What is and What is not Essential in Lorentz’s Relativity

  • Jan Czerniawski


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.


Rest Frame Inertial Frame Lorentz Transformation Time Dilation Light Velocity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    H.E. Ives, Derivations of the Lorentz transformations, Philosophical Magazine 36:392 (1945).MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    F.A. Muller, On the principle of relativity, Found. Phys. Lett. 5:591 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Friedmann, Relativity principles, absolute objects and symmetry groups, in:“Space, Time and Geometry,” P. Suppes, ed., Reidel, Dordrecht (1973).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Aurilia and F. Rohrlich, Invariant relative velocity, Am. J. Phys. 43:261 (1975).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Weinberg, The cosmological principle, in: “Gravitation and Cosmology,” Wiley, New York (1972).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.J. Prokhovnik, The empty ghost of Michelson and Morley: a critique of the Marinov coupled-mirrors experiment, Found. Phys. 9:883 (1979).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.-A. Ivert and T. Sjödin, Poincaré’s principle determines the behaviour of moving particles and clocks, Acta Phys. Hung. 48:439 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    K.F. Schaffner, Einstein versus Lorentz: researchprogrammes and the logic of comparative theory evaluation, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 25:45 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Mansouri and R.U. Sexl, A testtheory ofspecial relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization, Gen. Rel. Gravit. 8:497 (1977).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A.P. Stone, Non-standard clock synchronization in special relativity and the hypothetical ether frame, Found. Phys. Lett. 4:581 (1991).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Mittelstaedt, Conventionalism in special relativity, Found. Phys. 7:573 (1977).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Dieks, The “reality” of the Lorentz contraction, Zeitschrift füallgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie15/2:330 (1984).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Cavalleri and Ø. Grøn, On the experimental indistinguibility between Lorentz theory of electrons and special relativity, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 18:508 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Eddington, The velocityof light, in: “The Mathematical Theory of Relativity,” Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1960).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Born, Schein und Wirklichkeit, in: “Die Relativitätstheorie Einsteins,” Springer, Berlin, (1920).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.L. Synge, Apparent contraction of a moving body and apparent retardation of a moving clock, in: “Relativity: The Special Theory,” Amsterdam (1965).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H.A. Lorentz, The principle of relativity for uniform translations, in: “Lectures on Theoretical Physics” Vol. 3, MacMillan, London (1931).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Einstein, Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon, Phys. Z. 12:509 (1911).MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Møller, Contraction of bodies in motion. The retardation ofmoving clocks. The clock paradox, in: “The Theory of Relativity,” Clarendon Press, Oxford (1952).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J.S. Bell, How to teach special relativity, in: “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics,” Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1987).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    N. Maxwell, Are probabilism and special relativity incompatible? Phil.Sci. 52:23 (1985).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Bohm, The Lorentz transformation in Einstein’s point of view, in: “The Special Theory of Relativity,” Benjamin, New York (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. Kostro, Einstein’s relativistic ether, its history, physical meaning and updated applications, Organon 24:219 (1988).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Czerniawski
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyJagellonian UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations