Paradigms in Newtonian physics around 1900

Question

I am thinking about the change from Newtonian mechanics to quantum physics and relativity. I note that we have accepted the words "ultraviolet catastrophe" in connection with the situation that lead to steps towards quantum physics.

We have a number of similar paradoxes, or perhaps I should say strange things since catastrophes and paradoxes perhaps differ somewhat, for relativity. However, the paradoxes are often attributed to the new theory of special relativity rather than the problems experienced with old state of affairs. I am thinking of the “twin paradox” and “Ehrenfest’s paradox” for calculating the perimeter of a spinning cylinder. The “Ehrenfest’s paradox” seems to lie between the special and the general theory of relativity.

Can we say the Lorentz contraction based on Maxwell’s equations, or the absence of the ether in the Michelson-Morley experiment felt like a paradox to contemporary physicist, or possibly a catastrophe, on equal footing with the ultraviolet catastrophy or was the transition to Einstein’s physics more a gradual change with less dramatic impressions?

Answer 1

The short answer is no, there was no sense of crisis in Newtonian mechanics. Lorentz' electron theory and the contractions contained within were perfectly capable of explaining the behaviour of the electromagnetic ether in moving systems. It should be stressed here that the Michelson-Morley experiments did not disprove the ether. Instead it was set up as a critical test for how the ether contracted in different circumstances.

In fact, when Einstein published his article "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", it was considered by his contemporaries as a conceptual reinterpretation of Lorentz' theory — to the point that it was known as the Lorentz-Einstein theory. Moveover, the two theories are completely empirically equivalent. Even today, there is no empirical test that can prove or disprove the existence of the ether. The reason why Einstein's theory of special relativity has won out is because 1) it is a much simpler theory, even if it may be conceptually harder to grasp, and 2) Special Relativity was much easier to incorporate into Quantum Electrodynamics than Lorentz' Electron Theory.

For more how the move from Lorentz to Einstein can be seen as a Scientific Revolution happening after the fact and without the need for an anomaly, see this article from your almost-namesake Michel Janssen, "Reconsidering a Scientific Revolution: The case of Einstein versus Lorentz", Physics in Perspective 4 (2002): 421-446.