Welcome back! In our previous episode,
we delved into the fascinating world of Lorentz's Ether model. Today, we embark
on a new quest to explore electron models that drew inspiration from the concept of the ether.
In this installment, we will begin by taking a closer look at Lorentz's model.
Lorentz, a brilliant physicist of his time, presented a theory that aimed to
explain the behaviour of electrons within the framework of an all-pervading ether.
His model captivated the scientific community with
its intricate interplay of electromagnetic fields and the hypothetical ether medium.
As we delve deeper into Lorentz's electron model, we will unravel its intricacies and
examine the challenges it faced. Despite its initial allure, Lorentz's model encountered
hurdles that prevented it from gaining widespread acceptance among physicists.
In the subsequent episodes of this series, we will dive into another ether-based electron model,
shedding light on a different perspective that emerged during the same era. By
comparing and contrasting these models, the aim is to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of the diverse approaches taken to elucidate the enigmatic nature of electrons.
So join me as we embark on exploring the Lorentz' ether-based electron model.
---
Hendrik Lorentz was unique among his British and German counterparts in that he didn't have
a specific mentor or affiliation with a particular school of thought. Being Dutch and open-minded,
he extensively studied works in German, English, and French. Lorentz admired and drew inspiration
from diverse figures such as Helmholtz, Maxwell, and Fresnel, who belonged to different and
sometimes conflicting traditions. While this eclecticism might confuse the average person,
Lorentz benefited from it by selecting elements from each system and creating his own synthesis.
In his 1875 dissertation, Lorentz didn't focus on the molecular hypothesis but rather on a footnote
in Helmholtz's 1870 memoir discussing the equations of motion of electricity.
Helmholtz mentioned Maxwell's analogy between electric motions and motions
in the optical ether. However, there were unresolved contradictions in theoretical
optics regarding the reflection and refraction of light at the boundaries between transparent
media. Lorentz discovered that the reflection and refraction of light actually involved four rays,
including unwanted ones that corresponded to unobserved vibrations. These unwanted rays
were necessary to satisfy all boundary conditions.
In the rest of his dissertation,
Lorentz applied Helmholtz's interpretation of Maxwell's theory to solve the problem.
Helmholtz had concluded in his 1870 paper that dielectric polarization
arises from both electrostatic and electromagnetic forces.
He had derived expressions for longitudinal and transverse waves in a dielectric, these propagated
with different velocities. Electric action at a distance with finite velocity appeared possible
without central changes in the foundation of accepted electrodynamic theory. Helmholtz's
theory was the same as Maxwell's but physically they were different. In Helmholtz theory charge
is a substance, and in Maxwell's theory it is a displacement discontinuity in the ether.
Lorentz considered the action of charges and currents, including those resulting from the
displacement of charges in dielectrics. Lorentz derived formulas that aligned with experimental
results for the orientation and intensity of reflected and refracted rays. However,
he recognized the limitations of his and Maxwell's considerations, particularly in accounting for
dispersion phenomena and the absorption of light by metals and electrolytes. Lorentz believed that
combining Maxwell's theory with the molecular hypothesis would help address these anomalies.
Lorentz's dissertation primarily focused on dielectrics, but he also discussed how molecular
structure could be taken into account. He proposed considering both the ether
and embedded molecules to provide a complete description of electric motions in different
substances. In gases, where the influence of molecules is minimal, Lorentz simplified the
calculations by assuming that the properties of the ether are the same as in a vacuum.
To guide his reasoning, Lorentz initially depicted a molecule as a tiny electric and
magnetic moment confined within a spherical region in the ether. He later confirmed that
alternative depictions of the molecule yielded the same results. One such depiction involved
imagining a movable charged particle within the unaltered ether. In this scenario, the electric
moment of the charged particle corresponded to a polarization as proposed by Helmholtz.
Lorentz attempted to explain optical dispersion within this framework.
Previous studies by Fresnel and Cauchy had established that variations in the composition of
the transmitting medium at a microscopic level led to frequency-dependent propagation. However, while
molecular theories of the elastic ether attributed significant importance to this heterogeneity,
Lorentz found that it had a relatively minor effect in his theory. As a result, he concluded
that "If we embrace the electromagnetic theory of light, the only remaining option, in my opinion,
is to attribute the cause of dispersion to the molecules of the medium themselves." Specifically,
the frequency dependency needed to be attributed to the polarizability of the molecules.
Lorentz's theory was the first instance of an electromagnetic theory of dispersion,
although it was not the first to propose a molecular resonance phenomenon. Prior to Lorentz,
Sellmeier had envisioned such a resonance in 1872, which was further refined by Helmholtz
in 1875 within the context of the elastic ether theory. Their main goal was to explain
anomalous dispersion, which is characterized by a decrease in the refractive index with
increasing frequency. Lorentz's paper, although relatively obscure at the time
due to its publication in Dutch, already included essential elements of the later
electron theory. These elements included the separation of the ether from matter,
the concept of electromagnetic interaction between the two, and various calculation techniques.
Stellar aberration refers to the apparent displacement or deviation
of celestial objects from their true positions as observed from Earth. At the time there were
two competing theories to try and explain the effect. Stokes' theory and Fresnel's.
Stokes believed that the ether was putty-like which would act like a liquid on large scales
but as a solid on small scales. This would mean that it would have zero velocity far from the
Earth but moves at Earth's velocity at its surface and within it. He treated light as a particle. The
velocity of the ether outside of the Earth would decrease as a function of distance from the Earth
so light rays from stars would be progressively dragged as they approach the surface of the Earth.
Fresnel supposed that objects partially drag the ether along with them as they move. He thought the
ether was generally at rest in the Sun's frame of reference,
but objects partially drag the ether along with them as they move. He
based his theory on the wave nature of light and utilized Huygens's principle.
Both theories aimed to explain the observed aberration phenomenon but approached it
from different perspectives and mathematical frameworks.
Lorentz favoured Fresnel's theory over Stokes' theory of aberration,
as it led to a simpler understanding of the permeability of matter to ether.
He suggested that atoms could occupy the same place as portions of ether,
which aligned with his previous work connecting optical properties to molecular structure.
Initially, Lorentz was open to different theories of electromagnetism and favoured Helmholtz's
theory because it explained observed facts directly. However, after Hertz's experiments,
he switched to Maxwell's theory but wanted to reconcile it with the older theories.
Lorentz introduced the idea of small charged particles to explain electric charges and
conduction currents, similar to Weber's theory. Instead of action at a distance,
he proposed an interaction transmitted through the ether.
Lorentz had concerns about Maxwell's dynamical considerations, pointing out three issues:
limited applicability to linear conductors, reliance
on potentials (which were later eliminated by Heaviside and Hertz), and incomplete coverage of
moving bodies. To address these problems, Lorentz made a generalization by considering the amount
of electricity crossing a conductor section to control the configuration of the magnetic field.
He distinguished conduction as a prerequisite for electric charge and distinguished it from
the actual flow of electric charge. Lorentz introduced the concept of an imaginary
fluid called "electricity," which couldn't accumulate because it was incompressible.
However, Lorentz didn't provide detailed explanations about how charges were distributed
in a conductor or the behaviour of materials with conductivity and dielectric capacity.
Lorentz developed a theory that described the movement of charged particles through
ether without dragging it, similar to Weber's theory. He assumed an ether that was perfectly
transparent and used this framework to address optical problems. Within his theory, Lorentz's
equations implied the existence of electrodynamic forces, Faraday's induction law, and dielectric
screening. He also derived important concepts such as the electromagnetic mass of particles,
the radiative damping force, the Lorenz-Lorentz formula, and Fresnel's dragging coefficient.
Lorentz employed a technique called the method of corresponding states, which had different
applications depending on the specific problem. The "concept of corresponding states" mentioned in
Lorentz's work refers to a method or approach used to establish a relationship between two different
physical systems. Essentially, corresponding states enabled Lorentz to describe the behaviour
of electrons and electromagnetic phenomena in different systems by accounting for their motion
relative to the ether, without needing to consider the internal structure of electrons or molecular
forces. It provided a way to compare and connect different physical scenarios in Lorentz's theory.
In optics, it eliminated first-order motion effects, while in electrostatics,
it predicted second-order effects such as Lorentz contraction. However, this
technique was not uniform and required separate discussions for certain electrodynamic systems.
In his theory, Lorentz assumed that all forces behaved like electromagnetic
forces and that all inertia had purely electromagnetic origins. He examined
the transformation of the equation of motion for an electromagnetic electron.
Despite its strengths, Lorentz's method of corresponding states had its limitations.
The 1904 proof of invariance still relied on certain approximations, such as the dipolar
approximation for microscopic radiation sources, small relative velocities, and neglecting the
spinning motion of electrons and ions. Even if these limitations were overcome, the concept
of corresponding states remained challenging. These states were somewhat fictional as they
were derived from the real states of the moving system through mathematical transformations,
yet they were discussed as if they represented real states of the system at rest.
Lorentz approached his theory with caution, acknowledging the need for reserve. In his theory,
the invariance of electromagnetic phenomena relied on the behaviour of electrons,
which were fundamental entities about which little was known at the time.
Lorentz commented that the assumption regarding the contraction of electrons
could neither be definitively deemed plausible nor inadmissible.
Walter Kaufmann's experiments, which observed the deflection of electrons in a magnetic field
and measured the resulting changes in their mass, provided empirical support for Lorentz's theory.
These measurements were crucial for the concept of longitudinal and transversal masses, which
formed the basis of Lorentz's electromagnetic theory and the idea of electron contraction.
The agreement between Lorentz's theoretical predictions and
Kaufmann's experimental data was seen as positive, although Lorentz did not
draw definitive conclusions about the final verdict of such experiments.
Lorentz's electron model, despite its initial contributions and potential,
ultimately faced challenges and failed to gain widespread acceptance among physicists.
Several key reasons can be identified for the lack of adoption of Lorentz's electron model.
Firstly, Lorentz's theory relied heavily on the existence of the ether,
an intangible medium that was believed to permeate all of space and serve as
the medium through which electromagnetic waves propagated. The ether concept faced increasing
scepticism and criticism as scientific advancements in the early 20th century,
particularly Einstein's theory of relativity, undermined its necessity. With the rise of
Einstein's theory, which dispensed with the need for the ether, Lorentz's model
lost favour as it became apparent that a more comprehensive and coherent framework was required.
Secondly, Lorentz's electron model lacked a satisfactory explanation for the forces between
electrons. The model could not adequately account for the intricate interactions and behaviours
observed in atomic and subatomic systems. The abstract principle of stationary action, which
Lorentz invoked to explain these forces, was not intuitive and relied on mathematical abstractions
rather than a clear physical mechanism. This limitation hindered the model's ability to
provide a comprehensive understanding of electron dynamics and interactions.
Furthermore, Lorentz's electron model failed to address other fundamental phenomena,
such as the cohesive forces that hold matter together. It also struggled to
account for the stability and homogeneity of matter solely based on the ether structures.
These gaps and shortcomings in explaining key aspects of material behaviour and
properties were significant hurdles for the acceptance of Lorentz's model.
Lastly, Lorentz's electron model faced challenges from alternative theories and
approaches that emerged during the same period. Quantum mechanics, in particular, revolutionized
our understanding of the behaviour of electrons and subatomic particles, and demonstrated that
classical electrodynamics could not explain the strange behaviours of these particles.
The advent of quantum mechanics, coupled with the success of Einstein's theory of relativity,
further marginalized Lorentz's electron model and ultimately
led to its limited acceptance in the scientific community.
And with that, we conclude the first part of this series. Join me in the upcoming
episode as we delve into a truly innovative perspective on an ether-based electron model.
Thank you for tuning in! If you found this video enjoyable, I kindly ask you to show your support
by liking, subscribing to the channel, sharing the content, and actively engaging in the ongoing
discussions. Your contribution fosters a lively community of inquisitive minds.
If you're interested in further supporting the channel,
you can find relevant links in the description below.