the
field at a point used to be considered to be a condition of the
+q1
all pervading ‘aether’ at that location. The subject received
more impetus from the urge to understand electrostatic and
electromagnetic forces. The force between two stationary
electric charges +q1 and +q2 is given by Coulomb’s law as
follows:

Also spelled as ‘ether’.

5
Fig. 2.30 Electrostatic field of a stationary charge
2.8 Action-at-a-Distance and Spatiotemporal Locality 73

Experiments with gravitational field in a laboratory are dif-

ficult. But extensive research has been conducted on the
electric lines of forces. If one takes a bar magnet (or a
solenoid with current passing through the coil), its sur-
rounding space is expected to be filled by the lines of forces
of the associated magnetic field. If a conductor is moved
m1
through these hypothesized lines of forces keeping the
magnet stationary, a current is generated due to electro-
magnetic induction. The cutting of the lines of forces by the
conductor is considered to be the cause of the current
developed. Now, if the magnet is moved keeping the con-
ductor stationary, a current is introduced in the conductor. It
looks obvious if one assumes that the lines of forces are
Fig. 2.31 Gravitational field of a stationary mass rigidly attached to the source, i.e. the magnet. However, the
results from experiments with ‘Faraday’s disc’ based on a
report by Faraday in 1832 lead to a serious problem as
explained below.
Figure 2.34 shows the scheme diagrammatically.
A metallic disc is attached to the end of a bar magnet with
the help of a pin so that the disc can be rotated keeping the
+q −q
magnet still. The lines of forces coming out of the bar
magnet are also indicated to pass through the metallic disc.
A galvanometer can detect any current developed in the wire
whose one end is connected to the central pin and the other
end touches the disc’s periphery. If the magnet (and the
Fig. 2.32 Electrostatic field due to two equal and opposite charges conductor with the galvanometer) is kept still and the disc is
rotated, a current develops in the conducting wire. This is
It should be noted that unlike electric charge, gravita- easy to understand as the rotating conducting disc cuts the
tional mass does not have any polarity and the interaction lines of forces which are stationary along with their source,
between two mass particles is always attractive. The gravi- the bar magnet. But when the disc and the magnet are rotated
tational field due to two equal masses can be represented by together (so that there is no relative motion between the disc
the ‘field lines’ or ‘lines of forces’ as shown in Fig. 2.33. and the magnet), a current is induced. Again if the magnet is
The idea of ‘lines of forces’ first came to Faraday’s mind rotated keeping the rest of the system stationary, no current
from his observation of the patterns generated by iron filings is induced. If the lines of the forces are assumed to be rigidly
around a magnet (familiar with most students of science in connected to their source, both the above results defy
high schools). Just like the electrostatic case, magnets also explanation. This poses a serious question on the reality of
produce magnetic fields. As magnets also possess two poles the lines of forces. However if the conducting wire of the
—north and south—the lines of forces around a bar magnet galvanometer circuit is considered as a part of the current
(or a solenoid with current passing through the coil) are generating system, the phenomenon is understood. However,
similar to those developed due to two equal and opposite there are other situations where an explanation is difficult
charges as shown in Fig. 2.32. This scheme satisfactorily
explains ‘action-at-a-distance’ phenomena. However, it is
still unclear if the ‘lines of forces’ are real entities or not.

N
m . m

Fig. 2.33 Gravitational field of two mass particles Fig. 2.34 Experiment with Faraday’s disc
74 2 Some Basic Concepts in Newtonian Mechanics

Fig. 2.36 Conductor and a

magnet with translation C

N
N
C
A

S
S
B

transferring effects through a vacuum. Even the light is

considered to propagate as waves in the aether medium. The
Fig. 2.35 Charged cylinder experiment
other possible way to understand transfer of effects is
through the flow of particles. Corpuscular theory of light
considering the lines of forces as physically real entities. gained acceptance because of this reason.
Another experiment that decidedly proves that the lines of Now, whatever may be the medium filling all space, it is
forces are not entities rigidly attached to the source magnet is expected that it can also represent an entity like absolute
briefly discussed below. space. Thus when any disturbance in this absolute space
A cylindrical magnet is surrounded by two coaxial propagates, its motion is independent of the motion of other
metallic cylinders A and B as shown in Fig. 2.35. bodies including the source of the disturbance. That is why
A and B are connected by a conducting rod C. Whenever the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves through a
the conductor C cuts the lines of forces, electrons flow vacuum is a constant. The fields, described in the previous
making one of the cylinders to have an extra charge. The section, are also nothing but disturbances in the empty
conductor can be cut off during the process, and the extra medium (may be called ‘aether’) . Thus, the existence of any
charge in one of the cylinders will be maintained and can be field is characterized by the disturbance in the absolute space
detected. When the cylinders are rotated and the magnet is and, once created, has nothing to do with its source. Hence,
kept stationary, a charge difference between A and B is the lines of forces described in the experiments in Sect. 1.8.3
developed as expected. When the cylinders are stationary have no connection with the source magnet and, therefore,
and the magnet is rotated about its axis, no charge difference do not share any motion. But an experiment with a con-
develops, implying that the lines of forces are not rigidly ductor and a magnet with uniform translation, shown in
connected to the magnet. But when the cylinders and the Fig. 2.36, yields an unexpected result. A current develops!
magnet are rotated together, a charge difference is devel- One possible explanation for this difference in results could
oped, again implying that the lines of forces are not rigidly be that rotational motion involves acceleration, whereas
connected with the magnet. translation with constant speed does not.
However, there could be some link between the
non-attachments of the field lines with the source and the
2.8.4 Field and Absolute Space existence of absolute space. Further discussion may tend to
become more philosophical, and so the matter is closed at
The experimental observations discussed in the previous this point.
section again bring back the question of the existence of Doing experiments in the similar lines with gravitation is
‘absolute space’. The concept of fields, represented by the not possible. The similarity between gravitation and electric
lines of forces, is one of the two possible ways to understand fields is derived from the similarity between Newton’s law
the phenomenon of ‘action-at-a-distance’ without violating of gravitation and Coulomb’s law of electrostatic force. The
spatiotemporal locality condition. The idea is that the effect, best testing laboratory for Newtonian gravitation is the solar
represented by a field, propagates through the universal system, and studying the motion of the celestial bodies
medium ‘aether’. Though there has been no direct evidence deeper understanding of Newtonian gravitation can be
of the existence of aether, propagation of waves in the form achieved.
of a disturbance in the aether can be conceived as a means of
 Post ‘Principia’ Developments
3

3.1 Early Concepts and Aristotelian Physics dispute between Newton and Leibniz regarding calculus.
Leibniz’s claim was that he discovered calculus indepen-
‘Principia’ represents the culmination of conceptual evolu- dently but Newton with the Royal Society backing him
tion of science of motion based upon the developments charged Leibniz with plagiarism. Thus, one of the most
during the previous two millennia. Of course, it has been important scientists in the continent in those periods, Johan
shown in Chap. 1 that the final grand synthesis by Newton Bernoulli, resisted the propagation of Newtonianism in the
depended very much on the works of others before him and continent. He was an ardent follower of Leibniz with the
Newton did not develop his version of ‘science of motion’ deepest sense of respect for him. The first important work for
exnihilo. Though it is very natural to expect that Newton’s introducing Newton’s ideas in continental Europe was by
mechanics could have easy acceptance in England because Jacob Herrmann who published a book containing the ideas
of obvious reasons, further progress in mechanics did not behind Newton’s mechanics as presented in Principia. This
take place in England! Why this decline in science took volume, Phoronomia, published in 1716, was the first book
place in England is still not well understood. Further, on mechanics and for the first time presented the laws of
developments in mechanics took place in continental Europe motion in a different form. It was Daniel Bernoulli, son of
during the eighteenth century. These developments took Johann Bernoulli, who was the first to reformulate Newton’s
place through an interplay of Newton’s mechanics with the ideas in 1738 using the mathematics of Leibniz and his
ideas originated by Huygens and Leibniz. This became father Johann. The other channel through which the propa-
possible by the emergence of great mathematicians like gation of Newton’s mechanics in Europe took place was
Euler and Lagrange. through a very popular textbook by Francesco Algarotti
published in 1737.
Diffusion of Newtonianism in continental Europe was
3.1.1 Diffusion of Newton’s Mechanics also helped through the popularization of experiments in
in Europe mechanics. The experimental set-ups were mostly manu-
factured in England and Holland. These experiments were
Before taking up the issue of interplay between Newton’s conducted to test the different aspects of the laws of motion
concepts with those of the continental scientists, it may be using impact and fall of bodies. One popular set-up was the
not out of place to have a quick look into the way Newton’s Atwood’s machine.
mechanics did diffuse into the minds of continental scien- Figure 3.1 shows the basic scheme. If the moment of
tists. This is, of course, of purely historical interest. There inertia of the wheel of radius r be I, then, the downward
were mainly two factors that created some initial hurdle for acceleration of the heavier mass m2 can be expressed as
ready acceptance of Newtonianism in the continental Eur-
m2  m1
ope. The first one was of technical nature; since Newton’s a¼ I g
m2 þ m1 þ r2
mechanics dealt with force and acceleration, the treatment
was purely geometrical. In fact that made Principia very By suitably adjusting the values of m1 and m2, it was
difficult to follow and grasp. On the other hand, in the possible to make the coefficient of g as small as 1/64. Thus,
continent, the mechanics was under the influence of Leibniz easy experiments were possible even at school level.
in which the principal quantity was energy (living force)—a In France, the strong influence of Cartenianism, and in
scalar quantity. The other difficulty arose because of a bitter Germany, the stiff resistance from Leibniz’s students created

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 75

A. Ghosh, Conceptual Evolution of Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics,
Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6253-7_3
76 3 Post ‘Principia’ Developments

Fig. 3.1 Atwood’s machine I him, ‘The living force is that resides in a body when it is in
uniform motion; the dead force that which a body at rest
r
receives when it is urged either to move or to move more or
g less quickly, if these bodies are already in motion’. Huygens
was a friend and disciple of Descartes and conducted suc-
cessfully the collision experiments. He noted that the entity
M2
M1 that is conserved in the collision process was mv2 , i.e. energy
a
M2 > M1 when the bodies were perfectly elastic. However, he did not
propose the conservation of this quantity (termed as ‘living
force’) as a principle initially. He stated later ‘In any motion
the initial hurdle for Newtonianism to spread. In Italy, there of bodies no force is lost or destroyed if some effect is
was some degree of acceptance, and Holland was the first generated and persists, for whose production the same force
country to accept Newtonianism. is required than that lost. I call force the power to raise
weight. Thus a double force is that can raise the same weight
to a double height’.
3.1.2 Multiplicity in the Concept of Force Johan Bernoulli spent considerable time in studying liv-
ing and dead forces as defined by Leibniz. He considered
A serious difficulty in the acceptance of Newton’s mechanics massless springs and opined the capability of a spring in a
in the continental Europe was a major difference in the cause compressed state to act as the dead force. But the same
of motion (or change of motion). During that period a ‘dead’ force generates ‘living’ force when the spring
considerable amount of confusion existed because of the expands.
multiplicity in the concept of force. There was serious doubt Descartes’ followers considered the quantity, mass X
in the minds of the early eighteenth century scientists speed, as the force following their master. It should be noted
regarding the true character of the quantity associated with that in one-dimensional collision problems this is same as
motion. Thus, often the concept of force, i.e. an entity that the quantity ‘momentum’ and is conserved in collision
can act to either cause motion or, stop motion, used to refer process without requiring the bodies to be perfectly elastic.
to a number of quantities. Using the modern terms and Therefore, according to them, mjvj is a right quantity to
symbols, these were represent ‘force’. Newton’s followers found this definition to
be more acceptable as it matched with Newtonian mechanics
(i) force (F) where change in momentum is associated with the action of
(ii) work (W ¼ F  s) a force. On the other hand, the Newtonian mechanics had no
(iii) momentum (p ¼ mjvj) place for a scalar quantity mv2 . The dispute continued for a
(iv) energy (E ¼ mv2 ) few decades till it was realized by the scientists like
(v) impulse (I ¼ F  t) D’Alembert and Euler that both quantities are important
(vi) power (P ¼ F  v) parameters in the description of motion.
An accurate mathematical representation of the science of
Newton used the term ‘force’ almost in the modern sense, motion was necessary to stop the controversy. This was
and it was a vector quantity. Thus, the whole treatment of possible primarily because of the work done by Euler and
mechanics by him was geometrical in nature. In continental Daniel Bernoulli who synthesized Newton and Huygens’
Europe, the major fight was between the Cartesians (fol- physics with the mathematics of Leibniz and Johan Ber-
lowers of Descartes) and the followers of Leibniz. noulli. Frankly speaking ‘mechanics’ became a discipline for
In France, the Cartesians used the term mjvj, i.e. the study of motion primarily because of Euler’s book
product of the mass of a body with speed (not velocity) to ‘Mechanica sive motus scientia analytice exposita’.
represent force. Descartes himself also used to represent
force by the weight and the height raised implying
mechanical work. However, a vague sense of conservation 3.1.3 Degeometrization of Newtonian
emerged and mjvj became the appropriate quantity since in a Mechanics
very rough sense this quantity was considered to be con-
served as indicated by the early experiments on collision of The gradual emergence of two primary parameters for rep-
bodies. resenting motion—the momentum and kinetic energy led the
Leibniz considered the matter and classified force into further development in two distinct directions. The Newto-
two types - ‘living force’ and ‘dead force’. According to nian mechanics based upon the vector quantities like force,
3.1 Early Concepts and Aristotelian Physics 77

momentum, acceleration and displacement became a branch Finally,

suitable for handling vector quantities. On the other hand,
the approach using a scalar quantity like energy developed BC / AB2
following analytical approach. However, even Newton’s This relation has ample use in mechanics as the dis-
geometric approach became couched in mathematical placement (in a straight line motion) is proportional to
expressions and mathematical treatment of mechanics (time)2 with a constant acceleration.
problems became not only popular but it gradually pushed A major disadvantage of a geometric approach is the
the geometrical treatment out of scene. difficulty (and impossibility in many cases) in developing
Representation of physical quantities like velocity, ac- generalized solution of mechanics problems. Developing
celeration and force is very natural using geometry as geo- general algorithms is also not possible with a purely geo-
metric lines represent both direction and magnitude. The metric solution and each problem needs to be solved indi-
application of law of parallelogram for adding vector vidually. This serious shortcoming was noticed by the
quantities, developed by Galileo in studying composite scientists of the continental Europe and desired to develop
motions, was also directly related to geometric representa- mathematical description of motion quantities. Again taking
tion. It has been shown that earlier application of infinites- the example of a one-dimensional motion, the time–dis-
imal geometry was abundant in studying mechanics placement diagram is shown in Fig. 3.3.
problems. In this technique, certain properties or relation- In a geometrical approach, the instantaneous speed is
ships should be revealed geometrically. given by the average speed during a very short time interval
A very simple example is shown in Fig. 3.2. DAC is a at that instant. Thus, taking a small step Δt, the displacement
circle with O as its centre. AB is a tangent to the circle. OB is Δs. So the average speed at this infinitesimally small
cuts the circle at point C. Now, period is
BC ¼ OB  OC ¼ OB  OA Ds
v¼ with Dt very small
Again Dt

1 This was formalized by the continental scientists as
OB ¼ OA2 þ AB2 2
"  2 #12 ds Ds
AB v¼ ¼ lim
¼ OA 1 þ dt Dt!0 Dt
OA
The above relation eliminates the need of using a geo-
When AB tends to be very small (as in infinitesimal calculus) metric figure any more. If Δs can be expressed in term of Δt,
then v can be estimated. To handle vector quantities, the tech-
nique of splitting it in terms of components was developed.
 
1 AB 2 As shown in Fig. 3.4, a vector A can be represented by an
OB  OA þ analytical (algebraic) expression as shown below
2 OA
since AB/OA  1 A ¼ ^iAx þ ^jAy þ ^kAz
Hence,
where Ax, Ay and Az are the x, y and z components of A and ^i,
 2  2
1 AB 1 AB ^j and ^k are the unit vectors along the fixed directions Ox, Oy
BC ¼ OA þ OA ¼
2 OA 2 OA

A Fig. 3.3 Representing velocity s

B by calculus

D
C

∆s

∆t
O
O
Fig. 3.2 Use of infinitesimal geometry t
78 3 Post ‘Principia’ Developments

z Fig. 3.5 Motion of a point mass A

Az M

k̂ μ
m
ĵ
O y
î Ay
Ax
Taking A as the mass of the particle, c as the speed, p the
x
force and t as time, Euler gave the equation of motion as
follows:
Fig. 3.4 Algebraic representation of a vector
dt
dc ¼ xp
A
and Oz. In this way, the vectors can be handled by
employing algebra without referring to geometry. The use of where x was a constant of proportionality.
a space-fixed Cartesian coordinate system x–y–z, for the
purpose described in Fig. 3.4, was first employed by Euler in
1752. Thus, it was only after more than 60 years after the 3.2 Emergence of Analytical Mechanics
publication of Principia the second law of motion was cast in
a format used subsequently till the present times. The fer- Since one of the primary motivation for developing the
tility of the mechanics of Newton started being increasingly science of motion was to explain the motion of the planets,
demonstrated once the powerful mathematical tools were Newtonian mechanics was concerned with the mechanics of
employed. This finally led to the rejection of the geometrical point mass. The aim was to determine the motion of an
approach to solve mechanics problem adopted by Newton, unconstrained point mass due to externally applied forces.
and the subject ‘mechanics’ became amenable to mathe- Thus, the whole issue was of ‘instantaneous’ nature and the
matical solution using infinitesimal calculus. object was a point mass. However, the matter of character-
During this period, a number of branches of mathematics izing a system based on its totality of all possible motions
got enriched. One example is the concept of a function. It remained unaddressed in Newtonian mechanics. In Chap. 2,
was again Euler in 1755 who gave a precise definition of a this was briefly mentioned.
function as follows: ‘If, x denotes a variable quantity, then In continental Europe, there were two schools—one
all quantities which depend upon x in any way, or are formed by the followers of Descartes and Huygens and the
determined by it, are called functions of x’. Apart from this, other followed the thought process initiated by Leibniz. In
the continuous search for new principles in order to solve both the schools, one consideration played a major role
problems of mechanics led to the development of another though in Newtonian mechanics the matter was absent. It
important branch—variational calculus. This development was the concept of conservation as mentioned in the previ-
took place in the latter half of the eighteenth century pri- ous section. Cartesian scientists considered the quantity mjvj
marily in the hands of Euler and Lagrange. to be conserved during dynamic interactions, whereas the
For the representation of motion problems using mathe- Leibnizians took mv2 as the quantity that remains conserved.
matical tools, it was necessary to develop formalism by Thus, Cartesian philosophy was closer to the Newtonian
which an interrelation among various parameters is obtained. ideas, but Leibnizians’ thinking was very different from that
Euler led the way and developed the methodology that is of Newtonian concept. Therefore, the branch of mechanics
described as ‘the equation of motion’. Considering a point that started developing in Europe parallely to Newtonian
mass (i.e. a particle) subjected to a force p, the dynamical mechanics took the scalar quantity mv2 as the primary rep-
law of motion was recast by Euler in the following form resentative for a system in motion. This scheme also allows a
‘A point can be moved along the direction AM (Fig. 3.5) system to be represented by an entity that is identified with a
and it is acted on, while it traverses the small distance Mm, dynamical system irrespective of its any particular state of
by a force p pulling in the same direction; the increase in the motion. In Chap. 2, this point was discussed and it was
speed, that the point meanwhile acquires, is as the product of mentioned that such an entity was termed as the ‘energy
the force by the short time, in which the element of distance function’. To elaborate the matter the two particle system,
Mm is traversed’. shown in Fig. 3.6, may be considered.
3.2 Emergence of Analytical Mechanics 79

Fig. 3.6 An isolated two particle ˉυ1

system m1
m1

F̄
m2
r

−F̄
ˉυ2 Fig. 3.7 Block on an moving wedge
m2
example, motion of a body moving on an inclined plane that
is again free to move freely along another direction.
The system is totally isolated from the rest of the uni- Figure 3.7 shows such a situation which is a commonly
verse. In the Newtonian approach, the accelerations of the discussed popular problem. Johan Bernoulli analysed the
two particles are determined taking the gravitational attrac- problem by Newtonian approach introducing the concept of
tion into consideration. Knowing the initial motion of the ‘constraint forces’. However, this situation was very
two particles, the subsequent motions can be found out. For uncomfortable to the scientists; though in statics problems
each prescribed initial conditions, separate solutions can be constraint forces were in common use, in dynamical problem
found out for the motions of the two particles. But an iso- introduction of constraint reaction was less obvious. In this
lated system like the one described above there is something scenario, the constant intellectual struggle led to the gradual
that uniquely identifies with the system irrespective of its emergence of two new principles—conservation of living
individual motions. This was, perhaps, vaguely in the minds forces (mv2 ) and the least action principle.
of Leibnizians and the scalar quantity mv2 as a parameter of As mentioned in Sect. 2.1.2, it was Huygens who first
primary importance representing motion gained importance. mentioned about the conservation of living force in a
Again considering the example discussed above, the quantity dynamical interaction. Later Johan Bernoulli studied the
that remains unchanged for the system is the total energy for matter of conservation of living force and, analysing the case
a given situation. Of course, Leibnizians were not anywhere of a massless spring, also concluded that ‘living force’ can
near the understanding of the conservation of energy in the assume various forms. He surmised that in the compressed
modern sense. state a spring stores a living force which can release itself
In the early part of the eighteenth century, dynamical upon another body. This can be considered a very early and
problems used to be solved following the Newtonian force– nebulous form of change of potential energy into kinetic
acceleration-based approach. Of course, gradually the geo- energy (using modern language). Using this principle of
metric representation got increasingly replaced by analytical conservation of ‘living force’, Bernoulli solved a number of
calculus-based language mainly due to Varignon, Daniel dynamics problems which were difficult to solve following a
Bernoulli, Hermann and Euler. The solutions were, thus, direct Newtonian route.
based upon a replacement of geometric nature of a problem The next important development for solving dynamics
by a mathematical equation of motion-based description. problems without using vectorial formulation was important
The idea that the condition of motion of a system can be towards the emergence of analytical mechanics. It started
considered independently of any specific motion status with Johan Bernoulli’s ‘principal of virtual velocities’ per-
gradually emerged when new principles were discovered. fected by D’Alembert. Subsequently, the emergence of the
‘principle of last action’ led to the final formulation by
Lagrange.
3.2.1 New Principles for Dynamical Problems

It was gradually becoming clear that the laws of motion, as 3.2.2 Principle of Virtual Velocity and Virtual
encapsulated in Newton’s Principia, were alone not enough Work
for solving all dynamics problems. This forced the scientists
of the continental Europe in the first half of the eighteenth Though the basic idea of virtual displacement and virtual
century to look for new principles which govern motion of work emerged much earlier, its effective application started
mechanical systems. Newtonian mechanics was directly primarily by Johan Bernoulli who generalized the principle.
applicable to the dynamics of unconstrained point mass Of course, he developed this based on the ground work done
only; many applied problems were not tractable. For by Varignon to treat the problem of static equilibrium of a
80 3 Post ‘Principia’ Developments

system under the influence of several forces acting F̄ 1

simultaneously. P1 F̄ 2
Bernoulli conceptualized the small displacement given to P2
a point as ‘virtual velocity’ although it is more appropriate to
designate these infinitesimal displacements as ‘virtual dis- 1
2
placement’. He correctly concluded that if a point P be in
static equilibrium under the influence of several forces then C Pn
n
the total work done by the forces is zero. This is the principle
of virtual work in modern technology. In all probability, the F̄n
concept was arrived at by graphically finding the compo-
nents of a virtual displacement along each acting force and
summing the products of the forces and the corresponding Fig. 3.9 Virtual work principle for an extended body
components of a virtual displacement. Bernoulli considered
the product to be positive when the direction of the force is
same as that of the component of the virtual displacement ds is not necessarily the same as a ‘real displacement’
and vice versa. He found the sum to be always zero when the since a real displacement causes the configuration to change
forces had zero resultant. Such displacements were called (though small).
‘virtual’ as these were considered to be ‘conceptual’ and not This principle was, of course, restricted to point objects.
‘real’. However, in modern mechanics ‘virtual displace- The development of the principle for application upon
ments’ are also considered to take place with zero passage of extended bodies or systems is a later development. The sit-
time when applied to the problems of dynamic equilibrium. uation for a rigid body in static equilibrium under the action
Figure 3.8 shows a system of forces acting on a point that of n forces is shown in Fig. 3.9.
is given an infinitesimal displacement ds (the virtual dis- C is the centre of mass, and the body is in static equi-
placement). The displacement is infinitesimal so that the librium under the action of forces F1 ; F2 ; . . .; Fn applied at
geometric configuration does not undergo any noticeable P1 ; P2 ; . . .; Pn . q1 ; q2 ; . . .; qn are the position vectors of these
alteration. So, the forces can be considered to remain unal- points with C as the origin. The condition for equilibrium of
tered. Using modern vector notation, the principle emerged the body can be expressed as follows:
in a straight forward manner as shown below. P
Since the system of forces keep the point in static equi- For force balance ni¼1 Fi ¼ 0
Pn P
librium i¼1 Fi ¼ 0. Now, if ds be the ‘virtual displace-
and for moment balance ni¼1 qi  Fi ¼ M ¼ 0
ment’ then the ‘virtual work’ is given by
Now, let small virtual linear and angular displacements be
dw ¼ F1 ds1 þ F2 ds2 þ    þ Fn dsn dsc (of the centre of mass) and dh (a small rotation of the
body). Then the virtual displacement of Pi is given by
where ds1 ; ds2 ; . . .; dsn are the components (both +ve and
−ve) of the virtual displacement along F1 ; F2 ; . . .; Fn . The dsi ¼ dsc þ dh  qi
principle states that dw ¼ 0. It is easy to find that
Hence, the virtual work done by the forces is as follows:
X
n X
n
dw ¼ Fi  ds ¼ ds Fi ¼ ds  0 ¼ 0 X
n
i¼1 i¼1 dw ¼ Fi  dsi
i¼1
Xn
¼ Fi  ðdsc þ dh  qi Þ
i¼1
F̄2 X
n X
n
¼ dsc  Fi þ Fi  ðdh  qi Þ
i¼1 i¼1
F̄1 P'
Xn X
n

δsˉ ¼ dsi  Fi þ dh F i  qi

P i¼1 i¼1
¼ 0 ðin view of the conditions for static equilibrium
F̄n mentioned above.Þ

Fig. 3.8 Principle of virtual work

3.2 Emergence of Analytical Mechanics 81

3.2.3 D’Alembert’s Principle ‘Let A, B, C, etc. be the bodies that constitute the system
and suppose that the motions a, b, c, etc. are impressed on
The period between Newton and Lagrange was full of them; let there be forces, arising from their mutual action,
activities to develop mechanics as a branch of science. which change these into  a; 
b; c, etc. It is clear that the motion
Though Euler followed the philosophy of Newton that impressed on the body A can be compounded of the motion a
proposed the rate of change of momentum to be proportional which it acquires and another motion a. In the same way
to the impressed force, D’Alembert was not in favour of the motions b, c, etc. can be regarded as compounded of the
such an approach. In his zeal to make some profound con- motions  b and b, c and v, etc. From this it follows that the
tribution to science, he divided sciences into two groups. motions of the bodies A, B, C, etc. would be the same,
One of these were based upon principles which D’Alembert among themselves, if instead of their having been given the
considered to be necessarily true (and, perhaps, self evident). impulse a, b, c, etc. They had been simultaneously given the
In the other group, according to him, the sciences were based twin impulsions  a and a,  b and b, c and v etc. Now, by
upon experimental observations and hypotheses. D’Alem- supposition, the bodies A, B, C, etc. have assumed, by their
bert considered ‘mechanics’ to belong to the first group and own action the motions  a; 
b; c, etc. Therefore the motions a,
should be based upon absolute truth and independent of b, v, etc. must be such that they do not disturb the motions
assumptions. To him, the principles in mechanics belong to a; 
 b; c, etc. in any way. That is to say, that if the bodies had
the clan of ‘necessary truths’. only received the motions a, b, v, etc. these motions would
D’Alembert summarily rejected Newton and Eulers’ have been cancelled out among themselves, and the system
approach which, according to him, depended on the single could have remained in rest’.
and vague obscure axiom that the effect is proportional to its The procedure for solving the problem is to decompose the
cause. His approach of solving dynamics problems was impressed motions each into two motions such that the one set
based upon composition of motion. He reasoned that when motions balance among themselves (i.e. when applied to
an object’s motion is changed, the final motion is made up of the system it remains in rest). The remaining components of the
the original motion and an acquired motion. Thus, the motion represent the actual motion of the system under the
original motion could be considered to be composed of the action of the impressed motions. At this point, it is appropriate
final motion and the motion lost by the object. to mention that D’Alembert considered ‘impulse’ as the cause
Figure 3.10 indicates his idea with the help of vector to generate motion. By ‘motion’, he implied the velocity. It is
representation of motion. Since the state of equilibrium was clear that though the principle suggested by D’Alembert is
more understandable to D’Alembert, he wanted to frame all clear, its application is not easy. His approach for solving
dynamical problems based upon the principle of equilibrium. problems of motion has been described by many (including
The principle that he wanted to use for solving all dynamical Lagrange) as a process of converting the dynamics problems
problems can be described as follows. The problem state- into statics. Though D’Alembert himself did not subscribe to
ment is given first as mentioned below: such an interpretation of his principle, but that has continued till
‘Given a system of bodies arranged mutually in any the present day. Not only that this idea of converting a problem
manner whatever, let us suppose that a particular motion is of dynamic equilibrium to a problem of static equilibrium by
impressed on each of the bodies that it cannot follow using D’Alembert’s problem led to the opportunity of applying
because of the action of the others, to find that motion that the principle of virtual work. This became the founding step
each body should take’. towards the development of analytical mechanics. When these
The general procedure for solving the above general concepts were being developed a parallel development started
problem D’Alembert suggested the following approach that had the most extensive influence on classical mechanics.
(Ref. Fig. 3.11):

ā
Original a A b
Original motion β
motion Assumed ā B α
motion Assumed
α b bˉ x
motion a
c‾ bˉ β α-β-x balance
C themselves
Acquired x
motion Motion c
lost c‾ c

Fig. 3.10 Composition of motion in D’Alembert’s scheme Fig. 3.11 General statement of D’Alembert’s problem
82 3 Post ‘Principia’ Developments

3.2.4 Principle of Least Action A

The laws of the refraction of light induced many to provide

an explanation to the observed characteristics (Fig. 3.12). I S O θ
When a light beam passes from one medium to another, the II θ C R
direction of the beam changes. Descartes tried to explain the
phenomenon by considering the speed of light to increase
when it passes from a lighter medium to a denser medium
(which was, of course wrong).
However, Descartes was opposed and Fermat brought the
concept that Nature always follows the path of least resis-
tance. Fermat extended it to the principle that a light beam B
should take minimum time for travelling from a point A in
Fig. 3.13 Path of refracted light beam
medium I to a point B in medium II.
He was successful in proving that the time taken by the
light ray going along the straight paths ACB is more than nebulous, this laid the basic foundation for the concept of
another path AOB (Fig. 3.13). It is simple to demonstrate ‘action’ that got developed into a matured concept in the
that the time taken along AOB is less than that along ACB hands of Maupertuis more than half a century later.
when the speed of light vI [ vII . Maupertuis proposed that while travelling from one
For example, considering AC = BC, h = 45° and OC = medium into another one, the light chooses a path along
0.1 AC, it is simple to show that the time along the path which the ‘quantity of action’, is minimum. This could
ACB is 1:67AC=vII when vI is assumed to be equal to 1:5vII . resolve the ‘distance-time’ debate raging the scientific world
However, it is necessary to prove that for the actual path at that time. However, it is not very easy to physically
AOB, the time taken is minimum. Fermat was able to do that conceptualize a concept like ‘action’, particularly in the
geometrically in the year 1662. He got the relation between absence of a clear concept of mechanical work. It should be
the incident angle hi and the refracted angle hr as a function noted that though the whole problem was related to the
of the speed of light in region I and II. However, the fol- propagation of light, it soon got extended to the field of
lowers of Descartes did not refrain from criticizing Fermat. ‘dynamics’.
The history of science has recorded the bitter exchange Maupertuis considered the action to be represented by a
between the two groups that followed for quite some time. product of the distance travelled and the velocity of propa-
Subsequently, the Fermat’s principle received serious gation. Figure 3.14 shows a light ray travelling from point
objection from Leibniz also. According to him, why travel A to point B following the path ACB.
time has to be minimized. Philosophically minimizing the The angles of incidence and refraction are hi and hr,
travel time cannot have any preference over minimizing the respectively. The speed of light propagation are v1 and v2 in
distance (when the path is straight). Philosophically what the two regions as shown in figure. Maupertuis defined
can be considered for minimization by the Nature is the total action as follows:
‘effort’, given by the length of the path and the ‘resistance’
experienced. Though at this stage the whole idea was a bit A / AC  v1 þ CB  v2

υ1
θi
θi
I S
II C R

θr υ2 θr

Fig. 3.12 Refraction of a light beam Fig. 3.14 Law of refraction from principle of least action
3.2 Emergence of Analytical Mechanics 83

or, 3.2.5 Lagrangian Mechanics

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
A / v1 AR2 þ RC 2 þ v2 BS2 þ SC 2 The primary aim of analytical mechanics is to solve
dynamical problems using only scalar quantities like energy.
which is minimum when C is the correct position. Using the This greatly simplifies the procedure as handling vectors in a
consideration that A is minimum then a small change in the complex problem can be difficult. The three main points can
position of C (all other points being fixed) will yield zero be summarized here which show the distinction between the
change in the value of A. Or, Newtonian approach and analytical approach.
dðAÞ ¼ 0
1. Unlike Newtonian approach, in analytical mechanics,
Now, only scalar quantities are involved in the formulation of
the problem.
2RCdðRCÞ 2SCdðSCÞ
dðAÞ ¼ v1  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ v2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 0 2. In Newtonian approach, the equation of motion for each
AR þ RC
2 2 BS2 þ SC 2 particle (of the system) are parallely handled with the
since AR and BS are constants. As (SC + CR), i.e. SR is also equations of constraints. In analytical mechanics, the
constant configuration of a system is described using ‘generalized
coordinates’ which are consistent with the constraints.
dðRC Þ ¼ dðCSÞ Thus, the number of generalized coordinates is equal to
the number of degrees of freedom.
Hence, dðAÞ ¼ 0 yields the following relation

RC SC Figure 3.15 shows a pendulum. The configuration of the

v1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ v2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pendulum can be described by the position coordinates of
AR þ RC
2 2 BS2 þ SC 2
the mass x and y and the constraint equation x2 + y2 = l2. On
v1
or, ¼ sin
v2
hr
sin hi ; the law of refraction.
the other hand, the angle h (as a generalized coordinate) can
This ‘principle of least action’ defined by Maupertuis was completely specify the system configuration. Thus, there is
used by him in a problem of dynamics—impact of two no need for formulating constraint equations when general-
bodies. This step can be considered to be a giant leap as the ized coordinates are used.
action principle became a major foundation stone for the
subsequent developments in dynamics. 3. In Newtonian approach, each individual body’s motion is
It was Euler in whose hands the principle of least action decided by the external forces applied on the body and
attained maturity for application to dynamical problems. the constraint forces acting on the body during motion.
Like most other philosophers, he also believed that all ‘ef- But these constraint forces are not known ‘a priori’. In
fects of Nature obey some law of maximum or minimum’, analytical mechanics, the formulation is done in such a
i.e. extremum. He considered the product ‘mass  dis- way that the constraint forces do not appear in the
placement  velocity’ as the appropriate parameter for
defining action as follows:
Z
A ¼ mv ds y
O
From this point, the further development of analytical
mechanics using this ‘principle of least action’ was done by θ l
Lagrange. In essence, he combined D’Alembert’s principle
to state a dynamical problem as a statics problem and then
applied Bernoulli’s principle of virtual velocity or virtual (x,y)
or
work (which is also a variational form). Along with this, he M (θ)
developed a very ingenuous method called ‘the method of
undermined multiplier’ to get the complete solution for a x
generalized dynamical problem. The concept is presented in
the next section. Fig. 3.15 Generalized coordinate
84 3 Post ‘Principia’ Developments

formulation at all. This is achieved by using the principle relation is expressed in terms of generalized coordinates
of virtual work. The constraints do not do any work when using the relations
the system is given a virtual displacement satisfying the
constraints. Figure 3.16 shows two cases, in one, the qi ¼ qi ðr1 ; r2 ; . . .; rN Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n
constraint is time independent, whereas in the other case and
the constraint surface is time dependent.
dqi ¼ dqi ðdr1 ; dr2 ; . . .; drN Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n
If a particle P is given a small displacement with the time
independent constraint, the virtual displacement ds is same But it should be noted that all the dqi ’s are mutually
as the actual displacement ds. However, when the constraint independent. Now, Eq. (3.2.1) is expressed in the following
is dependent on time, the actual displacement ds is not the form using generalized coordinates:
same as a virtual displacement ds that takes place without the X
n
passage of any time (i.e. the constraint remains the same). It ðÞi dqi ¼ 0 ð3:2:2Þ
is seen from the figures that the product ds  R ¼ 0 since R i¼1

(the constraint force) acts in a direction normal to ds in all

where ()i is an expression in terms of the generalized coor-
cases. So, the constraint forces do not appear formulation at
dinates and their time derivates for the ith generalized
all. coordinate. As all dqi’s are mutually independent, (3.2.2) can
The above points make the analytical formulation supe-
be satisfied only if
rior to the Newtonian formulation in case of complex sys-
tems. If there are particles with ri (i = 1, 2,…, N) as the ð Þi ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n ð3:2:3Þ
position vectors subjected to p constraint equations then
there will be N − p = n generalized coordinates qi (i = 1, 2, Solving these n equations, the solutions for the n-gener-
…, n). The total force acting on the ith particle is alized coordinates are obtained. This constitutes the basic
scheme of Lagrange’s dynamics. The equations of motion
Fi ¼ Fia þ Ri are called Lagrange’s equation.

where Fi is the force applied and Ri is the constraint force.

