See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258810905

Postulates of special relativity

Article  in  Physics Essays · March 2013

DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-26.1.110

CITATION READS

1 4,285

1 author:

Sanford Aranoff
Rider University
16 PUBLICATIONS   128 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sanford Aranoff on 18 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PHYSICS ESSAYS 26, 1 (2013)

Postulates of special relativity

Sanford Aranoffa)
Department of Mathematics, Rider University, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648, USA
(Received 12 July 2012; accepted 29 December 2012; published online 26 February 2013)
Abstract: Physicists state that a postulate of special relativity is the constancy of the speed of
light, when the truth is that the only postulate is the inertial postulate. We will say a few words
about misconceptions about relativity in general. We need to think more deeply to be sure to
C 2013 Physics Essays Publication.
impart correct ideas to our students. V
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-26.1.110]

Résumé: Quelques postulats de la relativité restreinte. Les physiciens affirment que le postulat de
la relativité restreinte est la constance de la vitesse de la lumière. Tout au contraire, le seul postulat
acceptable est celui de l’inertie. Notre article propose donc de souligner certaines idées fausses sur
la relativité en générale. Nous devons penser plus en profondeur afin de garantir la transmission
d’idées correctes à nos étudiants.
Key words: Special Theory of Relativity; Nature of Physical Theories; Coulomb’s Law and Maxwell’s Equations of Electro-
magnetism; Charge Conservation; 4-Vector Potential; Retarded Potential; Age of Universe; Gravitation.

I. INTRODUCTION
The basic postulate of special theory of relativity (SR) is
incorrectly stated in many textbooks.
Before discussing these errors, we must understand the
nature of a physical theory. A physical theory is a mathemat-
ical system, that is, a logical self-consistent system based
upon arbitrary postulates, along with observations and
experiments. The starting points of a physical theory must be
things that can be observed. The conclusions must be verified
by observations and experiments in order for the theory to be
considered valid.
When A. Einstein published SR, he said that a postulate is
that the speed of light is constant. Viewed as a logical system
that agrees with observation, this is a valid physical theory.
Since SR mentions light, the theory must contain an explana-
tion of light. Our understanding of light is based upon
Maxwell’s equations (ME) of electromagnetism (EM). This
means that SR is based upon the 4 (or 5) postulates of ME.
We can derive ME based upon more fundamental
assumptions, instead of the 4 postulates. We can postulate
Coulomb’s law of electrostatics. This has the advantage that
the quantities in Coulomb’s law are things that can be
observed, and so this satisfies a requirement of a physical
theory. The gauge invariance of the Coulomb potential can
be shown by Noether’s theorem to lead to charge conserva-
tion. If we postulate that the electrostatic potential is the 0th
component of a 4-vector obeying certain transformation
rules, we can get ME. That is, Coulomb’s law along with the
4-vector assumption of the potential leads to ME. This is far
less than the 4 or 5 postulates of ME in the classical
derivation.
a)
saranoff@rider.edu
See Ref. 1, page 142 for a derivation of ME, page 166
for a derivation of the wave equation, and page 154 for a der-
ivation of forces on current systems.
The basic postulate of SR is that all physical laws
are valid in all inertial systems. This means that ME are
valid in all inertial systems. ME contain various
constants. The speed of electromagnetic radiation is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
c ¼ 1= e0 l0 ; where e0 and l0 are constants in ME. This
means that this postulate of SR implies that c is the same in
all inertial frames. Again, constant c is a conclusion, not an
initial assumption. In other words, the existence of the speed
of light is a mathematical theorem in electrodynamics. This
theorem is valid regardless of from which inertial frame we
observe an experiment.
Reference 1, page 243 gives additional postulates
implicit in SR, such as the invariance of the sense of time.
In summary, the postulates of SR can be stated as
Coulomb’s law, the assumption that the electrostatic poten-
tial is a 4-vector, and, quoting from Ref. 1, “a principle of
relativity exists for all fields of physics including electro-
dynamics.” In Ref. 1 it is further stated, “This implies,
among other things, that the velocity of propagation, c, of
plane electromagnetic waves in free space must be independ-
ent of the observer’s inertial frame.” They further clarify this
point, showing that a constant c is a conclusion, not an initial
assumption.2
This approach shows us that SR is a powerful unifying
theory of physics. With Einstein’s original approach, SR is
far more restrictive in scope.
My objections to using the invariance of the speed of
light as a basis for SR are two. First, what is light? The
approach in Einstein’s writings bases SR on an undefined
concept, light. This approach uses ME to define light, and
then postulates the speed of light is constant. Since we must

