“A Brief History of Special Relativity”

Steve Clark
April 2009
 Contents

Contents Page 1

Introduction Page 2

1. The Beginning of Special Relativity Page 3

2. The Work of Galileo Galilei Page 3

3. Contributions from Newton Page 4

4. The Luminiferous Aether Hypothesis Page 5

5. The Michelson-Morley Experiment. Page 5

6. Lorentz Theory Page 8

7. The Lorentz Transformation Page 9

8. The Principles of Special Relativity Page 11

9. The Death of Simultaneity Page 11

10. Time Dilation Page 12

11. Length Contraction Page 13

12. Addition of Velocities and Inertia and Momentum Page 13

13. Mass-Energy Equivalence Page 14

Conclusion Page 16

Bibliography Page 17

2
 Introduction

It may seem melodramatic when I say that in the following paper we are going to delve
into the very nature of the Reality around us and try and explain a theory that goes
against something that has been ingrained into our consciousness since birth, but that’s
pretty much exactly what we’re going to do. This is just the way that Special Relativity
is, it is one of the foremost works of arguably the most famous physicist in history, and
describes in essence part of what holds the universe together. It is something most of us
have probably heard of and yet it is a minority who truly understand what it is, what it
means and what its implications are.

In order to get a proper grasp of an idea however, one must understand it in context.
While there is much to be gained from examining the function of a physical object in
detail, much of its meaning is lost if you have no idea where it comes from or why it was
made in the first place. The same is very much true with ideas. Therefore in the following
pages I’m going to attempt (and hopefully succeed) in providing a brief history of the
Special theory of Relativity. Starting with the basic ideas and early theories upon which
most of us today base our view of the universe on, we will explore how scientists in the
past inferred various different notions of Relativity. We shall see how these theories arose
and how they fell short, and then more importantly how their shortcomings pointed
towards the next ideas.

Building upon these ideas we shall try to get an accurate picture of where the Special
theory of Relativity came from, showing how it was the next logical step in our attempts
to explain the universe. Then with these ideas in mind we will look into the Special
Theory of Relativity itself, its principles, its inner workings and its implications.
Hopefully over the course of this paper I will provide a methodical account of the Theory
such that the reader might understand not only how it works, but also how and why it was
necessary and exactly what its importance is in the field of science.

3
 A Brief History of Special Relativity

The Beginning of Special Relativity

Since birth, our knowledge of the world around us is pretty much entirely drawn from our
experiences; our senses of hearing, smell, touch, taste, and most importantly sight. From
this each one of us develops a kind of ‘common sense’ theory of the world as they grow
up. Down is down, up is up, and everything physical is absolute. Concepts like an hour or
a meter are seen to be unchangeable and somehow inherent to the laws of the world. In
the common sense view of the world everything is self defining and there seems to be no
need for relativity.

It might be surprising then, to find that the beginnings of Relativistic Theory lie not in
recent modern science but in its early development. It was what is now known as the
Copernican Revolution where things truly began. Started unsurprisingly by the
Astronomer Copernicus, the Copernican Revolution was the scientific community’s shift
away from the geocentric view of the universe to that of a heliocentric model. Not only
was this one of the stating points of the Scientific Revolution of the 16th century, but is
important to our aims here because up until that point the generally held view was that
the Earth was the centre of the universe, a view that had been held since the time of
Aristotle. The problem with this is not so much that Earth was the centre, but that there
was a centre at all. Although the Copernican Revolution only moved the centre of the
solar system to the sun rather than the earth, it was much easier from here to make the
short step in realising that the sun was one of many stars, and then from here that maybe
there doesn’t nee to be a centre at all.

The Work of Galileo Galilei

Science’s journey towards Relativity continued with the “father of modern science”
Galileo Galilei. Although best known for his support of the aforementioned heliocentric
model of the universe, it is two of Galileo’s other contributions which concern us here.
The first of these is his study of falling objects (supposedly from the leaning tower of
Pisa no less), from which he showed that as an object falls its acceleration doesn’t
change. Essentially he came to the conclusion that much like uniform velocity was a
constant change in position, uniform acceleration was a constant change in velocity.
p (t 2 ) − p (t1 ) v(t 2 ) − v(t1 )
v= a=
t 2 − t1 t 2 − t1
[Where v is uniform velocity, p(t) is position at time t, t1 & t2 are two points in time such
that t2 – t1 is a time interval, a is uniform acceleration and v(t) is velocity at time t.]
With this realisation Galileo was the first to develop a clear idea of acceleration and it
was this that allowed many of the studies that were to follow (particularly Newton’s).
This coupled with his other contribution towards relativity which made him important in
the development of Relativity, in fact this other contribution was really the first time any
idea of Relativity had been seriously considered.
This contribution was Galilean Invariance (Also known as Galilean Relativity). It was a
principle first put described in 1632 in Galileo’s “Dialogue concerning the two chief

