A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity

A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity is any of three books written by British mathematician Sir Edmund Taylor Whittaker FRS FRSE on the history of electromagnetic theory, covering the development of classical electromagnetism, optics, and aether theories. The book's first edition, subtitled from the Age of Descartes to the Close of the Nineteenth Century, was published in 1910 by Longmans, Green. The book covers the history of aether theories and the development of electromagnetic theory up to the 20th century. A second, extended and revised, edition consisting of two volumes was released in the early 1950s by Thomas Nelson, expanding the book's scope to include the first quarter of the 20th century. The first volume, subtitled The Classical Theories, was published in 1951 and served as a revised and updated edition to the first book. The second volume, subtitled The Modern Theories (1900–1926), was published two years later in 1953, extended this work covering the years 1900 to 1926. Notwithstanding a notorious controversy on Whittaker's views on the history of special relativity, covered in volume two of the second edition, the books are considered authoritative references on the history of electricity and magnetism as well as classics in the history of physics. The original book was well-received, but it ran out of print by the early 1920s. Whittaker believed that a new edition should include the developments in physics that took part at the turn of the twentieth century and declined to have it reprinted. He wrote the second edition of the book after his retirement and published The Classical Theories in 1951, which also received critical acclaim. In the 1953 second volume, The Modern Theories (1900–1926), Whittaker argued that Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz developed the theory of special relativity before Albert Einstein, a claim that has been rejected by most historians of science. Though overall reviews of the book were generally positive, due to its role in this relativity priority dispute, it receives far fewer citations than the other volumes, outside of references to the controversy.