2
$\begingroup$

I was going through the translation of Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"(See https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/175). In deriving the stellar aberration formula, the text says "If we call the angle between the wave-normal (direction of the ray) in the moving system and the connecting line “source-observer” $\phi '$, the equation for $\phi '$ assumes the form: $$cos\phi'=\frac{cos\phi-v/c}{1-cos\phi .v/c}$$ However, if we look at the original German version (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004), it says, "Nennt man $\phi'$ den Winkel zwischen Wellennormale (Strahlrichtung) im bewegten System und der Verbindungslinie ,,Lichtquelle-Beobachter", so nimmt die Gleichung fur $a'$ die Form an:" $$cos\phi'=\frac{cos\phi-\frac{v}{V}}{1-\frac{v}{V} cos\phi}$$ Here Einstein has replaced $a'$, his original direction cosine with $cos\phi'$ (See Annalen der Physik, Volume 322, Issue 10, Page 911). (Note: $V$ is the velocity of light in old notation).

As far as my understanding goes, $a'$ or equivalently $cos\phi'$ is the cosine of the angle measured from the $X$-axis of the moving coordinate system for the ray direction and NOT "the angle between the wave normal (beam direction) in the moving system and the connecting line “light source” observer".

Can somebody please help me understand this switch?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

In the annotated German original (see https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/333) we find next to the aberration formula the note 29, which says:

In a reprint copy (see the preceding note), Einstein canceled the phrase "Verbindungslinie "Lichtquelle-Beobachter" " and interlineated "Bewegungsrichtung."

The interlineated expression "Bewegungsrichtung" means "direction of motion". Thus Einstein himself corrected his original text by replacing the phrase "connecting line 'source-observer'" by the expression "direction of motion".

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I am not too sure whether the change you mentioned fixes the problem. If we use this fix, the angle corresponding to $-v/c$ goes into the second quadrant for the $\phi=\pi/2$ case; and the resulting angle for the ray direction in the moving frame is not correct. See Bradley's original paper on stellar aberration, Philosophical Transactions 35 (406), no. 1727: 637–61. $\endgroup$
    – JKrsl
    Commented Feb 5 at 22:49
  • $\begingroup$ please see my comment above; sorry I forgot to address it. $\endgroup$
    – JKrsl
    Commented Feb 5 at 22:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.