Quantum and Relativity Theories Unified

In Concepts, Principles and Laws

The New Relativity Theory

BY AZZAM K. I. ALMOSALLAMI
P.O. BOX 1067
GAZA, PALESTINE
EMAIL: az_almosallami@yahoo.com

Abstract

In our work (the new relativity theory), we will unify relativity and quantum
theory (Copenhagen school) in concepts, principles and laws. While this new
theory is in agreement with the concepts, principles and laws of the quantum
theory (Copenhagen school), it introduces changes from the abstract,
undiscriptive and unimaginative to descriptive, and imaginative. As
previously stated, quantum theory was applied to the micro world while the
macro world was controlled by the laws of classical physics. We believed that
the laws that control the micro and macro worlds are the same. Because of
this, we formulated a new theory to unify micro and macro into one theory
with the same concepts, principle and laws.

Introduction

When Einstein formulated his special relativity theory, he believed in an

objective existence of phenomena, rather than in the principles of continuity,
determinism, and causality in the nature laws. But Quantum theory
(Copenhagen school) discovered that the observer participates in determining
the formulation of phenomena. That is clear from Heisenberg's definition of
the wave function, (1958) “it is a mixture of two things, the first is the reality
and the second is our knowledge of this reality. Thus, we get from this
definition that phenomena does not exist without the observer receiving it.

1
Einstein was hardly refusing this concept for phenomena, as Pais said in
(1979) “ while I was walking with Einstein, he said, - look at the moon do you
believe it exists because we are looking at it?” [ 2 ] .

Furthermore, quantum theory adopts the principles of non-causality,

indeterminism, and discontinuity in the nature laws.

The mathematical formula for Einstein's relativity depends on Rieman’s space

of four dimensions , but in quantum Hilbert’s space with infinite dimensions.
Stapp said in (1972) “the Copenhagen school refused understanding the
world by the concepts of space-time, when it considers relativity theory is
inconsistent for understanding the micro world, and where quantum theory
forms the basis for understanding this world” [ 3] .

Also in formulating his relativistic equations, Einstein depends on the

possibility of simultaneously measuring the location of a particle and its
momentum. Heisenberg discovered this is impossible to do (Heisenberg
uncertainty principle) [ 5, 6] . Oppenheimer said “Einstein in the last days of his
life tried to prove the inconsistency of quantum laws but failed. After that he
said - I dislike quantum theory, especially Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle” [ 4 ] .

Theory

1- The Hypotheses of the Theory

The First Hypothesis: The speed of light is constant and equal to C in any
inertial frame of reference, where C is the speed of light in a vacuum.

The Second Hypothesis: The speed of light in any frame moving with
constant velocity V is equal to C ' for any inertial frame of reference, where
C ' = C 2 − V 2 , whereas C ' does not depend on the direction of the velocity of
the moving frame, but depends only on the absolute value of the velocity.

To understand these two hypotheses, I assume a stationary observer on

the earth's surface. In this case, the earth's surface is considered a reference
frame. Now, if the stationary observer made an experiment for measuring the
speed of light in his reference frame, he would find it equals C , the speed of
light in vacuum. Also, if there was a train moving with constant velocity V on
the earth surface, and a stationary rider on the moving train made an
experiment for measuring light speed inside this train, he would find the
speed of light equals C . In this case, the moving train is considered a

2
stationary reference frame, and the result is the same as for the stationary
observer on the earth's surface. This is according to the first hypothesis.

Now, assume the stationary observer on earth measured the speed of light
inside the moving train. In this case he would find it equals C ' = C 2 − V 2
according to the second hypothesiss. Now if V ≈ C , then from the second
hypothesis we get C ' ≈ 0 . This is equivalent to quantum theory. For the
observer stationary on the earth's surface, the solution of the wave function ψ
is ψ ≈ 0 inside the moving train. So the probability density (the probability of
getting any information inside the moving train for the earth observer) equals
zero, where ψψ * ≈ 0 , where ψ * is the complex conjugate of ψ .

2- Time in our Relativity Theory

(2.1) Consider a train at rest and fixed observer, (both on the earth's surface)
where the length of the train is ∆L . If one of the riders of the train sends a ray
of light along the length of the train, the time required for the ray of light to
traverse the length of the train for both the fixed observer and the rider is ∆t 0 ,
where

∆L
∆t 0 = (2.1.1)
C

The above equation does not contradict Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

since C and ∆L are not measured at the same time. The equation makes us
predict the speed of light C when the displacement ∆L is known.

Now, suppose the train moved with constant velocity V and the rider sends a
ray of light along the length of the train during that motion, and the fixed
observer sets his clock to compute the time required for the ray to traverse the
length of the moving train. According to the second hypothesis, the speed of
light inside the moving train is C ' relative to the fixed observer, where
C ' = C 2 − V 2 . Thus the time required for the ray of light to traverse the
length of the moving train is ∆t , where

∆L ∆L
∆t = =
C' C2 −V 2

From the second hypothesis we propose, C ' does not depend on the direction
of the transmitted ray of light comparing with the direction of the velocity of
the train. Also, the above equation is in contrast with the Lorentz
transformation equations which are are built on the concepts of continuity,

3
causality, and determinism. In our work, we believe in discontinuity, non-
causality and indeterminism. The measurement that is taken in the equation
above is taken from a wave function and to get another measurement you
should use another wave function and vise versa. Those wave functions are
unrelated. Also, the Lorentz transformation equations proposed that we can
measure the velocity of the train and its location at the same time. That is in
contrast with the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg.

Therefore from equation (2.1.1), we get

∆L = C∆t 0
Then
C∆t 0
∆t =
C2 −V 2
Thus
∆t 0
∆t = (2.1.2)
V2
1− 2
C

Where ∆t 0 is the time required to the ray of light to pass the length of the train
when it is at rest.

In the derivation of equation (2.1.2), we considered that the fixed observer on

the earth's surface will measure the length of the moving train to be equal to
∆L as it is at rest. That is in contrast with Einstein's length contraction.

Equation (2.1.2) indicates that the time separation of any event in any moving
frame with constant velocity V is greater than the rest time separation, (when
the frame is at rest) for any inertial frame of reference external to the moving
frame.

(2.2) Now, suppose one of the riders of the moving train sets his clock inside
the train to measure the time required for the light beam to pass the length of
his train during the motion. According to equation (2.1.2), the time separation
for any event happening in the train, is greater when it is moving than when
it is at rest for the reference frame of the earth surface. Because the clock's
motion on the train is considered as events occurring inside the train, it will
be slower than the clock of the fixed observer in the reference frame of the
earth surface. Now, if we assume both the observer and the rider will agree
on the beginning of the event and its end inside the moving train, then if the
observer computes the time, via his clock as ∆t for the light beam to pass the

4
length of the moving train, then the rider will compute the time ∆t ' via his
clock, where

∆t ' = R 1− ∆t

1
Where R = . Since from equation (2.1.2)
V2
1− 2
C

∆t = R ∆t 0
Thus we get
∆t ' = ∆t 0

From the above equation, we find that the time separation of the event inside
the train that is measured by the rider via his clock during the motion is equal
to the rest time separation of the same event (the measured time when the
train is at rest). From this, we can write equation (2.1.2) as

∆t = R ∆t ' (2.2.1)

Accordingly, we can predict that the speed of light inside the moving train for
the rider is equal to light speed in a vacuum. This agrees with the first
hypothesis of the theory. As a result of the slowing of light speed inside the
moving train for the reference frame on the earth's surface, it made time slow
(movement of clocks) inside the train. That made the measurement of light
speed inside the train to be the same as the speed of light in a vacuum for the
rider.

(2.3) Now suppose the stationary observer desires to compare the motion of
the clock of the moving rider with the motion of his clock. According to
equation (2.1.2), and, because the motion of the clock of the rider is an event
inside the moving train, thus the clock will be slower when the train is
moving than when it is at rest for the observer in the reference frame of the
earth's surface. If the observer computes the time ∆t at this instant, he will
find that the clock of the rider will compute the time ∆t ' where

∆t ' = R −1 ∆t

(2.4) now, suppose the rider of the moving train desires to use the clock of the
stationary observer for computing the time required to the light beam to pass

5
the length of his train. The time which will be measured by the stationary
observer via his clock is ∆t where

∆t = R∆t 0

If we consider the rider is moving with constant velocity forward, then the
clock of the observer should be moving with the same velocity in the opposite
direction for the rider. In this case, the rider’s frame is considered to be a
reference frame, and the clock as a frame moving with constant velocity V for
him. According to the preceding discussion, the clock will be slower for the
rider than the observer for the reference frame of the earth surface. Thus, if
the observer computes the time ∆t by his clock, at this instant, the rider will
compute the time ∆t ' by the same clock {or by his clock inside the train as we
have seen in (2.2), whereas

∆t ' = R −1 ∆t

For more clarification, suppose the length of the train is 21m , and its speed is
0.87C . If the clock computes by ns where 1 ns = 10 −9 sec ., then the time
required to the light beam to pass the length of the moving train for the fixed
observer is ∆t , where from equation (2.1.2) we get

∆t 0
∆t =
1 − (0.87) 2
And

21
∆t 0 = = 70ns .
3.0 × 10 8
Where, we propose C = 3 × 10 8 m / s . Thus, we have
70ns.
∆t = = 140ns.
0 .5

Thus, the fixed observer will compute 140ns via his clock for the light beam to
pass the length of the moving train. For the rider, the time is ∆t ' where from
equation (2.2.1) we get

V2
∆t ' = 1 − ∆t = 70 ns.
C2

So, the rider will compute 70ns. for the light beam to pass the length of his
train. Both, the observer and the rider will agree on the beginning and ending
of the event, and when both used the same clock to compute the time

6
separation for this event, the clock was slower for the rider than the observer.
So, when the observer has 140ns for the time separation, at that instant, the
rider receives only the first 70ns of the clock's motion that were experienced
by the fixed observer in the past. His present at this instant is at 140ns , while
the present of the rider is at 70ns . Subsequently, we can consider the rider
lives in the past of the observer on the earth surface during his motion.

In this example we find that when both the rider and the observer use the
same clock, each one creates his own clock to get his reading. That is in
contrast with the objective existence of the phenomenon. In our example, we
determine that the observer is the main participant in the formulation of the
phenomenon as in the concepts of the Copenhagen School.

(2.5) Now suppose train ( α ) is at rest and its length is ∆L . Also there is train
( β ) moving with constant velocity V and there is a fixed observer on the
earth's surface. Both the fixed observer and the rider of train β will measure
the time required for the light beam to traverse the length of the fixed train α .
For the observer, the measured time according to his clock is ∆t 0 where

∆L
∆t 0 =
C

For the rider of train β , since train α is moving with constant velocity –V,
thus the speed of light inside it compared with the reference frame of the
fixed observer is C ' = C 2 − V 2 , thus the rider should be computing the time
∆t r for the event where

∆L
∆t r = = R∆t 0
C2 −V 2

where, ∆t 0 is the time separation of the event when the rider's train is
stationary. Because the rider’s clock is slowed during the motion for the
reference frame of the earth surface {as we have seen in (2.2)}, thus, the rider
will compute the time ∆t ' , where

∆t ' = R −1 ∆t r = ∆t 0 (2.5.1)

Equation (2.5.1) indicates that, both the rider of the moving train β and the
fixed observer will measure the same time separation for the light beam to
pass the length of the fixed train α . That leads us to say that the measured

7
speed of light is the same for each inside fixed train α and is equal to C (the
speed of light in a vacuum). Thus, we can write equation (2.5.1) as

∆L
∆t ' = (2.5.2)
C

If both the fixed observer and the rider of the moving train β agree on the
time required for the light beam to pass the length of the fixed train α , then,
they will differ as to the beginning and ending of the event. We have seen
previously that the rider of the moving train was living in the past of the
observer on the earth's surface during the motion.

To clarify, let us assume both the observer and the rider agree on the
beginning of the event, on the condition of

V = 0 at ∆t = 0
V = 0.87C at ∆t > 0

when the earth's clock points to zero at ∆t = 0 , (before transmitting the light
beam,) the velocity of train β of the rider was equal to zero, and at the first
moment of transmitting the light beam at ∆t > 0 , the velocity of the train was
equal to 0.87C ( in this case, for simplicity, we neglect the effect of
acceleration). Subsequently, the fixed observer and the rider of the moving
train β will agree on the beginning of transmitting the light beam inside the
fixed train α , and will differ on its end.

