Special relativity

In physics, special relativity (SR, also

known as the special theory of relativity
or STR) is the generally accepted and
experimentally well-confirmed physical
theory regarding the relationship
between space and time. In Albert
Einstein's original pedagogical treatment,
it is based on two postulates:

1. the laws of physics are invariant (i.e.

identical) in all inertial systems (i.e. non-
accelerating frames of reference); and
2. the speed of light in a vacuum is the
same for all observers, regardless of the
motion of the light source.

Special relativity was originally proposed

by Albert Einstein in a paper published 26
September 1905 titled "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[p 1]
The inconsistency of Newtonian
mechanics with Maxwell's equations of
electromagnetism and the lack of
experimental confirmation for a
hypothesized luminiferous aether led to
the development of special relativity,
which corrects mechanics to handle
situations involving all motions and
especially those at a significant fraction
of the speed of light (known as
relativistic velocities). Today, special
relativity is the most accurate model of
motion at any speed when gravitational
effects are negligible. Even so, the
Newtonian mechanics model is still valid
as a simple and high accuracy
approximation at low velocities relative
to the speed of light.

Special relativity implies a wide range of

consequences, which have been
experimentally verified,[1] including length
contraction, time dilation, relativistic
mass, mass–energy equivalence, a
universal speed limit, the speed of
causality and relativity of simultaneity. It
has 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
E = mc2, where c is the speed of light in a
vacuum.[2][3]

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.
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.

Not until Einstein developed general

relativity, introducing a curved spacetime
to incorporate gravity, was the phrase
"special relativity" employed. A
translation that has often been used is
"restricted relativity"; "special" really
means "special case".[p 2][p 3][p 4][note 1]

The theory is "special" in that it only

applies in the special case where the
spacetime is flat, i.e., the curvature of
spacetime, described by the energy-
momentum tensor and causing gravity, is
negligible.[4][note 2] In order to correctly
accommodate gravity, Einstein
formulated general relativity in 1915.
Special relativity, contrary to some
outdated descriptions, is capable of
handling accelerations as well as
accelerated frames of reference.[5][6]

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, i.e. at a sufficiently
small scale (for example, for tidal forces)
and in conditions of free fall. Whereas
general relativity incorporates
noneuclidean geometry in order 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,[7] 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.[8]
Albert Einstein around 1905, the year his "Annus
Mirabilis papers" were published. These included
Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, the paper
founding special relativity.

Traditional "two postulates"

approach to special
relativity
“
Reflections of this type made it
clear to me as long ago as
shortly after 1900, i.e., shortly
after Planck's trailblazing work,
that neither mechanics nor
electrodynamics could (except
in limiting cases) claim exact
validity. Gradually I despaired of
the possibility of discovering
the true laws by means of
constructive efforts based on
known facts. The longer and the
more desperately I tried, the
more I came to the conviction
that only the discovery of a
universal formal principle could
lead us to assured results...
 ”
How, then, could such a
universal principle be found?
— Albert Einstein: Autobiographical Notes[p 5]

Einstein discerned two fundamental

propositions that seemed to be the most
assured, regardless of the exact validity
of the (then) known laws of either
mechanics or electrodynamics. These
propositions were the constancy of the
speed of light in a vacuum and the
independence of physical laws
(especially the constancy of the speed of
light) from the choice of inertial system.
In his initial presentation of special
relativity in 1905 he expressed these
postulates as:[p 1]
The Principle of Relativity – the laws
by which the states of physical
systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of
state be referred to the one or the
other of two systems in uniform
translatory motion relative to each
other.[p 1]
The Principle of Invariant Light Speed
– "... light is 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 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 and the lack of
evidence for the luminiferous ether.
There is conflicting evidence on the
extent to which Einstein was influenced
by the null result of the Michelson–
Morley experiment.[9][10] 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.[11] However, 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.[12]
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
Figure 2-1. The primed system is in motio n relative
to the unprimed system with constant v elocity v only
along the x-axis, from the perspective of an observer
stationary in the unprimed system. By the principle
of relativity, an observer stationary in the primed
system will view a likewise construction ex cept that
the velocity they record will be −v. The changing of
the speed of propagation of interaction from infinite
in non-relativistic mechanics to a finite value will
require a modification of the transformation
equations mapping events in one frame to another.

Reference frames play a crucial role in

relativity theory. The term reference
frame as used here is an observational
perspective in space which 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 reference frame, pulses of
light can be used to unambiguously
measure distances and refer back the
times that events occurred to the clock,
even though light takes time to reach the
clock after the event has transpired.

For example, the explosion of a

firecracker may be considered to be an
"event". We can completely specify an
event by its four spacetime coordinates:
The time of occurrence and its 3-
dimensional spatial location define a
reference point. Let's call this reference
frame S.

In relativity theory, we often want to

calculate the coordinates of an event
from differing reference frames. The
equations that relate measurements
made in different frames are called
transformation equations.

