REGISTER   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   E-MAIL ALERTS   |   HELP |   SIGN OUT    

Home   |   Print edition   |   Advertising  |   Buyers Guide   |   Jobs   |   Events calendar   |   RSS feeds
  • Table of contents
  • Past issues

yellow star Featured Jobs

  • Search jobs
  • Post jobs
Letters

Why no Einstein's laws?

January 2007, page 12

Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton's laws of motion but only Einstein's theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it's time to rename it as more than just a theory.

I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein's laws, just as we have Newton's laws, Coulomb's law, or Faraday's law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws:

  •  The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames.
  •  The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames.
  •  The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by E = [√m2c4 + p2c2]. In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc2, and the energy of a massless body is E = pc.
  • Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein's laws of special relativity. Others may prefer slightly different wording, or more lawyerly definitions; with that I have no quibble. Time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity could be considered corollaries of these laws.

    Some may ask what is the consequence of renaming a "theory" to a "law"; obviously Nature does not care. To my way of thinking a theory is speculation based on incomplete knowledge, and a law is valid in all cases where the appropriate circumstances apply. I believe that the special theory of relativity falls into the latter category equally with Newton's laws, Coulomb's law, or Faraday's law. If nothing else, this change would help us impress upon students and nonscientists (a) the importance of special relativity to our understanding of nature and (b) the multitude of advances in science made possible as a consequence of its formulation.

    Richard W. Kadel
    (rwkadel@lbl.gov)
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Berkeley, California

     

    • Article Tools
    • Enlarge text   Enlarge text
    • Shrink text   Shrink text
    • Printer-friendly formatPrinter-friendly format
    • Download PDFDownload PDF
    • E-mail this articleE-mail this article
    • Comment on this articleWrite a letter to the editor
    • Free this month
    • Germany singles out universities for excellence
    • Belief and knowledge—a plea about language
    • The physics of climate modeling
    • New Books
    • New Products
    • Letters
    • Most popular articles
    • Month-long calculation resolves an 82-year-old quantum paradox
      September 2009
    • Friction, force chains, and falling fruit
      September 2009
    • US electricity grid still vulnerable to electromagnetic pulses
      September 2009
  • A ghost image violates a Bell inequality
    August 2009
  • Request product info

     

     


    SERVICES
    Physics Today Jobs
    Physics Today Buyers Guide
    Research Today
    NEWS
    News Picks
    We Hear That Society News
    Event Calendar
    Obituaries
    THE MAGAZINE
    This month in print
    Past Issues
    Institutional subscriptions
    Information for advertsers
    READER SERVICE
    Register
    Sign in
    Subscribe
    Email alert
    MORE INFO
    Contact us
    About Physics Today
    Privacy Policy
    Terms & Conditions
    Copyright © 2009 by the American Institute of Physics - All rights reserved