1

aberration

you know in what the phenomenon of aberration, discovered by bradley, consists. the light issuing from a star takes a certain time to go through a telescope; during this time, the telescope, carried along by the motion of the earth, is displaced. if therefore the telescope were pointed in the true direction of the star, the image would be formed at the point occupied by the crossing of the threads of the network when the light has reached the objective; and this crossing would no longer be at this same point when the light reached the plane of the network. we would therefore be led to mis-point the telescope to bring the image upon the crossing of the threads. thence results that the astronomer will not point the telescope in the direction of the absolute velocity of the light, that is to say toward the true position of the star, but just in the direction of the relative velocity of the light with reference to the earth, that is to say toward what is called the apparent position of the star.

the velocity of light is known; we might therefore suppose that we have the means of calculating the absolute velocity of the earth. (i shall soon explain my use here of the word absolute.) nothing of the sort; we indeed know the apparent position of the star we observe; but we do not know its true position; we know the velocity of the light only in magnitude and not in direction.

if therefore the absolute velocity of the earth were straight and uniform, we should never have suspected the phenomenon of aberration; but it is variable; it is composed of two parts: the velocity of the solar system, which is straight and uniform; the velocity of the earth with reference to the sun, which is variable. if the velocity of the solar system, that is to say if the constant part existed alone, the observed direction would be invariable. this position that one would thus observe is called the mean apparent position of the star.

taking account now at the same time of the two parts of the velocity of the earth, we shall have the actual apparent position, which describes a little ellipse around the mean apparent position, and it is this ellipse that we observe.

neglecting very small quantities, we shall see that the dimensions of this ellipse depend only upon the ratio of the velocity of the earth with reference to the sun to the velocity of light, so that the relative velocity of the earth with regard to the sun has alone come in.

but wait! this result is not exact, it is only approximate; let us push the approximation a little farther. the dimensions of the ellipse will depend then upon the absolute velocity of the earth. let us compare the major axes of the ellipse for the different stars: we shall have, theoretically at least, the means of determining this absolute velocity.

that would be perhaps less shocking than it at first seems; it is a question, in fact, not of the velocity with reference to an absolute void, but of the velocity with regard to the ether, which is taken by definition as being absolutely at rest.

besides, this method is purely theoretical. in fact, the aberration is very small; the possible variations of the ellipse of aberration are much smaller yet, and, if we consider the aberration as of the first order, they should therefore be regarded as of the second order: about a millionth of a second; they are absolutely inappreciable for our instruments. we shall finally see, further on, why the preceding theory should be rejected, and why we could not determine this absolute velocity even if our instruments were ten thousand times more precise!

one might imagine some other means, and in fact, so one has. the velocity of light is not the same in water as in air; could we not compare the two apparent positions of a star seen through a telescope first full of air, then full of water? the results have been negative; the apparent laws of reflection and refraction are not altered by the motion of the earth. this phenomenon is capable of two explanations:

1o it might be supposed that the ether is not at rest, but that it is carried along by the body in motion. it would then not be astonishing that the phenomena of refraction are not altered by the motion of the earth, since all, prisms, telescopes and ether, are carried along together in the same translation. as to the aberration itself, it would be explained by a sort of refraction happening at the surface of separation of the ether at rest in the interstellar spaces and the ether carried along by the motion of the earth. it is upon this hypothesis (bodily carrying along of the ether) that is founded the theory of hertz on the electrodynamics of moving bodies.

2o fresnel, on the contrary, supposes that the ether is at absolute rest in the void, at rest almost absolute in the air, whatever be the velocity of this air, and that it is partially carried along by refractive media. lorentz has given to this theory a more satisfactory form. for him, the ether is at rest, only the electrons are in motion; in the void, where it is only a question of the ether, in the air, where this is almost the case, the carrying along is null or almost null; in refractive media, where perturbation is produced at the same time by vibrations of the ether and those of electrons put in swing by the agitation of the ether, the undulations are partially carried along.

to decide between the two hypotheses, we have fizeau’s experiment, comparing by measurements of the fringes of interference, the velocity of light in air at rest or in motion. these experiments have confirmed fresnel’s hypothesis of partial carrying along. they have been repeated with the same result by michelson. the theory of hertz must therefore be rejected.

2

the principle of relativity

but if the ether is not carried along by the motion of the earth, is it possible to show, by means of optical phenomena, the absolute velocity of the earth, or rather its velocity with respect to the unmoving ether? experiment has answered negatively, and yet the experimental procedures have been varied in all possible ways. whatever be the means employed there will never be disclosed anything but relative velocities; i mean the velocities of certain material bodies with reference to other material bodies. in fact, if the source of light and the apparatus of observation are on the earth and participate in its motion, the experimental results have always been the same, whatever be the orientation of the apparatus with reference to the orbital motion of the earth. if astronomic aberration happens, it is because the source, a star, is in motion with reference to the observer.

the hypotheses so far made perfectly account for this general result, if we neglect very small quantities of the order of the square of the aberration. the explanation rests upon the notion of local time, introduced by lorentz, which i shall try to make clear. suppose two observers, placed one at a, the other at b, and wishing to set their watches by means of optical signals. they agree that b shall send a signal to a when his watch marks an hour determined upon, and a is to put his watch to that hour the moment he sees the signal. if this alone were done, there would be a systematic error, because as the light takes a certain time t to go from b to a, a‘s watch would be behind b‘s the time t. this error is easily corrected. it suffices to cross the signals. a in turn must signal b, and, after this new adjustment, b‘s watch will be behind a‘s the time t. then it will be sufficient to take the arithmetic mean of the two adjustments.

but this way of doing supposes that light takes the same time to go from a to b as to return from b to a. that is true if the observers are motionless; it is no longer so if they are carried along in a common translation, since then a, for example, will go to meet the light coming from b, while b will flee before the light coming from a. if therefore the observers are borne along in a common translation and if they do not suspect it, their adjustment will be defective; their watches will not indicate the same time; each will show the local time belonging to the point where it is.

the two observers will have no way of perceiving this, if the unmoving ether can transmit to them only luminous signals all of the same velocity, and if the other signals they might send are transmitted by media carried along with them in their translation. the phenomenon each observes will be too soon or too late; it would be seen at the same instant only if the translation did not exist; but as it will be observed with a watch that is wrong, this will not be perceived and the appearances will not be altered.

it results from this that the compensation is easy to explain so long as we neglect the square of the aberration, and for a long time the experiments were not sufficiently precise to warrant taking account of it. but the day came when michelson imagined a much more delicate procedure: he made rays interfere which had traversed different courses, after being reflected by mirrors; each of the paths approximating a meter and the fringes of interference permitting the recognition of a fraction of a thousandth of a millimeter, the square of the aberration could no longer be neglected, and yet the results were still negative. therefore the theory required to be completed, and it has been by the lorentz-fitzgerald hypothesis.

these two physicists suppose that all bodies carried along in a translation undergo a contraction in the sense of this translation, while their dimensions perpendicular to this translation remain unchanged. this contraction is the same for all bodies; moreover, it is very slight, about one two-hundred-millionth for a velocity such as that of the earth. furthermore our measuring instruments could not disclose it, even if they were much more precise; our measuring rods in fact undergo the same contraction as the objects to be measured. if the meter exactly fits when applied to a body, if we point the body and consequently the meter in the sense of the motion of the earth, it will not cease to exactly fit in another orientation, and that although the body and the meter have changed in length as well as orientation, and precisely because the change is the same for one as for the other. but it is quite different if we measure a length, not now with a meter, but by the time taken by light to pass along it, and this is just what michelson has done.

a body, spherical when at rest, will take thus the form of a flattened ellipsoid of revolution when in motion; but the observer will always think it spherical, since he himself has undergone an analogous deformation, as also all the objects serving as points of reference. on the contrary, the surfaces of the waves of light, remaining rigorously spherical, will seem to him elongated ellipsoids.

what happens then? suppose an observer and a source of light carried along together in the translation: the wave surfaces emanating from the source will be spheres having as centers the successive positions of the source; the distance from this center to the actual position of the source will be proportional to the time elapsed after the emission, that is to say to the radius of the sphere. all these spheres are therefore homothetic one to the other, with relation to the actual position s of the source. but, for our observer, because of the contraction, all these spheres will seem elongated ellipsoids, and all these ellipsoids will moreover be homothetic, with reference to the point s; the excentricity of all these ellipsoids is the same and depends solely upon the velocity of the earth. we shall so select the law of contraction that the point s may be at the focus of the meridian section of the ellipsoid.

this time the compensation is rigorous, and this it is which explains michelson’s experiment.

i have said above that, according to the ordinary theories, observations of the astronomic aberration would give us the absolute velocity of the earth, if our instruments were a thousand times more precise. i must modify this statement. yes, the observed angles would be modified by the effect of this absolute velocity, but the graduated circles we use to measure the angles would be deformed by the translation: they would become ellipses; thence would result an error in regard to the angle measured, and this second error would exactly compensate the first.

this lorentz-fitzgerald hypothesis seems at first very extraordinary; all we can say for the moment, in its favor, is that it is only the immediate translation of michelson’s experimental result, if we define lengths by the time taken by light to run along them.

however that may be, it is impossible to escape the impression that the principle of relativity is a general law of nature, that one will never be able by any imaginable means to show any but relative velocities, and i mean by that not only the velocities of bodies with reference to the ether, but the velocities of bodies with regard to one another. too many different experiments have given concordant results for us not to feel tempted to attribute to this principle of relativity a value comparable to that, for example, of the principle of equivalence. in any case, it is proper to see to what consequences this way of looking at things would lead us and then to submit these consequences to the control of experiment.

3

the principle of reaction

let us see what the principle of the equality of action and reaction becomes in the theory of lorentz. consider an electron a which for any cause begins to move; it produces a perturbation in the ether; at the end of a certain time, this perturbation reaches another electron b, which will be disturbed from its position of equilibrium. in these conditions there can not be equality between action and reaction, at least if we do not consider the ether, but only the electrons, which alone are observable, since our matter is made of electrons.

in fact it is the electron a which has disturbed the electron b; even in case the electron b should react upon a, this reaction could be equal to the action, but in no case simultaneous, since the electron b can begin to move only after a certain time, necessary for the propagation. submitting the problem to a more exact calculation, we reach the following result: suppose a hertz discharger placed at the focus of a parabolic mirror to which it is mechanically attached; this discharger emits electromagnetic waves, and the mirror reflects all these waves in the same direction; the discharger therefore will radiate energy in a determinate direction. well, the calculation shows that the discharger recoils like a cannon which has shot out a projectile. in the case of the cannon, the recoil is the natural result of the equality of action and reaction. the cannon recoils because the projectile upon which it has acted reacts upon it. but here it is no longer the same. what has been sent out is no longer a material projectile: it is energy, and energy has no mass: it has no counterpart. and, in place of a discharger, we could have considered just simply a lamp with a reflector concentrating its rays in a single direction.

it is true that, if the energy sent out from the discharger or from the lamp meets a material object, this object receives a mechanical push as if it had been hit by a real projectile, and this push will be equal to the recoil of the discharger and of the lamp, if no energy has been lost on the way and if the object absorbs the whole of the energy. therefore one is tempted to say that there still is compensation between the action and the reaction. but this compensation, even should it be complete, is always belated. it never happens if the light, after leaving its source, wanders through interstellar spaces without ever meeting a material body; it is incomplete, if the body it strikes is not perfectly absorbent.

are these mechanical actions too small to be measured, or are they accessible to experiment? these actions are nothing other than those due to the maxwell-bartholi pressures; maxwell had predicted these pressures from calculations relative to electrostatics and magnetism; bartholi reached the same result by thermodynamic considerations.

this is how the tails of comets are explained. little particles detach themselves from the nucleus of the comet; they are struck by the light of the sun, which pushes them back as would a rain of projectiles coming from the sun. the mass of these particles is so little that this repulsion sweeps it away against the newtonian attraction; so in moving away from the sun they form the tails.

