Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T06:13:56.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins of the FitzGerald Contraction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Bruce J. Hunt
Bruce J. Hunt
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis has become well known in connection with Einstein's theory of relativity, and its role in the origin of that theory has been the subject of considerable study. But the origins of the contraction idea itself, and particularly of G. F. FitzGerald's first statement of it in 1889, have attracted much less attention and are surrounded by several misconceptions. The hypothesis has usually been depicted as a rather wild idea put forward without any real theoretical justification simply to explain away the troublesome null result of Michelson and Morley's 1887 ether drift experiment. In the words of Gerald Holton, ‘it has traditionally been called the very paradigm of an ad hoc hypothesis’. H. A. Lorentz, who hit upon the contraction idea independently in 1892, has been credited with giving it some justification in terms of his electron theory, but little or none of this credit has been extended to FitzGerald. His statement of the contraction hypothesis has usually been viewed, in the words of his friend R. T. Glazebrook, as nothing more than ‘the brilliant baseless guess of an Irish genius’.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1988 , pp. 67 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bork, A.M., ‘The “FitzGerald” contraction’, Isis, (1966), 57, pp. 199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar, remains the chief source, but it contains serious oversights and must be supplemented by Brush, S.G., ‘Note on the history of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction’, Isis, (1967), 58, pp. 230–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Holton, G., ‘Einstein, Michelson, and the “crucial” experiment’, in: Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein, Cambridge, Mass., 1973, p. 311Google Scholar. For a typical popular treatment of the origins of the contraction hypothesis, see Clark, R.W., Einstein: The Life and Times, New York, 1971, pp. 110–111.Google Scholar

3 Zahar, E., ‘Why did Einstein's research programme supersede Lorentz's?’ British journal for the Philosophy of Science, (1973), 24, pp. 95–123, 223–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues that the contraction hypothesis should not be considered ad hoc, but focuses on Lorentz and says almost nothing about FitzGerald.

4 Glazebrook, R.T., ‘H.A. Lorentz’, Nature, (25 02 1925), 121, pp. 287–288.Google Scholar

5 Lodge, O.J., ‘Sketch of the electrical papers in Section A at the recent Bath Meeting of the British Association’, Electrician, (21 09 1888), 21, pp. 622–625.Google Scholar

6 Heaviside, O., ‘On the metaphysical nature of the propagation of the potentials’, Phil. Mag. (01 1889), 27, pp. 47–50Google Scholar, reprinted in Heaviside, , Electrical Papers, 2 vols, London, 1892, 2, p. 483.Google Scholar

7 Notebook 3a, entries 159 and 164, Heaviside Collection, Institution of Electrical Engineers, London.

8 Kelvin, to Heaviside, , 2 11 1888Google Scholar, Heaviside Collection, op. cit. (7); part published in Heaviside, , 1892, op. cit. (6), Electrical Papers, 2, p. 490.Google Scholar

9 See Hunt, B., ‘“Practice versus theory”: the British electrical debate, 1888–1891’, Isis, (1983), 74, pp. 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Heaviside, to Kelvin, (draft), 5 11 1888Google Scholar, Heaviside Collection, op. cit. (7).

11 Kelvin, to Heaviside, , 6 11 1888Google Scholar, Heaviside Collection, op. cit. (7); Heaviside, , 1892, op. cit. (6)Google Scholar, Electrical Papers, 2, pp. 490–496.Google Scholar

12 Notebook 7, Heaviside Collection, op. cit. (7), marked ‘Done 1880–1881’.Google Scholar

13 Thomson, J.J., ‘On the electric and magnetic effects produced by the motion of electrified bodies’, Phil. Mag. (04 1881), 11, pp. 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Ibid., p. 241; cf. Whittaker, E.T., History of Theories of the Aether and Electricity, 2 vols, New York, 1951, 1, pp. 306–310Google Scholar. The sequence of Maxwellian treatments of charge convection is discussed very fully in Buchwald, J.Z., From Maxwell to Microphysics: Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory in the Last Quarter of the Nineteenth Century, Chicago, 1985, pp. 269–277.Google Scholar

15 FitzGerald, G.F., ‘Note on Mr J.J. Thomson's investigation of the electro-magnetic action of a moving electrified sphere’, Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, (11 1881), 3, pp. 250–254Google Scholar, reprinted in FitzGerald, G.F., Scientific Writings of the late George Francis FitzGerald (ed. Larmor, J.), Dublin, 1902, pp. 102–107Google Scholar; FitzGerald, G.F., ‘On electromagnetic effects due to the motion of the Earth’, Scientific Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society, (05 1882), 1, pp. 319–324Google Scholar, reprinted in FitzGerald, , op. cit., Scientific Writings, pp. 111–118.Google Scholar

16 Heaviside, , 1892, op. cit. (6), Electrical Papers, 1, p. 446, 2, pp 505–507Google Scholar; Thomson, J.J., Applications of Dynamics to Physics and Chemistry, London, 1888, pp. 32–35.Google Scholar

17 Heaviside, , ‘The electro–magnetic effects of a moving charge’, Electrician, (7 12 1888), 22, pp. 147–148Google Scholar, reprinted in Heaviside, , 1892, op. cit. (6)Google Scholar, Electrical Papers, 2, pp. 494–496.Google Scholar

18 Heaviside, , 1892, op. cit. (6)Google Scholar, Electrical Papers, 2, p. 514nGoogle Scholar; cf. Searle, to Heaviside, , 19 08, 24 09 1892Google Scholar, Heaviside Collection, op. cit. (7) and Searle, G.F.C., ‘Problems in electrical convection’, Phil. Trans. (1896), 187A, pp. 675–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar. That the contraction of the field implies a contraction of matter was by no means clear at first; although FitzGerald took this step quite readily, most other physicists did not accept it until after the advent of electron theory.

19 Heaviside, , 1892, op. cit. (6), Electrical Papers, 2, p. 495Google Scholar; Heaviside, , ‘On the electromagnetic effects due to the motion of electrification through a dielectric’, Phil. Mag. (04 1889), 27, pp. 324–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in Heaviside, , 1892, op. cit. (6)Google Scholar, Electrical Papers, 2, pp. 504–518Google Scholar; Heaviside, to FitzGerald, , 30 01 1889Google Scholar, FitzGerald Collection, Royal Dublin Society; Heaviside, to Kelvin, , 27 02 1889Google Scholar, Kelvin Collection, University Library, Cambridge; Heaviside, to Hertz, , 1 04 1889Google Scholar, Hertz Collection, Deutsches Museum, Munich; Thomson, to Heaviside, , 7 04 1889 and 26 05 1889Google Scholar, Heaviside Collection, op. cit. (7).

20 Thompson, S.P., ‘Electrical theory’, Electrician, (16 11 1888), 22, pp. 54–55Google Scholar; FitzGerald, to Heaviside, , 27 12 1888Google Scholar, Heaviside Collection, op. cit. (7).

21 Heaviside, to FitzGerald, , 30 01 1889Google Scholar, FitzGerald, Collection, op. cit. (19)Google Scholar; FitzGerald, to Heaviside, , 4 02 1889Google Scholar, Heaviside Collection, op. cit. (7).

22 On FitzGerald's commitment to the ether as the ultimate basis of all physical phenomena, see FitzGerald, G.F., ‘On a model illustrating some properties of the ether’, Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, (01 1885), 4, pp. 407–419Google Scholar, reprinted in FitzGerald, , 1902, op. cit. (15)Google Scholar, Scientific Writings, pp. 142–156Google Scholar, especially pp. 154–155; on his attempts to extend theories of the motion of the ether to explain molecular and chemical forces, see FitzGerald, G.F., ‘Helmholtz Memorial Lecture’, Journal of the Chemical Society, (01 1896), 69, pp. 885–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in FitzGerald, , 1902, op. cit. (15)Google Scholar, Scientific Writings, pp. 340–377.Google Scholar

23 Heaviside, to Hertz, , 13 07 1889Google Scholar, Hertz, Collection, op. cit. (19)Google Scholar. See also Heaviside, to Lodge, , 4 08 1902Google Scholar, Lodge Collection, University College London, for evidence that FitzGerald raised the moving charge problem on his visit to Heaviside in 1889.

24 There is a proof copy of Heaviside, O., ‘The electromagnetic effects of a moving charge—III’, Electrician, (6 09 1889), 23, pp. 458–459Google Scholar, reprinted in Heaviside, , 1892, op. cit. (6)Google Scholar, Electrical Papers, 2, pp. 496–499Google Scholar, dated 25 August and corrected in Heaviside's hand, in the FitzGerald, Collection, op. cit. (19).Google Scholar

25 Lodge, O.J., ‘Modern views of electricity’, Nature, (31 01 1889), 39, p. 321CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Hunt, B., ‘Experimenting on the ether: Oliver J. Lodge and the great whirling machine’. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, (1986), 16, pp. 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Heaviside, to Lodge, , 13 11 1893Google Scholar, Lodge Collection, op. cit. (23).Google Scholar

27 FitzGerald, G.F., ‘Michelson and Morley on the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous aether’ (Royal Dublin Society, 18 Jan., 14 Feb. and 18 April 1888), listed (title only) in Yearbook of Scientific and Learned Societies, London, 1889.Google Scholar

28 Lodge, O.J., ‘G.F. FitzGerald’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, (1905), 75, pp. 152–160Google Scholar, reprinted in FitzGerald, , 1902, op. cit. (15), Scientific Writings, pp. xxxii–xxxixGoogle Scholar, on p. xxxiv.

29 Ibid.; Lodge, O.J., The Ether of Space, London, 1909, pp. 65–66Google Scholar; Lodge, O.J., ‘Continuity’(Presidential Address), British Association Report, (1913), pp. 3–42, on pp. 25–26Google Scholar; Lodge, O.J., Past Years, London, 1931, pp. 204–205.Google Scholar

30 See Bork, , op. cit. (1), p. 206Google Scholar, with the relevant passages from Lodge's 1913 and 1931 accounts (op. cit., 29).

31 FitzGerald, to Lorentz, , 14 11 1894Google Scholar, quoted in Brush, , op. cit. (1), p. 231Google Scholar; cf. Lodge, , 1931, op. cit. (29), Past Years, p. 205.Google Scholar

32 Lorentz, to Einstein, , 01 1915Google Scholar (draft), in Pais, A., Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford, 1982, p. 167.Google Scholar

33 See Mollan, C., ‘Science and its industrial applications’, in The Royal Dublin Society, I731–1981 (ed. Meenan, J. and Clarke, D.), Dublin, 1981, pp. 210–211.Google Scholar

34 FitzGerald, G.F., ‘The ether and the Earth's atmosphere’, Science, (17 05 1889), 13, p. 390.Google Scholar

35 Brush, , op cit. (1)Google Scholar; FitzGerald, 's Science paper was, however, listed in the Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers, Cambridge, 1916, 15, p. 2.Google Scholar

36 On Larmor's advocacy of credit for FitzGerald, see Larmor, to Lodge, , 24 10 1901Google Scholar, Lodge Collection, op. cit. (23).

37 FitzGerald may also have been put off from following up his initial insight by confusion about the directional variation 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; see Searle and Heaviside (note 18), and FitzGerald, to Larmor, , 30 03 and 4 04 1895Google Scholar, Larmor Collection, Royal Society, London.

38 FitzGerald, to Lorentz, , 14 11 1894Google Scholar, in Brush, , op. cit. (1)Google Scholar. The contraction is not mentioned in the first edition of Preston, 's Light (London, 1890)Google Scholar, but it appears in the second (1895) and later editions of this widely used text. See also Glazebrook, , op. cit. (4)Google Scholar, describing a visit from FitzGerald to Cambridge, apparently in June 1893.

39 Lodge, O.J., ‘On the present state of our knowledge of the connection between ether and matter: an historical summary’, Nature, (16 06 1892), 46, pp. 164–165Google Scholar; Lodge, O.J., ‘Aberration problems’, Phil. Trans. (1893), 184A, pp. 727–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on pp. 749–750.

40 Lorentz, 's letter of 10 11 1894Google Scholar and FitzGerald's reply of 14 November are reproduced in Brush, , op. cit. (1).Google Scholar

41 Lorentz, H.A., Versuch einer Theorie der Electrischen and Optischeit Erscheimungen in Bewegten Körpern, Leiden, 1895, p. 122nGoogle Scholar. The relevant part is reprinted in Lorentz, H.A. et al. , The Principle of Relativity, London, 1952, pp. 3–7.Google Scholar

42 Trouton, F.T., ‘The results of an electrical experiment, involving the relative motion of the Earth and the ether, suggested by the late Professor FitzGerald’Google Scholar, in FitzGerald, , 1902, op. cit. (15), Scientific Writings, pp. 557–565Google Scholar

43 Heaviside, to lodge, , 19 01 1901Google Scholar, Lodge Collection, op. cit. (23).