Read · Special relativity: from clock operations to electrodynamics
§8 · finite light energy and moving mirrors
Follow the introduction and all ten sections, including field transformations, finite light complexes, moving mirrors, charge-current transformations, and the electron-force conventions.
Newly authored explanatory preview in modern notation, with editorial and physics review pending. Both the kinematic and electrodynamic halves are treated, but this is not a German transcription, an aligned translation, or a complete critical edition. The source paragraphs, footnotes, acknowledgment, and date-lines are not claimed to be fully represented or reviewed here. Headings and argument units are editorial.
Why does a finite light complex need a volume calculation?
Radiation energy density changes by q², but the volume of the same moving light complex on a simultaneous slice changes by 1/q. Its total energy therefore changes by q, just like frequency.
uu′=q2,VpacketVpacket′=q1,EE′=q
Energy density scales by q squared, packet volume by inverse q, and total energy by q.
The bounding region travels with the light, so changing the simultaneous slice does not give the ordinary material-volume contraction. At 0.6c with a forward collinear ray, q = 0.5: density becomes one quarter, volume doubles, and total energy becomes one half.
Incorrectly using material contraction 0.8 in that case would give total-energy factor 0.2. At an originally transverse angle the volume factors happen to coincide, so that case alone cannot detect the mistake. SR-10 includes the discriminating comparison.
The September mass-energy argument imports exactly this light-energy transformation. It does not first assume E = mc² and does not require localized light quanta.
Transform the wave amplitude and obtain the squared energy-density factor.
Specify the boundary enclosing the same light complex.
Intersect its transformed moving boundary with a simultaneous primed-time slice.
Compute the volume factor 1/q for that slice.
Multiply density and volume factors to obtain q, not q².
Use the collinear 0.6c case to distinguish this result from material contraction.
Show every step here: Density is not the energy of the whole packet
Transform the wave amplitude and obtain the squared energy-density factor.
Specify the boundary enclosing the same light complex.
Intersect its transformed moving boundary with a simultaneous primed-time slice.
Compute the volume factor 1/q for that slice.
Multiply density and volume factors to obtain q, not q².
Use the collinear 0.6c case to distinguish this result from material contraction.
Radiation energy density changes by q², but the volume of the same moving light complex on a simultaneous slice changes by 1/q. Its total energy therefore changes by q, just like frequency.
What this relies on
Compare the same finite light complex on each frame’s own simultaneous slice.
Use the plane-wave field transformation with q defined from the unprimed direction.
The reviewed German, aligned English, gloss, facsimile, and split view for this passage are not yet available. The explanation does not stand in for those source layers.
Assumptions and limits: Density is not the energy of the whole packet
Assumed here
Compare the same finite light complex on each frame’s own simultaneous slice.
Use the plane-wave field transformation with q defined from the unprimed direction.
What this does not establish
A light complex is not a material rod or a photon rest frame.
The energy law does not need the light-quantum hypothesis or the desired mass-energy conclusion.
Transform into the mirror’s rest frame, reflect there, and transform back. First check that the light catches the surface: its normal speed must exceed the mirror’s receding speed.
ννref=1−(v/c)21−2(v/c)cosφ+(v/c)2
The reflected frequency ratio is one minus twice v over c cosine phi plus v over c squared, divided by one minus v over c squared.
At normal incidence and v = 0.6c, the reflected frequency is one quarter of the incident frequency. The intercepted incident power is 0.4 of the fixed-surface value. With incident energy density u, the pressure is 0.5u. These are different quantities.
SR-11 uses the relative surface-crossing speed, not c by itself, to count intercepted energy. For a ray transverse in the original frame and a mirror receding along positive x, interception fails; the result is not a reflection with zero frequency.
Compare the incident normal light speed c cos φ with the mirror speed.
Refuse a reflection event if the ray cannot reach the surface.
Transform the incident wave into the mirror’s rest frame.
Reflect its normal direction there while preserving frequency in that frame.
Transform the reflected wave back to the original frame.
Use the moving-surface crossing rates when comparing incident power, reflected power, and mechanical work.
Show every step here: Reflection starts with interception
Compare the incident normal light speed c cos φ with the mirror speed.
Refuse a reflection event if the ray cannot reach the surface.
Transform the incident wave into the mirror’s rest frame.
Reflect its normal direction there while preserving frequency in that frame.
Transform the reflected wave back to the original frame.
Use the moving-surface crossing rates when comparing incident power, reflected power, and mechanical work.
Transform into the mirror’s rest frame, reflect there, and transform back. First check that the light catches the surface: its normal speed must exceed the mirror’s receding speed.
What this relies on
Use an ideal planar perfect reflector with subluminal normal speed.
The incident ray must satisfy c cos φ greater than v.
The reviewed German, aligned English, gloss, facsimile, and split view for this passage are not yet available. The explanation does not stand in for those source layers.
Assumptions and limits: Reflection starts with interception
Assumed here
Use an ideal planar perfect reflector with subluminal normal speed.
The incident ray must satisfy c cos φ greater than v.
What this does not establish
At the interception boundary, a tolerance-limited numerical result is not a valid reflection event.
A reflected ray can still have positive laboratory x velocity and separate from a faster receding mirror.
Newly authored explanatory preview in modern notation, with editorial and physics review pending. Both the kinematic and electrodynamic halves are treated, but this is not a German transcription, an aligned translation, or a complete critical edition. The source paragraphs, footnotes, acknowledgment, and date-lines are not claimed to be fully represented or reviewed here. Headings and argument units are editorial.
A. Einstein, Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?. Annalen der Physik (4), 18, 639–641 (1905). External 1923 Perrett–Jeffery translation, electronically transcribed by John Walker; its notation was modernized. A reference for this explanatory preview, not this edition’s reviewed translation or pinned facsimile.
16 foundation readings sit behind this argument.
Keep the explanation for offline reading
Each HTML file contains the available explanation at every detail level, linked foundations, source references, and available build-time scalar results. It includes no private notes or running simulations. This remains an explanation preview, not a reviewed source edition.
Open the downloaded file in a browser. Online source links still need a connection. Interactive plots are not included. Browse saved-chapter downloads.