Welcome to the final installment of our series exploring the fascinating world of ether-based
electron models. In our previous episodes, we delved into the intricacies of both Lorentz's and
Larmor's electron models, uncovering their unique perspectives and contributions. Now, in this
concluding part, we will compare these two models side by side and draw insightful conclusions about
their strengths, limitations, and their impact on the development of theoretical physics.
Before we dive I would just like to bring your attention to some new designs I have created for
my Merch store. Some are inspired by the electric universe and some inspired by the aether series.
Links will be down in the description. So grab your self something unique for
the summer and help support this channel in the process.
That being said let's dive in and find out more...
---
Lorentz and Larmor held contrasting perspectives regarding the relationship between optics and
electrodynamics. Lorentz aligned himself with the views of Maxwell and Helmholtz,
who believed that optics should be derived from electrodynamics. This inclination was
evident early on, as even in his dissertation, Lorentz derived the laws of reflection and
refraction of light from "Maxwell's theory." In contrast, Larmor, influenced by William Thomson,
disputed Maxwell's success in establishing optics on the foundation of electrodynamics. Instead, he
believed that theories centered around the optical ether were more satisfactory and had greater
potential to serve as the basis for a unified physical theory. This divergence in opinion shaped
how the two theorists introduced electrons as the fundamental subatomic carriers of electricity.
According to Lorentz, the inclusion of electrons (or ions) became necessary when applying the
electromagnetic reduction of optics to phenomena involving the atomic structure
of matter. Anomalous dispersion, in particular, indicated a connection between the propagation of
light and atomic vibrators. The electromagnetic interpretation of this relationship led Lorentz
to propose that the atomic vibrator should be perceived as a charged particle bound elastically.
This idea seemed particularly natural to Lorentz, given his use of Helmholtz's version
of Maxwell's theory, which depicted electric polarization as a local displacement of charge.
Larmor's initial theory, which drew from MacCullagh's optical ether and the concept
of vortex rings, did not inherently require the existence of subatomic charged particles. Instead,
these particles were seen as secondary entities, obtained by manipulating the
strained ether vortices, to explain phenomena like electrolysis and potentially chemical bonding.
In Larmor's framework, ions did not play a significant role in polarization and conduction,
which were attributed to intrinsic properties of the ether itself—its rotational elasticity and its
ability to sustain vortical motion. However, the failure of the vortex explanation to account for
both macroscopic and microscopic currents led Larmor to introduce electrons. Their inclusion
became necessary after a significant internal crisis in his theory. Larmor came to regard
electrons as an entity or singularity derived from the concept of the aether, while for Lorentz,
they represented the most natural link within the electromagnetic interpretation of certain optical
phenomena. When one overcomes internal challenges, it is often perceived as a transcendental truth.
Larmor's foundation in an optical ether had further implications. Unlike Lorentz's
perspective, Larmor's electrons were not regarded as independent entities but as specific constructs
of the ether itself. Larmor's theory was essentially monistic in nature, while Lorentz's
was clearly dualistic. The rationale behind the stationary nature of the ether differed between
the two theories. Larmor considered the ether to be stationary because it could not be otherwise.
Singularities within MacCullagh's medium moved without dragging the medium along with them.
Additionally, any velocity of the medium would have resulted in a magnetic field that was
excessively strong to have gone undetected. On the other hand, Lorentz viewed the stationary nature
of the ether as the simplest hypothesis, directly compatible with the optics of moving bodies.
Larmor's reluctance to base optics on Maxwell's theory stemmed from his dissatisfaction with
Maxwell's dynamical considerations. He believed that Maxwell's Lagrangian treatment of a system
of currents lacked a sufficient dynamical foundation because it lacked a clear
depiction of the concealed motion occurring within the magnetic field. In comparison,
previous optical theories, which often drew analogies between the ether and an elastic solid,
fared better in this aspect. Larmor sought to preserve the essence of MacCullagh's ether in his
own theory and even aimed to provide a dynamic illustration of its rotational elasticity.
The fact that the ether differed fundamentally from any known substance was of no consequence to
Larmor. Instead, he considered its peculiarity as further evidence of its ultimate nature.
Lorentz demonstrated a greater willingness to embrace the abstract dynamical foundation
presented in Maxwell's Treatise. He dedicated considerable effort
to generalizing and adapting it to the new electron theory. However,
he eventually agreed with Larmor that relying solely on a mechanical interpretation was hardly
satisfactory. This marked a point of divergence between the two theorists. In subsequent work,
Lorentz felt tempted to abandon the idea of a mechanical foundation altogether and
instead focus directly on the field equations and the Lorentz force.
The electron theories proposed by both Larmor and Lorentz represented significant departures
from Maxwell's original concepts of charge and current. However, their histories and
ultimate forms of departure differed in each case. Lorentz initially adopted Helmholtz's
reformulation of Maxwell's theory, which defined charge and current as primitive concepts based on
their actions at a distance. In this framework, polarization was considered a secondary concept—a
microscopic displacement of charge. In contrast, Maxwell's theory (or Faraday's conception) treated
polarization as a fundamental concept from which the notions of charge and current were derived.
Lorentz's departure from Maxwell's conceptions of charge and current reflected Helmholtz's earlier
departure from Maxwell, with only the atomistic understanding of charge needing supplementation.
After Hertz's experiments, Lorentz began to pay closer attention to Maxwell's ideas and grasped
their significant aspects. He recognized that for Maxwell, electricity was akin to an incompressible
fluid and that electric displacement represented the elastically resisted flow of this fluid in a
dielectric medium. Furthermore, he understood that an electrification process required
conferring conductivity upon the medium and that the concept of electric charge stemmed
from the notion of a field. However, Lorentz believed that this conception could only be
applied at the microscopic level of electrons and free ether. Macroscopic displacement in
material dielectrics involved the microscopic shifting of elastically bound electrons,
while macroscopic conduction involved the nearly unhindered circulation of electrons.
Ultimately, maintaining two separate intuitions of charge and current—an exclusively Maxwellian one
for sub-electronic processes and a Weberian one for macroscopic phenomena—offered no advantage.
In later writings, Lorentz exclusively adhered to Weber's concept, resulting in a dualistic theory
based on the field and microscopic charges no longer considered constructs of the field itself.
Larmor initially shared Maxwell's belief that electric charge represented a discontinuity in
displacement, and electric conduction arose from the relaxation of displacement. His first theory,
which incorporated the vortex interpretation of electric currents, aligned with this perspective.
Both Larmor and Maxwell held the notion that displacement was a state of elastic constraint,
and the presence of conduction currents and charges indicated a breakdown in the medium's
elastic property. However, Larmor diverged from Maxwell's interpretation of displacement
as an elastically resisted shift of an imaginary fluid. He recognized that this depiction merely
illustrated the form of the total current and could not serve as the basis for a dynamic field
theory. Larmor briefly considered Helmholtz's polarization theory as an alternative, although
it lacked dynamical attributes. Ultimately, he found the interpretation of displacement
as a twist in MacCullagh's ether more fitting, providing him with the desired dynamic framework.
Concerning the electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies,
Larmor's theory was still in its early stages when he encountered Lorentz's Versuch.
Consequently, he adopted Lorentz's averaging methods and the technique of corresponding states.
Both theorists shared the same understanding of corresponding states, although they overlooked the
crucial point that these states were measured in the moving frame of reference and that the
correspondence theorem held precisely at every order in u/c. Their oversight stemmed from their
belief that the principle of relativity applied to matter and ether, rather than matter alone.
They both anticipated that motion relative to the ether would eventually be detected.
However, Lorentz and Larmor diverged in their application of the correspondence theorem.
Larmor, considering matter as composed of point singularities in ether, could
dispense with Lorentz's assumptions regarding the internal structure of electrons and the behavior
of molecular forces. To determine corresponding states, Larmor only needed to consider the ether
field and the corresponding field equations. While this simplification was significant, it failed
to impress continental electron theorists, who remained skeptical of Larmor's concept of matter.
Ultimately, there existed a stark contrast in form and perspective between Lorentz's
and Larmor's theories. Lorentz rejected the notion of an ultimate foundation for physical
theory and sought only the simplest and clearest basic assumptions. Larmor, on the other hand,
viewed the rotational ether as the ultimate entity and regarded the resulting electron theory as part
of a new transcendent aesthetics. This philosophy of the ether clashed with the methodological
rigor of earlier leading Maxwellians such as Heaviside and Hertz, further accentuating the
contrast between British and continental styles in theoretical physics at the turn of the century.
As we reach the conclusion of our exploration into the ether-based electron models of
Lorentz and Larmor, we have gained invaluable insights into the rich tapestry of theoretical
physics during a pivotal era. These models, while rooted in the concept of the ether,
showcased distinct approaches and philosophical underpinnings.
Lorentz's electron model, striving for a unified physical theory, sought to derive optics from
electrodynamics. His meticulous efforts to generalize Maxwell's Treatise and adapt it to
the electron theory demonstrated his dedication to forging connections between fundamental concepts.
On the other hand, Larmor, guided by his belief in the primacy of the rotational ether, embraced
a more monistic viewpoint, incorporating the aether as a fundamental construct.
Through our exploration, we have witnessed the clash of ideas, the divergence in interpretations,
and the impact of these models on the development of theoretical physics.
From the intricate interplay between optics and electrodynamics to the complex notions of charge,
current, and displacement, Lorentz and Larmor presented unique perspectives that
sparked intense debates and pushed the boundaries of scientific understanding.
While Lorentz and Larmor may have differed in their ultimate conclusions, their contributions
paved the way for future advancements. The quest for a unified physical theory persisted,
guiding subsequent generations of physicists towards new insights and discoveries.
As we conclude this series, we are reminded that scientific progress is built upon the
exchange of ideas, the clash of theories, and the relentless pursuit of knowledge. The exploration
of ether-based electron models has unveiled the intricacies of theoretical physics during
a transformative period, highlighting the enduring impact of these visionary thinkers.
Now this is by no means the end of the story as there are many other avenues to explore both in
terms of other aether based theories of this time such as Kelvin's vortex model and how his approach
is being used in a totally different way. I would also like to explore more modern Aether based
theories and potential experimental evidence of an aether. One big question that still cannot be
answered is what exactly is charge and in this respect I do like Larmors consideration of the
fact that positive charge is created through the same structure as a negative charge. I would be
interested in hearing your suggestions for any of these, in terms of papers or experiments who have
looked into these area. So if you have ideas please leave them down below in the comments.
Thank you for joining me on this enlightening voyage through the realms of ether-based
electron models. As we continue to explore the frontiers of theoretical physics and delve into
new realms of knowledge, I kindly ask for your continued support. By subscribing to the channel,
sharing my content, and participating in the ongoing discussions, you contribute to the
vibrant community of curious minds dedicated to unraveling the mysteries of the universe.
Once again, I extend my heartfelt appreciation to each and every one of you for joining me
on this exhilarating journey. Let us embark on the next chapter together,
as we embrace the wonders of theoretical physics and unravel the secrets of the universe.