Apeiron, Vol. 8, No.

1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
Poincars Ether:
A. Why did Poincar retain
the ether?
Galina Granek
*

This paper is divided into three parts, in which I suggest five
answers to the question: Why did Poincar retain the ether?
These answers are based on Poincars own reasoning: the
ether was required for the explanation of stellar aberration, to
remove action-at-a-distance, to remove absolute rotation and
absolute space from physics, to save broken theories and to
save Poincars conventionalism. Poincars first reason can
be seen as related to rectilinear and uniform motions. In 1905
Einstein managed to explain aberration without resource to
ether. Special relativity crowned the final oblivion of the ether.
Poincars four other reasons are centered on the solution to
the following old problem: the principle of relativity is not
valid for rotations and we thus can claim for absolute rotation.
Poincar struggled with this problem and could not solve it
without resource to the ether. In General Relativity, Einstein
could not solve it without returning to some kind of ether,
either. I first discuss Poincars reasoning and in a future
paper Why did Einstein come back to the ether? I discuss
Einsteins solution to the problem of absolute rotation and his
return to a revised form of Poincars ether.

*
Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905,
Israel. (e-mail: granek@mscc.huji.ac.il).
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
Introduction
etween 1888 and 1900 Poincar had already speculated as to
the redundancy of the ether; however, he finally decided not
to renounce it. He believed, on the one hand that the ether was
a mere invention, a convenient hypothesis that could be omitted, and
on the other hand, he could not omit this convention. He struggled
with this issue within the framework of two different fields of
research: The mechanical ether theories in optics (1889), and absolute
and relative motion (1900a).
In the lectures he gave at the Sorbonne between 1887 and 1888
concerning the optical theories of light, Poincar presupposed that
there was a major problem concerning the ether models suggested in
these theories, in that they were not able to meet all the needs of an
optical theory of light. Poincar therefore speculated, in the preface to
his lectures, as to the possibility that one-day the ether would be
rejected as useless (1889, pp. I-II):
It matters to us little whether the ether really exists; it is
the matter of metaphysicians; what is essential for us is
that everything happens as if it existed and that this
hypothesis is convenient for the explanation of
phenomena. After all, have we any other reason for
believing in the existence of material objects? That too is
only a convenient hypothesis; only it will never cease to
be so, while a day will come no doubt in which the ether
will be rejected as useless.
But on that very day, the laws of optics, and the
equations, which translate them analytically, will remain
true, at least as a first approximation.
Later in 1900, at the Paris Congress of Physics, in his lecture
Relations between experimental Physics and Mathematical Physics,
B
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
Poincar made the following statement (1900a, p. 1171): And our
ether, does it really exist? [Et notre ether; existe-t-il rellement?].
Poincars implicit answer was no, it did not really exist, because we
have invented the ether.But once it was invented we started to
believe to touch the ether with the finger. It became a real
ponderable medium, and having the right experiments, we [could]
touch it closer still (1900a, pp. 1171-1172).
Poincars above (1889) and (1900a) scientific reasoning, as
expressed in two completely different contexts, were combined by
him in his book Science and Hypothesis in 1902, to form a coherent
line of thought according to which the ether might be useless (1902,
pp. 180,215). This very likely influenced the young Einstein who read
this book before 1905 to give up the ether.
In this paper I treat the following question: as Poincar combined
the above two thoughts in the same book to form the impression that
the ether might be rejected as useless because one did not know if it
really existed, why did he not abandon the ether in his later writings?
I suggest that the reason is the following: He did not manage to
solve the problems, which necessitated the invention of the ether in
the first place:
In (1900a) Poincar saw the need for the ether in order to eliminate
from physics instantaneous action-at-a-distance. Stationary ether (at
absolute rest) was necessary for the explanation of aberration.
Poincar then suggested in the same lecture that we did not need
stationary ether in order to explain aberration, but we only needed
some kind of ether (not in absolute rest) in order to remove
instantaneous action-at-a-distance. In his philosophical lecture held at
Paris in 1900, On the Principles of Mechanics (1900b), which was
also incorporated in (1902), Poincar implicitly explained that we also
needed some kind of ether for the purpose of eliminating absolute
rotations.
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
Einstein managed to explain aberration without postulating the
ether and thus eliminated absolute rest from physics. He later
postulated an ether that was not in absolute rest in order to prevent
instantaneous action-at-a-distance and absolute rotations. Einsteins
solution and response to Poincars (1902) is dealt in my paper, Why
did Einstein come back to the ether?
I first discuss Poincars answers to the question: Why did we
invent the ether in the first place?
To explain stellar aberration
We need the ether for the explanation of stellar aberration. Stellar
aberration is concerned with starlight arriving at the planet earth.
Light emanating from a distant star traverses space in a defined time.
During this time, the telescope will be displaced by earths annual
motion. The astronomer is, therefore, obliged to alter the direction of
the telescope in order to assure that the image of the star is formed on
the lenses of the telescope. The apparent displacement of the
telescope is expressed by the aberration constant v/c, where v is the
velocity of the earth relative to the sun and c is the velocity of light.
In 1818 Fresnel postulated that in order to explain aberration, one
was obliged to assume stationary ether: an ether wind or drift,
penetrating freely through the pores of the earth, as suggested
originally by Young. Young proposed that the ether would pass
freely through the pores or interstices between molecules and
atoms of matter. This was called an ether wind because the ether
passed freely through matter like wind passing through a grove of
trees. Considering stationary ether, the phenomenon of aberration
results from the displacement of the telescope while light passes
through it. The luminous waves do not participate sensibly at all in
the motion of the telescope, if we suppose the telescope to be
directed to the true position of the star. The image of this star is
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
found behind the lens, in a quantity equal to that traveled by the
earth while the light traverses the telescope. If the ether is mobile
and carried along with earth, the luminous waves participate
sensibly in the motion of the telescope. Mobile ether is
experimentally equivalent to not having ether at all.
Assuming stationary ether, we could - with the aid of the theory of
aberration - disclose to first order in v/c the earths absolute motion
with respect to this ether. Many ether-drift experiments had been
performed to detect earths motion with respect to stationary ether, the
most famous of which were Michelsons 1881 and Michelson and
Morleys 1887 second order experiments. All gave negative results.
Poincar therefore reasoned that we should find an explanation to
aberration, which eliminates the stationary ether. This way the
theory of aberration would supply an explanation to the negative
result of all ether-drift experiments.
Poincar explained (1900a, p.1171): This would still oblige us to
fill, with the ether, the interplanetary space but not to make it
penetrate into the midst of material media directly. We are obliged to
fill with some kind of ether the interplanetary space in order to
prevent action-at-a-distance (see next section), but we do not have to
assume it to penetrate into material media, i.e. we do not have to
assume it to be stationary and therefore at absolute rest. We do not
have to assume stationary ether, because we can potentially explain
aberration without the need for an ether that penetrates into material
media.
Poincar later asserted in his lecture given at Saint Louis, The
Present State and Future of Mathematical Physics: (1904a, p. 321):
Michelson has shown us, I have told you, that the physical
procedures are powerless to put in evidence absolute
motion; I am persuaded that the same is true of the
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
astronomic procedures however far one pushes precision.
[...]
I believe the theorists, recalling the experiment of
Michelson, may expect a negative result, and that they
would make a useful work in constructing a theory of
aberration which would explain this in advance.
Poincar did not manage to explain aberration in this way; he was led
thus eventually to assume the ether in absolute rest. In addition, the
problem dealt with in the next two sections necessitated this kind of
ether. Poincar had to make a compromise and decided that absolute
rest was not equivalent to absolute space.
In his 1905 first paper on relativity, On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies, Einstein succeeded in constructing this theory, and
deriving the aberration constant from his theory of relativity without
the need for the ether (1905, p. 912). By doing so, he met the need to
explain the negative result of Michelson and Morleys experiment. I
suggest that only after Einstein had possessed the aberration formula
was he really able to abandon the stationary ether. Einstein could thus
not accept Poincars compromise according to which we could talk
of absolute rest, but not of absolute space, because he managed to
give up a medium being in absolute rest in 1905 when he explained
aberration.
Poincar could not have abandoned the fixed ether as long as he
had not succeeded in deriving the aberration constant from the
principle of relativity; and hence on the basis of the assumption that
the aberration phenomenon is only dependent upon relative
movements. Poincar did try to solve the problem of aberration in his
lectures at the Sorbonne from 1906-1907 On the Limits of Newtons
Law, in his popular review article, The Dynamics of the Electron
and in his 1909 lecture, The New Mechanics (1906-1907, pp. 216-
217; 1908, pp. 560-562; 1909, pp. 5-6): Consider two opposite stars,
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
where one of these stars performs oscillations with greater apparent
amplitude than the other. A comparison between the amplitudes
would enable one to discover earths absolute motion. Poincars
solution for that problem was that Lorentzs contraction hypothesis
causes the two amplitudes to be measured, by an astronomer on earth,
as being equal (as a result of the contraction). Therefore, no absolute
motion can ever be disclosed. But Poincar always relied ether in
order to explain why aberration is a relative phenomenon.
Einsteins success in deriving the aberration formula, as it appears
in his first paper on relativity in 1905 was, historically, one of the
greatest achievements of Einsteins paper. He had succeeded in
solving a problem, which had occupied the best scientific minds
throughout the nineteenth century, scientists such as: Larmor, Lodge,
Rayleigh, Lorentz, Poincar and others.
To remove instantaneous action-at-a-distance
We need the ether in order to eliminate instantaneous action-at-a-
distance. Instantaneous Action-at-a-distance is inconsistent with the
constant light velocity. If light velocity was infinite then it would not
have taken several years for light to arrive to us from a very distant
star. We would thus arrive at instantaneous action-at-a-distance
(1900a, p. 1171): We know whence comes our belief in the ether. If
it takes several years for light to arrive to us from a removed star, it is
no longer upon the star nor is it upon the earth; it must be sustained
somewhere, and supported, so to speak, by some material. Poincar
explained it in a more mathematical language. Since mechanics is
based on differential equations (continuous interactions), there must
be a medium that transfers the interactions, for otherwise we would
have dealt in mechanics with finite difference equations, interactions
that jump from one place to the other immediately (1900a, p. 1171):
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
[...] in ordinary mechanics, the state of the system studied
depends only on its state at the moment immediately
preceding; the system satisfies then certain differential
equations. Against this, if we did not believe in the ether,
the state of the material universe would have depended
not only upon the state immediately proceeding, but also
upon more ancient states; the system would have satisfied
equations of finite differences. It is to escape this
exemption of the general mechanical laws that we have
invented the ether.
Action-at-a-distance is foreign to mechanics. According to the
electromagnetic world-picture that was the prevailing one between
1900 and 1905, we assume that all the forces (mechanical and
electromagnetic) - whatever their origin - are of electromagnetic
origin. In 1900 Lorentz therefore proposed a theory of gravitational
attraction, according to which this attraction was propagated with the
velocity of light. In 1905 Poincar arrived at the conclusion that
gravitational attraction transmitted a gravitational wave moving with
the velocity of light. This conclusion was compatible with the
electromagnetic world-picture, because electromagnetic fields also
propagate at the velocity of light. As a consequence, the velocity of
light was common to the law of gravitational attraction and to the
laws of electromagnetism (Granek, 1998). Gravity cannot be
propagated with an infinite velocity and we can never have
instantaneous action-at-a-distance.
To save broken theories
We need the ether for saving broken theories. In a philosophical
lecture held at Paris in 1900, On the Principles of Mechanics,
Poincar explained this by making up imaginary scientists living on
an imaginary cloudy planet and discovering scientific theories the
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
way Copernicus and Ptolemy had done (1900b, pp. 480-482; see
introduction further above). At first, these people thought that their
earth was immobile. But this assumption would bring with it many
difficulties. They looked upon the centrifugal forces as real. From
their standpoint, these forces did not contradict the laws of mechanics.
They attributed the centrifugal forces to the mutual actions of the
bodies. However, they did not see these forces vanish at great
distances. Far from it, centrifugal forces increased indefinitely with
distance. They then tried to apply all their physical knowledge and
methods in order to save their hypothesis, but grave difficulties
ensued. So they would soon imagine then some kind of a very subtle
environment, analogous to our ether (1900b, p. 481) which would
somewhat solve the problem: all bodies would be placed in it, and
which would exercise on them a repulsive action. In addition, the
laws of mechanics presented no symmetry even though space is
symmetrical. Scientists could distinguish between right and left when
observing cyclones. Cyclones always turn in the same direction,
whereas should the planet be immobile, they would turn indifferently
in any direction for reasons of symmetry. Scientists thus invented
more entities and went on accumulating complications. Nevertheless
the problems would pile up, and a moment would come when these
difficulties would be so innumerable and insurmountable that a long-
awaited Copernicus would arrive and sweep them all away with a
single blow. If we consider the Copernican convention, all the inertial
effects and the cyclones are explained very simply without the need to
invoke a coup de pouce.
One could understand this fable in an allegorical way: the 19
th

century physicists struggled with the problems of the electrodynamics
and optics of moving bodies and even invented an ether for this
purpose. Copernicus would be a man that would sweep away all 19
th

century efforts including the invention of the ether. In this way one
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
could rightly suggest that Copernicus would stand for Einstein.
However, until 1912 Poincar did not believe Copernicus had already
arrived, nor did he regard himself as Copernicus. It is important to
mention that he also did not regard Einstein as Copernicus either
(Granek, 1998, chapter 6.3). He did not think that Einstein found a
way to eliminate the ether. Therefore, from Poincars point of view,
we still needed the ether in the science of mechanics and of the
electrodynamics of moving bodies. If the Copernican theory
allegorically stands for the then 1900 new electron theory, we still
needed the ether in order to save broken theories that were intimately
related to Copernicus theory: the theory of stellar aberration, the
mechanics of uniform rotations and physics of action-at-a-distance
interactions.
To save conventionalism
We need the ether to save conventionalism. According to Poincars
philosophy of conventionalism, absolute motion and space are
dismissed by the equivalence of the Ptolemaic and Copernican
systems. The two propositions, the earth turns round and it is more
convenient to suppose the earth turns round, both have one and the
same meaning (1904b). This elicits a contradictory logically
consistent possibility: The earth does not rotate. This is logically and
empirically equivalent to the possibility according to which the earth
does rotate. If we consider relative motions only, we would have no
means of knowing which of the propositions, or rather conventions, is
true, because there is no meaning in speaking of truth here. One
convention cannot be truer than the other, for otherwise we would be
accepting the existence of absolute space. It can only be more
convenient.
According to Poincar, if we had insisted on adhering to the
convention the earth stands still and it is the sky which rotates,
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
concerning the daily rotation of the earth round itself, we would have
only complicated physical theories (1904b): If the earth was not
turning round itself, one would have to admit that the stars describe in
24 hours an immense circumference that would have taken light
hundreds of years to pass. Thus the convention: the earth stands
still is not a convenient proposition, while the convention the earth
rotates is convenient.
Poincars above conventionalist solut ion does not rigorously
eliminate absolute motion and space from physics. In order to
demonstrate this I shall return to Poincars cloudy planet. Suppose
that one day, a group of inhabitants on Poincars cloudy planet
discover a dynamics equivalent to Newtons dynamics as a result of
assuming that it is more convenient to suppose that their planet turns
round. Over the centuries they develop technology, and a few years
later they finally find a way to build a spaceship. They build this
spaceship and send astronauts to find out why their planets sky is
always grayish in color. The spaceship takes off and manages to go
beyond the grayish planets sky. The astronauts suddenly discover that
their sky is actually covered with clouds. They come back home and
bring with them a video film illustrating this last revolutionary
discovery.