Standard configuration

To gain insight in 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.[13]: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' doesn't 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. However, in the late
19th century, the existence of
electromagnetic waves led physicists to
suggest that the universe was filled with
a substance that they called "aether",
which, they postulated, would act as the
medium through which these waves, or
vibrations, propagated. The aether was
thought to be an absolute reference
frame against which all speeds could be
measured, and could be considered fixed
and motionless. Aether supposedly
possessed some wonderful properties: it
was sufficiently elastic to support
electromagnetic waves, and those waves
could interact with matter, yet it offered
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.[14] 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][15]
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
light-speed invariance. 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 ph ysics
are invariant with respect to
Lorentz transformations (for
the transition from one iner tial
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.[16]
Textbooks starting with the single
postulate of Minkowski spacetime
include those by Taylor and Wheeler[17]
and by Callahan.[18] 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 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′ 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 above four transformation

equations for the unprimed coordinates
yields the inverse Lorentz transformation:

Enforcing this inverse Lorentz

transformation to coincide with the
Lorentz transformation from the primed
to the unprimed system, shows the
unprimed frame as moving with the
velocity v′ = −v, as measured in the
primed frame.

There is nothing special about the x-axis.

The transformation can apply to the y- or
z-axis, or indeed in any direction, which
can be done by directions parallel to the
motion (which are warped by the γ
factor) and perpendicular; see the article
Lorentz transformation for details.

A quantity 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.[15]

To draw a spacetime diagram, begin by

considering two Galilean reference
frames, S and S', in standard
configuration, as shown in
Fig. 2‑1.[15][19]: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.
The frames are actually equivalent. The
asymmetry is due to unavoidable
distortions in how spacetime coordinates
map onto a Cartesian plane. By analogy,
planar maps of the world are unavoidably
distorted, but with experience and
intuition, one learns to mentally account
for these distortions.
Consequences derived from
the Lorentz transformation
The consequences of special relativity
can be derived from the Lorentz
transformation equations.[20] 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, length (  )[note 3]

and temporal separation between two
events (  ) are independent invariants,
the values of which do not change when
observed from different frames of
reference.[note 4][note 5]

In special relativity, however, the

interweaving of spatial and temporal
coordinates generates the concept of an
invariant interval, denoted as   :

 
[note 6]
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 7] 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, i.e. Lorentz
boosts, in the x-direction) with all other
translations, reflections, and rotations
between any Cartesian inertial
frame.[24]: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:[15]
  
 

 
 

The value of   is hence independent

of the frame in which it is measured.

In considering the physical significance

of   , there are three cases to
note:[15][25]: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. The
temporal order of timelike-separated
events, however, 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.

Relativity of simultaneity

Figure 4-1. The three events (A, B, C) are

simultaneous in the reference frame of some
observer O. In a reference frame moving at v = 0.3c,
as measured by O, the events occur in the order C, B,
A. In a reference frame moving at v = -0.5c with
respect to O, the events occur in the order A, B, C.
The white lines, the lines of simultaneity, move from
the past to the future in the respective frames
(green coordinate axes), highlighting events residing
on it. They are the locus of all events occurring at
on it. They are the locus of all events occurring at
the same time in the respective frame. The gray area
is the light cone with respect to the origin of all
considered frames.

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 inertial frame S′ (satisfying
Δt′ = 0). Only if these events are
additionally co-local in frame S
(satisfying Δx = 0), will they be
simultaneous in another frame S′.

The Sagnac effect can be considered a

manifestation of the relativity of
simultaneity.[26] Since relativity of
simultaneity is a first order effect in   ,[15]
instruments based on the Sagnac effect
for their operation, such as ring laser
gyroscopes and fiber optic gyroscopes,
are capable of extreme levels of
sensitivity.[p 14]

Time dilation

The time lapse between two events is not

invariant from one observer to another,
but is dependent on the relative speeds
of the observers' reference frames (e.g.,
the twin paradox which concerns a twin
who flies off in a spaceship traveling
near the speed of light and returns to
discover that the non-traveling twin
sibling has aged much more, the paradox
being that at constant velocity we are
unable to discern which twin is non-
traveling and which twin travels).
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.[27]

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 3
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 which
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

Eq. 7:     
Eq. 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
  :
 Eq. 9:   
 

The inverse relation is obtained by

interchanging the primed and unprimed
symbols and replacing   with  

Eq. 10:     

For   not aligned along the x-axis, we

write:[8]:47-49
 Eq. 11:     
 
Eq. 12:     
 

The forward and inverse transformations

for this case are:

Eq. 13:       

   

Eq. 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).[8]:47-49

We note the following points:

If an object (for example, 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 (that is, e.g., | uc | ≪ 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
 Figure 4-2. Thomas-Wigner 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. 4‑2a, 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. 4‑2b, the same rod is observed

from the frame of a rocket moving at
speed   to the right. If we imagine two
clocks situated 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.[25]: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.[25]:169–174

Thomas rotation provides the resolution

to the well-known "meter stick and hole
paradox".[p 15][25]:98–99

Causality and prohibition of

motion faster than light
Figure 4-3. Light cone

In Fig. 4‑3, the time interval between the

events A (the "cause") and B (the "effect")
is 'time-like'; i.e., 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 'space-

like'; i.e., there is a frame of reference in
which events A and C occur
simultaneously, separated only in space.
There are also frames in which A
precedes C (as shown) and frames in
which C precedes A. However, there are
no frames 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, then 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).[28][p 16] A variety of causal
paradoxes could then be constructed.

