1.

1 Introduction
Albert Einstein had developed the special theory of relativity in the early years of 20th century. With this new theory he relieved the physics of those times from a great dilemma: On one side it was experimentally proved that the velocity of light showed exactly the same value always, independent of the velocity of the source and observer. On the other side the light velocity to be measured had to be variable as per the old Newtonian physics: for example, the light of a street lantern should approach a car moving away at 80 km/h from it with a velocity equal to light velocity minus 80 km/h. Many of the leading physicists of those times had tried in vain to explain this blatant contradiction. At the turn of 19th to 20th century, the solution lay certainly in air. Important groundwork had already been done particularly by the Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853-1928) and the French mathematician Henri Poincare (1854-1912). But it was not until 1905 that the final break with old physics took place when an unknown Albert Einstein published his article in 1905 On the electrodynamics of moving bodies in the Annalen der Physik, Volume 17, pages 891-921. The then clerk in a lower position at the Patent Office in Bern remains to date the founder of SRT (Special Theory of Relativity). It must however be mentioned that Poincare had discovered the essential mathematical structure of SRT independently of Einstein and had described it in two journal contributions almost at the same time. The essential content of SRT is a completely new understanding of space and time. The theory is free of contradictions in itself and is in agreement with all the pertinent experiments and observations. Above all, it rests on the following two postulates (basic assumptions):

1.1.1

Principle Of Relativity

As per this principle, which was already used by Galileo (1564-1642), an observer in an unaccelerated system moving in a straight line cannot determine whether he is in a stationary or moving system. Galileo considered as an example a ship floating on a calm sea. A passenger in a closed cabin cannot in fact determine whether the ship moves forward uniformly or whether it rests. For example, the fall experiments run always the same there, independent of the velocity of the ship. So, something like water drops falling from a point on the cabin deck would always land on the same spot, whether the ship is at rest or for example moves ahead uniformly at 10 knots. An experimenter cannot determine the speed of the ship by whatsoever experiment in the ships interior. Even the noise of sea currents are no proof for the ships motion. They can be there even in the case of an anchored ship. But strictly speaking, Galileos example showed flaws, due to which another model for a system moving in a straight line and unaccelerated had to be resorted to. This should not be new to us children of the space age. As a modern model for such a system, a spaceship with its powertrain disconnected from some celestial body far away can be imagined. Such a system, which moves with uniform velocity in a straight line and without rotation, in which therefore an observer perceives no forces as a result of motion, in which similarly free test masses of all kinds perceive no forces and which therefore (in case of no impelling force) rest therein or move in a straight line with uniform velocity (in case of an impelling force), in which light also moves in a straight line with uniform velocity,

is called an Inertial System. On the other hand, in an accelerated system with which we shall deal with only superficially in Chapter 1, the forces are clearly perceptible: During change of the magnitude of velocity (braking/ acceleration): inertial force in or opposite the direction of motion. During change of the direction of velocity (rotation of the system or spiralling motion): centrifugal force acting outward; during motion within a rotating system: Coriolis force.

In inertial systems the relativity principle is valid in general, in the example of the spaceship not only in the inside of the space cabin but also on the outside. Not only the experiments in the cabin run independent of the velocity according to the same laws, the determination of velocity is not possible for observations and experiments outside. The space travellers can indeed, for example, measure by observations their relative velocity to the earth, sun or any other celestial body, but not their absolute velocity. Which reference point shall they consider for this? There is nowhere in the universe a really fixed ground! Neither is the specification of an absolute velocity possible, nor is there an absolute rest. No inertial system can claim this special status. Since experiments in all inertial systems run independent of the velocity and no such system is characterized by a fixed absolute velocity, all inertial systems are equivalent. And if all inertial systems are equivalent, then an observer in any arbitrary inertial system can consider it as well at rest. (As we often do on the earth, although the earths surface does not in the least represent an inertial system.) Naturally, one who moves in a straight line with uniform velocity (and does not rotate) with respect to an inertial system of uniform velocity is himself a part of an inertial system or an inertial observer. The privilege of an inertial observer to consider himself at rest gives rise to certain difficulties for nearly anyone who confronts it for the first time. Thus an example for it: A spaceship which with its powertrain disconnected is on its way from the earth to the star Wega can be considered as an inertial system. Therefore, the crew has the right to say: We shall not budge from this spot here. From our spot here the earth has flown off a short while ago in the rearward direction. Shortly Wega will also go past us here. We await it from the direction of the bow. [It is told of Einstein that he once asked the train conductor, Does Zurich halt at this train?] But this is more than just a mirthful word play. It is indeed a necessary consideration for certain calculations! In some of the following calculations, the change of position of an inertial observer from his own point of view is required. For these positions a zero has always to be substituted. In the calculations of SRT thus, the right to consider oneself at rest is in fact an obligation! Note: The change in position of an inertial observer from his own perspective is always nil or zero! The postulate to be discussed will confirm this point. From where does the name inertial system actually come? The origin lies in the word inertia, Latin for laziness or tardy. The justification of this choice of name comes from the fact that the above definition of inertial systems only reflect Newtons first law the principle of inertia:

Every body maintains its velocity in magnitude and direction so long as it is not compelled by external forces to change its state of motion. This first law of Newton thus remains untouched in the SRT (in contrast to the bulk of Newtonian mechanics). How big should an inertial system be considered? In the (idealized) gravity-free space of SRT, there is no upper limit for it. An object O not so far away can be assigned to the inertial system of a uniformly moving observer A, as long as O moves in the same direction as A with the same velocity. All other objects on the other hand moving uniformly with a different magnitude of velocity a different direction of velocity belong to foreign inertial systems. Similarly, any temporally distant object can be assigned to the inertial system of A. Thus, an object which is at rest there in the past or an object which will be at rest in the future there. The above consideration shows also that inertial systems need not necessarily be closed structures (e.g. spaceships). They can rather be open also and therefore mutually intersecting also. The deciding criteria for the membership of a definite inertial system are the identical velocity and direction of motion of the objects (even when aliens from other systems bustle amongst them). Thus in the above example, both the celestial bodies earth and Wega can be assigned the same inertial system (neglecting their own slow motions), while a spaceship between them flying with a higher velocity represents another inertial system. Inspired perhaps by identical results always in light velocity measurements, Einstein has postulated the validity of this relativity principle not only for mechanics but also for all other areas of physics (and chemistry etc). Therefore, not only do the laws of mechanics hold good in all inertial systems in identical form, but also all the other natural laws. This means: All thinkable experiments from all areas of science run in all inertial systems according to the same rules. This holds good, for example, also for experiments on electromagnetism or on transmission of light. (A thorough application is made of the latter in the following sections.) And from that it follows further: An absolute velocity of an inertial system cannot be determined with any experiments of natural science. No method absolutely allows the differentiation between rest and uniform motion. Hence, the ether medium that seemed to Einstein as a light wave carrying medium at absolute rest was invalid, there was no ether! The relativity principle of SRT came into being by the extension of the postulate to all the natural laws: All inerial systems are equal in every relationship. In many of the following thought experiments when it is said that an observer or an experimental setup is at rest, it is meant to differentiate only from the objects moving relative to it and does not mean absolute rest. Such an absolute rest does not exist in SRT. Furthermore, the velocity data makes sense only when it is given with respect to a reference system. There were aesthetic reasons also for the extension of relativity principle to all areas of physics: in view of the integrity of physics, Einstein considered it a flaw that this principle be valid only for a partial area of physical sciences (the mechanics) and not for the other areas.

1.1.2 Principle Of Constancy Of Light Velocity In Vacuum

This second postulate means: The velocity of light in vacuum has always the same value c: just 300 000 km/s, independent of the velocity of the source and also the observer in inertial systems, (c from celeritas, Latin for speed).

Example: A spaceship flies past the earth with 90% of the velocity of light, thus 0.9c. There is a light flashing off in the direction of the flight, which from the point of view of the occupants (who can naturally consider themselves at rest) has a velocity c. But for the observer on the earth also, the light flash has a velocity c and not 1.9c! Indeed every observer in an inertial system would see the light flash with the velocity c. The whole SRT is built up on this seemingly contradictory statement. However, it is free of contradictions in itself and all observations, as will be seen. The principle of constancy of c has, in practice, been confirmed by measurements to great accuracies (last 2002 exact up to 1/1015). Though the principle of constancy of c seems contradictory on the one side, on a careful consideration however it is in complete agreement with the relativity principle: If the observers in different inertial systems would have measured different velocities of light, then they could draw conclusions about their own states of motion from these different velocities. And then the relativity principle would have been violated, as per which no experiment enables the determination of its own velocity. Consequently, every observer in an inertial system should always measure the same velocity of light c. Also, the principle of constancy of c leads (like the relativity principle) to the result that every inertial observer is at rest from his own point of view, for: If the velocity of an observer is determined by measurements of the velocity of lights coming from different sources from different directions, the result would always be zero or nil. The observer is himself at rest! The exact value of c is: 2.99792458 x 108 m/s. Interestingly, this value has been determined by concurrence! This means that the value of c cannot change by an improvement in the accuracy of measurement. Furthermore, this would lead to an adjustment in the unit of distance metre (the unit of time second is in turn determined by another convention). So the constancy of c has so to say a two-fold meaning. With the principle of constancy of c in the following, we always naturally mean in the physical sense as Einsteins postulate, not the agreement with the exact numerical value. The convention demonstrates, however, the enormous confidence of physicists in the postulate. In any inertial system light spreads out in vacuum in a straight line with velocity c. Observers in different inertial systems can thereby register different expanding directions, as would be explained later. In the following derivations of various formulae of SRT, the principle of constancy of light c enters so often that the thought experiments and resulting equations adopt always one and the same value c for the velocities of light rays sent out and received, independent of the states of motion of the light sources and observers. Most of the thought experiments in this first chapter will consist of comparative observations, namely the comparison between the observations of an experimental setup at rest and those of an experimental setup which moves relative to the observer. In both the cases it is presumed that the observer sees always a light spreading out with c and independent indeed also of its expanding direction, intensity, colour etc. Talking of seeing: For the future thought experiments the time elapsed for light signals to reach the observers eye will be (with a few exceptions) disregarded. Instead of imagining a single observer, a huge observer troupe populating the inertial system densely needs to be actually considered. Thus, any event can be registered always on the spot and then and there. For this purpose the clocks within a definite inertial system are to be considered as synchronized. Two clocks at rest may be synchronized, for example, by controlling them with a time signal sender placed exactly midway between the two. Besides, all clocks in their inertial systems run always right (ideal clocks). The formulations an observer and see are to be understood in this sense!

Historically conditioned the principle of observer independence of c is still always known as the principle of constancy of c in the literature (here also). Scientifically correct, it must be called in the context as the principle of invariance of c (see section 2.6). Also as per SRT, within an inertial system, length and time intervals are fixed parameters for an observer at rest therein, but in the evaluation of relations in another inertial system moving relative to that new rules would hold good. On the basis of the above postulate solely, considerable modifications in the laws of classical physics are necessary, as represented in the following sections.