4
world systems”. In the ‘second day’ of this dialogue Galileo uses a ship travelling from
Venice as an example to illustrate this principle, saying that if a sack on the ship were to
be lifted an inch this would be more of a movement for it relative to the rest of the cargo
than the two thousand mile journey the entire cargo makes as it moves with the ship. In
essence, the principle simply states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in
any and all inertial frames. While this is by no means close to the special relativity we
hope to end up with and even though some of its most basic axioms later proved to be
false, it laid down some important ideas that would prove crucial to Special Relativity’s
development, especially after Newton built on it.
One of these ideas worth noting here is that of the Galilean Transformation. This
transformation was formulated by Galileo for the purpose of transforming from the
coordinates of one reference frame to that of another (provided they only differed in
constant relative motion).
For Example (where the difference is in the x direction):
x ' = x + vt y' = y z' = z t ' =t
[Where t is the time and (x, y, z) are the coordinates of one reference frame, all of those
dashed are the respective values in the second reference frame and v is the constant
relative motion.]
Although these seem to just show the obvious notion of adding and subtracting velocities,
the Galilean Transformation is important because it formalizes the process of
transforming between frames of reference, and because it later developed into the Lorentz
Transformations (which we will come to in a while).

Contributions from Newton

English Mathematician Isaac Newton, continuing from Galileo’s work in mechanics,

formulated his famous Laws of Motion, which comprised the basis of what is known
today as Newtonian Mechanics. The First of these, the Law of Inertia, is most commonly
stated as “Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly
straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.”
To Begin with, by stating that a body only changes velocity if it is acted upon by an
external force it helps move mechanics further away from the idea of a preferred location
or state of being for objects. Furthermore this is really a simplification of the Law.
Another way to describe the law is “There is a class of frames of reference (called
inertial frames) relative to which the motion of a particle not subject to forces is a straight
line.” While on the surface this is simply a classification of Inertial Frames, this statement
has a quiet significance that lies mainly in the importance of the idea of Inertial Frames.
As we shall see later, they are at the core of the Special Theory of Relativity, and their
importance is present all the way through the Theory’s history.

Because Newton built some of his work upon that of Galileo, he also used Galilean
Invariance. This when combined with his Laws of Motion is sometimes called Newtonian
Relativity, which was held along with the Rest of Newtonian Mechanics as the Golden
Standard of Man’s ability to understand the universe. It should be noted that although
Newton’s work did make advances towards Special Relativity and spark a greater public
interest the scientific cause, he and his followers also held a number of beliefs that

5
harkened back to Aristotelian view of the universe. They believed that there was
Absolute space (i.e. that space itself exists in its own right) which leant back towards the
idea of a favoured frame. They also held that Time was universal (i.e. equal in every
reference frame) which while not an unreasonable idea in the slightest, since they had no
reason to believe otherwise, later turned out to be a false belief. Interestingly, although
the idea of universal time has been scientifically disproven it is still a view that is held by
the huge majority of people today, but we digress.

The Luminiferous Aether Hypothesis

It was in the 19th Century that Scottish Theoretical Physicist James Clerk Maxwell found
that alterations in an electromagnetic field travelled at a speed very close to that of light.
From this it was proposed that Light itself was a type of electromagnetic wave (where as
before it had been thought to be a particle), a proposal that later gained further credence
and led Maxwell to state that “We can scarcely avoid the conclusion that light consists in
the transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and
magnetic phenomena.” It wasn’t long until many other phenomena were thought to be
electromagnetic waves, and lower frequency electromagnetic waves (radio waves) were
produced and measured.
It was then that scientists turned to other types of wave to help explain electromagnetism.
They reasoned that much like sound travels through the medium of air; Light must have
its own medium to travel through. This hypothetical medium became known as the
Luminiferous Aether.

This Luminiferous Aether, with Aether being the ancient Greek fifth element that fills the
heavens and Luminiferous meaning that light propagates through it (Ether for short),
must by simple logic have a number of properties for it to be a viable hypothesis. For
example it must be everywhere since it cannot be removed and it mustn’t be able to
interact physically with other objects otherwise it would cause friction.
There are a couple of problems with the Ether hypothesis. Firstly is that it is a concept
whose existence was introduced solely to explain how light travels when there were no
other reasons or evidence to suggest there might be any truth to it (I personally would like
to point out the comparison to some ideas modern scientists have evoked into being, but I
digress), and more concerning to us is that it brings back the idea of a favoured frame.
The problem with this being that it negates the use of any previously mentioned ideas of
Relativity in Electrodynamics, bringing us back to something similar in ways to
Aristotelian ideas.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment

The properties of the Ether basically meant that it was impossible to check the hypothesis
by measurements of anything physical, and any attempts to observe it through measuring
light met with the difficulty of obtaining accurate measurements of the speed of light.
Rather than measuring the speed of light two American scientists, Albert Michelson and
Edward Morley, devised an experiment that measured the ratio in velocity between two
perpendicular beams of light.

6
This experiment became rather unimaginatively named The Michelson-Morley
Experiment. The idea is that as the earth moves through the Ether, light beams should be
affected by a kind of ‘Ether wind’. By setting two identical light beams perpendicular to
each other, one should be able to measure the difference between them caused by the
Ether wind, thereby verifying the hypothesis. The equipment was set up in a way similar
to the following:

Mirror 1

Diagram of the
The Michelson-Morley
Experiment
l1

Light
Mirror 2 Source

l2
Half-Silvered Mirror

Detector

From the Light source the light travels to the Half-Silvered Mirror where it is split into
two equal beams heading to Mirrors 1 and 2. From there the beams are reflected back to
through the Half-Silvered Mirror to the Detector. In this case the detector was an
Interferometer, which is a device which superimposes two waves of light onto each other
in order to create constructive or destructive interference. Now assume that the earth is
stationary in the Ether and that lengths l1 and l2 are equal, the two light beams would
reach the Detector equal and Constructive Interference would be the result.

However, if we assume that l1 and l2 are not necessarily equal and that the Earth is
moving through the Ether in direction of the red arrow at speed U, then since time taken
= distance/speed we can say that the time taken for the beam of light to go to mirror 1 and
back would be:
l1 l l1 (c − u ) l1 (c + u ) l ( c + u ) + l 1 ( c − u ) l 1 c + l1 c + l 1 u − l1 u
t1 = + 1 = + = 1 = 2
c + u c − u (c + u )( c − u ) (c − u )( c + u ) (c − u )( c + u ) c + cu − uc − u 2
−1
2l1 c (2l1 c) / c 2 2l1 c 1 2l1 1 2l1  u 2 
= = = = = 1 − 2 
c 2 −u 2 (c 2 − u 2 ) / c 2 c2 (c 2 − u 2 ) / c 2 c 1 −u 2 / c 2 c  c 

7
Then expanding out the (1 − u 2 / c 2 )
−1
part by Taylor’s theorem
2l1  u 2

we get t1 ≅ 1 + 2 + ... 
c  c 

In the case of the light travelling to Mirror 2 on the other

hand the actual length of the path the light takes is increased
rather than the speed of the beam due to the mirror’s l2
2 t 2u
movement. Since by Pythagoras (l 3 / 2) 2 = (t 2 u / 2) 2 + l 2 , the l3/2
2
new path length is therefore l 3 = 2 (t 2 u / 2) 2 + l 2 2 .

From this we can work out the time taken for the beam to go there and back as follows.

