When Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity had published, only 12 person of that

era could understand this theory. One day, a young journalist asked Einstein to
explain his theory. Then he explained his theory with a joke. He told that, “When a
man converse story with a beautiful girl for one hour, it seems to him that it’s
past only one minute. And if anyone stand on stove for a minute, it seems to him
that he is stand here for one hour. This is relativity”. Albert Einstein's theory
of relativity is actually two separate theories: his special theory of relativity,
postulated in the 1905 paper, The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and his theory
of general relativity, an expansion of the earlier theory, published as The
Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity in 1916. Einstein sought to explain
situations in which Newtonian physics might fail to deal successfully with
phenomena, and in so doing proposed revolutionary changes in human concepts of
time, space and gravity. The special theory of relativity was based on two main
postulates: first, that the speed of light is constant for all observers; and
second, that observers moving at constant speeds should be subject to the same
physical laws. Keywords: Speed, Times, Gravity, Theory of Relativity, Motion,
Relativity Introduction: Until the end of the 19th century it was believed that
Newton’s three Laws of Motion and the associated ideas about the properties of
space and time provided a basis on which the motion of matter could be completely
understood. However, the formulation by Maxwell of a unified
theory of electromagnetism disrupted this comfortable state of affairs –
the theory was extraordinarily successful, yet at a fundamental level it seemed
to be inconsistent with certain aspects of the Newtonian ideas of space and time.
Ultimately, a radical modification of these latter concepts, and consequently of
Newton’s equations themselves, was found to be necessary. It was Albert
Einstein who, by combining the experimental results and physical arguments
of others with his own unique insights, first formulated the new principles in terms
of which space, time, matter and energy were to be understood. These
principles, and their consequences constitute the Special Theory of
Relativity. Later, Einstein was able to further develop this theory, leading to
what is known as the General Theory of Relativity. Amongst other things, this
latter theory is essentially a theory of gravitation. The General Theory will not
be dealt with in this course. Relativity (both the Special and General)
theories, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics are the three major theories on
which modern physics is based. What is unique about these three theories, as
distinct from say the theory of electromagnetism, is their generality. Embodied in
these theories are general principles which all more specialized or more
specific theories are required to satisfy. Consequently these theories lead to
general conclusions which apply to all physical systems, and hence are of
enormous power, as well as of fundamental significance. The role of relativity
appears to be that of specifying the properties of space and time, the arena in
which all physical processes take place. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that
the word ‘relativity’ immediately conjures up thoughts about the work of Einstein.
The idea that a principle of relativity applies to the properties of the physical
world is very old: it certainly predates Newton and Galileo, but probably not as
far back as Aristotle. What the principle of relativity essentially states is the
following: The laws of physics take the same form in all frames of reference moving
with constant velocity with respect to one another. [1] The theory of relativity
is intimately connected with the theory of space and time. The only justification
for our concepts and system of concepts is that they serve to represent the
complex of our experiences; beyond this they have no legitimacy, We can form new
bodies by
bringing bodies B,C,….. up to A; we say that we continue body A. We can continue
body A such a way that it comes into contact with any other body, X. The ensemble
of all continuations of body A, we can designate as the “Space of the body A.” Then
it is true that all bodies are in the “Space of the (arbitrarily chosen) body
A.” In this sense we cannot speak of space in the abstract, but only
of the “Space belonging to a body A.” The earth crust’s play’s such a dominate role
in our daily life in judging the relative positions of bodies that it has
led to an abstract conception of space which certainly cannot be defended. In
order to free ourselves from this fetal error we shall speak only through the
theory of general relativity that refinement of these concepts became
necessary, as we shall see later. It is assumed in pre-ralativity physics that the
laws of the orientation of ideal rigid bodies are consistent with Euclidean
geometry. What this mean may be expressed as follow: Two points marked on a rigid
body form an interval. Such an interval can be oriented at rest, relatively to our
space of reference, in a multiplicity of ways. If, now, the points of this space
can be referred to co-ordinates 321 ,, xxx, in such a way that the differences of
the co-ordinates, 321 ,, xxx , of the two ends of the interval furnish the same
of squares,
3222122sxxx  for every orientation of the interval, then the space of
reference is called Euclidean, and the co-ordinates Cartesian.* [2] * This
relation must hold for an arbitrary choice of the origin and of the direction
(ratios 321 :: xxx ) of the interval. The importance of the Theory of
Relativity for twentieth-century physics, and the appearance of the Gottingen
mathematician Hermann Minkowski at a turning point in its history have both
attracted significant historical attention The rapid growth in scientific and
philosophical interest in the principle of relativity has been linked to the
intervention of Minkowski by Tetu Hirosige. [3]
Why did special relativity emerge when it did? The answer is already given in
Einstein’s 1905 paper. It is the fruit of 19th century electrodynamics. It is as
much the theory that perfects 19th century electrodynamics as it is the first
theory of modern physics. 4 Until this electrodynamics emerged, special relativity
could not arise; once it had emerged, special relativity could not be stopped. Its
basic equations and notions were already emerging in the writings of H. A. Lorentz
and Henri Poincaré on electrodynamics. The reason is not hard to understand. The
observational consequences of special relativity differ significantly from
Newtonian theory only in the realm of speeds close to that of light. Newton’s
theory was adapted to the fall of apples and the slow orbits of planets. It knew
nothing of the realm of high speeds. Nineteenth century electrodynamics was also a
theory of light and the first to probe extremely fast motions. The unexpected
differences between processes at high speeds and those at ordinary speeds were
fully captured by the electrodynamics. But their simple form was obscured by
elaborate electrodynamical ornamentations. Einstein’s achievement was to strip them
of these ornamentations and to see that the odd behavior of rapidly moving
electrodynamical systems was not a peculiarity of electricity and magnetism, but
imposed by the nature of space and time on all rapidly moving systems. This chapter
will present a simple statement of the essential content of Einstein’s special
theory of relativity, including the inertia of energy, 2mcE. It will seek to
explain how Einstein extracted the theory from electrodynamics, indicating the
subsidiary roles played by both experiment and Einstein’s conceptual analysis of
simultaneity. [4] Description: Frames of Reference: Newton’s laws are, of course,
the laws which determine how matter moves through space as a function of time. So,
in order to give these laws a precise meaning we have to specify how we measure the
position of some material object, a particle say, and the time at which it is at
that position. We do this by introducing the notion of a frame of reference.
Inertial Frames of Reference and Newton’s First Law of Motion: In other words
we can adopt as a law of nature, the following statement: ”There exist frames of
reference relative to which a particle acted on by no forces moves in a straight
line at constant speed.” This essentially a claim that we are making about the
properties of space time. It is also simply a statement of Newton’s First Law
of Motion. A frame of reference which has this property is called an
inertial frame of reference, or just an inertial frame. Gravity is a peculiar force
in that if a reference frame is freely falling under the effects of gravity, then
any particle also freely falling will be observed to be moving in a straight line
at constant speed relative to this freely falling frame. Thus freely falling frames
constitute inertial frames of reference, at least locally. [5] The above argument
does not tell us whether there is one or many inertial frames of
reference, nor, if there is more than one, does it tell us how we are to relate the
coordinates of an event as observed from the point-of-view of one inertial
reference frame to the coordinates of the same event as observed in some other.
The transformation equations that we derive are then the mathematical basis on
which it can be shown that Newton’s Laws are consistent with the principle of
relativity. To derive these transformation equations, consider an inertial frame of
reference S and a second reference frame S0 moving with a velocity xV relative to
S. Figure 1: A frame of reference S0 is moving with a velocity xV
relative to the inertial frame S. An event occurs with spatial coordinates (x, y,
z) at time t in S and at (x0,y0,z0) at time t0 in S0. Newtonian Force and
Momentum: Having proposed the existence of a special class of reference
frames, the inertial frames of reference, and the Galilean transformation that
relates the coordinates of events in such frames, we can now proceed further and
study whether or not Newton’s remaining laws of motion are indeed consistent
with the principle of relativity. First we need a statement of these two further
laws of motion. Newton’s Second Law of Motion: It is clearly the case that
particles do not always move in straight lines at constant speeds relative to an
inertial frame. In other words, a particle can undergo acceleration. This deviation
from uniform motion by the particle is attributed to the action of a
force. If the particle is measured in the inertial frame to undergo an
acceleration a, then this acceleration is a consequence of the action of a
force F where
F = ma and where the mass m is a constant characteristic of the particle and is
assumed, in Newtonian dynamics, to be the same in all inertial frames of
reference. This is, of course, a statement of Newton’s Second Law. This
equation relates the force, mass and acceleration of a body as measured
relative to a particular inertial frame of reference. Newton’s Third Law of Motion:
Newton’s Third Law, namely that to every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction, can also be shown to take the same form in all inertial reference frames.
This is not done directly as the statement of the Law just given is not the most
useful way that it can be presented. A more useful (and in fact far deeper result)
follows if we combine the Second and Third Laws, leading to the law of conservation
of momentum which is In the absence of any external forces, the total momentum of a
system is constant. [6] The Special Theory of Relativity: A geometrical theory of
space time: “I always get a slight brain-shiver, now [that] space and time appear
conglomerated together in a gray, miserable chaos.” – Sommerfeld In 1971, J.C.
Hafele and R.E. Keating3 of the U.S. Naval Observatory brought atomic clocks
aboard commercial airliners and went around the world, once from east to west and
once from west to east. (The clocks had their own tickets, and occupied their own
seats.) As in the parable of Alice and Betty, Hafele and Keating observed that
there was a discrepancy between the times measured by the traveling clocks and the
times measured by similar clocks that stayed at the lab in Washington. The result
was that the east-going clock lost an amount of time ∆tE = −59 ± 10 ns, while the
west-going one gained ∆tW = +273 ± 7 ns. This establishes that time is not
universal and absolute. [7]
In each case, a statement about geometric structure (on the left) is
correlated with a statement about the behavior of particles or light rays
(on the right). Several comments and qualifications are called for. First,
we are here working within the framework of relativity as traditionally
understood and ignoring speculations about the possibility of particles that travel
faster than light. (The worldlines of these so-called “tachyons” would come out
as images of spacelike curves.) Second, we have restricted attention to smooth
curves. So, depending on how one models collisions of point particles, one might
want to restrict attention here, in parallel, to particles that do not experience
collisions. Third, the assertions require qualification because the status of
“point particles” in relativity theory is a delicate matter. At issue is whether
one treats a particle’s own mass-energy as a source for the surrounding metric
field gab—in addition to other sources that may happen to be present. (Here
we anticipate our discussion of Einstein’s equation.) If one does, then the
curvature associated with gab may blow up as one approaches the particle’s
worldline. And in this case one cannot represent the worldline as the image of a
curve in M, at least not without giving up the requirement that gab be a smooth
field on M. For this reason, a more careful formulation of the principles would
restrict attention to “test particles”—i.e., ones whose own mass-energy is
negligible and may be ignored for the purposes at hand. Fourth, the modal character
of the assertions (i.e., the reference to possibility) is essential. It is simply
not true—take the case of (C1)—that all images of smooth, timelike curves are, in
fact, the worldlines of massive particles. The claim is that, as least so far
as the laws of relativity theory are concerned, they could be. Of course,
judgments concerning what could be the case depend on what conditions are held
fixed in the background. The claim that a particular curve image could be the
worldline of a massive point particle must be understood to mean that it could
so long as there are, for example, no barriersin the way. Similarly, in (C2)
there is an implicit qualification. We are considering what trajectories are
available to light rays when no intervening material media are present—i.e., when
we are dealing with light rays in vacuo. [8] The concept of space in General
Relativity:  Special relativity established a new practical geometry allowing to
assess the spatio-temporal aspects of physical theories.  The anisotropies of
space-time such as gravitation could beinterpreted either as fields or as
indications of a further modification of space.
 Problems with the field approach and the universality of gravitation including
matter and radiation suggested the latter.  In hindsight, the problem was to
reconcile a metric with an affine structure of space-time.  Its relation to
acceleration (Equivalence Principle) suggested a generalization of the relativity
principle, conceiving both gravitation and inertia as an effect of masses
(Mach’s Principle). [9] Space Time Four Vectors: What we do now is make use of the
above considerations to introduce the idea of a vector to describe the separation
of two events occurring in spacetime. The essential idea is to show that the
coordinates of an event have transformation properties analogous for ordinary
three-vectors, though with some surprising differences. To begin, we will
consider two events 1E and 2E occurring in spacetime. For event 1E with
coordinates (1111 ,,, tzyx) in frame of reference S and (',',',' 1111 tzyx) in 'S,
these coordinates are related by the Lorentz transformation which we will write as
and similarly for event 2E. Then we can write which we can write as
Einstein’s Two Postulates (1905):  Postulate I (Principle of Relativity): “All
laws of physics must be the same (“invariant”) in all inertial reference
frames”. (Cannot detect absolute uniform motion)  Postulate II (Constancy of c):
“The speed of light in vacuum is constant (same value, 1810*00.3 ms) in
all inertial reference frames, regardless of motion of source or observer” The
special theory of relativity was based on two main postulates: first that the
“Speed of Light” is constant for all observers; and second, that
“Observers moving at constant speeds should be subject to the same physical
law”. Following this logic, Einstein theorized that time must change according
to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer.
[10] A final effort was made in order to understand in a “fundamental” way the
negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. It was postulated
(independently) by Fitz-Gerald and by Lorentz that matter moving through the
ether is compressed, the degree of compression being just so that there is a
negative result in the M&M experiment. The claim was that the ether wind does slow
down and speed up light, but it also contracts all objects and these two effects
conspire to give no effect in all experiments. A calculation shows that an object of
length ` moving with velocity v with respect to the ether should be contracted to
length `0 given by
(Where c is the speed of light) in order to get the null result required. [11]
Newtonian Relativity (Some History):  Galilean Transformation of space-time –Two
observers (1,2) are in their own, separate, inertial frame of reference 1S and 2S 
2S moves with respect to 1S with v =constant along x-axis –Each observes the same
“event” giving position and time as measured in their own frame of reference
(22221,111 ,,,;,, tzyxtzyx)  Each has own meter stick and clock  When temporarily
at rest, sticks same length, clocks synchronized i.e. at the instant 01t, then
02t and x in 1S= x in 2S  When 2S is moving with respect to 1S, the state (x and
t) of the event as seen by the two observers is related by:
121212112ttzzyyvtxx v→ -v gives )( 21 SS  212121221ttzzyyvtxx
The 1S and 2S Inertial Frames: [12]
Failure of Newtonian Relativity:  Maxwell’s (4) equations describe
electromagnetism successfully  Maxwell’s equations predict the existence of e.m.
waves propagating through free space with speed 1810*00.3 ms – Question #1: With
respect to what frame is c to be measured? – Question #2: Through what medium do
e.m. waves propagate? – 19th century answer: “Ether” hypothesis - existence of
a massless but elastic substance permeating all space • Electromagnetic waves
propagate through the ether • c is to be measured with respect to the ether – An
experiment is needed to test the presence of ether!  Michelson-Morley Experiment
(1881): – Premise: If one believes in the ether (and that c is 1810*00.3 msw.r. to
it), and in Maxwell’s Eqns, and in Galilean transformations for E&M, then if one
measures the speed of light in a frame moving w.r. to ether, one should be able to
measure v of this moving frame. – Plan: Measure earth’s speed as it moves through
ether – Result: Null; can not detect any motion of the earth through ether Time is
what one reads from a local clock: First we want to convince ourselves that it is
possible to synchronize several identical clocks which are at rest in an inertial
frame at different places. Often the following method is suggested: two clocks are
at points A and B respectively. A flash of light is released at the midpoint of AB
and on arrival of the light each clock is set to 0000 and started. It is however
quite possible to synchronize as many clocks as desired with a given clock A: The
!master" clock A emits a flash of light at an arbitrary but well-known time t0. As
soon as the light arrives at clock B, it is firstly reflected, secondly B"s clock
is set to 0000 and thirdly it is started. Clock A records time t1, when the
light reflected from B arrives again at A. One calculates the elapsed time
201 tt  for the light from A to B, records the value 2010ttt and sends it by
snail mail to B. The (continuously running) clock B is then advanced by this value.
