einstein

Suppose that at the exact instant (from the viewpoint of the person on the embankment) when lightning strikes at points A and B, there is a
passenger at the midpoint of the train, M t , just passing the observer who is at the midpoint alongside the tracks, M. If the train was motionless
relative to the embankment, the passenger inside would see the lightning flashes simultaneously, just as the observer on the embankment would.
But if the train is moving to the right relative to the embankment, the observer inside will be rushing closer toward place B while the light signals
are traveling. Thus he will be positioned slightly to the right by the time the light arrives; as a result, he will see the light from the strike at place B
before he will see the light from the strike at place A. So he will assert that lightning hit at B before it did so at A, and the strikes were not
simultaneous.
“We thus arrive at the important result: Events that are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the
train,” said Einstein. The principle of relativity says that there is no way to decree that the embankment is “at rest” and the train “in motion.” We can
say only that they are in motion relative to each other. So there is no “real” or “right” answer. There is no way to say that any two events are
“absolutely” or “really” simultaneous. 43
This is a simple insight, but also a radical one. It means that there is no absolute time. Instead, all moving reference frames have their own
relative time. Although Einstein refrained from saying that this leap was as truly “revolutionary” as the one he made about light quanta, it did in fact
transform science. “This was a change in the very foundation of physics, an unexpected and very radical change that required all the courage of a
young and revolutionary genius,” noted Werner Heisenberg, who later contributed to a similar feat with his principle of quantum uncertainty. 44
In his 1905 paper, Einstein used a vivid image, which we can imagine him conceiving as he watched the trains moving into the Bern station past
the rows of clocks that were synchronized with the one atop the town’s famed tower. “Our judgments in which time plays a part are always
judgments of simultaneous events,” he wrote. “If, for instance, I say, ‘That train arrives here at 7 o’clock,’ I mean something like this: ‘The pointing of
the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.’ ” Once again, however, observers who are moving rapidly
relative to one another will have a different view on whether two distant events are simultaneous.
The concept of absolute time—meaning a time that exists in “reality” and tick-tocks along independent of any observations of it—had been a
mainstay of physics ever since Newton had made it a premise of his Principia 216 years earlier. The same was true for absolute space and
distance.“Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external,” he famously
wrote in Book 1 of the Principia. “Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.”
But even Newton seemed discomforted by the fact that these concepts could not be directly observed. “Absolute time is not an object of
perception,” he admitted. He resorted to relying on the presence of God to get him out of the dilemma. “The Deity endures forever and is
everywhere present, and by existing always and everywhere, He constitutes duration and space.” 45
Ernst Mach, whose books had influenced Einstein and his fellow members of the Olympia Academy, lambasted Newton’s notion of absolute time
as a “useless metaphysical concept” that “cannot be produced in experience.” Newton, he charged, “acted contrary to his expressed intention only
to investigate actual facts.” 46
Henri Poincaré also pointed out the weakness of Newton’s concept of absolute time in his book Science and Hypothesis, another favorite of the
Olympia Academy. “Not only do we have no direct intuition of the equality of two times, we do not even have one of the simultaneity of two events
occurring in different places,” he wrote. 47
Both Mach and Poincaré were, it thus seems, useful in providing a foundation for Einstein’s great breakthrough. But he owed even more, he later
said, to the skepticism he learned from the Scottish philosopher David Hume regarding mental constructs that were divorced from purely factual
observations.
Given the number of times in his papers that he uses thought experiments involving moving trains and distant clocks, it is also logical to surmise
that he was helped in visualizing and articulating his thoughts by the trains that moved past Bern’s clock tower and the rows of synchronized clocks
on the station platform. Indeed, there is a tale that involves him discussing his new theory with friends by pointing to (or at least referring to) the
synchronized clocks of Bern and the unsynchronized steeple clock visible in the neighboring village of Muni. 48
Peter Galison provides a thought-provoking study of the technological ethos in his book Einstein’s Clocks, Poincaré’s Maps. Clock coordination
was in the air at the time. Bern had inaugurated an urban time network of electrically synchronized clocks in 1890, and a decade later, by the time
Einstein had arrived, finding ways to make them more accurate and coordinate them with clocks in other cities became a Swiss passion.
In addition, Einstein’s chief duty at the patent office, in partnership with Besso, was evaluating electromechanical devices. This included a flood
of applications for ways to synchronize clocks by using electric signals. From 1901 to 1904, Galison notes, there were twenty-eight such patents
issued in Bern.
One of them, for example, was called “Installation with Central Clock for Indicating the Time Simultaneously in Several Places Separated from
One Another.” A similar application arrived on April 25, just three weeks before Einstein had his breakthrough conversation with Besso; it involved
a clock with an electromagnetically controlled pendulum that could be coordinated with another such clock through an electric signal. What these
applications had in common was that they used signals that traveled at the speed of light. 49
We should be careful not to overemphasize the role played by the technological backdrop of the patent office. Although clocks are part of
Einstein’s description of his theory, his point is about the difficulties that observers in relative motion have in using light signals to synchronize
them, something that was not an issue for the patent applicants. 50
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that almost the entire first two sections of his relativity paper deal directly and in vivid practical detail (in a
manner so different from the writings of, say, Lorentz and Maxwell) with the two real-world technological phenomena he knew best. He writes about
the generation of “electric currents of the same magnitude” due to the “equality of relative motion” of coils and magnets, and the use of “a light
signal” to make sure that “two clocks are synchronous.”
As Einstein himself stated, his time in the patent office “stimulated me to see the physical ramifications of theoretical concepts.” 51 And Alexander
Moszkowski, who compiled a book in 1921 based on conversations with Einstein, noted that Einstein believed there was “a definite connection
between the knowledge acquired at the patent office and the theoretical results.” 52
“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”
Now let’s look at how Einstein articulated all of this in the famous paper that the Annalen der Physik received on June 30, 1905. For all its
momentous import, it may be one of the most spunky and enjoyable papers in all of science. Most of its insights are conveyed in words and vivid
thought experiments, rather than in complex equations. There is some math involved, but it is mainly what a good high school senior could