0836-1398/2013/26(1)/110/3/$25.00 110 C 2013 Physics Essays Publication

V
Phys. Essays 26, 1 (2013) 111

use ME in our postulate, it is better to postulate that equa- III. THE RETARDED POTENTIAL
tions of physics, such as ME, are valid in all inertial systems.
In Ref. 1, this very interesting concept is discussed.
Second, why is the speed invariant? Just because of the
The potential at a source from a moving charge is deter-
Michelson–Morley experiment? We would like to base SR
mined by the position of the charge at the earlier time, the
on something more fundamental. Postulating the validity of
distance of the charge from the source divided by c. This
equations of physics in all inertial systems is more
means that when we look at the sun, we see what was there
fundamental.
8.3 min ago, the time for light to reach us from the sun,
There is another serious drawback to Einstein’s approach
and not where the sun “is” now. This is due to the 4-vector
to SR, namely, the approach that starts with the invariance of
nature of the electromagnetic potential. It means that when
the speed of light. One often hears comments that maybe
we look at a galaxy 13  109 light years away, we see
physicists will show that the speed of light is not constant. If
what was there 13  109 years ago, and the “present” loca-
the basis of SR is constant c, then indeed there is room for
tion of the galaxy is meaningless. This means that the
speculation of the future of physics and the speed of light.
speed of light is also the speed of information. The only
However, when we base SR on very fundamental principles,
reality we have from distant events is the reality of what
such as the invariance of laws of physics in all inertial sys-
we see now.
tems, the case for speculation about the future of physics
Some people are confused about the age of the uni-
becomes weak, as it is harder to imagine that ME would not
verse. Current observations are that the age of the universe
be valid in all inertial systems.
is 13.7  109 years. A false comment is saying that since
the light from distant galaxies has traveled to us for
billions of years, we must add this time to the age of the
II. COMMENTS universe. This is false, as the only reality we have is what
we see now.
Professor Greene has talked on television that string
Gravitation is similar, I believe, namely, the force of
theory is a great unifying theory, while forgetting that SR
gravitation of the sun on the earth points to where the sun
is also a great unifying theory, for we can derive all the
was 8.3 min ago. It would be interesting if we could prove
Maxwell’s equations from Coulomb’s law. We must give
this. Some theories of gravitation4 say gravitation is a scalar
credit to Einstein for this unification.
force, without a retarded potential. If so, this will make
A goal of science is to find a broad explanation of nature,
galactic motions very complex, as the light from the stars is
with as few general assumptions as possible. The derivation
retarded while the gravitation not. Personally, I believe grav-
of SR from EM is very satisfying in this respect.
itation also has a retarded potential, and suggest physicists
On the other hand, if we use the original derivation of
try to verify this.
SR, based upon a postulate that the speed of light is constant,
It should be possible to derive ME and Coulomb’s law
then we have to perform experiments to determine if this is
from fundamental principles and a constant universal
valid. We have to try to detect violations of the constant
speed. I am not aware of any attempts to do this. Cur-
speed of light; and if we find any, we need to revise SR (and
rently, the status is that Coulomb’s law is a fundamental
EM). Basing SR on ME puts SR on a sounder, more reliable
postulate. This along with other basic postulates leads to
footing.
ME and to SR.
In conclusion, I would like to state that relativity seems
Einstein’s unfortunate statement that the constant speed
to be very confusing to physicists, in spite of its logical
of light is a postulate of SR has resulted in generations of
simplicity and clarity. We must discuss these ideas with our
people confused about the nature of physics and relativity in
students, especially high school students and the general
particular. Stating constant c is a basic postulate sounds mag-
public, if we are to understand these ideas ourselves. The sad
ical, and magic has no role in physics.
reality is that textbooks do not discuss the conceptual ideas
Allow me to repeat and summarize this confusing
of 20th century physics. We need to address this much more
point. Maxwell derived the speed of light from other equa-
seriously!
tions. This means that the speed of light is a theorem, sim-
A long while ago, I published3 articles on the meaning
ilar to theorems in geometry which we prove using the
of equilibrium in special relativity. Equilibrium means the
postulates. Einstein’s error was saying the speed of light is
sums of the forces and torques on the object sum to zero at
a postulate. Students must know what the postulates are
any one time, even if the forces are time-dependent. In
and what the theorems are, and not confuse theorems with
special relativity, this statement must be covariant, and so a
postulates.
moving observer will not measure the torques at the same
time. In spite of its simplicity, many textbooks, such as
Ref. 1, page 272, stated that the moving observer must
IV. SUMMARY
measure torques at the same time in the moving observer’s
frame. People failed to understand Lorentz covariance. In We do not need to postulate the constant speed of light
spite of the logical clarity and observational verification, in order to derive SR. It is enough to postulate ME is valid in
people continued to view the world from a prerelativistic all inertial systems, for the speed of light is a theorem in ME.
framework. We need to think more deeply to be sure to We need to understand fully ME before trying to understand
impart correct ideas to our students. SR.
112 Phys. Essays 26, 1 (2013)

2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Dr. Stéphane Natan, Associate Professor of
3
French, Rider University, for translating the abstract.
1 4
W. K. H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism
(Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1955).
See “The aura of Einstein and general relativity,” philica.com, article num-
ber 192, S. Aranoff (2010) for a possible explanation of why people
believed for decades that the constant c is the basis of SR.
S. Aranoff, Am. J. Phys. 37, 453–454 (1969); Il Nuovo Cimento 10B, 155
(1972); Am. J. Phys. 41, 1108 (1973).
J. Hynecek, Phys. Essays 25, 4 (2012). Jacob David Bekenstein has written
about possible gravitation theories.

View publication stats