Using D’Alembert’s principle, the system will be in static 3.3 Dynamics of Rigid Bodies
equilibrium if each particle is imposed with force mi€ri
where mi is the mass of the ith particle and €ri is its accel- Since one of the major impetus for the development of
eration. Then applying the principle of virtual work for a mechanics was to understand the motion of the heavenly
system in static equilibrium, the total virtual work must be bodies, the mechanics developed by Newton and others was
zero. Thus, relevant to the motion of particles. Many scholars refer to
P
n this as ‘point mechanics’ implying point like matter. The
ðFi  mi€ri Þ  dri ¼ dw ¼ 0 point mechanics also yielded correct results for the motion of
i¼1
Pn bodies (extended objects) in translation, both rectilinear and
or; ðFia þ Ri  mi€ri Þ  dri ¼ 0 ð3:2:1Þ curvilinear. The first need to consider the motion of extended
i¼1
Pn bodies arose with the work on pendulum clocks by Huygens
or; ðFia  mi€ri Þ  drv ¼ 0 before Newton’s Principia. Huygens’ major concern was the
i¼1
isochronism of pendulum clocks. He was concerned about
since Ri  dri ¼ 0 for i = 1, 2,…, N. Hence, the constraint maintaining the constancy of period of the oscillation of his
forces are eliminated from the formulation. Next, the above pendulum clock when such clocks were used in ships. The

Fig. 3.16 Virtual and actual _ _ _

displacement ds = δs P΄ (t + dt) ds
_ t + dt
δs
_ P'
P R P
(t) R
t

Time independent Time dependent

constraint constraint
3.3 Dynamics of Rigid Bodies 85

continuous rocking motion of the ships leads to variations in such isochronism is achieved if the following relation is
the oscillation amplitude resulting in fluctuating oscillation satisfied
period.
Of course, Huygens’ study of compound pendulum was a a  OA2 þ b  OB2 þ c  OC 2
OG ¼
very restricted form of investigating rigid body motion and ða þ b þ cÞ  OD
the real development of rigid body dynamics was still a
Though it took another century for the concept of mo-
century in the future. Development of rigid dynamics started
ment of inertia to mature in the hands of Euler, it is clear that
in the hands of Huygens and progressed in the hands of quite
the numerator of the above expression in the RHS is nothing
a few scientists of the continental Europe culminating with
but the moment of inertia of the above compound pendulum.
the final form developed by Euler. Huygens worked to find
In modern language, the above equation can be written as
out the basic parameters of a simple pendulum that has the
follows:
same oscillation period as that of a compound pendulum (i.e.
a rigid body hinged at a point) of same mass. Of course, the I
l¼
whole analysis was of geometric nature (as the only math- mq
ematical tool to study motion of bodies). Proposition V of
the fourth part of his famous book ‘Horologium Oscillato- where l is the length of the equivalent simple pendulum, I is
rium’ states the moment of inertia about the axis through the point of
‘Being given a pendulum composed of any number of suspension, m is the mass and q is the distance to the centre
weights, if each of these is multiplied by the square of the of mass from the point of suspension. This work by Huygens
distance from the axis of oscillation, and the sum of these can be considered to be the first work relating to a body
products is divided by the product of the sum of the weights whose angular motion is relevant. But the concept of a rigid
with the distance of their centre of gravity from the same body as an agglomeration of particles of infinitesimally
axis of oscillation, there will be obtained the length of the small size was still not there.
simple pendulum which is isochronous with the compound Jacob Bernoulli was the next scientist who investigated
pendulum—that is, the distance between the axis and the the motion of rigid bodies (i.e. an object with rotational
centre of oscillation of the compound pendulum’. motion). He realized that two points on a rigid body possess
Figure 3.17 shows a compound pendulum consisting of different accelerations and, so, there exists internal forces
three masses A, B and C connected by a massless rigid rod which ensure the required motions of the two particles
hinged at O. The centre of gravity of A, B and C is point (parts) due to the rotational motion of an extended body.
D. The weights (masses) at A, B and C are a, b and c. Next, a This is the first hint of constraint forces developed during
simple pendulum OG is considered with the mass at motion. Jacob Bernoulli found the correct principle of rigid
G whose magnitude g is equal to (a + b + c). Left at the body dynamics in plane motion. He started from the prin-
same position simultaneously the simple pendulum OG and ciple of a lever and realized that the body is in equilibrium
the compound pendulum OABC, their oscillations will be when the sum of all moments of the forces about the hinge is
isochronous if they reach identical position OX and OY zero. If the moments of the externally applied forces and the
simultaneously with equal velocities. Huygens showed that inertia forces are equated to zero, the principle of rigid body
dynamics is obtained. In a sense, it was a mix of D’Alem-
bert’s principle and the law of lever.
Real breakthrough in rigid body dynamics was made by
O O none other than Euler. He was one of the very few in the
continental Europe who accepted Newtonian mechanics.
A θ The point mechanics developed by Newton led Euler to be
θ
D attached to the basic principle of mechanics. In modern
φ φ
B G symbols, that is,

p_ ¼ F
C
Euler added to this a logical extension of the above
principle
x y
h_ ¼ r  F
Fig. 3.17 Oscillation centre of a compound pendulum
86 3 Post ‘Principia’ Developments

Fig. 3.18. The element of the body with mass dm is sub-

jected to externally acting force df e and a resultant force df i
m
exerted by its surrounding elements.
Thus, Euler applied the basic principle of mechanics

dm  a ¼ df e þ df i ¼ df
dm Euler also realized that when summed over the whole
_ body, the internal forces cancel among themselves leaving
df i only the externally applied forces on the body.
_
df e In a major intellectual leap, Euler conceptualized the
general motion of a rigid body as a combination of a
motion of the centre of mass and rotation of the body about
Fig. 3.18 Element of a rigid body the centre of mass. He introduced the three Euler angles to
quantify the motion of a body around the centre of mass.
So the rate of change of angular momentum is equal to He, thus, greatly simplified the complex problem of rigid
the moment of the applied forces. The above equation can be body motion. Euler also distinguished between centre of
also written as mass and centre of gravity. He defined rotational inertia and
I x_ ¼ M also demonstrated the existence of three principal axes
about which the uniform rotation is possible for a free
and moment of inertia concept attains its rightful place. Euler body. He also noticed that the products of inertia terms also
also reached the proper definition of a rigid body in which disappear greatly simplifying the equations of motion.
the distance between any two points on the body remains Using the Euler angles, he could write the angular veloci-
constant. The concept of a rigid body as an agglomeration of ties with respect to the body-fixed principal axes and the
infinite number of infinitesimal elements was another major final equations of motion of a rigid body were greatly
input by Euler. He conceptualized a rigid body as shown in simplified.
 Special Theory of Relativity
4

4.1 Introduction So, a series of successive events separated by infinitesi-

mal time can be represented by a continuous line as illus-
Like in all fields of science, the development of relativistic trated in Fig. 4.2.
mechanics is also indebted to many scientists though its final Such diagrams are called world-line diagrams. In New-
formulation was in the hands of Albert Einstein in 1905. tonian scheme, time is universal so all frames have similar
Before proceeding further, it is desirable to specify the subtle clocks keeping identical rates of progress of time. Since ‘dt’,
difference between the ‘Principle of Relativity’ and ‘theory a time interval, is same in all frames, acceleration also
of relativity’. The Principle of Relativity is a fundamental acquires an absolute character in Newtonian mechanics.
philosophical statement whereas the theory of relativity Since the velocities of a particle observed from two different
represents the mathematical formulation. In Sect. 2.6, the inertial frames can be related by
Principle of Relativity was presented. The concept of rela-
tivity is pretty old and goes back to Galileo who first pro- v ¼ v0 þ V
posed the indistinguishability of physical phenomena taking
where V is the relative velocity of the primed frame with
place in two different frames of reference moving at uniform
respect to the unprimed frame, and
speed relative to each other. In modern language, the
‘Principle of Relativity’ can be stated as follows: dv ¼ dv0
It is not possible to distinguish between two inertial frames as V is a constant. Again in Newtonian scheme,
through any experiment conducted internally.

Sometimes, an alternate way of defining the principle is dt ¼ dt0

to state that it is impossible to determine the motion (i.e.
where these are the time intervals in the unprimed and the
velocity) of an inertial frame by conducting internal exper-
primed frames. Hence,
iments. This very deep-rooted fundamental principle can
give rise to many insights which can yield logical situations dv dv0
a¼ ¼ ¼ a0
to manage problems in Newtonian dynamics. In Sect. 2.6, it dt dt0
was demonstrated how it was utilized by Huygens for
Thus in Newtonian mechanics, the dynamics of a phe-
solving the collision problem. In the next section, it will be
nomenon which depends on acceleration (because F ¼ ma)
shown how Euler used this principle for solving the complex
is described by equations those transform following the
problem of generalized rigid body motion.
Galilean transformation (from unprimed to primed frame of
reference)
4.1.1 Space–Time in Newtonian Mechanics a0 ¼ a

Newton believed in absoluteness of space and universality in v0 ¼ v þ V

time. Let two events E1 ðr1 ; t1 Þ, E2 ðr2 ; t2 Þ be considered in
t0 ¼ t
Newtonian mechanics. r1 and r2 are the locations where the
two events are taking place at times t1 and t2. Graphically Leibniz (and a few others in the continental Europe) did
they can be represented as shown in Fig. 4.1. not accept the absolute character of space, and according to

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 87

A. Ghosh, Conceptual Evolution of Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics,
Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6253-7_4
88 4 Special Theory of Relativity

_ 4.2.1 Principle of Relativity in Solving Rigid

r
_ Body Dynamics Problem
_ E2 (r 2, t 2)
r2
The general motion of a rigid body in three dimensions was
an extremely complicated problem before Euler applied the
Principle of Relativity for simplifying the description. Euler
_
_ could split the general motion of a rigid body into a trans-
E1 (r1, t1)
r1 lation of the centre of mass and a rotational motion of the
body about the centre of mass. This is explained in Fig. 4.3.
A rigid body’s initial and final positions are shown in
t1 t2 Fig. 4.3a marked by (1) and (2).
Euler split this general motion first into a translation of
Fig. 4.1 Two events described in Newtonian scheme the centre of mass C with a uniform speed from C to C 0 and
a rotation of the rigid body from the intermediate position
(2)′ to (2) about point C, the centre of mass. He reasoned that
as a pure translation with constant velocity implies fixing the
body onto an inertial frame of reference, Principle of Rela-
_ tivity ensures dynamic equivalence. Using the Principle of
r
Relativity, he could convert the untractable complex motion
of a rigid body into a pure translation and a pure rotation
rendering the problem easier to handle.
For a freely moving rigid body the general motion can be
very complex to comprehend; but from Newton’s laws its
t centre of mass has to move with a constant velocity since the
linear momentum cannot change. Figure 4.4 shows the rigid
Fig. 4.2 World line of a series of events body freely moving with respect to the inertial frame x-y-z.
The centre of mass O moves with a constant velocity u. If
another frame x′-y′-z′ is considered with its CM as the origin
Leibniz, space and time are nothing but relations between
and is given a translational motion, then x′-y′-z′ also con-
objects and events. Hence, all geometrical and kinematic
stitutes an inertial frame. So the motion of the rigid body in
motions are relative. However, since no one suspected
the x′-y′-z′ frame also satisfies the same equation as in the
against the universality of time, the Galilean transformation
frame x-y-z. Euler could completely solve the dynamics of
appeared to be valid.
freely moving rigid bodies by employing the Principle of
So, the different inertial frames have different motions but
Relativity. A similar feat was achieved by Huygens 75 years
had the identical clocks. As a result, the time played the role
ago for solving the collision problem.
of a ‘parameter’ in Newtonian mechanics. However, it is
very interesting to note that in 1788, Lagrange proposed
dynamics to be phenomenon in a four-dimensional space–
4.2.2 Euler’s Work on the Problem of Stellar
time structure! Thus, one can see the early concept of a
Aberration
four-dimensional world amalgamating space with time as
early as the second half of the eighteenth century!
Once telescopic astronomy started, the observation of the
stars became a real occupation of the astronomers. The
primary objective was to detect any parallax of the starts due
4.2 Euler’s Work on Relativity:
to the orbital motion of the earth as proposed by Copernicus,
Confrontation of Dynamics with Optics
Kepler and Galileo but still not accepted by the scientific
community (and the Church, of course) in general. From the
As noted earlier in this book, it is Euler who cast the science
mid-seventeenth century, astronomers led by the French
of motion in a modern framework. His involvements with
astronomer Jean Picard, noticed a peculiar yearly motion of
the Principle of Relativity were on problems he investigated.
the stars (describing loops) against the backdrop of the fixed
In one, he solved the rigid body motion using the Principle
celestial sphere. In the early eighteenth century, the English
of Relativity, and in other, he was the first to bring optics
astronomer James Bradley studied the phenomenon for
face-to-face with mechanics.
years. All stars were seen to describe elliptic loops in unison
4.2 Euler’s Work on Relativity: Confrontation of Dynamics with Optics 89

Fig. 4.3 Splitting the motion of (a) (b)

a rigid body into a pure
translation and a pure rotation (2′)

c′

(2) (2)
c

(1)
(1)

z The telescope on a stationary base needs to be tilted by an

angle h with the horizontal. If the telescope is mounted on a
z′
moving earth, it needs to be tilted a bit more towards the
−
u = constant direction of motion of the telescope. This effect is explained
further in Fig. 4.7. The velocity diagram shows the finite
o′ speed of light c and the instantaneous speed of the telescope
CM v (Fig. 4.6).
O y This phenomenon was also another evidence that light
x′ y′ moves with a finite speed. As Bradley measured the mag-
nitude of the aberration angle as 20″ of arc, knowing the
orbital speed of the earth as 30 km s−1, he estimated the
x
speed of light as 3.09  108 m s−1, quite close to the
Fig. 4.4 Motion of the centre of mass of a freely moving rigid body modern value.
Euler investigated the phenomenon and came to the
keeping in tune with the earth’s orbital motion. Initially, it problem of confrontation of optics with mechanics. He
was suspected to be the expected parallax. But the directions believed light to be a wave phenomenon and also in the
of the displacements were not in the right direction for those existence of ether as a medium to propagate light. As a
to represent parallax. result, Euler considered light to travel with constant speed
As shown in Fig. 4.5, the displacement due to parallax at irrespective of the motion of the source. Euler analysed the
the position should be towards left. But the earth in this following three situations:
position moves into the plane of the paper. Bradley found
the observed displacement was always in the direction of the (i) The object (i.e. the star) moves
earth’s instantaneous velocity due to orbital motion. Thus, (ii) The observer (i.e. our earth) moves
parallax was ruled out. In 1725, Bradley came up with the (iii) Both move
explanation that was referred to as the ‘aberration of star
light’. The explanation is given in Fig. 4.6. Figure 4.8a shows the case when the object moves with a
velocity s. The observer S is fixed to the frame as shown in
Aberration Fig. 4.8a. In the frame of S, the light travels from the star
angle (″of arc) with a constant speed c to reach S, covering a distance d as
40 shown. Now,
S
Star 30
h sin h ¼ l sin a ð4:2:1aÞ
20
10 l cos a þ h cos h ¼ d ð4:2:1bÞ

where
Sep Dec Mar Jun
c
Sun Earth d ¼h ð4:2:1cÞ
A s
and c is the speed of light.
Fig. 4.5 Star and the orbiting earth
90 4 Special Theory of Relativity

Fig. 4.6 Explanation of the (a) (b)

aberration of stars
S S

Aberration

θ'
T θ θ

Both the star and The telescope moving

the telescope stationary forward with the earth

Fig. 4.7 Velocity diagram to

From the above equations, one easily obtains the fol- explain the aberration
lowing result for the aberration angle a
α
s sin h
tan a ¼ ð4:2:2Þ
c  s cos h
c
The result for case (ii) was obtained by Euler through the
application of the Principle of Relativity. Euler gave a
velocity to the whole system S, a velocity −r, where r is the
velocity of the observer and used (4.2.2) with the object ν
speed as r. According to the Principle of Relativity, this
reduces the system to the first one ,and according to the
Hence,
principle, the result should be the same as that in the first
case given by (4.2.2). Thus, for a case when the observer pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
moves with a velocity r cos a ¼ 1  sin2 a ¼ c2  r 2 sin2 h
c
r sin h Thus,
tan a ¼ ð4:2:3Þ
c  r cos h
r sin h
Euler did not stop here. He wanted to get the result by tan a ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð4:2:4Þ
c2  r 2 sin2 h
adding the velocities as shown in Fig. 4.8b. From the figure,
one gets The result is different from the one obtained by applying
the Principle of Relativity along with a wave model for light,
c r
¼ whereas (4.2.4) represents the result according to Newtonian
sin h sin a mechanics applied to light moving as particles. This was the
r first instance where light appeared to contradict Newtonian
sin a ¼ sin h
c mechanics. The concept of a stationary ether was also
another outcome of this study.

Fig. 4.8 Euler’s investigation of (a) (b)

the stellar aberration phenomenon
s

α d
α
l c
S S'
θ θ
h r

object moves with a velocity s Result from velocity addition

4.3 Efforts to Detect Ether Speed: The Null Result … 91

4.3 Efforts to Detect Ether Speed: The Null deflection of light by a prism on the earth. Arago designed a
Result of Michelson–Morley Experiment suitable experiment to detect the earth’s motion, but he was
surprised to notice no effect of the motion of the earth
4.3.1 Early Attempts through the ether.
Arago’s friend, Fresnel, suggested a peculiar scheme to
As the wave theory of light gained popularity and accept- explain the observed result. He suggested an additional
ability, the existence of luminiferous ether became essential amount of ether to be present inside the moving prism glass
to all models of optics and experiments with light. Since the over and above the uniform ether present all over. Thus,
ether is supposed to be in absolute rest and it flows through there was an excess of ether inside the prism. The scheme
all objects freely, the moving earth should face an ether wind suggested by Fresnel was very complex and, to some extent,
(flowing through the earth and all objects on it with a weird! But the suggestion could explain the null result
velocity opposite to that of the earth with respect to the obtained by Arago. According to the conventional wisdom
stationary ether). Soon scientists started to attempt to detect at that time, the speed of light inside a medium of refractive
the absolute velocity of the earth. Earth’s orbital speed index l, moving with a velocity v, was given by
around the sun was known, but the velocity with which the
c
solar system moves was not known. c0 ¼ þv
l
The first such attempt at determining the velocity of the
earth racing through the ether wind was made by the French that was used by Arago. Fresnel suggested a modified form
scientist Francois Arago in 1818. His idea was quite of the above equation. He suggested a formula for the speed
ingenuous and based upon the theory of transmission of light of light inside a moving medium as follows:
in glass. It was known that a prism bends a light ray passing
c
through it and the amount of bending depends on the c0 ¼ þ fv
refractive index of glass. From the wave theory of light, it is l
known that the refractive index is the ratio of the speed of where f was a correction factor called Fresnel’s drag coef-
light in vacuum to the speed of light in the glass. h  i
Thus, in the case (a) of Fig. 4.9, the refractive index is ficient given by f ¼ 1  l12 . However, wired could have
been the assumptions made by Fresnel this formula yielded
l ¼ c=c0 results which agreed with experimental observations! Soon
after, in 1851, Fizeau, another expert in the field of experi-
where c and c′ are the speeds of light in vacuum and in glass,
ments on light propagation, conducted an experiment to
respectively. When the prism moves with a velocity v (as
verify Fresnel’s formula. His scheme is illustrated in
shown in Fig. 4.9b), the speed of the light with which it
Fig. 4.10.
approaches the glass is c − v. Inside the prism, the speed of
A light beam was split up by a partial mirror into two
light becomes c00 / c0  v. Thus, the refractive index should
branches A and B. A was guided to move against the flow
become
velocity of water in the two tubes, whereas beam B moved
ðc  vÞ along the flow velocity. When the two beams A and B got
l combined, interference fringes were formed. The flow of the
ðc0  vÞ
water was stopped for initial calibration and the shift in the
and the angle h′ of bending of light should be different. fringe pattern was noted when water flow was resumed.
Hence, Arago concluded that a prism on the earth should From the experimental result, a drag coefficient of 0.48 was
deflect light with different angles indicating the motion of obtained compared to the predicted theoretical value of 0.43!
the earth. The orbital velocity of the earth changes with time, This was considered to support Fresnel’s hypothesis of
and a signature of that was expected to be shown in the partial dragging of ether (inside a moving medium). But this

(a) (b)

c
θ c–ν θ'
c' c"
ν

Fig. 4.9 Bending of light by a stationary prism and a moving prism

92 4 Special Theory of Relativity

Fig. 4.10 Fizen’s ether-drag Water in

experimental set-up B
ν
A
Source A B B A
A A
ν
B
Partial mirror Water out
A+B
Viewing telescope

was against the observations on starlight aberration studied Maxwell’s suggestion was of purely academic interest as
by Bradley and Euler. That indicated a stationary ether. the detection of earth’s motion through the ether needed
Much later, the Fizeau experiment was repeated by extremely small time intervals (approximately 10−15 s)
Michelson at the suggestion of Lord Kelvin. In 1885, beyond the scope of contemporary experimental technology.
Michelson and Morley repeated the experiment and con- But Michelson developed a new instrument, an interferom-
firmed the result obtained by Fizeau more than 30 years ago! eter, capable of detecting extremely small length elements.
Since the speed of light is about 3  108 m s−1 in 10−15 s, it
travels a distance 0.3  10−6 m. This is comparable to the
4.3.2 Michelson–Morley Experiment wavelength of visible light which is about 0.5  10−6 m.
Using interferometry, extremely small effects could be
The attempt to measure the velocity of the solar system detected by Michelson’s apparatus.
through a stationary ether started as early as 1879 when Michelson decided to conduct a terrestrial experiment to
James Clark Maxwell suggested to conduct experiments detect any ether wind because of the earth’s motion through
with eclipses of Jupiter’s moon Io at different configurations it. The basic idea is illustrated in Fig. 4.12. The arrangement
of the earth and Jupiter in the solar system as indicated in consists of two mirrors M1 and M2 fixed on a platform
Fig. 4.11. equidistant from a light source at O.
In the configuration (a), eclipse of Io by Jupiter will be When the set-up is stationary (with respect to the
observed earlier as the earth is approaching Jupiter. On the luminiferous ether), light beams originated at O by a flash
other hand in configuration (b), the viewing of the eclipse travel the distance d to M1 and M2 in equal times d/c and
will be delayed as the earth is moving away from the light after being reflected by the mirrors reach back the source
signals from Jupiter’s location. Maxwell received the point after a period d/c. Thus, both the beams arrive back at
detailed tables of the eclipse timings in 1879, and he thanked O after a period 2d/c. When the set-up has a velocity v (to-
American astronomer Todd for those. But a few months later wards right, say), Michelson’s expected chain of events is
Maxwell died without analysing the tables. Maxwell’s letter depicted in Fig. 4.13.
was presented in the Royal Society of London and later A flash (by a source at O) takes place at t = 0. The two
published in Nature. Thus, it came to the notice of Michel- beams, A and B, travel towards the mirrors M1 and M2 as
son, an American physicist. shown. After a time Dt, B reaches M2 and is reflected;

Fig. 4.11 Earth–Jupiter (a) (b)

configuration for the suggested
eclipse experiment

Sun Sun
E J E
J
v v

stationary ether
4.3 Efforts to Detect Ether Speed: The Null Result … 93

Fig. 4.14 Essential features of

M2 Michelson’s experiment M2
B B
Partial mirror
d S A
A+B A
M1 M1
P
O d

Fig. 4.12 Basic idea behind Michelson’s experiment

A and B is expected to show up in an interference fringe
pattern that can detect a shift of the waves relative to each
M2 t=0 other even by a small fraction of the wave length. Michelson
B expected to observe a shift in the fringe by rotating the
ν
M1 whole set-up causing the beam paths to change their orien-
tations relative to the direction of the earth’s velocity relative
O,S A to the stationary ether. The same experiment was conducted
M2 t = ∆t again in 1887 in Cleveland, Ohio, in collaboration with
ν.∆t Morley; the accuracy attempted was much higher than the
B ν 1881 experiment. But, as the whole scientific community
M1
knows now, the result did not show any effect and no motion
O S A of the earth was detected. The obvious conclusion was that
t = 2∆t the ether is being dragged by the earth contradicting the
M2
observed stellar aberration. So the science community faced
ν.∆t
ν three possibilities—stationary ether, partially moving ether
B M1
and completely dragged ether.
O S A
To explain the null result, the Irish scientist Fitzgerald
gave a suggestion in his lectures in 1889. According to the
M2 t >2∆t
suggestion, all objects contract in length for its motion
ν.∆t through the ether, contraction being in the direction of
ν qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
B M1 2

S A motion. The lengths are reduced by a factor 1  vc2 . In

O 1892, H.A. Lorentz came up with a similar suggestion, and
this effect became known as Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction.
Fig. 4.13 Michelson’s experiment with two mirrors moving with Lorentz being the greatest expert on Maxwell’s theory of
respect to stationary ether
electromagnetism also continued his research on the appli-
cability of the Principle of Relativity; he found that elec-
A continues its journey towards M1. After another interval of tromagnetism does not satisfy Galilean relativity.
time Dt, the reflected beam B reaches the source S. A may
have been reflected by M1 but still has not reached S. After
another interval of time, the reflected beam A reaches back at 4.4 Electromagnetism: Challenge
S. Thus, the two beams reach back their original source at to the Principle of Relativity
different times, the difference depending on the velocity v.
Michelson conducted his first experiment in a set-up Though the phenomenon of static electricity and magnetism
placed deep inside the foundation of the observatory at were known to the scientists for a long time, the real pro-
Potsdam, to make the sensitive equipment free from distur- gress in the study of the subject started after Michael Fara-
bance. The essential feature of Michelson’s experimental day investigated these two phenomena in 1831. Before him,
set-up is shown in Fig. 4.14. the Danish scientist Hans C. Oersted first discovered in 1820
A beam of light from the source is split into two beams that a compass needle is deflected by electric current flowing
A and B by the partial mirror S. After getting reflected by M1 through a conductor signifying that a magnetic field is cre-
and M2, the beams recombine and are examined for inter- ated by an electric current flowing through a conductor as
ference by the pickup P. The difference in travel distance of indicated in Fig. 4.15.
94 4 Special Theory of Relativity

Magnetic B
field lines r

compass

wire cross
section

Fig. 4.15 Current in a wire developing a magnetic field e-

This was the first instance when the two phenomena were Fig. 4.16 Magnetic field produced by a straight conductor
found to be related. The conclusion in the modern sense is
that moving charge causes a magnetic field to develop
where r is the distance of the point from the conducting wire.
(electric current as a flow of negatively charged electrons is a l 
much later discovery). The magnitude of the universal constant 4p 0
in SI unit is
−7
The reverse phenomenon that magnetism gives rise to 10 . Maxwell’s theory incorporated a symmetric relation-
electric current was discovered by Faraday. Of course, the ship between electricity and magnetism. A varying electric
discovery was also made by American scientist Henry and field developed a magnetic field, and a varying magnetic
Russian scientist Lenz independently soon after Faraday. field generates an electric field. So a travelling electric field
The field concept, introduced by Faraday, helped to con- creates a varying magnetic field at a certain point causing a
ceptualize the action-at-a-distance phenomena involved with corresponding magnetic field to develop (that also travels
electricity and magnetism. The Scottish scientists James with the electric field wave as shown in Fig. 4.17).
Clark Maxwell, 40 years younger to Faraday, developed the Now depending on the values of e0 and l0, the magnitude
mathematical formalism for the fields produced by electricity of B developed by E has to be adequate again to generate the
and magnetism. His work demonstrated the symmetry electric field wave. Thus, the travelling speed, on which the
between the two tightly interwound phenomena and a theory changing rates of E and B at a point depend, has to be
of electromagnetism slowly emerged. With his theory, unique to establish the required exact correspondence. This
Maxwell could demonstrate that an electromagnetic wave unique speed is found to be given by
travels at a fixed speed through empty space. The basic 1
essence of his theory can be described as shown below. c ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 2;997;924 km s1 ð4:4:4Þ
e0 l0
Considering the symmetry, Maxwell came to the opinion
that varying magnetic field develops electric field and a which was exactly the speed of light. Thus, Maxwell
varying electric field also generates a magnetic field. If E be declared that light is nothing but electromagnetic wave.
the electric field at a point is space, the force developed on a Though there was enough indication already, Einstein’s
charge q is given by the relation Special Theory of Relativity firmly unified the two appar-
ently distinct phenomena of electricity and magnetism. This
F ¼ qE ð4:4:1Þ
will be discussed in the next session.
The electric field due to a charge Q at position r (with
Q as the origin) is known to be
Fig. 4.17 Electric field wave E
1 Q
E¼ r ð4:4:2Þ accompanied by a corresponding
4pe0 r 3 magnetic field wave

where 4pe0 is as universal constant whose magnitude in SI

units is given by 1.111  10−9. A current-carrying straight
conductor produces a magnetic field as indicated in Fig. 4.16
(a three-dimensional view of Fig. 4.15). x
If the current magnitude be I, then the magnitude of the
magnetic field B is given by B

l  I
B¼2 0
ð4:4:3Þ
4p r x
4.4 Electromagnetism: Challenge to the Principle of Relativity 95

Analysing interaction between moving charges, English (ii) violation of the Principle of Relativity by the electro-
physicist Oliver Heaviside showed in 1888 that the force magnetic phenomena according to Newtonian mechanics.
exerted by a charge q1, moving past a charge q2 at a distance Lorentz attempted a modification of the Galilean transfor-
r, with a speed v (Fig. 4.18) is given by mation rule to explain the null result of Michelson–Morley
experiment. In the rule of Galilean transformation
e 0 q1 q2 1
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð4:4:5Þ
r 2
1v
2 V0 ¼ V þ v
c2
a0 ¼ a
 1
Strangely, the factor
2 2
1  vc2 resembles the Lorentz t0 ¼ t
m0 ¼ m
boost in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity!
But it is worth noting that Maxwell’s electromagnetism is To bring in a new rule for the transformation of t′ he used
relativistic in character though it was formulated much
before 1905, the year Einstein published his first paper vx
t0 ¼ t 
proposing the Special Theory of Relativity. What Einstein’s c2
theory could do was to bring the rest of classical mechanics where the moving frame has a velocity v along the x (and the
on the same platform as that of electromagnetism. coincident x′)-axis. Thus, this new time, called by Lorentz as
Electromagnetic phenomenon put forward a number of ‘local time’, depended on the location x. When this modified
challenges before the scientific community so far as the law of Galilean transformation was applied to Maxwell’s
Principle of Relativity was concerned. In Newtonian equations, the primed equations had the same form as the
mechanics, force was linked to the acceleration of a body. 
unprimed ones except for the second-order terms in vc .
The acceleration of a body remains unchanged by Galilean
With this, he demonstrated the failure of experiments to
transformation. This and the constancy of mass and uni- 
detect earth’s motion up to the first-order terms in vc .
versality of time result in the expected invariance of
dynamical phenomena referred to any inertial frame. This This kind of patchwork solution to the problems of sci-
satisfied the Principle of Relativity, considered so important ence was objected to by the French mathematician Henri
from philosophical point of view. However, in electromag- Poincare in 1895. Lorentz’s rule was developed to take care
netic interaction between two bodies, the interactive force of Fresnel’s idea to explain null results in experiments to
depends on the velocity also. When both electric and mag- detect an ether wind (up to first-order terms), and the
netic forces are present, then the total force on a particle of apparent length contraction proposed by Fitzgerald and
charge q moving with a velocity v is given by the Lorentz’s Lorentz. He wondered what would happen if future experi-
force law ments yielded null result for second-order terms also. (In
fact, by 1904, more sophisticated experiments yielded null
F ¼ qE þ qv  B ð4:4:6Þ result for earth’s motion in stationary ether.) This had a
major impact on Lorentz’s thinking, and in 1904, he pro-
where E is the electric field and B is the magnetic field. The posed a transformation law avoiding the patchwork
above law was first proposed by Heaviside in 1889 and was approach. He incorporated both the concept of local time and
independently derived by Lorentz in 1895. Since the force also the Fitzgerald contraction. So, the transformation rules
law contains a term with velocity, its invariance is not sat- became (when the primed moving frame and the stationary
isfied under Galilean transformation. So, according to unprimed frame are as shown in Fig. 4.19):
Newtonian mechanics, the ‘Principle of Relativity’ is
violated.
Thus, towards the end of the nineteenth century, the
scientists were confronted with two major problems—(i) z z'
inability to determine earth’s motion through ether and
υ

y y'
r

q1 q2

ν o o' x x'

Fig. 4.18 Force due to a moving charge Fig. 4.19 Frames of reference for Lorentz’s transformation rule
96 4 Special Theory of Relativity

x0 ¼ cðx  vtÞ mechanical phenomena, but Einstein not only unified elec-
0
y ¼y tromagnetism with mechanical phenomena but also brought
all physical phenomena under the same umbrella. The
z0 ¼ z
 vx ð4:4:7Þ
principle of constancy of the speed of light may also appear
t0 ¼ c t  2 somewhat orthodox. Because light as a wave needed a
c medium (the luminiferous ether) and it was considered nat-
1
c¼ ural that its transmission speed depends on e0 and l0 as
2
1
1  vc2 2 mentioned before. But Einstein’s principle was ‘fundamen-
tally’ different though it looked somewhat similar. The
With these transformation rules, Maxwell’s equations in the constancy of transmission speed in ether led to the conclu-
primed and unprimed frames take the same form satisfying sion that light’s speed does not depend on the motion of the
the Principle of Relativity. It is interesting to note that these source. But Einstein completely eliminated the concept a
transformation rules were used by the English scientist medium like ether. In his scheme of things, ‘constancy’ of
Joseph Larmor in 1898. Something similar was used by the the speed of light was a ‘fundamental principle’, not a
German scientist W. Voigt in 1887! However, keeping in derived conclusion like before. It was considered a funda-
view of the enormous contributions by Lorentz, Poincare mental property of light that can be transmitted through
named these equations as Lorentz transformation in 1905. ‘vacuum’ without any medium. To illustrate this, most
These transformation equations satisfied the Principle of important and fundamental point further the following
Relativity completely including all higher-order terms. example can be considered.
So, the big question was to accept the Principle of Rela- Figure 4.20 shows a situation where two identical space
tivity along with Lorentz transformation or accept Newtonian vehicles are A and B where B is moving with respect to
mechanics. In 1905, Poincare submitted a detailed paper on A with a speed v. A and a fixed object (say a star) are in
the transformation rules with arguments based primarily on relative rest. The two observers conduct experiments inside
electromagnetism. In the same year, Albert Einstein pub- their vehicles to measure the speed of light by flashing lamps
lished his famous paper ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving at the light torches kept in the front end of the ships as
Bodies’ that is considered as the foundation for Special indicated in Fig. 4.20. They also measure the speed with
Theory of Relativity. The name ‘Theory of Relativity’ has which light from S passes their space ships. Since the speed
been coined primarily because Einstein accepted the ‘Prin- of light does not depend on the motion of the source, light
ciple of Relativity’ rejecting Newtonian mechanics. waves move with the same speed coming out of S and the
lamps in A and B. If light from S travels in ether with speed
c, B will measure it as c + v. In the same way, the speed of
4.5 Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity light from the source in B should be also c. B should measure
the speed as c + v. On the other hand, A finds the speed of
Unlike Lorentz and Poincare, Einstein attempted to bring all light from S and the lamp inside A as c. These violate the
physical phenomena under the umbrella of Principle of first principle according to which A and B both should
Relativity. Thus, though the rules of transformation derived measure the light speed as c. Thus, in the absence of any
by him were the same as found by Lorentz (and others like luminiferous ether medium, the speed of light is constant as
Poincare), his approach was very fundamental. He showed a principle, not because of the fixed properties of medium on
that not only electromagnetism but also Newtonian me-
chanics (as a matter of fact any physical phenomenon) sat-
isfies the same transformation rules and the Principle of
A
Relativity (that was supreme in the eyes of Einstein). He
proposed two basic principles on which the whole structure
of Special Theory of Relativity stands. These are as follows:

Principle 1: The laws of physics take the same form in all

S
inertial frames
Principle 2: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value B
in all inertial frames υ

Both these principles look apparently, somewhat, obvi-

ous, but the combination yields revolutionary results. Earlier
the Principle of Relativity was considered primarily for Fig. 4.20 Experiment with the principle of constancy of light
4.5 Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity 97

which the speed of wave propagation depends. The two of linear transformation equation describing coordinates (x′,
principles look very simple (and also, perhaps, somewhat y′, z′, t) in terms of the coordinates (x, y, z, t) is as follows:
obvious) to begin with, but their combination yields the
solution to the perplexing situation existing towards the end x0 ¼ a11 x þ a12 y þ a13 z þ a14 t
of the nineteenth century. x0 ¼ a11 x þ a12 y þ a13 z þ a14 t
ð4:5:1Þ
As the objective of this volume is not to discuss the z0 ¼ a31 x þ a32 y þ a33 z þ a34 t
theory in detail, only a few points are going to be taken up t0 ¼ a41 x þ a42 y þ a43 z þ a44 t
for discussion.
In abridged form, using matrix notation (4.5.1) can be
written in the following manner:
4.5.1 Lorentz’s Transformation from the Two 8 09 8 9 2 3
>
> x > > x> a11 a12 a13 a14
Principles of Relativity < 0> = < >
> =
y y 6 a21 a22 a23 a24 7
¼ ½ a where ½a ¼ 4
>
> z0 > > z> a31 a32 a33 a34 5
It is not out of place to briefly show how the equations of : 0> ; : >
> ;
Lorentz transformation emerge from the two basic principles t t a41 a42 a43 a44
proposed by Einstein.
Without losing any generality, the Cartesian coordinate It is obvious that for v approaching zero, the coefficients
attached to two inertial frames be so oriented that the relative must tend to satisfy the following conditions:
velocity v is along the x and x′ axes which are coincident as
aii ¼ 1 and aij ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4 and j ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4:
shown in Fig. 4.21.
The y and y′ axes and the z and z′ axes are always parallel ð4:5:2Þ
to each other. Since the concept of a universal time (as in Or in other words, the transformation tends to become
Newtonian mechanics) is no longer tenable, any momentary Galilean.
event (say, a flash of light) e is described by its location and Since x′ and x coincide at all times, the points on these
the instant of time recorded in a clock attached to the loca- axes must satisfy the conditions as given below:
tion in the frames. It is assumed that every point in each of
the two frames has an observer and a clock. Furthermore, the y ¼ 0; z ¼ 0 for all times; and;
clocks of a frame are suitably synchronized. A detailed y0 ¼ 0; z0 ¼ 0 for all times
description of the process of clock synchronization can be
found in any standard textbook and is skipped here. Besides, These conditions can be satisfied only with the following
taking Einstein’s two basic postulates as true, the space is transformation equations for y′ and z′:
assumed to be homogenous and isotopic. It is further
assumed that when t = t′ = 0, the origin O′ of frame S′ is y0 ¼ a22 y þ a23 z
coincident with the origin O. z0 ¼ a32 y þ a33 z
As the space is assumed to be homogenous and isotopic,
Or, in other words, a21 = a24 = a31 = a34 = 0. In the
any transformation rule between the coordinates of an event
same manner, the x − y plane and the x′ − y′ plane must
e described in S′ and those for describing the same event
always coincide and so should be the case with x − z plane
must be through equations which are linear. Similarly, any
and x′ − z′ plane. These conditions imply that for z = 0, z′
dependence on t has to be also linear. The most general form
should be also zero and for y = 0, y′ should be also zero.
These can be satisfied only if the transformation rules for
y and z are as given below:
z z'
y0 ¼ a22 y
S S' z0 ¼ a33 z
ν

implying that a23 = a32 = 0. Now to determine a22 and a33,

y'
y the first postulate can be applied which ensures reciprocity
*
ε (x,y,z,t) (i.e. what the observer in S′ notices must be the same as what
(x',y',z',t') the observer in S notices). Hence, the principle can be sat-
isfied if
o o' x x'
a22 ¼ a33 ¼ 1
Fig. 4.21 Two inertial frames
98 4 Special Theory of Relativity

or; y0 ¼ y a11 ¼ c
ð4:5:3Þ
and z0 ¼ z v
a41 ¼  c
c2
The remaining two transformation equations for x′ and t′
can be found out as described below. and
First, it is understood that t′ cannot depend on y and
z. Otherwise, clocks placed symmetrically at +y, −y or +z, a44 ¼ c
−z, will show different times since the equations have to be where
linear in the coordinates. Hence,
1
a42 ¼ a43 ¼ 0 c ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1  vc2
2

i:e: t0 ¼ a41 x þ a44 t ð4:5:4Þ

Thus, substituting all the coefficients aij (i = 1, 2, 3, 4;
Next, it is obvious that the description of point O′ in S′ j = 1, 2, 3, 4), the final form of the transformation equations
given by x′ = 0 must correspond to the condition x = vt in is as follows:
S frame (since originally O′ coincided with O and moves
with a constant velocity v as mentioned). This can be rep- x0 ¼ cðx  vtÞ
resented mathematically by the following equation: y0 ¼ y
ð4:5:7Þ
z0 ¼ z 
0
x ¼ a11 ðx  vtÞ ð4:5:5Þ t0 ¼ c 1  vx
c2

What remains to be done next is to determine the coef- The equations above are nothing but the Lorentz trans-
ficients a11, a41 and a44. This exercise can be done by formation. One can check the condition of relative re-
considering the second postulate proposed by Einstein—the ciprocity by finding the reverse transformation equations as
constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames con- follows:
siders a flash of light at t = t′ = 0 when O′ coincided with
O momentarily. The light wave front propagates in the form x ¼ cðx0 þ vt0 Þ
of the surface of a sphere whose radius increases at the rate y0 ¼ y
ð4:5:8Þ
z0 ¼ z
c, the speed of light. Now, both observers must have the 0

same description of the spherical wave front (expanding at t ¼ c t0 þ vx

c2
the same rate c as per the second postulate). The equations It is also verified that for small values of v, i.e. when
for the wave front spherical surfaces described in the two v
 1, (4.5.7) leads to the equations of Galilean
c
frames are transformations
x2 þ y2 þ z2 ¼ c2 t2 x0 ¼ x  vt
02 02 02 2 02
ð4:5:6Þ
and x þy þz ¼ c t y0 ¼ y
Now, substituting x′, y′, z′ and t′ in the second of the z0 ¼ z
above two equation using (4.5.3), (4.5.4) and (4.5.5) and t0 ¼ t
rearranging the terms, one gets
It is very important to note that the above equations were
 2 
a11 c2 a241 x2 þ y2 þ z2  2ðva211 þ c2 a41 a44 Þxt derived in a completely general way from the two postulates
by Einstein and using the property of Euclidean space and
¼ ðc2 a244 v2 a211 Þt2
time.
The above equation can yield the first of the two equa-
tions (4.5.6) if and only if the following conditions are
satisfied. 4.5.2 Special Relativity in Electromagnetic
Phenomenon
a211  c2 a241 ¼ 1
va211 þ c2 a41 a44 ¼ 0 Earlier electricity and magnetism used to be considered to be
and c2 a244  v2 a211 ¼ c2 two different physical phenomena. Einstein’s theory of spe-
cial relativity shows that both are the different manifestations
Solving the three equations, the coefficients a11, a41 and
of the same phenomenon—electromagnetism. Two simple
a44 come out as follows:
4.5 Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity 99

(a) Fe (b) Fe (a) (b)

Frame S Frame S'
q1 ν
e- e-
Fm
F
r
q υ q
Fm
Fig. 4.23 Conductor and an electric charge

q2 ν
separation of the two charges. The timescales in the two
Fe Fe frames are different like the masses. (It has not been dis-
Fig. 4.22 Two moving charges cussed so far). Thus, the Principle of Relativity remains
satisfied.
cases are being presented below to illustrate the matter. The Another example can show how Special Theory of Rel-
two charges, shown in Fig. 4.22a, rest in an inertial frame ativity helps to preserve the Principle of Relativity. Fig-
separated by some distance r. ure 4.23 shows a straight conductor (of infinite length, only
According to Coulomb’s law, they are subjected to a a short portion of which is being considered) carrying a
repelling force (assuming both charges to be of equal steady electric current.
polarity) Now when an electric charge moving with a speed v is
kept near the conductor, it will experience a force F ac-
e 0 q1 q2 cording to Lorentz’s law. Now if another observer S′,
Fc ¼
r2 moving with a uniform speed v (along with charge), finds the
Next, let the situation be observed by another inertial charge to be stationary, will he detect any attraction of the
observer who is moving with velocity v towards left with charge towards the conductor? If not, the Principle of Rel-
respect to the stationary charges. Applying Maxwell’s ativity is violated. Special Theory of Relativity resolves the
equation shows that the two moving charges produce mag- problem as explained below.
netic fields along with electric fields at each other charge’s The conductor can be represented by fixed protons and a
location. Thus, they will be acted upon by attractive mag- series of drifting electrons as shown in Fig. 4.24a. Let the
netic force Fm and repulsive electrical force Fe. But stran- drift velocity of the electrons be v.
gely, the net repulsive force (Fe − Fm) is different from Fe. This generates a magnetic field B, and the moving charge
So application of Maxwell’s equation to phenomenon q experiences a force F ¼ qv  B as shown. Since the
described in different inertial frames yields different results. conductor with moving electrons is electrically neutral (as
The question arises in which description of the electric and the numbers of +protons and −electrons are equal), the
magnetic fields is real. Earlier to Einstein, it was often pre- moving charge does not experience any electrical force
sumed that there exists a special frame of reference in which qE. For the sake of simplicity (It can be shown for a general
the electric and magnetic fields appear in their correct form. case also but that makes the mathematics complicated. The
Assumed existence of ether gave rise to such conclusion in basic idea behind this simple case is good enough.), let the
favour of a privileged reference frame. But special relativity moving frame S′ move with a uniform velocity v as indicated
shows that the two observers in the above experiment will be in Fig. 4.24b. So, the charge q (and also the electrons)
unable to detect any difference between the changes in the appears to be motionless in the frame. On the other hand, the

Fig. 4.24 Current-carrying (a) (b)

conductor and moving charges
S B S'
l
ν
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
ν
F
−q ν ν −q
100 4 Special Theory of Relativity

Fig. 4.25 Effect of special S'

relativity S
−υ
+ + + + + ++ + + + + + +

− − − −
− − − − −
F υ F'
−q
−q υ

positively charged protons appear to move in the opposite

direction with a speed −v. Considering the Lorentz trans- (a) (b)
formation as per the requirement in Special Theory of Rel- y y'
ativity, the length l of a relevant section of the conductor A A' A'
uA υA A
protons appears to be shorter but the length of the electron’s m m
u'A
part becomes longer compared to the length when they were O O'
x x'
moving is S as shown in Fig. 4.25.
Thus, the number of protons become more than that of B υB uB B m B' u'B u'B B'
m
the electrons in the relevant section of the conductor. This
S S'
makes the conductor to acquire a resultant positive charge,
and the negative charge experiences an attractive force F′. Fig. 4.26 Elastic collision seen in two inertial frames
Detailed analysis shows F and F′ to be equal. So, the
observers in S frame and S′ frame find no difference in the
results of this experiment satisfying the Principle of Rela- velocities in frame S is much larger than the y-component
tivity. It also shows how Special Theory of Relativity unifies velocities of the particles.
electricity and magnetism. Depending on the point of view, If the total momentum of the colliding particles before
an effect can be either electrical or magnetic. Unifying and after the collision is zero, then in frame S uAy ¼ vAy
electricity with magnetism is a major achievement of Special and uBy ¼ vBy (Fig. 4.26a). When seen from the S′ (which
Theory of Relativity. is moving towards right with speed uAx ), the situation is
shown in Fig. 4.26b. Since the momentum conservation rule
remains valid in both the frames, it is easy to show that
4.5.3 Need for a Relativistic Mechanics
u0Ay ¼ u0By
It has been shown how Special Theory of Relativity restored
according to Newtonian mechanics. If Lorentz transforma-
the Principle of Relativity for all electromagnetic phenom-
tion rules are employed, one gets a different result. Avoiding
ena. However, it should not be forgotten that Special Theory
the algebra, one gets
of Relativity must bring mechanics (science of motion of
!
objects) also under the umbrella of the Principle of Rela-
0 0 1
tivity. If one attempts to apply Lorentz transformation to the uA y ¼ uB y u0 v
laws of Newtonian mechanics, the Principle of Relativity is 1  cxB2
not satisfied as velocity is ingrained in the Lorentz trans-
where v ¼ uAx . This is different from the Newtonian result.
formation equations. This led Einstein to make some alter-
So, if one computes linear momentum using the definition
ations of Newtonian mechanics.
For mechanics to also satisfy the Principle of Relativity, it p ¼ mu
is necessary that laws of mechanics remain same under
Lorentz transformation. A very fundamental law of the momentum is conserved in one frame but not in the
mechanics is the invariance of total linear momentum of an other. This problem can be removed and linear momentum
isolated dynamical system. The simplest case of a dynamics conservation law remains valid in both frames after applying
problem of an isolated (where no external force acts on the Lorentz transformation if one uses the following equation
system) system is the elastic collision of two identical par- mA
ticles. A symmetric collision of identical particles in the mB ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  ð4:5:9Þ
ux0 2
laboratory frame S is shown in Fig. 4.26. Let the collision be 1 B
c
almost a grazing collision in which the x-component of
4.5 Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity 101

Thus, mass becomes dependent on velocity in relativistic mo u

F ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
mechanics according to the following equation 1  vc
m0
m ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 ð4:5:10Þ finally yields the famous mass–energy equivalence relation
1  vc E = mc2. It is well known how this simple equation estab-
lishing the equivalence of mass and energy revolutionised
where m0 is called the rest mass, the mass measured in a
science and also the human civilization. However, it is also
frame in which the particle is at rest, and m is the mass of the
interesting to note a vague reference to a similar concipt
same particle as estimated when it moves with a speed
found in Wilhelm Weber’s work in the 19th century! Refer
v. Further analysis using relative mechanics using the new
to “Wilhelm Weber’s Werke” Volume IV, Page 571, pub-
form of relativistic force law
lished in 1894 by Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin.
 General Theory of Relativity and Extension
of Mach’s Principle 5

5.1 Introduction Till the phenomenon of electromagnetism came to play a

centre stage role in science, there was no conflict of philo-
Before starting the presentation on the conceptual evolution sophical nature among the mechanistic phenomena follow-
of the extension of the Principle of Relativity to all frames of ing the laws of motion and science was considered to be
reference, and mechanics (along with all other physical complete. Occasional difficulties created by optical effects
phenomena) is freed from the shackles of inertial frames, a were not important enough to search for alternative theories.
brief note on the titles of the two theories propounded by The laws of motion, as proposed in Newtonian mechanics
Einstein can be very useful. Commonly, the titles given to and Galilean transformation, satisfied the ‘Principle of Rel-
these theories are ‘Special Theory of Relativity (STR)’ and ativity’ to great delight of the physicists and science
‘General Theory of Relativity (GTR)’. But as Mendel Sachs philosophers.
commented in his introductory article, ‘The Mach’s Princi- As shown in Chap. 4, it was Einstein’s firm belief in the
ple and the Origin of Inertia from General Relativity’1 a beauty and unity among the natural phenomena described by
critical analysis of these two titles can help in grasping the the laws of physics that forced him to abandon Newtonian
basic aims Einstein had for developing these theories. mechanics (based upon the concept of absolute space and
According to him, the meanings of the two names are time) and adopt the ‘Principle of Relativity’ satisfied by all
somewhat confusing to those who are given an introductory inertial frames. His theory was restricted to the description of
exposure to the subject. Sachs comments that a better way to all physical phenomena in inertial frames only satisfying
name these theories could be ‘Theory of Special Relativity’ covariance of physical laws. Since his theory of relativity was
and ‘Theory of General Relativity’. This is so as the adjec- applicable to only a special class of frames of reference—
tive should be ascribed to the word ‘relativity’ instead of inertial frames—it is called ‘special relativity’. As expected,
‘theory’. Because the natures of the ‘relativity’ are ‘special’ Einstein’s absolute faith in the ‘Principle of Relativity’ in its
and ‘general’ in the two theories. Thus, a fresh reader gets a most generalized sense paved the path for developing a
clearer idea about the basic aim of the transition from the theory that led to the application of ‘Principle of Relativity’
restricted special relativistic characteristic of physical laws to to all types of frames of reference. This generalization of the
totally unrestricted (i.e. general) relativistic property of applicability of the theory led to the name ‘general
physical laws. relativity’.
Any relationship between gravitation and acceleration The later part of the chapter presents a recent develop-
was not thought of by physicists till Mach touched upon the ment in which Mach’s principle is extended. In Mach’s
outer boundaries of the subject in the second half of the principle, an accelerating mass is expected to interact with
nineteenth century as described in Sect. 2.1.4. But it was the field created by the matter–energy distribution in the
Huygens who first demonstrated that gravitational attraction whole universe. In the extended version of the principle,
can be countered by inertia force of an accelerating body such an interaction depends also on the velocity of the
(Sect. 1.12.4) suggesting a vague notion of the ‘principle of particle. The concept depends on the possibility of the
equivalence’. Further progress in the concept had to wait for existence of a mean-rest-frame of the universe that is con-
the development of a more focussed concept of ‘mass’ by sidered to be infinite and quasistatic. A number of interesting
Newton. results are obtained, but the model is phenomenological in
character. A number of eminent relativists feel that there is
new physics involved, and serious research may reveal its
1
Sachs, M. and Roy, A.R. (ed) ‘Mach’s Principle and the Origin of connection with the relativistic mechanics. As the concept of
Inertia’, Apeiron, Moutreal, 2003.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 103

A. Ghosh, Conceptual Evolution of Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics,
Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6253-7_5
104 5 General Theory of Relativity and Extension of Mach’s Principle

inertial frames and one’s inability to detect the velocity of are equivalent; or in Special Relativity there is a physical
such a frame is abandoned, some small deviations from the distinction between accelerated and unaccelerated motion,
existing formulations of STR and GTR are expected to be but in General Relativity there is none; or in Special Rela-
present. tivity space–time has an inertial structure that is not a
Since the evolution of the General Theory of Relativity is function of the distribution of masses, but in General Rela-
a very well researched field, this chapter is included in the tivity it is a function of the distribution of masses (thus
book more for the sake of completeness. Furthermore, the vindicating Mach). These claims are all false’. But another
presentation cannot contain the mathematical formulation in text3 writes ‘General Relativity follows on rather naturally
details as it is extremely involved and mathematically from special relativity and results in even more profound
complex. A good base in tensor calculus is essential for the changes to our concepts of space and time than those follow
purpose. However, the basic physical principles involved from special relativity’. Again in another publication4 pre-
will be taken up and discussed. senting the original papers by Einstein in the introduction, it
is mentioned ‘Einstein’s first theory is restricted in the sense
that it only refers to uniform rectilinear motion and has no
5.2 Transition to General Relativity application to any kind of accelerated movements. Einstein
in his second theory extends the Relativity Principle to cases
The subject ‘General Relativity’ is far more complex than of accelerated motion’. Furthermore, in a more recent text,5
the ‘Special Theory of Relativity’. In comparison with the the chapter on General Relativity starts as follows: ‘General
special relativity, the development of general theory was far Theory of Relativity stemmed from Einstein’s attempt to
more tangled and complicated. One important point that incorporate the Newtonian theory of gravity to the frame
needs to be noted is that the conceptual development of work of Special Theory of Relativity”. So, one is made
special theory was the work of many hands Einstein playing unnecessarily perplexed about how the General Relativity
a vital role, of course. Many scholars believe that the dis- started or what was the driving force behind Einstein’s grand
covery of Special Theory of Relativity was inevitable even creation.
without Einstein. On the contrary, the General Theory of A recent review paper by Norton6 discusses the matter in
Relativity was the outcome of Einstein’s own concept and great details. At the very beginning, he writes ‘—, the
work. Thus, had there been no Einstein, perhaps, the world question of precisely what Einstein discovered remains
would have still no such theory. unanswered, for we have no consensus over the exact nature
The topic, evolution of the General Theory of Relativity, of the theory’s foundations’. The situation is further aggra-
is an extensively researched field. A very large number of vated as Einstein himself changed his stand on various
historians of science, philosophers and physicists have principles adopted by him for developing the theory. Apart
worked on the subject, and, a huge amount of material is from this, the basic founding principles, used to develop the
available. Unfortunately, this has resulted in certain amount General Theory of Relativity, are presented in different
of confusion among the students as many experts present formats and with varying descriptions.
somewhat contradictory views. As mentioned earlier, the
theory’s primary creator was, undoubtedly, Einstein
although some contemporary work existed. Particularly, it 5.2.1 Minkowski’s Four-Dimensional
should be remembered that Hilbert arrived at the field Space–Time Continuum
equation following a different route and published it five
days before (20th November 1915) Einstein published his The Special Theory of Relativity finally developed by Ein-
result on 25th November 1915. But the situation is made stein was in a purely algebraic form as depicted in Chap. 4.
complicated to a student of science by contradictory com- The space and time coordinates are variables, associated
ments in texts. At the beginning of the discussion on General with an event, in one inertial frame of reference and which
Relativity, an author writes2 ‘There are a few common myths
about General Relativity that we need to dispel before pre-
3
senting the theory. It is often said that General Relativity Longair, M.—‘Theoretical Concepts in Physics’, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 2003.
extends Special Relativity as follows: in Special Relativity 4
Saha, M.N. and Bose, S.N.—‘The Principle of Relativity: Original
all inertial reference frames (i.e. all Lorentz frames) are Papers by A. Einstein and H. Minkowski’, (Translated into English),
equivalent, and in General Relativity all frames of reference University of Calcutta Publication, 1920.
5
Kopeikin, S., Efroimsky, M. and Kaplan, G.—‘Relativistic Celestial
Mechanics of Solar System’, Wiley-VCH, 2011.
6
Norton, John D.—‘General covariance and the foundations of general
2
Mandlin, T.—‘Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time’, Princeton relativity: eight decades of dispute’, Rep. Prog. Phys. 56(1993), 791–
University Press, 2012. 858.
5.2 Transition to General Relativity 105

transform according to Lorentz’s transformation rules when Ds2 ¼ Dx2 þ Dy2 þ Dz2  ðcDtÞ2 ð5:2:1Þ
one wants to describe the same event in another inertial
frame of reference. Though popularly Einstein is given the defines the interval Ds. The same two events when observed
credit for conceptualizing a four-dimesnional world, in from another frame of reference with coordinates (x′, y′, z′, ct′),
reality, the idea of a four-dimensional structure of space– the interval is given by
time was first proposed by H. Minkowski in the year 1908.
Ds02 ¼ Dx02 þ Dy02 þ Dz02  ðcDt0 Þ
2
He suggested that it is advantageous to cast the relativistic ð5:2:2Þ
mechanics using the three spatial and one temporal quanti-
It can be shown that the interval between two events,
ties (describing an event) in a combined form as the four
defined in this way, is invariant under Lorentz transforma-
coordinates of an event in a four-dimensional space–time
tion. The transformation rule is
continuum. Thus, the algebraic form of special theory

vx
received a geometric point of view. For the development of
x0 ¼ bðx  vtÞ; y0 ¼ y; z0 ¼ zt0 ¼ b t  2
the General Theory of Relativity, the concept of c
four-dimensional space–time continuum was essential and
with b ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
, v being the velocity of the primed frame
was adopted by Einstein. v2
1
c2
For every inertial frame, there exists synchronized clocks moving with respect to the unprimed frame along the x axis,
registering time t and every location is ascribed with three the axes being all aligned. Now,
spatial coordinates x, y and z. Thus, an inertial frame may be
conceived as a four-dimensional continuum with t, x, y, z as Ds02 ¼ Dx02 þ Dy02 þ Dz02  c2 Dt02
the four coordinates of an event. To provide the same length
dimension to all the coordinates, the temporal coordinate where
is represented by ct with c as the speed of light which is Dx0 ¼ b
ðDx  vDtÞ; Dy0 ¼ Dy; Dz0 ¼ Dz; Dt0
a constant. So, a two-dimensional slice of the four- vDx
dimensional continuum can be shown as in Fig. 5.1. ¼ b Dt  2
c
The y and z dimensions have been suppressed and only
the x-ct coordinates are relevant. A line in this graph rep- A straight forward algebra shows that
resents the motion history of a particle (if the occupation of a
point by the particle at any instant is taken as an event). Such Ds02 ¼ Ds2 ð5:2:3Þ
a line is called the world line. Usually, the scales of the x and
Minkowski’s four-dimensional space–time is flat and
the ct axes are kept same. Thus, the slope of the world line at
isotropic as evident from (5.2.1). It is very interesting to note
any instant A (Fig. 5.1) given by tan h represents the
that from this geometric perspective a theory based upon the
instantaneous speed of the particle. For the world line (1),
Principle of Relativity becomes trivial. The invariance of the
the speed is varying. A straight world line making 45° with
quantity Ds ensures that a theory based on this space–time
the ct (or, x) axis represents the world line of a light beam as
structure automatically satisfies the Principle of Relativity.
it indicates x = ct. Thus, it is clear that no world line can
Thus, the subtle difference between Einstein’s and Min-
have a slope, h, more than 45° as that will amount to
kowski’s approaches is that Einstein based his theory on the
something moving at a speed faster than that of light.
principle of covariance of physical laws, whereas Min-
If two events A and B are separated by Dx, Dy, Dz and
kowski’s approach was based upon the invariance of the
Dt in an inertial frame then the quantity
space–time interval between two events.

ct 1 5.2.2 Principle of Equivalence

2 The basic idea of this principle germinated from Huygens’

45°
time. But Galileo’s observation of the simultanuity of free
fall gave the empirical evidence. However, any further
θ A progress in the matter had to wait for the emergence of the
concept of ‘mass’ in Newton’s ‘Principia’ as discussed in
Sect. 1.15.1.
Newton recognized the equivalence between two different
O x
properties of matter—inertial mass and gravitational mass.
All experiments so far have demonstrated the equivalence to
Fig. 5.1 World lines
106 5 General Theory of Relativity and Extension of Mach’s Principle

g g

mi g
g g mg g

mg mi

(a) Experiment on the (b) Experiment in inertial

Fig. 5.3 Force felt in the gravitational field and in the accelerated
surface of the earth space free from all
frame
gravitation

Fig. 5.2 Accelerating frame generates gravity a experiment on the that does not permit to attach any absolute velocity to a
surface of the earth, b experiment in the inertial space free from all frame of reference. However, it is still not clear if this can
gravitation lead to a generalization of the concept of covariance of
physical rules. At this stage, Einstein adopted the philosophy
an extremely high degree of accuracy. As Einstein’s basic of Ernst Mach that suggests the inertia of an object to be the
aim was to include gravity in his theory of relativity, he manifestation of its gravitational interaction with the matter
developed a preliminary connection using this principle present in the rest of the universe. Einstein, thus, termed this
suggesting exact equivalence between inertial mass and to be the ‘relativity of inertia’. Gradually, this hypothesis
gravitational mass. He suggested a thought experiment as became known as ‘Mach’s principle’.
described below.
Figure 5.2 shows two carriages containing persons each
carrying a heavy ball. In Fig. 5.2a, the carriage is resting on 5.2.3 Freely Falling Frames
the surface of a large massive body that produces a strong
gravitational field (uniform and parallel) causing the ball Freely falling frames play a very important role in devel-
(when released) to drop with an acceleration g in the oping the General Theory of Relativity and need some more
downward direction. On the other hand, the carriage shown detailed discussion. But before that it is essential to point out
in Fig. 5.2b is in inertial space far removed from all gravi- the spatial and temporal restrictions to be observed. The
tating bodies. The man and the carriage are being pulled in equivalence between an accelerating frame of reference and
the upward direction with an acceleration g as shown. When that in a gravity field, suggested in Sect. 5.2.2, is not truly
the ball is released (with zero speed) by the person, it stays exact. Figure 5.4 shows two frames of reference—frame A is
stationary as it is in inertial space and initial velocity is zero. in the gravitational field of a body and frame B is accelerated
But as the person moves up with acceleration, g, relative to in a region free from any gravitational field.
him, the ball appears to move downwards with an acceler- If two particles 1 and 2 are released from rest, the
ation g. Thus, to the person, the carriage appears to be in a observer can observe a subtle difference between the sub-
gravitational field. There is no internally conducted experi- sequent movements of the test particles in the two frames of
ment that can distinguish between situations shown in the reference. In frame A, the particles not only fall down but
two cases of Fig. 5.2. This hypothesis was termed by Ein- also slowly come closer as indicated in the figure. On the
stein as the ‘principle of equivalence’. other hand, in frame B, the particles’ paths are perfectly
When the person hangs the ball from his hand as shown
in Fig. 5.3, the force felt in the gravity field is mgg where mg
is the gravitational mass of the ball. In the other case, the
force on the hand is mig, the force required to pull the ball A B
1 2
with acceleration g along with the carriage. Because of the 1 2
equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass mi = mg.
Hence, the force felt by the experimenter is same in both the
situation. This showed Einstein that gravity field can be
created by acceleration. So, according to the extended ver-
sion of the Principle of Relativity, it is impossible to speak of
acceleration of a frame of reference in an absolute sense. Fig. 5.4 Difference between a frame in a gravitational field and an
This is similar to the situation in Special Theory of Relativity accelerating frame
5.2 Transition to General Relativity 107

parallel. But if the region of space allowed for the experi- y′ y

g
ment be very small and the duration of the observation be
also very small, this distinction between the observed C′ x′ t′ C x t
motions is not perceptible. Hence, for the equivalence R′C′ RC
between a gravitational field and uniform acceleration to r′A′ r′B′ rA rB
hold good, the observations must be limited to an extremely R′A′ A
R′B′ B′ B
small region of the space–time manifold. RA
O′ O RB
Now if a frame of reference falls freely in a gravitational
field, any particle released in such a frame an observer finds
it to move uniformly with the speed it was started initially. Fig. 5.6 Relating observations in accelerated frame with those in
earth-based frame
This is so as the observer and the particle both fall with the
same acceleration causing their relative acceleration to be
zero. Thus, such a freely falling frame satisfies all the for all values of l where l = t and l = t′. Next, change the
characteristics of an inertial frame, if the observations are origin of the frames of reference to the uncharged particle C′
kept limited to a small region of the space–time manifold. in the accelerating frame as indicated in Fig. 5.6.
Thus, a freely falling frame is a locally inertial frame. Now, the frame x′ − y′ attached to C′ is an inertial frame
It can be also shown that freely falling frames are locally as C′ is a particle in free space subjected to no force, i.e. no
inertial frames for not only laws of mechanics but for all acceleration. The position vectors r′A′ and r′B′ as observed in
laws of physics. To show the equivalence for electrical the x′ − y′ frame can be expressed as follows:
phenomena, let two laboratories be considered. One of those
being at rest on the earth’s surface (or in any gravitational r0 A0 ðt0 Þ ¼ R0 A0 ðt0 Þ  R0 C0 ðt0 Þ
ð5:2:5Þ
field as well) and the other on an accelerating rocket. The and r0 B0 ðt0 Þ ¼ R0 B0 ðt0 Þ  R0 C0 ðt0 Þ
acceleration due to gravity in the first laboratory is g, and the
uniform acceleration of the second laboratory is also equal to Since x′ − y′ frame is inertial, the trajectories of A′ and B′,
g (Fig. 5.5). observed from this frame, must conform to the predictions of
Let electrically charged particles A and B interact between Special Theory of Relativity. Putting (5.2.4) and (5.2.5)
themselves electromagnetically and also fall freely. The together and examining Fig. 5.6 one gets.
uncharged particle C also falls freely. Three similar particles r0 A0 ðlÞ ¼ R0 A0 ðlÞ  R0 C0 ðlÞ ¼ RA ðlÞ  RC ðlÞ ¼ rA ðlÞ
A′, B′ and C′ are considered in the experiment conducted in
the accelerating frame shown in Fig. 5.5b. Now, the prin- or; r0 A0 ðlÞ ¼ rA ðlÞ
ciple of equivalence suggests that the trajectories described ð5:2:6Þ
Similarly r0 B0 ðlÞ ¼ rB ðlÞ
by the particles in the two experiments are same (if the size
of the space and the duration of the experiment are both very for all values of l (=t and t′). Since r0 A0 ðlÞ and r0 B0 ðlÞ are
limited as mentioned before). Hence, results of experiments in an inertial frame x′ − y′, and the
results of experiments in a freely falling frame in a gravi-
RA ðlÞ ¼ R0A0 ðlÞ
tational field conform to each other, the freely falling frame
RB ðlÞ ¼ R0B0 ðlÞ ð5:2:4Þ in a gravitational field being an inertial frame for all physical
RC ðlÞ ¼ R0C0 ðlÞ phenomena.
Considering a uniformly accelerated frame in the scheme
had been the first attempt by Einstein to bring gravitation
within the preview of relativity. Taking the ‘principle of
(a) (b) equivalence’ to be true Einstein was able to discover a few
Y Y′ g
features about gravitation. The first one is about the influ-
C t C′ t′ ence of gravity on the running rate of clocks.
RC′
RC Figure 5.7 shows two experiments—one conducted on
the earth and the other in space inside an accelerating frame.
A A′
RA RA′ Let there be two experimenters A and B. A is on the bottom
B B′
RB RB′ of the laboratory, and B is above A at a height of h. The
O
X O′ X′ gravity field’s strength is g. If B sends light signals at the
Earth - based frame Accelerating frame every tick of his clock and the interval between two con-
secutive ticks be DtB what should be the interval between the
Fig. 5.5 Experiments in earth-based and accelerating frames consecutive light signals received by A? The answer can be
108 5 General Theory of Relativity and Extension of Mach’s Principle

1
g h  gt12 ¼ ct1 ð5:2:10Þ
2
B B′
and

1
h h h  gt12  gt1 DtA0 ¼ cðt1 þ DtA0  DtB0 Þ ð5:2:11Þ
g 2
x
Subtracting (5.2.11) from (5.2.10)
A A′ gt1 DtA0 ¼ cðDtB0  DtA0 Þ
O
or,
Fig. 5.7 Effect of gravity on the running of clocks
c  DtB0
DtA0 ¼ :
gt1 þ c
found out by using the ‘principle of equivalence’. Thus, let a
similar experiment conducted in an accelerating laboratory From (5.2.8) and (5.2.7), one can obtain t1 ¼ hc. Using this
be considered. The acceleration is equal to g and the distance in the above equation, the following relation between DtB′
between the experimenters A′ and B′ be equal to h. A little and DtA′ is obtained:
simplified (and, so, a little approximate) analysis is presented  
below. gh
DtA0  DtB0  1  2 ð5:2:12Þ
Let the accelerating laboratory be moving in the x-di- c
rection as indicated taking O as the position (x = 0) of A′ at
t = 0. Without losing any generality, the starting velocity Thus, the ticking interval is shorter for A′ meaning that
can be taken as zero.7 So, the position of A′ and B′ as the clock B′ will appear to run at faster rate. According to
functions of t are given by the principle of equivalence, the clock at a higher altitude
(of B in Fig. 5.7) appears to run faster when observed by
1 A in the presence of a gravitational field. Again as DtA′ < DtB′,
xA0 ðtÞ ¼ gt2
2 it is obvious that observer B′ will find A′’s clock to go
ð5:2:7Þ
1 slower.
and xB0 ðtÞ ¼ h þ gt2
2 This phenomenon is reflected on the frequency of light
Now, let B′ send the first light signal at t = 0, and it is travelling against gravity. The frequency of light emitted by
received by A′ at time t1. Then considering the distance A reaches B (at a higher gravitational potential) with lower
travelled by the light signal frequency. If the signal emitted at A posses a frequency m, it
appears to be (m − Dm) to the observer B. Since m / Dt 1
,
xB0 ðOÞ  xA0 ðt1 Þ ¼ ct1 ð5:2:8Þ (5.2.12) can be used to show that when light travels against
gravity its frequency is reduced. Thus, the frequency m is
The second signal emitted after a time DtB′ (= DtB in the
reduced to Dm where
experiment conducted in the earth laboratory) is received by
the observer A′ after a time DtA′ after it receives the first Dm gh
signal, i.e. at time t1 + DtA′. Hence, ¼ 2
m c
   
xB0 ðDtB0 Þ  xA0 ðt1 þ DtA0 Þ ¼ cðt1 þ DtA0  DtB0 Þ ð5:2:9Þ [DtA ¼ DtB 1  gh
c2 or, DtB ¼ DtA 1 þ gh
c2 . So, 1
mB ¼
 gh
  gh

mA 1 þ c2 or, mB ¼ mA 1  c2 :
1
since the signal was emitted at DtB′ and was received at
t1 + DtA′. Considering the time intervals between consecu- The reduction in frequency Dm ¼ mA  mB ¼ mA gh
c2 . Hence,
tive ticks to be small in an approximate analysis, the higher Dm
m¼ gh
c2 , taking Dm  mA, mB.]
order terms in DtA′ and DtB′ can be neglected. Using (5.2.7) As mk = c for electromagnetic waves where k is the
in (5.2.8), one gets wavelength

Dm Dk
¼
m k

7
Hence, Dm representing a reduction implies Dk as an
If not, an inertial frame moving with the starting speed of the
laboratory can be imagined and in that inertial frame the starting speed
increase. So, the wavelength of light increases according to
of the laboratory is zero. the rule
5.2 Transition to General Relativity 109

Dk gh
¼ 2 ð5:2:13Þ g
k c
when moving against gravity.8 This phenomenon is called
gravitational redshift. Einstein’s prediction of redshifting of
light has been observationally confirmed. In (5.2.13), gh is
nothing but the difference of gravitational potential −Du g
between the two positions. Hence, the equation can be
written in the following form also:

Dk D/
¼ 2 ð5:2:13aÞ (a) (b)
k c
This also leads to a similar rule for time dilation due to Fig. 5.8 Bending of light by gravity
higher gravitational potential. If the difference between two
events measured at a higher potential be dt′, then its relation
to the interval dt (at a lower potential) is given by
  Δt 2Δt 3Δt
D/ t
dt0 ¼ dt 1 þ 2 ð5:2:13bÞ 1 g(3.Δt)2
c 2
g
Another effect of gravity on light was predicted by Ein-
stein employing the ‘principle of equivalence’. Figure 5.8 1 g(3Δt)2
2
shows again the two laboratories, one in the gravitational 1 g(2Δt)2
field the other being in free space but accelerated. 1 g(Δt) 2 2
2
If a light beam leaves its source and traverses across the
laboratory that is accelerating upwards, the apparent trajec- Fig. 5.9 Apparent bending of light in an accelerating laboratory
tory of light with respect to the laboratory bends downwards.
This is a kinematic effect as illustrated in Fig. 5.9.
So, though the light travels in a straight path, with respect 5.2.4 Uniformly Accelerating Frames
to the observer in the laboratory that is accelerating upwards, and the ‘Entwurf’ Theory
it appears to bend downwards. According to the ‘principle of
equivalence’, an observer must notice the same bending of Although Minkowski proposed the concept of
the light beam when an experiment is conducted in a sta- four-dimensional space–time manifold in 1908, Einstein did
tionary laboratory in the presence of a gravitational field. not take any notice of it till 1912. Facing the difficulties
However, there is an interesting consequence of bending of encountered in handling the problems related to frames with
light wave in the presence of gravitation. As is established gravity field, he finally took to the geometric representation of
the speed of light above has to be more so that the wave space–time. He, along with his friend and collaborator Gross-
veers downwards. This effect of gravitation on the speed of man, prepared a paper that was entitled ‘Entwurf einer verallge
light caused a puzzle. The resolution of this puzzle could not meinerten Relativitästheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation’.
be satisfactorily achieved by Einstein during the early period It is popularly referred to as the ‘Entwurf’ theory.
of the development of General Theory of Relativity. Einstein It was known to them that the generalized expression for
suspected that the geometry of the space–time manifold is the Minkowski’s invariant interval after transforming it into
not flat (or, Euclidean) in an accelerated frame, or, in the an arbitrary coordinate system xl (l = 1, 2, 3, 4) can be
presence of gravity. That must have been the reason of written in the following differential form
bending of the light beam, thought Einstein.
X
4
ds2 ¼ glm xl xm ð5:2:14Þ
l;m¼1

As a first case, Einstein and Grossman developed the

expression for the invariant transforming Minkowski’s
invariant interval
8
It is not any trickery of clocks, but it is due to the effect of gravity ds2 ¼ c2 dt2  dx2  dy2  dz2 ð5:2:15aÞ
when light wave traverses space–time in the presence of gravity.
110 5 General Theory of Relativity and Extension of Mach’s Principle

to a uniformly accelerated frame.9 It was found that the

coefficients glm become the same as that in Minkwoski’s
expression except the fact that c becomes a function of
position. Taking x′, y′, z′ and t′ as the coordinates in the
accelerated frame,
A
0 0 0 02 02 02 O 2
ds ¼ c ðx ; y ; z Þ dt  dx  dy  dz
2 2 2
ð5:2:15bÞ 1

It has been shown earlier that using the equivalence

principle the time interval dt′ (in the presence of gravitational
potential) can be expressed as
 
0 D/ Fig. 5.10 A rotating frame
dt ¼ dt 1 þ 2
c
Taking the gravitational potential u(r) = 0 when r ! ∞, radial line OA (because the velocity of the rod is perpen-
r being the distance from a point source Du = u(r). So, dicular to the length of the rod). Let the total length OA takes
‘n’ such rods and the radius of the disc is then considered as
/ðr Þ
dt0 ¼ dt 1 þ ð5:2:16Þ n units. Now, when an identical rod 2 is placed at the cir-
c2 cumference, its length will be contracted because c is
non-zero. If ‘m’ such rods are required to cover the whole
This dt′ can be now introduced into the expression for
circumference, the ratio of m and n will be less than 2p. Or,
invariant ds′, and the following equation is obtained
m/n < 2p. On the other hand, if another stationary disc is
/ðr Þ 2 2 placed just below the rotating one and the same experiment
ds02 ¼ dt2 1 þ c  dx02  dy02  dz02 ð5:2:17Þ is conducted m/n = 2p. Thus, an accelerating frame that is
c2
non-inertial does not follow the Eucledean flat geometry.
where /ðr Þ  /ðx0 ; y0 ; z0 Þ This convinced Eintein to look for non-Eucledean geometry
So, the dependence of c on position is the effect of the and he concluded that gravity curves the space–time
presence of gravity. The obvious conclusion drawn by Ein- continuum.
stein and Grossman was that glm can represent the presence of Einstein started working along with his former friend
gravity. But the procedure did not take care of a general Grossman who introduced Einstein to tensor calculus that
situation as the space–time manifolds represented by (5.2.15a) became essential to deal with non-Eucledean geometry of
and (5.2.15b) are both flat. Einstein’s ultimate objective to curved space–time. In 1913, they published the ‘Entwurf’
develop a General Theory of Relativity based upon the paper. Unfortunately, the resulting equations out of this
principle of general covariance (according to which the laws theory failed to demonstrate general covariance. As is
of physics are expressed in forms which are same for all known Einstein developed his ‘hole argument’ to demon-
space–time coordinate systems) faced a formidable mathe- strate that a generally covariant equation is physically
matical challenge. Thus, in the General Theory of Relativity, uninteresting and abandoned his principle of covariance.
the presence of gravitation had to be taken care of by the Perhaps he wanted to justify the results obtained from his
terms glm which were called metric tensor components. ‘Entwurf’ theory.
Consideration of a rotating frame shown in Fig. 5.10
convinced Einstein that it was essential to consider the
non-Eucledean character of space–time manifold when 5.2.5 The Field Equation and Final Formulation
gravity is present. Point A, located at the periphery of the
rotating circular disc, has a finite velocity in the tangential It is a well-known fact that Einstein struggled very hard to
direction with respect to the centre O. Now, if one places a finally arrive at the final solution to his objective. Localized
small rod 1 of length D at O along the radial direction, its form of the principle of equivalence could be useful only for
length is unaffected by the rotation of the disc as c at the the immediate vicinity of a point in space–time. Such
location of the rod is equal to unity. The situation remains localized frames satisfied Lorentz transformation maintain-
unaltered as the rod 1 is placed at different locations on the ing covariance. But no extended frame of reference can
represent a non-uniform gravitational field. Einstein had to
develop a way to stitch all the local frames through a general
formulation. It was realized that matter–energy introduces
9
According to the ‘principle of equivalence’ such a frame could
represent a frame in a uniform gravitational field. curvature to the space–time; the curved space-time then
5.2 Transition to General Relativity 111

controls the motion of bodies in it. So, using an analogy with Once glm are known, the geodesics can be determined
electromagnetism where the charge distribution decides the from the extremum principle
field which, then, governs the motion of the charged
particles. ZB
The concept of a straight line (or shortest distance) is d ds ¼ 0 ð5:2:21Þ
replaced by geodesics in curved space–time. So, the A
requirement is to develop an equation that determines the
for the shortest path (geodesic) between points A and B in
curvature of space–time due to the presence of matter. The
the space–time diagram. The field Eq. (5.2.20) represents 10
motion of the test particles in this field is along the geode-
partial differential equations in 10 unknown metric tensor
sies. Thus, the concept of gravitational force is eliminated.
components. In four dimensions, a second rank tensor has 16
Einstein had to struggle a lot for three intense years. His
components. But glm being a symmetric tensor, the number
aim was to determine the metric tensor components glm with
of independent components is 10. Using (5.2.17)
given mass energy distribution. An equivalent situation in
Newtonian gravity is the Poisson’s equation which is given /ðr Þ 2
below: ds2 ¼ c2 1 þ 2 dt2  dx2  dy2  dz2
c
 
r2 / ¼ 4pGq ð5:2:18Þ 2/
 c2 1 þ 2 dt2  dx2  dy2  dz2
c
where q is the matter density. If (5.2.14) is compared with   1

(5.2.17) in the case of a uniform gravity ds 2/ v2 2

or;  c 1þ 2  2
dt c c
   
/ 2 2/ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g00 ¼ 1þ 2  1þ 2
since dx þddt y þ dz ¼ v. As c is a constant, (5.2.21) results
2 2 2
c c
in (for weak fields and small speeds)
as  1.
/
c2
In the expanded form of (5.2.14) using ct = x0, x = x1, ZB ZB
y = x2, z = x3, g00 represents the coefficient of the first term. d ds ¼ d ðU  T Þ dt ¼ 0
Using the above expression, A A

2/ 2 8pGq which is Hamilton’s principle in Newtonian mechanics.

r2 g00 ¼ r2 ¼ 2 r2 / ¼ 2 ð5:2:19Þ
c 2 c c The author finds it a little strange to note the similarity
The above approximate approach hints that the deriva- between the outcome of Einstein’s General Theory of
tives of glm can be related to the energy momentum tensor Relativity and the philosophy of Aristotle proposed around
Tlm whose first term T00 is equal to q. three and half millennia ago. In Aristotle’s scheme, objects
After considerable struggle, Einstein realized that he has moved because of their tendency to go to their respective
to use Ricci tensor Rlm to represent the space–time curvature ‘natural’ places. Such motions were termed as ‘natural
and the curvature scalar10 motion’ by him. The final outcome of General Theory of
Relativity also eliminates the concept of any force due to
R ¼ glm Rlm gravitational attraction; instead motion of objects in the
presence of gravitating matter is a natural phenomenon
to develop his field equation. There was no definite way to which causes objects to follow their respective geodesies.
arrive at the field equation. Einstein being the genius he was,
guessed the right equation in the following form:

1 8pG 5.3 Extension of Mach’s Principle

Rlm  glm R ¼ 2 Tlm ð5:2:20Þ
2 c
Mach’s principle is one of the most tantalizing (and con-
This equation shows the relationship between the com- troversial at the same time) topics in science of motion. It
ponents of the metric tensor glm and the mass–energy even influenced a scientist of Einstein’s stature. However,
distribution. since it remained as a principle only, its utilization remained
confined to philosophical discussions primarily. Some defi-
nite progress started only after a quantitative phenomeno-
logical model was proposed by Sciama as discussed in
Sect. 2.1.5.
g
10 lv
should be considered the same as glv .
112 5 General Theory of Relativity and Extension of Mach’s Principle

But the primary aim, i.e. to demonstrate that inertia is the ν a

manifestation of dynamic gravitational interaction of a body φ
with the local gravito-inertial field created by the mass–energy
θ
distribution in the whole universe, has not been fulfilled. It
was shown in Sect. 2.1.5 that Sciama’s acceleration depen- m2
dent inertial induction model of Mach’s Principle can show B
the inertial mass to be approximately equal to the gravitational
mass. Considering the wide range of quantities involved in the r
analysis, such an approximate result gives credibility to the
principle’s validity. However, an exact equivalence between m1
A
gravitational and inertial mass needs an extra domain to the
principle. An exact equivalence cannot be achieved through Fig. 5.11 Velocity- and acceleration-dependent forces between two
an extreme fine-tuning of the parameters of our universe. particles
Thus, one needs to look forward to having some feedback
mechanism in the quantitative model of inertial induction. velocity and acceleration of B with respect to A are v and a,
Keeping in mind that gravitation is a phenomenon that acts on respectively, making angles / and h with r. The total force
gravitation it is worthwhile to search for such a feedback F on m2 at the instant can be written as follows:
mechanism. It is demonstrated in the rest of this section that
such a mechanism can be incorporated in the model if the m1 m2 m1 m2 m1 m2
F ¼ G ^ ur  G 2 af ðhÞ^ur
ur  G 2 2 v2 f ð/Þ^
concept of ‘velocity-dependent inertial induction’ is added to r 2 c r c r
‘acceleration dependent inertial induction’ model proposed by ð5:3:1Þ
Sciama. Furthermore, one has to also pay attention to the
where r ¼ u ^r r. f ð/Þ and f ðhÞ represent the effect of the
unique status given to acceleration. Why acceleration is
inclination of the velocity and acceleration vectors with
resisted but not uniform velocity has remained an unanswered
r. G is the coefficient of gravitational interaction and can
question since the advent of the subject ‘dynamics’ from
depend on r. The exact form of the inclination effects is not
Galileo’s time.
known a priori but these must satisfy the following
The subject ‘dynamics’ has evolved based upon the
conditions:
concepts like displacement, velocity, acceleration and jerk.
But maybe it is possible to represent motion in a totally f ð/Þ ¼ f ðhÞ ¼ 1 for h ¼ / ¼ 0
different manner where individual time derivatives of dif- f ð/Þ ¼ f ðhÞ ¼ 0 for h ¼ / ¼ p=2 ð5:3:2Þ
ferent orders need not be considered individually and it may f ð/Þ ¼ f ðhÞ ¼ 1 for h ¼ / ¼ p
be possible to do away with the concepts of velocity, ac-
celeration, etc. for the description of motion. However, till Thus, as a first attempt the following functions are used:
such a formulation is developed in the future, one is con-
f ð/Þ ¼ cos /  jcos /j
strained to follow the established conventional route using ð5:3:3Þ
the concepts of velocity, acceleration, jerk, etc. to represent f ðhÞ ¼ cos h  jcos hj
the instantaneous state of motion of a body. The first term on the R.H.S of (5.3.1) is the Newtonian
static term, the third term represents the
5.3.1 Velocity-Dependent Inertial Induction acceleration-dependent inertial induction proposed by
Sciama and the second term represents the effect of
In Sect. 2.1.5, Sciama’s acceleration-dependent inertial velocity-dependent inertial induction as proposed by
effect was quantified by the term Gmc12mr 2 a where m1 and m2 are Ghosh.11 The proposed model is phenomenological and
the gravitational masses of two interacting particles at a approximate in nature. The inclination effects depicted
distance r, a representing the relative acceleration between through (5.3.3) are also adhoc assumptions keeping the basic
the two particles. If it is considered that the relative velocity requirement given by (5.3.2) satisfied. However, as the
between the two particles also generates a force depending magnitude of the function f (h) remains confined between +1
and −1, it cannot introduce any major effect.
on the relative velocity then another term Gmc12mr22 v can be
2

It is expected that the second term can give rise to a

considered where v is the relative velocity between the two servomechanism effect and the need of any fine-tuning of
particles. At this stage, the consideration of higher order
derivatives (beyond acceleration) is kept in abeyance.
Figure 5.11 shows two particles A and B at a distance 11
Ghosh, A.—‘Velocity Depended Inertial Induction: An Extension of
r where r is the position vector of B with respect to A. The Mach’s Principle’, Pramana (Journal of Physics), v. 23, 1984, p. L671.
5.3 Extension of Mach’s Principle 113

universal parameters is eliminated. To determine the total where q is the average mass–energy density of the universe.
force on a particle of gravitational mass m due to its inter- The integration of the first term (the Newtonian static term)
action with the whole universe (or, more precisely the field yields zero because of symmetry. The above equation can be
created by the mass–energy of the rest of the universe at the rewritten in the following form:
location of the test particle), it is essential to adopt an
Z1 Z1
appropriate model of the universe. As discussed in mv2 vGq ma
F ¼ ^
uv dr  ^
ua 2 vGr1 q dr1 ð5:3:5Þ
Sect. 2.2.1, the universe can be considered to be infinite and c c c
homogenous, quasistatic and non-evolving as a whole. In 0 0

such a situation, a mean rest frame of the universe can be

where
considered and, therefore, the velocity v of the test particle
(for the purpose of determining the universal interaction) is Z2
p
Z2
p

with respect to the mean rest frame of the universe. Fur- v ¼ 4p sin / cos / f ð/Þ d/ ¼ 4p sin h cos h f ðhÞ dh
thermore, every element (of course elements of the infinite
0 0
universe could be large in size and with no motion with
respect to the mean rest frame of the universe) can be con- ð5:3:6Þ
sidered to be stationary. There is no conceptual problem with Once the form of the function f (h) is known, v can be
the acceleration a of the test particle with respect to the mean found out. To complete the integration in (5.3.5), it is
rest frame of the universe. essential to know how G varies as a function of the distance
At this point, it is desirable to discuss the point regarding between two interacting bodies. Unlike, in Newtonian
the concept of an absolute velocity (relative to the stars). mechanics, it is not a constant. Equation (5.3.5) can be
Sciama12 discussed the matter in length and showed the written as
presence of any sign of velocity with respect to the stars to
be absent based upon the result of K-meson decay experi- Z1
mv2 ma
ment that did not indicate any effect due to the velocity. F ¼ ^
uv j^
ua 2 vGr1 qdr1 ð5:3:7Þ
c c
However, it is shown later that the effect is extremely small 0
and below the sensitivity of the experiment. It should be R1
noted here that the presence of a velocity-dependent effect where j ¼ 0 v Gq c dr; represents a drag coefficient and the
does not violate the Principle of Relativity according to first term on the R.H.S of (5.3.7) is nothing but a drag force
Sciama as the force is due to interaction with the stars that on any object moving through space in the universe. The
can be considered to be an effect due to outside experiment magnitude of the drag force is given by
and not a truly internal one. In fact, according to this model,
mv2
the mean rest—frame of the universe can be treated as an j ;
absolute frame (giving some similarity with Newton’s c
absolute space) . and it acts in a direction opposite to v. It is a major departure
To find out the total force acting on the test particle from conventional mechanics. Due to this drag, even the
moving with velocity vð¼ u ^v vÞ and að¼^ua aÞ, the interactive agents of transporting gravitation (may be called gravitons)
force with an element of the universe dM at a distance r has are subjected to this drag. The intensity of gravitational
to be integrated over the whole infinite universe. Thus, this interaction can be assumed to be proportional to the energy
force F, felt by the test particle, is given by of gravitons arriving at the location of the passive gravitating
p mass. So
Z1 Z 2
G  2pr 2 q sin /  v2  mf ð/Þ cos / d/ dr  
F¼02 ^v
u G / E ¼gravitons mass  c2
c2 r 2
0 0
It can be easily shown that due to a cosmic drag j mvc , the
2
p
Z1 Z 2
G  2pr12 q sin h  a  mf ðhÞ cos h dh dr1 energy E takes the following form
2 ^a
u
c2 r12
0 0 E ¼ E0 expðjr=cÞ;
ð5:3:4Þ
and consequently

G ¼ G0 expðjr=cÞ ð5:3:8Þ

12
Sciama, D.W.—‘Physical Foundations of General Relativity’, Heine-
mann Educational Books Ltd., London, 1972, pp. 20–21.
114 5 General Theory of Relativity and Extension of Mach’s Principle

where E0 and G0 are the values when r = 0. G0 is equal to Substituting the magnitudes of G0 and q as
6.67  10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2. Substituting G from (5.3.8) into 6.67  10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 and 7  10−27 kg m−3, respec-
the expression for j, one gets tively, the value of j becomes

vG0 q 1
jr 
Z
exp  dr ¼ j j ¼ 1:21  1018 s1 ð5:3:12Þ
c 0 c
The gravitational coefficient G drops according to the
vG0 q c equation G ¼ G0 expðkr Þ where k = j/c = 0.4  10−26
or;  ¼j m−1. Since k is far less compared to the limit set by Laplace
c j
(k  10−17 m−1), the effect is not detectable from the
1
or; j ¼ ðvG0 qÞ2 ð5:3:9Þ motions of the solar systems objects. The value of G drops
by only 0.0004% while traversing across the Milky Way
Using this value of j and substituting G from (5.3.8) in galaxy with a diameter of 105 l.y. The ‘cosmic drag’ on an
(5.3.7) yields the total force acting on the test particle as object of 1 kg mass at a velocity 1 m s−1 with respect to the
follows: mean rest frame of the universe is equal to 0.4  10−26 N. It
Z1 is beyond the capability of contemporary science and tech-
mv2 ma Z
jr 
F ¼ ^
uv j ^a
u vqG0 exp 
1
r1 dr1 nology to detect this. The static gravitation force among the
c c c components of an experimental set-up will completely
0
mv2 ma vG0 q
overwhelm the ‘cosmic drag’ force.
¼ ^
uv j u^a  2
c c j
mv2
¼ ^
uv j  ma ð5:3:10Þ 5.3.2 Some Features of Velocity-Dependent
c
Inertial Induction
It is very interesting to note that the predominant force is
given by exactly—ma (as per Newton’s second law), and Three important outcomes of the proposed model based
this inertial mass is nothing but the originally assumed upon the interaction of a test particle with the matter–energy
gravitational mass of the test particle establishing exact present in the rest of the universe are (i) variation of the
equivalence of the gravitational and inertial masses of a gravitational coefficient G with distance, (ii) existence of a
body. Furthermore, it is also worth noticing that this drag force on a particle moving with constant velocity,
equivalence is independent of the universe’s basic parame- called the cosmic drag and (iii) the exact equivalence of
ters like G0 and q, eliminating the necessity of any fine inertial and gravitational mass vindicating the philosophy
tuning. that inertia is nothing but the manifestation of dynamic
However, one notices the modified force law (5.3.10) has gravitational interaction.
an extra velocity-dependent drag force that acts on any As mentioned in the previous section, the variation of
object moving even with uniform velocity with respect to the G with distance is extremely small for detection. But the
mean rest frame of the infinite quasistatic universe. To existence of the cosmic drag can be investigated by con-
estimate the magnitude of this force, one needs to know v sidering the fastest moving objects, i.e. photons travelling
and q. Development of proper field equations in the case of a longest possible distances, i.e. light from the distant galaxies.
moving body can yield the correct result. But for an Next, the effect of cosmic drag on photons from distant
approximate analysis,13 the form of f(h) and f(/) given in galaxies is investigated.
(5.3.2) can be adopted. With this Cosmic drag on photons travelling through space: The
p mass and energy of a photon satisfy the following equations
Z2
v ¼ 4p sin h cos3 h dh ¼ p
0 E ¼ mc2 and E ¼ hm ¼ hc=k

and where h is the Planck’s constant, m is the frequency and k is

1
the wavelength. When a photon starts its journey from a
j ¼ ðpG0 qÞ2 ð5:3:11Þ distant galaxy, it is subjected to a drag jmc according to
(5.3.10) as a = 0 and v ¼ c. This drag causes the energy E of
the photon to decrease leading to decrease in frequency m
and increase in k. Thus, the photon is redshifted. A simple
equation is obtained as follows:
13
It should be noted that the final result given by (5.3.10) is independent
of the form of the inclination effect.
5.3 Extension of Mach’s Principle 115

dE j Table 5.1 Comparison of inertial induction effect

¼  dx
E c Interacting Velocity-dependent Acceleration-dependent
system induction effect induction effect
where dx is the distance travelled in a short interval and dE is (mv2/c2)
the decrease in photon energy during this period. The Earth (near *10 *10−8 ma
solution to the above equation is surface)

j  Sun (near *275 *10−7 ma
k
¼ exp v ð5:3:13Þ surface)
k0 c Milky way *200 *10−6 ma
galaxy (near
where k0 is the wavelength at the source and k is the sun)
wavelength of the photon after it travels through a distance
Universe 3.63  10−10 ¼ma
x. So the light from a galaxy at a distance x from the earth
will be redshifted by an amount according to the following
rule:
inertial induction of local nature have already been found to
k  k0
j 
z¼ ¼ exp x  1 ð5:3:14Þ explain a number of phenomena. Table 5.1 shows the
k0 c comparison of the effects due to velocity and
When jx/c  1, the above relation can be simplified to acceleration-dependent interaction.14
the following linear rule: Transfer of angular momentum: It should be carefully
noted that the velocity-dependent term is not just dependent
j on velocity (like some velocity-dependent term in mechan-
z x ð5:3:15Þ
c ics), but always acts ‘against’ the velocity. Another impor-
If this redshift is assumed to be due to a Doppler effect tant result of this term is that this interaction can cause
due to an assumed recessional speed v, the above equation transfer of angular momentum between a spinning central
yields body and an orbiting body (like a planet and its satellite, or,
the sun and the planets). Such a mechanism of momentum
v ¼ zc  jx ð5:3:16Þ
transfer is not available in conventional mechanics. This has
Hence, j is nothing but the Hubble constant whose cur- been able to explain a number of phenomena in the solar
rent estimate is not much different from the theoretically system dynamics.
obtained value of j, 1.21  10−18 s−1! This can be con-
sidered to be a strong support for the observed cosmological
redshift without any universal expansion. 5.3.3 Concluding Remarks
Relative magnitude of acceleration and
velocity-dependent induction effects: The model has three The extended concept of inertial induction shows a number of
terms in the interaction between two particles. An exami- interesting results explaining quite a few unexplained or ill
nation of (5.3.1) reveals that the velocity- and acceleration- explained phenomena. However, the magnitude of the
dependent terms are much smaller in magnitude compared to velocity- and acceleration-dependent inertial induction is
that of the static Newtonian term because of the c2 term in extremely small for detection through terrestrial laboratory
the denominators. Again between the two inertial inductions experiments. But indirect support for the proposed effect is
terms, the acceleration dependent term is a long range force not unsubstantial, and it hints the possibility of new physics. It
because its denominator contains a term r in its first power. has been suspected by a number of physicists that there is
On the contrary, the velocity-dependent term has r2 in its deep-routed physics but unearthing it may be a difficult task.
denominator. As a result, for localized interactions, the Whether the phenomenon can come out as an extension of the
velocity-dependent term is more predominant in its effect. General Theory of Relativity is not known. But an attempt
Whereas, the contribution of the acceleration dependent term can be made by developing a field-based interaction in which
is more in the effects due to interaction with the far off the space–time fields are produced by moving bodies.
bodies. Therefore, the contributions of the distant matter are At the end, it must be emphasized that though the mag-
less significant compared to the velocity-dependent interac- nitude of the velocity-dependent inertial induction effect is
tion with the nearby matter. Since the magnitude of the extremely small to influence the motion of bodies studied by
velocity-dependent term predominates over the effects of the
distant matter, it may be possible to detect the effects of
velocity-dependent inertial induction of local nature. In fact, Ghosh, Amitabha, ‘Origin Inertia: Extended Mach’s Principle and
14

quite a few such results for photon-matter and matter-matter Cosmological Consequences’, Apeiron, Montreal, 2000.
116 5 General Theory of Relativity and Extension of Mach’s Principle

the scientists, its impact on our understanding of the nature it will be difficult to explain it using the conventional ‘tidal
of the universe is paramount. In the literature, it has been friction’ mechanism as mars does not have any sizeable
suggested that a careful study of the planet mars can help to satellite (like the moon in case of earth) to pickup mars’
either throw away the hypothesis or accept it. If mars is angular momentum. But it is a big project and, perhaps, an
found to have a secular retardation (of the order of organization like NASA can take up the endeavour.
1.25  10−22 rad s−2) as predicted by the proposed theory,
 Bibliography

1. Barbour, J.B.: Absolute or Relative Motion. Cambridge University 23. Damerow, P., Freudenthal, G., McLughlin, P. and Renn, J.:
Press, Cambridge (1989) Exploring the Limits of Preclassical Mechanics. Springer, Berlin
2. Cohen, J.B.: The Birth of a New Physics. Penguin, Harmondsworth 24. Reichenbach, H.: The Philosophy of Space & Time. Dover
(1992) Publication Inc. New York (1958)
3. Ghosh, A.: Origin of Inertia: Extended Mach’s Principle and 25. Eddington, A.: Space, time and gravitation. Harper & Row
Cosmological Consequences. Aperion, Montreal (2000) Publishers, New York (1959)
4. Dugas, R.: A History of Mechanics. Dover Publication, New York 26. Einstein, A.: Relativity—The Special and General Theory. Pi Press,
(1988) New York (2005)
5. Speiser, D (Essays): Discovering the Principles of Mechanics 27. Einstein, A.: The Meaning of Relativity. Princeton University
1600–1800. Birkhäuser, Basel (2008) Press, Princeton (1988)
6. Capecchi, D.: The Problem of the Motion of Bodies. Springer, 28. Einstein, A., Minkowski, H.: The Principle of Relativity
Berlin (2014) (Translated by Saha, M.N., Bose, S.N.). Calcutta University
7. Lange, M.: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics. Press (1920)
Blackwell Publishers, London (2002) 29. Hoffman, B.: Relativity and Its Roots. Dover Publication Inc. New
8. Crowe, J.M.: Mechanics from Aristotle to Einstein. Green Lion York (1999)
Press, SantaFe, New Mexico (2007) 30. Berry, M.V.: Principles of Cosmology and Gravitation. Overseas
9. Assis, A.K.T.: Relational Mechnics. Apeiron, Montreal (1999) Press (2005)
10. Maudlin, T.: Philosophy of Physics. Princeton University Press, 31. Ray, C.: The Evolution of Relativity. Adam Hilger, Boston (1987)
Princeton (2012) 32. Hartle, J. B.: Gravity—An Introduction to Einstein’s General
11. Sciama, D.W.: The Physical Foundation of General Relativity. Relativity. Pearson Education (2003)
Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London (1972) 33. Schutz, B.: A First Course in General Relativity. Cambridge
12. Cohen, R. S., Seeger, R. J. (ed.): Earnst Mach—Physicist and University Press, Cambridge (2009)
Philosopher. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Holland, Dordrecht 34. Corwell, B.: Relativity, Light and Matter. Fullerton, California
13. Longair, M.: Theoretical Concepts in Physics, 2nd edn. Cambridge (2009)
University Press, Cambridge (2003) 35. Resnick, R.: Introduction to Special Relativity. Wiley-India (2011)
14. Hesse, M.B.: Forces and Fields. Philosophical Library, New York 36. Kopeikin, S., Efroimsky, M., Kaplan, G.: Relativistic Celestial
(1962) Mechanics of the Solar System. Wiley-VCH (2011)
15. Westfall, R.S.: The Construction of Modern Science. Cambridge 37. Norton, J.D.: General covariance and the foundation of general
University Press, Cambridge (1977) relativity: eight decades of disputes. Rep. Prog. Phys. 56, 791–858
16. Arnold, V.I.: Huygens & Barrow, Newton and Hooke. Birkhäuser (1993)
Verlag, Basel (1990) 38. Levrini, O.: Reconstructing the basic concepts of general relativity
17. Weinberg, S.: To Explain the World—The Discovery of Modern from an educational & cultural point of view. Sci. Educ. 11, 263–
Science. Allen Lane (an imprint of Penguin Books) (2015) 278 (2002)
18. Understanding Space and Time—Block1. The Open University 39. Munera, H.A. (ed.): Should the Laws of Gravitation be
Press (1979) Reconsidered?—The Scientific Legacy of Mauric Allais. Apeiron,
19. Understanding Space and Time—Block2. The Open University Montreal (2011)
Press (1979) 40. Feynman, R.P.: The Character of Physical Law. Penguin Books
20. Understanding Space and Time—Block4. The Open University (1992)
Press (1979) 41. Kuhn, T. S.: The Copernican Revolution, Harvard University
21. Sachs, M., Roy, A.R. (eds.): Mach’s Principle and the Origin of Press, Baltimore (1999)
Inertia. Aperion, Montreal (2003) 42. Galilei, G.: Two New Sciences (Translation by Drake, S.). Wall &
22. Mach, E.: The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Emerson Inc. (1989)
Account of its Development (Translation by McCormack, Th J.).
The Open Court Publishing Co. (1960)

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 117

A. Ghosh, Conceptual Evolution of Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics,
Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6253-7
 Index

A Bradley, 88, 89, 92

Aberration, 89, 90, 92, 93 Brahe, Tycho, 4, 14, 15, 22
Absolute Bucket experiment, 48–50
motion, 37, 47, 49, 53–55 Burdian, Jean, 11
space, 37, 47–50, 53, 59, 74, 103, 113
time, 37, 47, 49, 103
Abu Mashar, 71 C
Acceleration, 5, 19, 23, 24, 28, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 45, 48–52, 56, 58, Calculus
60–64, 71, 75, 77, 79, 84, 85, 87, 95, 106, 107, 112, 115 variational, 78
Acronychal, 17 Cancer, 4
Action-at-a-distance, 19, 59, 70–72, 74, 94 Capricorn, 4
Aether (ether), 72, 74 Cassiopeia, 14
Agriculture, xiii Celestial
Alexandria, 2 equator, 4, 6
Algarotti, Francesco, 75 sphere, 4, 88
Amplitude, 24, 85 Center of gravity, 31, 48, 85
Anaxagoras, 1 Centrifugal force, 32–36, 50, 58
Anaximander, 1 Centripetal acceleration, 32–35, 39
Anaximenes, 1 Charge
Anima motrix, 19 negative, 51, 100
Aphelion, 16 positive, 51
Apollonius, 6 Chord, 24, 50
Apside, 15, 17, 18 Civilization, 1, 11
Arago, Francois, 91 Collinear, 40
Area law, 15–19, 43 Collision, 28–32, 37, 38, 44, 60, 62, 70, 76, 88, 100
Aristotle, 1, 2, 4, 12, 19, 111 Conservation
Astrology energy, 32, 64, 66, 70, 79
judicial, 4 momentum, 29, 32, 70, 100
natural, 1, 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 23, 27, 65, 75, 96, 111 Conservative system, 65
Astronomy, 2 Contact force, 70, 71
Atwood’s machine, 75 Continuum, 53, 105, 110
Copernicus, 11–13, 21, 22, 88
Corpuscular theory, 74
B Cosmic microwave background radiation, 53, 55
Babylon, 1, 5 Cosmology, 1, 14
Background radiation, 55 Coulomb, Augustin de, 72
Bernoulli Coulomb’s law of electrostatic force, 51, 74
Daniel, 46, 75, 79 Covariant, 110
Jacob, 46, 76, 79
Johann, 46, 75
Big-Bang theory, 53 D
Borelli, Giovanni Alphonso, 42 D’Alembert, 46, 76, 81, 84, 85
Boscovitch, Roger, 72 Descartes, 11, 28–30, 32, 36, 37, 46, 59, 70, 76, 78, 82

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 119

A. Ghosh, Conceptual Evolution of Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics,
Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6253-7
120 Index

Dielectric constant, 51 innate, 37, 38, 45

Dipole anisotropy, 55 inverse square, 40, 41, 43
Displacement, 4, 23, 34, 35, 40, 53–55, 65, 69, 77, 80, 84, 89, 112 living, 60, 76, 79
Distance motive, 37, 38, 45
angular, 2 Form invariance of physical laws, 63
Distance law, 15, 16, 19 Frame of reference
Diurnal, 4, 12 absolute, 37, 45, 53, 54
Doppler effect, 55, 115 inertial, 63, 66, 104, 106
Dynamics, 4, 5, 14, 20, 23, 28–30, 37, 38, 45, 47, 48, 59, 64, 79, 83, non-inertial, 66
85, 87, 88, 112, 115 relative, 99
Free fall, 5, 11, 23, 24, 26, 28, 34, 36, 42, 57, 105
Frenicle, 70
E Frequency, 108, 114
Eccentric, 7, 8, 15 Fresnel, 91, 95
Eclipse, 2, 50, 92 Friction, 1, 4, 11
Ecliptic, 4, 6, 15
Egypt, 1
Einstein, Albert, 87, 96 G
Electrical Galilean, 23, 27, 61, 87, 93, 95, 98, 103
induction, 72 Galilei, Galileo, 20
Electromagnetic, 64, 72, 73, 94, 95, 100, 108 Galvanometer, 73
Electromagnetism, 93–96, 103, 111 Generalized coordinates, 83, 84
Electrostatic, 5, 72, 73 Geocentric, 4, 12, 21, 22
Element Geodesic, 111
air, 1 Geometro-quantitative, 6
fire, 1 Geometry
water, 1 Eucledian, 48
Ellipse, 17, 18, 40, 42, 43 G-field, 50
Energy Gilbert, W., 5, 70
gravitational, 25 Gravitation, 5, 19, 36, 37, 39, 42, 45, 50–52, 55, 57, 64, 70–72, 74,
kinetic, 32, 45, 60, 66 103, 107, 109, 110, 112–114
mechanical, 31, 60, 64, 65, 67, 77 Gravitons, 113
potential, 25, 64–67, 79 Gravity, 4, 19, 23, 24, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 56, 64, 86, 106–110
Energy function, 65, 66, 78 Great circle, 4, 6
Entwurf theory, 109, 110 Grossman, 109, 110
Epicycle-Deferent, 6, 7
Equant, 8, 10, 16
Equation of motion, 40, 65, 78, 83 H
Equinoctial, 2, 4, 6, 7 Halley, 36, 42, 45
Equinox, 6, 39 Hamilton’s principle, 111
Equivalence principle, 110 Heaviside, Oliver, 95
Eratosthenes, 2 Heliacal, 12
Euclidean geometry, 48 Helio
Euler, Leonhard, 46, 72 astral, 7
Evolution, 4, 14, 53, 75, 104 centric, 4, 7, 12, 13, 21
static, 15
Hellenistic, 1, 2, 5, 41
F Henry, 94
Faraday, Michael, 72 Herman, Jacob, 75
Faraday’s Disc, 73 Hesse, Mary, 72
Fermat, 82 Hilbert, 104
Field Hipparchus, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11
electric, 74, 94, 95, 99 Hooke, Robert, 42
equation, 104, 111 Hubble’s constant, 52
gravitational, 29, 50, 73, 106–110 Huygens, Christiaan, 30, 59
magnetic, 73, 93, 94, 99 Hydrodynamics, 72
velocity, 72 Hypotenuse, 2
FitzGerald, 93, 95 Hypothesis, 4, 6, 15, 17, 21, 50, 106, 116
Fizeau, 91, 92
Focus
of ellipse, 43 I
Force Impetus, 5, 11, 28, 38, 72, 84
dead, 60, 76 Impulse, 30, 40, 60, 81
impressed, 37, 38, 48, 56 Incline, 23, 24, 26
Index 121

Inertia, 4, 19, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 37, 48, 50, 52, 55, 57, 58, 85, 86, 103, Motion
106, 112 absolute, 37, 49, 53, 55
Inertial induction, 50, 52, 112, 115 compound, 25, 26
Interference, 91, 93 natural, 1, 10, 21, 27
Interferometer, 92 relative, 12, 32, 47, 48, 50, 53, 59
Intrinsic, 53, 55 uniform circular, 1, 6, 10, 21
Invariant, 37, 60, 64, 66, 68, 105, 109, 110 uniform rectilinear, 5, 29, 104
Io, 92 uniform straight line, 35
Isolated system, 61, 64, 79 violent, 1, 27

J N
Jerk, 112 Natural philosophy, 59
John of Holland, 11 Newtonian, 19, 44, 47, 48, 50–53, 55–57, 59–61, 74, 76, 78, 79, 83–85,
Jupiter, 21, 92 87, 88, 90, 95–97, 100, 103, 104, 111–113, 115
Newton, Issac, 37
Norton, John D., 104
K
Kant, Emanuel, 72
Keplar, Johannes, 14, 20 O
Kinematics, 23, 32 Observation, 2, 5–8, 10, 12, 14–17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 53, 60, 73, 74, 81,
Kinetic energy, 60, 64, 76, 79 88, 91, 92, 105, 107
K-meson, 49 Oersted, Hans C., 93
Orbit, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15–19, 22, 36, 40–44
Orbital, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15–20, 27, 36, 39, 42, 70, 88, 89, 91
L Oresme, Nicole, 11, 12, 23
Leibniz, G.W., 45, 46, 49, 59 Orion, 21
Lenz, 94 Oscillation, 57, 72, 84, 85
Lines of forces, 72–74 Ovoid, 17
Longitude, 17, 18
Lord Kelvin, 92
Lorentz, 93, 95, 96, 100 P
Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction, 93 Parallax, 2, 4, 5, 14, 20, 22, 88, 89
Luminosity, 1 Parallelogram of addition of motive force, 38
Paris Académie, 70
Pendulum
M conical, 36, 57
Mach, Ernst, 50, 106 spherical, 57
Mach’s principle, 50–53, 71, 103, 106, 111, 112 Perfect cosmological principle, 53
Magnet, 19, 73, 74 Perihelion, 16, 53
Magnetism, 5, 19, 94–96, 100 Philosopher, 1, 2, 4–6, 12, 22, 26, 28, 37, 39, 41, 42, 47–50, 54, 57, 60,
Mass 71, 83, 103, 104
gravitational Philosophy, 1, 5, 6, 32, 41, 46, 49, 53, 57, 71, 78, 81, 106, 111, 114
active, 56 Phoronomia, 46, 75
passive, 56, 113 Photon, 114, 115
inertial, 37, 45, 56–58, 105, 106, 112, 114 Physical science, 5, 14
Maupertuis, 82, 83 Physis, xiii
Maxwell, James Clerk, 72, 92, 94 Picard, Jean, 88
Mechanics, 1, 11, 23, 27, 30, 36, 45, 46, 49, 50, 55, 57, 59–61, 72, Planes, 15, 19, 23, 24
75–79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 88, 90, 95, 96, 100, 101, 103, 107, Planets, 1, 4, 5, 7, 11–16, 18–21, 36, 39, 42, 70, 71, 78, 115
113 Plato, 1
Mercury, 11, 12, 53 Poincare, Henri, 95
Merton Poles
College, Oxford, 11, 23 north, 73
rule, 23, 24 south, 73
Michelson, 92, 93 Potential energy
Michelson-Morley experiment, 91, 92, 95 gravitational, 25, 65, 108
Minkowski, H., 105 strain, 65
Moment of inertia, 75, 85, 86 Power, 1, 18, 21, 76, 115
Momentum Precision, 6, 20, 39
angular, 69, 70, 86, 115, 116 Predictions, 6, 8, 14–16, 19, 20, 67, 107, 109
Morley, 92, 93 Principia, 30, 44–46, 59, 64, 75, 79, 84, 105
122 Index

Projectile, 1, 5, 23, 26, 27, 39 Symmetric energy tensor, 50

Ptolemy, 4, 6, 8, 11 Symmetry, 30, 59, 61–63, 67, 94, 113
Pythagoras, 1

T
Q Temporal, 27, 71, 105, 106
Quasi-static, 53, 103, 113, 114 Tensor
metric, 110, 111
momentum, 111
R rank, 111
Reciprocity, 97, 98 Ricci, 111
Redshift, 53, 109, 114, 115 Terrestrial
Reflection, 59 equator, 6
Relative, 4, 10, 12, 21, 27, 30, 32, 37, 47–51, 53–55, 59, 60, 70, 73, 87, Thales, 1
93, 96, 97, 101, 106, 107, 112, 113, 115 Tidal friction, 116
Relativity Time
Einstein, 27, 53, 58, 60, 61, 94–96, 98, 111 homogenity, 48, 59, 62, 66
Galilean, 23, 27, 30, 61, 93 Tisserand, 52
general theory, 30, 35, 50, 53, 58, 103–106, 109–111, 115 Todd, 92
special theory, 50, 60, 61, 94–96, 99, 100, 103, 104, 106, 107 Trajectory, 39–41, 109
Rest, 19, 23–25, 29, 37, 38, 49–55, 61, 62, 65, 67, 73, 76, 79, 81, 91, Transformation
95, 96, 101, 103, 106, 107, 112–114 Galilean, 60, 68, 87, 88, 95, 98, 103
Retrograde, 7, 12 Lorentz, 96–98, 100, 105, 110
Revolution, 11, 14, 21, 30 Translation, 47, 69, 70, 74, 84, 88
Robervel, 70 Triangulation, 15, 17
Rotation, 4, 7, 19, 27, 32, 50, 57–59, 70, 85, 86, 88, 110 Trigonometry, 4
Royal society, 38, 39, 42, 45, 75, 92

U
S Universal gravitation, 37, 41, 45, 51, 72
Sachs, Mendel, 103 Universe
Satellite, 115, 116 expanding, 53
Scaliger, J.C., 70 homogenous, 52–54
Schlick, M., 50 isotropic, 52–54
Scholar, 11, 20, 84, 104 stationary, 1, 52, 53
Sciama, D.W., 50 University of
Science, 1, 4, 5, 10–14, 19–23, 25–30, 32, 34–37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, Padua, 20
47, 49, 53, 55, 59, 60, 64, 70, 72, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82, 87, 88, Paris, 11
93, 95, 103, 104, 111, 114 Pisa, 20
Scientific, 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, 20, 22, 27, 30, 42, 53, 71, 82, 88, 93, 95
Secular retardation, 116
Seyne, 2 V
Socrates, 1 Varignon, 79
Solar Vector, 15, 55, 65, 68, 70, 76, 77, 80, 81, 112
year, 6, 50 angular, 7, 58
Solar system, 19, 21, 27, 74, 91, 92, 114, 115 Velocity-dependent inertial induction, 112, 115
Solenoid, 73 Venus, 11, 12, 21
Solstice, 6 Vicarious hypothesis, 17
Space-time, 53, 87, 88, 104, 105, 107, 109–111, 115 Virtual
curvature, 53, 110, 111 diaplacement, 79, 80, 84
Spatio-temporal, 70–72, 74 velocity, 79, 83
Speed work, 60, 79–81, 83, 84
angular, 7, 8, 57 Vis insita, 37
Sphere Voigt, W., 96
stellar, 4
Spherical, 2, 13, 52, 57, 98
Spin, 4, 12, 32, 34 W
Spyglass, 20, 21 Wavelength, 92, 108, 115
Stationary, 1, 6, 21, 48, 52, 53, 72–74, 89–93, 95, 99, 106, 109, 110, Weber, 52
113 Weight, 11, 31, 37, 45, 55, 58, 70, 76
Sun, 1, 2, 4–8, 11–19, 21, 27, 36, 39, 40, 42, 49, 50, 70, 115 Wren, Christopher, 42
Supernova, 14