Notes on the Meaning of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity

"Since nature is a principle of motion and change, and since our inquiry is
about nature, we must not overlook the question of what motion is. For
without understanding motion, we could not understand nature."
Aristotle
Introduction: Why am I Writing This?
Since joining ResearchGate I have followed, and have contributed to, various discussions
about Einstein's Relativity (Special and General). I have been shocked to discover that
these topics are still a source of controversy after more than a century! I have repeatedly
tried to clarify misunderstandings of those who claim that the theories "don't make sense"
and lead to "paradoxes". I have tried to emphasize the distinction between the
mathematics of the theories and the physical interpretation of the symbols in the
mathematical formulation.
For my troubles, I have been accused of being a "supporter" or a "fan" of Einstein (I find
the idea that he needs my support laughable...) and of being a "believer" in Relativity. Let
me be quite clear: "belief" has no place in science. A theory stands or falls on the results
of observations and experiments. What anyone "believes" is irrelevant. The only kind of
belief that is relevant in science is belief in the need for clarity, logic and rationality.
It seems to me that Einstein's "Theory" of Special Relativity (SR) is not a "theory" in the
usual sense. It is a self-consistent conceptual framework for correlating observations and
measurements and for formulating physical theories that can then be tested
experimentally. My concern in all my comments on ResearchGate has been merely to
present, as clearly as I can, my understanding of various aspects of Einstein's Special
Relativity of what it is and what it implies. I've never claimed it to be "The Truth"
(whatever that means...). I've merely tried (often in vain) to correct epistemological and
ontological errors and misconceptions whenever I've encountered them.
I shall discuss here only Special Relativity, which presupposes that we are talking about
physical phenomena in which gravitational effects are absent or can be regarded as
negligible. General Relativity (GR) is a "whole other kettle of fish". Too many physicists
complicate and confuse discussions by dragging in "red herrings". Every theory in
physics is valid only within the limits of its applicability.
That the mathematics of Special Relativity is logically sound became undisputable when
Minkowski formulated it in terms of a four-dimensional geometry, which is as rigorously
logical as two- and three-dimensional Euclidean geometry. (I have encountered
comments from people who dispute even that, claiming that Minkowskian geometry is
inconsistent! I'm at a loss to know what to say to such people, except "talk to a
mathematician"....)

The issue then is "how are the symbols in the mathematical formalism to be interpreted as
physical quantities?" And "does this interpretation correspond to what is observed and
measured in experiments and observations?" It is clear to me that all the so-called
"paradoxes" arise from erroneous physical interpretations from misunderstandings of
the physical meanings to be assiged to mathematical symbols.
Whether a theory is valid is not decidable by discussion and argumentation, but by
observations and experiments and the interpretation of the results of those observations
and experiments. The question is not whether the theory "makes sense" (which is
indisputable; it is internally self-consistent) but whether the implications of the theory
correspond to the particular physical world that we inhabit and observe.
Einstein's 1905 Publication
Many in the anti-Relativity ("Einstein was wrong") faction take issue with the way
Einstein expressed his mathematical and physical insights in his 1905 publication. I agree
to some extent with their nit-picking; that first presentation was not expressed with
perfect clarity; it's misleading in parts, and it's not at all a good starting point for anyone
wanting to understand the theory and its implications!
In laying the foundations he says near the outset "Let us take a system of co-ordinates in
which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good" and ends up proposing a
conception of physics in which they don't universally "hold good"! In particular, "time
dilation" and "length contraction" are very unfortunate choices of terminology that have
misled many people into obscure and muddled thinking. And so on.
I think that the inadequacies of the 1905 presentation are excusable because the ideas and
their implications were still very new and counter-intuitive, even to Einstein himself.
However, more than a century has gone by since then, and during that time numerous
brilliant physicists (including Einstein himself) have given much more thought to what
the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is really saying about physics. Today it rests on a
much more secure logical and rational foundation. Whether it's "True" is a completely
separate question, which only experiment and observation can decide. It certainly can't be
negated by searching for clumsiness in the way Einstein explained it so long ago!
The point is that you can't come to grips with Theoretical Physics by verbal quibbles
about terminology and nomenclature. The appropriate language of Theoretical Physics is
Mathematics.
The Principle of Relativity
The "Principle of Relativity" was first clearly expressed by Galileo (1632), who described
a thought experiment: an experimenter below decks on a ship cannot tell, from anything
he observes in his enclosed cabin, whether the ship is docked or sailing at a steady
constant speed: "he observes water dripping from a bottle, fish swimming in a tank,

butterflies flying, and so on; and their behavior is just the same whether the ship is
moving or not."
We can paraphrase Galileo's proposition by saying that
ALL OBSERVERS IN A STATE OF UNIFORM STEADY MOTION OBSERVE THE
SAME LAWS OF PHYSICS
According to Newton's First Law,
EVERY OBJECT IN A STATE OF UNIFORM MOTION TENDS TO REMAIN IN
THAT STATE OF MOTION UNLESS AN EXTERNAL FORCE IS APPLIED TO IT
Newton's Principia 1689.
Obviously, this is true only for an observer who is not himself acted on by forces and is,
ipso facto, not himself accelerating. It is convenient to call such an observer an "inertial"
observer.
Then what Galileo was saying can be briefly summarized in the PROPOSITION that
ALL OBSERVED PHYSICAL LAWS ARE THE SAME FOR EVERY INERTIAL
OBSERVER.
The truth or falsity of that proposition can be decided only by experiments and
observations, not by verbal discussion.
Interestingly, there is a foreshadowing of Newton's First Law in a statement by Aristotle:
"...no one could say why a thing once set in motion should stop anywhere; for why should
it stop here rather than here? So that a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad
infinitum, unless something more powerful get in its way."
Electromagnetism
The results of the extensive experiments of Michael Faraday on electricity and
magnetism were unified in a simple and elegant set of equations by Maxwell. In view of
these developments, which of course took place later than Galileo and Newton, it is
REASONABLE to extend the above proposition:
ALL PHYSICAL LAWS, INCLUDING THE FARADAY-MAXWELL LAWS OF
ELECTROMAGNETISM, ARE THE SAME FOR EVERY INERTIAL OBSERVER.
(Once again, I emphasize: the truth of falsity of this proposition is a matter for testing by
experiment and observation, not "belief".)

Now, as we all know, Maxwell's equations revealed that electromagnetism can propagate
as a wave through empty space, with a speed equal to the experimentally measured value
of "the speed of light in a vacuum". It is now universally recognized that light is an
electromagnetic phenomenon.
We then have, as a corollary to the foregoing proposition:
ALL PHYSICAL LAWS, INCLUDING THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF
LIGHT, ARE THE SAME FOR ALL INERTIAL OBSERVERS.
This would be refuted if the LOCALLY MEASURED speed of light in empty space
turned out to be NOT a universal constant. "Empty space" would then be seen to have
variable and locally measurable physical properties. The question would then be: what
ARE the physical laws governing the behaviour of "empty space"? That would be to reintroduce the 19th century concept of the "luminiferous ether". The science of Physics
would get even more messy and mysterious than it already is!
Recall that Lorentz, taking the existence of the "ether" for granted, attempted to
undertand the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment by postulating that
physical objects actually shrink when they move relative to the ether. The "ether" thereby
turned out, according to Lorentz's theorising, to be in principle undetectable. He deduced
the same coordinate transformations that appeared later (attributed to Lorentz) in
Einstein's 1905 paper.
If an entity is in principle undetectable, it makes sense to conclude that it doesn't exist.
That was what Einstein concluded, and built his SR on that assumption.
I doubt that anyone today would disagree that Einstein's conception of the physical
implications of the Lorentz transformations is far simpler than that of Lorentz. The
choice is simply a matter of applying "Occams's razor".
On the Choice of Units in Physics
Measurements in physics are expressed in terms of UNITS (meters, seconds, grams, etc).
These units are chosen by convention and agreement. Once the choice is established and
accepted all physical statements, to be meaningful, have to be expressed in terms of the
chosen units if they are to be intelligible.
Since 1960 the chosen universally accepted definition of a "meter" has
been: the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. (A "second" is defined to be "the
duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom".)

With this choice of units, universally accepted by physicists, the speed of

light in otherwise "empty space" is 299 792 458 meters per second.
It is thenceforth a universal constant BY DEFINITION.
To claim otherwise is to talk nonsense.