One does not need the midpoint AB at all and in addition one obtains the distance
between the two clocks. [13] Hans Reichenbach pointed out in different
publications starting from 1920 that this definition implies a further
assumption, i.e. the isotropy of space (a collection of Reichenbach's
early writings on space, time and motion in English translation has been edited by
Steven Gimbel and Anke Walz in. [14] In particular the speed of light should be
equal in all directions. Measuring the one-way speed of light presupposes
distant clocks which have already been synchronized. Therefore the
synchronization of distant clocks and the measuring of the one-way speed of light
have a circular relationship to each other. When we computed the elapsed time
for the light from A to B as 201 tt  we tacitly assumed that the light
needs equal time to travel in both directions! The Clock: B
postulate of isotropy was hidden in this assumption. The book “Concepts of
Simultaneity” by Max Jammer presents two simple axioms which a set of
clocks must meet, in order to be synchronizeable. The formulation of the
first axiom is ours: 1. If a clock A sends out two light signals with At time
difference, then each further clock B must receive the signals with Bt time
difference, where AB tt . 2. The time required for light to traverse a triangle
is independent of the direction taken around the triangle. [15] The first axiom
must surely be fulfilled if synchronized clocks are to remain
synchronized. Obviously it can be fulfilled only by clocks which are at rest
relative to each other! The second axiom (called the “round trip axiom")
guarantees that the speed of light is independent of direction. Taken
together the two axioms are necessary and sufficient so that a set of clocks can be
synchronized. Einstein's insightful contribution to the development of the STR
was to show that this operational approach eliminates all difficulties. Thus in
an inertial frame we can get along with one single time. We are allowed to speak of
the time t in an inertial frame. However, different inertial frames
usually have different chronologies for events. Epstein demonstrates this very
beautifully in [16]. He considers an interstellar fleet of three spaceships, which
travel in a row in space at a constant distance from each other: [17] Fast
Clocks Tick More Slowly: The distance light travels in the moving clock (call it
the prime system with measured time 't) is 30 cm or, in general, '. tc . But what
is the distance this light travels as seen from the resting system (call it the
non-prime system with measured time t) and in relation to which the
moving clock travels along the x-axis with velocity v? Given the constancy of the
speed of light this will be, of course, '. tc . These two distances are
however not equal and thus the time intervals, t and 't, must differ! The
Pythagorean Theorem provides us with the relationship between these two values:
Obviously more time elapsed in the resting, non-prime-system, than in the
moving, prime-system, since the light travelled a longer distance in that system.
Thus: )1()()'(,)'()()(,)'()()
(2222222222222cvttortctvtcortctvtc and we get 221' cvtt 
[18] We have now described the relativity of objective time measurement.
That subjective time experience is !malleable" is well-known. Salvador Dali"s !
The Persistence of Memory" fits both perspectives quite well:
Einstein once illustrated the subjectivity of time experience in the
following way: “An hour sitting with a pretty girl on a park bench passes like a
minute, but a minute sitting on a hot stove seems like an hour.” [19] Consequences
- Time Dilation:  As seen by 1S, light sent by 2S follows path shown, taking time
t to get from the origin of 2S to the mirror and back.  New time interval 1T,
measured by 1S, is TT 21 where 222 )()( vtdct  Solve for t:
220212212211,,112,cvwhereTTorvccdTorvcdt Since 1 always  021TT 
(Relativistic T> Proper T [20] General Theory of Relativity: The General Theory
of Relativity is, as the name indicates, a generalization of the Special
Theory of Relativity. It is certainly one of the most remarkable
achievements of science to date, it was developed by Einstein with
little or no experimental motivation but driven instead by philosophical
questions: Why are inertial frames of reference so special? Why is it we
do not feel gravity’s pull when we are freely falling? Why should
absolute velocities be forbidden but absolute accelerations by accepted?
The happiest thought of my life: In 1907, only two years after the publication of
his Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein wrote a paper attempting to modify
Newton’s theory of gravitation to fit special relativity. Was this
modification necessary? Most emphatically yes! The reason lies at the
heart of the Special Theory of Relativity: Newton’s expression for the
gravitational force between two objects depends on the masses and on the
distance separating the bodies, but makes no mention of time at all. In
this view of the world if one mass is moved, the other perceives the
change (as a decrease or increase of the gravitational force)
instantaneously. If exactly true this would be a physical effect which
travels faster than light (in fact, at infinite speed), and would be inconsistent
with the Special Theory of Relativity. The only way out of this problem is
by concluding that Newton’s gravitational equations are not strictly
correct. As in previous occasions this does not imply that they are
“wrong”, it only means that they are not accurate under certain
circumstances: situations where large velocities (and, as we will see,
large masses) are involved cannot be described accurately by these
equations. In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind
when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it “the happiest thought
of my life”: The gravitational field has only a relative existence... Because for
an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate
surroundings – there exists no gravitational field. [21] The Lorentz
transformations: The derivation: Consider a coordinate system, 'S, moving relative
to another system, S. Let the constant relative speed of the frames be v. Let the
corresponding axes of S and 'S point in the same direction, and let the origin of
'S move along the x axis of S, in the positive direction. Nothing exciting happens
in the y and z directions, so we’ll ignore them. Our goal in this section is to
look at two events (an event is anything that has space and time coordinates) in
spacetime and relate the x and t of the coordinates in one frame to the 'x and
't of the coordinates in another. We therefore want to find the constants A, B, C,
and D in the relations, ''''tDtCttBxAx [22]
Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy: It is dangerous to ask
a scientist to review a book on science that is intended for a lay audience,
particularly if the subject of the book is close to the reviewer’s own specialty,
as in this case. So I may not be the best qualified to judge how effectively this
book reaches its intended readers. Nevertheless, I can say with confidence that Kip
Thorne’s account of the “outrageous” consequences of the general theory of
relativity is one of the best popularizations of science that I have read. It is
surely the best by far of the many popular books on relativity theory. An essential
part of the appeal of the book is its subject, for the general theory of relativity
is arguably the very greatest triumph of the human intellect, and nothing better
illustrates the profound beauty of the natural laws that govern the universe.
Thorne brings a unique set of qualifications to the demanding task of explaining
relativity to the lay person. First, few active researchers can match his deep
grasp of the relevant science. Second, he is a gifted teacher whose pedagogical
skills have been well honed by guiding a generation of Caltech students through the
subtleties of relativity. Third, he writes prose that is lucid and absorbing.
Finally, he has an insider’s view of the exciting developments, stretching back to
the early 60’s, that are the focus of most of the book. Rarely has a world class
scientist shown such devotion in the preparation of a non-technical book; Thorne
worked on the manuscript, on and off, for some 15 years. It traces the history of
relativity theory from its origins in the early 20th century and documents the
subsequent struggle to understand the theory and its implications. Though Thorne is
not a historian, he recounts this history with meticulous attention to detail. In
particular, he conducted taped interviews with 47 scientists who were directly
involved in the developments that he describes. For the earlier history, he relies
more heavily on secondary sources, but he has also studied many of the original
research articles. (In the case of Einstein’s papers, it was necessary for Thorne
to read many of them in Russian, because he does not read German and they have
never been translated into English.) The sources are well documented in the notes
at the back of the book. [23] What Powered the Big Bang:
During the last decade, sky maps of the radiation relic of the Big Bang—first by
NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite and more recently by other
experiments, including Antarctic balloon flights and NASA’s Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (MAP)— have displayed the wrinkles imprinted on the Universe in its first
moments. Gravity has pulled these wrinkles into the lumpy Universe of galaxies and
planets we see today. Einstein’s Legacy Einstein sought, but never achieved, an
understanding of how nature works at its deepest level. We now seek the next level
of Einstein’s quest through a program of missions we can conceive and design today
and carry out over the next decade. In the future, the “vision missions” of this
roadmap will extend these ventures even closer to the edges of space and time. We
will follow matter to the very brink of black holes and detect quanta or particles
of time left over from the beginning of the Universe. We will use breakthrough
technologies to see beyond the vision of Einstein—to the uttermost extremities of
existence. [24] Fundamental Errors of Theory of Relativity: The notion of black
holes voraciously gobbling up matter, twisting spacetime into contortions
that trap light, stretching the unwary into long spaghetti-like strands as
they fall inward to ultimately collide and merge with an infinitely dense
point-mass singularity, has
become a mantra of the astrophysical community. There are almost daily reports of
scientists claiming that they have again found black holes again here and there. It
is asserted that black holes range in size from micro to mini, to
intermediate and on up through to supermassive behemoths and it is accepted
as scientific fact that they have been detected at the centres of
galaxies. Images of black holes interacting with surrounding matter are routinely
included with reports of them. Some physicists even claim that black holes
will be created in particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider,
potentially able to swallow the Earth, if care is not taken in their
production. Yet contrary to the assertions of the astronomers and
astrophysicists of the black hole community, nobody has ever found a black hole,
anywhere, let alone imaged one. The pictures adduced to convince are actually
either artistic impressions (i.e. drawings) or photos of otherwise unidentified
objects imaged by telescopes and merely asserted to be due to black holes, ad hoc.
[25] Conclusion: This principle of relativity was accepted (in somewhat simpler
form i.e. with respect to the mechanical behaviour of bodies) by Newton and
his successors, even though Newton postulated that underlying it all was
‘absolute space’ which defined the state of absolute rest. He introduced the notion
in order to cope with the difficulty of specifying with respect to what an
accelerated object is being accelerated. To see what is being implied
here, imagine space completely empty of all matter except for two masses joined
by a spring. Now suppose that the arrangement is rotated, that is, they
undergo acceleration. Naively, in accordance with our experience, we would
expect that the masses would pull apart. But why should they? How do the masses
‘know’ that they are being rotated? There are no ‘signposts’ in an
otherwise empty universe that would indicate that rotation is taking place.
By proposing that there existed an absolute space, Newton was able to claim
that the masses are being accelerated with respect to this absolute space, and
hence that they would separate in the way expected for masses in circular
motion. But this was a supposition made more for the convenience it offered in
putting together his Laws of motion, than anything else. It was an
assumption that could not be
substantiated, as Newton was well aware – he certainly felt misgivings about the
concept! Other scientists were more accepting of the idea, however, with Maxwell’s
theory of electromagnetism for a time seeming to provide some sort of confirmation
of the concept. Around 1907, Minkowski’s scientific reputation rested largely
upon his contribution to number theory.3 Yet Minkowski was also the author of
an article on capillarity (1906) in the authoritative Encyklopadie der
mathematischen Wissen- ¨ schaften, granting him a credential in the domain of
mechanics and mathematical physics. In addition, Minkowski had lectured on
capillarity, potential theory, and analytical mechanics, along with mathematical
subjects such as Analysis Situs and number theory at Zurich Polytechnic, where
Einstein, Marcel Grossmann and Walter Ritz counted among his students; he
also lectured on mechanics an electrodynamics (among other subjects) in
Gottingen, where he held the third chair in ¨ mathematics, created for him at David
Hilbert’s request in 1902.4 In Gottingen, Minkowski took an interest in a subject
strongly a ¨ ssociated with the work of many of his new colleagues: electron
theory. An early manifestation of this interest was Minkowski’s co-direction of a
seminar on the subject with his friend Hilbert, plus Gustav Herglotz and Emil
Wiechert, which met during the summer semester of 1905.5 While Lorentz’s 1904
paper (with a form of the transformations now bearing his name) was not
on the syllabus, and Einstein’s 1905 paper had not yet appeared, one of
the students later recalled that Minkowski had hinted that he was engaged
with the Lorentz transformations. Acknowledgement: A book or paper or project
such as this paper could not have appeared without help of a number of people or
any references. I have taken some reference from many books. So that I wish to
thank J D Cresser, Department of Physics, Macquarie University. I thank Scott
Walter and Minkowski for their Mathematicians, and the Mathematical Theory of
Relativity.
I wish to thank John D. Norton, Department of History and Philosophy of
Science, University of Pittsburgh for his books “Einsteinʼs Special Theory of
Relativity and the Problems in the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to
it”. I would like to thank Benjamin Crowell, David B. Malament, Jürgen Renn, Brose
for his “General Relativity”. My thanks are due to Henty L, David Eckstein, Gimble.
I owe my sincere thanks to Steven and Walz, Anke. I am greatful to Epstein, Lewis
Carroll, Jammer, Max, Poincaré, Henri, Calaprice. I also like to thank Alice
(Ed.):The New Quotable Einstein Princeton University Press, Princeton, Kip Thorne,
Roadmap Team a most. Last but not the least, I thank my parents, my earlier private
tutor in my life, my older cousin brother’s Alauddin Mohammad and Sabidin Ibrahim.
I am also want to thank University of Dhaka and my friends of University of
Dhaka and IUBAT-International University of Business Agriculture and
Technology. References: 1. J D Cresser, Department of Physics, Macquarie
University, THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY, Chapter 1, Lecture Notes, 31 July,
2003 2. Albert Einstein, Princeton University Press, The Meaning of Relativity,
1923 3. Scott Walter, Minkowski, Mathematicians, and the Mathematical Theory of
Relativity, Published in H. Goenner, J. Renn, J. Ritter, T. Sauer (eds.), The
Expanding Worlds of
General Relativity (Einstein Studies, volume 7), pp. 45–86. Boston/Basel:
Birkhauser, 1999. 4. John D. Norton, Department of History and Philosophy
of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Einsteinʼs Special Theory of
Relativity and the Problems in the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led
him to it. 5. J D Cresser, Department of Physics, Macquarie University, THE
SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY, Chapter 5 Lecture, 31 July, 2003 6. J D Cresser,
Department of Physics, Macquarie University, THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY,
Chapter 1, Lecture Notes, 31 July, 2003 7. Benjamin Crowell, General Relativity,
December 21, 2014 8. David B. Malament, Topics in the Foundations of General
Relativity and Newtonian Gravitation Theory, the university of chicago press,
Chicago and London 9. Jürgen Renn, Einstein's path to General Relativity, IHES
Paris, 07 March 2013 10. Brose, Henty L. ,Special Theory of Relativity, Dec 19,
1913 11. Albert Einstine, Theory of Relativity, Chapter 6, 1920 12. Brose, Henty L.
,Special Theory of Relativity, Dec 19, 1913 13. David Eckstein, Epstein Explains
Einstein, An Introduction to both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity.
14. Gimble, Steven and Walz, Anke: Defending Einstein, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 2006 15. Epstein, Lewis Carroll: Relativity visualized, Insight
Press, San Francisco 1983 16. Jammer, Max: Concepts of Simultaneity, John Hopkins
University Press 2006 17. Epstein, Lewis Carroll: Relativity visualized Insight
Press, San Francisco 1983 18. Poincaré, Henri: Science and Hypothesis
translated by V.J.G. (?), The Walter Scott publishing Co. 1905. 19.
Calaprice, Alice (Ed.):The New Quotable Einstein Princeton University Press,
Princeton, Oxford 2005 20. Brose, Henty L. ,Special Theory of Relativity, Dec 19,
1913 21. Albert Einstein, Paper on Theory of Relativity, 1907 22. Albert Einstine,
Theory of Relativity, Chapter 11, 1920 23. Kip Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps:
Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy
24. The Structure and Evolution of the Universe ,Roadmap Team, Beyond Einstein:
From the Big Bang to Black Holes 25. Stephen J. Crothers, Fundamental Errors in the
General Theory of Relativity