In a recent paper in this journal which was part of a panel discussion of Grünbaum's philosophy of science, M. G. Evans discusses the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis and related matters [2]. The purpose of this note is to clarify and correct some of the points in Evans' paper.

Many condensed matter systems are such that their collective excitations at low energies can be described by fields satisfying equations of motion formally indistinguishable from those of relativistic field theory. The finite speed of propagation of the disturbances in the effective fields (in the simplest models, the speed of sound) plays here the role of the speed of light in fundamental physics. However, these apparently relativistic fields are immersed in an external Newtonian world (the condensed matter system itself and the (...) laboratory can be considered Newtonian, since all the velocities involved are much smaller than the velocity of light) which provides a privileged coordinate system and therefore seems to destroy the possibility of having a perfectly defined relativistic emergent world. In this essay we ask ourselves the following question: In a homogeneous condensed matter medium, is there a way for internal observers, dealing exclusively with the low-energy collective phenomena, to detect their state of uniform motion with respect to the medium? By proposing a thought experiment based on the construction of a Michelson-Morley interferometer made of quasi-particles, we show that a real Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction takes place, so that internal observers are unable to find out anything about their ‘absolute’ state of motion. Therefore, we also show that an effective but perfectly defined relativistic world can emerge in a fishbowl world situated inside a Newtonian (laboratory) system. This leads us to reflect on the various levels of description in physics, in particular regarding the quest towards a theory of quantum gravity. (shrink)

One of the widespread confusions concerning the history of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment has to do with the initial explanation of this celebrated null result due independently to FitzGerald and Lorentz. In neither case was a strict, longitudinal length contraction hypothesis invoked, as is commonly supposed. Lorentz postulated, particularly in 1895, any one of a certain family of possible deformation effects for rigid bodies in motion, including purely transverse alteration, and expansion as well as contraction; (...) FitzGerald may well have had the same family in mind. A careful analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment (which reveals a number of serious inadequacies in many text-book treatments) indeed shows that strict contraction is not required. (shrink)

Summary A recurrent theme in the philosophical literature on the special theory of relativity is the question as to the reality of the Lorentz contraction. It is often suggested that there is a difference between the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction in the pre-relativistic ether theory and the Lorentz contraction from special relativity in the sense that the former is a real contraction of matter conditioned by dynamical laws, whereas the latter should be compared with (...) the apparent changes in the size of objects when the perspective of the observer changes. It is here shown, however, that the same laws of nature which are operative in the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction also condition the relativistic Lorentz contraction. The relevant distinction therefore is not between the reality of the two contractions. What is at issue is the difference in explanatory structure of the pre-relativistic theory on the one hand and the special theory of relativity on the other. In the course of the argument the question of the conventionality of simultaneity is also discussed. (shrink)

The Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis, proposed as an explanation of the Michelson-Morley result, fails to account for the Kennedy-Thorndike result. Hence, Grünbaum argues, the hypothesis has been falsified. However, the contraction hypothesis as formulated by Lorentz is false for the very fundamental reason that it entails a contradiction, namely, the consequence that light waves must have a variable velocity along what by definition is taken to be a rest length. Furthermore, the attempt to resolve this contradiction (...) by coupling the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction with the hypothesis that clock rates are a function of velocity, is open to a sound, methodological objection. The Michelson-Morley result is fully satisfied, provided only that the lengths of the interferometer arms, in the longitudinal and transverse positions, are thought to be related to one another in a certain ratio, and this ratio may be interpreted as a contraction in both arms. Since this twofold contraction hypothesis suffices to explain both the Michelson-Morley and the Kennedy-Thorndike results, and since it entails no contradiction, there is no need to correct both the length of rods and the rate of clocks. Therefore, the combined clock-rod hypothesis, and with it the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis, must be rejected. (shrink)

The first invariance principle, called “meaningfulness,” is germane to the common practice requiring that the form of a scientific law must not be altered by a change of the units of the measurement scales. By itself, meaningfulness does not put any constraint on the possible data. The second principle requires that the output variable is “order-invariant” with respect to any transformation (of one of the input variables) belonging to a particular family or class of such transformations which are characteristic of (...) the law. These principles are formulated as axioms of a theory. Taken together, meaningfulness and order-invariance axioms have strong consequences on the feasible theories. Three applications of our results are discussed in details, involving the Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction, Beer's law, and the Monomial laws, each of which is derived from three axioms implementing meaningfulness and order-invariance concepts. (An “initial condition” axiom is also used.) Not all scientific laws are order-invariant in the sense of this paper. An example is van der Waals' equation. (shrink)

This concise book introduces nonphysicists to the core philosophical issues surrounding the nature and structure of space and time, and is also an ideal resource for physicists interested in the conceptual foundations of space-time theory. Tim Maudlin's broad historical overview examines Aristotelian and Newtonian accounts of space and time, and traces how Galileo's conceptions of relativity and space-time led to Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. Maudlin explains special relativity using a geometrical approach, emphasizing intrinsic space-time structure rather than (...) coordinate systems or reference frames. He gives readers enough detail about special relativity to solve concrete physical problems while presenting general relativity in a more qualitative way, with an informative discussion of the geometrization of gravity, the bending of light, and black holes. Additional topics include the Twins Paradox, the physical aspects of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction, the constancy of the speed of light, time travel, the direction of time, and more.Introduces nonphysicists to the philosophical foundations of space-time theory Provides a broad historical overview, from Aristotle to Einstein Explains special relativity geometrically, emphasizing the intrinsic structure of space-time Covers the Twins Paradox, Galilean relativity, time travel, and more Requires only basic algebra and no formal knowledge of physics. (shrink)

Grunbaum has argued that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis is not ad hoc since the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment can be used to provide a test that is significantly different from that provided by the Michelson-Morley experiment. In the first part of the paper, I show that the differences claimed by Grunbaum to hold between these two experiments are not sufficient for establishing independent testability. A dilemma is developed: either the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, because of experimental realities, cannot test the uncontracted (...) Fresnel aether theory, or if experimental difficulties are ignored, the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment degenerates into a version of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The second part of the paper is a feasibility study of the prospects for defining experimental types according to aims of measurement and determination. This approach is applied to the contraction hypothesis, where it is suggested that the usual analysis of independent testability be modified. (shrink)

A theoretical device, which incorporates the functions of clock, rod, nonrotating platform, and accelerometer, and whose operation depends on the properties of light rays and free particles, is defined. The device, which we call a metrosphere, is simple enough that it can be introduced at the starting point of relativity theory and versatile enough that it can serve as an aid in the development and conceptualization of the theory. Relative to an inertial frame, a moving metrosphere undergoes a Lorentz- (...) class='Hi'>Fitzgerald contraction and the associated clock exhibits a Lorentz-Larmor rate retardation. From this fact and the assumption that there exists one inertial frame, it is possible to generate the kinematical results of special relativity. A metrosphere provides an observer with a local frame of reference, hence it is well adapted to the needs of general relativity, allows the equivalence principle to be introduced in a straightforward manner, and permits a smooth transition from special relativity to general relativity. (shrink)

A rigorous wave-theoretic approach to the Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiment is presented, with special emphasis on the Huygens' principle derivation of the laws of reflection by a moving mirror. A detailed discussion of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis (CH) is included. Several mistakes appearing in the standard textbook treatments of these issues are pointed out, and a number of related historical questions are considered.

When a theory is confronted with a problem such as a paradox, an empirical anomaly, or a vicious regress, one may change part of the theory to solve that problem. Sometimes the proposed solution is considered ad hoc. This paper gives a new definition of ‘ad hoc solution’ as used in both philosophy and science. I argue that a solution is ad hoc if it fails to live up to the explanatory requirements of a theory because the solution is not (...) backed by an explanation or because it does not diagnose the problem. Ad hoc solutions are thus magical: they solve a problem without providing insight. This definition helps to explain both why ad hoc solutions are bad and why there may be disagreement about cases. (shrink)

Bell’s 'Lorentzian Pedagogy' has been extolled as a constructive account of the relativistic contraction of moving rods. Bell claimed advantages for teaching relativity through the older approach of Lorentz, Fitzgerald and Larmor. However, he describes the differences between their absolutist approach and the relativistic one as philosophical, and claims that the facts of physics do not force us to choose between them. Bell’s interpretation of the physics of motion contraction, and therefore of constructivist as opposed to (...) principle approaches, is indeterminate. His flawed pedagogy never directly addresses the difference between Fitzgerald and Lorentz contractions. (shrink)

This book provides international perspectives on the law of copyright in relation to three core themes - copyright and developing countries; the government and copyright; and technology and the future of copyright. The third theme includes an examination of the extent to which technology will dictate the development of the law, and a re-examination of the role of copyright in fostering innovation and creativity. As a critique, one chapter discusses how certain rights can create or reinforce social inequality under copyright (...) royalty systems. Underlying these themes is the role the law of copyright has in encouraging or impeding human flourishing. (shrink)

George Francis FitzGerald is well known to have proposed in 1889, three years before Lorentz, the (physical) contraction of bodies moving in the hypothetical ether, as an “explanation” the null result of the Michelson and Morley experiment. Less known is his proposal of an ether-drift experiment based on an electrostatic system. A simple charged condenser suspended by a wire would be subject to a torque due to the earth’s motion. The experiment was done by his pupil Trouton, (...) with Noble, with null result. It was an important independent confirmation of the relativity principle, but it was substantially forgotten. It came back, under the form of a paradox, in the second half of the past century, usefully triggering an in-depth discussion on the electromagnetic energy and momentum flow in stationary systems, in which intuitively one thinks momentum should be zero, but it is not. The solution of the Trouton–Noble paradox, and similar ones, has led to a better understanding of the interplay between electromagnetic field and matter and to develop relevant examples for the university courses. (shrink)

This article is about the future of sociology, as transformations in the digital and biological sciences lay claim to the discipline’s jurisdictional hold over ‘the social’. Rather than analyse the specifics of these transformations, however, the focus of the article is on how a narrative of methodological crisis is sustained in sociology, and on how such a narrative conjures very particular disciplinary futures. Through a close reading of key texts, the article makes two claims: (1) that a surprisingly conventional urge (...) towards disciplinary reproduction often animates accounts of sociology’s crisis; (2) that, even more surprisingly, these same accounts are often haunted by a hidden metaphorical architecture centred on biology, vitality, vigour and life. The central gambit of the article is that, perhaps in spite of itself, this subterranean image of life actually hints at less reproductively conventional ways of understanding – and intervening in – sociology’s methodological ‘crisis’. Drawing, empirically, on the author’s recent work on urban stress and, theoretically, on Stefan Helmreich’s (2011, 2016) account of ‘limit biologies’, the articles ends with a call for a ‘limit sociology’ – a form of attention that could, similarly, expand rather than contract the present moment of transformation. At the heart of the article is a hope that thinking with such a limit may help sociologists to imagine a less deadening future than that on offer from a canonised discipline cathected by endless crisis-talk. (shrink)

It is argued that an unheralded moment marking the beginnings of relativity theory occurred in 1889, when G. F. FitzGerald, no doubt with the puzzling 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment fresh in mind, wrote to Heaviside about the possible effects of motion on inter-molecular forces in bodies. Emphasis is placed on the difference between FitzGerald's and Lorentz's independent justifications of the shape distortion effect involved. Finally, the importance of the their `constructive' approach to kinematics---stripped of any commitment to the (...) physicality of the ether--- will be defended, in the spirit of Pauli, Swann and Bell. (shrink)

E=mc 2 is found to be a special case ofE=σ ±1cn, where σ is any one of four susceptibilities, namely electric, magnetic, gravitational, and elastic. Letl be length,t time,Δt time dilation, andΔl a measure of Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. A particle is stated to be the manifestation of a collection of susceptibilities which arise when(Δl)/1=(Δt)/t. Then(ΔE)/E=5 (Δt)/2t=±(Δσ)/σ. Corresponding to susceptibility, special energy particles are postulated which exhibitSU(3) symmetry, Related to the susceptibilities are five new Heisenberg uncertainty relations. Three new (...) conservation laws for particles are proposed. (shrink)

The meaning of Lorentz contraction in special relativity and its connection with Bell’s spaceships parable is discussed. The motion of Bell’s spaceships is then compared with the accelerated motion of a rigid body. We have tried to write this in a simple form that could be used to correct students’ misconceptions due to conflicting earlier treatments.

In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird über die verschiedenen Aspekte der sogenannten FitzGerald-Lorentz-Kontraktion berichtet. Nach einem kurzen Abriß der Entwicklung der Ätherkonzeption wird eine Beschreibung des Michelson-Morley Versuchs gegeben und seine Rolle in der Entstehungsgeschichte der speziellen Relativitätstheorie diskutiert. Anschließend wird die Kontraktionshypothese vorgestellt und die Frage erörtert, ob die Kontraktion „wirklich“ oder nur „scheinbar“ ist. Einige Gedankenexperimente werden vorgestellt, die zeigen, daß die Kontraktion bewegter Körper kein bloßer Schein ist. Ferner wird die noch bei Einstein unklare Beantwortung nach (...) der Frage der Sichtbarkeit der Längenkontraktion durch die Analyse der Begriffe „Beobachten“ und „Sehen“ aufgehellt. Abschließend wird auf die Frage nach der Falsifizierbarkeit der Kontraktionshypothese eingegangen, die von Popper aufgeworfen wurde. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to show that the Lorentz contraction of a rod is possible only if the rod’s world path is a real four-dimensional object. This result demonstrates that special relativity does require reality at the microscopic level to be a four-dimensional world represented by Minkowski spacetime.

A new vectorial representation for the successive Lorentz transformations has recently been proved very convenient to achieve a straightforward treatment of the Thomas rotation effect. Such a representation rests on equivalent forms for the pure Lorentz transformation and SLT whose physical meaning escaped us. The present paper fills this gap in by showing that those equivalent forms could represent appropriate world lines, lines and planes of simultaneity. Those geometric elements are particularly convenient to build up two new graphical (...) representations for the SLT: the first rests on that equivalent form for the SLT, while the second takes the SLT as a PLT preceded or followed by a Thomas rotation and uses the equivalent form for the PLT. As an application, the SLT Lorentz contraction formulas are derived for the first time. The dependence of the SLTLC on the Thomas rotation is put in evidence. The SLTLC along directions transverse and parallel to the composite velocity is studied. Original SLT Minkowski diagrams are given for the first time. (shrink)

The relationship between Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity and Hendrik A. Lorentz’s ether theory is best understood in terms of competing interpretations of Lorentz invariance. In the 1890s, Lorentz proved and exploited the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell’s equations, the laws governing electromagnetic fields in the ether, with what he called the theorem of corresponding states. To account for the negative results of attempts to detect the earth’s motion through the ether, Lorentz, in effect, had (...) to assume that the laws governing the matter interacting with the fields are Lorentz invariant as well. This additional assumption can be seen as a generalization of the well-known contraction hypothesis. In Lorentz’s theory, it remained an unexplained coincidence that both the laws governing fields and the laws governing matter should be Lorentz invariant. In special relativity, by contrast, the Lorentz invariance of all physical laws directly reflects the Minkowski space-time structure posited by the theory. One can use this observation to produce a common-cause argument to show that the relativistic interpretation of Lorentz invariance is preferable to Lorentz’s interpretation. (shrink)

We present a mechanical model of a quasi-elastic body which reproduces Maxwell’s equations with charges and currents. Major criticism against mechanical models of electrodynamics is that any presence of charges in the known models appears to violate the continuity equation of the aether and it remains a mystery as to where the aether goes and whence it comes. We propose a solution to the mystery—in the present model the aether is always conserved. Interestingly it turns out that the charge velocity (...) coincides with the aether velocity. In other words, the charges appear to be part of the aether itself. We interpret the electric field as the flux of the aether and the magnetic field as the torque per unit volume. In addition we show that the model is consistent with the theory of relativity, provided that we use Lorentz–Poincare interpretation of relativity theory. We make a statistical-mechanical interpretation of the Lorentz transformations. It turns out that the length of a body is contracted by the electromagnetic field which the molecules of this same body produce. This self-interaction causes also delay of all the processes and clock-dilation results. We prove this by investigating the probability distribution for a gas of self-interacting particles. We can easily extend this analysis even to elementary particles. (shrink)

In 1909, Ehrenfest published a note in the Physikalische Zeitschrift showing that a Born rigid cylinder could not be set into rotation without stresses, as elements of the circumference would be contracted but not the radius. Ignatowski and Varićak challenged Ehrenfest’s result in the same journal, arguing that the stresses would emerge if length contraction were a real dynamical effect, as in Lorentz’s theory. However, no stresses are expected to arise, according to Einstein’s theory, where length contraction (...) is only an apparent effect due to an arbitrary choice of clock synchronization. Ehrenfest and Einstein considered this line of reasoning dangerously misleading and took a public stance in the Physikalische Zeitschrift, countering that relativistic length contraction is both apparent and real. It is apparent since it disappears for the comoving observer, but it is also real since it can be experimentally verified. By drawing on his lesser-known private correspondence with Varićak, this paper shows how Einstein used the Ehrenfest paradox as a tool for an ‘Einsteinian pedagogy’. Einstein’s argumentative stance is contrasted with Bell’s use of the Dewan-Beran thread-between-spaceships paradox to advocate for a ‘Lorentzian pedagogy’. The paper concludes that the disagreement between the two ways of ‘teaching special relativity’ stems from divergent interpretations of philosophical categories such as ‘reality’ and ‘appearance’. (shrink)

Ether-drift experiments using opposed masers are examined from the point of view that, if molecules contain indigenous radiation, a maser beam might be idealized as a stream of light clocks. According to a recently developed theory of the light clock, in which relativistic Doppler frequencies are developed from a classical ether model augmented by the Fitzgerald contraction, no effect from ether drift is expected, so that the null result of the experiments is in accord with this version of (...) the ether theory. (shrink)

During a transverse acceleration of a light clock from rest, the mirrors must be tilted so as to retain the light pulse. The mirrors therefore have a normal velocity which increases the frequency of the pulse at each reflection. If a mirror is annihilated, the frequency of the escaping pulse, as a result of many reflections, is that of the relativistic Doppler effect. This holds for any acceleration, if the Fitzgerald contraction is assumed, thereby furnishing a new mechanism (...) for such frequencies. The traditional mechanism, in which the source (subject to the time dilation) generates a pulse modulated by the source motion, is therefore not a unique explanation of the Doppler effect. The new mechanism permits the speculation that radiation preexists in atomic sources, rather than being generated at the instant of release. (shrink)

By deriving the Lorentz transformation from the absolute speed of light, Einstein demonstrated the relativistic variability of space and time, enabling him to explain length contraction and time dilation without recourse to a "luminiferous ether" or preferred frame of reference. He also showed that clocks synchronized at a distance via light signals are not synchronized in a frame of reference differing from that of the clocks. However, by mislabeling the relativity of synchrony the "relativity of simultaneity," Einstein implied (...) that this effect concerns an actual difference in times from one frame to another rather than merely a failure of clock synchronization across frames. As a theory of length contraction and time dilation on the basis of relative motion in the context of the absolute speed of light, special relativity is the definitive interpretation of the Lorentz transformation and the correct explanation of relativistic phenomena. The relativity of simultaneity, as I demonstrate, plays no role in this explanation but instead provides apparent justification for a view of time in which the present moment is frame-dependent. In contrast to its legitimate application, special relativity fails as a theory of time on the basis of the relativity of simultaneity. (shrink)

The Lorentz transformation (LT) is explained by changes occurring in the wave characteristics of matter as it changes inertial frame. This explanation is akin to that favoured by Lorentz, but informed by later insights, due primarily to de Broglie, regarding the underlying unity of matter and radiation. To show the nature of these changes, a massive particle is modelled as a standing wave in three dimensions. As the particle moves, the standing wave becomes a travelling wave having two (...) factors. One is a carrier wave displaying the dilated frequency and contracted ellipsoidal form described by the LT, while the other (identified as the de Broglie wave) is a modulation defining the dephasing of the carrier wave (and thus the failure of simultaneity) in the direction of travel. The superluminality of the de Broglie wave is thus explained, as are several other mysterious features of the optical behaviour of matter, including the physical meaning of the Schrödinger equation and the relevance to scattering processes of the de Broglie wave vector. Consideration is given to what this Lorentzian approach to relativity might mean for the possible existence of a preferred frame and the origin of the observed Minkowski metric. (shrink)

We try to find a possible origin of the holographic principle in the Lorentz-covariant Yang’s quantized space-time algebra (YSTA). YSTA, which is intrinsically equipped with short- and long-scale parameters, λ and R, gives a finite number of spatial degrees of freedom for any bounded spatial region, providing a basis for divergence-free quantum field theory. Furthermore, it gives a definite kinematical reduction of spatial degrees of freedom, compared with the ordinary lattice space. On account of the latter fact, we find (...) a certain kind of kinematical holographic relation in YSTA, which may be regarded as a primordial form of the holographic principle suggested so far in the framework of the present quantum theory that appears now in the contraction limit of YSTA, λ→0 and R→∞. (shrink)

A [1983] review, 'Relativity before Einstein' made no mention of the work of Joseph Larmor, whose early derivation of the Lorentz transformation seems to be less well known than those of Lorentz and Poincare. In 1897, Larmor, starting from a first-order transformation similar to Lorentz's first order version, presented the correct form of what is now known as the Lorentz transformation. In his presentation of the theory in 1900 Larmor saw the time dilation effect as a (...) consequence of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. It was Lorentz who, in 1895, introduced the notion of the relativity of simultaneity (local time), without the time dilation effect. Poincare in 1900 discussed how Lorentz's local time would arise from the procedure of synchronizing moving clocks by exchanging light signals assumed to travel at the same speed in either direction. Lorentz presented the correct version of the transformation in 1899, and discussed the variation of mass with velocity arising from it. In 1902 Lorentz was aware of Larmor's 1897 work but apparently missed its significance. Nevertheless, the credit for the first presentation of the Lorentz transformation including the crucial time dilation belongs to Larmor. (shrink)

This book pieces together the jigsaw puzzle of Einstein's journey to discovering the special theory of relativity. Between 1902 and 1905, Einstein sat in the Patent Office and may have made calculations on old pieces of paper that were once patent drafts. One can imagine Einstein trying to hide from his boss, writing notes on small sheets of paper, and, according to reports, seeing to it that the small sheets of paper on which he was writing would vanish into his (...) desk-drawer as soon as he heard footsteps approaching his door. He probably discarded many pieces of papers and calculations and flung them in the waste paper basket in the Patent Office. The end result was that Einstein published nothing regarding the special theory of relativity prior to 1905. For many years before 1905, he had been intensely concerned with the topic; in fact, he was busily working on the problem for seven or eight years prior to 1905. Unfortunately, there are no surviving notebooks and manuscripts, no notes and papers or other primary sources from this critical period to provide any information about the crucial steps that led Einstein to his great discovery. In May 1905, Henri Poincare sent three letters to Hendrik Lorentz at the same time that Einstein wrote his famous May 1905 letter to Conrad Habicht, promising him four works, of which the fourth one, Relativity, was a rough draft at that point. In the May 1905 letters to Lorentz, Poincare presented the basic equations of his 1905 "Dynamics of the Electron", meaning that, at this point, Poincare and Einstein both had drafts of papers relating to the principle of relativity. The book discusses Einstein's and Poincare's creativity and the process by which their ideas developed. The book also explores the misunderstandings and paradoxes apparent in the theory of relativity, and unravels the subtleties and creativity of Einstein. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to show how the degree of experimental validity of scientific procedures is crucially involved in determining two typical pragmatic modes in science, namely, the preservation of useful procedures and the disposal of useless ideas. The term 'pragmatic' will here be used following Schurz's characterisation of being internally pragmatic, as referring to that which proves useful for scientific or epistemic goals. The first part of the paper consists in a characterisation of the notion of experimental (...) validity. The second part is focused on several historical examples illustrating how the above pragmatic modes relate to the question of experimental validity. The Michelson-Morley experiment is presented as a case of a highly valid and useful experiment preserved through the development of different theories (like, on the one hand, the ether theory, upheld by Fitzgerald and Lorentz, and, on the other hand, Einstein's special theory of relativity). The concept of caloric will be discussed as an example of an idea that was discarded once it became useless, after heat was understood as a form of energy within the new frame provided by the kinetic theory of heat towards the middle of the 19th century. (shrink)

In his book, Physical Relativity, Harvey Brown challenges the orthodox view that special relativity is preferable to those parts of Lorentz's classical ether theory it replaced because it revealed various phenomena that were given a dynamical explanation in Lorentz's theory to be purely kinematical. I want to defend this orthodoxy. The phenomena most commonly discussed in this context in the philosophical literature are length contraction and time dilation. I consider three other phenomena of this kind that played (...) a role in the early reception of special relativity in the physics literature: the Fresnel drag effect in the Fizeau experiment, the velocity dependence of electron mass in beta-ray deflection experiments by Kaufmann and others, and the delicately balanced torques on a moving charged capacitor in the Trouton-Noble experiment. I offer historical sketches of how Lorentz's dynamical explanations of these phenomena came to be replaced by their now standard kinematical explanations. I then take up the philosophical challenge posed by the work of Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley and clarify how those kinematical explanations work. (shrink)

In the energy–momentum density expressions for a relativistic perfect fluid with a bulk motion, one comes across a couple of pressure-dependent terms, which though well known, are to an extent, lacking in their conceptual basis and the ensuing physical interpretation. In the expression for the energy density, the rest mass density along with the kinetic energy density of the fluid constituents due to their random motion, which contributes to the pressure as well, are already included. However, in a fluid with (...) a bulk motion, there are, in addition, a couple of explicit, pressure-dependent terms in the energy–momentum density, whose presence to an extent, is shrouded in mystery, especially from a physical perspective. We show here that one such pressure-dependent term appearing in the energy density, represents the work done by the fluid pressure against the Lorentz contraction during transition from the rest frame of the fluid to another frame in which the fluid has a bulk motion. This applies equally to the electromagnetic energy density of electrically charged systems in motion and explains in a natural manner an apparently paradoxical result that the field energy of a charged capacitor system decreases with an increase in the system velocity. The momentum density includes another pressure-dependent term, that represents an energy flow across the system, due to the opposite signs of work being done by pressure on two opposite sides of the moving fluid. From Maxwell’s stress tensor we demonstrate that in the expression for electromagnetic momentum of an electric charged particle, it is the presence of a similar pressure term, arising from electrical self-repulsion forces in the charged sphere, that yields a natural solution for the notorious, more than a century old but thought by many as still unresolved, 4/3 problem in the electromagnetic mass. (shrink)

The Reichenbach-Grunbaum thesis of the conventionality of simultaneity is clarified and defended by developing the consequences of the Special Theory when assumptions are not made concerning the one-way speed of light. It is first shown that the conventionality of simultaneity leads immediately to the conventionality of all relative speeds. From this result, the general-length-contraction and time-dilation relations are then derived. Next, the place of time-dilation and length-contraction effects within the Special Theory is examined in the light of the (...) conventionality thesis. The slow-transport method of synchrony is then examined in the light of these results and is shown not to provide an adequate method of uniquely determining the one-way speed of light. Finally, the general ε -Lorentz transformations for events along the x-axis are derived from three principles: the round-trip light principle, the principle of equal passage times, and the linearity principle. These principles are shown to be independent of one-way velocity assumptions, and thus may form the basis of a Special Theory of Relativity without simultaneity assumptions. (shrink)

In recent work, David Chalmers argues that “Edenic shapes”—roughly, the shape properties phenomenally presented in spatial experience—are not instantiated in our world. His reasons come largely from the theory of Special Relativity. Although Edenic shapes might have been instantiated in a classical Newtonian world, he maintains that they could not be instantiated in a relativistic world like our own. In this essay, I defend realism about Edenic shape, the thesis that Edenic shapes are instantiated in our world, against Chalmers’s challenge (...) from Special Relativity. I begin by clarifying the notion of an Edenic shape by reference to Chalmers’s notion of the “Edenic” content of perceptual experience. I then reconstruct Chalmers’s argument that Edenic shapes could not be instantiated in a relativistic world. His reasoning proceeds from two assumptions. The first is that the only shape properties instantiated in a relativistic world are those which somehow involve relations to frames of reference. This is thought to follow from the phenomenon of Lorentz contraction, a consequence of Special Relativity. The second assumption is that Edenic shapes do not involve relations to frames of reference. One reason to accept the second assumption is that it seems that Edenic shapes could be instantiated in a classical Newtonian world, where the notion of a frame-relative shape has no meaningful application. I then proceed to defend RES against Chalmers’s argument by arguing that Special Relativity, properly understood, provides no support for Chalmers’s first assumption. More generally, I argue, by way of a careful analysis of the geometric structure of Minkowski space–time and Galilean space–time Newtonian physics), that Edenic shapes are no less at home in a relativistic world than in a classical Newtonian world. (shrink)

The disk that rotates in an inertial frame in special relativity has long been analysed by assuming a Lorentz contraction of its peripheral elements in that frame, which has produced widely varying views in the literature. We show that this assumption is unnecessary for a disk that corresponds to the simplest form of rotation in special relativity. After constructing such a disk and showing that observers at rest on it do not constitute a true rotating frame, we choose (...) a “master” observer and calculate a set of disk coordinates and spacetime metric pertinent to that observer. We use this formalism to resolve the “circular twin paradox”, then calculate the speed of light sent around the periphery as measured by the master observer, to show that this speed is a function of sent-direction and disk angle traversed. This result is consistent with the Sagnac Effect, but constitutes a finer analysis of that effect, which is normally expressed using an average speed for a full trip of the periphery. We also use the formalism to give a resolution of “Selleri’s paradox”. (shrink)

The two center time dependent Dirac equation, for an electron in the external field of two colliding ultrarelativistic heavy ions is considered. In the ultrarelativistic limit, the ions are practically moving at the speed of light and the electromagnetic fields of the ions are confined to the light fronts by the extreme Lorentz contraction and by the choice of gauge, designed to remove the long-range Coulomb effects. An exact solution to the ultrarelativistic limit of the two-center Dirac equation (...) is found by using light-front variables and a light-fronts representation. Previously unexplained experimental results obtained at CERN's SPS are explained in this way and predictions are made as to where one should look, in momentum space, and in space-time, if one wants to study and observe non-perturbative electromagnetic pair-production effects in extremely relativistic heavy-ion collisions. (shrink)

The Reichenbach-Grunbaum thesis of the conventionality of simultaneity is clarified and defended by developing the consequences of the Special Theory when assumptions are not made concerning the one-way speed of light. It is first shown that the conventionality of simultaneity leads immediately to the conventionality of all relative speeds. From this result, the general-length-contraction and time-dilation relations are then derived. Next, the place of time-dilation and length-contraction effects within the Special Theory is examined in the light of the (...) conventionality thesis. The slow-transport method of synchrony is then examined in the light of these results and is shown not to provide an adequate method of uniquely determining the one-way speed of light. Finally, the general ε -Lorentz transformations for events along the x-axis are derived from three principles: the round-trip light principle, the principle of equal passage times, and the linearity principle. These principles are shown to be independent of one-way velocity assumptions, and thus may form the basis of a Special Theory of Relativity without distant simultaneity assumptions. (shrink)