Albert Einstein - Relativity The Special and General Theory @PenalaranITS

Relativity: The Special and General Theory Albert
Einstein
Relativity: The Special and General Theory
Albert Einstein
Relativity
The Special and General Theory

Written: 1916 (this revised edition: 1924)
Source: Relativity: The Special and General Theory © 1920
Publisher: Methuen & Co Ltd
First Published: December, 1916
Translated: Robert W. Lawson (Authorised translation)
Transcription/Markup: Brian Basgen
Convertion to PDF: Sjoerd Langkemper
Offline Version: Einstein Reference Archive (marxists.org)

1999
Preface
Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity
01. Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions
02. The System of Co−ordinates
03. Space and Time in Classical Mechanics

04. The Galileian System of Co−ordinates
05. The Principle of Relativity (in the Restricted Sense)
06. The Theorem of the Addition of Velocities employed in

Classical Mechanics
07. The Apparent Incompatability of the Law of Propagation

of Light with the Principle of Relativity
08. On the Idea of Time in Physics
09. The Relativity of Simultaneity
10. On the Relativity of the Conception of Distance
11. The Lorentz Transformation
12. The Behaviour of Measuring−Rods and Clocks in Motion
13. Theorem of the Addition of Velocities. The Experiment of

Fizeau
14. The Hueristic Value of the Theory of Relativity
15. General Results of the Theory
16. Expereince and the Special Theory of Relativity
17. Minkowski's Four−dimensial Space
Part II: The General Theory of Relativity
18. Special and General Principle of Relativity
19. The Gravitational Field

20. The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an
Argument for the General Postulate of
Relativity
21. In What Respects are the Foundations of Classical

Mechanics and of the Special Theory of
Relativity Unsatisfactory?
22. A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity
23. Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring−Rods on a Rotating

Body of Reference
24. Euclidean and non−Euclidean Continuum
25. Gaussian Co−ordinates
26. The Space−Time Continuum of the Speical Theory of

Relativity Considered as a Euclidean
Continuum
27. The Space−Time Continuum of the General Theory of

Realtiivty is Not a Eculidean Continuum
28. Exact Formulation of the General Principle of Relativity
29. The Solution of the Problem of Gravitation on the Basis

of the General Principle of Relativity
Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole

30. Cosmological Difficulties of Netwon's Theory
31. The Possibility of a "Finite" and yet "Unbounded"

Universe
32. The Structure of Space According to the General Theory

of Relativity
Appendices:
01. Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation (sup.

ch. 11)
02. Minkowski's Four−Dimensional Space ("World") (sup. ch

17)
03. The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory of

Relativity
04. The Structure of Space According to the General Theory

of Relativity (sup. ch 32)
05. Relativity and the Problem of Space
Note: The fifth appendix was added by Einstein at the time

of the fifteenth re−printing of this book; and as a result is
still under copyright restrictions so cannot be added without
the permission of the publisher.
Einstein Reference Archive
Albert Einstein

Preface
(December, 1916) The present book is intended, as far as
possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity
to those readers who, from a general scientific and
philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but
who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of
theoretical physics. The work presumes a standard of
education corresponding to that of a university
matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the
book, a fair amount of patience and force of will on the part
of the reader. The author has spared himself no pains in his
endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and
most intelligible form, and on the whole, in the sequence
and connection in which they actually originated. In the
interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I
should repeat myself frequently, without paying the
slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation. I
adhered scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant
theoretical physicist L. Boltzmann, according to whom
matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and to the
cobbler. I make no pretence of having withheld from the
reader difficulties which are inherent to the subject. On the
other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical
foundations of the theory in a "step−motherly" fashion, so
that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the
wanderer who was unable to see the forest for the trees.
May the book bring some one a few happy hours of
suggestive thought!
December, 1916
A. EINSTEIN
Next: The Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions
Relativity: The Special and General Theory Albert Einstein:

Relativity Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity
Part I
The Special Theory of Relativity
Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions
In your schooldays most of you who read this book made

acquaintance with the noble building of Euclid's geometry,
and you remember — perhaps with more respect than love
— the magnificent structure, on the lofty staircase of which
you were chased about for uncounted hours by
conscientious teachers. By reason of our past experience,
you would certainly regard everyone with disdain who
should pronounce even the most out−of−the−way
proposition of this science to be untrue. But perhaps this
feeling of proud certainty would leave you immediately if
some one were to ask you: "What, then, do you mean by the
assertion that these propositions are true?" Let us proceed
to give this question a little consideration.
Geometry sets out form certain conceptions such as

"plane," "point," and "straight line," with which we are able
to associate more or less definite ideas, and from certain
simple propositions (axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas,
we are inclined to accept as "true." Then, on the basis of a
logical process, the justification of which we feel ourselves
compelled to admit, all remaining propositions are shown to
follow from those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A proposition
is then correct ("true") when it has been derived in the
recognised manner from the axioms. The question of "truth"
of the individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to
one of the "truth" of the axioms. Now it has long been
known that the last question is not only unanswerable by
the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely
without meaning. We cannot ask whether it is true that only
one straight line goes through two points. We can only say
that Euclidean geometry deals with things called
"straight lines," to each of which is ascribed the property of

being uniquely determined by two points situated on it. The
concept "true" does not tally with the assertions of pure
geometry, because by the word "true" we are eventually in
the habit of designating always the correspondence with a
"real" object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the
relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience,
but only with the logical connection of these ideas among
themselves.
It is not difficult to understand why, in spite of this, we feel

constrained to call the propositions of geometry "true."
Geometrical ideas correspond to more or less exact objects
in nature, and these last are undoubtedly the exclusive
cause of the genesis of those ideas. Geometry ought to
refrain from such a course, in order to give to its structure
the largest possible logical unity. The practice, for example,
of seeing in a "distance" two marked positions on a
practically rigid body is something which is lodged deeply in
our habit of thought. We are accustomed further to regard
three points as being situated on a straight line, if their
apparent positions can be made to coincide for observation
with one eye, under suitable choice of our place of
observation.
If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement

the propositions of Euclidean geometry by the single
proposition that two points on a practically rigid body
always correspond to the same distance (line−interval),
independently of any changes in position to which we may
subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry
then resolve themselves into propositions on the 4
possible relative position of practically rigid bodies. 1)

Geometry which has been supplemented in
this way is then to be treated as a branch of physics. We can

now legitimately ask as to the "truth"
of geometrical propositions interpreted in this way, since we

are justified in asking whether these propositions are
satisfied for those real things we have associated with the
geometrical ideas. In less exact terms we can express this
by saying that by the "truth" of a geometrical proposition in
this sense we understand its validity for a construction with
rule and compasses.
Of course the conviction of the "truth" of geometrical

propositions in this sense is founded exclusively on rather
incomplete experience. For the present we shall assume the
"truth" of the geometrical propositions, then at a later stage
(in the general theory of relativity) we shall see that this
"truth" is limited, and we shall consider the extent of its
limitation.
Next: The System of Co−ordinates
Notes
1) It follows that a natural object is associated also with a

straight line. Three points A, B and C on a rigid body thus lie
in a straight line when the points A and C being given, B is
chosen such that the sum of the distances AB and BC is as
short as possible. This incomplete suggestion will suffice for
the present purpose.
Albert Einstein: Relativity
The System of Co−ordinates
On the basis of the physical interpretation of distance which

has been indicated, we are also in a position to establish the
distance between two points on a rigid body by means of
measurements.
For this purpose we require a " distance " (rod S) which is to

be used once and for all, and which we employ as a
standard measure. If, now, A and B are two points on a rigid
body, we can construct the line joining them according to
the rules of geometry ; then, starting from A, we can mark
off the distance S time after time until we reach B. The
number of these operations required is the numerical
measure of the distance AB. This is the basis of all
measurement of length. 1)
Every description of the scene of an event or of the position

of an object in space is based on the specification of the
point on a rigid body (body of reference) with which that
event or object coincides. This applies not only to scientific
description, but also to everyday life. If I analyse the
place specification " Times Square, New York," [A] I arrive at

the following result. The earth is the rigid body to which the
specification of place refers; " Times Square, New York," is a
well−defined point, to which a name has been assigned,
and with which the event coincides in space. 2)
This primitive method of place specification deals only with

places on the surface of rigid bodies, and is dependent on
the existence of points on this surface which are
distinguishable from each other. But we can free ourselves
from both of these limitations without altering the nature of
our specification of position. If, for instance, a cloud is
hovering over Times Square, then we can determine its
position relative to the surface of the earth by erecting a
pole perpendicularly on the Square, so that it reaches the
cloud. The length of the pole measured with the standard
measuring−rod, combined with the specification of the
position of the foot of the pole, supplies us with a complete
place specification. On the basis of this illustration, we are
able to see the manner in which a refinement of the
conception of position has been developed.
(a) We imagine the rigid body, to which the place

specification is referred, supplemented in such a manner
that the object whose position we require is reached by. the
completed rigid body.
(b) In locating the position of the object, we make use of a

number (here the length of the pole measured with the
measuring−rod) instead of designated points of reference.
(c) We speak of the height of the cloud even when the pole
which reaches the cloud has not been erected. By means of
optical observations of the cloud from different positions on
the ground, and taking into account the properties of the
propagation of light, we determine the length of the pole we
should have required in order to reach the cloud.
From this consideration we see that it will be advantageous
if, in the description of position, it should be possible by
means of numerical measures to make ourselves
independent of the existence of marked positions
(possessing names) on the rigid body of reference. In the
physics of measurement this is attained by the application
of the Cartesian system of co−ordinates.
This consists of three plane surfaces perpendicular to each

other and rigidly attached to a rigid body. Referred to a
system of co−ordinates, the scene of any event will be
determined (for the main part) by the specification of the
lengths of the three perpendiculars or co−ordinates ( x, y, z)
which can be dropped from the scene of the event to those
three plane surfaces. The lengths of these 6
three perpendiculars can be determined by a series of

manipulations with rigid measuring−rods performed
according to the rules and methods laid down by Euclidean
geometry.
In practice, the rigid surfaces which constitute the system of

co−ordinates are generally not available ; furthermore, the
magnitudes of the co−ordinates are not actually determined
by constructions with rigid rods, but by indirect means. If
the results of physics and astronomy are to maintain their
clearness, the physical meaning of specifications of position
must always be sought in accordance with the above
considerations. 3)
We thus obtain the following result: Every description of

events in space involves the use of a rigid body to which
such events have to be referred. The resulting relationship
takes for granted that the laws of Euclidean geometry hold
for "distances;" the "distance" being represented physically
by means of the convention of two marks on a rigid body.
Next: Space and Time in Classical Mechanics
Notes
1) Here we have assumed that there is nothing left over i.e.

that the measurement gives a whole number. This difficulty
is got over by the use of divided measuring−rods, the
introduction of which does not demand any fundamentally
new method.
[A] Einstein used "Potsdamer Platz, Berlin" in the original

text. In the authorised translation this was
supplemented with "Tranfalgar Square, London". We have

changed this to "Times Square, New York", as this is the
most well known/identifiable location to English speakers in
the present day.
[Note by the janitor.]
2) It is not necessary here to investigate further the

significance of the expression "coincidence in space." This
conception is sufficiently obvious to ensure that differences
of opinion are scarcely likely to arise as to its applicability in
practice.
3) A refinement and modification of these views does not

become necessary until we come to deal with the general
theory of relativity, treated in the second part of this book.
7
Space and Time in Classical Mechanics
The purpose of mechanics is to describe how bodies change

their position in space with "time." I should load my
conscience with grave sins against the sacred spirit of
lucidity were I to formulate the aims of mechanics in this
way, without serious reflection and detailed explanations.
Let us proceed to disclose these sins.
It is not clear what is to be understood here by "position"

and "space." I stand at the window of a railway carriage
which is travelling uniformly, and drop a stone on the
embankment, without throwing it. Then, disregarding the
influence of the air resistance, I see the stone descend in a
straight line. A pedestrian who observes the misdeed from
the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a
parabolic curve. I now ask: Do the "positions" traversed by
the stone lie "in reality" on a straight line or on a parabola?
Moreover, what is meant here by motion "in space" ? From
the considerations of the previous section the answer is
self−evident. In the first place we entirely shun the vague
word "space," of which, we must honestly acknowledge, we
cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by
"motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference." The
positions relative to the body of reference (railway carriage
or embankment) have already been defined in detail in the
preceding section. If instead of " body of reference " we
insert " system of co−ordinates," which is a useful idea for
mathematical description, we are in a position to say : The
stone traverses a straight line relative to a system of
co−ordinates rigidly attached to the carriage, but relative to
a system of co−ordinates rigidly attached to the ground
(embankment) it describes a parabola. With the aid of this
example it is clearly seen that there is no such thing as an
independently existing trajectory (lit. "path−curve" 1)), but

only a trajectory relative to a particular body of reference.
In order to have a complete description of the motion, we

must specify how the body alters its position with time ; i.e.
for every point on the trajectory it must be stated at what
time the body is situated there. These data must be
supplemented by such a definition of time that, in virtue of
this definition, these time−values can be regarded
essentially as magnitudes (results of measurements)
capable of observation. If we take our stand on the ground
of classical mechanics, we can satisfy this requirement for
our illustration in the following manner. We imagine two
clocks of identical construction ; the man at the
railway−carriage window is holding one of them, and the
man on the footpath the other. Each of the observers
determines the position on his own reference−body
occupied by the stone at each tick of the clock he is holding
in his hand. In this connection we have not taken account of
the inaccuracy involved by the finiteness of the velocity of
propagation of light.
With this and with a second difficulty prevailing here we

shall have to deal in detail later.
Next: The Galilean System of Co−ordinates
Notes
1) That is, a curve along which the body moves.
The Galileian System of Co−ordinates
As is well known, the fundamental law of the mechanics of

Galilei−Newton, which is known as the law of inertia, can be
stated thus: A body removed sufficiently far from other
bodies continues in a state of rest or of uniform motion in a
straight line. This law not only says something about the
motion of the bodies, but it also indicates the
reference−bodies or systems of coordinates, permissible in
mechanics, which can be used in mechanical description.
The visible fixed stars are bodies for which the law of inertia
certainly holds to a high degree of approximation. Now if we
use a system of co−ordinates which is rigidly attached to
the earth, then, relative to this system, every fixed star
describes a circle of immense radius in the course of an
astronomical day, a result which is opposed to the
statement of the law of inertia. So that if we adhere to this
law we must refer these motions only to systems of
coordinates relative to which the fixed stars do not move in
a circle. A system of co−ordinates of which the state of
motion is such that the law of inertia holds relative to it is
called a " Galileian system of co−ordinates." The laws of the
mechanics of Galflei−Newton can be regarded as valid only
for a Galileian system of co−ordinates.
Next: The Principle of Relativity (in the restricted sense)
10
The Principle of Relativity
(in the restricted sense)
In order to attain the greatest possible clearness, let us

return to our example of the railway carriage supposed to
be travelling uniformly. We call its motion a uniform
translation ("uniform"
because it is of constant velocity and direction, " translation

" because although the carriage changes its position relative
to the embankment yet it does not rotate in so doing). Let
us imagine a raven flying through the air in such a manner
that its motion, as observed from the embankment, is
uniform and in a straight line. If we were to observe the
flying raven from the moving railway carriage. we should
find that the motion of the raven would be one of different
velocity and direction, but that it would still be uniform and
in a straight line. Expressed in an abstract manner we may
say : If a mass m is moving uniformly in a straight line with
respect to a co−ordinate system K, then it will also be
moving uniformly and in a straight line relative to a second
co−ordinate system K1 provided that the latter is executing
a uniform translatory motion with respect to K. In
accordance with the discussion contained in the preceding
section, it follows that: If K is a Galileian co−ordinate
system. then every other co−ordinate system K' is a
Galileian one, when, in relation to K, it is in a condition of
uniform motion of translation. Relative to K1 the mechanical
laws of Galilei−Newton hold good exactly as they do with
respect to K.
We advance a step farther in our generalisation when we

express the tenet thus: If, relative to K, K1 is a uniformly
moving co−ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural
phenomena run their course with respect to K1 according to
exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. This
statement is called the principle of relativity (in the
restricted sense).
As long as one was convinced that all natural phenomena

were capable of representation with the help of classical
mechanics, there was no need to doubt the validity of this
principle of relativity. But in view of the more recent
development of electrodynamics and optics it became more
and more evident that classical mechanics affords an
insufficient foundation for the physical description of all
natural phenomena. At this juncture the question of the
validity of the principle of relativity became ripe for
discussion, and it did not appear impossible that the answer
to this question might be in the negative.
Nevertheless, there are two general facts which at the

outset speak very much in favour of the validity of the
principle of relativity. Even though classical mechanics does
not supply us with a sufficiently broad basis for the
theoretical presentation of all physical phenomena, still we
must grant it a considerable measure of " truth," since it
supplies us with the actual motions of the heavenly bodies
with a delicacy of detail little short of wonderful. The
principle of relativity must therefore apply with great
accuracy in the domain of mechanics. But that a principle of
such broad generality should hold with such exactness in
one domain of phenomena, and yet should be invalid for
another, is a priori not very probable.
We now proceed to the second argument, to which,

moreover, we shall return later. If the principle of relativity
(in the restricted sense) does not hold, then the Galileian
co−ordinate systems K, K1, K2, etc., which are moving
uniformly relative to each other, will not be equivalent for
the description of natural phenomena. In this case we
should be constrained to believe that natural laws are
capable of being formulated in a particularly simple manner,
and of course only on condition that, 11
from amongst all possible Galileian co−ordinate systems,

we should have chosen one (K0) of a particular state of
motion as our body of reference. We should then be justified
(because of its merits for the description of natural
phenomena) in calling this system " absolutely at rest," and
all other Galileian systems K " in motion." If, for instance,
our embankment were the system K0 then our railway
carriage would be a system K, relative to which less simple
laws would hold than with respect to K0. This diminished
simplicity would be due to the fact that the carriage K would
be in motion ( i.e. "really")with respect to K0. In the general
laws of nature which have been formulated with reference
to K, the magnitude and direction of the velocity of the
carriage would necessarily play a part. We should expect,
for instance, that the note emitted by an organpipe placed
with its axis parallel to the direction of travel would be
different from that emitted if the axis of the pipe were
placed perpendicular to this direction.
Now in virtue of its motion in an orbit round the sun, our
earth is comparable with a railway carriage travelling with a
velocity of about 30 kilometres per second. If the principle
of relativity were not valid we should therefore expect that
the direction of motion of the earth at any moment would
enter into the laws of nature, and also that physical systems
in their behaviour would be dependent on the orientation in
space with respect to the earth. For owing to the alteration
in direction of the velocity of revolution of the earth in the
course of a year, the earth cannot be at rest relative to the
hypothetical system K0 throughout the whole year.
However, the most careful observations have never
revealed such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical
space, i.e. a physical non−equivalence of different
directions. This is very powerful argument in favour of the
principle of relativity.
Next: The Theorem of the Addition of Velocities Employed in

