From Drag to Invariance: The Experimental Pressure Behind Special RelativityThis paper recites the historical evidence for special relativity, but there is little evidence that Einstein paid attention to any of it.This paper completes a three-part study of Einstein's 1905 special relativity by reconstructing the experimental pressures that shaped his thinking from 1895 to June 1905. ...
In this reconstruction, the 1905 paper does not emerge as a kinematic postulate ex nihilo, but as a principled resolution forced by an interconnected complex of experimental anomalies.
We do know what Einstein relied heavily on Lorentz's 1895 theory, without citing it.
Hendrick Antoon Lorentz advanced an electron theory, extending Maxwell’s electrodynamics. ...Yes, the local time was interpreted as the time for the moving body. That was necessary for Maxwell's equations and the experiments.Lorentz sought to preserve the form of Maxwell’s equations under such motion. His approach, known as the theorem of corresponding states, introduced auxiliary quantities that allowed the equations for moving systems to be cast in the same form as those for systems at rest in the ether.
In 1895, as part of a first-order treatment, Lorentz introduced the local time, a mathematical device without physical interpretation in his theory,
Lorentz was missing Poincare synchronization to relate the local times.
The Michelson-Morley experiment is often portrayed in textbooks as a crucial precursor to Einstein’s special relativity, suggesting that Einstein was either directly or indirectly influenced by it. However, Einstein gave varying accounts of its influence on his thinking, sometimes acknowledging it as significant and other times dismissing its role in his development of relativity.This is not hard to understand. The experiment was crucial for relativity. Einstein correctly acknowledged it as very significant. But Einstein just relied on Lorentz's 1895 account of it, and did not pay much attention to it.
Einstein's 1905 paper was just an expository account of Lorentz's 1895 theorem, plus the Poincare synchronization of 1900 and the higher order Lorentz transformations of 1904. He just assumed that the Maxwell, Lorentz, and Poincare theories were correct, and ignored the experimental evidence. Weinstein has a 43-page paper on the experiments, but they had no influence on Einstein.
There are even physicists and philosophers who credit Einstein with being a great anti-positivist, because he pushed ahead with theories while ignoring experiment. To them, that was the essence of Einstein's brilliance and originality. While Lorentz and Poincare used experiments to justify their theories, Einstein just cherry-picked some principles from them and called them postulates. To accept the theory, you just had to accept the postulates, not the experiments.
Einstein's explanations are confusing because he lied about his sources all his life, and because he did not have much to do with the development and acceptance of special relativity. The theory was worked out by Lorentz and Poincare before Einstein wrote anything, and was popularizd in a geometric form by Minkowski.
This is the latest of dozens of papers and books that Weinstein has written to prop up Einstein's reputation. This one does not mention Poincare. It repeats her hallucinations about the aether. She tries really hard to credit Einstein, but she can never figure out what to credit him for.
1. This paper is highly uneven; actually incomplete; and it is definitely biased in favour of Einstein and against Lorentz. A few of the considerations which went into my saying so:
ReplyDelete1.1. The author refers to exactly two papers by Lorentz: 1892 and 1895.
She does note that Einstein had read Lorentz' 1895 paper by 1902. She also indicates that thinking about ED was a major factor affecting Einstein's thinking; that it was not all purely kinematical and with postulates coming out of the blue.
But she doesn't have to offer her comments on the issue of whether, in her opinion, Einstein had read Lorentz' 1904 paper, and if so, when. Reason: She doesn't at all refer to any of Lorentz' work after 1895, in particular, to his paper of 1904. It simply doesn't enter into her ``reconstruction.''
And of course, Poincare is not to be found in the References section at all (which, incidentally, is arranged by the last names of authors!) So, his 1905 paper simply can't enter in the ``reconstruction''.
1.2. She devotes about 6 pages to Lorentz' 1895 paper (and as mentioned earlier, precisely zero words to his 1904 paper). She points out his results as well as the shortcomings.
In contrast, she allocates the entirety of the following development exactly one paragraph (less than half a page). I reproduce it in toto here:
``In May 1905, Einstein had a rough draft of the relativity paper [CPAE5], Doc. 28. This draft presented a modification of the theory of space and time. Very likely, the physical definition of simultaneity had already been formulated, and the draft had a purely kinematical part. Within the five to six weeks after May 1905, Einstein solved his problem and was able to complete and submit his paper, ”Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” on June 30, 1905, for publication to Annalen der Physik [Reis, Wer].''
Why doesn't she spell out the precise details of the CPAE5? at least some most important highlights? What does she think were the steps Einstein took in those five to six most crucial weeks? Which steps occurred after 9th June? What specific problem does she mean by ``his problem,'' especially because she indicates that Einstein's 1905 paper had a great scope?
