Space and Time

Minkowski’s Papers on Relativity

Free Version
 Not only the general public, but even students of physics appear to believe that the physics
concept of spacetime was introduced by Einstein. This is both unfortunate and unfair.
It was Hermann Minkowski (Einstein's mathematics professor) who announced the new four-
dimensional (spacetime) view of the world in 1908, which he deduced from experimental
physics by decoding the profound message hidden in the failed experiments designed to
discover absolute motion. Minkowski realized that the images coming from our senses, which
seem to represent an evolving three-dimensional world, are only glimpses of a higher four-
dimensional reality that is not divided into past, present, and future since space and all
moments of time form an inseparable entity (spacetime).
Einstein's initial reaction to Minkowski's view of spacetime and the associated with it four-
dimensional physics (also introduced by Minkowski) was not quite favorable: "Since the
mathematicians have invaded the relativity theory, I do not understand it myself any more.“
However, later Einstein adopted not only Minkowski's spacetime physics (which was crucial
for Einstein's revolutionary theory of gravity as curvature of spacetime), but also Minkowski's
world view as evident from Einstein’s letter of condolences to the widow of his longtime friend
Besso: "Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means
nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present
and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Besso left this world on 15 March 1955;
Einstein followed him on 18 April 1955.
This volume includes Hermann Minkowski's three papers on relativity: The Relativity
Principle, The Fundamental Equations for Electromagnetic Processes in Moving Bodies, and
Space and Time. These papers have never been published together either in German or
English and The Relativity Principle has not been translated into English so far.

http://minkowskiinstitute.org/mip/ ISBN 978-0-9879871-4-3

 Hermann Minkowski

Space and Time

Minkowski’s Papers on Relativity

Translated by Fritz Lewerto↵ and Vesselin Petkov

Edited by Vesselin Petkov

Free version
Chapter 2

Space and Time

Gentlemen! The views of space and time which I want to present to you arose
from the domain of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
Their tendency is radical. From now onwards space by itself and time by
itself will recede completely to become mere shadows and only a type of
union of the two will still stand independently on its own.

I.

I want to show first how to move from the currently adopted mechanics
through purely mathematical reasoning to modified ideas about space and
time. The equations of Newtonian mechanics show a twofold invariance.
First, their form is preserved when subjecting the specified spatial coordi-
nate system to any change of position; second, when it changes its state of
motion, namely when any uniform translation is impressed upon it; also,
the zero point of time plays no role. When one feels ready for the axioms of
mechanics, one is accustomed to regard the axioms of geometry as settled
and probably for this reason those two invariances are rarely mentioned in
the same breath. Each of them represents a certain group of transforma-
tions for the di↵erential equations of mechanics. The existence of the first
group can be seen as reflecting a fundamental characteristic of space. One
always tends to treat the second group with disdain in order to unburden
one’s mind that one can never determine from physical phenomena whether
space, which is assumed to be at rest, may not after all be in uniform trans-
lation. Thus these two groups lead completely separate lives side by side.
Their entirely heterogeneous character may have discouraged any intention
to compose them. But it is the composed complete group as a whole that
gives us to think.

39
40 CHAPTER 2.

We will attempt to visualize the situation graphically. Let x, y, z be

orthogonal coordinates for space and let t denote time. The objects of our
perception are always connected to places and times. No one has noticed a
place other than at a time and a time other than at a place. However I still
respect the dogma that space and time each have an independent meaning.
I will call a point in space at a given time, i.e. a system of values x, y, z, t
a worldpoint. The manifold of all possible systems of values x, y, z, t will be
called the world. With a hardy piece of chalk I can draw four world axes
on the blackboard. Even one drawn axis consists of nothing but vibrating
molecules and also makes the journey with the Earth in the Universe, which
already requires sufficient abstraction; the somewhat greater abstraction
associated with the number 4 does not hurt the mathematician. To never
let a yawning emptiness, let us imagine that everywhere and at any time
something perceivable exists. In order not to say matter or electricity I
will use the word substance for that thing. We focus our attention on the
substantial point existing at the worldpoint x, y, z, t and imagine that we
can recognize this substantial point at any other time. A time element dt
may correspond to the changes dx, dy, dz of the spatial coordinates of this
substantial point. We then get an image, so to say, of the eternal course of
life of the substantial point, a curve in the world, a worldline, whose points
can be clearly related to the parameter t from 1 to +1. The whole world
presents itself as resolved into such worldlines, and I want to say in advance,
that in my understanding the laws of physics can find their most complete
expression as interrelations between these worldlines.
Through the concepts of space and time the x, y, z-manifold t = 0 and
its two sides t > 0 and t < 0 fall apart. If for simplicity we hold the chosen
origin of space and time fixed, then the first mentioned group of mechanics
means that we can subject the x, y, z-axes at t = 0 to an arbitrary rotation
about the origin corresponding to the homogeneous linear transformations
of the expression

x2 + y 2 + z 2 .

The second group, however, indicates that, also without altering the expres-
sions of the laws of mechanics, we may replace

x, y, z, t by x ↵t, y t, z t, t,

where ↵, , are any constants. The time axis can then be given a com-
pletely arbitrary direction in the upper half of the world t > 0. What has
 41

now the requirement of orthogonality in space to do with this complete

freedom of choice of the direction of the time axis upwards?
To establish the connection we take a positive parameter c and look at
the structure

c 2 t2 x2 y2 z 2 = 1.

t
t'
Q' Q'
B'
A A'
B
x' P' P'
1
c D
C'
1
O D' C x P P Q Q

Fig. 1

It consists of two sheets separated by t = 0 by analogy with a two-sheeted

hyperboloid. We consider the sheet in the region t > 0 and we will now
take those homogeneous linear transformations of x, y, z, t in four new vari-
ables x0 , y 0 , z 0 , t0 so that the expression of this sheet in the new variables has
the same form. Obviously, the rotations of space about the origin belong
to these transformations. A full understanding of the rest of those trans-
formations can be obtained by considering such among them for which y
and z remain unchanged. We draw (Fig. 1) the intersection of that sheet
with the plane of the x- and the t-axis, i.e. the upper branch of the hyper-
bola c2 t2 x2 = 1 with its asymptotes. Further we draw from the origin
O an arbitrary radius vector OA0 of this branch of the hyperbola; then we
add the tangent to the hyperbola at A0 to intersects the right asymptote at
B 0 ; from OA0 B 0 we complete the parallelogram OA0 B 0 C 0 ; finally, as we will
need it later, we extend B 0 C 0 so that it intersects the x-axis at D0 . If we
now regard OC 0 and OA0 as axes for new coordinates x0 , t0 , with the scale
units OC 0 = 1, OA0 = 1/c, then that branch of the hyperbola again obtains
the expression ct02 x02 = 1, t0 > 0, and the transition from x, y, z, t to
x0 , y 0 , z 0 , t0 is one of the transformations in question. These transformations
plus the arbitrary displacements of the origin of space and time constitute a
group of transformations which still depends on the parameter c and which
I will call Gc .
42 CHAPTER 2.

If we now increase c to infinity, so 1/c converges to zero, it is clear from

the figure that the branch of the hyperbola leans more and more towards the
x-axis, that the angle between the asymptotes becomes greater, and in the
limit that special transformation converts to one where the t0 -axis may be
in any upward direction and x0 approaches x ever more closely. By taking
this into account it becomes clear that the group Gc in the limit c = 1,
that is the group G1 , is exactly the complete group which is associated
with the Newtonian mechanics. In this situation, and since Gc is mathe-
matically more understandable than G1 , there could have probably been a
mathematician with a free imagination who could have come up with the
idea that at the end natural phenomena do not actually possess an invari-
ance with the group G1 , but rather with a group Gc with a certain finite
c, which is extremely great only in the ordinary units of measurement. Such
an insight would have been an extraordinary triumph for pure mathematics.
Now mathematics expressed only staircase wit here, but it has the satisfac-
tion that, due to its happy antecedents with their senses sharpened by their
free and penetrating imagination, it can grasp the profound consequences of
such remodelling of our view of nature.
I want to make it quite clear what the value of c will be with which
we will be finally dealing. c is the velocity of the propagation of light in
empty space. To speak neither of space nor of emptiness, we can identify
this magnitude with the ratio of the electromagnetic to the electrostatic unit
of the quantity of electricity.
The existence of the invariance of the laws of nature with respect to the
group Gc would now be stated as follows:
From the entirety of natural phenomena, through successively enhanced
approximations, it is possible to deduce more precisely a reference system
x, y, z, t, space and time, by means of which these phenomena can be then
represented according to certain laws. But this reference system is by no
means unambiguously determined by the phenomena. One can still change
the reference system according to the transformations of the above group
Gc arbitrarily without changing the expression of the laws of nature in the
process.
For example, according to the figure depicted above one can call t0 time,
but then must necessarily, in connection with this, define space by the mani-
fold of three parameters x0 , y, z in which the laws of physics would then have
exactly the same expressions by means of x0 , y, z, t0 as by means of x, y, z, t.
Hereafter we would then have in the world no more the space, but an infi-
nite number of spaces analogously as there is an infinite number of planes
in three-dimensional space. Three-dimensional geometry becomes a chapter
 43

in four-dimensional physics. You see why I said at the beginning that space
and time will recede completely to become mere shadows and only a world
in itself will exist.

II.

Now the question is, what circumstances force us to the changed view
of space and time, does it actually never contradict the phenomena, and
finally, does it provide advantages for the description of the phenomena?
Before we discuss these questions, an important remark is necessary.
Having individualized space and time in some way, a straight worldline par-
allel to the t-axis corresponds to a stationary substantial point, a straight
line inclined to the t-axis corresponds to a uniformly moving substantial
point, a somewhat curved worldline corresponds to a non-uniformly moving
substantial point. If at any worldpoint x, y, z, t there is a worldline passing
through it and we find it parallel to any radius vector OA0 of the previously
mentioned hyperboloidal sheet, we may introduce OA0 as a new time axis,
and with the thus given new concepts of space and time, the substance at
the worldpoint in question appears to be at rest. We now want to introduce
this fundamental axiom:
With appropriate setting of space and time the substance existing at any
worldpoint can always be regarded as being at rest.
This axiom means that at every worldpoint1 the expression

c2 dt2 dx2 dy 2 dz 2
is always positive, which is equivalent to saying that any velocity v is al-
ways smaller than c. Then c would be an upper limit for all substantial
velocities and that is precisely the deeper meaning of the quantity c. In this
understanding the axiom is at first glance slightly displeasing. It should be
noted, however, that a modified mechanics, in which the square root of that
second order di↵erential expression enters, is now gaining ground, so that
cases with superluminal velocity will play only such a role as that of figures
with imaginary coordinates in geometry.
The impulse and true motivation for accepting the group Gc came from
noticing that the di↵erential equation for the propagation of light waves in
the empty space possesses that group Gc 2 . On the other hand, the concept of
1
Editor’s note: Minkowski means at every worldpoint along the worldline of the sub-
stance.
2
An important application of this fact can already be found in W. Voigt, Göttinger
Nachrichten, 1887, S. 41.
44 CHAPTER 2.

a rigid body has meaning only in a mechanics with the group G1 . If one has
optics with Gc , and if, on the other hand, there were rigid bodies, it is easy
to see that one t-direction would be distinguished by the two hyperboloidal
sheets corresponding to Gc and G1 , and would have the further consequence
that one would be able, by using appropriate rigid optical instruments in
the laboratory, to detect a change of phenomena at various orientations
with respect to the direction of the Earth’s motion. All e↵orts directed
towards this goal, especially a famous interference experiment of Michelson
had, however, a negative result. To obtain an explanation, H. A. Lorentz
made a hypothesis, whose success lies precisely in the invariance of optics
with respect to the group Gc . According to Lorentz every body moving at a
velocity v must experience a reduction in the direction of its motion namely
in the ratio
r
v2
1: 1 .
c2
This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical. Because the contraction is not
to be thought of as a consequence of resistances in the ether, but merely as
a gift from above, as an accompanying circumstance of the fact of motion.
I now want to show on our figure that the Lorentzian hypothesis is com-
pletely equivalent to the new concept of space and time, which makes it
much easier to understand. If for simplicity we ignore y and z and think
of a world of one spatial dimension, then two strips, one upright parallel
to the t-axis and the other inclined to the t-axis (see Fig. 1), are images
for the progression in time of a body at rest and a body moving uniformly,
where each preserves a constant spatial dimension. OA0 is parallel to the
second strip, so we can introduce t0 as time and x0 as a space coordinate
and then it appears that the second body is at rest, whereas the first –
in uniform motion. We now assume that the first body has length l when
considered at rest, that is, the cross section P P of the first strip and the
x-axis is equal to l · OC, where OC is the measuring unit on the x-axis,
and, on the other hand, that the second body has the same length l when
regarded at rest; then the latter means that the cross-section of the second
strip measured parallel to the x0 -axis is Q0 Q0 = l · OC 0 . We have now in
these two bodies images of two equal Lorentz electrons, one stationary and
one uniformly moving. But if we go back to the original coordinates x, t, we
should take as the dimension of the second electron the cross section QQ of
its associated strip parallel to the x-axis. Now as Q0 Q0 = l ·OC 0 , it is obvious
that QQ = l · OD0 . If dx/dt for the second strip is = v, an easy calculation
 45
q q
2 2
gives OD0 = OC · 1 vc2 , therefore also P P : QQ = 1 : 1 vc2 . This is
the meaning of the Lorentzian hypothesis of the contraction of electrons in
motion. Regarding, on the other hand, the second electron as being at rest,
that is, adopting the reference system x0 , t0 , the length of the first electron
will be the cross section P 0 P 0 of its strip parallel to OC 0 , and we would find
the first electron shortened with respect to the second in exactly the same
proportion; from the figure we also see that

P 0 P 0 : Q0 Q0 = OD : OC 0 = OD0 : OC = QQ : P P.

Lorentz called t0 , which is a combination of x and t, local time of the

uniformly moving electron, and associated a physical construction with this
concept for a better understanding of the contraction hypothesis. However,
it is to the credit of A. Einstein3 who first realized clearly that the time of
one of the electrons is as good as that of the other, i.e. that t and t0 should
be treated equally. With this, time was deposed from its status as a concept
unambiguously determined by the phenomena. The concept of space was
shaken neither by Einstein nor by Lorentz, maybe because in the above-
mentioned special transformation, where the plane of x0 , t0 coincides with
the plane x, t, an interpretation is possible as if the x-axis of space preserved
its position. To step over the concept of space in such a way is an instance
of what can be achieved only due to the audacity of mathematical culture.
After this further step, which is indispensable for the true understanding of
the group Gc , I think the word relativity postulate used for the requirement
of invariance under the group Gc is very feeble. Since the meaning of the
postulate is that through the phenomena only the four-dimensional world in
space and time is given, but the projection in space and in time can still be
made with certain freedom, I want to give this affirmation rather the name
the postulate of the absolute world (or shortly the world postulate).

III.

Through the world postulate an identical treatment of the four identi-

fying quantities x, y, z, t becomes possible. I want to explain now how, as
a result of this, we gain more understanding of the forms under which the
laws of physics present themselves. Especially the concept of acceleration
acquires a sharply prominent character.
3
A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 17 (1905), S. 891; Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und
Elektronik 4 (1907), S. 411.
46 CHAPTER 2.

I will use a geometric way of expression, which presents itself immediately

when one implicitly ignores z in the triple x, y, z. An arbitrary worldpoint
O can be taken as the origin of space-time. The cone

c 2 t2 x2 y2 z2 = 0
with O as the apex (Fig. 2) consists of two parts, one with values t < 0, the
other one with values t > 0.

after O
r
cto
futur ve
int e lig
htco ke
ern ne el i
al tim or
spacelike vect
O
ola t c on
e
p erb ligh
hy past
before O

Fig. 2

The first, the past lightcone of O, consists, we can say, of all worldpoints
which “send light to O”, the second, the future lightcone of O, consists of all
worldpoints which “receive light from O”4 . The area bounded solely by the
past lightcone may be called before O, whereas the area bounded solely by
the future lightcone – after O. Situated after O is the already considered
hyperboloidal sheet

F = c 2 t2 x2 y2 z 2 = 1, t > 0
The area between the cones is filled with the one-sheeted hyperboloidal struc-
tures

F = x2 + y 2 + z 2 c 2 t2 = k 2
for all constant positive values of k 2 . Essential for us are the hyperbolas with
O as the center, located on the latter structures. The individual branches
of these hyperbolas may be briefly called internal hyperbolas with center O.
4
Editor’s and translator’s note: I decided to translate the words Vorkegel and Nachkegel
as past lightcone and future lightcone, respectively, for two reasons. First, this translation
reflects the essence of Minkowski’s idea – (i) all worldpoints on the past lightcone “send
light to O”, which means that they all can influence O and therefore lie in the past of O;
(ii) all worldpoints on the future lightcone “receive light from O”, which means that they
all can be influenced by O and therefore lie in the future of O. Second, the terms past
lightcone and future lightcone are now widely accepted in spacetime physics.
 47

Such a hyperbola would be thought of as the worldline of a substantive point,

which represents its motion that increases asymptotically to the velocity of
light c for t = 1 and t = +1.
If we now call, by analogy with vectors in space, a directed line in the
manifold x, y, z, t a vector, we have to distinguish between the timelike vec-
tors with directions from O to the sheet +F = 1, t > 0, and the spacelike
vectors with directions from O to F = 1. The time axis can be parallel to
any vector of the first kind. Every worldpoint between the future lightcone
and the past lightcone of O can be regarded, by a choice of the reference sys-
tem, as simultaneous with O as well as earlier than O or later than O. Each
worldpoint within the past lightcone of O is necessarily always earlier than
O, each worldpoint within the future lightcone is necessarily always later
than O. The transition to the limit c = 1 would correspond to a complete
folding of the wedge-shaped section between the cones into the flat manifold
t = 0. In the figures this section is intentionally made with di↵erent widths.
We decompose any vector, such as that from O to x, y, z, t into four
components x, y, z, t. If the directions of two vectors are, respectively, that
of a radius vector OR from O to one of the surfaces ⌥F = 1, and that of
a tangent RS at the point R on the same surface, the vectors are called
normal to each other. Accordingly,

c2 tt1 xx1 yy1 zz1 = 0

is the condition for the vectors with components x, y, z, t and x1 , y1 , z1 , t1 to

be normal to each other.
The measuring units for the magnitudes of vectors in di↵erent directions
may be fixed by assigning to a spacelike vector from O to F = 1 always
the magnitude 1, and to a timelike vector from O to +F = 1, t > 0 always
the magnitude 1/c.
Let us now imagine a worldpoint P (x, y, z, t) through which the worldline
of a substantial point is passing, then the magnitude of the timelike vector
dx, dy, dz, dt along the line will be

1p 2 2
d⌧ = c dt dx2 dy 2 dz 2 .
c
R
The integral d⌧ = ⌧ of this magnitude, taken along the worldline from any
fixed starting point P0 to the variable end point P , we call the proper time
of the substantial point at P . On the worldline we consider x, y, z, t, i.e. the
components of the vector OP , as functions of the proper time ⌧ ; denote their
first derivatives with respect to ⌧ by ẋ, ẏ, ż, ṫ; their second derivatives with
48 CHAPTER 2.

respect to ⌧ by ẍ, ÿ, z̈, ẗ, and call the corresponding vectors, the derivative of
the vector OP with respect to ⌧ the velocity vector at P and the derivative
of the velocity vector with respect to ⌧ the acceleration vector at P . As

c2 ṫ2 ẋ2 ẏ 2 ż 2 = c2
it follows that

c2 ṫẗ ẋẍ ẏ ÿ ż z̈ = 0,
i.e. the velocity vector is the timelike vector of magnitude 1 in the direction
of the worldline at P , and the acceleration vector at P is normal to the
velocity vector at P , so it is certainly a spacelike vector.

M
hyperbola
ature

ne
curv

worldli

Fig. 3

Now there is, as is easily seen, a specific branch of the hyperbola, which
has three infinitely adjacent points in common with the worldline at P , and
whose asymptotes are generators of a past lightcone and a future lightcone
(see Fig. 3). This branch of the hyperbola will be called the curvature
hyperbola at P . If M is the center of this hyperbola, we have here an internal
hyperbola with center M . Let ⇢ be the magnitude of the vector M P , so we
recognize the acceleration vector at P as the vector in the direction M P of
magnitude c2 /⇢.
 49

If ẍ, ÿ, z̈, ẗ are all zero, the curvature hyperbola reduces to the straight
line touching the worldline at P , and we should set ⇢ = 1.

IV.

To demonstrate that the adoption of the group Gc for the laws of physics
never leads to a contradiction, it is inevitable to undertake a revision of
all physics based on the assumption of this group. This revision has been
done successfully to some extent for questions of thermodynamics and heat
radiation5 , for the electromagnetic processes, and finally, with the retention
of the concept of mass, for mechanics.6
For the latter domain, the question that should be raised above all is:
When a force with the spatial components X, Y, Z acts at a worldpoint
P (x, y, z, t), where the velocity vector is ẋ, ẏ, ż, ṫ, as what force this force
should be interpreted for any change of the reference system? Now there
exist some proven approaches to the ponderomotive force in the electromag-
netic field in cases where the group Gc is undoubtedly permissible. These
approaches lead to the simple rule: When the reference system is changed,
the given force transforms into a force in the new space coordinates in such
a way that the corresponding vector with the components

ṫX, ṫY, ṫZ, ṫT

remains unchanged, and where

1 ẋ ẏ ż
T = 2
( X + Y + Z)
c ṫ ṫ ṫ
is the work done by the force at the worldpoint divided by c2 . This vector is
always normal to the velocity vector at P . Such a force vector, representing
a force at P , will be called a motive force vector at P .
Now let the worldline passing through P represent a substantial point
with constant mechanical mass m. The multiplied by m velocity vector
at P will be called the momentum vector at P , and the multiplied by m
acceleration vector at P will be called the force vector of the motion at P .
5
M. Planck, “Zur Dynamik bewegter Systeme,” Sitzungsberichte der k. preußischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1907, S. 542 (auch Annalen der Physik, Bd. 26,
1908, S. 1).
6
H. Minkowski, “Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in be-
wegten Körpern”, Nachrichten der k. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zu Göttingen,
mathematisch-physikalische Klasse, 1908, S. 53 und Mathematische Annalen, Bd. 68,
1910, S. 527
50 CHAPTER 2.

According to these definitions, the law of motion for a point mass with a
given force vector is:7
The force vector of the motion is equal to the motive force vector.
This assertion summarizes four equations for the components for the
four axes, wherein the fourth can be regarded as a consequence of the first
three because both vectors are from the start normal to the velocity vector.
According to the above meaning of T , the fourth equation is undoubtedly
the law of conservation of energy. The kinetic energy of the point mass is
defined as the component of the momentum vector along the t-axis multiplied
by c2 . The expression for this is

dt mc2
mc2 =q ,
d⌧ 2
1 vc2

which is, the expression 12 mv 2 of Newtonian mechanics after the subtraction

of the additive constant term mc2 and neglecting magnitudes of the order
1/c2 . The dependence of the energy on the reference system is manifested
very clearly here. But since the t-axis can be placed in the direction of
each timelike vector, then, on the other hand, the law of conservation of en-
ergy, formed for every possible reference system, already contains the whole
system of the equations of motion. In the discussed limiting case c = 1,
this fact will retain its importance for the axiomatic structure of Newtonian
mechanics and in this sense has been already noticed by J. R. Schütz8
From the beginning we can determine the ratio of the units of length and
time in such
p a way that the natural limit of velocity becomes c = 1. If we
introduce 1t = s instead of t, then the quadratic di↵erential expression

d⌧ 2 = dx2 dy 2 dz 2 ds2

becomes completely symmetric in x, y, z, s and this symmetry is carried over

to any law that does not contradict the world postulate. Thus the essence of
this postulate can be expressed mathematically very concisely in the mystical
formula:
p
3 · 105 km = 1 seconds.
7
H. Minkowski, loc. cit., p. 107. Cf. also M. Planck, Verhandlungen der Physikalischen
Gesellschaft, Bd. 4, 1906, S. 136.
8
J. R. Schütz, “Das Prinzip der absoluten Erhaltung der Energie”, Nachrichten der k.
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, mathematisch-physikalische Klasse, 1897,
S. 110.
 51

V.

The advantages resulting from the world postulate may most strikingly
be proved by indicating the e↵ects from an arbitrarily moving point charge
according to the Maxwell-Lorentz theory. Let us imagine the worldline of
such a pointlike electron with charge e, and take on it the proper time ⌧
from any initial point. To determine the field induced by the electron at any
worldpoint P1 we construct the past lightcone corresponding to P1 (Fig. 4).
It intersects the infinite worldline of the electron obviously at a single point P
because the tangents to every point on the worldline are all timelike vectors.
At P we draw the tangent to the worldline and through P1 construct the
normal P1 Q to this tangent. Let the magnitude of P1 Q be r. According
to the definition of a past lightcone the magnitude of P Q should be r/c.
Now the vector of magnitude e/r in the direction P Q represents through its
components along the x-, y-, z-axes, the vector potential multiplied by c,
and through the component along the t-axis, the scalar potential of the field
produced by e at the worldpoint P1 . This is the essence of the elementary
laws formulated by A. Liénard and E. Wiechert.9

e1 e t

P1 y
r Q

N P
x
M

Fig. 4

9
A. Liénard, “Champ électrique et magnétique produit par une charge concentré en un
point et animée d’un mouvement quelconque”, L’Éclairage électrique, T. 16, 1898, pp. 5,
53, 106; E. Wiechert, “Elektrodynamische Elementargesetze”, Archives Néerlandaiaes des
Sciences exactes et naturelles (2), T. 5, 1900, S. 549.
52 CHAPTER 2.

Then it emerges in the description itself of the field caused by the electron
that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one
with respect to the specified time axis; most clearly the two forces considered
together can be described in some, though not complete, analogy with the
wrench in mechanics. I now want to describe the ponderomotive action of an
arbitrarily moving point charge exerted on another arbitrarily moving point
charge. Let us imagine that the worldline of a second pointlike electron of
charge e1 goes through the worldpoint P1 . We define P, Q, r as before, then
construct (Fig. 4) the center M of the curvature hyperbola at P , and finally
the normal M N from M to an imagined straight line from P parallel to
QP1 . We now fix a reference system with its origin at P in the following
way: the t-axis in the direction of P Q, the x-axis in the direction of QP1 ,
the y-axis in the direction of M N , and lastly the direction of the z-axis is
determined as being normal to the t-, x-, y-axes. Let the acceleration vector
at P be ẍ, ÿ, z̈, ẗ, the velocity vector at P1 be x˙1 , y˙1 , z˙1 , t˙1 . Now the motive
force vector exerted by the first arbitrarily moving electron e on the second
arbitrarily moving electron e1 at P1 will be

ẋ1
ee1 (t˙1 )K
c
where for the components Kx , Ky , Kz , Kt of the vector K three relations exist:

1 ÿ
cKt Kx = 2
, Ky = 2 , Kz = 0
r c r
and fourthly this vector K is normal to the velocity vector at P1 , and this
circumstance alone makes it dependent on the latter velocity vector.
If we compare this assertion with the previous formulations10 of the same
elementary law of the ponderomotive action of moving point charges on one
another, we are compelled to admit that the relations considered here reveal
their inner being in full simplicity only in four dimensions, whereas on a
three dimensional space, forced upon us from the beginning, they cast only
a very tangled projection.
In mechanics reformed in accordance with the world postulate, the dis-
turbing disharmony between Newtonian mechanics and the modern electro-
dynamics disappears by itself. In addition, I want to touch on the status
of the Newtonian law of attraction with respect to this postulate. I will
consider two point masses m, m1 , represented by their worldlines, and that
10
K. Schwazschild, Nachrichten der k. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttinger,
mathematisch-physikalische Klasse, 1903, S. 132; H. A. Lorentz, Enzyklopädie der math-
ematischen Wissenschaften, V, Art. 14, S. 199.
 53

m exerts a motive force vector on m1 exactly as in the case of electrons,

except that instead of ee1 +mm1 should be used. We can now specifically
consider the case when the acceleration vector of m is constantly zero, then
we may choose t in such a way that m is regarded as at rest, and assume that
only m1 move under the motive force vector which originatesqfrom m. If we
2
now modify this specified vector by adding the factor ṫ 1 = 1 vc2 , which
up to magnitudes of the order 1/c2 is equal to 1, it can be seen11 that for the
positions x1 , y1 , z1 of m1 and their progression in time, we arrive exactly at
Kepler’s laws, except that instead of the times t1 the proper times ⌧1 of m1
should be used. On the basis of this simple remark we can then see that the
proposed law of attraction associated with the new mechanics is no less well
suited to explain the astronomical observations than the Newtonian law of
attraction associated with the Newtonian mechanics.
The fundamental equations for the electromagnetic processes in ponder-
able bodies are entirely in accordance with the world postulate. Actually,
as I will show elsewhere, there is no need to abandon the derivation of these
equations which is based on ideas of the electron theory as taught by Lorentz.
The validity without exception of the world postulate is, I would think,
the true core of an electromagnetic world view which, as Lorentz found it
and Einstein further unveiled it, lies downright and completely exposed be-
fore us as clear as daylight. With the development of the mathematical
consequences of this postulate, sufficient findings of its experimental valid-
ity will be arrived at so that even those to whom it seems unsympathetic
or painful to abandon the prevailing views become reconciled through the
thought of a pre-stabilized harmony between mathematics and physics.

11
H. Minkowski, loc. cit., p. 110.