text:
# Precise measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment

## Abstract

A precise measurement of the anomalous $`g`$ value, $`a_\mu `$$`=(g2)/2`$, for the positive muon has been made at the Brookhaven Alternating Gradient Synchrotron. The result $`a_{\mu ^+}=11659202(14)(6)\times 10^{10}(1.3\mathrm{ppm})`$ is in good agreement with previous measurements and has an error one third that of the combined previous data. The current theoretical value from the standard model is $`a_\mu `$(SM)$`=11659159.6(6.7)\times 10^{10}(0.57`$ ppm) and $`a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})`$$`a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})=43(16)\times 10^{10}`$ in which $`a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})`$ is the world average experimental value.

PACS number: 14.60.Ef 13.40.Em

Precise measurement of the anomalous $`g`$ value,  $`a_\mu `$$`=(g2)/2`$ , of the muon provides a sensitive test of the standard model of particle physics and new information on speculative theories beyond it. Compared to the electron, the muon $`g`$ value is more sensitive to standard model extensions, typically by a factor of $`(m_\mu /m_e)^2`$. In this Letter we report a measurement of $`a_\mu `$for the positive muon from Brookhaven AGS experiment 821, based on data collected in 1999.

The principle of the experiment, previous results, and many experimental details have been given in earlier publications . Briefly, highly polarized $`\mu ^+`$ of $`3.09\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ from a secondary beamline are injected through a superconducting inflector into a storage ring $`14.2\mathrm{m}`$ in diameter with an effective circular aperture $`9\mathrm{cm}`$ in diameter. The superferric storage ring has a homogeneous magnetic field of $`1.45\mathrm{T}`$, which is measured by an NMR system relative to the free proton NMR frequency. Electrostatic quadrupoles provide vertical focusing. A pulsed magnetic kicker gives a $`10\mathrm{mrad}`$ deflection which places the muons onto stored orbits. The muons start in $`50`$ns bunches and debunch with a decay time of about $`20\mu `$s due to their $`0.6\%`$ momentum spread. Positrons are detected using 24 lead/scintillating fiber electromagnetic calorimeters read out by waveform digitizers. The waveform digitizer and NMR clocks were phase-locked to the Loran C frequency signal.

The muon spin precesses faster than its momentum rotates by an angular frequency $`\omega _a`$ in the magnetic field $`B`$ weighted over the muon distribution in space and time. The quantity $`a_\mu `$is

$$a_\mu =\frac{\omega _a}{\frac{e}{m_\mu c}B},$$
(1)
where $`\omega _a`$is unaffected by the electrostatic field for muons with $`\gamma =29.3`$. Parity violation in the decay $`\mu ^+e^+\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _e`$ causes positrons to be emitted with an angular and energy asymmetry. Because of the Lorentz boost, the positron emission angle with respect to the muon spin direction in the muon rest frame is strongly coupled to its energy in the laboratory frame. The number of decay positrons with energy greater than $`E`$ is described by

$$N(t)=N_0(E)e^{t/(\gamma \tau )}\left[1+A(E)\mathrm{sin}(\omega _at+\varphi _a(E))\right]$$
(2)
in which the time dilated lifetime $`\gamma \tau 64.4\mu \mathrm{s}`$. Some $`140`$ $`g2`$ periods of $`4.37\mu \mathrm{s}`$ were observed.

Most experimental aspects of the data taking in 1999 were the same as in 1998. However, some improvements were made. Care was taken in tuning the AGS ejection system to minimize background from any extraneous proton beam extracted during the muon storage time. Scintillating fiber detectors which could be moved in and out of the storage region were used to study beam properties. Scintillation counters in front of five calorimeters were used to measure muon losses from the storage ring.

The principal new feature of the 1999 run is the 20- fold increase in data collected. During a data acquisition time of 500 hours, we obtained about $`2.9`$ billion decay positrons with energies greater than $`1.0\mathrm{GeV}`$. The AGS delivered $`4\times 10^{13}`$ protons of $`24`$GeV in six bunches, separated by $`33`$ms, over its $`2.5`$s cycle. This resulted in $`5\times 10^4`$ stored muons per cycle.

The magnetic field $`B`$ is obtained from NMR measurements of the free proton resonance frequency $`\omega _p`$. Seventeen NMR probes are mounted in an array on a trolley which moves on a fixed track inside the muon storage ring vacuum. The trolley probes are calibrated with respect to a standard spherical H2O probe to an accuracy of $`0.2\mathrm{ppm}`$ before and after data-taking periods. Interpolation of the field in the periods between trolley measurements, which are made on average every three days, is based on the readings of about 150 fixed NMR probes distributed around the ring in the top and bottom walls of the vacuum chamber. Figure 1 shows a magnetic field profile averaged over azimuth. The variations in the amplitudes of the multipoles affect $`B`$ by less than $`0.02\mathrm{ppm}`$. The average readings of $`36`$ uniformly distributed fixed probes are maintained to $`0.1\mathrm{ppm}`$ by feedback to the main magnet power supply.

The $`1.45`$T magnetic field of the superconducting inflector is well shielded from the storage region by flux trapping. However, over an azimuthal angle of $`1^{}`$, a residual fringe field reduces the storage ring central field by about $`600\mathrm{ppm}`$, increasing to $`3000`$ppm at the edge of the aperture. This fringe field reduces the field homogeneity at large positive radial and negative vertical distances (Fig. 1).

The magnetic field is weighted with the muon distribution. Four thousand simulated muons were tracked for 100 turns through a field mapped by trolley measurements to evaluate the field muons encounter. The result agrees with $`B`$ measured with the trolley probes, averaged over the azimuth, and taken at the beam center.

Two largely independent analyses of $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p`$, which is proportional to $`B`$, were made using different selections of NMR probes. Their results agree to within $`0.03\mathrm{ppm}`$. The final value is $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p/2\pi =61791256\pm 25\mathrm{Hz}(0.4\mathrm{ppm})`$. Table I lists the systematic errors.   TABLE I.: Systematic errors for the $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p`$ analysis

Source of errors Size \[ppm\]    Absolute calibration of standard probe $`0.05`$  Calibration of trolley probes $`0.20`$  Trolley measurements of $`B_0`$ $`0.10`$  Interpolation with fixed probes $`0.15`$  Inflector fringe field $`0.20`$  Uncertainty from muon distribution $`0.12`$  Others $``$ $`0.15`$  Total systematic error on $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p`$ $`0.4`$      $``$ higher multipoles, trolley temperature and its power supply voltage response, and eddy currents from the kicker.

The frequency $`\omega _a`$ is obtained from the time distribution of decay $`e^+`$ counts. The $`e^+`$ are detected by calorimeters whose photomultiplier signals have a typical FWHM of $`5`$ns. The signals are sampled every 2.5 ns by 8-bit waveform digitizers (WFD) with at least $`16`$ samples per $`e^+`$ event. The samples are used to determine $`e^+`$ times and energies, and for pulse overlap studies. The pulse-reconstruction algorithm fits signals above baseline to an average pulse shape, determined for each calorimeter individually. Multiple pulses can be resolved if their separation exceeds 3 to 5 ns. Systematic effects associated with the algorithm were extensively studied.

Whereas for the 1998 data, muon decay and spin precession (Eq. 2) was adequate to describe the $`e^+`$ time spectrum, the higher count rate and much larger data sample for 1999 required careful consideration of (1) $`e^+`$ pulses overlapping in time (pileup), (2) coherent betatron oscillations, (3) beam debunching, (4) muon losses, and (5) detector gain stability during the muon storage time.

(1) The number of pileup pulses in the reconstructed data is proportional to the instantaneous counting rate squared and to the minimum pulse separation time of the reconstruction algorithm. It amounts to 1% when the fits of $`\omega _a`$to the data are started, and distorts the $`e^+`$ time spectrum because of misidentification of the number, energies, and times of the positrons. Since the phase $`\varphi _a(E)`$ (cf. Eq. 2) depends on the energies of the positrons, pileup has a phase which differs from $`\varphi _a`$ leading to an error in $`\omega _a`$. Therefore, the data are corrected prior to fitting by subtracting a constructed pileup spectrum. Positrons found within a window at a fixed time after the pulse that triggers the WFD are treated as if they overlap with the trigger pulse. The width of the window is taken equal to the minimum pulse separation time. Only data with energies at least twice the hardware threshold are fully corrected with this method. Our 1 GeV hardware threshold leads to a choice of $`E2`$ GeV in the $`\omega _a`$ analysis.

The contribution to pileup from signals too small to be reconstructed is not accounted for by the procedure described above. These small signals distort the pulse reconstruction but do not, on average, affect the energy. However, such unseen pulses introduce small time-dependent shifts in $`\varphi _a(E)`$ and $`A(E)`$. The time dependence of the asymmetry, being more sensitive than the phase, is used to set a limit on the shift of $`\omega _a`$.

Fig. 2 shows the agreement between the positron energy spectrum after pileup subtraction and the spectrum when pileup is negligible, together with the uncorrected spectrum. The inset illustrates that the average energy after pileup subtraction is constant with time, as expected. Without accounting for pileup, a shift in $`\omega _a`$of $`0.3`$ppm would result.

(2) The storage ring is a weak focusing spectrometer (field index $`n=0.137`$) with an aperture which is large compared to the $`18(\mathrm{w})\times 57(\mathrm{h})\mathrm{mm}^2`$ inflector aperture. Therefore, the phase space for the betatron oscillations defined by the acceptance of the storage ring is not filled. In combination with imperfect injection angles and an imperfect horizontal injection kick, this results in betatron oscillations of the beam as a whole – coherent betatron oscillations (CBO). These oscillations are observed directly using the fiber monitors. They also modulate the positron time spectra, since the acceptance of a calorimeter depends on the muon decay positions. The dominant effect is due to the horizontal oscillations, which decay with a time constant of $`100\mu `$s.

(3) The cyclotron period of the bunched beam leads to a strong modulation of the decay positron time spectra which remains at $`32\mu `$s when we begin our fits. The modulation structure is eliminated from the time spectra by uniformly randomizing the start time for each detector and each storage fill over the range of one cyclotron period.

(4) Losses of muons during the data collection are minimized by controlled scraping before the data collection is started. The magnitude and time-dependence of remaining losses are studied using coincident signals in the front scintillation counters of three adjacent calorimeters.

(5) Detector gain changes and time shifts are monitored with a pulsed laser system and also using the $`e^+`$ energy spectra. From $`32\mu `$s on, the gains of the detectors except two are stable to within 0.1% over 10 dilated muon lifetimes. The reconstructed times are stable to within $`20`$ps over 200 $`\mu `$s (0.1 ppm).

The raw WFD data were converted into $`e^+`$ energies and times using two independent implementations of the pulse reconstruction algorithm. Four independent analyses of $`\omega _a`$were made. For simplicity of presentation one will be described and the principal differences of the others will be discussed.

The pileup corrected time spectrum for the sum of the detectors is fitted by the function,

$$f(t)=N(t)b(t)l(t).$$
(3)
Here, $`N(t)`$ is the muon decay and precession function of Eq. 2 and $`b(t)`$ is the coherent betatron oscillation function,

$$b(t)=1+A_be^{t^2/\tau _b^2}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _bt+\varphi _b),$$
(4)
and $`l(t)`$ is the muon loss term,

$$l(t)=1+n_le^{t/\tau _l}.$$
(5)
The quantities $`A_b`$, $`\tau _b`$, $`\omega _b`$, and $`\varphi _b`$ denote the CBO amplitude, time dependence, angular frequency, and phase, respectively, and $`n_l`$ and $`\tau _l`$ denote the fraction of lost muons and its time dependence. The CBO frequency $`\omega _b`$ is determined from a Fourier analysis of residuals in a fit of Eq. 2 to the data. The remaining 10 parameters in Eq. 3 are adjusted, in the sense of minimizing $`\chi ^2`$. The frequency $`\omega _a`$correlates strongly only to $`\varphi _a`$. Consequently, $`\omega _a`$is insensitive, unlike $`\chi ^2`$, to the values of the other 8 parameters and to the functional forms of $`b(t)`$ and $`l(t)`$. Fig. 3 demonstrates the good agreement of data and fit, as indicated by $`\chi ^2=3818`$ for 3799 degrees of freedom (dof).

The internal consistency of the results was verified in several ways. As an example, Fig. 4a shows the results when the fit range starts at increasing times after injection and $`\omega _a`$is seen to be constant within statistical errors. Fig. 4b shows the results for fits to the spectra from individual detectors ($`\chi ^2/`$dof$`=30/21`$). The result for $`\omega _a`$obtained from the average of individual detector fits (Fig. 4b) is consistent with the fit to the sum (Fig. 4a) to within $`0.07`$ ppm. The fitted lifetime, after correcting for muon losses, agrees with that expected from special relativity to better than $`0.1\%`$.

Two of the three other analyses used fitting functions similar to Eq. 3. The principal differences between the analysis described and the others consist of a somewhat different choice of data selection and fitting parameters, a refined treatment of detector gain changes, and alternative ways to determine pileup. In one analysis, a pileup correction was made by varying the minimum pulse separation time in the reconstruction algorithm, whereas in the other analysis pileup is incorporated in the fitted function. The pileup phase was fixed to the value obtained from the constructed pileup spectrum. In the fourth analysis, the data are randomly split in four samples $`n_1`$$`n_4`$ which are rejoined in $`u(t)=n_1(t)+n_2(t)`$, $`v(t)=n_3(t\tau _a/2)+n_4(t+\tau _a/2)`$, and the ratio

$$r(t)=\frac{u(t)v(t)}{u(t)+v(t)}=A(E)\mathrm{sin}(\omega _at+\varphi _a(E))+ϵ$$
(6)
where $`\tau _a`$ is an estimate of the $`g2`$ period and the constant $`ϵ1`$. This ratio is largely independent of changes of observed counts on time scales larger than $`\tau _a`$, e.g. the muon lifetime. The ratio can thus be fitted with fewer free parameters and its results have somewhat different systematic uncertainties.

The results from the analyses are found to agree, on $`\omega _a`$ to within $`0.3`$ppm. This is within the statistical variation of $`0.4`$ppm expected from the use of slightly different data in the respective analyses. We combined the results to $`\omega _a/2\pi =229072.8\pm 0.3\mathrm{Hz}`$ (1.3 ppm). The only correction applied to our result was $`+0.81\pm 0.08\mathrm{ppm}`$ for the effects of the electric field and vertical betatron oscillations. The error reflects the total uncertainty, accounts for the strong correlations between the individual results, and is dominated by the statistical contribution. The systematic errors are listed in Table II. The uncorrelated errors were added in quadrature, while the correlated errors were added linearly. Most of the systematics were common to all four analyses. Spin resonances, fit start time, and clock synchronization were considered and each was estimated to be less than $`0.01\mathrm{ppm}`$.   TABLE II.: Systematic errors for the $`\omega _a`$ analysis.    Source of errors Size \[ppm\]    Pileup $`0.13`$  AGS background $`0.10`$  Lost muons $`0.10`$  Timing shifts $`0.10`$  E field and vertical betatron oscillation $`0.08`$  Binning and fitting procedure $`0.07`$  Coherent betatron oscillation $`0.05`$  Beam debunching/randomization $`0.04`$  Gain changes $`0.02`$  Total systematic error on $`\omega _a`$ $`0.3`$

After the $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p`$ and $`\omega _a`$ analyses were finalized, separately and independently, only then was the anomalous magnetic moment evaluated. The result is

$$a_{\mu ^+}=\frac{R}{\lambda R}=11659202(14)(6)\times 10^{10}(1.3\mathrm{ppm})$$
(7)
in which $`R=\omega _a/\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p`$, $`\mu _\mu =e\mathrm{}(1+a_\mu )/(2m_\mu c)`$, and $`\lambda =\mu _\mu /\mu _p=3.18334539(10)`$. This new result is in good agreement with previous measurements and reduces the combined error by a factor of about three.

The theoretical value of $`a_\mu `$in the standard model (SM)  has its dominant contribution from quantum electrodynamics but the weak and strong interactions contribute as well. The value

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})=11659159.6(6.7)\times 10^{10}(0.57\mathrm{ppm})$$
(8)
is the sum of $`a_\mu (\mathrm{QED})=11658470.56(0.29)\times 10^{10}`$ $`(0.025\mathrm{ppm})`$, $`a_\mu (\mathrm{weak})=15.1(0.4)\times 10^{10}`$ $`(0.03\mathrm{ppm})`$, and $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had})=673.9(6.7)\times 10^{10}`$ $`(0.57\mathrm{ppm})`$. The term $`a_\mu (\mathrm{QED})`$ is obtained using the value of $`\alpha `$ from $`a_e(\mathrm{exp})=a_e(\mathrm{SM})`$ , and terms through order $`\alpha ^5`$ are included. The term $`a_\mu `$(weak) includes electroweak contributions of up to two-loop order. The term $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had})`$ arises from virtual hadronic contributions to the photon propagator in $`4^{th}`$ order and $`6^{th}`$ order, where the latter includes light-by-light scattering. The $`4^{th}`$ order term, which provides the largest contribution and uncertainty to $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had})`$ is obtained from measured hadron production cross sections in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions and hadronic $`\tau `$ decay. Additional data on $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions from Novosibirsk and from Beijing and on $`\tau `$ decay from Cornell have not yet been included in the evaluation of $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had})`$.

In Fig. 5, the five most recent measurements of $`a_\mu `$are shown along with the standard model prediction. The difference between the weighted mean of the experimental results, $`a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})=11659203(15)\times 10^{10}(1.3\mathrm{ppm})`$, and the theoretical value from the standard model is

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})=43(16)\times 10^{10}.$$
(9)
The error is the addition in quadrature of experimental and theoretical uncertainties. The difference is $`2.6`$ times the stated error.

Many speculative theories predict deviations from the standard model value for $`a_\mu `$. These include supersymmetry, muon substructure, and anomalous $`W`$ couplings. The muon anomalous $`g`$ value is particularly sensitive to supersymmetry whose contributions to $`a_\mu `$come from smuon-neutralino and sneutrino-chargino loops. In the limit of large tan$`\beta `$, which is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of two Higgs doublets, and for a degenerate spectrum of superparticles with mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$,

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{SUSY})140\times 10^{11}\left(\frac{100\mathrm{GeV}}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\right)^2\mathrm{tan}\beta .$$
(10)
If we ascribe the difference $`a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})`$ to $`a_\mu (\mathrm{SUSY})`$, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the range 4 – 40, then $`\stackrel{~}{m}120`$$`400`$ GeV.

In 2000, approximately four times the total number of positrons were recorded as compared to our 1999 data. Measurements are now underway with negative muons, which will provide a sensitive test of CPT violation.

We thank T. Kirk, D.I. Lowenstein, P. Pile, and the staff of the BNL AGS for the strong support they have given this experiment. We thank D. Cassel, A. Czarnecki, M. Davier, T. Kinoshita, W. Marciano, and J. Urheim for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the German Bundesminister für Bildung und Forschung, the Russian Ministry of Science, and the US-Japan Agreement in High Energy Physics.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

RELATIVELY MOVING SYSTEMS IN “TRUE TRANSFORMATIONS RELATIVITY”

Tomislav Ivezić

Rud er Bošković Institute, P.O.B. 180, 10002 Zagreb, Croatia

ivezic@irb.hr

In this paper the physical systems consisting of relatively moving subsystems are considered in the “true transformations relativity”. It is found in a manifestly covariant way that there is a second-order electric field outside stationary current-carrying conductor. It is also found that there are opposite charges on opposite sides of a square loop with current and these charges are invariant charges.

Key words: covariant length, current, electric field and charge.

Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed
to fade away into mere shadows and only a kind of union of
the two will preserve an independent reality. \- H. Minkowski
1. INTRODUCTION
In the recent paper  I have shown that due to the fundamental difference between the true transformations (TT) and the apparent transformations (AT) (see  and ) one can speak about two forms of relativity: the “TT relativity” and the “AT relativity.” The “TT relativity,” which is a covariant formulation of relativity, is based on the TT of physical quantities as 4-dimensional (4D) spacetime tensors, i.e., on the covariant definition of the spacetime length, and the covariant electrodynamics with 4-vectors $`E^\alpha `$ and $`B^\alpha ,`$ see  and . This formulation of electrodynamics is equivalent to the usual covariant electrodynamics with the electromagnetic field tensor $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$, as shown in . The TT are the transformations of 4D spacetime tensors referring to the same quantity (in 4D spacetime) considered in different inertial frames of reference (IFRs), or in different coordinatizations of some IFR. The TT do conform with the special relativity as the theory of 4D spacetime with pseudo-Euclidean geometry, i.e., they leave the interval $`ds`$ and thus the geometry of spacetime unchanged. An example of the TT are the Lorentz transformations (LT) of 4D tensor quantities. The “AT relativity” is the conventional special relativity based on Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity and on the synchronous definition of the spatial length, i.e., on the AT of the spatial length (the Lorentz contraction, see ) and the time distance (the conventional dilatation of time), and, as shown in  (see also ), on the AT of the electric and magnetic three-vectors (3-vectors) $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ (the conventional transformations of $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$). The AT are not the transformations of 4D spacetime tensors and they do not refer to the same quantity (in 4D spacetime), but, e.g., they refer to the same measurement in different IFRs.

In this paper we investigate physical systems consisting of relatively moving subsystems, as it is a current-carrying conductor (CCC), using a covariant formulation of physical quantities and physical phenomena, i.e., the “TT relativity”. First we examine the covariant definition of length when defined in geometrical terms and in different coordinatizations of an IFR. We also report an expression for the Lorentz transformations, which is independent of the chosen synchronization, i.e., coordinatization of an IFR. Further, the AT of the spatial length - the Lorentz contraction - is examined in detail. Then the covariant definition of length in Einstein’s coordinatization is applied to the consideration of the well-known “relativistic” paradox “Car and garage paradox.” It is found that in the “TT relativity” and, if one wants to retain the connection with the prerelativistic physics in which one deals with the “spatial length”, then only the rest length (volume) of the object is well defined quantity.

From this result and the covariant definition of charge we also find that in the “TT relativity” the charge density as the three-dimensional (3D) quantity has definite physical meaning only for charges at rest. In order to avoid from the beginning the misunderstanding of the “TT relativity” and of our choice of the rest frame of the object, as the starting frame for the definitions of 4D quantities, we emphasize that the “TT relativity” is covariant in the usual sense. In the “TT relativity” one can define 4D physical quantities and investigate physical laws connecting such 4D quantities in any IFR, not only in the rest frame of the object. The LT will correctly connect the results of measurements ofthe same 4D quantity in two, arbitrary, relatively moving IFRs. Thus, the “TT relativity” does not use a preferred reference frame. Our choice of the rest frame of the object does not mean in any way that this frame is a preferred IFR. The rest frame is, in fact, the most convenient for the purpose of comparison with the prerelativistic physics, in which one does not deal with 4D quantities but with “3+1” quantities (the quantities defined in “3+1” space and time), and with the “AT relativity,” in which one works in 4D spacetime but with quantities, e.g., the spatial length, the time distance, the 3-vectors E and B, etc., that are not 4D tensor quantities. Taking this into account we show that the current density 4-vector $`j^\mu `$ for a CCC in an arbitrary IFR is determined as the sum $`j_+^\mu +j_{}^\mu `$, where the current density 4-vectors $`j_+^\mu `$ and $`j_{}^\mu `$ for positive and negative charges, respectively, have to be found in their own rest frames, and then transformed by the Lorentz transformation to the considered IFR. Then in Sec.3.2 we quote the covariant Maxwell equations when written by the electromagnetic field tensor $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ and by the 4-vectors $`E^\alpha `$ and $`B^\alpha ,`$ (both forms were already found in ), and also we report a new form - the covariant Majorana form of Maxwell’s equations. Then the 4-vectors $`E^\alpha `$ and $`B^\alpha `$ are determined for a CCC (instead of the usual 3-vectors $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁)`$ and it is obtained in such a covariant way, i.e., in the “TT relativity,” that, for the observers at rest in the rest frame of that CCC, there is a second-order electric field outside stationary conductor with steady current. Such fields are already theoretically predicted on different grounds in , see also . In contrast to previous works we also find in such a covariant manner that there are opposite charges on opposite sides of a square loop with current and these charges are Lorentz invariant charges. In the usual approach, i.e., in the “AT relativity,” it is found that there is an electric moment $`𝐏`$ for a moving loop with a current. However we find that such loop, regarding the electric effects, *always*, i.e., for a stationary loop as well, behaves at long distances as an electric dipole (4-vector).
2. COVARIANT AND SYNCHRONOUS DEFINITIONS OF
LENGTH
As discussed in , (and ) according to the “modern” point of view the special relativity is the theory of 4D spacetime with pseudo-Euclidean geometry. Quantities of physical interest, both local and nonlocal, are represented in the special relativity by spacetime tensors, i.e., as covariant quantities, and the laws of physics are written in a manifestly covariant way as tensorial equations. The geometry of the spacetime is generally defined by the invariant infinitesimal spacetime distance $`ds`$ of two neighboring points, $`ds^2=dx^ag_{ab}dx^b`$. I adopt the following convention with regard to indices. Repeated indices imply summation. Latin indices $`a,b,c,d,\mathrm{}`$ are to be read according to the abstract index notation, see , Sec.2.4.. They designate geometric objects in 4D spacetime. Thus $`dx^{a,b}`$ and $`g_{ab}`$, and of course $`ds,`$ are defined independently of any coordinate system, e.g., $`g_{ab}`$ is a second-rank covariant tensor (whose Riemann curvature tensor $`R_{bcd}^a`$ is everywhere vanishing; the spacetime of special relativity is a flat spacetime, and this definition includes not only the IFRs but also the accelerated frames of reference). Greek indices run from 0 to 3, while latin indices $`i,j,k,l,\mathrm{}`$ run from 1 to 3, and they both designate the components of some geometric object in some coordinate chart, e.g., $`x^\mu (x^0,x^i)`$ and $`x^\mu (x^0,x^i)`$ are two coordinate representations of the position 4-vector $`x^a`$ in two different inertial coordinate systems $`S`$ and $`S^{},`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the $`4\times 4`$ matrix of components of $`g_{ab}`$ in some coordinate chart.
2.1. The Spacetime or the TT Length
In general, in 4D spacetime of special relativity it is not possible to separate the spatial and temporal parts of $`ds`$, or according to Minkowski’s words, quoted here as a motto, the spatial and temporal parts taken separately loose their physical meaning. Therefore, only the invariant spacetime length (the Lorentz scalar) between two points (events) in 4D spacetime does have definite physical meaning in the “TT relativity” and it is defined as

$$l=(l^ag_{ab}l^b)^{1/2},$$
(1)
where $`l^a(l^b)`$ is the distance 4-vector between two events $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`l^a=x_B^ax_A^a`$, $`x_{A,B}^a`$ are the position 4-vectors, and $`g_{ab}`$ is the metric tensor.

Using different coordinatizations of a given reference frame, which can be realized, for example, by means of different synchronizations, we find different expressions, i.e., different representations of the spacetime length $`l,`$ Eq.(1). Obviously the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ of an event, when written in some coordinatization of an IFR, do not have an intrinsic meaning in 4D spacetime. However the spacetime length $`l`$ (1) does have the same value for all relatively moving inertial coordinate systems and it represents an intrinsic feature of the spacetime.

Different synchronizations are determined by the parameter $`\epsilon `$ in the relation $`t_2=t_1+\epsilon (t_3t_1)`$, where $`t_1`$ and $`t_3`$ are the times of departure and arrival, respectively, of the light signal, read by the clock at $`A`$, and $`t_2`$ is the time of reflection at $`B`$, read by the clock at $`B`$, that has to be synchronized with the clock at $`A`$. Usually physicists prefer Einstein’s synchronization convention with $`\epsilon =1/2`$ in which the measured coordinate velocity of light (the one-way speed of light) is constant and isotropic. A nice example of a non-standard synchronization is “everyday” clock synchronization  in which $`\epsilon =0`$ and there is an absolute simultaneity; see also  for an absolute simultaneity in the special relativity, and for the review on synchronisation and test theories see the recent article . As explained in : “For if we turn on the radio and set our clock by the standard announcement ”…at the sound of the last tone, it will be 12 o’clock,” then we have synchronized our clock with the studio clock in a manner that corresponds to taking $`\epsilon =0`$ in $`t_2=t_1+\epsilon (t_3t_1)`$.”

When Einstein’s synchronization of distant clocks and cartesian space coordinates $`x_e^i`$ are used in an IFR $`S`$ (this coordinatization will be named Einstein’s or “e” coordinatization) then, e.g., the geometric object $`g_{ab}`$ is represented by the $`4\times 4`$ matrix of components of $`g_{ab}`$ in that coordinate chart, i.e., it is the Minkowski metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu e}=diag(1,1,1,1)`$, where “e” stands for Einstein’s coordinatization. With such $`g_{\mu \nu e}`$ the space $`x_e^i`$ and time $`t_e`$ $`(x_e^0ct_e)`$ components of $`x_e^\mu `$ do have their usual meaning. Then $`ds^2`$ can be written with the separated spatial and temporal parts, $`ds^2=(dx_e^idx_{ie})(dx_e^0)^2`$, and the same happens with the spacetime length $`l`$ (1), $`l^2=(l_e^il_{ie})(l_e^0)^2`$. Such separation remains valid in other inertial coordinate systems with the Minkowski metric tensor, and in $`S^{}`$ one finds $`l^2=(l_e^il_{ie}^{})(l_e^0)^2`$, where $`l_e^\mu `$ in $`S^{}`$ is connected with $`l_e^\mu `$ in $`S`$ by the LT.

In the usual form the LT connect two coordinate representations (in the “e” coordinatization) $`x_e^\mu `$, $`x_e^\mu `$ of a given event. $`x_e^\mu `$, $`x_e^\mu `$ refer to two relatively moving IFRs (with the Minkowski metric tensor) $`S`$ and $`S^{},`$

$$x_e^\mu =L^\mu {}_{\nu ,e}{}^{}x_{e}^{\nu },L^0{}_{0,e}{}^{}=\gamma _e,L^0{}_{i,e}{}^{}=L^i{}_{0,e}{}^{}=\gamma _eV_e^i/c,L^i{}_{j,e}{}^{}=\delta _j^i+(\gamma _e1)V_e^iV_{je}/V_e^2,$$

where $`V_e^i=dx_e^i/dt_e`$ are the components of the ordinary velocity 3-vector, and $`\gamma _e(1V_e^2/c^2)^{1/2}`$. As explained in , when such usual representations of pure Lorentz transformations are applied to covariant expressions they destroy the covariant form : “because they employ three-vector notation, because they treat the spatial and temporal components separately, and because they are parametrized by the ordinary velocity three-vector $`𝐕`$.” In order to obtain a covariant expression for $`L^\mu _{\nu ,e}`$ the ordinary velocity is replaced in  by the proper velocity 4-vector $`v_e^\mu dx_e^\mu /d\tau =(\gamma _ec,\gamma _ev_e^i)`$, $`d\tau dt_e/\gamma _e`$ is the scalar proper-time, the unit vector $`n_e^\mu (1,0,0,0)`$ along the temporal axis is introduced, and $`\delta _j^i`$ is replaced with the Minkowski metric tensor $`g^\mu _{\nu e}`$. This shows that the cartesian space coordinates $`x_e^i`$ and Einstein’s synchronization of distant clocks are explicitly chosen in . In such a way the covariant expression for $`L^\mu `$ ν,e in the “e” coordinatization is found in , Eq.(5),

$$L^\mu {}_{\nu ,e}{}^{}L^\mu {}_{\nu ,e}{}^{}(v)=g^\mu {}_{\nu e}{}^{}\frac{2n_e^\mu v_{\nu e}}{c}+\frac{(n_e^\mu +v_e^\mu /c)(n_{\nu e}+v_{\nu e}/c)}{1n_ev_e/c}.$$

Since we want to use the LT in different coordinatizations we generalize the expression for $`L^\mu _{\nu ,e}`$ from  and find

$$L^a{}_{b}{}^{}L^a{}_{b}{}^{}(v)=g^a{}_{b}{}^{}\frac{2n^av_b}{c}+\frac{(n^a+v^a/c)(n_b+v_b/c)}{1nv/c}.$$
(2)
Such form (2) of the LT can be applied to an arbitrary inertial coordinate system in which the metric tensor can be different than the Minkowski metric tensor, and thus the form of the covariant 4D Lorentz transformations (2) is independent of the chosen synchronization, i.e., coordinatization of reference frames. But we have to note that $`n^a`$ in (2) is a specific quantity. Namely it always has to be taken as the unit vector along the temporal axis in the chosen IFR and the chosen coordinatization. Nevertheless $`L^a_b`$ correctly transforms some 4D tensor quantity from an IFR to another relatively moving IFR. For example, when $`L^a_b`$ is applied to the position 4-vector $`x^a`$ one finds (in the abstract index notation)

$$x^a=x^a+\frac{\left[nx(2\gamma +1)vx/c\right]n^a+(nx+vx/c)v^a/c}{1nv/c}.$$
(3)
Let us examine the relations (2) and (3) in two different coordinatizations. First in the “e” coordinatization, in which the Minkowski metric tensor is used, $`n^a`$ becomes $`n_e^\mu (1,0,0,0)`$, $`v_e^\mu =(\gamma _ec,\gamma _ev_e^i)`$, and $`\gamma _e=n_e^\mu v_{\mu e}/c`$, as in . From the general relation $`v^av_a=c^2`$ one finds, in the “e” coordinatization, that $`v_e^0=(c^2+v_e^iv_{ie})^{1/2},`$ which shows that the expression for $`L^\mu _{\nu ,e}`$ is parametrized essentially by the three spatial components $`v_e^i`$ of the proper velocity 4-vector $`v_e^\mu `$. Then, using the above expressions for $`n_e^\mu `$, $`v_e^\mu `$, and $`\gamma _e`$ one finds from (2) and (3) the usual expressions for pure LT, as in , i.e., the above mentioned $`L^\mu _{\nu ,e}`$ and $`x_e^\mu `$, but with $`v_e^i`$ replacing the components of the ordinary velocity 3-vector $`𝐕.`$ Also, we find the above mentioned usual expressions in the “e” coordinatization for $`ds^2=ds_e^2=(dx_e^idx_{ie})(dx_e^0)^2`$ and $`l^2=l_e^2=(l_e^il_{ie})(l_e^0)^2`$,with the separated spatial and temporal parts.

In the similar way we use the relations (2) and (3) to write the corresponding expressions in another coordinatization, “r” coordinatization, of an IFR, which is found in , where “everyday” or “radio” synchronization of distant clocks is used. For simplicity we consider 2D spacetime as in . Then the metric tensor $`g_{ab}`$ becomes $`g_{\mu \nu r}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ where “r” stands for “radio” (it differs from that one in  since the Minkowski tensors are different). The LT $`L_{\nu ,r}^\mu `$ in the “r” coordinatization can be easily found from (2), from the known $`g_{\mu \nu r}`$, with $`n_r^\mu =(1,0)`$ and $`\gamma _r=n_r^\mu v_{\mu r}/c=\gamma _e`$. These relations can be found as in , or by means of the matrix $`T_\nu ^\mu `$, which is given below. Thus the pure Lorentz transformation matrix $`L^a_b`$ (2) becomes in the “r” coordinatization

$$L_{\nu ,r}^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}K\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \beta _r/K\hfill & 1/K\hfill \end{array}\right).$$

Also we find the “r” representation $`x_r^\mu `$ of $`x^a`$ (3),

$$x_r^0=Kx_r^0,x_r^1=(1/K)(\beta _rx_r^0+x_r^1),$$

where $`K=(1+2\beta _r)^{1/2}`$ and $`\beta _r=dx_r^1/dx_r^0`$ is the velocity of the frame $`S^{}`$ as measured by the frame $`S.`$ Further $`ds^2=dx^ag_{ab}dx^b`$ becomes in the “r” coordinatization $`ds^2=ds_r^2=\left[(dx_r^0)^2+2dx_r^0dx_r^1\right]`$. We see that in the “r” coordinatization the spatial and temporal parts of $`ds^2`$ are not separated, that is different than in the coordinatization with the Minkowski metric tensor. The same holds for the spacetime length $`l,`$ which is in the “r” coordinatization determined as $`l^2=l_r^2=\left[(l_r^0)^2+2l_r^0l_r^1\right]`$. Expressing $`dx_r^\mu `$, or $`l_r^\mu `$, in terms of $`dx_e^\mu `$, or $`l_e^\mu `$ (the transformation matrix between “r” and “e” coordinatizations is

$$T_\nu ^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

whence, e.g., $`x_r^0=x_e^0x_e^1`$, $`x_r^1=x_e^1`$, and $`\beta _r=\beta _e/(1\beta _e)`$, see ) one finds that $`ds_r^2=ds_e^2`$, and also, $`l_r^2=l_e^2`$, as it must be.

The whole preceding discussion about the geometric quantities $`x^a`$, $`l^a`$, $`ds`$, $`l`$, .. and their different representations can be illustrated in a way which better clarifies the difference between two sorts of quantities. Again we consider the TT length (1) (we use the words - the TT length, the spacetime length, and the covariantly defined length as synonyms) in two relatively moving IFRs $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ and in two coordinatizations “e” and “r” in these IFRs. Now, let the spacetime be endowed with base vectors, the temporal and the spatial base vectors. The bases $`\left\{e_\mu \right\}`$, with the base vectors $`\{e_0,e_1\}`$, and $`\left\{r_\mu \right\}`$, with the base vectors $`\{r_0,r_1\}`$, are associated with “e” and “r” coordinatizations, respectively, of a given IFR. The temporal base vector $`e_0`$ is the unit vector directed along the world line of the clock at the origin. The spatial base vector by definition connects simultaneous events, the event “clock at rest at the origin reads 0 time” with the event “clock at rest at unit distance from the origin reads 0 time”, and thus it is synchronization-dependent. The spatial base vector $`e_1`$ connects two above mentioned simultaneous events when Einstein’s synchronization ($`\epsilon =1/2`$) of distant clocks is used. The temporal base vector $`r_0`$ is the same as $`e_0`$. The spatial base vector $`r_1`$ connects two above mentioned simultaneous events when “everyday” clock synchronization ($`\epsilon =0`$) of distant clocks is used. All the spatial base vectors $`r_1`$, $`r_1^{}`$, .. are parallel and directed along an (observer-independent) light line. Hence, two events that are everyday (“r”) simultaneous in $`S`$ are also “r” simultaneous for all other IFRs. The connection between the bases $`\left\{e_\mu \right\}`$ and $`\left\{r_\mu \right\}`$ is $`r_0=e_0`$,$`r_1=e_0+e_1`$, see . Then the geometrical quantity, e.g., the distance 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a`$ between two events $`A`$ and $`B`$, will be represented by the vector in 2D spacetime, which have different decompositions, representations, with respect to $`\left\{e_\mu \right\}`$, $`\left\{e_\mu ^{}\right\}`$ and $`\left\{r_\mu \right\}`$, $`\left\{r_\mu ^{}\right\}`$ bases. Note that in the “TT relativity” the same distance 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a`$ is considered (measured) in different relatively moving IFRs and in different coordinatizations of these IFRs.

In order to retain the connection with the prerelativistic physics and to facilitate the comparison with the “AT relativity” we consider a particular choice for the 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a`$ (in the usual “3+1” picture it corresponds to an object, a rod, that is at rest in an IFR $`S`$ and situated along the common $`x_e^1,x_e^1`$ axes). In the “e” coordinatization the position 4-vectors of the events $`A`$, $`x_A^a`$, and $`B`$, $`x_B^a`$, in $`S`$ are decomposed with respect to $`\left\{e_\mu \right\}`$ base as $`x_A^a=x_{Ae}^0e_0+x_{Ae}^1e_1=0e_0+0e_1`$, and $`x_B^a=x_{Be}^0e_0+x_{Be}^1e_1=0e_0+l_0e_1`$, and the distance 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a=x_B^ax_A^a`$ is decomposed as

$$l_{AB}^a=l_e^0e_0+l_e^1e_1=0e_0+l_0e_1.$$

Thus in $`S`$ the position 4-vectors $`x_{A,B}^a`$ are determined simultaneously, $`x_{Be}^0x_{Ae}^0=l_e^0=0`$, i.e., the temporal part of $`l_{AB}^a`$ is zero. The spacetime length $`l`$ is written in the $`\left\{e_\mu \right\}`$ base as

$$l=l_e=(l_e^\mu l_{\mu e})^{1/2}=(l_e^il_{ie})^{1/2}=l_0,$$

as in the prerelativistic physics; it is in that case a measure of the spatial distance, i.e., of the rest spatial length of the rod. The observers in all other IFRs will look at the same events but associating with them different coordinates; it is the essence of the covariant description. They all obtain the same value $`l`$ for the spacetime length. It has to be pointed out that in the “TT relativity” it is not necessary to start in this example with the rest frame of the object and to choose the events $`A`$ and $`B`$ to be simultaneous in that frame. The whole consideration can be done in the same covariant manner for other choices of IFRs and of the events $`A`$ and $`B`$ in the chosen IFR. For any starting choice the covariant LT (2) will correctly connect the results of measurements of the same 4D quantity in two relatively moving IFRs. The rest frame of the object and the simultaneity of the events $`A`$ and $`B`$ in it are chosen only to have the connection with the prerelativistic physics, which deals with “3+1” quantities and not with 4D quantities.

Let us then consider the same 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a`$ in $`S^{}`$, (where in “3+1” picture the rod is moving). The position 4-vectors $`x_A^a`$ and $`x_B^a`$ of the events $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively are decomposed with respect to $`\left\{e_\mu ^{}\right\}`$ base as $`x_A^a=x_{Ae}^0e_0^{}+x_{Ae}^1e_1^{}=0e_0^{}+0e_1^{}`$, and $`x_B^a=x_{Be}^0e_0^{}+x_{Be}^1e_1^{}=\beta _e\gamma _el_0e_0^{}+\gamma _el_0e_1^{}`$, and the distance 4-vector is decomposed as

$$l_{AB}^a=x_B^ax_A^a=l_e^0e_0^{}+l_e^1e_1^{}=\beta _e\gamma _el_0e_0^{}+\gamma _el_0e_1^{}.$$

Note that in the “e” coordinatization, commonly used in the “AT relativity,” there is a dilatation of the spatial part $`l_e^1=\gamma _el_0`$ with respect to $`l_e^1=l_0`$ and not the Lorentz contraction as predicted in the “AT relativity.” Hovewer it is clear from the above discussion that comparison of only spatial parts of the components of the distance 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a`$ in $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ is physically meaningless in the “TT relativity.” All components of the distance 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a`$ are transformed by the LT from $`S`$ to $`S^{}`$. $`l_e^\mu `$ and $`l_e^\mu `$ are different representations of the same physical quantity $`l_{AB}^a`$ measured in two relatively moving IFRs $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$. The invariant spacetime length of that object in $`S^{}`$ is

$$l=l_e^{}=(l_e^{}_{}{}^{}\mu l_{\mu e}^{})^{1/2}=l_0.$$

Note that if $`l_e^0=0`$ then $`l_e^\mu `$ in any other IFR $`S^{}`$ will contain the time component $`l_e^00`$. We conclude from the above discussion that if one wants in the “TT relativity” to compare in a physically meaningful sense the “lengths” of two different objects than it is possible only by comparing their invariant spacetime lengths.

In the “r” coordinatization the position 4-vectors of the events $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`x_A^a`$ and $`x_B^a`$, in $`S`$ are decomposed with respect to $`\left\{r_\mu \right\}`$ base as $`x_A^a=x_{Ar}^0r_0+x_{Ar}^1r_1=0r_0+0r_1`$, and $`x_B^a=x_{Br}^0r_0+x_{Br}^1r_1=l_0r_0+l_0r_1`$, and the distance 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a=x_B^ax_A^a`$ is decomposed as

$$l_{AB}^a=l_r^0r_0+l_r^1r_1=l_0r_0+l_0r_1,$$

and the TT length $`l`$ is

$$l=l_r=(l_r^\mu l_{\mu r})^{1/2}=l_e=l_0$$

as it must be.

In $`S^{}`$ and in the $`\left\{r_\mu ^{}\right\}`$ base the position 4-vectors of the events $`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`x_A^a=0r_0^{}+0r_1^{}`$ and $`x_B^a=x_{Br}^0r_0^{}+x_{Br}^1r_1^{}=Kl_0r_0^{}+(1+\beta _r)(1/K)l_0r_1^{}`$, and the components $`l_r^\mu `$ of the distance 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a`$ are equal to the components $`x_{Br}^\mu `$, i.e., $`l_r^\mu =x_{Br}^\mu `$. Thus $`l_{AB}^a`$ is decomposed as

$$l_{AB}^a=l_r^0r_0^{}+l_r^1r_1^{}=Kl_0r_0^{}+(1+\beta _r)(1/K)l_0r_1^{}.$$

If only spatial parts of $`l_r^\mu `$ and $`l_r^\mu `$ are compared than one finds that $`\mathrm{}l_r^1l_0`$ for $`1/2\beta _r0`$ and $`l_0l_r^1\mathrm{}`$ for $`0\beta _r\mathrm{}`$ , which once again shows that such comparison is physically meaningless in the “TT relativity.” Hovewer the invariant spacetime length always takes the same value

$$l=l_r^{}=(l_r^{}_{}{}^{}\mu l_{\mu r}^{})^{1/2}=l_r=l_0,$$

and as already said, it can be compared in a physically meaningful sense in the “TT relativity.” One concludes from this discussion that, e.g., our particular 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a`$ (a geometrical quantity) is represented in different bases $`\left\{e_\mu \right\}`$, $`\left\{e_\mu ^{}\right\}`$, $`\left\{r_\mu \right\}`$ and $`\left\{r_\mu ^{}\right\}`$ by its coordinate representations $`l_e^\mu `$, $`l_e^\mu `$, $`l_r^\mu `$ and $`l_r^\mu `$, respectively.

We see that in the “TT relativity” the geometrical quantities, e.g., the 4-vectors $`x^a`$, $`l^a`$,…, have different representations depending on the chosen IFR and the chosen coordinatization in that IFR, e.g., $`x_{e,r}^\mu `$, $`l_{e,r}^\mu `$, … . Although the Einstein coordinatization is preferred by physicists due to its simplicity and symmetry it is nothing more “physical” than others, e.g., the “r” coordinatization. The coordinate dependent quantities have not an intrinsic physical meaning. The spacetime length $`l`$ is an example of a well defined quantity that is independent of the chosen IFR and also of the coordinatization taken in that IFR; it is an intrinsic property of the spacetime. From this consideration an important conclusion emerges; the usual 3D length of a moving object cannot be defined in the 4D spacetime of the TT relativity in an adequate way, since it is only the spatial length and not a 4D tensor quantity.
2.2. The AT of Length
In contrast to the covariant definition of the spacetime length and the TT of the spacetime tensors considered in the “TT relativity” the synchronous definition of spatial length, introduced by Einstein  defines length as the spatial distance between two spatial points on the (moving) object measured by simultaneity in the rest frame of the observer. To see the difference with respect to the “TT relativity” we determine the spatial length of the rod considered in the previous section. As shown above in the “TT relativity,” in contrast to the “AT relativity,” one cannot speak about the spatial distance, as a correctly defined physical quantity, but only about 4D tensor quantities, the geometrical quantities - the position 4-vectors $`x_{A,B}^a`$, the distance 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a`$, the spacetime length $`l`$, etc., and their 4D representations, $`x_{A,B,..e,r,..}^\mu `$, $`l_{ABe,r,..}^\mu `$, $`l_{e,r,..}`$.

Instead of to work with geometrical quantities $`x_{A,B}^a`$, $`l_{AB}^a`$ and $`l`$ one deals, in the “AT relativity,” only with the spatial, or temporal, parts of their coordinate representations $`x_{Ae,r}^\mu `$, $`x_{Be,r}^\mu `$ and $`l_{e,r}^\mu `$. First the “e” coordinatization, which is almost always used in the “AT relativity,” is considered. According to Einstein’s definition  of the spatial length the spatial ends of the rod must be taken simultaneously in the chosen coordinatization. In 4D (at us 2D) spacetime and in the “e” coordinatization the simultaneous events $`A`$ and $`B`$ (whose spatial parts correspond to the spatial ends of the rod) are the intersections of $`x_e^1`$ axis (that is along the spatial base vector $`e_1`$) and the world lines of the spatial ends of the rod that is at rest in $`S`$ and situated along the $`x_e^1`$ axis. The position 4-vectors (in the “e” base) $`x_{Ae}^\mu `$ and $`x_{Be}^\mu `$ of the simultaneous (at $`t_e=a=0)`$ events $`A`$ and $`B`$ in $`S`$ are $`x_{Ae}^\mu =0e_0+0e_1`$, or, in short, $`x_{Ae}^\mu =(0,0)`$, and $`x_{Be}^\mu =(0,l_0)`$, and the distance 4-vector (in the “e” base) $`l_{ABe}^\mu =x_{Be}^\mu x_{Ae}^\mu =(0,l_0)`$. We emphasize that it is necessary in the “AT relativity” to take the end points of the spatial length of the rod to be simultaneous, whereas in the “TT relativity” the events $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be, in principle, taken at arbitrary $`x_{Ae}^0x_{Be}^0`$. Then in $`S`$, the rest frame of the object, the spatial part $`l_{ABe}^1=l_0`$ of $`l_{ABe}^\mu `$ is considered to define the rest spatial length (the temporal part of $`l_{ABe}^\mu `$ is taken to be zero). Further one uses the inverse Lorentz transformations to express $`x_{Ae}^\mu `$, $`x_{Be}^\mu `$, and $`l_{ABe}^\mu `$ in $`S`$ in terms of the corresponding quantities in $`S^{}`$, in which the rod is moving. This procedure yields $`x_{A,Be}^0=ct_{A,Be}=\gamma _e(ct_{A,Be}^{}+\beta _ex_{A,Be}^1)`$, and $`x_{A,Be}^1=\gamma _e(\beta _ect_{A,Be}^{}+x_{A,Be}^1`$, whence

$$l_{ABe}^0=ct_{Be}ct_{Ae}=\gamma _e(ct_{Be}^{}ct_{Ae}^{})+\gamma _e\beta _e(x_{Be}^1x_{Ae}^1)=\gamma _el_{ABe}^0+\gamma _e\beta _el_{ABe}^1$$
(4)
and

$$l_{ABe}^1=x_{Be}^1x_{Ae}^1=\gamma _e(x_{Be}^1x_{Ae}^1)+\gamma _e\beta _e(ct_{Be}^{}ct_{Ae}^{})=\gamma _el_{ABe}^1+\gamma _e\beta _el_{ABe}^0.$$
(5)
Now comes the main difference between the two forms of relativity. Instead of to work with 4D tensor quantities and their LT (as in the “TT relativity”) in the “AT relativity” one forgets about the transformation of the temporal part $`l_{ABe}^0`$, Eq.(4), and considers only the transformation of the spatial part $`l_{ABe}^1`$, Eq.(5). Further, in that relation for $`l_{ABe}^1`$ one assumes that $`t_{Be}^{}=t_{Ae}^{}=t_e^{}=b`$, i.e., that $`x_{Be}^1`$ and $`x_{Ae}^1`$ are simultaneously determined at some arbitrary $`t_e^{}=b`$ in $`S^{}`$. However, in 4D (at us 2D) spacetime such an assumption means that in $`S^{}`$ one actually *does not consider the same events* $`A`$ and $`B`$ as in $`S`$ but some other two events $`C`$ and $`D`$, whence $`t_{Be}^{}=t_{Ae}^{}`$ has to be replaced with $`t_{De}^{}=t_{Ce}^{}=b`$. The events $`C`$ and $`D`$ are the intersections of the line (the hypersurface $`t_e^{}=b`$ with arbitrary $`b`$) parallel to the spatial axis $`x_e^1`$ (which is along the spatial base vector $`e_1^{}`$) and of the above mentioned world lines of the spatial end points of the rod. Then in the above transformation for $`l_{ABe}^1`$ (5) one has to write $`x_{De}^1x_{Ce}^1=l_{CDe}^1`$ instead of $`x_{Be}^1x_{Ae}^1=l_{ABe}^1`$. The spatial parts $`l_{ABe}^1`$ and $`l_{CDe}^1`$ are the spatial distances between the events $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$, $`D`$, respectively. The spatial distance $`l_{ABe}^1=x_{Be}^1x_{Ae}^1`$ defines in the “AT relativity,” and in the “e” base, the spatial length of the rod at rest in $`S`$, while $`l_{CDe}^1=x_{De}^1x_{Ce}^1`$ is considered in the “AT relativity,” and in the “e” base, to define the spatial length of the moving rod in $`S^{}`$. With these definitions we find from the equation for $`l_{ABe}^1`$ (5) the relation between $`l_e^1=l_{CDe}^1`$ and $`l_e^1=l_{ABe}^1=l_0`$ as the famous formulae for the Lorentz contraction of the moving rod

$$l_e^1=x_{De}^1x_{Ce}^1=l_0/\gamma _e=(x_{Be}^1x_{Ae}^1)(1\beta _e^2)^{1/2},$$
(6)
with $`t_{Ce}^{}=t_{De}^{}`$, and $`t_{Be}=t_{Ae}`$, where $`\beta _e=V_e/c`$, $`V_e`$ is the relative velocity of $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$. Note that the spatial lengths $`l_0`$ and $`l_e^1`$ refer not to the same 4D tensor quantity, as in the “TT relativity,” but to two different quantities in 4D spacetime. These quantities are obtained by the same measurements in $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$; the spatial ends of the rod are measured simultaneously at some $`t_e=a`$ in $`S`$ and also at some $`t_e^{}=b`$ in $`S^{}`$, and $`a`$ in $`S`$ and $`b`$ in $`S^{}`$ are not related by the LT or any other coordinate transformation. While in the “TT relativity” one deals with events as correctly defined quantities in 4D spacetime in Einstein’s approach  the spatial and temporal parts of events are treated separately, and moreover the time component is not transformed in the Lorentz contraction.

The LT (2) is the transformation in 4D spacetime and it transforms some 4D tensor quantity $`Q_{b..}^{a..}(x^c,x^d,..)`$ from $`S`$ to $`Q_{b..}^{a..}(x^c,x^d,..)`$ in $`S^{}`$, (all parts of the quantity are transformed), which means that in 4D spacetime is not possible to neglect the transformation of $`l^0`$ as a part of $`l^\mu `$, as done in the derivation of the Lorentz contraction (6). However, if one does not forget the transformation of the temporal part $`l_{ABe}^0`$, Eq.(4), and takes in it that $`t_{Be}^{}=t_{Ae}^{}`$, $`t_{Be}=t_{Ae}`$ (as in the derivation of the Lorentz contraction), then one finds from (4) that $`x_{Be}^1=x_{Ae}^1`$, which is in the obvious contrast with the formulae for the Lorentz contraction.

Let us also see does the Lorentz contraction, as the coordinate transformation, change the interval $`ds`$, which defines the geometry of the spacetime. In $`S`$ and in the “e” base the interval $`ds`$ is $`ds^2=ds_e^2=(dx_e^1)^2(c^2dt_e)^2`$, and with $`dt_e=0`$, as assumed in the derivation of the Lorentz contraction, it becomes, in $`Sds^2=(dx_e^1)^2`$. In $`S^{}`$, where it is assumed that $`dt_e^{}=0`$, and with the relation for the Lorentz contraction (6), $`dx_e^1=dx_e^1/\gamma _e`$, the infinitesimal spacetime distance $`ds^{}`$ becomes, in $`S^{}`$$`ds^2=(dx_e^1)^2/\gamma _e^2`$, and thus $`ds^{}ds`$.

Let us now consider the Lorentz “contraction” in the “r” coordinatization. According to Einstein’s definition  of the spatial length the spatial ends of the rod must be taken simultaneously in the chosen coordinatization. In 4D (at us 2D) spacetime and in the “r” base the spatial ends of the considered rod, that is at rest in $`S`$, must lie on the light line, i.e., on the $`x_r^1`$ axis (that is along the spatial base vector $`r_1`$). Hence the simultaneous events $`E`$ and $`F`$ (whose spatial parts correspond to the spatial ends of the rod) are the intersections of $`x_r^1`$ axis and the world lines of the spatial ends of the rod. Note that in our 2D spacetime the events $`E`$ and $`F`$ are not the same events as the events $`A`$ and $`B`$, considered in the “e” base for the same rod at rest in $`S`$, since the simultaneity of the events is defined in different ways. The $`\left\{r_\mu \right\}`$ representations of the position 4-vectors $`x_E^a`$ and $`x_F^a`$ of the events $`E`$ and $`F`$ in $`S`$ are $`x_{Er}^\mu =(0,0)`$ and $`x_{Fr}^\mu =(0,l_0)`$, and of the distance 4-vector $`l_{EF}^a`$ is $`l_{EFr}^\mu =x_{Fr}^\mu x_{Er}^\mu =(0,l_r^1)=(0,l_0)`$. However, as noticed above, in 4D spacetime the spatial length in the “r” base $`l_r^1=l_0`$ (with $`x_{Fr}^0=x_{Er}^0`$) is not the same 4D quantity as the spatial length in the “e” base $`l_e^1=l_0`$ (with $`x_{Be}^0=x_{Ae}^0)`$, since the simultaneity is defined in a different way. Applying the same procedure as in the case of the derivation of the Lorentz contraction in the “e” base we find the relations for $`l_r^0`$ and $`l_r^1`$ corresponding to (4) and (5), respectively,

$$l_{EFr}^0=x_{Fr}^0x_{Er}^0=(1/K)(x_{Fr}^0x_{Er}^0)=(1/K)l_{EFr}^0,$$
(7)
$$l_{EFr}^1=x_{Fr}^1x_{Er}^1=(\beta _r/K)(x_{Fr}^0x_{Er}^0)+K(x_{Fr}^1x_{Er}^1)=(\beta _r/K)l_{EFr}^0+Kl_{EFr}^1,$$
(8)
$`K=(1+2\beta _r)^{1/2}`$. Further, in the “r” base, one again forgets the transformation of the temporal part $`l_{EFr}^0`$ (7) of $`l_{EFr}^\mu `$ and assumes that in the relation for $`l_{EFr}^1`$ (8) $`x_{Fr}^1`$ and $`x_{Er}^1`$ are simultaneously determined at some $`x_{Fr}^0=x_{Er}^0=b`$ in $`S^{}`$. However, in the same way as in the “e” base, in 4D (at us 2D) spacetime such an assumption means that in $`S^{}`$ one actually *does not consider the same events* $`E`$ and $`F`$ as in $`S`$ but some other two events $`G`$ and $`H`$, and that the equality $`x_{Fr}^0=x_{Er}^0=b`$ has to be replaced by $`x_{Hr}^0=x_{Gr}^0=b`$. The events $`G`$ and $`H`$ are the intersections of the line (the hypersurface $`x_{Hr}^0=x_{Gr}^0=b`$ with arbitrary $`b`$) parallel to the spatial axis $`x_r^1`$ (which is along the spatial base vector $`r_1^{}`$) and of the above mentioned world lines of the spatial end points of the rod. Then in the above transformation for $`l_{EFr}^1`$ (8) $`l_{GHr}^0=0`$, and $`l_{EFr}^1=x_{Fr}^1x_{Er}^1`$ is replaced by $`l_{GHr}^1=x_{Hr}^1x_{Gr}^1`$. Now, in the “r” base, the spatial distance $`l_{EFr}^1=x_{Fr}^1x_{Er}^1`$ defines in the “AT relativity” the spatial length of the rod at rest in $`S`$, while $`l_{GHr}^1=x_{Hr}^1x_{Gr}^1`$ defines the spatial length of the moving rod in $`S^{}`$. Then, from the equation for $`l_{EFr}^1`$ (8), and with these definitions, we find the relation between $`l_r^1=l_{GHr}^1`$ and $`l_r^1=l_{EFr}^1=l_0`$ as the Lorentz “contraction” of the moving rod in the “r” base,

$$l_r^1=x_{Hr}^1x_{Gr}^1=l_0/K=(1/K)(x_{Fr}^1x_{Er}^1),$$
(9)
with $`x_{Hr}^0=x_{Gr}^0`$ and $`x_{Fr}^0=x_{Er}^0`$. In contrast to the “e” coordinatization we find that in the “r” base there is a length dilatation $`\mathrm{}l_r^1l_0`$ for $`1/2\beta _r0`$ and the standard “length contraction” $`l_0l_r^10`$ for positive $`\beta _r`$, which clearly shows that the “Lorentz contraction” is not physically correctly defined transformation.

We see from the preceding discussion that - the Lorentz contraction is the transformation connecting different quantities (in 4D spacetime) in different IFRs and different coordinatizations, and also it changes the infinitesimal spacetime distance $`ds`$ and consequently the pseudo-Euclidean geometry of the 4D spacetime. Such characteristics of the Lorentz contraction as the coordinate transformation clearly show that the Lorentz contraction belongs to - the AT. In the same way one can show that the usual “time dilatation” does have the same characteristics as the Lorentz contraction, i.e., that it is also - an AT, but this will not be done here.

Although the Lorentz contraction is an AT it is still widely used in numerous textbooks and papers as an “important relativistic effect.” Thus, for example, it is almost generally accepted in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions, see, e.g., : “that in the center-of-mass frame two highly Lorentz contracted nuclei pass through each other …. .” In the recent paper  it is supposed that: “… Čerenkov radiation of the charged two-particle system involves the Lorentz contraction of their rest distance.” An experiment, based on this idea, is suggested in  for the verification of the Lorentz contraction. Moreover it is argued in  that the authors have experimentally succeeded to observe the Lorentz contraction of magnetic flux quanta (vortices) in Josephson tunnel junction. In all these examples it is understood that a Lorentz boost transforms the rest length to the contracted length. But, as it is already explained above, a Lorentz boost is a TT transforming from an IFR $`S`$ to another IFR $`S^{}`$, e.g., all four coordinates as a 4-vector; the same events are considered in $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$. Also, a Lorentz boost transforms a physical quantity represented by a 4D spacetime tensor, e.g., $`Q(x)`$ in $`S`$, to $`Q^{}(x^{})`$ in $`S^{}`$, thus again considering the same quantity in $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$. On the contrary, as already said, in the Lorentz contraction, Eqs.(6) and (9), the time component is not transformed and the Lorentz contraction is an AT from the relativity viewpoint, which has nothing in common with a Lorentz boost as a TT. In the “TT relativity” one cannot say that the nucleus must contract (as argued in literature on ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions), or that the rest distance between two charged particles undergoes the Lorentz contraction (as considered in ), or that the vortices contract when moving (as argued to be proved in experiments ), since the Lorentz contraction is certainly not a relativistic relation, i.e., the relation belonging to the “TT relativity,” and cannot be used either to illustrate or to test any part of the “TT relativity.”

The above discussion reveals the main differences between the spacetime length considered in the “TT relativity” and the spatial length considered in the “AT relativity.” The same example (a rod at rest in $`S`$) is investigated in the “TT relativity,” Sec.2.1, and in the “AT relativity,” this section. The “TT relativity” deals with 4D quantities in 4D spacetime. We associate with the mentioned rod a 4D quantity - a distance 4-vector $`l_{AB}^a`$, and consider this quantity $`l_{AB}^a`$ in two IFRs $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ (in which the rod is moving) and in two coordinatizations, “e” and “r”. Four different decompositions, representations, are found for the same $`l_{AB}^a`$. Different representations of $`l_{AB}^a`$ in $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ are connected by the TT - the LT. In terms of $`l_{AB}^a`$ the spacetime length $`l`$ (1) is constructed and it does have the same value for all four representations of $`l_{AB}^a.`$ An essentially different treatment of that rod is performed in the “AT relativity.” This form of relativity does not deal with 4D quantities in 4D spacetime. In the “AT relativity” we associate with that rod four different spatial lengths, i.e., four different 3D quantities in 4D spacetime; in the “e” base they are $`l_{ABe}^1`$ in $`S`$ and $`l_{CDe}^1`$ in $`S^{}`$, and in the “r” base they are $`l_{EFr}^1`$ in $`S`$ and $`l_{GHr}^1`$ in $`S^{}`$. The quantities in the same base but in different IFRs are connected by the AT - the Lorentz “contraction”; $`l_{ABe}^1`$ and $`l_{CDe}^1`$ with (6), and $`l_{EFr}^1`$ and $`l_{GHr}^1`$ with (9). None of these quantities is well defined in 4D spacetime. We conclude from the whole previous consideration that when the 4D structure of our spacetime is correctly taken into account then there is no place for the Lorentz contraction formulae, and only the spacetime length and the spacetime quantities are well defined quantities.
2.3. “Car and Garage Paradox”
In the previous sections we have examined the main characteristics of both forms of relativity. Now we want to show the difference between the treatments of relatively moving systems in the “AT relativity” and the “TT relativity.” Usually such systems are treated in a noncovariant manner, i.e., in the “AT relativity,” but here we shall present the treatment of such systems in a manifestly covariant manner, i.e., in the “TT relativity.” In order to see the differences between both treatments we do not need to work completely in geometrical terms, but we can choose some specific coordinatization, e.g., the simplest one, the ”e” coordinatization. Therefore, in the following, we restrict ourselves to the “e” coordinatization and, for simplicity in notation, we omit the subscript -e- in all quantities. However, we shall often write the important relations in geometrical terms, and also we shall explain which results and conclusions are independent of the chosen coordinatization.

As already discussed, if in an IFR $`S^{}`$ in which the time component of the distance 4-vector $`l_{AB}^\mu `$, i.e., $`l_{AB}^0,`$ is zero (simultaneously determined events $`A`$ and $`B`$), then $`l_{AB}^\mu `$ comprises only spatial components. Hence, in $`S^{}`$ the invariant spacetime length $`l^{}`$ is given as the usual 3D distance between $`A`$ and $`B`$. But, in such a case, $`l_{AB}^\mu `$ in the rest frame $`S`$ of the object does have $`l_{AB}^00`$, and the spacetime length $`l`$ in $`S`$ (it is $`=l^{}`$) could take different values depending on the chosen IFR $`S^{}`$. Such an arbitrariness in $`l`$, although not forbidden by any physical law, would complicate both theory and experiment. Furhermore, one wants to retain the connection with the prerelativistic concept of the spatial length. Therefore, the most convenient choice for the frame in which the time component $`l_{AB}^0`$ of $`l_{AB}^\mu `$ is zero is the $`S`$ frame. Thus in $`S`$ the position 4-vectors $`x_{A,B}^\mu `$ are determined simultaneously, $`x_B^0x_A^0=l_{AB}^0=0,`$ and the spacetime length $`l`$ becomes in $`S`$, the rest frame of the object, the rest spatial length $`l_0`$, i.e., $`l=(l_{AB}^il_{ABi})^{1/2}=l_0`$, as in the prerelativistic physics. The observers in all other IFRs will look at the same events but associating with them different coordinates; they all find (measure) the same value $`l=l_0`$ for the spacetime length. Note, as we have mentioned, that if $`l_{AB}^0=0`$ then $`l_{AB}^\mu `$ in any other IFR $`S^{}`$ will contain the time component $`l_{AB}^00`$. We once again emphasize that the choice of the rest frame of the object as the starting frame for the consideration is not dictated by physical requirements. This choice is, in fact, determined only by our desire to have a quantity that corresponds in the 4D spacetime to the prerelativistic spatial length. As already said at the end of Sec.2.1 the usual 3D length of a moving object cannot be defined in the 4D spacetime, i.e., in the “TT relativity”, in an adequate way. *Only the spacetime length* $`l`$ *does have a definite theoretical and experimental meaning and it is an invariant quantity.* This holds for all possible synchronizations. With our choice of the rest frame of the object as the starting frame, i.e., with $`l=l_0,`$ the spatial rest length determined simultaneously in $`S`$ obtains the properties of the spacetime length $`l.`$ Then, the coordinate measurements of $`x_{A,B}^\mu `$ in an IFR $`S^{}`$ in which an object is moving are not of interest in their own right but they have to enable one to find the rest spatial length $`l_0`$. In the prerelativistic “3+1” picture, and in the “AT relativity,” one can compare the spatial lengths of two relatively moving objects. But in the “TT relativity” the spacetime lengths (that contain both spatial and temporal parts) are well defined quantities in 4D spacetime and they, or the rest spatial lengths, can be compared in a physically meaningful way.

Let us illustrate the preceding discussion considering the well-known “Car and garage paradox” (see, e.g., , p.9). The common assertion about this “paradox” is that it comes out due to, : ”The lack of a notion of absolute simultaneity in special relativity ….,” and consequently due to the relativity of the Lorentz contraction. However, as discussed above, the relativity of simultaneity is a coordinate dependent effect and, for example, for $`\epsilon =0`$, , the absolute simultaneity is preserved. Also, the Lorentz contraction is an AT and it has nothing to do with the 4D pseudo-Euclidean geometry of the special relativity. Therefore, we discuss this “paradox” using covariant 4D quantities, i.e., in the “TT relativity”. But for our purposes, as it is already explained, there is no need to discuss the “paradox” in geometrical terms, than it can be considered in the inertial coordinate systems with the Minkowski metric tensors, that is in the “e” coordinatization. The frame in which a garage is at rest is denoted by $`S`$ while that one in which a car is at rest by $`S^{}`$. The unprimed quantities are in $`S`$ and the primed ones in $`S^{}`$. Instead of 4D spacetime we work here with 2D spacetime. The garage and the car are along the common $`x^1,x^1`$ \- axes, and they are of equal proper lengths $`l_g=l_c^{}=l`$. First we consider the “paradox” in the $`S`$ frame. The distance 4-vector $`l_g^\mu `$ for the garage is determined directly in $`S`$. However the distance 4-vector $`l_c^\mu `$ for the moving car in $`S`$ has to be determined in such a way that one first finds it in the car own rest frame $`S^{}`$, and then transforms it by the LT to the rest frame of the garage $`S`$. This procedure follows from the preceding general discussion where it is shown that only the rest length, i.e., the invariant spacetime length, of a moving object is well defined quantity in the “TT relativity”. The position 4-vectors of the spatial end points $`A`$ and $`B`$ of the garage in $`S`$ are taken to be $`x_{Ag}^\mu =(0,0)`$ and $`x_{Bg}^\mu =(0,l)`$, and the distance 4-vector is $`l_g^\mu =x_{Bg}^\mu x_{Ag}^\mu =(0,l)`$. (In the remaining part of this paper we shall use $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, $`D`$, … and $`A^{}`$, $`B^{}`$, … to denote the spatial points on the (moving) object.) The invariant spacetime length of the garage is $`l_g=(l_g^\mu l_{\mu g})^{1/2}=l`$. The frame $`S^{}`$, together with the car, moves relative to $`S`$ with 4-velocity $`v^\mu =(\gamma c,\gamma V)`$, $`\gamma =(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$, $`\beta =V/c`$. Let the origin of $`S^{}`$ (with the left end of the car $`A^{}`$ attached to it) coincides with the origin of $`S`$ (with the left end of the garage $`A`$ attached to it) at the moment $`t=t^{}=0`$. The position 4-vectors of the end points $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ of the car in $`S^{}`$ are $`x_{A^{}c}^\mu =(0,0)`$ and $`x_{B^{}c}^\mu =(0,l)`$, and the distance 4-vector is $`l_c^\mu =x_{B^{}c}^\mu x_{A^{}c}^\mu =(0,l)`$. The invariant spacetime length of the car is $`l_c^{}=(l_c^{}_{}{}^{}\mu l_{\mu c}^{})^{1/2}=l`$. To find the position 4-vector of the right end $`B^{}`$ of the car and the distance 4-vector of the car in $`S`$ one applies the LT to $`x_{B^{}c}^\mu `$ and $`l_c^\mu `$. Then one finds $`x_{B^{}c}^\mu =l_c^\mu =(\gamma \beta l,\gamma l)`$. The spacetime length of the car is now determined in $`S`$, and is as before $`l_c=l`$, equal to its rest length. Obviously, in the “TT relativity” nothing could be said whether the moving car fit into the garage or not, as the comparison of the spatial parts of the distance 4-vectors for the garage and the car has no physical meaning. (Note that there is a dilatation of the spatial part of the moving car, and not the Lorentz contraction as in the “AT relativity”.) Only if both objects are relatively at rest their spatial parts can be compared in physically meaningful sense. The same conclusions hold from the point of view of the observer in $`S^{}`$, or any other IFR. These conclusions hold not only for Einstein’s coordinatization (which is used here) but for any other possible coordinatization of IFRs.
3. CURRENT-CARRYING CONDUCTOR AND EXTERNAL

ELECTRIC FIELDS IN THE “TT RELATIVITY”
Let us now apply these ideas to the consideration of a CCC in the “TT relativity”. An infinite straight wire with a steady current is situated along the $`x^1`$ axis. A current is flowing in $`x^1`$ direction and accordingly electrons move in $`+x^1`$ direction. We suppose that positive and negative charge densities are of equal magnitude when both subsystems are relatively at rest, i.e., before a current is established in the wire. In a CCC the wire (i.e., the ions) is supposed to be at rest in $`S`$, while the electrons are at rest in $`S^{}`$.

Before determining the current density 4-vectors $`j^\mu `$ in $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ we give the manifestly covariant definition of a charge within a boundary $`\delta H`$ of an arbitrary hypersurface $`H`$ (see, e.g., ),

$$Q_{\delta H}=_Hj^\mu 𝑑\sigma _{\mu ,}$$
(10)
where $`d\sigma ^\mu `$ is the 4-vector of an element of the hypersurface $`H`$. (This expression can be written in a more general form, i.e., in geometrical terms, replacing Greek index $`\mu `$ by the abstract index $`a.`$) The invariance of charge defined by (10) is proved in  for a linear CCC, and also for the general case of 4D spacetime in . If the hypersurface $`H`$ is chosen in the rest frame of charges in such a way that it is the space-like plane $`t=const.`$, then the charge $`dQ`$ is given as in the prerelativistic physics $`dQ=\rho dV`$; the 4-vector $`j^\mu `$ has only the time component $`j^0=c\rho `$, since we are in the rest frame of charges, and $`d\sigma _\mu `$ also has only time component which is the synchronously defined rest volume $`dV`$. Consequently, the charge density $`\rho `$ is defined as the ratio of $`dQ`$ given by (10), but taken simultaneously in the rest frame of the charges, and the synchronously defined rest volume $`dV`$, $`\rho =dQ/dV`$, and it is well defined quantity from the “TT relativity” viewpoint. Obviously the charge density has the common prerelativistic meaning only in the rest frame of the charges. The charge density of moving charges is not a well defined quantity from the “TT relativity” point of view in the same way as the spatial length or the volume of a moving object are not correctly defined quantities in the “TT relativity”. This is in contrast with the “AT relativity” and the Lorentz contraction, where the charge density of the moving charges is defined; it is enhanced by $`\gamma =(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$ relative to the proper charge density due to the Lorentz contraction of the moving volume. Thereby, when determining the current density 4-vector $`j^\mu `$ in some IFR in which the charges are moving one first has to find that vector in the rest frame of the charges, where the space component $`𝐣=0`$ and $`\gamma =1`$, and then to transform by the LT so determined $`j^\mu `$ to the considered IFR. According to this consideration the simplest and the correct way, from the “TT relativity” viewpoint, to determine the current density 4-vector $`j^\mu `$ in some IFR for a CCC is the following: The current density 4-vectors $`j_+^\mu `$ and $`j_{}^\mu `$ for positive and negative charges, respectively, have to be determined in their rest frames and then transformed by the LT to the given IFR. It has to be noted that in the “TT relativity” it is not necessary to determine $`j^\mu `$ for a CCC, in an arbitrary IFR, in the mentioned way. In that frame we could start in (10) with an arbitrary space-like hypersurface $`H`$ and determine $`j^a`$ and $`d\sigma ^a`$ in some coordinatization that is different than the “e” coordinatization. But then we loose the connection with the prerelativistic notions, the charge density $`\rho `$, the current density $`𝐣`$ (3-vector), the spatial length and volume, etc., and with the prerelativistic relation $`dQ=\rho dV`$.
3.1. The Current Density $`j^\mu `$ in the Ions’ Rest Frame S
Hence, the current density 4-vector in $`S`$, for the considered wire with current, is $`j^\mu =j_+^\mu +j_{}^\mu `$, where $`j_+^\mu =(c\rho _0,0)`$. The positive charge density $`\rho _+`$ is $`=\rho _0`$, where $`\rho _0`$ is the positive charge density for the wire at rest but without a current. To find $`j_{}^\mu `$ in $`S`$ one has, as already said, to find the electrons’ charge density $`\rho _{}^{}`$, and the current density 4-vector of the electrons $`j_{}^\mu `$ in their rest frame $`S^{}`$, where $`\rho _{}^{}`$ is well defined quantity, and then to transform them to the ions’ rest frame $`S`$. In the rest wire, but without a current, the charge density of the electrons, which are at rest there, is $`\rho _0`$. Then, it follows from the previous consideration that in $`S^{}`$, where the electrons in that wire, but with a current, are at rest, the proper charge density $`\rho _{}^{}`$ of the electrons must again be equal to $`\rho _0`$, i.e.,

$$\rho _{}^{}=\rho _0,j_{}^\mu =(c\rho _0,0).$$
(11)
By means of (11) and the LT we find the current densities in $`S`$ as

$$j_{}^\mu =(c\gamma \rho _0,c\gamma \beta \rho _0),j^\mu =(c(1\gamma )\rho _0,c\gamma \beta \rho _0).$$
(12)
Eqs. (11) and (12) are in contrast to all previous works from the time of Clausius, Clausius hypothesis, see , until today. In the Clausius hypothesis it is simply supposed that in the ions’ rest frame $`S`$ the charge density of the moving electrons $`\rho _{}=\rho _0`$. However the same equations were already obtained in , where the “AT relativity” with the Lorentz contraction is used. This may seem surprising that the same equations exist in  (with the “AT relativity”) and here, where the “TT relativity” is considered and thus only the covariant quantities are used. But, we must note that the results obtained in  are not actually based on the AT, i.e., on the Lorentz contraction, than on the assumption that in the electrons’ rest frame $`S^{}`$ the electrons’ charge density $`\rho _{}^{}`$ is $`=\rho _0`$. In a covariant approach, i.e., in the “TT relativity,” Eq. (11) is neither hypothesis (as in the traditional approach) nor the assumption (as in ), but it is a consequence of the covariant definition of an invariant charge (10) and of the invariance of the rest length, i.e., it resulted from the use of correctly defined covariant quantities.
3.2. The $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ and the $`E^\alpha ,B^\alpha `$ Formulations of Electrodynamics
Having determined the sources $`j^\mu `$ we find the electric and magnetic fields for that infinite wire with current. One way is to start with the covariant Maxwell equations with $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ and its dual $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\alpha \beta }`$

$$_\alpha F^{a\beta }=j^\beta /\epsilon _0c,_\alpha ^{}F^{\alpha \beta }=0$$
(13)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\alpha \beta }=(1/2)\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }F_{\gamma \delta }`$ and $`\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ is the totally skew-symmetric Levi-Civita pseudotensor. In such a covariant formulation Fαβ is the primary quantity; it is the solution of (13), or the corresponding wave equation

$$^\sigma _\sigma F_{\alpha \beta }(1/\epsilon _0c)(_\beta j_\alpha _\alpha j_\beta )=0,$$
(14)
and it conveys all the information about the electromagnetic field. There is no need to introduce either the intermediate electromagnetic 4-potential $`A^\mu `$ or the connection of the components of $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ with the usual 3-vectors $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁.`$ The general solution in the retarded representation of (14) or (13) is

$$F^{\alpha \beta }(x^\mu )=(2k/i\pi c)\left\{\frac{\left[j^\alpha (x^\mu )(xx^{})^\beta j^\beta (x^\mu )(xx^{})^\alpha \right]}{\left[(xx^{})^\sigma (xx^{})_\sigma \right]^2}\right\}d^4x^{},$$
(15)
where $`x^\alpha `$, $`x^\alpha `$ are the position 4-vectors of the field point and the source point respectively, $`k=1/4\pi \epsilon _0`$. After transforming by the LT (13) to the $`S^{}`$ frame one finds the same equations with primed quantities replacing the unprimed ones, since the transformations of all quantities in (13) are – the TT.

Instead of to work with $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$\- formulation one can equivalently use the $`E^\alpha ,B^\alpha `$\- formulation, which is presented in  and . It is shown there that in the “TT relativity” one has to use the 4-vectors $`E^\alpha `$ and $`B^\alpha `$ instead of the usual 3-vectors $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁.`$ The usual transformations of $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$, obtained by the identification of the components of $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ with the components of $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ ($`E_i=F^{0i}`$ and $`B_i=^{}F^{0i}`$), are shown to be the AT referring to the same measurements in different IFRs and not to the same quantity, see  and . In that way it is found in  (and ) that contrary to the common belief the usual noncovariant formulation with the 3-vectors $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ is not equivalent to the covariant formulations. $`E^\alpha `$ and $`B^\alpha `$ are determined by the covariant Maxwell equations derived in  (and ),

$`_\alpha (\delta _{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }v^\mu E^\nu )+c_\alpha (\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }B_\mu v_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`j^\beta /\epsilon _0,`$
$`_\alpha (\delta _{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }v^\mu B^\nu )+(1/c)_\alpha (\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }v_\mu E_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (16)
where $`E^\alpha `$ and $`B^\alpha `$ are the electric and magnetic field 4-vectors measured by a family of observers moving with 4-velocity $`v^\mu `$, and $`\delta _{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }=\delta _\mu ^\alpha \delta _\nu ^\beta \delta _\nu ^\alpha \delta _\mu ^\beta `$. For the given sources $`j^\mu `$ one could solve these equations and find the general solutions for $`E^\alpha `$ and $`B^\alpha `$.

We note that it is possible to write Eqs. (16) in a somewhat simpler form, the covariant Majorana form, introducing $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =E^\alpha icB^\alpha `$. Then the covariant Majorana form of Maxwell’s equations becomes

$$(\gamma ^\mu )_\alpha ^\beta _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =j^\beta /\epsilon _0,$$
(17)
where the $`\gamma `$-matrices are

$$(\gamma ^\mu )_\alpha ^\beta =\delta _{\rho \gamma }^{\mu \beta }v^\rho g_\alpha ^\gamma +i\epsilon _{\alpha \gamma }^{\mu \beta }v^\gamma .$$
(18)
In the case that $`j^\mu =0`$ Eq. (17) becomes Dirac-like relativistic wave equation for free photons

$$(\gamma ^\mu )_\alpha ^\beta _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =0.$$
(19)
We shall not further discuss the covariant Majorana formulation since it will be reported elsewhere.
3.3. $`E^\alpha `$ for a CCC in the ”TT Relativity”
Instead of to solve (16) or (17) to find $`E^\alpha `$ and $`B^\alpha `$ for a CCC we first find $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ from (15) inserting into it $`j^\mu `$ from (12) and performing the integration. Then we use the relations given in  (and ), which connect $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`E^\alpha `$, $`B^\alpha `$\- covariant formulations,

$$E^\alpha =(1/c)F^{\alpha \beta }v_{\beta ,}B^\alpha =(1/c^2)^{}F^{\alpha \beta }v_\beta .$$
(20)
The inverse relations connecting the $`E^\alpha ,B^\alpha `$ and $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$\- covariant formulations are also given in  (and ) and they are

$$F^{\alpha \beta }=(1/c)\delta _{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }v^\mu E^\nu +\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }B_\mu v_\nu ,^{}F^{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }v^\mu B^\nu +(1/c)\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }v_\mu E_\nu .$$
(21)
Taking that the family of observers who measures $`E^\alpha `$ is at rest in the S frame, i.e., that $`v_\mu =(c,0)`$ one finds from (20) that $`E^0=0`$,$`E^i=F^{0i}`$, whence

$$E^1=0,E^2=2k(1\gamma )\rho _0y(y^2+z^2)^1,E^3=2k(1\gamma )\rho _0z(y^2+z^2)^1.$$
(22)
The equation (22) shows that the observer who is at rest relative to a wire with steady current will see, i.e., measure, the second order electric field outside such a CCC. Thus the result which is for such fields predicted on different grounds in  is proved to be correct in the “TT relativity” too, i.e., when all quantities are treated in a covariant manner, see the discussion at the end of Sec.3.1. We thus find that these electric fields naturally come out in the “TT relativity” treatment of physical systems consisting of relatively moving subsystems. Such fields were not searched for and, it seems, were not observed earlier due to their extreme smallness. (To be more precise, the similar second-order electric fields ($`v^2/c^2`$) have been detected in  and , but it is not sure that they are caused by the effect predicted in  and here.) However, I suppose that such fields must play an important role in many physical phenomena with steady currents, particularly in tokamaks and astrophysics, where high currents exist, and in superconductors, where the electric fields of zeroth order outside CCCs are absent, (see ).

Similarly, the magnetic field 4-vector $`B^\mu `$ can be also obtained from (20) and the expression for $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ (15). For the observers with $`v_\mu =(c,0)`$ one finds $`B^0=0`$ and $`B^i=(1/c)^{}F^{i0}`$. In terms of the known $`{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{i0}`$ we find for $`B^i`$ the usual expression for the magnetic field of an infinite straight wire with current, (only the current density is $`\gamma `$ times bigger).
4. CHARGES ON A CURRENT LOOP IN

THE “TT RELATIVITY”
In this section we discuss the macroscopic charge of a square loop with a steady current in the “TT relativity”. This is already discussed in numerous previous works but from the “AT relativity” viewpoint by using the synchronous definition of length and the Lorentz contraction. Let a square loop is at rest in the $`x,y`$ plane in an IFR $`S`$. The spatial $`x,y`$ \- coordinates of the corners are: $`A(0,0)`$, $`B(1,0)`$, $`E(1,1)`$, $`F(0,1)`$. The electrons move from $`A`$ to $`B`$ in the $`\overline{AB}`$ side. We first consider the charge in the $`\overline{AB}`$ side in two frames; in $`S`$, the ions’ rest frame, and $`S_{AB}^{}`$, the electrons’ rest frame. The evaluation of the charge in the $`\overline{AB}`$ side in $`S`$ and $`S_{AB}^{}`$ using (10) is already correctly performed in . However there is an important difference between the calculation of $`Q_{AB}`$ in  and in this paper. In  the charge density of the electrons in $`S_{AB}^{}`$ is not specified but simply taken to have some undetermined value $`\overline{\lambda }`$ and its value in $`S`$ is found by means of the LT. The covariance of the definition (10) (the Lorentz scalar) will yield that $`Q_{AB}`$ in $`S`$ is equal to $`Q_{AB}^{}`$ in $`S_{AB}^{}`$ for any choice of $`\overline{\lambda }`$. Our discussion of an infinite wire with a current reveals that $`\rho _{}^{}`$ and $`j_{}^\mu `$ in $`S_{AB}^{}`$ are determined by (11). Then $`j_{}^\mu `$ in $`S`$ is obtained by the LT, and it is given by (12). Hence, we find from (10) that

$$Q_{AB}=(1/c)_0^l(j_+^0+j_{}^0)𝑑x=(1\gamma )\rho _0l$$
(23)
This result is already found in . Similarly, to find $`Q_{AB}^{}`$ in $`S_{AB}^{}`$ one first determines $`j_+^\mu `$ in $`S`$, $`j_+^\mu =(c\rho _0,0)`$, and then by the LT one obtains $`j_+^\mu =(c\gamma \rho _0,c\gamma \beta \rho _0)`$ in $`S_{AB}^{}`$. $`Q_{AB}^{}`$, for the moving loop in $`S_{AB}^{}`$, is found from (10) in the same way as in  and it is, of course, equal to $`Q_{AB}`$. The evaluation of $`Q_{EF}`$ in the $`\overline{EF}`$ side, which is parallel to the $`\overline{AB}`$ side, proceeds in the same way as for $`Q_{AB}`$. However the relative velocity of the $`S_{EF}^{}`$ frame, the rest frame for the electrons in the $`\overline{EF}`$ side, and the $`S`$ frame is now $`v^\mu =(\gamma c,\gamma v)`$. Hence, $`j_{}^\mu `$ is now $`j_{}^\mu =(c\gamma \rho _0,c\gamma \beta \rho _0)`$ and

$$Q_{EF}=(1/c)_l^0(j_+^0+j_{}^0)𝑑x=Q_{AB}.$$
(24)
Thus we find that there are charges $`Q_{AB}`$ and $`Q_{AB}`$ on the sides $`\overline{AB}`$ and $`\overline{EF}`$, respectively, in the $`S`$ frame in which the loop is at rest. According to (10) $`Q_{EF}`$ is an invariant charge, hence $`Q_{EF}^{}`$ for the moving loop is $`=Q_{EF}=Q_{AB}`$. Moreover, it can be immediately concluded that the charge $`Q_{BE}`$, in $`S`$, in the vertical side $`\overline{BE}`$must be the same as $`Q_{AB}`$; it is the simple change of the spatial axes x and y. Thus $`Q_{BE}=Q_{AB}`$. Similarly the charge $`Q_{FA}`$, in $`S`$, in the vertical side $`\overline{FA}`$ is $`Q_{FA}=Q_{AB}`$. The total charge in $`S`$, the rest frame of the loop with current, is zero $`Q=Q_{AB}+Q_{BE}+Q_{EF}+Q_{FA}=0`$, as it must be. It remains zero in every IFR since the charges in all sides are invariant charges according to (10), which means that they are the same for both, moving and stationary current loop. Thus, we find the same behaviour for a moving loop with current and for the same loop but at rest in a given IFR.

In the traditional “AT relativity” approach with the synchronous definition of length and the Lorentz contraction (see, e.g., ) the charges on all sides are supposed to be zero in the rest frame of a loop with current. In the IFR in which the loop with current is moving it is found that $`Q_{AB}^{}Q_{AB}`$, due to the Lorentz contraction, and that the charge on the $`\overline{EF}`$ side is ”-” of that one on the $`\overline{AB}`$ side. Furthermore, it is obtained that the charges on the vertical sides of a loop with current are zero for both the loop at rest and moving loop, since for vertical sides there is no Lorentz contraction. Such results obtained in the common approach led the physics community (I am not aware of any exception) to conclude that there is an electric moment $`𝐏`$ for a moving loop with current, (see , Eq.(18-58)). The appearance of this “relativistic” effect and its consequences are discussed in numerous papers and books. Contrary to all these works we find in the “TT relativity” that *at points far from that current loop such a distribution of charges always (in any IFR) behaves like an electric dipole, but as a 4D geometric quantity.*
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper the “TT relativity” is consistently applied to the investigation of relatively moving systems. We presented the expressions for the covariantly defined spacetime length (1) and for covariant 4D Lorentz transformations (2) when both are written in geometrical terms, and in the “e” and “r” coordinatizations. It is also shown that it is not the spatial length but the spacetime length (1) which is well defined quantity from the “TT relativity” viewpoint; in the rest frame of the object and when the temporal part of $`l_{AB}^a`$ is zero the spacetime length $`l`$ becomes the rest spatial length of the object. Using this result and the covariant definition of charge (10) the expressions (12) for the current density 4-vectors of a CCC were found in the ions’ rest frame. Then the 4-vectors $`E^\alpha `$ and $`B^\alpha `$ for a CCC are determined by means of the known $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ (15) and the relations (20) and (21), which connect the $`F^{\alpha b}`$ and $`E^\alpha ,B^\alpha `$ formulations of electrodynamics. This yields Eq. (22), which is one of the main results found in this paper. It shows that for the obsevers at rest in the ions’ rest frame the spatial components $`E^i`$ of $`E^\alpha `$ are different from zero outside a CCC. The second important result, which is also found in a completely covariant manner, i.e., in the “TT relativity” treatment, is the existence of invariant charges on a loop with current. There are opposite charges on opposite sides of a square loop with current, but the total charge of that loop is zero. These results are different from those found in all previous works in which mainly the “AT relativity” is used.
Acknowledgements. I am indebted to Prof. F. Rohrlich for reading the first version of this paper and for useful suggestions and encouragement, and also to an anonymous referee for useful comments.

REFERENCES

1. T. Ivezić, Found. Phys. Lett. 12, 105 (1999).

2. F. Rohrlich, Nuovo Cimento B 45, 76 (1966).

3. T Ivezić, preprint SCAN-9802018, on the CERN server.

4. A. Gamba, Am. J. Phys. 35, 83 (1967).

5. T.Ivezić, Phys. Lett. A 144, 427 (1990).

6. T.Ivezić, preprint SCAN-9802017 (on the CERN server).

7. R.M. Wald, General relativity (The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, 1984).

8. C. Leubner, K. Aufinger and P. Krumm, Eur. J. Phys. 13, 170 (1992).

9. G. Cavalleri and C. Bernasconi, Nuovo Cimento B 104, 545 (1989).

10. R. Anderson, I. Vetharaniam, G.E. Stedman, Phys. Rep. 295,

93 (1998).

11. D.E. Fahnline, Am. J. Phys. 50, 818 (1982).

12. A. Einstein, Ann. Physik 17, 891 (1905), tr. by W. Perrett

and G.B. Jeffery, in The principle of relativity (Dover, New York).

13. K. Geiger, Phys. Rep. 258, 240 (1995).

14. M. Pardy, Phys. Rev. A 55, 1647 (1997).

15. A. Laub, T. Doderer, S.G. Lachenmann and R.P. Huebener,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1372 (1995).

16. N. Bilić, Phys. Lett. A 162, 87 (1992).

17. L. Baroni, E. Montanari and A.D. Pesci, Nuovo Cimento B 109,

1275 (1994).

18. W.F. Edwards, C.S. Kenyon and D.K. Lemon, Phys. Rev. D 14,

922 (1976).

19. D.K. Lemon, W.F. Edwards and C.S. Kenyon, Phys. Lett. A 62,

105 (1992).

20. T. Ivezić, Phys. Rev. A 44, 2682 (1991).

21. W.K.H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, Classical electricity

and magnetism, 2nd edn. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1962).


text:
# Electron g-factor Engineering in III-V Semiconductors for Quantum Communications

## Abstract

An entanglement-preserving photo-detector converts photon polarization to electron spin. Up and down spin must respond equally to oppositely polarized photons, creating a requirement for degenerate spin energies, g$`{}_{e}{}^{}`$0 for electrons. We present a plot of ge-factor versus lattice constant, analogous to bandgap versus lattice constant, that can be used for g-factor engineering of III-V alloys and quantum wells

The major motive for the research on III-V semiconductors has been the development of opto-electronic devices for optical communications. One of the key inventions for improved semiconductor lasers was electronic band structure engineering based on strained heterostructures . Practical realization of quantum communications  is expected to require entanglement-preserving photo-detectors in which quantum information is transmitted by photon polarization through an optical fiber, and then transferred to electron spin in a semiconductor .

To maintain the entanglement, the photo-detector should absorb equally into up and down electron spin states, and thus the electron g-factor should be engineered for g$`{}_{e}{}^{}`$0.Fortunately, the familiar band structure engineering of effective mass can equally well control g-factor as well. There are additional requirements in Ref. 5 for moderately long spin coherence times, and for a hole g-factor $`\left|g_h\right|`$$`>`$$`>`$0, large enough to lift the Kramers’ degeneracy of the valence band. Various III-V alloys and quantum wells can be engineered to produce the right g-factor combinations.

To commence the task of g-factor engineering, we have graphed the experimental electron ge-factors in III-V semiconductors as a function of the lattice constant in Fig. 1(a). This is analogous to the famous graph of bandgaps versus lattice constant plotted in Fig. 1(b). In these figures, we have inscribed vertical & horizontal dash-dotted lines to illustrate design preferences. The horizontal axis in Fig. 1(a) shows a requirement for zero electron ge-factor, ge $``$0. The horizontal dash-dotted line in Fig. 1(b), is a preference for a bandgap of 0.8 eV, or $`\lambda `$=1.55 $`\mu `$m, corresponding to the optimum wavelength for fiber-optic communications, but shorter wavelengths $`\lambda `$=1.3 $`\mu `$m are also acceptable for quantum communication. To lattice match the entanglement-preserving photo-detector to a conventional InP substrate, a vertical dash-dotted line is shown at lattice constant a = 5.86 Å.

To fill in the gaps between the experimental ge-factor points in Fig. 1(a), some theoretical curves were included in Fig. 1(a). The following simple formula derived from the k$``$p perturbation theory  was used for the theoretical curves:

$$g_e=2\frac{2}{3}\frac{E_p\mathrm{\Delta }}{E_g(E_g+\mathrm{\Delta })},$$
(1)
where $`E_g`$ is the energy bandgap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the spin-orbit splitting energy, and $`E_p`$ is the energy equivalent of the principal interband momentum matrix element. We used experimentally determined $`E_g`$, and linearly interpolated $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`E_p`$ for alloys, utilizing known values for pure compounds. No fitting parameters were used. Although the formula includes only the lowest conduction band, the highest valence band, and a spin split-off valence band, it agrees reasonably well with the experimental data. Dotted lines in the figure show the range of indirect material, where Eq. (1) is not applicable, and g$`{}_{e,indirect}{}^{}`$2.

The trend in both Fig. 1(a) & 1(b) is for ge-factor be more negative as the bandgap drops. The main exception is InP. InP is the only III-V to show positive ge-factor at moderate bandgaps. This is because of the remarkably small spin-orbit splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = 0.108 eV in InP. Considering only bulk III-V semiconductors, one prefers to reduce $`E_g`$ down to 0.8 eV (1.55 $`\mu `$m), while keeping $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ no larger than 0.11 eV, in order to achieve near-zero ge-factor ($`E_p`$ is always around 22 eV). No bulk material is readily available with these characteristics. Much more design freedom can be achieved in multilayer heterostructures. For a reliable quantitative analysis to establish a proper design, it will be necessary to take into account the effects of quantum confinement as well as the strain-induced valence band splitting to fulfill the electron & hole g-factor requirements of an entanglement-preserving photo-detector.

Acknowledgement: The project or effort depicted is sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency & Army Research Office projects MDA972-99-1-0017, DAAD19-00-1-0172, and MDA972-00-1-0035. The content of the information does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.