Classical Mechanics
12
The Theorem of the
Addition of Velocities
Employed in Classical Mechanics

Let us suppose our old friend the railway carriage to be
travelling along the rails with a constant velocity v, and that
a man traverses the length of the carriage in the direction of
travel with a velocity w. How quickly or, in other words, with
what velocity W does the man advance relative to the
embankment during the process ? The only possible answer
seems to result from the following consideration: If the man
were to stand still for a second, he would advance relative
to the embankment through a distance v equal numerically
to the velocity of the carriage. As a consequence of his
walking, however, he traverses an additional distance w
relative to the carriage, and hence also relative to the
embankment, in this second, the distance w being
numerically equal to the velocity with which he is walking.
Thus in total be covers the distance W=v+w relative to the
embankment in the second considered. We shall see later
that this result, which expresses the theorem of the addition
of velocities employed in classical mechanics, cannot be
maintained ; in other words, the law that we have just
written down does not hold in reality. For the time being,
however, we shall assume its correctness.
Next: The Apparent Incompatability of the Law of

Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity
13
The Apparent Incompatibility of the

Law of Propagation of Light with the
Principle of Relativity
There is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according

to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at
school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation
takes place in straight lines with a velocity c= 300,000
km./sec. At all events we know with great exactness that
this velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were
not the case, the minimum of emission would not be
observed simultaneously for different colours during the
eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour. By means of
similar considerations based on observa− tions of double
stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show
that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on
the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light. The
assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent
on the direction "in space" is in itself improbable.
In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy

of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed
by the child at school. Who would imagine that this simple
law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist
into the greatest intellectual difficulties? Let us consider how
these difficulties arise.
Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of

light (and indeed every other process) to a rigid
reference−body (co−ordinate system). As such a system let
us again choose our embankment. We shall imagine the air
above it to have been removed. If a ray of light be sent
along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip
of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to
the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway
carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the
velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the
ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us
inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light
relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply
the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of
light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to
the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the
embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light
relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of
light with respect to the carriage, and we have
w = c−v.
The velocity of propagation ot a ray of light relative to the

carriage thus comes cut smaller than c.
But this result comes into conflict with the principle of

relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every
other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of

light in vacuo [in vacuum] must, according to the principle
of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as
reference−body as when the rails are the body of reference.
But, from our above consideration, this would appear to be
impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative to the
embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it
would appear that another law of propagation of light must
necessarily hold with respect to the carriage — a result
contradictory to the principle of relativity.
In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for

it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the
simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you
who have carefully followed the preceding discussion are
almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of
14
relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect

because it is so natural and simple. The law of the
propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be
replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the
principle of relativity. The development of theoretical
physics shows, however, that we cannot pursue this course.
The epoch−making theoretical investigations of H. A.
Lorentz on the electrodynamical and optical phenomena
connected with moving bodies show that experience in this
domain leads conclusively to a theory of electromagnetic
phenomena, of which the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary conse. quence.
Prominent theoretical physicists were theref ore more
inclined to reject the principle of relativity, in spite of the
fact that no empirical data had been found which were
contradictory to this principle.
At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As

a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time
and space, it became evident that in realily there is not the
least incompatibilitiy between the principle of relativity and
the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically
holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could
be arrived at. This theory has been called the special theory
of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with
which we shall deal later. In the following pages we shall
present the fundamental ideas of the special theory of
relativity.
Next: On the Idea of Time in Physics
15
On the Idea of Time in Physics
Lightning has struck the rails on our railway embankment at

two places A and B far distant from each other. I make the
additional assertion that these two lightning flashes
occurred simultaneously. If I ask you whether there is sense
in this statement, you will answer my question with a
decided "Yes." But if I now approach you with the request to
explain to me the sense of the statement more precisely,
you find after some consideration that the answer to this
question is not so easy as it appears at first sight.
After some time perhaps the following answer would occur

to you: "The significance of the statement is clear in itself
and needs no further explanation; of course it would require
some consideration if I were to be commissioned to
determine by observations whether in the actual case the
two events took place simultaneously or not." I cannot be
satisfied with this answer for the following reason.
Supposing that as a result of ingenious considerations an
able meteorologist were to discover that the lightning must
always strike the places A and B simultaneously, then we
should be faced with the task of testing whether or not this
theoretical result is in accordance with the reality. We
encounter the same difficulty with all physical statements in
which the conception "
simultaneous " plays a part. The concept does not exist for
the physicist until he has the possibility of discovering
whether or not it is fulfilled in an actual case. We thus
require a definition of simultaneity such that this definition
supplies us with the method by means of which, in the
present case, he can decide by experiment whether or not
both the lightning strokes occurred simultaneously. As long
as this requirement is not satisfied, I allow myself to be
deceived as a physicist (and of course the same applies if I
am not a physicist), when I imagine that I am able to attach
a meaning to the statement of simultaneity. (I would ask the
reader not to proceed farther until he is fully convinced on
this point.)
After thinking the matter over for some time you then offer
the following suggestion with which to test simultaneity. By
measuring along the rails, the connecting line AB should be
measured up and an observer placed at the mid−point M of
the distance AB. This observer should be supplied with an
arrangement ( e.g. two mirrors inclined at 900) which allows
him visually to observe both places A and B at the same
time. If the observer perceives the two flashes of lightning
at the same time, then they are simultaneous.
I am very pleased with this suggestion, but for all that I

cannot regard the matter as quite settled, because I feel
constrained to raise the following objection:
"Your definition would certainly be right, if only I knew that

the light by means of which the observer at M perceives the
lightning flashes travels along the length A
M with the same velocity as
along the length B

M. But an examination of this supposition would only be
possible if we already had at our disposal the means of
measuring time. It would thus appear as though we were
moving here in a logical circle."
After further consideration you cast a somewhat disdainful

glance at me — and rightly so — and you declare:
"I maintain my previous definition nevertheless, because in

reality it assumes absolutely nothing about light. There is
only one demand to be made of the definition of
simultaneity, namely, that in 16
every real case it must supply us with an empirical decision

as to whether or not the conception that has to be defined is
fulfilled. That my definition satisfies this demand is
indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse
the path A
M as for the path B
M is in reality neither a
supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of

light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill
in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity."
It is clear that this definition can be used to give an exact

meaning not only to two events, but to as many events as
we care to choose, and independently of the positions of the
scenes of the events with respect to the body of reference
1) (here the railway embankment). We are thus led also to a
definition of " time " in physics. For this purpose we suppose
that clocks of identical construction are placed at the points
A, B and C of the railway line (co−ordinate system) and that
they are set in such a manner that the positions of their
pointers are simultaneously (in the above sense) the same.
Under these conditions we understand by the " time " of an
event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of
these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of
the event. In this manner a time−value is associated with
every event which is essentially capable of observation.
This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the

validity of which will hardly be doubted without empirical
evidence to the contrary. It has been assumed that all these
clocks go at the same rate if they are of identical
construction. Stated more exactly: When two clocks
arranged at rest in different places of a reference−body are
set in such a manner that a particular position of the
pointers of the one clock is simultaneous (in the above
sense) with the same position, of the pointers of the other
clock, then identical " settings " are always simultaneous (in
the sense of the above definition).
Next: The Relativity of Simultaneity
Footnotes
1) We suppose further, that, when three events A, B and C

occur in different places in such a manner that A is
simultaneous with B and B is simultaneous with C
(simultaneous in the sense of the above definition), then the
criterion for the simultaneity of the pair of events A, C is
also satisfied. This assumption is a physical hypothesis
about the the of propagation of light: it must certainly be
fulfilled if we are to maintain the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo.
17
The Relativity of Simulatneity
Up to now our considerations have been referred to a

particular body of reference, which we have styled a "
railway embankment." We suppose a very long train
travelling along the rails with the constant velocity v and in
the direction indicated in Fig 1. People travelling in this train
will with advantage uew the train as a rigid reference−body
(co−ordinate system); they regard all events in reference to
the train. Then every event which takes place along the line
also takes place at a particular point of the train. Also the
definition of simultaneity can be given relative to the train in
exactly the same way as with respect to the embankment.
As a natural consequence, however, the following question
arises :
Are two events ( e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B)

which are simultaneous with reference to the railway
embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We
shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative.
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are

simultaneous with respect to be embankment, we mean:
the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the
lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid−point M of the
length A
B of the embankment. But the events A and B also
correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M1 be the

mid−point of the distance A B on
the travelling train. Just when the flashes (as judged from
the embankment) of lightning occur, this point M1 naturally
coincides with the point M but it moves towards the right in
the diagram with the velocity v of the train. If an observer
sitting in the position M1 in the train did not possess this
velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the
light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would
reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where
he is situated.
Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway

embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of
light coming from A.
Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from
B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers
who take the railway train as their reference−body must
therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B
took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive
at the important result:
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the
embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train,
and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every
reference−body (co−ordinate system) has its own particular
time ; unless we are told the reference−body to which the
statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement
of the time of an event.
18
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had

always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement
of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is
independent of the state of motion of the body of reference.
But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible
with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we
discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law
of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of
relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section

6, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we
concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the
distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the
same distance also with respect to the embankment in each
second of time. But, according to the foregoing
considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence
with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to
the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the
embankment (as reference−body). Hence it cannot be
contended that the man in walking travels the distance w
relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one
second as judged from the embankment.
Moreover, the considerations of Section 6 are based on yet
a second assumption, which, in the
light of a strict consideration, appears to be arbitrary,

although it was always tacitly made even before the
introduction of the theory of relativity.
Next: On the Relativity of the Conception of Distance
19
On the Relativity of the Conception of Distance
Let us consider two particular points on the train 1)

travelling along the embankment with the velocity v, and
inquire as to their distance apart. We already know that it is
necessary to have a body of reference for the measurement
of a distance, with respect to which body the distance can
be measured up. It is the simplest plan to use the train itself
as reference−body (co−ordinate system). An observer in
the train measures the interval by marking off his
measuring−rod in a straight line ( e.g. along the floor of the
carriage) as many times as is necessary to take him from
the one marked point to the other. Then the number which
tells us how often the rod has to be laid down is the required
distance.
It is a different matter when the distance has to be judged

from the railway line. Here the following method suggests
itself. If we call A1 and B1 the two points on the train whose
distance apart is required, then both of these points are
moving with the velocity v along the embankment. In the
first place we require to determine the points A and B of the
embankment which are just being passed by the two points
A1 and B1 at a particular time t — judged from the
embankment. These points
A and B of the embankment can be determined by applying

the definition of time given in Section 8.
The distance between these points A and B is then

measured by repeated application of thee measuring−rod
along the embankment.
A priori it is by no means certain that this last measurement

will supply us with the same result as the first. Thus the
length of the train as measured from the embankment may
be different from that obtained by measuring in the train
itself. This circumstance leads us to a second objection
which
must be raised against the apparently obvious consideration

of Section 6. Namely, if the man in the carriage covers the
distance w in a unit of time — measured from the train, —
then this distance —
as measured from the embankment — is not necessarily

also equal to w.
Next: The Lorentz Transformation
Footnotes
1) e.g. the middle of the first and of the twentieth carriage.

20
The Lorentz Transformation
The results of the last three sections show that the apparent
incompatibility of the law of
propagation of light with the principle of relativity (Section

7) has been derived by means of a consideration which
borrowed two unjustifiable hypotheses from classical
mechanics; these are as follows:
(1) The time−interval (time) between two events is

independent of the condition of motion of the body of
reference.
(2) The space−interval (distance) between two points of a

rigid body is independent of the condition of motion of the
body of reference.
If we drop these hypotheses, then the dilemma of Section 7
disappears, because the theorem of
the addition of velocities derived in Section 6 becomes

invalid. The possibility presents itself that
the law of the propagation of light in vacuo may be

compatible with the principle of relativity, and the question
arises: How have we to modify the considerations of Section
6 in order to remove the apparent disagreement between
these two fundamental results of experience? This question
leads
to a general one. In the discussion of Section 6 we have to

do with places and times relative both to
the train and to the embankment. How are we to find the

place and time of an event in relation to the train, when we
know the place and time of the event with respect to the
railway embankment ?
Is there a thinkable answer to this question of such a nature

that the law of transmission of light in vacuo does not
contradict the principle of relativity ? In other words : Can
we conceive of a relation between place and time of the
individual events relative to both reference−bodies, such
that every ray of light possesses the velocity of transmission
c relative to the embankment and relative to the train ? This
question leads to a quite definite positive answer, and to a
perfectly definite transformation law for the space−time
magnitudes of an event when changing over from one body
of reference to another.
Before we deal with this, we shall introduce the following

incidental consideration. Up to the present we have only
considered events taking place along the embankment,
which had mathematically to
assume the function of a straight line. In the manner
indicated in Section 2 we can imagine this reference−body
supplemented laterally and in a vertical direction by means
of a framework of rods, so that an event which takes place
anywhere can be localised with reference to this framework.
Similarly, we can imagine the train travelling with the

velocity v to be continued across the whole of space, so that
every event, no matter how far off it may be, could also be
localised with respect to the second framework. Without
committing any fundamental error, 21
we can disregard the fact that in reality these frameworks

would continually interfere with each other, owing to the
impenetrability of solid bodies. In every such framework we
imagine three surfaces perpendicular to each other marked
out, and designated as " co−ordinate planes " ("
co−ordinate system "). A co−ordinate system K then

corresponds to the embankment, and a co−ordinate system
K' to the train. An event, wherever it may have taken place,
would be fixed in space with respect to K by the three
perpendiculars x, y, z on the co−ordinate planes, and with
regard to time by a time value t. Relative to K1, the same
event would be fixed in respect of space and time by
corresponding values x1, y1, z1, t1, which of course are not
identical with x, y, z, t. It has already been set forth in detail
how these magnitudes are to be regarded as results of
physical measurements.
Obviously our problem can be exactly formulated in the

following manner. What are the values x1, y1, z1, t1, of an
event with respect to K1, when the magnitudes x, y, z, t, of
the same event with respect to K are given ? The relations
must be so chosen that the law of the transmission of light
in vacuo is satisfied for one and the same ray of light (and
of course for every ray) with respect to K and K1. For the
relative orientation in space of the co−ordinate systems
indicated in the diagram (Fig. 2), this problem is solved by
means of the equations :
y1 = y
z1 = z
This system of equations is known as the " Lorentz

transformation." 1)
If in place of the law of transmission of light we had taken as

our basis the tacit assumptions of the older mechanics as to
the absolute character of times and lengths, then instead of
the above we should have obtained the following equations:
x1 = x − vt
y1 = y
z1 = z
t1 = t
This system of equations is often termed the " Galilei

transformation." The Galilei transformation can be obtained
from the Lorentz transformation by substituting an infinitely
large value for the velocity of light c in the latter
transformation.
Aided by the following illustration, we can readily see that,

in accordance with the Lorentz transformation, the law of
the transmission of light in vacuo is satisfied both for the
reference−body K and for the reference−body K1. A
light−signal is sent along the positive x−axis, and this
light−stimulus advances in accordance with the equation
x = ct,
i.e. with the velocity c. According to the equations of the

Lorentz transformation, this simple relation between x and t
involves a relation between x1 and t1. In point of fact, if we
substitute for x the 22
value ct in the first and fourth equations of the Lorentz

transformation, we obtain: from which, by division, the
expression
x1 = ct1
immediately follows. If referred to the system K1, the

propagation of light takes place according to this equation.
We thus see that the velocity of transmission relative to the
reference−body K1 is also equal to c. The same result is
obtained for rays of light advancing in any other direction
whatsoever. Of cause this is not surprising, since the
equations of the Lorentz transformation were derived
conformably to this point of view.
Next: The Behaviour of Measuring−Rods and Clocks in

Motion
Footnotes
1) A simple derivation of the Lorentz transformation is given

in Appendix I.
23

The Behaviour of Measuring−Rods and Clocks in
Motion
Place a metre−rod in the x1−axis of K1 in such a manner

that one end (the beginning) coincides with the point x1=0
whilst the other end (the end of the rod) coincides with the
point x1=I. What is the length of the metre−rod relatively to
the system K? In order to learn this, we need only ask where
the beginning of the rod and the end of the rod lie with
respect to K at a particular time t of the system K. By means
of the first equation of the Lorentz transformation the values
of these two points at the time t = 0 can be shown to be
the distance between the points being
But the metre−rod is moving with the velocity v relative to

K. It therefore follows that the length of a rigid metre−rod
moving in the direction of its length with a velocity v is of a
metre.
The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion than when at

rest, and the more quickly it is moving, the shorter is the
rod. For the velocity v=c we should have
and for stiII greater velocities the square−root becomes

imaginary. From this we conclude that in the theory of
relativity the velocity c plays the part of a limiting velocity,
which can neither be reached nor exceeded by any real
body.
Of course this feature of the velocity c as a limiting velocity

also clearly follows from the equations of the Lorentz
transformation, for these became meaningless if we choose
values of v greater than c.
If, on the contrary, we had considered a metre−rod at rest

in the x−axis with respect to K, then we should have found
that the length of the rod as judged from K1 would have
been
this is quite in accordance with the principle of relativity

which forms the basis of our considerations.
A Priori it is quite clear that we must be able to learn

something about the physical behaviour of measuring−rods
and clocks from the equations of transformation, for the
magnitudes z, y, x, t, are nothing more nor less than the
results of measurements obtainable by means of
measuring−rods and clocks. If we had based our
considerations on the Galileian transformation we should
not have 24
obtained a contraction of the rod as a consequence of its

motion.
Let us now consider a seconds−clock which is permanently

situated at the origin (x1=0) of K1. t1=0
and t1=I are two successive ticks of this clock. The first and
fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation give for these
two ticks :
t=0
and
As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as

judged from this reference−body, the time which elapses
between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of
its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest.
Here also the velocity c plays the part of an unattainable
limiting velocity.
Next: Theorem of the Addition of Velocities
25
Theorem of the Addition of Velocities.
The Experiment of Fizeau
Now in practice we can move clocks and measuring−rods

only with velocities that are small compared with the
velocity of light; hence we shall hardly be able to compare
the results of the previous section directly with the reality.
But, on the other hand, these results must strike you as
being very singular, and for that reason I shall now draw
another conclusion from the theory, one which can easily be
derived from the foregoing considerations, and which has
been most elegantly confirmed by experiment.
In Section 6 we derived the theorem of the addition of

velocities in one direction in the form which also results
from the hypotheses of classical mechanics− This theorem
can also be deduced
readily horn the Galilei transformation (Section 11). In place

of the man walking inside the carriage, we introduce a point
moving relatively to the co−ordinate system K1 in
accordance with the equation
x1 = wt1
By means of the first and fourth equations of the Galilei

transformation we can express x1 and t1 in terms of x and t,
and we then obtain
x = (v + w)t
This equation expresses nothing else than the law of motion

of the point with reference to the system K (of the man with
reference to the embankment). We denote this velocity by
the symbol W, and we then obtain, as in Section 6,
W=v+w A)
But we can carry out this consideration just as well on the

basis of the theory of relativity. In the equation
x1 = wt1 B)
we must then express x1and t1 in terms of x and t, making
use of the first and fourth equations of the Lorentz
transformation. Instead of the equation (A) we then obtain
the equation which corresponds to the theorem of addition
for velocities in one direction according to the theory of
relativity. The question now arises as to which of these two
theorems is the better in accord with experience. On this
point we axe enlightened by a most important experiment
which the brilliant physicist Fizeau performed more than half
a century ago, and which has been repeated since then 26
by some of the best experimental physicists, so that there

can be no doubt about its result. The experiment is
concerned with the following question. Light travels in a
motionless liquid with a particular velocity w. How quickly
does it travel in the direction of the arrow in the tube T (see
the accompanying diagram, Fig. 3) when the liquid above
mentioned is flowing through the tube with a
velocity v ?
In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall

certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of
light always takes place with the same velocity w with
respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with
reference to other bodies or not. The velocity of light
relative to the liquid and the velocity of the latter relative to
the tube are thus known, and we require the velocity of light
relative to the tube.
It is clear that we have the problem of Section 6 again

before us. The tube plays the part of the railway
embankment or of the co−ordinate system K, the liquid
plays the part of the carriage or of the co−ordinate system
K1, and finally, the light plays the part of the man walking
along the carriage, or of the moving point in the present
section. If we denote the velocity of the light relative to the
tube by W, then this is given by the equation (A) or (B),
according as the Galilei transformation or the Lorentz
transformation corresponds to the facts.
Experiment1) decides in favour of equation (B) derived from

the theory of relativity, and the
agreement is, indeed, very exact. According to recent and

most excellent measurements by Zeeman, the influence of
the velocity of flow v on the propagation of light is
represented by formula (B) to within one per cent.
Nevertheless we must now draw attention to the fact that a

theory of this phenomenon was given by H. A. Lorentz long
before the statement of the theory of relativity. This theory
was of a purely electrodynamical nature, and was obtained
by the use of particular hypotheses as to the
electromagnetic structure of matter. This circumstance,
however, does not in the least diminish the conclusiveness
of the experiment as a crucial test in favour of the theory of
relativity, for the electrodynamics of Maxwell−Lorentz, on
which the original theory was based, in no way opposes the
theory of relativity. Rather has the latter been developed
trom electrodynamics as an astoundingly simple
combination and generalisation of the hypotheses, formerly
independent of each other, on which electrodynamics was
built.
Next: The Heuristic Value of the Theory of Relativity
Footnotes
1) Fizeau found
, where
is the index of refraction of the liquid. On the other hand,

owing to the smallness of as
27
compared with I,
we can replace (B) in the first place by
, or to the same order of
approximation by
, which agrees with Fizeau's result.

28
The Heuristic Value of the Theory of Relativity
Our train of thought in the foregoing pages can be

epitomised in the following manner. Experience has led to
the conviction that, on the one hand, the principle of
relativity holds true and that on the other hand the velocity
of transmission of light in vacuo has to be considered equal
to a constant c.
By uniting these two postulates we obtained the law of

transformation for the rectangular co−ordinates x, y, z and
the time t of the events which constitute the processes of
nature. In this connection we did not obtain the Galilei
transformation, but, differing from classical mechanics, the
Lorentz transformation.
The law of transmission of light, the acceptance of which is

justified by our actual knowledge, played an important part
in this process of thought. Once in possession of the Lorentz
transformation, however, we can combine this with the
principle of relativity, and sum up the theory thus:
Every general law of nature must be so constituted that it is

transformed into a law of exactly the same form when,
instead of the space−time variables x, y, z, t of the original
coordinate system K, we introduce new space−time
variables x1, y1, z1, t1 of a co−ordinate system K1. In this
connection the relation between the ordinary and the
accented magnitudes is given by the Lorentz
transformation. Or in brief : General laws of nature are
co−variant with respect to Lorentz transformations.
This is a definite mathematical condition that the theory of

relativity demands of a natural law, and in virtue of this, the
theory becomes a valuable heuristic aid in the search for
general laws of nature. If a general law of nature were to be
found which did not satisfy this condition, then at least one
of the two fundamental assumptions of the theory would
have been disproved. Let us now examine what general
results the latter theory has hitherto evinced.
Next: General Results of the Theory
29
General Results of the Theory

It is clear from our previous considerations that the (special)
theory of relativity has grown out of electrodynamics and
optics. In these fields it has not appreciably altered the
predictions of theory, but it has considerably simplified the
theoretical structure, i.e. the derivation of laws, and — what
is incomparably more important — it has considerably
reduced the number of independent hypothese forming the
basis of theory. The special theory of relativity has rendered
the Maxwell−Lorentz theory so plausible, that the latter
would have been generally accepted by physicists even if
experiment had decided less unequivocally in its favour.
Classical mechanics required to be modified before it could

come into line with the demands of the special theory of
relativity. For the main part, however, this modification
affects only the laws for rapid motions, in which the
velocities of matter v are not very small as compared with
the velocity of light. We have experience of such rapid
motions only in the case of electrons and ions; for other
motions the variations from the laws of classical mechanics
are too small to make themselves evident in practice. We
shall not consider the motion of stars until we come to
speak of the general theory of relativity. In accordance with
the theory of relativity the kinetic energy of a material point
of mass m is no longer given by the well−known expression
but by the expression
This expression approaches infinity as the velocity v

approaches the velocity of light c. The velocity must
therefore always remain less than c, however great may be
the energies used to produce the acceleration. If we develop
the expression for the kinetic energy in the form of a series,
we obtain When
is small compared with unity, the third of these terms is
always small in comparison with the second,
which last is alone considered in classical mechanics. The

first term mc2 does not contain the velocity, and requires no
consideration if we are only dealing with the question as to
how the energy of a point−mass; depends on the velocity.
We shall speak of its essential significance later.
30
The most important result of a general character to which

the special theory of relativity has led is concerned with the
conception of mass. Before the advent of relativity, physics
recognised two conservation laws of fundamental
importance, namely, the law of the canservation of energy
and the law of the conservation of mass these two
fundamental laws appeared to be quite independent of each
other. By means of the theory of relativity they have been
united into one law. We shall now briefly consider how this
unification came about, and what meaning is to be attached
to it.
The principle of relativity requires that the law of the

concervation of energy should hold not only with reference
to a co−ordinate system K, but also with respect to every
co−ordinate system K1 which is in a state of uniform motion
of translation relative to K, or, briefly, relative to every "
Galileian " system of co−ordinates. In contrast to classical

mechanics; the Lorentz transformation is the deciding factor
in the transition from one such system to another.
By means of comparatively simple considerations we are led

to draw the following conclusion from these premises, in
conjunction with the fundamental equations of the
electrodynamics of Maxwell:
A body moving with the velocity v, which absorbs 1) an

amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without
suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a
consequence, its energy increased by an amount
In consideration of the expression given above for the

kinetic energy of the body, the required energy of the body
comes out to be
Thus the body has the same energy as a body of mass
moving with the velocity v. Hence we can say: If a body

takes up an amount of energy E0, then its inertial mass
increases by an amount
the inertial mass of a body is not a constant but varies

according to the change in the energy of the body. The
inertial mass of a system of bodies can even be regarded as
a measure of its energy.
The law of the conservation of the mass of a system
becomes identical with the law of the conservation of
energy, and is only valid provided that the system neither
takes up nor sends out energy. Writing the expression for
the energy in the form
31
we see that the term mc2, which has hitherto attracted our
attention, is nothing else than the energy
possessed by the body 2) before it absorbed the energy E0.
A direct comparison of this relation with experiment is not

possible at the present time (1920; see
Note, p. 48), owing to the fact that the changes in energy E0

to which we can Subject a system are not large enough to
make themselves perceptible as a change in the inertial
mass of the system.
is too small in comparison with the mass m, which was

present before the alteration of the energy.
It is owing to this circumstance that classical mechanics was

able to establish successfully the conservation of mass as a
law of independent validity.
Let me add a final remark of a fundamental nature. The
success of the Faraday−Maxwell interpretation of
electromagnetic action at a distance resulted in physicists
becoming convinced that there are no such things as
instantaneous actions at a distance (not involving an
intermediary medium) of the type of Newton's law of
gravitation. According to the theory of relativity, action at a
distance with the velocity of light always takes the place of
instantaneous action at a distance or of action at a distance
with an infinite velocity of transmission. This is connected
with the fact that the velocity c plays a fundamental role in
this theory. In Part II we shall see in what way this result
becomes modified in the general theory of relativity.
Next: Experience and the Special Theory of Relativity
Footnotes
1) E0 is the energy taken up, as judged from a co−ordinate

system moving with the body.
2) As judged from a co−ordinate system moving with the

body.
[Note] With the advent of nuclear transformation processes,

which result from the bombardment of
elements by ±−particles, protons, deuterous, neutrons or

³−rays, the equivalence of mass and energy expressed by
the ralation E = mc2 has been amply confirmed. The sum of
the reacting masses, together with the mass equivalent of
the kinetic energy of the bombarding particle (or photon), is
always greater than the sum of the resulting masses. The
difference is the equivalent mass of the kinetic energy of
the particles generated, or of the released electromagnetic
energy (³−photons). In the same way, the mass of a
spontaneously disintegrating radioactive atom is always
greater than the sum of the masses of the resulting atoms
by the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy of the particles
generated (or of the photonic energy). Measurements of the
energy of the rays emitted in nuclear reactions, in
combination with the equations of such reactions, render it
possible to evaluate atomic weights to a high degree of
accuracy. [Note by the translator]
32
33
Experience and the Special Theory of Relativity
To what extent is the special theory of relativity supported

by experience ? This question is not easily answered for the
reason already mentioned in connection with the
fundamental experiment of Fizeau. The special theory of
relativity has crystallised out from the Maxwell−Lorentz
theory of electromagnetic phenomena. Thus all facts of
experience which support the electromagnetic theory also
support the theory of relativity. As being of particular
importance, I mention here the fact that the theory of
relativity enables us to predict the effects produced on the
light reaching us from the fixed stars. These results are
obtained in an exceedingly simple manner, and the effects
indicated, which are due to the relative motion of the earth
with reference to those fixed stars are found to be in accord
with experience. We refer to the yearly movement of the
apparent position of the fixed stars resulting from the
motion of the earth round the sun (aberration), and to the
influence of the radial components of the relative motions of
the fixed stars with respect to the earth on the colour of the
light reaching us from them. The latter effect manifests
itself in a slight displacement of the spectral lines of the
light transmitted to us from a fixed star, as compared with
the position of the same spectral lines when they are
produced by a terrestrial source of light (Doppler principle).
The experimental arguments in favour of the
Maxwell−Lorentz theory, which are at the same time
arguments in favour of the theory of relativity, are too
numerous to be set forth here. In reality they limit the
theoretical possibilities to such an extent, that no other
theory than that of Maxwell and Lorentz has been able to
hold its own when tested by experience.
But there are two classes of experimental facts hitherto

obtained which can be represented in the Maxwell−Lorentz
theory only by the introduction of an auxiliary hypothesis,
which in itself —
i.e. without making use of the theory of relativity — appears

extraneous.
It is known that cathode rays and the so−called ²−rays

emitted by radioactive substances consist of negatively
electrified particles (electrons) of very small inertia and
large velocity. By examining the deflection of these rays
under the influence of electric and magnetic fields, we can
study the law of motion of these particles very exactly.
In the theoretical treatment of these electrons, we are faced
with the difficulty that electrodynamic theory of itself is
unable to give an account of their nature. For since
electrical masses of one sign repel each other, the negative
electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily
be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions,
unless there are forces of another kind operating between
them, the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to
us. 1) If we now assume that the relative distances between
the electrical masses constituting the electron remain
unchanged during the motion of the electron (rigid
connection in the sense of classical mechanics), we arrive at
a law of motion of the electron which does not agree with
experience. Guided by purely formal points of view, H. A.
Lorentz was the first to introduce the hypothesis that the
form of the electron experiences a contraction in the
direction of motion in consequence of that motion. the
contracted length being proportional to the expression
This, hypothesis, which is not justifiable by any

electrodynamical facts, supplies us then with that 34
particular law of motion which has been confirmed with

great precision in recent years.
The theory of relativity leads to the same law of motion,

without requiring any special hypothesis whatsoever as to
the structure and the behaviour of the electron. We arrived
at a similar conclusion
in Section 13 in connection with the experiment of Fizeau,

the result of which is foretold by the theory of relativity
without the necessity of drawing on hypotheses as to the
physical nature of the liquid.
The second class of facts to which we have alluded has
reference to the question whether or not the motion of the
earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial
experiments. We have
already remarked in Section 5 that all attempts of this

nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of
relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become
reconciled to this negative result, for reasons now to be
discussed. The inherited prejudices about time and space
did not allow any doubt to arise as to the prime importance
of the Galileian transformation for changing over from one
body of reference to another. Now assuming that the
Maxwell−Lorentz equations hold for a reference−body K, we
then find that they do not hold for a reference−body K1
moving uniformly with respect to K, if we assume that the
relations of the Galileian transformstion exist between the
co−ordinates of K and K1. It thus appears that, of all
Galileian co−ordinate systems, one (K) corresponding to a
particular state of motion is physically unique. This result
was interpreted physically by regarding K as at rest with
respect to a hypothetical æther of space. On the other
hand, all coordinate systems K1 moving relatively to K were
to be regarded as in motion with respect to the æther. To
this motion of K1 against the æther ("æther−drift " relative
to K1) were attributed the more complicated laws which
were supposed to hold relative to K1. Strictly speaking, such
an æther−drift ought also to be assumed relative to the
earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists were
devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an
æther−drift at the earth's surface.
In one of the most notable of these attempts Michelson

