Did Einstein Formulate an Aberration of Light Using Tangents?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the search for a formula related to the aberration of light expressed in terms of tangents, as potentially formulated by Einstein. Participants clarify that while Einstein's original expressions are typically in terms of cosines, the tangent formulations exist and are mathematically equivalent. Notable references include Plummer's 1910 formula and von Laue's 1911 formula, both of which provide tangent-based expressions for aberration. The conversation emphasizes that modifying existing equations with trigonometric identities does not constitute a new discovery requiring attribution.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Lorentz transformation
  • Basic knowledge of trigonometry, particularly tangent and cosine functions
  • Familiarity with Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Knowledge of historical physics literature, specifically works by Plummer and von Laue
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the aberration of light formulas in Einstein's 1905 paper
  • Study the mathematical equivalence of trigonometric identities in physics
  • Explore the application of atan2 in programming languages for calculating angles
  • Investigate the historical context and significance of Plummer's and von Laue's contributions to relativity
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematics educators, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the historical development of trigonometric applications in physics.

Clovis
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Did Einstein ever give a formula for the aberration of light in terms of tangents?
Hello, everyone. I am trying to find an aberration of light formula in Einstein's writings that is given in terms of tangents. I did a fairly thorough internet search and all I could find was the formula he wrote in terms of cosines. Yet I have a vague memory that somewhere he did give the formula in terms of tangents.

Am I misremembering this or did he write such a tangents formula? Thank you. Any help would be appreciated.Clovis
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No idea whether he ever expressed it explicitly in terms of tangents rather than cosines, but—at the risk of stating something you already know—the expressions are mathematically equivalent and follow from combining the Lorentz transformation with basic trigonometry.
 
Thank you, Sienna. The reason for my question was merely to give proper credit for the tangent equation in a website that I am working on. But I appreciate your reply, all the same.

Clovis
 
Clovis said:
Thank you, Sienna. The reason for my question was merely to give proper credit for the tangent equation in a website that I am working on. But I appreciate your reply, all the same.

Clovis
The point is that modifying an equation by high school math is not considered a new result in need of crediting. The Pythagorean theorem can be written with or without square root. Does anyone care who first happened to write it using the modern symbol for square root, rather than in terms of squares?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
PAllen said:
The point is that modifying an equation by high school math is not considered a new result in need of crediting. The Pythagorean theorem can be written with or without square root. Does anyone care who first happened to write it using the modern symbol for square root, rather than in terms of squares?
Hm, the first part of Einstein's 1905 paper is just algebraic and should be doable at high-school level. Are you saying that thus Einstein's first (and in a sense most important) part of this paper should not be "considered a new result in need of crediting", only because it's doable with high-school math? That's pretty ridiculous, isn't it?
 
Be careful with formulae which use tan rather than cos and sin! What you usually really need is not simply arctan but what's called atan2 in many computer languages (including my still beloved FORTRAN ;-))).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SiennaTheGr8
vanhees71 said:
Hm, the first part of Einstein's 1905 paper is just algebraic and should be doable at high-school level. Are you saying that thus Einstein's first (and in a sense most important) part of this paper should not be "considered a new result in need of crediting", only because it's doable with high-school math? That's pretty ridiculous, isn't it?
Come on, I meant that rearranging an equation using trig identities doesn't make it a new result. Otherwise, look at all the papers one could publish for trivialities.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SiennaTheGr8

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 127 ·
5
Replies
127
Views
9K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K