the direct experimental verification was not easy to obtain. the first endeavor led to the construction of the radiometer. but this instrument turns backward, in the sense opposite to the theoretic sense, and the explanation of its rotation, since discovered, is wholly different. at last success came, by making the vacuum more complete, on the one hand, and on the other by not blackening one of the faces of the paddles and directing a pencil of luminous rays upon one of the faces. the radiometric effects and the other disturbing causes are eliminated by a series of pains-taking precautions, and one obtains a deviation which is very minute, but which is, it would seem, in conformity with the theory.

the same effects of the maxwell-bartholi pressure are forecast likewise by the theory of hertz of which we have before spoken, and by that of lorentz. but there is a difference. suppose that the energy, under the form of light, for example, proceeds from a luminous source to any body through a transparent medium. the maxwell-bartholi pressure will act, not alone upon the source at the departure, and on the body lit up at the arrival, but upon the matter of the transparent medium which it traverses. at the moment when the luminous wave reaches a new region of this medium, this pressure will push forward the matter there distributed and will put it back when the wave leaves this region. so that the recoil of the source has for counterpart the forward movement of the transparent matter which is in contact with this source; a little later, the recoil of this same matter has for counterpart the forward movement of the transparent matter which lies a little further on, and so on.

only, is the compensation perfect? is the action of the maxwell-bartholi pressure upon the matter of the transparent medium equal to its reaction upon the source, and that whatever be this matter? or is this action by so much the less as the medium is less refractive and more rarefied, becoming null in the void?

if we admit the theory of hertz, who regards matter as mechanically bound to the ether, so that the ether may be entirely carried along by matter, it would be necessary to answer yes to the first question and no to the second.

there would then be perfect compensation, as required by the principle of the equality of action and reaction, even in the least refractive media, even in the air, even in the interplanetary void, where it would suffice to suppose a residue of matter, however subtile. if on the contrary we admit the theory of lorentz, the compensation, always imperfect, is insensible in the air and becomes null in the void.

but we have seen above that fizeau’s experiment does not permit of our retaining the theory of hertz; it is necessary therefore to adopt the theory of lorentz, and consequently to renounce the principle of reaction.

4

consequences of the principle of relativity

we have seen above the reasons which impel us to regard the principle of relativity as a general law of nature. let us see to what consequences this principle would lead, should it be regarded as finally demonstrated.

first, it obliges us to generalize the hypothesis of lorentz and fitzgerald on the contraction of all bodies in the sense of the translation. in particular, we must extend this hypothesis to the electrons themselves. abraham considered these electrons as spherical and indeformable; it will be necessary for us to admit that these electrons, spherical when in repose, undergo the lorentz contraction when in motion and take then the form of flattened ellipsoids.

this deformation of the electrons will influence their mechanical properties. in fact i have said that the displacement of these charged electrons is a veritable current of convection and that their apparent inertia is due to the self-induction of this current: exclusively as concerns the negative electrons; exclusively or not, we do not yet know, for the positive electrons. well, the deformation of the electrons, a deformation which depends upon their velocity, will modify the distribution of the electricity upon their surface, consequently the intensity of the convection current they produce, consequently the laws according to which the self-induction of this current will vary as a function of the velocity.

at this price, the compensation will be perfect and will conform to the requirements of the principle of relativity, but only upon two conditions:

1o that the positive electrons have no real mass, but only a fictitious electromagnetic mass; or at least that their real mass, if it exists, is not constant and varies with the velocity according to the same laws as their fictitious mass;

2o that all forces are of electromagnetic origin, or at least that they vary with the velocity according to the same laws as the forces of electromagnetic origin.

it still is lorentz who has made this remarkable synthesis; stop a moment and see what follows therefrom. first, there is no more matter, since the positive electrons no longer have real mass, or at least no constant real mass. the present principles of our mechanics, founded upon the constancy of mass, must therefore be modified. again, an electromagnetic explanation must be sought of all the known forces, in particular of gravitation, or at least the law of gravitation must be so modified that this force is altered by velocity in the same way as the electromagnetic forces. we shall return to this point.

