The Principle of Relativity

The Principle of Relativity

THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY

ORIGINAL PAPERS BY

A. EINSTEIN AND H. MINKOWSKI

TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY

M. N. SAHA AND S. N. BOSELECTURERS ON PHYSICS AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS University College of Science, Calcutta University

WITH A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION BYP. C. MAHALANOBIS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, PRESIDENCY COLLEGE, CALCU.

PUBLISHED BY THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA1920 Sole Agents R. CAMBRAY & CO. PRINTED BY ATULCHANDRA BHATTACHARYYA, AT THE CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY PRESS, SENATE HOUSE, CALCUTTA

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Historical Introduction i-xxiii

[By Mr. P. C. Mahalanobis.] 2. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies 1-34 [Einstein's first paper on the restricted Theory of Relativity, originally published in the Annalen der Physik in 1905. Translated from the original German by Dr. Meghnad Saha.] 3. Albrecht Einstein 35-39 [A short biographical note by Dr. Meghnad Saha.] 4. Principle of Relativity 1-52 [H. Minkowski's original paper on the restricted Principle of Relativity first published in 1909. Translated from the original German by Dr. Meghnad Saha.] 5. Appendix to the above by H. Minkowski 53-88 [Translated by Dr. Meghnad Saha.] 6. The Generalised Principle of Relativity 89-163 [A. Einstein's second paper on the Generalised Principle first published in 1916. Translated from the original German by Mr. Satyendranath Bose.] 7. Notes 165-185 Transcriber's Note: The plain text version of this ebook includes complex mathematical formulas. Some are simple in-line expressions like k = 1 - 1/μ^2. They may include special notations such as x^y for x to the power of y, x_{y} for x with a subscript of y, [=a] for an 'a' with a bar across the top, [.a] for an 'a' with a dot over it, [..a] for an 'a' with two dots over it. Others are more complex "ASCII Art" like this: l l 2lc 2l t₁ = ------ + ------ = -------- = --- β² c - u c + u c² - u² c Some are so complex that they must be rendered in the TeX mathematical notation, enclosed between double dollar signs, like this: $ \beta = (1 - \frac {u^2}{c^2})^{-\frac{1}{2}} $

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

Lord Kelvin writing in 1893, in his preface to the English edition of Hertz's Researches on Electric Waves, says "many workers and many thinkers have helped to build up the nineteenth century school of plenum, one ether for light, heat, electricity, magnetism; and the German and English volumes containing Hertz's electrical papers, given to the world in the last decade of the century, will be a permanent monument of the splendid consummation now realised."

Ten years later, in 1905, we find Einstein declaring that "the ether will be proved to be superfluous." At first sight the revolution in scientific thought brought about in the course of a single decade appears to be almost too violent. A more careful even though a rapid review of the subject will, however, show how the Theory of Relativity gradually became a historical necessity.

Towards the beginning of the nineteenth century, the luminiferous ether came into prominence as a result of the brilliant successes of the wave theory in the hands of Young and Fresnel. In its stationary aspect the elastic solid ether was the outcome of the search for a medium in which the light waves may "undulate." This stationary ether, as shown by Young, also afforded a satisfactory explanation of astronomical aberration. But its very success gave rise to a host of new questions all bearing on the central problem of relative motion of ether and matter.

Arago's prism experiment.—The refractive index of a glass prism depends on the incident velocity of light outside the prism and its velocity inside the prism after refraction. On Fresnel's fixed ether hypothesis, the incident light waves are situated in the stationary ether outside the prism and move with velocity c with respect to the ether. If the prism moves with a velocity u with respect to this fixed ether, then the incident velocity of light with respect to the prism should be c + u. Thus the refractive index of the glass prism should depend on u the absolute velocity of the prism, i.e., its velocity with respect to the fixed ether. Arago performed the experiment in 1819, but failed to detect the expected change.

Airy-Boscovitch water-telescope experiment.—Boscovitch had still earlier in 1766, raised the very important question of the dependence of aberration on the refractive index of the medium filling the telescope. Aberration depends on the difference in the velocity of light outside the telescope and its velocity inside the telescope. If the latter velocity changes owing to a change in the medium filling the telescope, aberration itself should change, that is, aberration should depend on the nature of the medium.

Airy, in 1871 filled up a telescope with water—but failed to detect any change in the aberration. Thus we get both in the case of Arago prism experiment and Airy-Boscovitch water-telescope experiment, the very startling result that optical effects in a moving medium seem to be quite independent of the velocity of the medium with respect to Fresnel's stationary ether.

Fresnel's convection coefficient k = 1 - 1/μ^2.—Possibly some form of compensation is taking place. Working on this hypothesis, Fresnel offered his famous ether convection theory. According to Fresnel, the presence of matter implies a definite condensation of ether within the region occupied by matter. This "condensed" or excess portion of ether is supposed to be carried away with its own piece of moving matter. It should be observed that only the "excess" portion is carried away, while the rest remains as stagnant as ever. A complete convection of the "excess" ether ρ′ with the full velocity u is optically equivalent to a partial convection of the total ether ρ, with only a fraction of the velocity k. u. Fresnel showed that if this convection coefficient k is 1 - 1/μ^2 (μ being the refractive index of the prism), then the velocity of light after refraction within the moving prism would be altered to just such extent as would make the refractive index of the moving prism quite independent of its "absolute" velocity u. The non-dependence of aberration on the "absolute" velocity u, is also very easily explained with the help of this Fresnelian convection-coefficient k.

Stokes' viscous ether.—It should be remembered, however, that Fresnel's stationary ether is absolutely fixed and is not at all disturbed by the motion of matter through it. In this respect Fresnelian ether cannot be said to behave in any respectable physical fashion, and this led Stokes, in 1845-46, to construct a more material type of medium. Stokes assumed that viscous motion ensues near the surface of separation of ether and moving matter, while at sufficiently distant regions the ether remains wholly undisturbed. He showed how such a viscous ether would explain aberration if all motion in it were differentially irrotational. But in order to explain the null Arago effect, Stokes was compelled to assume the convection hypothesis of Fresnel with an identical numerical value for k, namely 1 - 1/μ^2. Thus the prestige of the Fresnelian convection-coefficient was enhanced, if anything, by the theoretical investigations of Stokes.

Fizeau's experiment.—Soon after, in 1851, it received direct experimental confirmation in a brilliant piece of work by Fizeau.

If a divided beam of light is re-united after passing through two adjacent cylinders filled with water, ordinary interference fringes will be produced. If the water in one of the cylinders is now made to flow, the "condensed" ether within the flowing water would be convected and would produce a shift in the interference fringes. The shift actually observed agreed very well with a value of k = 1 - 1/μ^2. The Fresnelian convection-coefficient now became firmly established as a consequence of a direct positive effect. On the other hand, the negative evidences in favour of the convection-coefficient had also multiplied. Mascart, Hoek, Maxwell and others sought for definite changes in different optical effects induced by the motion of the earth relative to the stationary ether. But all such attempts failed to reveal the slightest trace of any optical disturbance due to the "absolute" velocity of the earth, thus proving conclusively that all the different optical effects shared in the general compensation arising out of the Fresnelian convection of the excess ether. It must be carefully noted that the Fresnelian convection-coefficient implicitly assumes the existence of a fixed ether (Fresnel) or at least a wholly stagnant medium at sufficiently distant regions (Stokes), with reference to which alone a convection velocity can have any significance. Thus the convection-coefficient implying some type of a stationary or viscous, yet nevertheless "absolute" ether, succeeded in explaining satisfactorily all known optical facts down to 1880.

Michelson-Morley Experiment.—In 1881, Michelson and Morley performed their classical experiments which undermined the whole structure of the old ether theory and thus served to introduce the new theory of relativity. The fundamental idea underlying this experiment is quite simple. In all old experiments the velocity of light situated in free ether was compared with the velocity of waves actually situated in a piece of moving matter and presumably carried away by it. The compensatory effect of the Fresnelian convection of ether afforded a satisfactory explanation of all negative results.

In the Michelson-Morley experiment the arrangement is quite different. If there is a definite gap in a rigid body, light waves situated in free ether will take a definite time in crossing the gap. If the rigid platform carrying the gap is set in motion with respect to the ether in the direction of light propagation, light waves (which are even now situated in free ether) should presumably take a longer time to cross the gap.

We cannot do better than quote Eddington's description of this famous experiment. "The principle of the experiment may be illustrated by considering a swimmer in a river. It is easily realized that it takes longer to swim to a point 50 yards up-stream and back than to a point 50 yards across-stream and back. If the earth is moving through the ether there is a river of ether flowing through the laboratory, and a wave of light may be compared to a swimmer travelling with constant velocity relative to the current. If, then, we divide a beam of light into two parts, and send one-half swimming up the stream for a certain distance and then (by a mirror) back to the starting point, and send the other half an equal distance across stream and back, the across-stream beam should arrive back first.

——>u
O
A—————........
| x
|
|B

Let the ether be flowing relative to the apparatus with velocity u in the direction Ox, and let OA, OB, be the two arms of the apparatus of equal length l, OA being placed up-stream. Let c be the velocity of light. The time for the double journey along OA and back is

l l 2lc 2l
t₁ = ------ + ------ = -------- = --- β²
c - u c + u c² - u² c

where

$ \beta = (1 - \frac {u^2}{c^2})^{-\frac {1}{2}} $

a factor greater than unity.

For the transverse journey the light must have a component velocity n up-stream (relative to the ether) in order to avoid being carried below OB: and since its total velocity is c, its component across-stream must be √(c² - u²), the time for the double journey OB is accordingly

$ t_2 = \frac {2a}{\sqrt {c^2 - u^2}} = \frac {2a}{c} \beta $

so that t₁ > t₂.

But when the experiment was tried, it was found that both parts of the beam took the same time, as tested by the interference bands produced."

After a most careful series of observations, Michelson and Morley failed to detect the slightest trace of any effect due to earth's motion through ether.

The Michelson-Morley experiment seems to show that there is no relative motion of ether and matter. Fresnel's stagnant ether requires a relative velocity of—u. Thus Michelson and Morley themselves thought at first that their experiment confirmed Stokes' viscous ether, in which no relative motion can ensue on account of the absence of slipping of ether at the surface of separation. But even on Stokes' theory this viscous flow of ether would fall off at a very rapid rate as we recede from the surface of separation. Michelson and Morley repeated their experiment at different heights from the surface of the earth, but invariably obtained the same negative results, thus failing to confirm Stokes' theory of viscous flow.

Lodge's experiment.—Further, in 1893, Lodge performed his rotating sphere experiment which showed complete absence of any viscous flow of ether due to moving masses of matter. A divided beam of light, after repeated reflections within a very narrow gap between two massive hemispheres, was allowed to re-unite and thus produce interference bands. When the two hemispheres are set rotating, it is conceivable that the ether in the gap would be disturbed due to viscous flow, and any such flow would be immediately detected by a disturbance of the interference bands. But actual observation failed to detect the slightest disturbance of the ether in the gap, due to the motion of the hemispheres. Lodge's experiment thus seems to show a complete absence of any viscous flow of ether.

Apart from these experimental discrepancies, grave theoretical objections were urged against a viscous ether. Stokes himself had shown that his ether must be incompressible and all motion in it differentially irrotational, at the same time there should be absolutely no slipping at the surface of separation. Now all these conditions cannot be simultaneously satisfied for any conceivable material medium without certain very special and arbitrary assumptions. Thus Stokes' ether failed to satisfy the very motive which had led Stokes to formulate it, namely, the desirability of constructing a "physical" medium. Planck offered modified forms of Stokes' theory which seemed capable of being reconciled with the Michelson-Morley experiment, but required very special assumptions. The very complexity and the very arbitrariness of these assumptions prevented Planck's ether from attaining any degree of practical importance in the further development of the subject.