Past exam of the relativity course of the University of Cambridge / 2018 / Section B / B2 / b

Write ${\Gamma }_a(v)=(1-v^2/a^2{)}^{-1/2}$. The first proposed Lorentz transformation isFor the next transformation, write ${\Gamma }_b(u)=(1-u^2/b^2{)}^{-1/2}$ and substitute the first pair into $x^{\prime \prime }={\Gamma }_b(u)(x^{\prime }-u{t}^{\prime })$ and $t^{\prime \prime }={\Gamma }_b(u)(t^{\prime }-u{x}^{\prime }/b^2)$. The result isThe direct transformation between $S$ and $S^{\prime \prime }$ must belong to the same standard boost family with the same calibration of space and time units. Such a transformation has one common factor multiplying the coefficient of $x$ in $x^{\prime \prime }$ and that of $t$ in $t^{\prime \prime }$. Equality of these coefficients for generic $uv\ne 0$ requiresThe case $uv=0$ alone cannot constrain the scales, but a transformation law must work for arbitrary successive boosts. Once the scales agree, their composed velocity is $V=(u+v)/(1+uv/a^2)$ and the common factor is ${\Gamma }_a(V)$. This establishes the universality of an invariant speed under boost composition within the proposed family.

Finiteness needs physical input. Sending $a^2$ to infinity gives the consistent Galilean transformation $x^{\prime }=x-vt$, $t^{\prime }=t$. Its boosts compose with $V=u+v$ and satisfy a relativity principle. Thus the composition calculation itself does not prove that $a^2$ cannot be infinite. The finite propagation speed of light in vacuum and its invariance, supplied by the second of the postulates of special relativity, rule out this limit for physical spacetime. Under a Galilean transformation, a ray with laboratory speed $c$ would have speed $c-v$ in the moving frame, in conflict with that postulate.

Finally, the common invariant scale must be identified with the physical speed of light, rather than an arbitrary speed measured in one frame. Requiring a ray $x=ct$ also to obey $x^{\prime }=c{t}^{\prime }$ givesHence the physical scale is $a=c$, taking the positive speed. The postulate about light identifies and requires a finite invariant scale; closure alone only establishes its universality. This distinction is necessary for a logically valid answer to the question's request to exclude infinity.