Henri Poincaré's criticism of Fin De Siècle electrodynamics

doi:10.1016/1355-2198(95)00003-C

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

Volume 26, Issue 1, April 1995, Pages 1-44

https://doi.org/10.1016/1355-2198(95)00003-C Get rights and content

Abstract

Il faudra donc un jour ou l'autre modifier nos idées en quelque point important et briser le cadre où nous cherchons à faire rentrer à la fois les phénomènes optiques et les phénomènes électriques. Poincaré, LÉclairage Électrique, October 1895.

References (0)

Cited by (41)

‘Like thermodynamics before Boltzmann.’ On the emergence of Einstein's distinction between constructive and principle theories
2020, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B - Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
Citation Excerpt :
The differences between the two fractions were ultimately far from being clear-cut. Nevertheless, at the turn of the century, Lorentz (Frisch, 2005; see also Frisch, 2011) and Henri Poincaré (Darrigol, 1995b), the other major protagonists of the relativity revolution, could present the opposition between the ‘physics of principles’ and the ‘physics of models’ as commonplace. In a similar vein, in the early 20th-century, Arnold Sommerfeld opposed a ‘physics of problems,’ a style of doing physics based on concrete puzzle solving, to the ‘practice of principles’ defended by Planck (Seth, 2010).
In a 1919 article for the Times of London, Einstein declared the relativity theory to be a ‘principle theory’, like thermodynamics, rather than a ‘constructive theory’, like the kinetic theory of gases. The present paper attempts to trace back the prehistory of this famous distinction. It provides a systematic overview of Einstein's repeated use of the relativity theory/thermodynamics analysis after 1905 and inserts it into its historical settings, the early reception of relativity against the background of fin de siècle electron theories. Einstein initially used the relativity theory/thermodynamics comparison to address a specific objection. In his 1905 relativity paper he had determined the velocity-dependence of the electron's mass by adapting Newton's particle dynamics to the relativity principle. However, according to many, this result was not admissible without making some assumption about the structure of the electron. Einstein replied that the relativity theory is similar to thermodynamics. Unlike the usual physical theories, it does not directly try to construct models of specific physical systems; it provides empirically motivated and mathematically formulated criteria for the acceptability of such theories. New theories can be obtained by modifying existing theories valid in limiting case so that they comply with such criteria. Einstein progressively transformed this line of the defense into a positive heuristics. Instead of directly searching for new theories, it is often more effective to search for conditions that constraint the number of possible theories. The constructive/principle theories opposition should be considered not only as abstract classification of theories, but also as Einstein's attempt to formulate a sort of ‘logic of discovery’. The paper argues that most of Einstein's scientific successes were obtained by following the principle strategy. Most of his failures happened when he was forced to fall back to the constructive strategy.
How did Lorentz find his theorem of corresponding states?
2019, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B - Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
I offer a reconstruction of how Lorentz found his theorem of corresponding states or, in modern terms, the Lorentz invariance of the source-free Maxwell equations. I show that, to arrive at Lorentz's theorem, both the approximate version of 1895 and the exact version of 1899/1904, Lorentz had to do little more than regroup terms and repeatedly apply the chain rule of differentiation. My reconstruction should thus help dispel the aura of complexity that still surrounds the theorem. I also show how the theorem can be extended to Maxwell's equations with sources and briefly review how Lorentz, after 1905, went from considering Lorentz-transformed quantities purely as auxiliary variables to recognizing them as the measured quantities for moving observers.
Georges Sagnac: A life for optics
2014, Comptes Rendus Physique
Georges Sagnac is mostly known for the optical effect in rotating frames that he demonstrated in 1913. His scientific interests were quite diverse: they included photography, optical illusions, X-ray physics, radioactivity, the blue of the sky, anomalous wave propagation, interferometry, strioscopy, and acoustics. An optical theme nonetheless pervaded his entire œuvre. Within optics, an original theory of the propagation of light motivated most of his investigations, from an ingenious explanation of the Fresnel drag, through the discovery of the Sagnac effect, to his quixotic defense of an alternative to relativity theory. Optical analogies efficiently guided his work in other domains. Optics indeed was his true passion. He saw himself as carrying the torch of the two great masters of French optics, Augustin Fresnel and Hippolyte Fizeau. In this mission he overcame his poor health and labored against the modernist tide, with much success originally and bitter isolation in the end.
Georges Sagnac est principalement connu pour l'effet optique des faisceaux tournants, qu'il démontra en 1913. Ses intérêts scientifiques étaient très divers, incluant la photographie, les illusions d'optique, la physique des rayons X, le bleu du ciel, la propagation anormale des ondes, l'interférométrie, la strioscopie et l'acoustique. Le thème de l'optique habite néanmoins son œuvre toute entière. Dans le domaine de l'optique, une théorie originale de la propagation de la lumière a motivé la plupart de ses recherches, depuis une explication ingénieuse de l'entraînement de Fresnel, en passant par la découverte de l'effet Sagnac, jusqu'à son combat de Don Quichotte en faveur d'une alternative à la théorie de la relativité. Les analogies optiques ont efficacement guidé son travail dans d'autres domaines. En effet, l'optique était sa vraie passion. Il se voyait comme porte-flambeau de deux grands maîtres de l'optique française, Augustin Fresnel et Hippolyte Fizeau. Dans cet apostolat, il surmonta sa faible santé pour travailler à contre courant du modernisme, rencontrant d'abord beaucoup de succès, puis un isolement amer à la fin.
Poincaré on clocks in motion
2014, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B - Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
Recently-discovered manuscripts throw new light on Poincaré׳s discovery of the Lorentz group, and his ether-based interpretation of the Lorentz transformation. At first, Poincaré postulated longitudinal contraction of bodies in motion with respect to the ether, and ignored time deformation. In April, 1909, he acknowledged time deformation due to translation, obtaining thereby a theory of relativity more compatible with those of Einstein and Minkowski.
On the empirical equivalence between special relativity and Lorentz's ether theory
2014, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B - Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
In this paper I argue that the case of Einstein׳s special relativity vs. Hendrik Lorentz׳s ether theory can be decided in terms of empirical evidence, in spite of the predictive equivalence between the theories. In the historical and philosophical literature this case has been typically addressed focusing on non-empirical features (non-empirical virtues in special relativity and/or non-empirical flaws in the ether theory). I claim that non-empirical features are not enough to provide a fully objective and uniquely determined choice in instances of empirical equivalence. However, I argue that if we consider arguments proposed by Richard Boyd, and by Larry Laudan and Jarret Leplin, a choice based on non-entailed empirical evidence favoring Einstein׳s theory can be made.
Poincaré the dynamics of the electron, and relativity
2017, Comptes Rendus Physique
On 5 June 1905 Poincaré presented a Note to the Académie des Sciences entitled Sur la dynamique de l'électron (“On the dynamics of the electron”). After briefly recalling the context that led Poincaré to write this Note, we comment its content. We emphasize that Poincaré's electron model consists in assuming that the interior of the worldtube of the (hollow) electron is filled with a positive cosmological constant. We then discuss the several novel contributions to the physico-mathematical aspects of Special Relativity that are sketched in the Note, though they are downplayed by Poincaré, who describes them as having only completed the May 1904 results of Lorentz dans quelques points de détail (“in a few points of detail”).
Le 5 juin 1905, Poincaré présenta à l'Académie des sciences une Note intitulée « Sur la dynamique de l'électron ». Après avoir brièvement rappelé le contexte qui conduisit Poincaré à écrire cette Note, nous commentons son contenu. Nous soulignons que le modèle de l'électron proposé par Poincaré consiste à supposer que l'intérieur du tube d'univers de l'électron (creux) est rempli par une constante cosmologique positive. Nous exposons ensuite les contributions novatrices aux aspects physico-mathématiques de la relativité restreinte qui sont esquissées dans la Note. Ces contributions sont minimisées par Poincaré, qui décrit ses résultats comme ayant seulement complété les résultats de mai 1904 de Lorentz « dans quelques points de détail ».

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

ArticleHenri Poincaré's criticism of Fin De Siècle electrodynamics

Abstract

Article
Henri Poincaré's criticism of Fin De Siècle electrodynamics