The origins of length contraction: I. The FitzGerald-Lorentz deformation hypothesis

American Journal of Physics

Volumn 69, Issue 10, 2001, Pages 1044-1054

  Brown, Harvey R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035639052     PISSN: 00029505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1119/1.1379733     Document Type: Article

References (120)

1. Albert Einstein, "Zur Electrodynamik bewegter Körper," Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 17, 891-921 (1905). A recent English translation can be found in John Stachel (ed.), Einstein's Miraculous Year; Five Papers that Changed the Face of Physics (Princeton U.P., Princeton, NJ, 1998), pp. 123-160.
2. Albert Einstein, "Zur Electrodynamik bewegter Körper," Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 17, 891-921 (1905). A recent English translation can be found in John Stachel (ed.), Einstein's Miraculous Year; Five Papers that Changed the Face of Physics (Princeton U.P., Princeton, NJ, 1998), pp. 123-160.
3. For a clear discussion of these speeds and their distinct (nonrelativistic) transformation properties, see C. Miller, The Theory of Relativity (Oxford U.P., Delhi, 1972), Sec. 1.6.
4. See Albert A Michelson, "The Relative Motion of Earth and Ether," Am. J. Sci. 3rd Ser., 22, 120-129 (1881) and Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley, "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether," Am. J. Sci., 3rd ser. 34, 333-345 (1887). For discussion of the historical background to these experiments, see R. S. Shankland, "Michelson-Morley experiment," Am. J. Phys. 32, 16-35 (1964) and particularly L. S. Swenson, The Ethereal Ether, A History of the Michelson-Morley-Miller Aether-Drift Experiments 1880-1930 (Univ. Texas, Austin, 1972). A more recent account of the 1881 experiment is given in Barbara Haubold, Hans Joachim Haubold, and Lewis Pyensen, "Michelson's first ether-drift experiment in Berlin and Potsdam," in The Michelson Era in American Science 1870-1930, edited by Stanley Goldberg and Roger H. Stuewer (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1988), pp. 42-54. A modern version of the MM experiment using a microwave cavity is found in A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, "Improved laser test of the isotropy of space," Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979). (Thanks go to Claus Lämmerzahl for this reference.)
5. See Albert A Michelson, "The Relative Motion of Earth and Ether," Am. J. Sci. 3rd Ser., 22, 120-129 (1881) and Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley, "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether," Am. J. Sci., 3rd ser. 34, 333-345 (1887). For discussion of the historical background to these experiments, see R. S. Shankland, "Michelson-Morley experiment," Am. J. Phys. 32, 16-35 (1964) and particularly L. S. Swenson, The Ethereal Ether, A History of the Michelson-Morley-Miller Aether-Drift Experiments 1880-1930 (Univ. Texas, Austin, 1972). A more recent account of the 1881 experiment is given in Barbara Haubold, Hans Joachim Haubold, and Lewis Pyensen, "Michelson's first ether-drift experiment in Berlin and Potsdam," in The Michelson Era in American Science 1870-1930, edited by Stanley Goldberg and Roger H. Stuewer (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1988), pp. 42-54. A modern version of the MM experiment using a microwave cavity is found in A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, "Improved laser test of the isotropy of space," Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979). (Thanks go to Claus Lämmerzahl for this reference.)
6. See Albert A Michelson, "The Relative Motion of Earth and Ether," Am. J. Sci. 3rd Ser., 22, 120-129 (1881) and Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley, "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether," Am. J. Sci., 3rd ser. 34, 333-345 (1887). For discussion of the historical background to these experiments, see R. S. Shankland, "Michelson-Morley experiment," Am. J. Phys. 32, 16-35 (1964) and particularly L. S. Swenson, The Ethereal Ether, A History of the Michelson-Morley-Miller Aether-Drift Experiments 1880-1930 (Univ. Texas, Austin, 1972). A more recent account of the 1881 experiment is given in Barbara Haubold, Hans Joachim Haubold, and Lewis Pyensen, "Michelson's first ether-drift experiment in Berlin and Potsdam," in The Michelson Era in American Science 1870-1930, edited by Stanley Goldberg and Roger H. Stuewer (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1988), pp. 42-54. A modern version of the MM experiment using a microwave cavity is found in A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, "Improved laser test of the isotropy of space," Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979). (Thanks go to Claus Lämmerzahl for this reference.)
7. See Albert A Michelson, "The Relative Motion of Earth and Ether," Am. J. Sci. 3rd Ser., 22, 120-129 (1881) and Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley, "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether," Am. J. Sci., 3rd ser. 34, 333-345 (1887). For discussion of the historical background to these experiments, see R. S. Shankland, "Michelson-Morley experiment," Am. J. Phys. 32, 16-35 (1964) and particularly L. S. Swenson, The Ethereal Ether, A History of the Michelson-Morley-Miller Aether-Drift Experiments 1880-1930 (Univ. Texas, Austin, 1972). A more recent account of the 1881 experiment is given in Barbara Haubold, Hans Joachim Haubold, and Lewis Pyensen, "Michelson's first ether-drift experiment in Berlin and Potsdam," in The Michelson Era in American Science 1870-1930, edited by Stanley Goldberg and Roger H. Stuewer (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1988), pp. 42-54. A modern version of the MM experiment using a microwave cavity is found in A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, "Improved laser test of the isotropy of space," Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979). (Thanks go to Claus Lämmerzahl for this reference.)
8. See Albert A Michelson, "The Relative Motion of Earth and Ether," Am. J. Sci. 3rd Ser., 22, 120-129 (1881) and Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley, "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether," Am. J. Sci., 3rd ser. 34, 333-345 (1887). For discussion of the historical background to these experiments, see R. S. Shankland, "Michelson-Morley experiment," Am. J. Phys. 32, 16-35 (1964) and particularly L. S. Swenson, The Ethereal Ether, A History of the Michelson-Morley-Miller Aether-Drift Experiments 1880-1930 (Univ. Texas, Austin, 1972). A more recent account of the 1881 experiment is given in Barbara Haubold, Hans Joachim Haubold, and Lewis Pyensen, "Michelson's first ether-drift experiment in Berlin and Potsdam," in The Michelson Era in American Science 1870-1930, edited by Stanley Goldberg and Roger H. Stuewer (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1988), pp. 42-54. A modern version of the MM experiment using a microwave cavity is found in A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, "Improved laser test of the isotropy of space," Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979). (Thanks go to Claus Lämmerzahl for this reference.)
9. See Albert A Michelson, "The Relative Motion of Earth and Ether," Am. J. Sci. 3rd Ser., 22, 120-129 (1881) and Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley, "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether," Am. J. Sci., 3rd ser. 34, 333-345 (1887). For discussion of the historical background to these experiments, see R. S. Shankland, "Michelson-Morley experiment," Am. J. Phys. 32, 16-35 (1964) and particularly L. S. Swenson, The Ethereal Ether, A History of the Michelson-Morley-Miller Aether-Drift Experiments 1880-1930 (Univ. Texas, Austin, 1972). A more recent account of the 1881 experiment is given in Barbara Haubold, Hans Joachim Haubold, and Lewis Pyensen, "Michelson's first ether-drift experiment in Berlin and Potsdam," in The Michelson Era in American Science 1870-1930, edited by Stanley Goldberg and Roger H. Stuewer (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1988), pp. 42-54. A modern version of the MM experiment using a microwave cavity is found in A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, "Improved laser test of the isotropy of space," Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979). (Thanks go to Claus Lämmerzahl for this reference.)
10. A recent study of the history of the Fresnel drag coefficient is found in K. M. Pedersen, "Water-Filled Telescopes and the Pre-History of Fresnel's Ether Dragging," Arch. Hist. Exact. Sci. 54, 499-564 (2000). An excellent treatment of the role of the coefficient in explaining the null first-order ether wind results is given by Michel Janssen and John Stachel, "The Optics and Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," to appear in Stoia della Scienza, Vol. 7, edited by J. Buchwald (Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2002; managing editor S. Petruccioli). See also Andrew Warwick, "On the role of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis in the development of Joseph Larmor's electronic theory of matter," Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 43, 29-91 (1991).
11. A recent study of the history of the Fresnel drag coefficient is found in K. M. Pedersen, "Water-Filled Telescopes and the Pre-History of Fresnel's Ether Dragging," Arch. Hist. Exact. Sci. 54, 499-564 (2000). An excellent treatment of the role of the coefficient in explaining the null first-order ether wind results is given by Michel Janssen and John Stachel, "The Optics and Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," to appear in Stoia della Scienza, Vol. 7, edited by J. Buchwald (Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2002; managing editor S. Petruccioli). See also Andrew Warwick, "On the role of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis in the development of Joseph Larmor's electronic theory of matter," Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 43, 29-91 (1991).
12. A recent study of the history of the Fresnel drag coefficient is found in K. M. Pedersen, "Water-Filled Telescopes and the Pre-History of Fresnel's Ether Dragging," Arch. Hist. Exact. Sci. 54, 499-564 (2000). An excellent treatment of the role of the coefficient in explaining the null first-order ether wind results is given by Michel Janssen and John Stachel, "The Optics and Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," to appear in Stoia della Scienza, Vol. 7, edited by J. Buchwald (Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2002; managing editor S. Petruccioli). See also Andrew Warwick, "On the role of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis in the development of Joseph Larmor's electronic theory of matter," Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 43, 29-91 (1991).
13. Derivations of the equations (1) and (2) for quantities referring to, as in our account, the ether rest frame, are found, for example in Arnold Sommerfeld, Optics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. IV (Academic, New York, 1954). Sec. 14, and Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity. Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution (Clarendon, Oxford, 1984), pp. 450-451.
14. Derivations of the equations (1) and (2) for quantities referring to, as in our account, the ether rest frame, are found, for example in Arnold Sommerfeld, Optics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. IV (Academic, New York, 1954). Sec. 14, and Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity. Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution (Clarendon, Oxford, 1984), pp. 450-451.
15. Feynman's treatment of the MM experiment gives the impression that the purpose of the rotation is to render inconsequential the fact that arms A and B cannot have exactly the same length. [See R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1963), Sec. 15-3.] Now it is true that the difference in the delay times given by (3) and (4) will be largely unaffected whether the arm lengths are exactly the same or very slightly different (see Sommerfeld op. cit. Ref. 5 above, p. 78, footnote 1). But the more significant reason for the rotation is that it is only the fringe shift that provides, in principle, any evidence of the ether wind, as hopefully will become apparent.
16. Feynman's treatment of the MM experiment gives the impression that the purpose of the rotation is to render inconsequential the fact that arms A and B cannot have exactly the same length. [See R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1963), Sec. 15-3.] Now it is true that the difference in the delay times given by (3) and (4) will be largely unaffected whether the arm lengths are exactly the same or very slightly different (see Sommerfeld op. cit. Ref. 5 above, p. 78, footnote 1). But the more significant reason for the rotation is that it is only the fringe shift that provides, in principle, any evidence of the ether wind, as hopefully will become apparent.
17. V. S. Soni, "Michelson-Morley analysis," Am. J. Phys. 57, 1149-1150 (1989).
18. B/c.
19. See the second term in (7′) in Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), p. 891, which has been rearranged.
20. Equation (8) follows from Eqs. (7′) and (7″) in Ref. 9.
21. These authors (op. cit. Ref. 8) actually calculated, pp. 891-894, the exact expressions for the pre-and postrotation delay times in the more general case where initially the arm A makes an arbitrary angle with the direction of the ether wind.
22. See. e.g., Sommerfeld (op. cit. Ref. 5), and Hendrik A. Lorentz, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3 (MacMillan and Co., London, 1931), p. 204.
23. See. e.g., Sommerfeld (op. cit. Ref. 5), and Hendrik A. Lorentz, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3 (MacMillan and Co., London, 1931), p. 204.
24. See A. P. French, Special Relativity (Van Nostrand Reinhold, UK, Wokingham, 1984), p. 54, for a clear indication of this.
25. The claim, without proof, is found in Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), footnote 3. The basis of the claim was kindly explained by Marco Mamone Capria in private correspondence.
26. B′ = L′. In fact these authors want to show that under these conditions the delay time A itself vanishes. But it is easy to check in the case of the more general deformation associated with (12) that (i) the angle of tilt of the beam splitter is the same, and (ii) even when the lengths of the arms of the interferometer are not the same relative to the lab frame S′, the fringe shift (6) - understood in terms of (3) and (4) - vanishes, whatever the value of the time dilation factor.
27. Robert Mills, Space, Time and Quanta: An Introduction to Contemporary Physics (Freeman, New York, 1994).
28. See, for example, Møller (op. cit. Ref. 2), p. 27; H. Muirhead, The Special Theory of Relativity (Macmillan, London, 1973), pp. 10-11; French (op. cit. Ref. 14), pp. 54-56, 63-64.
29. See, for example, Møller (op. cit. Ref. 2), p. 27; H. Muirhead, The Special Theory of Relativity (Macmillan, London, 1973), pp. 10-11; French (op. cit. Ref. 14), pp. 54-56, 63-64.
30. See, for example, Møller (op. cit. Ref. 2), p. 27; H. Muirhead, The Special Theory of Relativity (Macmillan, London, 1973), pp. 10-11; French (op. cit. Ref. 14), pp. 54-56, 63-64.
31. It seems that the same conclusion is found in H. Melchor, "Michelson's Ether-Drift Experiments and their Correct Equations," in Goldberg and Steuwer (op. cit. Ref. 3), pp. 96-99.
32. Since each arm of the interferometer changes, according to the argument, its rest length under rotation, it follows that there is a violation of spatial isotropy in the laboratory frame S′, contrary to the relativity principle taken in conjunction with the assumption of spatial isotropy relative to S. Furthermore, the contraction is selective: it cannot hold for rigid rulers attached to the stone slab in the experiment, since otherwise it would lead to strictly no discernible difference between the lengths of the two arms of the interferometer relative to the laboratory frame S′, contrary to assumption. (It is noteworthy that Møller (op. cit. Ref. 2, p. 28 ) recognizes that the contraction relative to S′ cannot be detected, after having used it on p. 27 to account for the null result!)
33. It has recently been shown, however, that a very contrived model of electrodynamics involving anistropic light propagation could in principle be consistent with MM-type experiments, when the orientation dependence of the lengths of rigid bodies used in the experiments - itself a prediction of the model - is taken into account. See Claus Lämmerzahl and Mark P. Haugan, "On the interpretation of Michelson-Morley experiments," Phys. Lett. A 282, 223-229 (2001); e-print gr-qc/0103052.
34. It will be seen in a subsequent paper that a variant of the MM experiment proposed by Liénard in 1898 would constrain the dilation factor, as Lorentz realized in 1899. (See Michel Janssen, "A Comparison between Lorentz's Ether Theory and Special Relativity in the Light of the Experiments of Trouton and Noble," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1995, pp. 187-188.)
35. Harvey R. Brown and Adolfo Maia, Jr., "Light-speed constancy versus light-speed invariance in the derivation of relativistic kinematics," Br. J. Philos. Sci. 43, 381-407 (1993); H. P. Robertson, "Postulate versus observation in the special theory of relativity," Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 378-382 (1949).
36. Harvey R. Brown and Adolfo Maia, Jr., "Light-speed constancy versus light-speed invariance in the derivation of relativistic kinematics," Br. J. Philos. Sci. 43, 381-407 (1993); H. P. Robertson, "Postulate versus observation in the special theory of relativity," Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 378-382 (1949).
37. Henri Poincaré, "Sur la dynamique d'électron," Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo 21, 129-175 (1906); the paper was submitted in July 1905. (Poincaré, like Lorrentz, denoted our k factor by l.)
38. -3 for the charge density and the components of the current.
39. For a treatment of the conformal covariance of Maxwell's field equations, with good historical bibliography, see T. Fulton, F. Rorhlich, and L. Witten, "Conformal Invariance in Physics," Rev. Mod. Phys. 34 (3), 442-457 (1962). A less technically demanding treatment of the covariance result is found in G. Rosen, "Conformal invariance of Maxwell's equations," Am. J. Phys. 40, 1023-1027 (1972).
40. For a treatment of the conformal covariance of Maxwell's field equations, with good historical bibliography, see T. Fulton, F. Rorhlich, and L. Witten, "Conformal Invariance in Physics," Rev. Mod. Phys. 34 (3), 442-457 (1962). A less technically demanding treatment of the covariance result is found in G. Rosen, "Conformal invariance of Maxwell's equations," Am. J. Phys. 40, 1023-1027 (1972).
41. An excellent summary of FitzGerald's work and personality is found in Oliver Lodge, "G. F. FitzGerald," Proc. R. Soc. 75, 152-160 (1905).
42. George F. FitzGerald, "The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere," Science 13, 390 (1889). The letter is reprinted in Stephen G. Brush, "Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction," Isis 58, 230-232 (1967) and the greater part of it in John S. Bell, "George Francis FitzGerald," 1989 lecture, abridged by Denis Weaire in Physics World, September 1992, pp. 31-35. For the historical background to this letter, we have relied heavily on Alfred M. Bork, "The 'FitzGerald' Contraction," Isis 57, 199-207 (1966); Bruce J. Hunt, "The Origins of the FitzGerald Contraction," Br. J. Hist. Sci. 21, 67-76 (1988), and Warwick (op. cit. Ref. 4).
43. George F. FitzGerald, "The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere," Science 13, 390 (1889). The letter is reprinted in Stephen G. Brush, "Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction," Isis 58, 230-232 (1967) and the greater part of it in John S. Bell, "George Francis FitzGerald," 1989 lecture, abridged by Denis Weaire in Physics World, September 1992, pp. 31-35. For the historical background to this letter, we have relied heavily on Alfred M. Bork, "The 'FitzGerald' Contraction," Isis 57, 199-207 (1966); Bruce J. Hunt, "The Origins of the FitzGerald Contraction," Br. J. Hist. Sci. 21, 67-76 (1988), and Warwick (op. cit. Ref. 4).
44. George F. FitzGerald, "The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere," Science 13, 390 (1889). The letter is reprinted in Stephen G. Brush, "Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction," Isis 58, 230-232 (1967) and the greater part of it in John S. Bell, "George Francis FitzGerald," 1989 lecture, abridged by Denis Weaire in Physics World, September 1992, pp. 31-35. For the historical background to this letter, we have relied heavily on Alfred M. Bork, "The 'FitzGerald' Contraction," Isis 57, 199-207 (1966); Bruce J. Hunt, "The Origins of the FitzGerald Contraction," Br. J. Hist. Sci. 21, 67-76 (1988), and Warwick (op. cit. Ref. 4).
45. George F. FitzGerald, "The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere," Science 13, 390 (1889). The letter is reprinted in Stephen G. Brush, "Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction," Isis 58, 230-232 (1967) and the greater part of it in John S. Bell, "George Francis FitzGerald," 1989 lecture, abridged by Denis Weaire in Physics World, September 1992, pp. 31-35. For the historical background to this letter, we have relied heavily on Alfred M. Bork, "The 'FitzGerald' Contraction," Isis 57, 199-207 (1966); Bruce J. Hunt, "The Origins of the FitzGerald Contraction," Br. J. Hist. Sci. 21, 67-76 (1988), and Warwick (op. cit. Ref. 4).
46. George F. FitzGerald, "The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere," Science 13, 390 (1889). The letter is reprinted in Stephen G. Brush, "Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction," Isis 58, 230-232 (1967) and the greater part of it in John S. Bell, "George Francis FitzGerald," 1989 lecture, abridged by Denis Weaire in Physics World, September 1992, pp. 31-35. For the historical background to this letter, we have relied heavily on Alfred M. Bork, "The 'FitzGerald' Contraction," Isis 57, 199-207 (1966); Bruce J. Hunt, "The Origins of the FitzGerald Contraction," Br. J. Hist. Sci. 21, 67-76 (1988), and Warwick (op. cit. Ref. 4).
47. George F. FitzGerald, "The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere," Science 13, 390 (1889). The letter is reprinted in Stephen G. Brush, "Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction," Isis 58, 230-232 (1967) and the greater part of it in John S. Bell, "George Francis FitzGerald," 1989 lecture, abridged by Denis Weaire in Physics World, September 1992, pp. 31-35. For the historical background to this letter, we have relied heavily on Alfred M. Bork, "The 'FitzGerald' Contraction," Isis 57, 199-207 (1966); Bruce J. Hunt, "The Origins of the FitzGerald Contraction," Br. J. Hist. Sci. 21, 67-76 (1988), and Warwick (op. cit. Ref. 4).
48. See Brush (op. cit. Ref. 27).
49. Scientific Writings of the Late George Francis FitzGerald, edited by Joseph Larmor (Hodges, Figgis, Dublin, 1902).
50. See Hunt (op. cit. Ref. 27).
51. Lodge was to mention this episode at least four times in print: Oliver Lodge (op. cit. Ref. 26); The Ether of Space (Harper and Brothers, London, 1909), p. 65; "Continuity" (Presidential address), British Association Report (1913), pp. 3-42 (see pp. 25-26); Past Years; an Autobiography (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1931), pp. 204-205. In the last two cases, Lodge provided slightly different verbatim accounts of the discussion.
52. Lodge was to mention this episode at least four times in print: Oliver Lodge (op. cit. Ref. 26); The Ether of Space (Harper and Brothers, London, 1909), p. 65; "Continuity" (Presidential address), British Association Report (1913), pp. 3-42 (see pp. 25-26); Past Years; an Autobiography (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1931), pp. 204-205. In the last two cases, Lodge provided slightly different verbatim accounts of the discussion.
53. Lodge was to mention this episode at least four times in print: Oliver Lodge (op. cit. Ref. 26); The Ether of Space (Harper and Brothers, London, 1909), p. 65; "Continuity" (Presidential address), British Association Report (1913), pp. 3-42 (see pp. 25-26); Past Years; an Autobiography (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1931), pp. 204-205. In the last two cases, Lodge provided slightly different verbatim accounts of the discussion.
54. Lodge was to mention this episode at least four times in print: Oliver Lodge (op. cit. Ref. 26); The Ether of Space (Harper and Brothers, London, 1909), p. 65; "Continuity" (Presidential address), British Association Report (1913), pp. 3-42 (see pp. 25-26); Past Years; an Autobiography (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1931), pp. 204-205. In the last two cases, Lodge provided slightly different verbatim accounts of the discussion.
55. Oliver Lodge, "On the present state of our knowledge of the connection between ether and matter: an historical summary," Nature (London) 46, 164-165 (1892); "Aberration problems," Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 184, 727-804 (1893): see in particular pp. 749-750.
56. Oliver Lodge, "On the present state of our knowledge of the connection between ether and matter: an historical summary," Nature (London) 46, 164-165 (1892); "Aberration problems," Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 184, 727-804 (1893): see in particular pp. 749-750.
57. Hunt (op. cit. Ref. 27).
58. See Bork (op. cit. Ref. 27), and Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), p. 895. Apart from these latter authors, it is very difficult to find modern commentators who attribute a deformation, rather than contraction, hypothesis to FitzGerald. However, as we shall see, this is much less the case for the decades following 1890.
59. See Bork (op. cit. Ref. 27), and Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), p. 895. Apart from these latter authors, it is very difficult to find modern commentators who attribute a deformation, rather than contraction, hypothesis to FitzGerald. However, as we shall see, this is much less the case for the decades following 1890.
60. See Lodge (1913, op. cit. Ref. 31) and (1931 op. cit. Ref. 31).
61. See Lodge (1913, op. cit. Ref. 31) and (1931 op. cit. Ref. 31).
62. Bork (op. cit. Ref. 27), p. 206.
63. Lodge (1931 op. cit. Ref. 31).
64. Hicks wrote in 1902: "Amongst the various explanations advanced to account for the supposed [MM] null result..., the best known and accepted is that first proposed, 1 believe, by G. F. FitzGerald, viz., that the very motion of a solid through the aether produces a small extension perpen-dicular to the direction of drift, or contraction in the direction... ." [W. M. Hicks, "On the Michelson-Morley Experiment relating to the Drift of the Æther," Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Sixth Series Vol. III, 9-42 (1902), pp. 38-39. It is noteworthy that according to Hicks' own analysis of the MM experiment (ibid.) the FL deformation could not account for the null result.] In his famous 1921 encyclopedia article on relativity theory, Pauli likewise described FitzGerald's hypothesis in terms of a shape deformation, in fact of the quantitative kind proposed by Lorentz (see below). [Wolfgang Pauli, Theory of Relativity (Dover, New York, 1981), pp. 2-3.]
65. Hicks wrote in 1902: "Amongst the various explanations advanced to account for the supposed [MM] null result..., the best known and accepted is that first proposed, 1 believe, by G. F. FitzGerald, viz., that the very motion of a solid through the aether produces a small extension perpen-dicular to the direction of drift, or contraction in the direction... ." [W. M. Hicks, "On the Michelson-Morley Experiment relating to the Drift of the Æther," Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Sixth Series Vol. III, 9-42 (1902), pp. 38-39. It is noteworthy that according to Hicks' own analysis of the MM experiment (ibid.) the FL deformation could not account for the null result.] In his famous 1921 encyclopedia article on relativity theory, Pauli likewise described FitzGerald's hypothesis in terms of a shape deformation, in fact of the quantitative kind proposed by Lorentz (see below). [Wolfgang Pauli, Theory of Relativity (Dover, New York, 1981), pp. 2-3.]
66. Hicks wrote in 1902: "Amongst the various explanations advanced to account for the supposed [MM] null result..., the best known and accepted is that first proposed, 1 believe, by G. F. FitzGerald, viz., that the very motion of a solid through the aether produces a small extension perpen-dicular to the direction of drift, or contraction in the direction... ." [W. M. Hicks, "On the Michelson-Morley Experiment relating to the Drift of the Æther," Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Sixth Series Vol. III, 9-42 (1902), pp. 38-39. It is noteworthy that according to Hicks' own analysis of the MM experiment (ibid.) the FL deformation could not account for the null result.] In his famous 1921 encyclopedia article on relativity theory, Pauli likewise described FitzGerald's hypothesis in terms of a shape deformation, in fact of the quantitative kind proposed by Lorentz (see below). [Wolfgang Pauli, Theory of Relativity (Dover, New York, 1981), pp. 2-3.]
67. See Bork (op. cit. Ref. 27) and Bell (op. cit. Ref. 27).
68. See Bork (op. cit. Ref. 27) and Bell (op. cit. Ref. 27).
69. Lodge (1909 op. cit. Ref. 31), p. 65.
70. In this connection, see also Bork (op. cit. Ref. 27), p. 200.
71. R. T. Glazebrook, contribution to the Obituary for H. A. Lorentz, Nature (London) Vol. CXXI, 287-291 (1928); see p. 287.
72. The account of Lorentz's relevant work found in Whittaker's famous 1910 history of ether theories erroneously claims that Lorentz adopted FitzGerald's hypothesis (that "dimensions of material bodies are slightly altered when they are in motion relative to the aether") some months after its appearance in Lodge's 1892 paper (op. cit. Ref. 32). See E. T. Whittaker, A Histoiy of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Vol. I (Longmans, Green, London, 1910). Bork (op. cit. Ref. 27), pp. 432-433, appears to regard the error as a deliberale distortion. We note that it is repeated in Whittaker's contribution to the 1928 Nature obituary for Lorentz (see Ref. 42).
73. The account of Lorentz's relevant work found in Whittaker's famous 1910 history of ether theories erroneously claims that Lorentz adopted FitzGerald's hypothesis (that "dimensions of material bodies are slightly altered when they are in motion relative to the aether") some months after its appearance in Lodge's 1892 paper (op. cit. Ref. 32). See E. T. Whittaker, A Histoiy of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Vol. I (Longmans, Green, London, 1910). Bork (op. cit. Ref. 27), pp. 432-433, appears to regard the error as a deliberale distortion. We note that it is repeated in Whittaker's contribution to the 1928 Nature obituary for Lorentz (see Ref. 42).
74. The account of Lorentz's relevant work found in Whittaker's famous 1910 history of ether theories erroneously claims that Lorentz adopted FitzGerald's hypothesis (that "dimensions of material bodies are slightly altered when they are in motion relative to the aether") some months after its appearance in Lodge's 1892 paper (op. cit. Ref. 32). See E. T. Whittaker, A Histoiy of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Vol. I (Longmans, Green, London, 1910). Bork (op. cit. Ref. 27), pp. 432-433, appears to regard the error as a deliberale distortion. We note that it is repeated in Whittaker's contribution to the 1928 Nature obituary for Lorentz (see Ref. 42).
75. H. A. Lorentz, "De relative beweging van de aarde en den aether," Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Wis-en Natuurkundige Afdeeling. Versalagen der Zittingen 1, 74-79 (1892-93). Reprinted in translation "The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether." in Collected Papers, edited by P. Zeeman and A. D. Fokker (Nijhoff, The Hauge, 1937), Vol. 4, pp. 219-223. This paper appeared in the 26 November 1992 issue of the Amsterdam Academy proceedings; yet as late as August of the same year, Lorentz had written to Lord Rayleigh (see the quotation at the head of the present paper) admitting that he was "totally at a loss" to explain the contradiction between the MM result and Fresnel's hypothesis of a stagnant ether. See Kenneth F. Schaffner, Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories (Pergamon, Braunschweig, 1972), p. 103.
76. H. A. Lorentz, "De relative beweging van de aarde en den aether," Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Wis-en Natuurkundige Afdeeling. Versalagen der Zittingen 1, 74-79 (1892-93). Reprinted in translation "The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether." in Collected Papers, edited by P. Zeeman and A. D. Fokker (Nijhoff, The Hauge, 1937), Vol. 4, pp. 219-223. This paper appeared in the 26 November 1992 issue of the Amsterdam Academy proceedings; yet as late as August of the same year, Lorentz had written to Lord Rayleigh (see the quotation at the head of the present paper) admitting that he was "totally at a loss" to explain the contradiction between the MM result and Fresnel's hypothesis of a stagnant ether. See Kenneth F. Schaffner, Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories (Pergamon, Braunschweig, 1972), p. 103.
77. H. A. Lorentz, "De relative beweging van de aarde en den aether," Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Wis-en Natuurkundige Afdeeling. Versalagen der Zittingen 1, 74-79 (1892-93). Reprinted in translation "The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether." in Collected Papers, edited by P. Zeeman and A. D. Fokker (Nijhoff, The Hauge, 1937), Vol. 4, pp. 219-223. This paper appeared in the 26 November 1992 issue of the Amsterdam Academy proceedings; yet as late as August of the same year, Lorentz had written to Lord Rayleigh (see the quotation at the head of the present paper) admitting that he was "totally at a loss" to explain the contradiction between the MM result and Fresnel's hypothesis of a stagnant ether. See Kenneth F. Schaffner, Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories (Pergamon, Braunschweig, 1972), p. 103.
78. Some historians have indeed speculated that Lorentz's 1892 explanation of the MM experiment was based on the nonrelativistic addition law for velocities; see Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1981), p. 31, and Nancy J. Nersessian, '"Why wasn't Lorentz Einstein?' An Examination of the Scientific Method of H. A. Lorentz," Centaurus 29, 205-242 (1986), p. 222.
79. Some historians have indeed speculated that Lorentz's 1892 explanation of the MM experiment was based on the nonrelativistic addition law for velocities; see Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1981), p. 31, and Nancy J. Nersessian, '"Why wasn't Lorentz Einstein?' An Examination of the Scientific Method of H. A. Lorentz," Centaurus 29, 205-242 (1986), p. 222.
80. H. A. Lorentz, Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern (Brill, Leyden, 1895). An English translation of the Introduction is found in Schaffner (op. cit. Ref. 44), pp. 247-254. A translation of sections 89-92 dealing with the MM experiment is found in H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity (Methuen, London, 1923), pp. 3-34.
81. H. A. Lorentz, Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern (Brill, Leyden, 1895). An English translation of the Introduction is found in Schaffner (op. cit. Ref. 44), pp. 247-254. A translation of sections 89-92 dealing with the MM experiment is found in H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity (Methuen, London, 1923), pp. 3-34.
82. H. A. Lorentz, Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern (Brill, Leyden, 1895). An English translation of the Introduction is found in Schaffner (op. cit. Ref. 44), pp. 247-254. A translation of sections 89-92 dealing with the MM experiment is found in H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity (Methuen, London, 1923), pp. 3-34.
83. H. A. Lorentz, The Theory of Electrons and its Applications to the Phenomena of Light and Radiant Heat (Teubner, Leipzig, 1909), p. 195.
84. "In order to explain the negative result of this experimenl FITZGERALD and myself have supposed that, in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." H. A. Lorentz, "Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems," Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Section of Sciences, Proceedings 1 (1898-1899), pp. 427-442. (This 1899 paper was reprinted in Schaffner (op. cit. Ref. 44), pp. 255-273 and was a slightly revised translation of an earlier paper: "Vereenvoudigde theorie der electrische en optische verschijnselen in lichamen die zich bewegen." Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Wis-en Natuurkundige Afdeeling. Verslagen van de Gewone Vergaderingen 7 (1898-1899) pp. 507-522.) See also Lorentz (1909 op. cit. Ref. 47), p. 195. for similar remarks.
85. "In order to explain the negative result of this experimenl FITZGERALD and myself have supposed that, in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." H. A. Lorentz, "Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems," Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Section of Sciences, Proceedings 1 (1898-1899), pp. 427-442. (This 1899 paper was reprinted in Schaffner (op. cit. Ref. 44), pp. 255-273 and was a slightly revised translation of an earlier paper: "Vereenvoudigde theorie der electrische en optische verschijnselen in lichamen die zich bewegen." Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Wis-en Natuurkundige Afdeeling. Verslagen van de Gewone Vergaderingen 7 (1898-1899) pp. 507-522.) See also Lorentz (1909 op. cit. Ref. 47), p. 195. for similar remarks.
86. "In order to explain the negative result of this experimenl FITZGERALD and myself have supposed that, in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." H. A. Lorentz, "Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems," Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Section of Sciences, Proceedings 1 (1898-1899), pp. 427-442. (This 1899 paper was reprinted in Schaffner (op. cit. Ref. 44), pp. 255-273 and was a slightly revised translation of an earlier paper: "Vereenvoudigde theorie der electrische en optische verschijnselen in lichamen die zich bewegen." Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Wis-en Natuurkundige Afdeeling. Verslagen van de Gewone Vergaderingen 7 (1898-1899) pp. 507-522.) See also Lorentz (1909 op. cit. Ref. 47), p. 195. for similar remarks.
87. "In order to explain the negative result of this experimenl FITZGERALD and myself have supposed that, in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." H. A. Lorentz, "Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems," Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Section of Sciences, Proceedings 1 (1898-1899), pp. 427-442. (This 1899 paper was reprinted in Schaffner (op. cit. Ref. 44), pp. 255-273 and was a slightly revised translation of an earlier paper: "Vereenvoudigde theorie der electrische en optische verschijnselen in lichamen die zich bewegen." Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Wis-en Natuurkundige Afdeeling. Verslagen van de Gewone Vergaderingen 7 (1898-1899) pp. 507-522.) See also Lorentz (1909 op. cit. Ref. 47), p. 195. for similar remarks.
88. At this point we cite those historical accounts known to us which recognize this difference. Early recognition is found in L. Silberstein, The Theory of Relativity (MacMillan, London, 1914), p. 78, and in Pauli (op. cit. Ref. 38), pp. 2-3. More recent cases are Kenneth T. Schaffner, "The Lorentz electron theory and relativity," Am. J. Phys. 37, 498-513 (1969); Miller (op. cit. Ref. 45), p. 31 and footnote 21, p. 97; Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21), section 3.2.2, and Janssen and Stachel (op. cit. Ref. 3). The difference in the case of Lorentz in 1892 was however emphasized most strongly by Nancy J. Nersessian, op. cit. Ref. 45, and " 'Ad hoc' is not a four-letter word: H. A. Lorentz and the Michelson-Morley experiment," in Goldberg and Stuewer (1988, op. cit. Ref. 3), pp. 71-77.
89. At this point we cite those historical accounts known to us which recognize this difference. Early recognition is found in L. Silberstein, The Theory of Relativity (MacMillan, London, 1914), p. 78, and in Pauli (op. cit. Ref. 38), pp. 2-3. More recent cases are Kenneth T. Schaffner, "The Lorentz electron theory and relativity," Am. J. Phys. 37, 498-513 (1969); Miller (op. cit. Ref. 45), p. 31 and footnote 21, p. 97; Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21), section 3.2.2, and Janssen and Stachel (op. cit. Ref. 3). The difference in the case of Lorentz in 1892 was however emphasized most strongly by Nancy J. Nersessian, op. cit. Ref. 45, and " 'Ad hoc' is not a four-letter word: H. A. Lorentz and the Michelson-Morley experiment," in Goldberg and Stuewer (1988, op. cit. Ref. 3), pp. 71-77.
90. At this point we cite those historical accounts known to us which recognize this difference. Early recognition is found in L. Silberstein, The Theory of Relativity (MacMillan, London, 1914), p. 78, and in Pauli (op. cit. Ref. 38), pp. 2-3. More recent cases are Kenneth T. Schaffner, "The Lorentz electron theory and relativity," Am. J. Phys. 37, 498-513 (1969); Miller (op. cit. Ref. 45), p. 31 and footnote 21, p. 97; Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21), section 3.2.2, and Janssen and Stachel (op. cit. Ref. 3). The difference in the case of Lorentz in 1892 was however emphasized most strongly by Nancy J. Nersessian, op. cit. Ref. 45, and " 'Ad hoc' is not a four-letter word: H. A. Lorentz and the Michelson-Morley experiment," in Goldberg and Stuewer (1988, op. cit. Ref. 3), pp. 71-77.
91. At this point we cite those historical accounts known to us which recognize this difference. Early recognition is found in L. Silberstein, The Theory of Relativity (MacMillan, London, 1914), p. 78, and in Pauli (op. cit. Ref. 38), pp. 2-3. More recent cases are Kenneth T. Schaffner, "The Lorentz electron theory and relativity," Am. J. Phys. 37, 498-513 (1969); Miller (op. cit. Ref. 45), p. 31 and footnote 21, p. 97; Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21), section 3.2.2, and Janssen and Stachel (op. cit. Ref. 3). The difference in the case of Lorentz in 1892 was however emphasized most strongly by Nancy J. Nersessian, op. cit. Ref. 45, and " 'Ad hoc' is not a four-letter word: H. A. Lorentz and the Michelson-Morley experiment," in Goldberg and Stuewer (1988, op. cit. Ref. 3), pp. 71-77.
92. At this point we cite those historical accounts known to us which recognize this difference. Early recognition is found in L. Silberstein, The Theory of Relativity (MacMillan, London, 1914), p. 78, and in Pauli (op. cit. Ref. 38), pp. 2-3. More recent cases are Kenneth T. Schaffner, "The Lorentz electron theory and relativity," Am. J. Phys. 37, 498-513 (1969); Miller (op. cit. Ref. 45), p. 31 and footnote 21, p. 97; Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21), section 3.2.2, and Janssen and Stachel (op. cit. Ref. 3). The difference in the case of Lorentz in 1892 was however emphasized most strongly by Nancy J. Nersessian, op. cit. Ref. 45, and " 'Ad hoc' is not a four-letter word: H. A. Lorentz and the Michelson-Morley experiment," in Goldberg and Stuewer (1988, op. cit. Ref. 3), pp. 71-77.
93. At this point we cite those historical accounts known to us which recognize this difference. Early recognition is found in L. Silberstein, The Theory of Relativity (MacMillan, London, 1914), p. 78, and in Pauli (op. cit. Ref. 38), pp. 2-3. More recent cases are Kenneth T. Schaffner, "The Lorentz electron theory and relativity," Am. J. Phys. 37, 498-513 (1969); Miller (op. cit. Ref. 45), p. 31 and footnote 21, p. 97; Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21), section 3.2.2, and Janssen and Stachel (op. cit. Ref. 3). The difference in the case of Lorentz in 1892 was however emphasized most strongly by Nancy J. Nersessian, op. cit. Ref. 45, and " 'Ad hoc' is not a four-letter word: H. A. Lorentz and the Michelson-Morley experiment," in Goldberg and Stuewer (1988, op. cit. Ref. 3), pp. 71-77.
94. At this point we cite those historical accounts known to us which recognize this difference. Early recognition is found in L. Silberstein, The Theory of Relativity (MacMillan, London, 1914), p. 78, and in Pauli (op. cit. Ref. 38), pp. 2-3. More recent cases are Kenneth T. Schaffner, "The Lorentz electron theory and relativity," Am. J. Phys. 37, 498-513 (1969); Miller (op. cit. Ref. 45), p. 31 and footnote 21, p. 97; Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21), section 3.2.2, and Janssen and Stachel (op. cit. Ref. 3). The difference in the case of Lorentz in 1892 was however emphasized most strongly by Nancy J. Nersessian, op. cit. Ref. 45, and " 'Ad hoc' is not a four-letter word: H. A. Lorentz and the Michelson-Morley experiment," in Goldberg and Stuewer (1988, op. cit. Ref. 3), pp. 71-77.
95. At this point we cite those historical accounts known to us which recognize this difference. Early recognition is found in L. Silberstein, The Theory of Relativity (MacMillan, London, 1914), p. 78, and in Pauli (op. cit. Ref. 38), pp. 2-3. More recent cases are Kenneth T. Schaffner, "The Lorentz electron theory and relativity," Am. J. Phys. 37, 498-513 (1969); Miller (op. cit. Ref. 45), p. 31 and footnote 21, p. 97; Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21), section 3.2.2, and Janssen and Stachel (op. cit. Ref. 3). The difference in the case of Lorentz in 1892 was however emphasized most strongly by Nancy J. Nersessian, op. cit. Ref. 45, and " 'Ad hoc' is not a four-letter word: H. A. Lorentz and the Michelson-Morley experiment," in Goldberg and Stuewer (1988, op. cit. Ref. 3), pp. 71-77.
96. At this point we cite those historical accounts known to us which recognize this difference. Early recognition is found in L. Silberstein, The Theory of Relativity (MacMillan, London, 1914), p. 78, and in Pauli (op. cit. Ref. 38), pp. 2-3. More recent cases are Kenneth T. Schaffner, "The Lorentz electron theory and relativity," Am. J. Phys. 37, 498-513 (1969); Miller (op. cit. Ref. 45), p. 31 and footnote 21, p. 97; Mamone Capria and Pambianco (op. cit. Ref. 8), Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21), section 3.2.2, and Janssen and Stachel (op. cit. Ref. 3). The difference in the case of Lorentz in 1892 was however emphasized most strongly by Nancy J. Nersessian, op. cit. Ref. 45, and " 'Ad hoc' is not a four-letter word: H. A. Lorentz and the Michelson-Morley experiment," in Goldberg and Stuewer (1988, op. cit. Ref. 3), pp. 71-77.
97. Hunt (op. cit. Ref. 27).
98. Oliver Heaviside, "The electro-magnetic effects of a moving charge," Electrician 22, 147-148 (1888); G. F. C. Searle, "Problems in electrical convection," Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 187, 675-713 (1896).
99. Oliver Heaviside, "The electro-magnetic effects of a moving charge," Electrician 22, 147-148 (1888); G. F. C. Searle, "Problems in electrical convection," Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 187, 675-713 (1896).
100. See Hunt (op. cit. Ref. 27) and Bell (op. cit. Ref. 27).
101. See Hunt (op. cit. Ref. 27) and Bell (op. cit. Ref. 27).
102. It was noted by Bell (op. cit. Ref. 27) that in his 1889 Science letter, FitzGerald does not explicitly equate molecular forces with electromagnetic ones.
103. Warwick (op. cit. Ref. 4), p. 41.
104. See, for example, W. G. V. Rosser. Introductory Relativity (Butterworth, London, 1967), p. 232. It is interesting that by the mid-1890s, Joseph Larmor was already capable of providing the "modern" derivation: see Warwick (op. cit. Ref. 4).
105. See, for example, W. G. V. Rosser. Introductory Relativity (Butterworth, London, 1967), p. 232. It is interesting that by the mid-1890s, Joseph Larmor was already capable of providing the "modern" derivation: see Warwick (op. cit. Ref. 4).
106. Hunt (op. cit. Ref. 27).
107. See Searle (op. cit. Ref. 51).
108. See, for instance, Møller (op. cit. Ref. 2), p. 159.
109. In speculating as to why FitzGerald did so little to publicize his solution to the MM enigma, Hunt speculated (op. cit. Ref. 27, p. 75) that he "may also have been put off ... by confusion about the directional variations of the forces between charges moving together, the intricacies of which were not cleared up until 1892 and were not well known for several years after that ...." Hunt is presumably referring to the work of Searle. Even if Searle did provide the crucial clarification in this sense, it is difficult to reconcile Hunt's speculation with his own claim, mentioned in Sec. IV in text, that FitzGerald deformation hypothesis involved, from the start, a strict longitudinal contraction.
110. Hunt (op. cit. Ref. 27).
111. Nersessian (op. cit. 1988, Ref. 49) was presumably unawaie of these details when she wrote that there were "no good reasons" for FitzGerald's "contraction" hypothesis (p. 74), and that FitzGerald failed to pursue his speculation that the ether wind affected intermolecular forces "because he had no theory into which he could incorporate the speculation" (fn. 26, p. 77).
112. The distinction between the two versions of the molecular forces hypothesis was appreciated by Miller (op. cit. Ref. 45). p. 30.
113. Indeed, in Lorentz's view of the ether as composed of a new kind of imponderable material, it is no longer obvious that the light-speed should be constant in the ether rest frame, as of course Lorentz assumed. See S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, "Reflections on Ether," in The Philosophy of Vacuum, edited by S. Saunders and H. R. Brown (Clarendon, Oxford, 1991), pp. 27-63.
114. See Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21, p. 197). The letter can be found in the Archief H. A. Lorentz, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Haarlem, The Netherlands; parts of it are quoted in Nancy J. Nercessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories (Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1984), pp. 118-119, 172-173; in Nersessian (1986, op. cit. Ref. 45), pp. 225, 232-233; and Nersessian (1988, op. cit. Ref. 49), pp. 74-75.
115. See Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21, p. 197). The letter can be found in the Archief H. A. Lorentz, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Haarlem, The Netherlands; parts of it are quoted in Nancy J. Nercessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories (Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1984), pp. 118-119, 172-173; in Nersessian (1986, op. cit. Ref. 45), pp. 225, 232-233; and Nersessian (1988, op. cit. Ref. 49), pp. 74-75.
116. See Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21, p. 197). The letter can be found in the Archief H. A. Lorentz, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Haarlem, The Netherlands; parts of it are quoted in Nancy J. Nercessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories (Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1984), pp. 118-119, 172-173; in Nersessian (1986, op. cit. Ref. 45), pp. 225, 232-233; and Nersessian (1988, op. cit. Ref. 49), pp. 74-75.
117. See Janssen (op. cit. Ref. 21, p. 197). The letter can be found in the Archief H. A. Lorentz, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Haarlem, The Netherlands; parts of it are quoted in Nancy J. Nercessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories (Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1984), pp. 118-119, 172-173; in Nersessian (1986, op. cit. Ref. 45), pp. 225, 232-233; and Nersessian (1988, op. cit. Ref. 49), pp. 74-75.
118. Lorentz (op. cit. 1892, Ref. 44).
119. Lorentz (op. cit. 1899, Ref. 48).
120. J. H. Jeans, contribution to the 1928 Nature obituary of Lorentz (Ref. 42), p. 288.