Defending the Ether: The British Response

  • Stanley Goldberg


The british response to the theory of relativity during the years 1905–1911 had a different character from the responses we have analyzed in Germany and France. For the first two years of the period, there was virtually no recognition of the theory in the literature. Following that, there was some controversy, not as much as in the German literature. However, there was not the wide diversity of opinion, the elaboration, or the debate so characteristic of German response. The acceptance of the theory hinged upon making it compatible with the concept of the ether. As paradoxical as that might be, there was almost unanimous agreement within the British physics community about such a program. Almost all British physicists who worked in electrodynamics behaved in similar ways about these issues.


Nineteenth Century Special Theory British Association Modern View German Physicist 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. *.
    A. S. Eddington, “Larmor, Sir Joseph,” Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society, 1942, 4: (#11).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. †.
    N. R. Campbell, Relativity (Cambridge, 1923), p. v.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. *.
    Oliver Lodge, Ether and Reality (New York, 1925) pp. 178–179.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. †.
    Oliver Lodge, My Philosophy: Reporting My Views of the Many Functions of the Ether of Space (London, 1933), preface.Google Scholar
  5. *.
    Oliver Lodge, “The Ether and Its Functions,” Delivered at the London Institution, December 28, 1882. Cf. Oliver Lodge, Modern Views of Electricity (1st ed., London, 1889) pp. 328–332. The same statements may be found in the 2nd (1892) and 3rd (1907) editions of the book.Google Scholar
  6. †.
    Oliver Lodge, “The Ether and Its Functions,” Delivered at the London Institution, December 338, 1882 Ibid.Google Scholar
  7. *.
    F. C. Searle to A. Einstein, May 20, 1909. Einstein Archives, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  8. †.
    Eddington, op. cit.Google Scholar
  9. ‡.
    J. T. Merz, A History of European Thought. …Vol. 1, pp. 251–252.Google Scholar
  10. §.
    Pierre Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (New York, 1962) pp. 69–72.Google Scholar
  11. *.
    W. Thomson [Lord Kelvin], Lectures on Molecular Dynamics and the Wave Theory of Light (Baltimore, 1884), p. 270.Google Scholar
  12. †.
    E. T. Whittaker, A History of Theories of the Aether and Electricity. Vol 1, pp. 144–145.Google Scholar
  13. *.
    Ibid., p. 145.Google Scholar
  14. †.
    J. J. Thomson, Recollections and Reflections (London, 1936) p. 183.Google Scholar
  15. *.
    E. Cunningham, The Principle of Relativity (Cambridge, 1914) p. 41.MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. *.
    N. R. Campbell, “The Aether,” Philosophical Magazine, 1910, 19:181–191,pp. 185–186, 188.Google Scholar
  17. †.
    N. R. Campbell, “Relativity and the Conservation of Mass,” Philosophical Magazine, 1911, 21: 626–630, p. 628.Google Scholar
  18. *.
    “Mathematics and Physics at the British Association, 1911,” Nature, 1911, 87:498–502, p. 500.Google Scholar
  19. *.
    A. McAuly, “Spontaneous Generation of Electrons in an Elastic Solid Aether,” Philosophical Magazine, 1910, 19:129–152, p. 135.Google Scholar
  20. †.
    Interview with D. F. Comstock, Cambridge, Massachusetts, December 10, 1964. Comstock placed the date of the remark at about 1912. Comstock’s contributions will be discussed in Chapter 9.Google Scholar
  21. ‡.
    A. A. Robb, A Theory of Space and Time (Cambridge, 1914) p. 2.Google Scholar
  22. *.
    Campbell, Relativity p. v.Google Scholar
  23. *.
    J. J. Thomson, Reflections and Recollections, pp. 56–58.Google Scholar
  24. †.
    Ibid., p. 35.Google Scholar
  25. *.
    Personal communicationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Boston, Inc. 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanley Goldberg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations