Abstract
ATWATER'S remarks1,2 on the relativistic rotating disk problem (Ehrenfest's paradox3) have elicited considerable response4–6 of a somewhat peripheral nature. Atwater concludes that recourse to experiment is highly desirable. Arzelies7, while questioning the existence of relativistic constraints, also agrees with this view. The purpose of this communication is to point out what one might expect to observe as a disk rotates and to develop the magnitude in a practical case.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atwater, H. A., Nature, 228, 272 (1970).
Atwater, H. A., Nature, 230, 197 (1971).
Ehrenfest, P., Phys. Z., 10, 918 (1909).
Suzuki, M., Nature, 230, 13 (1971).
Marsh, G. E., Nature, 230, 197 (1971).
Noonan, T. E., Nature, 230, 197 (1971).
Arzelies, H., Relativistic Kinematics, 236 (Pergamon, London, 1966).
Thomas, L. H., Nature, 514, 117 (1926).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
WEINSTEIN, D. Ehrenfest's Paradox. Nature 232, 548 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1038/232548a0
Received:
Revised:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/232548a0
This article is cited by
-
A new and simple deduction of the thomas precession
Il Nuovo Cimento B Series 11 (1977)
-
Kinematics of a “rigid” rotor
Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1974)
-
Thomas Precession and the Relativistic Disk
Nature Physical Science (1972)
-
Thomas precession and extended structures
Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1972)
-
On some recent papers regarding the Ehrenfest’s paradox
Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento Series 2 (1972)
