David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 36 (4):354-362 (1969)
The Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis, proposed as an explanation of the Michelson-Morley result, fails to account for the Kennedy-Thorndike result. Hence, Grünbaum argues, the hypothesis has been falsified. However, the contraction hypothesis as formulated by Lorentz is false for the very fundamental reason that it entails a contradiction, namely, the consequence that light waves must have a variable velocity along what by definition is taken to be a rest length. Furthermore, the attempt to resolve this contradiction by coupling the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction with the hypothesis that clock rates are a function of velocity, is open to a sound, methodological objection. The Michelson-Morley result is fully satisfied, provided only that the lengths of the interferometer arms, in the longitudinal and transverse positions, are thought to be related to one another in a certain ratio, and this ratio may be interpreted as a contraction in both arms. Since this twofold contraction hypothesis suffices to explain both the Michelson-Morley and the Kennedy-Thorndike results, and since it entails no contradiction, there is no need to correct both the length of rods and the rate of clocks. Therefore, the combined clock-rod hypothesis, and with it the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis, must be rejected
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jarrett Leplin (1975). The Concept of an Ad Hoc Hypothesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 5 (4):309-345.
Similar books and articles
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.
Herbert Dingle (1959). The Falsifiability of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Hypothesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (39):228-229.
Adolf Grūnbaum (1960). The Falsihability of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Hypothesis: A Rejoinder to Professor Dingle. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11 (42):143-145.
Adolf Grünbaum (1960). The Falsifiability of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Hypothesis: A Rejoinder to Professor Dingle. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11 (42):143-145.
Adolf Grünbaum (1959). Discussions: Thb Falsifiability Op the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Hypothesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37):48-50.
Adolf Grünbaum (1959). The Falsifiability of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Hypothesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37):48-50.
Dennis Dieks (1984). The “Reality” of the Lorentz Contraction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 15 (2):330-342.
Ronald Laymon (1980). Independent Testability: The Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike Experiments. Philosophy of Science 47 (1):1-37.
Herman Erlichson (1971). The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Hypothesis and the Combined Rod Contraction-Clock Retardation Hypothesis. Philosophy of Science 38 (4):605-609.
Harvey R. Brown (2001). The Origins of Length Contraction: I. The Fitzgerald-Lorentz Deformation Hypothesis. American Journal of Physics 69:1044-1054.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #145,860 of 1,100,838 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #289,727 of 1,100,838 )
How can I increase my downloads?