From the way Poincar related his parable, the two above
conventions (the earth rotates and the earth stands still) are
experimentally equivalent only for beings living under the permanent
cloudy sky and who are unable to leave their planets soil. Thus, A
layman can claim that, according to Poincars philosophy, it should
be assumed that there is a reality, inaccessible to us, but accessible to
some being standing outside Poincars cloudy planet. Although for
us the two conventions, the earth turns round and the earth does
not turn round are equivalent, imagining this being, standing outside
Poincars cloudy world and knowing that thick clouds forever cover
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
this planet, he could readily choose between the two conventions, and
he might conclude that the earth rotates or else stands still with
respect to absolute space. This only makes the two alternative
descriptions empirically equivalent. They are not logically equivalent,
nor is there a straightforward way of making them logically
equivalent []. Their equivalence is internal, and unlikely to persist if
an external point of view becomes possible (Ben-Menahem, 2000, p.
21).
We thus still need to imagine a medium analogous to the 19
th

century ether when we treat earths daily rotation, so that we will not
have to talk of the planets absolute motion with respect to absolute
space, but with respect to the ether.
Acknowledgements: This paper is based on my dissertation that was
carried out under the supervision of Prof. Mara Beller. I would like to
thank Prof. Beller for many fruitful historical discussions and for
invaluable help. I would also like to thank Prof. Yemima Ben-
Menahem for many useful philosophical discussions.
References
Ben-Menahem (2000) Poincar on Convention, British Journal for the Philosophy
of Science (forthcoming).
Einstein, A. (1905) Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Krper, Annalen der Physik, 17,
891-921.
Granek, G. (1998) Poincars Contribution to the Theory of Relativity and the
Conception of Revolution in Science according to this Contribution,
dissertation submitted to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Poincar, H. (1889) Lecons sur la thorie mathmatique de la lumire, professes
pendant le premier semestre 1887-1888 (Paris: Carr et Naud) edited by Jules
Blondin, Cours de la Facult des sciences de Paris, Cours de physique
mathmatique.
Poincar, H. (1900a) Sur les relations entre la physique exprimentale et la
physique mathmatique, Revue gnerale des sciences pures et appliques,
21, 1163.
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2001
2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
Poincar, H. (1900b) Sur les principes de la mcanique (lecture before the
international congress of philosophy in Paris, 1st, August 1900), Bibliothque
du Congrss international de philosophie, Vol. III: Logique et histoire des
sciences (Paris: Colin), 1901, 457-494.
Poincar, H. (1902) La science et lhypothse (Paris: Flammarion); revised edition
1968. Based on the one edited by Gustave Le Bon, 1917.
Poincar, H. (1904a) Ltat actuel et lavenir de la Physique mathmatique,
Bulletin des sciences mathmatiques, 28, Dcembre 1904, 302-324
(conference held at the international congress for arts and sciences at saint -
Louis, Missouri, 24.Sept 1904.
Poincar, H. (1904b) La terre tourne-t-elle?, Bulletin de la socit astronomique
de France, Mai, 216; reprinted in Mawhin [1995], 7. All page references are
to this source.
Poincar, H. (1906-1907) Les limites de la loi de Newton (notes made by Henri
Vergne of Poincars lectures at the Sorbonne in 1906-1907), Bulletin
astronomique, 17 (Paris: Gauthier-Villars), 121-365,1953.
Poincar, H. (1908) La dynamique de llectron, Revue gnrale des sciences
pures et appliques, 19, 386-402; reprinted in Poincar [1916-1965], Vol. 9,
551-586. All page references are to this source.
Poincar, H. (1909) La mcanique nouvelle (conference of the French Association
for the Advancement of Sciences, Lille, 1909), Comptes-rendus des Sessions
de lAssociation franaise pour l avancement des sciences, congrs de Lille,
38-48; reprinted in Poincar [1924], 1-17. All page references are to this
source.
Poincar, H. (1924) La mcanique nouvelle. Confrence, memoir et note sur la
thorie de la relativit (Paris: Gauthier-Villars);Introduction by Edouard
Guillaume.