Introduction.

A lot of people are interested in understanding special relativity and how is it derived. Most of
the time, the offers are the complicated Lorentz transform, or some very specific experiments
(light bouncing of a mirror in a rocket etc.), and some even make weird mistakes or contradict
themselves. After reading a wonderful book written by David Bohm about special relativity, in
that book there were a few chapters that approached special relativity in a geometric way,
namely the Minkowski diagram/space which I find very enlightening and interesting, therefore
I decided to share it around. Note that this is targeted to mainly high school students but anyway
is welcomed to give me comments. (P.S.:This is very long and I hope that you can bear with
me, I would be very glad if you read this to the end!)
So what is this theory of relativity about?
The special theory of relativity is about arguing that time and space are not absolute and
therefore not the same for all observers in different frames. To illustrate this concept of frames,
suppose your friend is on a train and you are observing outside. You might seem to be moving
from your friend, but from your point of view, your friend is moving. Now both of you see
each other moving, but see yourself at rest. This is because that you two are observing from
different inertial frames, so you cannot say your friend is moving, but relatively he or she is
moving from your view. This is pretty much relativity is about.
Special relativity vs. General relativity? So when we start off relativity, we first make two
postulates (assumptions). Physics is not something that can be proved, every theory as to start
off with certain assumptions, and these assumptions cannot really be absolutely proved. So
Einstein postulated that, first, the laws of physics are the same wherever you are, regardless of
your frame you observe things. Well this seems very obvious, but who knows if these laws act
differently? You really cannot prove this although it is just so obvious. Secondly, the velocity
of light in vacuum is constant in all inertial frames. But some people just think why must it be
the speed of light? Why not others like the speed of sound in a certain matter? Just because that
it seems to be the fastest thing? No. So again we cannot really prove the speed of light being a
constant, but to verify them. Experiments have shown light to have a constant speed, which
that is one reason. Apart from that, when we say light, we actually mean electromagnetic
waves, and electrodynamics has been described by Maxwells equations. In those equations,
there are 2 very important constants, which can be loosely described as a measure of resistance
of electric and magnetic fields in vacuum. Surprisingly, lights speed just turns out to be a term
that is exactly a combination of these two constants, so people just take lights velocity as this
constant which is absolute. So what makes special relativity special? Special relativity is just a
special case of relativity, loosely defined that it is assumed zero acceleration in it, which means
everything has a constant speed, so there is no gravity or other stuff. Therefore it is not very
practical with the existence of gravitational forces. But it is possible to investigate constant
acceleration in special relativity which we actually do not cover. Natural forces such as gravity
may not have a constant force therefore not necessarily constant acceleration, and we then need
general relativity to describe it. Anyway it is a very good concept to understand, and
unfortunately general relativity is just out of the scope in this article. Enough of these concepts
and stuff, let us move on.
Get to the basics and start working!

So in high school, you probably learn things like if a triangle has two equal angles, it has two
equal sides or maybe say Pythagoras theorem. But now we develop a special kind of geometry
that not everything you learnt can be used, for example in this Minkowski diagram, Pythagoras
theorem is "false". Furthermore, one may see two segments that look identical but have
different lengths, and two segments that actually have the same distance but look very different.
Why is this so? Well high school geometry as we learn it was developed by Euclid, hence
named Euclidean geometry. He also needed to start with certain postulates, such as a unique
straight line can be drawn through two points and all right angles are congruent etc. But now,
this is a new demonstration of geometry, which we will see symmetry is a big theme. The first
thing is, for simplification, we deal with one time dimension and one space dimension, where
the space dimensions can be extended to three which is similar (which is named Minkowski
spacetime), but in this case we have a special case of special relativity, dealing with one
dimension.

So Figure 1 just shows an observer being the dot, and is not moving. As he is stuck in this one
dimension, he can only move along the line. here represents the one-dimensional space. So we
now want to create a diagram that can represent space and time for all events. This observer
then stays at the same space but goes forward along time. We can have a vertical time axis, but
as space (displacement) does not have the same units with time, we dilate (scale) the time axis
by the speed of light, and make both axes be having units of length, although one represents
space and the other is time. We choose as it is a universal constant for everyone, and just also
for simplicity because will have to deal with light. So we have a vertical axis ct , with t being
time, and we just denote it as ( = ). Keep in mind that although being multiplied by a
constant, it still represents time.

And now from Figure 2, we can see the stationary observer then moves upwards along the
vertical axis, which we can think as continuous points representing continuous events that have
the same space but not the same time. With this, we now need to bring light into the diagram,
as it is the invariant in relativity. If the observer shoots two rays of lights directed to his left
and right, how should we represent that? Well as for light, by the formula distance equals time
times speed, we can see that = = ( means change in). Therefore the rays can be
represented as the two straight lines that form = || . Moreover the light rays are then the angle
bisectors of the two axes as in Figure 3. Again these lines are continuous points that represent
continuous events, which these events are the travels of the light.

And that is it for this time, I will be posting the next part of the series soon and eventually add
all the links to all parts here. I hoped you did read this rather lengthy thing until here, as it is
very important to get the ideas and concepts right. In the next part, we will get some motion
coming, and hopefully have some nice arguments. Although the first part is sort of boring, but
I am sure in the future this would get interesting!
You will need that to understand that part's concept, so it is encouraged to read the previous
part first.
The "moving" observer. So in the previous part, I believe you have a good grasp of what the
axes in that Minkowski diagram represented and how it works. But now, we are introducing
more of that! Now consider a "travelling observer" that passes through O is moving at a
constant velocity v relative to the stationary observer. Of course the travelling observer will
observe that the stationary observer is moving at a constant velocity v (the opposite direction)
and seeing he himself staying still (but we still call them the stationary, and the moving
observer to make it clearer). As we had seen the first observers line of events is the vertical
axis, but as this observer travels through space, his line of events will be different as seen from
the stationary observer. Let his line of events be . We already know that this will be a straight
line passing through O since he is moving at a constant velocity, but we need to know the angle
it makes with the vertical axis. This is not hard to find out as one already knows the gradient
of the line is

since

= . Therefore to find the equation for is simple, which is

=

Therefore it makes an angle of = arctan with the vertical axis (notice the fraction flip as
we are considering the vertical axis).

So as in Figure 4 we see that , being the line of events for our moving observer, and therefore
time, as compared between the two observers seems distorted. This suggests that space as
seen by the moving observer, represented by the line , might be similarly 'distorted' too. In
fact, what does the horizontal axis x actually mean of the stationary observer? If two points are
connected by a line that is parallel to that, those two events represented are simultaneous. Also
obviously it is a measure of space too. So as we take the space for the moving observer as a
line, we can see that due to symmetry and that both observers have the same set of laws as
postulated, the light-line must be the "angle bisector" of and . And therefore we have the
second line as in Figure 5.

So it seems like the stationary observers lines are correct and the moving observers lines
are being really distorted, like how people say about curving space-time, and you can actually

imagine these two being similar. But anyway, is the moving observer than wrong? We then
need to keep in mind that, everything is relative.
Remember to step in other people's shoes! The answer is, in relativity, no one is absolutely
correct, from the moving observers point of view, he will see the stationary observer relatively
moving at a velocity of -v , while seeing himself at rest. Therefore he sees his axes of time and
space as if they are horizontal and vertical, and since the velocity of the stationary observer to
him is the opposite of the velocity of the moving observer to the stationary observer, in Figure
6 will be the reflection of in Figure 5. As for x, since the green line would be the "angle
bisector" of x and , try to figure out where the line should be.

Observe that the angle between to x and also are both clockwise directions in both
diagrams, and in the same magnitude. It is then clear to us the symmetry that is preserved
between what is observed by the two observers from Figure 5 and Figure 6. The theme of
symmetry would reoccur , and this actually concludes part 2! I hope enjoyed this exploring,
and in the next part, we will be showing an idea of nothing can travel faster than the speed of
light. Comments and any suggestions are very welcome!
Simultaneity.
With this time and space being different for different inertial frames, it is interesting to
investigate whether two events can be simultaneous, that is, two events being at the same time.
So will the two observers agree a pair of events to be simultaneous for both of them?
Apparently, most of the time they will not. But what does it mean by simultaneous? So if two
events are simultaneous, they are in the same time, that is, parallel to the space-dimension line.
See Figure 7 as an example.

As the line AE is parallel to (in fact they concur), the two events situtaed O and E have
zero time difference for the moving observer, who takes them as simultaneous. But for the
stationary observer, the line OE it is not parallel to x . So to find the difference of time, we
draw a line parallel to his time-line, , intersect it with the line parallel to his space-line, x that
passes through O, that is, x itself, and mark it as EE . The time lapse between the two events
is therefore

for the stationary observer.

Suppose E' itself is also an event. It is clear that O and E are simultaneous to the stationary
observer, but similarly since line OE is not parallel to x , they are not simultaneous to the
moving observer.

Using the same method, we find the distance between E and the line passing through O that is
parallel to x which is x itself. Note that we do not draw a line perpendicular to x as we will
do it in Euclidean geometry to find the distance between a point and a line , but draw the line
parallel to . The time lapse is then

as in Figure 8.

With this we see that two events cannot be both simultaneous to the stationary observer and
the moving observer, unless the two events happen at the exact same time and space.
Faster than light?

Having understanding simultaneity, we actually have covered a lot of concepts in relativity.

We now demonstrate a contradiction if one assumes that there exist some communication that
travels faster than the speed of light, which for the sake of simplification, we assume this
communication has infinite velocity, which is equivalent to moving through space instantly.
The reason we can make this assumption is that we can first just observe the above figure. Note
that light is represented throughout as green lines. Anything that travels slower than light is
between and the green line, such as the moving observer represented by , and anything
faster should be between x and the green line, with something travelling at infinite speed having
a line that is parallel to the space-line.
With this in mind we know introduce even more observers that join the party. Let A be the
stationary observer and B the moving observer that we have discussed until now.C is another
stationary observer at point P, D is a moving observer that moves at a velocity v relative to C,
which is the same B velocity is relative to A , but passes through point Q instead, as shown in
Figure 9.

We can see that A and C would see two events connected by a line that is parallel to x being
simultaneous, whereas for B and D , two events connected by a line that is parallel to x being
simultaneous. Now suppose at a particular instant A and B are at O,C and D are at Q . C first
transfers a signal to D without any time as they are at the same point, and D transfers it to B
simultaneously as in our assumption, B passes it to A at the very same time instant, and then
since the laws of physics are same in all frames as postulated, A has the ability to pass the
signal simultaneously to P. This is equivalent to D, being at Q, has contacted himself in the
past at P. Similarly, D at P can contact himself in the future at Q .
Now suppose D is at P , receiving the signal from himself at Q does something that makes
himself at Q impossible to send the signal, we then reach a contradiction. Indeed, this also
applies to any transferring that is faster than light, as the light-line is the angle bisector of the
two space and time lines. The details are left to the reader. Therefore nothing can be travel
faster than the speed of light, or if you are not that convinced (or if you believe that tachyons
exist), travelling faster than light does result in travelling backwards in time.
And that is it for this time, which is again one of the shorter notes in the series. In the next part
we will be investigating even more about time in special relativity, where the maths starts to
really kick in, so, keep an eye on the series! Tell me what you think of this.

You should have a good understanding of the Minkowski diagram now, and we now attempt
the so called time dilation.
Strange geometry.
This is the point where we will use the diagram to its full extent that is within our knowledge
to derive some important results of special relativity. We return back to the case where there
are only the first two observers, but now they first agree that for both of them, the time
coordinate for O is 0. Refer to Figure 10.

Now suppose that the stationary observer sends a ray of light from point E to the moving
observer, who receives it at point F , and at the same instant, sends another ray of light from
point F to point G. We use light again as the velocity of light is constant to both observers.
Now draw a line parallel to x that passes through F is drawn, which intersects at H . As in

=
=
Figure 3 we saw that light travels the same "distance" in x and , we can have
. Note that these equations are derived not by geometry but by the invariance of the speed of
= ,
= ,
= ,
= .
light. For simplicity we name some of these lengths,
So if we want to know how time differs between frames, we then have to consider
average high school student would say by Pythagoras theorem we have

. An

But unfortunately we did not assume Euclidean geometry here, so unfortunately we cannot
just simply use Pytaghoras theorem, although the answer is very close, which we will see soon,
it is a matter of changing that plus sign to a minus sign (for those of you who are eager to
know).

Now we consider something easier first, that is to find . I say that this is easier because due
to the first postulate, the rules in all inertial frames are the same, thus we have

where is k just a shorthand of the ratio (now we can see that the Minkowski diagram does not
follow Euclidean geometry, since if we assume so, applying the Power of a Point Theorem on
2 = 2 = . , which implies that OF is parallel to OE , due to OF being a
tangent of the circle EFG at point F , and this is obviously false).
We know that = 2 , and it follows that

Note that by this we also have

And we get another expression for

, which is

And we want to solve for this positive k is therefore possible, by equating both expressions
for
and T the on both sides cancel out each other. We then have

And now after obtaining a formula for k , we then can find the original ratio we wanted to find,
namely

. We have

(I may have skip some steps but it should be easy to follow). And there you have it, the time
dilation equation in special relativity, by a geometric diagram and some algebraic
manipulation. To sum it up, if the stationary observer observes a time lapse of t , for the
moving observer who moves at a velocity of v relative to the stationary observer, if he observes

a time lapse of t , it is actually related by the equation = 1 ( 2 ) . Again I would like

to say that although in the diagram t appears to be longer than t, it is not, because this is really
some strange geometry. Anyway one more thing to note that is that if I put the velocity v>c ,
the expression under the square root will be negative which somehow disallows velocities
faster than light.
The two observers get on a rocket for the party!
Well actually there is not really a party, sorry. But we do have a rocket now.

So after time dilation, we look into the effects in space, that is, length contraction. Suppose C
and D are on a purple rocket travelling at the velocity v relative to the stationary observer. They
are on the endpoints of the rocket. Note that they are both on the same line x because for them
they are simultaneously on the rocket together, separated by a certain distance. This is because
C and D see each other at rest. Suppose at a particular instant C is at O. Let D shoot two rays
of light directed to his left and right at the same instant, but at a different place.
It should not take you long to realize Figure 10b is exactly Figure 10 from the previous post
reflected across the light-line (the b in Figure 10b should have reminded you this). So the
moving observer observes that the rocket is at rest relative to him, while the stationary observer
sees it moving at a velocity of v. The length of the rocket to them would be l = OD and l =
OD to the moving observer and the stationary observer respectively. One can then relate OD
to OF in Figure 10, OD to OH in Figure 10.
Essentially, we are just explaining that

Where l is the length of the rocket observed on the rocket, and l is the length of the rocket
observed by the stationary observer. For simplicity, from now onwards we use the function
() to represent

To summarize, if a time of t is observed in a moving frame of velocity v relative to a second

frame, the time t observed in that second frame would be = () . If a length is l observed

in the former frame, the length l that appears to the second frame would be = ().
Adding is not merely adding.
So we have done time and space. Let us combine them! What do you get when you combine
time and space? Yes, velocity, and we will see what relativity wants to do with velocity.
If a ball is rolling at a velocity u relative to a moving vehicle which is moving at a velocity v
relative to you observing outside the vehicle, does the ball roll at a velocity u+v relative to you?
This is a natural response, but what if the ball is replaced with light? Do you see the light
travelling at c+v? Not quite, since it must be c . So you cannot just add velocities like that. We
get back Figure 9 and introduce another moving observer who moves at a velocity of w relative
to the stationary observer at I , and a velocity of u to the observer who is moving at a velocity
of v relative to the stationary observer. Our aim is to link u and v to get w, and we use the
following diagram.

Now suppose that at time T the stationary observer shoots a ray of light and reaches the
observer who travels on OF at F at time t , and then reaches the observer who is travelling at
velocity relative to the stationary observer at I at time S . Declare the function K(v)

We then have = . () , and also we have = (), = . () = . (). () .

This then gives us () = (). () . Rearranging the algebra gives

And this is therefore called the formula for addition of velocities. Notice that if u and v are
much smaller than c , w is just approximately u+v . The same goes for time dilation and length
+
contraction. If we set u = c, we get = = . This coincides with our assumption that the
1+

velocity of light is invariant. Now as we can see if we increase u or v ,w will also increase. So
assume both u and v are at most c , then w is at most c too. And now we can show that nothing
can accelerate from a velocity slower than light to a velocity faster than light, as it has to
undergo continuous addition of velocities that are at most c , and therefore it cannot exceed c .
Warning: Math ahead!
And yes I do mean a bunch of math ahead, and also a bit of calculus, since we are going to
prove the so called most famous physics equation, = 2 . Firstly let us discuss some stuff
about momentum.The measure of momentum can be interpreted as how difficult is it to make
an object rest. Obviously mass and velocity will contribute to this, and indeed it is defined that
momentum is the product of mass and velocity. In a closed system with no external effects,
momentum is conserved. To show this we will need Newtons laws, namely the second and

third law The second law gives the definition of force, = , where p is momentum and t is
time. The third law says that for every force there is a reaction force in the opposite direction
with the same magnitude. Therefore assume we have two particles in a closed system
interacting with each other. Let the first particle have momentum 1 and experiences a force
1 , the second with momentum 2 and force 2 . By the third law, which means that the sum
of momentum does not change. Therefore momentum is conserved in a closed system.

Now suppose these two particles have velocity 1 and 2 , with zero total momentum. We write
the sum of their mass as = 1 + 2 , sum of their momentum as = 1 + 2 = 0. This leads
to

Suppose in a different frame that sees the system relatively moving at a velocity of V, we
observed a different set of 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , , 1 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 , 2 , , instead.
We then obtain

After a slight arranging, we have

And also by the addition of velocities, we get

Now we substitute this back and use Componendo et Dividendo to simplify,

From here, we would now like to express the term

1+ 21

1+ 22

into something that can be associated

with . Note that

Similarly we can obtain this kind of result for 2 , and therefore

Note that this relation is independent of V . Next we introduce the factor R, where

If we consider the special case 1 = 0 , which means that the particle is at rest, at we let that
particle have its rest mass (mass of object when it is at rest) 0 . Since (0) = 1 ,

If we consider another special case, which is 1 = 0 , since now both frames are not moving
to each other yet R must be a constant, we have 1 = 0 which implies that R = 1and we
conclude that the relativistic mass of an object, m , is

for an object with rest mass 0 , moving at a velocity v of with respect to the reference frame.
One may multiply this by v and transform this formula of relativistic mass to relativistic
momentum, that is,

We are now ready to tackle the equation = 2 Recall that the change in kinetic energy is
mechanical work, and work is,

Note that we use the product rule in the last equation. Note that in Newtonian mechanics where
m is taken as a constant p=mv, we would have obtain instead

which is the formula for kinetic energy in classical physics. Now observe that

by the chain rule. Note that since

This means that

2
2

=1

1
(())

, we can have

or just

Take v=0 and thus obtain the well-known equation,

Of course in the general case we can also have = 0 () to get

which is the full form of the equation. Note that in many cases we also write it as

or even

So most of the time when people say E is equal to m c squared, it actually means an object
has energy due to its mass even at rest, that is, its mass at rest multiplied by 2 . This gives
equivalence between mass and energy, creating the conservation and interchanging of mass
and energy. Furthermore mass is then not how much matter an object contains, but a measure
of its energy content. So if you add mass to an object, it has more potential to release more
energy. Similarly, if you add energy to an object, no matter kinetic, heat, sound or any other
form, then you actually be adding its mass! And again we see that if something is travelling
faster than the speed light, we again need to take the square root of negative number, and its
energy is going to be something very nasty.
And we are done! Now you might expect this as the finale, but actually I still have one last
long post that would be coming up. So I hoped you have enjoyed this post and thanks again for
reading!