Reply to Olivier Darrigol

Abstract

HSPS, Volume 35, Part 1, pages 157-160. ISSN 0890-9997. ©2004 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Send requests for permission to reprint to Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, 2000 Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223. * Seirei Chrisopher College, 3453 Mikatahara-Town Hamamatsu-City, 433-8558, Japan; abiko@ceres.dti.ne.jp. 1. Seiya Abiko, “On Einstein’s distrust of the electromagnetic theory: The origin of the light-velocity postulate,” HSPS, 33 (2003), 193-215. 2. Olivier Darrigol, “The electromagnetic origins of relativity theory,” HSPS, 26 (1996), 241-312, on 243. 3. Abiko (ref. 1), 202. 4. Einstein to Maric, 10? Aug 1899, The collected papers of Albert Einstein, 1, 225-227 on 226, Engl. trans. from J. Renn and R. Schulmann, eds., Albert Einstein –Mileva Maric, the love letters (Princeton, 1992), 10-11, on 10. I WOULD LIKE to thank Olivier Darrigol for taking the trouble to comment on my paper. To my disappointment, however, I find that his comment relates to an article entitled “On the origins of Einstein’s light-velocity postulate,” whereas the title of my paper is “On Einstein’s distrust of the electromagnetic theory: The origin of the light-velocity postulate.” The crucial point of my paper is just “Einstein’s distrust of the electromagnetic theory.” In contrast, Darrigol holds in his paper entitled “The electromagnetic origins of relativity theory” that in order to study Einstein’s relativity “the intricate evolution of electrodynamics at the turn of the century is the optimal context.” Darrigol also errs in writing that, “According to Abiko, Einstein expressed a complete rejection of the ether when, in August 1899, he wrote to Maric ...” [italics added]; in fact, I wrote, “Evidently by 1899 Einstein questioned, if he had not already rejected, the existence of the ether” [italics added]. To come to substance, the relevant quotation from Einstein’s letter to Maric reads: