Revisiting the history of relativity

Metascience, 2011

Here are two rational alternatives to Special Relativity that preserve commonsense. Almost all of the dramatic results arising from the theory of special relativity derive from the kinematic consequences of the Lorentz transformation, especially with respect to its impact on the time dimension, where it appears to result in dynamical effects. An analysis of the Lorentz transformation herein shows that equally valid alternative kinematic assumptions lead to the earlier (1887) Voigt transform, which is usually viewed as simply equivalent to the Lorentz transform in the transverse spatial dimensions. This is shown NOT to be the case, and the Voigt transformations are shown to be much closer to the classical (Galilean) transforms. Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform is shown to rely on a critical, third hypothesis, namely one of symmetry between the two inertial reference frames; this assumption is shown not to be reflected in the actual physics of optical observations. It is also emphasized here that Relativity is a derived theory – being based on the validity of classical Maxwell electrodynamics. Although Maxwell's implicit assumption of continuity of electric charge has been shown by von Laue to be incompatible with the relativistic treatment of mass points, relativity has been universally accepted as the theory for treating point electrons. Planck's 1907 proposal for redefining the momentum of a particle is shown to be the critical foundation of relativistic particle dynamics, however, this proposal is independent of the Special Theory of Relativity and is neither derived from this theory nor do its results (including the infamous formula, E = mc 2) validate SRT. (Einstein's 1905 analysis of particle dynamics is incorrect and all of his attempts to derive the equivalence of mass and energy were failures.) However, Planck's proposal is shown to be valid only for electrostatic forces – a result that has major negative implications for all of today's quantum field theories. When the Voigt results are combined with Heaviside's 1888 results for delayed electromagnetic interactions between two moving charged particles, an understandable and consistent interpretation of these famous velocity-sensitive experiments is obtained. This demonstrates that the 'unusual' high-speed effects that are often attributed to relativity result only from " magnetic " effects becoming comparable to the " electric " ones. The combination of these two approaches, from almost forgotten 19th Century physicists, provides a new impetus for reexamining the delayed action-at-a-distance approach to electro-magnetism proposed first by Gauss, the greatest mathematician of this earlier century. This new coherent approach, when combined with a more fundamental 'Relativity Principle', provides a superior research program for consolidating the peculiar (velocity-sensitive) characteristics of the electromagnetic​ interaction with the velocity independent foundations of classical particle dynamics. This restores the natural philosophy of Isaac Newton, involving absolute space and absolute time, to a unified relativistic framework that should be viewed as a superior alternative to the contradictory and bizarre results of the Lorentz transformation derived from Maxwellian field theory and its 20th Century successors. The "rush to explanation", exemplified by using coordinate transformations to explain the increasing difficulty of accelerating charged particles as they increase their energy and extended unstable particle lifetimes at high velocities, has avoided the search for more realistic dynamical explanations of many high-velocity phenomena. In fact, particle lifetimes are the only physical 'evidence' for accepting the validity of the special theory of relativity as a universal basis for all of modern physics. However, ​even this result is contradicted by Planck's invariant quantum of action which all field theories (whether subject to Lorentz or Voigt transformations) predict to vary with relative velocity. In summary, the detailed analysis presented herein demonstrates that the special theory of relativity is, at best, an arbitrary theory of mathematical transformations divorced from the microphysical foundations of the electromagnetic phenomena it is supposedly based upon.

2013

cal physics: from Einstein’s 1909 paper back to late nineteenth-century theoretical p hysics”, in Isabella Tassani (a cura di), Oltre la fisica normale. Interpretazioni alternativ e e teorie non standard nella fisica moderna, pp. 25-52. © 2013 Isonomia, Rivista online di Filosofia – Epis temologica – ISSN 2037-4348 Università degli Studi di Urbino Carlo Bo http://isonomia.uniurb.it/epistemologica Widening the boundaries of classical physics: from Einstein’s 1909 paper back to late nineteenth-century theoretical physics

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 1992

Acta Physica Polonica B, 2010

Many physicists believe that after the discoveries of Max Planck (1900) and Albert Einstein (1905) physics was quickly transformed into a modern one based on relativistic and quantum principles. The study of the physics community and the physics papers published hundred years ago, in 1909, shows however, that only very few physicists took interest in the novelties while the bulk of physics remained classical and much oriented towards practical applications. Details are given on the physics topics, the strength of physics in various countries, the most important periodicals and prominent physicists of that time.

Andrés Rivadulla (ed.), Hipótesis y verdad en ciencia. Ensayos sobre la filosofía de Karl R. Popper., 2004

The main aim of this paper is to respond to Karl Popper’s demand for a crucial experiment between the Einstein and Lorentz-Fitzgerald interpretations of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This article aims at two objectives. First, from a historical point of view, to show that such an experiment was already carried out by Kennedy and Thorndike between the end of the 20s and the beginning of the 30s of the last century, and that it was resumed by Hils and Hall in the eighties with the rejection of the existence of the ether and the contraction of lengths. Secondly, and from a philosophical point of view, this article considers whether crucial experiments should be designed in science in order to lead to the empirical refutation of the theory subjected to them. In addition, it takes sides around whether scientific realism is the only epistemological framework capable of contemplating the existence of crucial experiments in the methodology of science.

In the early 1890s, before his well-known experiments on cathode rays, J.J. Thomson outlined a discrete model of electromagnetic radiation. In the same years, Larmor was trying to match continuous with discrete models for matter and electricity. Just starting from Faraday"s tubes of force, J.J. Thomson put forward a reinterpretation of the electromagnetic field: energy, placed both in the tubes of force and in the motion of tubes of force, spread and propagated by discrete units, in accordance with a theoretical model quite different from Maxwell and Heaviside"s.