From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
[Vol. XXXV.


By Richard C. Tolman.

THE Einstein theory of relativity assumes as its second postulate, that the velocity of light is independent of the relative motion of the source of light and the observer. It has been suggested in a number of places that all the apparent paradoxes of the Einstein theory might be avoided and at the same time the principle of the relativity of motion retained, if an alternative postulate were true that the velocity of light and the velocity of the source are additive. Relativity theories based on such a postulate may well be called emission theories.

All emission theories agree in assuming that light from a moving source has a velocity equal to the vector sum of the velocity of light from a stationary source and the velocity of the source itself at the instant of emission. Thus a source in uniform motion would always remain at the center of the spherical disturbances which it emits, these disturbances moving relative to the source itself with the same velocity c as from a stationary source.[1] Emission theories differ, however, in their assumptions as to the velocity of light after its reflection from a mirror.

If an emission theory is accepted, it would seem most natural to assume that the excited portion of a reflecting mirror acts as a new source of light and that reflected light has the same velocity c with respect to the mirror as has original light with respect to its source. The possibility of such an assumption has already been suggested by the writer[2] and apparently disproved by an experiment on the velocity of light from the approaching and receding limbs of the sun. In the present article additional evidence disproving the possibility of the assumption will be presented.

According to an emission theory suggested by Stewart[3] light reflected from a mirror acquires a component of velocity equal to the velocity of the mirror image of the original source. Evidence disproving the possibility of such a principle will also be presented in this article.

  1. Optical theories in which the velocity of light is assumed to change during the path are not considered in this article. It might be very difficult to test theories in which the velocity of light is assumed to change on passing through narrow slits or near large masses in motion, or to suffer permanent change in velocity on passing through a lense.
  2. Tolman, Phys. Rev., 31. 26 (1910).
  3. Stewart, Phys. Rev., 32, 418 (1911).