text:
# On the statistical mechanics of prion diseases

\[

## Abstract

We simulate a two-dimensional, lattice based, protein-level statistical mechanical model for prion diseases (e.g., Mad Cow disease) with concommitant prion protein misfolding and aggregation. Our simulations lead us to the hypothesis that the observed broad incubation time distribution in epidemiological data reflect fluctuation dominated growth seeded by a few nanometer scale aggregates, while much narrower incubation time distributions for innoculated lab animals arise from statistical self averaging. We model ‘species barriers’ to prion infection and assess a related treatment protocol.

\]

Transmissible neurodegenerative prion diseases, such as Mad-Cow Disease (BSE) and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) in humans, increasingly represent a serious public health threat. Prusiner and collaborators have shown that the infectious agent (prion) in these diseases consists of a quantity of a misfolded form (PrPSc) of the $``$200 amino acid PrPC protein which is expressed ubiquitously in mammalian neurons. The PrPC proteins normally reside on neuron surfaces, and the more hydrophobic PrPSc forms tend to aggregate: large (micron scale) PrPSc amyloid plaques are a common post-mortem feature of brain tissues, and fibrils are observed in in vitro experiments. Nucleic acid free propagation demands that PrPSc autocatalyze their own formation by helping to convert more PrPc into PrPSc. Given that mammalian PrPc differ by only 5-10% in amino acid composition and that variant CJD correlated with BSE has been observed in England, the efficacy of “species barriers” in limiting transmission is of considerable interest.

Several facts suggest that prion disease may be driven less by complex biology (as in Alzheimers’ disease) than by physico-chemical processes, including: (1) The “universal character” of sporadic CJD, observed globally without evident spatio-temporal clustering at an annual background death rate of 0.5-1.5/million and mean onset age of about 63 years. (2) Highly reproducible incubation time vs. infectious dose distributions observed in laboratory animal studies, with a power law relation between mean incubation time and dose concentration $`D`$. (3) The close temporal proximity of disease onset and death. (4) PrPSc may be grown in vitro without biological processing and is toxic to neurons, though not yet demonstrably infectious. The following question is thus raised: is the incubation time of prion disease dominated by a fundamental physico-chemical nucleation and growth of PrPSc protein aggregates?

We present simulation results for a simple two-dimensional, lattice based statistical mechanical model for prion disease based at the protein level. It is all but hopeless to develop an atomic level simulation capable of spanning the 21 temporal orders of magnitude between picosecond scale intra-protein motion and the potentially decades long incubation times of large prion aggregates. Our simulation is a bridge between the short distance and time scales covered in individual protein models and the long time, macroscopic realm of chemical kinetics. We use our simulations to identify the protectorate of principles necessary to describe the aforementioned universal features of prion disease. Specifically, we find: (1) Concommitant PrPSc autocatalysis and stable aggregation can explain the long disease incubation times, and the difference between sporadic (unseeded) and infectious (seeded) onset. This principle is consistent with data for yeast prions, is closely related to the earlier nucleation theory of Lansbury, and avoids the need to fine tune model parameters with separated autocatalysis and aggregation. (2) The distributions of disease incubation times (well defined onset edge, broad fluctuation driven spectrum for dilute prion doses, narrow short time shifted distribution for more concentrated prion doses) stongly suggest a central role for growth from a minimally nanometer scale seed (with order 10 PrPSc proteins). With these assumptions we obtain a one parameter fit to the BSE incubation time data, an order of magnitude correct estimate of the mean incubation time for BSE and infectious CJD, and we argue that self-averaging explains a narrowing of incubation time distributions observed in the laboratory. Finally, by considering both sticking and interconversion rate differences for prions of different species, we provide a theoretical underpinning to data for the species barrier efficacy and to proposed treatments based upon coating of incipient prion plaques.

Our assumption of two-dimensionality is consistent with the observation that PrPc resides on neuron surfaces and autocatalysis and aggregation must certainly initiate there. The lattice structure should be irrelevant at long times. By assuming a triangular lattice we minimize the anisotropy (which appears first in rank six tensors for hexagonal lattices). This simulation yields the crucial qualitative features necessary to specify the “prion protectorate.” Our resulting prion aggregates are essentially amorphous, rather than quasi-one-dimensional filaments as found in some in vitro experiments. We shall discuss an anisotropic simulation yielding fibrils elsewhere.

Our model is based upon the energy landscape schematized in Fig. 1. Individual lattice cells take on three values: unoccupied (implicitly filled with water), occupied by a PrPc protein, or occupied by a PrPSc protein. At the beginning of each simulation, we choose a monomer PrPc configuration distributed randomly, with a number (0-4) of PrPSc seeds located randomly as well.

In the spirit of cellular and molecular automata, we eschew an explicit Hamiltonian based molecular dynamics in favor of the following updating rules, specified in time units of one full lattice sweep ($`d`$ is the nearest neighbor coordination number):

(1) Identify each occupied cell as PrPC or PrPSc by
checking its number of nearest neighbors.
(2) For each PrPC, move one step in a random di-
rection if that adjoining site is unoccupied.
(3) Identify aggregates (size $`N_P`$) by PrPSc presence;
move them per Rule (2) with probability $`1/\sqrt{N_p}`$.
(4) For $`d=0,1`$ the protein remains PrPC.
(5) For $`d=2`$, the protein is PrPC or PrPSc with equal
probability
(6) For $`d3`$ the protein is PrPSc.

Rules (1-3) ensure diffusive motion of PrPC monomers and PrPSc aggregates. Rules (4-6) specify protein interactions and autocatalysis, and reflect the relative hydrophobicity of PrPSc. To assure the biologically plausible condition of constant average PrPC concentration, at the start of a new sweep we randomly place a new PrPC for each lost in the previous update.

This procedure is repeated for up to millions of full sweeps through the lattice. Note that a sweep defines the minimum time scale for conversion of PrPC to PrPSc, which is presumably of order a second or less in real time. We work with maximum lattice sizes of $`N=4\times 10^4`$. Practically, we are able to run at areal monomer concentrations $`c`$ 0.1%, which are likely to be about three orders of magnitude larger than in the brain.

We run our seeded simulations repeatedly following the largest nano-aggregates until they reach a size of up to 0.4% of the lattice. Each seed consists of 10 PrPSc monomers For a given aggregate size, we have studied the properties of the distribution of lifetimes to reach that size. For a final aggregate size of $`𝒜`$=0.2%$`N`$ (80 monomers) we display the corresponding distributions $`P_D`$ in Fig. 2(a) for several values of $`c`$ and $`D=1`$. $`P_D`$ displays greater fluctuations for small $`c`$, and increasing $`c`$ shifts $`P_D`$ to short times. Fluctuations dominate the growth from the small seed aggregate. For larger $`𝒜`$ we find that the onset time grows sublinearly in $`𝒜`$, while the distribution width grows weakly with $`𝒜`$. To within fluctuations, the $`P_D`$ curves for different $`c`$ collapse when scaled by the mean time $`t_m`$. (The curves broaden somewhat for $`D=2,3,4`$.) This implies the scaling law

$$P_D(t,c)\frac{1}{t_m(c)}F_D(\frac{t}{t_m(c)})$$
(1)
In the range of concentrations studied, we can fit $`t_m(c)`$ well by either: (a) the polynomial form $`t_m(c)Ac^1+Bc^2`$ (the first term reflecting monomer aggregation, the second representing dimer aggregation), or (b) a power law form, $`t_m(c)c^{\alpha (D)}`$, with $`\alpha (D)=1.66(D=1),1.49(D=2)`$. For finite $`𝒜`$ and $`c0`$ the exponent $`\alpha (D)`$ should tend to two, reflecting dominant dimer aggregation. Fit (b) is consistent with a nontrivial scaling limit as $`𝒜\mathrm{}`$, $`c0`$. Both fits to $`t_m(c)`$ give order of magnitude equivalent extrapolations to lower $`c`$ relevant to biological contexts. Assuming $`t_m(c)D^\beta `$ at fixed $`c`$, we estimate $`\beta 1`$ with large numerical uncertainty. Taken together, these data lead us to a conjecture of asymptotic compression of $`P_D`$: for $`c0`$, an increasingly large range of $`𝒜`$ will have essentially the same scaled shape, because the time $`t_2`$ it takes to go from $`𝒜`$ to say, $`2𝒜`$ will be much smaller than $`t_m`$ for going from $`10𝒜`$.

We believe that other processes, such as protease attack or competition between PrPSc-PrPSc and PrPSc-neuron binding will limit prion aggregation on the neural surface and cause fissioning and spreading of nano-aggregates to other neurons. Such fission is necessary for exponential growth of infectious agents, as noted previously. At the order-of-magnitude level $`t_2`$ sets the doubling time for disease spread, assuming that inter-cellular diffusion rates exceed intra-cellular ones. Given $`t_2<<t_m`$ (at biological $`c`$ values) both in our fission hypothesis and experiment, slow growth fluctuations for small seed aggregates can dominate the overall incubation time for disease. For example, in hamster experiments the first observable levels of PrPSc in brain tissues occur at about 90 days, with symptom onset at 120 days, and a doubling time of 2 days. Given the conjectured asymptotic compression, the incubation time distribution will be relatively insensitive to a wide range of nano-aggregate sizes for fission parents or progeny.

We stress several points of agreement with observation and laboratory data. First, we always find death (runaway growth of a killer aggregate) in the presence of infection, in agreement with experiment and the aggregate nucleation hypothesis for prion disease. Second, our rough scaling of $`t_m`$ with $`D`$ agrees qualitatively with the extraordinarily reproducible dose vs. incubation time data of Prusiner and collaborators for prion infection in laboratory mice, for which $`\tau _ID^{.62}`$. Third, our lifetimes are in order of magnitude agreement with observed BSE incubation times and new variant CJD death ages, which we can prove by exploiting our concentration scaling. For a single seed, at our lowest concentration of 0.1% our distribution peaks at about 104 sweeps. Assuming a literature estimate of concentration of in vivo prions in solution of 100 nanomole/liter and a protein diameter of order one nanometer suggests a dimensionless areal concentration of about $`10^3`$%. With the above concentration scaling this gives an incubation time of about 108 sweeps. If we take the 5 year mean incubation time for BSE this implies our basic misfolding time (one sweep) is about one second, which is reasonable at the order of magnitude level. Finally, by simply scaling time for $`𝒜=80`$ by the mean time $`t_m`$, we achieve an exceptionally good fit ($`𝒜`$) of the inferred incubation time distribution for BSE in the United Kingdom (for cattle born in 1987) to our scaling curve as shown in Fig. 2(b). This supports our hypothesis that runaway autocatalytic aggregation seeded by a few prion nano-aggregates triggers the disease. This is very plausible since (i) infection is believed to have come from rendering plant offal derived from many animals after considerable processing,leading to substantial dilution, and (ii) prion transmission by oral consumption is estimated to be less efficient than innoculation by a factor of 109.

Sporadic CJD develops in the absence of any infection or genetic predisposition to prion disease. We have studied the lifetime distributions in this case and find that they are very different in shape than the seeded runs, being much broader and dimer fluctuation dominated (peaks scale as $`c^2`$). For our estimated biological concentration of $`c=10^3`$%, this could give a mean onset time as large as 103 years. Assuming a constant height tail from the minimum single seed onset to the mean human lifespan taken with the 1 part in 106 odds of dying from sporadic CJD gives an estimate of a total death probability of a part in 105 up to this mean on-set time. This is consistent with our simulations, but not resolvable currently.

In contrast to the breadth of our single seed lifetime distributions, in the event of dosing by a greater number of seeds, self-averaging will narrow the distribution, collapsing it towards the onset (shorter times). Assuming growth proceeds independently for different seeds (which is quite reasonable for the low concentrations in living organisms) distributions would narrow by $`\sqrt{D}`$. Several in vivo experiments show distribution time narrowing with increased doseage, but are not amenable to quantitative analysis at this time.

We turn now to the species barrier. To simulate interspecies transmission we replace the integer-valued coordination, the key parameter which determined the stability of different protein conformations in the earlier studies, by a new variable $`x=N+N^{}\times P`$ for PrPC and $`x^{}=N^{}+N\times P^{}`$, for PrPC′, where $`N`$ is the number of PrPC,Sc neighbors and $`N^{}`$ the number of PrPC,Sc′ neighbors. The parameters $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ (chosen less than unity) provide a measure of the reduced effectiveness of interspecies conversion. To deal with the continuous variable $`x`$, rather than the integer coordination used earlier, we represent the PrPC to PrPSc conversion probability $`f(x)`$ by

$$f(x)=\frac{1}{e^{\beta (x2)}+1}$$
(2)
with a similar definition for PrP$`{}_{}{}^{C}`$PrPSc′ conversion. A separate parameter describes physisorption to an aggregate of alien prions. We allow a PrPC,Sc cluster of mass $`M`$ ($`M=1`$ being a monomer) to desorb from an alien prion aggregate with probability $`q^K/\sqrt{M}`$, where $`q`$ is the physisorption parameter, and $`K`$ is the number of units in the cluster adjacent to the alien aggregate. We define $`q^{}`$ for PrPC,Sc′ similarly. Thus, we describe species barriers in terms of the two parameters affecting conversion rates ($`P,P^{}`$) and physisorption ($`q,q^{}`$). Making $`PP^{}`$ and $`qq^{}`$ allows for an asymmetry in infectivity, and we can model one of the most striking aspects of the species barrier, namely its asymmetry (e.g. mice infect hamsters well, hamsters infect mice poorly).

We have carried out several simulations relevant to the species barrier. First, we have placed alien prion ‘walls’ on a boundary, representing a single large aggregate from another species. With suitable choice of parameters, this leads to the asymmetric species barrier between two species. Namely, disease onset in one species (with large aggregates) and only sub-critical PrPSc concentration near the wall in the other. Recent experimental data has also shown the build up of such sub-critical PrPSc concentration in the asymmetric interspecies transmission .

Second, suppose the asymmetry is such that $`P<<P^{}`$. In this case, PrPSc′ is more favorably formed from PrPC′ in the presence of a seed aggregate of PrPSc than PrPSc is formed from PrPC in the presence of a PrPSc′ seed. Thus, by injecting a large enough initial dose of alien PrPC′ proteins into the organism, it should be possible for PrPC′ to compete favorably with PrPC for aggregation, and thus extend the incubation time. Such protocols have been tested experimentally: (i) Experiments with the coating dye molecule Congo Red reveal a surprising non-monotonic dose vs. lifetime relation: small Congo Red concentrations yield a reduced time for incubation, while larger Congo red concentrations significantly extend the incubation time. (ii) In vitro experiments show that the above coating scenario with alien prions works when the initial PrPC′ concentration $`c^{}>c`$.

We find both of these experimental features in our simulation as shown in Fig. 3. For $`c^{}/c<2`$, the incubation time is slightly shortened, while for $`c^{}/c>2`$ the incubation time is increased. We find that the lifetime shortening arises because once a few PrPC′ aggregate, they partially block the motion of adjacent PrPC proteins, enhancing the misfolding probability of the latter. However, further PrPC misfolding is significantly reduced once PrPSc′ coats the seed.

A crucial test of our theory would be to monitor, in vitro, the lifetime distributions of normal prion proteins seeded by small aggregates as a function of both $`c`$ and $`D`$ to look for the scaling behavior. If it is not possible to easily achieve $`D=1,2`$, presumably the distribution of Fig. 2(b) could be estimated by extrapolation from successively diluted PrPSc doses. This would also test the extent to which the self-averaging applies. If our single seed hypothesis is correct, it is important to assess how passage occurs upon infection.

Theoretically, it is important to extend our model by including internal degrees of freedom for the proteins which can provide an orientational dependence to the aggregation, allowing for linear fibril formation as opposed to amorphous aggregates. This connects naturally with simulations on individual proteins, and also allows for the study of different protectorates for collective protein phenomena.

Acknowledgements. We acknowledge useful discussions with S. Carter, F. DeArmond, R. Fairclough, C. Ionescu-Zanetti, T. Jue, R. Khurana, and C. Lasmézas. F. Pázmándi has been supported by National Science Foundation Grant DMR-9985978. R.R.P.S. and D.L.C. have benefitted from discussions at workshops of the Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter. We are grateful for a grant of supercomputer time from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.


format: text

text:
# Two photon decay of the pseudoscalars, the chiral symmetry breaking corrections

## 1 Introduction

Currrent Algebra and PCAC (partial conservation of the axial-vector current) together with the ABJ axial-anomaly  expresses the two- photon decay rate of the pseudoscalar mesons ($`P=\pi ^0,\eta ,\eta ^{}`$) in terms of the coupling constants f$`_{\pi ^0}`$, f0 and f8 and of the singlet-octet mixing angle $`\theta `$

$$0A_\alpha \pi ^0(p)=2if_{\pi ^0}p_\alpha $$

$$0A_\alpha ^{(8)}\eta (p)=2if_8.\mathrm{cos}\theta .p_\alpha ,0A_\alpha ^{(0)}\eta (p)=2if_0.\mathrm{sin}\theta .p_\alpha $$

$$0A_\alpha ^{(8)}\eta ^{}(p)=2if_8.\mathrm{sin}\theta .p_\alpha ,0A_\alpha ^{(0)}\eta ^{}(p)=2if_0.\mathrm{cos}\theta .p_\alpha $$
(1.1)
with

$$f_{\pi ^0}f_{\pi ^+}=92.4\text{MeV}$$

and where the axial-vector currents are given in terms of the quark fields.

$$A_\alpha =(\overline{u}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5u\overline{d}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5d),A_\alpha ^{(8)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\overline{u}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5u+\overline{d}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5d2\overline{s}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5s)$$

$$A_\alpha ^{(0)}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}(\overline{u}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5u+\overline{d}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5d+\overline{s}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5s)$$
(1.2)
Unlike $`f_\pi ,f_0`$ and $`f_8`$are not directly related to any physical process.

SU(3) breaking enters through singlet-octet mixing and through the deviation of the ratio $`\frac{f_8}{f_\pi }`$ from unity.Another symmetry breaking effect originates from SU(3)$`\times `$SU(3) breaking: the decay rate is obtained in the soft meson limit from the ABJ anomaly  and the extrapolation to the mass-shell involves corrections $`O(m_P^2)`$ which are expected to be small for the $`\pi ^0`$ but which are not necessarily so for the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ These corrections to the PCAC limit, which arise from the 0- continuum are similar to the corrections to the Goldberger-Treiman relation . Attempts to estimate these corrections have been undertaken , , . In  and  only the contribution of the high energy part of the $`O^{}`$ spectrum was considered and in  only the low energy part was used. These three calculations are moreover heavily model dependant.

It is the purpose of the present work to provide an estimate of the PCAC corrections which enter in the evaluation of the two photon decay rates of the pseudoscalars under the sole assumptions that the V-A-A vertex is given by the quark triangle graph in the deep euclidean region and that the main contribution to SU(3)$`\times `$SU(3) breaking arises from the energy interval

$$1\text{GeV}^2s2\text{GeV}^2$$

of the $`O^{}`$ continuum.

In section $`2`$ we give details of the calculation and the resulting constraints on the values of $`f_8`$, $`f_0`$ and the mixing angle $`\theta `$ are discussed and finally an evaluation of the implications of our results on the transition form factors $`\gamma ^{}\gamma P`$ are presented in section $`3`$ and confronted with the available experimental data.

## 2 The chiral symmetry breaking corrections

Consider the three-point function

$$T_{\alpha \mu \nu }(p,q_1,q_2)=2\pi i.𝑑x𝑑y\mathrm{exp}(iq_1x+ipy)0TA_\alpha (y)V_\mu (x)V_\nu (0)0$$

$$=\frac{1}{\pi }.\frac{1}{(p^2m_\pi ^2)}.ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }q_1^\lambda q_2^\sigma p_\alpha .F(p^2,q_1^2,q_2^2)+\mathrm{}$$
(2.1)
where the dots represent other tensor structures and where $`V_{\mu ,\nu }`$denotes the electromagnetic current

$$V_\mu =\frac{2}{3}\overline{u}\gamma _\mu u\frac{1}{3}\overline{d}\gamma _\mu d\frac{1}{3}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu s$$
(2.2)
The pion pole contribution having been isolated in expression (2.1).

In the soft $`\pi `$ limit and with both photons on mass-shell, the axial-anomaly  yields

$$F(0,0,0)=1$$
(2.3)
The rate of the decay $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ provides a measurement of

$$F(m_\pi ^2,0,0)=1+\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi ,\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi =O(m_\pi ^2)$$
(2.4)
Equation (2.1) is used to define the off-shell symmetric amplitude

$$F(s,t)=F(s=p^2,t=q_1^2=q_2^2)$$
(2.5)
In the deep euclidean region $`F(s,t)=F^{\text{QCD}}(s,t)`$, $`F^{\text{QCD}}(s,t)`$ includes perturbative and non-perturbative contributions

$$F^{\text{QCD}}(s,t)=F_p(s,t)+F_{np}(s,t)$$
(2.6)
The perturbative part $`F_p(s,t)`$ is obtained from the quark triangle graph, the contribution of which takes a particularly simple form in the symmetric case

$$F_p(s,t)=2.(sm_\pi ^2)._0^1𝑑x𝑑y.\frac{x\overline{x}y^2}{(y(x\overline{x}st)+t)},\overline{x}=1x$$
(2.7)
The non-perturbative part $`F_{np}(s,t)`$ arises from the contribution of the vacuum condensates

$$F_{np}(s,t)=\frac{b_1}{t^2}+\frac{b_2}{t^3}+\frac{b_3}{st}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.8)
where

$$b_1=\frac{\pi ^3}{9}.\frac{\alpha _{s.}G^2}{\pi },b_2=\frac{64}{27}.\pi ^4.\alpha _s(qq)^2,b_3=b_1$$
(2.9)
For t fixed,$`F(s,t)`$ is an analytic function of the complex variable s with a cut on the positive real axis which extends from $`s=9m_\pi ^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ .

A dispersion relation between $`F(s=m_\pi ^2,t)`$ and $`F(0,t)`$ is obtained from the integral

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_c\frac{ds}{s.(sm_\pi ^2)}.F(s,t)$$
(2.10)
where $`c`$ is the closed contour in the complex plane consisting of a circle of large radius $`R`$ and two straight lines lying immediatly above and immediatly below the cut .Cauchy’s theorem yields then

$$F(m_\pi ^2,t)=F(0,t)+\frac{m_\pi ^2}{2\pi i}._c\frac{ds}{s.(sm_\pi ^2)}.F(s,t)$$
(2.11)
The integral in the equation above consists of two parts : an integral of the discontinuity of $`F(s,t)`$ over the cut , which provides the main contribution and an integral over the circle of radius $`R`$ where $`F^{\text{QCD}}(s,t)`$ provides a good approximation to $`F(s,t)`$ except possibly in the vicinity of the positive real axis. Little is known about the integrand over the cut which consists of the contribution of the axial-vector $`(1^+)`$ and pseudoscalar $`(0^{})`$ intermediate states.The contribution of the low energy region(the three pion states) is suppressed by loop factors and amounts to little . We expect the major part of the contribution to originate from the $`a1(1260)`$ and $`\pi ^{}(1300)`$ bumps i.e from the range $`1`$GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}s`$ $`2`$GeV$`^2.`$In order to eliminate this contribution,we shall consider, instead of integral (2.10), the following modified integral

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}._c\frac{ds}{(sm_\pi ^2)}.(\frac{1}{s}a_0a_1.s).F(s,t)$$
(2.12)
In the equation above . the coefficients $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ will be chosen so as to annihilate the integrand at $`m_1^2=m_{a1}^2=1.56`$GeV2 and at $`m_2^2=m_\pi ^{}^2=1.70`$GeV2, i.e

$$a_0=\frac{1}{m_1^2}+\frac{1}{m_2^2},a_1=\frac{1}{m_1^2.m_2^2}$$
(2.13)
This choice reduces the integrand to only a few percent of it’s initial value over the interval $`1`$GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}s`$ $`2`$GeV2. It will also considerably reduce the contribution to the integral over the circle near the positive real axis.The contribution of the continuum having thus been drastically reduced, we neglect it. Cauchy’s theorem now yields

$$F(m_\pi ^2,t)F(0,t)+a_0.m_\pi ^2.F(m_\pi ^2,t)+a_1.m_\pi ^4.F(m_\pi ^2,t)$$

$$+\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{ds}{(sm_\pi ^2)}.(\frac{1}{s}a_0a_1.s).F(s,t)$$
(2.14)
The integral being now carried over the circle of radius $`R.`$

In order to obtain $`F(s,0)`$ we proceed in a similar fashion.$`F(s,t)`$ is an analytic function of the complex variable $`t`$ except for a cut on the positive real axis extending from $`t=4m_\pi ^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$.In the low $`t`$ region $`F(s,t)`$ is dominated by the $`\rho \omega `$ double and single poles,

$$F(s,t)=\frac{c_1(s)}{(tm_\rho ^2)^2}+\frac{c_2(s)}{(tm_\rho ^2)}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.15)
Consider now the integral

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_c^{}𝑑t.\frac{(tm_\rho ^2)^2}{t}.F(s,t)$$
(2.16)
where $`c^{}`$ is a contour similar to $`c`$ in the complex $`t`$ plane. the double and single vector meson poles having been removed and for an appropriate choice of $`R^{}`$ the major contribution to the integral (2.16) comes from the integral over the circle so that

$$F(s,0)\frac{1}{m_\rho ^4}.\frac{1}{2\pi i}_R^{}𝑑t\frac{(tm_\rho ^2)^2}{t}.F(s,t)$$
(2.17)
It follows from equations (2.14) and (2.17) that

$$F(m_\pi ^2,0).(1a_0.m_\pi ^2a_1.m_\pi ^4)$$

$$=F(0,0)+\frac{m_\pi ^2}{(2\pi i)^2}\frac{dsdt}{t(sm_\pi ^2)}(tm_p^2)^2(\frac{1}{s}a_0a_1.s).F^{\text{QCD}}(s,t)$$
(2.18)
The integral above being carried over the circles of large radii $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ we have replaced $`F(s,t)`$ by $`F^{\text{QCD}}(s,t)`$ in the integrand. Inserting eqs (2.6) - (2.8) in eq. (2.18) gives

$$F(m_\pi ^2,0).(1a_0.m_\pi ^2a_1.m_\pi ^4)$$

$$=F(0,0)+\frac{m_\pi ^2}{9.m_\rho ^2}+\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^4}.(\frac{R}{5}\frac{1}{3}(R^{}2.m_\rho ^2.\mathrm{ln}\frac{R^{}}{R}\frac{m_\rho ^4}{R^{}}))$$

$$a_0.\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^4}.R.(\frac{R}{10}\frac{2}{3}.m_\rho ^2)a_1.\frac{m_\pi ^2.R^2}{m_\rho ^4}.(\frac{R}{15}\frac{m_\rho ^2}{3})\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^4}.(a_0+a_1.m_\pi ^2).b_1$$

$$+2.\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^2}.a_1.b_3$$
(2.19)
The non-perturbative contributions to equation (2.19) turn out to be negligible.

The decays $`\eta 2\gamma `$ and $`\eta ^{}2\gamma `$ are treated in a similar fashion. The axial-vector currents which project on the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ states are, respectively,

$$A_\alpha ^\eta =(\frac{A_\alpha ^{(8)}}{f_8}.\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{A_\alpha ^{(0)}}{f_0}.\mathrm{sin}\theta ),A_\alpha ^\eta ^{}=(\frac{A_\alpha ^{(8)}}{f_8}.\mathrm{sin}\theta +\frac{A_\alpha ^{(0)}}{f_0}.\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(2.20)
These currents we use in the definition of the 3-point function equation (2.1). The results for the two photon decay rates of the pseudoscalars are then:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^02\gamma )=\frac{\alpha ^2.m_\pi ^3}{64\pi ^3.f_{\pi ^+}^2}.(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi )^2.\frac{f_{\pi ^+}^2}{f_{\pi ^0}^2}$$
(2.21)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta 2\gamma )=\frac{\alpha ^2.m_\eta ^3}{192\pi ^3f_{\pi ^+}^2}.(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_\eta )^2.(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{F_8}2\sqrt{2}.\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{F_0})^2$$
(2.22)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ^{}2\gamma )=\frac{\alpha ^2.m_\eta ^{}^3}{192\pi ^3f_{\pi ^+}^2}.(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_\eta ^{})^2.(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{F_8}+2\sqrt{2}.\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{F_0})^2$$
(2.23)
With the notation $`F_{0,8}=`$ $`\frac{f_{0,8}}{f_{\pi ^+}}`$ and

$$F(m_\pi ^2,0,0)=(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi )$$

$$F(m_\eta ^2,0,0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_\eta ),F(m_\eta ^{}^2,0,0)=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_\eta ^{})$$
(2.24)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi `$ is obtained from equation (2.19) The same equation with the negligible non-perturbative part omitted yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\eta ^{}`$when $`m_\pi `$ is replaced by $`m_{\eta ,\eta ^{}}`$and when the strange quark mass is neglected.

$`R^{},`$ the duality radius in the $`\rho `$-meson channel is usually taken to be $`R^{}`$ $`1.5`$GeV2 in the litterature  The value of $`R`$ should be large enough to include the contribution of the pseudoscalar excitations but not too large in order not to invalidate the approximations at hand. Moreover $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ should be stable against small variations in $`R..`$For the parameters $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ we take

$$m_1^2=m_{a_1(1260)}^2=1.56\text{GeV}^2,m_2^2=m_{\pi (1300)}^2=1.70\text{GeV}^2$$
(2.25)
as discussed previously .

In the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ channels two pseudoscalar excitations, $`\eta (1295)`$ and $`\eta (1440)`$ as well as two axial-vectors, $`f_1(1285)`$ and $`f_1(1420)`$ dominate the $`0^{}`$ and $`1^+`$ continua and couple to both $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons with unknown strengths. Because $`\eta (1295)`$ and $`f_1(1285)`$ on the one hand and $`\eta (1440)`$ and $`f_1(1420)`$ on the other hand are practically degenerate in mass it suffices to take

$$m_1^2=1.66\text{GeV}^2,m_2^2=2.04\text{GeV}^2$$
(2.26)
for both $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}.`$

With these choices expression (2.19) passes through a maximum for $`R`$ $`2`$GeV2 in the $`\pi `$ channel and $`R`$ $`2.25`$GeV2 in the $`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$ channels.,values which we adopt because of the stability criteria stated above. Numerically then, we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi .047,\mathrm{\Delta }_\eta .77,\mathrm{\Delta }_\eta ^{}6.0$$
(2.27)
The relative theoretical error on the numbers above is estimated to be of the order of $`\alpha _s(2.5`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2})/\pi `$=$`12\%`$

The chiral symmetry breaking corrections are thus seen to be quite large.For the $`\pi ^0`$the theoretical value of the width is increased from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^02\gamma }=7.74`$ eV to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^02\gamma }=(8.25\pm .09)\text{eV}$$
(2.28)
if we take $`f_{\pi ^+}/f_{\pi ^0}=1.`$ Another correction to the chiral limit could originate from $`\pi ^0,\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mixing.It has been estimated in chiral perturbation theory  and would increase the decay rate by another 1.045 factor to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^02\gamma }=(8.60\pm .10)\text{eV}$$
(2.29)
The current world average experimental value is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^02\gamma }=(7.75\pm .60)\text{eV}$$
(2.30)
The large dispersion of the experimental results however suggests that the quoted error is underestimated . The outcome of the PRIMEX experiment at Jefferson Lab , which aims at a precision of 1.5% in the measurement of the $`\pi ^0`$ decay rate,is thus eagerly expected in order to clarify the situation.

In order to extract information from our results on the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ more input has to be added

An analysis of the $`\eta ,`$ $`\eta ^{}`$mesons mass matrix together with chiral perturbation theory  yields for the mixing angle $`\theta =19.5^{}`$, this value and the experimentally measured decay rates, when inserted in equations (2.22), (2.23) and (2.27) imply

$$F_8=1.29\pm .09,F_0=4.70\pm .45$$
(2.31)
Our result for $`F_8`$ is consistent with that obtained from chiral perturbation theory,$`F_8=1.25`$ , the value obtained for$`F_0`$ is quite larger than the ones appearing in the litterature.It is worth noting that a pure gluon component present in $`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$would yield the value appearing in eq.(2.31) as an upper limit for $`F_0`$ .

It is unfortunate that $`F_8`$ and $`F_0`$ are not directly linked to any physically measurable quantity. Data exist however on the transitions $`\gamma \gamma ^{}P`$ . We shall examine in the next section the implications of our results on the corresponding form factors .

## 3 Form factors of the transitions $`\gamma \gamma ^{}\pi ^0,\eta `$ $`,\eta ^{}`$

In the deep euclidean region we have

$$F_p(s,Q^2,t)=2.(sm_P^2)._0^1𝑑xx\overline{x}_0^1𝑑y\frac{y^2}{(y.(x\overline{x}s+xQ^2+\overline{x}q^2)xq^2+\overline{x}t)}$$
(3.1)
$`t=q_1^2`$, $`Q^2=q_2^2`$ and $`s=p^2`$ as before.In order to be able to compare with experiment, we need to evaluate $`F(m_P^2,Q^2,0).`$ The method used in the preceding section,,modified to take into account the fact that we have now only a single pole in the vector meson channel now yields

$$F(m_P^2,Q^2,0)$$

$$=\frac{1}{m_\rho ^2}.\frac{1}{(2\pi i)}.dsdt\frac{(tm_\rho ^{2)}}{t}.(\frac{1}{(sm_\rho ^2}a_0a_1.s).F^{QCD}(s,Q^2,t)$$
(3.2)
an expression valid for large $`Q^2.`$ Inserting expression (3.1) in the equation above , it takes some straightforward algebra in the complex plane to evaluate $`F(m_p^2,Q^2,0)`$. The deep inelastic limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ is readily obtained

$$Q^2.F_{\pi ^0}(m_\pi ^2,Q^2,0)\frac{(\frac{R^3}{3}(m_1^2+m_2^2).\frac{R^2}{2}+m_1^2.m_2^2.R)}{(m_1^2m_\pi ^2).(m_2^2m_\pi ^2)}$$
(3.3)
The corresponding expressions for the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ have to be multiplied by the factors $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{F_8}\frac{2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta }{F_0})`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{F_8}\frac{2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{F_0})`$ respectively. Numerically then

$$\frac{Q^2.F_{\pi ^0}(m_\pi ^2,Q^2,0)}{8.\pi ^2.f_\pi ^2}.81$$
(3.4)
$$\frac{Q^2.F_\eta (m_\eta ^2,Q^2,0)}{8.\pi ^2.f_\pi ^2}(1.34.\pm .12).\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}.(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{F_8}\frac{2\sqrt{2}.\mathrm{sin}\theta }{F_0})$$
(3.5)
$$\frac{Q^2.F_\eta ^{}(m_\eta ^{}^2,Q^2,0)}{8.\pi ^2.f_\pi ^2}(3.72.\pm .54).\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}.(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{F_8}+\frac{2\sqrt{2}.\mathrm{cos}\theta }{F_0})$$
(3.6)
From the experimental widths and the values of $`\theta ,`$ $`F_0,`$ $`F_8`$ given by equation (2.31) we get

$$\frac{Q^2.F_\eta (m_\eta ^2,Q^2,0)}{8\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}.72\pm .07$$
(3.7)
$$\frac{Q^2.F_\eta ^{}(m_\eta ^{}^2,Q^2,0)}{8\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}.98\pm .14$$
(3.8)
The outputs of equations (3.4), (3.7) and (3.8) together with the experimental data  are shown on the figures

## 4 Conclusion

The chiral symmetry breaking corretions to the decays $`\pi ^0,\eta ,\eta ^{}2\gamma `$ have been estimated in a model independant way and found to be quite large.In the case of $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ the theoretical value is onsidertably increased and this lends a great significance to the upcoming PRIMEX experiment .

In addition the form factors of the transitions $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^0,\eta ,\eta ^{}`$ were evaluated and shown to compare favourably with the available experimental data.

Figure Captions:

Fig1: The form factors of the transitions:

a) $`\gamma \gamma ^{}\pi ^0`$ , b) $`\gamma \gamma ^{}\eta `$ , c) $`\gamma \gamma ^{}\eta ^{}`$ as obtained from eq. (3.2). The vertical lines represent the data as taken from


text:
# Untitled Document

MG–P–01/051

To appear in the American Journal of Physics

The Thomas rotation
John P. Costella, Bruce H. J. McKellar, and Andrew A. Rawlinson§
School of Physics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
Gerard J. Stephenson, Jr.
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131
(February 20, 2001)

Abstract

> We review why the Thomas rotation is a crucial facet of special relativity, that is just as fundamental, and just as “unintuitive” and “paradoxical”, as such traditional effects as length contraction, time dilation, and the ambiguity of simultaneity. We show how this phenomenon can be quite naturally introduced and investigated in the context of a typical introductory course on special relativity, in a way that is appropriate for, and completely accessible to, undergraduate students. We also demonstrate, in a more advanced section aimed at the graduate student studying the Dirac equation and relativistic quantum field theory, that careful consideration of the Thomas rotation will become vital as modern experiments in particle physics continue to move from unpolarized to polarized cross-sections.

I. Introduction
Recently, a number of the current authors have reviewed how aspects of relativistic quantum mechanics can be appreciated from the point of view of relativistic classical mechanics. In Ref. 1, the Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation was reviewed, where it was emphasized that many of the operators of the Dirac equation become, after transformation, completely recognizable from the point of view of classical physics. In Ref. 2, the Feynman–Stueckelberg formulation of antiparticles was reviewed, entirely within the domain of classical mechanics, and it was emphasized that one can make good sense of antiparticle motion without needing to resort to quantum mechanical arguments.

In extending these ideas to the domain of quantum field theory, we have found that there is a third aspect of classical relativistic mechanics that is of crucial theoretical and practical importance, but which rates scarcely a mention in most textbooks on special relativity: the Thomas rotation. (In the case of a continuous evolution of infinitesimal rotations, this effect is usually referred to as the Thomas precession; but we are here mainly concerned with the more general case of a single, finite rotation.) Historically, the relative obscurity of this effect can, perhaps, be traced to the fact that the special theory of relativity was two decades old before Thomas made his discovery. Pais’s summary of events$`^\text{3}`$ is instructive:

> Twenty years later \[after his seminal 1905 paper on special relativity\], Einstein heard something about the Lorentz group that greatly surprised him. It happened while he was in Leiden. In October 1925 George Eugene Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit had discovered the spin of the electron and thereby explained the occurrence of the alkali doublets, but for a brief period it appeared that the magnitude of the doublet splitting did not come out correctly. Then Llewellyn Thomas supplied the missing factor, 2, now known as the Thomas factor. Uhlenbeck told me that he did not understand a word of Thomas’s work when it first came out. ‘I remember that, when I first heard about it, it seemed unbelievable that a relativistic effect could give a factor of 2 instead of something of order $`v/c`$ …. Even the cognoscenti of the relativity theory (Einstein included!) were quite surprised.’ At the heart of the Thomas precession lies the fact that a Lorentz transformation with velocity $`𝒗_1`$ followed by a second one with velocity $`𝒗_2`$ in a different direction does not lead to the same inertial frame as one single Lorentz transformation with the velocity $`𝒗_1+𝒗_2`$. (It took Pauli a few weeks before he grasped Thomas’s point.)

It seems remarkable—but, according to the above account, undeniable—that neither Einstein nor Pauli came across the Thomas rotation before 1925. However, the effect we now call the Thomas rotation was known before Thomas’s paper. The early history has been traced by Ungar.$`^\text{4}`$

Now, most textbooks on special relativity follow the extraordinarily clear exposition of the theory given by Einstein in his seminal paper. Unfortunately, this has meant that little or no attention has usually been given to the “Thomas effect”, which has generally been relegated to a brief mention in textbooks on quantum mechanics and atomic structure. As far as we are aware, the best treatment of the Thomas precession in a textbook still in print is arguably that contained in Jackson’s book on classical electrodynamics.$`^\text{5}`$ A similar discussion is given in Goldstein,$`^\text{6}`$ who emphasizes the complexity of the general calculations. This complexity is inhibiting to both the writers and the readers of the textbooks.

That the Thomas rotation, or precession, still puzzles students and their teachers can be discerned from the pages of this journal. In Question #57, MacKeown$`^\text{7}`$ asks “… is said to introduce a velocity independent constant factor. Can any simple, convincing, argument be given for this?” Ungar$`^\text{4}`$ and Goedecke$`^\text{8}`$ have countered the complexity by introducing new formalisms, a “weakly associative-commutative groupoid” by Ungar, and the tetrad formalism by Goedecke. While they offer useful insights, and emphasise the Thomas rotation, they are not well suited to the introductory course. Muller$`^\text{9}`$ (in the Appendix) and Philpott$`^{\text{10}}`$ (to introduce the main point of his paper) give derivations of the Thomas precession which are related to the present one. But we believe that the straightforward treatment below, and its emphasis on Thomas rotation, offers conceptual and pedagogical advantages which make it suitable to an introductory course.

In this paper, we show how an instructive, elementary, and intriguing discussion of the Thomas rotation can be “grafted on” to any standard introductory course on special relativity. As prerequisite we assume nothing more than the standard expression for a Lorentz boost along the $`x`$-axis of a system of coordinates. For simplicity, we also make use of the energy–momentum four-vector, as well as matrix multiplication, although such references could be deleted if thought necessary, albeit at the expense of rendering the algebra a little less transparent. (The widespread availability of calculators and computer programs capable of matrix multiplication means that the complexities of the following calculations can be drastically minimized by the use of matrix notation—leaving more time for the contemplation of the physical results.) These preliminaries are covered in Sec. 2.

In Sec. 2, we show how these simple building blocks can be put together to create a sequence of intriguing and completely counterintuitive “paradoxes”. This material could be presented almost verbatim in any introductory course on special relativity.

Sec. 2 provides full solutions and explanations of these elementary Thomas rotation “paradoxes”, and general expressions are derived for the Thomas rotation in arbitrary cases.

In Sec. 2, we provide a further “paradox” in the context of the polarization properties of the scattering of a Dirac particle. This example is more advanced, in that it presumes familiarity with at least an introductory level of quantum field theory; and thus it would not usually be appropriate for an introductory course on special relativity. On the other hand, this example is arguably much more practically important than the others, in that it shows that real-life calculations of scattering cross-sections can be completely erroneous if due regard is not taken of this subtle facet of relativistic kinematics. Sec. 2 provides a full solution of this “paradox”.

Finally, Sec. 2 summarizes our conclusions.

II. Preliminaries
In this section we review those features of special relativity which we would assume to have been taught in an introductory course before the discussion of Thomas rotation, to set the scene and to establish our notation.

Throughout this paper, we shall use a “naturalized” set of units, in which $`c=1`$. To convert any expression to SI units, one need simply replace $`t`$ by $`ct`$, $`𝒗`$ by $`𝒗/c`$, $`E`$ by $`E/c^2`$, and $`𝒑`$ by $`𝒑/c`$. (Boldface denotes a three-vector.) In Secs. 2 and 2 we shall also use units in which $`\mathrm{}=1`$.

The Lorentz transformation from a frame $`S`$ with coordinates $`(t,x,y,z)`$, to a frame $`S^{}`$, moving with respect to $`S`$ with a velocity $`v`$ along the $`x`$-axis, in which the coordinates are $`(t^{},x^{},y^{},z^{})`$, is

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& t^{}=\gamma (tvx),x^{}=\gamma (xvt),y^{}=y,z^{}=z,& \end{array}`$ (2)
where

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2}}}.& \end{array}`$ (4)
This transformation, written in matrix notation, is

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \left(\begin{array}{c}t^{}\\ x^{}\\ y^{}\\ z^{}\end{array}\right)=(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma & \gamma v& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ \gamma v& \gamma & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array})\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\ x\\ y\\ z\end{array}\right).& \end{array}`$ (18)
We shall denote the matrix that effects this boost by velocity $`v`$ in the $`x`$-direction as $`B_x(v)`$:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B_x(v)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma & \gamma v& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ \gamma v& \gamma & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).& \end{array}`$ (24)
Clearly, a boost by velocity $`v`$ in the $`y`$-direction or in the $`z`$-direction would be effected by

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B_y(v)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma & \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \gamma v& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ \gamma v& 0& \gamma & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),B_z(v)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma & \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \gamma v\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ \gamma v& 0& 0& \gamma \end{array}\right).& \end{array}`$ (34)
The energy–momentum four-vector,

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& p^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{c}E\\ p^x\\ p^y\\ p^z\end{array}\right),& \end{array}`$ (40)
shall play a key role in our analysis. A particle of mass $`m`$, at rest in a system of coordinates, has $`E=m`$ and $`𝒑=\text{0}`$. If we boost our system of coordinates by the velocity $`v`$ in the $`x`$-direction (so that, relative to this new system of coordinates, the particle has velocity $`+v`$ in the $`x`$-direction), then the application of $`B_x(v)`$ yields

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}E\\ p^x\\ p^y\\ p^z\end{array}\right)=(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma & \gamma v& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ \gamma v& \gamma & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array})\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\gamma \\ m\gamma v\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (57)
This implies that the $`x`$-velocity of the particle can be “extracted” from the components $`p^\mu `$ of its four-momentum by computing the ratio $`p^x/E`$. Since the $`x`$-direction is arbitrary, the immediate generalization to a particle moving with velocity $`𝒗`$ in any direction is

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& 𝒗={\displaystyle \frac{𝒑}{E}}.& \end{array}`$ (59)
To obtain the law for the composition of two velocities $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ in the same direction, we may simply apply $`B_x(v_1)`$ followed by $`B_x(v_2)`$ to a particle at rest:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B_x(v_2)^{}B_x(v_1)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\gamma _1\gamma _2(1+v_1v_2)\\ m\gamma _1\gamma _2(v_1+v_2)\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right).& \end{array}`$ (69)
(In this and subsequent equations we shall take it to be understood that the four components of the column vector refer to the components of the four-momentum.) On using (59), Eq. (69) yields

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& v_x={\displaystyle \frac{v_1+v_2}{1+v_1v_2}},& \end{array}`$ (71)
namely, the standard result. It will be noted that the same result would have been obtained if we had applied $`B_x(v_2)`$ first and $`B_x(v_1)`$ second: boosts in the same direction commute.

III. Some elementary Thomas rotation “paradoxes”
Let us now apply the results obtained in Sec. 2 to some hypothetical maneuvers of the USS Enterprise under impulse power. In the following, the system of coordinates being considered is that of an observer on board the bridge of the Enterprise.

Let us assume that the Enterprise begins at rest relative to some particular star. We ignore gravitational effects, so that if the Enterprise were to not fire any thrusters, then it would remain at rest relative to the star.

Let us now apply a boost to the Enterprise by some velocity $`v_0`$ in the $`x`$-direction, and follow it by a boost by the velocity $`v_0`$, again in the $`x`$-direction. We expect that the net effect on the velocity of the Enterprise would be zero: it would move in the $`x`$-direction during the maneuver (by what distance is of no interest to us here), but at the end of the maneuver it would again be at rest relative to the star. We can confirm this by considering the effect of applying $`B_x(v_0)`$ and then $`B_x(v_0)`$ on, say, the components of the four-momentum of the star, as observed from the Enterprise. If the star has the mass $`m`$, then a straightforward calculation verifies that

$`B_x(v_0)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}),`$ (80)
and indeed $`B_x(v_0)^{}B_x(v_0)=I`$, where $`I`$ is the identity matrix. (In performing these calculations, and those that follow, it is useful to replace even powers of $`v`$, wherever they occur, by means of the identity

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& v^21{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2}},& \end{array}`$ (82)
which can be derived from the definition (4).) We can perform the same maneuver in the $`y`$-direction: namely,

$`B_y(v_0)^{}B_y(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}),`$ (91)
and $`B_y(v_0)^{}B_y(v_0)=I`$, again as expected.

Having thus verified the action of our “thrusters” in the $`x`$\- and $`y`$-directions, by means of these four boosts, let us now try another test maneuver, by mixing the order of these boosts. Namely, let us apply $`B_x(v_0)`$, followed by $`B_y(v_0)`$, then $`B_x(v_0)`$, and finally $`B_y(v_0)`$. Again, we expect that the star will be at rest, relative to the Enterprise, at the end of the maneuver. However, if we perform the calculations, then (after some algebra) we find

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B_y(v_0)^{}B_x(v_0)^{}B_y(v_0)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m+m(\gamma _0+1)(\gamma _01)^3\\ m\gamma _0^2(\gamma _0^{}1)v_0\\ m\gamma _0^{}(\gamma _0^{}1)(\gamma _0^2+\gamma _0^{}+1)v_0\\ 0\end{array}\right).& \end{array}`$ (101)
Something has gone wrong! Instead of ending up with the star at rest, we find that it is now “drifting”. What has happened?

One can repeat and check the algebraic calculations above as many times and in as many ways as one wishes; but the result (101) is not a computational error. We can check its self-consistency by noting that, for any four-momentum of a particle of mass $`m`$, the identity $`p^\mu p_\mu E{}_{}{}^{2}𝒑{}_{}{}^{2}=m^2`$ should be satisfied—as it indeed is for the components listed in (101). Moreover, if one simply changes the order of the final two boosts in (101), then one finds

$`B_x(v_0)^{}B_y(v_0)^{}B_y(v_0)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (110)
which would be unlikely to be true had we made any trivial error in computing any of the boost matrices.

Let us therefore try to find out where our intuition has led us astray in the calculation (101), by breaking it down into smaller parts. We already know what happens to the components of the four-momentum of a particle, originally at rest, when we subject our system of coordinates to a single Lorentz boost, so let us consider instead the effect of the first two boosts in (101), namely, $`B_x(v_0)`$ followed by $`B_y(v_0)`$. If we stop our calculation at this point, we find

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B_y(v_0)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\gamma _0^2\\ m\gamma _0^{}v_0\\ m\gamma _0^2v_0\\ 0\end{array}\right).& \end{array}`$ (120)
Now, since we have boosted the Enterprise in the positive-$`x`$ and positive-$`y`$ directions, we expect that the star will be moving (relative to the Enterprise) with a negative velocity in the $`x`$\- and $`y`$-directions; and this is borne out by the result (120). However, we are surprised to find that the $`x`$\- and $`y`$-velocities are not equal, despite us boosting the Enterprise by the same velocity $`v_0`$ in each direction! Indeed, making use of the relation (59) with the components (120) of $`p^\mu `$, we find that the components of the three-velocity of the star, relative to the Enterprise, are given by

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& v_x={\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{\gamma _0}},v_y=v_0.& \end{array}`$ (122)
Thus, the second ($`y`$) boost has been fully effective—but it has, in the process, reduced the velocity of the first ($`x`$) boost.

Let us put this unexpected asymmetry to one side, for the moment, and return to our first perplexing result, namely, the nonzero velocity represented by Eq. (101). We have found that the application of $`B_x(v_0)`$ and then $`B_y(v_0)`$ to the Enterprise leads to the star having the velocity components (122) (relative to the Enterprise). Let us now consider the final two boosts in Eq. (101), namely, $`B_x(v_0)`$ followed by $`B_y(v_0)`$. Instead of applying them after the first two boosts, let us instead apply them to the original Enterprise, which was at rest relative to the star. The effect of these two boosts on the components of the four-momentum of the star, in this modified scenario, would be

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B_y(v_0)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\gamma _0^2\\ m\gamma _0^{}v_0\\ m\gamma _0^2v_0\\ 0\end{array}\right),& \end{array}`$ (132)
leading to the velocity components

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& v_x={\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{\gamma _0}},v_y=v_0.& \end{array}`$ (134)
Thus, comparing (122) and (134), we find that applying $`B_x(v_0)`$ and then $`B_y(v_0)`$ results in the exact opposite velocity to that obtained by applying $`B_x(v_0)`$ and then $`B_y(v_0)`$. (We would, of course, expect that this would be the case—but, given the problems we are having, it is essential to ensure that we do not make intuitive assumptions without testing them mathematically.)

We now find that our original result, Eq. (101), has not been clarified in the least. For we have shown that our sequence of four boosts can be broken down into a boost by the velocity components (122) (let us, for definiteness, refer to this three-velocity as $`𝒗_{xy}`$), followed by a boost by the velocity components (134) (namely, $`𝒗_{xy}`$). But surely Einstein’s very derivation of the Lorentz transformation guarantees us that a boost by any velocity $`𝒗`$, followed by a boost by $`𝒗`$, must return us to the original inertial frame? How, then, can we make any sense of the result (101), which seems to imply that

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B(𝒗_{xy})^{}B(𝒗_{xy})I\mathrm{?}& \end{array}`$ (136)
Let us, again, put this problem to one side, and instead try the following tack: What if we were to perform four boosts, again in the $`+x`$, $`+y`$, $`x`$, and $`y`$ directions respectively, but now adjusting the magnitude of each boost velocity so as to maintain some sort of control over the resultant overall velocity? Let us again start with a boost by velocity $`v_0`$ in the positive-$`x`$ direction:

$`B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\gamma _0\\ m\gamma _0v_0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (145)
We now apply a boost by some velocity $`v_1`$ (not equal to $`v_0`$) in the positive-$`y`$ direction:

$`B_y(v_1)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\gamma _0\gamma _1\\ m\gamma _0v_0\\ m\gamma _0\gamma _1v_1\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (154)
Let us now adjust $`v_1`$ so that the overall velocity has equal components in the $`x`$\- and $`y`$-directions (as was our original intention). We can do this by ensuring that $`p^x`$ and $`p^y`$ are equal—namely, by insisting that

$`\gamma _1v_1=v_0.`$
After some algebra, one finds that this is satisfied for

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& v_1={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0v_0}{\sqrt{2\gamma {}_{0}{}^{2}1}}},\gamma _1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\gamma {}_{0}{}^{2}1}}{\gamma _0}},& \end{array}`$ (156)
so that

$`B_y(v_1)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\sqrt{2\gamma {}_{0}{}^{2}1}\\ m\gamma _0v_0\\ m\gamma _0v_0\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (165)
Let us now apply a boost by velocity $`v_2`$ in the negative-$`x`$ direction:

$`B_x(v_2)^{}B_y(v_1)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\gamma _2(\sqrt{2\gamma {}_{0}{}^{2}1}\gamma _0v_0v_2)\\ m\gamma _2(\gamma _0v_0v_2\sqrt{2\gamma {}_{0}{}^{2}1})\\ m\gamma _0v_0\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (174)
We can use this third boost to reduce the $`x`$-component of the velocity to zero by choosing

$`v_2=v_1={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0v_0}{\sqrt{2\gamma {}_{0}{}^{2}1}}},`$
yielding

$`B_x(v_1)^{}B_y(v_1)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\gamma _0\\ 0\\ m\gamma _0v_0\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (183)
Finally, it is evident that we can apply the fourth boost by the original velocity $`v_0`$ in the negative-$`y`$ direction, resulting in

$`B_y(v_0)^{}B_x(v_1)^{}B_y(v_1)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (192)
We finally seem to have found a sequence of four boosts, in the $`+x`$, $`+y`$, $`x`$, and $`y`$ directions respectively, that returns the Enterprise to a state of rest relative to the star at the end of the maneuver: namely, the sequence of boosts

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B_y(v_0)^{}B_x(v_1)^{}B_y(v_1)^{}B_x(v_0)& \end{array}`$ (194)
together with the relation (156) between $`v_1`$ and $`v_0`$.

Let us now go back in time to our original Enterprise, at rest relative to the nearby star. The crew of the Enterprise had noted that there was a shuttlecraft, of mass $`m_s`$, moving with velocity $`v_s`$ in the positive-$`x`$ direction; in other words, the components of its four-momentum, relative to the Enterprise, were

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& p^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{c}m_s\gamma _s\\ m_s\gamma _sv_s\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right).& \end{array}`$ (200)
What happens to the components of the four-momentum of the shuttlecraft after the sequence of boosts (194)? We would expect that they—like those of the star—would be unchanged. However, if we perform the calculations, we find that

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B_y(v_0)^{}B_x(v_1)^{}B_y(v_1)^{}B_x(v_0)\left(\begin{array}{c}m_s\gamma _s\\ m_s\gamma _sv_s\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m_s\gamma _s\\ m_s\gamma _sv_s\sqrt{2\gamma {}_{0}{}^{2}1}/\gamma _0^2\\ m_s\gamma _sv_s(11/\gamma _0^2)\\ 0\end{array}\right).& \end{array}`$ (210)
We can’t seem to take a trick! Even though the sequence of boosts (194) has left the velocity of the star unchanged, relative to the Enterprise, it has changed the velocity of the shuttlecraft.

But how can this be possible?

IV. Solutions to the elementary “paradoxes”
Let us now discover the fallacies contained in the “paradoxes” described above. We shall begin by unraveling our chain of arguments, starting with the final “paradox”, and working our way back to the first. By this stage, the reasons for each “paradox” will be clear. We shall complete this section by listing general expressions for the Thomas rotation in arbitrary cases.

We begin with the result (210) for the final four-momentum of the shuttlecraft. We were surprised to find that it differed from the four-momentum (200) of the shuttlecraft prior to the sequence of boosts. However, on closer inspection, we find that the result is not total chaos. In particular, the energy of the shuttlecraft has not changed. This, in turn, implies that its speed is also unchanged—in other words, the final velocity has the same magnitude as the original velocity, but it has been rotated in space. We can confirm this by using Pythagoras’s theorem to find the resultant of the components $`v_x`$ and $`v_y`$ in (210); and we indeed find that its magnitude is simply $`v_s`$, the original speed of the shuttlecraft.

This rotation of the spatial axes is what we know as the Thomas rotation. It almost always occurs when we apply a sequence of non-collinear boosts that returns us to an inertial frame that is at rest relative to the original frame. This rotation had no net effect on the four-momentum of the star, because the star was at rest—the “spatial” components of its four-momentum vanished; in contrast, the motion of the shuttlecraft defines a direction in space (the $`x`$-direction, in the original inertial frame), that was subject to the rotation.

We can obtain a clearer view of this rotation if we compute not the components of the four-momentum (210), but rather the entire matrix (194) that is applicable to arbitrary four-vectors in the original frame:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B_y(v_0)^{}B_x(v_1)^{}B_y(v_1)^{}B_x(v_0)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& 0& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\gamma _0^21}}{\gamma _0^2}}& {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0^21}{\gamma _0^2}}& 0\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0^21}{\gamma _0^2}}& {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\gamma _0^21}}{\gamma _0^2}}& 0\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).& \end{array}`$ (216)
The $`2\times 2`$ matrix in the middle of this result is an orthogonal transformation, resulting in a rotation of the axes of the $`x`$$`y`$ plane by an angle

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \theta =\text{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0^21}{\sqrt{2\gamma _0^21}}}).& \end{array}`$ (218)
In the nonrelativistic limit, the magnitude of $`\theta `$ approaches $`v^2`$ radians (i.e., $`v{}_{}{}^{2}/c^2`$ in conventional units), and so is completely negligible for terrestrial applications. (Even if $`v_0`$ is set to the Earth’s orbital velocity around the Sun, the Thomas rotation angle amounts to a mere 0.004 seconds of arc.) In the ultrarelativistic limit, on the other hand, $`\theta `$ approaches $`90^{}`$ for this particular sequence of boosts.

Defining the direction of the Thomas rotation, however, requires some care. Let us consider the above sequence of boosts from the point of view of an inertial observer, jettisoned from the Enterprise before the sequence of boosts commenced, who remained at rest relative to the star (and the distant “fixed stars”) throughout the procedure. Relative to this fixed observer, the Enterprise’s velocity rotated in the direction $`+x+y`$. The velocity of the shuttlecraft, as seen by the Enterprise, was rotated in this same direction. This means that, relative to the fixed observer, the axes of the Enterprise’s coordinate system rotated in the opposite direction to its orbital rotation, as indicated by the minus sign in Eq. (218). This is a general feature of the Thomas rotation.

Nonrelativistic physics has conditioned us to assume that Cartesian coordinate systems can be defined in space, in such a way that all inertial observers “agree” on the directions of the axes. The Thomas rotation demonstrates that this assumption requires an operational definition, as Einstein showed was necessary to clarify our understanding of the physics of relativity. For example, say that observer $`A`$ defines a set of Cartesian axes. If observer $`B`$ is at rest relative to $`A`$, then $`B`$ can align her axes to “agree” with those of $`A`$. If observer $`A`$ remains at rest, but observer $`B`$ is boosted to some finite velocity relative to $`A`$, by one boost or by a sequence of boosts, then the resultant orientation of $`B`$’s axes depends on the particular sequence of boosts used. If such boosts are at all times in the same direction (relative to $`A`$, say), then it is meaningful to say that $`B`$’s axes are still aligned with $`A`$’s, in the sense that if we apply any sequence of boosts to $`B`$ that is at all times collinear with this direction, that returns $`B`$ to rest with respect to $`A`$, then their axes will be found to still point in the same directions. On the other hand, if $`B`$ is, at any two times, subject to boosts in different directions, then a sequence of boosts bringing $`B`$ back to rest relative to $`A`$ will, in general, lead to $`B`$ finding her axes rotated relative to $`A`$’s (unless the sequence of boosts “backtracked” precisely the original sequence).

To discuss the general case we need the expression for a (simple) boost by velocity $`|𝒗|`$ in the direction of $`𝒗`$. We can obtain it most simply by noting that our original boost transformation along the $`x`$-axis, $`B_x(v)`$ of Eq. (24), is an archetypical simple boost. If we rewrite $`B_x(v)`$ in three-covariant notation (i.e., in terms of three-vectors and three-vector operations, rather than individual components), then we know from vector analysis that the result will be the boost we require for $`𝒗`$ in an arbitrary direction. It is now straightforward to verify that$`^\text{5}`$

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& t^{}=\gamma t\gamma (𝒗𝒙),𝒙^{}=𝒙\gamma t𝒗+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma +1}}(𝒗𝒙)𝒗,& \end{array}`$ (220)
is equivalent to (24) for $`𝒗=(v,0,0)`$; and thus (220) is the simple boost operation $`B(𝒗)`$ that we are seeking. (It is a straightforward calculation to confirm that the component of $`𝒙`$ in the direction of $`𝒗`$ satisfies the usual Lorentz transformation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒗𝒙^{}}{v}}={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 𝒗𝒙}{v}}\gamma vt,`$
and that the components of $`𝒙`$ normal to the velocity $`𝒗`$ are unchanged:

$`𝒗\times 𝒙^{}=𝒗\times 𝒙,`$
since the component of $`𝒙`$ or $`𝒙^{}`$ in the direction of $`𝒗`$ does not contribute to the cross product.) Written out in matrix form, we have

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B(𝒗)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma & \gamma v_x& \gamma v_y& \gamma v_z\\ \gamma v_x& 1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v_x^2}{\gamma +1}}& {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v_xv_y}{\gamma +1}}& {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v_xv_z}{\gamma +1}}\\ \gamma v_y& {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v_xv_y}{\gamma +1}}& 1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v_y^2}{\gamma +1}}& {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v_yv_z}{\gamma +1}}\\ \gamma v_z& {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v_xv_z}{\gamma +1}}& {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v_yv_z}{\gamma +1}}& 1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2v_z^2}{\gamma +1}}\end{array}\right).& \end{array}`$ (226)
A sequence of two such boosts, which are in different directions, is not a simple boost, but is rather a combination of a rotation and a simple boost. If we consider $`B(𝒗_1)`$ followed by $`B(𝒗_2)`$, and denote the velocity of the boost implied by the composite transformation as $`𝒗_{12}`$, then the mathematical expression of this observation is that

$`B(𝒗_2)^{}B(𝒗_1)=B(𝒗_{12})^{}R(𝒗_1,𝒗_2),`$
where $`R(𝒗_1,𝒗_2)`$ is a spatial rotation, depending on the velocities $`𝒗_1`$ and $`𝒗_2`$.

Let us now return to the “unexpected asymmetry” in the result (122), namely, the fact that a boost by the velocity $`v_0`$ in the $`x`$-direction, followed by a boost by $`v_0`$ in the $`y`$-direction, leads to $`v_xv_y`$ relative to the original frame of reference. We can understand the result $`v_y=v_0`$ by the following argument: Imagine that, after the $`x`$-boost, there is an object that is observed to be at rest. Applying the $`y`$-boost to ourselves, we have no choice but to observe this object moving with velocity $`v_0`$ in the $`y`$-direction. This same argument must apply to any object in the original frame which had no velocity in the $`y`$-direction.

The reduction in the $`x`$-velocity by the $`y`$-boost seems counterintuitive, but a little thought makes sense of it. We know, from Einstein’s ingenious arguments, that lengths of rods perpendicular to a velocity vector are unchanged by the relative motion. But lengths are nothing more than differences in positions; and positions are themselves the spatial components of the four-vector $`x^\mu `$. Thus, taking into account the universality of Lorentz covariance, Einstein’s arguments imply that, for any four-vector, the spatial components perpendicular to the boost velocity are unchanged by the boost, as can be verified from Eq. (220). But the spatial momentum components are simply the spatial components of the four-vector $`p^\mu `$; therefore, $`p^x`$ and $`p^z`$ must be unaltered by a $`y`$-boost. And, indeed, the result (120) shows us that the $`x`$-momentum of the star was unchanged by the second boost: it remained $`m\gamma _0v_0`$. Rather, the energy of the star increased (due to its new $`y`$-velocity); and hence, by Eq. (59), its $`x`$-velocity decreased. To have an object maintain its momentum, but lose velocity, is nonrelativistically counterintuitive; but one can make sense of it by remembering that all velocities must remain smaller than that of light, and so for a large enough boost in the $`y`$-direction, any original velocity in the $`x`$-direction must be “quenched” (although not its momentum!).

This asymmetry tells us that the non-commutativity of two non-collinear boosts is more complicated than is widely appreciated: one not only finds a relative Thomas rotation between the two resulting frames, but furthermore the resulting frames are not even moving with the same velocity. This is the source of the result expressed in Eq. (101). There we considered a sequence of four boosts which we naively expected to return us to our initial state of motion. However, the first two boosts do not combine to give a pure Lorentz boost, but rather involve a Thomas rotation. This rotation is not compensated by the later boosts—indeed, there is a further rotation in the same direction. Thus, we should not be surprised that the sequence of four boosts gives the counterintuitive result of Eq. (101).

This fundamental asymmetry is “hidden” in many introductory accounts of the addition of non-collinear velocities, by means of a judicious mixing of an active transformation for one velocity (i.e., the object is considered to be boosted, with we as observers being kept at rest) together with a passive transformation for the other (i.e., we as observers are being boosted), rather than two successive passive transformations as used in this paper. This “trick” gives the illusion of a greater degree of symmetry than is generally the case. (Einstein’s seminal 1905 paper uses this “trick”.)

All of these various points must be kept in mind if one wishes to analyze Thomas rotations in full generality. Any “closed” sequence of finite boosts (i.e., that returns us to a frame at rest relative to the original frame) will, in general, result in a Thomas rotation. Any such closed sequence may be broken down into a succession of closed sequences, each consisting of three boosts, in the same way that any arbitrary polygon (not necessarily planar) can be broken down into a “triangular mesh” by the addition of internal edges. Thus, the basic “building block” of a finite Thomas rotation is a sequence of three pure boosts: the first two are arbitrary, and the third must be chosen so as to make the sequence “closed”. The first two velocities, then, determine the Thomas rotation for this “building block”. Complicating such calculations, however, is the fact that the “sum” $`𝒗_{12}`$ of two arbitrary velocities $`𝒗_1^{}`$ and $`𝒗_2^{}`$ is, in the general case, quite a complicated function of the first two velocities:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& 𝒗_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _2(1+𝒗_1𝒗_2)}}\{𝒗_1+\gamma _2𝒗_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2^2}{\gamma _2+1}}(𝒗_1𝒗_2)𝒗_2\}.& \end{array}`$ (228)
(We can clearly see here the asymmetry between the two velocities $`𝒗_1`$ and $`𝒗_2`$; it is only if $`𝒗_1`$ and $`𝒗_2`$ are collinear that (228) becomes symmetrical under their interchange, and reproduces the usual formula (71) for the relativistic addition of velocities, as a short calculation shows.) The expression for the Thomas rotation is, in turn, even more complicated. Let us assume that we have an arbitrary three-vector $`𝒓`$ in our initial frame. After the sequence of pure boosts $`B(𝒗_1)`$, $`B(𝒗_2)`$, and $`B(𝒗_{12})`$, the three-vector $`𝒓`$ is rotated to

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& 𝒓^{}=𝒓+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1\gamma _2(𝒗_1\times 𝒗_2)\times 𝒓𝑸}{1+\gamma _1\gamma _2(1+𝒗_1𝒗_2)}},& \end{array}`$ (230a)
where

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& 𝑸{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1^2(\gamma _2^21)(𝒗_1𝒓)𝒗_1+\gamma _2^2(\gamma _1^21)(𝒗_2𝒓)𝒗_22\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2(𝒗_1𝒗_2)(𝒗_1𝒓)𝒗_2}{(\gamma _1+1)(\gamma _2+1)}}.& \end{array}`$ (231b)
(Again, $`𝑸`$ has no particular symmetry under the interchange of $`𝒗_1`$ and $`𝒗_2`$.) It can be verified, after some algebra, that $`𝒓^2=𝒓^2`$, i.e., that $`𝒓^{}`$ is indeed simply a rotation of $`𝒓`$ in three-space. If $`𝒗_2`$ is small (but $`𝒗_1`$ arbitrarily large), then the expression $`𝑸`$ of Eq. (231b) is of order $`𝒗_2^2`$, and hence is negligible in the context of Eq. (230a). If we are considering the continuous Thomas precession, then we can set $`𝒗_1=𝒗`$ and $`𝒗_2=\delta 𝒗_2`$. Then, to quantities of first order, Eq. (228) yields

$`\delta 𝒗𝒗_{12}𝒗_1=\delta 𝒗_2(𝒗\delta 𝒗_2)𝒗.`$
Thus, if $`\delta 𝒗_2`$ is perpendicular to the velocity $`𝒗`$, then $`\delta 𝒗=\delta 𝒗_2`$; but if $`\delta 𝒗_2`$ is parallel to $`𝒗`$, then one must take into account the fact that the velocity must remain smaller than that of light. On the other hand, in all cases we have $`𝒗\times \delta 𝒗=𝒗\times \delta 𝒗_2`$, so that Eq. (230a) yields, to first order,

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \delta 𝒓𝒓^{}𝒓={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}}(𝒗\times \delta 𝒗)\times 𝒓,& \end{array}`$ (233)
which is the standard expression for the Thomas precession.$`^\text{5}`$ (To compare with Jackson’s result following his (11.117), note that our $`\delta 𝒗`$ is his $`\Delta 𝜷`$, and that our $`𝒗\times \delta 𝒗`$ is, in his notation, $`𝜷\times \Delta 𝜷=\gamma ^{}𝜷\times \delta 𝜷`$.)

If we now consider the ultrarelativistic limit of Eq. (233), then we find something remarkable. This limit may be taken to be defined by the relations

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \gamma \mathrm{},𝒗^21,𝒗\delta 𝒗0,& \end{array}`$ (235)
the latter two of which simply reflect the fact that the velocity is at all times almost the speed of light, and (hence) that any changes $`\delta 𝒗`$ to the velocity $`𝒗`$ must be perpendicular to $`𝒗`$. In this limit, Eq. (233) becomes

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \delta 𝒓(𝒗\times \delta 𝒗)\times 𝒓.& \end{array}`$ (237)
Consider, now, the expression $`(𝒗\times \delta 𝒗)\times 𝒗`$. By a standard three-vector identity, we have

$`(𝒗\times \delta 𝒗)\times 𝒗𝒗^2\delta 𝒗(𝒗\delta 𝒗)𝒗,`$
which, on account of the relations (235), tells us that, in the ultrarelativistic limit,

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \delta 𝒗(𝒗\times \delta 𝒗)\times 𝒗.& \end{array}`$ (239)
Comparing (237) and (239), we thus find that $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒗`$ are being rotated by the same amount about the same axis. Recalling our discussion above that the direction of the Thomas rotation of the axes is opposite to the rotation of $`𝒓`$ relative to these axes, we therefore find that we have proved the following remarkable theorem: For any ultrarelativistic object, the Thomas rotation is equal and opposite to the orbital rotation.

This theorem explains why we obtained a rotation angle of $`90{}_{}{}^{}^{}`$ for our sequence of four boosts in the ultrarelativistic limit. For we can think of any finite boost as simply a sequence of infinitesimal boosts in the same direction. For our first ($`+x`$) boost, we simply boosted the Enterprise’s velocity to ultrarelativistic speeds. The second ($`+y`$) boost was designed to bring the Enterprise’s velocity around to a $`45{}_{}{}^{}^{}`$ angle between the $`+x`$ and $`+y`$ directions; and the third ($`x`$) boost to bring it around another $`45{}_{}{}^{}^{}`$ to the $`+y`$ direction. The final ($`y`$) boost was antiparallel to this velocity, and simply brought the Enterprise back to rest. Thus, the velocity of the Enterprise, relative to a fixed observer, was rotated by $`90{}_{}{}^{}^{}`$ at ultrarelativistic speeds; and hence, by the above theorem, the Thomas rotation is just $`90^{}`$, which is what we found by elementary means above.

V. An advanced “paradox”: polarization properties of scattering events
Let us now consider a more advanced situation: the calculation of a polarized cross-section in quantum field theory. For simplicity, let us consider the scattering of a Dirac electron by the (idealized) fixed Coulomb field of an infinitely heavy, pointlike nucleus. For definiteness, we shall follow the notation and conventions employed in the introductory textbook by Mandl and Shaw.$`^{\text{11}}`$ In any frame for which the scattered electron momentum $`𝒑^{}`$ has the same magnitude as the incident momentum $`𝒑`$ (i.e., for which the electron’s energy is unchanged by the scattering), the fully polarized cross-section is given by$`^{\text{11}}`$

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}\right)_{rs}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{me}{2\pi }}\right)^2|_{rs}|^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{me}{2\pi }}\right)^2|\overline{u}_s(𝒑^{})A\text{/}_e(𝒒)u_r(𝒑)|^2,& \end{array}`$ (241)
where $`m`$ is the mass and $`e`$ the charge of the electron, $`_{rs}`$ is the Feynman amplitude for the process, $`𝒒𝒑^{}𝒑`$ is the momentum transfer, $`A_e(𝒒)`$ is the “external” electromagnetic field (i.e., the Coulomb field of the nucleus) in momentum space, and $`A\text{/}_eA_e^\mu \gamma _\mu `$ where $`\gamma _\mu `$ are the Dirac gamma matrices (not to be confused with the factor $`\gamma `$ defined in Eq. (4)). The indices $`r`$ and $`s`$ ($`=1,2`$) label the two possible spin states of the incident and scattered electron respectively.

Let us first calculate all of the polarized cross-sections for the following scenario. We choose an inertial frame in which the nucleus is at rest, so that$`^{\text{11}}`$

$`A_e^\mu (𝒙)=({\displaystyle \frac{Ze}{4\pi |𝒙|}},0,0,0),`$
which under a Fourier transform yields

$`A_e^\mu (𝒒)=({\displaystyle \frac{Ze}{|𝒒|^2}},0,0,0),`$
where $`Ze`$ is the charge of the nucleus. We then have$`^{\text{11}}`$

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}\right)_{rs}={\displaystyle \frac{(2m\alpha Z)^2}{|𝒒|^4}}^{}|\overline{u}_s(𝒑^{})\gamma {}_{}{}^{0}u_{r}^{}(𝒑)|^2,& \end{array}`$ (243)
where $`\alpha e^2/4\pi `$ is the fine-structure constant. Let us consider the case when the incident electron has velocity components

$`v_x={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},v_y=0,v_z=+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},`$
and the scattered electron has velocity components

$`v_x=+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},v_y=0,v_z=+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},`$
so that the electron is being scattered by $`90^{}`$ in the $`z`$$`x`$ plane. From Eq. (4) we find that $`\gamma =3`$, so that the incident and scattered four-momenta have the components

$`p^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{c}3m\\ 2m\\ 0\\ 2m\end{array}\right),p^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{c}3m\\ 2m\\ 0\\ 2m\end{array}\right),`$ (252)
and $`|𝒒|=4m`$. Now, the positive-energy spin–momentum eigenstates are, in the Dirac–Pauli representation of the Dirac matrices, given by$`^{\text{11}}`$

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& u_1(𝒑)=c_1\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ c_2p^z\\ c_2(p^x+ip^y)\end{array}\right),u_2(𝒑)=c_1\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ c_2(p^xip^y)\\ c_2p^z\end{array}\right),& \end{array}`$ (262)
where

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& c_1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E+m}{2m}}},c_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E+m}},& \end{array}`$ (264)
where $`u_1`$ ($`u_2`$) is the spin-up (spin-down) eigenstate relative to the $`z`$-direction. The conjugate bispinor eigenstates, in this representation, are consequently

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \overline{u}_1(𝒑)=c_1\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ c_2p^z\\ c_2(p^x+ip^y)\end{array}\right)^\text{T},\overline{u}_2(𝒑)=c_1\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ c_2(p^x+ip^y)\\ c_2p^z\end{array}\right)^\text{T}.& \end{array}`$ (274)
For our particular case, $`E=3m`$, so $`c_1=\sqrt{2}`$ and $`c_2=1/4m`$. For the incident electron we therefore have

$`u_1(𝒑)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}2\\ 0\\ 1\\ 1\end{array}\right),u_2(𝒑)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 2\\ 1\\ 1\end{array}\right),`$ (283)
and for the scattered electron we have

$`\overline{u}_1(𝒑^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}2\\ 0\\ 1\\ 1\end{array}\right)^\text{T},\overline{u}_2(𝒑^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 2\\ 1\\ 1\end{array}\right)^\text{T}.`$ (292)
Let us now compute the cross-section (243). The quantity $`\overline{u}_s(𝒑^{})\gamma {}_{}{}^{0}u_{r}^{}(𝒑)`$ is equal to 2 for no spin flip in the $`z`$-direction (i.e., for $`\overline{u}_1`$ with $`u_1`$, or for $`\overline{u}_2`$ with $`u_2`$), and is equal to $`\pm 1`$ for spin flip in the $`z`$-direction (i.e., for $`\overline{u}_1`$ with $`u_2`$, or for $`\overline{u}_2`$ with $`u_1`$). We thus find that

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& {\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}^{}(\text{no spin flip})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2Z^2}{16m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}^{}(\text{spin flip})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2Z^2}{64m^2}}.& \end{array}`$ (294)
To obtain the unpolarized cross-section, we average over the initial spin states and sum over the final spin states in the standard way. This results in

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}^{}(\text{unpolarized}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}\right)_{rs}={\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}^{}(\text{no spin flip})+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}^{}(\text{spin flip})={\displaystyle \frac{5\alpha ^2Z^2}{64m^2}}.`$
We can compare this result with the standard Mott scattering formula,$`^{\text{11}}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}^{}(\text{Mott})={\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha Z)^2}{4E^2v^4\mathrm{sin}^4(\theta /2)}}[1v^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)],`$
by noting that, for our case, $`\theta =90^{}`$ so $`\theta /2=45^{}`$ and hence $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)=1/2`$; $`v^2=8/9`$; and $`E=3m`$; which yields precisely the same result:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}^{}(\text{Mott})={\displaystyle \frac{5\alpha ^2Z^2}{64m^2}}.`$
We may therefore be confident that we have not made any elementary mistakes in calculating the polarized cross-sections (294).

Let us now compute these cross-sections from the point of view of a different inertial frame. Specifically, let us view the process from an inertial frame which moves along the positive $`z`$-axis with velocity $`2/3`$ relative to the inertial frame used above. Applying $`B_z(2/3)`$ to the components of $`p^\mu `$ and $`p^\mu `$, we find

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& B_z(2/3)^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}3m\\ 2m\\ 0\\ 2m\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\sqrt{5}\\ 2m\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),B_z(2/3)^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}3m\\ 2m\\ 0\\ 2m\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\sqrt{5}\\ 2m\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),& \end{array}`$ (312)
so that, from the point of view of this new frame, the electron travels in the negative-$`x`$ direction with energy $`E=m\sqrt{5}`$ and speed $`2/\sqrt{5}`$, and is then reflected elastically to travel in the positive-$`x`$ direction with the same energy and speed. We also need to boost the components of the four-potential $`A_e^\mu `$:

$`B_z(2/3)^{}A_e^\mu (𝒒)={\displaystyle \frac{Ze}{\sqrt{5}|𝒒|^2}}^{}(3,0,0,2),`$
so that the equivalent expression to (243) for the polarized cross-section is

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}\right)_{rs}={\displaystyle \frac{(2m\alpha Z)^2}{5|𝒒|^4}}^{}|3\overline{u}_s(𝒑^{})\gamma {}_{}{}^{0}u_{r}^{}(𝒑)+2\overline{u}_s(𝒑^{})\gamma {}_{}{}^{z}u_{r}^{}(𝒑)|^2.& \end{array}`$ (314)
(We would, in general, need to transform the argument $`𝒒`$ as well as the components $`A_e^\mu `$ under a Lorentz transformation. However, if we define $`q^\mu p^\mu p^\mu `$, then in the original frame $`|𝒒|^2=q^\mu q_\mu `$ because $`q^0=0`$, i.e., the electron energy is conserved. Since $`q^\mu q_\mu `$ is a Lorentz scalar, then we find that $`|𝒒|^2`$ is invariant in any frame in which the electron energy is conserved—as is the case in the frame we have defined above.) Finally, from Eqs. (264) we find that, using the boosted momentum values (312), the constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are given by

$`c_1=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+^{}\sqrt{5}}{2}}},c_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m(1+^{}\sqrt{5})}},`$
so that for the incident electron we have

$`u_1(𝒑)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+^{}\sqrt{5}\text{)}}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1+^{}\sqrt{5}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 2\end{array}\right),u_2(𝒑)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+^{}\sqrt{5}\text{)}}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1+^{}\sqrt{5}\\ 2\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (323)
and for the scattered electron we have

$`\overline{u}_1(𝒑^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+^{}\sqrt{5}\text{)}}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1+^{}\sqrt{5}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 2\end{array}\right)^\text{T},\overline{u}_2(𝒑^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+^{}\sqrt{5}\text{)}}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1+^{}\sqrt{5}\\ 2\\ 0\end{array}\right)^\text{T}.`$ (332)
We now find that the quantity $`\overline{u}_s(𝒑^{})\gamma {}_{}{}^{0}u_{r}^{}(𝒑)`$ is unity for no spin flip in the $`z`$-direction, but vanishes for spin flip. The quantity $`\overline{u}_s(𝒑^{})\gamma {}_{}{}^{z}u_{r}^{}(𝒑)`$, on the other hand, vanishes for no spin flip, but has the value $`\pm 2`$ for spin flip. Inserting these values into the expression (314), we find that

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& {\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}^{}(\text{no spin flip})={\displaystyle \frac{9\alpha ^2Z^2}{320m^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\Omega ^{}}}^{}(\text{spin flip})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2Z^2}{20m^2}}.& \end{array}`$ (334)
We’ve struck another disaster! The coefficients $`9/320`$ and $`1/20`$ in (334) look nothing at all like the values $`1/16`$ and $`1/64`$ that we found in (294). But we have merely performed the same calculation in two different inertial frames! How on Earth could the value of the cross-section—which can be directly related to the number of particles that would be expected to be measured in an appropriately configured experiment—depend on an arbitrary choice of theoretical viewpoint? For example, if we prepare a beam of incident electrons so that they are completely polarized in the $`z`$-direction, and filter the scattered electrons so that only those polarized in the $`z`$-direction are detected, then what would the cross-section be: $`\alpha ^2Z^2/16m^2`$ or $`9\alpha ^2Z^2/320m^2`$? There cannot be two different answers!

One might, at first glance, suspect that some trivial mistake or oversight has been made. However, the calculations above can be checked; they do not contain any arithmetical errors. Failing this, one might then suspect that we have not taken into account the transformation of the solid angle differential $`d\Omega ^{}`$ under a Lorentz boost. However, if one checks the derivation$`^{\text{11}}`$ of the first of the relations (241), then one finds that it holds true in any elastic scattering of a single particle from an “external” field—essentially, the other kinematical factors happen to “cancel out” in this special class of scattering events.

There is, of course, a simple way to confirm or refute any suspicion one might have about the veracity of the results (334): one need simply combine them to find the unpolarized cross-section. Surely, any trivial errors made in obtaining the results (334) would (in all but the most contrived of situations) render the unpolarized combination similarly erroneous. But we are now flabbergasted to find that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{320}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{20}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{64}}.`$
Thus, even though we have obtained two sets of irreconcilably contradictory polarized cross-sections, we find that their unpolarized combinations agree completely (and agree with the standard Mott formula)!

What is going on?

VI. Solution to the polarization “paradox”
Let us now use the general discussion of Sec. 2 to understand the polarization “paradox” of the previous section. The key flaw in the arguments presented above is the description “polarized in the $`z`$-direction”. We have not specified whose $`z`$-direction is being used! The second calculation is simpler, in this regard, because the electron’s final velocity is collinear with its initial velocity (i.e., it is in the same direction, but has the opposite sense). Thus, it is consistent for us to define “the $`z`$-direction” to be our $`z`$-axis, since all boosts to the electron’s frames of reference are collinear. We can, say, prepare an electron polarized in the $`z`$-direction, and measure only those scattered electrons polarized in the $`z`$-direction, without ambiguity.

The first calculation, on the other hand, is more subtle. In using the standard expressions (262) and (274), we are (implicitly) applying one single Lorentz boost from our frame of reference to the initial electron’s frame, and another single Lorentz boost from our frame to the scattered electron’s frame. These two boosts, however, are not collinear; and so our description of events is different from how the electron would describe matters. (By giving the electron apparently human powers, we are of course imagining an observer traveling along with the electron.) In effect, the electron’s very rest frame is Thomas-rotated by the scattering event, relative to us. For example, imagine that the electron state does not get spin-flipped, as determined by the electron itself. From our point of view, however, the direction of polarization of the electron has changed!

The lesson of this example is clear. If one has need to calculate relativistic polarized cross-sections explicitly, and if the incident and scattered momenta of the particles involved are not absolutely collinear (and in most practical experiments they are not), then one must be extremely cautious about how one defines the spins or polarizations of the particles involved. In particular, kinematical and semi-classical arguments must be examined in fine detail, to ensure that the nonrelativistic concept of universality of orientation has not been inappropriately applied.

Finally, we may use the expressions (228) and (S7.EGx40) to re-analyze these polarized cross-section calculations quantitatively. If we set $`𝒗_1`$ to be the initial electron velocity, namely, $`(2/3,0,2/3)`$, then it is straightforward to verify that a boost by $`𝒗_2=(12/13,0,0)`$ results in the correct final electron velocity of $`𝒗_{12}=(2/3,0,2/3)`$. If one sets $`𝒓`$ to be, say, $`(0,0,1)`$, then, after some calculation, one finds that $`𝒓^{}=(4/5,0,3/5)`$. Thus, the electron’s rest frame has been Thomas-rotated by an angle $`\theta _T=\text{arctan}(4/3)53^{}`$ in the $`z`$$`x`$ plane. If we now list the matrix elements corresponding to the polarized Feynman amplitudes found in Sec. 2 (rather than the cross-sections), then for the first and second frames of reference we found, respectively,

$`_{rs}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{2m\alpha Z}{|𝒒|^2}}(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 1& 2\end{array}),_{rs}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{2m\alpha Z}{\sqrt{5}|𝒒|^2}}(\begin{array}{cc}3& 4\\ 4& 3\end{array}),`$ (339)
where the rows in these matrices represent the $`z`$-component of the initial spin, and the columns the $`z`$-component of the final spin. To reconcile these Feynman amplitudes, we need simply apply the Thomas rotation or its inverse to either the initial or the final spin state in the first frame of reference. Remembering that spinors transform under rotations by half-angles, and noting that $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _T^{}/2)=2/\sqrt{5}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta _T^{}/2)=1/\sqrt{5}`$, we finally obtain

$`(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _T}{2}}& ^{}\mathrm{sin}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _T}{2}}\\ \mathrm{sin}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _T}{2}}& \mathrm{cos}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _T}{2}}\end{array})_{rs}^{(1)}=_{rs}^{(2)}.`$ (342)
VII. Conclusions
We have shown how the Thomas rotation of relativistic mechanics can be introduced, and its “paradoxical” nature discussed, at quite an introductory level; that resolving such “paradoxes” is not overly difficult; and that a general expression for arbitrary Thomas rotations can be obtained without excessive effort. We have also shown how this general result connects up with standard textbook accounts of the infinitesimal Thomas precession. We have endeavored to show that the ramifications of such effects are deep, and fundamental, and that they may also be of immediate practical importance in the analysis and interpretation of relativistic polarized scattering experiments.

In the interests of keeping this discussion at an introductory level, we have refrained from utilizing more advanced theoretical concepts to explain or analyze the Thomas rotation more elegantly or concisely. For example, group-theoretical methods are hinted at in the above derivations, but are not made explicit. (See, for example, Ref. 5 for a thorough treatment in these terms.) Boosts can be viewed as simply “rotations” between space and time; and since two rotations about different spatial axes do not, in general, commute, then one would (rightly) presume that two boosts in different directions do not commute either; this is another path to the Thomas rotation. Alternatively, one may make use of the concept of parallel transport—more familiar in the general theory of relativity, but equally applicable to boosts or accelerations in flat spacetime—to arrive at the Thomas rotation by yet another path.$`^{\text{12}}`$ We believe that all of these more abstract views of the Thomas rotation do, in fact, augment, rather than detract from, the elementary nature and beauty of the effect as described here.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the Australian Research Council. Helpful discussions with Brian J. Morphett are gratefully acknowledged. This paper is dedicated to the memory of A. J. Drinan.

References

* Current address: Mentone Grammar, 63 Venice Street, Mentone, Victoria 3194, Australia.
* jpc@physics.unimelb.edu.au; jpcostella@hotmail.com; www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/$``$jpc
* mckellar@physics.unimelb.edu.au
* arawlins@physics.unimelb.edu.au
* gjs@baryon.phys.unm.edu; gjs@swcp.com
* J. P. Costella and B. H. J. McKellar, “The Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation,” Am. J. Phys. 63, 1119–1121 (1995).
* J. P. Costella, B. H. J. McKellar, and A. A. Rawlinson, “Classical antiparticles,” Am. J. Phys. 65, 835–841 (1997).
* A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1982), p. 143.
* A. A. Ungar, “Thomas precession and its associated grouplike structure,” Am. J. Phys. 59, 824–834 (1991).
* J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1999), Sec. 11.8.
* H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1980), p. 285.
* P. K. MacKeown, “Question #57. Thomas precession,” Am. J. Phys. 65, 105 (1997).
* G. H. Goedecke, “Geometry of the Thomas precession,” Am. J. Phys. 46, 1055–1056 (1978).
* R. A. Muller, “Thomas precession: Where is the torque?”Am. J. Phys. 60, 313–317 (1992).
* R. J. Philpott, “Thomas precession and the Liénard–Wiechert field,” Am. J. Phys. 64, 552–556 (1996).
* F. Mandl and G. Shaw, Quantum Field Theory (Wiley, Chichester, 1984), Secs. 8.7 and A.8.
* C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, New York, 1970).