B Development of Special Relativity

[NoahsArk]

I'm interested in the history of thought that led to the discovery of special relativity.

Of all the equations in special relativity, e.g. the equation for the invariant interval, the equation for gamma, the Lorentz transformation equations, the equation for velocity addition, etc., which one was discovered first, and which one is the one from which all the others are derived? If I'm not mistaken, it was the equation for the invariant interval or the one for gamma that came first (and that these two are really the same thing in different form).

I've wondered how really was that first equation arrived at. The light clock is the usual example given for the gamma equation. Is that also historically how it was arrived at- through a thought experiment? Was it Einstein that came up with that example?

Also, didn't Lorentz first come up with the Lorentz transformations before Einstein came up with the light clock example/ gamma equation? That seems a bit confusing because the Lorentz transformations are more complicated and more general than than the equation for gamma. It seems like the equations should have been discovered the other way around.

Also, Einstein is considered to have been the founder of special relativity. To me, the most profound part of special relativity is that the passage of time between any two things happening is not the same for everyone, and depends on their relative motion. Lorentz could not have not understood this already, though. The Lorentz transformations show that time in one frame has a different value than time in another, so wouldn't he have understood that time is now a new dimension? I am not doubting Einstein's contributions. I know that he came up with $e = mc^2$ and general relativity. I just wanted to know what his contribution was to the idea of "time is relative" compared to what Lorentz's contribution was.

Finally, it is often said that Einstein's discovery of relativity is likely the greatest mental achievement ever in history. When this is said, are people referring to the discovery of special relativity or general relativity or both? Also, why exactly is it that it is the greatest mental achievement, if it is? I assume that opinion plays a part in it, but why, for example, would it be a deeper discovery than Newton's discovery of gravity, or Pythagoras' discovery of the Pythagorean theorem? Is it because special relativity was the discovery of a 4th dimension, and because the discovery of the nature of time went against all of our prior experience?

 

[Nugatory]

Of all the equations in special relativity, e.g. the equation for the invariant interval, the equation for gamma, the Lorentz transformation equations, the equation for velocity addition, etc., which one was discovered first,

The Lorentz transformations came first, which is why they’re called ‘Lorentz transformations” instead of “Einstein transformations”. Einstein showed that these transformations followed naturally from his two postulates, so could form a complete and internally consistent alternative to Galilean relativity.

The gamma factor wasn’t “discovered”, it’s just easier to write $\gamma$ than $1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ so we generally do the former instead of the latter. The velocity addition law is a bit of algebra starting from the Lorentz transformations; there never was anything there to “discover”.

The invariant interval and the concepts of Minkowski space and Minkowski diagrams came later. First Einstein published his SR paper in 1905, and then a year or so later Minkowski pointed out that there’s a more mathematically elegant way of describing the physics based on the fact that the Lorentz transformations preserve the spacetime interval - that’s why we call them “Minkowski diagrams” instead of “Einstein diagrams”

When this is said, are people referring to the discovery of special relativity or general relativity or both?

Maybe you should ask whoever said that?

 

[NoahsArk]

The invariant interval and the concepts of Minkowski space and Minkowski diagrams came later.

It seems, though, like the Lorentz transformations immediately show the existence of one space-time due to the use of t's and t primes. I don't see where the further thought and work came to go from the LTs to Mikowski space-time.

 

[Nugatory]

I don't see where the further thought and work came to go from the LTs to Mikowski space-time.

Well, try to imagine yourself as a talented PhD student in 1905, reading Einstein’s just-published paper “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies” - google will find some English translations online. Do you think that you would immediately jump to Poincare’s discovery of the implications of substituting $t\mapsto ict$? And from there to Minkowski’s 1908 paper https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Tr...or_Electromagnetic_Processes_in_Moving_Bodies?

It looks like a lot of seriously non-trivial work to me.

 

[NoahsArk]

My last question I poorly phrased. I guess my main question is about understanding in lay man's terms, if that's possible, the contributions of Lorentz vs. those of Einstein.

Is it correct to say that the novelty of special relativity is that it introduces t as being frame dependent? If so, was it Lorentz or Einstein that realized this?

 

[robphy]

It seems, though, like the Lorentz transformations immediately show the existence of one space-time due to the use of t's and t primes. I don't see where the further thought and work came to go from the LTs to Mikowski space-time.

As it is often said, hindsight is 20/20...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

The equations and geometry underlying Minkowski spacetime and even 1+1 de Sitter spacetime are natural extensions of the work of Felix Klein.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-mathematics-and-analogies.813201/post-5105772
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayley–Klein_metric

Of course, due to the success of relativity, supported by a lot of experimental results,
and many pedagogical approaches, it probably seems "immediate" today
... but, as @Nugatory suggests, things might not have been so obvious in the late 1800s-early 1900s.

 

[NoahsArk]

Maybe you should ask whoever said that?

It's something I often read. The question goes beyond special relativity to the more general idea of what makes any idea brilliant. For example, there are equations in different fields like mechanical engineering I think that are much longer than the SR equations but less famous than something like $e = mc^2$. Why is Einstein considered one of if not the most brilliant?

 

[MikeeMiracle]

Speaking as a laymen, I think Einstein has to be considered in terms of what he was suggesting and the generally accepted wisdom at the time he made them. This is why he is remembered so fondly in my opinion, he had the biggest impact on the way of thinking at that time than other discoveries have since then.

 

[PeroK]

It's something I often read. The question goes beyond special relativity to the more general idea of what makes any idea brilliant. For example, there are equations in different fields like mechanical engineering I think that are much longer than the SR equations but less famous than something like $e = mc^2$. Why is Einstein considered one of if not the most brilliant?

You can't judge a physicist by the length of his equation!

 

[FactChecker]

Imagine how much nerve it took to say that time, in real-world physics, was dependent on the speed of an observer. And the intelligence to show that it explained the results of well-known experiments without creating any inconsistencies. That was the genius of Einstein. Then he worked for years to show that the consequences actually explained gravity. The nerve of Einstein was astounding! General relativity is, IMHO, an intellectual accomplishment far beyond my ability to evaluate. So I am happy to accept that it is the greatest intellectual accomplishment of mankind. The mathematical manipulations of the Lorentz transformation do not impress me nearly as much.

 

[NoahsArk]

The mathematical manipulations of the Lorentz transformation do not impress me nearly as much.

I am trying to get an understanding of what Einstein's contribution was in order to get a deeper understanding of special relativity. I don't doubt his contribution was major. I just don't understand it, and can't say what was it that he contributed compared to what Lorentz did, or what any other person did for that matter.

Should I not even be bothering to try and learn the history of SR in order to understand SR in general? I am starting to be able to solve problems using Lorentz transformations and time dilation/ length contraction problems. I understand, I think, the basic ideas of SR: i.e. passage of time is frame dependent, length is frame dependent, and simultaneity if frame dependent. I can see how these concepts are counter intuitive and are very interesting to me. I wanted to learn the history to get a deeper understanding, but it seems like a back ground in physics is necessary to really understand it's development- at least insofar as the vocabulary used presupposed a physics back ground. I am a lawyer with an undergraduate degree in Spanish, so if the explanations of SR go beyond algebra or plain english/ logical descriptions, then it can becomes challenging.

For example, I started to read the wikipedia link on the history of SR. Here's an example of what I encounter:

"Following the work of Thomas Young (1804) and Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1816), it was believed that light propagates as a transverse wave within an elastic medium called luminiferous aether. However, a distinction was made between optical and electrodynamical phenomena so it was necessary to create specific aether models for all phenomena."

This is all Greek to me, and am wondering if there are other, non technical ways of learning the background if I need to learn it at all to understand SR. Can I obtain a good understanding of SR with just algebra and doing SR problems, or do I need a physics background with courses in things like electrodynamics, etc?

Thank you.

 

[PeterDonis]

Should I not even be bothering to try and learn the history of SR in order to understand SR in general?

Yes. If your purpose is to learn what SR says, learning its history is (a) irrelevant and (b) distracting. Every theory goes through a period where a lot of wrong turns are made and a lot of different methods are tried. All you need to know to know what SR says is the end result of that process: the modern, clean version of the theory that you will find in textbooks and modern papers.

If your purpose is to satisfy your historical curiosity, then of course you should learn the history of SR. Just don't confuse doing that with learning SR itself.

Can I obtain a good understanding of SR with just algebra and doing SR problems

IMO, yes, you can. The best way to do that is to work through an introductory textbook like Taylor & Wheeler's Spacetime Physics. To the best of my recollection it does not require any math beyond algebra and knowledge of trig functions like sine and cosine and their hyperbolic counterparts.

 

[NoahsArk]

Thank you Peter. That saves me some frustration.

 

[robphy]

IMO, yes, you can. The best way to do that is to work through an introductory textbook like Taylor & Wheeler's Spacetime Physics. To the best of my recollection it does not require any math beyond algebra and knowledge of trig functions like sine and cosine and their hyperbolic counterparts.

From an old post of mine ,

[The] Old edition has a discussion of rapidity (the Minkowskian analogue of "angle" between two future timelike vectors) and [in some editions] worked solutions to the problems.

[The ] New edition has some nice revised discussions of some topics. Unfortunately, the discussion of rapidity was dropped.

I would regard the old 1966 maroon edition with the solutions to be a must-have. The new edition is worth having (as a supplement to the older version) for some of the updated topics.

First (maroon) edition (1966)
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#special_relativity

Second edition (1992)
http://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/

 

[GrayGhost]

NoahsArc,

Just to add to the above ... algebra alone suffices, because the relationship between differing inertial frames is assumed to be linear, due to the observed properties of homogeniety attributed to space and time. That was stated by Einstein in his 1905 OEMB paper, near the beginning of Section 3 paragraph 5. Since linear, algebra alone can relate space and time between differing inertial systems. His 1905 paper used both algebra and calculus (partial derivitives and integration) to derive the LTs, but calculus is not required. GrayGhost

 

[FactChecker]

In fact, you can go a long way in SR just using the math of the Pythagorean Theorem.

 

[PeroK]

Should I not even be bothering to try and learn the history of SR in order to understand SR in general?

I know you've been working through Taylor & Wheeler for a quite a while. This post from the beginning of the year says it was your third attempt at getting through the book.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/spacetime-physics-by-taylor-and-wheeler.963558/

To be honest, I can't see the point in trying a fourth time. If you still think it's worth the effort to learn SR you have to try something different. You could try to find a private tutor to help. And/or try a different textbook.

As others have said, learning the history is not going to help.

 

[A.T.]

Should I not even be bothering to try and learn the history of SR in order to understand SR in general?

Do you need to know how the Pythagorean theorem was developed to understand it?

 

[andresB]

Yes. If your purpose is to learn what SR says, learning its history is (a) irrelevant and (b) distracting. Every theory goes through a period where a lot of wrong turns are made and a lot of different methods are tried. All you need to know to know what SR says is the end result of that process: the modern, clean version of the theory that you will find in textbooks and modern papers.

Alas, while I don't really disagree, I do think that in a first approach to SR it is important to know (or at least have a good idea) of the problems the physicist at the time were facing and the inability of their classical approaches to solve them. That will let the student appreciate SR.

 

[Ibix]

I agree that the context is interesting, but not vital.

I'd summarise it by saying that Maxwell's equations were a great success and a great puzzle. You could, for example, accurately describe the fields around a charge moving near a wire. You could also describe a wire moving near a charge. But you couldn't turn one description into the other.

People assumed that this was a failing of Maxwell's equations - that they were a special case of something more general. Lorentz eventually found a mathematical patch (what we now call the Lorentz transforms) which let you transform one answer into another.

Einstein, however, had the insight that Lorentz had found a modification to Newton, not Maxwell. He showed that replacing the Galilean transforms with the Lorentz ones was self-consistent and reproduced Newtonian results in the low-speed limit - the only regime where it had been tested. And it made Maxwell's equations correct.

The only problem was that his theory was completely inconsistent with Newtonian gravity - it forbids causation from propagating faster than light, but Newtonian gravity propagates at infinite speed. Attempts to patch that failed, and Einstein eventually developed general relativity as a complete (and very different) replacement.

I don't think you really need to know more of the history than that to motivate relativity in a historical sense. And this is very much a sketch - the complete story is, of course, much more complex and messy.

 

[robphy]

I know you've been working through Taylor & Wheeler for a quite a while. This post from the beginning of the year says it was your third attempt at getting through the book.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/spacetime-physics-by-taylor-and-wheeler.963558/

To be honest, I can't see the point in trying a fourth time. If you still think it's worth the effort to learn SR you have to try something different. You could try to find a private tutor to help. And/or try a different textbook.

As others have said, learning the history is not going to help.

It might be that @NoahsArk 's has gotten stuck, preventing progress into the rest of the book.
@NoahsArk, is that the case?

It seems as the text being used is the 2nd edition.
I'd suggest the different textbook to try is the 1st edition [which introduces and uses rapidity, unlike the 2nd edition], preferably with the worked solutions in the back of the book.
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#special_relativity

Depending on what aspects are unclear, there may be other books to consider.

I think Bondi's Relativity and Common Sense ( https://archive.org/details/RelativityCommonSense ) is a great introduction because it uses operational definitions first, transformation equations later... and the mathematics and physics prerequisites are low.

I think Geroch's General Relativity from A to B ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226288641/?tag=pfamazon01-20 ) is a great book on developing spacetime intuition using methods similar to Bondi. Despite its likely first impression from skimming the text, GRAB is remarkably deep in terms of the big picture of spacetime and general relativity but without the technicalities of how it's actually done. (For some of those details, one should refer to his notes for an advanced course ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0987987178/?tag=pfamazon01-20 ).)

There are some newer alternatives... but it depends on what is specifically wanted.

 

[Ibix]

I think Bondi's Relativity and Common Sense ( https://archive.org/details/RelativityCommonSense ) is a great introduction because it uses operational definitions first, transformation equations later... and the mathematics and physics prerequisites are low.

Agree that this is a good book. I stumbled across a copy in a charity shop near my office, killing time during a fire evacuation.

 

[NoahsArk]

I appreciate the advice. @robphy and @PeroK I intend to continue with the Spacetime Physics book. One of the reasons I've stopped and started multiple times in the past is I've just gotten caught up with things at work and put it aside. I need to persevere more to get through it.

 

[Ibix]

If you are short on time, I'll reiterate my support for Bondi's book. It's the size of a short paperback novel - only 167 pages plus index. Then go back to Taylor & Wheeler.

 

[NoahsArk]

@Ibix Thank you- I will check that out as well.

 

[Dale]

I am trying to get an understanding of what Einstein's contribution was in order to get a deeper understanding of special relativity. I don't doubt his contribution was major. I just don't understand it, and can't say what was it that he contributed compared to what Lorentz did, or what any other person did for that matter

If your purpose is, as stated, to get a deeper understanding of SR then this is irrelevant. It does not matter in the slightest who contributed what not how one scientist’s contribution compares to any other’s. A deep understanding doesn’t come from learning the “Trivia Pursuit” parts of the theory.

If you really want a deeper understanding then you need to look at modern treatments. In particular ones based on symmetry principles.

Edit: I see that the point regarding history was already made. However, I will reiterate the point about symmetry principles. Today, a deep understanding of physics is about symmetry.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

I am trying to get an understanding of what Einstein's contribution was in order to get a deeper understanding of special relativity.

Watch Episode 41 of the Mechanical Universe (available on YouTube) and the episodes that immediately follow.

 

[GrayGhost]

Mister T,

Agreed. I thought the Mechanical Universe episodes wrt relativity theory were very good, particularly for the year in which it was made (so long ago). They did a very nice job on those, in presentation.GrayGhost

 

[NoahsArk]

@Mister T I will check out the Mechanical Universe.
@Dale please let me know what you mean by symmetry principles of special relativity.

 

[Dale]

@Mister T I will check out the Mechanical Universe.
@Dale please let me know what you mean by symmetry principles of special relativity.

If you assume homogeneity and isotropy (the laws of physics are the same - symmetric - regardless of where you place the origin and which direction you point your axes) then you can derive that the only possibilities are the Galilean transform or the Lorentz transform. There are other similar approaches that emphasize different symmetries.

 

[PeroK]

If you assume homogeneity and isotropy (the laws of physics are the same - symmetric - regardless of where you place the origin and which direction you point your axes) then you can derive that the only possibilities are the Galilean transform or the Lorentz transform. There are other similar approaches that emphasize different symmetries.

All roads lead to the Lorentz Transformation!

 

[FactChecker]

If you assume homogeneity and isotropy (the laws of physics are the same - symmetric - regardless of where you place the origin and which direction you point your axes) then you can derive that the only possibilities are the Galilean transform or the Lorentz transform. There are other similar approaches that emphasize different symmetries.

Here is a link to download proof of that in a PDF document. It is not very long.

 

[Wes Tausend]

Although I agree with most of what is said here about learning SR & GR, I think an actual understanding is only complete when one follows the histories.

For books, I most appreciated Asimov's Understanding Physics: Volume II Light, Magnetism and Electricity. Asimov is truly the Great Explainer.

I liked The Mechanical Universe video series so well, I bought their closeout $200 DVD set, but it is now also available on YouTube, when the net is available. It was done by the great Prof. David R. Goodstein at Caltech. I believe Goldstein was once a student of Feynman there. Speaking of the brilliant Feynman, there is an excellent online set of his lectures at http:\\www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu, the presentation of which Goldstein seems to nearly follow on the DVD series.

The too-short history version of Relativity:
Newton developed laws of motion and pondered light while Faraday carefully drew the geometry of magnetism.
By applying geometry of Faraday, Maxwell was able to mathematically discern that magnetic waves, such as light, traveled at a certain maximum speed, rather contradictory to Newton laws of motion.
Later, Michelson-Morley found their interferometer measured the speed of light as constant no matter how fast it was moving through space, confirming Maxwell.
FitzGerald suggested that the only way this could occur was if the interferometer somehow became shorter in the direction of travel.
Lorentz then to began to calculate what formula would describe how much shorter the distance between mirrors on the interferometer would have to become in the direction of travel for light to travel as it did. This became known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction ratio, aka Lorentz contraction, aka eventually the Lorentz Transformation.
Meanwhile, Einstein, whose family actually built early motors, dynamo's, transformers and generators when he was a child, was greatly interested in solving the Newton-Maxwell electrodynamic conflict. He did, but it is fairly difficult to understand considering the way he had to do it.
And that is the too-short version.

But it is only by understanding the histories of relativities that I suddenly noted a set of insights that, for one thing, I think help me more easily heuristically resolve in my mind, how and why relative distances (lengths) can and would naturally become shorter as relative speeds increase.

 

[GrayGhost]

I think that a derivation of the LTs, either as Einstein did in his 1905 paper, or by Algebra alone (as it's often taught today), is all that's needed. However for many, the Minkowski spacetime diagrams are also needed to reach the full meaning of SR, as a picture can paint a 1000 words. I can certainly say they were necessary for me. It helped me understand the time-desynchronisation of a moving body, and why (and how) that happens. That's the ticket IMO, because one must then consider length-contraction and time-dilation "in collective". The history of SR is fascinating, but I personally did not study the history until after learning and understanding SR first. The history, is not required.GrayGhost

 

[Swamp Thing]

If you are really keen on following how it all played out in terms of the different players' thought processes, you might want to check out "Subtle is the Lord: The Science and Life of Albert Einstein" by Abraham Pais.

There's a DRM'd copy on Internet Archive that you can borrow for 14 days at a time.
(Not that this will help in any way to understand the physics itself, as others have pointed out).

 

[NoahsArk]

I've ordered the Asimov and Pais books. Thank you for the suggestions.

 

[Wes Tausend]

I've ordered the Asimov and Pais books. Thank you for the suggestions.

NoahsArk,

I am pleased that you thought to order these books.

I stand by my high regard for the study of history. History is the composite of our beloved time, after all.

Second of all, every book, every class, every observation, is just that, history... whether the experience tells us the philosophy of ancient thought or expounds on more current thought, the aroma still lingering. History teaches us not only how all the "greats" moved, by leading our mind down their path, but teaching us how to think.

History warns what sort of pitfalls may lurk about, horrid pitfalls in just drawing the quickest, most convenient conclusions. History induces us to ask... what other direction could have been taken, what other direction might end just as well, or better?

Studying a former path well, allows us to follow the same road, rejoicing in the once fresh ideas that came about, came about because someone has taken an old tool and found a new use for it... and knowing history allows us to discover a different path anywhere in time, a different way to employ a tool... just as the best of past humanity has always done.

History helps us invent thee proverbial new tool, the new improved tool almost, but not quite the same as the old tool. I heartily recommend reading Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, all about the lessons, the shortsighted, half-right tools of history that came first (found free on the net). Do not see only what the giants saw. Stand on their shoulders and see further, even if to the side.

History itself is a tool, the tool-of-tools, so to speak. Tools are really everything we leave behind us, all of it. Some of which we leave behind comes in the form of DNA, in which DNA is basically Nature's wrenches made to fit Nature's bolts. And history otherwise comes in tools left behind as our most valuable possessions, our material and ethereal heirlooms. Besides wrenches, who amongst us does not love ethereal heirlooms such as math and logic, all of which are again, merely human tools we leave behind? It would be so sad were they not fully appreciated.