If the length of fixed train α is 21m , then, the time required for the light beam
to pass the length of fixed train α for the fixed observer is

21
∆t = = 70ns.
3.0 × 10 8

For the rider of the moving train β from equation (2.5.2),

21
∆t ' = 70ns.
3.0 × 10 8

From that, we see that both the rider and the observer measure the same time
separation of the event. Bbut because the time (clock) in the frame of the
moving train β is slower than the time (clock) of the fixed observer for the
reference frame of the earth's surface, then the light beam will arrive at the
end of the fixed train α faster for the observer than the rider. Thus, if the

8
observer confirms that the light beam arrived at the end of the train, at this
instant, the rider confirms that the light beam arrived at the middle of the
train. If the observer confirms that the light beam traversed distance ∆x , at
this instant the rider will confirm that the light beam traversed distance ∆x' ,
where, ∆x' = R −1∆x . Also we get, in this case, ∆y ' = R −1 ∆y , and ∆z ' = R −1 ∆z .
Now, if the observer looks at the clock of the rider, he will confirm that the
clock of the rider computes only 35ns at the moment that his clock
computes 70ns , where we get ∆t ' = R −1∆t . But, if the rider looks at the clock of
the observer, he will confirm that the clock of the observer computes only
35ns , as in his clock, while the observer secures that his clock computes 70ns.

(2.6) Now, if the rider of the moving train observes the clock of the fixed
observer at the condition of

V =0 at ∆t observer = 0
V = 0.87C at 0 < ∆t observer ≤ 4 sec .
V =0 at ∆t observer > 4 sec .

Where, ∆t observer is the reading of the fixed observer from his clock.

We can draw ∆t observer versus ∆t rider for the reference frame of the earth surface
as in figure (2.6.1), where, ∆t rider is the reading of the rider from the clock of
the fixed observer

From figure (2.6.1), we find two straight lines; the first for 0 < ∆t observer ≤ 4 sec .
and its slope =0.5. The second is for ∆t observer > 4 sec ., and its slope =1

We find from the figure, the seconds between 2 < ∆t observer ≤ 4 sec . would not
be determined by the rider where the train of the rider stopped at
∆t observer > 4 sec . He would find that the observer was reading the seconds at
∆t observer > 4 sec ., while his last reading was equal to 2 sec . That means the
events measured by the fixed observer between 2 < ∆t observer ≤ 4 sec . were not
received by the rider of the moving train.

9
 12

10

8
t (rider) sec.
6

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
t (observer) sec.

Figure (2.6.1): t (observer) versus t (rider).

From the figure we get, the observer is the main participant in formulation of
the phenomenon, where each one creates his own clock during the motion.
That is in contrast with the objective existence of the phenomenon.

For greater clarification, let us study this example. Assume the train started at
rest to move with constant velocity V at the first moment of sunrise at 5 AM
as in figure (2.6.2). Now if both the train rider and the earth observer observe
the sun's motion, we know from the preceding discussion, the moving train
rider will get the events regarding the sun's motion slower than the earth
observer for the reference frame of the earth's surface. For more clarification,
suppose the train's velocity is 0.87 C . Now if the earth observer registers the
sun's motion at time t=1 PM, the time of the train rider will be
V2
∆t ' = 1 − ∆t = (0.5) × 8 = 4
C2
Thus
t ' = 5 + 4 = 9 AM
Thus, the train rider will observe the sun's motion at 9AM. That is considered
the past for the earth observer. Where the train rider (in his present, lives in
the past of the earth observer at 9AM, and views the events which happened
on earth at 9AM, while the present of the earth is at 1PM.

10
Figure (1): A
At time 5 am for A
both the earth
observer and the
train rider, the
train started at
rest to move
with velocity V.

Figure (1): B
After 8 hours -via B
the clock of the
earth observer
for starting of the
moving train, the
earth observer
registers the time
1 PM via his
o’clock.

Figure (1): C
At the moment C
that the earth
observer registers
the time 1pm via
his clock, the train
rider registers the V
time 9 am via his
clock

Figure (1): A illustrates the sun at 5 am for the earth observer and the train
rider. At this instant, the train started at rest to move with velocity V. B is the
observation of the earth observer for the sun's motion at 1PM via his clock. C is
the observation of the moving train rider for the sun's motion at 9Am via his
clock.

11
3- Velocity in the new relativity theory:

(3.1) Now let us go back to the moving train rider and the stationary observer
on the earth's surface, where both of do an experiment to measure the velocity
of the moving train. This can be done with two pylons. The distance between
them is ∆x . Now, the measured time according to the earth observer for the
train to pass the distance ∆x is ∆t with respect to his clock, so the measured
velocity for him is Vobserver , whereas

∆x
Vobserver = =V
∆t

From the last equation we can observe that it is not inconsistent with
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, since Vobserver and ∆x were not measured
simultaneously. When the earth observer determines the train location
precisely at ∆x , he can predict by the last equation that the train velocity was
equal to Vobserver .

Now, when the earth observer determines that the train reached the end of its
journey at ∆x , at this instant, according to the train rider (during his motion)
the train did not reach the end of the journey, and did not traverse the
V2
distance ∆x . The train reached the distance ∆x' where ∆x' = 1 − ∆x , and
C2
this distance was passed at a time separation equal to ∆t ' , where

V2
∆t ' = 1 − ∆t
C2

Therefore the measured velocity with respect to the moving train rider will be
Vrider , whereas

∆x' R −1 ∆x
Vrider = = = Vobserver = V (3.1.1)
∆t ' R −1∆t

From that we find that both the earth observer and the rider on the moving
train will measure the same train velocity during the motion, where both will
measure the actual velocity. In the special theory of relativity of Einstein, the
measured distance for the moving train rider between the two pylons will be
∆x' where

∆x' = R −1∆x

12
Therefore the distance between the two pylons will decrease during the train's
motion according to the train rider. That is because Einstein believed in the
objective existence of the phenomenon. According to this concept, both the
earth observer and the moving train rider will be in agreement for the start of
moving the train from the first pylon and then will agree on the train reaching
the end of its journey at the second pylon. Subsequently, according to the
reciprocity principle, the earth observer will also judge the train's length will
V2
be decreased according to the factor 1− in the direction of the velocity.
C2
But in our new relativity theory both; the earth observer and the moving train
rider will measure the same train length in the velocity direction (say in
x − direction) and also in any direction y and z , also both of them will be
agreed on the measured distance between the two pylons, but the train's
motion makes the rider get his measurements at a slower rate than the earth
observer. This is in agreement with Copenhagen School concepts, where the
observer plays the major role in determining phenomena. Both the earth
observer and the rider make their own determination of the motion of the
train and clocks.

(3.2) Now suppose, there is a stationary train α on the earth's surface which
contains a clock. As we have seen in (2.4), the rider of the moving train β will
determine the clock motion of train α is identical with his clock motion,
where the time that is measured via his clock is equal to the time that is
measured via the clock of train α . Also the earth observer will determine that
the motion of the clock of train α is identical with his clock motion. Now if
train α is moving with constant velocity Vα between the two pylons, then as
we have seen in (3.1), both the earth observer and the moving train rider β
will agree on the actual measured velocity of the train as Vα . Now if it sends a
light beam along the length of train α during its motion, then the required
time for the light beam to pass train α 's length with respect to the earth
observer is ∆t where

∆t 0
∆t =
2
Vα
1−
C2

But according to the train β rider, the time separation of this event is ∆t ' ,
where

13
 ∆t 0 '
∆t ' =
2
Vα
1−
C2

Where ∆t 0 ' is the time separation to the light beam to pass the length of train
α with respect to the moving train β rider, when train α is at rest. And, since
both the earth observer and the moving train β rider will agree on the time
separation of this event when train α is at rest as in equation. (2.5.1), thus we
get

∆t ' 0 = ∆t 0

Subsequently, we get

∆t ' 0 = ∆t

From the last equation, we know that both the earth observer and the moving
train β rider will be agreed on the time separation for the light beam to
traverse the length of moving train α , but both of them will disagree on the
beginning of the event and its end. Also, both will be agree, that the clock
motion on the moving train α will be slower than their clocks and they will
be agreed on the slowing rate.

We get from this example that the motion of train β did not effect the rider's
measurement, where his measurement was identical with the earth observer's
measurement during the motion, but the motion of train β made the rider get
this measurement at a slower rate than the earth observer.

(3.3) Suppose a sphere is moving with constant velocity V p on the earth's

surface. As we have seen previously, both the earth observer and the moving
train rider will be agreed on the sphere's velocity on the earth surface, where
both of them will measure the velocity to be equal to the actual velocity V p .
Now, if this sphere entered the moving train and traversed the length of the
train, then the time separation for the rider is ∆t ' via his clock and ∆t for the
observer via his clock where

∆t = R ∆t '
====================
In this case, both the earth observer and the train rider should agree on the
beginning of the event from the initial sphere's motion inside the train and the
final; when the sphere traverses train length ∆L , but they will differ on the

14
measured time separation. Subsequently the measured velocity for the sphere
inside the moving train according to the train rider is Vrider , where

∆L
Vrider = = Vp
∆t '

The last equation agrees with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle since Vrider
and ∆L were not measured simultaneously. At the instant that the rider
exactly determines the sphere's position on ∆L inside the train, he predicts
from the last equation that the sphere was moving with velocity Vrider inside
his train. According to the earth observer, it is Vobserver , where

∆L V 2 ∆L
Vobserver = = 1− 2
∆t C ∆t '

Therefore
V2
Vobserver = 1 − Vp (3.3.1)
C2

From equation (3.3.1) we find that the sphere's velocity inside the moving
train with respect to the earth observer is less than the sphere velocity on the
V2
earth's surface by the factor 1 − . The sphere velocity inside the train
C2
according to the earth observer is less than that of the train rider.

(3.4) Now suppose that both the earth observer and the train rider desire
applying this condition

V =0 At x=0
V = 0.87 C At 0< x ≤ 100m
V = 0 At x = 100

This condition illustrates the moving train's velocity in terms of x , where x is

the train's traversed distance according to the earth observer. Figure (3.4.1),
illustrates the relationship between x and x' , where x' is the train's traversed
distance according to the train rider.

15
 120

100

80
x'(m)

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
x(m)

Figure (3.4.1): illustrates the relationship between x and x' .

From figure (3.4.1) we find that the relationship between x and x' is a straight
V2
line. Its slope is 1− , and we find that when the earth observer judges
C2
that the train covered 100m , then the rider will judge (during the motion) that
his train passed only 50m . When the train is at rest at x = 100m , and the rider
leaves his train, he will be surprised that the traversed distance is 100m , not
50m . Subsequently he will avow that his train transferred from 50m to 100m
in one instant, and the distance in the interval 50< ∆x <100 was not covered by
his train.

4- Mass in the New Relativity Theory

(4.1) In this section, we shall derive the measured mass for the moving train
according to the earth observer.
Suppose that both the earth observer and the train rider agreed at time ∆t = 0 ,
the train velocity was equal to zero. Att ∆t >0, the train moved with constant
velocity V, and after the train traversed distance ∆x according to the earth
observer, the train stopped. In this case, the earth observer records according
to his clock, the time ∆t for the train to traverse distance ∆x . Therefore he
will predict the train was moving with velocity Vobserver , where

∆x
Vobserver = =V
∆t

16
Then the measured train momentum according to him was equal to Pobserver
where

∆x
p observer = m Vobserver = m = mV
∆t

Where m is the measured mass according to the earth observer during its
motion. But according to the train rider, when the train stopped, the traversed
distance is ∆x' where ∆x' = ∆x as in figure (3.4.1). On the other hand, the rider
will judge that this distance was traversed in time separation ∆t ' according to
his clock, where

V2
∆t ' = 1 − ∆t
C2

where ∆t is the measured time according to the earth observer. Subsequently

the rider will predict that the train velocity was Vrider where

∆x' ∆x Vobserver V
Vrider = = = = (4.1.2)
∆t ' V 2 V 2
V2
1− ∆t 1− 2 1− 2
C2 C C

We find that, equation (4.1.2) disagrees with equation (3.1.1), where we find
from equation (3.1.1) that Vrider = Vobserver = V , but equation (4.1.2) indicates to

∆x' ∆x V
Vrider = = =
∆t ' V 2
V2
1− 2 1− 2
C C

That is because equation (3.1.1) applied during the train motion where the
V2
traversed distance according to the rider is ∆x' wherein ∆x' = 1 − ∆x , where
C2
∆x is the traversed distance according to the earth observer. But ∆x' = ∆x ,
when the train is at rest as in figure (3.4.1). Therefore the rider will judge that
the train was moving with momentum Prider , where

V
Prider = m0Vrider = m0 (4.1.3)
V2
1− 2
C

17
m0 is the train rest mass, as we have assumed that the mass of the moving
train according to the train rider is the rest mass. Now if we assume that both
the train rider and the earth observer agreed on the momentum measurement
of the moving train, subsequently after the equivalence between the two
equations (4.1.1) and (4.1.3) we get

V
mV = m0
V2
1−
C2
From the last equation, we can get
m0
m= (4.1.4)
V2
1− 2
C

Equation (4.1.4) represents the relativistic mass of the moving train according
1
to the earth observer, where the train mass increases by the factor
V2
1− 2
C
during its motion.

(4.2) Suppose the rider on the moving train β desires measuring the mass of
the stationary train α on the earth's surface. As we have seen he will judge
that the clock motion of train α is symmetrical with his clock motion, where
the time that will be measured via the train α clock equals the time that will
be measured via his clock, which means that ∆t ' = ∆t" , where ∆t ' is the time
separation that the rider will measure via his clock, and ∆t" is the time
separation that the rider will measure via the train α clock. Now if train β
passed the distance ∆x' according to the rider of β , then we can consider for
the rider of train β , that train α is moving with constant velocity V , but in the
opposite direction to the train velocity β . Subsequently it may be considered
that train α passed distance ∆x' with respect to train β rider. Therefore the
measured momentum of train α with respect to the train β rider is Prider
where

∆x'
Prider = m (4.2.1)
∆t '

where m is the relativistic mass of train α with respect to the rider of the
moving train β . But according to the measured momentum for the train α

18
with respect to itself according to the reference frame of the moving train β is
Ptrain (according to the clock of train α with respect to rider of train β ), where

∆x' ∆x'
Prider = m0 = m0 (4.2.2)
∆t" ∆t '

where m0 is the rest mass of train α .

Now when we equivalent the two equations (4.2.1) and (4.2.2) we get

∆x' ∆x'
m = m0
∆t ' ∆t '

Subsequently, we get

m = m0 (4.2.3)

From the last equation we find that the rider of the moving train β will
measure (during the motion) the mass of the stationary train α to be equal to
the rest mass according to the stationary observer on the earth's surface.

(4.3) Suppose now train α was moving with constant velocity Vα between the
two pylons, and after the train covered the distance ∆x' between the two
pylons according to the rider of the moving train β , then the train stopped. In
this case, the rider will judge that the train passed this distance in time
separation ∆t ' according to his clock, and subsequently the rider will predict
that train α was moving with momentum Prider , whereas

∆x'
Prider = mVrider = m (4.3.1)
∆t '

Where m is the relativistic mass of the moving train α according to the rider
of the moving train β . But according to the moving train α , the distance ∆x'
was covered in time separation ∆t ' ' according to his clock with respect to the
reference frame of the moving train β , where

2
V
∆t ' ' = 1 − α 2 ∆t '
C

19
and subsequently the momentum of train α can be predicted according to
itself with respect to the reference frame of the moving train β to be Ptrain ,
where
∆x' ∆x'
Ptrain = m0 = m0 (4.3.2)
∆t ' ' V
2

1 − α 2 ∆t '
C

And by the equivalence of these two equations (4.3.1) and (4.3.2), we get

m0
m= (4.3.3)
2
Vα
1−
C2

equation (4.3.3) represents the measured relativistic mass of the moving train
α with respect to the rider of the moving train β , whereas we find according
to equation (4.3.3) that the train α mass will increase during the motion by the
1
factor , according to the rider of the moving train β , and also
2
V
1− α
C2
according to the earth observer. Whereas we find that both the earth observer
and the rider of the moving train β will agree on the measured relativistic
mass of moving train α , but the motion of train β made the rider get his
measurement at a slower rate than the earth observer.

5- The Equivalence of Mass and Energy

The kinetic energy of the moving train α , according to the earth observer or
according to the rider of moving train β is defined through calculating the
work done by increasing train α velocity from zero to Vα . Suppose a force F
affects train α parallel to the distance dx , subsequently the work done on
train α is dw , where

dw = F .dx

Newton's second law is defined as

d
F= (mVα )
dt

20
Where m is the relativistic mass of train α according to the earth observer or
the rider of the moving train β . From that we get

d
dw = (mVα )dx
dt

dx
Since Vα = , therefore we get
dt

dw = Vα d (mVα )

And as we saw previously the relativistic mass given by the

m0
relation m = , where m0 is the rest mass, subsequently we can get
2
Vα
1−
C2
 
Vα  
Vα
w = m0 C ∫ Vα d 
2 
 2 
0
 1 − Vα 
 C2 

And by integrating the last equation, we get

 
 
2 1
w = m0 C − 1
 2 
 1 − Vα 
 C2 

And because of the work done makes an increase in the velocity from zero
to Vα , this makes a change in the kinetic energy of train α from zero to E k .
Subsequently we get

 
 
2
− 1
1
E k = m0 C (5.1)
 2 
 1 − Vα 
 C 2 

Equation (5.1) represents the kinetic energy of the moving train α according
to both the earth observer and the rider of the moving train β , where both of
them will agree on the measurement of E k .

21
Thus, we can write equation (5.1) as

mC 2 = E k + m0 C 2 (5.2)

Where mC 2 is the total energy of train α . Subsequently we can express the

total energy E for any body according to any reference frame as

E = mC 2 (5.3)

Equation (5.3) refers to equivalence of mass and energy where due to this
equation we get that both energy and mass are two faces for one currency.

6- The Endured Energy

As we know from Quantum Theory that energy is considered as photons, and

the rest mass of these photons equals to zero, and we can express the photon
energy through the relation

E = hν (5.2.1)

Where E is the photon energy, h is plank’s constant and ν is the wave

frequency, and from the equivalent of mass and energy we can find the
equivalent mass m to a photon having energy E as

hν
m= (5.2.2)
C2

Now suppose a train moving with constant velocity V . As we saw previously

the clock motion of this train will be slower than the clock motion of the earth
observer according to the reference frame of the earth's surface. If the earth
observer measures the time separation ∆t via his earth clock, then he will
measure the time separation ∆t ' via the clock of the moving train, where
V2
∆t ' = 1 − ∆t . And since the wave frequency is defined as the cycle
C2
number in a unit of time, subsequently the wave frequency which exists on
the earth surface according to the earth observer is given by the relation

1
ν= (5.2.3)
∆t 0

22
If this wave enters the moving train, then the wave frequency becomes ν '
according to the earth observer where

V2
1−
ν '=
1
= C2
∆t ∆t 0

And from that we get

V2
ν '= 1− 2 ν (5.2.4)
C

From equation (5.2.4) we get that the wave frequency inside the moving train
V2
should be less than on the earth's surface by a factor of 1 − 2 . Subsequently
C
the endured energy E ' of this photon inside the moving train is equal to

V2
E ' = hν ' = 1 − 2 hν
C

And from equation (5.2.1), we get

V2
E' = 1 − E (5.2.5)
C2

Equation (5.2.5) represents the endured energy inside the moving train
according to the reference frame of the earth's surface in terms of the photon
energy E . The difference of the endured energy ∆E of the train from its rest
and its motion with constant velocity V on the earth surface is given by the
relation

 V2 
∆E = E 1 − 1 − 2  (5.2.6)
 C 

REFERENCES:
(1) Heisenberg, W., "Physics and Phylosophy", (1958), Allien and Unwin.
(2) Pais, A., "Einstein and The Quantum theory", (1979),Rev. of Modern Physics, vol.
51, No. 4.

23
(3) Stapp, H. "The Copenhagen School Interpretation and the nature of space-time",
(1972), American Journal of Physics, 40, 1098.
(4) Roland, W. Clark, "Einstein: The Life and Time", (1979), Hodder Stoughton,
London, Sydney, Auckland, Toronto.
(5) Robert, E., "Quantum Physics of Atoms, Melecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles",
(1985), John Wiley and Sons, 2nd ed..
(6) Richard, L. Liboff, "Introductory Quantum Mechanics", (1992), Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, Inc., 2nd ed..
(7) Einstein, A., "Autobiographical notes", in P. A. Schilpp, editor, Albert Einstein;
Philosopher-Scientist.
(8) H. J., Pain, " The Physics of Vibrations and Waves", (1993),John Wiley & Sons, 4th
ed..
(9) Jerry, B. Marion, Stephen, T. Thornton, "Classical Dynamics of Particles &
Systems", (1988), Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 3rd ed..
(10) Henry, Semat, "Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics", (1962), Holt Rinehart
Winston, 4th ed..
(11) Popper, K. R., "Objective Knowledge", (1983), Oxford at the Clarendon Press.
(12) Bohm, D., "Causality and Chance in Modern Physics", (1984), Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
(13) Heisenberg, W., "Physics and beyond", (1971), London Allen & Unwin.
(14) W. Cropper, "The Quantum Pysics", (1970), Oxford.
(15) W. Rosser, "An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity", (1972), Butterworth.

24