all that appears, at first sight, a little artificial. in particular, this deformation of electrons seems quite hypothetical. but the thing may be presented otherwise, so as to avoid putting this hypothesis of deformation at the foundation of the reasoning. consider the electrons as material points and ask how their mass should vary as function of the velocity not to contravene the principle of relativity. or, still better, ask what should be their acceleration under the influence of an electric or magnetic field, that this principle be not violated and that we come back to the ordinary laws when we suppose the velocity very slight. we shall find that the variations of this mass, or of these accelerations, must be as if the electron underwent the lorentz deformation.

5

kaufmann’s experiment

we have before us, then, two theories: one where the electrons are indeformable, this is that of abraham; the other where they undergo the lorentz deformation. in both cases, their mass increases with the velocity, becoming infinite when this velocity becomes equal to that of light; but the law of the variation is not the same. the method employed by kaufmann to bring to light the law of variation of the mass seems therefore to give us an experimental means of deciding between the two theories.

unhappily, his first experiments were not sufficiently precise for that; so he decided to repeat them with more precautions, and measuring with great care the intensity of the fields. under their new form they are in favor of the theory of abraham. then the principle of relativity would not have the rigorous value we were tempted to attribute to it; there would no longer be reason for believing the positive electrons denuded of real mass like the negative electrons. however, before definitely adopting this conclusion, a little reflection is necessary. the question is of such importance that it is to be wished kaufmann’s experiment were repeated by another experimenter.17 unhappily, this experiment is very delicate and could be carried out successfully only by a physicist of the same ability as kaufmann. all precautions have been properly taken and we hardly see what objection could be made.

there is one point however to which i wish to draw attention: that is to the measurement of the electrostatic field, a measurement upon which all depends. this field was produced between the two armatures of a condenser; and, between these armatures, there was to be made an extremely perfect vacuum, in order to obtain a complete isolation. then the difference of potential of the two armatures was measured, and the field obtained by dividing this difference by the distance apart of the armatures. that supposes the field uniform; is this certain? might there not be an abrupt fall of potential in the neighborhood of one of the armatures, of the negative armature, for example? there may be a difference of potential at the meeting of the metal and the vacuum, and it may be that this difference is not the same on the positive side and on the negative side; what would lead me to think so is the electric valve effects between mercury and vacuum. however slight the probability that it is so, it seems that it should be considered.

17 at the moment of going to press we learn that m. bucherer has repeated the experiment, taking new precautions, and that he has obtained, contrary to kaufmann, results confirming the views of lorentz.

6

the principle of inertia

in the new dynamics, the principle of inertia is still true, that is to say that an isolated electron will have a straight and uniform motion. at least this is generally assumed; however, lindemann has made objections to this view; i do not wish to take part in this discussion, which i can not here expound because of its too difficult character. in any case, slight modifications to the theory would suffice to shelter it from lindemann’s objections.

we know that a body submerged in a fluid experiences, when in motion, considerable resistance, but this is because our fluids are viscous; in an ideal fluid, perfectly free from viscosity, the body would stir up behind it a liquid hill, a sort of wake; upon departure, a great effort would be necessary to put it in motion, since it would be necessary to move not only the body itself, but the liquid of its wake. but, the motion once acquired, it would perpetuate itself without resistance, since the body, in advancing, would simply carry with it the perturbation of the liquid, without the total vis viva of the liquid augmenting. everything would happen therefore as if its inertia was augmented. an electron advancing in the ether would behave in the same way: around it, the ether would be stirred up, but this perturbation would accompany the body in its motion; so that, for an observer carried along with the electron, the electric and magnetic fields accompanying this electron would appear invariable, and would change only if the velocity of the electron varied. an effort would therefore be necessary to put the electron in motion, since it would be necessary to create the energy of these fields; on the contrary, once the movement acquired, no effort would be necessary to maintain it, since the created energy would only have to go along behind the electron as a wake. this energy, therefore, could only augment the inertia of the electron, as the agitation of the liquid augments that of the body submerged in a perfect fluid. and anyhow, the negative electrons at least have no other inertia except that.

in the hypothesis of lorentz, the vis viva, which is only the energy of the ether, is not proportional to v2. doubtless if v is very slight, the vis viva is sensibly proportional to v2, the quantity of motion sensibly proportional to v, the two masses sensibly constant and equal to each other. but when the velocity tends toward the velocity of light, the vis viva, the quantity of motion and the two masses increase beyond all limit.

in the hypothesis of abraham, the expressions are a little more complicated; but what we have just said remains true in essentials.

so the mass, the quantity of motion, the vis viva become infinite when the velocity is equal to that of light.

thence results that no body can attain in any way a velocity beyond that of light. and in fact, in proportion as its velocity increases, its mass increases, so that its inertia opposes to any new increase of velocity a greater and greater obstacle.

a question then suggests itself: let us admit the principle of relativity; an observer in motion would not have any means of perceiving his own motion. if therefore no body in its absolute motion can exceed the velocity of light, but may approach it as nearly as you choose, it should be the same concerning its relative motion with reference to our observer. and then we might be tempted to reason as follows: the observer may attain a velocity of 200,000 kilometers; the body in its relative motion with reference to the observer may attain the same velocity; its absolute velocity will then be 400,000 kilometers, which is impossible, since this is beyond the velocity of light. this is only a seeming, which vanishes when account is taken of how lorentz evaluates local time.

7

the wave of acceleration

when an electron is in motion, it produces a perturbation in the ether surrounding it; if its motion is straight and uniform, this perturbation reduces to the wake of which we have spoken in the preceding section. but it is no longer the same, if the motion be curvilinear or varied. the perturbation may then be regarded as the superposition of two others, to which langevin has given the names wave of velocity and wave of acceleration. the wave of velocity is only the wave which happens in uniform motion.

as to the wave of acceleration, this is a perturbation altogether analogous to light waves, which starts from the electron at the instant when it undergoes an acceleration, and which is then propagated by successive spherical waves with the velocity of light. whence follows: in a straight and uniform motion, the energy is wholly conserved; but, when there is an acceleration, there is loss of energy, which is dissipated under the form of luminous waves and goes out to infinity across the ether.

however, the effects of this wave of acceleration, in particular the corresponding loss of energy, are in most cases negligible, that is to say not only in ordinary mechanics and in the motions of the heavenly bodies, but even in the radium rays, where the velocity is very great without the acceleration being so. we may then confine ourselves to applying the laws of mechanics, putting the force equal to the product of acceleration by mass, this mass, however, varying with the velocity according to the laws explained above. we then say the motion is quasi-stationary.

it would not be the same in all cases where the acceleration is great, of which the chief are the following:

1o in incandescent gases certain electrons take an oscillatory motion of very high frequency; the displacements are very small, the velocities are finite, and the accelerations very great; energy is then communicated to the ether, and this is why these gases radiate light of the same period as the oscillations of the electron;

2o inversely, when a gas receives light, these same electrons are put in swing with strong accelerations and they absorb light;

3o in the hertz discharger, the electrons which circulate in the metallic mass undergo, at the instant of the discharge, an abrupt acceleration and take then an oscillatory motion of high frequency. thence results that a part of the energy radiates under the form of hertzian waves;

4o in an incandescent metal, the electrons enclosed in this metal are impelled with great velocity; upon reaching the surface of the metal, which they can not get through, they are reflected and thus undergo a considerable acceleration. this is why the metal emits light. the details of the laws of the emission of light by dark bodies are perfectly explained by this hypothesis;

5o finally when the cathode rays strike the anticathode, the negative electrons, constituting these rays, which are impelled with very great velocity, are abruptly arrested. because of the acceleration they thus undergo, they produce undulations in the ether. this, according to certain physicists, is the origin of the r?ntgen rays, which would only be light rays of very short wave-length.