Coordinate Systems
Practical Physics deals with MEASUREMENTS derived from observations.
Measurements are relationships between material objects, established through
observations. "Empty space" (or "empty spacetime") as a continuum of an infinite
number of points is a concept belonging to the human imagination. It is not a "material
object" that can be observed and measured.
"Coordinate systems" are a human invention. Nature doesn't employ coordinate
systems!
Recall that Euclid presented the axioms ("postulates") and theorems of Euclidean
geometry entirely without coordinate systems (the idea was not invented till many
centuries later) entirely in terms of MEASUREMENTS of distances and angles.
Let us suppose that an inertial observer can, by observation and measurement,
consistently deduce the spatial locations and times of occurrence of events taking place in
his surroundings. Suppose, further, that he can observe a configuration of objects at a
given time and thereby deduce that the geometrical properties of their relationship to each
other (distances and angles) are consistent with three-dimensional Euclidean geometry.
He can then describe that configuration in terms of the coordinates of the objects in a
chosen Cartesian coordinate system, in which his own coordinates remain fixed. He can
then record and describe his observations of moving objects in terms of four parameters
(x, y, z, t). We call that an "inertial frame" or "inertial reference system". It is then
tempting to think of "spacetime" as a physical reality a substantial "thing". It is not. The
"inertial frame" is nothing more than a convenient way for the inertial observer to record
and describe the observed positions and movements of material objects.
These are suppositions PROPOSITIONS of Special Relativity. They are not statements
of ultimate "truth" or of "belief". They are rational hypotheses subject to experimental
confirmation or refutation.
These propositions, along with the constancy of the speed of light, lead to the Special
Theory of Relativity.
A Lorentz transformation is a relationship between "inertial frames" chosen by two
"inertial observers" who are in uniform motion relative to each other. It is merely a
change of coordinates. It does not change the physics that those observers are both

witness to. It does not "contract lengths" or "dilate time"; it does not distort material
objects or affect the behaviour of clocks; nor does it distort in any way the fictitious
entity called "spacetime". According to the Principle of Relativity all inertial reference
frames are equivalent for the expression of physical laws. Measured distances and times
are NOT "physical laws". They are not absolutes they are not invariant under Lorentz
transformations. They depend on the chosen inertial reference system. They are observerdependent. A result in physics is meaningful only if it is independent of the particular
choice of coordinate system that has been used to derive it if it is expressed in terms of
invariants.
Once this is clearly understood, the so-called "paradoxes" and erroneously perceived
"inconsistencies" in SR are revealed for what they are nonsense spun from muddled
thinking.
Experimental Verification
My aim here was not to argue for the validity of SR, but only to attempt to refute any idea
that it is is not self-consistent.
Numerous experiments have been carried out to test the validity of the predictions of SR
(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html). Many of them
are well-known, so there is no need for me to discuss them here. I need only state my
considered opinion that so far, within the limits of its applicability and within the limits of
experimental error, there has been no reason to suspect that there is anything wrong with
SR.
Most convincing to me is that SR is tested in high-energy physics every time the results
of accelerator experiments are interpreted literally millions of observations that have
rendered the theory well-nigh unassailable. Physics (theoretical and experimental) has
come a long way since 1905. Present knowledge and understanding of elementary
"particles", developed throughout a century, has been based on acceptance of SR. Field
equations are formulated as Lorentz-invariant equations. Thus SR has become an
essential foundation stone of modern physics. Were SR not essentially correct, all that
would come tumbling down!
To clarify further. The one-parameter "collinear" group of transformations presented by
Lorentz and Einstein long ago is a subgroup of SO(3, 1), which in turn is a subgroup of
the ten-parameter Poincar group the isometry group of Minkowskian geometry. SR is
then essentially the proposition that
ALL PHYSICAL LAWS ARE INVARIANT UNDER THE POINCAR GROUP
The symmetry group of Maxwell's electromagnetic equations is the Lorentz group SO(3,
1). Dirac's field equation for the electron is invariant under Lorentz transformations
SO(3, 1). (That's how Dirac arrived at it....) Feyman's Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)
6

deals with the interaction between electrons and photons. SR was thus an ESSENTIAL
INGREDIENT in the development of QED. The predictions of QED are confirmed by
experiments with astonishing precision. The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,
for example, accurately predicted to twelve decimal places!
How is THAT to be explained, if SR is "wrong"??
I rest my case...