Also, one important aspect (crucial, IMO): What were his steps leading to his (independent) formulation of the gamma ``factor'' (if he didn't pick it up from Lorentz 1904)? How did he reach it? Were there any false starts, as is obviously expected? Which ones? How did he then correct himself (if not by sticking the pages of Lorentz 1904 to his wall --- figuratively speaking)?
2. I also have a comment about this passage from her paper:
``[Einstein] declared that the ether was superfluous and built the whole theory from symmetry and measurement, not from hypotheses about matter deforming in an ether.''
Helpful bit. I can (and might) cite this paper when(ever) I come to write down my paper showing how STR cannot make the aether superfluous, whether such a conclusion came first from Poincare, Einstein, Minkowski, or any one else. Yes, Lorentz indeed was wrong in thinking that his aether provided a universally distinguished frame. But the fact that Lorentz was wrong in this respect, doesn't put those people who made the aether superfluous in the right either! I can easily show why. I will write that paper once my iqWaves Panorama project is over, which will begin after my current STR note is finished.
It might be fun, then, to request her to endorse that paper for deposition at arXiv.
--Ajit
You say: Lorentz thought that his aether provided a universally distinguished frame.
ReplyDeleteI cannot find any proof of this. Where did he ever say this?
Why, I read it at so many places that I thought that it was a settled matter. But if you've waded your way through the original literature and believe otherwise, perfectly fine by me, I'm all ears. [Especially, if you post it to arXiv! [LOL!]]
ReplyDeleteAnyway, FWIW, I ran a Google search on ``Lorentz Ether Theory'' just now, and copy-pasted-formatted into MD format the following. (Copy-paste to a .MD file and use some Markdown viewer.) Of the most direct relevance is the row on the ``Reference frame'' feature in the table in the section ``Comparison with Special Relativity''
---
orentz aether theory is a pre-Einstein theory of physics that posits light travels through a medium called the aether and uses the Lorentz transformations to explain why experiments like the Michelson–Morley experiment failed to detect motion through it. It introduces real, physical effects of **length contraction** and **time dilation** to explain away the aether's undetectable nature, viewing them as physical processes that occur when moving through the aether. While mathematically equivalent to special relativity in terms of predictions, it differs philosophically by assuming a preferred, though undetectable, reference frame for the aether.
## Key components
* **Aether:** A real, stationary, but undetectable medium that fills all of space and serves as the medium for light waves.
* **Length Contraction:** Objects moving through the aether physically shrink in their direction of motion.
* **Time Dilation:** Clocks moving through the aether run slower. These effects are not perceived by observers within the moving frame because the contractions and dilations are a necessary consequence of the aether's properties, and the laws of physics are the same for all observers regardless of their motion.
## Comparison with Special Relativity
| Feature | Lorentz Aether Theory | Special Relativity |
| -- | -- | -- |
| **Aether** | A real, stationary medium for light. | No aether; space itself is the "medium" and there is no preferred frame. |
| **Length Contraction** | A real, physical shrinkage of objects. | A consequence of the observer's frame of reference, not a physical change in the object itself.
| **Time Dilation** | A real slowing of time for moving objects. | A consequence of the observer's frame of reference, not a physical change in the object itself. |
| **Reference Frame** | Has a single, preferred, but undetectable rest frame (the aether frame). | All inertial frames are equivalent; there is no preferred frame. |
| **Mathematical Equivalence** | Mathematically equivalent to special relativity in terms of experimental results. | Mathematically derived from two postulates: the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light. |
| **Explanatory Power** | Provides a physical mechanism (aether) for why the speed of light is constant, but the aether itself is undetectable. | Explains the constant speed of light without the need for an aether, making the theory more parsimonious (following Occam's razor). |
| -- | -- | -- |
### References cited for this section:
* https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/524058/are-lorentz-aether-theory-and-special-relativity-fully-equivalent
* https://www.quora.com/What-is-Lorentzs-theory-on-aether-How-did-he-derive-the-Lorentz-contraction-based-on-it
*
### Why it was replaced
* **Undetectability:** The aether was considered undetectable and unobservable, making it difficult to justify its existence from a scientific perspective (Occam's razor).
* **Philosophical shift:** Einstein's special relativity provided a more elegant and philosophically simpler explanation for the same phenomena without requiring the postulation of an aether.
---
MD over.
--Ajit
I posted another comment soon after the above, and it got shown here as "published," but it was no longer visible after I logged out of my account and cleared the browser cache. I had quoted the result of another Google query in it.
ReplyDeleteI tried posting it (with some minor changes also occurring in the part I myself had written), and now, also saved it my HDD after publication. However, once again, after logging out and clearing the browser cache, it's no longer visible.
The re-posted comment in question was published with the URL:
https://blog.darkbuzz.com/2025/10/einstein-ignored-relativity-experiments.html?showComment=1761811911701#c6075147681552600125, at 1:11 AM (as per the time of this blog).
Just noting this odd circumstance (which has never occurred before, at this blog).
--Ajit
Those explanations do not even make any sense. If the aether was undetectable, then how could it provide a distinguished or preferred frame? Just what was it that distinguished the frame, if the aether was undetectable?
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Lorentz believed that. If he did, there should be some quote to prove it, and I don't see it.
What makes or doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant. What Lorentz himself said is.
DeleteThe re-posted and disappeared comment had the MD text for a query whose Google AI reply had cited inter alia the Wiki article on the ``Lorentz ether theory.''
Check the quote by Lorentz himself near the beginning of the section on Basic concept from that Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Basic_concept
Quote
``That we cannot speak about an absolute rest of the aether, is self-evident; this expression would not even make sense. When I say for the sake of brevity, that the aether would be at rest, then this only means that one part of this medium does not move against the other one and that all perceptible motions are relative motions of the celestial bodies in relation to the aether.''
Unquote
This passage was taken from the English translation of Lorentz' 1895 paper, available here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Attempt_of_a_Theory_of_Electrical_and_Optical_Phenomena_in_Moving_Bodies
In section I of the same paper, Lorentz begins as:
``§ 5. When forming the equations of motion we will express all magnitudes in electromagnetic measure, and preliminarily use a coordinate system that is at rest in the aether.''
---
In short, what he's saying:
The aether is [in itself] undetectable because perceptible motions are those of the celestial bodies.
Aether is at rest in the sense that it is undeformable.
Lorentz uses a reference frame that's at rest in the aether for the so called aether frame.
By implication:
We describe motions of celestial bodies in reference to the aether frame. They are seen with one frame F1 that's moving w.r.t. to the aether frame at velocity \vec{v}_1, then a second frame F2 at \vec{v}_2, etc.
Lorentz originally designed LT for this use: x and t refer to the aether frame, and x' and t' for F1 (or F2, or F3, etc.).
---
Apart from it all, also see the Wiki's on History of LT, History of ED, LET, and English translations of Lorentz' papers at WikiSource.
Sorry, can't help you further.
--Ajit
PS: BTW, arXiv! iqWaves!! [LOL!]
Those Lorentz quotes do not support your argument. Yes, Lorentz occasionally uses terms like "at rest". His terminology is very similar to Einstein's 1905 paper that frequently says "at rest" or "stationary system". As the above quote shows, Lorentz was rejecting the aether motion theories.
ReplyDeleteWhen Lorentz says "preliminarily use a coordinate system that is at rest in the aether", he simply means to choose an inertial frame. Einstein uses similar language.
Nowhere does Lorentz say that the aether gives a distinguished or preferred frame. Nor does he give any clue as to what would distinguish or prefer that frame.
You say that it's impossible to put together the following quotes coming from Lorentz:
ReplyDelete-- ``... one part of this medium [the aether] does not move against the other one ...'',
-- ``... all perceptible motions are relative motions of the celestial bodies in relation to the aether ...'',
-- ``... Indeed, one of the most important of our fundamental assumptions must be that the ether not only occupies all space between molecules, atoms, or electrons, but that it pervades all these particles. We shall add the hypothesis that, though the particles may move, the ether always remains at rest. ...'' [introduced now in this thread], and
-- ``... When forming the equations of motion we will express all magnitudes in electromagnetic measure, and preliminarily use a coordinate system that is at rest in the aether. ...'',
and conclude that ``[Lorentz'] aether provided a universally distinguished frame.''
You say so, *after* I pointed out this bit (easily verifiable using the sources already pointed out):
-- ``... Lorentz originally designed LT for this use: x and t refer to the aether frame, and x' and t' for F1 (or F2, or F3, etc.). ...''.
And, you also add your interpretation of what Einstein said.
Hmmm...
Why not write a paper giving the logic of the impossibility of reaching the above conclusion starting from the above (and similar) quotes from Lorentz, and upload the paper to arXiv? [... You are in the SF Bay Area, CA, USA; you have a PhD in Maths from Berkeley (and a BS from Princeton); you are a USA citizen who was born in the USA and also have some n-generation USA-based ancestry; and so, you should have no difficulty finding endorsers for the upload --- unless you want to dispute this guess-work too!. ...]
Or would you rather that your position remains confined to your blog alone?
Well... you don't have to answer me on the last couple of questions. But once you do actually publish your write-up on this particular position of yours at arXiv, that would be enough, all by itself.
--Ajit
Yes, Lorentz says those things, and Einstein said similar things. Einstein used the term "at rest" 26 times in his famous 1905 paper, and "stationary" 63 times. In 1920 he said "space without ether is unthinkable".
ReplyDeleteWhat Lorentz did not say is that the aether provides a distinguished or preferred frame.
If you think he did, then explain it. What distinguished the aether frame? Would an Earth-based frame qualify?