2 u2  4 2
2 2
2 4 t2 u 2 4 2 t2 u 2 4 2
+ 2 l2 ⇒ t2 − 2 = 2 l2 ⇒ t2  1 − 2  = 2 l2 ⇒
2 2 2
t2 = (t2u / 2) + l2 ⇒ t2 = 2
2

c c 4 c c c  c  c
−1 / 2
2l2  u 2  2l2  u 2 
2 2
4l2 1 4l2 1 2l2 1
2
t2 = 2 ⇒ t2 = = = 1 −  ⇒ t2 ≅  1 + 2 + ...
c 1 − u 2 / c2 c2 1 − u 2 / c2 c 1 − u2 / c2 c  c 2  c  2c 

Finally, if we were to set l1=l2=l then we would find the time difference between the
beams arriving at the detector to be:

2l  u 2  2l  u2  2l  u 2 u2  2l  2u 2 u 2  l u2 l
∆t = t 1 − t 2 ≅ 1 + 2 + ...  − 1 + 2 + ...  ≅ 1 + 2 − 1 − 2  =  2 − 2  = 2
= 3 u2
c  c  c  2c  c  c 2c  c  2c 2c  cc c

Since the difference between the two beams is in terms of U, when U=0 there is still
constructive interference. However when U ≠ 0 the interference patterns change, and by
rotating the entire experiment around the centre of the half-silvered mirror one would be
able to create a smoothly changing diffraction pattern, thereby proving the Ether
hypothesis.
This is not what Michelson and Morley observed, in fact all they observed was a constant
constructive interference pattern no matter how many times they rotated the apparatus or
changed the location and time of the experiment. Later verified by other experiments,
these observations clashed implicitly with the established theory of the Ether, even if the
experiment had just so happened to be first performed while the Earth was stationary in
the Ether it was impossible for that to have been the case all the times the experiment was
repeated.

While might be tempting to think of this as the death knell for the Ether theory, it most
certainly was not. There were a number of other theories proposed to try and explain the
negative result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. While almost all were flawed or
soon disproved, arguably the most important of these was of that Proposed by Dutch
Physicist Hendrik Lorentz.

8
Lorentz Theory

This Theory, now known as the “Lorentz Ether Theory”, is really the last step before the
emergence of Special Relativity. It’s importance lies not in it’s original purpose, which
was to solve problems with the Ether hypothesis, but in how it lead naturally into Special
Relativity and in many of the ideas that it put forward which Einstein almost directly
incorporated into his theory. In fact it is the Lorentz Ether Theory which makes
Mainstream Science’s detour away from earlier relativistic ideas into the realm of
absolute space inherent to the Ether theory worthwhile.

The first thing that differentiated Lorentz’ theory from the others trying to explain the
Michelson-Morley result was his basic approach to the problem. Like the others he
assumed the existence of the Ether, in addition to this however he focused his attention
on looking at the basic construction of matter and how this coupled with movement
through the Ether might affect measurements of time and space.
The structure of matter at the time was known to consist of atoms of negatively charged
Electrons around a positively charged Nucleus, and Lorentz assumed that the electric
forces at work at this basic level were strains in the Ether. From a set of equations known
collectively as “Maxwell’s Equations” Lorentz calculated that while a charged particle’s
electromagnetic field was spherical while at rest in the Ether, when it was moving it
contracted in the direction of the movement by a ratio of 1 −(v 2 / c 2 ) . Taking the
cumulative effect of all the charged particles in an object behaving this way it resulted in
the entirety of the moving object itself becoming shorted by the same ratio.

Taking this is the context of the Michelson-Morley Experiment, where as before the
2l 1
equation for t1 could be written as t1 = 1 , now that the length from the half
c 1− u2 / c2
silvered mirror to mirror 1 has changed from l1 to l1 1 − (v 2 / c 2 ) a new equation for t1 is
2l1 1 − (u 2 / c 2 ) 1 2l 1 − (u 2 / c 2 ) 2l1 1
t1 = = 1 =
c 1− u / c
2 2
c ( 1− u 2
/ c2 ) 2
c 1− u2 / c2
2l2 1
Since the equation for t2 remains t2 = the final result for ∆t is now:
c 1 − u 2 / c2
2l1 1 2l 1
∆t = t1 − t 2 = − 2
c 1− u2 / c2 c 1− u2 / c2
And thus when l1=l2 then ∆t = 0

This meant that no matter what the Earth’s velocity was relative to the Ether, there would
only be constructive interference, and so Lorentz theory explained the negative result of
the Michelson-Morley Experiment. However there were other consequences to the ideas
Lorentz had put forward. Though at the time testing the Ether hypothesis by directly
measuring the speed of light relative to the Ether was unfeasible due to the required
accuracy of the equipment needed, it wouldn’t be long until measurement apparatus
advanced to the point where it became possible. When Lorentz came to address this

9
problem theoretically it became apparent that his theory would also affect the clocks
required in such an experiment.

Lorentz calculated that there would be a resistance force of − λa (where λ is a constant

based on the electron’s attributes and a is the acceleration of the electron) on any
electrons being accelerated inside the clock. From this, the electron’s motion can be
described as mb a = F − λa , or rather F = ( mb + λ) a (where mb is the basic mass of the
electron, and F is what is left from the applied force that caused the acceleration). This is
simply a more elaborate version of the famous equation F = ma (where m is the
observed mass).
Further to this, Lorentz calculated that λ is actually a function of the electrons velocity in
the Ether. This coupled with the discovery that mb is also proportional to a fraction of
1 −(v 2 / c 2 ) allowed Lorentz to arrive at the equation:
mr 1
m= or m = mr γ where γ =
1 − (v 2 / c 2 ) 1 − (v 2 / c 2 )
[Where mr is the mass of a particle while it is at rest relative to the Ether and γ is what is
known as the Lorentz Factor.]
Interestingly, since in the clock every particle’s mass is being slowed by a ratio of γ, the
clock slows down by what also turns out to be a ratio of γ. From this it is no large step of
logic to come to the conclusion that since the particles in an observer would also slow
down in a similar fashion that the observer’s perception of time would also slow similar
to the ticking of the clock. Thinking with regards to performing an experiment to detect
the speed of light relative to the Ether, since lengths shrink, the clocks slow and the
scientist’s perception of time slows proportionately, the results would give the same
measurement of the speed of light regardless of where the experiment was performed
relative to the Ether. In short, it turned out to be impossible to detect the speed of the
Earth relative to the Ether using these means.

This raised an interesting question. Because it was impossible to detect the speed of light
relative to the Ether using these methods and all other methods had also resulted in the
same invariance, scientists began to ask themselves if it was even possible to detect the
speed of light relative to the Ether by experimental means.

The Lorentz Transformation

The answer to this question lies in what would become a staple part of Special Relativity,
the Lorentz Transformation. The Lorentz Transformation is based on the same idea as the
Galilean Transformation mentioned earlier, it is a group of equations used to transform
between two different frames of reference. Unlike the Galilean Transformation where it
is used for any two frames of reference, in this case the idea is that one of the frames of
reference is at rest relative to the Ether. Looked at another way, the purpose of the
Lorentz Transformation is to find out the “true” position, time and size of an object or
situation.

In the Lorentz Transformation, the “moving” frame of reference (most usually the Earth
or a point upon it) would generally be denoted by the x’, y’, z’ and t’ for the three special

10
dimensions and time respectively, likewise the corresponding “stationary” frame (i.e. that
of the Ether) would be denoted by x, y, z and t. Let us say that the velocity of the moving
frame relative to that of the Ether will be v in the x direction, and as usual c is the speed
of light.
To start with it is simple to note that since all the motion relative to the Ether is in the x
direction y and z remain completely unchanged, so it is more than safe so state that
y = y ' and z = z ' , much the same as in the Galilean transformation.
If we recall back from earlier, as an object moved through the ether it shortened in the
direction of travel by the Lorentz Factor, such that the relationship between the “real”
length l and the new length l’ was l = l ' γ . From this, if we take the Galilean
Transformation for the x direction, x = x '+vt ' and simply multiply it by the Lorentz
factor we get x = ( x'+vt ' )γ . When expanded this gives us the Lorentz Transformation
x '+vt '
in the x direction: x = , while a similar process for t gives us:
1 − (v 2 / c 2 )
t '+vx ' / c 2
t=
1 − (v 2 / c 2 )

From this group of equations, Lorentz calculated that a light wave travelling through the
Ether could be represented as c 2 t 2 − x 2 − y 2 − z 2 = 0 if it was emitted from a point at rest
in the Ether. Similarly, he calculated that transforming it into a different reference frame
gave him the answer c 2 t ' 2 −x ' 2 −y ' 2 −z ' 2 =0 .
Because of this, any observer in any reference frame would get the same reading
(providing they all were capable of measuring perfectly accurately).

11
The Principles of Special Relativity

And so, finally we arrive at the Special Theory of Relativity itself. It was first published
by Albert Einstein in his 1905 paper “On Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, and as we
have seen so far, Special Relativity isn’t so much the complete Paradigm shift in thinking
it is sometimes portrayed as but at the very least had some roots in the multitude of ideas
that came before. In order to see how deep these roots ran, let us begin by looking at the
two basic postulates Einstein originally used to present the theory:
(1) “The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two
systems in uniform “translatory” motion relative to each other.”

(2) “Any Ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with a
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving
body.”
The first postulate, known as the Principle of Relativity, is recognisable as being similar
to an idea that had been around for almost three centuries, first put forward in the form of
Galilean Invariance. The core of both ideas was based heavily around the existence of
Inertial Frames, of which there were infinitely many. But it is here the direct similarities
end, and although there are other comparisons that can be drawn in each case Special
Relativity diverges in some way, an example being how Galilean Invariance uses
Galilean Transformations whereas Special Relativity uses the Lorentz Transformation.

The second postulate, known as the Principle of the Invariance of light, is essentially just
that. It states that the speed of light will be invariant no matter what state of motion the
light source is in relative to the observer. While this has obvious comparisons to aspects
of Lorentz Theory, Einstein viewed his postulate as a basic hypothesis (rather than an
implication of Lorentz Theory) which had been tested and verified experimentally prior
to its conception and indeed many times since.

In Essence, it could be said that these two postulates are what Special Relativity is.
However, taking them at face value a groundbreaking theory they do not make. Really,
these two statements are the tip of the iceberg, and it is in their far reaching consequences
that the true depth of Special Relativity lies.

The Death of Simultaneity

One of the more counter-intuitive aspects of Special relativity is that there is no such
thing as Simultaneity. To demonstrate this we shall use a popular example. Picture a
Train station platform with an observer who we shall call John standing directly in the
centre (C) of its two ends (A and B).
A C B

Let’s say that two bolts of lightning were to strike the two ends of the Platform at A and
B and that John were to witness them both striking at exactly the same time. Given that
the distance from C to A and from C to B is equal and that the Speed of light is constant,

12
 John would calculate that the light from the flashes of lightning took equal amounts of
time to travel to C and therefore they struck simultaneously.

Now let us imagine that there is another Observer who we shall call Rajesh to witness the
two flashes of lightning, only Rajesh is on a passing train. As it so happens, he is adjacent
to John at C when the light from the two flashes reaches him.
A C B

A A’ C’ C B B’

Looking at things relative to the moving train, when the lightning strikes at A Rajesh has
not yet arrived at C and is only at a point we shall call C’. Thus when the light from the
flash at A reaches Rajesh at C, the point of origin relative to the train is now at A’,
meaning that Rajesh would then calculate the distance that the Light has travelled to be
A’ to C rather than A to C like John did. Similarly, when the lightning strikes at B Rajesh
is still at C’, and so by the time the light travels to C the origin of the flash is now B’ and
therefore the length travelled by the light beam is B’ to C. From there it is simple to
realise that the distance from A’ to C is shorter than the distance from C to B’, and with
the invariant speed of light this means that the two strikes of lightning are not
simultaneous when viewed from the frame of reference of the train.

It is here that Special Relativity makes its first major break from the ideas that preceded
it. The fact that one Observer will see two events to be simultaneous while another
observer won’t shows that simultaneity can no longer be taken to be an inherent property
of the events themselves, but rather a property that is relative to the observers. This is
also a departure from what common sense tells us. Because of the way we perceive
reality the common sense view of the universe we are effectively brought up to believe
would tell us that time is constant and universal, where as here we see that time is very
much a local affair.
[It should be noted however that the example can be misleading, at the distances and
speeds found at the average train station the difference in timing would be minute and far
beyond the capacity of any human to detect.]

Time Dilation

Once one has worked their head around the lack of absolute simultaneity in the Universe,
the next step is to see that this implies a more general effect known as Time Dilation. To
illustrate this let us return to the train station with John and Rajesh. Let us say John has
two friends standing at both ends of the station at A and B, who instead of paying
attention to the rather startling appearance of two “simultaneous” lightning bolts note the
time that the front of Rajesh’s train passes their location on two conveniently
synchronized clocks. If we call the time the front of the train reaches A t1, and the time
the train reaches B t2, then logically the time taken for the train to travel from A to B
would be t = t 2 - t 1 . Now let’s also say that the Driver at the front of Rajesh’s train also

13
happens to be noting the time on his clock as he passes A and B, with the time he passes
A being t1’ and the time he passes B being t2’, then the time for the train to travel between
A and B would logically be t' =t 2 '- t 1 ' . As we have seen, because of the invariance of
the speed of light, what is synchronous for one frame of reference isn’t synchronous for
another frame of reference. In this case the driver of the train wouldn’t see the two clocks
on the platform at A and B to be synchronised as those stationary on the platform would.
Because of this the times t and t’ would be different, each party seeing the train travel the
length of the station in a different length of time.

How inherent Time Dilation is to Special Relativity is evident in its use the Lorentz
Transformation, the equation for changes between reference frames for time being:
t '+vx ' / c 2
t=
1 − (v 2 / c 2 )
In this equation Time’s Relativity to different Reference frames is evident in how the
relationship between them is heavily tied to the Velocity of the reference frames. This is
also the case in another of the consequences of Special Relativity, that of Length
Contraction.

Length Contraction

Much like time dilation, Length is also relative to the frame of Reference. Looking back
at Lorentz theory, as an object travelled through the Ether it would contract in the
direction of travel by the relationship of l = l ' γ . This is very much the case in Special
Relativity too; in fact the basic principle is exactly the same, as is the relationship. Once
again this can be demonstrated in the lack of Simultaneity, so let us return for the last
time to the Train Station analogy.
Let’s say that the two previously mentioned lightning bolts happened to strike each end
of the platform at A and B the exam moment when the corresponding end of the train
carrying Rajesh passed by (i.e. when the front of the train passes A and the back passes
B). Now, if the Passengers on the train were to calculate the flashes from the lightning as
simultaneous, then they would arrive at the conclusion that the train and the Platform
were the same length. However, due once again to the last of simultaneity the observer’s
on the platform would inevitably calculate the flashes not to be simultaneous. In their
frame of reference they would say that since the flashes happened at different times, but
at each point they still happened when the respective end of the train passed by, the train
must be a different length to the Platform. More specifically, because l = l ' γ they would
say that the train had contracted in length.

Addition of Velocities and Inertia and Momentum

Another area in which Special Relativity breaks with what would be considered intuitive
is that of the Addition of Velocities. In the Classical Newtonian Mechanics everyone is
familiar with, should an object be travelling at 2ms-1 in one direction while another object
is travelling the same speed in completely the opposite direction then the law of addition
of Velocities dictates that relative to one of the objects, the other would be moving away
at 4ms-1. In Special Relativity, once again the Lorentz factor is involved. Whereas the

14
Galilean formula for addition of velocities is simply w = u − v . [Where u and v are the
two velocities and w is the resultant.] In Special Relativity the equation can be derived
x − vt t − vx / c 2
from the inverse of the Lorentz transformation: x ' = , t' =
1 − (v 2 / c 2 ) 1 − (v 2 / c 2 )
ut − vt (u − v )t
From here we sub x = ut into the x-direction to get x' = =
1 − (uv / c 2 ) 1 − (uv / c 2 )
t − vut / c 2 t (1 − vu / c 2 )
Then sub x = ut into the time relationship to get: t ' = =
1 − (v 2 / c 2 ) 1 − (v 2 / c 2 )
With both x ' and t ' , we just have to recall the basic property of speed = distance/time,
x' (u − v)t t (1 − vu / c 2 ) (u − v)t u −v
and therefore: w = t ' = = =
1 − (v 2 / c 2 ) t (1 − vu / c ) 1 − vu / c
2 2
1 − (v 2 / c 2 )
This is the law of addition of velocities in Special Relativity, and illustrates a few more of
interesting consequences of the Theory.

One of these is the obvious fact that unlike how you would expect, velocities don’t add
up straight. 2 objects that travel directly away from each other at speed of s (i.e. u=s and
v=-s) are actually moving away from each other at a speed less than 2s.
More importantly however, this equation demonstrates the upper limit imposed of
velocities. This is that relative to any frame of reference no object can be travelling at or
faster than the speed of light. Let’s say that two objects were travelling away from each
other at 99% the speed of light (i.e. c=100, u=99 and v=99). The velocity would be:
u −v 99 − ( −99 ) 99 + 99 198 198
w= = == == = = 99 .9949498 ...
1 − vu / c 2
1 − (99 )( −99 ) /(100 ) 2
1 + 9801 / 10000 1 + 0.9801 1 .9801
A graph of an object trying to accelerate to the speed of light would have what is known
as an asymptote at c, meaning that the velocity of the object would get closer and closer
to it but never actually reach the speed of light. One of the reasons for this is due to the
equation m = mr γ we derived earlier that still applies. For example, taking an observer
to be at rest and watching an object try to reach the speed of light, the mass of the object
mr
relative to the observer is given by m = , where mr is the mass of the object
1 − (v 2 / c 2 )
when it is at rest relative to the observer. You’ll notice than as the Velocity of the object
get’s higher and higher, the mass of the object increases exponentially, making it harder
to accelerate relative to the observer. Should the object somehow reach the speed of light,
its mass would have to be infinite, and as such it is impossible for any object with mass to
reach the speed of light.

Mass-Energy Equivalence

The final big step in Special Relativity made by Einstein was the proposal of Mass-
Energy Equivalence. That is to say that the Mass that surrounds and composes us and the
energy that makes the universe tick are equivalent. This was best demonstrated in what
has become the most famous equation of all time; Einstein’s name has become
effectively synonymous with the 5 little symbols E = mc 2 . Yet for such a simple
equation it holds a lot of meaning. With all that has been discussed up until this point,

15
just saying “mass” can be a little vague. Unfortunately whether Einstein meant the “rest
mass” or the “relativistic mass” can be a matter of some controversy. Either way, the
presence of the c2 next to it belies the sheer amount of energy contained within each
atom, as demonstrated in the devastating power of nuclear weaponry.

Just the idea that mass and energy are equivalent, and indeed transmutable, has far
reaching implications too. It forced people to change their ideas concerning the laws of
conservation of energy and mass, and more importantly it lead to new ideas about what
makes up the universe.

16
 Conclusion

While saying that the Special theory of Relativity was a completely new idea in physics
is by no means correct, it is by no means entirely false either. As we have seen, the theory
took Physics in a new direction, putting forward a lot of new concepts for the scientific
community to work with. Not only did it alter the advanced areas of science dramatically,
but it changed the way scientists saw the basics of the universe, upsetting ideas that had
been around for centuries.

However, it was only able to stand by virtue of what came before. To reuse a rather over
quoted phrase, it only saw so far by standing on the shoulders of Giants. While it was
partly an innovation, at the same time it was also the end product of a natural progression
through many ideas that had come before.
Had things turned out slightly differently it could well have been someone else celebrated
today in Einstein’s place. Had Hendrik Lorentz been aware that German physicist
Woldermar Voigt had a developed slightly different version of his Lorentz
Transformation before him he may have adopted it into his own theory, leading him to
time dilation and Relativity of simultaneity before Einstein.

As with all history, its true importance lies in where it leads next. The Special theory of
Relativity was by no means a complete theory; it only dealt with inertial frames of
Reference and true to all scientific theories it raised a lot more questions than it answered.
As pre-Einsteinian ideas of Relativity led to Special Relativity, Special Relativity led to
the General Theory of Relativity. General Relativity builds upon the principles of Special
Relativity but applies them in the context of accelerating frames of reference as well as
unifying it with Newton’s universal law of gravitation, introducing new concepts like the
curvature of Space-time. But of course even that only serves to point onwards to what is
next, inevitably becoming just an introduction to even grander ideas and theories as we
press on in exploring the mechanisms behind the universe.

x
z

Steve is awesome.

17
 Bibliography

Main Sources:

‘The Special Theory of Relativity’ by David Bohm

‘Relativity: The Special and General Theory’ by Albert Einstein

‘Relativity and Common Sense’ by Hermann Bondi

Minor Sources:

‘Einstein for Beginners’ by J Schwartz & M McGuinness

‘Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems’ by Galileo Galilei

‘Isaac Newton, The Principia,’ a new translation by I.B. Cohen and A. Whitman

‘Special relativity’ By Nicholas M J Woodhouse

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Maxwell.html

‘The principle of relativity’ By Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Hermann

Minkowski, Hermann Weyl, Arnold Sommerfeld, W. Perrett, G B Jeffery

Final Note: Thanks for Reading!

18