The Origins of the FitzGerald Contraction

British Journal for the History of Science 21 (1):67-76 (1988)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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 anad hochypothesis’. 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’.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,894

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The falsifiability of the lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis.Herbert Dingle - 1959 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (39):228-229.
The “reality” of the lorentz contraction.Dennis Dieks - 1984 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 15 (2):330-342.
Discussions: Thb falsifiability op the lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis.Adolf Grünbaum - 1959 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37):48-50.
Learning from Paradoxes.Alessandro Bettini - 2024 - Foundations of Physics 54 (1):1-26.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-01-22

Downloads
42 (#600,591)

6 months
10 (#396,137)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

On the empirical equivalence between special relativity and Lorentz׳s ether theory.Pablo Acuña - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 46 (2):283-302.
The explanative recourse to realism.James W. McAllister - 1988 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 3 (1):2 – 18.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Why did Einstein's programme supersede lorentz's? (I).Elie Zahar - 1973 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (2):95-123.
Einstein. The Life and Times.Ronald W. Clark - 1973 - Science and Society 37 (1):94-98.
Continuity.Oliver Lodge - 1913 - Philosophical Review 22:682.

View all 6 references / Add more references