Special Relativity P

This is the best introduction to Special Relativity ever. It is a standard approach (unlike Spacetime Physics by Taylor & Wheeler which also is superb), but a superb one, highly readable. I always recomend this little book to beginners.

Excellent graphics and build-up of theory. Derivation of energy equation is first-rate. Resnick has really constructed meaningful derivations of results instead of using tired arguments that only 'look' plausible.

Upon completing a first course in physics one can hardly do better than to study this text. Although my first initiation into special relativity was Spacetime Physics (Taylor and Wheeler), Resnick's introduction contains much of value (226 pages, c is retained in equations). Perhaps the exceptional quality of this text resides in the "Questions and Exercises" which concludes each chapter:(1) "How does the concept of simultaneity enter in to the measurement of the length of a body." (p. 44).(2) "Make an argument showing that relativity is consistent with the existence of photons." (page 98).(3) "What role does potential energy play in the equivalence of mass and energy ? " (page 150).(4) "Show that momentum is analogous to displacement, show similarly that energy is analogous to time." (page 150).(5) "If magnetic fields are of the second order compared to electrical forces, why is it that we observe magnetic forces without great difficulty ? " (page 183).A sample of Problems (of 131 total):(1) "Show the electromagnetic wave equation does not retain its form under the Galilean transformation."(2) "Prove the invariance of the electromagnetic wave equation in Relativity by showing that the corresponding differential operator is an invariant." (page 100).(3) "Show that when force, defined by equation 3-13, is not zero, then if (for a system of interacting particles) the total relativistic momentum changes by an amount dP, this change is equal to the total impulse given to the system." (page 155).(4) "Consider electromagnetic radiation to consist of photons. Show that the Doppler and aberration formula can be obtained from the transformation laws for the components of momentum and the energy." (page 155).(5) "Show that the scalar product of E and B (scalar product of electric and magnetic field intensities) is an invariant under a Lorentz transformation. Then argue that if these fields are perpendicular to one another in one frame, they are perpendicular in all frames." (page 184).Nuggets of wisdom:(1) "The proper time interval can be thought of equivalently as the time interval between two events occurring at the same place, or, the time interval measured by a single clock at one place. A non-proper time interval would be a time interval measured by two different clocks at two different places." (p. 64).(2) "The Lorentz length contraction is really not a property of a single body by itself, but instead a relation between two such rods in relative motion." and "The concept of a rigid body is untenable in relativity, for such a body would transmit signals instantaneously." (page 94).(3) "The principle of relativity is seen, not as a revolutionary step, but, as a natural completion of Newton's work." (page 96).(4) " We can choose to regard the mass an an invariant scalar quantity which gives the inertial properties of a body. The origin of this factor in collision measurements is kinematic; that is, it is caused by the relativity of time measurements." (page 119) and "When Relativity is put into its four-dimensional form, a four-vector momentum naturally emerges, whose 'time'-component is the energy." (page 146).(5) "All this suggests the great generalizing nature of relativity theory, in the relativistic equations both concepts are used: force as the time rate of change of momentum, and force as the space rate of change of energy." (page 148).Survey of Contents:Chapter one: begins in an historical light culminating in the two postulates.Chapter two: derives transformation laws in traditional manner, phase considerations discussed (page 71).Reciprocity and symmetry considerations are discussed.Chapter three: Conservation of energy and momentum are highlighted. Albert Einstein's derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy presented (page 142).Chapter four: electromagnetism and interdependence of electric and magnetic field highlighted. Read: "electric and magnetic fields do not have separate existences" (page 167) and "Notice that throughout we have assumed the invariance of electric charge." (page 175). The text concludes with ancillary material: Minkowski diagrams, twin paradox, general relativity. This is an introductory textbook requiring minimum prerequisites: A year of calculus and physics. Thus, for prelude to advanced treatments or as collateral to Taylor and Wheeler the text is highly recommended !

This is one of the best physics texts I have ever encountered. I bought it in high school and read it straight through and found it easy to follow. No part of it was difficult to understand, and it provides many deep insights into physics from its presentation and development of concepts and results from basic principles.It seems unlikely to me that a better introduction to special relativity will ever be written.

This book was recommended for my Modern Physics class. Even though it's old, the book is in very nice condition. The text is easy to follow.

I used this book as an undergrad many years ago in honors first-year physics (along with Purcell's excellent E&M book from the Berkeley Physics Series), and have referred to it from time to time since. It's a clear, patient, matter-of-fact introduction to the subject which takes the time to clarify many of the obscure and seemingly contradictory aspects of special relativity. It's written about at the level of the famous Halliday and Resnick university physics books. I found the book to be very useful as an introduction. If you already know the subject, and need an advanced reference, this will be too basic, but as the title says, it's an "Introduction".

In his book, “Introduction to Special Relativity (1968)”, page 31, Robert Resnick states, “For yellow sodium light in water, for example, the speed increase (or decrease) is 0.565vw.” This number does not appear in either the Fizeau paper or the Michelson/Morley paper (we credit modern day internet access). It is not referenced. Nor is there a confidence interval reported. My own analysis calculates the speed of light change as Dcw=(0.8477+/-0.2632)Dvw (from Fizeau’s data) and Dcw=(0.8794+/-0.0747)Dvw (normalized consolidation of three series from the Michelson/Morley data). It is [erroneously] assumed that one fringe shift equals one phase shift.How was 0.565vw determined? Resnick later states “The experiment was later repeated by Michelson and Morley in 1886 and by P. Zeeman and others after 1914 ... ”. I confess I have not accessed the latter papers, but the Fizeau experiment was the context of discussion. Also, whenever a confidence interval is not reported, then likely neither is the mean. The 0.565vw value is central to the book and to the veracity of relativity. I sent a letter (in early 2016) to Rensselaer Institute (where Resnick was employed when he authored the book) regarding this matter, with no response.Resnick also repeats the original calculations of the Michelson/Morley optical interferometer experiment (pages 18 to 26), which overlooks a variable interference angle (in a flowing aether) that includes parallel rays, which would cause an infinite fringe width in two positions of interferometer rotation (when properly calibrated). The theory persists given the many assumptions in its foundational experiments, like the aether should flow through the atmosphere (even though air is assigned an index of refraction), or that the brass water tubes were subject to thermal expansion (19th century environmental control), etc..Einstein’s two [chronic] assumptions are: no preferred inertial (reference) system exists, and the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems. Combined, this means that light departs a source at the speed of light, transits space at the speed of light, and strikes a target at the speed of light, regardless how source and target move relative to each other and to space. Why are we expected to believe this, given these assumptions were never measured, and given experiments (measuring “effects”) that fail to distinguish special relativity from classical mechanics? Is there any relativity experiment that is free of assumptions, or distinguishes itself from classical mechanics? Any relativistic claim should address these two questions.Resnick also displays a chart comparing Einstein’s relativity to other theories (page 37), like a product comparison chart, omitting contradictory observations (Roemer’s more direct observation of Jupiter’s eclipsing moon Io contradicts the twins paradox as well as null radial frequency aberration – the amateur astronomer can repeat the Roemer experiment).The theory of special relativity is perhaps the most successful propaganda campaign of our time, relying on all the promotional tactics effective to advertising. Most common are the strawman arguments against classical mechanics, red herrings to deflect paradox challenges, dubious concepts to conceal these absurd paradoxes, and altered parameter definitions. I recommend reading Paul Marmet’s article “Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution” describing the disillusionment of his advanced physics students.Robert Resnick promotes special relativity in his 1967 book “Introduction to Special Relativity”. Starting on page 53 discussing clock synchronization, figure 2-1 illustrates simultaneous lightning strikes in two