Figure 4-4. Causality violation by the use of fictitious

"instantaneous communicators"
Consider the spacetime diagrams in
Fig. 4‑4. 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 in
their train, as observed from the ground.

1. Fig. 4‑4a. 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. 4‑4b. 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, B
will receive the message before having
sent it out, a violation of causality.[29]

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.[30]

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" move faster than light.[31] 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
we should be clear that this does not
violate causality or any other relativistic
phenomenon).[32][33]

Optical effects
Dragging effects

Figure 5-1. Highly simplified diagram of Fizeau's

1851 experiment.

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.[34] The
speed of light was measured in still
water. What would be the speed of light
in flowing water?

In 1851, Fizeau conducted an experiment

to answer 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
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-bourne 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 8] 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.[35]

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.[24]

   

 
  

Relativistic aberration of light

Figure 5-2. Illustration of stellar aberration

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.[36] (2) If the source is in
motion, the displacement would be the
consequence of light-time correction.
The displacement of the apparent
position of the source from its geometric
position would be the result of the
source's motion during the time that its
light takes to reach the receiver.[37]

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,[38] 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.[39]
A "cumbrous" attempt to explain these
results used the hypothesis of partial
aether-drag,[40] but was incompatible
with the results of the Michelson–Morley
experiment, which apparently demanded
complete aether-drag.[41]

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[24]: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.[42][43]

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.[44][15]

Transverse Doppler effect

Figure 5-3. Transverse Doppler effect for two

scenarios: (a) receiver moving in a circle around the
source; (b) source moving in a circle around the
receiver.

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.[15] 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.
Measurement versus visual
appearance

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. For
example, considering time, the elapsed
time between two events, measured by
identical clocks held by different
observers which are moving relative to
one another (measured perhaps in
seconds), is different.
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
hypothetical snapshot of all of the
object's points as they exist at a single
moment in time. The visual appearance
of an object, however, is affected by the
varying lengths of time that light takes to
travel from different points on the object
to one's eye.

Figure 5-4. Comparison of the measured length

Figure 5-4. Comparison of the measured length
contraction of a cube versus its visual appearance.

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 object's visual appearance being
quite different from its measured shape.
For example, a receding object would
appear contracted, an approaching
object would appear elongated, and a
passing object would have a skew
appearance that has been likened to a
rotation.[p 19][p 20][45][46] A sphere in
motion retains the appearance of a
sphere, although images on the surface
of the sphere will appear distorted.[47]

Figure 5-5. Galaxy M87 streams out a black-hole-

powered jet of electrons and other sub-atomic
particles traveling at nearly the speed of light.

Fig. 5‑4 illustrates a cube 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. This illusion has come to be
known as Terrell rotation or the Terrell–
Penrose effect.[note 9]

Another example where visual

appearance is at odds with measurement
comes from the observation of apparent
superluminal motion in various radio
galaxies, BL Lac objects, 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.[48][49][50] In Fig. 5‑5, 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.[51]

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 don't 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 21]
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.[52] Other
authors suggest that the argument was
merely inconclusive because it relied on
some implicit assumptions.[53]

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 22][note 10]

How far can one travel from

the Earth?

Since one can not travel faster than light,

one might conclude that a human can
never travel farther from Earth than 40
light years if the traveler is active
between the ages of 20 and 60. One
would easily think that a traveler would
never be able to reach more than the very
few solar systems which exist within the
limit of 20–40 light years from the earth.
But that would be a mistaken conclusion.
Because of time dilation, a hypothetical
spaceship can travel thousands of light
years during the pilot's 40 active years. If
a spaceship could be built that
accelerates at a constant 1g, it will, after
a little less than a 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 1g and t is the time as
measured by people on Earth.[p 23]
Therefore, after one year of accelerating
at 9.81 m/s2, the spaceship will be
travelling at v = 0.77c relative to Earth.
Time dilation will increase the travellers
life span as seen from the reference
frame of the Earth to 2.7 years, but his
lifespan measured by a clock travelling
with him will not change. During his
journey, people on Earth will experience
more time than he does. A 5-year round
trip for him will take 6.5 Earth years and
cover a distance of over 6 light-years. A
20-year round trip for him (5 years
accelerating, 5 decelerating, twice each)
will land him back on Earth having
travelled for 335 Earth years and a
distance of 331 light years.[54] 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 1.1g
will take 148,000 Earth 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.[54] This same time
dilation is why a muon travelling close to
c is observed to travel much further than
c times its half-life (when at rest).[55]

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, i.e. in the language of
tensor calculus.[56]

Theories of relativity and

quantum mechanics
Special relativity can be combined with
quantum mechanics to form relativistic
quantum mechanics and quantum
electrodynamics. It is an unsolved
problem in physics how general relativity
and quantum mechanics can be unified;
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.[57]

In 1928, Paul Dirac constructed an

influential relativistic wave equation, now
known as the Dirac equation in his
honour,[p 24] that is fully compatible both
with special relativity and with the final
version of quantum theory existing after
1926. This equation explained not only
the intrinsic angular momentum of the
electrons called spin, it also led to the
prediction of the antiparticle of the
electron (the positron),[p 24][p 25] and fine
structure could only be fully explained
with special relativity. It was the first
foundation of relativistic quantum
mechanics. In non-relativistic quantum
mechanics, spin is phenomenological
and cannot be explained.

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.[58] 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. However, at
macroscopic scales and in the absence
of strong gravitational fields, special
relativity is experimentally tested to
extremely high degree of accuracy
(10−20)[59] and thus accepted by the
physics community. Experimental results
which appear to contradict it are not
reproducible and are thus widely believed
to be due to experimental errors.

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,[60] 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.[10]

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 doesn't lead to
 birefringence for a co-moving observer,
in accordance with the relativity
principle.

Particle accelerators routinely accelerate

and measure the properties of particles
moving at near the speed of light, where
their behavior is completely 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
Figure 10-1. Orthogonality and rotation of
coordinate systems compared between left:
Euclidean space through circular angle φ, right: in
Minkowski spacetime through hyperbolic angle φ
(red lines labelled c denote the worldlines of a light
signal, a vector is orthogonal to itself if it lies on this
line).[61]

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

where dx = (dx1, dx2, dx3) are the

differentials of the three spatial
dimensions. In Minkowski geometry,
there is an extra dimension with
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).[62] 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.[63] 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

Figure 10-2. Three-dimensional dual-cone.

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

 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

Figure 10-3. Concentric spheres, illustrating in 3-

space the null geodesics of a 4-dimensional cone in
spacetime.

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 which 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 null geodesic "line of
sight".)
The cone in the −t region is the
information that the point is '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.

Note that, in 4d spacetime, the concept

of the center of mass becomes more
complicated, see center of mass
(relativistic).

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, i.e. for a boost in the
x direction, can be recast into matrix
form as follows:
  

In Newtonian mechanics, quantities

which 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.[64][65][66] 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's the

covariant derivative which 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[67]

 
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 in any
inertial reference frame) 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 which
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 doesn't 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
doesn't 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:

Note that 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
which 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, i.e. dp/dt while the four
force is defined by the rate of change of
momentum with respect to proper time,
i.e. 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: Hendrik Lorentz | Henri
Poincaré | Albert Einstein | Max Planck
| Hermann Minkowski | Max von Laue |
Arnold Sommerfeld | Max Born |
Gustav Herglotz | Richard C. Tolman
Relativity: Theory of relativity | History
of special relativity | Principle of
relativity | Doubly special relativity |
General relativity | Frame of reference |
Inertial frame of reference | Lorentz
transformations | Bondi k-calculus |
Einstein synchronisation | Rietdijk–
Putnam argument | Special relativity
(alternative formulations) | Criticism of
relativity theory | Relativity priority
dispute
Physics: Einstein's thought
experiments | Newtonian Mechanics |
spacetime | speed of light |
simultaneity | center of mass
(relativistic) | physical cosmology |
Doppler effect | relativistic Euler
equations | Aether drag hypothesis |
Lorentz ether theory | Moving magnet
and conductor problem | Shape waves
| Relativistic heat conduction |
Relativistic disk | Thomas precession |
Born rigidity | Born coordinates
Mathematics: Derivations of the
Lorentz transformations | Minkowski
space | four-vector | world line | light
cone | Lorentz group | Poincaré group |
geometry | tensors | split-complex
number | Relativity in the APS
formalism
Philosophy: actualism |
conventionalism | formalism
 Paradoxes: Twin paradox | Ehrenfest
paradox | Ladder paradox | Bell's
spaceship paradox | Velocity
composition paradox | Lighthouse
paradox

Primary sources
1. Albert Einstein (1905) "Zur
Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper ",
Annalen der Physik 17: 891; English
translation On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies 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. 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. Lorentz, H.A. (1902). "The rotation of
the plane of polarization in moving
media" (PDF). Huygens Institute - Royal
Netherlands Academy of Arts and
Sciences (KNAW). 4: 669–678.
Bibcode:1901KNAB....4..669L . Retrieved
15 November 2018.
12. Lorentz, H. A. (1904).
"Electromagnetic phenomena in a system
moving with any velocity smaller than that
of light" (PDF). Huygens Institute - Royal
Netherlands Academy of Arts and
Sciences (KNAW). 6: 809–831.
Bibcode:1903KNAB....6..809L . Retrieved
15 November 2018.
13. Lorentz, Hendrik (1895). "Investigation
of oscillations excited by oscillating
ions" . Attempt at a Theory of Electrical
and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies
(Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen
und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten
Körpern) . Leiden: E. J. Brill. (subsection §
31).
14. 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 .
doi:10.1364/AO.18.000915 .
PMID 20208844 .
15. Shaw, R. (1962). "Length Contraction
Paradox". American Journal of Physics.
30 (1): 72.
Bibcode:1962AmJPh..30...72S .
doi:10.1119/1.1941907 .
16. G. A. Benford; D. L. Book & W. A.
Newcomb (1970). "The Tachyonic
Antitelephone". Physical Review D. 2 (2):
263. Bibcode:1970PhRvD...2..263B .
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.2.263 .
17. Zeeman, Pieter (1914). "Fresnel's
coefficient for light of different colours.
(First part)" . Proc. Kon. Acad. Van Weten.
17: 445–451.
Bibcode:1914KNAB...17..445Z .
18. Zeeman, Pieter (1915). "Fresnel's
coefficient for light of different colours.
(Second part)" . Proc. Kon. Acad. Van
Weten. 18: 398–408.
Bibcode:1915KNAB...18..398Z .
19. Terrell, James (15 November 1959).
"Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction".
Physical Review. 116 (4): 1041–1045.
Bibcode:1959PhRv..116.1041T .
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.116.1041 .
20. Penrose, Roger (24 October 2008).
"The Apparent Shape of a Relativistically
Moving Sphere". Mathematical
Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society. 55 (1): 137.
Bibcode:1959PCPS...55..137P .
doi:10.1017/S0305004100033776 .
21. Does the inertia of a body depend
upon its energy content? A. Einstein,
Annalen der Physik. 18:639, 1905 (English
translation by W. Perrett and G.B. Jeffery)
22. On the Inertia of Energy Required by
the Relativity Principle , A. Einstein,
Annalen der Physik 23 (1907): 371–384
23. Baglio, Julien (26 May 2007).
"Acceleration in special relativity: What is
the meaning of "uniformly accelerated
movement" ?" (PDF). Physics
Department, ENS Cachan. Retrieved
22 January 2016.
24. P.A.M. Dirac (1930). "A Theory of
Electrons and Protons" (PDF).
Proceedings of the Royal Society. A126
(801): 360–365.
Bibcode:1930RSPSA.126..360D .
doi:10.1098/rspa.1930.0013 .
JSTOR 95359 .
25. C.D. Anderson (1933). "The Positive
Electron". Phys. Rev. 43 (6): 491–494.
Bibcode:1933PhRv...43..491A .
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.43.491 .

References
1. Tom Roberts & Siegmar Schleif
(October 2007). "What is the experimental
basis of Special Relativity?" . Usenet
Physics FAQ. Retrieved 2008-09-17.
2. Albert Einstein (2001). Relativity: The
Special and the General Theory (Reprint
of 1920 translation by Robert W. Lawson
ed.). Routledge. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-415-
25384-0.
3. Richard Phillips Feynman (1998). Six
Not-so-easy Pieces: Einstein's relativity,
symmetry, and space–time (Reprint of
1995 ed.). Basic Books. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-
201-32842-4.
4. Sean Carroll, Lecture Notes on General
Relativity, ch. 1, "Special relativity and flat
spacetime,"
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March
01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html
5. Koks, Don (2006). Explorations in
Mathematical Physics: The Concepts
Behind an Elegant Language (illustrated
ed.). Springer Science & Business Media.
p. 234. ISBN 978-0-387-32793-8. Extract
of page 234
6. Steane, Andrew M. (2012). Relativity
Made Relatively Easy (illustrated ed.).
OUP Oxford. p. 226. ISBN 978-0-19-
966286-9. Extract of page 226
7. Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald
Wheeler (1992). Spacetime Physics:
Introduction to Special Relativity. W. H.
Freeman. ISBN 978-0-7167-2327-1.
8. Rindler, Wolfgang (1977). Essential
Relativity: Special, General, and
Cosmological (illustrated ed.). Springer
Science & Business Media. p. §1,11 p. 7.
ISBN 978-3-540-07970-5.
9. 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]
10. 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 .
Bibcode:2009arXiv0908.1545V .
doi:10.1007/s00407-009-0050-5 .
11. For a survey of such derivations, see
Lucas and Hodgson, Spacetime and
Electromagnetism, 1990
12. 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 . Courier Dover Publications.
p. 111. ISBN 978-0-486-60081-9.
13. Collier, Peter (2017). A Most
Incomprehensible Thing: Notes Towards a
Very Gentle Introduction to the
Mathematics of Relativity (3rd ed.).
Incomprehensible Books.
ISBN 9780957389465.
14. 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
15. David Morin (2007) Introduction to
Classical Mechanics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, chapter 11,
Appendix I, ISBN 1-139-46837-5.
16. Miller, D. J. (2010). "A constructive
approach to the special theory of
relativity". American Journal of Physics.
78 (6): 633–638. arXiv:0907.0902 .
Bibcode:2010AmJPh..78..633M .
doi:10.1119/1.3298908 .
17. Taylor, Edwin; Wheeler, John Archibald
(1992). Spacetime Physics (2nd ed.). W.H.
Freeman & Co. ISBN 978-0-7167-2327-1.
18. Callahan, James J. (2011). The
Geometry of Spacetime: An Introduction
to Special and General Relativity. New
York: Springer. ISBN 9781441931429.
19. Mermin, N. David (1968). Space and
Time in Special Relativity. McGraw-Hill.
ISBN 978-0881334203.
20. Robert Resnick (1968). Introduction to
special relativity . Wiley. pp. 62–63.
21. Miller, Arthur I. (1998). Albert
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity:
Emergence (1905) and Early
Interpretation (1905-1911). Mew York:
Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-94870-6.
22. Bernstein, Jeremy (2006). Secrets of
the Old One: Einstein, 1905. Copernicus
Books (imprint of Springer Science +
Business Media). ISBN 978-0387-26005-
1.
23. Darrigol, Olivier (2005). "The Genesis
of the Theory of Relativity" (PDF).
Séminaire Poincaré. 1: 1–22.
Bibcode:2006eins.book....1D . Retrieved
15 November 2018.
24. Rindler, Wolfgang (1977). Essential
Relativity (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-
Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-10090-6.
25. Taylor, Edwin F.; Wheeler, John
Archibald (1966). Spacetime Physics (1st
ed.). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and
Company.
26. Ashby, Neil (2003). "Relativity in the
Global Positioning System" . Living
Reviews in Relativity. 6 (1): 1.
Bibcode:2003LRR.....6....1A .
doi:10.12942/lrr-2003-1 . PMC 5253894 .
PMID 28163638 .
27. Daniel Kleppner & David Kolenkow
(1973). An Introduction to Mechanics.
pp. 468–70. ISBN 978-0-07-035048-9.
28. Tolman, Richard C. (1917). The Theory
of the Relativity of Motion . Berkeley:
University of California Press. p. 54.
29. Takeuchi, Tatsu. "Special Relativity
Lecture Notes - Section 10" . Virginia
Tech. Retrieved 31 October 2018.
30. Morin, David (2017). Special Relativity
for the Enthusiastic Beginner.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform. pp. 90–92.
ISBN 9781542323512.
31. Gibbs, Philip. "Is Faster-Than-Light
Travel or Communication Possible?" .
Physics FAQ. Department of Mathematics,
University of California, Riverside.
Retrieved 31 October 2018.
32. Ginsburg, David (1989). Applications
of Electrodynamics in Theoretical Physics
and Astrophysics (illustrated ed.). CRC
Press. p. 206.
Bibcode:1989aetp.book.....G . ISBN 978-2-
88124-719-4. Extract of page 206
33. Wesley C. Salmon (2006). Four
Decades of Scientific Explanation .
University of Pittsburgh. p. 107. ISBN 978-
0-8229-5926-7., Section 3.7 page 107
34. Lauginie, P. (2004). "Measuring Speed
of Light: Why? Speed of what?" (PDF).
Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference for History of Science in
Science Education. Archived from the
original (PDF) on 4 July 2015. Retrieved
3 July 2015.
35. Stachel, J. (2005). "Fresnel's
(dragging) coefficient as a challenge to
19th century optics of moving bodies" . In
Kox, A.J.; Eisenstaedt, J. The universe of
general relativity. Boston: Birkhäuser.
pp. 1–13. ISBN 978-0-8176-4380-5.
Retrieved 17 April 2012.
36. Richard A. Mould (2001). Basic
Relativity (2nd ed.). Springer. p. 8.
ISBN 978-0-387-95210-9.
37. Seidelmann, P. Kenneth, ed. (1992).
Explanatory Supplement to the
Astronomical Almanac . ill Valley, Calif.:
University Science Books. p. 393.
ISBN 978-0-935702-68-2.
38. Ferraro, Rafael; Sforza, Daniel M.
(2005). "European Physical Society logo
Arago (1810): the first experimental result
against the ether". European Journal of
Physics. 26: 195. arXiv:physics/0412055 .
doi:10.1088/0143-0807/26/1/020 .
39. Dolan, Graham. "Airy's Water
Telescope (1870)" . The Royal
Observatory Greenwich. Retrieved
20 November 2018.
40. Hollis, H. P. (1937). "Airy's water
telescope" . The Observatory. 60: 103–
107. Bibcode:1937Obs....60..103H .
Retrieved 20 November 2018.
41. Janssen, Michel; Stachel, John (2004).
"The Optics and Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies" (PDF). In Stachel, John.
Going Critical. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-
1308-9.
42. Sher, D. (1968). "The Relativistic
Doppler Effect" . Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada. 62:
105–111. Retrieved 11 October 2018.
43. Gill, T. P. (1965). The Doppler Effect .
London: Logos Press Limited. pp. 6–9.
Retrieved 12 October 2018.
44. Feynman, Richard P.; Leighton, Robert
B.; Sands, Matthew (February 1977).
"Relativistic Effects in Radiation" . The
Feynman Lectures on Physics: Volume 1.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
pp. 34–7 f. ISBN 9780201021165.
LCCN 2010938208 .
45. Cook, Helen. "Relativistic Distortion" .
Mathematics Department, University of
British Columbia. Retrieved 12 April 2017.
46. Signell, Peter. "Appearances at
Relativistic Speeds" (PDF). Project
PHYSNET. Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI. Archived from the original
(PDF) on 12 April 2017. Retrieved 12 April
2017.
47. Kraus, Ute. "The Ball is Round" . Space
Time Travel: Relativity visualized. Institut
für Physik Universität Hildesheim.
Archived from the original on 16 April
2017. Retrieved 16 April 2017.
48. Zensus, J. Anton; Pearson, Timothy J.
(1987). Superluminal Radio Sources (1st
ed.). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press. p. 3.
ISBN 9780521345606.
49. Chase, Scott I. "Apparent Superluminal
Velocity of Galaxies" . The Original Usenet
Physics FAQ. Department of Mathematics,
University of California, Riverside.
Retrieved 12 April 2017.
50. Richmond, Michael. " "Superluminal"
motions in astronomical sources" .
Physics 200 Lecture Notes. School of
Physics and Astronomy, Rochester
Institute of Technology. Archived from the
original on 20 April 2017. Retrieved
20 April 2017.
51. Keel, Bill. "Jets, Superluminal Motion,
and Gamma-Ray Bursts" . Galaxies and
the Universe - WWW Course Notes.
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Alabama. Archived from the
original on 29 April 2017. Retrieved
29 April 2017.
52. Max Jammer (1997). Concepts of
Mass in Classical and Modern Physics .
Courier Dover Publications. pp. 177–178.
ISBN 978-0-486-29998-3.
53. John J. Stachel (2002). Einstein from
B to Z . Springer. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-
8176-4143-6.
54. Philip Gibbs & Don Koks. "The
Relativistic Rocket" . Retrieved 30 August
2012.
55. The special theory of relativity shows
that time and space are affected by
motion Archived 2012-10-21 at the
Wayback Machine. Library.thinkquest.org.
Retrieved on 2013-04-24.
56. E. J. Post (1962). Formal Structure of
Electromagnetics: General Covariance
and Electromagnetics. Dover Publications
Inc. ISBN 978-0-486-65427-0.
57. R. Resnick; R. Eisberg (1985).
Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules,
Solids, Nuclei and Particles (2nd ed.).
John Wiley & Sons. pp. 114–116.
ISBN 978-0-471-87373-0.
58. Øyvind Grøn & Sigbjørn Hervik (2007).
Einstein's general theory of relativity: with
modern applications in cosmology .
Springer. p. 195. ISBN 978-0-387-69199-2.
Extract of page 195 (with units where
c=1)
59. 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 .
Bibcode:1997PhLB..405..249C .
doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00638-2 .
An overview can be found on this page
60. John D. Norton, John D. (2004).
"Einstein's Investigations of Galilean
Covariant Electrodynamics prior to
1905" . Archive for History of Exact
Sciences. 59 (1): 45–105.
Bibcode:2004AHES...59...45N .
doi:10.1007/s00407-004-0085-6 .
61. J.A. Wheeler; C. Misner; K.S. Thorne
(1973). Gravitation. W.H. Freeman & Co.
p. 58. ISBN 978-0-7167-0344-0.
62. J.R. Forshaw; A.G. Smith (2009).
Dynamics and Relativity. Wiley. p. 247.
ISBN 978-0-470-01460-8.
63. R. Penrose (2007). The Road to
Reality. Vintage books. ISBN 978-0-679-
77631-4.
64. Jean-Bernard Zuber & Claude
Itzykson, Quantum Field Theory, pg 5,
ISBN 0-07-032071-3
65. Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne &
John A. Wheeler, Gravitation, pg 51,
ISBN 0-7167-0344-0
66. George Sterman, An Introduction to
Quantum Field Theory, pg 4 , ISBN 0-521-
31132-2
67. Sean M. Carroll (2004). Spacetime
and Geometry: An Introduction to General
Relativity . Addison Wesley. p. 22.
ISBN 978-0-8053-8732-2.

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 4 with a flat
metric of Lorentz signature defined on it.
Conversely, the entire content of special
relativity ... is contained in this statement
..."
3. In a spacetime setting, the length of a
rigid object is the spatial distance
between the ends of the object measured
at the same time.
4. The results of the Michelson–Morley
experiment led George Francis FitzGerald
and Hendrik Lorentz independently to
propose the phenomenon of length
contraction. Lorentz believed that length
contraction represented a physical
contraction of the atoms making up an
object. He envisioned no fundamental
change in the nature of space and
time.[21]:62–68
     Lorentz expected that length
contraction would result in compressive
strains in an object that should result in
measurable effects. Such effects would
include optical effects in transparent
media, such as optical rotation[p 11] and
induction of double refraction,[p 12] and
the induction of torques on charged
condensers moving at an angle with
respect to the aether.[p 12] Lorentz was
perplexed by experiments such as the
Trouton–Noble experiment and the
experiments of Rayleigh and Brace which
failed to validate his theoretical
expectations.[21]
5. For mathematical consistency, Lorentz
proposed a new time variable, the "local
time", called that because it depended on
the position of a moving body, following
the relation   .[p 13] Lorentz
considered local time not to be "real";
rather, it represented an ad hoc change of
variable.[22]:51,80
     Impressed by Lorentz's "most
ingenious idea", Poincaré saw more in
local time than a mere mathematical trick.
It represented the actual time that would
be shown on a moving observer's clocks.
On the other hand, Poincaré did not
consider this measured time to be the
"true time" that would be exhibited by
clocks at rest in the aether. Poincaré
made no attempt to redefine the concepts
of space and time. To Poincaré, Lorentz
transformation described the apparent
states of the field for a moving observer.
True states remained those defined with
respect to the ether.[23]
6. This concept is counterintuitive at least
for the fact that, in contrast to usual
concepts of distance, it may assume
negative values (is not positive definite for
non-coinciding events), and that the
square-denotation is misleading. This
negative square lead to, now not broadly
used, concepts of imaginary time. It is
immediate that the negative of   is
also an invariant, generated by a variant of
the metric signature of spacetime.
7. 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.
8. 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 17][p 18]
9. 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."
10. 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.

Textbooks

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
(transl. from Russian by G. Pontocorvo
and V. O. Soleviev, edited by V. A.
Petrov) Nauka, Moscow.
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 .
Singapore: World Scientific
Publications. p. 128.
Bibcode:1989rist.book.....Q . 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 . University of
California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-
03174-6.
 Lawrence Sklar (1992). Philosophy of
Physics . Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-
8133-0625-4.
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.
Bibcode:1964PhL....12..260A .
doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91095-9 .
Darrigol, Olivier (2004). "The Mystery of
the Poincaré–Einstein Connection".
Isis. 95 (4): 614–26.
doi:10.1086/430652 .
PMID 16011297 .
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 .
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.56.4405 .
Special Relativity Scholarpedia
Special relativity: Kinematics
Wolfgang Rindler, Scholarpedia,
 6(2):8520.
doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.8520

External links
Wikisource has original text related to
this article:
Relativity: The Special and General
Theory

Wikisource has original works on the

topic: Relativity

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of:

Special Relativity

Wikiversity has learning resources about

Special Relativity
Look up special relativity in Wiktionary,
the free dictionary.

Original works

Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper

Einstein's original work in German,
Annalen der Physik, Bern 1905
On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies English Translation as
published in the 1923 book The
Principle of Relativity.

Special relativity for a general

audience (no mathematical
knowledge required)

Einstein Light An award -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 Introduction to
relativity theory, from the Max Planck
Institute for Gravitational Physics.
Audio: Cain/Gay (2006) – Astronomy
Cast . Einstein's Theory of Special
Relativity

Special relativity explained

(using simple or more
advanced mathematics)

Greg Egan's Foundations .

The Hogg Notes on Special Relativity
A good introduction to special relativity
at the undergraduate level, using
calculus.
Relativity Calculator: Special Relativity
– An algebraic and integral calculus
derivation for E = mc2.
MathPages – Reflections on Relativity
A complete online book on relativity
with an extensive bibliography.
Special Relativity An introduction to
special relativity at the undergraduate
level.
Relativity: the Special and General
Theory at Project Gutenberg, by Albert
Einstein
Special Relativity Lecture Notes 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 The
theory of special relativity in an easily
understandable way.
An Introduction to the Special Theory
of Relativity (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 by
J D Cresser Department of Physics
Macquarie University.
SpecialRelativity.net - An overview
with visualizations and minimal
mathematics.

Visualization

Raytracing Special Relativity Software

visualizing several scenarios under the
influence of special relativity.
Real Time Relativity The Australian
National University. Relativistic visual
effects experienced through an
interactive program.
Spacetime travel A variety of
visualizations of relativistic effects,
from relativistic motion to black holes.
Through Einstein's Eyes The
Australian National University.
Relativistic visual effects explained
with movies and images.
Warp Special Relativity Simulator A
computer program to show the effects
of traveling close to the speed of light.
Animation clip on YouTube visualizing
the Lorentz transformation.
Original interactive FLASH Animations
from John de Pillis illustrating Lorentz
and Galilean frames, Train and Tunnel
Paradox, the Twin Paradox, Wave
Propagation, Clock Synchronization,
etc.
 lightspeed An OpenGL-based program
developed to illustrate the effects of
special relativity on the appearance of
moving objects.
Animation showing the stars near
Earth, as seen from a spacecraft
accelerating rapidly to light speed.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Special_relativity&oldid=890410340"

Last edited 6 hours ago by Prokary…

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.