Journal for General Philosophy of Science 15 (2):330-342 (1984)
|Abstract||Summary A recurrent theme in the philosophical literature on the special theory of relativity is the question as to the reality of the Lorentz contraction. It is often suggested that there is a difference between the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction in the pre-relativistic ether theory and the Lorentz contraction from special relativity in the sense that the former is a real contraction of matter conditioned by dynamical laws, whereas the latter should be compared with the apparent changes in the size of objects when the perspective of the observer changes. It is here shown, however, that the same laws of nature which are operative in the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction also condition the relativistic Lorentz contraction. The relevant distinction therefore is not between the reality of the two contractions. What is at issue is the difference in explanatory structure of the pre-relativistic theory on the one hand and the special theory of relativity on the other. In the course of the argument the question of the conventionality of simultaneity is also discussed|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Laszlo E. Szabo (forthcoming). Lorentzian Theories Vs. Einsteinian Special Relativity - a Logico-Empiricist Reconstruction. In A. Maté, M. Rédei & F. Stadler (eds.), Vienna Circle and Hungary -- Veröffentlichungen des Instituts Wiener Kreis. Springer.
Michel Janssen (2008). Drawing the Line Between Kinematics and Dynamics in Special Relativity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 40 (1):26-52.
Herman Erlichson (1971). The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Hypothesis and the Combined Rod Contraction-Clock Retardation Hypothesis. Philosophy of Science 38 (4):605-609.
Karl R. Popper (1966). A Note on the Difference Between the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction and the Einstein Contraction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 16 (64):332-333.
Harvey R. Brown (2001). The Origins of Length Contraction: I. The Fitzgerald-Lorentz Deformation Hypothesis. American Journal of Physics 69:1044-1054.
Melbourne G. Evans (1969). On the Falsity of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction Hypothesis. Philosophy of Science 36 (4):354-362.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #37,849 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,320 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?