frames, one resting and the other moving. Signal motion in the rest frame is ballistic while in the moving frame it is absolute. Figure 2-2 on page 55 interchanges the resting and moving frames, calling them “perfectly reciprocal”. However, this does not become “fact” until later (page 58) when the speed of light c is defined as constant in both frames. Special relativity is impossible to properly illustrate on paper because of the ballistic/absolute reciprocation paradox.The one condition these illustrations (figure 2-1 or 2-2) may be regarded as proper is when the rest frame is stationary in absolute space. So when the Lorentz transformation equations are set up in equations 2-1 (page 57), they are done so in absolute space. And when the speed of light c is later defined as constant in both frames, it is an altered definition of a parameter previously defined. The Lorentz transformation equations depict a conversion from absolute to ballistic space when absolute space supposedly does not exist. Furthermore, by close examination of the transformation equations, time has three definitions (for particle velocity v, for transformation times t and t’, and for the speed of light c). One is a scalar, another a pseudo-scalar/vector, another a discontinuous scalar in separate frames. Consequently, x/t’ does not equal x’/t (page 61). [Whereas the Lorentz equations convert scalar time to a vector coordinate, Minkowski geometry equates the two (such that a year equals a light-year)].The Michelson/Morley experiment is discussed starting on page 18. However, the corresponding equations reveal that signal motion is ballistic from source to splitter mirror, and from splitter mirror to target, while signal motion is absolute between splitter and outer mirrors. Figure 1-4 illustrates the experiment captioned with “A simplified version of the Michelson interferometer ...”. However, this “simplified” version is also described by Michelson and Morley in their 1887 research paper “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether”. Had they presented a comprehensive study of the experiment, it would have revealed a multitude of assumptions, leading to different conclusions. Yet Resnick builds the theory of special relativity on this “simplified” version. In other disciplines (e.g. engineering) where safety is concerned, we are introduced to fundamental concepts. With special relativity, concepts are “simplified” (I’m reminded how Hawking did this throughout his “Genius” series).There are at least three interpretations for the null result (follow the tortured logic from “This null result N=0 was such a blow to the ether hypothesis ...” on page 25, to “... light is propagated in vacant space ...” on page 35). The Michelson/Morley paper states “... it is not impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the sea, at the top of an isolated mountain peak, for instance, the relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used in these experiments.” Astronaut Donald Pettit revealed that altitude in early 2003, when he photographed the moon refracting into the atmosphere. This realization of Michelson and Morley has yet to be honored – that the experiments they conducted could not detect (let alone measure) the aether if it did exist.On page 60, the inertial frames are aligned into one spatial dimension (y’=y and z’=z), yet the flashlight problem on page 67 discusses a “simple” experiment in two spatial dimensions, where signal motion is assumed ballistic in both frames and in both dimensions. If this [lateral observation] is allowed, we may consider the Roemer experiments observing Jupiter’s eclipsing moon Io. Whereas the Lorentz equations depict a slowing clock whether approaching or receding (the twins paradox), Io’s orbit speeds up when earth approaches Jupiter. And given a forty-five light-minute observation distance, we should expect to observe Io after it has eclipsed behind the planet if signal motion is ballistic, yet we do not (Berkeley professor Alex Filippenko describes a 1977 recording of Uranus from 2.7 light hours occulting a background star in “Understanding the Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy, 2nd edition”, The Great Courses, 2007, lecture 32). Also note that the meson acceleration described on page 208 to explain the twins paradox is a red herring – and numerical results (mean and variance) are not disclosed.All the paradoxes created by special relativity can be traced to defining time as a [spatial] dimension. When solving relativity problems, students have already been conditioned to assume (or accept) the space-time continuum paradox. Recognize that such solutions are not free of assumptions, that there are classical solutions, and experiments that support special relativity are selectively interpreted (systematic and random uncertainties are rarely mentioned). Special relativity is selective relativism!

Good book