Physics 210 Problem Set 1

Roman Berens
with collaboration from Mark Arildsen, Lucian Wang, and Cyndia Yu

September 10, 2014

1. We define the Levi-Civita symbol ijk

ijk

+1, ijk = 123, 231, 312

1, ijk = 321, 213, 132
=

0,
otherwise.

(a) Show that the ith component of the cross product of two spatial three-vectors is given
by
(A B)i =

ijk Aj Bk .

j,k

We expand the standard definition of the cross product



A1 A2 A3 


A B = B1 B2 B3  = (A2 B3 A3 B2 ) i + (A3 B1 A1 B3 ) j + (A1 B2 A2 B1 ) k.
 i
j
k
We see that the ith component of A B only involves the product of the jth and kth
components of A and B, and the sign on each term is positive for an even permutation of
(1, 2, 3) and negative for an odd permutation. This leads us to write
X

(A B)i =

Aj Bk

Aj Bk =

j,k

j,k

(i,j,k) even

(i,j,k) odd

ijk Aj Bk .

j,k

(b) Prove the triple product identity

A (B C) = C (A B) = B (C A) .

We know that the dot product of two vectors can be written as

AB=

Ai Bi .

Combining this with the cross product identity above yields

X
X
X
A (B C) =
Ai
ijk Bj Ck =
ijk Ai Bj Ck .
i

i,j,k

j,k

Since ijk = kij = jki, we can break this up in two ways:

X
j

Bj

ijk Ck Ai or

k,i

X
Ck
ijk Ai Bj .
i,j

We recognize the quantities in parentheses as the jth and kth components of (C A) and
(A B) respectively. Thus we have
X

Bj (C A)j = B (C A)

Ck (A B)k = C (A B) .

(c) Prove the useful identity

X

ijk klm = il jm im jl ,

and use this identity to prove the the BAC minus CAB rule:
A (B C) = B (A C) C (A B) .
The Levi-Civita symbol is related to the Kronecker delta via


 il im in 


ijk lmn =  jl jm jn  .
kl km kn 
To prove the identity,

 ik

ijk klm =  jk
kk

we replace l with k, m with l, and n with m, yielding


il im 
jl jm 
kl km 

= ik jl km + il jm kk + im jk kl im jl kk ik jm kl il jk km
= im jl + il jm + im jl im jl il jm il jm
= il jm im jl .
We then expand the triple cross product as
X
(A (B C))i =
ijk Aj (B C)k
j,k

ijk Aj

j,k

klm Bl Cm

l,m

ijk klm Aj Bl Cm

j,k,l,m

(il jm im jl ) Aj Bl Cm

j,k,l,m

(il jm Aj Bl Cm )

j,l,m

im jl Aj Bl Cm

j,l,m

(Am Bi Cm )

Aj B j C i

= (A C) Bi (A B) Ci .
Since this must hold for any components, we find
A (B C) = B (A C) C (A B) .
2. Let e0i denote the three orthonormal Cartesian basis vectors in a given non-inertial reference
frame. As we explained, an orthonormal set of vectors can change only by rotating, and so
the infinitesimal motion of each unit vector e0i relative to an arbitrary fixed choice of inertial
reference frame can be characterized in terms of a single instantaneous angular velocity
de0i
= e0i .
dt
3

We can express the position vector r of a particle of mass m relative to the origin of this
non-inertial reference frame in terms of the basis vectors ei as
X

r0 =
ri0 NRF e0i ,
i

where the subscript NRF makes clear that the components of r in this basis are measured
relative to the origin and coordinate axes of our non-inertial reference frame. An observer in
this non-inertial reference frame would identify the apparent velocity of the particle as
X  dr0 


0
i
v NRF =
e0
dt NRF i
i

and the acceleration of the particle as

0

NRF

X  d2 r0 

e0i .

dt2

NRF

Note that these quantities are not merely the time derivatives of r0 , because the basis vectors e0i
in the non-inertial reference frame are themselves time-dependent and have nonzero derivatives.
Show that

dr0
= v0 NRF + r0
dt

and

d
d2 r0
0
0
0
0
+
2

v
,
=
a
+

r
+

r
NRF
NRF
dt2
dt
and thereby obtain the formula for the fictitious forces see in this non-inertial reference frame:
Finertial = mA m

d
r0 m r0 2m v0 NRF .
dt

Here m ( r0 ) is the centrifugal force and 2m (v0 )NRF is the Coriolis force.
Let R denote the vector from the origin of a fixed inertial frame to the origin of the
non-inertial frame, and let r denote the vector from the origin of the inertial frame to the
particle. We then see that
r = R + r0 .
To take the derivative of r0 , we must take into account that not only does r0 change with
respect to the non-inertial frame, the basis vectors of this frame change in time as well. This
can be seen in the expression
dr0
dr dR
=

.
dt
dt
dt
Here the first term of the left hand side is the rate of change of the position of the object
with respect to the inertial frame, and the second term is the rate change of the position of
the origin of the non-inertial frame.
The product rule yields
dr0 X
=
dt
i



dri0
dt

e0i

NRF

ri0 NRF

de0i
dt


.

We see that the first term is simply the velocity of the particle in the non-inertial frame as
defined above. The second term consists of the rate of change of the coordinate axes of the
4

non-inertial frame (which can be characterized in terms of a single instantaneous angular

velocity) multiplied by the corresponding coordinate of the position vector in the non-inertial
frame. We can thus simplify this as






dr0
= v0 NRF + ri0 NRF e0i = v0 NRF + r0 .
dt
We can take the derivative of this expression to yield
 2 0
 0
d ri
d2 r0
dr
de0i d
dr0
0
0
=
e
+
+

r
+

i
dt2
dt2 NRF
dt NRF dt
dt
dt
 



d




dr
= a0 NRF +
e0i +
r0 + v0 NRF + r0
dt NRF
dt








d
= a0 NRF + v0 NRF +
r0 + v0 NRF + r0
dt






d
= a0 NRF +
r0 + r0 + 2 v0 NRF .
dt
We also see that

d2 r d2 R
d2 r0
=
2 .
dt2
dt2
dt

 2 
d r
d2 r0
We can equate this expression with the one for 2 from above. We realize that m
is
dt
dt2
the force F on the particle in the inertial frame. We multiply through by the mass and define
d2 R
A=
, yielding
dt2
m a0

NRF

= F mA m

d
r0 m r0 2m v0 NRF .
dt

We then see that the fictitious forces are

Finertial = mA m

d
r0 m r0 2m v0 NRF .
dt

3. Neglecting Earths orbital motion for the moment, consider an observer sitting on Earths
surface at z = 0 and a second observer positioned directly overhead at a fixed height
z = z > 0. Suppose that at some initial time, the ground observer (z = 0) emits a light
pulse of wavelength (to the extent that a finite pulse can have a definite wavelength) in the
direction +z of the elevated observer (z = z), who then intercepts that light pulse.
(a) Assuming that the distance and time scales in this problem are sufficiently small
that the equivalence of acceleration and gravitation holds to a good approximation according
to the equivalence principle (technically, as well see later, the relevant comparison is to the
curvature scale of Earths gravitational field), compute the wavelength 0 of the wave packet
as measured by the elevated observer when the wave packet arrives at z = z, and show that
the relative wavelength shift is given by
agrav z

=
,

c2
where = 0 and where agrav = g ' 9.8m/s2 is the acceleration due to gravity at Earths
surface. In particular, we see that the wavelength measured by the elevated observer is longer
than the wave packets initial wavelength, 0 > , a phenomenon known as gravitational
5

redshift.
The equivalence principle tells us that the above scenario is exactly the same as a light
source at the back of a rocket of length z accelerating at g. Therefore we shall consider this
situation to calculate the shift in wavelength. We consider the instantaneous inertial frame of
the rocket, in which it is at rest at t = 0 when the pulse is fired. We assume that the rocket
is sufficiently slow that the light pulse will reach the top of the rocket before it has moved
appreciably. Thus the pulse will reach the top of the rocket at time
z
.
c

t=

However, when the light pulse reaches the top of the rocket, the rocket will have reached a
speed of v = gh/c. The classical Doppler effect tells us that the shift in frequency is given by


c
0
=
.
c+v
Thus the wavelength will be shifted:
0 = c/ 0 =

v

c+v 
gz
=
= 1+
= 2 .

(b) Thinking in terms of the underlying photons, and using the Planck formula E = h
relating the photons energy E to its frequency and Plancks constant h, argue that each
photons energy decreases approximately according to
 
E
E 2 grav ,
c
where grav is the difference in
gravitational potential energy per unit mass between z = 0
and z = z. Regarding E/c2 loosely as an effective photon mass, this result closely
parallels the loss of kinetic energy by a massive nonrelativistic object as it climbs upward in a
gravitational field in the absence of other forces. Colloquially, one therefore says that photons,
despite having a vanishing Lorentz-invariant mass-energy, nonetheless have a nonzero weight,
although its important not to read more into this statement than is warranted by phenomena
like gravitational redshifts.
We see that E = h = hc/, so
E0 =

hc
hc
E

=

.
=
v
0

1+ c
1 + vc

We see that the energy difference is

v
E = E 0 =
c

v
c+v

v
E E,
c

where in the last step we have discarded terms of order v 2 /c2 . We then plug in the value for
v from part (a) use the fact that grav = gz in a uniform gravitational field, yielding
E =

grav
gz
E=
E.
2
c
c2

4. Challenge problem: In Newtonian mechanics, a frame at rest with respect to Earths

surface is an inertial frame, whereas a frame that accelerates downward at g 9.8m/s2 under
the influence of Earths gravity is a non-inertial frame. (For this exercise, we ignore Earths
orbital motion.) We might therefore expect that a charged particle sitting on Earths surface
does not generate electromagnetic radiation, whereas a charged particle falling under the
influence of Earths gravity does radiate.
But according to Einstein, it is the free-falling frame that is inertial, rather than the frame
at rest with respect to Earths surface. So we encounter what looks like a paradox: Does a
point charge sitting on Earths surface radiate or not? How about a free-falling point charge?
Please explain your answers.
Radiation is defined as the propagation of electromagnetic waves from an accelerating charge
out to infinity. Studying radiation, as Griffiths puts it in An Introduction to Electrodynamics,
involves picking out the parts of E and B that go like 1/r at large distances from the source,
constructing from them the 1/r2 term in S, integrating over a large spherical surface, and
taking the limit at r .
However, we know that the equivalence principle only applies locally, that is, to regions of
spacetime over which the gravitational field does not vary significantly. Since the existence of
radiation involves arbitrarily large distances, we should not expect the equivalence principle
to apply. Thus we do not expect a charged particle sitting on Earths surface to radiate.