Abstract
The special theory of relativity has already existed for nearly a century, and the controversy between the adherents of its two versions is almost as old. While Einstein’s version is widely accepted by the scientific community, its Lorentz’s alternative is even far from being widely known. Worse still, its partisans are often accused of lack of competence. Of course, this strange state of affairs may be partly explained by various “external factors” - psychological, sociological, historical and the like. It is, however, more interesting to ask about possible “internal factors”. Maybe, the followers of Lorentz’s relativity are guilty to some extent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
H.E. Ives, Derivations of the Lorentz transformations, Philosophical Magazine 36:392 (1945).
F.A. Muller, On the principle of relativity, Found. Phys. Lett. 5:591 (1992).
M. Friedmann, Relativity principles, absolute objects and symmetry groups, in:“Space, Time and Geometry,” P. Suppes, ed., Reidel, Dordrecht (1973).
A. Aurilia and F. Rohrlich, Invariant relative velocity, Am. J. Phys. 43:261 (1975).
S. Weinberg, The cosmological principle, in: “Gravitation and Cosmology,” Wiley, New York (1972).
W.L. Craig, The elimination ofNewton’s absolute time by relativity theory, in: “Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory,” British Society for the Philosophy of Science, London (1990).
S.J. Prokhovnik, The empty ghost of Michelson and Morley: a critique of the Marinov coupled-mirrors experiment, Found. Phys. 9:883 (1979).
P.-A. Ivert and T. Sjödin, Poincaré’s principle determines the behaviour of moving particles and clocks, Acta Phys. Hung. 48:439 (1980).
K.F. Schaffner, Einstein versus Lorentz: researchprogrammes and the logic of comparative theory evaluation, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 25:45 (1974).
R. Mansouri and R.U. Sexl, A testtheory ofspecial relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization, Gen. Rel. Gravit. 8:497 (1977).
A.P. Stone, Non-standard clock synchronization in special relativity and the hypothetical ether frame, Found. Phys. Lett. 4:581 (1991).
P. Mittelstaedt, Conventionalism in special relativity, Found. Phys. 7:573 (1977).
D. Dieks, The “reality” of the Lorentz contraction, Zeitschrift füallgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie15/2:330 (1984).
G. Cavalleri and Ø. Grøn, On the experimental indistinguibility between Lorentz theory of electrons and special relativity, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 18:508 (1977).
A. Eddington, The velocityof light, in: “The Mathematical Theory of Relativity,” Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1960).
M. Born, Schein und Wirklichkeit, in: “Die Relativitätstheorie Einsteins,” Springer, Berlin, (1920).
J.L. Synge, Apparent contraction of a moving body and apparent retardation of a moving clock, in: “Relativity: The Special Theory,” Amsterdam (1965).
H.A. Lorentz, The principle of relativity for uniform translations, in: “Lectures on Theoretical Physics” Vol. 3, MacMillan, London (1931).
A. Einstein, Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon, Phys. Z. 12:509 (1911).
C. Møller, Contraction of bodies in motion. The retardation ofmoving clocks. The clock paradox, in: “The Theory of Relativity,” Clarendon Press, Oxford (1952).
V.F. Weisskopf, The visual appearance of apidly moving objects, Physics Today 13/9:24 (1960); J. Terrell, Invisibility of the Lorentz contraction, Phys. Rev. 116:1041 (1959).
J.S. Bell, How to teach special relativity, in: “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics,” Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1987).
C. Møller, The Doppler effect, the aberration of light, and the dragging phenomenon according to the theory of relativity, in: “The Theory of Relativity,” Clarendon Press, Oxford (1952).
N. Maxwell, Are probabilism and special relativity incompatible? Phil.Sci. 52:23 (1985).
D. Bohm, The Lorentz transformation in Einstein’s point of view, in: “The Special Theory of Relativity,” Benjamin, New York (1965).
L. Kostro, Einstein’s relativistic ether, its history, physical meaning and updated applications, Organon 24:219 (1988).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Czerniawski, J. (1994). What is and What is not Essential in Lorentz’s Relativity. In: Barone, M., Selleri, F. (eds) Frontiers of Fundamental Physics. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2560-8_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2560-8_25
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-6093-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-2560-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive