must grant it a considerable measure of " truth," since it supplies us 
with the actual motions of the heavenly bodies with a delicacy of detail little short of 
wonderful. The principle of relativity must therefore apply with great accuracy in the
domain of mechanics. But that a principle of such broad generality should hold with such 
exactness in one domain of phenomena, and yet should be invalid for another, is a priori 
not very probable. 
We now proceed to the second argument, to which, moreover, we shall return later. If the 
principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) does not hold, then the Galileian 
co-ordinate systems K, K1, K2, etc., which are moving uniformly relative to each other, 
will not be equivalent for the description of natural phenomena. In this case we should be 
constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of being formulated in a particularly 
simple manner, and of course only on condition that, from amongst all possible Galileian 
co-ordinate systems, we should have chosen one (K[0]) of a particular state of motion as 
our body of reference. We should then be justified (because of its merits for the 
description of natural phenomena) in calling this system " absolutely at rest," and all 
other Galileian systems K " in motion." If, for instance, our embankment were the system 
K[0] then our railway carriage would be a system K, relative to which less simple laws 
would hold than with respect to K[0]. This diminished simplicity would be due to the fact 
that the carriage K would be in motion (i.e."really")with respect to K[0]. In the general 
laws of nature which have been formulated with reference to K, the magnitude and 
direction of the velocity of the carriage would necessarily play a part. We should expect, 
for instance, that the note emitted by an organpipe placed with its axis parallel to the 
direction of travel would be different from that emitted if the axis of the pipe were placed 
perpendicular to this direction. 
Now in virtue of its motion in an orbit round the sun, our earth is comparable with a 
railway carriage travelling with a velocity of about 30 kilometres per second. If the 
principle of relativity were not valid we should therefore expect that the direction of 
motion of the earth at any moment would enter into the laws of nature, and also that 
physical systems in their behaviour would be dependent on the orientation in space with 
respect to the earth. For owing to the alteration in direction of the velocity of revolution 
of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at rest relative to the hypothetical 
system K[0] throughout the whole year. However, the most careful observations have 
never revealed such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical 
non-equivalence of different directions. This is very powerful argument in favour of the 
principle of relativity. 
 
THE THEOREM OF THE ADDITION OF VELOCITIES EMPLOYED IN 
CLASSICAL MECHANICS 
Let us suppose our old friend the railway carriage to be travelling along the rails with a 
constant velocity v, and that a man traverses the length of the carriage in the direction of 
travel with a velocity w. How quickly or, in other words, with what velocity W does the 
man advance relative to the embankment during the process ? The only possible answer 
seems to result from the following consideration: If the man were to stand still for a 
second, he would advance relative to the embankment through a distance v equal 
numerically to the velocity of the carriage. As a consequence of his walking, however, he 
traverses an additional distance w relative to the carriage, and hence also relative to the
embankment, in this second, the distance w being numerically equal to the velocity with 
which he is walking. Thus in total be covers the distance W=v+w relative to the 
embankment in the second considered. We shall see later that this result, which expresses 
the theorem of the addition of velocities employed in classical mechanics, cannot be 
maintained ; in other words, the law that we have just written down does not hold in 
reality. For the time being, however, we shall assume its correctness. 
 
THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE LAW OF PROPAGATION OF 
LIGHT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY 
There is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is propagated 
in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation 
takes place in straight lines with a velocity c= 300,000 km./sec. At all events we know 
with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were not 
the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different 
colours during    
    
		
	
	
	Continue reading on your phone by scaning this QR Code
 
	 	
	
	
	    Tip: The current page has been bookmarked automatically. If you wish to continue reading later, just open the 
Dertz Homepage, and click on the 'continue reading' link at the bottom of the page.
	    
	    
