Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Relativity principle — where it appears

The requirement that the laws of physics take the same form in every frame moving uniformly, so that no experiment identifies a frame as the one at rest. It is one of the four assumptions that fix the transformation between frames, and it holds equally in Galilean and Einsteinian relativity.

Named by 5 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

One factor, defined by an experiment rather than by a transformation. A observer A stays at x = 0 and flashes a light every 1 second by their own clock. B recedes at 0.6c. The flashes are the diagonal lines; where each meets B's worldline is where B receives it. B's clock reads a longer gap between arrivals than A's read between departures, by the factor k = 2.0000, and it is the same factor between every consecutive pair — measured here off the drawn meetings rather than assumed. That single number is the whole apparatus. Nobody has written down a coordinate transformation, chosen a convention for distant simultaneity, or drawn a tilted axis; the only thing used is that light travels on the diagonals and that neither observer is special, so B's flashes reach A stretched by the same k. From it: γ = (k + 1/k)/2 = 1.2500, and β = (k² − 1)/(k² + 1) = 0.6000.

Everything from an exchange of pulses

Send a flash every second and ask how often the far observer receives them. That one measured ratio generates time dilation, the composition of velocities and the twin result, with no coordinate transformation written down anywhere and no convention chosen about what "at the same time" means far away.

relativity · Doppler The fringes a flow of water moves. The interference fringe shift against the speed of the water, for two tubes 1.5 m long, an index of 1.333, and light of 526 nm — Fizeau's apparatus. The beam is split, each half goes with the flow in one tube and against it in the other, and the two are recombined; the shift is the difference in transit time counted in wavelengths. Three predictions are drawn and they are not close together. If the water did not affect the light at all the shift would be zero, flat along the bottom. If the water carried the light with it completely the shift would be the steepest line. Fresnel's partial drag is the middle one, and at 7 m/s it gives 0.207 of a fringe — which is what was measured, to the accuracy of an eye reading a fringe pattern in 1851. The experiment therefore did not merely detect an effect; it chose between three quantitative possibilities that differ by factors of two, which is why a fraction of a fringe settled something.

The drag that was only an addition

Light in moving water is carried along by it, but only partly — by a fraction of the water's speed that depends on the refractive index in a way nobody could account for. Fresnel invented the coefficient to save a theory, Fizeau measured it in 1851, and it sat unexplained for half a century. It is the first term of the relativistic velocity addition and nothing else.

relativity · Velocity-addition One boost, three constants, three pictures. The axes of a frame moving at 0.5 in units where the constant is one, drawn for the three signs the constant can have. The faint cross is the original frame's axes; the two heavy lines are the moving frame's, obtained by boosting them rather than by tilting them by hand. With a positive constant the two axes close in on one another symmetrically, and the line they are closing on is the invariant speed. With a zero constant only the time axis tilts and the space axis stays where it was, which is absolute simultaneity — every frame agrees which events are at the same time. With a negative constant the pair rotates rigidly, like a pair of axes turned in a plane. Nothing about light has been used to draw any of them. The three are the whole of what homogeneity, isotropy, the group property and the relativity principle permit, and choosing between them is a measurement rather than a postulate.

The transformation that never mentions light

Assume space and time are homogeneous, that space is isotropic, that two changes of frame compose into a third, and that the relativity principle holds. Those four leave exactly one free constant — and three possible worlds, one of them Galileo's and one of them Einstein's. Light appears nowhere in the derivation; it enters only when the constant has to be measured.

relativity · Spacetime diagram An orbit that flattens without being told to. The path of a classical electron relative to its nucleus, in the laboratory, before and after the nucleus has been accelerated gently — over 200 orbits — from rest to 0.6 of the speed of light along the horizontal, computed from Maxwell's field of a moving charge and the relativistic law of motion alone. Before, the orbit is a circle of radius 1. After, it is an ellipse 0.810 wide along the motion and 1.012 across it, a ratio of 0.8003 against 1/γ = 0.8000, and one turn takes 1.2504 times as long as before, against γ = 1.2500. Nothing in the calculation assumed a contraction or a slowing clock: the forces between the moving charges produced both.

The contraction the forces work out for themselves

Relativity usually introduces length contraction as a consequence of how moving observers disagree about simultaneity, not as something that happens to matter. There is a second way to reach the same number, and it is worth knowing because it is the way the idea was first found. Take an atom, accelerate its nucleus gently, and compute what the electron does using only Maxwell's field of a moving charge and the law of motion. Nobody tells the orbit to contract, and it does, by exactly 1/γ, while each turn takes exactly γ times as long. The forces holding matter together work out the contraction for themselves.

relativity · Length contraction The orbit an observer would reconstruct. The star's velocity along the line of sight, measured from the Doppler shift of its spectrum, as a fraction of its true orbital speed, plotted against the time the light arrives, in orbital periods, if light left the star at c plus the star's velocity. With light at c (dotted) the curve is the sine wave of a circular orbit. At 0.6 times the critical distance (solid) the same circular orbit arrives as a lopsided curve — a slow rise and a steep fall — that an astronomer would fit with a highly eccentric orbit that is not there. At twice the critical distance (dashed) the curve doubles back on itself: at some moments the spectrum would show two or three velocities at once, as if the star were in several places. Willem de Sitter pointed out in 1913 that spectroscopic binaries show nothing of the kind.

The binary star that would be seen twice

If light thrown forward by a moving source travelled faster, the way a ball thrown from a moving train does, then light from a star swinging towards the Earth in a binary orbit would catch up with light it had sent out earlier. From far enough away the two would arrive together, and the star would be seen in two places at once. Willem de Sitter pointed out in 1913 that nothing of the kind is seen, and that this settles whether the speed of light depends on its source. The argument had a loophole that took half a century to notice — interstellar gas re-emits light at its own speed — and closing it needed X-ray stars.

relativity · Velocity-addition

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Velocity-additionDoppler effectThe Lorentz factorThe Lorentz transformationMeasurementTime dilationAdiabatic processAtomic structureBinary starCausalityDispersionEmission theory

All concepts