We live in a Mechanical Universe. That we think we know is so. But as we gradually reverse-engineer it, nobody surely knows how Mother Nature's entire machine really works yet. Don't just use your forefathers wrenches as they are, but go dig up all older tools and then imagine how you might have improved them differently. Be sceptical, as our fine fellows here on PF have so resolutely just admonished me above. Yes, follow the well-worn path most traveled, which is what we promote almost exclusively here on PF, but be equally sceptical of both old and new. Most knowledge is inherently incomplete. Do not fear to consider all other possible paths along the way... whenever permitted.

Most of science normally proceeds by slow, relaxing evolution... tiny, lone insights... but I think, I even hope, we are again ripe for the austere, painful spurt of revolution. A revolution is simply like an upside-down jig-saw puzzle suddenly turned right side up. Not only do all the pieces still fit... the big picture becomes quite evident and, in embarassment, history again speeds ahead for a bit.

Wes

 

[vanhees71]

If we are already at this philosophical level of arguments, I'd not say that we live in a mechanical universe but in a (quantum) field universe.

One should also distinguish between learning the physics of some subject and learning more about the history of this subject. For the former it's better to forget about the history, as many other posters in this thread already emphasized. We have for sure a much better understanding about relativity than the physicists had when they discovered it. That's because it has been applied for nearly 120 years to describe (in parts with utmost precision) real-world phenomena reaching from the micro-cosm resolving length scales below $1 \text{fm}$ to cosmology including length scales of several billion light years.

For example, one of the most important subjects of all is thermodynamics and statistical physics, including kinetic theory and hydrodynamics. Up to the 1960ies there was great confusion about the transformation properties of the thermodynamical quantities like temperature, entropy, various thermodynamical potentials, etc. This has been clarified and brought into a logical scheme since then, and it simply is only confusing for the student when starting this important subject of relativistic many-body theory with old-fashioned ideas.

On the other hand, indeed, a knowledge of the history of physics is very important, because it provides the opportunity to rethink the meaning of the now established theories you learn in the standard physics course, and this indeed leads to a deeper understanding what's behind these theories in physics terms. It also shows how the theories developed in a close interaction between theoretical ideas and quantitative observations and experiments.

 

[David Lewis]

... the most profound part of special relativity is that the passage of time between any two things happening is not the same for everyone, and depends on their relative motion.

Time dilation was proposed by Joseph Larmor in 1897 after George Fitzgerald announced the idea of length contraction in 1889. They and Hendrik Lorentz were trying to explain why luminiferous aether could not be detected, and why the speed of light was frame-independent.

 

[HallsofIvy]

To really understand Einstein's "theory or relativity" you should go back to "Gallilean relativity". Gallileo pointed out that, if you were sealed in a carriage that was moving with constant velocity, no bumps, and sealed windows so you cannot see out, no experiment done completely inside the carriage can tell what your speed is. You can only determine your speed "relative" to the outside.

But then Maxwell's equations for electro-magnetic fields (so for light) showed that the force of a magnet field on a charged particle does depend upon the velocity of the particle relative to the magnetic field. That appeared to imply that one could do electro-magnetic experiments in that closed car to find its speed.

Lorenze's equations, based on calculations from experimients, predate Einstein's paper but his theory behind them assumed that, in a moving object, the changed elector-magnetic field of the charged ions in the moving object contracted the object in the direction of motion. It was a pretty theory but further experiment show that even the space between charged objects contracted. That was addressed by Einstein's theory.

 

[NoahsArk]

Time dilation was proposed by Joseph Larmor in 1897 after George Fitzgerald announced the idea of length contraction in 1889. They and Hendrik Lorentz were trying to explain why luminiferous aether could not be detected, and why the speed of light was frame-independent.

My understanding is that although a few others had seen through equations that time was different in different frames, they thought this was just the math, and not reality. One of Einstein's key insights, that he got while walking with his friend Michele Besso, is that time is in fact different in different frames. Is it correct to say that the evidence was there before, but he took the leap of faith before anyone else to come to that conclusion?

I was just reading in an article that his other key insight was that acceleration and gravitation are two ways of describing the same force. It took him 8 more years to prove this insight thought math. While I haven't studied general relativity yet, so don't understand the second insight, is it a fair statement to say that it was more this insight or "aha moment" that was the spark of genius- more so than the working out of the math to prove it (although no doubt that was some feat as well)? Same question regarding his insight that he had on the walk.

 

[Ibix]

Is it correct to say that the evidence was there before, but he took the leap of faith before anyone else to come to that conclusion?

The whole of special relativity is implicit in the structure of Maxwell's equations. But up until Einstein, no-one realized that the incompatibility of Maxwell's equations with Galilean relativity (and hence Newtonian physics) was a problem with Newton and Galileo, not with Maxwell. Einstein seems to have been the first to realize that you could shouldn't regard (what we now call) the Lorentz transforms as a mysterious mathematical patch for Maxwell, but rather that they are a replacement for the Galilean transforms.

I was just reading in an article that his other key insight was that acceleration and gravitation are two ways of describing the same force.

This is a somewhat inaccurate description of the equivalence principle. That principle is, however, a key insight that leads to the possibility of modelling gravity as spacetime curvature.

I think a lot of people were on the trail of general relativity. Einstein got there first, but there were others (such as Hilbert) who were moving in the right direction. My feeling is that Einstein was far ahead of the game with Special Relativity (Poincare actually published all of the maths underlying SR in 1904 - but no-one realized the implications), but with General Relativity I think had Einstein suddenly dropped dead it wouldn't have delayed things very much. (That's unprovable, of course...)

 

[PeterDonis]

One of Einstein's key insights, that he got while walking with his friend Michele Besso, is that time is in fact different in different frames.

"Time is different" is ambiguous.

If it means, for example, that the two twins in the standard twin paradox will in fact agree when they meet up again that one has aged less than the other, then yes, this is a fact (and I think it is basically what Einstein was thinking of in the insight you describe).

But this does not mean that, for example, the two twins while they are traveling will actually "feel" their clocks to be running differently. They won't. Their local experiences of their clocks while they are traveling will be exactly the same. Only by comparing their clocks when they meet up again will they discover that one has aged less than the other.

I was just reading in an article that his other key insight was that acceleration and gravitation are two ways of describing the same force.

That's not quite what this key insight was. His own words (at least, translated from German) were: "when a person falls freely, he will not feel his own weight". This made him realize that "gravity" was not a force, since it couldn't be felt.

 

[NoahsArk]

But up until Einstein, no-one realized that the incompatibility of Maxwell's equations with Galilean relativity (and hence Newtonian physics) was a problem with Newton and Galileo, not with Maxwell.

Were others thinking that Maxwell was wrong (and also that the results of Michelson and Morley's experiment were wrong) because the speed of light can't be constant without contradicting Newton and Galileo's statements that time is absolute? Interestingly, this article says that when Einstein was on the walk with Besso, he imagined that instead of a passenger on Galileo's ship dropping a ball, a beam of light was sent downward from 186,000 miles high. That's when he realized that because the distance that the light travels is different in the ship frame and dock frame time must also be different since the speed of light is the same in both frames.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-year-of-Albert-einstein-75841381/

"Time is different" is ambiguous.

I meant that was his insight that the time elapsed between two events will be measured differently in two different frames?

 

[Dale]

Were others thinking that Maxwell was wrong

Yes. More specifically that Maxwell’s equations were only valid in the rest frame of the aether.

 

[Ibix]

Were others thinking that Maxwell was wrong

Wrong is too strong a word, IMO - the equations clearly worked. The problem was that they were not invariant under the Galilean transforms, which suggested (as Dale observes) that they were missing some terms (small ones, because they worked well enough as was) related to your velocity relative to... something, which got christened "aether". The outcome of Michelson-Morley led to Fitzgerald contraction and eventually Lorentz' transforms. But as far as I understand, the latter were treated as a relationship between Newtonian time and space coordinates and the x and t parameters in Maxwell's equations (which everyone had regarded as position and time).

Einstein realized that he could derive the Lorentz transforms from two postulates, rather than ad hoc from experiments. Then he derived a new version of mechanics, to which Newton was only an approximation - crucially, explaining in the process why no one had noticed before (no one could make anything move fast enough for the difference to be measurable with then-current kit). So he explained that x and t in Maxwell's equations were position and time after all, but the relationship between position and time measured by you in the lab and as measured by me ambling down the corridor weren't quite what everyone thought...

 

[vanhees71]

In view of the lack of Galileo invariance of the Maxwell equations there where 3 possibilities, and all three were considered historically:

(a) Galilei-Newton spacetime is the correct spacetime model and em. phenomena obey the corresponding (proper orthochronous) Galileo symmetry. Then the Maxwell equations are wrong and have to be modified as to obey Galileo symmetry (i.e., the equations of motion should be form-invariant under Galileo transformations).

(b) Galilei-Newton spacetime is the correct spacetime model and the Maxwell equations are correct. Then there must be a preferred inertial frame of reference (IF), where the Maxwell equations hold in their then known form but look different in any non-preferred IF.

(c) Galilei-Newton spacetime is not the correct spacetime model and the Maxwell equations as well as the special principle of relativity are correct, i.e., IFs are a set of preferred reference frames. Then one needs a spacetime model which is compatible with Maxwell's equations, i.e., with a symmetry group that allows for transformations of the electromagnetic quantities (em. field, charge-current densities) under which the Maxwell equations are form-invariant.

ad (a): AFAIK this were the model en vogue before Maxwell's and Faraday's work, but at the latest with the discovery of the em. waves by H. Hertz, which obeyed all properties predicted by Maxwell, these models were ruled out, because they were not compatible with em. waves (at least not with all the properties predicted by Maxwell's equations).

ad (b): This was the common believe of most physicsts at the time, including Maxwell in the beginning: There was a preferred frame of reference, because due to the then mechanistic world view the physicists thought the em. fields, including the em. waves, must be due to the motion of a special "imponderable" medium, called the aether, and then the preferred frame of reference is easily determined as the (local) restframe(s) of the aether. Aether theory delivered predictions about the behavior of the em. phenomena, but it turned out that the aether is a very strange substance in order to fulfill the properties of em. fields as predicted by Maxwell and confirmed by observations. Also aether theory predicted how electromagnetics should look in moving media, where now "moving" means "moving relative to the aether restframe". Famously aether theory turned out to be correct for all phenomena only at the first order in $\beta=v/c$, where $v$ is the speed of the medium and $c$ the vacuum-speed of light but fails for phenomena which depend on $\beta$ at the order $\mathcal{O}(\beta^2)$ and higher. The famous early examples were the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment as well as the Trouton-Noble experiment.

ad (c): That was the famous solution of the problem by Einstein, using of course previous work by "the Maxwellians", FitzGerald, Heaviside as well as Lorentz and Poincare. Thus there was no aether necessary and no preferred IF at all but the spacetime structure had to be described by Minkowski spacetime and with the corresponding symmetry group, which is the proper orthochronous Poincare group rather than the proper orthochronous Galileo group. That's the status today (modulo the refinements when it comes to the description of gravity in terms of the General Relativity Theory) and confirmed by observation at a very high level of accuracy.

 

[Dale]

@vanhees71 can you explain the distinction between your cases (a) and (b)? I don’t see the difference. Aren’t the “look different in any non-preferred IF” terms in (b) the same as the “have to be modified as to obey Galileo symmetry” terms in (a)? If not, then what is the distinction?

 

[vanhees71]

The difference is in the conclusions you draw. In case (a) the idea is that Maxwell's equations are wrong and you need to modify them such that the theory is Galilei invariant. In case (b) you claim Maxwell's equations are correct but that there's a preferred IF, which is interpreted as the restframe of a mechanical fluid called aether. Then Maxwell's equations do not need to be Galilei invariant though Galilei-Newton spacetime is the correct spacetime model.

That's like in acoustics, where the air is the medium, which defines a preferred reference frame by its rest frame, and thus the Doppler effect doesn't only depend on the relative velocity of the observer and the source but on the velocities of the source and the observer relative to the medium restframe, and that's true also in the relativistic theory: As soon as you have a medium, there's a preferred reference frame. Of course all the physical laws are compatible with Poincare symmetry, you only have the four-velocity field of the fluid as additional building block, and you define all intrinsic quantities of the medium in the (local) restframe of the fluid (temperature, chemical potential, various densities of thermodynamical potentials etc).

 

[Tendex]

(c) is the non-degenerate metric mathematical formalization of the Galilean degenerate spacetime(b)