Special relativity

In physics, the special theory of relativity, or special relativity

for short, is a scientific theory of the relationship between space
and time. In Albert Einstein's 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies, the theory is presented as being based on just
two postulates:[p 1][1][2]

1. The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial

frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no
acceleration). This is known as the principle of relativity.
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all
observers, regardless of the motion of light source or
observer. This is known as the principle of light
constancy, or the principle of light speed invariance.
The first postulate was first formulated by Galileo Galilei (see
Galilean invariance).
Albert Einstein around 1905, the
year his "Annus Mirabilis papers"
were published. These included Zur
Origins and significance Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,
the paper founding special relativity.
Special relativity was described by Albert Einstein in a paper
published on 26 September 1905 titled "On the Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies".[p 1] Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism appeared to be incompatible with
Newtonian mechanics, and the Michelson–Morley experiment failed to detect the Earth's motion against
the hypothesized luminiferous aether. These led to the development of the Lorentz transformations, by
Hendrik Lorentz, which adjust distances and times for moving objects. Special relativity corrects the
hitherto laws of mechanics to handle situations involving all motions and especially those at a speed close
to that of light (known as relativistic velocities). Today, special relativity is proven to be the most accurate
model of motion at any speed when gravitational and quantum effects are negligible.[3][4] Even so, the
Newtonian model is still valid as a simple and accurate approximation at low velocities (relative to the
speed of light), for example, everyday motions on Earth.

Special relativity has a wide range of consequences that have been experimentally verified.[5] These
include the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, time dilation, the relativistic velocity addition
formula, the relativistic Doppler effect, relativistic mass, a universal speed limit, mass–energy
equivalence, the speed of causality and the Thomas precession.[1][2] It has, for example, replaced the
conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference
frame and spatial position. Rather than an invariant time interval between two events, there is an invariant
spacetime interval. Combined with other laws of physics, the two postulates of special relativity predict
the equivalence of mass and energy, as expressed in the mass–energy equivalence formula ⁠ ⁠,
where is the speed of light in vacuum. [6][7] It also explains how the phenomena of electricity and
magnetism are related. [1][2]
A defining feature of special relativity is the replacement of the Galilean transformations of Newtonian
mechanics with the Lorentz transformations. Time and space cannot be defined separately from each
other (as was previously thought to be the case). Rather, space and time are interwoven into a single
continuum known as "spacetime". Events that occur at the same time for one observer can occur at
different times for another.

Until several years later when Einstein developed general relativity, which introduced a curved spacetime
to incorporate gravity, the phrase "special relativity" was not used. A translation sometimes used is
"restricted relativity"; "special" really means "special case".[p 2][p 3][p 4][note 1] Some of the work of Albert
Einstein in special relativity is built on the earlier work by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. The
theory became essentially complete in 1907, with Hermann Minkowski's papers on spacetime.[4]

The theory is "special" in that it only applies in the special case where the spacetime is "flat", that is,
where the curvature of spacetime (a consequence of the energy–momentum tensor and representing
gravity) is negligible.[8][note 2] To correctly accommodate gravity, Einstein formulated general relativity in
1915. Special relativity, contrary to some historical descriptions, does accommodate accelerations as well
as accelerating frames of reference.[9][10]

Just as Galilean relativity is now accepted to be an approximation of special relativity that is valid for low
speeds, special relativity is considered an approximation of general relativity that is valid for weak
gravitational fields, that is, at a sufficiently small scale (e.g., when tidal forces are negligible) and in
conditions of free fall. But general relativity incorporates non-Euclidean geometry to represent
gravitational effects as the geometric curvature of spacetime. Special relativity is restricted to the flat
spacetime known as Minkowski space. As long as the universe can be modeled as a pseudo-Riemannian
manifold, a Lorentz-invariant frame that abides by special relativity can be defined for a sufficiently
small neighborhood of each point in this curved spacetime.

Galileo Galilei had already postulated that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no
privileged reference frames), a principle now called Galileo's principle of relativity. Einstein extended
this principle so that it accounted for the constant speed of light,[11] a phenomenon that had been
observed in the Michelson–Morley experiment. He also postulated that it holds for all the laws of physics,
including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics.[12]

Traditional "two postulates" approach to special relativity

Einstein discerned two fundamental propositions that
seemed to be the most assured, regardless of the exact "Reflections of this type made it clear
validity of the (then) known laws of either mechanics or to me as long ago as shortly after
electrodynamics. These propositions were the constancy of 1900, i.e., shortly after Planck's
the speed of light in vacuum and the independence of trailblazing work, that neither
physical laws (especially the constancy of the speed of mechanics nor electrodynamics could
light) from the choice of inertial system. In his initial (except in limiting cases) claim exact
presentation of special relativity in 1905 he expressed these validity. Gradually I despaired of the
postulates as:[p 1] possibility of discovering the true laws
by means of constructive efforts based
The principle of relativity – the laws by which the on known facts. The longer and the
states of physical systems undergo change are not more desperately I tried, the more I
 affected, whether these changes of state be came to the conviction that only the
referred to the one or the other of two systems in discovery of a universal formal
uniform translatory motion relative to each
principle could lead us to assured
other.[p 1]
results ... How, then, could such a
The principle of invariant light speed – "... light is
universal principle be found?"
always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state
of motion of the emitting body" (from the Albert Einstein: Autobiographical Notes[p 5]
preface). [p 1] That is, light in vacuum propagates
with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial
coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light source.
The constancy of the speed of light was motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism[13] and the
lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether.[14] There is conflicting evidence on the extent to which
Einstein was influenced by the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment.[15][16] In any case, the
null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment helped the notion of the constancy of the speed of light
gain widespread and rapid acceptance.

The derivation of special relativity depends not only on these two explicit postulates, but also on several
tacit assumptions (made in almost all theories of physics), including the isotropy and homogeneity of
space and the independence of measuring rods and clocks from their past history.[p 6]

Following Einstein's original presentation of special relativity in 1905, many different sets of postulates
have been proposed in various alternative derivations.[17] But the most common set of postulates remains
those employed by Einstein in his original paper. A more mathematical statement of the principle of
relativity made later by Einstein, which introduces the concept of simplicity not mentioned above is:

Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it,

physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other
system of coordinates K′ moving in uniform translation relatively to K.[18]

Henri Poincaré provided the mathematical framework for relativity theory by proving that Lorentz
transformations are a subset of his Poincaré group of symmetry transformations. Einstein later derived
these transformations from his axioms.

Many of Einstein's papers present derivations of the Lorentz transformation based upon these two
principles.[p 7]

Principle of relativity

Reference frames and relative motion

Reference frames play a crucial role in relativity theory. The term reference frame as used here is an
observational perspective in space that is not undergoing any change in motion (acceleration), from
which a position can be measured along 3 spatial axes (so, at rest or constant velocity). In addition, a
reference frame has the ability to determine measurements of the time of events using a "clock" (any
reference device with uniform periodicity).
An event is an occurrence that can be assigned a
single unique moment and location in space relative
to a reference frame: it is a "point" in spacetime.
Since the speed of light is constant in relativity
irrespective of the reference frame, pulses of light can
be used to unambiguously measure distances and
refer back to the times that events occurred to the
clock, even though light takes time to reach the clock
after the event has transpired.
Figure 2–1. The primed system is in motion
For example, the explosion of a firecracker may be relative to the unprimed system with constant
considered to be an "event". We can completely velocity v only along the x-axis, from the
specify an event by its four spacetime coordinates: perspective of an observer stationary in the
The time of occurrence and its 3-dimensional spatial unprimed system. By the principle of relativity, an
observer stationary in the primed system will view
location define a reference point. Let's call this
a likewise construction except that the velocity
reference frame S. they record will be −v. The changing of the speed
of propagation of interaction from infinite in non-
In relativity theory, we often want to calculate the relativistic mechanics to a finite value will require
coordinates of an event from differing reference a modification of the transformation equations
frames. The equations that relate measurements made mapping events in one frame to another.
in different frames are called transformation
equations.

Standard configuration
To gain insight into how the spacetime coordinates measured by observers in different reference frames
compare with each other, it is useful to work with a simplified setup with frames in a standard
configuration.[19]: 107 With care, this allows simplification of the math with no loss of generality in the
conclusions that are reached. In Fig. 2-1, two Galilean reference frames (i.e., conventional 3-space
frames) are displayed in relative motion. Frame S belongs to a first observer O, and frame S′ (pronounced
"S prime" or "S dash") belongs to a second observer O ′.

The x, y, z axes of frame S are oriented parallel to the respective primed axes of frame S′.
Frame S′ moves, for simplicity, in a single direction: the x-direction of frame S with a
constant velocity v as measured in frame S.
The origins of frames S and S′ are coincident when time t = 0 for frame S and t ′ = 0 for
frame S′.
Since there is no absolute reference frame in relativity theory, a concept of "moving" does not strictly
exist, as everything may be moving with respect to some other reference frame. Instead, any two frames
that move at the same speed in the same direction are said to be comoving. Therefore, S and S′ are not
comoving.

Lack of an absolute reference frame

The principle of relativity, which states that physical laws have the same form in each inertial reference
frame, dates back to Galileo, and was incorporated into Newtonian physics. But in the late 19th century
the existence of electromagnetic waves led some physicists to suggest that the universe was filled with a
substance they called "aether", which, they postulated, would act as the medium through which these
waves, or vibrations, propagated (in many respects similar to the way sound propagates through air). The
aether was thought to be an absolute reference frame against which all speeds could be measured, and
could be considered fixed and motionless relative to Earth or some other fixed reference point. The aether
was supposed to be sufficiently elastic to support electromagnetic waves, while those waves could
interact with matter, yet offering no resistance to bodies passing through it (its one property was that it
allowed electromagnetic waves to propagate). The results of various experiments, including the
Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887 (subsequently verified with more accurate and innovative
experiments), led to the theory of special relativity, by showing that the aether did not exist.[20] Einstein's
solution was to discard the notion of an aether and the absolute state of rest. In relativity, any reference
frame moving with uniform motion will observe the same laws of physics. In particular, the speed of light
in vacuum is always measured to be c, even when measured by multiple systems that are moving at
different (but constant) velocities.

Relativity without the second postulate

From the principle of relativity alone without assuming the constancy of the speed of light (i.e., using the
isotropy of space and the symmetry implied by the principle of special relativity) it can be shown that the
spacetime transformations between inertial frames are either Euclidean, Galilean, or Lorentzian. In the
Lorentzian case, one can then obtain relativistic interval conservation and a certain finite limiting speed.
Experiments suggest that this speed is the speed of light in vacuum.[p 8][21]

Lorentz invariance as the essential core of special relativity

Alternative approaches to special relativity

Einstein consistently based the derivation of Lorentz invariance (the essential core of special relativity)
on just the two basic principles of: relativity and invariance of the speed of light. He wrote:

The insight fundamental for the special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions relativity
and light speed invariance are compatible if relations of a new type ("Lorentz transformation")
are postulated for the conversion of coordinates and times of events ... The universal principle
of the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: The laws of physics are invariant
with respect to Lorentz transformations (for the transition from one inertial system to any other
arbitrarily chosen inertial system). This is a restricting principle for natural laws ...[p 5]

Thus many modern treatments of special relativity base it on the single postulate of universal Lorentz
covariance, or, equivalently, on the single postulate of Minkowski spacetime.[p 9][p 10]

Rather than considering universal Lorentz covariance to be a derived principle, this article considers it to
be the fundamental postulate of special relativity. The traditional two-postulate approach to special
relativity is presented in innumerable college textbooks and popular presentations.[22] Textbooks starting
with the single postulate of Minkowski spacetime include those by Taylor and Wheeler[11] and by
Callahan.[23] This is also the approach followed by the Wikipedia articles Spacetime and Minkowski
diagram.

Lorentz transformation and its inverse

Define an event to have spacetime coordinates (t, x, y, z) in system S and (t ′, x ′, y ′, z ′) in a reference
frame moving at a velocity v on the x-axis with respect to that frame, S′. Then the Lorentz transformation
specifies that these coordinates are related in the following way:

where

is the Lorentz factor and c is the speed of light in vacuum, and the velocity v of S′, relative to S, is parallel
to the x-axis. For simplicity, the y and z coordinates are unaffected; only the x and t coordinates are
transformed. These Lorentz transformations form a one-parameter group of linear mappings, that
parameter being called rapidity.

Solving the four transformation equations above for the unprimed coordinates yields the inverse Lorentz
transformation:

This shows that the unprimed frame is moving with the velocity −v, as measured in the primed frame.[24]

There is nothing special about the x-axis. The transformation can apply to the y- or z-axis, or indeed in
any direction parallel to the motion (which are warped by the γ factor) and perpendicular; see the article
Lorentz transformation for details.

A quantity that is invariant under Lorentz transformations is known as a Lorentz scalar.

Writing the Lorentz transformation and its inverse in terms of coordinate differences, where one event has
coordinates (x1, t1) and (x ′1, t ′1), another event has coordinates (x2, t2) and (x ′2, t ′2), and the differences
are defined as

Eq. 1:
Eq. 2:
we get
 Eq. 3:
Eq. 4:
If we take differentials instead of taking differences, we get

Eq. 5:
Eq. 6:

Graphical representation of the Lorentz transformation

Figure 3-1. Drawing a Minkowski spacetime diagram to illustrate a Lorentz transformation.

Spacetime diagrams (Minkowski diagrams) are an extremely useful aid to visualizing how coordinates
transform between different reference frames. Although it is not as easy to perform exact computations
using them as directly invoking the Lorentz transformations, their main power is their ability to provide
an intuitive grasp of the results of a relativistic scenario.[21]

To draw a spacetime diagram, begin by considering two Galilean reference frames, S and S′, in standard
configuration, as shown in Fig. 2-1.[21][25]: 155–199

Fig. 3-1a. Draw the and axes of frame S. The axis is horizontal and the (actually ) axis is
vertical, which is the opposite of the usual convention in kinematics. The axis is scaled by a factor of
so that both axes have common units of length. In the diagram shown, the gridlines are spaced one unit
distance apart. The 45° diagonal lines represent the worldlines of two photons passing through the origin
at time The slope of these worldlines is 1 because the photons advance one unit in space per unit
of time. Two events, and have been plotted on this graph so that their coordinates may be compared
in the S and S' frames.
Fig. 3-1b. Draw the and axes of frame S'. The axis represents the worldline of the origin of the
S' coordinate system as measured in frame S. In this figure, Both the and axes are tilted
from the unprimed axes by an angle where The primed and unprimed axes
share a common origin because frames S and S' had been set up in standard configuration, so that
when

Fig. 3-1c. Units in the primed axes have a different scale from units in the unprimed axes. From the
Lorentz transformations, we observe that coordinates of in the primed coordinate system
transform to in the unprimed coordinate system. Likewise, coordinates of in the
primed coordinate system transform to in the unprimed system. Draw gridlines parallel with the
axis through points as measured in the unprimed frame, where is an integer. Likewise,
draw gridlines parallel with the axis through as measured in the unprimed frame. Using the
Pythagorean theorem, we observe that the spacing between units equals times
the spacing between units, as measured in frame S. This ratio is always greater than 1, and ultimately it
approaches infinity as

Fig. 3-1d. Since the speed of light is an invariant, the worldlines of two photons passing through the
origin at time still plot as 45° diagonal lines. The primed coordinates of and are related to the
unprimed coordinates through the Lorentz transformations and could be approximately measured from
the graph (assuming that it has been plotted accurately enough), but the real merit of a Minkowski
diagram is its granting us a geometric view of the scenario. For example, in this figure, we observe that
the two timelike-separated events that had different x-coordinates in the unprimed frame are now at the
same position in space.

While the unprimed frame is drawn with space and time axes that meet at right angles, the primed frame
is drawn with axes that meet at acute or obtuse angles. This asymmetry is due to unavoidable distortions
in how spacetime coordinates map onto a Cartesian plane, but the frames are actually equivalent.

Consequences derived from the Lorentz transformation

The consequences of special relativity can be derived from the Lorentz transformation equations.[26]
These transformations, and hence special relativity, lead to different physical predictions than those of
Newtonian mechanics at all relative velocities, and most pronounced when relative velocities become
comparable to the speed of light. The speed of light is so much larger than anything most humans
encounter that some of the effects predicted by relativity are initially counterintuitive.

Invariant interval
In Galilean relativity, the spatial separation, (⁠ ⁠), and the temporal separation, (⁠ ⁠), between two events
are independent invariants, the values of which do not change when observed from different frames of
reference. In special relativity, however, the interweaving of spatial and temporal coordinates generates
the concept of an invariant interval, denoted as ⁠ ⁠:

In considering the physical significance of ⁠ ⁠, there are three cases to note:[21][27]: 25–39
 Δs2 > 0: In this case, the two events are separated by more time than space, and they are
hence said to be timelike separated. This implies that ⁠ ⁠, and given the Lorentz
transformation ⁠ ⁠, it is evident that there exists a less than for which
(in particular, ⁠ ⁠). In other words, given two events that are timelike
separated, it is possible to find a frame in which the two events happen at the same place.
In this frame, the separation in time, ⁠ ⁠, is called the proper time.
Δs2 < 0: In this case, the two events are separated by more space than time, and they are
hence said to be spacelike separated. This implies that ⁠ ⁠, and given the Lorentz
transformation ⁠ ⁠, there exists a less than for which (in
particular, ⁠ ⁠). In other words, given two events that are spacelike separated, it
is possible to find a frame in which the two events happen at the same time. In this frame,
the separation in space, ⁠ ⁠, is called the proper distance, or proper length. For values
of greater than and less than ⁠ ⁠, the sign of changes, meaning that the
temporal order of spacelike-separated events changes depending on the frame in which the
events are viewed. But the temporal order of timelike-separated events is absolute, since
the only way that could be greater than would be if ⁠ ⁠.
Δs2 = 0: In this case, the two events are said to be lightlike separated. This implies that
⁠ ⁠, and this relationship is frame independent due to the invariance of ⁠ ⁠. From
this, we observe that the speed of light is in every inertial frame. In other words, starting
from the assumption of universal Lorentz covariance, the constant speed of light is a derived
result, rather than a postulate as in the two-postulates formulation of the special theory.
The interweaving of space and time revokes the implicitly assumed concepts of absolute simultaneity and
synchronization across non-comoving frames.

The form of ⁠ ⁠, being the difference of the squared time lapse and the squared spatial distance,
demonstrates a fundamental discrepancy between Euclidean and spacetime distances.[note 3] The
invariance of this interval is a property of the general Lorentz transform (also called the Poincaré
transformation), making it an isometry of spacetime. The general Lorentz transform extends the standard
Lorentz transform (which deals with translations without rotation, that is, Lorentz boosts, in the x-
direction) with all other translations, reflections, and rotations between any Cartesian inertial
frame.[28]: 33–34

In the analysis of simplified scenarios, such as spacetime diagrams, a reduced-dimensionality form of the
invariant interval is often employed:
Demonstrating that the interval is invariant is straightforward for the reduced-dimensionality case and
with frames in standard configuration:[21]

The value of is hence independent of the frame in which it is measured.

Relativity of simultaneity
Consider two events happening in two different locations that
occur simultaneously in the reference frame of one inertial
observer. They may occur non-simultaneously in the reference
frame of another inertial observer (lack of absolute simultaneity).

From Equation 3 (the forward Lorentz transformation in terms of

coordinate differences)

It is clear that the two events that are simultaneous in frame S

(satisfying Δt = 0), are not necessarily simultaneous in another
Figure 4–1. The three events (A, B,
inertial frame S′ (satisfying Δt ′ = 0). Only if these events are C) are simultaneous in the reference
additionally co-local in frame S (satisfying Δx = 0), will they be frame of some observer O. In a
simultaneous in another frame S′. reference frame moving at v = 0.3c,
as measured by O, the events occur
The Sagnac effect can be considered a manifestation of the in the order C, B, A. In a reference
relativity of simultaneity.[29] Since relativity of simultaneity is a frame moving at v = −0.5c with
first order effect in ⁠ ⁠,[21] instruments based on the Sagnac effect respect to O, the events occur in the
order A, B, C. The white lines, the
for their operation, such as ring laser gyroscopes and fiber optic
lines of simultaneity, move from the
gyroscopes, are capable of extreme levels of sensitivity.[p 11] past to the future in the respective
frames (green coordinate axes),
highlighting events residing on
Time dilation
them. They are the locus of all
The time lapse between two events is not invariant from one events occurring at the same time in
observer to another, but is dependent on the relative speeds of the the respective frame. The gray area
observers' reference frames. is the light cone with respect to the
origin of all considered frames.
Suppose a clock is at rest in the unprimed system S. The location of the clock on two different ticks is
then characterized by Δx = 0. To find the relation between the times between these ticks as measured in
both systems, Equation 3 can be used to find:

for events satisfying

This shows that the time (Δt ′) between the two ticks as seen in the frame in which the clock is moving
(S′), is longer than the time (Δt) between these ticks as measured in the rest frame of the clock (S). Time
dilation explains a number of physical phenomena; for example, the lifetime of high speed muons created
by the collision of cosmic rays with particles in the Earth's outer atmosphere and moving towards the
surface is greater than the lifetime of slowly moving muons, created and decaying in a laboratory.[30]

Whenever one hears a statement to the effect that "moving clocks

run slow", one should envision an inertial reference frame thickly
populated with identical, synchronized clocks. As a moving clock
travels through this array, its reading at any particular point is
compared with a stationary clock at the same point.[31]: 149–152

The measurements that we would get if we actually looked at a

moving clock would, in general, not at all be the same thing,
because the time that we would see would be delayed by the finite
speed of light, i.e. the times that we see would be distorted by the
Doppler effect. Measurements of relativistic effects must always
be understood as having been made after finite speed-of-light Figure 4–2. Hypothetical infinite
effects have been factored out.[31]: 149–152 array of synchronized clocks
associated with an observer's
reference frame
Langevin's light-clock

Paul Langevin, an early proponent of the theory of

relativity, did much to popularize the theory in the
face of resistance by many physicists to Einstein's
revolutionary concepts. Among his numerous
contributions to the foundations of special
relativity were independent work on the mass–
energy relationship, a thorough examination of the
twin paradox, and investigations into rotating
coordinate systems. His name is frequently
attached to a hypothetical construct called a "light-
Figure 4–3. Thought experiment using a light-clock to
clock" (originally developed by Lewis and Tolman explain time dilation
in 1909[32]), which he used to perform a novel
derivation of the Lorentz transformation.[33]

A light-clock is imagined to be a box of perfectly reflecting walls wherein a light signal reflects back and
forth from opposite faces. The concept of time dilation is frequently taught using a light-clock that is
traveling in uniform inertial motion perpendicular to a line connecting the two mirrors.[34][35][36][37]
(Langevin himself made use of a light-clock oriented parallel to its line of motion.[33])
Consider the scenario illustrated in Fig. 4-3A. Observer A holds a light-clock of length as well as an
electronic timer with which she measures how long it takes a pulse to make a round trip up and down
along the light-clock. Although observer A is traveling rapidly along a train, from her point of view the
emission and receipt of the pulse occur at the same place, and she measures the interval using a single
clock located at the precise position of these two events. For the interval between these two events,
observer A finds ⁠ ⁠. A time interval measured using a single clock that is motionless in a
particular reference frame is called a proper time interval.[38]

Fig. 4-3B illustrates these same two events from the standpoint of observer B, who is parked by the tracks
as the train goes by at a speed of ⁠ ⁠. Instead of making straight up-and-down motions, observer B sees the
pulses moving along a zig-zag line. However, because of the postulate of the constancy of the speed of
light, the speed of the pulses along these diagonal lines is the same that observer A saw for her up-and-
down pulses. B measures the speed of the vertical component of these pulses as so that the
total round-trip time of the pulses is ⁠ ⁠. Note that for observer B,
the emission and receipt of the light pulse occurred at different places, and he measured the interval using
two stationary and synchronized clocks located at two different positions in his reference frame. The
interval that B measured was therefore not a proper time interval because he did not measure it with a
single resting clock.[38]

Reciprocal time dilation

In the above description of the Langevin light-clock, the labeling of one observer as stationary and the
other as in motion was completely arbitrary. One could just as well have observer B carrying the light-
clock and moving at a speed of to the left, in which case observer A would perceive B's clock as
running slower than her local clock.

There is no paradox here, because there is no independent observer C who will agree with both A and B.
Observer C necessarily makes his measurements from his own reference frame. If that reference frame
coincides with A's reference frame, then C will agree with A's measurement of time. If C's reference
frame coincides with B's reference frame, then C will agree with B's measurement of time. If C's
reference frame coincides with neither A's frame nor B's frame, then C's measurement of time will
disagree with both A's and B's measurement of time.[39]

Twin paradox
The reciprocity of time dilation between two observers in separate inertial frames leads to the so-called
twin paradox, articulated in its present form by Langevin in 1911.[40] Langevin imagined an adventurer
wishing to explore the future of the Earth. This traveler boards a projectile capable of traveling at
99.995% of the speed of light. After making a round-trip journey to and from a nearby star lasting only
two years of his own life, he returns to an Earth that is two hundred years older.

This result appears puzzling because both the traveler and an Earthbound observer would see the other as
moving, and so, because of the reciprocity of time dilation, one might initially expect that each should
have found the other to have aged less. In reality, there is no paradox at all, because in order for the two
observers to perform side-by-side comparisons of their elapsed proper times, the symmetry of the
situation must be broken: At least one of the two observers must change their state of motion to match
that of the other.[41]
Knowing the general resolution of the paradox, however, does not
immediately yield the ability to calculate correct quantitative
results. Many solutions to this puzzle have been provided in the
literature and have been reviewed in the Twin paradox article. We
will examine in the following one such solution to the paradox.

Our basic aim will be to demonstrate that, after the trip, both twins
are in perfect agreement about who aged by how much, regardless
of their different experiences. Fig 4-4 illustrates a scenario where
the traveling twin flies at 0.6 c to and from a star 3 ly distant.
During the trip, each twin sends yearly time signals (measured in
their own proper times) to the other. After the trip, the cumulative Figure 4-4. Doppler analysis of twin
paradox
counts are compared. On the outward phase of the trip, each twin
receives the other's signals at the lowered rate of
⁠. Initially, the situation is perfectly symmetric: note that each twin receives the
other's one-year signal at two years measured on their own clock. The symmetry is broken when the
traveling twin turns around at the four-year mark as measured by her clock. During the remaining four
years of her trip, she receives signals at the enhanced rate of ⁠ . The situation is
quite different with the stationary twin. Because of light-speed delay, he does not see his sister turn
around until eight years have passed on his own clock. Thus, he receives enhanced-rate signals from his
sister for only a relatively brief period. Although the twins disagree in their respective measures of total
time, we see in the following table, as well as by simple observation of the Minkowski diagram, that each
twin is in total agreement with the other as to the total number of signals sent from one to the other. There
is hence no paradox.[31]: 152–159
 Measured by the Fig Measured by Fig
Item
stay-at-home 4-4 the traveler 4-4

Total time of trip 10 yr 8 yr

Total number of pulses

10 8
sent

Time when traveler's

8 yr 4 yr
turnaround is detected

Number of pulses
received at initial 4 2
rate

Time for remainder of

2 yr 4 yr
trip

Number of signals
received at final 4 8
rate

Total number of
8 10
received pulses

Twin's calculation as to
how much the other 8 yr 10 yr
twin should have aged

Length contraction
The dimensions (e.g., length) of an object as measured by one observer may be smaller than the results of
measurements of the same object made by another observer (e.g., the ladder paradox involves a long
ladder traveling near the speed of light and being contained within a smaller garage).

Similarly, suppose a measuring rod is at rest and aligned along the x-axis in the unprimed system S. In
this system, the length of this rod is written as Δx. To measure the length of this rod in the system S′, in
which the rod is moving, the distances x′ to the end points of the rod must be measured simultaneously in
that system S′. In other words, the measurement is characterized by Δt ′ = 0, which can be combined with
Equation 4 to find the relation between the lengths Δx and Δx ′:

for events satisfying

This shows that the length (Δx ′) of the rod as measured in the frame in which it is moving (S′), is shorter
than its length (Δx) in its own rest frame (S).

Time dilation and length contraction are not merely appearances. Time dilation is explicitly related to our
way of measuring time intervals between events that occur at the same place in a given coordinate system
(called "co-local" events). These time intervals (which can be, and are, actually measured experimentally
by relevant observers) are different in another coordinate system moving with respect to the first, unless
the events, in addition to being co-local, are also simultaneous. Similarly, length contraction relates to our
measured distances between separated but simultaneous events in a given coordinate system of choice. If
these events are not co-local, but are separated by distance (space), they will not occur at the same spatial
distance from each other when seen from another moving coordinate system.

Lorentz transformation of velocities

Consider two frames S and S′ in standard configuration. A particle in S moves in the x direction with
velocity vector ⁠ ⁠. What is its velocity in frame S′?

We can write

(7)

(8)

Substituting expressions for and from Equation 5 into Equation 8, followed by straightforward
mathematical manipulations and back-substitution from Equation 7 yields the Lorentz transformation of
the speed to ⁠ ⁠:

(9)

The inverse relation is obtained by interchanging the primed and unprimed symbols and replacing with
⁠.

(10)

For not aligned along the x-axis, we write:[12]: 47–49

(11)

(12)

The forward and inverse transformations for this case are:

(13)

(14)
Equation 10 and Equation 14 can be interpreted as giving the resultant of the two velocities and ⁠ ⁠,
and they replace the formula ⁠ ⁠. which is valid in Galilean relativity. Interpreted in such a
fashion, they are commonly referred to as the relativistic velocity addition (or composition) formulas,
valid for the three axes of S and S′ being aligned with each other (although not necessarily in standard
configuration).[12]: 47–49

We note the following points:

If an object (e.g., a photon) were moving at the speed of light in one frame (i.e., u = ±c
or u ′ = ±c), then it would also be moving at the speed of light in any other frame, moving at
|v| < c.
The resultant speed of two velocities with magnitude less than c is always a velocity with
magnitude less than c.
If both |u | and | v| (and then also |u ′| and | v′|) are small with respect to the speed of light
u
(that is, e.g., |⁠c ⁠| ≪ 1), then the intuitive Galilean transformations are recovered from the
transformation equations for special relativity
Attaching a frame to a photon (riding a light beam like Einstein considers) requires special
treatment of the transformations.
There is nothing special about the x direction in the standard configuration. The above formalism applies
to any direction; and three orthogonal directions allow dealing with all directions in space by
decomposing the velocity vectors to their components in these directions. See Velocity-addition formula
for details.

Thomas rotation
The composition of two non-collinear Lorentz boosts (i.e., two
non-collinear Lorentz transformations, neither of which involve
rotation) results in a Lorentz transformation that is not a pure
boost but is the composition of a boost and a rotation.

Thomas rotation results from the relativity of simultaneity. In

Fig. 4-5a, a rod of length in its rest frame (i.e., having a proper
length of ⁠ ⁠) rises vertically along the y-axis in the ground frame.

In Fig. 4-5b, the same rod is observed from the frame of a rocket
moving at speed to the right. If we imagine two clocks situated Figure 4-5. Thomas–Wigner rotation
at the left and right ends of the rod that are synchronized in the
frame of the rod, relativity of simultaneity causes the observer in
the rocket frame to observe (not see) the clock at the right end of the rod as being advanced in time by
⁠, and the rod is correspondingly observed as tilted.[27]: 98–99

Unlike second-order relativistic effects such as length contraction or time dilation, this effect becomes
quite significant even at fairly low velocities. For example, this can be seen in the spin of moving
particles, where Thomas precession is a relativistic correction that applies to the spin of an elementary
particle or the rotation of a macroscopic gyroscope, relating the angular velocity of the spin of a particle
following a curvilinear orbit to the angular velocity of the orbital motion.[27]: 169–174
Thomas rotation provides the resolution to the well-known "meter stick and hole paradox".[p 12][27]: 98–99

Causality and prohibition of motion faster than light

In Fig. 4-6, the time interval between the events A (the "cause")
and B (the "effect") is 'timelike'; that is, there is a frame of
reference in which events A and B occur at the same location in
space, separated only by occurring at different times. If A precedes
B in that frame, then A precedes B in all frames accessible by a
Lorentz transformation. It is possible for matter (or information) to
travel (below light speed) from the location of A, starting at the
time of A, to the location of B, arriving at the time of B, so there
can be a causal relationship (with A the cause and B the effect).

The interval AC in the diagram is 'spacelike'; that is, there is a

frame of reference in which events A and C occur simultaneously, Figure 4–6. Light cone
separated only in space. There are also frames in which A precedes
C (as shown) and frames in which C precedes A. But no frames
are accessible by a Lorentz transformation, in which events A and C occur at the same location. If it were
possible for a cause-and-effect relationship to exist between events A and C, paradoxes of causality would
result.

For example, if signals could be sent faster than light, then signals could be sent into the sender's past
(observer B in the diagrams).[42][p 13] A variety of causal paradoxes could then be constructed.

Consider the spacetime diagrams in Fig. 4-7. A

and B stand alongside a railroad track, when a
high-speed train passes by, with C riding in the
last car of the train and D riding in the leading
car. The world lines of A and B are vertical (ct),
distinguishing the stationary position of these
observers on the ground, while the world lines of
C and D are tilted forwards (ct′), reflecting the
rapid motion of the observers C and D stationary
Figure 4-7. Causality violation by the use of fictitious
in their train, as observed from the ground. "instantaneous communicators"

1. Fig. 4-7a. The event of "B passing a

message to D", as the leading car passes by, is at the origin of D's frame. D sends the
message along the train to C in the rear car, using a fictitious "instantaneous
communicator". The worldline of this message is the fat red arrow along the axis, which
is a line of simultaneity in the primed frames of C and D. In the (unprimed) ground frame the
signal arrives earlier than it was sent.
2. Fig. 4-7b. The event of "C passing the message to A", who is standing by the railroad tracks,
is at the origin of their frames. Now A sends the message along the tracks to B via an
"instantaneous communicator". The worldline of this message is the blue fat arrow, along
the axis, which is a line of simultaneity for the frames of A and B. As seen from the
spacetime diagram, in the primed frames of C and D, B will receive the message before it
was sent out, a violation of causality.[43]
It is not necessary for signals to be instantaneous to violate causality. Even if the signal from D to C were
slightly shallower than the axis (and the signal from A to B slightly steeper than the axis), it would
still be possible for B to receive his message before he had sent it. By increasing the speed of the train to
near light speeds, the and axes can be squeezed very close to the dashed line representing the speed
of light. With this modified setup, it can be demonstrated that even signals only slightly faster than the
speed of light will result in causality violation.[44]

Therefore, if causality is to be preserved, one of the consequences of special relativity is that no

information signal or material object can travel faster than light in vacuum.

This is not to say that all faster than light speeds are impossible. Various trivial situations can be
described where some "things" (not actual matter or energy) move faster than light.[45] For example, the
location where the beam of a search light hits the bottom of a cloud can move faster than light when the
search light is turned rapidly (although this does not violate causality or any other relativistic
phenomenon).[46][47]

Optical effects

Dragging effects
In 1850, Hippolyte Fizeau and Léon Foucault
independently established that light travels more
slowly in water than in air, thus validating a
prediction of Fresnel's wave theory of light and
invalidating the corresponding prediction of Newton's
corpuscular theory.[48] The speed of light was
measured in still water. What would be the speed of
light in flowing water?
Figure 5–1. Highly simplified diagram of Fizeau's
In 1851, Fizeau conducted an experiment to answer 1851 experiment.
this question, a simplified representation of which is
illustrated in Fig. 5-1. A beam of light is divided by a
beam splitter, and the split beams are passed in opposite directions through a tube of flowing water. They
are recombined to form interference fringes, indicating a difference in optical path length, that an
observer can view. The experiment demonstrated that dragging of the light by the flowing water caused a
displacement of the fringes, showing that the motion of the water had affected the speed of the light.

According to the theories prevailing at the time, light traveling through a moving medium would be a
simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the speed of the medium. Contrary to expectation,
Fizeau found that although light appeared to be dragged by the water, the magnitude of the dragging was
much lower than expected. If is the speed of light in still water, and is the speed of the water,
and is the water-borne speed of light in the lab frame with the flow of water adding to or subtracting
from the speed of light, then
Fizeau's results, although consistent with Fresnel's earlier hypothesis of partial aether dragging, were
extremely disconcerting to physicists of the time. Among other things, the presence of an index of
refraction term meant that, since depends on wavelength, the aether must be capable of sustaining
different motions at the same time.[note 4] A variety of theoretical explanations were proposed to explain
Fresnel's dragging coefficient, that were completely at odds with each other. Even before the Michelson–
Morley experiment, Fizeau's experimental results were among a number of observations that created a
critical situation in explaining the optics of moving bodies.[49]

From the point of view of special relativity, Fizeau's result is nothing but an approximation to
Equation 10, the relativistic formula for composition of velocities.[28]

Relativistic aberration of light

Because of the finite speed of light, if the relative motions of a
source and receiver include a transverse component, then the
direction from which light arrives at the receiver will be displaced
from the geometric position in space of the source relative to the
receiver. The classical calculation of the displacement takes two
forms and makes different predictions depending on whether the
receiver, the source, or both are in motion with respect to the
medium. (1) If the receiver is in motion, the displacement would
be the consequence of the aberration of light. The incident angle
of the beam relative to the receiver would be calculable from the
vector sum of the receiver's motions and the velocity of the
incident light.[50] (2) If the source is in motion, the displacement
would be the consequence of light-time correction. The Figure 5–2. Illustration of stellar
displacement of the apparent position of the source from its aberration
geometric position would be the result of the source's motion
during the time that its light takes to reach the receiver.[51]

The classical explanation failed experimental test. Since the aberration angle depends on the relationship
between the velocity of the receiver and the speed of the incident light, passage of the incident light
through a refractive medium should change the aberration angle. In 1810, Arago used this expected
phenomenon in a failed attempt to measure the speed of light,[52] and in 1870, George Airy tested the
hypothesis using a water-filled telescope, finding that, against expectation, the measured aberration was
identical to the aberration measured with an air-filled telescope.[53] A "cumbrous" attempt to explain
these results used the hypothesis of partial aether-drag,[54] but was incompatible with the results of the
Michelson–Morley experiment, which apparently demanded complete aether-drag.[55]

Assuming inertial frames, the relativistic expression for the aberration of light is applicable to both the
receiver moving and source moving cases. A variety of trigonometrically equivalent formulas have been
published. Expressed in terms of the variables in Fig. 5-2, these include[28]: 57–60
 OR OR

Relativistic Doppler effect

Relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect

The classical Doppler effect depends on whether the source, receiver, or both are in motion with respect
to the medium. The relativistic Doppler effect is independent of any medium. Nevertheless, relativistic
Doppler shift for the longitudinal case, with source and receiver moving directly towards or away from
each other, can be derived as if it were the classical phenomenon, but modified by the addition of a time
dilation term, and that is the treatment described here.[56][57]

Assume the receiver and the source are moving away from each other with a relative speed as measured
by an observer on the receiver or the source (The sign convention adopted here is that is negative if the
receiver and the source are moving towards each other). Assume that the source is stationary in the
medium. Then

where is the speed of sound.

For light, and with the receiver moving at relativistic speeds, clocks on the receiver are time dilated
relative to clocks at the source. The receiver will measure the received frequency to be

where

and

is the Lorentz factor.

An identical expression for relativistic Doppler shift is obtained when performing the analysis in the
reference frame of the receiver with a moving source.[58][21]

Transverse Doppler effect

The transverse Doppler effect is one of the main novel predictions of the special theory of relativity.

Classically, one might expect that if source and receiver are moving transversely with respect to each
other with no longitudinal component to their relative motions, that there should be no Doppler shift in
the light arriving at the receiver.
Special relativity predicts otherwise. Fig. 5-3
illustrates two common variants of this scenario. Both
variants can be analyzed using simple time dilation
arguments.[21] In Fig. 5-3a, the receiver observes light
from the source as being blueshifted by a factor of ⁠ ⁠.
In Fig. 5-3b, the light is redshifted by the same factor.

Figure 5–3. Transverse Doppler effect for two

Measurement versus visual scenarios: (a) receiver moving in a circle around
appearance the source; (b) source moving in a circle around
the receiver.
Time dilation and length contraction are not optical
illusions, but genuine effects. Measurements of
these effects are not an artifact of Doppler shift,
nor are they the result of neglecting to take into
account the time it takes light to travel from an
event to an observer.

Scientists make a fundamental distinction

between measurement or observation on the one
hand, versus visual appearance, or what one
sees. The measured shape of an object is a Figure 5–4. Comparison of the measured length
hypothetical snapshot of all of the object's points contraction of a cube versus its visual appearance.
as they exist at a single moment in time. But the
visual appearance of an object is affected by the
varying lengths of time that light takes to travel from different points on the object to one's eye.

For many years, the distinction between the two

had not been generally appreciated, and it had
generally been thought that a length contracted
object passing by an observer would in fact
actually be seen as length contracted. In 1959,
James Terrell and Roger Penrose independently
pointed out that differential time lag effects in
signals reaching the observer from the different
parts of a moving object result in a fast moving
Figure 5–5. Comparison of the measured length
object's visual appearance being quite different
contraction of a globe versus its visual appearance, as
from its measured shape. For example, a receding viewed from a distance of three diameters of the globe
object would appear contracted, an approaching from the eye to the red cross.
object would appear elongated, and a passing
object would have a skew appearance that has
been likened to a rotation.[p 16][p 17][59][60] A sphere in motion retains the circular outline for all speeds,
for any distance, and for all view angles, although the surface of the sphere and the images on it will
appear distorted.[61][62]

Both Fig. 5-4 and Fig. 5-5 illustrate objects moving transversely to the line of sight. In Fig. 5-4, a cube is
viewed from a distance of four times the length of its sides. At high speeds, the sides of the cube that are
perpendicular to the direction of motion appear hyperbolic in shape. The cube is actually not rotated.
Rather, light from the rear of the cube takes longer to reach one's
eyes compared with light from the front, during which time the
cube has moved to the right. At high speeds, the sphere in Fig. 5-5
takes on the appearance of a flattened disk tilted up to 45° from
the line of sight. If the objects' motions are not strictly transverse
but instead include a longitudinal component, exaggerated
distortions in perspective may be seen.[63] This illusion has come
to be known as Terrell rotation or the Terrell–Penrose effect.[note 5]
Figure 5–6. Galaxy M87 sends out a
Another example where visual appearance is at odds with
black-hole-powered jet of electrons
measurement comes from the observation of apparent and other sub-atomic particles
superluminal motion in various radio galaxies, BL Lac objects, traveling at nearly the speed of light.
quasars, and other astronomical objects that eject relativistic-speed
jets of matter at narrow angles with respect to the viewer. An
apparent optical illusion results giving the appearance of faster than light travel.[64][65][66] In Fig. 5-6,
galaxy M87 streams out a high-speed jet of subatomic particles almost directly towards us, but Penrose–
Terrell rotation causes the jet to appear to be moving laterally in the same manner that the appearance of
the cube in Fig. 5-4 has been stretched out.[67]

Dynamics
Section § Consequences derived from the Lorentz transformation dealt strictly with kinematics, the study
of the motion of points, bodies, and systems of bodies without considering the forces that caused the
motion. This section discusses masses, forces, energy and so forth, and as such requires consideration of
physical effects beyond those encompassed by the Lorentz transformation itself.

Equivalence of mass and energy

As an object's speed approaches the speed of light from an observer's point of view, its relativistic mass
increases thereby making it more and more difficult to accelerate it from within the observer's frame of
reference.

The energy content of an object at rest with mass m equals mc2. Conservation of energy implies that, in
any reaction, a decrease of the sum of the masses of particles must be accompanied by an increase in
kinetic energies of the particles after the reaction. Similarly, the mass of an object can be increased by
taking in kinetic energies.

In addition to the papers referenced above – which give derivations of the Lorentz transformation and
describe the foundations of special relativity—Einstein also wrote at least four papers giving heuristic
arguments for the equivalence (and transmutability) of mass and energy, for E = mc2.

Mass–energy equivalence is a consequence of special relativity. The energy and momentum, which are
separate in Newtonian mechanics, form a four-vector in relativity, and this relates the time component
(the energy) to the space components (the momentum) in a non-trivial way. For an object at rest, the
energy–momentum four-vector is (E/c, 0, 0, 0): it has a time component, which is the energy, and three
space components, which are zero. By changing frames with a Lorentz transformation in the x direction
with a small value of the velocity v, the energy momentum four-vector becomes (E/c, Ev/c2, 0, 0). The
momentum is equal to the energy multiplied by the velocity divided by c2. As such, the Newtonian mass
of an object, which is the ratio of the momentum to the velocity for slow velocities, is equal to E/c2.

The energy and momentum are properties of matter and radiation, and it is impossible to deduce that they
form a four-vector just from the two basic postulates of special relativity by themselves, because these do
not talk about matter or radiation, they only talk about space and time. The derivation therefore requires
some additional physical reasoning. In his 1905 paper, Einstein used the additional principles that
Newtonian mechanics should hold for slow velocities, so that there is one energy scalar and one three-
vector momentum at slow velocities, and that the conservation law for energy and momentum is exactly
true in relativity. Furthermore, he assumed that the energy of light is transformed by the same Doppler-
shift factor as its frequency, which he had previously shown to be true based on Maxwell's equations.[p 1]
The first of Einstein's papers on this subject was "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy
Content?" in 1905.[p 18] Although Einstein's argument in this paper is nearly universally accepted by
physicists as correct, even self-evident, many authors over the years have suggested that it is wrong.[68]
Other authors suggest that the argument was merely inconclusive because it relied on some implicit
assumptions.[69]

Einstein acknowledged the controversy over his derivation in his 1907 survey paper on special relativity.
There he notes that it is problematic to rely on Maxwell's equations for the heuristic mass–energy
argument. The argument in his 1905 paper can be carried out with the emission of any massless particles,
but the Maxwell equations are implicitly used to make it obvious that the emission of light in particular
can be achieved only by doing work. To emit electromagnetic waves, all you have to do is shake a
charged particle, and this is clearly doing work, so that the emission is of energy.[p 19][note 6]

Einstein's 1905 demonstration of E = mc2

In his fourth of his 1905 Annus mirabilis papers,[p 18] Einstein presented a heuristic argument for the
equivalence of mass and energy. Although, as discussed above, subsequent scholarship has established
that his arguments fell short of a broadly definitive proof, the conclusions that he reached in this paper
have stood the test of time.

Einstein took as starting assumptions his recently discovered formula for relativistic Doppler shift, the
laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, and the relationship between the
frequency of light and its energy as implied by Maxwell's equations.

Fig. 6-1 (top). Consider a system of plane waves of light having frequency traveling in direction
relative to the x-axis of reference frame S. The frequency (and hence energy) of the waves as measured in
frame S′ that is moving along the x-axis at velocity is given by the relativistic Doppler shift formula
that Einstein had developed in his 1905 paper on special relativity:[p 1]

Fig. 6-1 (bottom). Consider an arbitrary body that is stationary in reference frame S. Let this body emit a
pair of equal-energy light-pulses in opposite directions at angle with respect to the x-axis. Each pulse
has energy ⁠ ⁠. Because of conservation of momentum, the body remains stationary in S after emission
of the two pulses. Let be the energy of the body before
emission of the two pulses and after their emission.

Next, consider the same system observed from frame S′ that is

moving along the x-axis at speed relative to frame S. In this
frame, light from the forwards and reverse pulses will be
relativistically Doppler-shifted. Let be the energy of the body
measured in reference frame S′ before emission of the two pulses
and after their emission. We obtain the following
relationships:[p 18]

Figure 6-1. Einstein's 1905

derivation of E = mc2

From the above equations, we obtain the following:

(6-1)

The two differences of form seen in the above equation have a straightforward physical
interpretation. Since and are the energies of the arbitrary body in the moving and stationary frames,
and represents the kinetic energies of the bodies before and after the emission of
light (except for an additive constant that fixes the zero point of energy and is conventionally set to zero).
Hence,

(6-2)

Taking a Taylor series expansion and neglecting higher order terms, he obtained

(6-3)
1
Comparing the above expression with the classical expression for kinetic energy, K.E. = ⁠2 ⁠mv2, Einstein
then noted: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

Rindler has observed that Einstein's heuristic argument suggested merely that energy contributes to mass.
In 1905, Einstein's cautious expression of the mass–energy relationship allowed for the possibility that
"dormant" mass might exist that would remain behind after all the energy of a body was removed. By
1907, however, Einstein was ready to assert that all inertial mass represented a reserve of energy. "To
equate all mass with energy required an act of aesthetic faith, very characteristic of Einstein."[12]: 81–84
Einstein's bold hypothesis has been amply confirmed in the years subsequent to his original proposal.
For a variety of reasons, Einstein's original derivation is currently seldom taught. Besides the vigorous
debate that continues until this day as to the formal correctness of his original derivation, the recognition
of special relativity as being what Einstein called a "principle theory" has led to a shift away from
reliance on electromagnetic phenomena to purely dynamic methods of proof.[70]

How far can you travel from the Earth?

Since nothing can travel faster than light, one might conclude that a human can never travel farther from
Earth than ~ 100 light years. You would easily think that a traveler would never be able to reach more
than the few solar systems that exist within the limit of 100 light years from Earth. However, because of
time dilation, a hypothetical spaceship can travel thousands of light years during a passenger's lifetime. If
a spaceship could be built that accelerates at a constant 1g, it will, after one year, be travelling at almost
the speed of light as seen from Earth. This is described by:

where v(t) is the velocity at a time t, a is the acceleration of the spaceship and t is the coordinate time as
measured by people on Earth.[p 20] Therefore, after one year of accelerating at 9.81 m/s2, the spaceship
will be travelling at v = 0.712 c and 0.946 c after three years, relative to Earth. After three years of this
acceleration, with the spaceship achieving a velocity of 94.6% of the speed of light relative to Earth, time
dilation will result in each second experienced on the spaceship corresponding to 3.1 seconds back on
Earth. During their journey, people on Earth will experience more time than they do – since their clocks
(all physical phenomena) would really be ticking 3.1 times faster than those of the spaceship. A 5-year
round trip for the traveller will take 6.5 Earth years and cover a distance of over 6 light-years. A 20-year
round trip for them (5 years accelerating, 5 decelerating, twice each) will land them back on Earth having
travelled for 335 Earth years and a distance of 331 light years.[71] A full 40-year trip at 1g will appear on
Earth to last 58,000 years and cover a distance of 55,000 light years. A 40-year trip at 1.1 g will take
148 000 years and cover about 140 000 light years. A one-way 28 year (14 years accelerating, 14
decelerating as measured with the astronaut's clock) trip at 1g acceleration could reach 2,000,000 light-
years to the Andromeda Galaxy.[71] This same time dilation is why a muon travelling close to c is
observed to travel much farther than c times its half-life (when at rest).[72]

Elastic collisions
Examination of the collision products generated by particle accelerators around the world provides
scientists evidence of the structure of the subatomic world and the natural laws governing it. Analysis of
the collision products, the sum of whose masses may vastly exceed the masses of the incident particles,
requires special relativity.[73]

In Newtonian mechanics, analysis of collisions involves use of the conservation laws for mass,
momentum and energy. In relativistic mechanics, mass is not independently conserved, because it has
been subsumed into the total relativistic energy. We illustrate the differences that arise between the
Newtonian and relativistic treatments of particle collisions by examining the simple case of two perfectly
elastic colliding particles of equal mass. (Inelastic collisions are discussed in Spacetime#Conservation
laws. Radioactive decay may be considered a sort of time-reversed inelastic collision.[73])
Elastic scattering of charged elementary particles deviates from ideality due to the production of
Bremsstrahlung radiation.[74][75]

Newtonian analysis
Fig. 6-2 provides a demonstration of the result, familiar to billiard
players, that if a stationary ball is struck elastically by another one
of the same mass (assuming no sidespin, or "English"), then after
collision, the diverging paths of the two balls will subtend a right
angle. (a) In the stationary frame, an incident sphere traveling at
2v strikes a stationary sphere. (b) In the center of momentum
frame, the two spheres approach each other symmetrically at ±v.
After elastic collision, the two spheres rebound from each other
with equal and opposite velocities ±u. Energy conservation
requires that |u | = |v|. (c) Reverting to the stationary frame, the
rebound velocities are v ± u. The dot product
(v + u) ⋅ (v − u) = v2 − u2 = 0, indicating that the vectors are
orthogonal.[12]: 26–27

Relativistic analysis Figure 6–2. Newtonian analysis of

Consider the elastic collision scenario in Fig. 6-3 between a the elastic collision of a moving
particle with an equal mass
moving particle colliding with an equal mass stationary particle.
stationary particle
Unlike the Newtonian case, the angle between the two particles
after collision is less than 90°, is dependent on the angle of
scattering, and becomes smaller and smaller as the velocity of the
incident particle approaches the speed of light:

The relativistic momentum and total relativistic energy of a

particle are given by

(6-4) Figure 6–3. Relativistic elastic

collision between a moving particle
Conservation of momentum dictates that the sum of the momenta incident upon an equal mass
of the incoming particle and the stationary particle (which initially stationary particle
has momentum = 0) equals the sum of the momenta of the
emergent particles:

(6-5)
Likewise, the sum of the total relativistic energies of the incoming particle and the stationary particle
(which initially has total energy mc2) equals the sum of the total energies of the emergent particles:

(6-6)
Breaking down (6-5) into its components, replacing with the dimensionless ⁠ ⁠, and factoring out
common terms from (6-5) and (6-6) yields the following:[p 21]

(6-7)
(6-8)
(6-9)
From these we obtain the following relationships:[p 21]

(6-10)

(6-11)

(6-12)

For the symmetrical case in which and ⁠ ⁠, (6-12) takes on the simpler form:[p 21]

(6-13)

Beyond the basics

Rapidity
Lorentz transformations relate coordinates of
events in one reference frame to those of another
frame. Relativistic composition of velocities is
used to add two velocities together. The formulas
to perform the latter computations are nonlinear,
making them more complex than the Figure 7-1a. A ray
corresponding Galilean formulas. through the unit circle
x2 + y2 = 1 in the
This nonlinearity is an artifact of our choice of point (cos a, sin a), Figure 7-1b. A ray through the
parameters.[11]: 47–59 We have previously noted where a is twice the unit hyperbola x2 − y2 = 1 in
that in an x–ct spacetime diagram, the points at area between the ray, the point (cosh a, sinh a),
some constant spacetime interval from the origin the circle, and the x- where a is twice the area
form an invariant hyperbola. We have also noted axis. between the ray, the hyperbola,
that the coordinate systems of two spacetime and the x-axis.
reference frames in standard configuration are
hyperbolically rotated with respect to each other.

The natural functions for expressing these relationships are the hyperbolic analogs of the trigonometric
functions. Fig. 7-1a shows a unit circle with sin(a) and cos(a), the only difference between this diagram
and the familiar unit circle of elementary trigonometry being that a is interpreted, not as the angle
between the ray and the x-axis, but as twice the area of the sector swept out by the ray from the x-axis.
Numerically, the angle and 2 × area measures for the unit circle are identical. Fig. 7-1b shows a unit
hyperbola with sinh(a) and cosh(a), where a is likewise interpreted as twice the tinted area.[76] Fig. 7-2
presents plots of the sinh, cosh, and tanh functions.

For the unit circle, the slope of the ray is given by

In the Cartesian plane, rotation of point (x, y) into point (x ', y ') by angle
θ is given by

In a spacetime diagram, the velocity parameter is the analog of slope.

The rapidity, φ, is defined by[21]: 96–99

where
Figure 7–2. Plot of the three
basic Hyperbolic functions:
hyperbolic sine (sinh),
hyperbolic cosine (cosh) and
hyperbolic tangent (tanh).
The rapidity defined above is very useful in special relativity because Sinh is red, cosh is blue and
many expressions take on a considerably simpler form when expressed tanh is green.
in terms of it. For example, rapidity is simply additive in the collinear
velocity-addition formula;[11]: 47–59

or in other words, ⁠ ⁠.

The Lorentz transformations take a simple form when expressed in terms of rapidity. The γ factor can be
written as

Transformations describing relative motion with uniform velocity and without rotation of the space
coordinate axes are called boosts.

Substituting γ and γβ into the transformations as previously presented and rewriting in matrix form, the
Lorentz boost in the x-direction may be written as

and the inverse Lorentz boost in the x-direction may be written as

In other words, Lorentz boosts represent hyperbolic rotations in Minkowski spacetime.[21]: 96–99

The advantages of using hyperbolic functions are such that some textbooks such as the classic ones by
Taylor and Wheeler introduce their use at a very early stage.[11][note 7]

4‑vectors
Four‑vectors have been mentioned above in context of the energy–momentum 4‑vector, but without any
great emphasis. Indeed, none of the elementary derivations of special relativity require them. But once
understood, 4‑vectors, and more generally tensors, greatly simplify the mathematics and conceptual
understanding of special relativity. Working exclusively with such objects leads to formulas that are
manifestly relativistically invariant, which is a considerable advantage in non-trivial contexts. For
instance, demonstrating relativistic invariance of Maxwell's equations in their usual form is not trivial,
while it is merely a routine calculation, really no more than an observation, using the field strength tensor
formulation.[77]

On the other hand, general relativity, from the outset, relies heavily on 4‑vectors, and more generally
tensors, representing physically relevant entities. Relating these via equations that do not rely on specific
coordinates requires tensors, capable of connecting such 4‑vectors even within a curved spacetime, and
not just within a flat one as in special relativity. The study of tensors is outside the scope of this article,
which provides only a basic discussion of spacetime.

Definition of 4-vectors
A 4-tuple, ⁠ ⁠ is a "4-vector" if its component Ai transform between frames
according to the Lorentz transformation.

If using ⁠ ⁠coordinates, A is a 4–vector if it transforms (in the x-direction) according to

which comes from simply replacing ct with A0 and x with A1 in the earlier presentation of the Lorentz
transformation.

As usual, when we write x, t, etc. we generally mean Δx, Δt etc.

The last three components of a 4–vector must be a standard vector in three-dimensional space. Therefore,
a 4–vector must transform like ⁠ ⁠ under Lorentz transformations as well as
rotations. [78]: 36–59

Properties of 4-vectors
Closure under linear combination: If A and B are 4-vectors, then ⁠ ⁠is also a
4-vector.
Inner-product invariance: If A and B are 4-vectors, then their inner product (scalar
product) is invariant, i.e. their inner product is independent of the frame in which it is
 calculated. Note how the calculation of inner product differs from the calculation of the inner
product of a 3-vector. In the following, and are 3-vectors:

In addition to being invariant under Lorentz transformation, the above inner product is also
invariant under rotation in 3-space.
Two vectors are said to be orthogonal if ⁠ ⁠. Unlike the case with 3-vectors,
orthogonal 4-vectors are not necessarily at right angles to each other. The rule is that two
4-vectors are orthogonal if they are offset by equal and opposite angles from the 45° line,
which is the world line of a light ray. This implies that a lightlike 4-vector is orthogonal to
itself.

Invariance of the magnitude of a vector: The magnitude of a vector is the inner product of
a 4-vector with itself, and is a frame-independent property. As with intervals, the magnitude
may be positive, negative or zero, so that the vectors are referred to as timelike, spacelike
or null (lightlike). Note that a null vector is not the same as a zero vector. A null vector is one
for which ⁠ ⁠, while a zero vector is one whose components are all zero. Special
cases illustrating the invariance of the norm include the invariant interval and the
invariant length of the relativistic momentum vector ⁠ ⁠. [21]: 178–181 [78]: 36–59

Examples of 4-vectors
Displacement 4-vector: Otherwise known as the spacetime separation, this is
(Δt, Δx, Δy, Δz), or for infinitesimal separations, (dt, dx, dy, dz).

Velocity 4-vector: This results when the displacement 4-vector is divided by , where
is the proper time between the two events that yield dt, dx, dy, and dz.

The 4-velocity is tangent to the world line

of a particle, and has a length equal to
one unit of time in the frame of the
particle.
An accelerated particle does not have an
inertial frame in which it is always at rest.
However, an inertial frame can always be
found that is momentarily comoving with
the particle. This frame, the momentarily Figure 7-3a. The Figure 7-3b. The
comoving reference frame (MCRF), momentarily comoving momentarily comoving
enables application of special relativity to reference frames of an reference frames along
the analysis of accelerated particles. accelerating particle as the trajectory of an
Since photons move on null lines, observed from a accelerating observer
for a photon, and a 4-velocity cannot be
stationary frame. (center).
defined. There is no frame in which a
photon is at rest, and no MCRF can be
established along a photon's path.
 Energy–momentum 4-vector:

As indicated before, there are varying treatments for the energy–momentum 4-vector so
that one may also see it expressed as or ⁠ ⁠. The first component is the total
energy (including mass) of the particle (or system of particles) in a given frame, while the
remaining components are its spatial momentum. The energy–momentum 4-vector is a
conserved quantity.

Acceleration 4-vector: This results from taking the derivative of the velocity 4-vector with
respect to ⁠ ⁠.

Force 4-vector: This is the derivative of the momentum 4-vector with respect to

As expected, the final components of the above 4-vectors are all standard 3-vectors corresponding to
spatial 3-momentum, 3-force etc.[21]: 178–181 [78]: 36–59

4-vectors and physical law

The first postulate of special relativity declares the equivalency of all inertial frames. A physical law
holding in one frame must apply in all frames, since otherwise it would be possible to differentiate
between frames. Newtonian momenta fail to behave properly under Lorentzian transformation, and
Einstein preferred to change the definition of momentum to one involving 4-vectors rather than give up
on conservation of momentum.

Physical laws must be based on constructs that are frame independent. This means that physical laws may
take the form of equations connecting scalars, which are always frame independent. However, equations
involving 4-vectors require the use of tensors with appropriate rank, which themselves can be thought of
as being built up from 4-vectors.[21]: 186

Acceleration
It is a common misconception that special relativity is applicable only to inertial frames, and that it is
unable to handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames. Actually, accelerating objects can
generally be analyzed without needing to deal with accelerating frames at all. It is only when gravitation
is significant that general relativity is required.[79]

Properly handling accelerating frames does require some care, however. The difference between special
and general relativity is that (1) In special relativity, all velocities are relative, but acceleration is absolute.
(2) In general relativity, all motion is relative, whether inertial, accelerating, or rotating. To accommodate
this difference, general relativity uses curved spacetime.[79]
In this section, we analyze several scenarios involving accelerated reference frames.

Dewan–Beran–Bell spaceship paradox

The Dewan–Beran–Bell spaceship paradox (Bell's spaceship paradox) is a good example of a problem
where intuitive reasoning unassisted by the geometric insight of the spacetime approach can lead to
issues.

In Fig. 7-4, two identical spaceships float in space and are at rest
relative to each other. They are connected by a string that is
capable of only a limited amount of stretching before breaking. At
a given instant in our frame, the observer frame, both spaceships
accelerate in the same direction along the line between them with Figure 7–4. Dewan–Beran–Bell
the same constant proper acceleration.[note 8] Will the string break? spaceship paradox

When the paradox was new and relatively unknown, even

professional physicists had difficulty working out the solution. Two lines of reasoning lead to opposite
conclusions. Both arguments, which are presented below, are flawed even though one of them yields the
correct answer.[21]: 106, 120–122

1. To observers in the rest frame, the spaceships start a distance L apart and remain the same
distance apart during acceleration. During acceleration, L is a length contracted distance of
the distance L ' = γL in the frame of the accelerating spaceships. After a sufficiently long
time, γ will increase to a sufficiently large factor that the string must break.
2. Let A and B be the rear and front spaceships. In the frame of the spaceships, each
spaceship sees the other spaceship doing the same thing that it is doing. A says that B has
the same acceleration that he has, and B sees that A matches her every move. So the
spaceships stay the same distance apart, and the string does not break.[21]: 106, 120–122
The problem with the first argument is that there is no "frame of the spaceships." There cannot be,
because the two spaceships measure a growing distance between the two. Because there is no common
frame of the spaceships, the length of the string is ill-defined. Nevertheless, the conclusion is correct, and
the argument is mostly right. The second argument, however, completely ignores the relativity of
simultaneity.[21]: 106, 120–122

A spacetime diagram (Fig. 7-5) makes the correct solution to this paradox almost immediately evident.
Two observers in Minkowski spacetime accelerate with constant magnitude acceleration for proper
time (acceleration and elapsed time measured by the observers themselves, not some inertial observer).
They are comoving and inertial before and after this phase. In Minkowski geometry, the length along the
line of simultaneity turns out to be greater than the length along the line of simultaneity ⁠ ⁠.

The length increase can be calculated with the help of the Lorentz transformation. If, as illustrated in
Fig. 7-5, the acceleration is finished, the ships will remain at a constant offset in some frame ⁠ ⁠. If
and are the ships' positions in ⁠ ⁠, the positions in frame are:[80]
The "paradox", as it were, comes from the way that Bell
constructed his example. In the usual discussion of Lorentz
contraction, the rest length is fixed and the moving length shortens
as measured in frame ⁠ ⁠. As shown in Fig. 7-5, Bell's example
asserts the moving lengths and measured in frame to
be fixed, thereby forcing the rest frame length in frame
to increase.

Accelerated observer with horizon

Certain special relativity problem setups can lead to insight about
phenomena normally associated with general relativity, such as Figure 7–5. The curved lines
event horizons. In the text accompanying Section "Invariant represent the world lines of two
hyperbola" of the article Spacetime, the magenta hyperbolae observers A and B who accelerate in
represented actual paths that are tracked by a constantly the same direction with the same
accelerating traveler in spacetime. During periods of positive constant magnitude acceleration. At
A' and B', the observers stop
acceleration, the traveler's velocity just approaches the speed of
accelerating. The dashed lines are
light, while, measured in our frame, the traveler's acceleration
lines of simultaneity for either
constantly decreases. observer before acceleration begins
and after acceleration stops.
Fig. 7-6 details various features of the traveler's motions with
more specificity. At any given moment, her space axis is formed
by a line passing through the origin and her current position on the
hyperbola, while her time axis is the tangent to the hyperbola at
her position. The velocity parameter approaches a limit of one
as increases. Likewise, approaches infinity.

The shape of the invariant hyperbola corresponds to a path of

constant proper acceleration. This is demonstrable as follows:

1. We remember that ⁠ ⁠.
2. Since ⁠ ⁠, we conclude that
⁠ ⁠.
Figure 7–6. Accelerated relativistic
3. observer with horizon. Another well-
drawn illustration of the same topic
4. From the relativistic force law, may be viewed here.
⁠ ⁠.
5. Substituting from step 2 and the expression for
from step 3 yields ⁠ ⁠, which is a constant expression.[81]: 110–113
Fig. 7-6 illustrates a specific calculated scenario. Terence (A) and Stella (B) initially stand together 100
light hours from the origin. Stella lifts off at time 0, her spacecraft accelerating at 0.01 c per hour. Every
twenty hours, Terence radios updates to Stella about the situation at home (solid green lines). Stella
receives these regular transmissions, but the increasing distance (offset in part by time dilation) causes
her to receive Terence's communications later and later as measured on her clock, and she never receives
any communications from Terence after 100 hours on his clock (dashed green lines).[81]: 110–113
After 100 hours according to Terence's clock, Stella enters a dark region. She has traveled outside
Terence's timelike future. On the other hand, Terence can continue to receive Stella's messages to him
indefinitely. He just has to wait long enough. Spacetime has been divided into distinct regions separated
by an apparent event horizon. So long as Stella continues to accelerate, she can never know what takes
place behind this horizon.[81]: 110–113

Relativity and unifying electromagnetism

Theoretical investigation in classical electromagnetism led to the discovery of wave propagation.
Equations generalizing the electromagnetic effects found that finite propagation speed of the E and B
fields required certain behaviors on charged particles. The general study of moving charges forms the
Liénard–Wiechert potential, which is a step towards special relativity.

The Lorentz transformation of the electric field of a moving charge into a non-moving observer's
reference frame results in the appearance of a mathematical term commonly called the magnetic field.
Conversely, the magnetic field generated by a moving charge disappears and becomes a purely
electrostatic field in a comoving frame of reference. Maxwell's equations are thus simply an empirical fit
to special relativistic effects in a classical model of the Universe. As electric and magnetic fields are
reference frame dependent and thus intertwined, one speaks of electromagnetic fields. Special relativity
provides the transformation rules for how an electromagnetic field in one inertial frame appears in
another inertial frame.

Maxwell's equations in the 3D form are already consistent with the physical content of special relativity,
although they are easier to manipulate in a manifestly covariant form, that is, in the language of tensor
calculus.[77]

Theories of relativity and quantum mechanics

Special relativity can be combined with quantum mechanics to form relativistic quantum mechanics and
quantum electrodynamics. How general relativity and quantum mechanics can be unified is one of the
unsolved problems in physics; quantum gravity and a "theory of everything", which require a unification
including general relativity too, are active and ongoing areas in theoretical research.

The early Bohr–Sommerfeld atomic model explained the fine structure of alkali metal atoms using both
special relativity and the preliminary knowledge on quantum mechanics of the time.[82]

In 1928, Paul Dirac constructed an influential relativistic wave equation, now known as the Dirac
equation in his honour,[p 22] that is fully compatible both with special relativity and with the final version
of quantum theory existing after 1926. This equation not only described the intrinsic angular momentum
of the electrons called spin, it also led to the prediction of the antiparticle of the electron (the
positron),[p 22][p 23] and fine structure could only be fully explained with special relativity. It was the first
foundation of relativistic quantum mechanics.

On the other hand, the existence of antiparticles leads to the conclusion that relativistic quantum
mechanics is not enough for a more accurate and complete theory of particle interactions. Instead, a
theory of particles interpreted as quantized fields, called quantum field theory, becomes necessary; in
which particles can be created and destroyed throughout space and time.

Status
Special relativity in its Minkowski spacetime is accurate only when the absolute value of the gravitational
potential is much less than c2 in the region of interest.[83] In a strong gravitational field, one must use
general relativity. General relativity becomes special relativity at the limit of a weak field. At very small
scales, such as at the Planck length and below, quantum effects must be taken into consideration resulting
in quantum gravity. But at macroscopic scales and in the absence of strong gravitational fields, special
relativity is experimentally tested to extremely high degree of accuracy (10−20)[84] and thus accepted by
the physics community. Experimental results that appear to contradict it are not reproducible and are thus
widely believed to be due to experimental errors.[85]

Special relativity is mathematically self-consistent, and it is an organic part of all modern physical
theories, most notably quantum field theory, string theory, and general relativity (in the limiting case of
negligible gravitational fields).

Newtonian mechanics mathematically follows from special relativity at small velocities (compared to the
speed of light) – thus Newtonian mechanics can be considered as a special relativity of slow moving
bodies. See Classical mechanics for a more detailed discussion.

Several experiments predating Einstein's 1905 paper are now interpreted as evidence for relativity. Of
these it is known Einstein was aware of the Fizeau experiment before 1905,[86] and historians have
concluded that Einstein was at least aware of the Michelson–Morley experiment as early as 1899 despite
claims he made in his later years that it played no role in his development of the theory.[16]

The Fizeau experiment (1851, repeated by Michelson and Morley in 1886) measured the
speed of light in moving media, with results that are consistent with relativistic addition of
colinear velocities.
The famous Michelson–Morley experiment (1881, 1887) gave further support to the
postulate that detecting an absolute reference velocity was not achievable. It should be
stated here that, contrary to many alternative claims, it said little about the invariance of the
speed of light with respect to the source and observer's velocity, as both source and
observer were travelling together at the same velocity at all times.
The Trouton–Noble experiment (1903) showed that the torque on a capacitor is independent
of position and inertial reference frame.
The Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902, 1904) showed that length contraction does
not lead to birefringence for a co-moving observer, in accordance with the relativity principle.
Particle accelerators accelerate and measure the properties of particles moving at near the speed of light,
where their behavior is consistent with relativity theory and inconsistent with the earlier Newtonian
mechanics. These machines would simply not work if they were not engineered according to relativistic
principles. In addition, a considerable number of modern experiments have been conducted to test special
relativity. Some examples:

Tests of relativistic energy and momentum – testing the limiting speed of particles
Ives–Stilwell experiment – testing relativistic Doppler effect and time dilation
Experimental testing of time dilation – relativistic effects on a fast-moving particle's half-life
Kennedy–Thorndike experiment – time dilation in accordance with Lorentz transformations
 Hughes–Drever experiment – testing isotropy of space and mass
Modern searches for Lorentz violation – various modern tests
Experiments to test emission theory demonstrated that the speed of light is independent of
the speed of the emitter.
Experiments to test the aether drag hypothesis – no "aether flow obstruction".

Technical discussion of spacetime

Geometry of spacetime

Comparison between flat Euclidean space and Minkowski space

Special relativity uses a "flat" 4-dimensional
Minkowski space – an example of a
spacetime. Minkowski spacetime appears to
be very similar to the standard 3-dimensional
Euclidean space, but there is a crucial
difference with respect to time.

In 3D space, the differential of distance (line

element) ds is defined by
Figure 10–1. Orthogonality and rotation of coordinate
systems compared between left: Euclidean space through
where dx = (dx1, dx2, dx3) are the differentials circular angle φ, right: in Minkowski spacetime through
hyperbolic angle φ (red lines labelled c denote the
of the three spatial dimensions. In Minkowski
worldlines of a light signal, a vector is orthogonal to itself if
geometry, there is an extra dimension with
it lies on this line).[87]
coordinate X0 derived from time, such that the
distance differential fulfills

where dX = (dX0, dX1, dX2, dX3) are the differentials of the four spacetime dimensions. This suggests a
deep theoretical insight: special relativity is simply a rotational symmetry of our spacetime, analogous to
the rotational symmetry of Euclidean space (see Fig. 10-1).[88] Just as Euclidean space uses a Euclidean
metric, so spacetime uses a Minkowski metric. Basically, special relativity can be stated as the invariance
of any spacetime interval (that is the 4D distance between any two events) when viewed from any inertial
reference frame. All equations and effects of special relativity can be derived from this rotational
symmetry (the Poincaré group) of Minkowski spacetime.

The actual form of ds above depends on the metric and on the choices for the X0 coordinate. To make the
time coordinate look like the space coordinates, it can be treated as imaginary: X0 = ict (this is called a
Wick rotation). According to Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (1971, §2.3), ultimately the deeper
understanding of both special and general relativity will come from the study of the Minkowski metric
(described below) and to take X0 = ct, rather than a "disguised" Euclidean metric using ict as the time
coordinate.
Some authors use X0 = t, with factors of c elsewhere to compensate; for instance, spatial coordinates are
divided by c or factors of c±2 are included in the metric tensor.[89] These numerous conventions can be
superseded by using natural units where c = 1. Then space and time have equivalent units, and no factors
of c appear anywhere.

3D spacetime
If we reduce the spatial dimensions to 2, so that we can represent
the physics in a 3D space

we see that the null geodesics lie along a dual-cone (see Fig. 10-2)
defined by the equation;

or simply
Figure 10–2. Three-dimensional
dual-cone.

which is the equation of a circle of radius c dt.

4D spacetime
If we extend this to three spatial dimensions, the null geodesics are the 4-dimensional cone:

so

As illustrated in Fig. 10-3, the null geodesics can be visualized as

a set of continuous concentric spheres with radii = c dt.

This null dual-cone represents the "line of sight" of a point in

space. That is, when we look at the stars and say "The light from
that star that I am receiving is X years old", we are looking down
this line of sight: a null geodesic. We are looking at an event a
distance away and a time d/c in the past.
For this reason the null dual cone is also known as the "light
cone". (The point in the lower left of the Fig. 10-2 represents the
star, the origin represents the observer, and the line represents the
Figure 10–3. Concentric spheres,
null geodesic "line of sight".) illustrating in 3-space the null
geodesics of a 4-dimensional cone
The cone in the −t region is the information that the point is
in spacetime.
"receiving", while the cone in the +t section is the information that
the point is "sending".
The geometry of Minkowski space can be depicted using Minkowski diagrams, which are useful also in
understanding many of the thought experiments in special relativity.

Physics in spacetime

Transformations of physical quantities between reference frames

Above, the Lorentz transformation for the time coordinate and three space coordinates illustrates that they
are intertwined. This is true more generally: certain pairs of "timelike" and "spacelike" quantities
naturally combine on equal footing under the same Lorentz transformation.

The Lorentz transformation in standard configuration above, that is, for a boost in the x-direction, can be
recast into matrix form as follows:

In Newtonian mechanics, quantities that have magnitude and direction are mathematically described as
3d vectors in Euclidean space, and in general they are parametrized by time. In special relativity, this
notion is extended by adding the appropriate timelike quantity to a spacelike vector quantity, and we have
4d vectors, or "four-vectors", in Minkowski spacetime. The components of vectors are written using
tensor index notation, as this has numerous advantages. The notation makes it clear the equations are
manifestly covariant under the Poincaré group, thus bypassing the tedious calculations to check this fact.
In constructing such equations, we often find that equations previously thought to be unrelated are, in
fact, closely connected being part of the same tensor equation. Recognizing other physical quantities as
tensors simplifies their transformation laws. Throughout, upper indices (superscripts) are contravariant
indices rather than exponents except when they indicate a square (this should be clear from the context),
and lower indices (subscripts) are covariant indices. For simplicity and consistency with the earlier
equations, Cartesian coordinates will be used.

The simplest example of a four-vector is the position of an event in spacetime, which constitutes a
timelike component ct and spacelike component x = (x, y, z), in a contravariant position four-vector with
components:

where we define X0 = ct so that the time coordinate has the same dimension of distance as the other
spatial dimensions; so that space and time are treated equally.[90][91][92] Now the transformation of the
contravariant components of the position 4-vector can be compactly written as:

where there is an implied summation on from 0 to 3, and is a matrix.

More generally, all contravariant components of a four-vector transform from one frame to another
frame by a Lorentz transformation:
Examples of other 4-vectors include the four-velocity ⁠ ⁠, defined as the derivative of the position 4-
vector with respect to proper time:

where the Lorentz factor is:

The relativistic energy and relativistic momentum of an object are

respectively the timelike and spacelike components of a contravariant four-momentum vector:

where m is the invariant mass.

The four-acceleration is the proper time derivative of 4-velocity:

The transformation rules for three-dimensional velocities and accelerations are very awkward; even
above in standard configuration the velocity equations are quite complicated owing to their non-linearity.
On the other hand, the transformation of four-velocity and four-acceleration are simpler by means of the
Lorentz transformation matrix.

The four-gradient of a scalar field φ transforms covariantly rather than contravariantly:

which is the transpose of:

only in Cartesian coordinates. It is the covariant derivative that transforms in manifest covariance, in
Cartesian coordinates this happens to reduce to the partial derivatives, but not in other coordinates.

More generally, the covariant components of a 4-vector transform according to the inverse Lorentz
transformation:

where is the reciprocal matrix of ⁠ ⁠.

The postulates of special relativity constrain the exact form the Lorentz transformation matrices take.
More generally, most physical quantities are best described as (components of) tensors. So to transform
from one frame to another, we use the well-known tensor transformation law[93]

where is the reciprocal matrix of ⁠ ⁠. All tensors transform by this rule.

An example of a four-dimensional second order antisymmetric tensor is the relativistic angular

momentum, which has six components: three are the classical angular momentum, and the other three are
related to the boost of the center of mass of the system. The derivative of the relativistic angular
momentum with respect to proper time is the relativistic torque, also second order antisymmetric tensor.

The electromagnetic field tensor is another second order antisymmetric tensor field, with six components:
three for the electric field and another three for the magnetic field. There is also the stress–energy tensor
for the electromagnetic field, namely the electromagnetic stress–energy tensor.

Metric
The metric tensor allows one to define the inner product of two vectors, which in turn allows one to
assign a magnitude to the vector. Given the four-dimensional nature of spacetime the Minkowski metric η
has components (valid with suitably chosen coordinates), which can be arranged in a 4 × 4 matrix:

which is equal to its reciprocal, ⁠ ⁠, in those frames. Throughout we use the signs as above, different
authors use different conventions – see Minkowski metric alternative signs.

The Poincaré group is the most general group of transformations that preserves the Minkowski metric:

and this is the physical symmetry underlying special relativity.

The metric can be used for raising and lowering indices on vectors and tensors. Invariants can be
constructed using the metric, the inner product of a 4-vector T with another 4-vector S is:

Invariant means that it takes the same value in all inertial frames, because it is a scalar (0 rank tensor),
and so no Λ appears in its trivial transformation. The magnitude of the 4-vector T is the positive square
root of the inner product with itself:

One can extend this idea to tensors of higher order, for a second order tensor we can form the invariants:

similarly for higher order tensors. Invariant expressions, particularly inner products of 4-vectors with
themselves, provide equations that are useful for calculations, because one does not need to perform
Lorentz transformations to determine the invariants.

Relativistic kinematics and invariance

The coordinate differentials transform also contravariantly:

so the squared length of the differential of the position four-vector dXμ constructed using

is an invariant. Notice that when the line element dX2 is negative that √−dX2 is the differential of
proper time, while when dX2 is positive, √dX2 is differential of the proper distance.

The 4-velocity Uμ has an invariant form:

which means all velocity four-vectors have a magnitude of c. This is an expression of the fact that there is
no such thing as being at coordinate rest in relativity: at the least, you are always moving forward through
time. Differentiating the above equation by τ produces:

So in special relativity, the acceleration four-vector and the velocity four-vector are orthogonal.

Relativistic dynamics and invariance

The invariant magnitude of the momentum 4-vector generates the energy–momentum relation:

We can work out what this invariant is by first arguing that, since it is a scalar, it does not matter in which
reference frame we calculate it, and then by transforming to a frame where the total momentum is zero.

We see that the rest energy is an independent invariant. A rest energy can be calculated even for particles
and systems in motion, by translating to a frame in which momentum is zero.

The rest energy is related to the mass according to the celebrated equation discussed above:

The mass of systems measured in their center of momentum frame (where total momentum is zero) is
given by the total energy of the system in this frame. It may not be equal to the sum of individual system
masses measured in other frames.
To use Newton's third law of motion, both forces must be defined as the rate of change of momentum
with respect to the same time coordinate. That is, it requires the 3D force defined above. Unfortunately,
there is no tensor in 4D that contains the components of the 3D force vector among its components.

If a particle is not traveling at c, one can transform the 3D force from the particle's co-moving reference
frame into the observer's reference frame. This yields a 4-vector called the four-force. It is the rate of
change of the above energy momentum four-vector with respect to proper time. The covariant version of
the four-force is:

In the rest frame of the object, the time component of the four-force is zero unless the "invariant mass" of
the object is changing (this requires a non-closed system in which energy/mass is being directly added or
removed from the object) in which case it is the negative of that rate of change of mass, times c. In
general, though, the components of the four-force are not equal to the components of the three-force,
because the three force is defined by the rate of change of momentum with respect to coordinate time,
that is, dp/dt while the four-force is defined by the rate of change of momentum with respect to proper
time, that is, dp/dτ.

In a continuous medium, the 3D density of force combines with the density of power to form a covariant
4-vector. The spatial part is the result of dividing the force on a small cell (in 3-space) by the volume of
that cell. The time component is −1/c times the power transferred to that cell divided by the volume of the
cell. This will be used below in the section on electromagnetism.

See also
People

Max Planck
Hermann Minkowski
Max von Laue
Arnold Sommerfeld
Max Born
Mileva Marić

Relativity

History of special relativity

Doubly special relativity
Bondi k-calculus
Einstein synchronisation
Rietdijk–Putnam argument
Special relativity (alternative formulations)
Relativity priority dispute

Physics
 Einstein's thought experiments
physical cosmology
Relativistic Euler equations
Lorentz ether theory
Moving magnet and conductor problem
Shape waves
Relativistic heat conduction
Relativistic disk
Born rigidity
Born coordinates

Mathematics

Lorentz group
Relativity in the APS formalism

Philosophy

actualism
conventionalism

Paradoxes

Ehrenfest paradox
Bell's spaceship paradox
Velocity composition paradox
Lighthouse paradox

Notes
1. Einstein himself, in The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity, Ann. Phys. 49
(1916), writes "The word 'special' is meant to intimate that the principle is restricted to the
case ...". See p. 111 of The Principle of Relativity, A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Weyl, H.
Minkowski, Dover reprint of 1923 translation by Methuen and Company.]
2. Wald, General Relativity, p. 60: "... the special theory of relativity asserts that spacetime is
the manifold with a flat metric of Lorentz signature defined on it. Conversely, the entire
content of special relativity ... is contained in this statement ..."
3. The invariance of Δs2 under standard Lorentz transformation in analogous to the invariance
of squared distances Δr2 under rotations in Euclidean space. Although space and time have
an equal footing in relativity, the minus sign in front of the spatial terms marks space and
time as being of essentially different character. They are not the same. Because it treats
time differently than it treats the 3 spatial dimensions, Minkowski space differs from four-
dimensional Euclidean space.
4. The refractive index dependence of the presumed partial aether-drag was eventually
confirmed by Pieter Zeeman in 1914–1915, long after special relativity had been accepted
by the mainstream. Using a scaled-up version of Michelson's apparatus connected directly
to Amsterdam's main water conduit, Zeeman was able to perform extended measurements
using monochromatic light ranging from violet (4358 Å) through red (6870 Å).[p 14][p 15]
 5. Even though it has been many decades since Terrell and Penrose published their
observations, popular writings continue to conflate measurement versus appearance. For
example, Michio Kaku wrote in Einstein's Cosmos (W. W. Norton & Company, 2004. p. 65):
"... imagine that the speed of light is only 20 miles per hour. If a car were to go down the
street, it might look compressed in the direction of motion, being squeezed like an accordion
down to perhaps 1 inch in length."
6. In a letter to Carl Seelig in 1955, Einstein wrote "I had already previously found that
Maxwell's theory did not account for the micro-structure of radiation and could therefore
have no general validity.", Einstein letter to Carl Seelig, 1955.
7. Rapidity arises naturally as a coordinates on the pure boost generators inside the Lie
algebra algebra of the Lorentz group. Likewise, rotation angles arise naturally as
coordinates (modulo 2π) on the pure rotation generators in the Lie algebra. (Together they
coordinatize the whole Lie algebra.) A notable difference is that the resulting rotations are
periodic in the rotation angle, while the resulting boosts are not periodic in rapidity (but
rather one-to-one). The similarity between boosts and rotations is formal resemblance.
8. In relativity theory, proper acceleration is the physical acceleration (i.e., measurable
acceleration as by an accelerometer) experienced by an object. It is thus acceleration
relative to a free-fall, or inertial, observer who is momentarily at rest relative to the object
being measured.

Primary sources
1. Albert Einstein (1905) "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper ([Link]
050220050316/[Link] Annalen der Physik
17: 891; English translation On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies ([Link]
ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) by George Barker Jeffery and Wilfrid Perrett (1923);
Another English translation On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies by Megh Nad Saha
(1920).
2. "Science and Common Sense", P. W. Bridgman, The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 79, No. 1 (Jul.
1954), pp. 32–39.
3. The Electromagnetic Mass and Momentum of a Spinning Electron, G. Breit, Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 12, p. 451, 1926
4. Kinematics of an electron with an axis. Phil. Mag. 3:1-22. L. H. Thomas.]
5. Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, 1949.
6. Einstein, "Fundamental Ideas and Methods of the Theory of Relativity", 1920
7. Einstein, On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It, 1907; "The Principle
of Relativity and Its Consequences in Modern Physics", 1910; "The Theory of Relativity",
1911; Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity, 1912; Theory of Relativity, 1913;
Einstein, Relativity, the Special and General Theory, 1916; The Principal Ideas of the Theory
of Relativity, 1916; What Is The Theory of Relativity?, 1919; The Principle of Relativity
(Princeton Lectures), 1921; Physics and Reality, 1936; The Theory of Relativity, 1949.
8. Yaakov Friedman (2004). Physical Applications of Homogeneous Balls. Progress in
Mathematical Physics. Vol. 40. pp. 1–21. ISBN 978-0-8176-3339-4.
9. Das, A. (1993) The Special Theory of Relativity, A Mathematical Exposition, Springer,
ISBN 0-387-94042-1.
10. Schutz, J. (1997) Independent Axioms for Minkowski Spacetime, Addison Wesley Longman
Limited, ISBN 0-582-31760-6.
11. Lin, Shih-Chun; Giallorenzi, Thomas G. (1979). "Sensitivity analysis of the Sagnac-effect
optical-fiber ring interferometer". Applied Optics. 18 (6): 915–931.
Bibcode:1979ApOpt..18..915L ([Link]
doi:10.1364/AO.18.000915 ([Link] PMID 20208844 (htt
ps://[Link]/20208844). S2CID 5343180 ([Link]
CorpusID:5343180).
12. Shaw, R. (1962). "Length Contraction Paradox". American Journal of Physics. 30 (1): 72.
Bibcode:1962AmJPh..30...72S ([Link]
doi:10.1119/1.1941907 ([Link] S2CID 119855914 (https://
[Link]/CorpusID:119855914).
13. G. A. Benford; D. L. Book & W. A. Newcomb (1970). "The Tachyonic Antitelephone".
Physical Review D. 2 (2): 263–265. Bibcode:1970PhRvD...2..263B ([Link]
[Link]/abs/1970PhRvD...2..263B). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.2.263 ([Link]
FPhysRevD.2.263). S2CID 121124132 ([Link]
2).
14. Zeeman, Pieter (1914). "Fresnel's coefficient for light of different colours. (First part)" (http
s://[Link]/details/p1proceedingsofs17akad). Proc. Kon. Acad. Van Weten. 17: 445–451.
Bibcode:1914KNAB...17..445Z ([Link]
15. Zeeman, Pieter (1915). "Fresnel's coefficient for light of different colours. (Second part)" (htt
ps://[Link]/details/proceedingsofsec181koni). Proc. Kon. Acad. Van Weten. 18: 398–
408. Bibcode:1915KNAB...18..398Z ([Link]
Z).
16. Terrell, James (15 November 1959). "Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction". Physical
Review. 116 (4): 1041–1045. Bibcode:1959PhRv..116.1041T ([Link]
abs/1959PhRv..116.1041T). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.116.1041 ([Link]
ysRev.116.1041).
17. Penrose, Roger (24 October 2008). "The Apparent Shape of a Relativistically Moving
Sphere". Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 55 (1): 137–
139. Bibcode:1959PCPS...55..137P ([Link]
P). doi:10.1017/S0305004100033776 ([Link]
S2CID 123023118 ([Link]
18. Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content? ([Link]
einstein/E_mc2/www/) A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik. 18:639, 1905 (English translation by
W. Perrett and G.B. Jeffery)
19. On the Inertia of Energy Required by the Relativity Principle ([Link]
161707/[Link]
d/abstracts/Einstein_1907A_abstract.htm), A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 23 (1907): 371–
384
20. Baglio, Julien (26 May 2007). "Acceleration in special relativity: What is the meaning of
"uniformly accelerated movement" ?" ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF). Physics Department, ENS Cachan. Retrieved 22 January 2016.
21. Champion, Frank Clive (1932). "On some close collisions of fast β-particles with electrons,
photographed by the expansion method" ([Link]
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical
and Physical Character. 136 (830). The Royal Society Publishing: 630–637.
Bibcode:1932RSPSA.136..630C ([Link]
C). doi:10.1098/rspa.1932.0108 ([Link]
S2CID 123018629 ([Link]
22. P.A.M. Dirac (1930). "A Theory of Electrons and Protons" ([Link]
930.0013). Proceedings of the Royal Society. A126 (801): 360–365.
Bibcode:1930RSPSA.126..360D ([Link]
D). doi:10.1098/rspa.1930.0013 ([Link]
JSTOR 95359 ([Link]
23. C.D. Anderson (1933). "The Positive Electron" ([Link]
1). Phys. Rev. 43 (6): 491–494. Bibcode:1933PhRv...43..491A ([Link]
u/abs/1933PhRv...43..491A). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.43.491 ([Link]
Rev.43.491).

References
1. Griffiths, David J. (2013). "Electrodynamics and Relativity". Introduction to Electrodynamics
(4th ed.). Pearson. Chapter 12. ISBN 978-0-321-85656-2.
2. Jackson, John D. (1999). "Special Theory of Relativity". Classical Electrodynamics (3rd ed.).
John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 11. ISBN 0-471-30932-X.
3. Goldstein, Herbert (1980). "Chapter 7: Special Relativity in Classical Mechanics". Classical
Mechanics (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. ISBN 0-201-02918-9.
4. Lanczos, Cornelius (1970). "Chapter IX: Relativistic Mechanics". The Variational Principles
of Mechanics (4th ed.). Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-65067-8.
5. Tom Roberts & Siegmar Schleif (October 2007). "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" ([Link]
Usenet Physics FAQ. Retrieved 2008-09-17.
6. Albert Einstein (2001). Relativity: The Special and the General Theory ([Link]
com/books?id=idb7wJiB6SsC&pg=PA50) (Reprint of 1920 translation by Robert W.
Lawson ed.). Routledge. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-415-25384-0.
7. The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. I Ch. 15-9: Equivalence of mass and energy (https://
[Link]/I_15.html#Ch15-S9)
8. Sean Carroll, Lecture Notes on General Relativity, ch. 1, "Special relativity and flat
spacetime", [Link]
9. Koks, Don (2006). Explorations in Mathematical Physics: The Concepts Behind an Elegant
Language ([Link] (illustrated ed.). Springer
Science & Business Media. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-387-32793-8. Extract of page 234 ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=ObMb7l9-9loC&pg=PA234)
10. Steane, Andrew M. (2012). Relativity Made Relatively Easy ([Link]
s?id=75rCErZkh7EC) (illustrated ed.). OUP Oxford. p. 226. ISBN 978-0-19-966286-9.
Extract of page 226 ([Link]
11. Taylor, Edwin F.; Wheeler, John Archibald (1992). Spacetime Physics ([Link]
ails/spacetime_physics/) (2nd ed.). W. H. Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-2327-1.
12. Rindler, Wolfgang (1977). Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=0J_dwCmQThgC&pg=PT148) (illustrated ed.). Springer Science
& Business Media. p. §1,11 p. 7. ISBN 978-3-540-07970-5.
13. "James Clerk Maxwell: a force for physics" ([Link]
-force-for-physics/). Physics World. 2006-12-01. Retrieved 2024-03-22.
14. "November 1887: Michelson and Morley report their failure to detect the luminiferous ether"
([Link] [Link].
Retrieved 2024-03-22.
15. Michael Polanyi (1974) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, ISBN 0-
226-67288-3, footnote page 10–11: Einstein reports, via Dr N Balzas in response to
Polanyi's query, that "The Michelson–Morley experiment had no role in the foundation of the
theory." and "... the theory of relativity was not founded to explain its outcome at all". [1] (http
s://[Link]/books?id=0Rtu8kCpvz4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PT19)
16. Jeroen van Dongen (2009). "On the role of the Michelson–Morley experiment: Einstein in
Chicago". Archive for History of Exact Sciences. 63 (6): 655–663. arXiv:0908.1545 ([Link]
[Link]/abs/0908.1545). Bibcode:2009arXiv0908.1545V ([Link]
2009arXiv0908.1545V). doi:10.1007/s00407-009-0050-5 ([Link]
7-009-0050-5). S2CID 119220040 ([Link]
17. For a survey of such derivations, see Lucas and Hodgson, Spacetime and
Electromagnetism, 1990
18. Einstein, A., Lorentz, H. A., Minkowski, H., & Weyl, H. (1952). The Principle of Relativity: a
collection of original memoirs on the special and general theory of relativity ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=yECokhzsJYIC&pg=PA111). Courier Dover Publications. p. 111.
ISBN 978-0-486-60081-9.
19. Collier, Peter (2017). A Most Incomprehensible Thing: Notes Towards a Very Gentle
Introduction to the Mathematics of Relativity (3rd ed.). Incomprehensible Books.
ISBN 9780957389465.
20. Staley, Richard (2009), "Albert Michelson, the Velocity of Light, and the Ether Drift",
Einstein's generation. The origins of the relativity revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, ISBN 0-226-77057-5
21. David Morin (2007) Introduction to Classical Mechanics, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, chapter 11, Appendix I, ISBN 1-139-46837-5.
22. Miller, D. J. (2010). "A constructive approach to the special theory of relativity". American
Journal of Physics. 78 (6): 633–638. arXiv:0907.0902 ([Link]
Bibcode:2010AmJPh..78..633M ([Link]
doi:10.1119/1.3298908 ([Link] S2CID 20444859 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:20444859).
23. Callahan, James J. (2011). The Geometry of Spacetime: An Introduction to Special and
General Relativity. New York: Springer. ISBN 9781441931429.
24. P. G. Bergmann (1976) Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, Dover edition, Chapter IV,
page 36 ISBN 0-486-63282-2.
25. Mermin, N. David (1968). Space and Time in Special Relativity ([Link]
acetimeinspeci0000merm). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0881334203.
26. Robert Resnick (1968). Introduction to special relativity ([Link]
fsIRAQAAIAAJ). Wiley. pp. 62–63. ISBN 9780471717249.
27. Taylor, Edwin F.; Wheeler, John Archibald (1966). Spacetime Physics ([Link]
ails/spacetimephysics0000tayl) (1st ed.). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
28. Rindler, Wolfgang (1977). Essential Relativity (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
ISBN 978-0-387-10090-6.
29. Ashby, Neil (2003). "Relativity in the Global Positioning System" ([Link]
ov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894). Living Reviews in Relativity. 6 (1): 1.
Bibcode:2003LRR.....6....1A ([Link]
doi:10.12942/lrr-2003-1 ([Link] PMC 5253894 ([Link]
[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC5253894). PMID 28163638 ([Link]
[Link]/28163638).
30. Daniel Kleppner & David Kolenkow (1973). An Introduction to Mechanics ([Link]
g/details/introductiontome00dani/page/468). McGraw-Hill. pp. 468–70 ([Link]
tails/introductiontome00dani/page/468). ISBN 978-0-07-035048-9.
31. French, A. P. (1968). Special Relativity. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-
09793-5.
32. Lewis, Gilbert Newton; Tolman, Richard Chase (1909). "The Principle of Relativity, and Non-
Newtonian Mechanics" ([Link]
-Newtonian_Mechanics). Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 44
(25): 709–726. doi:10.2307/20022495 ([Link]
JSTOR 20022495 ([Link] Retrieved 22 August 2023.
33. Cuvaj, Camillo (1971). "Paul Langeyin and the Theory of Relativity" ([Link]
p/~sano/hssj/pdf/Cuvaj_C-1972-Langevin_Relativity-JSHS-No_10-[Link]) (PDF).
Japanese Studies in the History of Science. 10: 113–142. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
34. Cassidy, David C.; Holton, Gerald James; Rutherford, Floyd James (2002). Understanding
Physics ([Link] Springer-Verlag.
p. 422. ISBN 978-0-387-98756-9.
35. Cutner, Mark Leslie (2003). Astronomy, A Physical Perspective ([Link]
oks?id=2QVmiMW0O0MC&pg=PA128). Cambridge University Press. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-
521-82196-4.
36. Ellis, George F. R.; Williams, Ruth M. (2000). Flat and Curved Space-times ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=Hos31wty5WIC&pg=PA28) (2n ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 28–
29. ISBN 978-0-19-850657-7.
37. Feynman, Richard P.; Leighton, Robert B.; Sands, Matthew (2011). The feynman lectures
on physics; vol I: The new millennium edition ([Link]
[Link]). Basic Books. p. 15-5. ISBN 978-0-465-02414-8. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
38. Halliday, David; Resnick, Robert (1988). Fundamental Physics: Extended Third Edition. New
York: John Wiley & sons. pp. 958–959. ISBN 0-471-81995-6.
39. Adams, Steve (1997). Relativity: An introduction to space-time physics ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=1RV0AysEN4oC&pg=PA54). CRC Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-7484-0621-0.
40. Langevin, Paul (1911). "L'Évolution de l'espace et du temps" ([Link]
Translation:The_Evolution_of_Space_and_Time). Scientia. 10: 31–54. Retrieved 20 June
2023.
41. Debs, Talal A.; Redhead, Michael L.G. (1996). "The twin "paradox" and the conventionality
of simultaneity". American Journal of Physics. 64 (4): 384–392.
Bibcode:1996AmJPh..64..384D ([Link]
doi:10.1119/1.18252 ([Link]
42. Tolman, Richard C. (1917). The Theory of the Relativity of Motion ([Link]
m/books?id=8yodAAAAMAAJ&q=54). Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 54.
43. Takeuchi, Tatsu. "Special Relativity Lecture Notes – Section 10" ([Link]
takeuchi/relativity/notes/[Link]). Virginia Tech. Retrieved 31 October 2018.
44. Morin, David (2017). Special Relativity for the Enthusiastic Beginner. CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform. pp. 90–92. ISBN 9781542323512.
45. Gibbs, Philip. "Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible?" ([Link]
u/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/[Link]). Physics FAQ. Department of
Mathematics, University of California, Riverside. Retrieved 31 October 2018.
46. Ginsburg, David (1989). Applications of Electrodynamics in Theoretical Physics and
Astrophysics ([Link] (illustrated ed.). CRC
Press. p. 206. Bibcode:[Link].....G ([Link]
ok.....G). ISBN 978-2-88124-719-4. Extract of page 206 ([Link]
=Lh0tjaBNzg0C&pg=PA206)
47. Wesley C. Salmon (2006). Four Decades of Scientific Explanation ([Link]
m/books?id=FHqOXCd06e8C). University of Pittsburgh. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-8229-5926-7.,
Section 3.7 page 107 ([Link]
48. Lauginie, P. (2004). "Measuring Speed of Light: Why? Speed of what?" ([Link]
org/web/20150704043700/[Link] (PDF). Proceedings
of the Fifth International Conference for History of Science in Science Education. Archived
from the original ([Link] (PDF) on 4 July 2015.
Retrieved 3 July 2015.
49. Stachel, J. (2005). "Fresnel's (dragging) coefficient as a challenge to 19th century optics of
moving bodies" ([Link] In Kox,
A.J.; Eisenstaedt, J (eds.). The universe of general relativity. Boston: Birkhäuser. pp. 1–13.
ISBN 978-0-8176-4380-5. Retrieved 17 April 2012.
50. Richard A. Mould (2001). Basic Relativity ([Link]
C&pg=PA8) (2nd ed.). Springer. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-387-95210-9.
51. Seidelmann, P. Kenneth, ed. (1992). Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac
([Link]
9). ill Valley, Calif.: University Science Books. p. 393. ISBN 978-0-935702-68-2.
52. Ferraro, Rafael; Sforza, Daniel M. (2005). "European Physical Society logo Arago (1810):
the first experimental result against the ether". European Journal of Physics. 26 (1): 195–
204. arXiv:physics/0412055 ([Link]
Bibcode:2005EJPh...26..195F ([Link]
doi:10.1088/0143-0807/26/1/020 ([Link]
0). S2CID 119528074 ([Link]
53. Dolan, Graham. "Airy's Water Telescope (1870)" ([Link]
[Link]?article=1069). The Royal Observatory Greenwich. Retrieved 20 November
2018.
54. Hollis, H. P. (1937). "Airy's water telescope" ([Link]
3H/[Link]). The Observatory. 60: 103–107. Bibcode:1937Obs....60..103H (http
s://[Link]/abs/1937Obs....60..103H). Retrieved 20 November 2018.
55. Janssen, Michel; Stachel, John (2004). "The Optics and Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
([Link] (PDF). In Stachel, John (ed.). Going
Critical. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-1308-9.
56. Sher, D. (1968). "The Relativistic Doppler Effect" ([Link]
C..62..105S/[Link]). Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. 62:
105–111. Bibcode:1968JRASC..62..105S ([Link]
2..105S). Retrieved 11 October 2018.
57. Gill, T. P. (1965). The Doppler Effect. London: Logos Press Limited. pp. 6–9. OL 5947329M
([Link]
58. Feynman, Richard P.; Leighton, Robert B.; Sands, Matthew (February 1977). "Relativistic
Effects in Radiation" ([Link] The Feynman
Lectures on Physics: Volume 1. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. pp. 34–7 f.
ISBN 9780201021165. LCCN 2010938208 ([Link]
59. Cook, Helen. "Relativistic Distortion" ([Link]
k/). Mathematics Department, University of British Columbia. Retrieved 12 April 2017.
60. Signell, Peter. "Appearances at Relativistic Speeds" ([Link]
153459/[Link] (PDF). Project
PHYSNET. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/afs/athena/course/8/8.20/www/[Link]) (PDF) on 13 April 2017. Retrieved
12 April 2017.
61. Kraus, Ute. "The Ball is Round" ([Link]
[Link]/fussball/[Link]). Space Time Travel: Relativity visualized. Institut
für Physik Universität Hildesheim. Archived from the original ([Link]
g/fussball/[Link]) on 12 May 2017. Retrieved 16 April 2017.
62. Boas, Mary L. (1961). "Apparent Shape of Large Objects at Relativistic Speeds". American
Journal of Physics. 29 (5): 283. Bibcode:1961AmJPh..29..283B ([Link]
du/abs/1961AmJPh..29..283B). doi:10.1119/1.1937751 ([Link]
51).
63. Müller, Thomas; Boblest, Sebastian (2014). "Visual appearance of wireframe objects in
special relativity". European Journal of Physics. 35 (6): 065025. arXiv:1410.4583 ([Link]
[Link]/abs/1410.4583). Bibcode:2014EJPh...35f5025M ([Link]
14EJPh...35f5025M). doi:10.1088/0143-0807/35/6/065025 ([Link]
-0807%2F35%2F6%2F065025). S2CID 118498333 ([Link]
D:118498333).
64. Zensus, J. Anton; Pearson, Timothy J. (1987). Superluminal Radio Sources (1st ed.).
Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 3. ISBN 9780521345606.
65. Chase, Scott I. "Apparent Superluminal Velocity of Galaxies" ([Link]
z/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/Superluminal/[Link]). The Original Usenet
Physics FAQ. Department of Mathematics, University of California, Riverside. Retrieved
12 April 2017.
66. Richmond, Michael. " "Superluminal" motions in astronomical sources" ([Link]
org/web/20170216155045/[Link]
ml). Physics 200 Lecture Notes. School of Physics and Astronomy, Rochester Institute of
Technology. Archived from the original ([Link]
m/[Link]) on 16 February 2017. Retrieved 20 April 2017.
67. Keel, Bill. "Jets, Superluminal Motion, and Gamma-Ray Bursts" ([Link]
b/20170301030027/[Link] Galaxies and the
Universe – WWW Course Notes. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
Alabama. Archived from the original ([Link]
on 1 March 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
68. Max Jammer (1997). Concepts of Mass in Classical and Modern Physics ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=lYvz0_8aGsMC&pg=PA177). Courier Dover Publications. pp. 177–178.
ISBN 978-0-486-29998-3.
69. John J. Stachel (2002). Einstein from B to Z ([Link]
hrAC&pg=PA215). Springer. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-8176-4143-6.
70. Fernflores, Francisco (2018). Einstein's Mass–Energy Equation, Volume I: Early History and
Philosophical Foundations. New York: Momentum Pres. ISBN 978-1-60650-857-2.
71. Philip Gibbs & Don Koks. "The Relativistic Rocket" ([Link]
Relativity/SR/Rocket/[Link]). Retrieved 30 August 2012.
72. The special theory of relativity shows that time and space are affected by motion ([Link]
[Link]/C0116043/[Link]) Archived ([Link]
21021183616/[Link] 2012-10-21 at
the Wayback Machine. [Link]. Retrieved on 2013-04-24.
73. Idema, Timon (17 April 2019). "Mechanics and Relativity. Chapter 14: Relativistic Collisions"
([Link]
ativity_(Idema)/14%3A_Relativistic_Collisions). LibreTexts Physics. California State
University Affordable Learning Solutions Program. Retrieved 2 January 2023.
74. Nakel, Werner (1994). "The elementary process of bremsstrahlung". Physics Reports. 243
(6): 317–353. Bibcode:1994PhR...243..317N ([Link]
243..317N). doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)00068-9 ([Link]
94%2900068-9).
75. Halbert, M.L. (1972). "Review of Experiments on Nucleon-Nucleon Bremsstrahlung". In
Austin, S.M.; Crawley, G.M. (eds.). The Two-Body Force in Nuclei. Boston, MA.: Springer.
76. Thomas, George B.; Weir, Maurice D.; Hass, Joel; Giordano, Frank R. (2008). Thomas'
Calculus: Early Transcendentals (Eleventh ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 533.
ISBN 978-0-321-49575-4.
77. E. J. Post (1962). Formal Structure of Electromagnetics: General Covariance and
Electromagnetics. Dover Publications Inc. ISBN 978-0-486-65427-0.
78. Schutz, Bernard F. (1985). A first course in general relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. p. 26. ISBN 0521277035.
79. Gibbs, Philip. "Can Special Relativity Handle Acceleration?" ([Link]
physics/Relativity/SR/[Link]). The Physics and Relativity FAQ. [Link].
Archived ([Link]
sics/Relativity/SR/[Link]) from the original on 7 June 2017. Retrieved 28 May
2017.
80. Franklin, Jerrold (2010). "Lorentz contraction, Bell's spaceships, and rigid body motion in
special relativity". European Journal of Physics. 31 (2): 291–298. arXiv:0906.1919 ([Link]
[Link]/abs/0906.1919). Bibcode:2010EJPh...31..291F ([Link]
10EJPh...31..291F). doi:10.1088/0143-0807/31/2/006 ([Link]
7%2F31%2F2%2F006). S2CID 18059490 ([Link]
490).
81. Bais, Sander (2007). Very Special Relativity: An Illustrated Guide ([Link]
veryspecialrelat0000bais). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-
0-674-02611-7.
82. R. Resnick; R. Eisberg (1985). Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and
Particles ([Link] (2nd ed.). John
Wiley & Sons. pp. 114–116 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-471-87373-0.
83. Øyvind Grøn & Sigbjørn Hervik (2007). Einstein's general theory of relativity: with modern
applications in cosmology ([Link] Springer.
p. 195. ISBN 978-0-387-69199-2. Extract of page 195 (with units where c = 1) ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=IyJhCHAryuUC&pg=PA195)
84. The number of works is vast, see as example:
Sidney Coleman; Sheldon L. Glashow (1997). "Cosmic Ray and Neutrino Tests of Special
Relativity". Physics Letters B. 405 (3–4): 249–252. arXiv:hep-ph/9703240 ([Link]
bs/hep-ph/9703240). Bibcode:1997PhLB..405..249C ([Link]
7PhLB..405..249C). doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00638-2 ([Link]
0-2693%2897%2900638-2). S2CID 17286330 ([Link]
286330).
An overview can be found on this page ([Link]
y/SR/[Link])
85. Roberts, Tom; Schleif, Siegmar. "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with
SR/GR" ([Link]
nts_not_consistent_with_SR). What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?.
University of California at Riverside. Retrieved 10 July 2024.
86. John D. Norton, John D. (2004). "Einstein's Investigations of Galilean Covariant
Electrodynamics prior to 1905" ([Link] Archive for
History of Exact Sciences. 59 (1): 45–105. Bibcode:2004AHES...59...45N ([Link]
[Link]/abs/2004AHES...59...45N). doi:10.1007/s00407-004-0085-6 ([Link]
1007%2Fs00407-004-0085-6). S2CID 17459755 ([Link]
17459755).
87. J.A. Wheeler; C. Misner; K.S. Thorne (1973). Gravitation. W.H. Freeman & Co. p. 58.
ISBN 978-0-7167-0344-0.
88. J.R. Forshaw; A.G. Smith (2009). Dynamics and Relativity. Wiley. p. 247. ISBN 978-0-470-
01460-8.
89. R. Penrose (2007). The Road to Reality. Vintage books. ISBN 978-0-679-77631-4.
90. Jean-Bernard Zuber & Claude Itzykson, Quantum Field Theory, pg 5, ISBN 0-07-032071-3
91. Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne & John A. Wheeler, Gravitation, pg 51, ISBN 0-7167-
0344-0
92. George Sterman, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, pg 4, ISBN 0-521-31132-2
93. Sean M. Carroll (2004). Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity (http
s://[Link]/books?id=1SKFQgAACAAJ). Addison Wesley. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-
8053-8732-2.

Further reading
Texts by Einstein and text about history of special relativity
Einstein, Albert (1920). Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
Einstein, Albert (1996). The Meaning of Relativity. Fine Communications. ISBN 1-56731-
136-9
Logunov, Anatoly A. (2005). Henri Poincaré and the Relativity Theory ([Link]
hysics/0408077) (transl. from Russian by G. Pontocorvo and V. O. Soloviev, edited by V. A.
Petrov). Nauka, Moscow.

Textbooks
Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, and John Archibald Wheeler (1971) Gravitation. W. H. Freeman
& Co. ISBN 0-7167-0334-3
Post, E.J., 1997 (1962) Formal Structure of Electromagnetics: General Covariance and
Electromagnetics. Dover Publications.
Wolfgang Rindler (1991). Introduction to Special Relativity (2nd ed.), Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-853952-0; ISBN 0-19-853952-5
Harvey R. Brown (2005). Physical relativity: space–time structure from a dynamical
perspective, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-927583-1; ISBN 978-0-19-927583-0
Qadir, Asghar (1989). Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory ([Link]
com/books?id=X5YofYrqFoAC). Singapore: World Scientific Publications. p. 128.
Bibcode:[Link].....Q ([Link]
ISBN 978-9971-5-0612-4.
French, A. P. (1968). Special Relativity (M.I.T. Introductory Physics) (1st ed.). W. W. Norton
& Company. ISBN 978-0393097931.
Silberstein, Ludwik (1914). The Theory of Relativity.
Lawrence Sklar (1977). Space, Time and Spacetime ([Link]
PLXqV3QwuMC&pg=PA206). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-03174-6.
Lawrence Sklar (1992). Philosophy of Physics. Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-0625-4.
Sergey Stepanov (2018). Relativistic World ([Link]
CAAJ). De Gruyter. ISBN 9783110515879.
Taylor, Edwin, and John Archibald Wheeler (1992). Spacetime Physics (2nd ed.). W. H.
Freeman & Co. ISBN 0-7167-2327-1.
Tipler, Paul, and Llewellyn, Ralph (2002). Modern Physics (4th ed.). W. H. Freeman & Co.
ISBN 0-7167-4345-0.

Journal articles
Alvager, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L.; et al. (1964). "Test of the Second
Postulate of Special Relativity in the GeV region". Physics Letters. 12 (3): 260–262.
Bibcode:1964PhL....12..260A ([Link]
doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91095-9 ([Link]
5-9).
Darrigol, Olivier (2004). "The Mystery of the Poincaré–Einstein Connection". Isis. 95 (4):
614–26. doi:10.1086/430652 ([Link] PMID 16011297 (https://
[Link]/16011297). S2CID 26997100 ([Link]
pusID:26997100).
Wolf, Peter; Petit, Gerard (1997). "Satellite test of Special Relativity using the Global
Positioning System". Physical Review A. 56 (6): 4405–09. Bibcode:1997PhRvA..56.4405W
 ([Link] doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.56.4405
([Link]
Special Relativity ([Link] Scholarpedia
Rindler, Wolfgang (2011). "Special relativity: Kinematics" ([Link]
pedia.8520). Scholarpedia. 6 (2): 8520. Bibcode:2011SchpJ...6.8520R ([Link]
[Link]/abs/2011SchpJ...6.8520R). doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.8520 ([Link]
9%2Fscholarpedia.8520).

External links

Original works
Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper ([Link]
stein-papers/1905_17_891-[Link]) Einstein's original work in German, Annalen der Physik,
Bern 1905
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies ([Link]
[Link]) English Translation as published in the 1923 book The Principle of Relativity.

Special relativity for a general audience (no mathematical knowledge

required)
Einstein Light ([Link] An award ([Link]
[Link]?chanID=sa004&articleID=0005CFF9-524F-1340-924F83414B7F0000)-winning,
non-technical introduction (film clips and demonstrations) supported by dozens of pages of
further explanations and animations, at levels with or without mathematics.
Einstein Online ([Link] Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20100201234156/[Link]
ml) 2010-02-01 at the Wayback Machine Introduction to relativity theory, from the Max
Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.
Audio: Cain/Gay (2006) – Astronomy Cast ([Link]
ins-theory-of-special-relativity/). Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity

Special relativity explained (using simple or more advanced mathematics)

Bondi K-Calculus ([Link]
utotheist/Bondi/[Link]) – A simple introduction to the special theory of relativity.
Greg Egan's Foundations ([Link]
[Link]) Archived ([Link]
[Link]/FOUNDATIONS/01/[Link]) 2013-04-25 at the Wayback Machine.
The Hogg Notes on Special Relativity ([Link] A good introduction to
special relativity at the undergraduate level, using calculus.
Relativity Calculator: Special Relativity ([Link]
Archived ([Link]
E=[Link]) 2013-03-21 at the Wayback Machine – An algebraic and integral calculus
derivation for E = mc2.
MathPages – Reflections on Relativity ([Link] A complete
online book on relativity with an extensive bibliography.
 Special Relativity ([Link] An introduction to special relativity at the
undergraduate level.

Relativity: the Special and General Theory ([Link] at Project

Gutenberg, by Albert Einstein
Special Relativity Lecture Notes ([Link] is a
standard introduction to special relativity containing illustrative explanations based on
drawings and spacetime diagrams from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Understanding Special Relativity ([Link] The theory of
special relativity in an easily understandable way.
An Introduction to the Special Theory of Relativity ([Link]
z/49/) (1964) by Robert Katz, "an introduction ... that is accessible to any student who has
had an introduction to general physics and some slight acquaintance with the calculus" (130
pp; pdf format).
Lecture Notes on Special Relativity ([Link]
reNotes/[Link]) by J D Cresser Department of Physics Macquarie
University.
[Link] ([Link] – An overview with visualizations and
minimal mathematics.
Relativity 4-ever? ([Link] The problem of superluminal
motion is discussed in an entertaining manner.

Visualization
Raytracing Special Relativity ([Link]
Software visualizing several scenarios under the influence of special relativity.
Real Time Relativity ([Link] Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20130508021027/[Link] 2013-05-08
at the Wayback Machine The Australian National University. Relativistic visual effects
experienced through an interactive program.
Spacetime travel ([Link] A variety of visualizations of relativistic
effects, from relativistic motion to black holes.
Through Einstein's Eyes ([Link] Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20130514175026/[Link] 2013-05-
14 at the Wayback Machine The Australian National University. Relativistic visual effects
explained with movies and images.
Warp Special Relativity Simulator ([Link] A computer program
to show the effects of traveling close to the speed of light.
Animation clip ([Link] on YouTube visualizing
the Lorentz transformation.
Original interactive FLASH Animations ([Link]
tml) from John de Pillis illustrating Lorentz and Galilean frames, Train and Tunnel Paradox,
the Twin Paradox, Wave Propagation, Clock Synchronization, etc.
lightspeed ([Link] An OpenGL-based program developed to
illustrate the effects of special relativity on the appearance of moving objects.
Animation ([Link]
circles=on&avgstellardensity=0.11&starpopulation=yalebsc&limitingMag=5&projection=stere
ographic&anim=on&runningTime=8) showing the stars near Earth, as seen from a
spacecraft accelerating rapidly to light speed.
Retrieved from "[Link]