devised a method which appears as though it must be
decisive. Imagine two mirrors so arranged on a rigid body
that the reflecting surfaces face each other. A ray of light
requires a perfectly definite time T to pass from one mirror
to the other and back again, if the whole system be at rest
with respect to the æther. It is found by calculation,
however, that a slightly different time T1 is required for this
process, if the body, together with the mirrors, be moving
relatively to the æther. And yet another point: it is shown by
calculation that for a given velocity v with reference to the
æther, this time T1 is different when the body is moving
perpendicularly to the planes of the mirrors from that
resulting when the motion is parallel to these planes.
Although the estimated difference between these two times
is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an
experiment involving interference in which this difference
should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment
gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to
physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from
this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body
relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in
the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just
sufficient to compensate for the differeace in time
mentioned above. Comparison with the discussion in
Section 11 shows that also from the
standpoint of the theory of relativity this solution of the

difficulty was the right one. But on the basis of the theory of
relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more
satisfactory. According to this theory there is no such thing
as a " specially favoured " (unique) co−ordinate system to
occasion the introduction of the æther−idea, and hence
there can be no æther−drift, nor any experiment with which
to demonstrate it. Here the contraction of moving bodies
follows from the two fundamental principles of the theory,
without the introduction of particular hypotheses ; and as
the prime factor involved in this contraction we find, not the
motion in itself, to which we cannot attach any meaning, but
the motion with respect to the body of reference chosen in
the particular case in point. Thus for a co−ordinate system
moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and
Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a
co−ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun.
35
Next: Minkowski's Four−Dimensional Space
Footnotes
1) The general theory of relativity renders it likely that the

electrical masses of an electron are held together by
gravitational forces.
36
Minkowski's Four−Dimensional Space
The non−mathematician is seized by a mysterious

shuddering when he hears of
"four−dimensional" things, by a feeling not unlike that

awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no
more common−place statement than that the world in
which we live is a four−dimensional space−time continuum.
Space is a three−dimensional continuum. By this we mean

that it is possible to describe the position of a point (at rest)
by means of three numbers (co−ordinales) x, y, z, and that
there is an indefinite number of points in the neighbourhood
of this one, the position of which can be described by
co−ordinates such as x1, y1, z1, which may be as near as
we choose to the respective values of the co−ordinates x, y,
z, of the first point. In virtue of the latter property we speak
of a " continuum,"
and owing to the fact that there are three co−ordinates we

speak of it as being "
three−dimensional."
Similarly, the world of physical phenomena which was

briefly called " world " by Minkowski is naturally four
dimensional in the space−time sense. For it is composed of
individual events, each of which is described by four
numbers, namely, three space co−ordinates x, y, z, and a
time co−ordinate, the time value t. The" world" is in this
sense also a continuum; for to every event there are as
many "neighbouring" events (realised or at least thinkable)
as we care to choose, the co−ordinates x1, y1, z1, t1 of
which differ by an indefinitely small amount from those of
the event x, y, z, t originally considered. That we have not
been accustomed to regard the world in this sense as a
four−dimensional continuum is due to the fact that in
physics, before the advent of the theory of relativity, time
played a different and more independent role, as compared
with the space coordinates. It is for this reason that we have
been in the habit of treating time as an independent
continuum. As a matter of fact, according to classical
mechanics, time is absolute, i.e. it is independent of the
position and the condition of motion of the system of
co−ordinates. We see this expressed in the last equation of
the Galileian transformation (t1 = t) The four−dimensional
mode of consideration of the "world" is natural on the
theory of relativity, since according to this theory time is
robbed of its independence. This is shown by the fourth
equation of the Lorentz transformation:
Moreover, according to this equation the time difference ”t1

of two events with respect to K1 does not in general vanish,
even when the time difference ”t1 of the same events with
reference to K vanishes. Pure " space−distance " of two
events with respect to K results in " time−distance " of the
same events with respect to K. But the discovery of
Minkowski, which was of importance for the formal
development of the theory of relativity, does not lie here. It
is to be found rather in the fact of his recognition that the
four−dimensional space−time continuum of the theory of
relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a
pronounced relationship to the three−dimensional 37
continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. 1) In order to

give due prominence to this relationship,
however, we must replace the usual time co−ordinate t by

an imaginary magnitude proportional to it. Under these
conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the
(special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in
which the time co−ordinate plays exactly the same role as
the three space co−ordinates. Formally, these four
co−ordinates correspond exactly to the three space
co−ordinates in Euclidean geometry. It must be clear even
to the non−mathematician that, as a consequence of this
purely formal addition to our knowledge, the theory perforce
gained clearness in no mean measure.
These inadequate remarks can give the reader only a vague

notion of the important idea contributed by Minkowski.
Without it the general theory of relativity, of which the
fundamental ideas are developed in the following pages,
would perhaps have got no farther than its long clothes.
Minkowski's work is doubtless difficult of access to anyone

inexperienced in mathematics, but since it is not necessary
to have a very exact grasp of this work in order to
understand the fundamental ideas of either the special or
the general theory of relativity, I shall leave it here at
present, and
revert to it only towards the end of Part 2.
Next: Part II: The General Theory of Relativity
Footnotes
1) Cf. the somewhat more detailed discussion in Appendix II.
38

Part II
The General Theory of Relativity
Special and General Principle of Relativity
The basal principle, which was the pivot of all our previous
considerations, was the special principle of relativity, i.e. the
principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let
as once more analyse its meaning carefully.
It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the
idea it conveys to us, every motion must be considered only
as a relative motion. Returning to the illustration we have
frequently used of the embankment and the railway
carriage, we can express the fact of the motion here taking
place in the following two forms, both of which are equally
justifiable : (a) The carriage is in motion relative to the
embankment,
(b) The embankment is in motion relative to the carriage.
In (a) the embankment, in (b) the carriage, serves as the

body of reference in our statement of the motion taking
place. If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing
the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what
reference−body we refer the motion. As already mentioned,
this is self−evident, but it must not be confused with the
much more comprehensive statement called "the principle
of relativity," which we have taken as the basis of our
investigations.
The principle we have made use of not only maintains that

we may equally well choose the carriage or the
embankment as our reference−body for the description of
any event (for this, too, is self−evident). Our principle rather
asserts what follows : If we formulate the general laws of
nature as they are obtained from experience, by making use
of
(a) the embankment as reference−body,
(b) the railway carriage as reference−body,
then these general laws of nature ( e.g. the laws of

mechanics or the law of the propagation of light in vacuo)
have exactly the same form in both cases. This can also be
expressed as follows : For the physical description of natural
processes, neither of the reference bodies K, K1 is unique
(lit. "
specially marked out ") as compared with the other. Unlike

the first, this latter statement need not of necessity hold a
priori; it is not contained in the conceptions of " motion" and
" reference−body "
and derivable from them; only experience can decide as to

its correctness or incorrectness.
Up to the present, however, we have by no means

maintained the equivalence of all bodies of reference K in
connection with the formulation of natural laws. Our course
was more on the following Iines. In the first place, we
started out from the assumption that there exists a
reference−body K, whose condition of motion is such that
the Galileian law holds with respect to it : A particle left to
itself and sufficiently far removed from all other particles
moves uniformly in a straight line. With reference to K
(Galileian reference−body) the laws of nature were to be as
simple 39
as possible. But in addition to K, all bodies of reference K1

should be given preference in this sense, and they should
be exactly equivalent to K for the formulation of natural
laws, provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear
and non−rotary motion with respect to K ; all these bodies
of reference are to be regarded as Galileian
reference−bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity
was assumed only for these reference−bodies, but not for
others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In
this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or
special theory of relativity.
In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general

principle of relativity" the following statement : All bodies of
reference K, K1, etc., are equivalent for the description of
natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of
nature), whatever may be their state of motion. But before
proceeding farther, it ought to be pointed out that this
formulation must be replaced later by a more abstract one,
for reasons which will become evident at a later stage.
Since the introduction of the special principle of relativity

has been justified, every intellect which strives after
generalisation must feel the temptation to venture the step
towards the general principle of relativity. But a simple and
apparently quite reliable consideration seems to suggest
that, for the present at any rate, there is little hope of
success in such an attempt; Let us imagine ourselves
transferred to our old friend the railway carriage, which is
travelling at a uniform rate. As long as it is moving
unifromly, the occupant of the carriage is not sensible of its
motion, and it is for this reason that he can without
reluctance interpret the facts of the case as indicating that
the carriage is at rest, but the embankment in motion.
Moreover, according to the special principle of relativity, this
interpretation is quite justified also from a physical point of
view.
If the motion of the carriage is now changed into a

non−uniform motion, as for instance by a powerful
application of the brakes, then the occupant of the carriage
experiences a correspondingly powerful jerk forwards. The
retarded motion is manifested in the mechanical behaviour
of bodies relative to the person in the railway carriage. The
mechanical behaviour is different from that of the case
previously considered, and for this reason it would appear to
be impossible that the same mechanical laws hold relatively
to the non−uniformly moving carriage, as hold with
reference to the carriage when at rest or in uniform motion.
At all events it is clear that the Galileian law does not hold
with respect to the non−uniformly moving carriage.
Because of this, we feel compelled at the present juncture
to grant a kind of absolute physical reality to non−uniform
motion, in opposition to the general principle of relatvity.
But in what follows we shall soon see that this conclusion
cannot be maintained.
Next: The Gravitational Field
40
The Gravitational Field

"If we pick up a stone and then let it go, why does it fall to
the ground ?" The usual answer to this question is: "Because
it is attracted by the earth." Modern physics formulates the
answer rather differently for the following reason. As a result
of the more careful study of electromagnetic phenomena,
we have come to regard action at a distance as a process
impossible without the intervention of some intermediary
medium. If, for instance, a magnet attracts a piece of iron,
we cannot be content to regard this as meaning that the
magnet acts directly on the iron through the intermediate
empty space, but we are constrained to imagine — after the
manner of Faraday —
that the magnet always calls into being something

physically real in the space around it, that something being
what we call a "magnetic field." In its turn this magnetic
field operates on the piece of iron, so that the latter strives
to move towards the magnet. We shall not discuss here the
justification for this incidental conception, which is indeed a
somewhat arbitrary one. We shall only mention that with its
aid electromagnetic phenomena can be theoretically
represented much more satisfactorily than without it, and
this applies particularly to the transmission of
electromagnetic waves. The effects of gravitation also are
regarded in an analogous manner.
The action of the earth on the stone takes place indirectly.

The earth produces in its surrounding a gravitational field,
which acts on the stone and produces its motion of fall. As
we know from experience, the intensity of the action on a
body dimishes according to a quite definite law, as we
proceed farther and farther away from the earth. From our
point of view this means : The law governing the properties
of the gravitational field in space must be a perfectly
definite one, in order correctly to represent the diminution
of gravitational action with the distance from operative
bodies.
It is something like this: The body ( e.g. the earth) produces

a field in its immediate neighbourhood directly; the intensity
and direction of the field at points farther removed from the
body are thence determined by the law which governs the
properties in space of the gravitational fields themselves.
In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational

field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of
fundamental importance for what follows. Bodies which are
moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field
receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend
either on the material or on the physical state of the body.
For instance, a piece of lead and a piece of wood fall in
exactly the same manner in a gravitational field ( in vacuo),
when they start off from rest or with the same initial
velocity. This law, which holds most accurately, can be
expressed in a different form in the light of the following
consideration.
According to Newton's law of motion, we have
(Force) = (inertial mass) x (acceleration),
where the "inertial mass" is a characteristic constant of the

accelerated body. If now gravitation is the cause of the
acceleration, we then have
(Force) = (gravitational mass) x (intensity of the

gravitational field), where the "gravitational mass" is
likewise a characteristic constant for the body. From these
two relations follows:
41
If now, as we find from experience, the acceleration is to be

independent of the nature and the condition of the body and
always the same for a given gravitational field, then the
ratio of the gravitational to the inertial mass must likewise
be the same for all bodies. By a suitable choice of units we
can thus make this ratio equal to unity. We then have the
following law: The gravitational mass of a body is equal to
its inertial maw.
It is true that this important law had hitherto been recorded

in mechanics, but it had not been interpreted. A satisfactory
interpretation can be obtained only if we recognise the
following fact : The same quality of a body manifests itself
according to circumstances as " inertia " or as " weight "
(lit. " heaviness '). In the following section we shall show to

what extent this is actually the case, and how this question
is connected with the general postulate of relativity.
Next: The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an

argument for the General Postule of
Relativity
42

The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass
as an argument for the General Postule of Relativity
We imagine a large portion of empty space, so far removed

from stars and other appreciable masses, that we have
before us approximately the conditions required by the
fundamental law of Galilei. It is then possible to choose a
Galileian reference−body for this part of space (world),
relative to which points at rest remain at rest and points in
motion continue permanently in uniform rectilinear motion.
As reference−body let us imagine a spacious chest
resembling a room with an observer inside who is equipped
with apparatus. Gravitation naturally does not exist for this
observer. He must fasten himself with strings to the floor,
otherwise the slightest impact against the floor will cause
him to rise slowly towards the ceiling of the room.
To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed externally a

hook with rope attached, and now a " being
" (what kind of a being is immaterial to us) begins pulling at

this with a constant force. The chest together with the
observer then begin to move "upwards" with a uniformly
accelerated motion. In course of time their velocity will
reach unheard−of values — provided that we are viewing all
this from another reference−body which is not being pulled
with a rope.
But how does the man in the chest regard the Process ? The
acceleration of the chest will be transmitted to him by the
reaction of the floor of the chest. He must therefore take up
this pressure by means of his legs if he does not wish to be
laid out full length on the floor. He is then standing in the
chest in exactly the same way as anyone stands in a room
of a home on our earth. If he releases a body which he
previously had in his land, the accelertion of the chest will
no longer be transmitted to this body, and for this reason
the body will approach the floor of the chest with an
accelerated relative motion. The observer will further
convince himself that the acceleration of the body towards
the floor of the chest is always of the same magnitude,
whatever kind of body he may happen to use for the
experiment.
Relying on his knowledge of the gravitational field (as it was

discussed in the preceding section), the man in the chest
will thus come to the conclusion that he and the chest are in
a gravitational field which is constant with regard to time. Of
course he will be puzzled for a moment as to why the chest
does not fall in this gravitational field. just then, however,
he discovers the hook in the middle of the lid of the chest
and the rope which is attached to it, and he consequently
comes to the conclusion that the chest is suspended at rest
in the gravitational field.
Ought we to smile at the man and say that he errs in his

conclusion ? I do not believe we ought to if we wish to
remain consistent ; we must rather admit that his mode of
grasping the situation violates neither reason nor known
mechanical laws. Even though it is being accelerated with
respect to the
"Galileian space" first considered, we can nevertheless

regard the chest as being at rest. We have thus good
grounds for extending the principle of relativity to include
bodies of reference which are accelerated with respect to
each other, and as a result we have gained a powerful
argument for a generalised postulate of relativity.
We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of
interpretation rests on the fundamental property of the
gravitational field of giving all bodies the same acceleration,
or, what comes to the same thing, on the law of the equality
of inertial and gravitational mass. If this natural law did not
exist, the man in the accelerated chest would not be able to
interpret the behaviour of the bodies 43
around him on the supposition of a gravitational field, and

he would not be justified on the grounds of experience in
supposing his reference−body to be " at rest."
Suppose that the man in the chest fixes a rope to the inner
side of the lid, and that he attaches a body to the free end
of the rope. The result of this will be to strech the rope so
that it will hang "
vertically " downwards. If we ask for an opinion of the cause

of tension in the rope, the man in the chest will say: "The
suspended body experiences a downward force in the
gravitational field, and this is neutralised by the tension of
the rope ; what determines the magnitude of the tension of
the rope is the gravitational mass of the suspended body."
On the other hand, an observer who is poised freely in
space will interpret the condition of things thus : " The rope
must perforce take part in the accelerated motion of the
chest, and it transmits this motion to the body attached to
it. The tension of the rope is just large enough to effect the
acceleration of the body. That which determines the
magnitude of the tension of the rope is the inertial mass of
the body." Guided by this example, we see that our
extension of the principle of relativity implies the necessity
of the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass.
Thus we have obtained a physical interpretation of this law.
From our consideration of the accelerated chest we see that
a general theory of relativity must yield important results on
the laws of gravitation. In point of fact, the systematic
pursuit of the general idea of relativity has supplied the laws
satisfied by the gravitational field. Before proceeding
farther, however, I must warn the reader against a
misconception suggested by these considerations. A
gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite
the fact that there was no such field for the co−ordinate
system first chosen. Now we might easily suppose that the
existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent
one. We might also think that, regardless of the kind of
gravitational field which may be present, we could always
choose another reference−body such that no gravitational
field exists with reference to it. This is by no means true for
all gravitational fields, but only for those of quite special
form. It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of
reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field
of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.
We can now appreciate why that argument is not

convincing, which we brought forward against the general
principle of relativity at theend of Section 18. It is certainly
true that the observer in the
railway carriage experiences a jerk forwards as a result of

the application of the brake, and that he recognises, in this
the non−uniformity of motion (retardation) of the carriage.
But he is compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a " real "
acceleration (retardation) of the carriage. He might also
interpret his experience thus: " My body of reference (the
carriage) remains permanently at rest.
With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period

of application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is
directed forwards and which is variable with respect to time.
Under the influence of this field, the embankment together
with the earth moves non−uniformly in such a manner that
their original velocity in the backwards direction is
continuously reduced."
Next: In What Respects are the Foundations of Classical

Mechanics and of the Special Theory of
Relativity Unsatisfactory?
44
In What Respects are the Foundations of Classical

Mechanics and of the Special Theory of Relativity
Unsatisfactory?
We have already stated several times that classical

mechanics starts out from the following law: Material
particles sufficiently far removed from other material
particles continue to move uniformly in a straight line or
continue in a state of rest. We have also repeatedly
emphasised that this fundamental law can only be valid for
bodies of reference K which possess certain unique states of
motion, and which are in uniform translational motion
relative to each other. Relative to other reference−bodies K
the law is not valid. Both in classical mechanics and in the
special theory of relativity we therefore differentiate
between reference−bodies K relative to which the
recognised "
laws of nature " can be said to hold, and reference−bodies K
relative to which these laws do not hold.
But no person whose mode of thought is logical can rest

satisfied with this condition of things. He asks : " How does
it come that certain reference−bodies (or their states of
motion) are given priority over other reference−bodies (or
their states of motion) ? What is the reason for this
Preference? In order to show clearly what I mean by this
question, I shall make use of a comparison.
I am standing in front of a gas range. Standing alongside of

each other on the range are two pans so much alike that
one may be mistaken for the other. Both are half full of
water. I notice that steam is being emitted continuously
from the one pan, but not from the other. I am surprised at
this, even if I have never seen either a gas range or a pan
before. But if I now notice a luminous something of bluish
colour under the first pan but not under the other, I cease to
be astonished, even if I have never before seen a gas flame.
For I can only say that this bluish something will cause the
emission of the steam, or at least possibly it may do so. If,
however, I notice the bluish something in neither case, and
if I observe that the one continuously emits steam whilst the
other does not, then I shall remain astonished and
dissatisfied until I have discovered some circumstance to
which I can attribute the different behaviour of the two
pans.
Analogously, I seek in vain for a real something in classical

mechanics (or in the special theory of relativity) to which I
can attribute the different behaviour of bodies considered
with respect to the reference systems K and K1.1) Newton
saw this objection and attempted to invalidate it, but
without success. But E. Mach recognsed it most clearly of
all, and because of this objection he claimed that mechanics
must be placed on a new basis. It can only be got rid of by
means of a physics which is conformable to the general
principle of relativity, since the equations of such a theory
hold for every body of reference, whatever may be its state
of motion.
Next: A Few Inferences from the General Principle of

Relativity
45
Footnotes
1) The objection is of importance more especially when the

state of motion of the reference−body is of such a nature
that it does not require any external agency for its
maintenance, e.g. in the case when the reference−body is
rotating uniformly.
46
A Few Inferences from the General Principle of

Relativity
The considerations of Section 20 show that the general

principle of relativity puts us in a position to derive
properties of the gravitational field in a purely theoretical
manner. Let us suppose, for instance, that we know the
space−time " course " for any natural process whatsoever,
as regards the manner in which it takes place in the
Galileian domain relative to a Galileian body of reference K.
By means of purely theoretical operations (i.e. simply by
calculation) we are then able to find how this known natural
process appears, as seen from a reference−body K1 which
is accelerated relatively to K. But since a gravitational field
exists with respect to this new body of reference K1, our
consideration also teaches us how the gravitational field
influences the process studied.
For example, we Wayrn that a body which is in a state of

uniform rectilinear motion with respect to K (in accordance
with the law of Galilei) is executing an accelerated and in
general curvilinear motion with respect to the accelerated
reference−body K1 (chest). This acceleration or curvature
corresponds to the influence on the moving body of the
gravitational field prevailing relatively to K. It is known that
a gravitational field influences the movement of bodies in
this way, so that our consideration supplies us with nothing
essentially new.
However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance

when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of
light. With respect to the Galileian reference−body K, such a
ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocity c. It
can easily be shown that the path of the same ray of light is
no longer a straight line when we consider it with reference
to the accelerated chest (reference−body K1). From this we
conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated
curvilinearly in gravitational fields. In two respects this
result is of great importance.
In the first place, it can be compared with the reality.

Although a detailed examination of the question shows that
the curvature of light rays required by the genernal theory
of relativity is only exceedingly small for the gravitational
fields at our disposal in practice, its estimated magnitude
for light rays passing the sun at grazing incidence is
nevertheless 1.7 seconds of arc. This ought to manifest
itself in the following way. As seen from the earth, certain
fixed stars appear to be in the neighbourhood of the sun,
and are thus capable of observation during a total eclipse of
the sun. At such times, these stars ought to appear to be
displaced outwards from the sun by an amount indicated
above, as compared with their apparent position in the sky
when the sun is situated at another part of the heavens. The
examination of the correctness or otherwise of this
deduction is a
problem of the greatest importance, the early solution of

which is to be expected of astronomers.1)
In the second place our result shows that, according to the

general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot
claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can
only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position. Now we might think that as a
consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with
it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that
the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlinlited
domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are
able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the
phenomena ( e.g. of light).
47
Since it has often been contended by opponents of the

theory of relativity that the special theory of relativity is
overthrown by the general theory of relativity, it is perhaps
advisable to make the facts of the case clearer by means of
an appropriate comparison. Before the development of
electrodynamics the laws of electrostatics were looked upon
as the laws of electricity. At the present time we know that
electric fields can be derived correctly from electrostatic
considerations only for the case, which is never strictly
realised, in which the electrical masses are quite at rest
relatively to each other, and to the co−ordinate system.
Should we be justified in saying that for this reason
electrostatics is overthrown by the field−equations of
Maxwell in electrodynamics ? Not in the least. Electrostatics
is contained in electrodynamics as a limiting case ; the laws
of the latter lead directly to those of the former for the case
in which the fields are invariable with regard to time.
No fairer destiny could be allotted to any physical theory,

than that it should of itself point out the way to the
introduction of a more comprehensive theory, in which it
lives on as a limiting case.
In the example of the transmission of light just dealt with,

we have seen that the general theory of relativity enables
us to derive theoretically the influence of a gravitational
field on the course of natural processes, the Iaws of which
are already known when a gravitational field is absent. But
the most attractive problem, to the solution of which the
general theory of relativity supplies the key, concerns the
investigation of the laws satisfied by the gravitational field
itself. Let us consider this for a moment.
We are acquainted with space−time domains which behave
(approximately) in a " Galileian "
fashion under suitable choice of reference−body, i.e.

domains in which gravitational fields are absent. If we now
refer such a domain to a reference−body K1 possessing any
kind of motion, then relative to K1 there exists a
gravitational field which is variable with respect to space
and time.2) The character of this field will of course depend
on the motion chosen for K1. According to the general
theory of relativity, the general law of the gravitational field
must be satisfied for all gravitational fields obtainable in this
way. Even though by no means all gravitationial fields can
be produced in this way, yet we may entertain the hope that
the general law of gravitation will be derivable from such
gravitational fields of a special kind. This hope has been
realised in the most beautiful manner. But between the
clear vision of this goal and its actual realisation it was
necessary to surmount a serious difficulty, and as this lies
deep at the root of things, I dare not withhold it from the
reader. We require to extend our ideas of the space−time
continuum still farther.
Next: Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring−Rods on a

Rotating Body of Reference
Footnotes
1) By means of the star photographs of two expeditions

equipped by a Joint Committee of the Royal and Royal
Astronomical Societies, the existence of the deflection of
light demanded by theory was first confirmed during the
solar eclipse of 29th May, 1919. (Cf. Appendix III.)
2) This follows from a generalisation of the discussion in

Section 20
48
Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring−Rods on a

Rotating Body of Reference Hitherto I have purposely
refrained from speaking about the physical interpretation of
space− and time−data in the case of the general theory of
relativity. As a consequence, I am guilty of a certain
slovenliness of treatment, which, as we know from the
special theory of relativity, is far from being unimportant
and pardonable. It is now high time that we remedy this
defect; but I would mention at the outset, that this matter
lays no small claims on the patience and on the power of
abstraction of the reader.
We start off again from quite special cases, which we have

frequently used before. Let us consider a space time domain
in which no gravitational field exists relative to a
reference−body K whose state of motion has been suitably
chosen. K is then a Galileian reference−body as regards the
domain considered, and the results of the special theory of
relativity hold relative to K. Let us supposse the same
domain referred to a second body of reference K1, which is
rotating uniformly with respect to K. In order to fix our ideas,
we shall imagine K1 to be in the form of a plane circular
disc, which rotates uniformly in its own plane about its
centre. An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K1 is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial
direction, and which would be interpreted as an effect of
inertia (centrifugal force) by an observer who was at rest
with respect to the original reference−body K. But the
observer on the disc may regard his disc as a
reference−body which is " at rest " ; on the basis of the
general principle of relativity he is justified in doing this. The
force acting on himself, and in fact on all other bodies which
are at rest relative to the disc, he regards as the effect of a
gravitational field. Nevertheless, the space−distribution of
this gravitational field is of a kind that would not be possible
on Newton's theory of gravitation. 1) But
since the observer believes in the general theory of

relativity, this does not disturb him; he is quite in the right
when he believes that a general law of gravitation can be
formulated− a law which not only explains the motion of the
stars correctly, but also the field of force experienced by
himself.
The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with

clocks and measuring−rods. In doing so, it is his intention to
arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time− and
space−data with reference to the circular disc K1, these
definitions being based on his observations. What will be his
experience in this enterprise ?
To start with, he places one of two identically constructed

clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the
edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We
now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate
from the standpoint of the non−rotating Galileian
reference−body K. As judged from this body, the clock at
the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at
the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in
consequence of the rotation.
According to a result obtained in Section 12, it follows that

the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that
of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as
observed from K.
It is obvious that the same effect would be noted by an

observer whom we will imagine sitting alongside his clock at
the centre of the circular disc. Thus on our circular disc, or,
to make the case more general, in every gravitational field,
a clock will go more quickly or less quickly, according to the
position in which the clock is situated (at rest). For this
reason it is not possible to obtain a reasonable definition of
time with the aid of clocks which are arranged at rest with
respect to the body of reference. A similar difficulty presents
itself when we attempt to apply our earlier definition of
simultaneity in such a case, but I do not wish to go any
farther into this question.
49
Moreover, at this stage the definition of the space

co−ordinates also presents insurmountable difficulties. If
the observer applies his standard measuring−rod (a rod
which is short as compared with the radius of the disc)
tangentially to the edge of the disc, then, as judged from
the Galileian
system, the length of this rod will be less than I, since,

according to Section 12, moving bodies suffer a shortening
in the direction of the motion. On the other hand, the
measaring−rod will not experience a shortening in length,
as judged from K, if it is applied to the disc in the direction
of the radius. If, then, the observer first measures the
circumference of the disc with his measuring−rod and then
the diameter of the disc, on dividing the one by the other,
he will not obtain as quotient the
familiar number À = 3.14 . . ., but a larger number,2)
whereas of course, for a disc which is at rest
with respect to K, this operation would yield À exactly. This

proves that the propositions of Euclidean geometry cannot
hold exactly on the rotating disc, nor in general in a
gravitational field, at least if we attribute the length I to the
rod in all positions and in every orientation. Hence the idea
of a straight line also loses its meaning. We are therefore
not in a position to define exactly the co−ordinates x, y, z
relative to the disc by means of the method used in
discussing the special theory, and as long as the co−
ordinates and times of events have not been defined, we
cannot assign an exact meaning to the natural laws in which
these occur.
Thus all our previous conclusions based on general relativity

would appear to be called in question.
In reality we must make a subtle detour in order to be able

to apply the postulate of general relativity exactly. I shall
prepare the reader for this in the following paragraphs.
Next: Euclidean and Non−Euclidean Continuum
Footnotes
1) The field disappears at the centre of the disc and

increases proportionally to the distance from the centre as
we proceed outwards.
2) Throughout this consideration we have to use the

Galileian (non−rotating) system K as reference−body, since
we may only assume the validity of the results of the special
theory of relativity relative to K (relative to K1 a
gravitational field prevails).
50
Euclidean and Non−Euclidean Continuum
The surface of a marble table is spread out in front of me. I

can get from any one point on this table to any other point
by passing continuously from one point to a " neighbouring "
one, and repeating this process a (large) number of times,
or, in other words, by going from point to point without
executing "jumps." I am sure the reader will appreciate with
sufficient clearness what I mean here by " neighbouring "
and by " jumps " (if he is not too pedantic). We express this
property of the surface by describing the latter as a
continuum.
Let us now imagine that a large number of little rods of

equal length have been made, their lengths being small
compared with the dimensions of the marble slab. When I
say they are of equal length, I mean that one can be laid on
any other without the ends overlapping. We next lay four of
these little rods on the marble slab so that they constitute a
quadrilateral figure (a square), the diagonals of which are
equally long. To ensure the equality of the diagonals, we
make use of a little testing−rod. To this square we add
similar ones, each of which has one rod in common with the
first. We proceed in like manner with each of these squares
until finally the whole marble slab is laid out with squares.
The arrangement is such, that each side of a square belongs
to two squares and each corner to four squares.
It is a veritable wander that we can carry out this business
without getting into the greatest difficulties. We only need
to think of the following. If at any moment three squares
meet at a corner, then two sides of the fourth square are
already laid, and, as a consequence, the arrangement of the
remaining two sides of the square is already completely
determined. But I am now no longer able to adjust the
quadrilateral so that its diagonals may be equal. If they are
equal of their own accord, then this is an especial favour of
the marble slab and of the little rods, about which I can only
be thankfully surprised. We must experience many such
surprises if the construction is to be successful.
If everything has really gone smoothly, then I say that the

points of the marble slab constitute a Euclidean continuum
with respect to the little rod, which has been used as a "
distance "
(line−interval). By choosing one corner of a square as "

origin" I can characterise every other corner of a square
with reference to this origin by means of two numbers. I
only need state how many rods I must pass over when,
starting from the origin, I proceed towards the " right " and
then " upwards,"
in order to arrive at the corner of the square under

consideration. These two numbers are then the "
Cartesian co−ordinates " of this corner with reference to the

" Cartesian co−ordinate system" which is determined by the
arrangement of little rods.
By making use of the following modification of this abstract

experiment, we recognise that there must also be cases in
which the experiment would be unsuccessful. We shall
suppose that the rods
" expand " by in amount proportional to the increase of
temperature. We heat the central part of the marble slab,
but not the periphery, in which case two of our little rods
can still be brought into coincidence at every position on the
table. But our construction of squares must necessarily
come into disorder during the heating, because the little
rods on the central region of the table expand, whereas
those on the outer part do not.
With reference to our little rods — defined as unit lengths —

the marble slab is no longer a Euclidean continuum, and we
are also no longer in the position of defining Cartesian
co−ordinates 51
directly with their aid, since the above construction can no

longer be carried out. But since there are other things which
are not influenced in a similar manner to the little rods (or
perhaps not at all) by the temperature of the table, it is
possible quite naturally to maintain the point of view that
the marble slab is a " Euclidean continuum." This can be
done in a satisfactory manner by making a more subtle
stipulation about the measurement or the comparison of
lengths.
But if rods of every kind ( i.e. of every material) were to

behave in the same way as regards the influence of
temperature when they are on the variably heated marble
slab, and if we had no other means of detecting the effect of
temperature than the geometrical behaviour of our rods in
experiments analogous to the one described above, then
our best plan would be to assign the distance one to two
points on the slab, provided that the ends of one of our rods
could be made to coincide with these two points ; for how
else should we define the distance without our proceeding
being in the highest measure grossly arbitrary ? The method
of Cartesian coordinates must then be discarded, and
replaced by another which does not assume the validity of
Euclidean geometry for rigid bodies. 1) The reader will
notice that the situation depicted here corresponds to the
one
brought about by the general postitlate of relativity (Section

23).
Next: Gaussian Co−ordinates
Footnotes
1) Mathematicians have been confronted with our problem

in the following form. If we are given a surface ( e.g. an
ellipsoid) in Euclidean three−dimensional space, then there
exists for this surface a two−dimensional geometry, just as
much as for a plane surface. Gauss undertook the task of
treating this two−dimensional geometry from first
principles, without making use of the fact that the surface
belongs to a Euclidean continuum of three dimensions. If we
imagine constructions to be made with rigid rods in the
surface (similar to that above with the marble slab), we
should find that different laws hold for these from those
resulting on the basis of Euclidean plane geometry. The
surface is not a Euclidean continuum with respect to the
rods, and we cannot define Cartesian co−ordinates in the
surface. Gauss indicated the principles according to which
we can treat the geometrical relationships in the surface,
and thus pointed out the way to the method of Ricmman of
treating multi−dimensional, non−Euclidean continuum.
Thus it is that mathematicians long ago solved the formal
problems to which we are led by the general postulate of
relativity.
52
Gaussian Co−ordinates
According to Gauss, this combined analytical and

geometrical mode of handling the problem can be arrived at
in the following way. We imagine a system of arbitrary
curves (see Fig. 4) drawn on the surface of the table. These
we designate as u−curves, and we indicate each of them by
means of a number. The Curves u= 1, u= 2 and u= 3 are
drawn in the diagram. Between the curves u= 1
and u= 2 we must imagine an infinitely large number to be

drawn, all of which correspond to real numbers lying
between 1 and 2.
We have then a system of

u−curves, and this "infinitely dense" system covers the
whole surface of the table. These u−curves must not
interseect each other, and through each point of the surface
one and only one curve must pass. Thus a perfectly definite
value of u belongs to every point on the surface of the
marble slab.
In like manner we imagine a system of v−curves drawn on

the surface. These satisfy the same conditions as the
u−curves, they are provided with numbers in a
corresponding manner, and they may likewise be of
arbitrary shape. It follows that a value of u and a value of v
belong to every point on the surface of the table. We call
these two numbers the co−ordinates of the surface of the
table (Gaussian co−ordinates). For example, the point P in
the diagram has the Gaussian co−ordinates u= 3, v= 1. Two
neighbouring points P and P1 on the surface then
correspond to the co−ordinates P: u,v
P1: u + du, v + dv,
where du and dv signify very small numbers. In a similar

manner we may indicate the distance (line−interval)
between P and P1, as measured with a little rod, by means
of the very small number ds. Then according to Gauss we
have
ds2 = g11du2 + 2g12dudv = g22dv2
where g11, g12, g22, are magnitudes which depend in a

perfectly definite way on u and v. The magnitudes g11, g12
and g22, determine the behaviour of the rods relative to the
u−curves and v−curves, and thus also relative to the
surface of the table. For the case in which the points of the
surface considered form a Euclidean continuum with
reference to the measuring−rods, but only in this case, it is
possible to draw the u−curves and v−curves and to attach
numbers to them, in such a manner, that we simply have :
ds2 = du2 + dv2
53
Under these conditions, the u−curves and v−curves are

straight lines in the sense of Euclidean geometry, and they
are perpendicular to each other. Here the Gaussian
coordinates are samply Cartesian ones. It is clear that Gauss
co−ordinates are nothing more than an association of two
sets of numbers with the points of the surface considered, of
such a nature that numerical values differing very slightly
from each other are associated with neighbouring points " in
space."
So far, these considerations hold for a continuum of two

dimensions. But the Gaussian method can be applied also to
a continuum of three, four or more dimensions. If, for
instance, a continuum of four dimensions be supposed
available, we may represent it in the following way. With
every point of the continuum, we associate arbitrarily four
numbers, x1, x2, x3, x4, which are known as "
co−ordinates." Adjacent points correspond to adjacent

values of the coordinates. If a distance ds is associated with
the adjacent points P and P1, this distance being
measurable and well defined from a physical point of view,
then the following formula holds:
ds2 = g
2
2
11dx1 + 2g12dx1dx2 . . . . g44dx4 ,
where the magnitudes g11, etc., have values which vary

with the position in the continuum. Only when the
continuum is a Euclidean one is it possible to associate the
co−ordinates x1 . . x4. with the points of the continuum so
that we have simply
ds2 = dx 2
1 + dx2 + dx3 + dx4 .
In this case relations hold in the four−dimensional

continuum which are analogous to those holding in our
three−dimensional measurements.
However, the Gauss treatment for ds2 which we have given

above is not always possible. It is only possible when
sufficiently small regions of the continuum under
consideration may be regarded as Euclidean continua. For
example, this obviously holds in the case of the marble slab
of the table and local variation of temperature. The
temperature is practically constant for a small part of the
slab, and thus the geometrical behaviour of the rods is
almost as it ought to be according to the rules of Euclidean
geometry. Hence the imperfections of the construction of
squares in the previous section do not show themselves
clearly until this construction is extended over a
considerable portion of the surface of the table.
We can sum this up as follows: Gauss invented a method for
the mathematical treatment of continua in general, in which
" size−relations " (" distances " between neighbouring
points) are defined. To every point of a continuum are
assigned as many numbers (Gaussian coordinates) as the
continuum has dimensions. This is done in such a way, that
only one meaning can be attached to the assignment, and
that numbers (Gaussian coordinates) which differ by an
indefinitely small amount are assigned to adjacent points.
The Gaussian coordinate system is a logical generalisation
of the Cartesian co−ordinate system. It is also applicable to
non−Euclidean continua, but only when, with respect to the
defined "size" or "distance," small parts of the continuum
under consideration behave more nearly like a Euclidean
system, the smaller the part of the continuum under our
notice.
Next: The Space−Time Continuum of the Speical Theory of

Relativity Considered as a Euclidean
Continuum
54
The Space−Time Continuum of the Speical Theory of

Relativity Considered as a Euclidean Continuum
We are now in a position to formulate more exactly the idea
of Minkowski, which was only vaguely
indicated in Section 17. In accordance with the special

theory of relativity, certain co−ordinate systems are given
preference for the description of the four−dimensional,
space−time continuum.
We called these " Galileian co−ordinate systems." For these

systems, the four co−ordinates x, y, z, t, which determine
an event or — in other words, a point of the
four−dimensional continuum — are defined physically in a
simple manner, as set forth in detail in the first part of this
book. For the transition from one Galileian system to
another, which is moving uniformly with reference to the
first, the equations of the Lorentz transformation are valid.
These last form the basis for the derivation of deductions
from the special theory of relativity, and in themselves they
are nothing more than the expression of the universal
validity of the law of transmission of light for all Galileian
systems of reference.
Minkowski found that the Lorentz transformations satisfy the

following simple conditions. Let us consider two
neighbouring events, the relative position of which in the
four−dimensional continuum is given with respect to a
Galileian reference−body K by the space co−ordinate
differences dx, dy, dz and the time−difference dt. With
reference to a second Galileian system we shall suppose
that the corresponding differences for these two events are
dx1, dy1, dz1, dt1. Then these magnitudes always fulfil the
condition 1)
dx2 + dy2 + dz2 − c2dt2 = dx1 2 + dy1 2 + dz1 2 − c2dt1

2.
The validity of the Lorentz transformation follows from this
condition. We can express this as follows: The magnitude
ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2 − c2dt2,
which belongs to two adjacent points of the

four−dimensional space−time continuum, has the same
value for all selected (Galileian) reference−bodies. If we
replace x, y, z,
, by x1, x2, x3, x4, we
also obtaill the result that
ds2 = dx 2
1 + dx2 + dx3 + dx4 .
is independent of the choice of the body of reference. We

call the magnitude ds the " distance "
apart of the two events or four−dimensional points.
Thus, if we choose as time−variable the imaginary variable
instead of the real quantity t, we
can regard the space−time contintium — accordance with

the special theory of relativity — as a ", Euclidean "
four−dimensional continuum, a result which follows from
the considerations of the preceding section.
Next: The Space−Time Continuum of the General Theory of
55
Footnotes
1) Cf. Appendixes I and 2. The relations which are derived

there for the co−ordlnates themselves
are valid also for co−ordinate differences, and thus also for
co−ordinate differentials (indefilnitely small differences).
56
The Space−Time Continuum of the General Theory of

In the first part of this book we were able to make use of

space−time co−ordinates which allowed of a simple and
direct physical interpretation, and which, according to
Section 26, can be regarded as
four−dimensional Cartesian co−ordinates. This was possible

on the basis of the law of the constancy of the velocity of
tight. But according to Section 21 the general theory of
relativity cannot
retain this law. On the contrary, we arrived at the result that
according to this latter theory the velocity of light must
always depend on the co−ordinates when a gravitational
field is present. In connection with a specific illustration in
Section 23, we found that the presence of a gravitational
field invalidates the definition of the coordinates and the

ifine, which led us to our objective in the special theory of
relativity.
In view of the resuIts of these considerations we are led to

the conviction that, according to the general principle of
relativity, the space−time continuum cannot be regarded as
a Euclidean one, but that here we have the general case,
corresponding to the marble slab with local variations of
temperature, and with which we made acquaintance as an
example of a two−dimensional continuum. Just as it was
there impossible to construct a Cartesian co−ordinate
system from equal rods, so here it is impossible to build up
a system (reference−body) from rigid bodies and clocks,
which shall be of such a nature that measuring−rods and
clocks, arranged rigidly with respect to one another, shaIll
indicate position and time directly. Such was the essence of
the difficulty with which we were confronted in Section 23.
But the considerations of Sections 25 and 26 show us the

way to surmount this difficulty. We refer the fourdimensional
space−time continuum in an arbitrary manner to Gauss
co−ordinates. We assign to every point of the continuum
(event) four numbers, x1, x2, x3, x4 (co−ordinates), which
have not the least direct physical significance, but only
serve the purpose of numbering the points of the continuum
in a definite but arbitrary manner. This arrangement does
not even need to be of such a kind that we must regard x1,
x2, x3, as "space" co−ordinates and x4, as a " time "
co−ordinate.
The reader may think that such a description of the world

would be quite inadequate. What does it mean to assign to
an event the particular co−ordinates x1, x2, x3, x4, if in
themselves these co−ordinates have no significance ? More
careful consideration shows, however, that this anxiety is
unfounded. Let us consider, for instance, a material point
with any kind of motion. If this point had only a momentary
existence without duration, then it would to described in
space−time by a single system of values x1, x2, x3, x4.
Thus its permanent existence must be characterised by an
infinitely large number of such systems of values, the
co−ordinate values of which are so close together as to give
continuity; corresponding to the material point, we thus
have a (uni−dimensional) line in the four−dimensional
continuum. In the same way, any such lines in our
continuum correspond to many points in motion. The only
statements having regard to these points which can claim a
physical existence are in reality the statements about their
encounters. In our mathematical treatment, such an
encounter is expressed in the fact that the two lines which
represent the motions of the points in question have a
particular system of co−ordinate values, x1, x2, x3, x4, in
common. After mature consideration the reader will
doubtless admit that in reality such encounters constitute
the only actual evidence of a time−space nature with which
we meet in physical statements.
57
When we were describing the motion of a material point

relative to a body of reference, we stated nothing more than
the encounters of this point with particular points of the
reference−body. We can also determine the corresponding
values of the time by the observation of encounters of the
body with clocks, in conjunction with the observation of the
encounter of the hands of clocks with particular points on
the dials. It is just the same in the case of
space−measurements by means of measuring−rods, as a
litttle consideration will show.
The following statements hold generally : Every physical

description resolves itself into a number of statements, each
of which refers to the space−time coincidence of two events
A and B. In terms of Gaussian co−ordinates, every such
statement is expressed by the agreement of their four
co−ordinates x1, x2, x3, x4. Thus in reality, the description
of the time−space continuum by means of Gauss
co−ordinates completely replaces the description with the
aid of a body of reference, without suffering from the
defects of the latter mode of description; it is not tied down
to the Euclidean character of the continuum which has to be
represented.
Next: Exact Formulation of the General Principle of Relativity
58
Exact Formulation of the General Principle of

Relativity
We are now in a position to replace the pro. visional
formulation of the general principle of relativity given in
Section 18 by an exact formulation. The form there used,
"All bodies of reference K, K1, etc., are equivalent for the
description of natural phenomena (formulation of the
general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of
motion," cannot be maintained, because the use of rigid
reference−bodies, in the sense of the method followed in
the special theory of relativity, is in general not possible in
space−time description. The Gauss co−ordinate system has
to take the place of the body of reference. The following
statement corresponds to the fundamental idea of the
general principle of relativity: "All Gaussian co−ordinate
systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the
general laws of nature."
We can state this general principle of relativity in still

another form, which renders it yet more clearly intelligible
than it is when in the form of the natural extension of the
special principle of relativity.
According to the special theory of relativity, the equations

which express the general laws of nature pass over into
equations of the same form when, by making use of the
Lorentz transformation, we replace the space−time
variables x, y, z, t, of a (Galileian) reference−body K by the
space−time variables x1, y1, z1, t1, of a new
reference−body K1. According to the general theory of
relativity, on the other hand, by application of arbitrary
substitutions of the Gauss variables x1, x2, x3, x4, the
equations must pass over into equations of the same form;
for every transformation (not only the Lorentz
transformation) corresponds to the transition of one Gauss
co−ordinate system into another.
If we desire to adhere to our "old−time" three−dimensional
view of things, then we can characterise the development
which is being undergone by the fundamental idea of the
general theory of relativity as follows : The special theory of
relativity has reference to Galileian domains, i.e. to those in
which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a
Galileian reference−body serves as body of reference, i.e. a
rigid body the state of motion of which is so chosen that the
Galileian law of the uniform rectilinear motion of "isolated"
material points holds relatively to it.
Certain considerations suggest that we should refer the

same Galileian domains to non−Galileian reference−bodies
also. A gravitational field of a special kind is then present
with respect to these bodies (cf. Sections 20 and 23).
In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid

bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid
body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of
relativity. The motion of clocks is also influenced by
gravitational fields, and in such a way that a physical
definition of time which is made directly with the aid of
clocks has by no means the same degree of plausibility as in
the special theory of relativity.
For this reason non−rigid reference−bodies are used, which

are as a whole not only moving in any way whatsoever, but
which also suffer alterations in form ad lib. during their
motion. Clocks, for which the law of motion is of any kind,
however irregular, serve for the definition of time. We have
to imagine each of these clocks fixed at a point on the
non−rigid reference−body. These clocks satisfy only the one
condition, that the "readings" which are observed
simultaneously on adjacent clocks (in space) differ from
each other by an indefinitely small amount. This non−rigid
59
reference−body, which might appropriately be termed a

"reference−mollusc", is in the main equivalent to a
Gaussian four−dimensional co−ordinate system chosen
arbitrarily. That which gives the "mollusc" a certain
comprehensibility as compared with the Gauss co−ordinate
system is the (really unjustified) formal retention of the
separate existence of the space co−ordinates as opposed to
the time co−ordinate. Every point on the mollusc is treated
as a space−point, and every material point which is at rest
relatively to it as at rest, so long as the mollusc is
considered as reference−body. The general principle of
relativity requires that all these molluscs can be used as
reference−bodies with equal right and equal success in the
formulation of the general laws of nature; the laws
themselves must be quite independent of the choice of
mollusc.
The great power possessed by the general principle of

relativity lies in the comprehensive limitation which is
imposed on the laws of nature in consequence of what we
have seen above.
Next: The Solution of the Problem of Gravitation on the Basis

of the General Principle of Relativity
60

The Solution of the Problem of Gravitation on the
Basis of the General Principle of Relativity
If the reader has followed all our previous considerations, he

will have no further difficulty in understanding the methods
leading to the solution of the problem of gravitation.
We start off on a consideration of a Galileian domain, i.e. a

domain in which there is no gravitational field relative to the
Galileian reference−body K. The behaviour of
measuring−rods and clocks with reference to K is known
from the special theory of relativity, likewise the behaviour
of
"isolated" material points; the latter move uniformly and in

straight lines.
Now let us refer this domain to a random Gauss coordinate

system or to a "mollusc" as reference−body K1. Then with
respect to K1 there is a gravitational field G (of a particular
kind). We learn the behaviour of measuring−rods and clocks
and also of freely−moving material points with reference to
K1 simply by mathematical transformation. We interpret this
behaviour as the behaviour of measuring−rods, docks and
material points tinder the influence of the gravitational field
G. Hereupon we introduce a hypothesis: that the influence
of the gravitational field on measuringrods, clocks and
freely−moving material points continues to take place
according to the same laws, even in the case where the
prevailing gravitational field is not derivable from the
Galfleian special care, simply by means of a transformation
of co−ordinates.
The next step is to investigate the space−time behaviour of

the gravitational field G, which was derived from the
Galileian special case simply by transformation of the
coordinates. This behaviour is formulated in a law, which is
always valid, no matter how the reference−body (mollusc)
used in the description may be chosen.
This law is not yet the general law of the gravitational field,
since the gravitational field under consideration is of a
special kind. In order to find out the general law−of−field of
gravitation we still require to obtain a generalisation of the
law as found above. This can be obtained without caprice,
however, by taking into consideration the following
demands:
(a) The required generalisation must likewise satisfy the

general postulate of relativity.
(b) If there is any matter in the domain under consideration,

only its inertial mass, and thus according to Section 15 only
its energy is of importance for its etfect in exciting a field.
(c) Gravitational field and matter together must satisfy the

law of the conservation of energy (and of impulse).
Finally, the general principle of relativity permits us to

determine the influence of the gravitational field on the
course of all those processes which take place according to
known laws when a gravitational field is absent i.e. which
have already been fitted into the frame of the special theory
of relativity. In this connection we proceed in principle
according to the method which has already been explained
for measuring−rods, clocks and freely moving material
points.
The theory of gravitation derived in this way from the

general postulate of relativity excels not only in its beauty ;
nor in removing the defect attaching to classical mechanics
which was brought to 61
light in Section 21; nor in interpreting the empirical law of

the equality of inertial and gravitational mass ; but it has
also already explained a result of observation in astronomy,
against which classical mechanics is powerless.
If we confine the application of the theory to the case where

the gravitational fields can be regarded as being weak, and
in which all masses move with respect to the coordinate
system with velocities which are small compared with the
velocity of light, we then obtain as a first approximation the
Newtonian theory. Thus the latter theory is obtained here
without any particular assumption, whereas Newton had to
introduce the hypothesis that the force of attraction
between mutually attracting material points is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance between them. If
we increase the accuracy of the calculation, deviations from
the theory of Newton make their appearance, practically all
of which must nevertheless escape the test of observation
owing to their smallness.
We must draw attention here to one of these deviations.

According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun
in an ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position
with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the
motion of the fixed stars themselves and the action of the
other planets under consideration. Thus, if we correct the
observed motion of the planets for these two influences,
and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to
obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed
with reference to the fixed stars. This deduction, which can
be tested with great accuracy, has been confirmed for all
the planets save one, with the precision that is capable of
being obtained by the delicacy of observation attainable at
the present time. The sole exception is Mercury, the planet
which lies nearest the sun. Since the time of Leverrier, it has
been known that the ellipse corresponding to the orbit of
Mercury, after it has been corrected for the influences
mentioned above, is not stationary with respect to the fixed
stars, but that it rotates exceedingly slowly in the plane of
the orbit and in the sense of the orbital motion. The value
obtained for this rotary movement of the orbital ellipse was
43 seconds of arc per century, an amount ensured to be
correct to within a few seconds of arc. This effect can be
explained by means of classical mechanics only on the
assumption of hypotheses which have little probability, and
which were devised solely for this purponse.
On the basis of the general theory of relativity, it is found

that the ellipse of every planet round the sun must
necessarily rotate in the manner indicated above ; that for
all the planets, with the exception of Mercury, this rotation is
too small to be detected with the delicacy of observation
possible at the present time ; but that in the case of Mercury
it must amount to 43 seconds of arc per century, a result
which is strictly in agreement with observation.
Apart from this one, it has hitherto been possible to make

only two deductions from the theory which admit of being
tested by observation, to wit, the curvature of light rays by
the gravitational field of the sun, 1) and a displacement of
the spectral lines of light reaching us from large stars, as
compared with the corresponding lines for light produced in
an analogous manner terrestrially ( i.e. by the same kind of
atom). 2) These two deductions from the theory have both
been confirmed.
Next: Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Footnotes
1) First observed by Eddington and others in 1919. (Cf.
Appendix III, pp. 126−129).
62
2) Established by Adams in 1924. (Cf. p. 132)
63

Part III
Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Cosmological Difficulties of Netwon's Theory
Part from the difficulty discussed in Section 21, there is a

second fundamental difficulty attending
classical celestial mechanics, which, to the best of my

knowledge, was first discussed in detail by the astronomer
Seeliger. If we ponder over the question as to how the
universe, considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the first
answer that suggests itself to us is surely this: As regards
space (and time) the universe is infinite. There are stars
everywhere, so that the density of matter, although very
variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average
everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might
travel through space, we should find everywhere an
attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approrimately the same
kind and density.
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The

latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a
kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a
maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this
centre the group−density of the stars should diminish, until
finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite
region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be
a finite island in the infinite ocean of space. 1)
This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less

satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light
emitted by the stars and also individual stars of the stellar
system are perpetually passing out into infinite space, never
to return, and without ever again coming into interaction
with other objects of nature. Such a finite material universe
would be destined to become gradually but systematically
impoverished.
In order to escape this dilemma, Seeliger suggested a

modification of Newton's law, in which he assumes that for
great distances the force of attraction between two masses
diminishes more rapidly than would result from the inverse
square law. In this way it is possible for the mean density of
matter to be constant everywhere, even to infinity, without
infinitely large gravitational fields being produced. We thus
free ourselves from the distasteful conception that the
material universe ought to possess something of the nature
of a centre. Of course we purchase our emancipation from
the fundamental difficulties mentioned, at the cost of a
modification and complication of Newton's law which has
neither empirical nor theoretical foundation. We can
imagine innumerable laws which would serve the same
purpose, without our being able to state a reason why one
of them is to be preferred to the others ; for any one of
these laws would be founded just as little on more general
theoretical principles as is the law of Newton.
Next:
64
Footnotes
1) Proof — According to the theory of Newton, the number
of "lines of force" which come from infinity and terminate in
a mass m is proportional to the mass m. If, on the average,
the Mass density p0 is constant throughout tithe universe,
then a sphere of volume V will enclose the average man
p0V. Thus the number of lines of force passing through the
surface F of the sphere into its interior is proportional to p0
V. For unit area of the surface of the sphere the number of
lines of force which enters the sphere is thus proportional to
p0 V/F or to p0R. Hence the intensity of the field at the
surface would ultimately become infinite with increasing
radius R of the sphere, which is impossible.
65
The Possibility of a "Finite" and yet "Unbounded"

Universe But speculations on the structure of the universe
also move in quite another direction. The development of
non−Euclidean geometry led to the recognition of the fact,
that we can cast doubt on the infiniteness of our space
without coming into conflict with the laws of thought or with
experience (Riemann, Helmholtz). These questions have
already been treated in detail and with unsurpassable
lucidity by Helmholtz and Poincaré, whereas I can only touch
on them briefly here.
In the first place, we imagine an existence in two
dimensional space. Flat beings with flat implements, and in
particular flat rigid measuring−rods, are free to move in a
plane. For them nothing exists outside of this plane: that
which they observe to happen to themselves and to their
flat " things " is the all−inclusive reality of their plane. In
particular, the constructions of plane Euclidean geometry
can be carried out by means of the rods e.g. the lattice
construction, considered in Section 24. In contrast to ours,
the universe of these beings is two−dimensional; but,
like ours, it extends to infinity. In their universe there is

room for an infinite number of identical squares made up of
rods, i.e. its volume (surface) is infinite. If these beings say
their universe is "
plane," there is sense in the statement, because they mean

that they can perform the constructions of plane Euclidean
geometry with their rods. In this connection the individual
rods always represent the same distance, independently of
their position.
Let us consider now a second two−dimensional existence,

but this time on a spherical surface instead of on a plane.
The flat beings with their measuring−rods and other objects
fit exactly on this surface and they are unable to leave it.
Their whole universe of observation extends exclusively
over the surface of the sphere. Are these beings able to
regard the geometry of their universe as being plane
geometry and their rods withal as the realisation of "
distance " ? They cannot do this.
For if they attempt to realise a straight line, they will obtain

a curve, which we " three−dimensional beings " designate
as a great circle, i.e. a self−contained line of definite finite
length, which can be measured up by means of a
measuring−rod. Similarly, this universe has a finite area
that can be compared with the area, of a square constructed
with rods. The great charm resulting from this consideration
lies in the recognition of the fact that the universe of these
beings is finile and yet has no limits.
But the spherical−surface beings do not need to go on a

world−tour in order to perceive that they are not living in a
Euclidean universe. They can convince themselves of this on
every part of their "
world," provided they do not use to small a piece of it.

Starting from a point, they draw " straight lines " (arcs of
circles as judged in three dimensional space) of equal length
in all directions. They will call the line joining the free ends
of these lines a " circle." For a plane surface, the ratio of the
circumference of a circle to its diameter, both lengths being
measured with the same rod, is, according to Euclidean
geometry of the plane, equal to a constant value ¼, which is
independent of the diameter of the circle. On their spherical
surface our flat beings would find for this ratio the value
66
i.e. a smaller value than ¼, the difference being the more

considerable, the greater is the radius of the circle in
comparison with the radius R of the " world−sphere." By
means of this relation the spherical beings can determine
the radius of their universe (" world "), even when only a
relatively small part of their worldsphere is available for
their measurements. But if this part is very small indeed,
they will no longer be able to demonstrate that they are on
a spherical " world " and not on a Euclidean plane, for a
small part of a spherical surface differs only slightly from a
piece of a plane of the same size.
Thus if the spherical surface beings are living on a planet of

which the solar system occupies only a negligibly small part
of the spherical universe, they have no means of
determining whether they are living in a finite or in an
infinite universe, because the " piece of universe " to which
they have access is in both cases practically plane, or
Euclidean. It follows directly from this discussion, that for
our sphere−beings the circumference of a circle first
increases with the radius until the "
circumference of the universe " is reached, and that it

thenceforward gradually decreases to zero for still further
increasing values of the radius. During this process the area
of the circle continues to increase more and more, until
finally it becomes equal to the total area of the whole "
world−sphere."
Perhaps the reader will wonder why we have placed our "
beings " on a sphere rather than on another closed surface.
But this choice has its justification in the fact that, of all
closed surfaces, the sphere is unique in possessing the
property that all points on it are equivalent. I admit that the
ratio of the circumference c of a circle to its radius r
depends on r, but for a given value of r it is the same for all
points of the " worldsphere "; in other words, the "
world−sphere " is a " surface of constant curvature."
To this two−dimensional sphere−universe there is a

three−dimensional analogy, namely, the three−dimensional
spherical space which was discovered by Riemann. its
points are likewise all equivalent. It possesses a finite
volume, which is determined by its "radius" (2¼2R3). Is it
possible to imagine a spherical space? To imagine a space
means nothing else than that we imagine an epitome of our
" space " experience, i.e. of experience that we can have in
the movement of " rigid
" bodies. In this sense we can imagine a spherical space.
Suppose we draw lines or stretch strings in all directions

from a point, and mark off from each of these the distance r
with a measuring−rod. All the free end−points of these
lengths lie on a spherical surface. We can specially measure
up the area (F) of this surface by means of a square made
up of measuring−rods. If the universe is Euclidean, then F =
4¼R2 ; if it is spherical, then F is always less than 4¼R2.
With increasing values of r, F increases from zero up to a
maximum value which is determined by the "
world−radius," but for still further increasing values of r, the
area gradually diminishes to zero. At first, the straight lines
which radiate from the starting point diverge farther and
farther from one another, but later they approach each
other, and finally they run together again at a
"counter−point" to the starting point. Under such conditions
they have traversed the whole spherical space. It is easily
seen that the three−dimensional spherical space is quite
analogous to the two−dimensional spherical surface. It is
finite ( i.e. of finite volume), and has no bounds.
It may be mentioned that there is yet another kind of curved

space: " elliptical space." It can be regarded as a curved
space in which the two " counter−points " are identical
(indistinguishable from each other). An elliptical universe
can thus be considered to some extent as a curved universe
possessing central symmetry.
It follows from what has been said, that closed spaces

without limits are conceivable. From amongst these, the
spherical space (and the elliptical) excels in its simplicity,
since all points on it are equivalent. As a result of this
discussion, a most interesting question arises for
astronomers and physicists, and that is whether the
universe in which we live is infinite, or whether it is finite in
67
the manner of the spherical universe. Our experience is far

from being sufficient to enable us to answer this question.
But the general theory of relativity permits of our answering
it with a moduate degree of certainty, and in this connection
the difficulty mentioned in Section 30 finds its solution.
Next: The Structure of Space According to the General

Theory of Relativity
68
The Structure of Space According to the General

Theory of Relativity According to the general theory of
relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not
independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we
can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the
universe only if we base our considerations on the state of
the matter as being something that is known. We know from
experience that, for a suitably chosen co−ordinate system,
the velocities of the stars are small as compared with the
velocity of transmission of light. We can thus as a rough
approximation arrive at a conclusion as to the nature of the
universe as a whole, if we treat the matter as being at rest.
We already know from our previous discussion that the

behaviour of measuring−rods and clocks is influenced by
gravitational fields, i.e. by the distribution of matter. This in
itself is sufficient to exclude the possibility of the exact
validity of Euclidean geometry in our universe. But it is
conceivable that our universe differs only slightly from a
Euclidean one, and this notion seems all the more probable,
since calculations show that the metrics of surrounding
space is influenced only to an exceedingly small extent by
masses even of the magnitude of our sun. We might
imagine that, as regards geometry, our universe behaves
analogously to a surface which is irregularly curved in its
individual parts, but which nowhere departs appreciably
from a plane: something like the rippled surface of a lake.
Such a universe might fittingly be called a quasi−Euclidean
universe.
As regards its space it would be infinite. But calculation

shows that in a quasi−Euclidean universe the average
density of matter would necessarily be nil. Thus such a
universe could not be inhabited by matter everywhere ; it
would present to us that unsatisfactory picture which we
portrayed in
Section 30.
If we are to have in the universe an average density of

matter which differs from zero, however small may be that
difference, then the universe cannot be quasi−Euclidean.
On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if
matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would
necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the
detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real
universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical,
i.e. the universe will be quasi−spherical.
But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies

us with a simple connection 1) between
the space−expanse of the universe and the average density

of matter in it.
Footnotes
1) For the radius R of the universe we obtain the equation
The use of the C.G.S. system in this equation gives 2/k =
1.08.1027; p is the average density of the matter and k is a
constant connected with the Newtonian constant of
gravitation.
69
Appendix I: Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
70

Appendix
Appendix I
Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
(Supllementary to Section 11)
For the relative orientation of the co−ordinate systems

indicated in Fig. 2, the x−axes of both
systems pernumently coincide. In the present case we can

divide the problem into parts by considering first only
events which are localised on the x−axis. Any such event is
represented with respect to the co−ordinate system K by
the abscissa x and the time t, and with respect to the
system K1 by the abscissa x' and the time t'. We require to
find x' and t' when x and t are given.
A light−signal, which is proceeding along the positive axis of

x, is transmitted according to the equation
x = ct
or
x − ct = 0 . . . (1).
Since the same light−signal has to be transmitted relative

to K1 with the velocity c, the propagation relative to the
system K1 will be represented by the analogous formula x'
− ct' = O . . . (2)
Those space−time points (events) which satisfy (x) must

also satisfy (2). Obviously this will be the case when the
relation
(x' − ct') = » (x − ct) . . . (3).
is fulfilled in general, where » indicates a constant ; for,

according to (3), the disappearance of (x −
ct) involves the disappearance of (x' − ct').
If we apply quite similar considerations to light rays which

are being transmitted along the negative x−axis, we obtain
the condition
(x' + ct') = µ(x + ct) . . . (4).
By adding (or subtracting) equations (3) and (4), and

introducing for convenience the constants a and b in place
of the constants » and µ, where
and
71
we obtain the equations
We should thus have the solution of our problem, if the

constants a and b were known. These result from the
following discussion.
For the origin of K1 we have permanently x' = 0, and hence

according to the first of the equations (5)
If we call v the velocity with which the origin of K1 is moving

relative to K, we then have The same value v can be
obtained from equations (5), if we calculate the velocity of
another point of K1 relative to K, or the velocity (directed
towards the negative x−axis) of a point of K with respect to
K'. In short, we can designate v as the relative velocity of
the two systems.
Furthermore, the principle of relativity teaches us that, as

judged from K, the length of a unit measuring−rod which is
at rest with reference to K1 must be exactly the same as the
length, as judged from K', of a unit measuring−rod which is
at rest relative to K. In order to see how the points of the
x−axis appear as viewed from K, we only require to take a "
snapshot " of K1 from K; this means that we have to insert a
particular value of t (time of K), e.g. t = 0. For this value of t
we then obtain from the first of the equations (5)
x' = ax
Two points of the x'−axis which are separated by the

distance ”x' = I when measured in the K1 system are thus
separated in our instantaneous photograph by the distance
But if the snapshot be taken from K'(t' = 0), and if we
eliminate t from the equations (5), taking into account the
expression (6), we obtain
From this we conclude that two points on the x−axis
separated by the distance I (relative to K) will be
represented on our snapshot by the distance
72
But from what has been said, the two snapshots must be
identical; hence ”x in (7) must be equal to
”x' in (7a), so that we obtain
The equations (6) and (7b) determine the constants a and b.

By inserting the values of these constants in (5), we obtain
the first and the fourth of the equations given in Section 11.
Thus we have obtained the Lorentz transformation for
events on the x−axis. It satisfies the condition
x'2 − c2t'2 = x2 − c2t2 . . . (8a).
The extension of this result, to include events which take

place outside the x−axis, is obtained by retaining equations
(8) and supplementing them by the relations
In this way we satisfy the postulate of the constancy of the

velocity of light in vacuo for rays of light of arbitrary
direction, both for the system K and for the system K'. This
may be shown in the following manner.
We suppose a light−signal sent out from the origin of K at

the time t = 0. It will be propagated according to the
equation
or, if we square this equation, according to the equation
x2 + y2 + z2 = c2t2 = 0 . . . (10).
It is required by the law of propagation of light, in

conjunction with the postulate of relativity, that the
transmission of the signal in question should take place —
as judged from K1 — in accordance with the corresponding
formula
r' = ct'
73
or,
x'2 + y'2 + z'2 − c2t'2 = 0 . . . (10a).

In order that equation (10a) may be a consequence of
equation (10), we must have x'2 + y'2 + z'2 − c2t'2 = Ã (x2
+ y2 + z2 − c2t2) (11).
Since equation (8a) must hold for points on the x−axis, we

thus have Ã = I. It is easily seen that the Lorentz
transformation really satisfies equation (11) for Ã = I; for
(11) is a consequence of (8a) and (9), and hence also of (8)
and (9). We have thus derived the Lorentz transformation.
The Lorentz transformation represented by (8) and (9) still

requires to be generalised. Obviously it is immaterial
whether the axes of K1 be chosen so that they are spatially
parallel to those of K. It is also not essential that the velocity
of translation of K1 with respect to K should be in the
direction of the x−axis. A simple consideration shows that
we are able to construct the Lorentz transformation in this
general sense from two kinds of transformations, viz. from
Lorentz transformations in the special sense and from purely
spatial transformations. which corresponds to the
replacement of the rectangular co−ordinate system by a
new system with its axes pointing in other directions.
Mathematically, we can characterise the generalised

Lorentz transformation thus : It expresses x', y', x', t', in
terms of linear homogeneous functions of x, y, x, t, of such a
kind that the relation
x'2 + y'2 + z'2 − c2t'2 = x2 + y2 + z2 − c2t2 (11a).
is satisficd identically. That is to say: If we substitute their

expressions in x, y, x, t, in place of x', y', x', t', on the
left−hand side, then the left−hand side of (11a) agrees with
the right−hand side.
Next: Appendix II: Minkowski's Four Dimensional Space

74
Appendix
Appendix II
Minkowski's Four−Dimensional Space ("World")
(supplementary to section 17)
We can characterise the Lorentz transformation still more

simply if we introduce the imaginary in place of t, as
time−variable. If, in accordance with this, we insert x1 = x
x2 = y
x3 = z
x4 =
and similarly for the accented system K1, then the condition
which is identically satisfied by the transformation can be
expressed thus :
2
2
1'2 + x2'2 + x3'2 + x4'2 = x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 (12).
That is, by the afore−mentioned choice of " coordinates,"

(11a) [see the end of Appendix II] is
transformed into this equation.
We see from (12) that the imaginary time co−ordinate x4,

enters into the condition of transformation in exactly the
same way as the space co−ordinates x1, x2, x3. It is due to
this fact that, according to the theory of relativity, the " time
"x4, enters into natural laws in the same form as the space
co ordinates x1, x2, x3.
A four−dimensional continuum described by the

"co−ordinates" x1, x2, x3, x4, was called "world" by
Minkowski, who also termed a point−event a "
world−point." From a "happening" in three−dimensional
space, physics becomes, as it were, an " existence " in the
four−dimensional "
world."
This four−dimensional " world " bears a close similarity to

the three−dimensional " space " of (Euclidean) analytical
geometry. If we introduce into the latter a new Cartesian
co−ordinate system (x'1, x'2, x'3) with the same origin, then
x'1, x'2, x'3, are linear homogeneous functions of x1, x2, x3
which identically satisfy the equation
x' 2
2
2
1 + x'2 + x'3 = x1 + x2 + x3
The analogy with (12) is a complete one. We can regard

Minkowski's " world " in a formal manner as a
four−dimensional Euclidean space (with an imaginary time
coordinate) ; the Lorentz transformation corresponds to a "
rotation " of the co−ordinate system in the fourdimensional
"
world."
Next: The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory

of Relativity
75
76
Appendix
Appendix III
The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory
of
Relativity
From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may
imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to
be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved
and are expressed in short compass as statements of a
large number of individual observations in the form of
empirical laws, from which the general laws can be
ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the
development of a science bears some resemblance to the
compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a
purely empirical enterprise.
But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of

the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part
played by intuition and deductive thought in the
development of an exact science. As soon as a science has
emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no
longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement.
Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a
system of thought which, in general, is built up logically
from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the
so−called axioms. We call such a system of thought a
theory. The theory finds the justification for its existence in
the fact that it correlates a large number of single
observations, and it is just here that the " truth " of the
theory lies.
Corresponding to the same complex of empirical data, there

may be several theories, which differ from one another to a
considerable extent. But as regards the deductions from the
theories which are capable of being tested, the agreement
between the theories may be so complete that it becomes
difficult to find any deductions in which the two theories
differ from each other. As an example, a case of general
interest is available in the province of biology, in the
Darwinian theory of the development of species by selection
in the struggle for existence, and in the theory of
development which is based on the hypothesis of the
hereditary transmission of acquired characters.
We have another instance of far−reaching agreement

between the deductions from two theories in Newtonian
mechanics on the one hand, and the general theory of
relativity on the other. This agreement goes so far, that up
to the preseat we have been able to find only a few
deductions from the general theory of relativity which are
capable of investigation, and to which the physics of
pre−relativity days does not also lead, and this despite the
profound difference in the fundamental assumptions of the
two theories. In what follows, we shall again consider these
important deductions, and we shall also discuss the
empirical evidence appertaining to them which has hitherto
been obtained.
(a) Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
According to Newtonian mechanics and Newton's law of

gravitation, a planet which is revolving round the sun would
describe an ellipse round the latter, or, more correctly,
round the common centre of gravity of the sun and the
planet. In such a system, the sun, or the common centre of
gravity, lies in one of the foci of the orbital ellipse in such a
manner that, in the course of a planet−year, the distance
sun−planet grows from a minimum to a maximum, and then
decreases 77
again to a minimum. If instead of Newton's law we insert a

somewhat different law of attraction into the calculation, we
find that, according to this new law, the motion would still
take place in such a manner that the distance sun−planet
exhibits periodic variations; but in this case the angle
described by the line joining sun and planet during such a
period (from perihelion—closest proximity to the sun—to
perihelion) would differ from 3600. The line of the orbit
would not then be a closed one but in the course of time it
would fill up an annular part of the orbital plane, viz.
between the circle of least and the circle of greatest
distance of the planet from the sun.
According also to the general theory of relativity, which

differs of course from the theory of Newton, a small
variation from the Newton−Kepler motion of a planet in its
orbit should take place, and in such away, that the angle
described by the radius sun−planet between one perhelion
and the next should exceed that corresponding to one
complete revolution by an amount given by ( N.B. — One
complete revolution corresponds to the angle 2À in the
absolute angular measure customary in physics, and the
above expression giver the amount by which the radius
sun−planet exceeds this angle during the interval between
one perihelion and the next.) In this expression a represents
the major semi−axis of the ellipse, e its eccentricity, c the
velocity of light, and T the period of revolution of the planet.
Our result may also be stated as follows : According to the
general theory of relativity, the major axis of the ellipse
rotates round the sun in the same sense as the orbital
motion of the planet. Theory requires that this rotation
should amount to 43 seconds of arc per century for the
planet Mercury, but for the other Planets of our solar system
its magnitude should be so small that it would necessarily
escape detection. 1)
In point of fact, astronomers have found that the theory of

Newton does not suffice to calculate the observed motion of
Mercury with an exactness corresponding to that of the
delicacy of observation attainable at the present time. After
taking account of all the disturbing influences exerted on
Mercury by the remaining planets, it was found (Leverrier:
1859; and Newcomb: 1895) that an unexplained perihelial
movement of the orbit of Mercury remained over, the
amount of which does not differ sensibly from the above
mentioned +43 seconds of arc per century. The uncertainty
of the empirical result amounts to a few seconds only.
(b) Deflection of Light by a Gravitational Field
In Section 22 it has been already mentioned that according

to the general theory of relativity, a ray of light will
experience a curvature of its path when passing through a
gravitational field, this curvature being similar to that
experienced by the path of a body which is projected
through a gravitational field. As a result of this theory, we
should expect that a ray of light which is passing close to a
heavenly body would be deviated towards the latter. For a
ray of light which passes the sun at a distance of ”
sun−radii from its centre, the angle of deflection (a) should
amount to 78
It may be added that, according to the theory, half of
this deflection is produced
by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the

other half by the geometrical modification ("
curvature ") of space caused by the sun.
This result admits of an experimental test by means of the

photographic registration of stars during a total eclipse of
the sun. The only reason why we must wait for a total
eclipse is because at every other time the atmosphere is so
strongly illuminated by the light from the sun that the stars
situated near the sun's disc are invisible. The predicted
effect can be seen clearly from the accompanying diagram.
If the sun (S) were not present, a star which is practically
infinitely distant would be seen in the direction D1, as
observed front the earth. But as a consequence of the
deflection of light from the star by the sun, the star will be
seen in the direction D2, i.e. at a somewhat greater distance
from the centre of the sun than corresponds to its real
position.
In practice, the question is tested in the following way. The

stars in the neighbourhood of the sun are photographed
during a solar eclipse. In addition, a second photograph of
the same stars is taken when the sun is situated at another
position in the sky, i.e. a few months earlier or later. As
compared whh the standard photograph, the positions of
the stars on the eclipse−photograph ought to appear
displaced radially outwards (away from the centre of the
sun) by an amount corresponding to the angle a.
We are indebted to the [British] Royal Society and to the

Royal Astronomical Society for the investigation of this
important deduction. Undaunted by the [first world] war and
by difficulties of both a material and a psychological nature
aroused by the war, these societies equipped two
expeditions — to Sobral (Brazil), and to the island of Principe
(West Africa) — and sent several of Britain's most
celebrated astronomers (Eddington, Cottingham,
Crommelin, Davidson), in order to obtain photographs of the
solar eclipse of 29th May, 1919. The relative discrepancies
to be expected between the stellar photographs obtained
during the eclipse and the comparison photographs
amounted to a few hundredths of a millimetre only. Thus
great accuracy was necessary in making the adjustments
required for the taking of the photographs, and in their
subsequent measurement.
The results of the measurements confirmed the theory in a

thoroughly satisfactory manner. The rectangular
components of the observed and of the calculated
deviations of the stars (in seconds of arc) are set forth in the
following table of results :
79
(c) Displacement of Spectral Lines Towards the Red
In Section 23 it has been shown that in a system K1 which is

in rotation with regard to a Galileian system K, clocks of
identical construction, and which are considered at rest with
respect to the rotating reference−body, go at rates which
are dependent on the positions of the clocks. We shall now
examine this dependence quantitatively. A clock, which is
situated at a distance r from the centre of the disc, has a
velocity relative to K which is given by V = wr
where w represents the angular velocity of rotation of the

disc K1 with respect to K. If v0, represents the number of
ticks of the clock per unit time (" rate " of the clock) relative
to K when the clock is at rest, then the " rate " of the clock
(v) when it is moving relative to K with a velocity V, but at
rest with
respect to the disc, will, in accordance with Section 12, be

given by or with sufficient accuracy by
This expression may also be stated in the following form:
If we represent the difference of potential of the centrifugal

force between the position of the clock and the centre of the
disc by Æ, i.e. the work, considered negatively, which must
be performed on the unit of mass against the centrifugal
force in order to transport it from the position of the clock
on the rotating disc to the centre of the disc, then we have
From this it follows that
In the first place, we see from this expression that two

clocks of identical construction will go at different rates
when situated at different distances from the centre of the
disc. This result is aiso valid from the standpoint of an
observer who is rotating with the disc.
Now, as judged from the disc, the latter is in a gravititional

field of potential Æ, hence the result we have obtained will
hold quite generally for gravitational fields. Furthermore, we
can regard an atom which is emitting spectral lines as a
clock, so that the following statement will hold: An atom
absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on
the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated.
80

The frequency of an atom situated on the surface of a
heavenly body will be somewhat less than the frequency of
an atom of the same element which is situated in free space
(or on the surface of a smaller celestial body).
Now Æ = − K (M/r), where K is Newton's constant of

gravitation, and M is the mass of the heavenly body. Thus a
displacement towards the red ought to take place for
spectral lines produced at the surface of stars as compared
with the spectral lines of the same element produced at the
surface of the earth, the amount of this displacement being
For the sun, the displacement towards the red predicted by

theory amounts to about two millionths of the wave−length.
A trustworthy calculation is not possible in the case of the
stars, because in general neither the mass M nor the radius
r are known.
It is an open question whether or not this effect exists, and

at the present time (1920) astronomers are working with
great zeal towards the solution. Owing to the smallness of
the effect in the case of the sun, it is difficult to form an
opinion as to its existence. Whereas Grebe and Bachem
(Bonn), as a result of their own measurements and those of
Evershed and Schwarzschild on the cyanogen bands, have
placed the existence of the effect almost beyond doubt,
while other investigators, particularly St. John, have been
led to the opposite opinion in consequence of their
measurements.
Mean displacements of lines towards the less refrangible

end of the spectrum are certainly revealed by statistical
investigations of the fixed stars ; but up to the present the
examination of the available data does not allow of any
definite decision being arrived at, as to whether or not these
displacements are to be referred in reality to the effect of
gravitation. The results of observation have been collected
together, and discussed in detail from the standpoint of the
question which has been engaging our attention here, in a
paper by E. Freundlich entitled "Zur Prüfung der allgemeinen
Relativitâts−Theorie" ( Die Naturwissenschaften, 1919, No.
35, p. 520: Julius Springer, Berlin).
At all events, a definite decision will be reached during the

next few years. If the displacement of spectral lines towards
the red by the gravitational potential does not exist, then
the general theory of relativity will be untenable. On the
other hand, if the cause of the displacement of spectral lines
be definitely traced to the gravitational potential, then the
study of this displacement will furnish us with important
information as to the mass of the heavenly bodies. [A]
Next: Appendix IV: The Structure of Space According to the

General Theory of Relativity
Footnotes
1) Especially since the next planet Venus has an orbit that is
almost an exact circle, which makes it more difficult to
locate the perihelion with precision.
[A] The displacentent of spectral lines towards the red end

of the spectrum was definitely
established by Adams in 1924, by observations on the

dense companion of Sirius, for which the effect is about
thirty times greater than for the Sun. R.W.L. — translator 81

82
Appendix
Appendix IV
The Structure of Space According to the General
Theory of
Relativity
(Supplementary to Section 32)
Since the publication of the first edition of this little book,

our knowledge about the structure of space in the large ("
cosmological problem ") has had an important development,
which ought to be mentioned even in a popular presentation
of the subject.
My original considerations on the subject were based on two

hypotheses: (1) There exists an average density of matter in
the whole of space which is everywhere the same and
different from zero.
(2) The magnitude (" radius ") of space is independent of

time.
Both these hypotheses proved to be consistent, according to

the general theory of relativity, but only after a hypothetical
term was added to the field equations, a term which was not
required by the theory as such nor did it seem natural from
a theoretical point of view (" cosmological term of the field
equations ").
Hypothesis (2) appeared unavoidable to me at the time,

since I thought that one would get into bottomless
speculations if one departed from it.
However, already in the 'twenties, the Russian

mathematician Friedman showed that a different hypothesis
was natural from a purely theoretical point of view. He
realized that it was possible to preserve hypothesis (1)
without introducing the less natural cosmological term into
the field equations of gravitation, if one was ready to drop
hypothesis (2). Namely, the original field equations admit a
solution in which the " world radius " depends on time
(expanding space). In that sense one can say, according to
Friedman, that the theory demands an expansion of space.
A few years later Hubble showed, by a special investigation

of the extra−galactic nebulae (" milky ways "), that the
spectral lines emitted showed a red shift which increased
regularly with the distance of the nebulae. This can be
interpreted in regard to our present knowledge only in the
sense of Doppler's principle, as an expansive motion of the
system of stars in the large — as required, according to
Friedman, by the field equations of gravitation. Hubble's
discovery can, therefore, be considered to some extent as a
confirmation of the theory.
There does arise, however, a strange difficulty. The

interpretation of the galactic line−shift discovered by
Hubble as an expansion (which can hardly be doubted from
a theoretical point of view), leads to an origin of this
expansion which lies " only " about 109 years ago, while
physical astronomy makes it appear likely that the
development of individual stars and systems of stars takes
considerably longer. It is in no way known how this
incongruity is to be overcome.
83
I further want to rernark that the theory of expanding space,

together with the empirical data of astronomy, permit no
decision to be reached about the finite or infinite character
of (three−dimensional) space, while the original " static "
hypothesis of space yielded the closure (finiteness) of
space.
84

Albert Einstein - Relativity The Special and General Theory @PenalaranITS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Albert Einstein - Relativity The Special and General Theory @PenalaranITS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Albert Einstein - Relativity The Special and General Theory @PenalaranITS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Relativity: The Special and General Theory Albert

Relativity: The Special and General Theory

The Special and General Theory

Source: Relativity: The Special and General Theory © 1920

Publisher: Methuen & Co Ltd

First Published: December, 1916

Translated: Robert W. Lawson (Authorised translation)

Transcription/Markup: Brian Basgen

Convertion to PDF: Sjoerd Langkemper

Oﬄine Version: Einstein Reference Archive (marxists.org)

Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity

01. Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions

02. The System of Co−ordinates

03. Space and Time in Classical Mechanics

05. The Principle of Relativity (in the Restricted Sense)

06. The Theorem of the Addition of Velocities employed in

07. The Apparent Incompatability of the Law of Propagation

08. On the Idea of Time in Physics

09. The Relativity of Simultaneity

10. On the Relativity of the Conception of Distance

11. The Lorentz Transformation

12. The Behaviour of Measuring−Rods and Clocks in Motion

13. Theorem of the Addition of Velocities. The Experiment of

14. The Hueristic Value of the Theory of Relativity

15. General Results of the Theory

16. Expereince and the Special Theory of Relativity

17. Minkowski's Four−dimensial Space

Part II: The General Theory of Relativity

18. Special and General Principle of Relativity

19. The Gravitational Field

21. In What Respects are the Foundations of Classical

Relativity: The Special and General Theory

22. A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity

23. Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring−Rods on a Rotating

24. Euclidean and non−Euclidean Continuum

25. Gaussian Co−ordinates

26. The Space−Time Continuum of the Speical Theory of

27. The Space−Time Continuum of the General Theory of

28. Exact Formulation of the General Principle of Relativity

29. The Solution of the Problem of Gravitation on the Basis

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole

31. The Possibility of a "Finite" and yet "Unbounded"

32. The Structure of Space According to the General Theory

01. Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation (sup.

02. Minkowski's Four−Dimensional Space ("World") (sup. ch

03. The Experimental Conﬁrmation of the General Theory of

04. The Structure of Space According to the General Theory

05. Relativity and the Problem of Space

Note: The ﬁfth appendix was added by Einstein at the time

Einstein Reference Archive

Relativity: The Special and General Theory

Relativity: The Special and General Theory

Relativity: The Special and General Theory

Relativity: The Special and General Theory Albert Einstein:

In your schooldays most of you who read this book made

Geometry sets out form certain conceptions such as

"straight lines," to each of which is ascribed the property of

It is not diﬃcult to understand why, in spite of this, we feel

If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement