I Lorentz Ether Theory: History & Explanation

Click For Summary
Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) historically posits that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald formula contracts objects moving through the aether, leading to time dilation effects. It describes light as an undulation of the aether, with the electric field representing dielectric displacement in this medium. The discussion highlights a distinction between LET and the concept of a preferred frame, which challenges the principle of relativity by suggesting not all inertial frames are equivalent. Additionally, it notes that while LET maintains Galilean transformations, the Lorentz transformations are seen as mere appearances. The conversation underscores the tendency for proponents of LET to adapt the theory to fit their interpretations of ether-related concepts.
Messages
10,947
Reaction score
3,821
This is purely a historical question that came up in another thread. I always thought LET was the theory put forward by Lorentz that said the Lorentz-Fitzgerald formula contracts objects moving through the aether. Clocks slowed down due to a shortening of their components. Light was an undulation of the aether. The electric field was a dielectric displacement in the aether. I forget what magnetic fields were supposed to be. There is also the idea of a preferred frame independent of LET. That breaks the POR that says all inertial frames are equivalent but does not have the properties of the aether in Let.

Also, in LET, the Galilaean transformations still hold; the Lorentz transformations are mere appearance.

Thanks
Bill
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bhobba said:
I always thought LET was the theory put forward by Lorentz that said the Lorentz-Fitzgerald formula contracts objects moving through the aether.
That's what I take "LET" to refer to historically, yes. However, in my experience, many partisans of LET end up redefining "LET" to mean whatever pet theory they favor that happens to use the term "ether" somewhere.
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Likes vanhees71 and bhobba
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K