Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity Myth (1905): The Desperate Attempt to Uphold Heliocentrism Continues with Einstein’s Implicit Endorsement of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Myth

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction myth—see our webpage titled, The Lorentz-FitzGerald Contraction Myth (1889–1892)—was fully endorsed by Einstein in his special theory of relativity. The following excerpts are from his popular exposition¹ of that theory:

[…] Guided by purely formal points of view, H.A. Lorentz was the first to introduce the hypothesis that the particles constituting the electron experience a contraction in the direction of motion in consequence of that motion, the amount of this contraction being proportional to the expression \(\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}\).^2,3 […]

Einstein subsequently applies that contraction myth to Michelson and Morley’s experiment⁴ to convince the general public of the earth’s motion (his book titled, Relativity having been subtitled, A Popular Exposition and therefore containing a minimum of mathematical formalism):

The second class of facts to which we have alluded has reference to the question whether or not the [alleged] motion of the earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked in Section V that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result, for reasons now to be discussed. The inherited prejudices about time and space did not allow any doubt to arise as to the prime importance of the Galilei transformation for changing over from one body of reference to another.⁵ […]

Einstein then introduces the classical Galileian⁶ transformation in an attempt to impose separate coordinate systems for the earth (as a whole) and the earth’s surface (with the subsumed dynamical distinction) thereby dismissing Michelson and Morley’s experiment and paving the way for his theory to provide an alternative but bogus explanation for the results of that experiment:

[…] Now assuming that the Maxwell-Lorentz equations [of electrodynamics] hold for a reference-body \(K\), we then find that they do not hold for a reference-body \(K^\prime\) moving uniformly with respect to \(K\), if we assume that the relations of the Galileian transformation exist between the co-ordinates of \(K\) and \(K^\prime\). It thus appears that of all the Galileian co-ordinate systems one (\(K\)) corresponding to a particular state of motion is physically unique. This result was interpreted physically by regarding \(K\) as at rest with respect to a hypothetical aether of space. On the other hand, all co-ordinate systems \(K^\prime\) moving relatively to \(K\) were to be regarded as in motion with respect to the aether. To this motion of \(K^\prime\) against the aether (“aether-drift” relative to \(K^\prime\)) were assigned the more complicated laws which were supposed to hold relative to \(K^\prime\). Strictly speaking, such an aether-drift ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an aether-drift at the earth’s surface.⁷

In the final paragraph of this discussion, Einstein first describes Michelson and Morley’s experiment as follows:

In one of the most notable of these attempts Michelson devised a method which appears as though it must be decisive. Imagine two mirrors so arranged on a rigid body that the reflecting surfaces face each other. A ray of light requires a perfectly definite time \(T\) to pass from one mirror to the other and back again, if the whole system be at rest with respect to the aether. It is found by calculation, however, that a slightly different time \(T^\prime\) is required for this process, if the body, together with the mirrors, be moving relatively to the aether. And yet another point: it is shown by calculation that for a given velocity \(v\) with reference to the aether, this time \(T^\prime\) is different when the body is moving perpendicularly to the planes of the mirrors from that resulting when the motion is parallel to these planes. Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists.^8,9 […]

Einstein then describes the Herculean effort by Lorentz and Fitzgerald to rescue physics from the truth via their fabricated precept of velocity-dependent contraction, conveniently outside the realm of empirical verification (and hence, the scientific method) and therefore metaphysical in its essence:

[…] Lorentz and Fitzgerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the aether produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in the time mentioned above.¹⁰ […]

Finally, Einstein’s full endorsement:

[…] Comparison with the discussion in Section XII shows that from the standpoint also of the theory of relativity this solution was the right one.^11,12 […]

But then Einstein quickly moves on to suggest that the (metaphysical) interpretation offered by Lorentz and Fitzgerald is even more credible when considered from within the framework of his own (equally metaphysical) theory of relativity:

[…] But on the basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more satisfactory. According to this [his] theory there is no such thing as a “specially favoured” (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the aether-idea, and hence there can be no aether-drift, nor any experiment with which to demonstrate it.¹³ Here the contraction of moving bodies follows from the two fundamental principles of the theory without the introduction of particular hypotheses; and as the prime factor involved in this contraction we find, not the motion in itself, to which we cannot attach any meaning, but the motion with respect to the body of reference chosen in the particular case in point. Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively [sic] to the sun.¹⁴

Einstein essentially blames the negative result of the experiment on heliocentrism (i.e., a moving terrestrial co-ordinate system and a motionless solar co-ordinate system). In other words, Einstein (a) concludes that an otherwise empirically decisive experiment ostensibly failed to prove heliocentrism because of heliocentrism, and (b) ensures that his theory renders definitive proof of either heliocentrism or geocentrism physically impossible by implying that the observation would have to be made extraterrestrially, i.e., from within a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively [sic] to the sun.

— FINIS —

The reader is advised to proceed to Einstein Refuted: The Sagnac Experinent (1913).