Robert McNees
Happy 118th birthday to special relativity!
Albert Einstein introduced special relativity in the paper "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies," published #OTD in 1905 in the journal Annalen der Physik.
Manuscript: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/andp.19053221004
English Translation: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Robert McNees
Let's go through some of his arguments!
At the beginning of the paper, Einstein presents two reasons why our understanding of electrodynamics (the rules governing charges, currents, and electromagnetic fields) must be incomplete.
First, he points out odd asymmetries in explanations of electrodynamic phenomena associated with relative motion between two objects. The explanations were often very different depending on the point of view: Object A at rest and Object B moving, or vice-versa.
Robert McNees
If the phenomena truly depend only on relative motion, why should the explanations be so qualitatively different depending on which point of view one adopts?
Second, Einstein reminds the reader that attempts to detect the motion of Earth through the “luminiferous ether” -- a hypothetical medium assumed to be necessary for the propagation of electromagnetic waves – had failed.
Robert McNees
Einstein addresses these issues (and revolutionizes physics) with a simple conjecture that has radical consequences.
He postulates:
“...the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
Robert McNees
It had long been assumed that light waves propagate through a medium, like mechanical waves.
This medium – the luminiferous aether – would establish a special frame of reference. Someone moving through the aether would detect a different speed of light than someone at rest.
Compare this with the Doppler shift for sound waves. There are genuinely different explanations for the change in pitch based on whether the listener or source is moving. Why? Because there's a medium (the air) to refer to.
Robert McNees
But by 1905, scientists had been looking for the aether for nearly 20 years with no success.
Einstein proposes a beautifully simple explanation: There is no special frame of reference for light. No motion through the aether had been detected because there is no aether!
Robert McNees
This conjecture does more than obviate the aether. Once we assume that the laws of electrodynamics hold in all "inertial" reference frames, we reach some confusing conclusions that force us to revise our most basic ideas about space and time.
Robert McNees
(What exactly is meant by an “inertial reference frame?”
A reference frame is basically the clock and set of rulers that a particular observer uses to record their measurements of where and when things happen.
If the measurements made with this clock and rulers agree with Newton's laws of motion – that is, if objects only accelerate in proportion to the net force acting on them, without the need for any fictitious forces – then the reference frame is said to be "inertial.")
Robert McNees
(Sorry, one last parenthetical comment:
If I am in an inertial reference frame, and you and I are moving relative to each other with constant velocity – at constant speed along a straight line – then your reference frame is also inertial.)
Robert McNees
The speed of light is a consequence of the laws of electrodynamics.
It had been assumed, up to that point, that these laws hold only in a special frame of reference defined by the aether. But Einstein asserts that *all* inertial observers agree on these laws.
Therefore, all inertial observers must agree on the speed at which light propagates, even if they are in motion relative to the source.
Robert McNees
Again, compare that with the propagation of sound waves in air. Once they are released from the source, their speed depends on the properties of the medium. So if a moving source emits sound waves, they still travel at the speed of sound.
On the other hand, if *you* are moving towards the source or away from it, you detect those waves as moving at a different relative velocity. Basically the speed of sound plus or minus the speed with which you are approaching or receding from the source.
Robert McNees
Now apply that same reasoning to light.
Suppose you are moving away from me at 60% of c (the speed of light). You see me receding at 0.6 c when I shine a flashlight at you. Your everyday experience with things like cars and baseballs and sound waves suggests that the light from my flashlight should “catch up” with you at 40% of c.
According to Einstein, that's *not* what happens.
Robert McNees
Neither one of us is accelerating, so we both agree that Newton's laws describe mechanical phenomena. If you are an inertial observer then so am I. According to Einstein we therefore agree on the same laws of electrodynamics, as well.
Since we agree on the same laws of electrodynamics, we must agree on the speed of light they predict. The light from my flashlight follows these laws. You must conclude that it is catches up with you at c, rather than 0.4 c.
Robert McNees
Your everyday experience has led to some common-sense rules for determining the relative velocity of two objects. And in everyday situations, those rules work just fine. But in this case, those rules are noticeably wrong. To fix this, we have to make some big changes.
To preserve this idea that you and I both see light as propagating at speed c, even when we are moving relative to one another, we have to toss the Newtonian idea of absolute time out the window.
Robert McNees
As a result, we begin to disagree on things that we previously took for granted. For example, I may regard two events as simultaneous, while you insist that one happened before the other.
Two observers moving relative to each other will generally give different descriptions of where and when things happen.
To reconcile their descriptions we must accept that their notions of space and time get mixed up. Einstein explains the translation between reference frames:
Robert McNees
I actually wrote a nice long post about this the other day! How do we reconcile two different descriptions of where and when things happen, in a way that preserves important notions like causality?
In the image above, my "where and when" description t, x, y, and z for an event appears on the right-hand side of these equations. The coordinates I called t', x', y', and z' in this linked thread are the symbols on the left-hand side.
Robert McNees
In Einstein's presentation of these “Lorentz transformations," our relative speed appears as v, and the speed of light is denoted V.
(Nowadays we universally use c for the speed of light.)
This way of moving back and forth between "where and when" descriptions by two inertial observer insures that they both detect light propagating at the same, constant speed.
Why does this work? It's a secret symmetry hidden in Maxwell's equations for electrodynamics. It was there waiting to be found!
Robert McNees
Once Einstein understood how to translate between inertial frames, he quickly revised our common-sense rules for combining velocities.
1) You move relative to me with constant velocity v
2) You see something moving in that direction with velocity w
3) I measure its velocity as U, given by:
Robert McNees
If you move away from me at 0.6 c, and you measure something moving away from you in the same direction at 0.4 c, then I see it moving away from me at 0.806 c, rather than 0.6 c + 0.4 c = c.
On the other hand, if you see something moving away from (or toward) you at velocity w = c (or "V" in Einstein's notation) then I also get detect U = c.
That solves our receding / approaching flashlight problem. We always agree on things that move at the speed of light.
Robert McNees
Because c is very big (about 3x10⁸ m/s), Einstein's new rule is still compatible with our everyday experience.
Suppose I'm standing on the side of the road and see you drive by at 60mph. If you say someone passes you at 20mph, I would see them moving at 79.99999999999989 mph.
You could forgive me for describing that as the 80mph given by my common-sense rule for adding velocities.
Robert McNees
Having fixed kinematics so that it reflects Nature rather than our intuition, Einstein moves on to electrodynamics.
He works out the transformation of Maxwell’s laws, and derives (among other results) the special relativistic form of the Doppler shift.
Unlike sound waves, where the source or listener might be moving relative to the medium, the special relativistic Doppler shift depends only on the relative motion.
Robert McNees
Finally, Einstein considers a “slowly accelerated” electron.
Here, “slowly” means he will ignore the energy it radiates as it accelerates. Instead, he wants to focus on the work required to bring the object up to some speed v. This is just the object's kinetic energy.
Einstein notes that his calculation applies to any "ponderable material point" whether or not it is charged. So it doesn't have to be an electron; the result would be the same for any massive particle.
He obtains:
Thony Christie
@mcnees Who’s this Einstein guy? Is he famous or something?
Robert McNees
@rmathematicus Is that even the right spelling?
The Geoff
@mcnees @rmathematicus Guy who invented Penrose Tiles isn't he?
Robert McNees
Here μ is the particle's mass, v is its speed, and V is c.
Once again, he obtains a result that agrees with our expectations when applied to everyday situations.
If the object's velocity is much smaller than c, he recovers the usual non-relativistic kinetic energy: (1/2) μ v².
Robert McNees
But as v approaches the speed of light, the kinetic energy grows without bound.
Apparently, no amount of work can ever get a massive object up to c. In Einstein's words, "Velocities greater than that of light have – as in our previous results – no possibility of existence."
In 2018, total global energy consumption was closing in on 6x10²⁰ Joules. That's about the amount of work you'd need to get a 1000 kg space probe up to a speed of 0.99c, according to Einstein's result.
Robert McNees
Notice that Einstein's result for the kinetic energy looks like something minus mc²! That makes sense, right? Everyone has heard of “E=mc²” so this must be where he introduces the famous result.
But E=mc² doesn't show up until his next paper, titled "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?" That paper was submitted to Annalen der Physik the day after this one appeared.
Robert McNees
Happy 118th birthday, special relativity!
Alm
@mcnees number of references in this publication: zero. Incredible 😀👍☀️
James J Malcolm
@mcnees how come the translation states 30 June 1905?
Scott Frazer
@mcnees feels like only yesterday
Robert McNees
@jamesjm Submission versus final publication
Robert McNees
@Edelruth You're welcome!
Edelruth
Huge thanks to you for the links.
Drew Olbrich
@mcnees In this scenario, what would your measurement of the speed of sound be if you and your measuring equipment were made out of sound waves?
Robert McNees
@drewolbrich If I was made of sound waves? It would depend on the direction of the other sound wave.
As a sound wave my speed is fixed by the properties of the medium. So I'm moving at basically 340 m/s through air in some direction. Any other sound wave is, as well. But this is with respect to the medium; it provides a fixed reference frame to refer to. If the other wave is moving in the same direction as me, I'd say its speed relative to me is zero. If the opposite direction? ~680 m/s.
Drew Olbrich
@mcnees Thanks, that makes sense.
But I'm wondering, what if "made out of sound waves" is interpreted in the most literal way?
To perform all my measurements, imagine I'm using sound clocks, analogous to photon clocks. Also, all atoms are constructed from sound waves and behave like tiny sound clocks.
I'm also assuming that the mechanics of this sound-atom world require the sound atoms to length contract in the direction of motion relative to the medium.
Drew Olbrich
@mcnees I think that this is answer is incorrect.
Since your body and measuring equipment would be composed of sound waves, I think that whenever you measured the speed of sound, the speed of sound relative to you would always be 340 m/s from your perspective, regardless of your speed relative to the medium.
Imagine you're using "phonon clocks" to measure time passing, etc.
Since you, the observer, are made out of sound waves, your perceived measurement of time and distances would be altered.
Chirp! is a social network. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.1-beta0, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Chirp! content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.