When Einstein introduced the theory of Special Relativity, he did something no one had dared to do before: he challenged the very foundations upon which our understanding of the physical world was built. Until then, Newtonian mechanics reigned supreme, treating time, space, and mass as fixed, unchanging quantities. These were not active elements in the dynamics of nature—merely the stage upon which the action unfolded. Then came this wild-haired outsider, boldly proclaiming that nothing is absolute—everything is relative. That single idea carried profound implications far beyond the realm of physics. It suggested that even the most fundamental concepts—space and time themselves—are not sacred and untouchable. Everything can be questioned. And perhaps it is this sweeping cultural impact that truly sets Einstein apart from other brilliant minds in science. It’s no surprise, then, that if you stop a stranger on the street today and ask them to name a scientist, chances are the name “Einstein” will be the first—and possibly the only—one they mention. What is Special Relativity All About? The story begins in the 19th century. At the time, physicists had two highly successful theories that described the natural world with remarkable accuracy. One was Newtonian mechanics, which explained the motion of objects. The other was Maxwell’s equations, which governed electromagnetism—and, with it, the behavior of light. The only problem was that these two theories didn’t fit together. Rather than diving into technical details, let me illustrate the conflict with a simple thought experiment. Imagine two spaceships in motion. One is moving away from Earth at 5,000 km/h, while the other is approaching Earth at the same speed. From the perspective of a passenger aboard the receding spaceship, the other craft appears to be approaching at 10,000 km/h. Nothing strange about that—after all, speed is always measured relative to something: to us, to the Earth, to the Sun, and so on. So relative to one spaceship, the other is moving at 10,000 km/h. Now, suppose someone throws an object from one ship toward the other at 100 km/h. It would logically strike the target at a relative speed of 10,100 km/h. All of this makes intuitive sense. But things get weird when, instead of tossing objects, we send a beam of light from one ship to the other. According to both observation and theory, the light reaches the other spaceship not at 10,100 km/h, or anything in between—but always, stubbornly, at the speed of light. It doesn’t matter how fast either spaceship is moving or in which direction. Light clings to its speed as if nothing else matters. This defiance of intuition is rooted in the clash between those two 19th-century theories. Physicists already understood that light behaves like a wave, much like ripples on the surface of water. So they hypothesized the existence of a medium that fills all space and carries these waves: the ether. According to Newtonian thinking, if light traveled through this ether, then we should be able to detect changes in its speed depending on how the Earth moved through the ether. This idea led to the famous Michelson–Morley experiment. In simplified terms, it involved splitting a beam of light into two, sending one part in the direction of Earth's motion and the other at a right angle to it. When the beams were recombined, any difference in speed would produce an interference pattern. But none was observed. No matter how they measured it, the speed of light remained stubbornly constant, unaffected by Earth’s motion. Michelson–Morley experiment Einstein's bold response was to stop fighting this strange behavior and instead accept it as a fundamental truth. What if the speed of light is not just a property of light, but a universal constant? Let’s assume that light always moves at the same speed, he said—and adjust Newtonian mechanics accordingly. But doing so required a dramatic shift in thinking: namely, that time itself flows more slowly for objects in motion. always Speed, after all, is just distance divided by time. If we're rushing toward a beam of light at 100,000 km/h, we’d expect to measure its speed as correspondingly higher. But we don’t. If time onboard our fast-moving spaceship slows down, that slowdown can offset our motion, making it appear that the light travels at the same speed as always. Some clever math reveals exactly how much time must slow to preserve this constancy. Problem solved. But that’s not the end of it. If time slows down, we also have to adjust other quantities to preserve physical laws, like the conservation of energy and momentum. That means distances must shrink, and mass must increase. Once all these adjustments are made, everything falls back into place. The laws of physics still work, and the speed of light remains constant. Einstein’s key insight was to flip our assumptions. Instead of treating time, space, and mass as absolute, he declared the speed of light to be the true constant, and let everything else adapt. In doing so, he reconciled Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell’s equations without throwing out either theory. What makes this all the more astonishing is that it works. Despite sounding like a mathematical sleight of hand, the predictions of special relativity have been confirmed time and again, though not with spaceships, but with subatomic particles. Particles moving at high speeds decay more slowly than expected. Their masses also increase in precisely the way Einstein predicted. Physicists working in particle accelerators account for these effects every day. Still, it’s deeply counterintuitive. How can time actually slow down? How can objects shrink just because they’re moving fast? These strange ideas give rise to paradoxes that baffle even thoughtful readers. Yet before Einstein published his theory, there was already an earlier attempt to explain these phenomena. Lorentz’s Ether-Based Explanation Textbooks on relativity rarely mention that before Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald had already proposed a theory to explain why motion through the hypothetical ether could not be detected. Their approach didn’t assume the constancy of the speed of light as its foundational principle. Instead, it was based on the idea that such an ether exists—a universal medium through which light (or more precisely, electromagnetic waves) propagates. Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald had already proposed a theory You may recall from school the classical model of the atom, where electrons orbit a nucleus much like planets around the Sun. The electrons are held in orbit by electromagnetic forces, which, like light itself, were thought to be transmitted through the ether. If atoms move through this ether, the idea was that the orbits of their electrons would become distorted in the direction of motion, causing atoms to contract slightly. Since all matter is composed of atoms, this would mean that all objects physically contract. The extent of this contraction was quantified by what we now call the Lorentz contraction—the same effect predicted by Einstein’s special relativity. Lorentz’s theory was eventually discarded, not because it was wrong, but because Einstein’s theory was more elegant, required fewer assumptions, and applied more broadly. Today, the only remnant of Lorentz’s model is the transformation formula that still bears his name. But we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss his ideas—there’s a lot we can learn from Lorentz’s theory that can help make the strangeness of relativity more understandable. For the average person, the concept of space is still based on Newton’s definition: absolute and unchanging—the backdrop against which events unfold. In this classical view, if two objects are one meter apart, then they’re one meter apart for everyone, no matter their frame of reference. This idea feels intuitive because it’s the only one we grew up with. But as it turns out, it’s inaccurate. At one time, a platinum bar kept in Paris was the official standard for one meter. If two objects were ten meters apart, that meant you could lay the bar between them ten times. But what if the meter bar itself shrinks, just as Lorentz suggested? What if every meter bar in existence shrinks in the same way? Then every measurement would still yield the same result, even though the physical distance had actually decreased. In that case, it makes more sense to say that space itself has contracted. every Our classical concept of space remains untouched in principle, but it becomes physically meaningless. In the realm of physics, distance is what we measure with instruments. If all instruments contract, then so too, effectively, does space. Our classical concept of space remains untouched in principle, but it becomes physically meaningless. In the realm of physics, distance is what we measure with instruments. If all instruments contract, then so too, effectively, does space. It’s also important to remember that human perception is rooted in physical processes. What we think of as “space” in our minds is different from the “physical space” we experience. If the speed of light were much lower, and relativistic effects were visible in daily life, we might naturally accept that fast-moving cars appear squashed in the direction of travel. Perhaps the very idea of absolute space would never have formed in our minds at all. Given all this, we can see why the concept of absolute Newtonian space had to be abandoned in favor of something measurable, physical space. But when it comes to time, the mystery runs deeper. How can an astronaut on a fast-moving spaceship age more slowly than their twin who remains on Earth? physical space time Just as we distinguish between absolute and physical space, we must also separate absolute time (as Newton imagined it) from physical time—the time measured by clocks. And by clocks, we mean any process that unfolds over time: the decay of a particle, or even the aging of the human body. Aging is a complex chemical process rooted in physical interactions, primarily electromagnetic ones. If these interactions are distorted by motion, it could slow down the underlying processes and, with them, aging itself. absolute time physical time So, as with space, we could keep the idea of absolute time in theory, but in practice, it loses its meaning. All clocks measure physical time, and all human experience is grounded in this physical time. Absolute time, being unmeasurable and unknowable, has no physical reality. So, as with space, we could keep the idea of absolute time in theory, but in practice, it loses its meaning. All clocks measure physical time, and all human experience is grounded in this physical time. Absolute time, being unmeasurable and unknowable, has no physical reality. Then there’s mass, which we often associate with the amount of matter in an object. It feels strange to think that simply moving faster could increase an object’s mass. But physical mass isn’t really tied to “how much stuff” an object contains. Newton defined inertial mass as a measure of how much an object resists acceleration. If you push a small ball and a large one with equal force, the lighter ball travels farther. We can only exert force on objects through interactions, of which we know four: the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces. mass inertial mass Gravitational interaction, since Einstein’s general relativity, is understood as a curvature of space rather than a force. The strong interaction is limited to the atomic nucleus. That leaves the electromagnetic and weak forces, which physicists unified in the 1970s under the term electroweak interaction. This is the interaction we typically rely on to accelerate objects. If this interaction is weakened in a fast-moving spaceship, the object resists acceleration more. To us, this looks like an increase in mass. Einstein’s general relativity electromagnetic and weak forces electroweak interaction electroweak interaction Whether anyone has extended Lorentz’s ether theory to explain this effect, I don't know. But that's not the point. The point is that Lorentz's theory wasn't wrong—in fact, it provided a crucial stepping stone to Einstein’s breakthrough. Einstein’s model simply made fewer assumptions and produced more accurate predictions, which is why it ultimately prevailed. fewer assumptions more accurate predictions One common claim in favor of special relativity is that it eliminated the need for the ether. But what happened to it? In truth, the ether was discarded in much the same way as Newtonian absolute space and time. Because the ether could not be detected, it lacked physical meaning, just like absolute time and space. But if the ether doesn’t exist, what exactly is waving when a light wave moves through space? Einstein’s answer was simple: light propagates through space itself. In effect, he merged the concept of ether with the concept of space, treating them as one and the same. The ether didn’t vanish—it was redefined. Einstein’s space isn’t a passive void, but a physical entity, more like Ether, a medium that supports electromagnetic waves and can be warped by the presence of mass. We perceive this warping as gravity. merged the concept of ether with the concept of space physical entity, more like Ether gravity What Can We Learn from Special Relativity? The key insight is surprisingly simple: Einstein used the words space and time to mean something very different from what most people understand them to be. space time To the average person, space is still Newton’s absolute space—a fixed, unchanging backdrop where events unfold. But Einstein’s concept of space is much more like the old idea of the ether: something that fills everything. Electromagnetic waves propagate through it, and particles move within it, perhaps even as tiny standing waves themselves. Einstein’s space is dynamic. It can curve in response to mass, which gives the illusion that gravity is a force similar to electromagnetism, even though it’s fundamentally different. illusion We might imagine that Einstein’s space simply fills Newton’s absolute space. But since every particle and every physical process occurs within this space, we can never observe anything “outside” of it. That’s why Einstein was justified in calling it space—physical space. within space physical The same goes for time. Einstein’s concept of time is completely different from our intuitive sense of it, and in fact, it is so closely connected to space that he combined the two into a single concept: spacetime. What Einstein called time is the duration of physical processes—the time measured by clocks. And by clocks, we mean any physical process: the decay of particles, the ticking of a mechanical watch, or the aging of a living body. spacetime any One could say that Einstein’s time exists within an underlying absolute time, just as his space might exist within Newton’s absolute space. But since this "external" time cannot be measured or experienced, it becomes physically meaningless. The only time that matters is physical time—the time we actually observe. If physical space is like a modern version of the ether, then physical time depends on the rate at which processes unfold within it. And those rates, in turn, depend on the properties of the medium. That’s why space and time are inseparable—and why gravity warps not just space, but time as well. physical time gravity warps not just space, but time as well This effect isn’t limited to faraway stars or black holes. We can observe it right here on Earth. GPS satellites, orbiting high above us, contain extremely precise atomic clocks. These clocks tick differently from those on the ground, not just because of their speed, but also because of the weaker gravity at their altitude. If these relativistic effects weren’t taken into account, GPS would be wildly inaccurate. In the end, special relativity teaches us that the mental models we carry—our everyday assumptions about space and time—are just simplified projections of a much more complex physical reality. We treat concepts like space and time as absolute, but they’re not. That’s why, when a physicist talks about space or time, they may mean something entirely different from what the average person imagines. And because we take those concepts for granted, we often miss the difference entirely. simplified projections But physical spacetime is nothing like our intuition. It behaves more like the ether: a real, dynamic medium with structure and influence. Perhaps if physicists had simply kept calling it "ether," people would have found Einstein’s theory of relativity much easier to grasp. Author’s note: This article is intended as a quick primer—a kind of intellectual takeaway—for those curious about the theory of relativity. For readers who wish to explore the subject more deeply, there are countless excellent videos available on YouTube covering both Special and General Relativity in greater detail. Author’s note: This article is intended as a quick primer—a kind of intellectual takeaway—for those curious about the theory of relativity. For readers who wish to explore the subject more deeply, there are countless excellent videos available on YouTube covering both Special and General Relativity in greater detail.

Walkthroughs, tutorials, guides, and tips. This story will teach you how to do something new or how to do something better.

Understanding Quantum Mechanics: A Tour Through Its Most Bizarre Interpretations

Cross-Device Ethereum Login: Authenticate Desktop Users via MetaMask Mobile in PHP

Nominated for 2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Neural Networks

Nothing is Absolute: A Beginner’s Guide to Einsten's Theory of Sepcial Relativity

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

What Modern Physics Has to Say About Reality

A Few Inferences From the General Principle of Relativity

Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring-Rods on a Rotating Body of Reference

Cosmological Difficulties of Newton's Theory

Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Continuum

Exact Formulation of the General Principle of Relativity

What Modern Physics Has to Say About Reality

A Few Inferences From the General Principle of Relativity

Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring-Rods on a Rotating Body of Reference

Cosmological Difficulties of Newton's Theory

Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Continuum

Exact Formulation of the General Principle of Relativity

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps