Template:Special relativity
Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in an inertial frame of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".^{[1]}
Galileo Galilei had already postulated that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and welldefined state of rest (no privileged reference frames), a principle now called Galileo's principle of relativity. Einstein extended this principle so that it accounted for the constant speed of light,^{[2]} a phenomenon that had been recently observed in the Michelson–Morley experiment. He also postulated that it holds for all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.^{[3]}
This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified,^{[4]} including counterintuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity. It has replaced the classical notion of invariant time interval for two events with the notion of invariant spacetime interval. Combined with other laws of physics, the two postulates of special relativity predict the equivalence of mass and energy, as expressed in the mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc^{2}, where c is the speed of light in vacuum.^{[5]}^{[6]} The predictions of special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small compared with the speed of light. Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon—namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime. One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light.
The theory was originally termed "special" because it applied the principle of relativity only to the special case of inertial reference frames, i.e. frames of reference in uniform relative motion with respect to each other.^{[7]} Einstein developed general relativity to apply the principle in the more general case, that is, to any frame so as to handle general coordinate transformations, and that theory includes the effects of gravity.
The term is currently used more generally to refer to any case in which gravitation is not significant. General relativity is the generalization of special relativity to include gravitation. In general relativity, gravity is described using noneuclidean geometry, so that gravitational effects are represented by curvature of spacetime; special relativity is restricted to flat spacetime. Just as the curvature of the earth's surface is not noticeable in everyday life, the curvature of spacetime can be neglected on small scales, so that locally, special relativity is a valid approximation to general relativity.^{[8]} The presence of gravity becomes undetectable in a sufficiently small, freefalling laboratory.
Postulates
“

Reflections of this type made it clear to me as long ago as shortly after 1900, i.e., shortly after Planck's trailblazing work, that neither mechanics nor electrodynamics could (except in limiting cases) claim exact validity. Gradually I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more desperately I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results... How, then, could such a universal principle be found?

”

—Albert Einstein: Autobiographical Notes^{[9]}

Einstein discerned two fundamental propositions that seemed to be the most assured, regardless of the exact validity of the (then) known laws of either mechanics or electrodynamics. These propositions were the constancy of the speed of light and the independence of physical laws (especially the constancy of the speed of light) from the choice of inertial system. In his initial presentation of special relativity in 1905 he expressed these postulates as:^{[1]}
 The Principle of Relativity – The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.^{[1]}
 The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." (from the preface).^{[1]} That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light source.
The derivation of special relativity depends not only on these two explicit postulates, but also on several tacit assumptions (made in almost all theories of physics), including the isotropy and homogeneity of space and the independence of measuring rods and clocks from their past history.^{[10]}
Following Einstein's original presentation of special relativity in 1905, many different sets of postulates have been proposed in various alternative derivations.^{[11]} However, the most common set of postulates remains those employed by Einstein in his original paper. A more mathematical statement of the Principle of Relativity made later by Einstein, which introduces the concept of simplicity not mentioned above is:
Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.^{[12]}
Henri Poincaré provided the mathematical framework for relativity theory by proving that Lorentz transformations are a subset of his Poincaré group of symmetry transformations. Einstein later derived these transformations from his axioms.
Many of Einstein's papers present derivations of the Lorentz transformation based upon these two principles.^{[13]}
Einstein consistently based the derivation of Lorentz invariance (the essential core of special relativity) on just the two basic principles of relativity and lightspeed invariance. He wrote:
The insight fundamental for the special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions relativity and light speed invariance are compatible if relations of a new type ("Lorentz transformation") are postulated for the conversion of coordinates and times of events... The universal principle of the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: The laws of physics are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations (for the transition from one inertial system to any other arbitrarily chosen inertial system). This is a restricting principle for natural laws...^{[9]}
Thus many modern treatments of special relativity base it on the single postulate of universal Lorentz covariance, or, equivalently, on the single postulate of Minkowski spacetime.^{[14]}^{[15]}
From the principle of relativity alone without assuming the constancy of the speed of light (i.e. using the isotropy of space and the symmetry implied by the principle of special relativity) one can show that the spacetime transformations between inertial frames are either Euclidean, Galilean, or Lorentzian. In the Lorentzian case, one can then obtain relativistic interval conservation and a certain finite limiting speed. Experiments suggest that this speed is the speed of light in vacuum.^{[16]}^{[17]}
The constancy of the speed of light was motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether. There is conflicting evidence on the extent to which Einstein was influenced by the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment.^{[18]}^{[19]} In any case, the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment helped the notion of the constancy of the speed of light gain widespread and rapid acceptance.
Lack of an absolute reference frame
The principle of relativity, which states that there is no preferred inertial reference frame, dates back to Galileo, and was incorporated into Newtonian physics. However, in the late 19th century, the existence of electromagnetic waves led physicists to suggest that the universe was filled with a substance known as "aether", which would act as the medium through which these waves, or vibrations travelled. The aether was thought to constitute an absolute reference frame against which speeds could be measured, and could be considered fixed and motionless. Aether supposedly possessed some wonderful properties: it was sufficiently elastic to support electromagnetic waves, and those waves could interact with matter, yet it offered no resistance to bodies passing through it. The results of various experiments, including the Michelson–Morley experiment, indicated that the Earth was always 'stationary' relative to the aether – something that was difficult to explain, since the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. Einstein's solution was to discard the notion of an aether and the absolute state of rest. In relativity, any reference frame moving with uniform motion will observe the same laws of physics. In particular, the speed of light in vacuum is always measured to be c, even when measured by multiple systems that are moving at different (but constant) velocities.
Reference frames, coordinates and the Lorentz transformation
Relativity theory depends on "reference frames". The term reference frame as used here is an observational perspective in space which is not undergoing any change in motion (acceleration), from which a position can be measured along 3 spatial axes. In addition, a reference frame has the ability to determine measurements of the time of events using a 'clock' (any reference device with uniform periodicity).
An event is an occurrence that can be assigned a single unique time and location in space relative to a reference frame: it is a "point" in spacetime. Since the speed of light is constant in relativity in each and every reference frame, pulses of light can be used to unambiguously measure distances and refer back the times that events occurred to the clock, even though light takes time to reach the clock after the event has transpired.
For example, the explosion of a firecracker may be considered to be an "event". We can completely specify an event by its four spacetime coordinates: The time of occurrence and its 3dimensional spatial location define a reference point. Let's call this reference frame S.
In relativity theory we often want to calculate the position of a point from a different reference point.
Suppose we have a second reference frame S′, whose spatial axes and clock exactly coincide with that of S at time zero, but it is moving at a constant velocity v with respect to S along the xaxis.
Since there is no absolute reference frame in relativity theory, a concept of 'moving' doesn't strictly exist, as everything is always moving with respect to some other reference frame. Instead, any two frames that move at the same speed in the same direction are said to be comoving. Therefore S and S′ are not comoving.
Define the event to have spacetime coordinates (t,x,y,z) in system S and (t′,x′,y′,z′) in S′. Then the Lorentz transformation specifies that these coordinates are related in the following way:
 $\backslash begin\{align\}$
t' &= \gamma (t  vx/c^2) \\
x' &= \gamma (x  v t) \\
y' &= y \\
z' &= z ,
\end{align}
where
 $\backslash gamma\; =\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{\backslash sqrt\{1\; \; \backslash frac\{v^2\}\{c^2\}\}\}$
is the Lorentz factor and c is the speed of light in vacuum, and the velocity v of S′ is parallel to the xaxis. The y and z coordinates are unaffected; only the x and t coordinates are transformed. These Lorentz transformations form a oneparameter group of linear mappings, that parameter being called rapidity.
There is nothing special about the xaxis, the transformation can apply to the y or z axes, or indeed in any direction, which can be done by directions parallel to the motion (which are warped by the γ factor) and perpendicular; see main article for details.
A quantity invariant under Lorentz transformations is known as a Lorentz scalar.
Writing the Lorentz transformation and its inverse in terms of coordinate differences, where for instance one event has coordinates (x_{1}, t_{1}) and (x′_{1}, t′_{1}), another event has coordinates (x_{2}, t_{2}) and (x′_{2}, t′_{2}), and the differences are defined as
 $\backslash begin\{array\}\{ll\}$
\Delta x' = x'_2x'_1 \ , & \Delta x = x_2x_1 \ , \\
\Delta t' = t'_2t'_1 \ , & \Delta t = t_2t_1 \ , \\
\end{array}
we get
 $\backslash begin\{array\}\{ll\}$
\Delta x' = \gamma (\Delta x  v \,\Delta t) \ , & \Delta x = \gamma (\Delta x' + v \,\Delta t') \ , \\
\Delta t' = \gamma \left(\Delta t  \dfrac{v \,\Delta x}{c^{2}} \right) \ , & \Delta t = \gamma \left(\Delta t' + \dfrac{v \,\Delta x'}{c^{2}} \right) \ . \\
\end{array}
These effects are not merely appearances; they are explicitly related to our way of measuring time intervals between events which occur at the same place in a given coordinate system (called "colocal" events). These time intervals will be different in another coordinate system moving with respect to the first, unless the events are also simultaneous. Similarly, these effects also relate to our measured distances between separated but simultaneous events in a given coordinate system of choice. If these events are not colocal, but are separated by distance (space), they will not occur at the same spatial distance from each other when seen from another moving coordinate system. However, the spacetime interval will be the same for all observers. The underlying reality remains the same. Only our perspective changes.
Consequences derived from the Lorentz transformation
The consequences of special relativity can be derived from the Lorentz transformation equations.^{[20]} These transformations, and hence special relativity, lead to different physical predictions than those of Newtonian mechanics when relative velocities become comparable to the speed of light. The speed of light is so much larger than anything humans encounter that some of the effects
predicted by relativity are initially counterintuitive.
Relativity of simultaneity
Two events happening in two different locations that occur simultaneously in the reference frame of one inertial observer, may occur nonsimultaneously in the reference frame of another inertial observer (lack of absolute simultaneity).
From the first equation of the Lorentz transformation in terms of coordinate differences
 $\backslash Delta\; t\text{'}\; =\; \backslash gamma\; \backslash left(\backslash Delta\; t\; \; \backslash frac\{v\; \backslash ,\backslash Delta\; x\}\{c^\{2\}\}\; \backslash right)$
it is clear that two events that are simultaneous in frame S (satisfying Δt = 0), are not necessarily simultaneous in another inertial frame S′ (satisfying Δt′ = 0). Only if these events are colocal in frame S (satisfying Δx = 0), will they be simultaneous in another frame S′.
Time dilation
The time lapse between two events is not invariant from one observer to another, but is dependent on the relative speeds of the observers' reference frames (e.g., the twin paradox which concerns a twin who flies off in a spaceship traveling near the speed of light and returns to discover that his or her twin sibling has aged much more).
Suppose a clock is at rest in the unprimed system S. Two different ticks of this clock are then characterized by Δx = 0. To find the relation between the times between these ticks as measured in both systems, the first equation can be used to find:
 $\backslash Delta\; t\text{'}\; =\; \backslash gamma\backslash ,\; \backslash Delta\; t$ for events satisfying $\backslash Delta\; x\; =\; 0\; \backslash \; .$
This shows that the time (Δt') between the two ticks as seen in the frame in which the clock is moving (S'), is longer than the time (Δt) between these ticks as measured in the rest frame of the clock (S). Time dilation explains a number of physical phenomena; for example, the decay rate of muons produced by cosmic rays impinging on the Earth's atmosphere.^{[21]}
Length contraction
The dimensions (e.g., length) of an object as measured by one observer may be smaller than the results of measurements of the same object made by another observer (e.g., the ladder paradox involves a long ladder traveling near the speed of light and being contained within a smaller garage).
Similarly, suppose a measuring rod is at rest and aligned along the xaxis in the unprimed system S. In this system, the length of this rod is written as Δx. To measure the length of this rod in the system S', in which the clock is moving, the distances x′ to the end points of the rod must be measured simultaneously in that system S'. In other words, the measurement is characterized by Δt′ = 0, which can be combined with the fourth equation to find the relation between the lengths Δx and Δx′:
 $\backslash Delta\; x\text{'}\; =\; \backslash frac\{\backslash Delta\; x\}\{\backslash gamma\}$ for events satisfying $\backslash Delta\; t\text{'}\; =\; 0\; \backslash \; .$
This shows that the length (Δx') of the rod as measured in the frame in which it is moving (S'), is shorter than its length (Δx) in its own rest frame (S).
Composition of velocities
Velocities (speeds) do not simply add. If the observer in S measures an object moving along the x axis at velocity u, then the observer in the S′ system, a frame of reference moving at velocity v in the x direction with respect to S, will measure the object moving with velocity u' where (from the Lorentz transformations above):
 $u\text{'}=\backslash frac\{dx\text{'}\}\{dt\text{'}\}=\backslash frac\{\backslash gamma(dxv\; dt)\}\{\backslash gamma(dtv\; dx/c^2)\}=\backslash frac\{(dx/dt)v\}\{1(v/c^2)(dx/dt)\}=\backslash frac\{uv\}\{1uv/c^2\}\; \backslash \; .$
The other frame S will measure:
 $u=\backslash frac\{dx\}\{dt\}=\backslash frac\{\backslash gamma(dx\text{'}+v\; dt\text{'})\}\{\backslash gamma(dt\text{'}+v\; dx\text{'}/c^2)\}=\backslash frac\{(dx\text{'}/dt\text{'})+v\}\{1+(v/c^2)(dx\text{'}/dt\text{'})\}=\backslash frac\{u\text{'}+v\}\{1+u\text{'}v/c^2\}\; \backslash \; .$
Notice that if the object were moving at the speed of light in the S system (i.e. u = c), then it would also be moving at the speed of light in the S′ system. Also, if both u and v are small with respect to the speed of light, we will recover the intuitive Galilean transformation of velocities
 $u\text{'}\; \backslash approx\; uv\; \backslash \; .$
The usual example given is that of a train (frame S′ above) traveling due east with a velocity v with respect to the tracks (frame S). A child inside the train throws a baseball due east with a velocity u′ with respect to the train. In classical physics, an observer at rest on the tracks will measure the velocity of the baseball (due east) as u = u′ + v, while in special relativity this is no longer true; instead the velocity of the baseball (due east) is given by the second equation: u = (u′ + v)/(1 + u′v/c^{2}). Again, there is nothing special about the x or east directions. This formalism applies to any direction by considering parallel and perpendicular motion to the direction of relative velocity v, see main article for details.
Einstein's addition of colinear velocities is consistent with the Fizeau experiment which determined the speed of light in a fluid moving parallel to the light, but no experiment has ever tested the formula for the general case of nonparallel velocities.
Other consequences
Thomas rotation
The orientation of an object (i.e. the alignment of its axes with the observer's axes) may be different for different observers. Unlike other relativistic effects, this effect becomes quite significant at fairly low velocities as can be seen in the spin of moving particles.
Equivalence of mass and energy
As an object's speed approaches the speed of light from an observer's point of view, its relativistic mass increases thereby making it more and more difficult to accelerate it from within the observer's frame of reference.
The energy content of an object at rest with mass m equals mc^{2}. Conservation of energy implies that, in any reaction, a decrease of the sum of the masses of particles must be accompanied by an increase in kinetic energies of the particles after the reaction. Similarly, the mass of an object can be increased by taking in kinetic energies.
In addition to the papers referenced above—which give derivations of the Lorentz transformation and describe the foundations of special relativity—Einstein also wrote at least four papers giving heuristic arguments for the equivalence (and transmutability) of mass and energy, for E = mc^{2}.
Mass–energy equivalence is a consequence of special relativity. The energy and momentum, which are separate in Newtonian mechanics, form a fourvector in relativity, and this relates the time component (the energy) to the space components (the momentum) in a nontrivial way. For an object at rest, the energymomentum fourvector is (E, 0, 0, 0): it has a time component which is the energy, and three space components which are zero. By changing frames with a Lorentz transformation in the x direction with a small value of the velocity v, the energy momentum fourvector becomes (E, Ev/c^{2}, 0, 0). The momentum is equal to the energy multiplied by the velocity divided by c^{2}. As such, the Newtonian mass of an object, which is the ratio of the momentum to the velocity for slow velocities, is equal to E/c^{2}.
The energy and momentum are properties of matter and radiation, and it is impossible to deduce that they form a fourvector just from the two basic postulates of special relativity by themselves, because these don't talk about matter or radiation, they only talk about space and time. The derivation therefore requires some additional physical reasoning. In his 1905 paper, Einstein used the additional principles that Newtonian mechanics should hold for slow velocities, so that there is one energy scalar and one threevector momentum at slow velocities, and that the conservation law for energy and momentum is exactly true in relativity. Furthermore, he assumed that the energy of light is transformed by the same Dopplershift factor as its frequency, which he had previously shown to be true based on Maxwell's equations.^{[1]} The first of Einstein's papers on this subject was "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content?" in 1905.^{[22]} Although Einstein's argument in this paper is nearly universally accepted by physicists as correct, even selfevident, many authors over the years have suggested that it is wrong.^{[23]} Other authors suggest that the argument was merely inconclusive because it relied on some implicit assumptions.^{[24]}
Einstein acknowledged the controversy over his derivation in his 1907 survey paper on special relativity. There he notes that it is problematic to rely on Maxwell's equations for the heuristic mass–energy argument. The argument in his 1905 paper can be carried out with the emission of any massless particles, but the Maxwell equations are implicitly used to make it obvious that the emission of light in particular can be achieved only by doing work. To emit electromagnetic waves, all you have to do is shake a charged particle, and this is clearly doing work, so that the emission is of energy.^{[25]}^{[26]}
How far can one travel from the Earth?
Since one can not travel faster than light, one might conclude that a human can never travel further from Earth than 40 light years if the traveler is active between the age of 20 and 60. One would easily think that a traveler would never be able to reach more than the very few solar systems which exist within the limit of 20–40 light years from the earth. But that would be a mistaken conclusion. Because of time dilation, a hypothetical spaceship can travel thousands of light years during the pilot's 40 active years. If a spaceship could be built that accelerates at a constant 1g, it will after a little less than a year be traveling at almost the speed of light as seen from Earth. Time dilation will increase his life span as seen from the reference system of the Earth, but his lifespan measured by a clock traveling with him will not thereby change. During his journey, people on Earth will experience more time than he does. A 5 year round trip for him will take 6½ Earth years and cover a distance of over 6 lightyears. A 20 year round trip for him (5 years accelerating, 5 decelerating, twice each) will land him back on Earth having traveled for 335 Earth years and a distance of 331 light years.^{[27]} A full 40 year trip at 1 g will appear on Earth to last 58,000 years and cover a distance of 55,000 light years. A 40 year trip at 1.1 g will take 148,000 Earth years and cover about 140,000 light years. A oneway 28 year (14 years accelerating, 14 decelerating as measured with the cosmonaut's clock) trip at 1 g acceleration could reach 2,000,000 lightyears to the Andromeda Galaxy.^{[28]} This same time dilation is why a muon traveling close to c is observed to travel much further than c times its halflife (when at rest).^{[29]}
Causality and prohibition of motion faster than light
In diagram 2 the interval AB is 'timelike'; i.e., there is a frame of reference in which events A and B occur at the same location in space, separated only by occurring at different times. If A precedes B in that frame, then A precedes B in all frames. It is hypothetically possible for matter (or information) to travel from A to B, so there can be a causal relationship (with A the cause and B the effect).
The interval AC in the diagram is 'spacelike'; i.e., there is a frame of reference in which events A and C occur simultaneously, separated only in space. There are also frames in which A precedes C (as shown) and frames in which C precedes A. If it were possible for a causeandeffect relationship to exist between events A and C, then paradoxes of causality would result. For example, if A was the cause, and C the effect, then there would be frames of reference in which the effect preceded the cause. Although this in itself won't give rise to a paradox, one can show^{[30]}^{[31]} that faster than light signals can be sent back into one's own past. A causal paradox can then be constructed by sending the signal if and only if no signal was received previously.
Therefore, if causality is to be preserved, one of the consequences of special relativity is that no information signal or material object can travel faster than light in vacuum. However, some "things" can still move faster than light. For example, the location where the beam of a search light hits the bottom of a cloud can move faster than light when the search light is turned rapidly.^{[32]}
Even without considerations of causality, there are other strong reasons why fasterthanlight travel is forbidden by special relativity. For example, if a constant force is applied to an object for a limitless amount of time, then integrating F = dp/dt gives a momentum that grows without bound, but this is simply because $p\; =\; m\; \backslash gamma\; v\; \backslash ,$ approaches infinity as $\backslash ,\; v$ approaches c. To an observer who is not accelerating, it appears as though the object's inertia is increasing, so as to produce a smaller acceleration in response to the same force. This behavior is in fact observed in particle accelerators, where each charged particle is accelerated by the electromagnetic force.
Theoretical and experimental tunneling studies carried out by Günter Nimtz and Petrissa Eckle claimed that under special conditions signals may travel faster than light.^{[33]}^{[34]}^{[35]}^{[36]} It was measured that fiber digital signals were traveling up to 5 times c and a zerotime tunneling electron carried the information that the atom is ionized, with photons, phonons and electrons spending zero time in the tunneling barrier. According to Nimtz and Eckle, in this superluminal process only the Einstein causality and the special relativity but not the primitive causality are violated: Superluminal propagation does not result in any kind of time travel.^{[37]}^{[38]} Several scientists have stated not only that Nimtz' interpretations were erroneous, but also that the experiment actually provided a trivial experimental confirmation of the special relativity theory.^{[39]}^{[40]}^{[41]}
Geometry of spacetime
Comparison between flat Euclidean space and Minkowski space
Special relativity uses a 'flat' 4dimensional Minkowski space – an example of a spacetime. Minkowski spacetime appears to be very similar to the standard 3dimensional Euclidean space, but there is a crucial difference with respect to time.
In 3D space, the differential of distance (line element) ds is defined by
 $ds^2\; =\; d\backslash mathbf\{x\}\; \backslash cdot\; d\backslash mathbf\{x\}\; =\; dx\_1^2\; +\; dx\_2^2\; +\; dx\_3^2,$
where dx = (dx_{1}, dx_{2}, dx_{3}) are the differentials of the three spatial dimensions. In Minkowski geometry, there is an extra dimension with coordinate X^{0} derived from time, such that the distance differential fulfills
 $ds^2\; =\; dX\_0^2\; +\; dX\_1^2\; +\; dX\_2^2\; +\; dX\_3^2,$
where dX = (dX_{0}, dX_{1}, dX_{2}, dX_{3}) are the differentials of the four spacetime dimensions. This suggests a deep theoretical insight: special relativity is simply a rotational symmetry of our spacetime, analogous to the rotational symmetry of Euclidean space (see image right).^{[43]} Just as Euclidean space uses a Euclidean metric, so spacetime uses a Minkowski metric. Basically, special relativity can be stated as the invariance of any spacetime interval (that is the 4D distance between any two events) when viewed from any inertial reference frame. All equations and effects of special relativity can be derived from this rotational symmetry (the Poincaré group) of Minkowski spacetime.
The actual form of ds above depends on the metric and on the choices for the X^{0} coordinate.
To make the time coordinate look like the space coordinates, it can be treated as imaginary: X_{0} = ict (this is called a Wick rotation).
According to Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (1971, §2.3), ultimately the deeper understanding of both special and general relativity will come from the study of the Minkowski metric (described below) and to take X^{0} = ct, rather than a "disguised" Euclidean metric using ict as the time coordinate.
Some authors use X^{0} = t, with factors of c elsewhere to compensate; for instance, spatial coordinates are divided by c or factors of c^{±2} are included in the metric tensor.^{[44]}
These numerous conventions can be superseded by using natural units where c = 1. Then space and time have equivalent units, and no factors of c appear anywhere.
3D spacetime
If we reduce the spatial dimensions to 2, so that we can represent the physics in a 3D space
 $ds^2\; =\; dx\_1^2\; +\; dx\_2^2\; \; c^2\; dt^2,$
we see that the null geodesics lie along a dualcone (see image right) defined by the equation;
 $ds^2\; =\; 0\; =\; dx\_1^2\; +\; dx\_2^2\; \; c^2\; dt^2$
or simply
 $dx\_1^2\; +\; dx\_2^2\; =\; c^2\; dt^2,$
which is the equation of a circle of radius c dt.
4D spacetime
If we extend this to three spatial dimensions, the null geodesics are the 4dimensional cone:
 $ds^2\; =\; 0\; =\; dx\_1^2\; +\; dx\_2^2\; +\; dx\_3^2\; \; c^2\; dt^2$
so
 $dx\_1^2\; +\; dx\_2^2\; +\; dx\_3^2\; =\; c^2\; dt^2.$
This null dualcone represents the "line of sight" of a point in space. That is, when we look at the stars and say "The light from that star which I am receiving is X years old", we are looking down this line of sight: a null geodesic. We are looking at an event a distance $d\; =\; \backslash sqrt\{x\_1^2+x\_2^2+x\_3^2\}$ away and a time d/c in the past. For this reason the null dual cone is also known as the 'light cone'. (The point in the lower left of the picture below represents the star, the origin represents the observer, and the line represents the null geodesic "line of sight".)
The cone in the −t region is the information that the point is 'receiving', while the cone in the +t section is the information that the point is 'sending'.
The geometry of Minkowski space can be depicted using Minkowski diagrams, which are useful also in understanding many of the thoughtexperiments in special relativity.
Note that, in 4d spacetime, the concept of the center of mass becomes more complicated, see center of mass (relativistic).
Physics in spacetime
Transformations of physical quantities between reference frames
Above, the Lorentz transformation for the time coordinate and three space coordinates illustrates that they are intertwined. This is true more generally: certain pairs of "timelike" and "spacelike" quantities naturally combine on equal footing under the same Lorentz transformation.
The Lorentz transformation in standard configuration above, i.e. for a boost in the x direction, can be recast into matrix form as follows:
 $\backslash begin\{pmatrix\}$
ct'\\ x'\\ y'\\ z'
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
\gamma & \beta\gamma & 0 & 0\\
\beta\gamma & \gamma & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
ct\\ x\\ y\\ z
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\gamma ct \gamma\beta x\\
\gamma x  \beta \gamma ct \\ y\\ z
\end{pmatrix}.
In Newtonian mechanics, quantities which have magnitude and direction are mathematically described as 3d vectors in Euclidean space, and in general they are parametrized by time. In special relativity, this notion is extended by adding the appropriate timelike quantity to a spacelike vector quantity, and we have 4d vectors, or "four vectors", in Minkowski spacetime. The components of vectors are written using tensor index notation, as this has numerous advantages. The notation makes it clear the equations are manifestly covariant under the Poincaré group, thus bypassing the tedious calculations to check this fact. In constructing such equations, we often find that equations previously thought to be unrelated are, in fact, closely connected being part of the same tensor equation. Recognizing other physical quantities as tensors simplifies their transformation laws. Throughout, upper indices (superscripts) are contravariant indices rather than exponents except when they indicate a square (this is should be clear from the context), and lower indices (subscripts) are covariant indices. For simplicity and consistency with the earlier equations, Cartesian coordinates will be used.
The simplest example of a fourvector is the position of an event in spacetime, which constitutes a timelike component ct and spacelike component x = (x, y, z), in a contravariant position four vector with components:
 $X^\backslash nu\; =\; (X^0,\; X^1,\; X^2,\; X^3)=\; (ct,\; x,\; y,\; z).$
where we define X^{0} = ct so that the time coordinate has the same dimension of distance as the other spatial dimensions; so that space and time are treated equally.^{[45]}^{[46]}^{[47]} Now the transformation of the contravariant components of the position 4vector can be compactly written as:
 $X^\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}=\backslash Lambda^\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\{\}\_\backslash nu\; X^\backslash nu$
where there is an implied summation on ν from 0 to 3, and $\backslash Lambda^\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\{\}\_\{\backslash nu\}$ is a matrix.
More generally, all contravariant components of a fourvector $T^\backslash nu$ transform from one frame to another frame by a Lorentz transformation:
 $T^\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\; =\; \backslash Lambda^\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\{\}\_\{\backslash nu\}\; T^\backslash nu$
Examples of other 4vectors include the fourvelocity U^{μ}, defined as the derivative of the position 4vector with respect to proper time:
 $U^\backslash mu\; =\; \backslash frac\{dX^\backslash mu\}\{d\backslash tau\}\; =\; \backslash gamma(v)(\; c\; ,\; v\_x\; ,\; v\_y,\; v\_z\; )\; .$
where the Lorentz factor is:
 $\backslash gamma(v)=\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{\backslash sqrt\{1\; (v/c)^2\}\}\; \backslash ,,\backslash quad\; v^2\; =\; v\_x^2\; +\; v\_y^2\; +\; v\_z^2\; \backslash ,.$
The relativistic energy $E\; =\; \backslash gamma(v)mc^2$ and relativistic momentum $\backslash mathbf\{p\}\; =\; \backslash gamma(v)m\; \backslash mathbf\{v\}$ of an object are respectively the timelike and spacelike components of a covariant four momentum vector:
 $P\_\backslash nu\; =\; m\; U\_\backslash nu\; =\; m\backslash gamma(v)(c,v\_x,v\_y,v\_z)=\; (E/c,p\_x,p\_y,p\_z).$
where m is the invariant mass.
The fouracceleration is the proper time derivative of 4velocity:
 $A^\backslash mu\; =\; \backslash frac\{d\; U^\backslash mu\}\{d\backslash tau\}\; \backslash ,.$
The transformation rules for threedimensional velocities and accelerations are very awkward; even above in standard configuration the velocity equations are quite complicated owing to their nonlinearity. On the other hand, the transformation of fourvelocity and fouracceleration are simpler by means of the Lorentz transformation matrix.
The fourgradient of a scalar field φ transforms covariantly rather than contravariantly:
 $\backslash begin\{pmatrix\}\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{c\}\backslash frac\{\backslash partial\; \backslash phi\}\{\backslash partial\; t\text{'}\}\; \&\; \backslash frac\{\backslash partial\; \backslash phi\}\{\backslash partial\; x\text{'}\}\; \&\; \backslash frac\{\backslash partial\; \backslash phi\}\{\backslash partial\; y\text{'}\}\; \&\; \backslash frac\{\backslash partial\; \backslash phi\}\{\backslash partial\; z\text{'}\}\backslash end\{pmatrix\}\; =\; \backslash begin\{pmatrix\}\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{c\}\backslash frac\{\backslash partial\; \backslash phi\}\{\backslash partial\; t\}\; \&\; \backslash frac\{\backslash partial\; \backslash phi\}\{\backslash partial\; x\}\; \&\; \backslash frac\{\backslash partial\; \backslash phi\}\{\backslash partial\; y\}\; \&\; \backslash frac\{\backslash partial\; \backslash phi\}\{\backslash partial\; z\}\backslash end\{pmatrix\}\backslash begin\{pmatrix\}$
\gamma & \beta\gamma & 0 & 0\\
\beta\gamma & \gamma & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \,.
that is:
 $(\backslash partial\_\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\; \backslash phi)\; =\; \backslash Lambda\_\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\{\}^\{\backslash nu\}\; (\backslash partial\_\backslash nu\; \backslash phi)\backslash ,,\backslash quad\; \backslash partial\_\{\backslash mu\}\; \backslash equiv\; \backslash frac\{\backslash partial\}\{\backslash partial\; x^\{\backslash mu\}\}\backslash ,.$
only in Cartesian coordinates. It's the covariant derivative which transforms in manifest covariance, in Cartesian coordinates this happens to reduce to the partial derivatives, but not in other coordinates.
More generally, the covariant components of a 4vector transform according to the inverse Lorentz transformation:
 $\backslash Lambda\_\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\{\}^\{\backslash nu\}\; T^\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\; =\; T^\backslash nu$
where $\backslash Lambda\_\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\{\}^\{\backslash nu\}$ is the reciprocal matrix of $\backslash Lambda^\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\{\}\_\{\backslash nu\}$.
The postulates of special relativity constrain the exact form the Lorentz transformation matrices take.
More generally, most physical quantities are best described as (components of) tensors. So to transform from one frame to another, we use the wellknown tensor transformation law^{[48]}
 $T^\{\backslash alpha\text{'}\; \backslash beta\text{'}\; \backslash cdots\; \backslash zeta\text{'}\}\_\{\backslash theta\text{'}\; \backslash iota\text{'}\; \backslash cdots\; \backslash kappa\text{'}\}\; =$
\Lambda^{\alpha'}{}_{\mu} \Lambda^{\beta'}{}_{\nu} \cdots \Lambda^{\zeta'}{}_{\rho}
\Lambda_{\theta'}{}^{\sigma} \Lambda_{\iota'}{}^{\upsilon} \cdots \Lambda_{\kappa'}{}^{\phi}
T^{\mu \nu \cdots \rho}_{\sigma \upsilon \cdots \phi}
where $\backslash Lambda\_\{\backslash chi\text{'}\}\{\}^\{\backslash psi\}\; \backslash ,$ is the reciprocal matrix of $\backslash Lambda^\{\backslash chi\text{'}\}\{\}\_\{\backslash psi\}$. All tensors transform by this rule.
An example of a four dimensional second order antisymmetric tensor is the relativistic angular momentum, which has six components: three are the classical angular momentum, and the other three are related to the boost of the center of mass of the system. The derivative of the relativistic angular momentum with respect to proper time is the relativistic torque, also second order antisymmetric tensor.
The electromagnetic field tensor is another second order antisymmetric tensor field, with six components: three for the electric field and another three for the magnetic field. There is also the stressenergy tensor for the electromagnetic field, namely the electromagnetic stressenergy tensor.
Metric
The metric tensor allows one to define the inner product of two vectors, which in turn allows one to assign a magnitude to the vector. Given the fourdimensional nature of spacetime the Minkowski metric η has components (valid in any inertial reference frame) which can be arranged in a 4 × 4 matrix:
 $\backslash eta\_\{\backslash alpha\backslash beta\}\; =\; \backslash begin\{pmatrix\}$
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
which is equal to its reciprocal, $\backslash eta^\{\backslash alpha\backslash beta\}$, in those frames. Throughout we use the signs as above, different authors use different conventions  see Minkowski metric alternative signs.
The Poincaré group is the most general group of transformations which preserves the Minkowski metric:
 $\backslash eta\_\{\backslash alpha\backslash beta\}\; =\; \backslash eta\_\{\backslash mu\text{'}\backslash nu\text{'}\}\; \backslash Lambda^\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\{\}\_\backslash alpha\; \backslash Lambda^\{\backslash nu\text{'}\}\{\}\_\backslash beta\; \backslash !$
and this is the physical symmetry underlying special relativity.
The metric can be used for raising and lowering indices on vectors and tensors. Invariants can be constructed using the metric, the inner product of a 4vector T with another 4vector S is:
 $T^\{\backslash alpha\}S\_\{\backslash alpha\}=T^\{\backslash alpha\}\backslash eta\_\{\backslash alpha\backslash beta\}S^\{\backslash beta\}\; =\; T\_\{\backslash alpha\}\backslash eta^\{\backslash alpha\backslash beta\}S\_\{\backslash beta\}\; =\; \backslash text\{invariant\; scalar\}$
Invariant means that it takes the same value in all inertial frames, because it is a scalar (0 rank tensor), and so no Λ appears in its trivial transformation. The magnitude of the 4vector T is the positive square root of the inner product with itself:
 $\backslash mathbf\{T\}\; =\; \backslash sqrt\{T^\{\backslash alpha\}T\_\{\backslash alpha\}\}$
One can extend this idea to tensors of higher order, for a second order tensor we can form the invariants:
 $T^\{\backslash alpha\}\{\}\_\{\backslash alpha\}\backslash ,,T^\{\backslash alpha\}\{\}\_\{\backslash beta\}T^\{\backslash beta\}\{\}\_\{\backslash alpha\}\backslash ,,T^\{\backslash alpha\}\{\}\_\{\backslash beta\}T^\{\backslash beta\}\{\}\_\{\backslash gamma\}T^\{\backslash gamma\}\{\}\_\{\backslash alpha\}\; =\; \backslash text\{invariant\; scalars\}\backslash ,,$
similarly for higher order tensors. Invariant expressions, particularly inner products of 4vectors with themselves, provide equations that are useful for calculations, because one doesn't need to perform Lorentz transformations to determine the invariants.
Relativistic kinematics and invariance
The coordinate differentials transform also contravariantly:
 $dX^\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}=\backslash Lambda^\{\backslash mu\text{'}\}\{\}\_\backslash nu\; dX^\backslash nu$
so the squared length of the differential of the position fourvector dX^{μ} constructed using
 $d\backslash mathbf\{X\}^2\; =\; dX^\backslash mu\; \backslash ,dX\_\backslash mu\; =\; \backslash eta\_\{\backslash mu\backslash nu\}\backslash ,dX^\backslash mu\; \backslash ,dX^\backslash nu\; =\; (c\; dt)^2+(dx)^2+(dy)^2+(dz)^2\backslash ,$
is an invariant. Notice that when the line element dX^{2} is negative that √−dX^{2} is the differential of proper time, while when dX^{2} is positive, √dX^{2} is differential of the proper distance.
The 4velocity U^{μ} has an invariant form:
 $\{\backslash mathbf\; U\}^2\; =\; \backslash eta\_\{\backslash nu\backslash mu\}\; U^\backslash nu\; U^\backslash mu\; =\; c^2\; \backslash ,,$
which means all velocity fourvectors have a magnitude of c. This is an expression of the fact that there is no such thing as being at coordinate rest in relativity: at the least, you are always moving forward through time. Differentiating the above equation by τ produces:
 $2\backslash eta\_\{\backslash mu\backslash nu\}A^\backslash mu\; U^\backslash nu\; =\; 0.\; \backslash !$
So in special relativity, the acceleration fourvector and the velocity fourvector are orthogonal.
Relativistic dynamics and invariance
The invariant magnitude of the momentum 4vector generates the energy–momentum relation:
 $\backslash mathbf\{P\}^2\; =\; \backslash eta^\{\backslash mu\backslash nu\}P\_\backslash mu\; P\_\backslash nu\; =\; (E/c)^2\; +\; p^2\; .$
We can work out what this invariant is by first arguing that, since it is a scalar, it doesn't matter which reference frame we calculate it, and then by transforming to a frame where the total momentum is zero.
 $\backslash mathbf\{P\}^2\; =\; \; (E\_\backslash mathrm\{rest\}/c)^2\; =\; \; (m\; c)^2\; .$
We see that the rest energy is an independent invariant. A rest energy can be calculated even for particles and systems in motion, by translating to a frame in which momentum is zero.
The rest energy is related to the mass according to the celebrated equation discussed above:
 $E\_\backslash mathrm\{rest\}\; =\; m\; c^2.\backslash ,$
Note that the mass of systems measured in their center of momentum frame (where total momentum is zero) is given by the total energy of the system in this frame. It may not be equal to the sum of individual system masses measured in other frames.
To use Newton's third law of motion, both forces must be defined as the rate of change of momentum with respect to the same time coordinate. That is, it requires the 3D force defined above. Unfortunately, there is no tensor in 4D which contains the components of the 3D force vector among its components.
If a particle is not traveling at c, one can transform the 3D force from the particle's comoving reference frame into the observer's reference frame. This yields a 4vector called the fourforce. It is the rate of change of the above energy momentum fourvector with respect to proper time. The covariant version of the fourforce is:
 $F\_\backslash nu\; =\; \backslash frac\{d\; P\_\{\backslash nu\}\}\{d\; \backslash tau\}\; =\; m\; A\_\backslash nu$
In the rest frame of the object, the time component of the four force is zero unless the "invariant mass" of the object is changing (this requires a nonclosed system in which energy/mass is being directly added or removed from the object) in which case it is the negative of that rate of change of mass, times c. In general, though, the components of the four force are not equal to the components of the threeforce, because the three force is defined by the rate of change of momentum with respect to coordinate time, i.e. dp/dt while the four force is defined by the rate of change of momentum with respect to proper time, i.e. dp/dτ.
In a continuous medium, the 3D density of force combines with the density of power to form a covariant 4vector. The spatial part is the result of dividing the force on a small cell (in 3space) by the volume of that cell. The time component is −1/c times the power transferred to that cell divided by the volume of the cell. This will be used below in the section on electromagnetism.
Relativity and unifying electromagnetism
Theoretical investigation in classical electromagnetism led to the discovery of wave propagation. Equations generalizing the electromagnetic effects found that finite propagationspeed of the E and B fields required certain behaviors on charged particles. The general study of moving charges forms the Liénard–Wiechert potential, which is a step towards special relativity.
The Lorentz transformation of the electric field of a moving charge into a nonmoving observer's reference frame results in the appearance of a mathematical term commonly called the magnetic field. Conversely, the magnetic field generated by a moving charge disappears and becomes a purely electrostatic field in a comoving frame of reference. Maxwell's equations are thus simply an empirical fit to special relativistic effects in a classical model of the Universe. As electric and magnetic fields are reference frame dependent and thus intertwined, one speaks of electromagnetic fields. Special relativity provides the transformation rules for how an electromagnetic field in one inertial frame appears in another inertial frame.
Maxwell's equations in the 3D form are already consistent with the physical content of special relativity, although they are easier to manipulate in a manifestly covariant form, i.e. in the language of tensor calculus.^{[49]} See main links for more detail.
Status
Main articles:
Tests of special relativity and
Criticism of relativity theory
Special relativity in its Minkowski spacetime is accurate only when the absolute value of the gravitational potential is much less than c^{2} in the region of interest.^{[50]} In a strong gravitational field, one must use general relativity. General relativity becomes special relativity at the limit of weak field. At very small scales, such as at the Planck length and below, quantum effects must be taken into consideration resulting in quantum gravity. However, at macroscopic scales and in the absence of strong gravitational fields, special relativity is experimentally tested to extremely high degree of accuracy (10^{−20})^{[51]}
and thus accepted by the physics community. Experimental results which appear to contradict it are not reproducible and are thus widely believed to be due to experimental errors.
Special relativity is mathematically selfconsistent, and it is an organic part of all modern physical theories, most notably quantum field theory, string theory, and general relativity (in the limiting case of negligible gravitational fields).
Newtonian mechanics mathematically follows from special relativity at small velocities (compared to the speed of light) – thus Newtonian mechanics can be considered as a special relativity of slow moving bodies. See classical mechanics for a more detailed discussion.
Several experiments predating Einstein's 1905 paper are now interpreted as evidence for relativity. Of these it is known Einstein was aware of the Fizeau experiment before 1905,^{[52]} and historians have concluded that Einstein was at least aware of the Michelson–Morley experiment as early as 1899 despite claims he made in his later years that it played no role in his development of the theory.^{[19]}
 The Fizeau experiment (1851, repeated by Michelson and Morley in 1886) measured the speed of light in moving media, with results that are consistent with relativistic addition of colinear velocities.
 The famous Michelson–Morley experiment (1881, 1887) gave further support to the postulate that detecting an absolute reference velocity was not achievable. It should be stated here that, contrary to many alternative claims, it said little about the invariance of the speed of light with respect to the source and observer's velocity, as both source and observer were travelling together at the same velocity at all times.
 The Trouton–Noble experiment (1903) showed that the torque on a capacitor is independent of position and inertial reference frame.
 The Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902, 1904) showed that length contraction doesn't lead to birefringence for a comoving observer, in accordance with the relativity principle.
Particle accelerators routinely accelerate and measure the properties of particles moving at near the speed of light, where their behavior is completely consistent with relativity theory and inconsistent with the earlier Newtonian mechanics. These machines would simply not work if they were not engineered according to relativistic principles. In addition, a considerable number of modern experiments have been conducted to test special relativity. Some examples:
 Tests of relativistic energy and momentum – testing the limiting speed of particles
 Ives–Stilwell experiment – testing relativistic Doppler effect and time dilation
 Time dilation of moving particles – relativistic effects on a fastmoving particle's halflife
 Kennedy–Thorndike experiment – time dilation in accordance with Lorentz transformations
 Hughes–Drever experiment – testing isotropy of space and mass
 Modern searches for Lorentz violation – various modern tests
 Experiments to test emission theory demonstrated that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.
 Experiments to test the aether drag hypothesis – no "aether flow obstruction".
Theories of relativity and quantum mechanics
Special relativity can be combined with quantum mechanics to form relativistic quantum mechanics. It is an unsolved problem in physics how general relativity and quantum mechanics can be unified; quantum gravity and a "theory of everything", which require such a unification, are active and ongoing areas in theoretical research.
The early Bohr–Sommerfeld atomic model explained the fine structure of alkali metal atoms using both special relativity and the preliminary knowledge on quantum mechanics of the time.^{[53]}
In 1928, Paul Dirac constructed an influential relativistic wave equation, now known as the Dirac equation in his honour,^{[54]} that is fully compatible both with special relativity and with the final version of quantum theory existing after 1926. This equation explained not only the intrinsic angular momentum of the electrons called spin, it also led to the prediction of the antiparticle of the electron (the positron),^{[54]}^{[55]} and fine structure could only be fully explained with special relativity. It was the first foundation of relativistic quantum mechanics. In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, spin is phenomenological and cannot be explained.
On the other hand, the existence of antiparticles has the leads to the conclusion that relativistic quantum mechanics is not enough for a more accurate and complete theory of particle interactions. Instead, a theory of particles interpreted as quantized fields, called quantum field theory, becomes necessary; in which particles can be created and destroyed throughout space and time.
See also
 People: Hendrik Lorentz  Henri Poincaré  Albert Einstein  Max Planck  Hermann Minkowski  Max von Laue  Arnold Sommerfeld  Max Born  Gustav Herglotz  Richard C. Tolman
 Relativity: Theory of relativity  History of special relativity  Principle of relativity  General relativity  Fundamental Speed  Frame of reference  Inertial frame of reference  Lorentz transformations  Bondi kcalculus  Einstein synchronisation  RietdijkPutnam Argument  Special relativity (alternative formulations)  Criticism of relativity theory  Relativity priority dispute
 Physics: Newtonian Mechanics  spacetime  speed of light  simultaneity  center of mass (relativistic)  physical cosmology  Doppler effect  relativistic Euler equations  Aether drag hypothesis  Lorentz ether theory  Moving magnet and conductor problem  Shape waves Relativistic heat conduction Relativistic disk Thomas precession Born rigidity Born coordinates
 Mathematics: Derivations of the Lorentz transformations  Minkowski space  fourvector  world line  light cone  Lorentz group  Poincaré group  geometry  tensors  splitcomplex number  Relativity in the APS formalism
 Philosophy: actualism  conventionalism  formalism
 Paradoxes: Twin paradox  Ehrenfest paradox  Ladder paradox  Bell's spaceship paradox  Velocity composition paradox
Template:Tests of special relativity
Template:Tensors
References
Textbooks
 Einstein, Albert (1920). Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
 Einstein, Albert (1996). The Meaning of Relativity. Fine Communications. ISBN 1567311369
 Logunov, Anatoly A. (2005) Henri Poincaré and the Relativity Theory (transl. from Russian by G. Pontocorvo and V. O. Soleviev, edited by V. A. Petrov) Nauka, Moscow.
 Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, and John Archibald Wheeler (1971) Gravitation. W. H. Freeman & Co. ISBN 0716703343
 Post, E.J., 1997 (1962) Formal Structure of Electromagnetics: General Covariance and Electromagnetics. Dover Publications.
 Wolfgang Rindler (1991). Introduction to Special Relativity (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198539520; ISBN 0198539525
 Harvey R. Brown (2005). Physical relativity: spacetime structure from a dynamical perspective, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199275831; ISBN 9780199275830

 Silberstein, Ludwik (1914) The Theory of Relativity.


 Taylor, Edwin, and John Archibald Wheeler (1992) Spacetime Physics (2nd ed.). W.H. Freeman & Co. ISBN 0716723271
 Tipler, Paul, and Llewellyn, Ralph (2002). Modern Physics (4th ed.). W. H. Freeman & Co. ISBN 0716743450
Journal articles
External links
Template: portal
Original works
 Bern 1905
 English Translation as published in the 1923 book The Principle of Relativity.
Special relativity for a general audience (no mathematical knowledge required)
 : Special Relativity
 awardwinning, nontechnical introduction (film clips and demonstrations) supported by dozens of pages of further explanations and animations, at levels with or without mathematics.
 Einstein Online Introduction to relativity theory, from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.
 Audio: Cain/Gay (2006) – Astronomy Cast. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity
Special relativity explained (using simple or more advanced mathematics)
 .
 The Hogg Notes on Special Relativity A good introduction to special relativity at the undergraduate level, using calculus.
 Relativity Calculator: Special Relativity – An algebraic and integral calculus derivation for E = mc^{2}.
 Motion Mountain, Volume II – A modern introduction to relativity, including its visual effects.
 MathPages – Reflections on Relativity A complete online book on relativity with an extensive bibliography.
 Relativity An introduction to special relativity at the undergraduate level, without calculus.

 Relativity: the Special and General Theory at Project Gutenberg, by Albert Einstein
 Special Relativity Lecture Notes is a standard introduction to special relativity containing illustrative explanations based on drawings and spacetime diagrams from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
 Understanding Special Relativity The theory of special relativity in an easily understandable way.
 An Introduction to the Special Theory of Relativity (1964) by Robert Katz, "an introduction ... that is accessible to any student who has had an introduction to general physics and some slight acquaintance with the calculus" (130 pp; pdf format).
 Lecture Notes on Special Relativity by J D Cresser Department of Physics Macquarie University.
Visualization
 Raytracing Special Relativity Software visualizing several scenarios under the influence of special relativity.
 Real Time Relativity The Australian National University. Relativistic visual effects experienced through an interactive program.
 Spacetime travel A variety of visualizations of relativistic effects, from relativistic motion to black holes.
 Through Einstein's Eyes The Australian National University. Relativistic visual effects explained with movies and images.
 Warp Special Relativity Simulator A computer program to show the effects of traveling close to the speed of light.
 Animation clip visualizing the Lorentz transformation.
 Original interactive FLASH Animations from John de Pillis illustrating Lorentz and Galilean frames, Train and Tunnel Paradox, the Twin Paradox, Wave Propagation, Clock Synchronization, etc.
 Relativistic Optics at the ANU
 lightspeed An OpenGLbased program developed to illustrate the effects of special relativity on the appearance of moving objects.
Template:Physicsfooter
Template:Einstein
Template:Relativity
This article was sourced from Creative Commons AttributionShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, EGovernment Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a nonprofit organization.